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.
In computer vision, object co-segmentation is a special case of image segmentation, which is defined as jointly segmenting semantically similar objects in multiple images or video frames. == Challenges == It is often challenging to extract segmentation masks of a target/object from a noisy collection of images or video frames, which involves object discovery coupled with segmentation. A noisy collection implies that the object/target is present sporadically in a set of images or the object/target disappears intermittently throughout the video of interest. Early methods typically involve mid-level representations such as object proposals. == Dynamic Markov networks-based methods == A joint object discover and co-segmentation method based on coupled dynamic Markov networks has been proposed recently, which claims significant improvements in robustness against irrelevant/noisy video frames. Unlike previous efforts which conveniently assumes the consistent presence of the target objects throughout the input video, this coupled dual dynamic Markov network based algorithm simultaneously carries out both the detection and segmentation tasks with two respective Markov networks jointly updated via belief propagation. Specifically, the Markov network responsible for segmentation is initialized with superpixels and provides information for its Markov counterpart responsible for the object detection task. Conversely, the Markov network responsible for detection builds the object proposal graph with inputs including the spatio-temporal segmentation tubes. == Graph cut-based methods == Graph cut optimization is a popular tool in computer vision, especially in earlier image segmentation applications. As an extension of regular graph cuts, multi-level hypergraph cut is proposed to account for more complex high order correspondences among video groups beyond typical pairwise correlations. With such hypergraph extension, multiple modalities of correspondences, including low-level appearance, saliency, coherent motion and high level features such as object regions, could be seamlessly incorporated in the hyperedge computation. In addition, as a core advantage over co-occurrence based approach, hypergraph implicitly retains more complex correspondences among its vertices, with the hyperedge weights conveniently computed by eigenvalue decomposition of Laplacian matrices. == CNN/LSTM-based methods == In action localization applications, object co-segmentation is also implemented as the segment-tube spatio-temporal detector. Inspired by the recent spatio-temporal action localization efforts with tubelets (sequences of bounding boxes), Le et al. present a new spatio-temporal action localization detector Segment-tube, which consists of sequences of per-frame segmentation masks. This Segment-tube detector can temporally pinpoint the starting/ending frame of each action category in the presence of preceding/subsequent interference actions in untrimmed videos. Simultaneously, the Segment-tube detector produces per-frame segmentation masks instead of bounding boxes, offering superior spatial accuracy to tubelets. This is achieved by alternating iterative optimization between temporal action localization and spatial action segmentation. The proposed segment-tube detector is illustrated in the flowchart on the right. The sample input is an untrimmed video containing all frames in a pair figure skating video, with only a portion of these frames belonging to a relevant category (e.g., the DeathSpirals). Initialized with saliency based image segmentation on individual frames, this method first performs temporal action localization step with a cascaded 3D CNN and LSTM, and pinpoints the starting frame and the ending frame of a target action with a coarse-to-fine strategy. Subsequently, the segment-tube detector refines per-frame spatial segmentation with graph cut by focusing on relevant frames identified by the temporal action localization step. The optimization alternates between the temporal action localization and spatial action segmentation in an iterative manner. Upon practical convergence, the final spatio-temporal action localization results are obtained in the format of a sequence of per-frame segmentation masks (bottom row in the flowchart) with precise starting/ending frames.
Egocentric vision or first-person vision is a sub-field of computer vision that entails analyzing images and videos captured by a wearable camera, which is typically worn on the head or on the chest and naturally approximates the visual field of the camera wearer. Consequently, visual data capture the part of the scene on which the user focuses to carry out the task at hand and offer a valuable perspective to understand the user's activities and their context in a naturalistic setting. The wearable camera looking forwards is often supplemented with a camera looking inward at the user's eye and able to measure a user's eye gaze, which is useful to reveal attention and to better understand the user's activity and intentions. == History == The idea of using a wearable camera to gather visual data from a first-person perspective dates back to the 70s, when Steve Mann invented "Digital Eye Glass", a device that, when worn, causes the human eye itself to effectively become both an electronic camera and a television display. Subsequently, wearable cameras were used for health-related applications in the context of Humanistic Intelligence and Wearable AI. Egocentric vision is best done from the point-of-eye, but may also be done by way of a neck-worn camera when eyeglasses would be in-the-way. This neck-worn variant was popularized by way of the Microsoft SenseCam in 2006 for experimental health research works. The interest of the computer vision community into the egocentric paradigm has been arising slowly entering the 2010s and it is rapidly growing in recent years, boosted by both the impressive advances in the field of wearable technology and by the increasing number of potential applications. The prototypical first-person vision system described by Kanade and Hebert, in 2012 is composed by three basic components: a localization component able to estimate the surrounding, a recognition component able to identify object