Locally recoverable codes are a family of error correction codes that were introduced first by D. S. Papailiopoulos and A. G. Dimakis and have been widely studied in information theory due to their applications related to distributive and cloud storage systems. An [ n , k , d , r ] q {\displaystyle [n,k,d,r]_{q}} LRC is an [ n , k , d ] q {\displaystyle [n,k,d]_{q}} linear code such that there is a function f i {\displaystyle f_{i}} that takes as input i {\displaystyle i} and a set of r {\displaystyle r} other coordinates of a codeword c = ( c 1 , … , c n ) ∈ C {\displaystyle c=(c_{1},\ldots ,c_{n})\in C} different from c i {\displaystyle c_{i}} , and outputs c i {\displaystyle c_{i}} . == Overview == Erasure-correcting codes, or simply erasure codes, for distributed and cloud storage systems, are becoming more and more popular as a result of the present spike in demand for cloud computing and storage services. This has inspired researchers in the fields of information and coding theory to investigate new facets of codes that are specifically suited for use with storage systems. It is well-known that LRC is a code that needs only a limited set of other symbols to be accessed in order to restore every symbol in a codeword. This idea is very important for distributed and cloud storage systems since the most common error case is when one storage node fails (erasure). The main objective is to recover as much data as possible from the fewest additional storage nodes in order to restore the node. Hence, Locally Recoverable Codes are crucial for such systems. The following definition of the LRC follows from the description above: an [ n , k , r ] {\displaystyle [n,k,r]} -Locally Recoverable Code (LRC) of length n {\displaystyle n} is a code that produces an n {\displaystyle n} -symbol codeword from k {\displaystyle k} information symbols, and for any symbol of the codeword, there exist at most r {\displaystyle r} other symbols such that the value of the symbol can be recovered from them. The locality parameter satisfies 1 ≤ r ≤ k {\displaystyle 1\leq r\leq k} because the entire codeword can be found by accessing k {\displaystyle k} symbols other than the erased symbol. Furthermore, Locally Recoverable Codes, having the minimum distance d {\displaystyle d} , can recover d − 1 {\displaystyle d-1} erasures. == Definition == Let C {\displaystyle C} be a [ n , k , d ] q {\displaystyle [n,k,d]_{q}} linear code. For i ∈ { 1 , … , n } {\displaystyle i\in \{1,\ldots ,n\}} , let us denote by r i {\displaystyle r_{i}} the minimum number of other coordinates we have to look at to recover an erasure in coordinate i {\displaystyle i} . The number r i {\displaystyle r_{i}} is said to be the locality of the i {\displaystyle i} -th coordinate of the code. The locality of the code is defined as An [ n , k , d , r ] q {\displaystyle [n,k,d,r]_{q}} locally recoverable code (LRC) is an [ n , k , d ] q {\displaystyle [n,k,d]_{q}} linear code C ∈ F q n {\displaystyle C\in \mathbb {F} _{q}^{n}} with locality r {\displaystyle r} . Let C {\displaystyle C} be an [ n , k , d ] q {\displaystyle [n,k,d]_{q}} -locally recoverable code. Then an erased component can be recovered linearly, i.e. for every i ∈ { 1 , … , n } {\displaystyle i\in \{1,\ldots ,n\}} , the space of linear equations of the code contains elements of the form x i = f ( x i 1 , … , x i r ) {\displaystyle x_{i}=f(x_{i_{1}},\ldots ,x_{i_{r}})} , where i j ≠ i {\displaystyle i_{j}\neq i} . == Optimal locally recoverable codes == Theorem Let n = ( r + 1 ) s {\displaystyle n=(r+1)s} and let C {\displaystyle C} be an [ n , k , d ] q {\displaystyle [n,k,d]_{q}} -locally recoverable code having s {\displaystyle s} disjoint locality sets of size r + 1 {\displaystyle r+1} . Then An [ n , k , d , r ] q {\displaystyle [n,k,d,r]_{q}} -LRC C {\displaystyle C} is said to be optimal if the minimum distance of C {\displaystyle C} satisfies == Tamo–Barg codes == Let f ∈ F q [ x ] {\displaystyle f\in \mathbb {F} _{q}[x]} be a polynomial and let ℓ {\displaystyle \ell } be a positive integer. Then f {\displaystyle f} is said to be ( r {\displaystyle r} , ℓ {\displaystyle \ell } )-good if • f {\displaystyle f} has degree r + 1 {\displaystyle r+1} , • there exist distinct subsets A 1 , … , A ℓ {\displaystyle A_{1},\ldots ,A_{\ell }} of F q {\displaystyle \mathbb {F} _{q}} such that – for any i ∈ { 1 , … , ℓ } {\displaystyle i\in \{1,\ldots ,\ell \}} , f ( A i ) = { t i } {\displaystyle f(A_{i})=\{t_{i}\}} for some t i ∈ F q {\displaystyle t_{i}\in \mathbb {F} _{q}} , i.e., f {\displaystyle f} is constant on A i {\displaystyle A_{i}} , – # A i = r + 1 {\displaystyle \#A_{i}=r+1} , – A i ∩ A j = ∅ {\displaystyle A_{i}\cap A_{j}=\varnothing } for any i ≠ j {\displaystyle i\neq j} . We say that { A 1 , … , A ℓ {\displaystyle A_{1},\ldots ,A_{\ell }} } is a splitting covering for f {\displaystyle f} . === Tamo–Barg construction === The Tamo–Barg construction utilizes good polynomials. • Suppose that a ( r , ℓ ) {\displaystyle (r,\ell )} -good polynomial f ( x ) {\displaystyle f(x)} over F q {\displaystyle \mathbb {F} _{q}} is given with splitting covering i ∈ { 1 , … , ℓ } {\displaystyle i\in \{1,\ldots ,\ell \}} . • Let s ≤ ℓ − 1 {\displaystyle s\leq \ell -1} be a positive integer. • Consider the following F q {\displaystyle \mathbb {F} _{q}} -vector space of polynomials V = { ∑ i = 0 s g i ( x ) f ( x ) i : deg ( g i ( x ) ) ≤ deg ( f ( x ) ) − 2 } . {\displaystyle V=\left\{\sum _{i=0}^{s}g_{i}(x)f(x)^{i}:\deg(g_{i}(x))\leq \deg(f(x))-2\right\}.} • Let T = ⋃ i = 1 ℓ A i {\textstyle T=\bigcup _{i=1}^{\ell }A_{i}} . • The code { ev T ( g ) : g ∈ V } {\displaystyle \{\operatorname {ev} _{T}(g):g\in V\}} is an ( ( r + 1 ) ℓ , ( s + 1 ) r , d , r ) {\displaystyle ((r+1)\ell ,(s+1)r,d,r)} -optimal locally coverable code, where ev T {\displaystyle \operatorname {ev} _{T}} denotes evaluation of g {\displaystyle g} at all points in the set T {\displaystyle T} . === Parameters of Tamo–Barg codes === • Length. The length is the number of evaluation points. Because the sets A i {\displaystyle A_{i}} are disjoint for i ∈ { 1 , … , ℓ } {\displaystyle i\in \{1,\ldots ,\ell \}} , the length of the code is | T | = ( r + 1 ) ℓ {\displaystyle |T|=(r+1)\ell } . • Dimension. The dimension of the code is ( s + 1 ) r {\displaystyle (s+1)r} , for s {\displaystyle s} ≤ ℓ − 1 {\displaystyle \ell -1} , as each g i {\displaystyle g_{i}} has degree at most deg ( f ( x ) ) − 2 {\displaystyle \deg(f(x))-2} , covering a vector space of dimension deg ( f ( x ) ) − 1 = r {\displaystyle \deg(f(x))-1=r} , and by the construction of V {\displaystyle V} , there are s + 1 {\displaystyle s+1} distinct g i {\displaystyle g_{i}} . • Distance. The distance is given by the fact that V ⊆ F q [ x ] ≤ k {\displaystyle V\subseteq \mathbb {F} _{q}[x]_{\leq k}} , where k = r + 1 − 2 + s ( r + 1 ) {\displaystyle k=r+1-2+s(r+1)} , and the obtained code is the Reed-Solomon code of degree at most k {\displaystyle k} , so the minimum distance equals ( r + 1 ) ℓ − ( ( r + 1 ) − 2 + s ( r + 1 ) ) {\displaystyle (r+1)\ell -((r+1)-2+s(r+1))} . • Locality. After the erasure of the single component, the evaluation at a i ∈ A i {\displaystyle a_{i}\in A_{i}} , where | A i | = r + 1 {\displaystyle |A_{i}|=r+1} , is unknown, but the evaluations for all other a ∈ A i {\displaystyle a\in A_{i}} are known, so at most r {\displaystyle r} evaluations are needed to uniquely determine the erased component, which gives us the locality of r {\displaystyle r} . To see this, g {\displaystyle g} restricted to A j {\displaystyle A_{j}} can be described by a polynomial h {\displaystyle h} of degree at most deg ( f ( x ) ) − 2 = r + 1 − 2 = r − 1 {\displaystyle \deg(f(x))-2=r+1-2=r-1} thanks to the form of the elements in V {\displaystyle V} (i.e., thanks to the fact that f {\displaystyle f} is constant on A j {\displaystyle A_{j}} , and the g i {\displaystyle g_{i}} 's have degree at most deg ( f ( x ) ) − 2 {\displaystyle \deg(f(x))-2} ). On the other hand | A j ∖ { a j } | = r {\displaystyle |A_{j}\backslash \{a_{j}\}|=r} , and r {\displaystyle r} evaluations uniquely determine a polynomial of degree r − 1 {\displaystyle r-1} . Therefore h {\displaystyle h} can be constructed and evaluated at a j {\displaystyle a_{j}} to recover g ( a j ) {\displaystyle g(a_{j})} . === Example of Tamo–Barg construction === We will use x 5 ∈ F 41 [ x ] {\displaystyle x^{5}\in \mathbb {F} _{41}[x]} to construct [ 15 , 8 , 6 , 4 ] {\displaystyle [15,8,6,4]} -LRC. Notice that the degree of this polynomial is 5, and it is constant on A i {\displaystyle A_{i}} for i ∈ { 1 , … , 8 } {\displaystyle i\in \{1,\ldots ,8\}} , where A 1 = { 1 , 10 , 16 , 18 , 37 } {\displaystyle A_{1}=\{1,10,16,18,37\}} , A 2 = 2 A 1 {\displaystyle A_{2}=2A_{1}} , A 3 = 3 A 1 {\displaystyle A_{3}=3A_{1}} , A 4 = 4 A 1 {\displaystyle A_{4}=4A_{1}} , A 5 = 5 A 1 {\displaystyle A_{5}=5A_{1}} , A 6 = 6 A 1 {\displaystyle A_{6}=6A_{1}}
Algorithmic inference
