Can particle physics transform our online experience?

One of the more intriguing papers we've happened upon early this year is some research from the University of Fribourg which suggests that particle physics can improve the technology behind recommendation systems.

Recommendation systems are software which websites such as Amazon and Facebook use to tailor information for users.  When Amazon, somewhat eerily, suggests that you check out a book by a writer you've been just been thinking about, that's a recommendation system, or "engine", in action. Recommendation engines are at the heart of online business, as the good ones are known to generate profits.  Improving them is a key goal for retailers and software companies alike.

But what on earth does particle physics have to do with software like that?  Well, a group of researchers at the at the University of Fribourg in Switzerland believe that the physics which governs the behaviour of photons and electrons may also be used to optimise recommendation engines.

Stanislao Gualdi, Matus Medo, and Yi-Cheng Zhang this month published an abstract on arXiv entitled, "Crowd Avoidance and Diversity in Socio-Economic Systems and Recommendation".  The paper's key insight is that the problem with recommendation engines is that they can lead to 'overcrowding' around a specific product or service, which can be detrimental to the experience users have with it.  Surges in demand can be sometimes advantageous, but if the value of a resource diminishes as more people use it, then this creates a problem.  A good example would be a service like Netflix recommending the same movie to too many of its users, thereby creating long waiting times for everyone. Another good example, would be a travel website recommending a beach or a picnic spot because it is quiet. As Technology Review noted "this can end up destroying the peace that gives it value. Similarly, restaurant recommendations can lead to overcrowding or difficulty getting a table which again makes the dining experience unpleasant."

These examples show how over-stimulated demand can reduce the value of a resource. Gualdi, Medo and Zhang set about to tackle this issue.  They applied the logic employed in particle physics, where particles tend to occupy the most energetically favourable states. Technology Review explain:
"If the particles are bosons, such as photons, there is no limit to the number that can occupy a given state. But if they are fermions, like electrons, their physical properties dictate that no two can occupy the same state. Clearly the resulting distribution of these different types of particles is entirely different.The analogy here is with goods that any number of people can share or that only one person can have."

The latter case - products or experiences that are best experienced by small groups, or even individuals - provides a dilemma for recommendation engines. In order for these things to retain their value, they need to remain available only to limited umbers of people. Gualdi, Medo and Zhang insist that the principle of 'crowd avoidance' needs to be employed to avoid oversubscription, crowding and disappointment.

They provide evidence in their paper that building crowd avoidance into the recommendation process can increase the accuracy of the recommendation, and therefore the potential profitability of the recommendation engine. As they put it:
"We use real data to show that contrary to expectations, the introduction of these constraints enhances recommendation accuracy and diversity even in systems where overcrowding is not detrimental. The observed accuracy improvements are explained in terms of removing potential bias of the recommendation method."

It's a fascinating and quirky approach, and if they are right, and their technique is employed by the software developers who design and build our online world, it might just transform what is recommended to us, and when, and how we experience it.

Source: http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.1887

The rise of the algorithms

The Knife - a financial trading algorithm

This week Tarleton Gillespie was the latest critical commentator to analyse the role that algorithms play in contemporary life. His detailed insightful and urgent essay, The Relevance of Algorithms was published on the Culture Digitally blog this week, ahead of it's forthcoming publication in the MIT book, "Media Technologies".



Picking up where Kevin Slavin's excoriating Lift talk, "Those algorithms that govern our lives" (later reprised for TED) left off, Gillespie conducts a thorough investigation into how algorithms provide the basis for a great deal of our individual and societal choices. That we understand their impact on our daily lives so poorly is cause for great concern, Gillespie argues. He notes a particular anxiety with the way that algorithms are starting to influence how we find and interpret information, and points to the obvious impact this will have on politics:

"Algorithms not only help us find information, they provide a means to know what there is to know and how to know it, to participate in social and political discourse."

