In theoretical computer science and formal language theory, a weighted automaton or weighted finite-state machine is a generalization of a finite-state machine in which the edges have weights, for example real numbers or integers. Finite-state machines are only capable of answering decision problems; they take as input a string and produce a Boolean output, i.e. either "accept" or "reject". In contrast, weighted automata produce a quantitative output, for example a count of how many answers are possible on a given input string, or a probability of how likely the input string is according to a probability distribution. They are one of the simplest studied models of quantitative automata. The definition of a weighted automaton is generally given over an arbitrary semiring R {\displaystyle R} , an abstract set with an addition operation + {\displaystyle +} and a multiplication operation × {\displaystyle \times } . The automaton consists of a finite set of states, a finite input alphabet of characters Σ {\displaystyle \Sigma } and edges which are labeled with both a character in Σ {\displaystyle \Sigma } and a weight in R {\displaystyle R} . The weight of any path in the automaton is defined to be the product of weights along the path, and the weight of a string is the sum of the weights of all paths which are labeled with that string. The weighted automaton thus defines a function from Σ ∗ {\displaystyle \Sigma ^{}} to R {\displaystyle R} . Weighted automata generalize deterministic finite automata (DFAs) and nondeterministic finite automata (NFAs), which correspond to weighted automata over the Boolean semiring, where addition is logical disjunction and multiplication is logical conjunction. In the DFA case, there is only one accepting path for any input string, so disjunction is not applied. When the weights are real numbers and the outgoing weights for each state add to one, weighted automata can be considered a probabilistic model and are also known as probabilistic automata. These machines define a probability distribution over all strings, and are related to other probabilistic models such as Markov decision processes and Markov chains. Weighted automata have applications in natural language processing where they are used to assign weights to words and sentences, as well as in image compression. They were first introduced by Marcel-Paul Schützenberger in his 1961 paper On the definition of a family of automata. Since their introduction, many extensions have been proposed, for example nested weighted automata, cost register automata, and weighted finite-state transducers. Researchers have studied weighted automata from the perspective of learning a machine from its input-output behavior (see computational learning theory) and studying decidability questions. == Definition == A commutative semiring (or rig) is a set R equipped with two distinguished elements 0 ≠ 1 {\displaystyle 0\neq 1} and addition and multiplication operations ⊕ {\displaystyle \oplus } and ⊗ {\displaystyle \otimes } such that ⊕ {\displaystyle \oplus } is commutative and associative with identity 0 {\displaystyle 0} , ⊗ {\displaystyle \otimes } is commutative and associative with identity 1 {\displaystyle 1} , ⊗ {\displaystyle \otimes } distributes over ⊕ {\displaystyle \oplus } , and 0 is an absorbing element for ⊗ {\displaystyle \otimes } . A weighted automaton over R {\displaystyle R} is a tuple A = ( Q , Σ , Δ , I , F ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}=(Q,\Sigma ,\Delta ,I,F)} where: Q {\displaystyle Q} is a finite set of states. Σ {\displaystyle \Sigma } is a finite alphabet. Δ ⊆ Q × Σ × R × Q {\displaystyle \Delta \subseteq Q\times \Sigma \times R\times Q} is a finite set of transitions ( q , σ , w , q ′ ) {\displaystyle (q,\sigma ,w,q')} , where σ {\displaystyle \sigma } is called a character and w {\displaystyle w} is called a weight. I : Q → R {\displaystyle I:Q\to R} is an initial weight function. F : Q → R {\displaystyle F:Q\to R} is a final weight function. A path on input w ∈ Σ ∗ {\displaystyle w\in \Sigma ^{}} is a finite path in the graph, where the concatenation of the character labels equals w {\displaystyle w} . The weight of the path q 0 , q 1 , … , q n {\displaystyle q_{0},q_{1},\ldots ,q_{n}} is the product ( ⊗ {\displaystyle \otimes } ) of the weights along the path, additionally multiplied by the initial and final weights I ( q 0 ) ⊗ F ( q n ) {\displaystyle I(q_{0})\otimes F(q_{n})} . The weight of the word w {\displaystyle w} is the sum ( ⊕ {\displaystyle \oplus } ) of the weights of all paths on input w {\displaystyle w} (or 0 if there are no accepting paths). In this way the machine defines a function [ [ A ] ] : Σ ∗ → R {\displaystyle [\![{\mathcal {A}}]\!]:\Sigma ^{}\to R} . == Ambiguity and determinism == Since Δ {\displaystyle \Delta } is a set of transitions, weighted automata allow multiple transitions (or paths) on a single input string. Therefore a weighted automaton can be considered analogous to a nondeterministic finite automaton (NFA). As is the case with NFAs, restrictions of weighted automata are considered that correspond to the concepts of deterministic finite automaton and unambiguous finite automaton (deterministic weighted automata and unambiguous weighted automata, respectively). First, a preliminary definition: the underlying NFA of A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} is an NFA formed by removing all transitions with weight 0 {\displaystyle 0} and then erasing all of the weights on the transitions Δ {\displaystyle \Delta } , so that the new transition set lies in Q × Σ × Q {\displaystyle Q\times \Sigma \times Q} . The initial states and final states are the set of states q {\displaystyle q} such that I ( q ) ≠ 0 {\displaystyle I(q)\neq 0} and F ( q ) ≠ 0 {\displaystyle F(q)\neq 0} , respectively. A weighted automaton is deterministic if the underlying NFA is deterministic and unambiguous if the underlying NFA is unambiguous. Every deterministic weighted automaton is unambiguous. In both the deterministic and unambiguous cases, there is always at most one accepting path, so the ⊕ {\displaystyle \oplus } operation is never applied and can be omitted from the definition. == Variations == The requirement that there is a zero element for ⊕ {\displaystyle \oplus } is sometimes omitted; in this case the machine defines a partial function from Σ ∗ {\displaystyle \Sigma ^{}} to R {\displaystyle R} rather than a total function. It is possible to extend the definition to allow epsilon transitions ( q , ϵ , w , q ′ ) {\displaystyle (q,\epsilon ,w,q')} , where ϵ {\displaystyle \epsilon } is the empty string. In this case, one must then require that there are no cycles of epsilon transitions. This does not increase the expressiveness of weighted automata. If epsilon transitions are allowed, the initial weights and final weights can be replaced by initial and final sets of states without loss of expressiveness. Some authors omit the initial and final weight functions I {\displaystyle I} and F {\displaystyle F} . Instead, I {\displaystyle I} and F {\displaystyle F} are replaced by a set of initial and final states. If epsilon transitions are not present, this technically decreases expressiveness as it forces [ [ A ] ] ( ε ) {\displaystyle [\![{\mathcal {A}}]\!](\varepsilon )} to depend only on the number of states that are both initial and final. The transition function can be given as a matrix Δ σ ∈ R Q × Q {\displaystyle \Delta _{\sigma }\in R^{Q\times Q}} with entries in R {\displaystyle R} for each σ {\displaystyle \sigma } , rather than a set of transitions. The entry of the matrix at ( q , q ′ ) {\displaystyle (q,q')} is the sum of all transitions labeled ( q , σ , q ′ ) {\displaystyle (q,\sigma ,q')} . Some authors restrict to specific semirings, such as N {\displaystyle \mathbb {N} } or Z {\displaystyle \mathbb {Z} } , particularly when studying decidability results.
