AI Chatbots and Assistants

Explore the best AI Chatbots and Assistants — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step how-to guides, curated by Aizhi.

• 

  Army Chief Information Officer/G-6

  In September 2020, the Army realigned the previously consolidated CIO/G-6 function into two separate roles, Office of the Chief Information Officer and Deputy Chief of Staff, G-6, that report to the secretary of the Army and chief of staff of the Army, respectively. The realignment came after several months of planning and coordination. Lt. Gen. John Morrison was nominated to the Senate for promotion and assignment as the G-6 and confirmed, assuming that position in August 2020. Subsequently, the Secretary of the Army, Ryan McCarthy appointed Dr. Raj G. Iyer as the first civilian Chief Information Officer, a career Senior Executive Service position in November 2020. == G-6 == Advise chief of staff of the Army and the Chief Information Officer on planning, fielding, and execution of C4IT worldwide Army operations Develop and execute the plan for the Unified Network Implement Army information assurance Supervise C4IT, Signal support, Information security, Force structure and equipping activities in support of warfighting operations Oversee management of the Signal forces == Planned realignment == On June 11, 2020, the Army announced that the two roles of CIO and Deputy Chief of Staff, G-6 (DCS, G-6) would be realigned no later than August 31, 2020, with separate individuals responsible for each position. With the realignment: CIO core functions will be policy, governance, and oversight. Focus areas include: Information Environment, Cybersecurity, Enterprise Architecture, and Data Policy/Oversight/Governance, Enterprise Architecture, Enterprise Cloud Management and IT Spend/Category Management. DCS, G-6 core functions will be planning, strategy, and implementation. Focus areas include: Information Environment/Network, Planning and Integration, Theater Synchronization, Architecture Integration, Enterprise Information Environment (EIE) Mission Area Portfolio Management and Mission Decision Packet Management. In order to support multi-domain operations, the Army will have to connect Enterprise networks and tactical networks. —LTG Morrison, DCS, G-6 DCS G-6 released the Army Unified Network Plan under the Army Digital Transformation Strategy, to help the Army to establish a Multi-Domain Operations capable force by 2028. The Unified Network will enable Army formations, as part of the Joint Force, to operate in highly contested and congested operational environments with the speed and global range to achieve decision dominance and maintain overmatch. The plan shapes, synchronizes, integrates and governs Unified Network efforts and aligns the personnel, organizational structure and capabilities required to enable MDO at all echelons. == Chief signal officers and their successors == Chief signal officers (1860–1964) Maj. Albert J. Myer 1860–1863 Lt. Col. William J. L. Nicodemus 1863–1864 Col. Benjamin F. Fisher 1864–1866 Col. Albert J. Myer 1866–1880 (promoted to brigadier general 16 June 1880) Brig. Gen. William B. Hazen 1880–1887 Brig. Gen. Adolphus W. Greely 1887–1906 Brig. Gen. James Allen 1906–1913 Brig. Gen. George P. Scriven 1913–1917 Brig. Gen. George O. Squier 1917–1923 (promoted to major general 6 October 1917) Maj. Gen. Charles McK. Saltzman 1924–1928 Maj. Gen. George Sabin Gibbs 1928–1931 Maj. Gen. Irving J. Carr 1931–1934 Maj. Gen. James B. Allison 1935–1937 Maj. Gen. Joseph O. Mauborgne 1937–1941 Maj. Gen. Dawson Olmstead 1941–1943 Maj. Gen. Harry C. Ingles 1943–1947 Maj. Gen. Spencer B. Akin 1947–1951 Maj. Gen. George I. Back 1951–1955 Lt. Gen. James D. O’Connell 1955–1959 Maj. Gen. Ralph T. Nelson 1959–1962 Maj. Gen. Earle F. Cook 1962–1963 Maj. Gen. David Parker Gibbs 1963–1964 Chiefs of communications-electronics (1964–1967) Maj. Gen. David Parker Gibbs 1964–1966 Maj. Gen. Walter E. Lotz, Jr. 1966–1967 Assistant chiefs of staff for communications-electronics (1967–1974) Maj. Gen. Walter E. Lotz, Jr. 1967–1968 Maj. Gen. George E. Pickett 1968–1972 Lt. Gen. Thomas Rienzi 1972–1974 Directors of telecommunications and command and control (1974–1978) (a directorate of ODCSOPS) Lt. Gen. Thomas Rienzi 1974–1977 Lt. Gen. Charles R. Myer 1977–1978 Assistant chiefs of staff for automation and communications (1978–1981) Lt. Gen. Charles R. Myer 1978–1979 Maj. Gen. Clay T. Buckingham 1979–1981 Assistant deputy chiefs of staff for operations and plans (command, control, communications, and computers) (1981–1984) Maj. Gen. Clay T. Buckingham 1981–1982 Maj. Gen. James M. Rockwell 1982–1984 Assistant chiefs of staff for information management (1984–1987) Lt. Gen. David K. Doyle 1984–1986 Lt. Gen. Thurman D. Rodgers 1986–1987 Directors of information systems for command, control, communications, and computers Lt. Gen. Thurman D. Rodgers 1987–1988 Lt. Gen. Bruce R. Harris 1988–1990 Lt. Gen. Jerome B. Hilmes 1990–1992 Lt. Gen. Peter A. Kind 1992–1994 Lt. Gen. Otto J. Guenther 1995–1997 Lt. Gen. William H. Campbell Chief Information Officer, Military Deputy to the Army Acquisition Executive, and Director of Information Systems for Command, Control, Communications and Computers Lt. Gen. William H. Campbell 1997–2000

  Read more →
• 

  Manhattan address algorithm

  The Manhattan address algorithm is a series of formulas used to estimate the closest east–west cross street for building numbers on north–south avenues in the New York City borough of Manhattan. == Algorithm == To find the approximate number of the closest cross street, divide the building number by a divisor (generally 20) and add (or subtract) the "tricky number" from the table below: For the north–south avenues, there are typically 20 address numbers between consecutive east–west streets (10 on either side of the avenue). A standard land lot on each avenue was originally 20 feet (6.1 m) wide, and there is about 200 feet (61 m) between each pair of east–west streets, for ten land lots between each pair of streets. The exceptions are Riverside Drive, as well as Fifth Avenue and Central Park West between 59th and 110th streets, which use a divisor of 10. These avenues all have buildings only on one side of the street, with a park on the other side. The "tricky number" often corresponds to a street near the southern end of the avenue. There are some notable exceptions: York Avenue address numbers are continuations of Avenue A address numbers, since the avenue was originally called Avenue A. East End Avenue address numbers are continuations of Avenue B address numbers, since the avenue was originally called Avenue B. Sixth Avenue and Broadway start south of Houston Street, the southern boundary of the Manhattan street numbering system. Although Park Avenue's southern terminus is at 32nd Street, a homeowner at 34th Street wanted the address "1 Park Avenue" (this was later changed). === Examples === For example, if you are at 62 Avenue B, 62 ÷ 20 ≈ 3 {\displaystyle 62\div 20\approx 3} , then add the "tricky number" 3 {\displaystyle 3} to give 6 {\displaystyle 6} . The nearest cross street to 62 Avenue B is East 6th Street. If you are at 78 Riverside Drive, 78 ÷ 10 ≈ 8 {\displaystyle 78\div 10\approx 8} , then add the "tricky number" 72 {\displaystyle 72} to give 80 {\displaystyle 80} . The nearest cross street to 78 Riverside Drive is West 80th Street. If you are at 501 5th Avenue, 501 ÷ 20 ≈ 25 {\displaystyle 501\div 20\approx 25} , then add the "tricky number" 18 {\displaystyle 18} to give 43 {\displaystyle 43} . The nearest cross street to 501 5th Avenue is actually 42nd Street, not 43rd Street, as the Manhattan address algorithm only gives approximate answers.

