Artipic

Artipic is a graphics editor developed for Microsoft Windows. An older version for macOS is still available but unsupported. Artipic features drawing, editing, retouching, transforming and composing images including color corrections, effects and layer-based operations. It converts all common image formats and imports camera raw formats. In the global image editing ecosystem Artipic can be positioned somewhere in the middle. It differs from simple free photo editors by more advanced capabilities, however it does not cover the complete professional-level functionality pack provided by industry leaders like Adobe Photoshop. == History == Artipic developed by Swedish company Artipic AB. Artipic 1.0 was released in March 2014 as a free version. The first commercial version on Microsoft Windows was released in November 2014, on macOS – in October 2015. == Features == Supports Microsoft Windows and macOS Standard tools: select, crop, move, rotate, transform, stamp, color picking, text Advanced tools: custom brushes, gradients, shapes, paths, layers and masks Special tools: healing brush, red-eye effect reduction, dodge and burn brushes Adjustments: Brightness & Contrast, Hue & Saturation, Curves, Levels, Color Balance, Gamma Correction, Exposure, Color Temperature, Tint, Color Enhancer, Photo Filter Simulation, Posterization, Thresholding Filters: Smoothen, Sharpen, Vignetting, High-pass, Diffuse Glow, Shadow, Gaussian Blur Reversible (non-destructive) stylization presets Batch processing White balance RAW-converter including Gray Card Adobe Photoshop images supported == Version history ==

Wadhwani Institute for Artificial Intelligence

Wadhwani AI, based in Mumbai, Maharashtra, is an independent, non-profit institute. Founded in 2018, it is dedicated to developing Artificial intelligence solutions for social good. Their mission is to build AI-based innovations and solutions for underserved communities in developing countries, for a wide range of domains including agriculture, education, financial inclusion, healthcare, and infrastructure. == History and funding == The institute was founded with a $30 million philanthropic effort by the Wadhwani brothers, Romesh Wadhwani and Sunil Wadhwani. The institute was inaugurated and dedicated to the nation by Narendra Modi, the 14th Prime Minister of India. In 2019, the institute received a $2 million grant from Google.org to create technologies to help reduce crop losses in cotton farming, through integrated pest management. The United States Agency for International Development awarded $2 million to the institute in 2020 to develop tools, using mathematical modeling techniques and digital technologies such as artificial intelligence and machine learning, to forecast COVID-19 disease patterns, estimate resources needed, and plan interventions. == Collaboration == With assistance from Google, the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers' Welfare and the Wadhwani AI developed Krishi 24/7, the first AI-powered automated agricultural news monitoring and analysis tool. Through better decision-making, Krishi 24/7 will support the identification of valuable news, provide timely notifications, and respond quickly to safeguard farmers' interests and advance sustainable agricultural growth. The application converts news articles into English after scanning them in several languages. It ensures that the ministry is informed in a timely manner about pertinent occurrences that are published online by extracting key information from news items, including the headline, crop name, event type, date, location, severity, summary, and source link. The National Center for Disease Control has effectively implemented a comparable automated surveillance and analysis tool for disease outbreaks.