Automatic acquisition of lexicon
Automatic acquisition of lexicon is a computerized process used for the development of a complex morphological lexicon of a language. The lexicon is essential for the NLP (Natural language processing), as well as a prerequisite to any wide-coverage parser. The two main requirements represent raw corpus and the morphological description of the language. The aim is to provide lemmas that will serve to the explanation of all the words that occur within the corpus. For the achievement of a quality lexicon it is necessary to manually validate the generated lemmas and iterate the whole process several times. The process is focused on the open word classes (e.g. nouns, adjectives, verbs). Closed classes (e.g. prepositions, pronouns, numerals) are excluded. This method is applicable to the languages with a rich morphology, such as Slovak, Russian or Croatian. Applied to Slovak, being an inflectional language, the automatic acquisition focuses on the inflectional morphology as well as on the derivational morphology. This fact enables the users to find out the information about derivational relations (e.g. adjectivizations, prefixes) in the lexicon. For example, Slovak word korpusový is an adjectivization of korpus (eng. corpus). == Three-step loop == Conformably to Benoît Sagot, there are three stages involved in the acquisition of lemmas: Generation and inflection Ranking Manual validation The more iteration will be performed, the more accurate lexicon will be obtained. For each iteration are essential the information given by a manual validator. === Generation and inflection === Firstly, all words which represent the closed word classes (pronouns, prepositions, numerals) are manually excluded from the given corpus. Number of their occurrences in the corpus is provided. Then the automatic generation comes, when the hypothetical lemmas according to the morphological description of a language are created. Generated lemmas are consequently being inflected, so that all of their inflected forms are built. Obtained forms are associated with the corresponding lemma and a morphological tag. === Ranking === There was created a probabilistic model, represented by a fix-point algorithm, to rank the hypothetical lemmas generated in the first step. Best ranked lemmas are expected to be ideally all correct, whereas the least ranked tend to be incorrect. === Manual validation === Correctness of the best- ranked lemmas created in the previous step are checked by the manual validator, who should be a native speaker. Lemmas are at this stage divided into three categories: valid lemmas, appended to lexicon erroneous lemmas generated by valid forms (later associated to another lemmas) erroneous lemmas generated by invalid forms (these need to be excluded) == Future development == Automatic acquisition, in comparison to a purely manual development of the lexicons, seems to be promising, considering the future development, because of the short validation time needed and the relatively small amount of human labor involved.
Investigative Data Warehouse
Investigative Data Warehouse (IDW) is a searchable database operated by the FBI. It was created in 2004. Much of the nature and scope of the database is classified. The database is a centralization of multiple federal and state databases, including criminal records from various law enforcement agencies, the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), and public records databases. According to Michael Morehart's testimony before the House Committee on Financial Services in 2006, the "IDW is a centralized, web-enabled, closed system repository for intelligence and investigative data. This system, maintained by the FBI, allows appropriately trained and authorized personnel throughout the country to query for information of relevance to investigative and intelligence matters." == Overview == In 2004, according to a government solicitation for bids to manage the project, it was approximately 10TB in size. In 2005, according to one FBI official, the IDW contained approximately 100 million documents. In 2006 it contained more than 560 million documents and was accessible by more than 12,000 individuals. According to the FBI's website, as of August 22, 2007, the database contained 700 million records from 53 databases and was accessible by 13,000 individuals around the world. As of 2007, the FBI was the subject of a lawsuit brought by the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) because of a lack of public notice describing the database and the criteria for including personal information, as required by the Privacy Act of 1974. The lawsuits were a result of two Freedom of Information Act requests filed by the EFF in 2006. It was built in part by Chiliad corporation, the FBI Office of the Chief Technology Officer, and others. Companies listed on the FOIA files include Northrop Grumman . == Purpose == Investigative Data Warehouse–Secret (IDW-S) "provides data and data processing/analysis services to FBI agents and analysts as they perform counter-terrorism, counter-intelligence, and law enforcement missions". The core subsystem supports the Counter-Terrorism Division (CTD), the Special Event Unit, and via DOCLAB-S, the Joint Intelligence Committee Investigation (JICI) and IntelPlus. According to a 2005 email, "IDW will also be used for criminal and other authorized non-CT investigations as it evolves." (CT being counter