In probability theory, an interacting particle system (IPS) is a stochastic process ( X ( t ) ) t ∈ R + {\displaystyle (X(t))_{t\in \mathbb {R} ^{+}}} on some configuration space Ω = S G {\displaystyle \Omega =S^{G}} given by a site space, a countably-infinite-order graph G {\displaystyle G} and a local state space, a compact metric space S {\displaystyle S} . More precisely IPS are continuous-time Markov jump processes describing the collective behavior of stochastically interacting components. IPS are the continuous-time analogue of stochastic cellular automata. Among the main examples are the voter model, the contact process, the asymmetric simple exclusion process (ASEP), the Glauber dynamics and in particular the stochastic Ising model. IPS are usually defined via their Markov generator giving rise to a unique Markov process using Markov semigroups and the Hille-Yosida theorem. The generator again is given via so-called transition rates c Λ ( η , ξ ) > 0 {\displaystyle c_{\Lambda }(\eta ,\xi )>0} where Λ ⊂ G {\displaystyle \Lambda \subset G} is a finite set of sites and η , ξ ∈ Ω {\displaystyle \eta ,\xi \in \Omega } with η i = ξ i {\displaystyle \eta _{i}=\xi _{i}} for all i ∉ Λ {\displaystyle i\notin \Lambda } . The rates describe exponential waiting times of the process to jump from configuration η {\displaystyle \eta } into configuration ξ {\displaystyle \xi } . More generally the transition rates are given in form of a finite measure c Λ ( η , d ξ ) {\displaystyle c_{\Lambda }(\eta ,d\xi )} on S Λ {\displaystyle S^{\Lambda }} . The generator L {\displaystyle L} of an IPS has the following form. First, the domain of L {\displaystyle L} is a subset of the space of "observables", that is, the set of real valued continuous functions on the configuration space Ω {\displaystyle \Omega } . Then for any observable f {\displaystyle f} in the domain of L {\displaystyle L} , one has L f ( η ) = ∑ Λ ∫ ξ : ξ Λ c = η Λ c c Λ ( η , d ξ ) [ f ( ξ ) − f ( η ) ] {\displaystyle Lf(\eta )=\sum _{\Lambda }\int _{\xi :\xi _{\Lambda ^{c}}=\eta _{\Lambda ^{c}}}c_{\Lambda }(\eta ,d\xi )[f(\xi )-f(\eta )]} . For example, for the stochastic Ising model we have G = Z d {\displaystyle G=\mathbb {Z} ^{d}} , S = { − 1 , + 1 } {\displaystyle S=\{-1,+1\}} , c Λ = 0 {\displaystyle c_{\Lambda }=0} if Λ ≠ { i } {\displaystyle \Lambda \neq \{i\}} for some i ∈ G {\displaystyle i\in G} and c i ( η , η i ) = exp [ − β ∑ j : | j − i | = 1 η i η j ] {\displaystyle c_{i}(\eta ,\eta ^{i})=\exp[-\beta \sum _{j:|j-i|=1}\eta _{i}\eta _{j}]} where η i {\displaystyle \eta ^{i}} is the configuration equal to η {\displaystyle \eta } except it is flipped at site i {\displaystyle i} . β {\displaystyle \beta } is a new parameter modeling the inverse temperature. == The Voter model == The voter model (usually in continuous time, but there are discrete versions as well) is a process similar to the contact process. In this process η ( x ) {\displaystyle \eta (x)} is taken to represent a voter's attitude on a particular topic. Voters reconsider their opinions at times distributed according to independent exponential random variables (this gives a Poisson process locally – note that there are in general infinitely many voters so no global Poisson process can be used). At times of reconsideration, a voter chooses one neighbor uniformly from amongst all neighbors and takes that neighbor's opinion. One can generalize the process by allowing the picking of neighbors to be something other than uniform. === Discrete time process === In the discrete time voter model in one dimension, ξ t ( x ) : Z → { 0 , 1 } {\displaystyle \xi _{t}(x):\mathbb {Z} \to \{0,1\}} represents the state of particle x {\displaystyle x} at time t {\displaystyle t} . Informally each individual is arranged on a line and can "see" other individuals that are within a radius, r {\displaystyle r} . If more than a certain proportion, θ {\displaystyle \theta } of these people disagree then the individual changes her attitude, otherwise