Algorithmic inference gathers new developments in the statistical inference methods made feasible by the powerful computing devices widely available to any data analyst. Cornerstones in this field are computational learning theory, granular computing, bioinformatics, and, long ago, structural probability (Fraser 1966). The main focus is on the algorithms which compute statistics rooting the study of a random phenomenon, along with the amount of data they must feed on to produce reliable results. This shifts the interest of mathematicians from the study of the distribution laws to the functional properties of the statistics, and the interest of computer scientists from the algorithms for processing data to the information they process. == The Fisher parametric inference problem == Concerning the identification of the parameters of a distribution law, the mature reader may recall lengthy disputes in the mid 20th century about the interpretation of their variability in terms of fiducial distribution (Fisher 1956), structural probabilities (Fraser 1966), priors/posteriors (Ramsey 1925), and so on. From an epistemology viewpoint, this entailed a companion dispute as to the nature of probability: is it a physical feature of phenomena to be described through random variables or a way of synthesizing data about a phenomenon? Opting for the latter, Fisher defines a fiducial distribution law of parameters of a given random variable that he deduces from a sample of its specifications. With this law he computes, for instance "the probability that μ (mean of a Gaussian variable – omeur note) is less than any assigned value, or the probability that it lies between any assigned values, or, in short, its probability distribution, in the light of the sample observed". == The classic solution == Fisher fought hard to defend the difference and superiority of his notion of parameter distribution in comparison to analogous notions, such as Bayes' posterior distribution, Fraser's constructive probability and Neyman's confidence intervals. For half a century, Neyman's confidence intervals won out for all practical purposes, crediting the phenomenological nature of probability. With this perspective, when you deal with a Gaussian variable, its mean μ is fixed by the physical features of the phenomenon you are observing, where the observations are random operators, hence the observed values are specifications of a random sample. Because of their randomness, you may compute from the sample specific intervals containing the fixed μ with a given probability that you denote confidence. === Example === Let X be a Gaussian variable with parameters μ {\displaystyle \mu } and σ 2 {\displaystyle \sigma ^{2}} and { X 1 , … , X m } {\displaystyle \{X_{1},\ldots ,X_{m}\}} a sample drawn from it. Working with statistics S μ = ∑ i = 1 m X i {\displaystyle S_{\mu }=\sum _{i=1}^{m}X_{i}} and S σ 2 = ∑ i = 1 m ( X i − X ¯ ) 2 , where X ¯ = S μ m {\displaystyle S_{\sigma ^{2}}=\sum _{i=1}^{m}(X_{i}-{\overline {X}})^{2},{\text{ where }}{\overline {X}}={\frac {S_{\mu }}{m}}} is the sample mean, we recognize that T = S μ − m μ S σ 2 m − 1 m = X ¯ − μ S σ 2 / ( m ( m − 1 ) ) {\displaystyle T={\frac {S_{\mu }-m\mu }{\sqrt {S_{\sigma ^{2}}}}}{\sqrt {\frac {m-1}{m}}}={\frac {{\overline {X}}-\mu }{\sqrt {S_{\sigma ^{2}}/(m(m-1))}}}} follows a Student's t distribution (Wilks 1962) with parameter (degrees of freedom) m − 1, so that f T ( t ) = Γ ( m / 2 ) Γ ( ( m − 1 ) / 2 ) 1 π ( m − 1 ) ( 1 + t 2 m − 1 ) m / 2 . {\displaystyle f_{T}(t)={\frac {\Gamma (m/2)}{\Gamma ((m-1)/2)}}{\frac {1}{\sqrt {\pi (m-1)}}}\left(1+{\frac {t^{2}}{m-1}}\right)^{m/2}.} Gauging T between two quantiles and inverting its expression as a function of μ {\displaystyle \mu } you obtain confidence intervals for μ {\displaystyle \mu } . With the sample specification: x = { 7.14 , 6.3 , 3.9 , 6.46 , 0.2 , 2.94 , 4.14 , 4.69 , 6.02 , 1.58 } {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} =\{7.14,6.3,3.9,6.46,0.2,2.94,4.14,4.69,6.02,1.58\}} having size m = 10, you compute the statistics s μ = 43.37 {\displaystyle s_{\mu }=43.37} and s σ 2 = 46.07 {\displaystyle s_{\sigma ^{2}}=46.07} , and obtain a 0.90 confidence interval for μ {\displaystyle \mu } with extremes (3.03, 5.65). == Inferring functions with the help of a computer == From a modeling perspective the entire dispute looks like a chicken-egg dilemma: either fixed data by first and probability distribution of their properties as a consequence, or fixed properties by first and probability distribution of the observed data as a corollary. The classic solution has one benefit and one drawback. The former was appreciated particularly back when people still did computations with sheet and pencil. Per se, the task of computing a Neyman confidence interval for the fixed parameter θ is hard: you do not know θ, but you look for disposing around it an interval with a possibly very low probability of