SUPS

In computational neuroscience, SUPS (for Synaptic Updates Per Second) or formerly CUPS (Connections Updates Per Second) is a measure of a neuronal network performance, useful in fields of neuroscience, cognitive science, artificial intelligence, and computer science. == Computing == For a processor or computer designed to simulate a neural network SUPS is measured as the product of simulated neurons N {\displaystyle N} and average connectivity c {\displaystyle c} (synapses) per neuron per second: S U P S = c × N {\displaystyle SUPS=c\times N} Depending on the type of simulation it is usually equal to the total number of synapses simulated. In an "asynchronous" dynamic simulation if a neuron spikes at υ {\displaystyle \upsilon } Hz, the average rate of synaptic updates provoked by the activity of that neuron is υ c N {\displaystyle \upsilon cN} . In a synchronous simulation with step Δ t {\displaystyle \Delta t} the number of synaptic updates per second would be c N Δ t {\displaystyle {\frac {cN}{\Delta t}}} . As Δ t {\displaystyle \Delta t} has to be chosen much smaller than the average interval between two successive afferent spikes, which implies Δ t < 1 υ N {\displaystyle \Delta t<{\frac {1}{\upsilon N}}} , giving an average of synaptic updates equal to υ c N 2 {\displaystyle \upsilon cN^{2}} . Therefore, spike-driven synaptic dynamics leads to a linear scaling of computational complexity O(N) per neuron, compared with the O(N2) in the "synchronous" case. == Records == Developed in the 1980s Adaptive Solutions' CNAPS-1064 Digital Parallel Processor chip is a full neural network (NNW). It was designed as a coprocessor to a host and has 64 sub-processors arranged in a 1D array and operating in a SIMD mode. Each sub-processor can emulate one or more neurons and multiple chips can be grouped together. At 25 MHz it is capable of 1.28 GMAC. After the presentation of the RN-100 (12 MHz) single neuron chip at Seattle 1991 Ricoh developed the multi-neuron chip RN-200. It had 16 neurons and 16 synapses per neuron. The chip has on-chip learning ability using a proprietary backdrop algorithm. It came in a 257-pin PGA encapsulation and drew 3.0 W at a maximum. It was capable of 3 GCPS (1 GCPS at 32 MHz). In 1991–97, Siemens developed the MA-16 chip, SYNAPSE-1 and SYNAPSE-3 Neurocomputer. The MA-16 was a fast matrix-matrix multiplier that can be combined to form systolic arrays. It could process 4 patterns of 16 elements each (16-bit), with 16 neuron values (16-bit) at a rate of 800 MMAC or 400 MCPS at 50 MHz. The SYNAPSE3-PC PCI card contained 2 MA-16 with a peak performance of 2560 MOPS (1.28 GMAC); 7160 MOPS (3.58 GMAC) when using three boards. In 2013, the K computer was used to simulate a neural network of 1.73 billion neurons with a total of 10.4 trillion synapses (1% of the human brain). The simulation ran for 40 minutes to simulate 1 s of brain activity at a normal activity level (4.4 on average). The simulation required 1 Petabyte of storage.