and people, and an activity recognition component, able to provide information about the current activity of the user. Together, these three components provide a complete situational awareness of the user, which in turn can be used to provide assistance to the user or to the caregiver. Following this idea, the first computational techniques for egocentric analysis focused on hand-related activity recognition and social interaction analysis. Also, given the unconstrained nature of the video and the huge amount of data generated, temporal segmentation and summarization were among the first problems addressed. After almost ten years of egocentric vision (2007–2017), the field is still undergoing diversification. Emerging research topics include: Social saliency estimation Multi-agent egocentric vision systems Privacy preserving techniques and applications Attention-based activity analysis Social interaction analysis Hand pose analysis Ego graphical User Interfaces (EUI) Understanding social dynamics and attention Revisiting robotic vision and machine vision as egocentric sensing Activity forecasting Gaze prediction == Technical challenges == Today's wearable cameras are small and lightweight digital recording devices that can acquire images and videos automatically, without the user intervention, with different resolutions and frame rates, and from a first-person point of view. Therefore, wearable cameras are naturally primed to gather visual information from our everyday interactions since they offer an intimate perspective of the visual field of the camera wearer. Depending on the frame rate, it is common to distinguish between photo-cameras (also called lifelogging cameras) and video-cameras. The former (e.g., Narrative Clip and Microsoft SenseCam), are commonly worn on the chest, and are characterized by a very low frame rate (up to 2fpm) that allows to capture images over a long period of time without the need of recharging the battery. Consequently, they offer considerable potential for inferring knowledge about e.g. behaviour patterns, habits or lifestyle of the user. However, due to the low frame-rate and the free motion of the camera, temporally adjacent images typically present abrupt appearance changes so that motion features cannot be reliably estimated. The latter (e.g., Google Glass, GoPro), are commonly mounted on the head, and capture conventional video (around 35fps) that allows to capture fine temporal details of interactions. Consequently, they offer potential for in-depth analysis of daily or special activities. However, since the camera is moving with the wearer head, it becomes more difficult to estimate the global motion of the wearer and in the case of abrupt movements, the images can result blurred. In both cases, since the camera is worn in a naturalistic setting, visual data present a huge variability in terms of illumination conditions and object appearance. Moreover, the camera wearer is not visible in the image and what he/she is doing has to be inferred from the information in the visual field of the camera, implying that important information about the wearer, such for instance as pose or facial expression estimation, is not available. == Applications == A collection of studies published in a special theme issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine has demonstrated the potential of lifelogs captured through wearable cameras from a number of viewpoints. In particular, it has been shown that used as a tool for understanding and tracking lifestyle behaviour, lifelogs would enable the prevention of noncommunicable diseases associated to unhealthy trends and risky profiles (such as obesity and depression). In addition, used as a tool of re-memory cognitive training, lifelogs would enable the prevention of cognitive and functional decline in elderly people. More recently, egocentric cameras have been used to study human and animal cognition, human-human social interaction, human-robot interaction, human expertise in complex tasks. Other applications include navigation/assistive technologies for the blind, monitoring and assistance of industrial workflows, and augmented reality interfaces.
Bottlenose.com, also known as Bottlenose, is an enterprise trend intelligence company that analyzes big data and business data to detect trends for brands. It helps Fortune 500 enterprises discover, and track emerging trends that affect their brands. The company uses natural language processing, sentiment analysis, statistical algorithms, data mining, and machine learning heuristics to determine trends, and has a search engine that gathers information from social networks. KPMG Capital has invested a "substantial amount" in the company. Bottlenose processed 72 billion messages per day, in real-time, from across social and broadcast media, as of December 2014. == History == The company is based in Los Angeles, CA. Bottlenose is a real-time trend intelligence tool that measures social media campaigns and trends. The company also provides a free version of its Sonar tool that shows real-time trends across social media. In October 2012, the company received $1 million of funding from ff Venture Capital and Prosper Capital. By 2014, the company raised about $7 million in funding. In December 2014, KPMG Capital announced further investment in the company. In February 2015, the company confirmed it had raised $13.4 million in Series B funding led by KPMG Capital. Bottlenose partnered with the nonprofit No Labels during the 2014 State of the Union Address to analyze Twitter conversations for bipartisanship. The company also partnered with media monitoring company Critical Mention to analyze broadcast analytics. The Bottlenose Nerve Center integrated with the Critical Mention API to analyze real-time trends in television and radio broadcasts. In June 2014, Bottlenose updated its trend detection product to Nerve Center 2.0. It creates a newsfeed to show changes in trends and sends alerts when trends occur. It also has "emotion detection," which will display the emotions associated with specific comments on trending topics. In 2016, Bottlenose released its Nerve Center 3.0 platform, which was designed to automate the work of data scientists and lower the cost of artificial intelligence for businesses.
