3D rendering software products are the dedicated engines used for rendering computer-generated imagery. This is not the same as 3D modeling software, which involves the creation of 3D models, for which the software listed below can produce realistically rendered visualisations.General-purpose packages which can have their own built-in rendering capabilities are not listed here; these can be found in the list of 3D computer graphics software and list of 3D animation software. See 3D computer graphics software for more discussion about the distinctions.
Distributed file system for cloud
A distributed file system for cloud is a file system that allows many clients to have access to data and supports operations (create, delete, modify, read, write) on that data. Each data file may be partitioned into several parts called chunks. Each chunk may be stored on different remote machines, facilitating the parallel execution of applications. Typically, data is stored in files in a hierarchical tree, where the nodes represent directories. There are several ways to share files in a distributed architecture: each solution must be suitable for a certain type of application, depending on how complex the application is. Meanwhile, the security of the system must be ensured. Confidentiality, availability and integrity are the main keys for a secure system. Users can share computing resources through the Internet thanks to cloud computing which is typically characterized by scalable and elastic resources – such as physical servers, applications and any services that are virtualized and allocated dynamically. Synchronization is required to make sure that all devices are up-to-date. Distributed file systems enable many big, medium, and small enterprises to store and access their remote data as they do local data, facilitating the use of variable resources. == Overview == === History === Today, there are many implementations of distributed file systems. The first file servers were developed by researchers in the 1970s. Sun Microsystem's Network File System became available in the 1980s. Before that, people who wanted to share files used the sneakernet method, physically transporting files on storage media from place to place. Once computer networks started to proliferate, it became obvious that the existing file systems had many limitations and were unsuitable for multi-user environments. Users initially used FTP to share files. FTP first ran on the PDP-10 at the end of 1973. Even with FTP, files needed to be copied from the source computer onto a server and then from the server onto the destination computer. Users were required to know the physical addresses of all computers involved with the file sharing. === Supporting techniques === Modern data centers must support large, heterogenous environments, consisting of large numbers of computers of varying capacities. Cloud computing coordinates the operation of all such systems, with techniques such as data center networking (DCN), the MapReduce framework, which supports data-intensive computing applications in parallel and distributed systems, and virtualization techniques that provide dynamic resource allocation, allowing multiple operating systems to coexist on the same physical server. === Applications === Cloud computing provides large-scale computing thanks to its ability to provide the needed CPU and storage resources to the user with complete transparency. This makes cloud computing particularly suited to support different types of applications that require large-scale distributed processing. This data-intensive computing needs a high performance file system that can share data between virtual machines (VM). Cloud computing dynamically allocates the needed resources, releasing them once a task is finished, requiring users to pay only for needed services, often via a service-level agreement. Cloud computing and cluster computing paradigms are becoming increasingly important to industrial data processing and scientific applications such as astronomy and physics, which frequently require the availability of large numbers of computers to carry out experiments. == Architectures == Most distributed file systems are built on the client-server architecture, but other, decentralized, solutions exist as well. === Client-server architecture === Network File System (NFS) uses a client-server architecture, which allows sharing of files between a number of machines on a network as if they were located locally, providing a standardized view. The NFS protocol allows heterogeneous clients' processes, probably running on different machines and under different operating systems, to access files on a distant server, ignoring the actual location of files. Relying on a single server results in the NFS protocol suffering from potentially low availability and poor scalability. Using multiple servers does not solve the availability problem since each server is working independently. The model of NFS is a remote file service. This model is also called the remote access model, which is in contrast with the upload/download model: Remote access model: Provides transparency, the client has access to a file. He sends requests to the remote file (while the file remains on the server). Upload/download model: The client can access the file only locally. It means that the client has to download the file, make modifications, and upload it again, to be used by others' clients. The file system used by NFS is almost the same as the one used by Unix systems. Files are hierarchically