Web application firewall

A Web application firewall (WAF) is a specific form of application firewall that filters, monitors, and blocks HTTP traffic to and from a web service. By inspecting HTTP traffic, it can prevent attacks exploiting a Web application's known vulnerabilities, such as SQL injection, cross-site scripting (XSS), file inclusion, and improper system configuration. Financial institutions often utilize WAFs to help in the mitigation of Web application zero-day vulnerabilities, as well as hard-to-patch bugs or weaknesses through custom attack signature strings. == History == Dedicated Web application firewalls entered the market in the late 1990s during a time when web server attacks were becoming more prevalent. Early WAF products, from Kavado and Gilian technologies, tried to solve the increasing amount of attacks on Web applications in the late 1990s. In 2002, the open-source project ModSecurity was formed in order to make WAF technology more accessible. They finalized a core rule set for protecting Web applications, based on OASIS Web Application Security Technical Committee’s (WAS TC) vulnerability work. In 2003, they expanded and standardized rules through the Open Web Application Security Project’s (OWASP) Top 10 List, an annual ranking for Web security vulnerabilities. This list would become the industry standard for Web application security compliance. Since then, the market has continued to grow and evolve, especially focusing on credit card fraud prevention. With the development of the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI DSS), a standardization of control over cardholder data, security has become more regulated in this sector. == Description == A Web application firewall is a special type of application firewall that applies specifically to Web applications. It is deployed in front of Web applications and analyzes bi-directional web-based (HTTP) traffic – detecting and blocking anything malicious. The OWASP provides a broad technical definition for a WAF as “a security solution on the Web application level which – from a technical point of view – does not depend on the application itself”. According to the PCI DSS Information Supplement for requirement 6.6, a WAF is defined as “a security policy enforcement point positioned between a Web application and the client endpoint. This functionality can be implemented in software or hardware, running in an appliance device, or in a typical server running a common operating system. It may be a stand-alone device or integrated into other network components.” In other words, a WAF can be a virtual or physical appliance that prevents vulnerabilities in Web applications from being exploited by outside threats. These vulnerabilities may be because the application itself is a legacy type or was insufficiently coded by design. The WAF addresses these code shortcomings by special configurations of rule-sets, also known as policies. Previously unknown vulnerabilities can be discovered through penetration testing or via a vulnerability scanner. A Web application vulnerability scanner, also known as a web application security scanner, is defined in the SAMATE NIST 500-269 as “an automated program that examines Web applications for potential security vulnerabilities. In addition to searching for Web application-specific vulnerabilities, the tools also look for software coding errors.” Resolving vulnerabilities is commonly referred to as remediation. Corrections to the code can be made in the application, but typically a more prompt response is necessary. In these situations, the application of a custom policy for a unique Web application vulnerability to provide a temporary but immediate fix (known as a virtual patch) may be necessary. WAFs are not an ultimate security solution, rather they are meant to be used in conjunction with other network perimeter security solutions such as network firewalls and intrusion prevention systems to provide a holistic defense strategy. WAFs typically follow a positive security model, a negative security, or a combination of both as mentioned by the SANS Institute. WAFs use a combination of rule-based logic, parsing, and signatures to detect and prevent attacks such as cross-site scripting and SQL injection. In general, features like browser emulation, obfuscation and virtualization, and IP obfuscation are used to attempt to bypass WAFs. The OWASP produces a list of the top ten Web application security flaws. All commercial WAF offerings cover these ten flaws at a minimum. There are non-commercial options as well. As mentioned earlier, the well-known open-source WAF engine called ModSecurity is one of these options. A WAF engine alone is insufficient to provide adequate protection, therefore OWASP along with Trustwave's Spiderlabs help organize and maintain a Core-Rule Set via GitHub to use with the ModSecurity WAF engine. == Deployment options == Although the names for operating mode may differ, WAFs are basically deployed inline in three different ways. According to NSS Labs, deployment options are transparent bridge, transparent reverse proxy, and reverse proxy. "Transparent" refers to the fact that the HTTP traffic is sent straight to the Web application, therefore the WAF is transparent between the client and server. This is in contrast to reverse proxy, where the WAF acts as a proxy, and the client’s traffic is sent directly to the WAF. The WAF then separately sends filtered traffic to Web applications. This can provide additional benefits such as IP masking but may introduce disadvantages such as performance latencies. == JA3 fingerprint == JA3, developed by Salesforce in 2017, is a technique for generating a unique fingerprint for SSL/TLS traffic based on specific fields in the handshake, such as the version, cipher suites, and extensions used by the client. This fingerprint enables the identification and tracking of clients based on the characteristics of their encrypted traffic. In the context of distributed denial of service (DDoS) protection, JA3 fingerprints are used to detect and differentiate malicious traffic, often associated with attack bots, from legitimate traffic, allowing for more precise filtering of potential threats. In September 2023, AWS WAF announced built-in support for JA3, enabling customers to inspect the JA3 fingerprints of incoming requests. JA3 was deprecated in May 2025 in favor of JA4. JA4 is currently patent pending.

