James R. Curran is an Australian computational linguist. He is the former CEO of Grok Academy and previously a senior lecturer at the University of Sydney. He holds a PhD in Informatics from the University of Edinburgh. == Research == Curran's research focuses on natural language processing (NLP), more specifically combinatory categorial grammar and question answering systems. In addition to his contributions to NLP, Curran has produced a paper on the development of search engines to assist in driving problem based learning. == Works == Curran has co-authored software packages such as C&C tools, a CCG parser (with Stephen Clark). == Educational work == In addition to his work as a University of Sydney lecturer, Curran directed the National Computer Science School, an annual summer school for technologically talented high school students. In 2013, based on their work with NCSS, he, Tara Murphy, Nicky Ringland and Tim Dawborn founded Grok Learning. In 2013 he was one of the authors of the Digital Technologies section of the Australian Curriculum - its first appearance in the national curriculum. Additionally, he acted as an advocate for digital literacy among Australian students. He was the academic director of the Australian Computing Academy, a not-for-profit within the University of Sydney until its merger with Grok Learning in 2021 to form Grok Academy. In 2022, Grok Academy under Curran secured a significant amount of funding from Richard White, founder of WiseTech, with the aim of developing new courses and encouraging other large technology companies to donate likewise. In 2024 Curran cohosted an unreleased children's reality TV show called Future Fixers, which Grok was co-producing. The show was abandoned after other producers learned of pre-existing harassment claims against him. == Sexual harassment allegations == In October 2024, he resigned from his position as CEO and board member of Grok Academy after multiple allegations of harassment were substantiated by an independent investigator. It was reported that over a 10-year span there were nine women, including six who were in high school at the time, that allege Curran sent them inappropriate messages. Additionally, it was revealed that a 2019 University of Sydney investigation found 35 cases of harassment, after which he received a warning and a 2024 University of New South Wales investigation was referred to the NSW police, who took no action as they found no criminal wrongdoing by Curran, in part because the students were over 16 at the time of the alleged harassment. In December 2024, Curran said he was “deeply sorry” for his actions.
Equalized odds
Equalized odds, also referred to as conditional procedure accuracy equality and disparate mistreatment, is a measure of fairness in machine learning. A classifier satisfies this definition if the subjects in the protected and unprotected groups have equal true positive rate and equal false positive rate, satisfying the formula: P ( R = + | Y = y , A = a ) = P ( R = + | Y = y , A = b ) y ∈ { + , − } ∀ a , b ∈ A {\displaystyle P(R=+|Y=y,A=a)=P(R=+|Y=y,A=b)\quad y\in \{+,-\}\quad \forall a,b\in A} For example, A {\displaystyle A} could be gender, race, or any other characteristics that we want to be free of bias, while Y {\displaystyle Y} would be whether the person is qualified for the degree, and the output R {\displaystyle R} would be the school's decision whether to offer the person to study for the degree. In this context, higher university enrollment rates of African Americans compared to whites with similar test scores might be necessary to fulfill the condition of equalized odds, if the "base rate" of Y {\displaystyle Y} differs between the groups. The concept was originally defined for binary-valued Y {\displaystyle Y} . In 2017, Woodworth et al. generalized the concept further for multiple classes.
