AI Art Generator From Image

AI Art Generator From Image — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  Morphobank

  MorphoBank is a web application for collaborative evolutionary research, specifically phylogenetic systematics or cladistics, on the phenotype. Historically, scientists conducting research on phylogenetic systematics have worked individually or in small groups employing traditional single-user software applications such as MacClade, Mesquite and Nexus Data Editor. As the hypotheses under study have grown more complex, large research teams have assembled to tackle the problem of discovering the Tree of Life for the estimated 4-100 million living species(Wilson 2003, pp. 77–80) and the many thousands more extinct species known from fossils. Because the phenotype is fundamentally visual, and as phenotype-based phylogenetic studies have continued to increase in size, it becomes important that observations be backed up by labeled images. Traditional desktop software applications currently in wide use do not provide robust support for team-based research or for image manipulation and storage. MorphoBank is a particularly important tool for the growing scientific field of phenomics. The development of MorphoBank, which began in 2001, has been funded by the National Science Foundation's Directorates for Geosciences, Biological Sciences and Computer and Information Science and Engineering. The significance of the scientific work on MorphoBank has been featured in the New York Times(here and here), among other publications. == Advantages == Teams of scientists studying phylogenetics to build the Tree of Life assemble large spreadsheets of observations about species (referred to as "matrices"). These teams require simultaneous access by each team member to a single and secure copy of the team's data during a scientific research project. This single copy of the data also changes with great frequency during the data collection phase. Images that can be very helpful for documenting homology statements must be displayed, labeled and shared as homology statements develop. This cannot be accomplished elegantly with a desktop software package alone because in a desktop environment each collaborator is working on his own private copy of project data. Changes made by one participant cannot automatically propagate to others, preventing collaborators from seeing each other's data edits until they are manually (and due to the effort involved, often only periodically) merged into a single "true" dataset. In all but the smallest and most disciplined of teams, file version control and the reconciliation of changes made on multiple copies of the data emerge quickly as significant drags on productivity. MorphoBank is an attempt to address these issues by leveraging the ubiquity of the web and modern web-based application techniques, including Ajax, web service layers, and rich web applications to provide a full-featured, net-accessible collaborative workspace for phylogenetic research. In particular, MorphoBank makes it easy to: Share all kinds of data with geographically separated team members, including taxonomy, character and specimen data, media (including images, video and audio), phylogenetic matrices (including data in the widely used NEXUS and TNT format) and other data such as documents and genetic sequences. Label high-resolution images using a web-based image annotation application. Collaboratively edit project data such as phylogenetic matrices using a built-in web-based matrix editor. The editor allows the linking of labeled images to individual cells of a matrix. Manage access to project data. Access ranges from full-access for team members to anonymous read-only access for potential reviewers. Publish completed project data on the web in support of a published paper with a persistent URL. Search The Encyclopedia of Life for taxon exemplar images. Store high resolution CT data Create ontologies for updating and populating matrix cells. These tasks are difficult or impossible in most existing software applications. == History == In 2001 the National Science Foundation (NSF) sponsored a workshop, at the American Museum of Natural History in New York to develop the outlines of a web-based system for a collaborative, media-rich research tool for morphological phylogenetics. An application prototype presented at the workshop was later refined with feedback from the workshop and became MorphoBank version 1.0. A grant from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration funded further revisions resulting in version 2.0, released in 2005. Current support from the NSF is funding current feature enhancements to MorphoBank. MorphoBank was hosted by Stony Brook University until late October 2021 and received back up support from the American Museum of Natural History. The current version is 3.0. Rationale for the software was described in the journal Cladistics. MorphoBank has also received support from NESCENT and the San Diego Supercomputer Center. Since 2018, MorphoBank has been supported in part by Phoenix Bioinformatics, a non-profit company founded to sustain databases for the basic sciences. A permanent move of MorphoBank from Stony Brook University to Phoenix Bioinformatics was complete in late October 2021. The San Diego Supercomputer Center has previously provided technical and hosting resources to the MorphoBank project. == Usage == MorphoBank hosts the products of peer-reviewed scientific research on phenotypes. An increasing volume of systematics data is "born digital" and MorphoBank is well suited to handle this type of material. On August 24, 2007, 62 active research projects were hosted by MorphoBank, as well as 6 completed (and published) projects. By 2017 over 2000 scientists and their students were registered content builders (users are not required to register and are even more numerous) and has more than 500 publicly available projects with approximately 80,000 images that are the products of scientific research. Over 1,500 active research projects are hosted by MorphoBank. The software has been used to assemble phylogenetic research on such groups as mammals, from bats to whales, bivalve molluscs, arachnids, fossil plants and living and extinct amniotes. It has also been used more broadly in evolutionary and paleontological research to host curated images associated with published research on lacewing insects geckos, raptor birds, dinosaurs, frogs and nematodes. MorphoBank is increasingly used in conjunction with the Paleobiology Database. Example published projects: Project 1097: Blank CE, 2013 Origin and early evolution of photosynthetic eukaryotes in freshwater environments – reinterpreting proterozoic paleobiology and biogeochemical processes in light of trait evolution Project 2520: Carvalho, T. P., R. E. Reis, and J. P. Friel, 2017 A new species of Hoplomyzon (Siluriformes: Aspredinidae) from Maracaibo Basin, Venezuela: osteological description using high-resolution Project 2651: Baron, M. G., Norman, D. B., Barrett, P. M., 2017 A new hypothesis of dinosaur relationships and early dinosaur evolution MorphoBank has been particularly important to the Assembling the Tree of Life initiative sponsored by the National Science Foundation. MorphoBank is well-suited to such projects because of its tools for merging taxonomic, character and matrix-based data, as well as its collaborative features. Highlights of this research include a collaborative matrix on mammal evolution published in Science that included over 4,000 phenomic characters scored for over 80 species, a matrix on extant baleen whales featuring nearly 600 images, and more.