she keeps it the same. Durrett and Steif (1993) and Steif (1994) show that for large radii there is a critical value θ c {\displaystyle \theta _{c}} such that if θ > θ c {\displaystyle \theta >\theta _{c}} most individuals never change, and for θ ∈ ( 1 / 2 , θ c ) {\displaystyle \theta \in (1/2,\theta _{c})} in the limit most sites agree. (Both of these results assume the probability of ξ 0 ( x ) = 1 {\displaystyle \xi _{0}(x)=1} is one half.) This process has a natural generalization to more dimensions, some results for this are discussed in Durrett and Steif (1993). === Continuous time process === The continuous time process is similar in that it imagines each individual has a belief at a time and changes it based on the attitudes of its neighbors. The process is described informally by Liggett (1985, 226), "Periodically (i.e., at independent exponential times), an individual reassesses his view in a rather simple way: he chooses a 'friend' at random with certain probabilities and adopts his position." A model was constructed with this interpretation by Holley and Liggett (1975). This process is equivalent to a process first suggested by Clifford and Sudbury (1973) where animals are in conflict over territory and are equally matched. A site is selected to be invaded by a neighbor at a given time.
ShareMethods
ShareMethods is a Web 2.0 document management and collaboration service with a focus on sales, marketing, and the extended selling network. It offers a software as a service (SaaS) subscription to companies and is available as a stand-alone application or as an integrated program with CRM tools such as Oracle CRM On Demand or salesforce.com. == History == ShareMethods was launched in 2004 to provide collaboration and communication services for sales and marketing teams, business partners, and customers. The founders have a background of building software-as-a-service applications and creating digital media applications. In September 2005, ShareMethods launched "ShareNow" as one of the first applications on the salesforce.com AppExchange. In September 2006, ShareMethods moved its operations into a SAS 70 Type II data center owned by SunGard. In March 2009, ShareMethods launched "ShareSpaces" to provide on-demand portals or workspaces. In 2013, ShareMethods announced that its platform is available in a private cloud (on-premises) version. == Products == ShareMethods: Combines document management, collaboration, analytics, and CRM integration into a single solution. Key content can be centrally managed and delivered to sales channels, while providing feedback to marketing. ShareMethods is often used as a sales portal for internal sales and a partner portal for external partners. ShareNow: Integrates ShareMethods with salesforce.com providing Single Sign On for salesforce.com users and access to files related to accounts opportunities, etc. including custom objects. Also facilitates collaboration between salesforce.com users and non-users. ShareMethods for Oracle CRM On Demand: Integrates ShareMethods with Oracle CRM On Demand providing Single Sign On for Oracle users and easy access to files related to accounts opportunities, etc. ShareOffice: An on-demand intranet/extranet solution. Features include full-text search, version history, server sync-up, email updates, audit trail/analytics, check-in/check-out, multilingual user interface. ShareSpaces: Independent workspaces or portals where users can collaborate with business partners, teammates, or individuals to work together on content and documents. == Integration and interoperability == ShareMethods is available on Salesforce.com's AppExchange platform. ShareMethods also integrates with Oracle CRM On Demand to provide document management within the CRM application. Customers also can integrate proprietary systems via single-sign-on and self-registration. In addition, developers can make use of the ShareMethods API based on WebDAV to integrate document management functionality.
