Big Mechanism is a $45 million DARPA research program, begun in 2014, aimed at developing software that will read cancer research papers, integrate them into a cancer model and frame new hypotheses by the end of 2017 through the automated collection of big data and integrating across various disciplines such as knowledge-based NLP, curation and ontology, systems and mathematical biology by reading research abstracts and papers to extract pieces of causal mechanisms. == Ras gene == The program focuses on mutations in the Ras gene family, which underlie some one-third of human cancers. Currently, a rough road map shows interaction sequences among proteins affecting cell replication and death. However, the causal relations are poorly understood. == Plan == The program is to occur in three stages. The first is to read literature and convert it into formal representations. Second is to integrate the knowledge into computational models. Third is to produce experimentally testable explanations and predictions. Research teams are developing four separate systems targeting all three tasks. In February 2015, an evaluation meeting reviewed progress on the first stage. Multiple tasks were considered. One was extraction of experimental procedure details and evaluating statements such as "we demonstrate" and "we suggest." Another worked to map sentence meaning and relationships. The best machine-reading system extracted 40% of relevant information from a small corpus and correctly determined how each passage related to the model. The second stage is to become active in summer 2015, when members attempt to produce a single reference model. The third stage is the most challenging, because the artificial intelligence community has had limited success at developing hypothesis generators. Molecular biology may be more amenable, because most domain knowledge is technical and available in written form.
Report generator
A report generator is a computer program whose purpose is to take data from a source such as a database, XML stream or a spreadsheet, and use it to produce a document in a format which satisfies a particular human readership. Report generation functionality is almost always present in database systems, where the source of the data is the database itself. It can also be argued that report generation is part of the purpose of a spreadsheet. Standalone report generators may work with multiple data sources and export reports to different document formats. Information systems theory specifies that information delivered to a target human reader must be timely, accurate and relevant. Report generation software targets the final requirement by making sure that the information delivered is presented in the way most readily understood by the target reader. == History == An early report writer was part of NOMAD developed in the 1970s. The evolution of reporting software has a rich history dating back to the mid-20th century, driven by the increasing need for businesses to efficiently analyze and present data. Initially, manual extraction and tabulation were commonplace, but the advent of computers in the 1960s marked a transformative phase with the emergence of basic reporting tools. The 1980s saw the widespread adoption of database management systems, laying the groundwork for more sophisticated reporting capabilities. Notable dedicated reporting software, such as Crystal Reports and BusinessObjects, gained prominence in the 1990s amidst the growing demand for business intelligence. The 21st century witnessed a paradigm shift towards web-based reporting solutions and the rise of self-service BI tools, empowering users to create reports independently. Presently, reporting software continues to evolve with a focus on data visualization, integration of artificial intelligence, and the imperative for real-time analytics in decision-making.
Species distribution modelling
Species distribution modelling (SDM), also known as environmental (or ecological) niche modelling (ENM), habitat suitability modelling, predictive habitat distribution modelling, and range mapping uses ecological models to predict the distribution of a species across geographic space and time using environmental data. The environmental data are most often climate data (e.g. temperature, precipitation), but can include other variables such as soil type, water depth, and land cover. SDMs are used in several research areas in conservation biology, ecology and evolution. These models can be used to understand how environmental conditions influence the occurrence or abundance of a species, and for predictive purposes (ecological forecasting). Predictions from an SDM may be of a species' future distribution under climate change, a