An online dating application, commonly known as a dating app, is an online dating service presented through a mobile phone application. These apps often take advantage of a smartphone's GPS location capabilities, always on-hand presence, and access to mobile wallets. These apps aim to speed up the online dating process of sifting through potential dating partners, chatting, flirting, and potentially meeting or becoming romantically involved. Online dating apps are now mainstream in the United States. As of 2017, online dating (which included both apps and other online dating services) was the principal method by which new couples in the U.S. met. The percentage of couples meeting online is predicted to increase to 70% by 2040. == Origins == The first computerized dating service was launched in 1964, the St. James Computer Dating Service, which became known as Com-Pat. The first U.S. dating service that used computerized match making was Operation Match. It required men and women to complete a questionnaire and was launched in 1965. Operation Match inspired the methodology of Dateline, which became popular in the 1970s and 1980s. Match.com was launched in 1995 and turned computerized match making into a profitable business. Grindr targeted gay and bisexual men at launch. Tinder, launched in 2012, led to a growth of online dating applications by both new providers and existing online dating services that expanded into the mobile app market. == Usage by demographic group == Online dating applications typically target a younger demographic group, though some apps, like Senior Match and Silver Singles are geared toward the 50 and up demographic. In 2016, almost 50% of people knew of someone who use the services or had met their loved one through the service. After the iPhone launch in 2007, online dating data has mushroomed as application usage increased. In 2005, only 10% of 18-24 year olds reported to have used online dating services; this number quickly grew to over 27%, making this target demographic the largest number of users for most applications. When Pew Research Center conducted a study in 2016, they found that 59% of U.S. adults agreed that online dating is a good way to meet people compared to 44% in 2005. This explosion in usage can be explained by the increased use of smartphones. By the end of 2022, it is expected there will be 413 million active users of online dating services worldwide. A 2023 Pew Research Center survey of 6,034 American adults found that 30% had ever used an online dating site or app, including 53% of those aged 18 to 29, 37% of those aged 30 to 49, and 17% of those aged 50 and over. Lesbian, gay and bisexual respondents reported using dating apps at nearly twice the rate of straight respondents (51% versus 28%), and 36% of divorced, separated or widowed adults had used one, compared with 16% of married adults. The increased use of smartphones by those 65 and older has also driven that population to the use dating apps. The Pew Research Center found that usage increase by 8 points since last surveyed in 2012. A study in 2021 found that more than one-third of seniors have dated in the past 5 years, and roughly one-third of those dating seniors have turned to dating apps. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Morning Consult found that more Americans were using online dating apps than ever before. In one survey in April 2020, the company discovered that 53% of U.S. adults who use online dating apps have been using them more during the pandemic. As of February 2021, that share increased to 71 percent. Research using Hofstede's cultural dimensions theory has indicated that norms about online dating applications tend to differ across cultures. A study published in the Journal of Creative Communications looked into the relationships between dating-app advertisements from over 51 countries and the cultural dimensions of these countries. The results revealed that dating-app advertisements appealed to multiple cultural needs, including the needs for relationships, friendship, entertainment, sex, status, design and identity. The use of these appeals was found to be 'congruent with ... the individualism/collectivism and uncertainty avoidance cultural dimensions.' == Popular applications == Following Tinder's success, other companies released dating applications. Raya was released in 2015 as a membership-based dating app, allowing entrance only through referrals, which was marketed as a dating app for celebrities. In early 2026, Hily surpassed Bumble to become the third most-used dating application in the United States and the fifth highest-grossing overall, driven largely by growing popularity among Generation Z users, while remaining behind Tinder and Hinge, both owned by Match Group. A number of dating apps have been created targeting adherents of particular religions seeking partners of the same religion, such as Muzmatch for Muslims, Christian Mingle, SALT, and Christian Connection for Christians, and JSwipe and JDate for Jews. === VR Dating === VR Dating is an application of Social VR where people can exist, collaborate, and perform various activities together. Virtual reality apps use virtual and augmented realities to make the dating experience more lifelike and more effective, as well as allow people to expand what is already possible in the world of online dating. There are several online platforms of VR Dating. The VR dating app Nevermet is the VR equivalent of Tinder, where people can search and find on dates. However, instead of actual real-life pictures, users will update pictures of virtual selves and will be interacting with avatars rather than real faces. Flirtual is a self-contained social VR app that serves to match users who then decide where and how to meet in VR. Flirtual hosts speed dating and social events in VR. == Effects on dating == The usage of online dating applications can have both advantages and disadvantages: === Advantages === Many of the applications provide personality tests for matching or use algorithms to match users. These factors enhance the possibility of users getting matched with a compatible candidate. Users are in control; they are provided with many options so there are enough matches that fit their particular type. Users can simply choose to not match the candidates that they know they are not interested in. Narrowing down options is easy. Once users think they are interested, they are able to chat and get to know the potential candidate. This form of communication can reduce the time, cost, and uncertainty often associated with traditional dating methods. Online dating offers convenience; people want dating to work around their schedules. Online dating can also increase self-confidence; even if users get rejected, they know there are hundreds of other candidates that will want to match with them so they can simply move on to the next option. In fact, 60% of U.S. adults agree that online dating is a good way to meet people and 66% say they have gone on a real date with someone they met through an application. Today, 5% of married Americans or Americans in serious relationships said they met their significant other online. The 39% of online dating users (representing 12% of all U.S. adults) say they have been in a committed relationship or married someone they met on a dating site or app. ==== Rejection sensitive individuals ==== Individuals high in rejection sensitivity are more