Search

Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS) is a globally recognised publication outlet for the field of Computer Science, including in South Africa. In this study, spanning from 1973 to 2022, we investigated the research participation of South African based authors in LNCS. The publication output and citation impact of these authors were compared to the global Computer Science and LNCS output. The authorship patterns and collaborative behaviour of South African LNCS papers were explored, and a keyword or topic analysis also conducted. Of the total of 518 662 LNCS papers published globally between 1973 and 2022, South African based researchers contributed 1150 papers (0.22%). The LNCS papers from South Africa exhibit a strong collaborative publication culture, with 1043 (91%) co-authored and 107 (9%) singleauthored works. Local LNCS researchers prefer institutional collaboration (43%), followed by international (37%) and national collaboration (11%). Europe emerged as the most significant collaboration partner for LNCS researchers in South Africa. Of the 1150 papers, 836 (73%) had received citations, while 314 (27%) had not. On average, papers published by South African based authors received 6.05 citations, compared to the global LNCS average of 9.49 citations per paper. A keyword analysis revealed that the majority of papers by South African authors focus on artificial intelligence. The results indicate that, although LNCS serves as a reputable dissemination platform for Computer Science research output both globally and locally, South African authors should consider publishing more journal articles to build and improve their researcher profiles. Significance: * The study shows that LNCS is the most frequent publication outlet for Computer Science researchers, globally and in South Africa. * The study offers insight into the publication output, authorship patterns, collaborative behaviour and citation impact of South African based Computer Science researchers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Researchers have proposed different obfuscation transformations supported by numerous smartphone protection tools (obfuscators and deobfuscators). However, there is a need for a comprehensive study to empirically characterize these tools that belong to different categories of transformations. We propose a property-based framework to systematically classify twenty cutting-edge tools according to their features, analysis type, programming language support, licensing, applied obfuscation transformations, and general technical drawbacks. Our analysis predominantly reveals that very few tools work at the dynamic level, and most tools (which are static-based) work for Java or Java-based ecosystems (e.g., Android). The findings also show that the widespread adoption of renaming transformations is followed by formatting and code injection. In addition, this paper pinpoints the technical shortcomings of each tool; some of these drawbacks are common in static-based analyzers (e.g., resource consumption), and other drawbacks have negative effects on the experiment conducted by students (e.g., a third-party library involved). According to these critical limitations, we provide some timely recommendations for further research. This study can assist not only Android developers and researchers to improve the overall health of their apps but also the managers of computer science and cybersecurity academic programs to embed suitable obfuscation tools in their curricula. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Metaphors that compare the computer to a human brain are common in computer science and can be traced back to a fertile period of research that unfolded after the Second World War. To conceptualize the emerging "intelligent" properties of computing machines, researchers of the era created a series of virtual objects that served as interpretive devices for representing the immaterial functions of the computer. This paper analyses the use of the terms "artificial" and "virtual" in scientific papers, textbooks, and popular articles of the time, and examines how, together, they shaped models in computer science used to conceptualize computer processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Researchers in cognitive science have long been interested in modeling human perception using statistical methods. This requires maneuvers because these multiple dimensional data are always intertwined with complex inner structures. The previous studies in cognitive sciences commonly applied principal component analysis (PCA) to truncate data dimensions when dealing with data with multiple dimensions. This is not necessarily because of its merit in terms of mathematical algorithm, but partly because it is easy to conduct with commonly accessible statistical software. On the other hand, dimension reduction might not be the best analysis when modeling data with no more than 20 dimensions. Using state-of-the-art techniques, researchers in various research disciplines (e.g., computer vision) classified data with more than hundreds of dimensions with neural networks and revealed the inner structure of the data. Therefore, it might be more sophisticated to process human perception data directly with neural networks. In this paper, we introduce the multi-dimensional data analysis platform (MuDAP), a powerful toolbox for data analysis in cognitive science. It utilizes artificial intelligence as well as network analysis, an analysis method that takes advantage of data symmetry. With the graphic user interface, a researcher, with or without previous experience, could analyze multiple dimensional data with great ease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Machine learning (ML) methods are proliferating in scientific research. However, the adoption of these methods has been accompanied by failures of validity, reproducibility, and generalizability. These failures can hinder scientific progress, lead to false consensus around invalid claims, and undermine the credibility of ML-based science. ML methods are often applied and fail in similar ways across disciplines. Motivated by this observation, our goal is to provide clear recommendations for conducting and reporting ML-based science. Drawing from an extensive review of past literature, we present the REFORMS checklist (recommendations for machine-learning-based science). It consists of 32 questions and a paired set of guidelines. REFORMS was developed on the basis of a consensus of 19 researchers across computer science, data science, mathematics, social sciences, and biomedical sciences. REFORMS can serve as a resource for researchers when designing and implementing a study, for referees when reviewing papers, and for journals when enforcing standards for transparency and reproducibility. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Artificial intelligence in the workplace is becoming increasingly common. These tools are sometimes used to aid users in performing their task, for example, when an artificial intelligence tool assists a radiologist in their search for abnormalities in radiographic images. The use of artificial intelligence brings a wealth of benefits, such as increasing the efficiency and efficacy of performance. However, little research has been conducted to determine how the use of artificial intelligence assistants might affect the user's cognitive skills. In this theoretical perspective, we discuss how artificial intelligence assistants might accelerate skill decay among experts and hinder skill acquisition among learners. Further, we discuss how AI assistants might also prevent experts and learners from recognizing these deleterious effects. We then discuss the types of questions: use-inspired basic cognitive researchers, applied researchers, and computer science researchers should seek to answer. We conclude that multidisciplinary research from use-inspired basic cognitive research, domain-specific applied research, and technical research (e.g., human factors research, computer science research) is needed to (a) understand these potential consequences, (b) design artificial intelligence systems to mitigate these impacts, and (c) develop training and use protocols to prevent negative impacts on users' cognitive skills. Only by answering these questions from multidisciplinary perspectives can we harness the benefits of artificial intelligence in the workplace while preventing negative impacts on users' cognitive skills. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

From small steps to great leaps, metaphors of spatial mobility abound to describe discovery processes. Here, we ground these ideas in formal terms by systematically studying mobility patterns in the scientific knowledge landscape. We use low-dimensional embedding techniques to create a knowledge space made up of 1.5 million articles from the fields of physics, computer science, and mathematics. By analyzing the publication histories of individual researchers, we discover patterns of scientific mobility that closely resemble physical mobility. In aggregate, the trajectories form mobility flows that can be described by a gravity model, with jumps more likely to occur in areas of high density and less likely to occur over longer distances. We identify two types of researchers from their individual mobility patterns: interdisciplinary explorers who pioneer new fields, and exploiters who are more likely to stay within their specific areas of expertise. Our results suggest that spatial mobility analysis is a valuable tool for understanding the evolution of science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]