Enterprise data planning is the starting point for enterprise wide change. It states the destination and describes how you will get there. It defines benefits, costs and potential risks. It provides measures to be used along the way to judge progress and adjust the journey according to changing circumstances. Data is fundamental to investment enterprises. Effective, economic management of data underpins operations and enables transformations needed to satisfy customer demands, competition and regulation. Data warehouse(s) and other aspects of the overall data architecture are critical to the enterprise. EDMworks has created a strategic data planning approach for the Investment Sector. It consists of a planning process, planning intranets, templates and training materials. EDMworks planning process is based on the belief that extensive domain knowledge significantly shortens planning iterations and enables progressively higher quality plans to be produced and implemented. This approach drives the development of an effective and economic enterprise data architecture. Enterprise data planning is based on proven business disciplines. Key architectural layers for data and applications are then added in order to provide an enterprise wide understanding of the uses and interdependencies of data. This enables the definition of the core components of the EDM plan: Industry structure and business objectives Assessment of systems and services Target architecture for applications, data and infrastructure Target organization structures Systems, database, infrastructure and organizational plans Business case, costs, benefits, results and risks. EDMworks uses several components from the Open Systems Group TOGAF enterprise systems planning process. TOGAF acts as an extension to good business planning methods to provide a framework for the development of the systems and data architectural components. == History == James Martin was one of the pathfinders in data planning methodologies. He was one of the first to identify data as being an enterprise wide asset that required management. He developed a series of tools and methods to support that process. Most of the large consulting firms developed their own methods to address the same basic issue. Frequently, their approaches were incorporated into their own branded system development methodologies that encompassed the complete systems development life-cycle. Others, such as Ed Tozer, developed more focused offerings that dealt with the complexities of extracting key business needs from senior management and then defining relevant architectural visions for the specific enterprise. From these various sources, the concepts of Business, Data, Applications and Technology Architectures emerged. The Open Group Architectural Framework (TOGAF) has taken this work forward and has established a sound method in TOGAF version 9. EDMworks approach is to adopt these planning and architectural practices as a basis and then add two additional dimensions to the planning and implementation focus: Domain knowledge of the Investments sector. Investments is a complex global industry with a common set of characteristics about clients, information vendors, competition and regulation. Domain knowledge significantly improves the quality of the planning and implementation processes Development of people and teams. Change is a major feature of in any Enterprise Data Management program and people and teams both need development in order to make EDM effective throughout an organization.
Character computing
Character computing is a trans-disciplinary field of research at the intersection of computer science and psychology. It is any computing that incorporates the human character within its context. Character is defined as all features or characteristics defining an individual and guiding their behavior in a specific situation. It consists of stable trait markers (e.g., personality, background, history, socio-economic embeddings, culture,...) and variable state markers (emotions, health, cognitive state, ...). Character computing aims at providing a holistic psychologically driven model of human behavior. It models and predicts behavior based on the relationships between a situation and character. Three main research modules fall under the umbrella of character computing: character sensing and profiling, character-aware adaptive systems, and artificial characters. == Overview == Character computing can be viewed as an extension of the well-established field of affective computing. Based on the foundations of the different psychology branches, it advocates defining behavior as a compound attribute that is not driven by either personality, emotions, situation or cognition alone. It rather defines behavior as a function of everything that makes up an individual i.e., their character and the situation they are in. Affective computing aims at allowing machines to understand and translate the non-verbal cues of individuals into affect. Accordingly, character computing aims at understanding the character attributes of an individual and the situation to translate it to predicted behavior, and vice versa. ''In practical terms, depending on the application context, character computing is a branch of research that deals with the design of systems and interfaces that can observe, sense, predict, adapt to, affect, understand, or simulate the following: character based on behavior and situation, behavior based on character and situation, or situation based on character and behavior.'' The Character-Behavior-Situation (CBS) triad is at the core of character computing and defines each of the three edges based on the other two. Character computing relies on simultaneous development from a computational and psychological perspective and is intended to be used by researchers in both fields. Its main concept is aligning the computational model of character computing with empirical results from in-lab and in-the-wild psychology experiments. The model is to be continuously built and validated through the emergence of new data. Similar to affective and personality computing, the model is to be used as a base for different applications towards improving user experience. == History == Character computing as such was first coined in its first workshop in 2017. Since then it has had 3 international workshops