likely to use online dating applications. As they tend to expect, perceive and overreact to rejection, rejection sensitive individuals struggle with traditional dating. Online dating applications allow for them to better reveal their true selves, potentially increasing their dating success. Online dating applications also obscure rejection cues, alleviating the rejection-related distress experienced by rejection sensitive individuals. ==== Anxiously attached individuals ==== Individuals high in attachment anxiety are also more likely to use online dating applications. While they harbour negative self-views, anxiously attached individuals are also more eager to enter and commit to relationships. Online dating applications allow for them to present "an authentic yet ideal version of themselves", mitigating their tendencies to view themselves as undesirable. This increases their romantic confidence, and potentially alleviates their anxiety when searching for a romantic partner. === Disadvantages === Sometimes having too many options can be overwhelming. With so many options available, users can get lost in their choices and end up spending too much time looking for the "perfect" candidate instead of using that time to start a real relationship. In addition, the algorithms and matching systems put in place may not always be as accurate as users think. There is no perfect system that can match two people's personalities perfectly every time. Communication online also lacks the physical chemistry aspec
Albert One is an artificial intelligence chatbot created by Robby Garner and designed to mimic the way humans make conversations using a multi-faceted approach in natural language programming. == History == In both 1998 and 1999, Albert One won the Loebner Prize Contest, a competition between chatterbots. Some parts of Albert were deployed on the internet beginning in 1995, to gather information about what kinds of things people would say to a chatterbot. Another element of Albert One involved the building of a large database of human statements, and associated replies. This portion of the project was tested at the 1994-1997 Loebner Prize contests. Albert was the first of Robby Garner's multifaceted bots. The Albert One system was composed of several subsystems. Among those were a version of Eliza, the therapist, Elivs, another Eliza-like bot, and several other helper applications working together in a hierarchical arrangement. As a continuation of the stimulus-response library, various other database queries and assertions were tested to arrive at each of Albert's responses. Robby went on to develop networked examples of this kind of hierarchical "glue" at The Turing Hub.
AltStore is an alternative app store for the iOS and iPadOS[1] mobile operating systems, which allows users to download applications that are not available on the App Store, most commonly tweaked apps, jailbreak apps, and apps including paid apps on the app store. It was publicly announced on September 25, 2019, and launched on September 28. == History == Riley Testut is an American developer who began to work on AltStore after Apple declined to allow his Nintendo emulator Delta on the App Store. Since Xcode allowed him to temporarily install his Delta app to his iOS device for 7 days of testing, he created AltStore in 2019 to replicate this functionality, which could be extended to other .ipa files. As of 2022, AltStore had been downloaded 1.5 million times. In the following years, AltStore expanded beyond its initial sideloading functionality. The platform was founded by Testut, with Shane Gill later joining as co-founder. AltStore was initially supported through Patreon contributions from its user community, and later saw increased adoption following regulatory developments in the European Union that enabled broader third-party app distribution. The project has also been involved in notable industry collaborations, including a partnership with Epic Games. == Features == AltStore exploits a loophole in the Xcode developer platform, which allows developers to sideload their own apps which they are working on without needing to jailbreak. Sideloaded apps are signed like a developer project for testing and will expire after 7 days with a free account or one year with a paid developer account, by which they will need to be refreshed or reinstalled.
Hybrid machine translation is a method of machine translation that is characterized by the use of multiple machine translation approaches within a single machine translation system. The motivation for developing hybrid machine translation systems stems from the failure of any single technique to achieve a satisfactory level of accuracy. Many hybrid machine translation systems have been successful in improving the accuracy of the translations, and there are several popular machine translation systems which employ hybrid methods. == Approaches == === Multi-engine === This approach to hybrid machine translation involves running multiple machine translation systems in parallel. The final output is generated by combining the output of all the sub-systems. Most commonly, these systems use statistical and rule-based translation subsystems, but other combinations have been explored. For example, researchers at Carnegie Mellon University have had some success combining example-based, transfer-based, knowledge-based and statistical translation sub-systems into one machine translation system. === Statistical rule generation === This approach involves using statistical data to generate lexical and syntactic rules. The input is then processed with these rules as if it were a rule-based translator. This approach attempts to avoid the difficult and time-consuming task of creating a set of comprehensive, fine-grained linguistic rules by extracting those rules from the training corpus. This approach still suffers from many problems of normal statistical machine translation, namely that the accuracy of the translation will depend heavily on the similarity of the input text to the text of the training corpus. As a result, this technique has had the most success in domain-specific applications, and has the same difficulties with domain adaptation as many statistical machine translation systems. === Multi-Pass === This approach involves serially processing the input multiple times. The most common technique used in multi-pass machine translation systems is to pre-process the input with a rule-based machine translation system. The output of the rule-based pre-processor is passed to a statistical machine translation system, which produces the final output. This technique is used to limit the amount of information a statistical system need consider, significantly reducing the processing power required. It also removes the need for the rule-based system to be a complete translation system for the language, significantly reducing the amount of human effort and labor necessary to build the system. === Confidence-Based === This approach differs from the other hybrid approaches in that in most cases only one translation technology is used. A confidence metric is produced for each translated sentence from which a decision can be made whether to try a secondary translation technology or to proceed with the initial translation output. SMT is also used when common error patterns such as multiple repeat words appear in sequence, as is common with NMT when the attention mechanism is confused.