This has strong and relevant echoes back to the set of concerns raised by both designers and artists working with technology, as alluded to in a previous post. Artists Julian Oliver, Danja Vasiliev and Gordan Savicic have developed a discourse they refer to as "critical engineering", which aims to expose the systems, mechanisms, languages and logics which make up our engineered world. This is urgent, political work, they argue, as the encroachment of engineering into our lives, is matched only by its increasing invisibility. If we lose our ability to perceive this technological infrastructure, we lose agency.

As Oliver wrote recently:
"As thinkers with technical abilities in several areas, we want to take on our built and increasingly automated environment [...] If there's ever a time to be doing that, it's now, especially with opaque and hidden infrastructure in the telecommunications space deeply impacting diplomatic relations and civil liberties world wide. [...] Our inability to describe and understand technological infrastructure reduces our critical reach, leaving us both disempowered and, quite often, vulnerable." - Julian Oliver (September 2012)

These thoughts are echoed almost precisely by designer, writer and publisher, James Bridle (who's work in this area was referenced here recently), who notes:
"By legibility I mean our own ability to read these systems, how much they can affect the way we see and act in the world, and the differing positions of power we have in the world based on how legible those systems are. [...] Programmers have a huge amount of agency in the world, because they can deconstruct, reverse engineer and write and construct and create these systems. People who can't, don't, and they have less power in the world because of it." - James Bridle (September 2012). He later wrote:
"Those who cannot perceive the network cannot act effectively within it, and are powerless. The job, then, is to make such things visible."

Gillespie's essay operates very much within this spirit, insisting on the need to be able to perceive and understand the way that algorithms are becoming part of our lived environment. He writes:
"What we need is an interrogation of algorithms as a key feature of our information ecosystem, and of the cultural forms emerging in their shadows, with a close attention to where and in what ways the introduction of algorithms into human knowledge practices may have political ramifications."

His essay then seeks to do just that, providing an excellent map for this emerging terrain.  His perspective is not technological, but rather sociological, an analysis which he insists "must not conceive of algorithms as abstract, technical achievements, but must unpack the warm human and institutional choices that lie behind these cold mechanisms."

His essay is a vital insight into these choices.  Resonating with the worlds of both Oliver and Bridle, he concludes:
"In many ways, algorithms remain outside our grasp, and they are designed to be. This is not to say that we should not aspire to illuminate their workings and impact. We should. But we may also need to prepare ourselves for more and more encounters with the unexpected and ineffable associations they will sometimes draw for us, the fundamental uncertainty about who we are speaking to or hearing, and the palpable but opaque undercurrents that move quietly beneath knowledge when it is managed by algorithms.

Sources:
http://culturedigitally.org/2012/11/the-relevance-of-algorithms/
http://www.tarletongillespie.org/

Intuition and Ingenuity - Art and Alan Turing

At Lighthouse in Brighton science and art collide in a show which explores the enduring influence of of computer science pioneer, Alan Turing.

Curated by British-based artists, Sue Gollifer, Nick Lambert and Anna Dumitriu, Intuition and Ingenuity is a group exhibition, staged as part of Brighton Science Festival, that illustates the impact of Alan Turing on contemporary art. The exhibition includes computer art pioneers Roman Verostko, William Latham, Ernest Edmonds, and Paul Brown, as well as contemporary media artists, boredomresearch (their work is pictured), Greg Garvey, Patrick Tresset, Anna Dumitriu and Alex May.

The exhibition marks the 100th anniversary of Alan Turing, and it’s part of a year of programmes which celebrate Turing's centenary.

Whilst he may be best known the person who cracked the German Enigma codes during World War II, thus significantly altering the course of the war, Turing also undoubtedly paved the way for the digital world that we live in today. He gave us algorithms and computation, created the foundations of computer science and artificial intelligence, and pioneered new thinking in the field of morphogenesis. So influential is his work, that it's almost impossible to imagine the modern world, now so thoroughly replete with computational technology, without him.It's great to see his legacy honoured by artists and curators.