  Read more →
• 

  Operational historian

  In manufacturing, an operational historian is a time-series database application that is developed for operational process data. Historian software is often embedded or used in conjunction with standard DCS and PLC control systems to provide enhanced data capture, validation, compression, and aggregation capabilities. Historians have been deployed in almost every industry and contribute to functions such as supervisory control, performance monitoring, quality assurance, and, more recently, machine learning applications which can learn from vast quantities of historical data. These systems were originally developed to capture instrumentation and control data, which led many to use the term "tag" for a stream of process data, referring to the physical "tags" which had been placed on instrumentation for manually capturing data. Raw data may be accessed via OPC HDA, SQL, or REST API interfaces. == Operational Support == Operational historians are typically used within the manufacturing facility by engineers and operators for supervisory functions and analysis. An operational historian will typically capture all instrumentation and control data, whereas an enterprise historian that is deployed to support business functions will capture only a subset of the plant data. Typically, these applications offer data access through dedicated APIs (Application Programming Interfaces) and SDKs (Software Development Kits) which offer high-performance read and write operations. These operate through vendor-specific or custom applications. Front-end tools for trending process data over time are the most common interfaces to these databases. Because these applications are typically deployed next to or near the source of their process data, they are often marketed and sold as 'real-time database systems.' This distinction varies among vendors, who often have to make tradeoffs in performance between data capture and presentation, and application and analysis functionality. The following is a list of typical challenges for operational historians: data collection from instrumentation and controls storage and archiving of very large volumes of data organization of data in the form of "tags" or "points" limiting of monitoring (alarms) and validation aggregation and interpolation manual data entry (MDE) == Data access == As opposed to enterprise historians, the data access layer in the operational historian is designed to offer sophisticated data fetching modes without complex information analysis facilities. The following settings are typically available for data access operations: Data scope (single point or tag, history based on time range, history based on sample count) Request modes (raw data, last-known value, aggregation, interpolation) Sampling (single point, all points without sampling, all points with interval sampling) Data omission (based on the sample quality, based on the sample value, based on the count) Even though the operational historians are rarely relational database management systems, they often offer SQL-based interfaces to query the database. In most of such implementations, the dialect does not follow the SQL standard in order to provide syntax for specifying data access operations parameters.

  Read more →
• 

  Learning augmented algorithm

  A learning augmented algorithm (also called algorithm with predictions) is an algorithm that can make use of a prediction to improve its performance. Whereas in regular algorithms just the problem instance is inputted, learning augmented algorithms accept an extra parameter. This extra parameter often is a prediction of some property of the solution. This prediction is then used by the algorithm to improve its running time or the quality of its output. The most common application are online algorithms, where a prediction on the uncertain instance is provided. == Description == A learning augmented algorithm typically takes an input ( I , A ) {\displaystyle ({\mathcal {I}},{\mathcal {A}})} . Here I {\displaystyle {\mathcal {I}}} is a problem instance and A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} is the prediction. A prediction can be any object. Common are the following types: Prediction of an optimal solution. The prediction gives a solution to the problem or characterizes an optimal solution. Prediction of the input. This is mainly used for online problems. Prediction of algorithmic actions. A prediction tailored to a specific algorithm that suggests a specific algorithm execution. Learning augmented algorithms usually satisfy the following three properties: Consistency. A learning augmented algorithm is said to be consistent if the algorithm can be proven to have a good performance when it is provided with an accurate prediction. Smoothness. A learning augmented algorithm is called smooth if its performance can be bounded by a function of the quality of the prediction. Here, the quality can be measured in a problem specific way. This is also called the prediction error. Robustness. A learning augmented algorithm is called robust if its worst-case performance can be bounded even if the given prediction is inaccurate. Learning augmented algorithms generally do not prescribe how the prediction should be done. For this purpose machine learning can be used. == Applications == A few examples of problems where learning augmented algorithms have been applied are the following. === Online algorithms === The ski rental problem The weighted paging problem The set cover problem Nonclairvoyant scheduling The online bipartite matching problem === Warm starting === ==== Data structures ==== The binary search algorithm is an algorithm for finding elements of a sorted list x 1 , … , x n {\displaystyle x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n}} . It needs O ( log ⁡ ( n ) ) {\displaystyle O(\log(n))} steps to find an element with some known value y {\displaystyle y} in a list of length n {\displaystyle n} . With a prediction i {\displaystyle i} for the position of y {\displaystyle y} , the following learning augmented algorithm can be used. First, look at position i {\displaystyle i} in the list. If x i = y {\displaystyle x_{i}=y} , the element has been found. If x i < y {\displaystyle x_{i} y {\displaystyle x_{i}>y} , do the same as in the previous case, but instead consider i − 1 , i − 2 , i − 4 , … {\displaystyle i-1,i-2,i-4,\ldots } . The error is defined to be η = | i − i ∗ | {\displaystyle \eta =|i-i^{}|} , where i ∗ {\displaystyle i^{}} is the real index of y {\displaystyle y} . In the learning augmented algorithm, probing the positions i + 1 , i + 2 , i + 4 , … {\displaystyle i+1,i+2,i+4,\ldots } takes log 2 ⁡ ( η ) {\displaystyle \log _{2}(\eta )} steps. Then a binary search is performed on a list of size at most 2 η {\displaystyle 2\eta } , which takes log 2 ⁡ ( η ) {\displaystyle \log _{2}(\eta )} steps. This makes the total running time of the algorithm 2 log 2 ⁡ ( η ) {\displaystyle 2\log _{2}(\eta )} . So, when the error is small, the algorithm is faster than a normal binary search. This shows that the algorithm is consistent. Even in the worst case, the error will be at most n {\displaystyle n} . Then the algorithm takes at most O ( log ⁡ ( n ) ) {\displaystyle O(\log(n))} steps, so the algorithm is robust. ==== More examples ==== The maximum weight matching problem === Approximation algorithms === The maximum cut problem The vertex cover problem === Mechanism Design === The facility location problem

  Read more →
• 

  Hint (app)

  Hint (hint.app) is an American software platform that provides astrological content, personality assessments, and relationship compatibility tools. The application was launched in 2018 and is based in Claymont, Delaware. The platform has been described in media coverage as part of a broader trend of astrology-based and self-reflection applications, particularly among younger users. As of 2026, the company reports that it has reached more than 25 million users worldwide. == History == Hint was founded in 2018 and is headquartered in Claymont, Delaware. The platform was developed to address a growing demand among Millennials and Gen Z for structured self-reflection tools that deviate from traditional religious or clinical psychological frameworks. The app has become a prominent figure in the "emotional technology" sector, reaching over 25 million global users by 2026. The platform is frequently cited by sociologists and media outlets as a primary driver of the Open-source intelligence trend, where individuals use digital tools to vet and analyze personal relationships in the dating economy. Media coverage has described the platform as part of a broader trend in which digital tools incorporate astrology and symbolic frameworks into wellness and relationship advice. == Reception == Coverage of Hint has appeared alongside reporting on changing attitudes toward dating and relationships, particularly among younger adults. Surveys reported by media outlets have described shifts in dating behavior, including reduced interest in casual relationships and increased reliance on digital tools for emotional reflection and compatibility assessment. Additional reporting has linked the use of astrology apps to broader trends in emotional fatigue and changing relationship expectations. Lifestyle and culture publications have described Hint, as an example of applications that integrate astrology into digital self-reflection and relationship analysis.