Query language

A query language, also known as data query language or database query language (DQL), is a computer language used to make queries in databases and information systems. In database systems, query languages rely on strict theory to retrieve information. A well known example is the Structured Query Language (SQL). == Types == Broadly, query languages can be classified according to whether they are database query languages or information retrieval query languages. The difference is that a database query language attempts to give factual answers to factual questions, while an information retrieval query language attempts to find documents containing information that is relevant to an area of inquiry. Other types of query languages include: Full-text. The simplest query language is treating all terms as bag of words that are to be matched with the postings in the inverted index and where subsequently ranking models are applied to retrieve the most relevant documents. Only tokens are defined in the CFG. Web search engines often use this approach. Boolean. A query language that also supports the use of the Boolean operators AND, OR, NOT. Structured. A language that supports searching within (a combination of) fields when a document is structured and has been indexed using its document structure. Natural language. A query language that supports natural language by parsing the natural language query to a form that can be best used to retrieve relevant documents, for example with Question answering systems or conversational search. == Examples == Attempto Controlled English is a query language that is also a controlled natural language. AQL is a query language for the ArangoDB native multi-model database system. .QL is a proprietary object-oriented query language for querying relational databases; successor of Datalog. CodeQL is the analysis engine used by developers to automate security checks, and by security researchers to perform variant analysis on GitHub. Contextual Query Language (CQL) a formal language for representing queries to information retrieval systems such as web indexes or bibliographic catalogues. Cypher is a query language for the Neo4j graph database. DMX is a query language for data mining models. Datalog is a query language for deductive databases. F-logic is a declarative object-oriented language for deductive databases and knowledge representation. FQL enables you to use a SQL-style interface to query the data exposed by the Graph API. It provides advanced features not available in the Graph API. Gellish English is a language that can be used for queries in Gellish English Databases, for dialogues (requests and responses) as well as for information modeling and knowledge modeling. Gremlin is an Apache Software Foundation graph traversal language for OLTP and OLAP graph systems. GraphQL is a data query language developed by Facebook as an alternate to REST and ad-hoc webservice architectures. HTSQL is a query language that translates HTTP queries to SQL. ISBL is a query language for PRTV, one of the earliest relational database management systems. Jaql is a functional data processing and query language most commonly used for JSON query processing. JPQL is a query language defined as part of Jakarta Persistence (used in Java applications to make queries to a relational DB using entity objects instead of DB tables). jq is a functional programming language often used for processing queries against one or more JSON documents, including very large ones. JSONiq is a declarative query language designed for collections of JSON documents. KQL (Kusto Query Language), a query language by Microsoft used in Azure Data Explorer LDAP is an application protocol for querying and modifying directory services running over TCP/IP. LogiQL is a variant of Datalog and is the query language for the LogicBlox system. M Formula language, a mashup query language used in Microsoft's Power Query. MQL is a cheminformatics query language for a substructure search allowing beside nominal properties also numerical properties. MDX is a query language for OLAP databases. N1QL is a Couchbase's query language finding data in Couchbase Servers. Object Query Language OCL (Object Constraint Language). Despite its name, OCL is also an object query language and an OMG standard. OPath, intended for use in querying WinFS Stores. Poliqarp Query Language is a special query language designed to analyze annotated text. Used in the Poliqarp search engine. PQL is a special-purpose programming language for managing process models based on information about scenarios that these models describe. PRQL PRQL (Pipelined Relational Query Language) is a modern language for transforming data. Consists of a curated set of orthogonal transformations, which are combined together to form a pipeline. PTQL based on relational queries over program traces, allowing programmers to write expressive, declarative queries about program behavior. QUEL is a relational database access language, similar in most ways to SQL. RDQL is a RDF query language. SMARTS is the cheminformatics standard for a substructure search. SPARQL is a query language for RDF graphs. SQL is a well-known query language and data manipulation language for relational databases. XQuery is a query language for XML data sources. XPath is a declarative language for navigating XML documents. YQL is an SQL-like query language created by Yahoo!. Search engine query languages, e.g., as used by Google. or Bing

