LTE Advanced

LTE Advanced, also named or recognized as LTE+, LTE-A or 4G+, is a 4G mobile cellular communication standard developed by 3GPP as a major enhancement of the Long Term Evolution (LTE) standard. Three technologies from the LTE-Advanced tool-kit – carrier aggregation, 4x4 MIMO and 256QAM modulation in the downlink – if used together and with sufficient aggregated bandwidth, can deliver maximum peak downlink speeds approaching, or even exceeding, 1 Gbit/s. This is significantly more than the peak 300 Mbit/s rate offered by the preceding LTE standard. Later developments have resulted in LTE Advanced Pro (or 4.9G) which increases bandwidth even further. The first ever LTE Advanced network was deployed in 2013 by SK Telecom in South Korea. In August 2019, the Global mobile Suppliers Association (GSA) reported that there were 304 commercially launched LTE-Advanced networks in 134 countries. Overall, 335 operators are investing in LTE-Advanced (in the form of tests, trials, deployments or commercial service provision) in 141 countries. == Name == LTE Advanced is also named (indicated as) LTE+, LTE-A, or (on Samsung Galaxy and Xiaomi smartphones) as 4G+. Such networks have also often been described as ‘Gigabit LTE networks’ mirroring a term that is also used in the fixed broadband industry. == History == The mobile communication industry and standards organizations have therefore started work on 4G access technologies, such as LTE Advanced. At a workshop in April 2008 in China, 3GPP agreed the plans for work on Long Term Evolution (LTE). A first set of specifications were approved in June 2008. Besides the peak data rate 1 Gb/s as defined by the ITU-R, it also targets faster switching between power states and improved performance at the cell edge. Detailed proposals are being studied within the working groups. The LTE+ format was first proposed by NTT DoCoMo of Japan and has been adopted as the international standard. It was formally submitted as a candidate 4G to ITU-T in late 2009 as meeting the requirements of the IMT-Advanced standard, and was standardized by the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) in March 2011 as 3GPP Release 10. The work by 3GPP to define a 4G candidate radio interface technology started in Release 9 with the study phase for LTE-Advanced. Being described as a 3.9G (beyond 3G but pre-4G), the first release of LTE did not meet the requirements for 4G (also called IMT Advanced as defined by the International Telecommunication Union) such as peak data rates up to 1 Gb/s. The ITU has invited the submission of candidate Radio Interface Technologies (RITs) following their requirements in a circular letter, 3GPP Technical Report (TR) 36.913, "Requirements for Further Advancements for E-UTRA (LTE-Advanced)." These are based on ITU's requirements for 4G and on operators’ own requirements for advanced LTE. Major technical considerations include the following: Continual improvement to the LTE radio technology and architecture Scenarios and performance requirements for working with legacy radio technologies Backward compatibility of LTE-Advanced with LTE. An LTE terminal should be able to work in an LTE-Advanced network and vice versa. Any exceptions will be considered by 3GPP. Consideration of recent World Radiocommunication Conference (WRC-07) decisions regarding frequency bands to ensure that LTE-Advanced accommodates the geographically available spectrum for channels above 20 MHz. Also, specifications must recognize those parts of the world in which wideband channels are not available. Likewise, 'WiMAX 2', 802.16m, has been approved by ITU as the IMT Advanced family. WiMAX 2 is designed to be backward compatible with WiMAX 1 devices. Most vendors now support conversion of 'pre-4G', pre-advanced versions and some support software upgrades of base station equipment from 3G. == Proposals == The target of 3GPP LTE Advanced is to reach and surpass the ITU requirements. LTE Advanced should be compatible with first release LTE equipment, and should share frequency bands with first release LTE. In the feasibility study for LTE Advanced, 3GPP determined that LTE Advanced would meet the ITU-R requirements for 4G. The results of the study are published in 3GPP Technical Report (TR) 36.912. One of the important LTE Advanced benefits is the ability to take advantage of advanced topology networks; optimized heterogeneous networks with a mix of macrocells with low power nodes such as picocells, femtocells and new relay nodes. The next significant performance leap in wireless networks will come from making the most of topology, and brings the network closer to the user by adding many of these low power nodes – LTE Advanced further improves the capacity and coverage, and ensures user fairness. LTE Advanced also introduces multicarrier to be able to use ultra wide bandwidth, up to 100 MHz of spectrum supporting very high data rates. In the research phase many proposals have been studied as candidates for LTE Advanced (LTE-A) technologies. The proposals could roughly be categorized into: Support for relay node base stations Coordinated multipoint (CoMP) transmission and reception UE Dual TX antenna solutions for SU-MIMO and diversity MIMO, commonly referred to as 2x2 MIMO Scalable system bandwidth exceeding 20 MHz, up to 100 MHz Carrier aggregation of contiguous and non-contiguous spectrum allocations Local area optimization of air interface Nomadic / Local Area network and mobility solutions Flexible spectrum usage Cognitive radio Automatic and autonomous network configuration and operation Support of autonomous network and device test, measurement tied to network management and optimization Enhanced precoding and forward error correction Interference management and suppression Asymmetric bandwidth assignment for FDD Hybrid OFDMA and SC-FDMA in uplink UL/DL inter eNB coordinated MIMO SONs, Self Organizing Networks methodologies Within the range of system development, LTE-Advanced and WiMAX 2 can use up to 8x8 MIMO and 128-QAM in downlink direction. Example performance: 100 MHz aggregated bandwidth, LTE-Advanced provides almost 3.3 Gbit peak download rates per sector of the base station under ideal conditions. Advanced network architectures combined with distributed and collaborative smart antenna technologies provide several years road map of commercial enhancements. The 3GPP standards Release 12 added support for 256-QAM. A summary of a study carried out in 3GPP can be found in TR36.912. == Timeframe and introduction of additional features == Original standardization work for LTE-Advanced was done as part of 3GPP Release 10, which was frozen in April 2011. Trials were based on pre-release equipment. Major vendors support software upgrades to later versions and ongoing improvements. In order to improve the quality of service for users in hotspots and on cell edges, heterogeneous networks (HetNets) are formed of a mixture of macro-, pico- and femto base stations serving corresponding-size areas. Frozen in December 2012, 