and numerous publications. Despite its young age, it has already drawn some interest in the research community, leading to the publication of the first book under the same title in early 2020 published by Springer Nature. Research that can be categorized under the field dates much older than 2017. The notion of combining several factors towards the explanation of behavior or traits and states has long been investigated in both Psychology and Computer Science, for example. == Character == The word character originates from the Greek word meaning “stamping tool”, referring to distinctive features and traits. Over the years it has been given many different connotations, like the moral character in philosophy, the temperament in psychology, a person in literature or an avatar in various virtual worlds, including video games. According to character computing character is a unification of all the previous definitions, by referring back to the original meaning of the word. Character is defined as the holistic concept representing all interacting trait and state markers that distinguish an individual. Traits are characteristics that mainly remain stable over time. Traits include personality, affect, socio-demographics, and general health. States are characteristics that vary in short periods of time. They include emotions, well-being, health, cognitive state. Each characteristic has many representation methods and psychological models. The different models can be combined or one model can be preset for each characteristic. This depends on the use-case and the design choices. == Areas == Research into character computing can be divided into three areas, which complement each other but can each be investigated separately. The first area is sensing and predicting character states and traits or ensuing behavior. The second area is adapting applications to certain character states or traits and the behavior they predict. It also deals with trying to change or monitor such behavior. The final area deals with creating artificial agents e.g., chatbots or virtual reality avatars that exhibit certain characteristics. The three areas are investigated separately and build on existing findings in the literature. The results of each of the three areas can also be used as a stepping stone for the next area. Each of the three areas has already been investigated on its own in different research fields with focus on different subsets of character. For example, affective computing and personality computing both cover different areas with a focus on some character components without the others to account for human behavior. == The Character-Behavior-Situation triad == Character computing is based on a holistic psychologically driven model of human behavior. Human behavior is modeled and predicted based on the relationships between a situation and a human's character. To further define character in a more formal or holistic manner, we represent it in light of the Character–Behavior–Situation triad. This highlights that character not only determines who we are but how we are, i.e., how we behave. The triad investigated in Personality Psychology is extended through character computing to the Character–Behavior–Situation triad. Any member of the CBS triad is a function of the two other members, e.g., given the situation and personality, the behavior can be predicted. Each of the components in the triad can be further decomposed into smaller units and features that may best represent the human's behavior or character in a particular situation. Character is thus behind a person's behavior in any given situation. While this is a causality relation, the correlation between the three components is often more easily used to predict the components that are most difficult to measure from those measured more easily. There are infinitely many components to include in the representation of any of C, B, and S. The challenge is always to choose the smallest subset needed for prediction of a person's behavior in a particular situation.
TurboQuant
TurboQuant is an online vector quantization algorithm for compressing high-dimensional Euclidean vectors while preserving their geometric structure. It was proposed in 2025 by Amir Zandieh, Majid Daliri, Majid Hadian, and Vahab Mirrokni in the paper TurboQuant: Online Vector Quantization with Near-optimal Distortion Rate. The paper lists Zandieh and Mirrokni as affiliated with Google Research, Daliri with New York University, and Hadian with Google DeepMind. The method was developed for applications including large language model (LLM) inference, key–value (KV) cache compression, vector databases, and nearest neighbor search. TurboQuant consists of two related algorithms: TurboQuantmse, which is optimized for mean squared error (MSE), and TurboQuantprod, which is optimized for unbiased inner product estimation. The algorithm uses a random rotation of input vectors, applies scalar quantizers to the rotated coordinates, and, for inner-product estimation, applies a one-bit Quantized Johnson–Lindenstrauss (QJL) transform to the residual error. == Background == Vector quantization is a compression method that maps high-dimensional vectors to a finite set of codewords. The problem has roots in Shannon's source coding theory and rate–distortion theory. In machine learning and information retrieval, vector quantization is used to reduce the memory required to store embeddings, activation vectors, and other numerical representations. In Transformer-based large language models, the KV cache stores key and value vectors from previous tokens during autoregressive decoding. The size of this cache grows with context length, the number of attention heads, and the number of concurrent requests, making it a major memory bottleneck in LLM serving. Similar compression problems appear in vector search, where large collections of embedding vectors must be stored and searched efficiently. Earlier approaches to vector quantization include product quantization, scalar quantization, and data-dependent k-means codebook construction. The TurboQuant paper argues that many existing methods either require offline preprocessing and calibration or suffer from suboptimal distortion guarantees in online settings. == Algorithm == === TurboQuantmse === TurboQuantmse is the version of the algorithm optimized for mean-squared error. For a unit vector x ∈ S d − 1 {\displaystyle x\in S^{d-1}} , the algorithm first applies a random rotation matrix Π ∈ R d × d {\displaystyle \Pi \in \mathbb {R} ^{d\times d}} and sets z = Π x {\displaystyle z=\Pi x} . Each coordinate of the rotated vector follows a shifted and scaled beta distribution, which converges to a normal distribution in high dimensions. In high dimensions, distinct coordinates also become nearly independent, allowing the algorithm to apply scalar quantizers independently to each coordinate. The scalar quantizer is constructed by solving a one-dimensional continuous k-means or Lloyd–Max quantization problem. If the centroids are c 1 , c 2 , … , c 2 b {\displaystyle c_{1},c_{2},\ldots ,c_{2^{b}}} , the quantization step stores, for each coordinate, i d x j = a r g m i n k ∈ [ 2 b ] | z j − c k | . {\displaystyle \mathrm {idx} _{j}=\operatorname {} {arg\,min}_{k\in [2^{b}]}|z_{j}-c_{k}|.