Distinguishable interfaces use computer graphic principles to automatically generate easily distinguishable appearance for computer data. Although the desktop metaphor revolutionized user interfaces, there is evidence that a spatial layout alone does little to help in locating files and other data; distinguishable appearance is also required. Studies have shown that average users have considerable difficulty finding files on their personal computers, even ones that they created the same day. Search engines do not always help, since it has been found that users often know of the existence of a file without being able to specify relevant search terms. On the contrary, people appear to incrementally search for files using some form of context. Recently researchers and web developers have argued that the problem is the lack of distinguishable appearance: in the traditional computer interface most objects and locations appear identical. This problem rarely occurs in the real world, where both objects and locations generally have easily distinguishable appearance. Discriminability was one of the recommendations in the ISO 9241-12 recommendation on presentation of information on visual displays (part of the overall report on Ergonomics of Human System Interaction), however it was assumed in that report that this would be achieved by manual design of graphical symbols. == VisualIDs, semanticons, and identicons == The mass availability of computer graphics supported the introduction of approaches that make better use of the brain's "visual hardware", by providing individual files and other abstract data with distinguishable appearance. This idea initially appeared in strictly academic VisualIDs and Semanticons works, but the web community has explored and rapidly adopted similar ideas, such as the Identicon. The VisualIDs project automatically generated icons for files or other data based on a hash of the data identifier, so the icons had no relation to the content or meaning of the data. It was argued not only that generating meaningful icons is unnecessary (their user study showed rapid learning of the arbitrary icons), but also that basing icons on content is actually incorrect ("contrasting visualization with visual identifiers"). The Semanticons project developed by Setlur et al. demonstrated an algorithm to create icons that reflect the content of files. In this work the name, location and content of a file are parsed and used to retrieve related image(s) from an image database. These are then processed using a Non-photorealistic rendering technique in order to generate graphical icons. Developer Don Park introduced the identicon library for making a visual icon from a hash of a data identifier. This initial public implementation has spawned a large number of implementations for various environments. In particular, identicons are now being used as default visual user identifiers (avatars) for several widely used systems. They are also used as a complement to Gravatars, which are pre-existing avatar images created or chosen by users, instead of automatically generated images. (see #External links). == Current research == While current web practice has followed the semantics-free approach of VisualIDs, recent research has followed the semantics-based approach of Semanticons. Examples include using data mining principles to automatically create "intelligent icons" that reflect the contents of files and creating icons for music files that reflect audio characteristics or affective content.
Real-Time UML
Real-Time UML (RTUML) refers to the application of the Unified Modelling Language (UML) for the analysis, design, and implementation of real-time and embedded systems, where timing constraints, concurrency, and resource management are critical. It extends standard UML with profiles, notations, and semantics to handle hard and soft real-time requirements, such as modelling predictable response times and fault tolerance. RTUML is not a separate language but a methodology leveraging UML diagrams (e.g., statecharts, sequence diagrams) for time-sensitive applications like automotive controls, avionics, and medical devices. The term is closely associated with Bruce Powel Douglass, who popularised it through his books and the Harmony process for embedded software development. As of 2025, RTUML remains relevant in industries requiring certified systems, though its adoption varies with agile methodologies and model-driven engineering tools. == Background == Real-Time UML emerged in the late 1990s as UML was standardized by the Object Management Group (OMG) in 1997, addressing the need for object-oriented modeling in real-time systems previously dominated by procedural languages like C. Traditional real-time development relied on "bare metal" programming or theoretical models, but RTUML introduced visual notations for object structure, behaviour, and timing. Bruce Powel Douglass’s 1999 book, Real-Time UML: Developing Efficient Objects for Embedded Systems, formalised the approach, emphasising statecharts for concurrency and timing constraints. Later editions (2004, 2006) incorporated UML 2.0 features like activity and timing diagrams, aligning with OMG’s Real-Time Profile (now part of MARTE—Modelling and Analysis of Real-Time and Embedded Systems). The