3GPP Release 11 concentrates on better support of HetNet. Coordinated Multi-Point operation (CoMP) is a key feature of Release 11 in order to support such network structures. Whereas users located at a cell edge in homogenous networks suffer from decreasing signal strength compounded by neighbor cell interference, CoMP is designed to enable use of a neighboring cell to also transmit the same signal as the serving cell, enhancing quality of service on the perimeter of a serving cell. In-device Co-existence (IDC) is another topic addressed in Release 11. IDC features are designed to ameliorate disturbances within the user equipment caused between LTE/LTE-A and the various other radio subsystems such as WiFi, Bluetooth, and the GPS receiver. Further enhancements for MIMO such as 4x4 configuration for the uplink were standardized. The higher number of cells in HetNet results in user equipment changing the serving cell more frequently when in motion. The ongoing work on LTE-Advanced in Release 12, amongst other areas, concentrates on addressing issues that come about when users move through HetNet, such as frequent hand-overs between cells. It also included use of 256-QAM. == First technology demonstrations and field trials == This list covers technology demonstrations and field trials up to the year 2014, paving the way for a wider commercial deployment of the VoLTE technology worldwide. From 2014 onwards various further operators trialled and demonstrated the technology for future deployment on their respective networks. These are not covered here. Instead a coverage of commercial deployments can be found in the section below. == LTE Advanced Pro == LTE Advanced Pro (LTE-A Pro, also known as 4.5G, 4.5G Pro, 4.9G, Pre-5G, 5G Project) is a name for 3GPP release 13 and 14. It is an evolution of LTE Advanced (LTE-A) cellular standard supporting data rates in excess of 3 Gbit/s using 32-carrier aggregation. It also introduces th

Audio inpainting

Audio inpainting (also known as audio interpolation) is an audio restoration task which deals with the reconstruction of missing or corrupted portions of a digital audio signal. Inpainting techniques are employed when parts of the audio have been lost due to various factors such as transmission errors, data corruption or errors during recording. The goal of audio inpainting is to fill in the gaps (i.e., the missing portions) in the audio signal seamlessly, making the reconstructed portions indistinguishable from the original content and avoiding the introduction of audible distortions or alterations. Many techniques have been proposed to solve the audio inpainting problem and this is usually achieved by analyzing the temporal and spectral information surrounding each missing portion of the considered audio signal. Classic methods employ statistical models or digital signal processing algorithms to predict and synthesize the missing or damaged sections. Recent solutions, instead, take advantage of deep learning models, thanks to the growing trend of exploiting data-driven methods in the context of audio restoration. Depending on the extent of the lost information, the inpainting task can be divided in three categories. Short inpainting refers to the reconstruction of few milliseconds (approximately less than 10) of missing signal, that occurs in the case of short distortions such as clicks or clipping. In this case, the goal of the reconstruction is to recover the lost information exactly. In long inpainting instead, with gaps in the order of hundreds of milliseconds or even seconds, this goal becomes unrealistic, since restoration techniques cannot rely on local information. Therefore, besides providing a coherent reconstruction, the algorithms need to generate new information that has to be semantically compatible with the surrounding context (i.e., the audio signal surrounding the gaps). The case of medium duration gaps lays between short and long inpainting. It refers to the reconstruction of tens of millisecond of missing data, a scale where the non-stationary characteristic of audio already becomes important. == Definition == Consider a digital audio signal x {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} } . A corrupted version of x {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} } , which is the audio signal presenting missing gaps to be reconstructed, can be defined as x ~ = m ∘ x {\displaystyle \mathbf {\tilde {x}} =\mathbf {m} \circ \mathbf {x} } , where m {\displaystyle \mathbf {m} } is a binary mask encoding the reliable or missing samples of x {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} } , and ∘ {\displaystyle \circ } represents the element-wise product. Audio inpainting aims at finding x ^ {\displaystyle \mathbf {\hat {x}} } (i.e., the reconstruction), which is an estimation of x {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} } . This is an ill-posed inverse problem, which is characterized by a non-unique set of solutions. For this reason, similarly to the formulation used for the inpainting problem in other domains, the reconstructed audio signal can be found through an optimization problem that is formally expressed as x ^ ∗ = argmin X ^ L ( m ∘ x ^ , x ~ ) + R ( x ^ ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {\hat {x}} ^{}={\underset {\hat {\mathbf {X} }}{\text{argmin}}}~L(\mathbf {m} \circ \mathbf {\hat {x}} ,\mathbf {\tilde {x}} )+R(\mathbf {\hat {x}} )} . In particular, x ^ ∗ {\displaystyle \mathbf {\hat {x}} ^{}} is the optimal reconstructed audio signal and L {\displaystyle L} is a distance measure term that computes the reconstruction accuracy between the corrupted audio signal and the estimated one. For example, this term can be expressed with a mean squared error or similar metrics. Since L {\displaystyle L} is computed only on the reliable frames, there are many solutions that can minimize L ( m ∘ x ^ , x ~ ) {\displaystyle L(\mathbf {m} \circ \mathbf {\hat {x}} ,\mathbf {\tilde {x}} )} . It is thus necessary to add a constraint to the minimization, in order to restrict the results only to the valid solutions. This is expressed through the regularization term R {\displaystyle R} that is computed on the reconstructed audio signal x ^ {\displaystyle \mathbf {\hat {x}} } . This term encodes some kind of a-priori information on the audio data. For example, R {\displaystyle R} can express assumptions on the stationarity of the signal, on the sparsity of its representation or can be learned from data. == Techniques == There exist various techniques to perform audio inpainting. These can vary significantly, influenced by factors such as the specific application requirements, the length of the gaps and the available data. In the literature, these techniques are broadly divided in model-based techniques (sometimes also referred as signal processing techniques) and data-driven techniques. === Model-based techniques === Model-based techniques involve the exploitation of mathematical models or assumptions about the underlying structure of the