Hindley–Milner type system

A Hindley–Milner (HM) type system is a classical type system for the lambda calculus with parametric polymorphism. It is also known as Damas–Milner or Damas–Hindley–Milner. It was first described by J. Roger Hindley and later rediscovered by Robin Milner. Luis Damas contributed a close formal analysis and proof of the method in his PhD thesis. Among HM's more notable properties are its completeness and its ability to infer the most general type of a given program without programmer-supplied type annotations or other hints. Algorithm W is an efficient type inference method in practice and has been successfully applied on large code bases, although it has a high theoretical complexity. HM is preferably used for functional programming languages. It was first implemented as part of the type system of the programming language ML. Since then, HM has been extended in various ways, most notably with type class constraints like those in Haskell. == Introduction == As a type inference method, Hindley–Milner is able to deduce the types of variables, expressions and functions from programs written in an entirely untyped style. Being scope sensitive, it is not limited to deriving the types only from a small portion of source code, but rather from complete programs or modules. Being able to cope with parametric types, too, it is core to the type systems of many functional programming languages. It was first applied in this manner in the ML programming language. The origin is the type inference algorithm for the simply typed lambda calculus that was devised by Haskell Curry and Robert Feys in 1958. In 1969, J. Roger Hindley extended this work and proved that their algorithm always inferred the most general type. In 1978, Robin Milner, independently of Hindley's work, provided an equivalent algorithm, Algorithm W. In 1982, Luis Damas finally proved that Milner's algorithm is complete and extended it to support systems with polymorphic references. === Monomorphism vs. polymorphism === In the simply typed lambda calculus, types T are either atomic type constants or function types of form T → T {\displaystyle T\rightarrow T} . Such types are monomorphic. Typical examples are the types used in arithmetic values: 3 : N u m b e r a d d 3 4 : N u m b e r a d d : N u m b e r → N u m b e r → N u m b e r {\displaystyle {\begin{array}{ll}3&:{\mathtt {Number}}\\{\mathtt {add}}\ 3\ 4&:{\mathtt {Number}}\\{\mathtt {add}}&:{\mathtt {Number}}\rightarrow {\mathtt {Number}}\rightarrow {\mathtt {Number}}\end{array}}} Contrary to this, the untyped lambda calculus is neutral to typing at all, and many of its functions can be meaningfully applied to all type of arguments. The trivial example is the identity function i d ≡ λ x . x {\displaystyle {\mathtt {id}}\equiv \lambda x.x} which simply returns whatever value it is applied to. Less trivial examples include parametric types like lists. While polymorphism in general means that operations accept values of more than one type, the polymorphism used here is parametric. One finds the notation of type schemes in the literature, too, emphasizing the parametric nature of the polymorphism. Additionally, constants may be typed with (quantified) type variables. For example, the following type schemes quantify universally over α {\displaystyle \alpha } , meaning that they are true for all possible α {\displaystyle \alpha } : c o n s : ∀ α . α → L i s t α → L i s t α n i l : ∀ α . L i s t α i d : ∀ α . α → α {\displaystyle {\begin{array}{ll}{\mathtt {cons}}&:\forall \alpha .\alpha \rightarrow {\mathtt {List}}\ \alpha \rightarrow {\mathtt {List}}\ \alpha \\{\mathtt {nil}}&:\forall \alpha .{\mathtt {List}}\ \alpha \\{\mathtt {id}}&:\forall \alpha .\alpha \rightarrow \alpha \end{array}}} Polymorphic types can become monomorphic by consistent substitution of their variables. Examples of monomorphic instances are: i d ′ : S t r i n g → S t r i n g n i l ′ : L i s t N u m b e r {\displaystyle {\begin{array}{ll}{\mathtt {id}}'&:{\mathtt {String}}\rightarrow {\mathtt {String}}\\{\mathtt {nil}}'&:{\mathtt {List}}\ {\mathtt {Number}}\end{array}}} More generally, types are polymorphic when they contain type variables, while types without them are monomorphic. Contrary to the type systems used for example in Pascal (1970) or C (1972), which only support monomorphic types, HM is designed with emphasis on parametric polymorphism. The successors of the languages mentioned, like C++ (1985), focused on different types