Shape factor (image analysis and microscopy)
Shape factors are dimensionless quantities used in image analysis and microscopy that numerically describe the shape of a particle, independent of its size. Shape factors are calculated from measured dimensions, such as diameter, chord lengths, area, perimeter, centroid, moments, etc. The dimensions of the particles are usually measured from two-dimensional cross-sections or projections, as in a microscope field, but shape factors also apply to three-dimensional objects. The particles could be the grains in a metallurgical or ceramic microstructure, or the microorganisms in a culture, for example. The dimensionless quantities often represent the degree of deviation from an ideal shape, such as a circle, sphere or equilateral polyhedron. Shape factors are often normalized, that is, the value ranges from zero to one. A shape factor equal to one usually represents an ideal case or maximum symmetry, such as a circle, sphere, square or cube. == Aspect ratio == The most common shape factor is the aspect ratio, a function of the largest diameter and the smallest diameter orthogonal to it: A R = d min d max {\displaystyle A_{R}={\frac {d_{\min }}{d_{\max }}}} The normalized aspect ratio varies from approaching zero for a very elongated particle, such as a grain in a cold-worked metal, to near unity for an equiaxed grain. The reciprocal of the right side of the above equation is also used, such that the AR varies from one to approaching infinity. == Circularity == Another very common shape factor is the circularity (or isoperimetric quotient), a function of the perimeter P and the area A: f circ = 4 π A P 2 {\displaystyle f_{\text{circ}}={\frac {4\pi A}{P^{2}}}} The circularity of a circle is 1, and much less than one for a starfish footprint. The reciprocal of the circularity equation is also used, such that fcirc varies from one for a circle to infinity. == Elongation shape factor == The less-common elongation shape factor is defined as the square root of the ratio of the two second moments in of the particle around its principal axes. f elong = i 2 i 1 {\displaystyle f_{\text{elong}}={\sqrt {\frac {i_{2}}{i_{1}}}}} == Compactness shape factor == The compactness shape factor is a function of the polar second moment in of a particle and a circle of equal area A. f comp = A 2 2 π i 1 2 + i 2 2 {\displaystyle f_{\text{comp}}={\frac {A^{2}}{2\pi {\sqrt {{i_{1}}^{2}+{i_{2}}^{2}}}}}} The fcomp of a circle is one, and much less than one for the cross-section of an I-beam. == Waviness shape factor == The waviness shape factor of the perimeter is a function of the convex portion Pcvx of the perimeter to the total. f wav = P cvx P {\displaystyle f_{\text{wav}}={\frac {P_{\text{cvx}}}{P}}} Some properties of metals and ceramics, such as fracture toughness, have been linked to grain shapes. == An application of shape factors == Greenland, the largest island in the world, has an area of 2,166,086 km2; a coastline (perimeter) of 39,330 km; a north–south length of 2670 km; and an east–west length of 1290 km. The aspect ratio of Greenland is A R = 1290 2670 = 0.483 {\displaystyle A_{R}={\frac {1290}{2670}}=0.483} The circularity of Greenland is f circ = 4 π ( 2166086 ) 39330 2 = 0.0176. {\displaystyle f_{\text{circ}}={\frac {4\pi (2166086)}{39330^{2}}}=0.0176.} The aspect ratio is agreeable with an eyeball-estimate on a globe. Such an estimate on a typical flat map, using the Mercator projection, would be less accurate due to the distorted scale at high latitudes. The circularity is deceptively low, due to the fjords that give Greenland a very jagged coastline (see the coastline paradox). A low value of circularity does not necessarily indicate a lack of symmetry, and shape factors are not limited to microscopic objects.