  Read more →
• 

  Shapiro–Senapathy algorithm

  The Shapiro—Senapathy algorithm (S&S) is a computational method for identifying splice sites in eukaryotic genes. The algorithm employs a Position Weight Matrix (PWM) scoring formula to predict donor and acceptor splice sites in any given gene. This methodology has been used to discover splice sites and disease-causing splice site mutations in the human genome, and has become a standard tool in clinical genomics. The S&S algorithm has been cited in thousands of clinical studies, according to Google Scholar. It has also formed the basis of widely used software, including Human Splicing Finder, SROOGLE, and Alamut, which identify splice sites and splice site mutations that cause disease. The algorithm has uncovered splicing mutations in diseases ranging from cancers to inherited disorders, and predicted the deleterious effects of these mutations including exon skipping, intron retention, and cryptic splice site activation. == The algorithm == A splice site defines the boundary between a coding exon and a non-coding intron in eukaryotic genes. The S&S algorithm employs a sliding window, corresponding to the length of the splice site motif, to scan a gene sequence and detect potential splice sites. For each sliding window, the algorithm calculates a score by comparing the nucleotide sequence to a Position Weight Matrix (PWM) derived from known splice sites. This formula generates a percentile score, indicating the likelihood that a given sequence functions as a donor or acceptor splice site. The majority of disease-causing mutations in the human genome are located in splice sites. Clinical genomics studies analyze the splice site scores generated by the S&S algorithm to predict the consequences of splice site mutations including exon skipping and intron retention. The algorithm's sensitivity to single-nucleotide changes allows it to determine mutations that may impact RNA splicing and contribute to disease. In addition to identifying real splice sites, the S&S algorithm has been used to discover cryptic splice sites — alternative splice sites activated by mutations — which may disrupt normal splicing. The algorithm detects mutations that lead to the activation of cryptic splice sites, which may be located proximal to real splice sites or deep within non-coding introns. It has thus been used to determine the causes of numerous diseases that are due to cryptic splicing. == Cancer gene discovery using S&S == The S&S algorithm has been used to identify splice-site mutations in genes associated with several cancers. For example, genes causing commonly occurring cancers including breast cancer, ovarian cancer, colorectal cancer, leukemia, head and neck cancers, prostate cancer, retinoblastoma, squamous cell carcinoma, gastrointestinal cancer, melanoma, liver cancer, Lynch syndrome, skin cancer, and neurofibromatosis have been found. In addition, splicing mutations in genes causing less commonly known cancers including gastric cancer, gangliogliomas, Li-Fraumeni syndrome, Loeys–Dietz syndrome, Osteochondromas (bone tumor), Nevoid basal cell carcinoma syndrome, and Pheochromocytomas have been identified. Specific mutations in different splice sites in various genes causing breast cancer (e.g., BRCA1, PALB2), ovarian cancer (e.g., SLC9A3R1, COL7A1, HSD17B7), colon cancer (e.g., APC, MLH1, DPYD), colorectal cancer (e.g., COL3A1, APC, HLA-A), skin cancer (e.g., COL17A1, XPA, POLH), and Fanconi anemia (e.g., FANC, FANA) have been uncovered. The mutations in the donor and acceptor splice sites in different genes causing a variety of cancers that have been identified by S&S are shown in Table 1. == Discovery of genes causing inherited disorders using S&S == Specific mutations in different splice sites in various genes that cause inherited disorders, including, for example, Type 1 diabetes (e.g., PTPN22, TCF1 (HCF-1A)), hypertension (e.g., LDL, LDLR, LPL), Marfan syndrome (e.g., FBN1, TGFBR2, FBN2), cardiac diseases (e.g., COL1A2, MYBPC3, ACTC1), eye disorders (e.g., EVC, VSX1) have been uncovered. A few example mutations in the donor and acceptor splice sites in different genes causing a variety of inherited disorders identified using S&S are shown in Table 2. == Genes causing immune system disorders == More than 100 immune system disorders affect humans, including inflammatory bowel diseases, multiple sclerosis, systemic lupus erythematosus, bloom syndrome, familial cold autoinflammatory syndrome, and dyskeratosis congenita. The Shapiro–Senapathy algorithm has been used to discover genes and mutations involved in many immune disorder diseases, including Ataxia telangiectasia, B-cell defects, epidermolysis bullosa, and X-linked agammaglobulinemia. Xeroderma pigmentosum, an autosomal recessive disorder is caused by faulty proteins formed due to new preferred splice donor site identified using S&S algorithm and resulted in defective nucleotide excision repair. Type I Bartter syndrome (BS) is caused by mutations in the gene SLC12A1. S&S algorithm helped in disclosing the presence of two novel heterozygous mutations c.724 + 4A > G in intron 5 and c.2095delG in intron 16 leading to complete exon 5 skipping. Mutations in the MYH gene, which is responsible for removing the oxidatively damaged DNA lesion are cancer-susceptible in the individuals. The IVS1+5C plays a causative role in the activation of a cryptic splice donor site and the alternative splicing in intron 1, S&S algorithm shows, guanine (G) at the position of IVS+5 is well conserved (at the frequency of 84%) among primates. This also supported the fact that the G/C SNP in the conserved splice junction of the MYH gene causes the alternative splicing of intron 1 of the β type transcript. Splice site scores were calculated according to S&S to find EBV infection in X-linked lymphoproliferative disease. Identification of Familial tumoral calcinosis (FTC) is an autosomal recessive disorder characterized by ectopic calcifications and elevated serum phosphate levels and it is because of aberrant splicing. == Application of S&S in hospitals for clinical practice and research == The Shapiro–Senapathy (S&S) algorithm has played a significant role in advancing the diagnosis and treatment of human diseases through its application in modern clinical genomics. With the widespread adoption of next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies, the S&S algorithm is now routinely integrated into clinical practice by geneticists and diagnostic laboratories. It is implemented in various computational tools such as Human Splicing Finder (HSF), Splice Site Finder (SSF), and Alamut Visual, which assist in interpreting the functional impact of genetic variants on RNA splicing. The algorithm is particularly useful in identifying pathogenic splice site mutations in cases where the clinical presentation is unclear or where conventional diagnostic methods have failed to identify a causative gene. Its utility has been demonstrated across diverse patient cohorts, including individuals from different ethnic backgrounds with various cancers and inherited genetic disorders. The following are selected examples illustrating its application in clinical research. === Cancers === === Inherited disorders === == S&S - Algorithm for identifying splice sites, exons and split genes == The Shapiro–Senapathy algorithm (SSA) was developed to identify splice sites in uncharacterized genomic sequences, with early applications in the Human Genome Project. The method introduced a Position Weight Matrix (PWM)-based approach to analyze splicing sequences across eukaryotic organisms, marking the first computational framework to systematically define splice sites using probabilistic scoring. Key innovations of the algorithm included: Exon Detection – Exons were defined as sequences bounded by acceptor and donor splice sites with S&S scores above a threshold, requiring an open reading frame (ORF) for validation. Gene Prediction – The method enabled the identification of complete genes by assembling predicted exons, forming a basis for later gene-finding tools. Mutation Analysis – The algorithm distinguishes deleterious splice-site mutations (which disrupt protein function by lowering S&S scores) from neutral variations. This capability allowed researchers to study disease-linked cryptic splice sites in humans, animals, and plants. SSA's PWM-based framework influenced subsequent computational methods, including machine learning and neural network approaches, for splice-site prediction and alternative splicing research. It remains a foundational tool in genomics and disease studies. == Discovering the mechanisms of aberrant splicing in diseases == The Shapiro–Senapathy algorithm has been used to determine the various aberrant splicing mechanisms in genes due to deleterious mutations in the splice sites, which cause numerous diseases. Deleterious splice site mutations impair the normal splicing of the gene transcripts, and thereby make the encoded protei