} During dequantization, the stored index for each coordinate is replaced by the corresponding centroid, giving a reconstructed rotated vector z ~ {\displaystyle {\tilde {z}}} . The algorithm then rotates back: x ~ = Π ⊤ z ~ . {\displaystyle {\tilde {x}}=\Pi ^{\top }{\tilde {z}}.} The paper gives the following bound for TurboQuantmse: D m s e ≤ 3 π 2 ⋅ 1 4 b . {\displaystyle D_{\mathrm {mse} }\leq {\frac {\sqrt {3\pi }}{2}}\cdot {\frac {1}{4^{b}}}.} It also reports finer-grained MSE values of approximately 0.36, 0.117, 0.03, and 0.009 for bit-widths b = 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 {\displaystyle b=1,2,3,4} , respectively. === TurboQuantprod === TurboQuantprod is optimized for unbiased inner-product estimation. The authors note that an MSE-optimized quantizer may introduce bias when used to estimate inner products. To address this, TurboQuantprod first applies TurboQuantmse with bit-width b − 1 {\displaystyle b-1} , then applies a one-bit Quantized Johnson–Lindenstrauss transform to the remaining residual vector. Let r = x − Q m s e − 1 ( Q m s e ( x ) ) {\displaystyle r=x-Q_{\mathrm {mse} }^{-1}(Q_{\mathrm {mse} }(x))} be the residual after MSE quantization, and let γ = ‖ r ‖ 2 {\displaystyle \gamma =\|r\|_{2}} . The QJL step stores a sign vector for the residual. For γ ≠ 0 {\displaystyle \gamma \neq 0} , this can be written using the normalized residual u = r / γ {\displaystyle u=r/\gamma } : q j l = sign ( S u ) , {\displaystyle qjl=\operatorname {sign} (Su),} where S ∈ R d × d {\displaystyle S\in \mathbb {R} ^{d\times d}} is a random projection matrix. Since the sign function is invariant under positive rescaling, this is equivalent to sign ( S r ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {sign} (Sr)} when r ≠ 0 {\displaystyle r\neq 0} . If γ = 0 {\displaystyle \gamma =0} , the residual correction is zero. TurboQuantprod stores the MSE quantization, the QJL sign vector, and the residual norm: Q p r o d ( x ) = [ Q m s e ( x ) , q j l , γ ] . {\displaystyle Q_{\mathrm {prod} }(x)=\left[Q_{\mathrm {mse} }(x),qjl,\gamma \right].} The dequantized vector is reconstructed as x ~ = x ~ m s e + π / 2 d γ S ⊤ q j l . {\displaystyle {\tilde {x}}={\tilde {x}}_{\mathrm {mse} }+{\frac {\sqrt {\pi /2}}{d}}\,\gamma S^{\top }qjl.} The paper proves that TurboQuantprod is unbiased for inner-product estimation: E x ~ [ ⟨ y , x ~ ⟩ ] = ⟨ y , x ⟩ . {\displaystyle \mathbb {E} _{\tilde {x}}\left[\langle y,{\tilde {x}}\rangle \right]=\langle y,x\rangle .} It also gives the distortion bound D p r o d ≤ 3 π 2 ⋅ ‖ y ‖ 2 2 d ⋅ 1 4 b . {\displaystyle D_{\mathrm {prod} }\leq {\frac {\sqrt {3\pi }}{2}}\cdot {\frac {\|y\|_{2}^{2}}{d}}\cdot {\frac {1}{4^{b}}}.} == Performance and applications == The TurboQuant paper reports that the algorithm achieves near-optimal distortion rates within a small constant factor of information-theoretic lower bounds. The authors report that, for KV cache quantization, TurboQuant achieved quality neutrality at 3.5 bits per channel and marginal degradation at 2.5 bits per channel. In long-context LLM experiments using Llama 3.1 8B Instruct, the paper evaluated the method on a "needle-in-a-haystack" retrieval task with document lengths from 4,000 to 104,000 tokens. It reported that TurboQuant matched the uncompressed full-precision baseline while using more than 4× compression, and compared the method against PolarQuant, SnapKV, PyramidKV, and KIVI. Google Research stated that TurboQuant was evaluated on long-context benchmarks including LongBench, Needle in a Haystack, ZeroSCROLLS, RULER, and L-Eval using open-source models including Gemma and Mistral. According to a report in Tom's Hardware, Google described the method as reducing KV-cache memory by at least six times and achieving up to an eightfold improvement in attention-logit computation on Nvidia H100 GPUs compared with unquantized 32-bit keys. TurboQuant has also been applied to nearest-neighbor vector search. The original paper reports experiments on DBpedia entity embeddings and GloVe embeddings, comparing TurboQuant with product quantization and other vector-search quantization baselines. == Relationship to other methods == TurboQuant is related to several methods for efficient large language model inference and high-dimensional search: Product quantization – a vector quantization technique widely used for approximate nearest-neighbor search Quantization (machine learning) – reducing the numerical precision of weights, activations, or cached tensors in machine learning models PagedAttention – a memory-management algorithm for LLM serving that reduces fragmentation in the KV cache Johnson–Lindenstrauss lemma – a result in high-dimensional geometry used in random projection methods Lloyd's algorithm – an algorithm for scalar and vector quantization, including k-means-style codebook construction Unlike PagedAttention, which focuses on memory allocation and cache layout, TurboQuant reduces the numerical storage cost of the vectors themselves. Unlike many product-quantization methods, TurboQuant is designed to be data-oblivious and online, avoiding dataset-specific codebook training. == Limitations == The strongest performance claims for TurboQuant come from the original paper and Google Research's own publication. Coverage in technology media has noted that the broader impact of the method will depend on real-world implementation details, workloads, and hardware architectures.