failing. The analytical solution is allowed for a very limited number of theoretical cases. Vice versa a large variety of instances may be quickly solved in an approximate way via the central limit theorem in terms of confidence interval around a Gaussian distribution – that's the benefit. The drawback is that the central limit theorem is applicable when the sample size is sufficiently large. Therefore, it is less and less applicable with the sample involved in modern inference instances. The fault is not in the sample size on its own part. Rather, this size is not sufficiently large because of the complexity of the inference problem. With the availability of large computing facilities, scientists refocused from isolated parameters inference to complex functions inference, i.e. re sets of highly nested parameters identifying functions. In these cases we speak about learning of functions (in terms for instance of regression, neuro-fuzzy system or computational learning) on the basis of highly informative samples. A first effect of having a complex structure linking data is the reduction of the number of sample degrees of freedom, i.e. the burning of a part of sample points, so that the effective sample size to be considered in the central limit theorem is too small. Focusing on the sample size ensuring a limited learning error with a given confidence level, the consequence is that the lower bound on this size grows with complexity indices such as VC dimension or detail of a class to which the function we want to learn belongs. === Example === A sample of 1,000 independent bits is enough to ensure an absolute error of at most 0.081 on the estimation of the parameter p of the underlying Bernoulli variable with a confidence of at least 0.99. The same size cannot guarantee a threshold less than 0.088 with the same confidence 0.99 when the error is identified with the probability that a 20-year-old man living in New York does not fit the ranges of height, weight and waistline observed on 1,000 Big Apple inhabitants. The accuracy shortage occurs because both the VC dimension and the detail of the class of parallelepipeds, among which the one observed from the 1,000 inhabitants' ranges falls, are equal to 6. == The general inversion problem solving the Fisher question == With insufficiently large samples, the approach: fixed sample – random properties suggests inference procedures in three steps: === Definition === For a random variable and a sample drawn from it a compatible distribution is a distribution having the same sampling mechanism M X = ( Z , g θ ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {M}}_{X}=(Z,g_{\boldsymbol {\theta }})} of X with a value θ {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\theta }}} of the random parameter Θ {\displaystyle \mathbf {\Theta } } derived from a master equation rooted on a well-behaved statistic s. === Example === You may find the distribution law of the Pareto parameters A and K as an implementation example of the population bootstrap method as in the figure on the left. Implementing the twisting argument method, you get the distribution law F M ( μ ) {\displaystyle F_{M}(\mu )} of the mean M of a Gaussian variable X on the basis of the statistic s M = ∑ i = 1 m x i {\textstyle s_{M}=\sum _{i=1}^{m}x_{i}} when Σ 2 {\displaystyle \Sigma ^{2}} is known to be equal to σ 2 {\displaystyle \sigma ^{2}} (Apolloni, Malchiodi & Gaito 2006). Its expression is: F M ( μ ) = Φ ( m μ − s M σ m ) , {\displaystyle F_{M}(\mu )=\Phi {\left({\frac {m\mu -s_{M}}{\sigma {\sqrt {m}}}}\right)},} shown in the figure on the right, where Φ {\displaystyle \Phi } is the cumulative distribution function of a standard normal distribution. Computing a confidence interval for M given its distribution function is straightforward: we need only find two quantiles (for instance δ / 2 {\displaystyle \delta /2} and 1 − δ / 2 {\displaystyle 1-\delta /2} quantiles in case we are interested in a confidence interval of level δ symmetric in the tail's probabilities) as indicated on the left in the diagram showing the behavior of
Perceptual computing