species' past distribution in order to assess evolutionary relationships, or the potential future distribution of an invasive species. Predictions of current and/or future habitat suitability can be useful for management applications (e.g. reintroduction or translocation of vulnerable species, reserve placement in anticipation of climate change). There are two main types of SDMs. Correlative SDMs, also known as climate envelope models, bioclimatic models, or resource selection function models, model the observed distribution of a species as a function of environmental conditions. Mechanistic SDMs, also known as process-based models or biophysical models, use independently derived information about a species' physiology to develop a model of the environmental conditions under which the species can exist. The extent to which such modelled data reflect real-world species distributions will depend on a number of factors, including the nature, complexity, and accuracy of the models used and the quality of the available environmental data layers; the availability of sufficient and reliable species distribution data as model input; and the influence of various factors such as barriers to dispersal, geologic history, or biotic interactions, that increase the difference between the realized niche and the fundamental niche. Environmental niche modelling may be considered a part of the discipline of biodiversity informatics. == History == A. F. W. Schimper used geographical and environmental factors to explain plant distributions in his 1898 Pflanzengeographie auf physiologischer Grundlage (Plant Geography Upon a Physiological Basis) and his 1908 work of the same name. Andrew Murray used the environment to explain the distribution of mammals in his 1866 The Geographical Distribution of Mammals. Robert Whittaker's work with plants and Robert MacArthur's work with birds strongly established the role the environment plays in species distributions. Elgene O. Box constructed environmental envelope models to predict the range of tree species. His computer simulations were among the earliest uses of species distribution modelling. The adoption of more sophisticated generalised linear models (GLMs) made it possible to create more sophisticated and realistic species distribution models. The expansion of remote sensing and the development of GIS-based environmental modelling increase the amount of environmental information available for model-building and made it easier to use. == Correlative vs mechanistic models == === Correlative SDMs === SDMs originated as correlative models. Correlative SDMs model the observed distribution of a species as a function of geographically referenced climatic predictor variables using multiple regression approaches. Given a set of geographically referred observed presences of a species and a set of climate maps, a model defines the most likely environmental ranges within which a species lives. Correlative SDMs assume that species are at equilibrium with their environment and that the relevant environmental variables have been adequately sampled. The models allow for interpolation between a limited number of species occurrences. For these models to be effective, it is required to gather observations not only of species presences, but also of absences, that is, where the species does not live. Records of species absences are typically not as common as records of presences, thus often "random background" or "pseudo-absence" data are used to fit these models. If there are incomplete records of species occurrences, pseudo-absences can introduce bias. Since correlative SDMs are models of a species' observed distribution, they are models of the realized niche (the environments where a species is found), as opposed to the fundamental niche (the environments where a species can be found, or where the abiotic environment is appropriate for the survival). For a given species, the realized and fundamental niches might be the same, but if a species is geographically confined due to dispersal limitation or species interactions, the realized niche will be smaller than the fundamental niche. Correlative SDMs are easier and faster to implement than mechanistic SDMs, and can make ready use of available data. Since they are correlative however, they do not provide much information about causal mechanisms and are not good for extrapolation. They will also be inaccurate if the observed species range is not at equilibrium (e.g. if a species has been recently introduced and is actively expanding its range). In standard SDMs, the distribution of a single species is often modeled, with unique parameters describing how environmental (abiotic) factors influence its occurrence probability. This allows