  Read more →
• 

  WCF Data Services

  WCF Data Services (formerly ADO.NET Data Services, codename "Astoria") is a platform for what Microsoft calls Data Services. It is actually a combination of the runtime and a web service through which the services are exposed. It also includes the Data Services Toolkit which lets Astoria Data Services be created from within ASP.NET itself. The Astoria project was announced at MIX 2007, and the first developer preview was made available on April 30, 2007. The first CTP was made available as a part of the ASP.NET 3.5 Extensions Preview. The final version was released as part of Service Pack 1 of the .NET Framework 3.5 on August 11, 2008. The name change from ADO.NET Data Services to WCF data Services was announced at the 2009 PDC. == Overview == WCF Data Services exposes data, represented as Entity Data Model (EDM) objects, via web services accessed over HTTP. The data can be addressed using a REST-like URI. The data service, when accessed via the HTTP GET method with such a URI, will return the data. The web service can be configured to return the data in either plain XML, JSON or RDF+XML. In the initial release, formats like RSS and ATOM are not supported, though they may be in the future. In addition, using other HTTP methods like PUT, POST or DELETE, the data can be updated as well. POST can be used to create new entities, PUT for updating an entity, and DELETE for deleting an entity. == Description == Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) comes to the rescue when we find ourselves not able to achieve what we want to achieve using web services, i.e., other protocols support and even duplex communication. With WCF, we can define our service once and then configure it in such a way that it can be used via HTTP, TCP, IPC, and even Message Queues. We can consume Web Services using server side scripts (ASP.NET), JavaScript Object Notations (JSON), and even REST (Representational State Transfer). Understanding the basics When we say that a WCF service can be used to communicate using different protocols and from different kinds of applications, we will need to understand how we can achieve this. If we want to use a WCF service from an application, then we have three major questions: 1.Where is the WCF service located from a client's perspective? 2.How can a client access the service, i.e., protocols and message formats? 3.What is the functionality that a service is providing to the clients? Once we have the answer to these three questions, then creating and consuming the WCF service will be a lot easier for us. The WCF service has the concept of endpoints. A WCF service provides endpoints which client applications can use to communicate with the WCF service. The answer to these above questions is what is known as the ABC of WCF services and in fact are the main components of a WCF service. So let's tackle each question one by one. Address: Like a webservice, a WCF service also provides a URI which can be used by clients to get to the WCF service. This URI is called as the Address of the WCF service. This will solve the first problem of "where to locate the WCF service?" for us. Binding: Once we are able to locate the WCF service, one should think about how to communicate with the service (protocol wise). The binding is what defines how the WCF service handles the communication. It could also define other communication parameters like message encoding, etc. This will solve the second problem of "how to communicate with the WCF service?" for us. Contract: Now the only question one is left with is about the functionalities that a WCF service provides. The contract is what defines the public data and interfaces that WCF service provides to the clients. The URIs representing the data will contain the physical location of the service, as well as the service name. It will also need to specify an EDM Entity-Set or a specific entity instance, as in respectively http://dataserver/service.svc/MusicCollection or http://dataserver/service.svc/MusicCollection[SomeArtist] The former will list all entities in the Collection set whereas the latter will list only for the entity which is indexed by SomeArtist. The URIs can also specify a traversal of a relationship in the Entity Data Model. For example, http://dataserver/service.svc/MusicCollection[SomeSong]/Genre traverses the relationship Genre (in SQL parlance, joins with the Genre table) and retrieves all instances of Genre that are associated with the entity SomeSong. Simple predicates can also be specified in the URI, like http://dataserver/service.svc/MusicCollection[SomeArtist]/ReleaseDate[Year eq 2006] will fetch the items that are indexed by SomeArtist and had their release in 2006. Filtering and partition information can also be encoded in the URL as http://dataserver/service.svc/MusicCollection?$orderby=ReleaseDate&$skip=100&$top=50 Although the presence of skip and top keywords indicates paging support, in Data Services version 1 there is no method of determining the number of records available and thus impossible to determine how many pages there may be. The OData 2.0 spec adds support for the $count path segment (to return just a count of entities) and $inlineCount (to retrieve a page worth of entities and a total count without a separate round-trip....).

  Read more →
• 

  Gutmann method

  The Gutmann method is an algorithm for securely erasing the contents of computer hard disk drives, such as files. Devised by Peter Gutmann and Colin Plumb and presented in the paper Secure Deletion of Data from Magnetic and Solid-State Memory in July 1996, it involved writing a series of 35 patterns over the region to be erased. The selection of patterns assumes that the user does not know the encoding mechanism used by the drive, so it includes patterns designed specifically for three types of drives. A user who knows which type of encoding the drive uses can choose only those patterns intended for their drive. A drive with a different encoding mechanism would need different patterns. Most of the patterns in the Gutmann method were designed for older MFM/RLL-encoded disks. Gutmann himself has noted that more modern drives no longer use these older encoding techniques, making parts of the method irrelevant. He said "In the time since this paper was published, some people have treated the 35-pass overwrite technique described in it more as a kind of voodoo incantation to banish evil spirits than the result of a technical analysis of drive encoding techniques". Since about 2001, some ATA IDE and SATA hard drive manufacturer designs include support for the ATA Secure Erase standard, obviating the need to apply the Gutmann method when erasing an entire drive. The Gutmann method does not apply to USB sticks: a 2011 study reports that 71.7% of data remained available. On solid state drives it resulted in 0.8–4.3% recovery. == Background == The delete function in most operating systems simply marks the space occupied by the file as reusable (removes the pointer to the file) without immediately removing any of its contents. At this point the file can be fairly easily recovered by numerous recovery applications. However, once the space is overwritten with other data, there is no known way to use software to recover it. It cannot be done with software alone since the storage device only returns its current contents via its normal interface. Gutmann claims that intelligence agencies have sophisticated tools, including magnetic force microscopes, which together with image analysis, can detect the previous values of bits on the affected area of the media (for example hard disk). This claim however seems to be invalid based on the thesis "Data Reconstruction from a Hard Disk Drive using Magnetic Force Microscopy". == Method == An overwrite session consists of a lead-in of four random write patterns, followed by patterns 5 to 31 (see rows of table below), executed in a random order, and a lead-out of four more random patterns. Each of patterns 5 to 31 was designed with a specific magnetic media encoding scheme in mind, which each pattern targets. The drive is written to for all the passes even though the table below only shows the bit patterns for the passes that are specifically targeted at each encoding scheme. The result should obscure any data on the drive so that only the most advanced physical scanning (e.g., using a magnetic force microscope) of the drive is likely to be able to recover any data. The series of patterns is as follows: Encoded bits shown in bold are what should be present in the ideal pattern, although due to the encoding the complementary bit is actually present at the start of the track. == Criticism == Daniel Feenberg of the National Bureau of Economic Research, an American private nonprofit research organization, criticized Gutmann's claim that intelligence agencies are likely to be able to read overwritten data, citing a lack of evidence for such claims. He finds that Gutmann cites one non-existent source and sources that do not actually demonstrate recovery, only partially-successful observations. The definition of "random" is also quite different from the usual one used: Gutmann expects the use of pseudorandom data with sequences known to the recovering side, not an unpredictable one such as a cryptographically secure pseudorandom number generator. Nevertheless, some published government security procedures consider an overwritten disk to still be sensitive. Human factors and potential limitations in the overwriting software create a residual risk that is not considered acceptable at the highest security levels. Gutmann himself has responded to some of these criticisms and also criticized how his algorithm has been abused in an epilogue to his original paper, in which he states: In the time since this paper was published, some people have treated the 35-pass overwrite technique described in it more as a kind of voodoo incantation to banish evil spirits than the result of a technical analysis of drive encoding techniques. As a result, they advocate applying the voodoo to PRML and EPRML drives even though it will have no more effect than a simple scrubbing with random data. In fact performing the full 35-pass overwrite is pointless for any drive since it targets a blend of scenarios involving all types of (normally-used) encoding technology, which covers everything back to 30+-year-old MFM methods (if you don't understand that statement, re-read the paper). If you're using a drive which uses encoding technology X, you only need to perform the passes specific to X, and you never need to perform all 35 passes. For any modern PRML/EPRML drive, a few passes of random scrubbing is the best you can do. As the paper says, "A good scrubbing with random data will do about as well as can be expected". This was true in 1996, and is still true now. Gutmann's statement has been criticized for not recognizing that PRML/EPRML does not replace RLL, with critics claiming PRML/EPRML to be a signal detection method rather than a data encoding method. Polish data recovery service Kaleron has also claimed that Gutmann's publication contains further factual errors and assumptions that do not apply to actual disks.

  Read more →
• 

  Toolchain

  A toolchain is a set of software development tools used to build and otherwise develop software. Often, the tools are executed sequentially and form a pipeline such that the output of one tool is the input for the next. Sometimes the term is used for a set of related tools that are not necessarily executed sequentially. A relatively common and simple toolchain consists of the tools to build for a particular operating system (OS) and CPU architecture: a compiler, a linker, and a debugger. With a cross-compiler, a toolchain can support cross-platform development. For building more complex software systems, many other tools may be in the toolchain. For example, for a video game, the toolchain may include tools for preparing sound effects, music, textures, 3-dimensional models and animations, and for combining these resources into the finished product.