Dan Roth
Dan Roth (Hebrew: דן רוט) is the Eduardo D. Glandt Distinguished Professor of Computer and Information Science at the University of Pennsylvania and the Chief AI Scientist at Oracle. Until June 2024 Roth was a VP and distinguished scientist at AWS AI. In his role at AWS, Roth led over the last three years the scientific effort behind the first-generation Generative AI products from AWS, including Titan Models, Amazon Q efforts, and Bedrock, from inception until they became generally available. Roth got his B.A. summa cum laude in mathematics from the Technion, Israel, and his Ph.D. in computer science from Harvard University in 1995. He taught at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign from 1998 to 2017 before moving to the University of Pennsylvania. == Professional career == Roth is a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), and the Association of Computational Linguistics (ACL). Roth’s research focuses on the computational foundations of intelligent behavior. He develops theories and systems pertaining to intelligent behavior using a unified methodology, at the heart of which is the idea that learning has a central role in intelligence. His work centers around the study of machine learning and inference methods to facilitate natural language understanding. In doing that he has pursued several interrelated lines of work that span multiple aspects of this problem - from fundamental questions in learning and inference and how they interact, to the study of a range of natural language processing (NLP) problems and developing advanced machine learning based tools for natural language applications. Roth has made seminal contribution to the fusion of Learning and Reasoning, Machine Learning with weak, incidental supervision, and to machine learning and inference approaches to natural language understanding. He has written the first paper on zero-shot learning in natural language processing, a 2008 paper by Chang, Ratinov, Roth, and Srikumar that was published at AAAI’08, but the name given to the learning paradigm there was dataless classification. Roth has worked on probabilistic reasoning (including its complexity and probabilistic lifted inference ), Constrained Conditional Models (ILP formulations of NLP problems) and constraints-driven learning, part-based (constellation) methods in object recognition, response based Learning, He has developed NLP and Information extraction tools that are being used broadly by researchers and commercially, including NER, coreference resolution, wikification, SRL, and ESL text correction. Roth is a co-founder of NexLP, Inc., a startup that applies natural language processing and machine learning in the legal and compliance domains. In 2020, NexLP was acquired by Reveal, Inc., an e-discovery software company. He is currently on the scientific advisory board of the Allen Institute for AI.
Model inversion attack
Model inversion attack is a type of adversarial machine learning attack where an attacker tries to reconstruct or infer sensitive information about a model's training data by analyzing the outputs of a trained machine learning model. Instead of directly querying the underlying dataset, attackers query the model (usually via APIs or prediction interfaces), and leverage patterns in the model responses to infer properties of the original inputs. These attacks leverage the fact that machine learning models encode statistical information about their training data in their parameters and outputs, which can unintentionally leak private or proprietary information. Depending on the access level to the target model, model inversion attacks can be performed in both black-box and white-box settings. In a generic attack, an adversary makes several queries to a model and leverages the responses (e.g. confidence scores, predictions) to train a surrogate or inversion model that learns to approximate the inverse mapping from outputs to inputs. This process may enable the reconstruction of sensitive attributes, e.g., facial features, medical data, or user behavior patterns, from models trained on such data. The technique has been demonstrated against various models like deep neural networks, classification systems etc. The technique has significant privacy risks in areas like healthcare, finance, biometric identification etc. Mitigation strategies include restricting model access, reducing output granularity, using differential privacy and monitoring anomalous query patterns.