Paint.NET
Paint.NET (sometimes stylized as paint.net) is a freeware general-purpose raster graphics editor program for Microsoft Windows, developed with the .NET platform. Paint.NET was originally created by Rick Brewster as a Washington State University student project, and has evolved from a simple replacement for the Microsoft Paint program into a program for editing mainly graphics, with support for plugins. == History == Paint.NET originated as a computer science senior design project by Rick Brewster during spring 2004 at Washington State University. Version 1.0 consisted of 36,000 lines of code and was written in four months. In contrast, version 3.35 has approximately 162,000 lines of code. The Paint.NET project continued over the summer and into the autumn 2004 semester for both the version 1.1 and 2.0 releases. Development continued with one programmer who worked on previous versions of Paint.NET while he was a student at WSU. As of May 2006 the program had been downloaded at least 2 million times, at a rate of about 180,000 per month. Initially, Paint.NET was released under a modified version of the MIT License, with the exclusion of the installer, text, and graphics. However, citing issues with the open source code being plagiarized by others that had rebranded the software as their own and bundled user content without their permission, the availability of the source code was restricted, in December 2007 Brewster announced his intent to restrict access to components of the program (including its installer, resources, and user interface). In November 2009, the software was made proprietary, restricting the sale or creation of derivative works of the software. Starting with version 4.0.18, Paint.NET is published in two editions: A classic edition remains freeware, similar to all other versions since 3.5. Another edition, however, is published to Microsoft Store under a trialware license and is available to purchase for US$14.99. According to the developer, this was done to enable the users to contribute to the development with more convenience, even though the old avenue of donation was not closed. In May 2026, Brewster revealed that he obtained the paint.net domain after attempting to do so for 22 years. Historically, the editor was hosted on getpaint.net, and according to Brewster, the previous owners of paint.net would not sell the domain and asked for "lots and lots of money". In December of the previous year, paint.net began hosting content that impersonated Paint.NET, therefore becoming a clear case of trademark infringement and domain squatting. Brewster stated that he was able to obtain the domain afterwards with the help of a lawyer. == Overview == Paint.NET is primarily programmed in the C# programming language. Its native image format, .PDN, is a compressed representation of the application's internal object format, which preserves layering and other information. == Plugins == Paint.NET supports plugins, which add image adjustments, effects, and support for additional file types. They can be programmed using any .NET Framework programming language, though they are most commonly written in C#. These are created by volunteer coders on the program's discussion board, the Paint.NET Forum. Though most are simply published via the discussion board, some have been included with a later release of the program. For instance, a DirectDraw Surface file type plugin, (originally by Dean Ashton) and an Ink Sketch and Soften Portrait effect (originally by David Issel) were added to Paint.NET in version 3.10. Hundreds of plugins have been produced; such as Shape3D, which renders a 2D drawing into a 3D shape. Some plugins expand on the functionality that comes with Paint.NET, such as Curves+ and Sharpen+, which extend the included tools Curves and Sharpen, respectively. Examples of file type plugins include an Animated Cursor and Icon plugin and an Adobe Photoshop file format plugin. Several of these plugins are based on existing open source software, such as a raw image format plugin that uses dcraw and a PNG optimization plugin that uses OptiPNG. == Forks == === paint-mono === Paint.NET was created exclusively for Windows and has no native support for other operating systems. Due to its former open-source licensing, the development of alternative versions was possible. In May 2007, Miguel de Icaza officially started a porting project called paint-mono. This project had partially ported Paint.NET 3.0 to Mono, an open-source implementation of the Common Language Infrastructure on which the .NET Framework is based. This allowed Paint.NET to be run on Mono-supported platforms, such as Linux. This port is no longer maintained and has not been updated since March 2009. Newer Mono runtime 6 versions are able to run original Paint.NET releases up to 3.5.11 with only minor issues. === Pinta === In 2010, developer Jonathan Pobst started a project called Pinta, describing it as a clone of Paint.NET for Mono and Gtk#. Pinta reused the adjustments and effects code from Paint.NET but otherwise is original code.