Perceptual computing is an application of Zadeh's theory of computing with words on the field of assisting people to make subjective judgments. == Perceptual computer == The perceptual computer – Per-C – an instantiation of perceptual computing – has the architecture that is depicted in Fig. 1 [2]–[6]. It consists of three components: encoder, CWW engine and decoder. Perceptions – words – activate the Per-C and are the Per-C output (along with data); so, it is possible for a human to interact with the Per-C using just a vocabulary. A vocabulary is application (context) dependent, and must be large enough so that it lets the end-user interact with the Per-C in a user-friendly manner. The encoder transforms words into fuzzy sets (FSs) and leads to a codebook – words with their associated FS models. The outputs of the encoder activate a Computing With Words (CWW) engine, whose output is one or more other FSs, which are then mapped by the decoder into a recommendation (subjective judgment) with supporting data. The recommendation may be in the form of a word, group of similar words, rank or class. Although many details are needed in order to implement the Per-C's three components – encoder, decoder and CWW engine – and they are covered in [5], it is when the Per-C is applied to specific applications, that the focus on the methodology becomes clear. Stepping back from those details, the methodology of perceptual computing is: Focus on an application (A). Establish a vocabulary (or vocabularies) for A. Collect interval end-point data from a group of subjects (representative of the subjects who will use the Per-C) for all of the words in the vocabulary. Map the collected word data into word-FOUs by using the Interval Approach [1], [5, Ch. 3]. The result of doing this is the codebook (or codebooks) for A, and completes the design of the encoder of the Per-C. Choose an appropriate CWW engine for A. It will map IT2 FSs into one or more IT2 FSs. Examples of CWW engines are: IF-THEN rules [5, Ch. 6] and Linguistic Weighted Averages [6], [5, Ch. 5]. If an existing CWW engine is available for A, then use its available mathematics to compute its output(s). Otherwise, develop such mathematics for the new kind of CWW engine. The new CWW engine should be constrained so that its output(s) resemble the FOUs in the codebook(s) for A. Map the IT2 FS outputs from the CWW engine into a recommendation at the output of the decoder. If the recommendation is a word, rank or class, then use existing mathematics to accomplish this mapping [5, Ch. 4]. Otherwise, develop such mathematics for the new kind of decoder. == Applications of Per-C == To-date a Per-C has been implemented for the following four applications: (1) investment decision-making, (2) social judgment making, (3) distributed decision making, and (4) hierarchical and distributed decision-making. A specific example of the fourth application is the so-called Journal Publication Judgment Advisor [5, Ch. 10] in which for the first time only words are used at every level of the following hierarchical and distributed decision making process: n reviewers have to provide a subjective recommendation about a journal article that has been sent to them by the Associate Editor, who then has to aggregate the independent recommendations into a final recommendation that is sent to the Editor-in-Chief of the journal. Because it is very problematic to ask reviewers to provide numerical scores for paper-evaluation sub-categories (the two major categories are Technical Merit and Presentation), such as importance, content, depth, style, organization, clarity, references, etc., each reviewer will only be asked to provide a linguistic score for each of these categories. They will not be asked for an overall recommendation about the paper because in the past it is quite common for reviewers who provide the same numerical scores for such categories to give very different publishing recommendations. By leaving a specific recommendation to the associate editor such inconsistencies can hope to be eliminated. How words can be aggregated to reflect each reviewer's recommendation as well as the expertise of each reviewer about the paper's subject matter is done using a linguistic weighted average. Although the journal publication judgment advisor uses reviewers and an associate editor, the word “reviewer” could be replaced by judge, expert, low-level manager, commander, referee, etc., and the term “associate editor” could be replaced by control center, command center, higher-level manager, etc. So, this application has potential wide applicability to many other applications. Recently, a new Per-C based Failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) methodology was developed, with its application to edible bird's nest farming, in Borneo, has been reported. In addition, application of Per-C based method to educational assessment, for cooperative learning of students has been reported. In summary, the Per-C (whose development has taken more than a decade) is the first complete implementation of Zadeh's CWW paradigm, as applied to assisting people to make subjective judgments.