organized into a naming graph in which directories and files are represented by nodes. === Cluster-based architectures === A cluster-based architecture ameliorates some of the issues in client-server architectures, improving the execution of applications in parallel. The technique used here is file-striping: a file is split into multiple chunks, which are "striped" across several storage servers. The goal is to allow access to different parts of a file in parallel. If the application does not benefit from this technique, then it would be more convenient to store different files on different servers. However, when it comes to organizing a distributed file system for large data centers, such as Amazon and Google, that offer services to web clients allowing multiple operations (reading, updating, deleting,...) to a large number of files distributed among a large number of computers, then cluster-based solutions become more beneficial. Note that having a large number of computers may mean more hardware failures. Two of the most widely used distributed file systems (DFS) of this type are the Google File System (GFS) and the Hadoop Distributed File System (HDFS). The file systems of both are implemented by user level processes running on top of a standard operating system (Linux in the case of GFS). ==== Design principles ==== ===== Goals ===== Google File System (GFS) and Hadoop Distributed File System (HDFS) are specifically built for handling batch processing on very large data sets. For that, the following hypotheses must be taken into account: High availability: the cluster can contain thousands of file servers and some of them can be down at any time A server belongs to a rack, a room, a data center, a country, and a continent, in order to precisely identify its geographical location The size of a file can vary from many gigabytes to many terabytes. The file system should be able to support a massive number of files The need to support append operations and allow file contents to be visible even while a file is being written Communication is reliable among working machines: TCP/IP is used with a remote procedure call RPC communication abstraction. TCP allows the client to know almost immediately when there is a problem and a need to make a new connection. ===== Load balancing ===== Load balancing is essential for efficient operation in distributed environments. It means distributing work among different servers, fairly, in order to get more work done in the same amount of time and to serve clients faster. In a system containing N chunkservers in a cloud (N being 1000, 10000, or more), where a certain number of files are stored, each file is split into several parts or chunks of fixed size (for example, 64 megabytes), the load of each chunkserver being proportional to the number of chunks hosted by the server. In a load-balanced cloud, resources can be efficiently used while maximizing the performance of MapReduce-based applications. ===== Load rebalancing ===== In a cloud computing environment, failure is the norm, and chunkservers may be upgraded, replaced, and added to the system. Files can also be dynamically created, deleted, and appended. That leads to load imbalance in a distributed file system, meaning that the file chunks are not distributed equitably between the servers. Distributed file systems in clouds such as GFS and HDFS rely on central or master servers or nodes (Master for GFS and NameNode for HDFS) to manage the metadata and the load balancing. The master rebalances replicas periodically: data must be moved from one DataNode/chunkserver to another if free space on the first server falls below a certain threshold. However, this centralized approach can become a bottleneck for those master servers, if they become unable to manage a large number of file accesses, as it increases their already heavy loads. The load rebalance problem is NP-hard. In order to get a large number of chunkservers to work in collaboration, and to
Apache OpenNLP
The Apache OpenNLP library is a machine learning based toolkit for the processing of natural language text. It supports the most common NLP tasks, such as language detection, tokenization, sentence segmentation, part-of-speech tagging, named entity extraction, chunking, parsing and coreference resolution. These tasks are usually required to build more advanced text processing services.
SmarterChild
SmarterChild was a chatbot available on AOL Instant Messenger and Windows Live Messenger (previously MSN Messenger) networks. == History == SmarterChild was an apparently intelligent agent or "bot" developed by ActiveBuddy, Inc., with offices in New York and Sunnyvale. It was widely distributed across global instant messaging networks. SmarterChild became very popular, attracting over 30 million Instant Messenger "buddies" on AIM (AOL), MSN and Yahoo Messenger over the course of its lifetime. Founded in 2000, ActiveBuddy was the brainchild of Robert Hoffer and Timothy Kay, who later brought seasoned advertising executive Peter Levitan on board as CEO. The concept for conversational instant messaging bots came from the founder's vision to add natural language comprehension functionality to the increasingly popular AIM instant messaging application. The original implementation took shape as a demo that Kay programmed in Perl in his Los Altos garage to connect a single buddy name, "ActiveBuddy", to look up stock symbols, and later allow AIM users to play Colossal Cave Adventure, a word-based adventure game, and MIT's Boris Katz Start