Collective operation

Collective operations are building blocks for interaction patterns, that are often used in SPMD algorithms in the parallel programming context. Hence, there is an interest in efficient realizations of these operations. A realization of the collective operations is provided by the Message Passing Interface (MPI). == Definitions == In all asymptotic runtime functions, we denote the latency α {\displaystyle \alpha } (or startup time per message, independent of message size), the communication cost per word β {\displaystyle \beta } , the number of processing units p {\displaystyle p} and the input size per node n {\displaystyle n} . In cases where we have initial messages on more than one node we assume that all local messages are of the same size. To address individual processing units we use p i ∈ { p 0 , p 1 , … , p p − 1 } {\displaystyle p_{i}\in \{p_{0},p_{1},\dots ,p_{p-1}\}} . If we do not have an equal distribution, i.e. node p i {\displaystyle p_{i}} has a message of size n i {\displaystyle n_{i}} , we get an upper bound for the runtime by setting n = max ( n 0 , n 1 , … , n p − 1 ) {\displaystyle n=\max(n_{0},n_{1},\dots ,n_{p-1})} . A distributed memory model is assumed. The concepts are similar for the shared memory model. However, shared memory systems can provide hardware support for some operations like broadcast (§ Broadcast) for example, which allows convenient concurrent read. Thus, new algorithmic possibilities can become available. == Broadcast == The broadcast pattern is used to distribute data from one processing unit to all processing units, which is often needed in SPMD parallel programs to dispense input or global values. Broadcast can be interpreted as an inverse version of the reduce pattern (§ Reduce). Initially only root r {\displaystyle r} with i d {\displaystyle id} 0 {\displaystyle 0} stores message m {\displaystyle m} . During broadcast m {\displaystyle m} is sent to the remaining processing units, so that eventually m {\displaystyle m} is available to all processing units. Since an implementation by means of a sequential for-loop with p − 1 {\displaystyle p-1} iterations becomes a bottleneck, divide-and-conquer approaches are common. One possibility is to utilize a binomial tree structure with the requirement that p {\displaystyle p} has to be a power of two. When a processing unit is responsible for sending m {\displaystyle m} to processing units i . . j {\displaystyle i..j} , it sends m {\displaystyle m} to processing unit ⌈ ( i + j ) / 2 ⌉ {\displaystyle \left\lceil (i+j)/2\right\rceil } and delegates responsibility for the processing units ⌈ ( i + j ) / 2 ⌉ . . j {\displaystyle \left\lceil (i+j)/2\right\rceil ..j} to it, while its own responsibility is cut down to i . . ⌈ ( i + j ) / 2 ⌉ − 1 {\displaystyle i..\left\lceil (i+j)/2\right\rceil -1} . Binomial trees have a problem with long messages m {\displaystyle m} . The receiving unit of m {\displaystyle m} can only propagate the message to other units, after it received the whole message. In the meantime, the communication network is not utilized. Therefore pipelining on binary trees is used, where m {\displaystyle m} is split into an array of k {\displaystyle k} packets of size ⌈ n / k ⌉ {\displaystyle \left\lceil n/k\right\rceil } . The packets are then broadcast one after another, so that data is distributed fast in the communication network. Pipelined broadcast on balanced binary tree is possible in O ( α log ⁡ p + β n ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {O}}(\alpha \log p+\beta n)} , whereas for the non-pipelined case it takes O ( ( α + β n ) log ⁡ p ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {O}}((\alpha +\beta n)\log p)} cost. == Reduce == The reduce pattern is used to collect data or partial results from different processing units and to combine them into a global result by a chosen operator. Given p {\displaystyle p} processing units, message m i {\displaystyle m_{i}} is on processing unit p i {\displaystyle p_{i}} initially. All m i {\displaystyle m_{i}} are aggregated by ⊗ {\displaystyle \otimes } and the result is eventually stored on p 0 {\displaystyle p_{0}} . The reduction operator ⊗ {\displaystyle \otimes } must be associative at least. Some algorithms require a commutative operator with a neutral element. Operators like s u m {\displaystyle sum} , m i n {\displaystyle min} , m a x {\displaystyle max} are common. Implementation considerations are similar to broadcast (§ Broadcast). For pipelining on binary trees the message must be representable as a vector of smaller object for component-wise reduction. Pipelined reduce on a balanced binary tree is possible in O ( α log ⁡ p + β n ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {O}}(\alpha \log p+\beta n)} . == All-Reduce == The all-reduce pattern (also called allreduce) is used if the result of a reduce operation (§ Reduce) must be distributed to all processing units. Given p {\displaystyle p} processing units, message m i {\displaystyle m_{i}} is on processing unit p i {\displaystyle p_{i}} initially. All m i {\displaystyle m_{i}} are aggregated by an operator ⊗ {\displaystyle \otimes } and the result is eventually stored on all p i {\displaystyle p_{i}} . Analog to the reduce operation, the operator ⊗ {\displaystyle \otimes } must be at least associative. All-reduce can be interpreted as a reduce operation with a subsequent broadcast (§ Broadcast). For long messages a corresponding implementation is suitable, whereas for short messages, the latency can be reduced by using a hypercube (Hypercube (communication pattern) § All-Gather/ All-Reduce) topology, if p {\displaystyle p} is a power of two. All-reduce can also be implemented with a butterfly algorithm and achieve optimal latency and bandwidth. All-reduce is possible in O ( α log ⁡ p + β n ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {O}}(\alpha \log p+\beta n)} , since reduce and broadcast are possible in O ( α log ⁡ p + β n ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {O}}(\alpha \log p+\beta n)} with pipelining on balanced binary trees. All-reduce implemented with a butterfly algorithm achieves the same asymptotic runtime. == Prefix-Sum/Scan == The prefix-sum or scan operation is used to collect data or partial results from different processing units and to compute intermediate results by an operator, which are stored on those processing units. It can be seen as a generalization of the reduce operation (§ Reduce). Given p {\displaystyle p} processing units, message m i {\displaystyle m_{i}} is on processing unit p i {\displaystyle p_{i}} . The operator ⊗ {\displaystyle \otimes } must be at least associative, whereas some algorithms require also a commutative operator and a neutral element. Common operators are s u m {\displaystyle sum} , m i n {\displaystyle min} and m a x {\displaystyle max} . Eventually processing unit p i {\displaystyle p_{i}} stores the prefix sum ⊗ i ′ <= i {\displaystyle \otimes _{i'<=i}} m i ′ {\displaystyle m_{i'}} . In the case of the so-called exclusive prefix sum, processing unit p i {\displaystyle p_{i}} stores the prefix sum ⊗ i ′ < i {\displaystyle \otimes _{i'