Resistance Database Initiative
HIV Resistance Response Database Initiative (RDI) was formed in 2002 to use artificial intelligence (AI) to predict how patients will respond to HIV drugs using data from more 250,000 patients from around 50 countries around the world. The RDI used its models to power its HIV Treatment Response Prediction System (HIV-TRePS). Launched in 2010, this free online tool enabled healthcare professionals to upload their patient’s data and obtain highly accurate predictions of how they would respond to different combinations of the 30 or more drugs available. The tool enabled physicians to individualize their patients’ treatment, using these predictions based on more than a million patient-years of treatment experience. HIV-TRePS was possibly the first ever AI-based system for medical decision-making to be developed, successfully tested, and used in clinical practice. It has since been used by thousands of healthcare professionals to optimise the treatment of tens of thousands of patients. Since the RDI’s inception the treatment of HIV infection has progressed enormously, with more effective and better tolerated drugs available in ever more convenient combination formulations. In most countries HIV is now considered a chronic, manageable condition. Moreover, the success of the drugs in reducing the amount of virus is substantially reducing the onward transmission of the virus and cases of new infections are falling in many settings. This improvement in HIV treatment means the need for sophisticated AI to support HIV treatment decisions has significantly reduced. In response, the RDI ceased development of further models and, in March 2024, withdrew its HIV-TRePS system. == Background == Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is the virus that causes acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS), a condition in which the immune system begins to fail, leading to life-threatening opportunistic infections. There are approximately 30 HIV antiretroviral drugs that have been approved for the treatment of HIV infection, from six different classes, based on the point in the HIV life-cycle at which they act. They are used in combination; typically 3 or more drugs from 2 or more different classes, a form of therapy known as highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART). The aim of therapy is to suppress the virus to very low, ideally undetectable, levels in the blood. This prevents the virus from depleting the immune cells that it preferentially attacks CD4 cells and prevents or delays illness and death. Despite the expanding availability of these drugs and the impact of their use, treatments continue to fail, often involving to the development of resistance. During drug therapy, low-level virus replication may still occur, particularly when a patient misses a dose. HIV makes errors in copying its genetic material and, if a mutation makes the virus resistant to one or more of the drugs in the patient's treatment, it may begin to replicate more successfully in the presence of that drug and undermine the effect of the treatment. If this happens, the treatment needs to be changed to re-establish control over the virus. == RDI's Approach == The RDI’s approach was to use artificial intelligence (including neural network and random forest models), trained with data from hundreds of thousands of patients, treated with different drugs in a variety of clinical settings all over the world, to predict how an individual patient will respond to any new combination of HIV drugs. The models were tested with independent data sets and consistently achieved accuracy of approximately 80%.
Legal Knowledge Interchange Format
The Legal Knowledge Interchange Format (LKIF) was developed in the European ESTRELLA project and was designed with the goal of becoming a standard for representing and interchanging policy, legislation and cases, including their justificatory arguments, in the legal domain. LKIF builds on and uses the Web Ontology Language (OWL) for representing concepts and includes a reusable basic ontology of legal concepts. The core of LKIF consists of a combination of OWL-DL and SWRL. LKIF was designed with two main roles in mind: the translation of legal knowledge bases written in different representation formats and formalisms and to be a knowledge representation formalism which could be part of larger architectures for developing legal knowledge systems.