  Read more →
• 

  Highway network

  In machine learning, the Highway Network was the first working very deep feedforward neural network with hundreds of layers, much deeper than previous neural networks. It uses skip connections modulated by learned gating mechanisms to regulate information flow, inspired by long short-term memory (LSTM) recurrent neural networks. The advantage of the Highway Network over other deep learning architectures is its ability to overcome or partially prevent the vanishing gradient problem, thus improving its optimization. Gating mechanisms are used to facilitate information flow across the many layers ("information highways"). Highway Networks have found use in text sequence labeling and speech recognition tasks. In 2014, the state of the art was training deep neural networks with 20 to 30 layers. Stacking too many layers led to a steep reduction in training accuracy, known as the "degradation" problem. In 2015, two techniques were developed to train such networks: the Highway Network (published in May), and the residual neural network, or ResNet (December). ResNet behaves like an open-gated Highway Net. == Model == The model has two gates in addition to the H ( W H , x ) {\displaystyle H(W_{H},x)} gate: the transform gate T ( W T , x ) {\displaystyle T(W_{T},x)} and the carry gate C ( W C , x ) {\displaystyle C(W_{C},x)} . The latter two gates are non-linear transfer functions (specifically sigmoid by convention). The function H {\displaystyle H} can be any desired transfer function. The carry gate is defined as: C ( W C , x ) = 1 − T ( W T , x ) {\displaystyle C(W_{C},x)=1-T(W_{T},x)} while the transform gate is just a gate with a sigmoid transfer function. == Structure == The structure of a hidden layer in the Highway Network follows the equation: y = H ( x , W H ) ⋅ T ( x , W T ) + x ⋅ C ( x , W C ) = H ( x , W H ) ⋅ T ( x , W T ) + x ⋅ ( 1 − T ( x , W T ) ) {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}y=H(x,W_{H})\cdot T(x,W_{T})+x\cdot C(x,W_{C})\\=H(x,W_{H})\cdot T(x,W_{T})+x\cdot (1-T(x,W_{T}))\end{aligned}}} == Related work == Sepp Hochreiter analyzed the vanishing gradient problem in 1991 and attributed to it the reason why deep learning did not work well. To overcome this problem, Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) recurrent neural networks have residual connections with a weight of 1.0 in every LSTM cell (called the constant error carrousel) to compute y t + 1 = F ( x t ) + x t {\textstyle y_{t+1}=F(x_{t})+x_{t}} . During backpropagation through time, this becomes the residual formula y = F ( x ) + x {\textstyle y=F(x)+x} for feedforward neural networks. This enables training very deep recurrent neural networks with a very long time span t. A later LSTM version published in 2000 modulates the identity LSTM connections by so-called "forget gates" such that their weights are not fixed to 1.0 but can be learned. In experiments, the forget gates were initialized with positive bias weights, thus being opened, addressing the vanishing gradient problem. As long as the forget gates of the 2000 LSTM are open, it behaves like the 1997 LSTM. The Highway Network of May 2015 applies these principles to feedforward neural networks. It was reported to be "the first very deep feedforward network with hundreds of layers". It is like a 2000 LSTM with forget gates unfolded in time, while the later Residual Nets have no equivalent of forget gates and are like the unfolded original 1997 LSTM. If the skip connections in Highway Networks are "without gates," or if their gates are kept open (activation 1.0), they become Residual Networks. The residual connection is a special case of the "short-cut connection" or "skip connection" by Rosenblatt (1961) and Lang & Witbrock (1988) which has the form x ↦ F ( x ) + A x {\displaystyle x\mapsto F(x)+Ax} . Here the randomly initialized weight matrix A does not have to be the identity mapping. Every residual connection is a skip connection, but almost all skip connections are not residual connections. The original Highway Network paper not only introduced the basic principle for very deep feedforward networks, but also included experimental results with 20, 50, and 100 layers networks, and mentioned ongoing experiments with up to 900 layers. Networks with 50 or 100 layers had lower training error than their plain network counterparts, but no lower training error than their 20 layers counterpart (on the MNIST dataset, Figure 1 in ). No improvement on test accuracy was reported with networks deeper than 19 layers (on the CIFAR-10 dataset; Table 1 in ). The ResNet paper, however, provided strong experimental evidence of the benefits of going deeper than 20 layers. It argued that the identity mapping without modulation is crucial and mentioned that modulation in the skip connection can still lead to vanishing signals in forward and backward propagation (Section 3 in ). This is also why the forget gates of the 2000 LSTM were initially opened through positive bias weights: as long as the gates are open, it behaves like the 1997 LSTM. Similarly, a Highway Net whose gates are opened through strongly positive bias weights behaves like a ResNet. The skip connections used in modern neural networks (e.g., Transformers) are dominantly identity mappings.

