HashClash was a volunteer computing project running on the Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing (BOINC) software platform to find collisions in the MD5 hash algorithm. It was based at Department of Mathematics and Computer Science at the Eindhoven University of Technology, and Marc Stevens initiated the project as part of his master's degree thesis. The project ended after Stevens defended his M.Sc. thesis in June 2007. However, SHA1 was added later, and the code repository was ported to git in 2017. The project was used to create a rogue certificate authority certificate in 2009.
RFPolicy
The RFPolicy outlines a method for contacting vendors about security vulnerabilities found in their products. It was initially written in 2000 by hacker and security consultant Rain Forest Puppy. It was perhaps the second disclosure policy, following Simple Nomad's. The policy gives the vendor five working days to respond to the reporter of the bug. If the vendor fails to contact the reporter within those five days, the issue is recommended to be disclosed to the general community. The reporter should help the vendor reproduce the bug and work out a fix. The reporter should delay notifying the general community about the bug if the vendor provides feasible reasons for requiring so. If the vendor fails to respond or shuts down communication with the reporter of the problem within five working days, the reporter should disclose the issue to the general community. When issuing an alert or fix, the vendor should give the reporter proper credit for reporting the bug. Context for the history of vulnerability disclosure is available in a history article.
IJCAI Computers and Thought Award
The IJCAI Computers and Thought Award is presented every two years by the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), recognizing outstanding young scientists in artificial intelligence. It was originally funded with royalties received from the book Computers and Thought (edited by Edward Feigenbaum and Julian Feldman), and is currently funded by IJCAI. It is considered to be "the premier award for artificial intelligence researchers under the age of 35". == Laureates == Terry Winograd (1971) Patrick Winston (1973) Chuck Rieger (1975) Douglas Lenat (1977) David Marr (1979) Gerald Sussman (1981) Tom Mitchell (1983) Hector Levesque (1985) Johan de Kleer (1987) Henry Kautz (1989) Rodney Brooks (1991) Martha E. Pollack (1991) Hiroaki Kitano (1993) Sarit Kraus (1995) Stuart Russell (1995) Leslie Kaelbling (1997) Nicholas Jennings (1999) Daphne Koller (2001) Tuomas Sandholm (2003) Peter Stone (2007) Carlos Guestrin (2009) Andrew Ng (2009) Vincent Conitzer (2011) Malte Helmert (2011) Kristen Grauman (2013) Ariel D. Procaccia (2015) Percy Liang (2016) for his contributions to both the approach of semantic parsing for natural language understanding and better methods for learning latent-variable models, sometimes with weak supervision, in machine learning. Devi Parikh (2017) Stefano Ermon (2018) Guy Van den Broeck (2019) for his contributions to statistical and relational artificial intelligence, and the study of tractability in learning and reasoning. Piotr Skowron (2020) for his contributions to computational social choice, and to the theory of committee elections. Fei Fang (2021) for her contributions to integrating machine learning with game theory and the use of these novel techniques to tackle societal challenges such as more effective deployment of security resources, enhancing environmental sustainability, and reducing food insecurity. Bo Li (2022) for her contributions to uncovering the underlying connections among robustness, privacy, and generalization in AI, showing how different models are vulnerable to malicious attacks, and how to eliminate these vulnerabilities using mathematical tools that provide robustness guarantees for learning models and privacy protection. Pin-Yu Chen (2023) for his contributions to consolidating properties of trust, robustness and safety into rigorous algorithmic procedures and computable metrics for improving AI systems. Nisarg Shah (2024) for his contributions to AI and society, in particular foundational work on the theory of algorithmic fairness using principles from social choice theory. Aditya Grover (2025) for his foundational contributions uniting deep generative models, representation learning, and reinforcement learning, and for their applications in advancing scientific reasoning.