audio signal. These models can be based on prior knowledge of the audio content or statistical properties observed in the data. By leveraging these models, missing or corrupted portions of the audio signal can be inferred or estimated. An example of a model-based techniques are autoregressive models. These methods interpolate or extrapolate the missing samples based on the neighboring values, by using mathematical functions to approximate the missing data. In particular, in autoregressive models the missing samples are completed through linear prediction. The autoregressive coefficients necessary for this prediction are learned from the surrounding audio data, specifically from the data adjacent to each gap. Some more recent techniques approach audio inpainting by representing audio signals as sparse linear combinations of a limited number of basis functions (as for example in the Short Time Fourier Transform). In this context, the aim is to find the sparse representation of the missing section of the signal that most accurately matches the surrounding, unaffected signal. The aforementioned methods exhibit optimal performance when applied to filling in relatively short gaps, lasting only a few tens of milliseconds, and thus they can be included in the context of short inpainting. However, these signal-processing techniques tend to struggle when dealing with longer gaps. The reason behind this limitation lies in the violation of the stationarity condition, as the signal often undergoes significant changes after the gap, making it substantially different from the signal preceding the gap. As a way to overcome these limitations, some approaches add strong assumptions also about the fundamental structure of the gap itself, exploiting sinusoidal modeling or similarity graphs to perform inpainting of longer missing portions of audio signals. === Data-driven techniques === Data-driven techniques rely on the analysis and exploitation of the available audio data. These techniques often employ deep learning algorithms that learn patterns and relationships directly from the provided data. They involve training models on large datasets of audio examples, allowing them to capture the statistical regularities present in the audio signals. Once trained, these models can be used to generate missing portions of the audio signal based on the learned representations, without being restricted by stationarity assumptions. Data-driven techniques also offer the advantage of adaptability and flexibility, as they can learn from diverse audio datasets and potentially handle complex inpainting scenarios. As of today, such techniques constitute the state-of-the-art of audio inpainting, being able to reconstruct gaps of hundreds of milliseconds or even seconds. These performances are made possible by the use of generative models that have the capability to generate novel content to fill in the missing portions. For example, generative adversarial networks, which are the state-of-the-art of generative models in many areas, rely on two competing neural networks trained simultaneously in a two-player minmax game: the generator produces new data from samples of a random variable, the discriminator attempts to distinguish between generated and real data. During the training, the generator's objective is to fool the discriminator, while the discriminator attempts to learn to better classify real and fake data. In GAN-based inpainting methods the generator acts as a context encoder and produces a plausible completion for the gap only given the available information surrounding it. The discriminator is used to train the generator and tests the consistency of the produced inpainted audio. Recently, also diffusion models have established themselves as the state-of-the-art of generative models in many fields, often beating even GAN-based solutions. For this reason they have also been used to solve the audio inpainting problem, obtaining valid results. These models generate new data instances by inverting the

Latent Dirichlet allocation

In natural language processing, latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA) is a generative statistical model that explains how a collection of text documents can be described by a set of unobserved "topics." For example, given a set of news articles, LDA might discover that one topic is characterized by words like "president", "government", and "election", while another is characterized by "team", "game", and "score". It is one of the most common topic models. The LDA model was first presented as a graphical model for population genetics by J. K. Pritchard, M. Stephens and P. Donnelly in 2000. The model was subsequently applied to machine learning by David Blei, Andrew Ng, and Michael I. Jordan in 2003. Although its most frequent application is in modeling text corpora, it has also been used for other problems, such as in clinical psychology, social science, and computational musicology. The core assumption of LDA is that documents are represented as a random mixture of latent topics, and each topic is characterized by a probability distribution over words. The model is a generalization of probabilistic latent semantic analysis (pLSA), differing primarily in that LDA treats the topic mixture as a Dirichlet prior, leading to more reasonable mixtures and less susceptibility to overfitting. Learning the latent topics and their associated probabilities from a corpus is typically done using Bayesian inference, often with methods like Gibbs sampling or variational Bayes. == History == In the context of population genetics, LDA was proposed by J. K. Pritchard, M. Stephens and P. Donnelly in 2000. LDA was applied in machine learning by David Blei, Andrew Ng and Michael I. Jordan in 2003. == Overview == === Population genetics === In population genetics, the model is used to detect the presence of structured genetic variation in a group of individuals. The model assumes that alleles carried by individuals under study have origin in various extant or past populations. The model and various inference algorithms allow scientists to estimate the allele frequencies in those source populations and the origin of alleles carried by individuals under study. The source populations can be interpreted ex-post in terms of various evolutionary scenarios. In association studies, detecting the presence of genetic structure is considered a necessary preliminary step to avoid confounding. === Clinical psychology, mental health, and social science === In clinical psychology research, LDA has been used to identify common themes of self-images experienced by young people in social situations. Other social scientists have used LDA to examine large sets of topical data from discussions on social media (e.g., tweets about prescription drugs). Additionally, supervised Latent Dirichlet Allocation with covariates (SLDAX) has been specifically developed to combine latent topics identified in texts with other manifest variables. This approach allows for the integration