for differentiated responses to environmental drivers among species, but can be problematic for data-deficient species. In contrast, similarities in environmental responses can be accounted for in multi-species SDMs, which model several species jointly using shared or hierarchically related parameters. However, neither approach explicitly accounts for community-level biotic interactions, which can be important in explaining species diversity patterns. Joint species distribution models (joint SDMs or J-SDMs) address this by modeling species co-occurrence patterns directly. The occurrence probability of a given species is thus influenced not only by abiotic drivers but also by inferred biotic associations with other species. This can improve accuracy for rarer taxa and provide insights into community ecology. Both standard SDMs and J-SDMs can be used to generate community-level metrics, such as species richness, by aggregating outputs across multiple species. These can be important for decision-making such as conservation planning. === Mechanistic SDMs === Mechanistic SDMs are more recently developed. In contrast to correlative models, mechanistic SDMs use physiological information about a species (taken from controlled field or laboratory studies) to determine the range of environmental conditions within which the species can persist. These models aim to directly characterize the fundamental niche, and to project it onto the landscape. A simple model may simply identify threshold values outside of which a species can't survive. A more complex model may consist of several sub-models, e.g. micro-climate conditions given macro-climate conditions, body temperature given micro-climate conditions, fitness or other biological rates (e.g. survival, fecundity) given body temperature (thermal performance curves), resource or energy requirements, and population dynamics. Geographically referenced environmental data are used as model inputs. Because the species distribution predictions are independent of the species' known range, these models are especially useful for species whose range is actively shifting and not at equilibrium, such as invasive species. Mechanistic SDMs incorporate causal mechanisms and are better for extrapolation and non-equilibrium situations. However, they are more labor-intensive to create than correlational models and require the collection and validation of a lot of physiological data, which may not be readily available. The models require many assumptions and parameter estimates, and they can become very complicated. Dispersal, biotic interactions, and evolutionary processes present challenges, as they aren't usually incorporated into either correlative or mechanistic models. Correlational and mechanistic models can be used in combination to gain additional insights. For example, a mechanistic model could be used to identify areas that are clearly outside the species' fundamental niche, and these areas can be marked as absences or excluded from analysis. See for a comparison between mechanistic and correlative models. == Niche models (correlative) == There are a variety of mathematical methods that can be used for fitting, selecting, and evaluating correlative SDMs. Models include "profile" methods, which are simple statistical techniques that use e.g. environmental distance to known sites of occurrence such as
Car–Parrinello molecular dynamics
Car–Parrinello molecular dynamics (CPMD) refers to either a method used in molecular dynamics (also known as the Car–Parrinello method) or the computational chemistry software package used to implement this method. The CPMD method is one of the major methods for calculating ab initio molecular dynamics (ab initio MD or AIMD). Ab initio molecular dynamics (AIMD) is a computational method that uses first principles through quantum mechanics to simulate the motion of atoms in a system. It is a type of molecular dynamics (MD) simulation that does not rely on empirical potentials or force fields to describe the interactions between atoms, but rather calculates these interactions entirely from the electronic structure of the system using quantum mechanics. In an ab initio MD simulation, the total energy of the system is calculated at each time step using density functional theory (DFT), Hartree-Fock (HF), or other electronic structure calculation methods. The forces acting on each atom are then determined from the gradient of the energy with respect to the atomic coordinates, and the equations of motion are solved to predict the trajectory of the atoms. AIMD permits chemical bond breaking and forming events to occur and accounts for electronic polarization effect. Therefore, Ab initio MD simulations can be used to study a