Sophia Ananiadou
Sophia Ananiadou is a Greek-British computer scientist and computational linguist. She led the development of and directs the National Centre for Text Mining (NaCTeM) in the United Kingdom. She is also Professor in Computer Science in the Department of Computer Science at the University of Manchester. Her research focusses on biomedical text mining and natural language processing and has fed into the development of numerous applications that, for example, facilitate the discovery of new knowledge, enable exploration of historical archives, allow semantic search of biomedical literature, reduce human effort in screening search hits for production of systematic reviews, enable enrichment of metabolic pathway models with evidence from the literature, allow discovery of risk in the construction industry from health and safety incident reports and enable interoperability of components in text mining workflows. == Education == Ananiadou was educated at the Lycée français St Joseph in Athens, Greece (1969–1975). She received a Bachelor of Arts (Ptychion) from the University of Athens (1979), a Master of Advanced Studies (DEA) in Linguistics from Paris VII, Jussieu, France (1980), a DEA in Literature from Paris IV, Sorbonne, France (1984) and a PhD in Computational linguistics from the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology (UMIST), in 1988. == Career and research == Ananiadou was a research assistant at Dalle Molle Institute for Semantic and Cognitive Studies (ISSCO, 1983–1984), a research assistant (1985–1988) then research associate (1988–1993) in the department of language engineering at UMIST, senior lecturer at Manchester Metropolitan University (1993–1999), senior lecturer then reader in the School of Computing Science and Engineering, University of Salford (2000–2005), then reader in the School of Computer Science, University of Manchester (2005–2009). Since 2009, she has served as professor in computer science in the Department of Computer Science at the University of Manchester. In July 2025, she became deputy director of the Christabel Pankhurst Institute for health technology research and innovation, University of Manchester. From 2018–2026, she served as the deputy director of the Institute for Data Science and Artificial Intelligence, University of Manchester. She is a senior lead researcher of the ARCHIMEDES research unit of the Athena Research Centre, Greece. ARCHIMEDES is a research and innovation hub fostering international collaboration and knowledge exchange on Artificial Intelligence and Data Science. On February 7, 2025, she was appointed a member of the Artificial Intelligence Sectoral Scientific Council of the Greek Ministry of Development (announcement of appointment in Greek). She is also a Visiting Distinguished Research Fellow in the Knowledge and Information Research Team at the Artificial Intelligence Research Center (AIRC), Japan, which is a research unit of the Japanese National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST). In addition, she was appointed to the honorary position of Adjunct Professor of Wuhan University, People's Republic of China, for the period October 2025 to October 2028, collaborating with the School of Artificial Intelligence. Ananiadou has published since 1986, has an h-index of 81 and a Research.com United Kingdom ranking in Computer Science of 104. She is also ranked number 1 internationally in text mining by ScholarGPS. In addition, she is included in the Stanford/Elsevier Top 2% Scientist Rankings for 2025. Ananiadou received a Diplôme de traducteur (Diploma of Translator) from the Institut français d'Athènes, Greece (1979) and a Certificate in Counselling from the University of Salford, UK (2004). === Awards and honours === In 2019, in recognition of her contributions in Artificial Intelligence and text mining for Biomedicine, Ananiadou received an honorary doctorate from the University of the Aegean, on the 20th anniversary of its Department of Mediterranean Studies, Rhodes. Ananiadou received the Unstructured Information Management Architecture (UIMA) innovation award from IBM three years running (2006, 2007 & 2008). She was awarded the Daiwa Adrian Prize in 2004 and also received a Japan Trust award from the Ministry of Education, Japan in 1997. Ananiadou was a Turing Fellow of the Alan Turing Institute in London from 2018 to 2023. Since 2021, she is a member and, since 2024, a Fellow, of the ELLIS Society, the professional society of the cross-national European Laboratory for Learning and Intelligent Systems. Ananiadou served as vice president (VP) of the European Association for Terminology from 1997 to 1999. At the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING 2020), she received, with M. Li and H. Takamura, an Outstanding Paper designation for the paper "A Neural Model for Aggregating Coreference Annotation in Crowdsourcing".