terrorism) == Subsystems == Within the system, there were subsystems named IDW-S Core, SPT, and DOCLAB-S The special projects team (SPT): allows for the rapid import of new specialized data sources. These data sources are not made available to the general IDW users but instead are provided to a small group of users who have a demonstrated "need-to-know". The SPT System is similar in function to the IDW-S system, with the main difference is a different set of data sources. The SPT System allows its users to access not only the standard IDW Data Store but the specialized SPT Data Store. == Privacy == According to internal emails, the FBI performed several Privacy Impact Assessments (PIAs) of the IDW system. They worked with lawyers from their National Security Law Branch (NSLB) to attempt to make sure their system was complying with various laws regarding sharing of information and secrecy (for example, rule 6e of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, regarding the secrecy of Grand Jury material ). The Information Sharing Policy Group (ISPG) formed a Discretionary Access Control Team (DACT), to work on "approval of data sets" and "access control requirements" for IDW and DataMart, and responding to other Intelligence Community agencies requesting access. The EFF FOIA IDW website states "Despite the vast amount of personal information contained in the IDW, the FBI has never published a Privacy Act notice describing the system or explaining the ways in which the records might be used." There was also a 2005 email from someone on the Office of General Council (OGC) about "preliminary staff musings that maybe we should limit FBI PIA requirements to non-NS systems" (NS being National Security). There was also an email from 2006 saying that 'national security systems are exempt from E-Gov', apparently referring to the E-Government Act of 2002, which has a section that deals with privacy. == Data sources == The IDW used many data sources. The FOIA documents from EFF are heavily redacted, but some of the sources are as follows: FBI Automated Case Support system (ACS), subset of the Electronic Case File (ECF) system Joint Intelligence Committee Investigation documents (JICI), with OCR text "Open Source News" (public websites, such as the Washington Post and others) Secure Automated Messaging Network (SAMNet) Violent Gang and Terrorist Organizing File (VGTOF) DARPA TIDES program ('open source news' that has been organized and collected) IntelPlus Filerooms, with OCR text FBI National Crime Information Center (NCIC) FBI Records Management Division (RMD), Document Laboratory (DocLab), FBIHQ MiTAP (collects data from public sources, websites, etc.) SPT-Specific data sources (partial list, FOIA files have large parts redacted): Unified Name Index (UNI) extracts Financial Center (FinCen), including Bank Secrecy Act data "Various Sources", including the Transportation Security Administration FBI Counterterrorism Division (CTD) Telephone numbers / addresses from ACS Case data from ACS Terrorist Watch List (TWL) "Other NJTTF data" DoS ... Lost/Stolen Passport data No Fly List, from TSA Selectee list, from TSA ACS/ECF with some case types excluded CIA non-TS/non-SCI Technical Discussions (TDs) and Intelligence Information Reports (IIRs) from 1978 to the May 2004 There was also talk of linking the FTTTF "Data Mart" with IDW. The data in IDW is classified at the 'Secret' level or lower. Higher classifications are not allowed, and can be removed
Collision problem
The r-to-1 collision problem is an important theoretical problem in complexity theory, quantum computing, and computational mathematics. The collision problem most often refers to the 2-to-1 version: given n {\displaystyle n} even and a function f : { 1 , … , n } → { 1 , … , n } {\displaystyle f:\,\{1,\ldots ,n\}\rightarrow \{1,\ldots ,n\}} , we are promised that f is either 1-to-1 or 2-to-1. We are only allowed to make queries about the value of f ( i ) {\displaystyle f(i)} for any i ∈ { 1 , … , n } {\displaystyle i\in \{1,\ldots ,n\}} . The problem then asks how many such queries we need to make to determine with certainty whether f is 1-to-1 or 2-to-1. == Classical solutions == === Deterministic === Solving the 2-to-1 version deterministically requires n 2 + 1 {\textstyle {\frac {n}{2}}+1} queries, and in general distinguishing r-to-1 functions from 1-to-1 functions requires n r + 1 {\textstyle {\frac {n}{r}}+1} queries. This is a straightforward application of the pigeonhole principle: if a function is r-to-1, then after n r + 1 {\textstyle {\frac {n}{r}}+1} queries we are guaranteed to have found a collision. If a function is 1-to-1, then no collision exists. Thus, n r + 1 {\textstyle {\frac {n}{r}}+1} queries suffice. If we are unlucky, then the first n / r {\displaystyle n/r} queries could return distinct answers, so n r + 1 {\textstyle {\frac {n}{r}}+1} queries is also necessary. === Randomized === If we allow randomness, the problem is easier. By the birthday paradox, if we choose (distinct) queries at random, then with high probability we find a collision in any fixed 2-to-1 function after Θ ( n ) {\displaystyle \Theta ({\sqrt {n}})} queries. == Quantum solution == The BHT algorithm, which uses Grover's algorithm, solves this problem optimally by only making O ( n 1 / 3 ) {\displaystyle O(n^{1/3})} queries to f. The matching lower bound of Ω ( n 1 / 3 ) {\displaystyle \Omega (n^{1/3})} was proved by Aaronson and Shi using the polynomial method.