Intuition and Ingenuity is showing at Lighthouse in Brighton 17 - 26 February, and will then tour to venues in London, Sheffield, Birngham and beyond.

An exquisite new instrument for listening to the Music of the Spheres

This week, the remarkable Kepler spacecraft has been in the news for the fascinating new research it is generating in detecting the size and age of stars. Kepler is using a technique that scientists dub "asteroseismology" to measure minuscule variations in a star's brightness that occur as sound-waves bounce within it.

Dr Bill Chaplin, Reader in Solar and Stellar Physics, from the University of Birmingham's School of Physics and Astronomy, spoke at the American Association for the Advancement of Science conference on Saturday 19 February 2011, giving an overview of results on the study of solar-type stars using the science of asteroseismology.

Asteroseismology is the observation of the natural resonances, or pulsations, of stars. Using the data from these oscillations, collected by the NASA Kepler spacecraft, it is possible to measure the ages and sizes of stars, and to map out their interiors with hitherto unknown precision. The Kepler Mission is primarily used to look for extrasolar planets - planets that are outside our solar system orbiting other stars, but this new finding is one of the most significant pieces of research is has yielded in recent times.

Chaplin told the conference that asteroseismology was, in essence, listening to the "music of the stars" - a somewhat poetically apt reference, given that the Kepler craft is named after the 17th century German mathematician and astronomer, Johannes Kepler who reinvigorated Pythagorus notion of the"music of the spheres".

For some time, I have been researching how radio astronomy, when used as an instrument of audification, can enable us to move closer to the "music of the spheres" (http://radioqualia.va.com.au/honor/research.html). But astroseismology is proving to be an equally powerful instrument in helping us appreciate the sonic character of our universe.

Sources:
http://v.gd/kepler
http://is.gd/chaplin

Information Physics - The New Frontier?

As classical reductionist physics collides with the quantum brick wall, an information systems model of our universe seems to be emerging. A recent abstract published on arXiv by Professor Kevin Knuth, from the Information Physics Laboratory at the University at Albany in Albany in New York, articulates ways that "Information Physics" may be a new technique to derive new physical laws.

In this seemingly controversial abstract, Knuth writes:

"At this point in time, two major areas of physics, statistical mechanics and quantum mechanics, rest on the foundations of probability and entropy. The last century saw several significant fundamental advances in our understanding of the process of inference, which make it clear that these are inferential theories. That is, rather than being a description of the behavior of the universe, these theories describe how observers can make optimal predictions about the universe. In such a picture, information plays a critical role. What is more is that little clues, such as the fact that black holes have entropy, continue to suggest that information is fundamental to physics in general.

In the last decade, our fundamental understanding of probability theory has led to a Bayesian revolution. ...I will introduce [a] new way of thinking by demonstrating how one can quantify partially-ordered sets and, in the process, derive physical laws. The implication is that physical law does not reflect the order in the universe, instead it is derived from the order imposed by our description of the universe. Information physics, which is based on understanding the ways in which we both quantify and process information about the world around us, is a fundamentally new approach to science."

Source: http://arxiv.org/abs/1009.5161

Proofiness: numbers don't lie, but people do

The always fascinating - but sadly increasingly less-prolific - Seed magazine, reports on the phenomena of "proofiness".

It's the art of using bogus mathematical arguments to prove what you know in your heart is true-even when it's not. As Seed says, [proofiness is] "a particularly powerful form of propaganda, because we're primed to believe anything that's couched in quantitative form. After all, there's very little in this world that has the cold, hard certainty of mathematical proof. Yet people can torture numbers, imbuing lies with an aura of certainty. Politicians and pundits are the modern masters of the dark art. Almost any major political speech or document will be liberally larded with proofiness."

Source: http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/numbers_dont_liebut_people_do/