Mathematical morphology
Mathematical morphology (MM) is a theory and technique for analyzing and processing geometrical structures. It's based on set theory, lattice theory, topology, and random functions. MM is most commonly applied to digital images, but it can be employed as well on graphs, surface meshes, solids, and many other spatial structures. Topological and geometrical continuous-space concepts such as size, shape, convexity, connectivity, and geodesic distance, were introduced by MM on both continuous and discrete spaces. MM is also the foundation of morphological image processing, which consists of a set of operators that transform images according to the above characterizations. The basic morphological operators are erosion, dilation, opening and closing. MM was originally developed for binary images, and was later extended to grayscale functions and images. The subsequent generalization to complete lattices is widely accepted today as MM's theoretical foundation. == History == Mathematical Morphology was developed in 1964 by the collaborative work of Georges Matheron and Jean Serra, at the École des Mines de Paris, France. Matheron supervised the PhD thesis of Serra, devoted to the quantification of mineral characteristics from thin cross sections, and this work resulted in a novel practical approach, as well as theoretical advancements in integral geometry and topology. In 1968, the Centre de Morphologie Mathématique was founded by the École des Mines de Paris in Fontainebleau, France, led by Matheron and Serra. During the rest of the 1960s and most of the 1970s, MM dealt essentially with binary images, treated as sets, and generated a large number of binary operators and techniques: Hit-or-miss transform, dilation, erosion, opening, closing, granulometry, thinning, skeletonization, ultimate erosion, conditional bisector, and others. A random approach was also developed, based on novel image models. Most of the work in that period was developed in Fontainebleau. From the mid-1970s to mid-1980s, MM was generalized to grayscale functions and images as well. Besides extending the main concepts (such as dilation, erosion, etc.) to functions, this generalization yielded new operators, such as morphological gradients, top-hat transform and the Watershed (MM's main segmentation approach). In the 1980s and 1990s, MM gained a wider recognition, as research centers in several countries began to adopt and investigate the method. MM started to be applied to a large number of imaging problems and applications, especially in the field of non-linear filtering of noisy images. In 1986, Serra further generalized MM, this time to a theoretical framework based on complete lattices. This generalization brought flexibility to the theory, enabling its application to a much larger number of structures, including color images, video, graphs, meshes, etc. At the same time, Matheron and Serra also formulated a theory for morphological filtering, based on the new lattice framework. The 1990s and 2000s also saw further theoretical advancements, including the concepts of connections and levelings. In 1993, the first International Symposium on Mathematical Morphology (ISMM) took place in Barcelona, Spain. Since then, ISMMs are organized every 2–3 years: Fontainebleau, France (1994); Atlanta, USA (1996); Amsterdam, Netherlands (1998); Palo Alto, CA, USA (2000); Sydney, Australia (2002); Paris, France (2005); Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (2007); Groningen, Netherlands (2009); Intra (Verbania), Italy (2011); Uppsala, Sweden (2013); Reykjavík, Iceland (2015); Fontainebleau, France (2017); and Saarbrücken, Germany (2019). =
Language-Theoretic Security
Language-theoretic security, or LangSec, is an approach to software security that focuses on input handling, complexity, and program design as strategies to improve the verifiability of computer programs. It was introduced in 2005 by Robert J. Hansen and Meredith L. Patterson at BlackHat and in 2011 by Len Sassaman and Patterson. It aims to create a formal description of which software is likely to have security vulnerabilities of particular classes, and why. It considers programs to have an inherent parser component, whether or not explicit, composed of that part of the program which operates on external input before that input is fully parsed. A central hypothesis of language-theoretic security is that vulnerabilities in software increase according to the computational power of the notional input-accepting automaton equivalent to this parser, using the definitions of automata theory. The lower bound on this computational power is the input language complexity of the program. The extent to which reducing this complexity is possible is a function of the specification of the communication protocol or file format the program takes as input. == Parsing as a security mechanism == The behaviour of a program is defined with reference to its expected input. Unexpected input being used by a program is a factor in numerous security bugs, including the so-called Android master key vulnerability (CVE-2013-4787), because accepting unexpected input renders the program's specification ambiguous. In that instance, the unexpected ambiguity came in the form of a ZIP file with duplicate filenames. If a program fully parses its input and only acts on input that unambiguously meets the specification, it follows that the program will avoid these types of vulnerabilities. This is an intentional inversion of the Postel principle. Accepting only unambiguous and valid input is a more formal requirement than input validation or sanitization, and narrows the number of possible but unanticipated program states that can be induced in an application via user input. Conversely, failure to do this is associated with security vulnerabilities. Input sanitization in particular is held to be an inadequate approach to avoiding malicious input because it inherently ignores context-sensitive properties of the input; it can therefore result