Harmony process integrates RTUML with executable models for simulation and code generation. RTUML addresses hard real-time systems (e.g., strict deadlines in avionics) versus soft real-time (e.g., media streaming), using UML extensions for schedulability analysis. == Key concepts == RTUML adapts UML diagrams and techniques for real-time needs: Statecharts and Behaviour Modelling: Extended state machines model reactive behaviour, using and-states for concurrency, pseudostates for transitions, and timing constraints (e.g., {duration < 10ms}). Examples include cardiac pacemaker models. Sequence and Interaction Diagrams: Capture message timing, priorities, and resource allocation in multi-threaded systems. Architectural Patterns: Define logical and physical architectures with active objects for concurrency and patterns like observer or publisher-subscriber. Timing and Constraints: Use Object Constraint Language (OCL) for specifying deadlines and priorities. Profiles and Extensions: OMG’s UML Profile for Schedulability, Performance, and Time (SPT) and MARTE add stereotypes like RT::ActiveObject. These support iterative development, from requirements to deployment, often with tools like IBM Rhapsody or Enterprise Architect. == Applications == RTUML is used in: Embedded Systems: Modelling automotive ECUs or UAV controls. Avionics and Defence: DO-178C-compliant designs for fault tolerance. Medical Devices: Pacemakers or ventilators with precise timing. Industrial Automation: RTOS task visualisation via sequence diagrams. Tools like IBM Rhapsody support RTUML for model-based development and code generation in C/C++. == Criticism and adoption == RTUML’s complexity can overwhelm simple systems, and its use in agile environments is limited, where lightweight diagrams are preferred. Surveys indicate UML (including RTUML) is used in 30–50% of embedded projects, often for documentation rather than full model-driven engineering. It remains standard in academia and certified industries like aerospace.
Sample exclusion dimension
In computational learning theory, sample exclusion dimensions arise in the study of exact concept learning with queries. In algorithmic learning theory, a concept over a domain X is a Boolean function over X. Here we only consider finite domains. A partial approximation S of a concept c is a Boolean function over Y ⊆ X {\displaystyle Y\subseteq X} such that c is an extension to S. Let C be a class of concepts and c be a concept (not necessarily in C). Then a specifying set for c w.r.t. C, denoted by S is a partial approximation S of c such that C contains at most one extension to S. If we have observed a specifying set for some concept w.r.t. C, then we have enough information to verify a concept in C with at most one more mind change. The exclusion dimension, denoted by XD(C), of a concept class is the maximum of the size of the minimum specifying set of c' with respect to C, where c' is a concept not in C.
Expectation–maximization algorithm
In statistics, an expectation–maximization (EM) algorithm is an iterative method to find (local) maximum likelihood or maximum a posteriori (MAP) estimates of parameters in statistical models, where the model depends on unobserved latent variables. The EM iteration alternates between performing an expectation (E) step, which creates a function for the expectation of the log-likelihood evaluated using the current estimate for the parameters, and a maximization (M) step, which computes parameters maximizing the expected log-likelihood found on the E step. These parameter-estimates are then used to determine the distribution of the latent variables in the next E step. It can be used, for example, to estimate a mixture of gaussians, or to solve the multiple linear regression problem. == History == The EM algorithm was explained and given its name in a classic 1977 paper by Arthur Dempster, Nan Laird, and Donald Rubin. They pointed out that the method had been "proposed many times in special circumstances" by earlier authors. One of the earliest is the gene-counting method for estimating allele frequencies by Cedric Smith. Another was proposed by H.O. Hartley in 1958, and Hartley and Hocking in 1977, from which many of the ideas in the Dempster–Laird–Rubin paper originated. Another one by S.K Ng, Thriyambakam Krishnan and G.J McLachlan in 1977. Hartley's ideas can be broadened to any grouped discrete distribution. A very detailed treatment of the EM method for exponential families was published by Rolf Sundberg in his thesis and several papers, following his collaboration with Per Martin-Löf and Anders Martin-Löf. The Dempster–Laird–Rubin paper in 1977 generalized the method and sketched a convergence analysis for a wider class of problems. The Dempster–Laird–Rubin paper established the EM method as an important tool of statistical analysis. See also Meng and van Dyk (1997). The convergence analysis of the Dempster–Laird–Rubin algorithm was flawed and a correct convergence analysis was published by C. F. Jeff Wu in 1983. Wu's proof established the EM method's convergence also outside of the exponential family, as claimed by Dempster–Laird–Rubin. == Introduction == The EM algorithm is used to find (local) maximum likelihood parameters of a statistical model in cases where the equations