of polymorphism, namely subtyping in connection with object-oriented programming and overloading. While subtyping is incompatible with HM, a variant of systematic overloading is available in the HM-based type system of Haskell. === Let-polymorphism === When extending the type inference for the simply-typed lambda calculus towards polymorphism, one has to decide whether assigning a polymorphic type not only as type of an expression, but also as the type of a λ-bound variable is admissible. This would allow the generic identity type to be assigned to the variable 'id' in: (λ id . ... (id 3) ... (id "text") ... ) (λ x . x) Allowing this gives rise to the polymorphic lambda calculus; however, type inference in this system is not decidable. Instead, HM distinguishes variables that are immediately bound to an expression from more general λ-bound variables, calling the former let-bound variables, and allows polymorphic types to be assigned only to these. This leads to let-polymorphism where the above example takes the form let id = λ x . x in ... (id 3) ... (id "text") ... which can be typed with a polymorphic type for 'id'. As indicated, the expression syntax is extended to make the let-bound variables explicit, and by restricting the type system to allow only let-bound variable to have polymorphic types, while the parameters in lambda-abstractions must get a monomorphic type, type inference becomes decidable. == Overview == The remainder of this article proceeds as follows: The HM type system is defined. This is done by describing a deduction system that makes precise what expressions have what type, if any. From there, it works towards an implementation of the type inference method. After introducing a syntax-driven variant of the above deductive system, it sketches an efficient implementation (algorithm J), appealing mostly to the reader's metalogical intuition. Because it remains open whether algorithm J indeed realises the initial deduction system, a less efficient implementation (algorithm W), is introduced and its use in a proof is hinted. Finally, further topics related to the algorithm are discussed. The same description of the deduction system is used throughout, even for the two algorithms, to make the various forms in which the HM method is presented directly comparable. == The Hindley–Milner type system == The type system can be formally described by syntax rules that fix a language for the expressions, types, etc. The presentation here of such a syntax is not too formal, in that it is written down not to study the surface grammar, but rather the depth grammar, and leaves some syntactical details open. This form of presentation is usual. Building on this, typing rules are used to define how expressions and types are related. As before, the form used is a bit liberal. === Syntax === The expressions to be typed are exactly those of the lambda calculus extended with a let-expression as shown in the adjacent table. Parentheses can be used to disambiguate an expression. The application is left-binding and binds stronger than abstraction or the let-in construct. Types are syntactically split into two groups, monotypes and polytypes. ==== Monotypes ==== Monotypes always designate a particular type. Monotypes τ {\displaystyle \tau } are syntactically represented as terms. Examples of monotypes include type constants like i n t {\displaystyle {\mathtt {int}}} or s t r i n g {\displaystyle {\mathtt {string}}} , and parametric types like M a p ( S e t s t r i n g ) i n t {\displaystyle {\mathtt {Map\ (Set\ string)\ int}}} . The latter types are examples of applications of type functions, for example, from the set { M a p 2 , S e t 1 , s t r i n g 0 , i n t 0 , → 2 } {\displaystyle \{{\mathtt {Map^{2},\ Set^{1},\ string^{0},\ int^{0}}},\ \rightarrow ^{2}\}} , where the superscript indicates the number of type parameters. The complete set of type functions C {\displaystyle C} is arbitrary in HM, except that it must contain at least → 2 {\displaystyle \rightarrow ^{2}} , the type of functions. It is often written in infix notation for convenience. For example, a function mapping integers to strings has type i n t → s t r i n g {\displaystyle {\mathtt {int}}\rightarrow {\mathtt {string}}} . Again, parentheses can be used to disambiguate a type expression. The application binds stronger than the infix arrow, which is right-binding. Type variables are admitted as monotypes. Monotypes are not to be confused with monomorphic types, which exc