Super-resolution optical fluctuation imaging (SOFI) is a post-processing method for the calculation of super-resolved images from recorded image time series that is based on the temporal correlations of independently fluctuating fluorescent emitters. SOFI has been developed for super-resolution of biological specimen that are labelled with independently fluctuating fluorescent emitters (organic dyes, fluorescent proteins). In comparison to other super-resolution microscopy techniques such as STORM or PALM that rely on single-molecule localization and hence only allow one active molecule per diffraction-limited area (DLA) and timepoint, SOFI does not necessitate a controlled photoswitching and/ or photoactivation as well as long imaging times. Nevertheless, it still requires fluorophores that are cycling through two distinguishable states, either real on-/off-states or states with different fluorescence intensities. In mathematical terms SOFI-imaging relies on the calculation of cumulants, for what two distinguishable ways exist. For one thing an image can be calculated via auto-cumulants that by definition only rely on the information of each pixel itself, and for another thing an improved method utilizes the information of different pixels via the calculation of cross-cumulants. Both methods can increase the final image resolution significantly although the cumulant calculation has its limitations. Actually SOFI is able to increase the resolution in all three dimensions. == Principle == Likewise to other super-resolution methods SOFI is based on recording an image time series on a CCD- or CMOS camera. In contrary to other methods the recorded time series can be substantially shorter, since a precise localization of emitters is not required and therefore a larger quantity of activated fluorophores per diffraction-limited area is allowed. The pixel values of a SOFI-image of the n-th order are calculated from the values of the pixel time series in the form of a n-th order cumulant, whereas the final value assigned to a pixel can be imagined as the integral over a correlation function. The finally assigned pixel value intensities are a measure of the brightness and correlation of the fluorescence signal. Mathematically, the n-th order cumulant is related to the n-th order correlation function, but exhibits some advantages concerning the resulting resolution of the image. Since in SOFI several emitters per DLA are allowed, the photon count at each pixel results from the superposition of the signals of all activated nearby emitters. The cumulant calculation now filters the signal and leaves only highly correlated fluctuations. This provides a contrast enhancement and therefore a background reduction for good measure. As it is implied in the figure on the left the fluorescence source distribution: ∑ k = 1 N δ ( r → − r → k ) ⋅ ε k ⋅ s k ( t ) {\displaystyle \sum _{k=1}^{N}\delta ({\vec {r}}-{\vec {r}}_{k})\cdot \varepsilon _{k}\cdot s_{k}(t)} is convolved with the system's point spread function (PSF) U(r). Hence the fluorescence signal at time t and position r → {\displaystyle {\vec {r}}} is given by F ( r → , t ) = ∑ k = 1 N U ( r → − r → k ) ⋅ ε k ⋅ s k ( t ) . {\displaystyle F({\vec {r}},t)=\sum _{k=1}^{N}U({\vec {r}}-{\vec {r}}_{k})\cdot \varepsilon _{k}\cdot s_{k}(t).} Within the above equations N is the amount of emitters, located at the positions r → k {\displaystyle {\vec {r}}_{k}} with a time-dependent molecular brightness ε k ⋅ s k {\displaystyle \varepsilon _{k}\cdot s_{k}} where ε k {\displaystyle \varepsilon _{k}} is a variable for the constant molecular brightness and s k ( t ) {\displaystyle s_{k}(t)} is a time-dependent fluctuation function. The molecular brightness is just the average fluorescence count-rate divided by the number of molecules within a specific region. For simplification it has to be assumed that the sample is in a stationary equilibrium and therefore the fluorescence signal can be expressed as a zero-mean fluctuation: δ F ( r → , t ) = F ( r → , t ) − ⟨ F ( r → , t ) ⟩ t {\displaystyle \delta F({\vec {r}},t)=F({\vec {r}},t)-\langle F({\vec {r}},t)\rangle _{t}} where ⟨ ⋯ ⟩ t {\displaystyle \langle \cdots \rangle _{t}} denotes time-averaging. The auto-correlation here e.g. the second-order can then be described deductively as follows for a certain time-lag τ {\displaystyle \tau } : δ F ( r → , t ) = ⟨ δ F ( r → , t + τ ) ⋅ δ F ( r → , t ) ⟩ t {\displaystyle \delta F({\vec {r}},t)=\langle \delta F({\vec {r}},t+\tau )\cdot \delta F({\vec {r}},t)\rangle _{t}} From these equations it follows that the PSF of the optical system has to be taken to the power of the order of the correlation. Thus in a second-order correlation the PSF would be reduced along all dimensions by a factor of 2 {\displaystyle {\sqrt {2}}} . As a result, the resolution of the SOFI-images increases according to this factor. === Cumulants versus correlations === Using only the simple correlation function for a reassignment of pixel values, would ascribe to the independency of fluctuations of the emitters in time in a way that no cross-correlation terms would contribute to the new pixel value. Calculations of higher-order correlation functions would suffer from lower-order correlations for what reason it is superior to calculate cumulants, since all lower-order