  Read more →
• 

  Informetrics

  Informetrics is the study of quantitative aspects of information, it is an extension and evolution of traditional bibliometrics and scientometrics. Informetrics uses bibliometrics and scientometrics methods to study mainly the problems of literature information management and evaluation of science and technology. Informetrics is an independent discipline that uses quantitative methods from mathematics and statistics to study the process, phenomena, and law of informetrics. Informetrics has gained more attention as it is a common scientific method for academic evaluation, research hotspots in discipline, and trend analysis. Informetrics includes the production, dissemination, and use of all forms of information, regardless of its form or origin. Informetrics encompasses the following fields: Scientometrics, which studies quantitative aspects of science Webometrics, which studies quantitative aspects of the World Wide Web Bibliometrics, which studies quantitative aspects of recorded information Cybermetrics, which is similar to webometrics, but broadens its definition to include electronic resources == Origin and Development == The term informetrics (French: informétrie) was coined by German scholar Otto Nacke in 1979, and came from the German word 'informetrie’. The corresponding English terminology soon appeared in the subsequent literature. In September 1980, Professor Otto Nacke introduced the term 'informetrics' at the first seminar on Informetrics in Frankfurt, Germany. Later, Committee on Informetrics has established through The International Federation for Information and Documentation (FID). In 1987, informetrics started to be officially recognized by the international information community and several foreign information scientists. In 1988, at First International Conference on Bibliometrics and Theoretical Aspects of Information Retrieval Archived 2022-05-23 at the Wayback Machine, Brooks suggested bibliometrics and scientometrics can be included in the field of informetrics. In 1990, Leo Egghe and Ronald Rousseau proposed the formation of the discipline of informetrics: statistical bibliography (1923) to bibliometrics and scientometrics (1969) and then to informetrics (1979). In 1993, the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics (ISSI) Archived 2023-11-05 at the Wayback Machine was founded at the International Conference on Bibliometrics, Informetrics and Scientometrics in Berlin, and the first one was held in Belgium and organized by Leo Egghe and Ronald Rousseau. The society was formally incorporated in 1994 in the Netherlands and plays a significant role in the development of informetrics. The ISSI aims to promote the "exchange and communication of professional information in the fields of scientometrics and informetrics, including improve standards, theory and practice, as well as promote research, education and training". In addition, to "engage in relevant public conversation and policy discussions". In the western world, 20th century's Informetrics is mostly based on Lotka's law, named after Alfred J. Lotka, Zipf's law, named after George Kingsley Zipf, Bradford's law named after Samuel C. Bradford and on the work of Derek J. de Solla Price, Gerard Salton, Leo Egghe, Ronald Rousseau, Tibor Braun, Olle Persson, Peter Ingwersen, Manfred Bonitz, and Eugene Garfield. == Difference Between Informetrics, Bibliometrics and Scientometrics == Since the 1960s, three similar terms have emerged in the fields of library science, philology and science of science, they are bibliometrics, scientometrics and informetrics, representing three very similar quantitative sub-disciplines. The three metrics terms can be confusing and often misused. Informetrics and bibliometrics interpenetrate each other but have different aspects in research object, research scope, and measuring unit. Informetrics and scientometrics are very different in their research purpose and research object, as well as the research scope and application. Bibliometrics is categorised under the field of library science, it uses mathematical and statistical methods to describe, evaluate, and predict the current status and trends of science and technology. Also to study the "distribution structure, quantitative relationship, change law and quantitative management of literature information, quantitative relationships, patterns and quantitative management of literature and information". The term was first used by Alan Pritchard in 1969 in his paper Statistical Bibliography or Bibliometrics?. Scientometrics is a branch of science that quantitatively evaluates and predicts the process and management of scientific activities in order to reveal their development patterns and trends. The definition of scientometrics was described by Derek De Solla Price in his book Science to Science as the “quantitative study of science, communication in science, and science policy”. === Links between the three metrics terms === The most prominent connection between the three metrics terms is in their research objects. Since all three disciplines use literature information as their research object, therefore, they have some similarities and overlaps in their research methods and fields. Moreover, they all use mathematical methods as the basic research methods and they all apply the three basic laws, Bradford's law, Lotka's law and Zipf's law. === Distinctions between the three metrics terms === The distinction between the three metrics terms can tell from their research object and research purpose. The research of bibliometrics focuses on the analysis of "scientific output in the form of articles, publications, citations, and others". Scientometrics is to measure the basic characteristics and laws of scientific activities. Where informetrics is to investigate information sources and information distribution process. == Concept and System Structure == === Purpose of Informetrics Research === The main purpose of informetrics is to use its theocratical research to solve the methodological issues in the research process, and to discover and reveal the basic laws of information distribution through the study of information process and phenomenon. In this way, makes information management more scientific and provides a quantitative basis for information services and information management decisions. For informetrics, it is necessary to bring quantitative analysis methods to further reveal the structure of information units and the "quantitative change law of literature information”. Further to this, to improve the scientific accuracy of information science from a theoretical point of view. At the same time, to better solve the basic contradictions in the information service, overcome the information crisis, and make the information management work more effective to serve science and technology, economic and social development. Quantitative analysis of bibliographic data was pioneered by Robert K. Merton in an article called Science, Technology, and Society in Seventeenth Century England and originally published by Merton in 1938. === The Significance of Informetrics Research === The significance of informetrics research is to summarize various empirical laws from the theoretical point of view, at the same time test and modify the various empirical laws in the new information unit conditions, and explore its new applicability, therefore, the scientific nature of information science can be improved, but also to provide theoretical guidance for practical work. === The Objects of Informetrics Research === The object of informetrics is broader than the field of bibliometrics and scientometrics, including "messages, data, events, objects, text, and documents”. Informetrics is often used to inform policies and decisions across a broad range of fields, such as economy, politics, technology and social spheres that "influence the flow and use patterns of information". Tague-Sutcliffe describes the following uses of informetrics: Citation analysis; Characteristics of authors; Use of recorded information; Obsolescence of the literature; Concomitant growth of new concepts; Characteristics of publication sources; Definition and measurement o information; Growth of subject literature, databases, libraries; Types and characteristics of retrieval performance measures; Statistical aspects of language, word, and phrase frequencies. == Basic Laws == In the field of informetrics research, there are many outstanding contributors in the discipline with a solid knowledge of quantitative research methods. In the early 20th century, several scientists contributed empirical applications that have become the three basic laws of informetrics, Bradford's law, Lotka's law, and Zipf's law, which promote the development of informetrics. === Bradford's Law === The British documentalist and librarian Samuel C. Bradford first discovered the law of concentration and scattering of literature, and in 1934, it has be