  Read more →
• 

  Hallucination (artificial intelligence)

  In the field of artificial intelligence (AI), a hallucination or artificial hallucination (also called bullshitting, confabulation, or delusion) is a response generated by AI that contains false or misleading information presented as fact. This term draws a loose analogy with human psychology, where a hallucination typically involves false percepts. For example, a chatbot powered by large language models (LLMs), like ChatGPT, may embed plausible-sounding random falsehoods within its generated content. Detecting and mitigating errors and hallucinations pose significant challenges for practical deployment and reliability of LLMs in high-stakes scenarios, such as chip design, supply chain logistics, and medical diagnostics. Some software engineers and statisticians have criticized the specific term "AI hallucination" for unreasonably anthropomorphizing computers. Symbolic artificial intelligence models generally do not produce hallucinations, unlike large language models. == Term == === Origin === Since the 1980s, the term "hallucination" has been used in computer vision with a positive connotation to describe the process of adding detail to an image. For example, the task of generating high-resolution face images from low-resolution inputs is called face hallucination. The first documented use of the term "hallucination" in this sense is in the PhD thesis of Eric Mjolsness in 1986. A notable work is the face hallucination algorithm by Simon Baker and Takeo Kanade published in 1999. In the 2000s, hallucinations were described in statistical machine translation as a failure mode. Since the 2010s, the term has undergone a semantic shift to signify the generation of factually incorrect or misleading outputs by AI systems in tasks like machine translation and object detection. In 2015, hallucinations were identified in visual semantic role labeling tasks by Saurabh Gupta and Jitendra Malik. In 2015, computer scientist Andrej Karpathy used the term "hallucinated" in a blog post to describe his recurrent neural network (RNN) language model generating an incorrect citation link. In 2017, Google researchers used the term to describe the responses generated by neural machine translation (NMT) models when they are not related to the source text, and in 2018, the term was used in computer vision to describe instances where non-existent objects are erroneously detected because of adversarial attacks. In July 2021, Meta warned during its release of BlenderBot 2 that the system is prone to "hallucinations", which Meta defined as "confident statements that are not true". Following OpenAI's ChatGPT release in beta version in November 2022, some users complained that such chatbots often seem to pointlessly embed plausible-sounding random falsehoods within their generated content. Many news outlets, including The New York Times, started to use the term "hallucinations" to describe these models' frequently incorrect or inconsistent responses. In 2023, the Cambridge dictionary updated its definition of hallucination to include this new sense specific to the field of AI. Some researchers have highlighted a lack of consistency in how the term is used, but also identified several alternative terms in the literature, such as confabulations, fabrications, and factual errors. === Definitions and alternatives === Uses, definitions and characterizations of the term "hallucination" in the context of LLMs include: "a tendency to invent facts in moments of uncertainty" (OpenAI, May 2023) "a model's logical mistakes" (OpenAI, May 2023) "fabricating information entirely, but behaving as if spouting facts" (CNBC, May 2023) "making up information" (The Verge, February 2023) "probability distributions" (in scientific contexts) Journalist Benj Edwards, in Ars Technica, writes that the term "hallucination" is controversial, but that some form of metaphor remains necessary; Edwards suggests "confabulation" as an analogy for processes that involve "creative gap-filling". In July 2024, a White House report on fostering public trust in AI research mentioned hallucinations only in the context of reducing them. Notably, when acknowledging David Baker's Nobel Prize-winning work with AI-generated proteins, the Nobel committee avoided the term entirely, instead referring to "imaginative protein creation". Hicks, Humphries, and Slater, in their article in Ethics and Information Technology, argue that the output of LLMs is "bullshit" under