wide range of phenomena, including the structural, thermodynamic, and dynamic properties of materials and chemical reactions. They are particularly useful for systems that are not well described by empirical potentials or force fields, such as systems with strong electronic correlation or systems with many degrees of freedom. However, ab initio MD simulations are computationally demanding and require significant computational resources. The CPMD method is related to the more common Born–Oppenheimer molecular dynamics (BOMD) method in that the quantum mechanical effect of the electrons is included in the calculation of energy and forces for the classical motion of the nuclei. CPMD and BOMD are different types of AIMD. However, whereas BOMD treats the electronic structure problem within the time-independent Schrödinger equation, CPMD explicitly includes the electrons as active degrees of freedom, via (fictitious) dynamical variables. The software is a parallelized plane wave / pseudopotential implementation of density functional theory, particularly designed for ab initio molecular dynamics. == Car–Parrinello method == The Car–Parrinello method is a type of molecular dynamics, usually employing periodic boundary conditions, planewave basis sets, and density functional theory, proposed by Roberto Car and Michele Parrinello in 1985 while working at SISSA, who were subsequently awarded the Dirac Medal by ICTP in 2009. In contrast to Born–Oppenheimer molecular dynamics wherein the nuclear (ions) degree of freedom are propagated using ionic forces which are calculated at each iteration by approximately solving the electronic problem with conventional matrix diagonalization methods, the Car–Parrinello method explicitly introduces the electronic degrees of freedom as (fictitious) dynamical variables, writing an extended Lagrangian for the system which leads to a system of coupled equations of motion for both ions and electrons. In this way, an explicit electronic minimization at each time step, as done in Born–Oppenheimer MD, is not needed: after an initial standard electronic minimization, the fictitious dynamics of the electrons keeps them on the electronic ground state corresponding to each new ionic configuration visited along the dynamics, thus yielding accurate ionic forces. In order to maintain this adiabaticity condition, it is necessary that the fictitious mass of the electrons is chosen small enough to avoid a significant energy transfer from the ionic to the electronic degrees of freedom. This small fictitious mass in turn requires that the equations of motion are integrated using a smaller time step than the one (1–10 fs) commonly used in Born–Oppenheimer molecular dynamics. Currently, the CPMD method can be applied to systems that consist of a few tens or hundreds of atoms and access timescales on the order of tens of picoseconds. == General approach == In CPMD the core electrons are usually described by a pseudopotential and the wavefunction of the valence electrons are approximated by a plane wave basis set. The ground state electronic density (for fixed nuclei) is calculated self-consistently, usually using the density functional theory method. Kohn-Sham equations are often used to calculate the electronic structure, where electronic orbitals are expanded in a plane-wave basis set. Then, using that density, forces on the nuclei can be computed, to update the trajectories (using, e.g. the Verlet integration algorithm). In addition, however, the coefficients used to obtain the electronic orbital functions can be treated as a set of extra spatial dimensions, and trajectories for the orbitals can be calculated in this context. == Fictitious dynamics == CPMD is an approximation of the Born–Oppenheimer MD (BOMD) method. In BOMD, the electrons' wave function must be minimized via matrix diagonalization at every step in the trajectory. CPMD uses fictitious dynamics to keep the electrons close to the ground state, preventing the need for a costly self-consistent iterative minimization at each time step. The fictitious dynamics relies on the use of a fictitious electron mass (usually in the range of 400 – 800 a.u.) to ensure that there is very little energy transfer from nuclei to electrons, i.e. to ensure adiabaticity. Any increase in the fictitious electron mass resulting in energy transfer would cause the system to leave the ground-state BOMD surface. === Lagrangian === L = 1 2 ( ∑ I n u c l e i M I R ˙ I 2 + μ ∑ i o r b i t a l s ∫ d r | ψ ˙ i ( r , t ) | 2 ) − E [ { ψ i } , { R I } ] + ∑ i j Λ i j ( ∫ d r ψ i ψ j − δ i j ) , {\displaystyle {\mathcal {L}}={\frac {1}{2}}\left(\sum _{I}^{\mathrm {nuclei} }\ M_{I}{\dot {\mathbf {R} }}_{I}^{2}+\mu \sum _{i}^{\mathrm {orbitals} }\int