  Read more →
• 

  Information literacy

  The Association of College and Research Libraries defines information literacy as a "set of integrated abilities encompassing the reflective discovery of information, the understanding of how information is produced and valued and the use of information in creating new knowledge and participating ethically in communities of learning". In the United Kingdom, the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals' definition also makes reference to knowing both "when" and "why" information is needed. The 1989 American Library Association (ALA) Presidential Committee on Information Literacy formally defined information literacy (IL) as attributes of an individual, stating that "to be information literate, a person must be able to recognize when information is needed and have the ability to locate, evaluate and use effectively the needed information". In 1990, academic Lori Arp published a paper asking, "Are information literacy instruction and bibliographic instruction the same?" Arp argued that neither term was particularly well defined by theoreticians or practitioners in the field. Further studies were needed to lessen the confusion and continue to articulate the parameters of the question. The Alexandria Proclamation of 2005 defined the term as a human rights issue: "Information literacy empowers people in all walks of life to seek, evaluate, use and create information effectively to achieve their personal, social, occupational and educational goals. It is a basic human right in a digital world and promotes social inclusion in all nations." The United States National Forum on Information Literacy defined information literacy as "the ability to know when there is a need for information, to be able to identify, locate, evaluate, and effectively use that information for the issue or problem at hand." Meanwhile, in the UK, the library professional body CILIP, define information literacy as "the ability to think critically and make balanced judgements about any information we find and use. It empowers us as citizens to develop informed views and to engage fully with society." A number of other efforts have been made to better define the concept and its relationship to other skills and forms of literacy. Other pedagogical outcomes related to information literacy include traditional literacy, computer literacy, research skills and critical thinking skills. Information literacy as a sub-discipline is an emerging topic of interest and counter measure among educators and librarians with the prevalence of misinformation, fake news, and disinformation. Scholars have argued that in order to maximize people's contributions to a democratic and pluralistic society, educators should be challenging governments and the business sector to support and fund educational initiatives in information literacy. == History == The phrase "information literacy" first appeared in print in a 1974 report written on behalf of the National Commission on Libraries and Information Science by Paul G. Zurkowski, who was at the time president of the Information Industry Association (now the Software and Information Industry Association). Zurkowski used the phrase to describe the "techniques and skills" learned by the information literate "for utilizing the wide range of information tools as well as primary sources in molding information solutions to their problems" and drew a relatively firm line between the "literates" and "information illiterates." The concept of information literacy appeared again in a 1976 paper by Lee Burchina presented at the Texas A&M University library's symposium. Burchina identified a set of skills needed to locate and use information for problem solving and decision making. In another 1976 article in Library Journal, M.R. Owens applied the concept to political information literacy and civic responsibility, stating, "All [people] are created equal but voters with information resources are in a position to make more intelligent decisions than citizens who are information illiterates. The application of information resources to the process of decision-making to fulfill civic responsibilities is a vital necessity." In a literature review published in an academic journal in 2020, Oral Roberts University professor Angela Sample cites several conceptual waves of information literacy definitions as defining information as a way of thinking, a set of skills, and a social practice. The introduction of these concepts led to the adoption of a mechanism called metaliteracy and the creation of threshold concepts and knowledge dispositions, which led to the creation of the ALA's Information Literacy Framework. The American Library Association's Presidential Committee on Information Literacy released a report on January 10, 1989. Titled as the Presidential Committee on Information Literacy: Final Report, the article outlines the importance of information literacy, opportunities to develop it, and the idea of an Information Age School. The recommendations of the Committee led to establishment of the National Forum on Information Literacy, a coalition of more than 90 national and international organizations. In 1998, the American Association of School Librarians and the Association for Educational Communications and Technology published Information Power: Building Partnerships for Learning, which further established specific goals for information literacy education, defining some nine standards in the categories of "information literacy," "independent learning," and "social responsibility." Also in 1998, the Presidential Committee on Information Literacy updated its final report. The report outlined six recommendations from the original report, and examined areas of challenge and progress. In 1999, the Society of College, National and University Libraries (SCONUL) in the UK published The Seven Pillars of Information Literacy to model the relationship between information skills and IT skills, and the idea of the progression of information literacy into the curriculum of higher education. In 2003, the National Forum on Information Literacy, along with UNESCO and the National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, sponsored an international conference in Prague. Representatives from twenty-three countries gathered to discuss the importance of information literacy in a global context. The resulting Prague Declaration described information literacy as a "key to social, cultural, and economic development of nations and communities, institutions and individuals in the 21st century" and declared its acquisition as "part of the basic human right of lifelong learning". In the United States specifically, information literacy was prioritized in 2009 during President Barack Obama's first term. In effort to stress the value information literacy has on everyday communication, he designated October as National Information Literacy Awareness Month in his released proclamation. In 2015, the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) adopted the Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education, which defines information literacy as "the set of integrated abilities encompassing the reflective discovery of information, the understanding of how information is produced and valued, and the use of information in creating new knowledge and participating ethically in communities of learning".Association of College and Research Libraries (2015-02-09). "Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education". Association of College and Research Libraries. American Library Association. Retrieved 2026-02-17. == Presidential Committee on Information Literacy == The American Library Association's Presidential Committee on Information Literacy defined information literacy as the ability "to recognize when information is needed and have the ability to locate, evaluate, and use effectively the needed information" and highlighted information literacy as a skill essential for lifelong learning and the production of an informed and prosperous citizenry. The committee outlined six principal recommendations. Included were recommendations like "Reconsider the ways we have organized information institutionally, structured information access, and defined information's role in our lives at home in the community, and in the work place"; to promote "public awareness of the problems created by information illiteracy"; to develop a national research agenda related to information and its use; to ensure the existence of "a climate conducive to students' becoming information literate"; to include information literacy concerns in teacher education democracy. In the updated report, the committee ended with an invitation, asking the National Forum and regular citizens to recognize that "the result of these combined efforts will be a citizenry which is made up of effective lifelong learners who can always find the information needed for the issue or decision at hand. This new

  Read more →
• 

  Leiden algorithm