Harry Frankfurt's definition of the term, and that the models are "in an important way indifferent to the truth of their outputs", with true statements only accidentally true, and false ones accidentally false. Some researchers also use the derogatory term "botshit", often referring to uncritical use of AI. === Criticism === In the scientific community, some researchers avoid the term "hallucination", seeing it as potentially misleading. It has been criticized by Usama Fayyad, executive director of the Institute for Experimental Artificial Intelligence at Northeastern University, on the grounds that it misleadingly personifies large language models and is vague. Mary Shaw said, "The current fashion for calling generative AI's errors 'hallucinations' is appalling. It anthropomorphizes the software, and it spins actual errors as somehow being idiosyncratic quirks of the system even when they're objectively incorrect." In Salon, statistician Gary Smith argues that LLMs "do not understand what words mean" and consequently that the term "hallucination" unreasonably anthropomorphizes the machine. Murray Shanahan argues that anthropomorphic framing of LLM capabilities, including terms like "hallucination", encourages users and researchers to attribute cognitive processes to systems that operate through statistical pattern completion, and advocates for more careful linguistic practices when discussing LLM behavior. Kristina Šekrst argues that applying psychological vocabulary to LLM outputs obscures the difference between the appearance of mental properties and their genuine presence. Förster & Skop assert that tech companies use the hallucination metaphor to anthropomorphize models and deflect responsibility for non-factual outputs. Some see the AI outputs not as illusory but as prospective—that is, having some chance of being true, similar to early-stage scientific conjectures. The term has also been criticized for its association with psychedelic drug experiences. == In natural language generation == In natural language generation, there are several reasons why natural language models hallucinate: === Hallucination from data === Hallucinations can stem from incomplete, inaccurate or unrepresentative data sets. === Modeling-related causes === The pre-training of generative pretrained transformers (GPT) involves predicting the next word. It incentivizes GPT models to "give a guess" about what the next word is, even when they lack information. Some researchers take an anthropomorphic perspective and posit that hallucinations arise from a tension between novelty and usefulness. For instance, Amabile and Pratt define human creativity as the production of novel and useful ideas. By extension, a focus on novelty in machine creativity can lead to the production of original but inaccurate responses—that is, falsehoods—whereas a focus on usefulness may result in memorized content lacking originality. By 2022, newspapers such as The New York Times expressed concern that, as the adoption of bots based on large language models continued to grow, unwarranted user confidence in bot output could lead to problems. === Interpretability research === In 2025, interpretability research by Anthropic on the LLM Claude identified internal circuits that cause it to decline to answer questions unless it knows the answer. By default, the circuit is active and the LLM doesn't answer. When the LLM has sufficient information, these circuits are inhibited and the LLM answers the question. Hallucinations were found to occur when this inhibition happens incorrectly, such as when Claude recognizes a name but lacks sufficient information about that person, causing it to generate plausible but untrue responses. === Examples === On 15 November 2022, researchers from Meta AI published Galactica, designed to "store, combine and reason about scientific knowledge". Content generated by Galactica came with the warning: "Outputs may be unreliable! Language Models are prone to hallucinate text." In one case, when asked to draft a paper on creating avatars, Galactica cited a fictitious paper from a real author who works in the relevant area. Meta withdrew Galactica on 17 November due to offensiveness and inaccuracy. OpenAI's ChatGPT, released in beta version to the public on November 30, 2022, was based on the foundation model GPT-3.5 (a revision of GPT-3). Professor Ethan Mollick of Wharton called it an "omniscient, eager-to-please intern who sometimes lies to you". Data scientist Teresa Kuba