Vero (app)
Vero (stylized as VERO) is a social media platform and mobile app company. Vero markets itself as a social network free from advertisements, data mining and algorithms. == History == The app was founded by French-Lebanese billionaire Ayman Hariri who is the son of former Lebanese prime minister Rafic Hariri. The name is taken from the Italian word for true. The app launched officially in 2015 as an alternative to Facebook and their popular photo-blogging app Instagram. Within weeks of its release the app surged in popularity although users expressed mixed reports with some feeling confused about how the app worked. Cosplayers were early to adopt the app as their photo-sharing platform of choice, favouring the app's pinch and zoom magnification feature over Instagram's zoom feature. Other creative communities soon followed, and the app became popular with niche groups of makeup artists, tattoo artists, and skateboarders. In March 2018, Vero's popularity surged, partly helped by an exodus from Facebook and Instagram following the Cambridge Analytica data scandal. In the wake of the scandal, Vero devised an advertising campaign aimed at defected Facebook and Instagram users, hoping the app's policies and privacy settings would assuage concerns over sharing personal information on the internet. Within the space of one week, the app went from being a small service, akin to Ello or Peach, to being the most downloaded app in eighteen countries. In December 2020, Vero released its most significant update to date, Vero 2.0 which introduced new features including voice and video calls, game and app posts and bookmarks, and refinements to the UI. In October 2021, Vero introduced their Desktop app (beta) with multiple post options and a re-sizable multi-column feed. == Concept and funding == Vero's content feed resembles Instagram's although users can share a wider variety of content and the app has a chronological content feed whereas Facebook and Instagram's feeds are algorithm based. Vero's business plan is also distinct from similar social media apps. Whereas its competitors such as Facebook or Instagram make money from in-app advertising revenue and the sale of user data, Vero's business plan was to invite the first one million users to use the app for free then charge any subsequent users a subscription fee. The app was entirely funded by its founder and generated additional revenues by charging affiliate fees when someone buys a product they find on Vero. == Awards == Vero was recognized at the 2021 Webbys, being named as an Honoree in the Best Visual Design - Aesthetic Category. == Controversies == === Privacy === Vero has faced some criticism over the wording of their manifesto, in particular, the statement "Vero only collects the data we believe is necessary to provide users with a great experience and to ensure the security of their accounts." Because this policy does not explicitly state that the app will not sell data on to third parties some users fear that the need to monetise the app through data might prove too tempting. Users have also complained about not being able to delete their accounts. While this was never the case, the option was hidden deep in the app's settings. === Russian involvement === Although Vero remains transparent about the app's Russian development team, they have been caught up in concerns about Russian interference on social media platforms. The app's founder Ayman Hariri was quick to dismiss the remarks as xenophobic and defend the nationality of his employees, stating in an interview with Time Magazine; "At the end of the day, where people are from is really not how anybody should judge anyone". === Criticism of the app's founder === Until 2013, Vero's founder Ayman Harari was deputy CEO and chairman of Saudi Oger, the Saudi Arabian construction company which collapsed in 2017, mired by controversies over the welfare and treatment of their employees. However, Hariri is quick to point out that he divested from the firm in 2014 and the worker's rights violations occurred after he had left the company.
AI-assisted targeting in the Gaza Strip
As part of the Gaza war, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) have used artificial intelligence to rapidly and automatically perform much of the process of determining what to bomb. Israel has greatly expanded the bombing of the Gaza Strip, which in previous wars had been limited by the Israeli Air Force running out of targets. These tools include the Gospel, an AI which automatically reviews surveillance data looking for buildings, equipment and people thought to belong to the enemy, and upon finding them, recommends bombing targets to a human analyst who may then decide whether to pass it along to the field. Another is Lavender, an "AI-powered database" which lists tens of thousands of Palestinian men linked by AI to Hamas or Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and which is also used for target recommendation. Critics have argued the use of these AI tools puts civilians at risk, blurs accountability, and results in militarily disproportionate violence in violation of international humanitarian law. == The Gospel == Israel uses an AI system dubbed "Habsora", "the Gospel", to determine which targets the Israeli Air Force would bomb. It automatically provides a targeting recommendation to a human analyst, who decides whether to pass it along to soldiers in the field. The recommendations can be anything from individual fighters, rocket launchers, Hamas command posts, to private homes of suspected Hamas or Islamic Jihad members. AI can process military intelligence far faster than humans. Retired Lt Gen. Aviv Kohavi, head of the IDF until 2023, stated that the system could produce 100 bombing targets in Gaza a day, with real-time recommendations which ones to attack, where human analysts might produce 50 a year. A lecturer interviewed by NPR estimated these figures as 50–100 targets in 300 days for 20 intelligence officers, and 200 targets within 10–12 days for the Gospel. === Technological background === The Gospel uses machine learning, where an AI is tasked with identifying commonalities in vast amounts of data (e.g. scans of cancerous tissue, photos of a facial expression, surveillance of Hamas members identified by human analysts), then looking for those commonalities in new material. What information the Gospel uses is not known, but it is thought to combine surveillance data from diverse sources in enormous amounts. Recommendations are based on pattern-matching. A