  The Leiden algorithm is a community detection algorithm developed by Traag et al at Leiden University. It was developed as a modification of the Louvain method. Like the Louvain method, the Leiden algorithm attempts to optimize modularity in extracting communities from networks; however, it addresses key issues present in the Louvain method, namely poorly connected communities and the resolution limit of modularity. == Improvement over Louvain method == Broadly, the Leiden algorithm uses the same two primary phases as the Louvain algorithm: a local node moving step (though, the method by which nodes are considered in Leiden is more efficient) and a graph aggregation step. However, to address the issues with poorly-connected communities and the merging of smaller communities into larger communities (the resolution limit of modularity), the Leiden algorithm employs an intermediate refinement phase in which communities may be split to guarantee that all communities are well-connected. Consider, for example, the following graph: Three communities are present in this graph (each color represents a community). Additionally, the center "bridge" node (represented with an extra circle) is a member of the community represented by blue nodes. Now consider the result of a node-moving step which merges the communities denoted by red and green nodes into a single community (as the two communities are highly connected): Notably, the center "bridge" node is now a member of the larger red community after node moving occurs (due to the greedy nature of the local node moving algorithm). In the Louvain method, such a merging would be followed immediately by the graph aggregation phase. However, this causes a disconnection between two different sections of the community represented by blue nodes. In the Leiden algorithm, the graph is instead refined: The Leiden algorithm's refinement step ensures that the center "bridge" node is kept in the blue community to ensure that it remains intact and connected, despite the potential improvement in modularity from adding the center "bridge" node to the red community. == Graph components == Before defining the Leiden algorithm, it will be helpful to define some of the components of a graph. === Vertices and edges === A graph is composed of vertices (nodes) and edges. Each edge is connected to two vertices, and each vertex may be connected to zero or more edges. Edges are typically represented by straight lines, while nodes are represented by circles or points. In set notation, let V {\displaystyle V} be the set of vertices, and E {\displaystyle E} be the set of edges: V := { v 1 , v 2 , … , v n } E := { e i j , e i k , … , e k l } {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}V&:=\{v_{1},v_{2},\dots ,v_{n}\}\\E&:=\{e_{ij},e_{ik},\dots ,e_{kl}\}\end{aligned}}} where e i j {\displaystyle e_{ij}} is the directed edge from vertex v i {\displaystyle v_{i}} to vertex v j {\displaystyle v_{j}} . We can also write this as an ordered pair: e i j := ( v i , v j ) {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}e_{ij}&:=(v_{i},v_{j})\end{aligned}}} === Community === A community is a unique set of nodes: C i ⊆ V C i ⋂ C j = ∅ ∀ i ≠ j {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}C_{i}&\subseteq V\\C_{i}&\bigcap C_{j}=\emptyset ~\forall ~i\neq j\end{aligned}}} and the union of all communities must be the total set of vertices: V = ⋃ i = 1 C i {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}V&=\bigcup _{i=1}C_{i}\end{aligned}}} === Partition === A partition is the set of all communities: P = { C 1 , C 2 , … , C n } {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}{\mathcal {P}}&=\{C_{1},C_{2},\dots ,C_{n}\}\end{aligned}}} == Partition quality == How communities are partitioned is an integral part on the Leiden algorithm. How partitions are decided can depend on how their quality is measured. Additionally, many of these metrics contain parameters of their own that can change the outcome of their communities. === Modularity === Modularity is a highly used quality metric for assessing how well a set of communities partition a graph. The equation for this metric is defined for an adjacency matrix, A, as: Q = 1 2 m ∑ i j ( A i j − k i k j 2 m ) δ ( c i , c j ) {\displaystyle Q={\frac {1}{2m}}\sum _{ij}(A_{ij}-{\frac {k_{i}k_{j}}{2m}})\delta (c_{i},c_{j})} where: A i j {\displaystyle A_{ij}} represents the edge weight between nodes i {\displaystyle i} and j {\displaystyle j} ; see Adjacency matrix; k i {\displaystyle k_{i}} and k j {\displaystyle k_{j}} are the sum of the weights of the edges attached to nodes i {\displaystyle i} and j {\displaystyle j} , respectively; m {\displaystyle m} is the sum of all of the edge weights in the graph; c i {\displaystyle c_{i}} and c j {\displaystyle c_{j}} are the communities to which the nodes i {\displaystyle i} and j {\displaystyle j} belong; and δ {\displaystyle \delta } is Kronecker delta function: δ ( c i , c j ) = { 1 if c i and c j are the same community 0 otherwise {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\delta (c_{i},c_{j})&={\begin{cases}1&{\text{if }}c_{i}{\text{ and }}c_{j}{\text{ are the same community}}\\0&{\text{otherwise}}\end{cases}}\end{aligned}}} === Reichardt Bornholdt Potts Model (RB) === One of the most well used metrics for the Leiden algorithm is the Reichardt Bornholdt Potts Model (RB). This model is used by default in most mainstream Leiden algorithm libraries under the name RBConfigurationVertexPartition. This model introduces a resolution parameter γ {\displaystyle \gamma } and is highly similar to the equation for modularity. This model is defined by the following quality function for an adjacency matrix, A, as: Q = ∑ i j ( A i j − γ k i k j 2 m ) δ ( c i , c j ) {\displaystyle Q=\sum _{ij}(A_{ij}-\gamma {\frac {k_{i}k_{j}}{2m}})\delta (c_{i},c_{j})} where: γ {\displaystyle \gamma } represents a linear resolution parameter === Constant Potts Model (CPM) === Another metric similar to RB is the Constant Potts Model (CPM). This metric also relies on a resolution parameter γ {\displaystyle \gamma } The quality function is defined as: H = − ∑ i j ( A i j w i j − γ ) δ ( c i , c j ) {\displaystyle H=-\sum _{ij}(A_{ij}w_{ij}-\gamma )\delta (c_{i},c_{j})} === Understanding Potts Model resolution parameters/Resolution limit === Typically Potts models such as RB or CPM include a resolution parameter in their calculation. Potts models are introduced as a response to the resolution limit problem that is present in modularity maximization based community detection. The resolution limit problem is that, for some graphs, maximizing modularity may cause substructures of a graph to merge and become a single community and thus smaller structures are lost. These resolution parameters allow modularity adjacent methods to be modified to suit the requirements of the user applying the Leiden algorithm to account for small substructures at a certain granularity. The figure on the right illustrates why resolution can be a helpful parameter when using modularity based quality metrics. In the first graph, modularity only captures the large scale structures of the graph; however, in the second example, a more granular quality metric could potentially detect all substructures in a graph. == Algorithm == The Leiden algorithm starts with a graph of disorganized nodes (a) and sorts it by partitioning them to maximize modularity (the difference in quality between the generated partition and a hypothetical randomized partition of communities). The method it uses is similar to the Louvain algorithm, except that after moving each node it also considers that node's neighbors that are not already in the community it was placed in. This process results in our first partition (b), also referred to as P {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}} . Then the algorithm refines this partition by first placing each node into its own individual community and then moving them from one community to another to maximize modularity. It does this iteratively until each node has been visited and moved, and each community has been refined - this creates partition (c), which is the initial partition of P refined {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}_{\text{refined}}} . Then an aggregate network (d) is created by turning each community into a node. P refined {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}_{\text{refined}}} is used as the basis for the aggregate network while P {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}} is used to create its initial partition. Because we use the original partition P {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}} in this step, we must retain it so that it can be used in future iterations. These steps together form the first iteration of the algorithm. In subsequent iterations, the nodes of the aggregate network (which each represent a community) are once again placed into their own individual communities and then sorted according to modularity to form a new P refined {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}_{\text{refined}}} , forming (e) in the above graphic. In the case depicted by the graph, the nodes were already sorted optimally, so no change too