d\mathbf {r} \ |{\dot {\psi }}_{i}(\mathbf {r} ,t)|^{2}\right)-E\left[\{\psi _{i}\},\{\mathbf {R} _{I}\}\right]+\sum _{ij}\Lambda _{ij}\left(\int d\mathbf {r} \ \psi _{i}\psi _{j}-\delta _{ij}\right),} where μ {\displaystyle \mu } is the fictitious mass parameter; E[{ψi},{RI}] is the Kohn–Sham energy density functional, which outputs energy values when given Kohn–Sham orbitals and nuclear positions. === Orthogonality constraint === ∫ d r ψ i ∗ ( r , t ) ψ j ( r , t ) = δ i j , {\displaystyle \int d\mathbf {r} \ \psi _{i}^{}(\mathbf {r} ,t)\psi _{j}(\mathbf {r} ,t)=\delta _{ij},} where δij is the Kronecker delta. === Equations of motion === The equations of motion are obtained by finding the stationary point of the Lagrangian under variations of ψi and RI, with the orthogonality constraint. M I R ¨ I = − ∇ I E [ { ψ i } , { R I } ] {\displaystyle M_{I}{\ddot {\mathbf {R} }}_{I}=-\nabla _{I}\,E\left[\{\psi _{i}\},\{\mathbf {R} _{I}\}\right]} μ ψ ¨ i ( r , t ) = − δ E δ ψ i ∗ ( r , t ) + ∑ j Λ i j ψ j ( r , t ) , {\displaystyle \mu {\ddot {\psi }}_{i}(\mathbf {r} ,t)=-{\frac {\delta E}{\delta \psi _{i}^{}(\mathbf {r} ,t)}}+\sum _{j}\Lambda _{ij}\psi _{j}(\mathbf {r} ,t),} where Λij is a Lagrangian multiplier matrix to comply with the orthonormality constraint. === Born–Oppenheimer limit === In the formal limit where μ → 0, the equations of motion approach Born–Oppenheimer molecular dynamics. == Software packages == There are a number of software packages available for performing AIMD simulations. Some of the most widely used packages include: CP2K: an open-source software package for AIMD. Quantum Espresso: an open-source package for performing DFT calculations. It includes a module for AIMD. VASP: a commercial software package for performing DFT calculations. It includes a module for AIMD. Gaussian: a commercial software package that can perform AIMD. NWChem: an open-source software package for AIMD. LAMMPS: an open-source software package for performing classical and ab initio MD simulations. SIESTA: an open-source software package for AIMD. ORCA: a general-purpose quantum chemistry package. == Applications == Studying the behavior of water across different environments, such as near a hydrophobic graphene sheet. Investigating the structure and dynamics of liquid water at ambient temperature. Solving the heat transfer problems (heat conduction and thermal radiation), such as in Si/Ge superlattices. Probing the proton transfer along hydrogen-bonds in different environments, such as in 1D water chains inside carbon nanotubes. Evaluating the critical point of crystals, composites, and solid-state materials, such as aluminum. Predicting and modelling different phases and phase transitions, such as in the amorphous phase of the phase-change memory material GeSbTe. Studying the combustion of combustibles, such as lignite-water systems. Measuring th
Algorithmic transparency
Algorithmic transparency is the principle that the factors that influence the decisions made by algorithms should be visible, or transparent, to the people who use, regulate, and are affected by systems that employ those algorithms. Although the phrase was coined in 2016 by Nicholas Diakopoulos and Michael Koliska about the role of algorithms in deciding the content of digital journalism services, the underlying principle dates back to the 1970s and the rise of automated systems for scoring consumer credit. The phrases "algorithmic transparency" and "algorithmic accountability" are sometimes used interchangeably – especially since they were coined by the same people – but they have subtly different meanings. Specifically, "algorithmic transparency" states that the inputs to the algorithm and the algorithm's use itself must be known, but they need not be fair. "Algorithmic accountability" implies that the organizations that use algorithms must be accountable for the decisions made by those algorithms, even though the decisions are being made by a machine, and not by a human being. Current research around algorithmic transparency interested in both societal effects of accessing remote services running algorithms, as well as mathematical and computer science approaches that can be used to achieve algorithmic transparency. In the United States, the Federal Trade Commission's Bureau of Consumer Protection studies how algorithms are used by consumers by conducting its own research on algorithmic transparency and by funding external research. In the European Union, the data protection laws that came into effect in May 2018 include a "right to explanation" of decisions made by algorithms, though it is unclear what this means. Furthermore, the European Union founded The European Center for Algorithmic Transparency (ECAT).