of text data as predictors in statistical regression analyses, improving the accuracy of mental health predictions. One of the main advantages of SLDAX over traditional two-stage approaches is its ability to avoid biased estimates and incorrect standard errors, allowing for a more accurate analysis of psychological texts. In the field of social sciences, LDA has proven to be useful for analyzing large datasets, such as social media discussions. For instance, researchers have used LDA to investigate tweets discussing socially relevant topics, like the use of prescription drugs and cultural differences in China. By analyzing these large text corpora, it is possible to uncover patterns and themes that might otherwise go unnoticed, offering valuable insights into public discourse and perception in real time. === Musicology === In the context of computational musicology, LDA has been used to discover tonal structures in different corpora. === Machine learning === One application of LDA in machine learning – specifically, topic discovery, a subproblem in natural language processing – is to discover topics in a collection of documents, and then automatically classify any individual document within the collection in terms of how "relevant" it is to each of the discovered topics. A topic is considered to be a set of terms (i.e., individual words or phrases) that, taken together, suggest a shared theme. For example, in a document collection related to pet animals, the terms dog, spaniel, beagle, golden retriever, puppy, bark, and woof would suggest a DOG_related theme, while the terms cat, siamese, Maine coon, tabby, manx, meow, purr, and kitten would suggest a CAT_related theme. There may be many more topics in the collection – e.g., related to diet, grooming, healthcare, behavior, etc. that we do not discuss for simplicity's sake. (Very common, so called stop words in a language – e.g., "the", "an", "that", "are", "is", etc., – would not discriminate between topics and are usually filtered out by pre-processing before LDA is performed. Pre-processing also converts terms to their "root" lexical forms – e.g., "barks", "barking", and "barked" would be converted to "bark".) If the document collection is sufficiently large, LDA will discover such sets of terms (i.e., topics) based upon the co-occurrence of individual terms, though the task of assigning a meaningful label to an individual topic (i.e., that all the terms are DOG_related) is up to the user, and often requires specialized knowledge (e.g., for collection of technical documents). The LDA approach assumes that: The semantic content of a document is composed by combining one or more terms from one or more topics. Certain terms are ambiguous, belonging to more than one topic, with different probability. (For example, the term training can apply to both dogs and cats, but are more likely to refer to dogs, which are used as work animals or participate in obedience or skill competitions.) However, in a document, the accompanying presence of specific neighboring terms (which belong to only one topic) will disambiguate their usage. Most documents will contain only a relatively small number of topics. In the collection, e.g., individual topics will occur with differing frequencies. That is, they have a probability distribution, so that a given document is more likely to contain some topics than others. Within a topic, certain terms will be used much more frequently than others. In other words, the terms within a topic will also have their own probability distribution. When LDA machine learning is employed, both sets of probabilities are computed during the training phase, using Bayesian methods and an expectation–maximization algorithm. LDA is a generalization of older approach of probabilistic latent semantic analysis (pLSA), The pLSA model is equivalent to LDA under a uniform Dirichlet prior distribution. pLSA relies on only the first two assumptions above and does not care about the remainder. While both methods are similar in principle and require the user to specify the number of topics to be discovered before the start of training (as with k-means clustering) LDA has the following advantages over pLSA: LDA yields better disambiguation of words and a more precise assignment of documents to topics. Computing probabilities allows a "generative" process by which a collection of new "synthetic documents" can be generated that would closely reflect the statistical characteristics of the original collection. Unlike LDA, pLSA is vulnerable to overfitting especially when the size of corpus increases. The LDA algorithm is more readily amenable to scaling up for large data sets using the MapReduce approach on a computing cluster. == Model == With plate notation, which is often used to represent probabilistic graphical models (PGMs), the dependencies among the many variables can be captured concisely. The boxes are "plates" representing replicates, which are repeated entities. The outer plate represents documents, while the inner plate represents the repeated word positions in a given document; each position is associated with a choice of topic and word. The variable names are defined as follows: M denotes the number of documents N is number of words in a given document (document i has N i {\displaystyle N_{i}} words) α is the parameter of the Dirichlet prior on the per-document topic distributions β is the parameter of the Dirichlet prior on the per-topic word distribution θ i {\displaystyle \theta _{i}} is the topic distribution for document i φ k {\displaystyle \varphi _{k}} is the word distribution for topic k z i j {\displaystyle z_{ij}} is the topic for the j-th word in document i w i j {\displaystyle w_{ij}} is the specific word. The fact that W is grayed out means that words w i j {\displaystyle w_{ij}} are the only observable variables, and the other variables are latent variables. As proposed in the original paper, a sparse Dirichlet prior can be used to model the to

Prescription monitoring program