Surrogate model
A surrogate model is an engineering method used when an outcome of interest cannot be easily measured or computed, so an approximate mathematical model of the outcome is used instead. Most engineering design problems require experiments and/or simulations to evaluate design objective and constraint functions as a function of design variables. For example, in order to find the optimal airfoil shape for an aircraft wing, an engineer simulates the airflow around the wing for different shape variables (e.g., length, curvature, material, etc.). For many real-world problems, however, a single simulation can take many minutes, hours, or even days to complete. As a result, routine tasks such as design optimization, design space exploration, sensitivity analysis and "what-if" analysis become impossible since they require thousands or even millions of simulation evaluations. One way of alleviating this burden is by constructing approximation models, known as surrogate models, metamodels or emulators, that mimic the behavior of the simulation model as closely as possible while being computationally cheaper to evaluate. Surrogate models are constructed using a data-driven, bottom-up approach. The exact, inner working of the simulation code is not assumed to be known (or even understood), relying solely on the input-output behavior. A model is constructed based on modeling the response of the simulator to a limited number of intelligently chosen data points. This approach is also known as behavioral modeling or black-box modeling, though the terminology is not always consistent. When only a single design variable is involved, the process is known as curve fitting. Though using surrogate models in lieu of experiments and simulations in engineering design is more common, surrogate modeling may be used in many other areas of science where there are expensive experiments and/or function evaluations. == Goals == The scientific challenge of surrogate modeling is the generation of a surrogate that is as accurate as possible, using as few simulation evaluations as possible. The process comprises three major steps which may be interleaved iteratively: Sample selection (also known as sequential design, optimal experimental design (OED) or active learning) Construction of the surrogate model and optimizing the model parameters (i.e., bias-variance tradeoff) Appraisal of the accuracy of the surrogate. The accuracy of the surrogate depends on the number and location of samples (expensive experiments or simulations) in the design space. A systematic data representation during training can improve model scalability, thereby reducing the need for expensive simulations. Various design of experiments (DOE) techniques cater to different sources of errors, in particular, errors due to noise in the data or errors due to an improper surrogate model. == Types of surrogate models == Popular surrogate modeling approaches are: polynomial response surfaces; kriging; more generalized Bayesian approaches; gradient-enhanced kriging (GEK); radial basis function; support vector machines; space mapping; artificial neural networks and Bayesian networks. Other methods recently explored include Fourier surrogate modeling , random forests, convolutional neural networks, and generative adversarial networks. For some problems, the nature of the true function is not known a priori, and therefore it is not clear which surrogate model will be the most accurate one. In addition, there is no consensus on how to obtain the most reliable estimates of the accuracy of a given surrogate. Many other problems have known physics properties. In these cases, physics-based surrogates such as space-mapping based models are commonly used. == Invariance properties == Recently proposed comparison-based surrogate models (e.g., ranking support vector machines) for evolutionary algorithms, such as CMA-ES, allow preservation of some invariance properties of surrogate-assisted optimizers: Invariance with respect to monotonic transformations of the function (scaling) Invariance with respect to orthogonal transformations of the search space (rotation) == Applications == An important distinction can be made between two different applications of surrogate models: design optimization and design space approximation (also known as emulation). In surrogate model-based optimization, an initial surrogate is constructed using some of the available budgets of expensive experiments and/or simulations. The remaining experiments/simulations are run for designs which the surrogate model predicts may have promising performance. The process usually takes the form of the following search/update procedure. Initial sample selection (the experiments and/or simulations to be run) Construct surrogate model Search surrogate model (the model can be searched extensively, e.g., using a genetic algorithm, as it is cheap to evaluate) Run and update experiment/simulation at new location(s) found by search and add to sample Iterate steps 2 to 4 until out of time or design is "good enough" Depending on the type of surrogate used and the complexity of the problem, the process may converge on a local or global optimum, or perhaps none at all. In design space approximation, one is not interested in finding the optimal parameter vector, but rather in the global behavior of the system. Here the surrogate is tuned to mimic the underlying model as closely as needed over the complete design space. Such surrogates are a useful, cheap way to gain insight into the global behavior of the system. Optimization can still occur as a post-processing step, although with no update procedure (see above), the optimum found cannot be validated. == Surrogate modeling software == Surrogate Modeling Toolbox (SMT: https://github.com/SMTorg/smt) is a Python package that contains a collection of surrogate modeling methods, sampling techniques, and benchmarking functions. This package provides a library of surrogate models that is simple to use and facilitates the implementation of additional methods. SMT is different from existing surrogate modeling libraries because of its emphasis on derivatives, including training derivatives used for gradient-enhanced modeling, prediction derivatives, and derivatives with respect to the training data. It also includes new surrogate models that are not available elsewhere: kriging by partial-least squares reduction and energy-minimizing spline interpolation. Python library SAMBO Optimization supports sequential optimization with arbitrary models, with tree-based models and Gaussian process models built in. Surrogates.jl is a Julia packages which offers tools like random forests, radial basis methods and kriging. == Surrogate-Assisted Evolutionary Algorithms (SAEAs) == SAEAs are an advanced class of optimization techniques that integrate evolutionary algorithms (EAs) with surrogate models. In traditional EAs, evaluating the fitness of candidate solutions often requires computationally expensive simulations or experiments. SAEAs address this challenge by building a surrogate model, which is a computationally inexpensive approximation of the objective function or constraint functions. The surrogate model serves as a substitute for the actual evaluation process during the evolutionary search. It allows the algorithm to quickly estimate the fitness of new candidate solutions, thereby reducing the number of expensive evaluations needed. This significantly speeds up the optimization process, especially in cases where the objective function evaluations are time-consuming or resource-intensive. SAEAs typically involve three main steps: (1) building the surrogate model using a set of initial sampled data points, (2) performing the evolutionary search using the surrogate model to guide the selection, crossover, and mutation operations, and (3) periodically updating the surrogate model with new data points generated during the evolutionary process to improve its accuracy. By balancing exploration (searching new areas in the solution space) and exploitation (refining known promising areas), SAEAs can efficiently find high-quality solutions to complex optimization problems. They have been successfully applied in various fields, including engineering design, machine learning, and computational finance, where traditional optimization methods may struggle due to the high computational cost of fitness evaluations.