Artificial intelligence in pharmacy
Artificial intelligence in pharmacy refers to the application of artificial intelligence (AI) techniques across pharmaceutical research and practice, including drug discovery, drug delivery, safety monitoring, clinical decision support, and pharmacy operations. Machine learning, deep learning, and natural language processing have been applied to tasks ranging from molecular design to patient adherence monitoring, with the aim of reducing development costs, improving accuracy, and personalizing treatment. Adoption has been uneven. Barriers include limited AI training among pharmacists, high infrastructure costs, and the risk of harm from models trained on unrepresentative data. Regulatory frameworks for AI-based pharmaceutical tools remain in active development across most jurisdictions. == Applications == === Drug discovery and development === Drug development is resource-intensive: bringing a single drug to market typically costs around $2.6 billion and takes 12–14 years. Machine learning algorithms have been applied to analyze molecular datasets to identify potential drug candidates, predict drug–target interactions, and optimize formulations. Artificial neural networks and generative adversarial networks have been used in drug discovery tasks including virtual screening, structure-activity relationship modeling, and de novo molecule generation. Peptides designed using AI methods have shown activity against multidrug-resistant bacteria, and transcriptomic data from human cell lines has been used to train deep learning models to classify drugs by therapeutic properties. Results in drug discovery have been mixed. AI models depend on the quality and diversity of their training data; those trained on narrow chemical libraries can fail to generalize to novel molecular scaffolds. The gap between high virtual screening hit rates and success in preclinical or clinical testing remains a persistent challenge, and the translation of computationally predicted candidates into approved drugs has been slower than early projections suggested. === Drug delivery systems === AI methods including neural networks, principal component analysis, and neuro-fuzzy logic have been applied to identifying biological targets for pharmaceuticals and analyzing genetic information relevant to drug design. Computational models can predict how a formulation will behave in biological systems, helping narrow the field before laboratory synthesis begins. Systems have been proposed that monitor patient response and adjust doses in real time based on individual physiology, with potential applications in chronic disease management. Research has also explored AI applications in targeted cancer treatments and oral vaccine delivery, areas where precise control over drug release kinetics is a design priority. === Drug safety === AI has been applied to predicting and detecting adverse drug reactions using techniques including knowledge graphs, logistic regression classifiers, and neural networks. A 2023 study developed a machine learning algorithm using knowledge graph analysis to classify known causes of adverse reactions. Natural language processing and deep learning models including long short-term memory (LSTM) networks have shown better performance than conventional methods for detecting opioid misuse, drawing on both structured data from electronic health records and unstructured sources such as clinical notes. AI-based pharmacovigilance systems can scan large volumes of electronic health records and social media for drug safety signals at a scale not feasible with manual review. Limitations include difficulty distinguishing drug-related adverse events from unrelated conditions in free-text data, and the need for validated benchmarks to measure model performance against existing safety monitoring standards. === Clinical decision support and personalized medicine === Machine learning systems trained on patient datasets can predict individual risk profiles, including potential allergies and drug–drug interactions, reducing the risk of harm in complex polypharmacy cases where the number of possible interactions exceeds what a clinician can readily assess. Personalized dosing models have been developed for drugs with narrow therapeutic windows — including anticoagulants and immunosuppressants — using patient-specific variables such as weight, renal function, and relevant genetic markers. Prospective clinical validation of these systems has lagged behind their technical development. Most published evaluations report performance on retrospective datasets, and the regulatory pathway for AI-based clinical decision support tools in pharmacy varies by jurisdiction. === Pharmacy operations and automation === Robotic and AI-driven systems have been applied to dispensing accuracy and pharmacy logistics. At the UCSF Medical Center, robotic technology produced 350,000 medication doses with no dispensing errors recorded. Robots such as TUG assist with preparing and transporting medications and laboratory samples within hospital settings. AI has also been applied to inventory management, with demand-forecasting systems predicting medicine requirements to reduce shortages and minimize waste from expired stock. In community pharmacy settings, AI tools have been used to flag potential prescription errors and alert pharmacists to drug–drug interactions before dispensing. === Medication adherence === Confirming that patients take prescribed medications as directed is a persistent challenge in healthcare. AI-enabled tools including smart pillboxes, RFID tags, ingestible sensors, and video check-ins have been applied to this problem. Smart pillboxes record when they are opened, providing real-time adherence data that can be reviewed remotely by care teams. Ingestible sensors transmit a signal after dissolution, offering direct confirmation of ingestion rather than proxy measures such as pill count or self-report. == Adoption challenges == === Barriers === Several barriers limit AI adoption in pharmacy practice. Many published evaluations report model performance on retrospective datasets rather than prospective clinical