In the United States, prescription monitoring programs (PMPs) or prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs) are state-run programs which collect and distribute data about the prescription and dispensation of federally controlled substances and, depending on state requirements, other potentially abusable prescription drugs. PMPs are meant to help prevent adverse drug-related events such as opioid overdoses, drug diversion, and substance abuse by decreasing the amount and/or frequency of opioid prescribing, and by identifying those patients who are obtaining prescriptions from multiple providers (i.e., "doctor shopping") or those physicians overprescribing opioids. Most US health care workers support the idea of PMPs, which intend to assist physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, dentists and other prescribers, the pharmacists, chemists and support staff of dispensing establishments. The database, whose use is required by State law, typically requires prescribers and pharmacies dispensing controlled substances to register with their respective state PMPs and (for pharmacies and providers who dispense from their offices) to report the dispensation of such prescriptions to an electronic online database. The majority of PMPs are authorized to notify law enforcement agencies or licensing boards or physicians when a prescriber, or patients receiving prescriptions, exceed thresholds established by the state or prescription recipient exceeds thresholds established by the State. All states have implemented PDMPs, although evidence for the effectiveness of these programs is mixed. While prescription of opioids has decreased with PMP use, overdose deaths in many states have actually increased, with those states sharing data with neighboring jurisdictions or requiring reporting of more drugs experiencing highest increases in deaths. This may be because those declined opioid prescriptions turn to street drugs, whose potency and contaminants carry greater overdose risk. == History == Prescription drug monitoring programs, or PDMPs, are an example of one initiative proposed to alleviate effects of the opioid crisis. The programs are designed to restrict prescription drug abuse by limiting a patient's ability to obtain similar prescriptions from multiple providers (i.e. “doctor shopping”) and reducing diversion of controlled substances. This is meant to reduce risk of fatal overdose caused by high doses of opioids or interactions between opioids and benzodiazepenes, and to enable better decision making on the part of healthcare providers who may be unaware of a patient's prescription drug use, history or other prescriptions. PDMPs have been implemented in state legislations since 1939 in California, a time before electronic medical records, though implementation rose alongside increased awareness of overprescribing of opioids and overdose. A later New York state program was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in Whalen v. Roe. But, by 2019, 49 states, the District of Columbia, and Guam had enacted PDMP legislation. In 2021 Missouri, the last State to not use a PMP, adopted legislation to create one. PMPs are constantly being updated to increase speed of data collection, sharing of data across States, and ease of interpretation. This is being done by integrating PDMP reports with other health information technologies such as health information exchanges (HIE), electronic health record (EHR) systems, and/ or pharmacy dispensing software systems. One program that has been implemented in nine states is called the PDMP Electronic Health Records Integration and Interoperability Expansion, also known as PEHRIIE. Another software, marketed by Bamboo Health and integrated with PMPs in 43 states, uses an algorithm to track factors thought to increase risk of diversion, abuse or overdose, and assigns patients a three digit score based on presumed indicators of risk. While some studies have suggested that PDMP-HIT integration and sharing of interstate data brings benefits such as reduced opioid-related inpatient morbidity, others have found no or negative impact on mortality compared to states without PMP data sharing. Patient and media reports suggest need for testing and evaluation of algorithmic software used to score risk, with some patients reporting denial of prescriptions without c explanation or clarity of data. == Goals == Most health care workers support PMPs which intend to assist physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, dentists and other prescribers, the pharmacists, chemists and support staff of dispensing establishments, as well as law-enforcement agencies. The collaboration supports the legitimate medical use of controlled substances while limiting their abuse and diversion. Pharmacies dispensing controlled substances and prescribers typically must register with their respective state PMPs and (for pharmacies and providers who dispense controlled substances from their offices) report the dispensation to an electronic online database. Some pharmacy software can submit these reports automatically to multiple states. == Usage == === List of programs by state === === Software systems === NarxCare is a prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP) run by Bamboo Health. Bamboo Health was formerly known as Appriss. It is widely used across the United States by pharmacies including Rite Aid as well as those at Walmart and Sam’s Club. The NarxCare software allows doctors to view data about a patient, combining data from the prescription registries of various U.S. states to make the registries interoperable nationally. It also uses machine learning to generate an "Overdose Risk Score" that potentially includes EMS and criminal justice data; these scores have been criticized by researchers and patient advocates for the lack of transparency in the process as well as the potential for disparate treatment of women and minority groups. Advertised as an "analytics tool and care management platform", the NarxCare software allows doctors to view data about a patient including how many pharmacies they have visited and the combinations of medication they are prescribed. It combines data from the prescription registries of various U.S. states, making the registries interoperable nationally. It additionally uses machine learning to generate various three-digit "risk scores" and an overall "Overdose Risk Score", collectively referred to as Narx Scores, in a process that potentially includes EMS and criminal justice data as well as court records. == Controversy == Many doctors and researchers support the idea of PDMPs as a tool in combatting the opioid epidemic. Opioid prescribing, opioid diversion and supply, opioid misuse, and opioid-related morbidity and mortality are common elements in data entered into PDMPs. Prescription Monitoring Programs are purported to offer economic benefits for the states who implement them by decreasing overall health care costs, lost productivity, and investigation times. However, there are many studies that conclude the impact of PDMPs is unclear. While use of PMPs has been accompanied by decrease in opioid prescribing, few analyses consider corresponding use of street opioids, extramedical use, or diversion, which might provide a more holistic method for evaluation of PMP intent and efficacy. Evidence for PDMP impact on fatal overdoses is decidedly mixed, with multiple studies finding increased overdose rates in some states, decreases in others, or no clear impact. Interestingly, an increase in heroin overdoses after PDMP implementation has been commonly reported, presumably as denial of prescription opioids sends patients in search of street drugs. Narx Scores have been criticized by researchers and patient advocates for the lack of transparency in the generation process as well as the potential for disparate treatment of women and minority groups. Writing in Duke Law Journal, Jennifer Oliva stated that "black-box algorithms" are used to generate the scores.