cannot be solved directly. Typically these models involve latent variables in addition to unknown parameters and known data observations. That is, either missing values exist among the data, or the model can be formulated more simply by assuming the existence of further unobserved data points. For example, a mixture model can be described more simply by assuming that each observed data point has a corresponding unobserved data point, or latent variable, specifying the mixture component to which each data point belongs. Finding a maximum likelihood solution typically requires taking the derivatives of the likelihood function with respect to all the unknown values, the parameters and the latent variables, and simultaneously solving the resulting equations. In statistical models with latent variables, this is usually impossible. Instead, the result is typically a set of interlocking equations in which the solution to the parameters requires the values of the latent variables and vice versa, but substituting one set of equations into the other produces an unsolvable equation. The EM algorithm proceeds from the observation that there is a way to solve these two sets of equations numerically. One can simply pick arbitrary values for one of the two sets of unknowns, use them to estimate the second set, then use these new values to find a better estimate of the first set, and then keep alternating between the two until the resulting values both converge to fixed points. It's not obvious that this will work, but it can be proven in this context. Additionally, it can be proven that the derivative of the likelihood is (arbitrarily close to) zero at that point, which in turn means that the point is either a local maximum or a saddle point. In general, multiple maxima may occur, with no guarantee that the global maximum will be found. Some likelihoods also have singularities in them, i.e., nonsensical maxima. For example, one of the solutions that may be found by EM in a mixture model involves setting one of the components to have zero variance and the mean parameter for the same component to be equal to one of the data points. == Description == === The symbols === Given the statistical model which generates a set X {\displaystyle \mathbf {X} } of observed data, a set of unobserved latent data or missing values Z {\displaystyle \mathbf {Z} } , and a vector of unknown parameters θ {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\theta }}} , along with a likelihood function L ( θ ; X , Z ) = p ( X , Z ∣ θ ) {\displaystyle L({\boldsymbol {\theta }};\mathbf {X} ,\mathbf {Z} )=p(\mathbf {X} ,\mathbf {Z} \mid {\boldsymbol {\theta }})} , the maximum likelihood estimate (MLE) of the unknown parameters is determined by maximizing the marginal likelihood of the observed data L ( θ ; X ) = p ( X ∣ θ ) = ∫ p ( X , Z ∣ θ ) d Z = ∫ p ( X ∣ Z , θ ) p ( Z ∣ θ ) d Z {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}L({\boldsymbol {\theta }};\mathbf {X} )=p(\mathbf {X} \mid {\boldsymbol {\theta }})&=\int p(\mathbf {X} ,\mathbf {Z} \mid {\boldsymbol {\theta }})\,d\mathbf {Z} \\&=\int p(\mathbf {X} \mid \mathbf {Z} ,{\boldsymbol {\theta }})p(\mathbf {Z} \mid {\boldsymbol {\theta }})\,d\mathbf {Z} \end{aligned}}} However, this quantity is often intractable since Z {\displaystyle \mathbf {Z} } is unobserved and the distribution of Z {\displaystyle \mathbf {Z} } is unknown before attaining θ {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\theta }}} . === The EM algorithm === The EM algorithm seeks to find the maximum likelihood estimate of the marginal likelihood by iteratively applying these two steps: More succinctly, we can write it as one equation: θ ( t + 1 ) = arg max θ E Z ∼ p ( ⋅ | X , θ ( t ) ) [ log p ( X , Z | θ ) ] {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\theta }}^{(t+1)}=\mathop {\arg \max } _{\boldsymbol {\theta }}\operatorname {E} _{\mathbf {Z} \sim p(\cdot |\mathbf {X} ,{\boldsymbol {\theta }}^{(t)})}\left[\log p(\mathbf {X} ,\mathbf {Z} |{\boldsymbol {\theta }})\right]\,} === Interpretation of the variables === The typical models to which EM is applied use Z {\displaystyle \mathbf {Z} } as a latent variable indicating membership in one of a set of groups: The observed data points X {\displaystyle \mathbf {X} } may be discrete (taking values in a finite or countably infinite set) or continuous (taking values in an uncountably infinite set). Associated with each data point may be a vector of observations. The missing values (aka latent variables) Z {\displaystyle \mathbf {Z} } are discrete, drawn from a fixed number of values, and with one latent variable per observed unit. The parameters are continuous, and are of two kinds: Parameters that are associated with all data points, and those associated with a specific value of a latent variable (i.e., associated with all data points whose corresponding latent variable has that value). However, it is possible to apply EM to other sorts of models. The motivation is as follows. If the value of the parameters θ {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\theta }}} is known, usually the value of the latent variables Z {\displaystyle \mathbf {Z} } can be found by maximizing the log-likelihood over all possible values of Z {\displaystyle \mathbf {Z} } , either simply