Question Answering System but quickly grew to include a wide range of database applications the company called 'knowledge domains' including instant access to news, weather, stock information, movie times, yellow pages listings, and detailed sports data, as well as a variety of tools (personal assistant, calculators, translator, etc.). None of the individual domains which the company had named “stocksBuddy”, “sportsBuddy”, etc. ever launched publicly. When Stephen Klein came on board as COO — and eventually CEO — he insisted that all of the disparate test “buddies” be launched together with the company’s highly-developed colloquial chat domain. He suggested using “SmarterChild”, a username coined by Tim Kay which Tim was using to test various things. The bundled domains were launched publicly as SmarterChild (on AIM initially) in June 2001. SmarterChild provided information wrapped in fun and quirky conversation. The company generated no revenue from SmarterChild, but used it as a demonstration of the power of what Klein called “conversational computing”. The company subsequently marketed Automated Service Agents—delivering immediate answers to customer service inquiries—-to large corporations, like Comcast, Cingular, TimeWarner Cable, etc. SmarterChild's popularity spawned targeted marketing-oriented bots for Radiohead, Austin Powers, Intel, Keebler, The Sporting News and others. ActiveBuddy co-founders, Kay and Hoffer, as co-inventors, were issued two controversial U.S. patents in 2002. ActiveBuddy changed its name to Colloquis (briefly Conversagent) and targeted development of consumer-facing enterprise customer service agents, which the company marketed as Automated Service Agents. Microsoft acquired Colloquis in October 2006 and proceeded to de-commission SmarterChild and kill off the Automated Service Agent business as well. Robert Hoffer, ActiveBuddy co-founder, licensed the technology from Microsoft after Microsoft abandoned the Colloquis technology.
Adversarial stylometry
Adversarial stylometry is the practice of altering writing style to reduce the potential for stylometry to discover the author's identity or their characteristics. This task is also known as authorship obfuscation or authorship anonymisation. Stylometry poses a significant privacy challenge in its ability to unmask anonymous authors or to link pseudonyms to an author's other identities, which, for example, creates difficulties for whistleblowers, activists, and hoaxers and fraudsters. The privacy risk is expected to grow as machine learning techniques and text corpora develop. All adversarial stylometry shares the core idea of faithfully paraphrasing the source text so that the meaning is unchanged but the stylistic signals are obscured. Such a faithful paraphrase is an adversarial example for a stylometric classifier. Several broad approaches to this exist, with some overlap: imitation, substituting the author's own style for another's; translation, applying machine translation with the hope that this eliminates characteristic style in the source text; and obfuscation, deliberately modifying a text's style to make it not resemble the author's own. Manually obscuring style is possible, but laborious; in some circumstances, it is preferable or necessary. Automated tooling, either semi- or fully-automatic, could assist an author. How best to perform the task and the design of such tools is an open research question. While some approaches have been shown to be able to defeat particular stylometric analyses, particularly those that do not account for the potential of adversariality, establishing safety in the face of unknown analyses is an issue. Ensuring the faithfulness of the paraphrase is a critical challenge for automated tools. It is uncertain if the practice of adversarial stylometry is detectable in itself. Some studies have found that particular methods produced signals in the output text, but a stylometrist who is uncertain of what methods may have been used may not be able to reliably detect them. == History == Rao & Rohatgi (2000), an early work in adversarial stylometry, identified machine translation as a possibility, but noted that the quality of translators available at the time presented severe challenges. Kacmarcik & Gamon (2006) is another early work. Brennan, Afroz & Greenstadt (2012) performed the first evaluation of adversarial stylometric methods on actual texts. Brennan & Greenstadt (2009) introduced the first corpus of adversarially authored texts specifically for evaluating stylometric methods; other corpora include the International Imitation Hemingway Competition, the Faux Faulkner contest, and the hoax blog A Gay Girl in Damascus. == Motivations == Rao & Rohatgi (2000) suggest that short, unattributed documents (i.e., anonymous posts) are not at risk of stylometric identification, but pseudonymous authors who have not practiced adversarial stylometry in producing corpuses of thousands of words may be vulnerable. Narayanan et al. (2012) attempted large-scale deanonymisation of 100,000 blog authors with mixed results: the identifications were significantly better than chance, but only accurately matched the blog and author a fifth of the time; identification improved with the number of posts written by the author in the corpus. Even if an author is not identified, some of their characteristics may still be deduced stylometrically, or stylometry may narrow the anonymity set of potential authors sufficiently for other information to complete the identification. Detecting