Physical neural network

A physical neural network is a type of artificial neural network in which an electrically adjustable material is used to emulate the function of a neural synapse or a higher-order (dendritic) neuron model. "Physical" neural network is used to emphasize the reliance on physical hardware used to emulate neurons as opposed to software-based approaches. More generally the term is applicable to other artificial neural networks in which a memristor or other electrically adjustable resistance material is used to emulate a neural synapse. == Types of physical neural networks == === ADALINE === In the 1960s Bernard Widrow and Ted Hoff developed ADALINE (Adaptive Linear Neuron) which used electrochemical cells called memistors (memory resistors) to emulate synapses of an artificial neuron. The memistors were implemented as 3-terminal devices operating based on the reversible electroplating of copper such that the resistance between two of the terminals is controlled by the integral of the current applied via the third terminal. The ADALINE circuitry was briefly commercialized by the Memistor Corporation in the 1960s enabling some applications in pattern recognition. However, since the memistors were not fabricated using integrated circuit fabrication techniques the technology was not scalable and was eventually abandoned as solid-state electronics became mature. === Analog VLSI === In 1989 Carver Mead published his book Analog VLSI and Neural Systems, which spun off perhaps the most common variant of analog neural networks. The physical realization is implemented in analog VLSI. This is often implemented as field effect transistors in low inversion. Such devices can be modelled as translinear circuits. This is a technique described by Barrie Gilbert in several papers around mid 1970th, and in particular his Translinear Circuits from 1981. With this method circuits can be analyzed as a set of well-defined functions in steady-state, and such circuits assembled into complex networks. === Physical Neural Network === Alex Nugent describes a physical neural network as one or more nonlinear neuron-like nodes used to sum signals and nanoconnections formed from nanoparticles, nanowires, or nanotubes which determine the signal strength input to the nodes. Alignment or self-assembly of the nanoconnections is determined by the history of the applied electric field performing a function analogous to neural synapses. Numerous applications for such physical neural networks are possible. For example, a temporal summation device can be composed of one or more nanoconnections having an input and an output thereof, wherein an input signal provided to the input causes one or more of the nanoconnection to experience an increase in connection strength thereof over time. Another example of a physical neural network is taught by U.S. Patent No. 7,039,619 entitled "Utilized nanotechnology apparatus using a neural network, a solution and a connection gap," which issued to Alex Nugent by the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office on May 2, 2006. A further application of physical neural network is shown in U.S. Patent No. 7,412,428 entitled "Application of hebbian and anti-hebbian learning to nanotechnology-based physical neural networks," which issued on August 12, 2008. Nugent and Molter have shown that universal computing and general-purpose machine learning are possible from operations available through simple memristive circuits operating the AHaH plasticity rule. More recently, it has been argued that also complex networks of purely memristive circuits can serve as neural networks. === Phase change neural network === In 2002, Stanford Ovshinsky described an analog neural computing medium in which phase-change material has the ability to cumulatively respond to multiple input signals. An electrical alteration of the resistance of the phase change material is used to control the weighting of the input signals. === Memristive neural network === Greg Snider of HP Labs describes a system of cortical computing with memristive nanodevices. The memristors (memory resistors) are implemented by thin film materials in which the resistance is electrically tuned via the transport of ions or oxygen vacancies within the film. DARPA's SyNAPSE project has funded IBM Research and HP Labs, in collaboration with the Boston University Department of Cognitive and Neural Systems (CNS), to develop neuromorphic architectures which may be based on memristive systems. === Protonic artificial synapses === In 2022, researchers reported the development of nanoscale brain-inspired artificial synapses, using the ion proton (H+), for 'analog deep learning'.

Parkerian Hexad

The Parkerian Hexad is a set of six elements of information security proposed by Donn B. Parker in 1998. The Parkerian Hexad adds three additional attributes to the three classic security attributes of the CIA triad (confidentiality, integrity, availability). The Parkerian Hexad attributes are the following: Confidentiality Possession or Control Integrity Authenticity Availability Utility These attributes of information are atomic in that they are not broken down into further constituents; they are non-overlapping in that they refer to unique aspects of information. Any information security breach can be described as affecting one or more of these fundamental attributes of information. == Attributes from the CIA triad == === Confidentiality === Confidentiality refers to the "quality or state of being private or secret; known only to a limited few", or "the property that information is not made available or disclosed to unauthorized individuals, entities, or processes". For example: If an enterprise's strategic plans are leaked to competitors then this is a breach of confidentiality; If unauthorized persons gain access to an individual's financial records then that individual's confidentiality is breached. === Integrity === Integrity refers to being correct or consistent with the intended state of information. Any unauthorized modification of data, whether deliberate or accidental, is a breach of data integrity. For example: Data stored on disk are expected to be stable. If the data is changed at random by problems with a disk controller then this is a breach of integrity; Data generated by a medical device is transmitted and stored in the healthcare center but neither altered nor tampered with; Application programs are supposed to record information correctly. If the application introduces deviations from the intended values then this is a breach of integrity. "From Donn Parker: My definition of information integrity comes from the dictionaries. Integrity means that the information is whole, sound, and unimpaired (not necessarily correct). It means nothing is missing from the information it is complete and in intended good order". === Availability === Availability means having timely access to information. For example: A disk crash or denial-of-service attacks both cause a breach of availability. Any delay in response of a system that exceeds the expected service levels for that system can be described as a breach of availability. GPS jamming can lead to loss of Availability of the GPS system. == Parker's added attributes == === Authenticity === Authenticity is the "quality of being authentic or of established authority for truth and correctness". Parker defines it thus: "is the information genuine and accurate? Does it conform to reality and have validity?" and "authoritative, valid, true, real, genuine, or worthy of acceptance or belief by reason of conformity to fact and reality". === Possession or control === Possession or control refers to the loss of data by the authorized user (even if the ʺthiefʺ cannot access the data). From a control systems perspective, it is any loss of control (the ability to change settings and functions) or loss of view (the ability to monitor the system’s operation and its response to controls). Suppose a thief were to steal a sealed envelope containing a bank debit card and its personal identification number. Even if the thief did not open that envelope, it's reasonable for the victim to be concerned that the thief could do so at any time. That situation illustrates a loss of control or possession of information but does not involve the breach of confidentiality. === Utility === Utility refers to the data's usefulness. For example: Suppose someone encrypted data on disk to prevent unauthorized access or undetected modifications–and then lost the decryption key: that would be a breach of utility. The data would be confidential, controlled, integral, authentic, and available–they just wouldn't be useful in that form. The conversion of salary data from one currency into an inappropriate currency would be a breach of utility, as would the storage of data in a format inappropriate for a specific computer architecture; e.g., EBCDIC instead of ASCII or 9-track magnetic tape instead of DVD-ROM. A tabular representation of data substituted for a graph could be described as a breach of utility if the substitution made it more difficult to interpret the data. Utility is often confused with availability because breaches such as those described in these examples may also require time to work around the change in data format or presentation. However, the concept of usefulness is distinct from that of availability.

Variational autoencoder

In machine learning, a variational autoencoder (VAE) is an artificial neural network architecture introduced by Diederik P. Kingma and Max Welling in 2013. It is part of the families of probabilistic graphical models and variational Bayesian methods. In addition to being seen as an autoencoder neural network architecture, variational autoencoders can also be studied within the mathematical formulation of variational Bayesian methods, connecting a neural encoder network to its decoder through a probabilistic latent space (for example, as a multivariate Gaussian distribution) that corresponds to the parameters of a variational distribution. Thus, the encoder maps each point (such as an image) from a large complex dataset into a distribution within the latent space, rather than to a single point in that space. The decoder has the opposite function, which is to map from the latent space to the input space, again according to a distribution (although in practice, noise is rarely added during the decoding stage). By mapping a point to a distribution instead of a single point, the network can avoid overfitting the training data. Both networks are typically trained together with the usage of the reparameterization trick, although the variance of the noise model can be learned separately. Although this type of model was initially designed for unsupervised learning, its effectiveness has been proven for semi-supervised learning and supervised learning. == Overview of architecture and operation == A variational autoencoder is a generative model with a prior and noise distribution respectively. Usually such models are trained using the expectation-maximization meta-algorithm (e.g. probabilistic PCA, (spike & slab) sparse coding). Such a scheme optimizes a lower bound of the data likelihood, which is usually computationally intractable, and in doing so requires the discovery of q-distributions, or variational posteriors. These q-distributions are normally parameterized for each individual data point in a separate optimization process. However, variational autoencoders use a neural network as an amortized approach to jointly optimize across data points. In that way, the same parameters are reused for multiple data points, which can result in massive memory savings. The first neural network takes as input the data points themselves, and outputs parameters for the variational distribution. As it maps from a known input space to the low-dimensional latent space, it is called the encoder. The decoder is the second neural network of this model. It is a function that maps from the latent space to the input space, e.g. as the means of the noise distribution. It is possible to use another neural network that maps to the variance, however this can be omitted for simplicity. In such a case, the variance can be optimized with gradient descent. To optimize this