Algorithmic game theory
Algorithmic game theory (AGT) is an interdisciplinary field at the intersection of game theory and computer science, focused on understanding and designing algorithms for environments where multiple strategic agents interact. This research area combines computational thinking with economic principles to address challenges that emerge when algorithmic inputs come from self-interested participants. In traditional algorithm design, inputs are assumed to be fixed and reliable. However, in many real-world applications—such as online auctions, internet routing, digital advertising, and resource allocation systems—inputs are provided by multiple independent agents who may strategically misreport information to manipulate outcomes in their favor. AGT provides frameworks to analyze and design systems that remain effective despite such strategic behavior. The field can be approached from two complementary perspectives: Analysis: Evaluating existing algorithms and systems through game-theoretic tools to understand their strategic properties. This includes calculating and proving properties of Nash equilibria (stable states where no participant can benefit by changing only their own strategy), measuring price of anarchy (efficiency loss due to selfish behavior), and analyzing best-response dynamics (how systems evolve when players sequentially optimize their strategies). Design: Creating mechanisms and algorithms with both desirable computational properties and game-theoretic robustness. This sub-field, known as algorithmic mechanism design, develops systems that incentivize truthful behavior while maintaining computational efficiency. Algorithm designers in this domain must satisfy traditional algorithmic requirements (such as polynomial-time running time and good approximation ratio) while simultaneously addressing incentive constraints that ensure participants act according to the system's intended design. == History == === Nisan-Ronen: a new framework for studying algorithms === In 1999, the seminal paper of Noam Nisan and Amir Ronen drew the attention of the Theoretical Computer Science community to designing algorithms for selfish (strategic) users. As they claim in the abstract: We consider algorithmic problems in a distributed setting where the participants cannot be assumed to follow the algorithm but rather their own self-interest. As such participants, termed agents, are capable of manipulating the algorithm, the algorithm designer should ensure in advance that the agents’ interests are best served by behaving correctly. Following notions from the field of mechanism design, we suggest a framework for studying such algorithms. In this model the algorithmic solution is adorned with payments to the participants and is termed a mechanism. The payments should be carefully chosen as to motivate all participants to act as the algorithm designer wishes. We apply the standard tools of mechanism design to algorithmic problems and in particular to the shortest path problem. This paper coined the term algorithmic mechanism design and was recognized by the 2012 Gödel Prize committee as one of "three papers laying foundation of growth in Algorithmic Game Theory". === Price of Anarchy === The other two papers cited in the 2012 Gödel Prize for fundamental contributions to Algorithmic Game Theory introduced and developed the concept of "Price of Anarchy". In their 1999 paper "Worst-case Equilibria", Koutsoupias and Papadimitriou proposed a new measure of the degradation of system efficiency due to the selfish behavior of its agents: the ratio of between system efficiency at an optimal configuration, and its efficiency at the worst Nash equilibrium. (The term "Price of Anarchy" only appeared a couple of years later.) === The Internet as a catalyst === The Internet created a new economy—both as a foundation for exchange and commerce, and in its own right. The computational nature of the Internet allowed for the use of computational tools in this new emerging economy. On the other hand, the Internet itself is the outcome of actions of many. This was new to the classic, ‘top-down’ approach to computation that held till then. Thus, game theory is a natural way to view the Internet and interactions within it, both human and mechanical. Game theory studies equilibria (such as the Nash equilibrium). An equilibrium is generally defined as a state in which no player has an incentive to change their strategy. Equilibria are found in several fields related to the Internet, for instance financial interactions and communication load-balancing. Game theory provides tools to analyze equilibria, and a common approach is then to ‘find the game’—that is, to formalize specific Internet interactions as a game, and to derive the associated equilibria. Rephrasing problems in terms of games allows the analysis of Internet-based interactions and the construction of mechanisms to meet specified demands. If equilibria can be shown to exist, a further question must be answered: can an equilibrium be found, and in reasonable time? This leads to the analysis of algorithms for finding equilibria. Of special importance is the complexity class PPAD, which includes many problems in algorithmic game theory. == Areas of research == === Algorithmic mechanism design === Mechanism design is the subarea of economics that deals with optimization under incentive constraints. Algorithmic mechanism design considers the optimization of economic systems under computational efficiency requirements. Typical objectives studied include revenue maximization and social welfare maximization. === Inefficiency of equilibria === The concepts of price of anarchy and price of stability were introduced to capture the loss in performance of a system due to the selfish behavior of its participants. The price of anarchy captures the worst-case performance of the system at equilibrium relative to the optimal performance possible. The price of stability, on the other hand, captures the relative performance of the best equilibrium of the system. These concepts are counterparts to the notion of approximation ratio in algorithm design. === Complexity of finding equilibria === The existence of an equilibrium in a game is typically established using non-constructive fixed point theorems. There are no efficient algorithms known for computing Nash equilibria. The problem is complete for the complexity class PPAD even in 2-player games. In contrast, correlated equilibria can be computed efficiently using linear programming, as well as learned via no-regret strategies. === Computational social choice === Computational social choice studies computational aspects of social choice, the aggregation of individual agents' preferences. Examples include algorithms and computational complexity of voting rules and coalition formation. Other topics include: Algorithms for computing Market equilibria Fair division Multi-agent systems And the area counts with diverse practical applications: Sponsored search auctions Spectrum auctions Cryptocurrencies Prediction markets Reputation systems Sharing economy Matching markets such as kidney exchange and school choice Crowdsourcing and peer grading Economics of the cloud == Journals and newsletters == ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation (TEAC) SIGEcom Exchanges Algorithmic Game Theory papers are often also published in Game Theory journals such as GEB, Economics journals such as Econometrica, and Computer Science journals such as SICOMP.