SQL/PSM
SQL/PSM (SQL/Persistent Stored Modules) is an ISO standard mainly defining an extension of SQL with a procedural language for use in stored procedures. Initially published in 1996 as an extension of SQL-92 (ISO/IEC 9075-4:1996, a version sometimes called PSM-96 or even SQL-92/PSM), SQL/PSM was later incorporated into the multi-part SQL:1999 standard, and has been part 4 of that standard since then, most recently in SQL:2023. The SQL:1999 part 4 covered less than the original PSM-96 because the SQL statements for defining, managing, and invoking routines were actually incorporated into part 2 SQL/Foundation, leaving only the procedural language itself as SQL/PSM. The SQL/PSM facilities are still optional as far as the SQL standard is concerned; most of them are grouped in Features P001-P008. SQL/PSM standardizes syntax and semantics for control flow, exception handling (called "condition handling" in SQL/PSM), local variables, assignment of expressions to variables and parameters, and (procedural) use of cursors. It also defines an information schema (metadata) for stored procedures. SQL/PSM is one language in which methods for the SQL:1999 structured types can be defined. The other is Java, via SQL/JRT. SQL/PSM is derived, seemingly directly, from Oracle's PL/SQL. Oracle developed PL/SQL and released it in 1991, basing the language on the US Department of Defense's Ada programming language. However, Oracle has maintained a distance from the standard in its documentation. IBM's SQL PL (used in DB2) and Mimer SQL's PSM were the first two products officially implementing SQL/PSM. It is commonly thought that these two languages, and perhaps also MySQL/MariaDB's procedural language, are closest to the SQL/PSM standard. However, a PostgreSQL addon implements SQL/PSM (alongside its other procedural languages like the PL/SQL-derived plpgsql), although it is not part of the core product. RDF functionality in OpenLink Virtuoso was developed entirely through SQL/PSM, combined with custom datatypes (e.g., ANY for handling URI and Literal relation objects), sophisticated indexing, and flexible physical storage choices (column-wise or row-wise).