Concept mining
Concept mining is an activity that results in the extraction of concepts from artifacts. Solutions to the task typically involve aspects of artificial intelligence and statistics, such as data mining and text mining. Because artifacts are typically a loosely structured sequence of words and other symbols (rather than concepts), the problem is nontrivial, but it can provide powerful insights into the meaning, provenance and similarity of documents. == Methods == Traditionally, the conversion of words to concepts has been performed using a thesaurus, and for computational techniques the tendency is to do the same. The thesauri used are either specially created for the task, or a pre-existing language model, usually related to Princeton's WordNet. The mappings of words to concepts are often ambiguous. Typically each word in a given language will relate to several possible concepts. Humans use context to disambiguate the various meanings of a given piece of text, where available machine translation systems cannot easily infer context. For the purposes of concept mining, however, these ambiguities tend to be less important than they are with machine translation, for in large documents the ambiguities tend to even out, much as is the case with text mining. There are many techniques for disambiguation that may be used. Examples are linguistic analysis of the text and the use of word and concept association frequency information that may be inferred from large text corpora. Recently, techniques that base on semantic similarity between the possible concepts and the context have appeared and gained interest in the scientific community. == Applications == === Detecting and indexing similar documents in large corpora === One of the spin-offs of calculating document statistics in the concept domain, rather than the word domain, is that concepts form natural tree structures based on hypernymy and meronymy. These structures can be used to generate simple tree membership statistics, that can be used to locate any document in a Euclidean concept space. If the size of a document is also considered as another dimension of this space then an extremely efficient indexing system can be created. This technique is currently in commercial use locating similar legal documents in a 2.5 million document corpus. === Clustering documents by topic === Standard numeric clustering techniques may be used in "concept space" as described above to locate and index documents by the inferred topic. These are numerically far more efficient than their text mining cousins, and tend to behave more intuitively, in that they map better to the similarity measures a human would generate.
Spatial computing
Spatial computing refers to 3D human–computer interaction techniques that are perceived by users as taking place in the real world, in and around their bodies and physical environments, instead of constrained to and perceptually behind computer screens or in purely virtual worlds. This concept inverts the long-standing practice of teaching people to interact with computers in digital environments, and instead teaches computers to better understand and interact with people more naturally in the human world. This concept overlaps with and encompasses others including extended reality, augmented reality, mixed reality, natural user interface, contextual computing, affective computing, and ubiquitous computing. The usage for labeling and discussing these adjacent technologies is imprecise. Spatial computing devices include sensors—such as RGB cameras, depth cameras, 3D trackers, inertial measurement units, or other tools—to sense and track nearby human bodies (including hands, arms, eyes, legs, mouths) during ordinary interactions with people and computers in a 3D space. They further use computer vision to attempt to understand real world scenes, such as rooms, streets or stores, to read labels, to recognize objects, create 3D maps, and more. Quite often they also use extended reality and mixed reality to superimpose virtual 3D graphics and virtual 3D audio onto the human visual and auditory system as a way of providing information more naturally and contextually than traditional 2D screens. Spatial computing often refers to personal computing devices like headsets and headphones, but other human-computer interactions that leverage real-time spatial positioning for displays, like projection mapping or cave automatic virtual environment displays, can also be considered spatial computing if they leverage human-computer input for the participants. == History == The term "spatial computing" apparently originated in the field of GIS around 1985 or earlier to describe computations on large-scale geospatial information. Early examples of spatial computing in GIS include ArcInfo and its iterations, initially released in 1981, a part of ArcGIS along with ArcEditor, which together provide mapping, analysis, editing, and geoprocessing for geodatabases. This is somewhat related to the modern use, but on the scale of continents, cities, and neighborhoods. Modern spatial computing is more centered on the human scale of interaction, around the size of a living room or smaller. But it is not limited to that scale in the aggregate. In the early 1990s, as field of virtual reality was beginning to be commercialized beyond academic and military labs, a startup called Worldesign in Seattle used the term Spatial Computing to describe the interaction between individual people and 3D spaces, operating more at the