Algorithm IMED

In multi-armed bandit problems, IMED (for Indexed Minimum Empirical Divergence) is an algorithm developed in 2015 by Junya Honda and Akimichi Takemura. It is the first algorithm proved to be asymptotically optimal respect to the problem-dependant Lai–Robbins lower bound for distributions in ( − ∞ , 1 ] {\displaystyle (-\infty ,1]} . == Multi-armed bandit problem == The Multi-armed bandit problem is a sequential game where one player has to choose at each turn between K {\displaystyle K} actions (arms). Behind every arm a {\displaystyle a} there is an unknown distribution ν a {\displaystyle \nu _{a}} that lies in a set D {\displaystyle {\mathcal {D}}} known by the player (for example, D {\displaystyle {\mathcal {D}}} can be the set of Gaussian distributions or Bernoulli distributions). At each turn t {\displaystyle t} the player chooses (pulls) an arm a t {\displaystyle a_{t}} , he then gets an observation X t {\displaystyle X_{t}} of the distribution ν a t {\displaystyle \nu _{a_{t}}} . === Regret minimization === The goal is to minimize the regret at time T {\displaystyle T} that is defined as R T := ∑ a = 1 K Δ a E [ N a ( T ) ] {\displaystyle R_{T}:=\sum _{a=1}^{K}\Delta _{a}\mathbb {E} [N_{a}(T)]} where μ a := E [ ν a ] {\displaystyle \mu _{a}:=\mathbb {E} [\nu _{a}]} is the mean of arm a {\displaystyle a} μ ∗ := max a μ a {\displaystyle \mu ^{}:=\max _{a}\mu _{a}} is the highest mean Δ a := μ ∗ − μ a {\displaystyle \Delta _{a}:=\mu ^{}-\mu _{a}} N a ( t ) {\displaystyle N_{a}(t)} is the number of pulls of arm a {\displaystyle a} up to turn t {\displaystyle t} The player has to find an algorithm that chooses at each turn t {\displaystyle t} which arm to pull based on the previous actions and observations ( a s , X s ) s < t {\displaystyle (a_{s},X_{s})_{s μ } {\displaystyle {\mathcal {K}}_{inf}(\nu ,\mu ,{\mathcal {D}}):=\inf \left\{\mathrm {KL} (\nu ,{\tilde {\nu }})\ |\ {\tilde {\nu }}\in {\mathcal {P}}([-\infty ,1]),\ \mathbb {E} [{\tilde {\nu }}]>\mu \right\}} K L {\displaystyle \mathrm {KL} } is the Kullback–Leibler divergence P ( [ − ∞ , 1 ] ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}([-\infty ,1])} is the set of distribution in [ − ∞ , 1 ] {\displaystyle [-\infty ,1]} ν ^ a ( t ) {\displaystyle {\hat {\nu }}_{a}(t)} is the empirical distribution of arm a {\displaystyle a} at turn t {\displaystyle t} μ ^ ∗ ( t ) {\displaystyle {\hat {\mu }}^{}(t)} is the highest empirical mean of turn t {\displaystyle t} Remark : For arms a {\displaystyle a} that verify μ ^ a ( t ) = μ ^ ∗ ( t ) {\displaystyle {\hat {\mu }}_{a}(t)={\hat {\mu }}^{}(t)} we have K i n f ( ν ^ a ( t ) , μ ^ ∗ ( t ) ) = 0 {\displaystyle K_{inf}({\hat {\nu }}_{a}(t),{\hat {\mu }}^{}(t))=0} . Then there index is equal to ln ⁡ ( N a ( t ) ) {\displaystyle \ln(N_{a}(t))} === Pseudocode === for each arm i do: n[i] ← 1; nu[i] ← None; mu[i] ← None for t from 1 to K do: select arm t observe reward r n[t] ← n[t] + 1 nu[t] ← update empirical distribution mu[t] ← update empirical mean for t from K+1 to T do: mu ← highest mu for each arm i do: scoreK[i] ← n[i] K_inf(nu[i],mu) scoreN[i] ← ln(n[i]) index[i] ← scoreK[i] + scoreN[i] select