correlation terms vanish. == Cumulant-calculation == === Auto-cumulants === For computational reasons it is convenient to set all time-lags in higher-order cumulants to zero so that a general expression for the n-th order auto-cumulant can be found: A C n ( r → , τ 1 … n − 1 = 0 ) = ∑ k = 1 N U n ( r → − r → k ) ε k n w k ( 0 ) {\displaystyle AC_{n}({\vec {r}},\tau _{1\ldots n-1}=0)=\sum _{k=1}^{N}U^{n}({\vec {r}}-{\vec {r}}_{k})\varepsilon _{k}^{n}w_{k}(0)} w k {\displaystyle w_{k}} is a specific correlation based weighting function influenced by the order of the cumulant and mainly depending on the fluctuation properties of the emitters. Albeit there is no fundamental limitation in calculating very high orders of cumulants and thereby shrinking the FWHM of the PSF there are practical limitations according to the weighting of the values assigned to the final image. Emitters with a higher molecular brightness will show a strong increase in terms of the pixel cumulant value assigned at higher-orders as well as this performance can be expected from a diverse appearance of fluctuations of different emitters. A wide intensity range of the resulting image can therefore be expected and as a result dim emitters can get masked by bright emitters in higher-order images:. The calculation of auto-cumulants can be realized in a very attractive way in a mathematical sense. The n-th order cumulant can be calculated with a basic recursion from moments K n ( r → ) = μ n ( r → ) − ∑ i = 1 n − 1 ( n − 1 i ) K n − i ( r → ) μ i ( r → ) {\displaystyle K_{n}({\vec {r}})=\mu _{n}({\vec {r}})-\sum _{i=1}^{n-1}{\begin{pmatrix}n-1\\i\end{pmatrix}}K_{n-i}({\vec {r}})\mu _{i}({\vec {r}})} where K is a cumulant of the index's order, likewise μ {\displaystyle \mu } represents the moments. The term within the brackets indicates a binomial coefficient. This way of computation is straightforward in comparison with calculating cumulants with standard formulas. It allows for the calculation of cumulants with only little time of computing and is, as it is well implemented, even suitable for the calculation of high-order cumulants on large images. === Cross-cumulants === In a more advanced approach cross-cumulants are calculated by taking the information of several pixels into account. Cross-cumulants can be described as follows: C C n ( r → , τ 1 … n − 1 = 0 ) = ∏ j < l n U ( r → j − r → l n ) ⋅ ∑ i = 1 N U n ( r → i − ∑ k n r → k n ) ε i n w i ( 0 ) {\displaystyle CC_{n}({\vec {r}},\tau _{1\ldots n-1}=0)=\prod _{jRead guide →
Mobile cloud storage is a form of cloud storage that is accessible on mobile devices such as laptops, tablets, and smartphones. Mobile cloud storage providers offer services that allow the user to create and organize files, folders, music, and photos, similar to other cloud computing models. Services are used by both individuals and companies. Most cloud file storage providers offer limited free use but charge for additional storage once the free limit is exceeded. These costs are usually charged as a monthly subscription rate and have different rates depending on the amount of storage desired. In 2018, cloud services revenue was about $182.4 billion and in 2022 it is projected to grow to $331.2 billion. The cloud storage industry was projected to grow 17.2 percent in 2019 (Costello, 2019). == History == The concept of cloud computing trace back to 1960s, when the groundwork for modern internet and network technologies was being laid (Human for humans, 2024). One of the pivotal figures in this early period was J.C.R. Licklider, a visionary computer scientist who worked on ARPANET, the precursor to the internet. Licklider's ideas set the stage for the development of distributed computing systems, which are fundamental to cloud computing. Moving into the 1990s, AT&T introduced PersonaLink Services, a more advanced online platform offering electronic mail and online storage. Major turning point in 2006 The launch of Amazon Web Services (AWS) in 2006 marked a major turning point. AWS introduced Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service), which allowed businesses and developers to store and retrieve any amount of data, at any time, from anywhere on the web. This development was revolutionary, providing scalable, reliable, and low-cost data storage infrastructure that transformed how organizations managed their data. == Applications == Some mobile device manufacturers include mobile cloud storage apps with their product. These apps facilitate synchronization of user files across multiple platforms. Part of the process for setting up new mobile devices frequently includes configuring a cloud storage service to Backup the device's files and information. Apple iOS devices come pre-loaded and configured to use Apple's mobile cloud storage service iCloud. Google offers a similar feature with the Android operating system by backing up the device using a Google Drive account. The Samsung Galaxy smartphone has partnered with Dropbox, while Microsoft similarly offers Microsoft OneDrive. Some mobile cloud storage apps are platform-independent. For example, Nasuni's Mobile Access app is available on any Android or iOS device. Most companies offering Cloud Storage have secure website to access files allowing use on any device that can browse the Internet.