Timeline of algorithms
The following timeline of algorithms outlines the development of algorithms (mainly "mathematical recipes") since their inception. == Antiquity == Before – writing about "recipes" (on cooking, rituals, agriculture and other themes) c. 1700–2000 BC – Egyptians develop earliest known algorithms for multiplying two numbers c. 1600 BC – Babylonians develop earliest known algorithms for factorization and finding square roots c. 300 BC – Euclid's algorithm c. 200 BC – the Sieve of Eratosthenes 263 AD – Gaussian elimination described by Liu Hui == Medieval Period == 628 – Chakravala method described by Brahmagupta c. 820 – Al-Khawarizmi described algorithms for solving linear equations and quadratic equations in his Algebra; the word algorithm comes from his name 825 – Al-Khawarizmi described the algorism, algorithms for using the Hindu–Arabic numeral system, in his treatise On the Calculation with Hindu Numerals, which was translated into Latin as Algoritmi de numero Indorum, where "Algoritmi", the translator's rendition of the author's name gave rise to the word algorithm (Latin algorithmus) with a meaning "calculation method" c. 850 – cryptanalysis and frequency analysis algorithms developed by Al-Kindi (Alkindus) in A Manuscript on Deciphering Cryptographic Messages, which contains algorithms on breaking encryptions and ciphers c. 1025 – Ibn al-Haytham (Alhazen), was the first mathematician to derive the formula for the sum of the fourth powers, and in turn, he develops an algorithm for determining the general formula for the sum of any integral powers c. 1400 – Ahmad al-Qalqashandi gives a list of ciphers in his Subh al-a'sha which include both substitution and transposition, and for the first time, a cipher with multiple substitutions for each plaintext letter; he also gives an exposition on and worked example of cryptanalysis, including the use of tables of letter frequencies and sets of letters which can not occur together in one word == Before 1940 == 1540 – Lodovico Ferrari discovered a method to find the roots of a quartic polynomial 1545 – Gerolamo Cardano published Cardano's method for finding the roots of a cubic polynomial 1614 – John Napier develops method for performing calculations using logarithms 1671 – Newton–Raphson method developed by Isaac Newton 1690 – Newton–Raphson method independently developed by Joseph Raphson 1706 – John Machin develops a quickly converging inverse-tangent series for π and computes π to 100 decimal places 1768 – Leonhard Euler publishes his method for numerical integration of ordinary differential equations in problem 85 of Institutiones calculi integralis 1789 – Jurij Vega improves Machin's formula and computes π to 140 decimal places, 1805 – FFT-like algorithm known by Carl Friedrich Gauss 1842 – Ada Lovelace writes the first algorithm for a computing engine 1903 – A fast Fourier transform algorithm presented by Carle David Tolmé Runge 1918 - Soundex 1926 – Borůvka's algorithm 1926 – Primary decomposition algorithm presented by Grete Hermann 1927 – Hartree–Fock method developed for simulating a quantum many-body system in a stationary state. 1934 – Delaunay triangulation developed by Boris Delaunay 1936 – Turing machine, an abstract machine developed by Alan Turing, with others developed the modern notion of algorithm. == 1940s == 1942 – A fast Fourier transform algorithm developed by G.C. Danielson and Cornelius Lanczos 1945 – Merge sort developed by John von Neumann 1947 – Simplex algorithm developed by George Dantzig == 1950s == 1950 – Hamming codes developed by Richard Hamming 1952 – Huffman coding developed by David A. Huffman 1953 – Simulated annealing introduced by Nicholas Metropolis 1954 – Radix sort computer algorithm developed by Harold H. Seward 1964 – Box–Muller transform for fast generation of normally distributed numbers published by George Edward Pelham Box and Mervin Edgar Muller. Independently pre-discovered by Raymond E. A. C. Paley and Norbert Wiener in 1934. 1956 – Kruskal's algorithm developed by Joseph Kruskal 1956 – Ford–Fulkerson algorithm developed and published by R. Ford Jr. and D. R. Fulkerson 1957 – Prim's algorithm developed by Robert Prim 1957 – Bellman–Ford algorithm developed by Richard E. Bellman and L. R. Ford, Jr. 1959 – Dijkstra's algorithm developed by Edsger Dijkstra 1959 – Shell sort developed by Donald L. Shell 1959 – De Casteljau's algorithm developed by Paul de Casteljau 1959 – QR factorization algorithm developed independently by John G.F. Francis and Vera Kublanovskaya 1959 – Rabin–Scott powerset construction for converting NFA into DFA published by Michael O. Rabin and Dana Scott == 1960s == 1960 – Karatsuba multiplication 1961 – CRC (Cyclic redundancy check) invented by W. Wesley Peterson 1962 – AVL trees 1962 – Quicksort developed by C. A. R. Hoare 1962 – Bresenham's line algorithm developed by Jack E. Bresenham 1962 – Gale–Shapley 'stable-marriage' algorithm developed by David Gale and Lloyd Shapley 1964 – Heapsort developed by J. W. J. Williams 1964 – multigrid methods first proposed by R. P. Fedorenko 1965 – Cooley–Tukey algorithm rediscovered by James Cooley and John Tukey 1965 – Levenshtein distance developed by Vladimir Levenshtein 1965 – Cocke–Younger–Kasami (CYK) algorithm independently developed by Tadao Kasami 1965 – Buchberger's algorithm for computing Gröbner bases developed by Bruno Buchberger 1965 – LR parsers invented by Donald Knuth 1966 – Dantzig algorithm for shortest path in a graph with negative edges 1967 – Viterbi algorithm proposed by Andrew Viterbi 1967 – Cocke–Younger–Kasami (CYK) algorithm independently developed by Daniel H. Younger 1968 – A graph search algorithm described by Peter Hart, Nils Nilsson, and Bertram Raphael 1968 – Risch algorithm for indefinite integration developed by Robert Henry Risch 1969 – Strassen algorithm for matrix multiplication developed by Volker Strassen == 1970s == 1970 – Dinic's algorithm for computing maximum flow in a flow network by Yefim (Chaim) A. Dinitz 1970 – Knuth–Bendix completion algorithm developed by Donald Knuth and Peter B. Bendix 1970 – BFGS method of the quasi-Newton class 1970 – Needleman–Wunsch algorithm published by Saul B. Needleman and Christian D. Wunsch 1972 – Edmonds–Karp algorithm published by Jack Edmonds and Richard Karp, essentially identical to Dinic's algorithm from 1970 1972 – Graham scan developed by Ronald Graham 1972 – Red–black trees and B-trees discovered 1973 – RSA encryption algorithm discovered by Clifford Cocks 1973 – Jarvis march algorithm developed by R. A. Jarvis 1973 – Hopcroft–Karp algorithm developed by John Hopcroft and Richard Karp 1974 – Pollard's p − 1 algorithm developed by John Pollard 1974 – Quadtree developed by Raphael Finkel and J.L. Bentley 1975 – Genetic algorithms popularized by John Holland 1975 – Pollard's rho algorithm developed by John Pollard 1975 – Aho–Corasick string matching algorithm developed by Alfred V. Aho and Margaret J. Corasick 1975 – Cylindrical algebraic decomposition developed by George E. Collins 1976 – Salamin–Brent algorithm independently discovered by Eugene Salamin and Richard Brent 1976 – Knuth–Morris–Pratt algorithm developed by Donald Knuth and Vaughan Pratt and independently by J. H. Morris 1977 – Boyer–Moore string-search algorithm for searching the occurrence of a string into another string. 1977 – RSA encryption algorithm rediscovered by Ron Rivest, Adi Shamir, and Len Adleman 1977 – LZ77 algorithm developed by Abraham Lempel and Jacob Ziv 1977 – multigrid methods developed independently by Achi Brandt and Wolfgang Hackbusch 1978 – LZ78 algorithm developed from LZ77 by Abraham Lempel and Jacob Ziv 1978 – Bruun's algorithm proposed for powers of two by Georg Bruun 1979 – Khachiyan's ellipsoid method developed by Leonid Khachiyan 1979 – ID3 decision tree algorithm developed by Ross Quinlan == 1980s == 1980 – Brent's Algorithm for cycle detection Richard P. Brendt 1981 – Quadratic sieve developed by Carl Pomerance 1981 – Smith–Waterman algorithm developed by Temple F. Smith and Michael S. Waterman 1983 – Simulated annealing developed by S. Kirkpatrick, C. D. Gelatt and M. P. Vecchi 1983 – Classification and regression tree (CART) algorithm developed by Leo Breiman, et al. 1984 – LZW algorithm developed from LZ78 by Terry Welch 1984 – Karmarkar's interior-point algorithm developed by Narendra Karmarkar 1984 – ACORN PRNG discovered by Roy Wikramaratna and used privately 1985 – Simulated annealing independently developed by V. Cerny 1985 – Car–Parrinello molecular dynamics developed by Roberto Car and Michele Parrinello 1985 – Splay trees discovered by Sleator and Tarjan 1986 – Blum Blum Shub proposed by L. Blum, M. Blum, and M. Shub 1986 – Push relabel maximum flow algorithm by Andrew Goldberg and Robert Tarjan 1986 – Barnes–Hut tree method developed by Josh Barnes and Piet Hut for fast approximate simulation of n-body problems 1987 – Fast multipole method developed by Leslie Greengard and Vladimir
LCD crosstalk
LCD crosstalk is a visual defect in an LCD screen which occurs because of interference between adjacent pixels. Owing to the way rows and columns in the display are addressed, and charge is pushed around, the data on one part of the display has the potential to influence what is displayed elsewhere. This is generally known as crosstalk, and in matrix displays typically occurs in the horizontal and vertical directions. Crosstalk used to be a serious problem in the old passive-matrix (STN) displays, but is rarely discernable in modern active-matrix (TFT) displays. A fortunate side effect of inversion (see above) is that, for most display material, what little crosstalk there is largely cancelled out. For most practical purposes, the level of crosstalk in modern LCDs is negligible. Certain patterns, particularly those involving fine dots, can interact with the inversion and reveal visible crosstalk. If you try moving a small Window in front of the inversion pattern (above) which makes your screen flicker the most, you may well see crosstalk in the surrounding pattern. Different patterns are required to reveal crosstalk on different displays (depending on their inversion scheme).