arm a with smallest index[a] observe reward r n[a] ← n[a] + 1 nu[a] ← update empirical distribution mu[a] ← update empirical mean == Theoretical results == In the multi-armed bandit problem we have the asymptotic Lai–Robbins lower bound asymptotic lower bound on regret. The algorithm IMED is the first algorithm that matches this lower bound for distribution in ( − ∞ , 1 ] {\displaystyle (-\infty ,1]} in the first order. If the distribution are also bounded then it also match the second order. It is the first algorithm that match the second under of this lower bound. === Lai–Robbins lower bound === In 1985 Lai and Robbins proved an asymptotic, problem-dependent lower bound on regret. In 2018, Aurelien Garivier, Pierre Menard and Gilles Stoltz proved a refined lower bound that gives the second order It states that for every consistent algorithm on the set P ( [ − ∞ , 1 ] ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}([-\infty ,1])} — that is, an algorithm for which, for every ( ν 1 , … , ν K ) ∈ P ( [ − ∞ , 1 ] ) K {\displaystyle (\nu _{1},\dots ,\nu _{K})\in {\mathcal {P}}([-\infty ,1])^{K}} , the regret R T {\displaystyle R_{T}} is subpolynomial (i.e. R T = o T → + ∞ ( T α ) {\displaystyle R_{T}=o_{T\to +\infty }(T^{\alpha })} for all α > 0 {\displaystyle \alpha >0} ) — we have: R T ≥ ( ∑ a : μ a < μ ∗ Δ a K inf ( ν a , μ ∗ ) ) ln ⁡ T − Ω T → + ∞ ( ln ⁡ ln ⁡ T ) . {\displaystyle R_{T}\geq \left(\sum _{a:\mu _{a}<\mu ^{}}{\frac {\Delta _{a}}{{\mathcal {K}}_{\inf }(\nu _{a},\mu ^{})}}\right)\ln T-\Omega _{T\to +\infty }(\ln \ln T).} This bound is asymptotic (as T → + ∞ {\displaystyle T\to +\infty } ) and gives a first-order lower bound of order ln ⁡ T {\displaystyle \ln T} with the optimal constant in front of it and the second order in − Ω ( ln ⁡ ln ⁡ T ) {\displaystyle -\Omega (\ln \ln T)} . === Regret bound for IMED === If the distribution of every arm a {\displaystyle a} is ( − ∞ , 1 ] {\displaystyle (-\infty ,1]} ( i.e. ν a ∈ P ( [ − ∞ , 1 ] ) ) {\displaystyle \nu _{a}\in {\mathcal {P}}([-\infty ,1]))} then the regret of the algorithm IMED verify R T ≤ ( ∑ a : μ a < μ ∗ Δ a K inf ( ν a , μ ∗ ) ) ln ⁡ T + O ( 1 ) {\displaystyle R_{T}\leq \left(\sum _{a:\mu _{a}<\mu ^{}}{\frac {\Delta _{a}}{{\mathcal {K}}_{\inf }(\nu _{a},\mu ^{})}}\right)\ln T+O(1)} If all the distribution ν a {\displaystyle \nu _{a}} are bounded then it exists a constant C > 0 {\displaystyle C>0} such that for T {\displaystyle T} large enough the regret of IMED is upper bounded by R T ≤ ( ∑ a : μ a < μ ∗ Δ a K inf ( ν a , μ ∗ ) ) ln ⁡ T − C ln ⁡ ln ⁡ T {\displaystyle R_{T}\leq \left(\sum _{a:\mu _{a}<\mu ^{}}{\frac {\Delta _{a}}{{\mathcal {K}}_{\inf }(\nu _{a},\mu ^{})}}\right)\ln T-C\ln \ln T} == Computation time == The algorithm only requiere to compute the K i n f {\displaystyle K_{inf}} for suboptimal arms who are pulled O ( ln ⁡ T ) {\displaystyle O(\ln T)} times, which make it a lot faster than KL-UCB. A faster version of IMED was developed in 2023 to make it even faster, using a Taylor development of the K i n f {\displaystyle K_{inf}} in the first order .