  Read more →
• 

  Argumentation framework

  In artificial intelligence and related fields, an argumentation framework is a way to deal with contentious information and draw conclusions from it using formalized arguments. In an abstract argumentation framework, entry-level information is a set of abstract arguments that, for instance, represent data or a proposition. Conflicts between arguments are represented by a binary relation on the set of arguments. In concrete terms, an argumentation framework is represented with a directed graph such that the nodes are the arguments, and the arrows represent the attack relation. There exist some extensions of the Dung's framework, like the logic-based argumentation frameworks or the value-based argumentation frameworks. == Abstract argumentation frameworks == === Formal framework === Abstract argumentation frameworks, also called argumentation frameworks à la Dung, are defined formally as a pair: A set of abstract elements called arguments, denoted A {\displaystyle A} A binary relation on A {\displaystyle A} , called attack relation, denoted R {\displaystyle R} For instance, the argumentation system S = ⟨ A , R ⟩ {\displaystyle S=\langle A,R\rangle } with A = { a , b , c , d } {\displaystyle A=\{a,b,c,d\}} and R = { ( a , b ) , ( b , c ) , ( d , c ) } {\displaystyle R=\{(a,b),(b,c),(d,c)\}} contains four arguments ( a , b , c {\displaystyle a,b,c} and d {\displaystyle d} ) and three attacks ( a {\displaystyle a} attacks b {\displaystyle b} , b {\displaystyle b} attacks c {\displaystyle c} and d {\displaystyle d} attacks c {\displaystyle c} ). Dung defines some notions : an argument a ∈ A {\displaystyle a\in A} is acceptable with respect to E ⊆ A {\displaystyle E\subseteq A} if and only if E {\displaystyle E} defends a {\displaystyle a} , that is ∀ b ∈ A {\displaystyle \forall b\in A} such that ( b , a ) ∈ R , ∃ c ∈ E {\displaystyle (b,a)\in R,\exists c\in E} such that ( c , b ) ∈ R {\displaystyle (c,b)\in R} , a set of arguments E {\displaystyle E} is conflict-free if there is no attack between its arguments, formally : ∀ a , b ∈ E , ( a , b ) ∉ R {\displaystyle \forall a,b\in E,(a,b)\not \in R} , a set of arguments E {\displaystyle E} is admissible if and only if it is conflict-free and all its arguments are acceptable with respect to E {\displaystyle E} . === Different semantics of acceptance === ==== Extensions ==== To decide if an argument can be accepted or not, or if several arguments can be accepted together, Dung defines several semantics of acceptance that allows, given an argumentation system, sets of arguments (called extensions) to be computed. For instance, given S = ⟨ A , R ⟩ {\displaystyle S=\langle A,R\rangle } , E {\displaystyle E} is a complete extension of S {\displaystyle S} only if it is an admissible set and every acceptable argument with respect to E {\displaystyle E} belongs to E {\displaystyle E} , E {\displaystyle E} is a preferred extension of S {\displaystyle S} only if it is a maximal element (with respect to the set-theoretical inclusion) among the admissible sets with respect to S {\displaystyle S} , E {\displaystyle E} is a stable extension of S {\displaystyle S} only if it is a conflict-free set that attacks every argument that does not belong in E {\displaystyle E} (formally, ∀ a ∈ A ∖ E , ∃ b ∈ E {\displaystyle \forall a\in A\backslash E,\exists b\in E} such that ( b , a ) ∈ R {\displaystyle (b,a)\in R} , E {\displaystyle E} is the (unique) grounded extension of S {\displaystyle S} only if it is the smallest element (with respect to set inclusion) among the complete extensions of S {\displaystyle S} . There exists some inclusions between the sets of extensions built with these semantics : Every stable extension is preferred, Every preferred extension is complete, The grounded extension is complete, If the system is well-founded (there exists no infinite sequence a 0 , a 1 , … , a n , … {\displaystyle a_{0},a_{1},\dots ,a_{n},\dots } such that ∀ i > 0 , ( a i + 1 , a i ) ∈ R {\displaystyle \forall i>0,(a_{i+1},a_{i})\in R} ), all these semantics coincide—only one extension is grounded, stable, preferred, and complete. Some other semantics have been defined. One introduce the notation E x t σ ( S ) {\displaystyle Ext_{\sigma }(S)} to note the set of σ {\displaystyle \sigma } -extensions of the system S {\displaystyle S} . In the case of the system S {\displaystyle S} in the figure above, E x t σ ( S ) = { { a , d } } {\displaystyle Ext_{\sigma }(S)=\{\{a,d\}\}} for every Dung's semantic—the system is well-founded. That explains why the semantics coincide, and the accepted arguments are: a {\displaystyle a} and d {\displaystyle d} . ==== Labellings ==== Labellings are a more expressive way than extensions to express the acceptance of the arguments. Concretely, a labelling is a mapping that associates every argument with a label in (the argument is accepted), out (the argument is rejected), or undec (the argument is undefined—not accepted or refused). One can also note a labelling as a set of pairs ( a r g u m e n t , l a b e l ) {\displaystyle ({\mathit {argument}},{\mathit {label}})} . Such a mapping does not make sense without additional constraint. The notion of reinstatement labelling guarantees the sense of the mapping. L {\displaystyle L} is a reinstatement labelling on the system S = ⟨ A , R ⟩ {\displaystyle S=\langle A,R\rangle } if and only if : ∀ a ∈ A , L ( a ) = i n {\displaystyle \forall a\in A,L(a)={\mathit {in}}} if and only if ∀ b ∈ A {\displaystyle \forall b\in A} such that ( b , a ) ∈ R , L ( b ) = o u t {\displaystyle (b,a)\in R,L(b)={\mathit {out}}} ∀ a ∈ A , L ( a ) = o u t {\displaystyle \forall a\in A,L(a)={\mathit {out}}} if and only if ∃ b ∈ A {\displaystyle \exists b\in A} such that ( b , a ) ∈ R {\displaystyle (b,a)\in R} and L ( b ) = i n {\displaystyle L(b)={\mathit {in}}} ∀ a ∈ A , L ( a ) = u n d e c {\displaystyle \forall a\in A,L(a)={\mathit {undec}}} if and only if L ( a ) ≠ i n {\displaystyle L(a)\neq {\mathit {in}}} and L ( a ) ≠ o u t {\displaystyle L(a)\neq {\mathit {out}}} One can convert every extension into a reinstatement labelling: the arguments of the extension are in, those attacked by an argument of the extension are out, and the others are undec. Conversely, one can build an extension from a reinstatement labelling just by keeping the arguments in. Indeed, Caminada proved that the reinstatement labellings and the complete extensions can be mapped in a bijective way. Moreover, the other Datung's semantics can be associated to some particular sets of reinstatement labellings. Reinstatement labellings distinguish arguments not accepted because they are attacked by accepted arguments from undefined arguments—that is, those that are not defended cannot defend themselves. An argument is undec if it is attacked by at least another undec. If it is attacked only by arguments out, it must be in, and if it is attacked some argument in, then it is out. The unique reinstatement labelling that corresponds to the system S {\displaystyle S} above is L = { ( a , i n ) , ( b , o u t ) , ( c , o u t ) , ( d , i n ) } {\displaystyle L=\{(a,{\mathit {in}}),(b,{\mathit {out}}),(c,{\mathit {out}}),(d,{\mathit {in}})\}} . === Inference from an argumentation system === In the general case when several extensions are computed for a given semantic σ {\displaystyle \sigma } , the agent that reasons from the system can use several mechanisms to infer information: Credulous inference: the agent accepts an argument if it belongs to at least one of the σ {\displaystyle \sigma } -extensions—in which case, the agent risks accepting some arguments that are not acceptable together ( a {\displaystyle a} attacks b {\displaystyle b} , and a {\displaystyle a} and b {\displaystyle b} each belongs to an extension) Skeptical inference: the agent accepts an argument only if it belongs to every σ {\displaystyle \sigma } -extension. In this case, the agent risks deducing too little information (if the intersection of the extensions is empty or has a very small cardinal). For these two methods to infer information, one can identify the set of accepted arguments, respectively C r σ ( S ) {\displaystyle Cr_{\sigma }(S)} the set of the arguments credulously accepted under the semantic σ {\displaystyle \sigma } , and S c σ ( S ) {\displaystyle Sc_{\sigma }(S)} the set of arguments accepted skeptically under the semantic σ {\displaystyle \sigma } (the σ {\displaystyle \sigma } can be missed if there is no possible ambiguity about the semantic). Of course, when there is only one extension (for instance, when the system is well-founded), this problem is very simple: the agent accepts arguments of the unique extension and rejects others. The same reasoning can be done with labellings that correspond to the chosen semantic : an argument can be accepted if it is in for each labelling and refused if it is out for each labelling, the others being in an undecided state (the status of the arguments can remind the

  Read more →
• 

  AlphaTensor

  AlphaTensor is an artificial intelligence system developed by DeepMind for discovering efficient matrix multiplication algorithms using reinforcement learning. Introduced in 2022, the system was based on AlphaZero and formulated the search for matrix multiplication algorithms as a single-player game called TensorGame. AlphaTensor was designed to search for new ways to multiply matrices with fewer scalar multiplication operations. Matrix multiplication is a fundamental operation in linear algebra, numerical analysis, scientific computing, computer graphics, and machine learning. The system discovered thousands of matrix multiplication algorithms, including algorithms that rediscovered known human-designed methods and others that improved on previously known results for particular matrix sizes and mathematical settings. == Background == Matrix multiplication is one of the basic operations in numerical computing. The standard algorithm for multiplying two square matrices has cubic time complexity, while faster algorithms such as the Strassen algorithm reduce the number of multiplication operations by using more complex algebraic decompositions. Finding optimal matrix multiplication algorithms can be difficult because it involves searching through a large space of possible tensor decompositions. AlphaTensor approached this problem by representing algorithm discovery as TensorGame, in which each move corresponds to an operation that reduces a tensor representing matrix multiplication. The goal of the game is to find a low-rank decomposition of the matrix multiplication tensor, corresponding to an efficient multiplication algorithm. == Development == AlphaTensor was developed by DeepMind and described in a paper published in Nature in October 2022. The system built on the reinforcement-learning approach used in AlphaZero, which had previously been applied to games such as Go, chess, and shogi. Unlike those games, TensorGame involved a very large search space, requiring changes to the AlphaZero-style search method and neural network architecture. DeepMind released source code and discovered algorithms associated with the publication through a public GitHub repository. == Results == AlphaTensor discovered matrix multiplication algorithms over both standard arithmetic and finite fields. One widely reported result was a method for multiplying 4 × 4 matrices over the field with two elements using 47 multiplication operations, improving on the 49 operations required by applying Strassen's algorithm recursively in that setting. The system also found algorithms optimized for particular computer hardware, including algorithms designed for graphics processing units and Tensor Processing Units. DeepMind stated that some of the hardware-specific algorithms improved practical execution time compared with commonly used algorithms on the tested hardware. == Significance == AlphaTensor was described as an example of using machine learning not only to apply existing algorithms, but to assist in discovering new ones. The work was connected to broader research in algorithm discovery, automated machine learning, program synthesis, and computational complexity theory, especially the open problem of determining the optimal complexity of matrix multiplication. AlphaTensor later became part of a broader group of Google DeepMind systems for algorithm and mathematical discovery, alongside systems such as AlphaDev and AlphaEvolve.

  Read more →
• 

  UI data binding

  UI data binding is a software design pattern to simplify development of GUI applications. UI data binding binds UI elements to an application domain model. Most frameworks employ the Observer pattern as the underlying binding mechanism. To work efficiently, UI data binding has to address input validation and data type mapping. A bound control is a widget whose value is tied or bound to a field in a recordset (e.g., a column in a row of a table). Changes made to data within the control are automatically saved to the database when the control's exit event triggers. == Example == == Data binding frameworks and tools == === Delphi === DSharp third-party data binding tool OpenWire Visual Live Binding - third-party visual data binding tool === Java === JFace Data Binding JavaFX Property === .NET === Windows Forms data binding overview WPF data binding overview Avalonia Unity 3D data binding framework (available in modifications for NGUI, iGUI and EZGUI libraries) === JavaScript === Angular AngularJS Backbone.js Ember.js Datum.js knockout.js Meteor, via its Blaze live update engine OpenUI5 React Vue.js

  Read more →