Holographic algorithm
In computer science, a holographic algorithm is an algorithm that uses a holographic reduction. A holographic reduction is a constant-time reduction that maps solution fragments many-to-many such that the sum of the solution fragments remains unchanged. These concepts were introduced by Leslie Valiant, who called them holographic because "their effect can be viewed as that of producing interference patterns among the solution fragments". The algorithms are unrelated to laser holography, except metaphorically. Their power comes from the mutual cancellation of many contributions to a sum, analogous to the interference patterns in a hologram. Holographic algorithms have been used to find polynomial-time solutions to problems without such previously known solutions for special cases of satisfiability, vertex cover, and other graph problems. They have received notable coverage due to speculation that they are relevant to the P versus NP problem and their impact on computational complexity theory. Although some of the general problems are #P-hard problems, the special cases solved are not themselves #P-hard, and thus do not prove FP = #P. Holographic algorithms have some similarities with quantum computation, but are completely classical. == Holant problems == Holographic algorithms exist in the context of Holant problems, which generalize counting constraint satisfaction problems (#CSP). A #CSP instance is a hypergraph G=(V,E) called the constraint graph. Each hyperedge represents a variable and each vertex v {\displaystyle v} is assigned a constraint f v . {\displaystyle f_{v}.} A vertex is connected to an hyperedge if the constraint on the vertex involves the variable on the hyperedge. The counting problem is to compute ∑ σ : E → { 0 , 1 } ∏ v ∈ V f v ( σ | E ( v ) ) , ( 1 ) {\displaystyle \sum _{\sigma :E\to \{0,1\}}\prod _{v\in V}f_{v}(\sigma |_{E(v)}),~~~~~~~~~~(1)} which is a sum over all variable assignments, the product of every constraint, where the inputs to the constraint f v {\displaystyle f_{v}} are the variables on the incident hyperedges of v {\displaystyle v} . A Holant problem is like a #CSP except the input must be a graph, not a hypergraph. Restricting the class of input graphs in this way is indeed a generalization. Given a #CSP instance, replace each hyperedge e of size s with a vertex v of degree s with edges incident to the vertices contained in e. The constraint on v is the equality function of arity s. This identifies all of the variables on the edges incident to v, which is the same effect as the single variable on the hyperedge e. In the context of Holant problems, the expression in (1) is called the Holant after a related exponential sum introduced by Valiant. == Holographic reduction == A standard technique in complexity theory is a many-one reduction, where an instance of one problem is reduced to an instance of another (hopefully simpler) problem. However, holographic reductions between two computational problems preserve the sum of solutions without necessarily preserving correspondences between solutions. For instance, the total number of solutions in both sets can be preserved, even though individual problems do not have matching solutions. The sum can also be weighted, rather than simply counting the number of solutions, using linear basis vectors. === General example === It is convenient to consider holographic reductions on bipartite graphs. A general graph can always be transformed it into a bipartite graph while preserving the Holant value. This is done by replacing each edge in the graph by a path of length 2, which is also known as the 2-stretch of the graph. To keep the same Holant value, each new vertex is assigned the binary equality constraint. Consider a bipartite graph G=(U,V,E) where the constraint assigned to every vertex u ∈ U {\displaystyle u\in U} is f u {\displaystyle f_{u}} and the constraint assigned to every vertex v ∈ V {\displaystyle v\in V} is f v {\displaystyle f_{v}} . Denote this counting problem by Holant ( G , f u , f v ) . {\displaystyle {\text{Holant}}(G,f_{u},f_{v}).} If the vertices in U are viewed as one large vertex of degree |E|, then the constraint of this vertex is the tensor product of f u {\displaystyle f_{u}} with itself |U| times, which is denoted by f u ⊗ | U | . {\displaystyle f_{u}^{\otimes |U|}.} Likewise, if the vertices in V are viewed as one large vertex of degree |E|, then the constraint of this vertex is f v ⊗ | V | . {\displaystyle f_{v}^{\otimes |V|}.