Automatic summarization is the process of shortening a set of data computationally, to create a subset (a summary) that represents the most important or relevant information within the original content. Artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms are commonly developed and employed to achieve this, specialized for different types of data. Text summarization is usually implemented by natural language processing methods, designed to locate the most informative sentences in a given document. On the other hand, visual content can be summarized using computer vision algorithms. Image summarization is the subject of ongoing research; existing approaches typically attempt to display the most representative images from a given image collection, or generate a video that only includes the most important content from the entire collection. Video summarization algorithms identify and extract from the original video content the most important frames (key-frames), and/or the most important video segments (key-shots), normally in a temporally ordered fashion. Video summaries simply retain a carefully selected subset of the original video frames and, therefore, are not identical to the output of video synopsis algorithms, where new video frames are being synthesized based on the original video content. == Commercial products == In 2022 Google Docs released an automatic summarization feature. == Approaches == There are two general approaches to automatic summarization: extraction and abstraction. === Extraction-based summarization === Here, content is extracted from the original data, but the extracted content is not modified in any way. Examples of extracted content include key-phrases that can be used to "tag" or index a text document, or key sentences (including headings) that collectively comprise an abstract, and representative images or video segments, as stated above. For text, extraction is analogous to the process of skimming, where the summary (if available), headings and subheadings, figures, the first and last paragraphs of a section, and optionally the first and last sentences in a paragraph are read before one chooses to read the entire document in detail. Other examples of extraction that include key sequences of text in terms of clinical relevance (including patient/problem, intervention, and outcome). === Abstractive-based summarization === Abstractive summarization methods generate new text that did not exist in the original text. This has been applied mainly for text. Abstractive methods build an internal semantic representation of the original content (often called a language model), and then use this representation to create a summary that is closer to what a human might express. Abstraction may transform the extracted content by paraphrasing sections of the source document, to condense a text more strongly than extraction. Such transformation, however, is computationally much more challenging than extraction, involving both natural language processing and often a deep understanding of the domain of the original text in cases where the original document relates to a special field of knowledge. "Paraphrasing" is even more difficult to apply to images and videos, which is why most summarization systems are extractive. === Aided summarization === Approaches aimed at higher summarization quality rely on combined software and human effort. In Machine Aided Human Summarization, extractive techniques highlight candidate passages for inclusion (to which the human adds or removes text). In Human Aided Machine Summarization, a human post-processes software output, in the same way that one edits the output of automatic translation by Google Translate. == Applications and systems for summarization == There are broadly two types of extractive summarization tasks depending on what the summarization program focuses on. The first is generic summarization, which focuses on obtaining a generic summary or abstract of the collection (whether documents, or sets of images, or videos, news stories etc.). The second is query relevant summarization, sometimes called query-based summarization, which summarizes objects specific to a query. Summarization systems are able to create both query relevant text summaries and generic machine-generated summaries depending on what the user needs. An example of a summarization problem is document summarization, which attempts to automatically produce an abstract from a given document. Sometimes one might be interested in generating a summary from a single source document, while others can use multiple source documents (for example, a cluster of articles on the same topic). This problem is called multi-document summarization. A related application is summarizing news articles. Imagine a system, which automatically pulls together news articles on a given topic (from the web), and concisely represents the latest news as a summary. Image collection summarization is another application example of automatic summarization. It consists in selecting a representative set of images from a larger set of images. A summary in this context is useful to show the most representative images of results in an image collection exploration system. Video summarization is a related domain, where the system automatically creates a trailer of a long video. This also has applications in consumer or personal videos, where one might want to skip the boring or repetitive actions. Similarly, in surveillance videos, one would want to extract important and suspicious activity, while ignoring all the boring and redundant frames captured. At a very high level, summarization algorithms try to find subsets of objects (like set of sentences, or a set of images), which cover information of the entire set. This is also called the core-set. These algorithms model notions like diversity, coverage, information and representativeness of the summary. Query based summarization techniques, additionally model for relevance of the summary with the query. Some techniques and algorithms which naturally model summarization problems are TextRank and PageRank, Submodular set function, Determinantal point process, maximal marginal relevance (MMR) etc. === Keyphrase extraction === The task is the following. You are given a piece of text, such as a journal article, and you must produce a list of keywords or key[phrase]s that capture the primary topics discussed in the text. In the case of research articles, many authors provide manually assigned keywords, but most text lacks pre-existing keyphrases. For example, news articles rarely have keyphrases attached, but it would be useful to be able to automatically do so for a number of applications discussed below. Consider the example text from a news article: "The Army Corps of Engineers, rushing to meet President Bush's promise to protect New Orleans by the start of the 2006 hurricane season, installed defective flood-control pumps last year despite warnings from its own expert that the equipment would fail during a storm, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press". A keyphrase extractor might select "Army Corps of Engineers", "President