  Read more →
• 

  Embodied cognitive science

  Embodied cognitive science is an interdisciplinary field of research, the aim of which is to explain the mechanisms underlying intelligent behavior. It comprises three main methodologies: the modeling of psychological and biological systems in a holistic manner that considers the mind and body as a single entity; the formation of a common set of general principles of intelligent behavior; and the experimental use of robotic agents in controlled environments. == Contributors == Embodied cognitive science borrows heavily from embodied philosophy and the related research fields of cognitive science, psychology, neuroscience and artificial intelligence. Contributors to the field include: From the perspective of neuroscience, Gerald Edelman of the Neurosciences Institute at La Jolla, Francisco Varela of CNRS in France, and J. A. Scott Kelso of Florida Atlantic University From the perspective of psychology, Lawrence Barsalou, Michael Turvey, Vittorio Guidano and Eleanor Rosch From the perspective of linguistics, Gilles Fauconnier, George Lakoff, Mark Johnson, Leonard Talmy and Mark Turner From the perspective of language acquisition, Eric Lenneberg and Philip Rubin at Haskins Laboratories From the perspective of anthropology, Edwin Hutchins, Bradd Shore, James Wertsch and Merlin Donald. From the perspective of autonomous agent design, early work is sometimes attributed to Rodney Brooks or Valentino Braitenberg From the perspective of artificial intelligence, Understanding Intelligence by Rolf Pfeifer and Christian Scheier or How the Body Shapes the Way We Think, by Rolf Pfeifer and Josh C. Bongard From the perspective of philosophy, Andy Clark, Dan Zahavi, Shaun Gallagher, and Evan Thompson In 1950, Alan Turing proposed that a machine may need a human-like body to think and speak: It can also be maintained that it is best to provide the machine with the best sense organs that money can buy, and then teach it to understand and speak English. That process could follow the normal teaching of a child. Things would be pointed out and named, etc. Again, I do not know what the right answer is, but I think both approaches should be tried. == Traditional cognitive theory == Embodied cognitive science is an alternative theory to cognition in which it minimizes appeals to computational theory of mind in favor of greater emphasis on how an organism's body determines how and what it thinks. Traditional cognitive theory is based mainly around symbol manipulation, in which certain inputs are fed into a processing unit that produces an output. These inputs follow certain rules of syntax, from which the processing unit finds semantic meaning. Thus, an appropriate output is produced. For example, a human's sensory organs are its input devices, and the stimuli obtained from the external environment are fed into the nervous system which serves as the processing unit. From here, the nervous system is able to read the sensory information because it follows a syntactic structure, thus an output is created. This output then creates bodily motions and brings forth behavior and cognition. Of particular note is that cognition is sealed away in the brain, meaning that mental cognition is cut off from the external world and is only possible by the input of sensory information. == The embodied cognitive approach == Embodied cognitive science differs from the traditionalist approach in that it denies the input-output system. This is chiefly due to the problems presented by the Homunculus argument, which concluded that semantic meaning could not be derived from symbols without some kind of inner interpretation. If some little man in a person's head interpreted incoming symbols, then who would interpret the little man's inputs? Because of the specter of an infinite regress, the traditionalist model began to seem less plausible. Thus, embodied cognitive science aims to avoid this problem by defining cognition in three ways. === Physical attributes of the body === The first aspect of embodied cognition examines the role of the physical body, particularly how its properties affect its ability to think. This part attempts to overcome the symbol manipulation component that is a feature of the traditionalist model. Depth perception, for instance, can be better explained under the embodied approach due to the sheer complexity of the action. Depth perception requires that the brain detect the disparate retinal images obtained by the distance of the two eyes. In addition, body and head cues complicate this further. When the head is turned in a given direction, objects in the foreground will appear to move against objects in the background. From this, it is said that some kind of visual processing is occurring without the need of any kind of symbol manipulation. This is because the objects appearing to move the foreground are simply appearing to move. This observation concludes then that depth can be perceived with no intermediate symbol manipulation necessary. A more poignant example exists through examining auditory perception. Generally speaking the greater the distance between the ears, the greater the possible auditory acuity. Also relevant