person with enough similarities to other people labeled as enemy combatants may be labelled a combatant themselves. Regarding the suitability of AIs for the task, NPR cited Heidy Khlaaf, engineering director of AI Assurance at the technology security firm Trail of Bits, as saying "AI algorithms are notoriously flawed with high error rates observed across applications that require precision, accuracy, and safety." Bianca Baggiarini, lecturer at the Australian National University's Strategic and Defence Studies Centre wrote AIs are "more effective in predictable environments where concepts are objective, reasonably stable, and internally consistent." She contrasted this with telling the difference between a combatant and non-combatant, which even humans frequently can't do. Khlaaf went on to point out that such a system's decisions depend entirely on the data it's trained on, and are not based on reasoning, factual evidence or causation, but solely on statistical probability. === Operation === The IAF ran out of targets to strike in the 2014 war and 2021 crisis. In an interview on France 24, investigative journalist Yuval Abraham of +972 Magazine stated that to maintain military pressure, and due to political pressure to continue the war, the military would bomb the same places twice. Since then, the integration of AI tools has significantly sped up the selection of targets. In early November, the IDF stated more than 12,000 targets in Gaza had been identified by the target administration division that uses the Gospel. NPR wrote on December 14 that it was unclear how many targets from the Gospel had been acted upon, but that the Israeli military said it was currently striking as many as 250 targets a day. The bombing, too, has intensified to what the December 14 article called an astonishing pace: the Israeli military stated at the time it had struck more than 22,000 targets inside Gaza, at a daily rate more than double that of the 2021 conflict, more than 3,500 of them since the collapse of the truce on December 1. Early in the offensive the head of the Air Force stated his forces only struck military targets, but added: "We are not being surgical." Once a recommendation is accepted, another AI, Fire Factory, cuts assembling the attack down from hours to minutes by calculating munition loads, prioritizing and assigning targets to aircraft and drones, and proposing a schedule, according to a pre-war Bloomberg article that described such AI tools as tailored for a military confrontation and proxy war with Iran. One change that The Guardian noted is that since senior Hamas leaders disappear into tunnels at the start of an offensive, systems such as the Gospel have allowed the IDF to locate and attack a much larger pool of more junior Hamas operatives. It cited an official who worked on targeting decisions in previous Gaza operations as saying that while the homes of junior Hamas members had previously not been targeted for bombing, the official believes the houses of suspected Hamas operatives were now targeted regardless of rank. In the France 24 interview, Abraham, of +972 Magazine, characterized this as enabling the systematization of dropping a 2000 lb bomb into a home to kill one person and everybody around them, something that had previously been done to a very small group of senior Hamas leaders. NPR cited a report by +972 Magazine and its sister publication Local Call as asserting the system is being used to manufacture targets so that Israeli military forces can continue to bombard Gaza at an enormous rate, punishing the general Palestinian population. NPR noted it had not verified this; it was unclear how many targets are being generated by AI alone, but there had been a substantial increase in targeting, with an enormous civilian toll. In principle, the combination of a computer's speed to identify opportunities and a human's judgment to evaluate them can enable more precise attacks and fewer civilian casualties. Israeli military and media have emphasized this capacity to minimize harm to non-combatants. Richard Moyes, researcher and head of the NGO Article 36, pointed to "the widespread flattening of an urban area with heavy explosive weapons" to question these claims, while Lucy Suchman, professor emeritus at Lancaster University, described the bombing as "aimed at maximum devastation of the Gaza Strip". The Guardian wrote that when a strike was authorized on private homes of those identified as Hamas or Islamic Jihad operatives, target researchers knew in advance the expected number of civilians killed, each target had a file containing a collateral damage score stipulating how many civilians were likely to be killed in a strike, and according to a senior Israeli military source, operatives use a "very accurate" measurement of the rate of civilians evacuating a building shortly before a strike. "We use an algorithm to evaluate how many civilians are remaining. It gives us a green, yellow, red, like a traffic signal." ==== 2021 use ==== Kohavi compared the target division using the Gospel to a machine and stated that once the machine was activated in the war of May 2021, it generated 100 targets a day, with half of them being attacked, in contrast with 50 targets in Gaza per year beforehand. Approximately 200 targets came from the Gospel out of the 1,500 targets Israel struck in Gaza in the war, including both static and moving targets according to the military. The Jewish Institute for National Security of America's after action report identified an issue, stating the system had data on what was a target, but lacked data on what wasn't. The system depends entirely on training data, and intel that human analysts had examined and deemed didn't constitute a target had been discarded, risking bias. The vice president expressed his hopes this had since been rectified. === Organization === The Gospel is used by the military's target administration division (or Directorate of Targets or Targeting Directorate), which was formed in 2019 in the IDF's intelligence directorate to address the air force running out of targets to bomb, and which Kohavi described as "powered by AI capabilities" and including hundreds of officers of soldiers. In addition to its wartime role, The Guardian wrote it'd helped the IDF build a database of between 30,000 and 40,000 suspected militants in recent years, and that systems such as the Gospel had played a critical role in building lists of individuals authorized to be assassinated. The Gospel was developed by Unit 8200 of the Israeli Intelligence C