Since Bitcoin appeared in 2009, over 6,000 different cryptocurrency projects have followed. The cryptocurrency world may be the only technology where a massive number of competitors offer similar services yet claim unique benefits, including scalability, fast transactions, and security. But are these projects really offering unique features and significant enhancements over their competitors? To answer this question, we conducted a large-scale empirical analysis of code maintenance activities, originality and security across 592 crypto projects. We found that about half of these projects have not been updated for the last six months; over two years, about three-quarters of them disappeared, or were reported as scams or inactive. We also investigated whether 11 security vulnerabilities patched in Bitcoin were also patched in other projects. We found that about 80% of 510 C-language-based cryptocurrency projects have at least one unpatched vulnerability, and the mean time taken to fix the vulnerability is 237.8 days. Among those 510 altcoins, we found that at least 157 altcoins are likely to have been forked from Bitcoin, about a third of them containing only slight changes from the Bitcoin version from which they were forked. As case studies, we did a deep dive into 20 altcoins (e.g., Litecoin, FujiCoin, and Feathercoin) similar to the version of Bitcoin used for the fork. About half of them did not make any technically meaningful change - failing to comply with the promises (e.g., about using Proof of Stake) made in their whitepapers.
Given its status as a classic problem and its importance to both theoreticians and practitioners, edit distance provides an excellent lens through which to understand how the theoretical analysis of algorithms impacts practical implementations. From an applied perspective, the goals of theoretical analysis are to predict the empirical performance of an algorithm and to serve as a yardstick to design novel algorithms that perform well in practice. In this paper, we systematically survey the types of theoretical analysis techniques that have been applied to edit distance and evaluate the extent to which each one has achieved these two goals. These techniques include traditional worst-case analysis, worst-case analysis parametrized by edit distance or entropy or compressibility, average-case analysis, semi-random models, and advice-based models. We find that the track record is mixed. On one hand, two algorithms widely used in practice have been born out of theoretical analysis and their empirical performance is captured well by theoretical predictions. On the other hand, all the algorithms developed using theoretical analysis as a yardstick since then have not had any practical relevance. We conclude by discussing the remaining open problems and how they can be tackled.
Unlike suggested during their early years of existence, Bitcoin and similar cryptocurrencies in fact offer significantly less privacy as compared to traditional banking. A myriad of privacy-enhancing extensions to those cryptocurrencies as well as several clean-slate privacy-protecting cryptocurrencies have been proposed in turn. To convey a better understanding of the protection of popular design decisions, we investigate expected anonymity set sizes in an initial simulation study. The large variation of expected transaction values yields soberingly small effective anonymity sets for protocols that leak transaction values. We hence examine the effect of preliminary, intuitive strategies for merging groups of payments into larger anonymity sets, for instance by choosing from pre-specified value classes. The results hold promise, as they indeed induce larger anonymity sets at comparatively low cost, depending on the corresponding strategy
The recent success of distributed word representations has led to an increased interest in analyzing the properties of their spatial distribution. Several studies have suggested that contextualized word embedding models do not isotropically project tokens into vector space. However, current methods designed to measure isotropy, such as average random cosine similarity and the partition score, have not been thoroughly analyzed and are not appropriate for measuring isotropy. We propose IsoScore: a novel tool that quantifies the degree to which a point cloud uniformly utilizes the ambient vector space. Using rigorously designed tests, we demonstrate that IsoScore is the only tool available in the literature that accurately measures how uniformly distributed variance is across dimensions in vector space. Additionally, we use IsoScore to challenge a number of recent conclusions in the NLP literature that have been derived using brittle metrics of isotropy. We caution future studies from using existing tools to measure isotropy in contextualized embedding space as resulting conclusions will be misleading or altogether inaccurate.
In this study, we examine a clustering problem in which the covariates of each individual element in a dataset are associated with an uncertainty specific to that element. More specifically, we consider a clustering approach in which a pre-processing applying a non-linear transformation to the covariates is used to capture the hidden data structure. To this end, we approximate the sets representing the propagated uncertainty for the pre-processed features empirically. To exploit the empirical uncertainty sets, we propose a greedy and optimistic clustering (GOC) algorithm that finds better feature candidates over such sets, yielding more condensed clusters. As an important application, we apply the GOC algorithm to synthetic datasets of the orbital properties of stars generated through our numerical simulation mimicking the formation process of the Milky Way. The GOC algorithm demonstrates an improved performance in finding sibling stars originating from the same dwarf galaxy. These realistic datasets have also been made publicly available.