Kleene's algorithm

In theoretical computer science, in particular in formal language theory, Kleene's algorithm transforms a given nondeterministic finite automaton (NFA) into a regular expression. Together with other conversion algorithms, it establishes the equivalence of several description formats for regular languages. Alternative presentations of the same method include the "elimination method" attributed to Brzozowski and McCluskey, the algorithm of McNaughton and Yamada, and the use of Arden's lemma. == Algorithm description == According to Gross and Yellen (2004), the algorithm can be traced back to Kleene (1956). A presentation of the algorithm in the case of deterministic finite automata (DFAs) is given in Hopcroft and Ullman (1979). The presentation of the algorithm for NFAs below follows Gross and Yellen (2004). Given a nondeterministic finite automaton M = (Q, Σ, δ, q0, F), with Q = { q0,...,qn } its set of states, the algorithm computes the sets Rkij of all strings that take M from state qi to qj without going through any state numbered higher than k. Here, "going through a state" means entering and leaving it, so both i and j may be higher than k, but no intermediate state may. Each set Rkij is represented by a regular expression; the algorithm computes them step by step for k = -1, 0, ..., n. Since there is no state numbered higher than n, the regular expression Rn0j represents the set of all strings that take M from its start state q0 to qj. If F = { q1,...,qf } is the set of accept states, the regular expression Rn01 | ... | Rn0f represents the language accepted by M. The initial regular expressions, for k = -1, are computed as follows for i≠j: R−1ij = a1 | ... | am where qj ∈ δ(qi,a1), ..., qj ∈ δ(qi,am) and as follows for i=j: R−1ii = a1 | ... | am | ε where qi ∈ δ(qi,a1), ..., qi ∈ δ(qi,am) In other words, R−1ij mentions all letters that label a transition from i to j, and we also include ε in the case where i=j. After that, in each step the expressions Rkij are computed from the previous ones by Rkij = Rk-1ik (Rk-1kk) Rk-1kj | Rk-1ij Another way to understand the operation of the algorithm is as an "elimination method", where the states from 0 to n are successively removed: when state k is removed, the regular expression Rk-1ij, which describes the words that label a path from state i>k to state j>k, is rewritten into Rkij so as to take into account the possibility of going via the "eliminated" state k. By induction on k, it can be shown that the length of each expression Rkij is at most ⁠1/3⁠(4k+1(6s+7) - 4) symbols, where s denotes the number of characters in Σ. Therefore, the length of the regular expression representing the language accepted by M is at most ⁠1/3⁠(4n+1(6s+7)f - f - 3) symbols, where f denotes the number of final states. This exponential blowup is inevitable, because there exist families of DFAs for which any equivalent regular expression must be of exponential size. In practice, the size of the regular expression obtained by running the algorithm can be very different depending on the order in which the states are considered by the procedure, i.e., the order in which they are numbered from 0 to n. == Example == The automaton shown in the picture can be described as M = (Q, Σ, δ, q0, F) with the set of states Q = { q0, q1, q2 }, the input alphabet Σ = { a, b }, the transition function δ with δ(q0,a)=q0, δ(q0,b)=q1, δ(q1,a)=q2, δ(q1,b)=q1, δ(q2,a)=q1, and δ(q2,b)=q1, the start state q0, and set of accept states F = { q1 }. Kleene's algorithm computes the initial regular expressions as After that, the Rkij are computed from the Rk-1ij step by step for k = 0, 1, 2. Kleene algebra equalities are used to simplify the regular expressions as much as possible. Step 0 Step 1 Step 2 Since q0 is the start state and q1 is the only accept state, the regular expression R201 denotes the set of all strings accepted by the automaton.