EfficientNet
EfficientNet is a family of convolutional neural networks (CNNs) for computer vision published by researchers at Google AI in 2019. Its key innovation is compound scaling, which uniformly scales all dimensions of depth, width, and resolution using a single parameter. EfficientNet models have been adopted in various computer vision tasks, including image classification, object detection, and segmentation. == Compound scaling == EfficientNet introduces compound scaling, which, instead of scaling one dimension of the network at a time, such as depth (number of layers), width (number of channels), or resolution (input image size), uses a compound coefficient ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } to scale all three dimensions simultaneously. Specifically, given a baseline network, the depth, width, and resolution are scaled according to the following equations: depth multiplier: d = α ϕ width multiplier: w = β ϕ resolution multiplier: r = γ ϕ {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}{\text{depth multiplier: }}d&=\alpha ^{\phi }\\{\text{width multiplier: }}w&=\beta ^{\phi }\\{\text{resolution multiplier: }}r&=\gamma ^{\phi }\end{aligned}}} subject to α ⋅ β 2 ⋅ γ 2 ≈ 2 {\displaystyle \alpha \cdot \beta ^{2}\cdot \gamma ^{2}\approx 2} and α ≥ 1 , β ≥ 1 , γ ≥ 1 {\displaystyle \alpha \geq 1,\beta \geq 1,\gamma \geq 1} . The α ⋅ β 2 ⋅ γ 2 ≈ 2 {\displaystyle \alpha \cdot \beta ^{2}\cdot \gamma ^{2}\approx 2} condition is such that increasing ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } by a factor of ϕ 0 {\displaystyle \phi _{0}} would increase the total FLOPs of running the network on an image approximately 2 ϕ 0 {\displaystyle 2^{\phi _{0}}} times. The hyperparameters α {\displaystyle \alpha } , β {\displaystyle \beta } , and γ {\displaystyle \gamma } are determined by a small grid search. The original paper suggested 1.2, 1.1, and 1.15, respectively. Architecturally, they optimized the choice of modules by neural architecture search (NAS), and found that the inverted bottleneck convolution (which they called MBConv) used in MobileNet worked well. The EfficientNet family is a stack of MBConv layers, with shapes determined by the compound scaling. The original publication consisted of 8 models, from EfficientNet-B0 to EfficientNet-B7, with increasing model size and accuracy. EfficientNet-B0 is the baseline network, and subsequent models are obtained by scaling the baseline network by increasing ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } . == Variants == EfficientNet has been adapted for fast inference on edge TPUs and centralized TPU or GPU clusters by NAS. EfficientNet V2 was published in June 2021. The architecture was improved by further NAS search with more types of convolutional layers. It also introduced a training method, which progressively increases image size during training, and uses regularization techniques like dropout, RandAugment, and Mixup. The authors claim this approach mitigates accuracy drops often associated with progressive resizing.
Information scientist
The term information scientist developed in the latter part of the twentieth century by Wm. Hovey Smith to describe an individual, usually with a relevant subject degree (such as one in Information and Computer Science - CIS) or high level of subject knowledge, providing focused information to scientific and technical research staff in industry. It is a role quite distinct from and complementary to that of a librarian. Developments in end-user searching, together with some convergence between the roles of librarian and information scientist, have led to a diminution in its use in this context, and the term information officer or information professional (information specialist) are also now used. The term was, and is, also used for an individual carrying out research in information science. Brian C. Vickery mentions that the Institute of Information Scientists (IIS) was established in London during 1958 and lists the criteria put forward by this institute "Criteria for Information Science" (appendix 1) as well as his own "Areas of study in information science" (appendix 2). The IIS merged with the Library Association in 2002 to form the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals (CILIP). == Notable Information Scientists == See also Award of Merit - Association for Information Science and Technology Marcia Bates David Blair (information technologist) Samuel C. Bradford Michael Buckland John M. Carroll Blaise Cronin Emilia Currás Brenda Dervin Eugene Garfield Paul B. Kantor Frederick Wilfrid Lancaster Calvin Mooers Tefko Saracevic Linda C. Smith Robert Saxton Taylor Brian Campbell Vickery Thomas D. Wilson == Additional reading == Ellis, David and Merete Haugan. (1997) "Modelling the information seeking patterns of engineers and research scientists in an industrial environment" (Journal of Documentation, Volume 53(4): pp. 384–403) Poole, Alex H. (2024). "'There's a big difference between going through life with the wind at your back, and going through life leaning into the wind': Feminism in Post-World War II Information Science". Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 61: 300–313. doi:10.1002/pra2.1029. Vickery, Brian Campbell (1988) "Essays presented to B. C. Vickery" (Journal of Documentation, Volume 44, pp. 199–283). Vickery, B. & Vickery, A. (1987) Information Science in theory and practice (London: Bowker-Saur, pp. 361–369)