Time Warp Edit Distance

In the data analysis of time series, Time Warp Edit Distance (TWED) is a measure of similarity (or dissimilarity) between pairs of discrete time series, controlling the relative distortion of the time units of the two series using the physical notion of elasticity. In comparison to other distance measures, (e.g. DTW (dynamic time warping) or LCS (longest common subsequence problem)), TWED is a metric. Its computational time complexity is O ( n 2 ) {\displaystyle O(n^{2})} , but can be drastically reduced in some specific situations by using a corridor to reduce the search space. Its memory space complexity can be reduced to O ( n ) {\displaystyle O(n)} . It was first proposed in 2009 by P.-F. Marteau. == Definition == δ λ , ν ( A 1 p , B 1 q ) = M i n { δ λ , ν ( A 1 p − 1 , B 1 q ) + Γ ( a p ′ → Λ ) d e l e t e i n A δ λ , ν ( A 1 p − 1 , B 1 q − 1 ) + Γ ( a p ′ → b q ′ ) m a t c h o r s u b s t i t u t i o n δ λ , ν ( A 1 p , B 1 q − 1 ) + Γ ( Λ → b q ′ ) d e l e t e i n B {\displaystyle \delta _{\lambda ,\nu }(A_{1}^{p},B_{1}^{q})=Min{\begin{cases}\delta _{\lambda ,\nu }(A_{1}^{p-1},B_{1}^{q})+\Gamma (a_{p}^{'}\to \Lambda )&{\rm {delete\ in\ A}}\\\delta _{\lambda ,\nu }(A_{1}^{p-1},B_{1}^{q-1})+\Gamma (a_{p}^{'}\to b_{q}^{'})&{\rm {match\ or\ substitution}}\\\delta _{\lambda ,\nu }(A_{1}^{p},B_{1}^{q-1})+\Gamma (\Lambda \to b_{q}^{'})&{\rm {delete\ in\ B}}\end{cases}}} whereas Γ ( α p ′ → Λ ) = d L P ( a p ′ , a p − 1 ′ ) + ν ⋅ ( t a p − t a p − 1 ) + λ {\displaystyle \Gamma (\alpha _{p}^{'}\to \Lambda )=d_{LP}(a_{p}^{'},a_{p-1}^{'})+\nu \cdot (t_{a_{p}}-t_{a_{p-1}})+\lambda } Γ ( α p ′ → b q ′ ) = d L P ( a p ′ , b q ′ ) + d L P ( a p − 1 ′ , b q − 1 ′ ) + ν ⋅ ( | t a p − t b q | + | t a p − 1 − t b q − 1 | ) {\displaystyle \Gamma (\alpha _{p}^{'}\to b_{q}^{'})=d_{LP}(a_{p}^{'},b_{q}^{'})+d_{LP}(a_{p-1}^{'},b_{q-1}^{'})+\nu \cdot (|t_{a_{p}}-t_{b_{q}}|+|t_{a_{p-1}}-t_{b_{q-1}}|)} Γ ( Λ → b q ′ ) = d L P ( b p ′ , b p − 1 ′ ) + ν ⋅ ( t b q − t b q − 1 ) + λ {\displaystyle \Gamma (\Lambda \to b_{q}^{'})=d_{LP}(b_{p}^{'},b_{p-1}^{'})+\nu \cdot (t_{b_{q}}-t_{b_{q-1}})+\lambda } Whereas the recursion δ λ , ν {\displaystyle \delta _{\lambda ,\nu }} is initialized as: δ λ , ν ( A 1 0 , B 1 0 ) = 0 , {\displaystyle \delta _{\lambda ,\nu }(A_{1}^{0},B_{1}^{0})=0,} δ λ , ν ( A 1 0 , B 1 j ) = ∞ f o r j ≥ 1 {\displaystyle \delta _{\lambda ,\nu }(A_{1}^{0},B_{1}^{j})=\infty \ {\rm {{for\ }j\geq 1}}} δ λ , ν ( A 1 i , B 1 0 ) = ∞ f o r i ≥ 1 {\displaystyle \delta _{\lambda ,\nu }(A_{1}^{i},B_{1}^{0})=\infty \ {\rm {{for\ }i\geq 1}}} with a 0 ′ = b 0 ′ = 0 {\displaystyle a'_{0}=b'_{0}=0} === Implementations === An implementation of the TWED algorithm in C with a Python wrapper is available at TWED is also implemented into the Time Series Subsequence Search Python package (TSSEARCH for short) available at [1]. An R implementation of TWED has been integrated into the TraMineR, a R package for mining, describing and visualizing sequences of states or events, and more generally discrete sequence data. Additionally, cuTWED is a CUDA- accelerated implementation of TWED which uses an improved algorithm due to G. Wright (2020). This method is linear in memory and massively parallelized. cuTWED is written in CUDA C/C++, comes with Python bindings, and also includes Python bindings for Marteau's reference C implementation. ==== Python ==== Backtracking, to find the most cost-efficient path: ==== MATLAB ==== Backtracking, to find the most cost-efficient path:

Language engineering

Language engineering involves the creation of natural language processing systems, whose cost and outputs are measurable and predictable. It is a distinct field contrasted to natural language processing and computational linguistics. A recent trend of language engineering is the use of Semantic Web technologies for the creation, archiving, processing, and retrieval of machine processable language data. Meta-Language Engineering is a proposed extension of Language Engineering first recorded in 2025, associated with the work of Delyone de Paula Canedo Filho. The term is used to designate an approach that, in addition to natural language processing, encompasses the symbolic, cognitive, and epistemological structuring of language systems.

Authoritative Legal Entity Identifier

An Authoritative Legal Entity Identifier (ALEI) is the identifier assigned by a government jurisdiction authorized by statute or decree to create a legal entity and to maintain the authoritative registries of legal entities. ALEIs are used within supply chain data, ERP applications and master data management systems to support accurate and consistent identification of entities in digital records, supply chains, and government databases. ALEIs are described in the international standard ISO 8000-116, which outlines a structured format that makes the locally unique identifier into a globally unique one and ensures global interoperability and data quality. == Structure == An ALEI is composed of three main components: a prefix that identifies the jurisdiction and register, a subdomain element (optional), and the local registration number of the entity. For example, the identifier "US-DE.BER:3031657" refers to an entity registered in the Delaware Business Entity Register in the United States. The standardization of this structure is governed by ISO 8000-116, which is designed to ensure each ALEI is globally unique and resolvable. == Comparison with other identifiers == ALEIs differ from proxy identifiers such as the DUNS number, NCAGE code, or the Legal Entity Identifier (LEI) managed by GLEIF. While proxy identifiers can be issued by institutions that do not create legal entities, ALEIs are created and maintained by public bodies with the authority to form and register legal entities. This authoritative origin makes ALEIs particularly suitable for applications involving legal traceability, government regulation, and international transparency efforts. == Usage == ALEIs are increasingly utilized to identify legal entities in public and private datasets. The identifiers support supply chain accuracy, regulatory compliance, and the unification of master data. The first practical implementation of an ALEI was the International Business Registration Number (IBRN), developed to provide globally unique identifiers for registered business entities. IBRNs are issued by authorized government jurisdictions and are used to verify entities across borders, particularly in the context of trade facilitation and data exchange systems. For instance, business directories and registration systems in U.S. states like Connecticut provide structured registration documents that can be used to verify the ALEIs they issue. The use of ALEIs has been recommended by international organizations such as the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) and Open ownership to improve beneficial ownership registries. == Policy and regulation == ALEIs have been referenced in policy consultations such as those related to the U.S. Financial Data Transparency Act. Federal institutions including the Federal Reserve and FDIC have examined the potential for ALEIs to unify entity identification across regulatory databases.