Neural scaling law

In machine learning, a neural scaling law is an empirical scaling law that describes how neural network performance changes as key factors are scaled up or down. These factors typically include the number of parameters, training dataset size, and training cost. Some models also exhibit performance gains by scaling inference through increased test-time compute (TTC), extending neural scaling laws beyond training to the deployment phase. == Introduction == In general, a deep learning model can be characterized by four parameters: model size, training dataset size, training cost, and the post-training error rate (e.g., the test set error rate). Each of these variables can be defined as a real number, usually written as N , D , C , L {\displaystyle N,D,C,L} (respectively: parameter count, dataset size, computing cost, and loss). A neural scaling law is a theoretical or empirical statistical law between these parameters. There are also other parameters with other scaling laws. === Size of the model === In most cases, the model's size is simply the number of parameters. However, one complication arises with the use of sparse models, such as mixture-of-expert models. With sparse models, during inference, only a fraction of their parameters are used. In comparison, most other kinds of neural networks, such as transformer models, always use all their parameters during inference. === Size of the training dataset === The size of the training dataset is usually quantified by the number of data points within it. Larger training datasets are typically preferred, as they provide a richer and more diverse source of information from which the model can learn. This can lead to improved generalization performance when the model is applied to new, unseen data. However, increasing the size of the training dataset also increases the computational resources and time required for model training. With the "pretrain, then finetune" method used for most large language models, there are two kinds of training dataset: the pretraining dataset and the finetuning dataset. Their sizes have different effects on model performance. Generally, the finetuning dataset is less than 1% the size of pretraining dataset. In some cases, a small amount of high quality data suffices for finetuning, and more data does not necessarily improve performance. Many scaling laws, due to their inherent diminishing returns nature, value data based on a submodular set function which was shown in a paper on this topic. === Cost of training === Training cost is typically measured in terms of time (how long it takes to train the model) and computational resources (how much processing power and memory are required). It is important to note that the cost of training can be significantly reduced with efficient training algorithms, optimized software libraries, and parallel computing on specialized hardware such as GPUs or TPUs. The cost of training a neural network model is a function of several factors, including model size, training dataset size, the training algorithm complexity, and the computational resources available. In particular, doubling the training dataset size does not necessarily double the cost of training, because one may train the model for several times over the same dataset (each being an "epoch"). === Performance === The performance of a neural network model is evaluated based on its ability to accurately predict the output given some input data. Common metrics for evaluating model performance include: Negative log-likelihood per token (logarithm of perplexity) for language modeling; Accuracy, precision, recall, and F1 score for classification tasks; Mean squared error (MSE) or mean absolute error (MAE) for regression tasks; Elo rating in a competition against other models, such as gameplay or preference by a human judge. Performance can be improved by using more data, larger models, different training algorithms, regularizing the model to prevent overfitting, and early stopping using a validation set. When the performance is a number bounded within the range of [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle [0,1]} , such as accuracy, precision, etc., it often scales as a sigmoid function of cost, as seen in the figures. == Examples == === (Hestness, Narang, et al, 2017) === The 2017 paper is a common reference point for neural scaling laws fitted by statistical analysis on experimental data. Previous works before the 2000s, as cited in the paper, were either theoretical or orders of magnitude smaller in scale. Whereas previous works generally found the scaling exponent to scale like L ∝ D − α {\displaystyle L\propto D^{-\alpha }} , with α ∈ { 0.5 , 1 , 2 } {\displaystyle \alpha \in \{0.5,1,2\}} , the paper found that α ∈ [ 0.07 , 0.35 ] {\displaystyle \alpha \in [0.07,0.35]} . Of the factors they varied, only task can change the exponent α {\displaystyle \alpha } . Changing the architecture optimizers, regularizers, and loss functions, would only change the proportionality factor, not the exponent. For example, for the same task, one architecture might have L = 1000 D − 0.3 {\displaystyle L=1000D^{-0.3}} while another might have L = 500 D − 0.3 {\displaystyle L=500D^{-0.3}} . They also found that for a given architecture, the number of parameters necessary to reach lowest levels of loss, given a fixed dataset size, grows like N ∝ D β {\displaystyle N\propto D^{\beta }} for another exponent β {\displaystyle \beta } . They studied machine translation with LSTM ( α ∼ 0.13 {\displaystyle \alpha \sim 0.13} ), generative language modelling with LSTM ( α ∈ [ 0.06 , 0.09 ] , β ≈ 0.7 {\displaystyle \alpha \in [0.06,0.09],\beta \approx 0.7} ), ImageNet classification with ResNet ( α ∈ [ 0.3 , 0.5 ] , β ≈ 0.6 {\displaystyle \alpha \in [0.3,0.5],\beta \approx 0.6} ), and speech recognition with two hybrid (LSTMs complemented by either CNNs or an attention decoder) architectures ( α ≈ 0.3 {\displaystyle \alpha \approx 0.3} ). === (Henighan, Kaplan, et al, 2020) === A 2020 analysis studied statistical relations between C , N , D , L {\displaystyle C,N,D,L} over a wide range of values and found similar scaling laws, over the range of N ∈ [ 10 3 , 10 9 ] {\displaystyle N\in [10^{3},10^{9}]} , C ∈ [ 10 12 , 10 21 ] {\displaystyle C\in [10^{12},10^{21}]} , and over multiple modalities (text, video, image, text to image, etc.). In particular, the scaling laws it found are (Table 1 of ): For each modality, they fixed one of the two C , N {\displaystyle C,N} , and varying the other one ( D {\displaystyle D} is varied along using D = C / 6 N {\displaystyle D=C/6N} ), the achievable test loss satisfies L = L 0 + ( x 0 x ) α {\displaystyle L=L_{0}+\left({\frac {x_{0}}{x}}\right)^{\alpha }} where x {\displaystyle x} is the varied variable, and L 0 , x 0 , α {\displaystyle L_{0},x_{0},\alpha } are parameters to be found by statistical fitting. The parameter α {\displaystyle \alpha } is the most important one. When N {\displaystyle N} is the varied variable, α {\displaystyle \alpha } ranges from 0.037 {\displaystyle 0.037} to 0.24 {\displaystyle 0.24} depending on the model modality. This corresponds to the α = 0.34 {\displaystyle \alpha =0.34} from the Chinchilla scaling paper. When C {\displaystyle C} is the varied variable, α {\displaystyle \alpha } ranges from 0.048 {\displaystyle 0.048} to 0.19 {\displaystyle 0.19} depending on the model modality. This corresponds to the β = 0.28 {\displaystyle \beta =0.28} from the Chinchilla scaling paper. Given fixed computing budget, optimal model parameter count is consistently around N o p t ( C ) = ( C 5 × 10 − 12 petaFLOP-day ) 0.7 = 9.0 × 10 − 7 C 0.7 {\displaystyle N_{opt}(C)=\left({\frac {C}{5\times 10^{-12}{\text{petaFLOP-day}}}}\right)^{0.7}=9.0\times 10^{-7}C^{0.7}} The parameter 9.0 × 10 − 7 {\displaystyle 9.0\times 10^{-7}} varies by a factor of up to 10 for different modalities. The exponent parameter 0.7 {\displaystyle 0.7} varies from 0.64 {\displaystyle 0.64} to 0.75 {\displaystyle 0.75} for different modalities. This exponent corresponds to the ≈ 0.5 {\displaystyle \approx 0.5} from the Chinchilla scaling paper. It's "strongly suggested" (but not statistically checked) that D o p t ( C ) ∝ N o p t ( C ) 0.4 ∝ C 0.28 {\displaystyle D_{opt}(C)\propto N_{opt}(C)^{0.4}\propto C^{0.28}} . This exponent corresponds to the ≈ 0.5 {\displaystyle \approx 0.5} from the Chinchilla scaling paper. The scaling law of L = L 0 + ( C 0 / C ) 0.048 {\displaystyle L=L_{0}+(C_{0}/C)^{0.048}} was confirmed during the training of GPT-3 (Figure 3.1 ). === Chinchilla scaling (Hoffmann, et al, 2022) === One particular scaling law ("Chinchilla scaling") states that, for a large language model (LLM) autoregressively trained for one epoch, with a cosine learning rate schedule, we have: { C = C 0 N D L = A N α + B D β + L 0 {\displaystyle {\begin{cases}C=C_{0}ND\\L={\frac {A}{N^{\alpha }}}+{\frac {B}{D^{\beta }}}+L_{0}\end{cases}}} where the variables are C {\displaystyle C} is the cost o

SIGMOD Edgar F. Codd Innovations Award

The ACM SIGMOD Edgar F. Codd Innovations Award is a lifetime research achievement award given by the ACM Special Interest Group on Management of Data, at its yearly flagship conference (also called SIGMOD). According to its homepage, it is given "for innovative and highly significant contributions of enduring value to the development, understanding, or use of database systems and databases". The award has been given since 1992. Until 2003, this award was known as the “SIGMOD Innovations Award.” In 2004, SIGMOD, with the unanimous approval of ACM Council, decided to rename the award to honor Dr. E.F. (Ted) Codd (1923 – 2003) who invented the relational data model and was responsible for the significant development of the database field as a scientific discipline. == Recipients ==