Bush", "New Orleans", and "defective flood-control pumps" as keyphrases. These are pulled directly from the text. In contrast, an abstractive keyphrase system would somehow internalize the content and generate keyphrases that do not appear in the text, but more closely resemble what a human might produce, such as "political negligence" or "inadequate protection from floods". Abstraction requires a deep understanding of the text, which makes it difficult for a computer system. Keyphrases have many applications. They can enable document browsing by providing a short summary, improve information retrieval (if documents have keyphrases assigned, a user could search by keyphrase to produce more reliable hits than a full-text search), and be employed in generating index entries for a large text corpus. Depending on the different literature and the definition of key terms, words or phrases, keyword extraction is a highly related theme. ==== Supervised learning approaches ==== Beginning with the work of Turney, many researchers have approached keyphrase extraction as a supervised machine learning problem. Given a document, we construct an example for each unigram, bigram, and trigram found in the text (though other text units are also possible, as discussed below). We then compute various features describing each example (e.g., does the phrase begin with an upper-case letter?). We assume there are known keyphrases available for a set of training documents. Using the known keyphrases, we can assign positive or negative labels to the examples. Then we learn a classifier that can discriminate between positive and negative examples as a function of the features. Some classifiers make a binary classification for a test example, while others assign a probability of being a keyphrase. For ins
In natural language processing, open information extraction (OIE) is the task of generating a structured, machine-readable representation of the information in text, usually in the form of triples or n-ary propositions. == Overview == A proposition can be understood as truth-bearer, a textual expression of a potential fact (e.g., "Dante wrote the Divine Comedy"), represented in an amenable structure for computers [e.g., ("Dante", "wrote", "Divine Comedy")]. An OIE extraction normally consists of a relation and a set of arguments. For instance, ("Dante", "passed away in" "Ravenna") is a proposition formed by the relation "passed away in" and the arguments "Dante" and "Ravenna". The first argument is usually referred as the subject while the second is considered to be the object. The extraction is said to be a textual representation of a potential fact because its elements are not linked to a knowledge base. Furthermore, the factual nature of the proposition has not yet been established. In the above example, transforming the extraction into a full fledged fact would first require linking, if possible, the relation and the arguments to a knowledge base. Second, the truth of the extraction would need to be determined. In computer science transforming OIE extractions into ontological facts is known as relation extraction. In fact, OIE can be seen as the first step to a wide range of deeper text understanding tasks such as relation extraction, knowledge-base construction, question answering, semantic role labeling. The extracted propositions can also be directly used for end-user applications such as structured search (e.g., retrieve all propositions with "Dante" as subject). OIE was first introduced by TextRunner developed at the University of Washington Turing Center headed by Oren Etzioni. Other methods introduced later such as Reverb, OLLIE, ClausIE or CSD helped to shape the OIE task by characterizing some of its aspects. At a high level, all of these approaches make use of a set of patterns to generate the extractions. Depending on the particular approach, these patterns are either hand-crafted or learned. == OIE systems and contributions == Reverb suggested the necessity to produce meaningful relations to more accurately capture the information in the input text. For instance, given the sentence "Faust made a pact with the devil", it would be erroneous to just produce the extraction ("Faust", "made", "a pact") since it would not be adequately informative. A more precise extraction would be ("Faust", "made a pact with", "the devil"). Reverb also argued against the generation of overspecific relations. OLLIE stressed two important aspects for OIE. First, it pointed to the lack of factuality of the propositions. For instance, in a sentence like "If John studies hard, he will pass the exam", it would be inaccurate to consider ("John", "will pass", "the exam") as a fact. Additionally, the authors indicated that an OIE system should be able to extract non-verb mediated relations, which account for significant portion of the information expressed in natural language text. For instance, in the sentence "Obama, the former US president, was born in Hawaii", an OIE system should be able to recognize a proposition ("Obama", "is", "former US president"). ClausIE introduced the connection between grammatical clauses, propositions, and OIE extractions. The authors stated that as each grammatical clause expresses a proposition, each verb mediated proposition can be identified by solely recognizing the set of clauses expressed in each sentence. This implies that to correctly recognize the set of propositions in an input sentence, it is necessary to understand its grammatical structure. The authors studied the case in the English language that only admits seven clause types, meaning that the identification of each proposition only requires defining seven grammatical patterns. The finding also established a separation between the recognition of the propositions and its materialization. In a first step, the proposition can be identified without any consideration of its final form, in a domain-independent and unsupervised way, mostly based on linguistic principles. In a second step, the information can be represented according to the requirements of the underlying application, without conditioning the identification phase. Consider the sentence "Albert Einstein was born in Ulm and died in Princeton". The first step will recognize the two propositions ("Albert Einstein", "was born", "in Ulm") and ("Albert Einstein", "died", "in Princeton"). Once the information has been correctly identified, the propositions can take the particular form required by the underlying application [e.g., ("Albert Einstein", "was born in", "Ulm") and ("Albert Einstein", "died in", "Princeton")]. CSD introduced the idea of minimality in OIE. It considers that computers can make better use of the extractions if they are expressed in a compact way. This is especially important in sentences with subordinate clauses. In these cases, CSD suggests the generation of nested extractions. For example, consider the sentence "The Embassy said that 6,700 Americans were in Pakistan". CSD generates two extractions [i] ("6,700 Americans", "were", "in Pakistan") and [ii] ("The Embassy", "said", "that [i]"). This is usually known as reification.