outcomes, making it difficult to assess real-world benefit. Pharmacists have reported limited AI training and knowledge, and research facilities often lack the computational infrastructure required for model development and validation. Models trained on biased or unrepresentative datasets can produce misleading results with direct patient safety consequences. === Regulatory frameworks === Regulatory frameworks for AI-based pharmaceutical tools are in active development. In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued guidance on AI and machine learning-based software as a medical device, addressing requirements for pre-market review and post-market performance monitoring. The European Medicines Agency has published discussion papers on the use of AI across the medicines development lifecycle, with particular attention to transparency in model training and validation. The absence of harmonized international standards creates compliance complexity for developers operating across multiple jurisdictions. === Ethical challenges === AI adoption raises data privacy and security concerns, including the risk of exposing sensitive patient information through data breaches. Algorithmic bias presents a related hazard: a model trained on an unrepresentative patient population may generate unsuitable treatment recommendations for patients not reflected in its training data, with potential for disparate outcomes across demographic groups. The opacity of some machine learning models, particularly deep neural networks, limits clinicians' ability to interpret or contest a recommendation, raising questions of accountability when a model-assisted decision results in patient harm. === Proposed solutions === Responses proposed in the literature include AI-focused education programs for pharmacists, increased public funding for healthcare AI research, encryption and governance frameworks for patient data, and regulatory requirements to prevent the use of biased training datasets. Greater transparency about training data provenance, model architecture, and validation methodology has also been recommended, including disclosure requirements in regulatory submissions. === Future directions === Research groups have called for tighter integration between AI systems and electronic health records to reduce healthcare costs and improve continuity of care across settings. International collaboration through shared AI frameworks and federated learning approaches has been proposed to address data scarcity in underrepresented patient populations and accelerate validation across institutions.
Uncertain inference
Uncertain inference was first described by C. J. van Rijsbergen as a way to formally define a query and document relationship in Information retrieval. This formalization is a logical implication with an attached measure of uncertainty. == Definitions == Rijsbergen proposes that the measure of uncertainty of a document d to a query q be the probability of its logical implication, i.e.: P ( d → q ) {\displaystyle P(d\to q)} A user's query can be interpreted as a set of assertions about the desired document. It is the system's task to infer, given a particular document, if the query assertions are true. If they are, the document is retrieved. In many cases the contents of documents are not sufficient to assert the queries. A knowledge base of facts and rules is needed, but some of them may be uncertain because there may be a probability associated to using them for inference. Therefore, we can also refer to this as plausible inference. The plausibility of an inference d → q {\displaystyle d\to q} is a function of the plausibility of each query assertion. Rather than retrieving a document that exactly matches the query we should rank the documents based on their plausibility in regards to that query. Since d and q are both generated by users, they are error prone; thus d → q {\displaystyle d\to q} is uncertain. This will affect the plausibility of a given query. By doing this it accomplishes two things: Separate the processes of revising probabilities from the logic Separate the treatment of relevance from the treatment of requests Multimedia documents, like images or videos, have different inference properties for each datatype. They are also different from text document properties. The framework of plausible inference allows us to measure and combine the probabilities coming from these different properties. Uncertain inference generalizes the notions of autoepistemic logic, where truth values are either known or unknown, and when known, they are true or false. == Example == If we have a query of the form: q = A ∧ B ∧ C {\displaystyle q=A\wedge B\wedge C} where A, B and C are query assertions, then for a document D we want the probability: P ( D → ( A ∧ B ∧ C ) ) {\displaystyle P(D\to (A\wedge B\wedge C))} If we transform this into the conditional probability P ( ( A ∧ B ∧ C ) | D ) {\displaystyle P((A\wedge B\wedge C)|D)} and if the query assertions are independent we can calculate the overall probability of the implication as the product of the individual assertions probabilities. == Further work == Croft and Krovetz applied uncertain inference to an information retrieval system for office documents they called OFFICER. In office documents the independence assumption is valid since the query will focus on their individual attributes. Besides analysing the content of documents one can also query about the author, size, topic or collection for example. They devised methods to compare document and query attributes, infer their plausibility and combine it into an overall rating for each document. Besides that uncertainty of document and query contents also had to be addressed. Probabilistic logic networks is a system for performing uncertain inference; crisp true/false truth values are replaced not only by a probability, but also by a confidence level, indicating the certitude of the probability. Markov logic networks allow uncertain inference to be performed; uncertainties are computed using the maximum entropy principle, in analogy to the way that Markov chains describe the uncertainty of finite-state machines.