With the advent of open source software, a veritable treasure trove of previously proprietary software development data was made available. This opened the field of empirical software engineering research to anyone in academia. Data that is mined from software projects, however, requires extensive processing and needs to be handled with utmost care to ensure valid conclusions. Since the software development practices and tools have changed over two decades, we aim to understand the state-of-the-art research workflows and to highlight potential challenges. We employ a systematic literature review by sampling over one thousand papers from leading conferences and by analyzing the 286 most relevant papers from the perspective of data workflows, methodologies, reproducibility, and tools. We found that an important part of the research workflow involving dataset selection was particularly problematic, which raises questions about the generality of the results in existing literature. Furthermore, we found a considerable number of papers provide little or no reproducibility instructions -- a substantial deficiency for a data-intensive field. In fact, 33% of papers provide no information on how their data was retrieved. Based on these findings, we propose ways to address these shortcomings via existing tools and also provide recommendations to improve research workflows and the reproducibility of research.
Fast developing artificial intelligence (AI) technology has enabled various applied systems deployed in the real world, impacting people's everyday lives. However, many current AI systems were found vulnerable to imperceptible attacks, biased against underrepresented groups, lacking in user privacy protection, etc., which not only degrades user experience but erodes the society's trust in all AI systems. In this review, we strive to provide AI practitioners a comprehensive guide towards building trustworthy AI systems. We first introduce the theoretical framework of important aspects of AI trustworthiness, including robustness, generalization, explainability, transparency, reproducibility, fairness, privacy preservation, alignment with human values, and accountability. We then survey leading approaches in these aspects in the industry. To unify the current fragmented approaches towards trustworthy AI, we propose a systematic approach that considers the entire lifecycle of AI systems, ranging from data acquisition to model development, to development and deployment, finally to continuous monitoring and governance. In this framework, we offer concrete action items to practitioners and societal stakeholders (e.g., researchers and regulators) to improve AI trustworthiness. Finally, we identify key opportunities and challenges in the future development of trustworthy AI systems, where we identify the need for paradigm shift towards comprehensive trustworthy AI systems.
Generalization to out-of-distribution (OOD) data is a capability natural to humans yet challenging for machines to reproduce. This is because most learning algorithms strongly rely on the i.i.d.~assumption on source/target data, which is often violated in practice due to domain shift. Domain generalization (DG) aims to achieve OOD generalization by using only source data for model learning. Since first introduced in 2011, research in DG has made great progresses. In particular, intensive research in this topic has led to a broad spectrum of methodologies, e.g., those based on domain alignment, meta-learning, data augmentation, or ensemble learning, just to name a few; and has covered various vision applications such as object recognition, segmentation, action recognition, and person re-identification. In this paper, for the first time a comprehensive literature review is provided to summarize the developments in DG for computer vision over the past decade. Specifically, we first cover the background by formally defining DG and relating it to other research fields like domain adaptation and transfer learning. Second, we conduct a thorough review into existing methods and present a categorization based on their methodologies and motivations. Finally, we conclude this survey with insights and discussions on future research directions.
In the last years, Artificial Intelligence (AI) has achieved a notable momentum that may deliver the best of expectations over many application sectors across the field. For this to occur, the entire community stands in front of the barrier of explainability, an inherent problem of AI techniques brought by sub-symbolism (e.g. ensembles or Deep Neural Networks) that were not present in the last hype of AI. Paradigms underlying this problem fall within the so-called eXplainable AI (XAI) field, which is acknowledged as a crucial feature for the practical deployment of AI models. This overview examines the existing literature in the field of XAI, including a prospect toward what is yet to be reached. We summarize previous efforts to define explainability in Machine Learning, establishing a novel definition that covers prior conceptual propositions with a major focus on the audience for which explainability is sought. We then propose and discuss about a taxonomy of recent contributions related to the explainability of different Machine Learning models, including those aimed at Deep Learning methods for which a second taxonomy is built. This literature analysis serves as the background for a series of challenges faced by XAI, such as the crossroads between data fusion and explainability. Our prospects lead toward the concept of Responsible Artificial Intelligence, namely, a methodology for the large-scale implementation of AI methods in real organizations with fairness, model explainability and accountability at its core. Our ultimate goal is to provide newcomers to XAI with a reference material in order to stimulate future research advances, but also to encourage experts and professionals from other disciplines to embrace the benefits of AI in their activity sectors, without any prior bias for its lack of interpretability.
In recent years, DBpedia, Freebase, OpenCyc, Wikidata, and YAGO have been published as noteworthy large, cross-domain, and freely available knowledge graphs. Although extensively in use, these knowledge graphs are hard to compare against each other in a given setting. Thus, it is a challenge for researchers and developers to pick the best knowledge graph for their individual needs. In our recent survey, we devised and applied data quality criteria to the above-mentioned knowledge graphs. Furthermore, we proposed a framework for finding the most suitable knowledge graph for a given setting. With this paper we intend to ease the access to our in-depth survey by presenting simplified rules that map individual data quality requirements to specific knowledge graphs. However, this paper does not intend to replace our previously introduced decision-support framework. For an informed decision on which KG is best for you we still refer to our in-depth survey.