author characteristics (e.g., gender or age) is often simpler than identifying an author from a large, possibly open, set of candidates. Modern machine learning techniques offer powerful tools for identification; further development of corpora and computational stylometric techniques are likely to raise further privacy issues. Gröndahl & Asokan (2020a) say that the general validity of the hypothesis underlying stylometry—that authors have invariant, content-independent 'style fingerprints'—is uncertain, but "the deanonymisation attack is a real privacy concern". Those interested in practicing adversarial stylometry and stylistic deception include whistleblowers avoiding retribution; journalists and activists; perpetrators of frauds and hoaxes; authors of fake reviews; literary forgers; criminals disguising their identity from investigators; and, generally, anyone with a desire for anonymity or pseudonymity. Authors, or agents acting on behalf of authors, may also attempt to remove stylistic clues to author characteristics (e.g., race or gender) so that knowledge of those characteristics cannot be used for discrimination (e.g., through algorithmic bias). Another possible use for adversarial stylometry is in disguising automatically generated text as human-authored. == Methods == With imitation, the author attempts to mislead stylometry by matching their style to another author's. An incomplete imitation, where some of the true author's unique characteristics appear alongside the imitated author's, can be a detectable signal for the use of adversarial stylometry. Imitation can be performed automatically with style transfer systems, though this typically requires a large corpus in the target style for the system to learn from. Another approach is translation, which employs machine translation of a source text to eliminate characteristic style, often through multiple translators in sequence to produce a round-trip translation. Such chained translation can lead to texts being significantly altered, even to the point of incomprehensibility; improved translation tools reduce this risk. More simply-structured texts can be easier to machine translate without losing the original meaning. Machine translation blurs into direct stylistic imitation or obfuscation achieved through automated style transfer, which can be viewed as a "translation" with the same language as input and output. With low-quality translation tools, an author can be required to manually correct major translation errors while avoiding the hazard of re-introducing stylistic characteristics. Wang, Juola & Riddell (2022) found that gross errors introduced by Google Translate were rare, but more common with several intermediate translations—however, occasional simple or short sentences and misspellings in the source text appeared verbatim in the output, potentially providing an identifying signal. Chain translation can leave characteristic traces of its application in a document, which may allow reconstruction of the intermediate languages used and the number of translation steps performed. Obfuscation involves deliberately changing the style of a text to reduce its similarity to other texts by some metric; this may be performed at the time of writing by conscious modification, or as part of a revision process with feedback from the metric being targeted as an input to decide when the text has been sufficiently obfuscated. In contrast to translation, complex texts can offer more opportunities for effective obfuscation without altering meaning, and likewise genres with more permissible variation allow more obfuscation. However, longer texts are harder to thoroughly obfuscate. Obfuscation can blend into imitation if the author develops a novel target style, distinct from their original style. With respect to masking author characteristics, obfuscation may aim to achieve a union (adding signals for imitated characteristics) or an intersection (removing signals and normalising) of other authors' styles. Avoiding the author's own idiosyncrasies and producing a "normalised" text is a critical obfuscatory step: an author may have a unique tendency to misspell certain words, use particular variants, or to format a document in a characteristic way. Stylometric signals vary in how simply they can be adversarially masked; an author may easily change their vocabulary by conscious choice, but altering the pattern of grammar or the letter frequency in their text may be harder to achieve, though Juola & Vescovi (2011) report that imitation typically succeeds at masking more characteristics than obfuscation. Automated obfuscation may require large amounts of training data written by the author. Concerning automated implementations of adversarial stylometry, two possible implementations are rule-based systems for paraphrasing; and encoder–decoder architectures, where the text passes through an intermediate format that is (intended to be) style-neutral. Another division in automated methods is whether there is feedback from an identification system or not. With such feedback, finding paraphrases for author masking has been characterised as a heuristic search problem, exploring textual variants until the result is stylistically sufficiently far (in the case of obfuscation) or near (in the case of imitation), which then constitutes an adversarial example for that identification system. == Evaluation == How
Azure Stream Analytics