in paradoxical effects, such as sanitization code activating otherwise inert cross-site scripting payloads in browsers. === Parser differentials === If the language of accepted program input is sufficiently simple, it is possible to verify that two implementations parse the same input language consistently. This is advantageous because it shows no parser differential exists between the two implementations. The requisite level of simplicity is theoretically that for which there is a solution to the equivalence problem. If the two parsers involved in CVE-2013-4787 were equivalent - that is, if they rendered the same output state given the same input state - the vulnerability could not have existed. One strategy for doing this is to publish machine-readable specifications of a format or protocol, and then use a parser generator to generate the parser code. An example of a parser generator built for this purpose is DaeDaLus. The combination of Lex with any of GNU Bison, ANTLR, or Yacc also accomplishes this. However, many parser generators allow the mixing of general purpose code with the parsing definitions, which weakens the guarantees provided by parsing. === Analysis of injection attacks === Injection attacks are generally the result of differences between the serializer (or "unparser") and the corresponding parser at a layer boundary in a system; therefore, they are a special case of parser differentials. In a SQL injection attack, for example, an attacker is able to cause the application with which they are interacting to serialize a SQL query that has different semantics than intended. In the simplest case where the payload ends a string and adds new code, the payload has crossed the code-data boundary in SQL. In language-theoretic security, this is treated as a bug in the serializer of the SQL query, which should instead be written in a way that constrains its possible outputs to those within the scope of the intended query. === Parser combinators === If a parser generator is not used, it is still possible to avoid implementation bugs by using parser combinator such as Nom to implement the parser code. This has the drawback of relying on a programmer correctly translating the specification into the language of the parser generator library, though this task is still less error-prone than hand-coding a parser. == Input format complexity == Complexity in computer programs is associated with security vulnerabilities. Within the domain of language-theoretic security, complexity is described with reference to the computational power of the abstract machine necessary to implement the program, or more particularly, to implement the parser for its input language. This complexity describes whether it is possible to show that there is no unintended or undesired functionality in the program which might be exploitable by an attacker. To be bounded in complexity, the program's input must be well-defined both in terms of form and of semantics. === Weird machines === A weird machine is a model of computation in a program that exists in parallel with, but is distinct from, the intended abstract model of computation in that program. Some classes of weird machine arise from the multi-layered nature of computer programs, or the context in which the programs run; others result from the unanticipated functionality a program has due to its complexity or to software bugs. The more complex the computation model of a program, the more likely it is to implement a weird machine. Depending on context, the weird machine may or may not be concretely useful for an attacker. Since the space of weird machines in the context of some program is the universe of all possible states that are not within the program's intended states, many exploited states including remote code execution and injection attacks belong to the domain of weird machines. A reduction in weird machines is therefore a likely correlate with reduced program vulnerability. === SafeDocs project === SafeDocs is a DARPA project undertaken in 2018 to take existing file formats, create safer subsets of them, and develop programming tools to work for the safer formats. The initial test case for this was PDF. The purpose of creating safer subsets in this case is to lower the minimum bound on parser complexity so that it becomes possible to create tools that will generate correct, normative parsers for them. == Relation to programming languages == The analytic framework of language-theoretic security assumes programs to be virtual machines that execute their input. A document that is read by an application is in this sense a form of machine code, in a generalization of the data as code idea, following the automata theory description of parsers. === Type-safe programming languages === Parsing input and serializing output are operations that consume one data type and emit another. A programming language can therefore check that data is correctly parsed and contains the expected structure by checking data types, and correct serializing (or unparsing) can be implemented as operations on the data types that are relevant to the program's output. This approach can be used to show that the recognizer and unparser patterns have been implemented. It is also possible to implement type checking across a distributed system to enforce parsing and unparsing of the expected structures and to verify that the assumptions made in designing the compositional properties of a distributed system have been followed. === Memory-safe programming languages === In the general case, spatial memory correctness is undecidable. If any proof of spatial memory correctness is to be made, it is therefore necessary to bound the complexity of the code. Interpreted languages such as Java and Python effectively accomplish this via runtime bounds checking, and frameworks for runtime bounds checking also exist for C. The effect of these strategies for spatial memory correctness are to create a halt state in place of a spatial memory correctness violation; therefore, it can be shown that the program will not violate spatial memory correctness, but in exchange, it cannot be shown in the general case that programs will not have runtime bounds checking exceptions. Some programming languages, such as Rust, accomplish this using borrow checking. The borrow checker acts to assure spatial memory correctness by compile-time reference counting. Code for which spatial memory correctness cannot be shown to not be violated therefore does not compile, inherently limiting the complexity of the spatial memory correctness of the program to what is decidable. Thi