model, one needs to know two terms: the "reconstruction error", and the Kullback–Leibler divergence (KL-D). Both terms are derived from the free energy expression of the probabilistic model, and therefore differ depending on the noise distribution and the assumed prior of the data, here referred to as p-distribution. For example, a standard VAE task such as IMAGENET is typically assumed to have a gaussianly distributed noise; however, tasks such as binarized MNIST require a Bernoulli noise. The KL-D from the free energy expression maximizes the probability mass of the q-distribution that overlaps with the p-distribution, which unfortunately can result in mode-seeking behaviour. The "reconstruction" term is the remainder of the free energy expression, and requires a sampling approximation to compute its expectation value. More recent approaches replace Kullback–Leibler divergence (KL-D) with various statistical distances, see "Statistical distance VAE variants" below. == Formulation == From the point of view of probabilistic modeling, one wants to maximize the likelihood of the data x {\displaystyle x} by their chosen parameterized probability distribution p θ ( x ) = p ( x | θ ) {\displaystyle p_{\theta }(x)=p(x|\theta )} . This distribution is usually chosen to be a Gaussian N ( x | μ , σ ) {\displaystyle N(x|\mu ,\sigma )} which is parameterized by μ {\displaystyle \mu } and σ {\displaystyle \sigma } respectively, and as a member of the exponential family it is easy to work with as a noise distribution. Simple distributions are easy enough to maximize, however distributions where a prior is assumed over the latents z {\displaystyle z} results in intractable integrals. Let us find p θ ( x ) {\displaystyle p_{\theta }(x)} via marginalizing over z {\displaystyle z} . p θ ( x ) = ∫ z p θ ( x , z ) d z , {\displaystyle p_{\theta }(x)=\int _{z}p_{\theta }({x,z})\,dz,} where p θ ( x , z ) {\displaystyle p_{\theta }({x,z})} represents the joint distribution under p θ {\displaystyle p_{\theta }} of the observable data x {\displaystyle x} and its latent representation or encoding z {\displaystyle z} . According to the chain rule, the equation can be rewritten as p θ ( x ) = ∫ z p θ ( x | z ) p θ ( z ) d z {\displaystyle p_{\theta }(x)=\int _{z}p_{\theta }({x|z})p_{\theta }(z)\,dz} In the vanilla variational autoencoder, z {\displaystyle z} is usually taken to be a finite-dimensional vector of real numbers, and p θ ( x | z ) {\displaystyle p_{\theta }({x|z})} to be a Gaussian distribution. Then p θ ( x ) {\displaystyle p_{\theta }(x)} is a mixture of Gaussian distributions. It is now possible to define the set of the relationships between the input data and its latent representation as Prior p θ ( z ) {\displaystyle p_{\theta }(z)} Likelihood p θ ( x | z ) {\displaystyle p_{\theta }(x|z)} Posterior p θ ( z | x ) {\displaystyle p_{\theta }(z|x)} Unfortunately, the computation of p θ ( z | x ) {\displaystyle p_{\theta }(z|x)} is expensive and in most cases intractable. To speed up the calculus to make it feasible, it is necessary to introduce a further function to approximate the posterior distribution as q ϕ ( z | x ) ≈ p θ ( z | x ) {\displaystyle q_{\phi }({z|x})\approx p_{\theta }({z|x})} with ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } defined as the set of real values that parametrize q {\displaystyle q} . This is sometimes called amortized inference, since by "investing" in finding a good q ϕ {\displaystyle q_{\phi }} , one can later infer z {\displaystyle z} from x {\displaystyle x} quickly without doing any integrals. In this way, the problem is to find a good probabilistic autoencoder, in which the conditional likelihood distribution p θ ( x | z ) {\displaystyle p_{\theta }(x|z)} is computed by the probabilistic decoder, and the approximated posterior distribution q ϕ ( z | x ) {\displaystyle q_{\phi }(z|x)} is computed by the probabilistic encoder. Parametrize the encoder as E ϕ {\displaystyle E_{\phi }} , and the decoder as D θ {\displaystyle D_{\theta }} . == Evidence lower bound (ELBO) == Like many deep learning approaches that use gradient-based optimization, VAEs require a differentiable loss function to update the network weights through backpropagation. For variational autoencoders, the idea is to jointly optimize the generative model parameters θ {\displaystyle \theta } to reduce the reconstruction error between the input and the output, and ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } to make q ϕ ( z | x ) {\displaystyle q_{\phi }({z|x})} as close as possible to p θ ( z | x ) {\displaystyle p_{\theta }(z|x)} . As reconstruction loss, mean squared error and cross entropy are often used. The Kullback–Leibler divergence D K L ( q ϕ ( z | x ) ∥ p θ ( z | x ) ) {\displaystyle D_{KL}(q_{\phi }({z|x})\parallel p_{\theta }({z|x}))} can be used as a loss function to squeeze q ϕ ( z | x ) {\displaystyle q_{\phi }({z|x})} under p θ ( z | x ) {\displaystyle p_{\theta }(z|x)} . This divergence loss expands to D K L ( q ϕ ( z | x ) ∥ p θ ( z | x ) ) = E z ∼ q ϕ ( ⋅ | x ) [ ln ⁡ q ϕ ( z | x ) p θ ( z | x ) ] = E z ∼ q ϕ ( ⋅ | x ) [ ln ⁡ q ϕ ( z | x ) p θ ( x ) p θ ( x , z ) ] = ln ⁡ p θ ( x ) + E z ∼ q ϕ ( ⋅ | x ) [ ln ⁡ q ϕ ( z | x ) p θ ( x , z ) ] . {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}D_{KL}(q_{\phi }({z|x})\parallel p_{\theta }({z|x}))&=\mathbb {E} _{z\sim q_{\phi }(\cdot |x)}\left[\ln {\frac {q_{\phi }(z|x)}{p_{\theta }(z|x)}}\right]\\&=\mathbb {E} _{z\sim q_{\phi }(\cdot |x)}\left[\ln {\frac {q_{\phi }({z|x})p_{\theta }(x)}{p_{\theta }(x,z)}}\right]\\&=\ln p_{\theta }(x)+\mathbb {E} _{z\sim q_{\phi }(\cdot |x)}\left[\ln {\frac {q_{\phi }({z|x})}{p_{\theta }(x,z)}}\right].\end{aligned}}} Now, define the evidence lower bound (ELBO): L θ , ϕ ( x ) := E z ∼ q ϕ ( ⋅ | x ) [ ln ⁡ p θ ( x , z ) q ϕ ( z | x ) ] = ln ⁡ p θ ( x ) − D K L ( q ϕ ( ⋅ | x ) ∥ p θ ( ⋅ | x ) ) {\displaystyle L_{\theta ,\phi }(x):=\mathbb {E} _{z\sim q_{\phi }(\cdot |x)}\left[\ln {\frac {p_{\theta }(x,z)}{q_{\phi }({z|x})}}\right]=\ln p_{\theta }(x)-D_{KL}(q_{\phi }({\cdot |x})\parallel p_{\theta }({\cdot |x}))} Maximizing the ELBO θ ∗ , ϕ ∗ = argmax θ , ϕ L θ , ϕ ( x ) {\dis