Microsoft Azure Stream Analytics is a serverless scalable complex event processing engine by Microsoft that enables users to develop and run real-time analytics on multiple streams of data from sources such as devices, sensors, web sites, social media, and other applications. Users can set up alerts to detect anomalies, predict trends, trigger necessary workflows when certain conditions are observed, and make data available to other downstream applications and services for presentation, archiving, or further analysis. == Query Language == Users can author real-time analytics using a simple declarative SQL-like language with embedded support for temporal logic. Callouts to custom code with JavaScript user defined functions extend the streaming logic written in SQL. Callouts to Azure Machine Learning helps with predictive scoring on streaming data. == Scalability == Azure Stream Analytics is a serverless job service on Azure that eliminates the need for infrastructure, servers, virtual machines, or managed clusters. Users only pay for the processing used for the running jobs. == IoT applications == Azure Stream Analytics integrates with Azure IoT Hub to enable real-time analytics on data from IoT devices and applications. == Real-time Dashboards == Users can build real-time dashboards with Power BI for a live command and control view. Real-time dashboards help transform live data into actionable and insightful visuals. == Data Input Sources == Stream Analytics supports three different types of input sources - Azure Event Hubs, Azure IoT Hubs, and Azure Blob Storage. Additionally, stream analytics supports Azure Blob storage as the input reference data to help augment fast moving event data streams with static data. Stream analytics supports a wide variety of output targets. Support for Power BI allows for real-time dashboarding. Event Hub, Service bus topics and queues help trigger downstream workflows. Support for Azure Table Storage, Azure SQL Databases, Azure SQL Data Warehouse, Azure SQL, Document DB, Azure Data Lake Store enable a variety of downstream analysis and archiving capabilities.
Content determination
Content determination is the subtask of natural language generation (NLG) that involves deciding on the information to be communicated in a generated text. It is closely related to the task of document structuring. == Example == Consider an NLG system which summarises information about sick babies. Suppose this system has four pieces of information it can communicate The baby is being given morphine via an IV drop The baby's heart rate shows bradycardia's (temporary drops) The baby's temperature is normal The baby is crying Which of these bits of information should be included in the generated texts? == Issues == There are three general issues which almost always impact the content determination task, and can be illustrated with the above example. Perhaps the most fundamental issue is the communicative goal of the text, i.e. its purpose and reader. In the above example, for instance, a doctor who wants to make a decision about medical treatment would probably be most interested in the heart rate bradycardias, while a parent who wanted to know how her child was doing would probably be more interested in the fact that the baby was being given morphine and was crying. The second issue is the size and level of detail of the generated text. For instance, a short summary which was sent to a doctor as a 160 character SMS text message might only mention the heart rate bradycardias, while a longer summary which was printed out as a multipage document might also mention the fact that the baby is on a morphine IV. The final issue is how unusual and unexpected the information is. For example, neither doctors nor parents would place a high priority on being told that the baby's temperature was normal, if they expected this to be the case. Regardless, content determination is very important to users, indeed in many cases the quality of content determination is the most important factor (from the user's perspective) in determining the overall quality of the generated text. == Techniques == There are three basic approaches to document structuring: schemas (content templates), statistical approaches, and explicit reasoning. Schemas are templates which explicitly specify the content of a generated text (as well as document structuring information). Typically, they are constructed by manually analysing a corpus of human-written texts in the target genre, and extracting a content template from these texts. Schemas work well in practice in domains where content is somewhat standardised, but work less well in domains where content is more fluid (such as the medical example above). Statistical techniques use statistical corpus analysis techniques to automatically determine the content of the generated texts. Such work is in its infancy, and has mostly been applied to contexts where the communicative goal, reader, size, and level of detail are fixed. For example, generation of newswire summaries of sporting events. Explicit reasoning approaches have probably attracted the most attention from researchers. The basic idea is to use AI reasoning techniques (such as knowledge-based rules, planning, pattern detection, case-based reasoning, etc.) to examine the information available to be communicated (including how unusual/unexpected it is), the communicative goal and reader, and the characteristics of the generated text (including target size), and decide on the optimal content for the generated text. A very wide range of techniques has been explored, but there is no consensus as to which is most effective.