Agent-assisted automation
Agent-assisted automation is a type of call center technology that automates elements of what the call center agent 1) does with his/her desktop tools and/or 2) says to customers during the call using pre-recorded audio. It is a relatively new category of call center technology that shows promise in improving call center productivity and compliance. == Types of agent-assisted automation == === Pre-recorded audio === Pre-recorded audio (sometimes referred to as soundboard (computer program) or as soundboard technology) is another form of agent-assisted automation. The purpose of using pre-recorded messages is to increase the probability (and in some cases error-proof the process so) that the right information is provided to customers at the right time. The required disclosures are pre-recorded to ensure accuracy and understandability. By integrating the recordings with the customer relationship management software, the right combination of disclosures can be played based on the combination of goods and services the customer purchased. The integration with the customer relationship management software also ensures that the order cannot be submitted until the disclosures are played, essentially error-proofing (poka-yoke) the process of ensuring the customer gets all the required consumer protection information. Phone surveys are ideal applications of this technology. Whether surveying market preferences or political views, the pre-recorded audio with an agent listening allows the questions to be asked in the same way every time, uninfluenced by the agents' fatigue levels, accents, or their own views. === Fraud prevention === Fraud prevention is a specialized type of agent-assisted automation focused on reducing ID theft and credit card fraud. ID theft and credit card fraud are huge threats for call centers and their customers and few good solutions exist, but new agent-assisted automation solutions are producing promising results. The technology allows the agents to remain on the phone while the customers use their phone key pads to enter the information. The tones are masked and the information passes directly into the customer relationship management system or payment gateway in the case of credit card transactions. The automation essentially makes it impossible for call center agents and also call center personnel that might be monitoring the calls to steal the credit card number, social security number, or other personally identifiable information. === Outbound telemarketing === Another specialized application space of agent-assisted automation is in outbound telemarketing, which goes under numerous headings including outbound prospecting, cold calling, solicitation, fund-raising, etc. Turnover is high among agents engaged in this kind of work because the task is tedious and emotionally difficult. It is tedious because the agent spends the bulk of their day, not talking to qualified leads, but in getting wrong numbers and answering machines. == Benefits == Just as automation has benefited manufacturing by reducing the mental and physical effort required of workers while simultaneously improving throughput, quality, and safety, agent-assisted automation is improving call center results while reducing the tiring aspects of the job for agents. In some cases, the agent-assisted automation streamlines the process and allows calls to be handled more quickly. By eliminating cutting and pasting from one application to another, by auto-navigating applications, and by providing a single view of the customer, agent-assisted automation can reduce call handle time and increase agent productivity. Second, in theory, the more steps that can be automated and the more logic that can be built into the call flow (e.g., if the customer buys items 2 and 9, then disclosures a, c, and f are read by the pre-recorded audio), then companies may be able to reduce the amount of training that is required of the agents while at the same time ensuring more consistency and accuracy. However, no published studies have reported this result yet. But an even larger problem in call centers is between-agent variation in behavior and results. Agents differ in the amount of training and coaching they receive, they differ in the amount of experience they have, their jobs are repetitious and tiring, and the process and procedures the agents are supposed to follow constantly change. Moreover, there are significant individual differences between agents in their intelligence, personality, motivations, etc. which all affect performance. Despite the large amount of money call centers have spent over decades trying to reduce between-agent variation, the problem is still so prevalent that one large study of customer interactions with call centers found that a customer's experience was completely a function of the quality of the agent who happened to answer the phone. Therefore, the most significant benefit of agent-assisted automation may prove to be in how the automation error-proofs or poka-yoke the process and ensures that something that needs to be done or said happens every time. Properly implemented, the between-agent variation for whatever step of the process the automation is applied to may be able to be reduced to near zero. This is especially important in a collection agency whose processes and procedures are closely regulated by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.