human end of the scale than previous GIS examples may have contemplated. The company built a CAVE-like environment it called the Virtual Environment Theater, whose 3D experience was of a virtual flyover of the Giza Plateau, circa 3000 BC. Robert Jacobson, CEO of Worldesign, attributes the origins of the term to experiments at the Human Interface Technology Lab, at the University of Washington, under the direction of Thomas A. Furness III. Jacobson was a co-founder of that lab before spinning off this early VR startup. In 1997, an academic publication by T. Caelli, Peng Lam, and H. Bunke called "Spatial Computing: Issues in Vision, Multimedia and Visualization Technologies" introduced the term more broadly for academic audiences, focusing on a variety of topics such as image processing, dead reckoning navigation, object recognition, and visualizing spatial data. The specific term "spatial computing" was later referenced again in 2003 by Simon Greenwold, as "human interaction with a machine in which the machine retains and manipulates referents to real objects and spaces". MIT Media Lab alumnus John Underkoffler gave a TED talk in 2010 giving a live demo of the multi-screen, multi-user spatial computing systems being developed by Oblong Industries, which sought to bring to life the futuristic interfaces conceptualized by Underkoffler in the films Minority Report and Iron Man. Google Earth, initially released by Keyhole Inc. in 2001 and re-released by Google in 2005 can be considered a capable GIS and includes advanced geospatial tools and capabilities. == Notable instances of the use of spatial computing == In 2019, Microsoft HoloLens released a video outlining Airbus' partnership with Microsoft Azure to utilize the latter's mixed reality services for streamlining and improving the aircraft design process, as well as reducing the error in development. Airbus utilized the HoloLens 2 to this end, and the executive vice president of engineering claimed that their design process' validation phases were "hugely accelerated by 80 percent", as well as "strongly believe[d]" that up to 30% improvements in their industrial tasks could be attained with the HoloLens 2. During the presentational video, Airbus cited the maturity of Microsoft Azure services as "key" for their usage of the HoloLens 2. Also in 2019, the U.S. army partnered with Microsoft to produce a HoloLens based Integrated Visual Augmentation System (IVAS) to enhance infantry members by giving troops various abilities, including but not limited to using holographs to train, projecting 3D maps into their vision, and seeing through smoke and corners. Microsoft received tens of thousands of hours of feedback for their systems by 2021. Sergeant Marc Krugh at the time claimed that Microsoft's partnership has already caused the army to rethink some of its troops' operation strategy. == Products == === Apple Vision Pro === Apple announced Apple Vision Pro, a device it markets as a "spatial computer", on June 5, 2023. It includes several features such as Spatial Audio, two 4K micro-OLED displays, the Apple R1 chip and eye tracking, and released in the United States on February 2, 2024. In announcing the platform, Apple invoked its history of popularizing 2D graphical user interfaces that supplanted prior human-computer interface mechanisms such as the command line. Apple suggests the introduction of spatial computing as a new category of interactive device, on the same level of importance as the introduction of the 2D GUI. Apple Vision Pro runs on a new operating system called visionOS, which combines eye tracking, gesture recognition, and voice input to enable immersive interaction without physical controllers. The platform is aimed at productivity, entertainment, collaboration, and enterprise use cases. === Magic Leap === Magic Leap had also previously used the term “spatial computing” to describe its own devices. Its first headset, the Magic Leap 1, was released on August 8, 2018. Magic Leap’s technology enables the display of content into the real world using an optical see-through head-mounted display, which projects an overlay of a virtual world into the user’s field of view. This allows for an experience where the physical and digital worlds are perceived simultaneously. === Microsoft Hololens === On February 24, 2019, Microsoft released the HoloLens 2, which includes mixed reality tools and can generate interactable, manipulatable holograms in 3D space. The holograms in question can be related to a physical object or completely independent and free-floating. The Azure Spatial Anchors cloud service was released simultaneously, which gives the holograms capability to persist across time and many individuals' devices. === Meta Quest === The Meta Quest 3, a mixed reality gaming headset that includes spatial audio, two color cameras, and grants the ability to interact with virtual characters released on October 9, 2023, at a notably cheaper price than the Apple Vision Pro, but with reduced capabilities. === Snap Spectacles === Spectacles (product) are augmented reality glasses developed by Snap Inc.. The latest generation includes a 46-degree stereoscopic display, adjustable tint, and Snapdragon processors. Spectacles allow users to interact with a collection of augmented reality experiences designed for education, entertainment, and utility. Currently, the device is in the hands of selected developers and creators, as part of an experimental AR ecosystem focused on creativity, use case exploration and expression.