by iterating over Z {\displaystyle \mathbf {Z} } or through an algorithm such as the Viterbi algorithm for hidden Markov models. Conversely, if we know the value of the latent variables Z {\displaystyle \mathbf {Z} } , we can find an estimate of the parameters θ {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\theta }}} fairly easily, typically by simply grouping the observed data points according to the value of the associated latent variable and averaging the values, or some function of the values, of the points in each group. This suggests an iterative algorithm, in the case where both θ {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\theta }}} and Z {\displaystyle \mathbf {Z} } are unknown: First, initialize the parameters θ {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\theta }}} to some random values. Compute the probability of each possible value of Z {\displaystyle \mathbf {Z} } , given θ {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\theta }}} . Then, use the just-computed values of Z {\displaystyle \mathbf {Z} } to compute a better estimate for the parameters θ {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\theta }}} . Iterate steps 2 and 3 until convergence. The algorithm as just described monotonically approaches a local minimum of the cost function. == Properties == Although an EM iteration does increase the observed data (i.e., marginal) likelihood function, no guarantee exists that the sequence converges to a maximum likelihood estimator. For multimodal distributions, this means that an EM algorithm may co
Multiple discriminant analysis
Multiple Discriminant Analysis (MDA) is a multivariate dimensionality reduction technique. It has been used to predict signals as diverse as neural memory traces and corporate failure. MDA is not directly used to perform classification. It merely supports classification by yielding a compressed signal amenable to classification. The method described in Duda et al. (2001) §3.8.3 projects the multivariate signal down to an M−1 dimensional space where M is the number of categories. MDA is useful because most classifiers are strongly affected by the curse of dimensionality. In other words, when signals are represented in very-high-dimensional spaces, the classifier's performance is catastrophically impaired by the overfitting problem. This problem is reduced by compressing the signal down to a lower-dimensional space as MDA does. MDA has been used to reveal neural codes.
Sahara Net
Sahara Net is an information and communications technology provider (ICT) serving the Saudi market, the company has rapidly grown since 1989 to offer various complementary services such as connectivity, internet, hosting, cloud, optimization, cyber security, and managed services. == History == Sahara Net is a Saudi Joint Stock Company (JSC) and its history goes back to 1989 when Sahara Net established the 1st Saudi Bulletin Board Service (BBS) in the Kingdom. During this period, it operated as a hub for email exchange in the FidoNet network. And in 1994 Sahara Net started offering Internet connectivity and other related services like internet email, web design, web hosting, and Domain name registry services. These services made the first ISP in Saudi Arabia before the official licensing in 1998, when the Saudi Internet market was regulated and Sahara Net received Internet Service Provider (ISP) license and was appointed as the official Local Internet Registry (LIR) in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. == Today == The company grew over these years to become one of the main ICTs in the Saudi Arabian market, extending network coverage to all major cities in Saudi Arabia, and offering various connectivity options to business as well as home users. In 2009, the company was partially acquired by Telindus (the ICT investment arm of Belgacom), the famous telecom operator in Belgium and Europe. Then, in 2014, the company was fully acquired by its original founders. Recently, Sahara Net was converted from an LLC to a JSC with over 1200 shareholders by a capital raise (original founders still control 70% of the shares).
Homogeneity blockmodeling
In mathematics applied to analysis of social structures, homogeneity blockmodeling is an approach in blockmodeling, which is best suited for a preliminary or main approach to valued networks, when a prior knowledge about these networks is not available. This is because homogeneity blockmodeling emphasizes the similarity of link (tie) strengths within the blocks over the pattern of links. In this approach, tie (link) values (or statistical data computed on them) are assumed to be equal (homogenous) within blocks. This approach to the generalized blockmodeling of valued networks was first proposed by Aleš Žiberna in 2007 with the basic idea, "that the inconsistency of an empirical block with its ideal block can be measured by within block variability of appropriate values". The newly–formed ideal blocks, which are appropriate for blockmodeling of valued networks, are then presented together with the definitions of their block inconsistencies. Similar approach to the homogeneity blockmodeling, dealing with direct approach for structural equivalence, was previously suggested by Stephen P. Borgatti and Martin G. Everett (1992).