Concurrent MetateM
Concurrent MetateM is a multi-agent language in which each agent is programmed using a set of (augmented) temporal logic specifications of the behaviour it should exhibit. These specifications are executed directly to generate the behaviour of the agent. As a result, there is no risk of invalidating the logic as with systems where logical specification must first be translated to a lower-level implementation. The root of the MetateM concept is Gabbay's separation theorem; any arbitrary temporal logic formula can be rewritten in a logically equivalent past → future form. Execution proceeds by a process of continually matching rules against a history, and firing those rules when antecedents are satisfied. Any instantiated future-time consequents become commitments which must subsequently be satisfied, iteratively generating a model for the formula made up of the program rules. == Temporal Connectives == The Temporal Connectives of Concurrent MetateM can divided into two categories, as follows: Strict past time connectives: '●' (weak last), '◎' (strong last), '◆' (was), '■' (heretofore), 'S' (since), and 'Z' (zince, or weak since). Present and future time connectives: '◯' (next), '◇' (sometime), '□' (always), 'U' (until), and 'W' (unless). The connectives {◎,●,◆,■,◯,◇,□} are unary; the remainder are binary. === Strict past time connectives === ==== Weak last ==== ●ρ is satisfied now if ρ was true in the previous time. If ●ρ is interpreted at the beginning of time, it is satisfied despite there being no actual previous time. Hence "weak" last. ==== Strong last ==== ◎ρ is satisfied now if ρ was true in the previous time. If ◎ρ is interpreted at the beginning of time, it is not satisfied because there is no actual previous time. Hence "strong" last. ==== Was ==== ◆ρ is satisfied now if ρ was true in any previous moment in time. ==== Heretofore ==== ■ρ is satisfied now if ρ was true in every previous moment in time. ==== Since ==== ρSψ is satisfied now if ψ is true at any previous moment and ρ is true at every moment after that moment. ==== Zince, or weak since ==== ρZψ is satisfied now if (ψ is true at any previous moment and ρ is true at every moment after that moment) OR ψ has not happened in the past. === Present and future time connectives === ==== Next ==== ◯ρ is satisfied now if ρ is true in the next moment in time. ==== Sometime ==== ◇ρ is satisfied now if ρ is true now or in any future moment in time. ==== Always ==== □ρ is satisfied now if ρ is true now and in every future moment in time. ==== Until ==== ρUψ is satisfied now if ψ is true at any future moment and ρ is true at every moment prior. ==== Unless ==== ρWψ is satisfied now if (ψ is true at any future moment and ρ is true at every moment prior) OR ψ does not happen in the future.
Federal Virtual World Challenge
The Federal Virtual Challenge, formerly The Federal Virtual Worlds Challenge is a competition led by the Simulation and Training Technology Center (United States Army Research, Development and Engineering Command). The event is conducted in order to reach a global development community that will create innovative and interactive training and analysis services in virtual worlds. The inaugural event began in 2009 with the awards being conducted during March 2010 GameTech conference in Orlando, Florida. == Description == The focus of the challenge is training or analysis capability conducted wholly in a virtual environment. The training and analysis audience includes all United States Federal Agencies including, Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Transportation, and Department of Health and Human Services, NASA, DOT, and many more.