Separating words problem
In theoretical computer science, the separating words problem is the problem of finding the smallest deterministic finite automaton that behaves differently on two given strings, meaning that it accepts one of the two strings and rejects the other string. It is an open problem how large such an automaton must be, in the worst case, as a function of the length of the input strings. == Example == The two strings 0010 and 1000 may be distinguished from each other by a three-state automaton in which the transitions from the start state go to two different states, both of which are terminal in the sense that subsequent transitions from these two states always return to the same state. The state of this automaton records the first symbol of the input string. If one of the two terminal states is accepting and the other is rejecting, then the automaton will accept only one of the strings 0010 and 1000. However, these two strings cannot be distinguished by any automaton with fewer than three states. == Simplifying assumptions == For proving bounds on this problem, it may be assumed without loss of generality that the inputs are strings over a two-letter alphabet. For, if two strings over a larger alphabet differ then there exists a string homomorphism that maps them to binary strings of the same length that also differ. Any automaton that distinguishes the binary strings can be translated into an automaton that distinguishes the original strings, without any increase in the number of states. It may also be assumed that the two strings have equal length. For strings of unequal length, there always exists a prime number p whose value is logarithmic in the smaller of the two input lengths, such that the two lengths are different modulo p. An automaton that counts the length of its input modulo p can be used to distinguish the two strings from each other in this case. Therefore, strings of unequal lengths can always be distinguished from each other by automata with few states. == History and bounds == The problem of bounding the size of an automaton that distinguishes two given strings was first formulated by Goralčík & Koubek (1986), who showed that the automaton size is always sublinear. Later, Robson (1989) proved the upper bound O(n2/5(log n)3/5) on the automaton size that may be required. This was improved by Chase (2020) to O(n1/3(log n)7). There exist pairs of inputs that are both binary strings of length n for which any automaton that distinguishes the inputs must have size Ω(log n). Closing the gap between this lower bound and Chase's upper bound remains an open problem. Jeffrey Shallit has offered a prize of 100 British pounds for any improvement to Robson's upper bound. == Special cases == Several special cases of the separating words problem are known to be solvable using few states: If two binary words have differing numbers of zeros or ones, then they can be distinguished from each other by counting their Hamming weights modulo a prime of logarithmic size, using a logarithmic number of states. More generally, if a pattern of length k appears a different number of times in the two words, they can be distinguished from each other using O(k log n) states. If two binary words differ from each other within their first or last k positions, they can be distinguished from each other using k + O(1) states. This implies that almost all pairs of binary words can be distinguished from each other with a logarithmic number of states, because only a polynomially small fraction of pairs have no difference in their initial O(log n) positions. If two binary words have Hamming distance d, then there exists a prime p with p = O(d log n) and a position i at which the two strings differ, such that i is not equal modulo p to the position of any other difference. By computing the parity of the input symbols at positions congruent to i modulo p, it is possible to distinguish the words using an automaton with O(d log n) states.