} Let the constraint f u {\displaystyle f_{u}} be represented by its weighted truth table as a row vector and the constraint f v {\displaystyle f_{v}} be represented by its weighted truth table as a column vector. Then the Holant of this constraint graph is simply f u ⊗ | U | f v ⊗ | V | . {\displaystyle f_{u}^{\otimes |U|}f_{v}^{\otimes |V|}.} Now for any complex 2-by-2 invertible matrix T (the columns of which are the linear basis vectors mentioned above), there is a holographic reduction between Holant ( G , f u , f v ) {\displaystyle {\text{Holant}}(G,f_{u},f_{v})} and Holant ( G , f u T ⊗ ( deg u ) , ( T − 1 ) ⊗ ( deg v ) f v ) . {\displaystyle {\text{Holant}}(G,f_{u}T^{\otimes (\deg u)},(T^{-1})^{\otimes (\deg v)}f_{v}).} To see this, insert the identity matrix T ⊗ | E | ( T − 1 ) ⊗ | E | {\displaystyle T^{\otimes |E|}(T^{-1})^{\otimes |E|}} in between f u ⊗ | U | f v ⊗ | V | {\displaystyle f_{u}^{\otimes |U|}f_{v}^{\otimes |V|}} to get f u ⊗ | U | f v ⊗ | V | {\displaystyle f_{u}^{\otimes |U|}f_{v}^{\otimes |V|}} = f u ⊗ | U | T ⊗ | E | ( T − 1 ) ⊗ | E | f v ⊗ | V | {\displaystyle =f_{u}^{\otimes |U|}T^{\otimes |E|}(T^{-1})^{\otimes |E|}f_{v}^{\otimes |V|}} = ( f u T ⊗ ( deg u ) ) ⊗ | U | ( f v ( T − 1 ) ⊗ ( deg v ) ) ⊗ | V | . {\displaystyle =\left(f_{u}T^{\otimes (\deg u)}\right)^{\otimes |U|}\left(f_{v}(T^{-1})^{\otimes (\deg v)}\right)^{\otimes |V|}.} Thus, Holant ( G , f u , f v ) {\displaystyle {\text{Holant}}(G,f_{u},f_{v})} and Holant ( G , f u T ⊗ ( deg u ) , ( T − 1 ) ⊗ ( deg v ) f v ) {\displaystyle {\text{Holant}}(G,f_{u}T^{\otimes (\deg u)},(T^{-1})^{\otimes (\deg v)}f_{v})} have exactly the same Holant value for every constraint graph. They essentially define the same counting problem. === Specific examples === ==== Vertex covers and independent sets ==== Let G be a graph. There is a 1-to-1 correspondence between the vertex covers of G and the independent sets of G. For any set S of vertices of G, S is a vertex cover in G if and only if the complement of S is an independent set in G. Thus, the number of vertex covers in G is exactly the same as the number of independent sets in G. The equivalence of these two counting problems can also be proved using a holographic reduction. For simplicity, let G be a 3-regular graph. The 2-stretch of G gives a bipartite graph H=(U,V,E), where U corresponds to the edges in G and V corresponds to the vertices in G. The Holant problem that naturally corresponds to counting the number of vertex covers in G is Holant ( H , OR 2 , EQUAL 3 ) . {\displaystyle {\text{Holant}}(H,{\text{OR}}_{2},{\text{EQUAL}}_{3}).} The truth table of OR2 as a row vector is (0,1,1,1). The truth table of EQUAL3 as a column vector is ( 1 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 1 ) T = [ 1 0 ] ⊗ 3 + [ 0 1 ] ⊗ 3 {\displaystyle (1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1)^{T}={\begin{bmatrix}1\\0\end{bmatrix}}^{\otimes 3}+{\begin{bmatrix}0\\1\end{bmatrix}}^{\otimes 3}} . Then under a holographic transformation by [ 0 1 1 0 ] , {\displaystyle {\begin{bmatrix}0&1\\1&0\end{bmatrix}},} OR 2 ⊗ | U | EQUAL 3 ⊗ | V | {\displaystyle {\text{OR}}_{2}^{\otimes |U|}{\text{EQUAL}}_{3}^{\otimes |V|}} = ( 0 , 1 , 1 , 1 ) ⊗ | U | ( [ 1 0 ] ⊗ 3 + [ 0 1 ] ⊗ 3 ) ⊗ | V | {\displaystyle =(0,1,1,1)^{\otimes |U|}\left({\begin{bmatrix}1\\0\end{bmatrix}}^{\otimes 3}+{\begin{bmatrix}0\\1\end{bmatrix}}^{\otimes 3}\right)^{\otimes |V|}} = ( 0 , 1 , 1 , 1 ) ⊗ | U | [ 0 1 1 0 ] ⊗ | E | [ 0 1 1 0 ] ⊗ | E | ( [ 1 0 ] ⊗ 3 + [ 0 1 ] ⊗ 3 ) ⊗ | V | {\displaystyle =(0,1,1,1)^{\otimes |U|}{\begin{bmatrix}0&1\\1&0\end{bmatrix}}^{\otimes |E|}{\begin{bmatrix}0&1\\1&0\end{bmatrix}}^{\otimes |E|}\left({\begin{bmatrix}1\\0\end{bmatrix}}^{\otimes 3}+{\begin{bmatrix}0\\1\end{bmatrix}}^{\otimes 3}\right)^{\otimes |V|}} = ( ( 0 , 1 , 1 , 1 ) [ 0 1 1 0 ] ⊗ 2 ) ⊗ | U | ( ( [ 0 1 1 0 ] [ 1 0 ] ) ⊗ 3 + ( [ 0 1 1 0 ] [ 0 1 ] ) ⊗ 3 ) ⊗ | V | {\displaystyle =\left((0,1,1,1){\begin{bmatrix}0&1\\1&0\end{bmatrix}}^{\otimes 2}\right)^{\otimes |U|}\left(\left({\begin{bmatrix}0&1\\1&0\end{bmatrix}}{\begin{bmatrix}1\\0\end{bmatrix}}\right)^{\otimes 3}+\left({\begin{bmatrix}0&1\\1&0\end{bmatrix}}{\begin{bmatrix}0\\1\end{bmatrix}}\right)^{\otimes 3}\right)^{\otimes |V|}} = ( 1 , 1 , 1 , 0 ) ⊗ | U | ( [ 0 1 ] ⊗ 3 + [ 1 0 ] ⊗ 3 ) ⊗ | V | {\displaystyle =(1,1,1,0)^{\otimes |U|}\left({\begin{bmatrix}0\\1\end{bmatrix}}^{\otimes 3}+{\begin{bmatrix}1\\0\end{bmatrix}}^{\otimes 3}\right)^{\otimes |V|}} = NAND 2 ⊗ | U | EQUAL 3 ⊗ | V | , {\displaystyle ={\text{NAND}}_{2}^{\otim