is the amount of density in between the ears, for the strength of the frequency wave alters as it passes through a given medium. The brain's auditory system takes these factors into account as it process information, but again without any need for a symbolic manipulation system. This is because the distance between the ears for example does not need symbols to represent it. The distance itself creates the necessary opportunity for greater auditory acuity. The amount of density between the ears is similar, in that it is the actual amount itself that simply forms the opportunity for frequency alteration. Thus under consideration of the physical properties of the body, a symbolic system is unnecessary and an unhelpful metaphor. === The body's role in the cognitive process === The second aspect draws heavily from George Lakoff's and Mark Johnson's work on concepts. They argued that humans use metaphors whenever possible to better explain their external world. Humans also have a basic stock of concepts in which other concepts can be derived from. These basic concepts include spatial orientations such as up, down, front, and back. Humans can understand what these concepts mean because they can directly experience them from their own bodies. For example, because human movement revolves around standing erect and moving the body in an up-down motion, humans innately have these concepts of up and down. Lakoff and Johnson contend this is similar with other spatial orientations such as front and back too. As mentioned earlier, these basic stocks of spatial concepts are the basis in which other concepts are constructed. Happy and sad for instance are seen now as being up or down respectively. When someone says they are feeling down, what they are really saying is that they feel sad for example. Thus the point here is that true understanding of these concepts is contingent on whether one can have an understanding of the human body. So the argument goes that if one lacked a human body, they could not possibly know what up or down could mean, or how it could relate to emotional states. [I]magine a spherical being living outside of any gravitational field, with no knowledge or imagination of any other kind of experience. What could UP possibly mean to such a being? While this does not mean that such beings would be incapable of expressing emotions in other words, it does mean that they would express emotions differently from humans. Human concepts of happiness and sadness would be different because human would have different bodies. So then an organism's body directly affects how it can think, because it uses metaphors related to its body as the basis of concepts. === Interaction of local environment === A third component of the embodied approach looks at how agents use their immediate environment in cognitive processing. Meaning, the local environment is seen as an actual extension of the body's cognitive process. The example of a personal digital assistant (PDA) is used to better imagine this. Echoing functionalism (philosophy of mind), this point claims that mental states are individuated by their role in a much larger system. So under this premise, the information on a PDA is similar to the information stored in the brain. So then if one thinks information in the brain constitutes mental states, then it must follow that information in the PDA is a cognitive state too. Consider also the role of pen and paper in a complex multiplication problem. The pen and paper are so involved in the cognitive process of solving the problem that it seems ridiculous to say they are somehow different from the process, in very much the same way the PDA is used for information like the brain. Another example examines how humans control and manipulate their environment

  Read more →
• 

  WHATWG

  The Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group (WHATWG) was founded by representatives from Apple Inc., the Mozilla Foundation and Opera Software, leading web browser vendors in 2004. WHATWG is responsible for maintaining multiple web-related technical standards, including the specifications for the HyperText Markup Language (HTML) and the Document Object Model (DOM). The central organizational membership and control of WHATWG – its "Steering Group" – consists of Apple, Mozilla, Google, and Microsoft. WHATWG editors of the specifications ensure correct implementation, in consultation with participants, but ultimately in accordance with Steering Group member objectives. == History == The WHATWG was formed in response to the slow development of World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Web standards and W3C's decision to abandon HTML in favor of XML-based technologies. The WHATWG mailing list was announced on 4 June 2004, two days after the initiatives of a joint Opera–Mozilla position paper had been voted down by the W3C members at the W3C Workshop on Web Applications and Compound Documents. On 10 April 2007, the Mozilla Foundation, Apple, and Opera Software proposed that the new HTML working group of the W3C adopt the WHATWG's HTML5 as the starting point of its work and name its future deliverable as "HTML5" (though the WHATWG specification was later renamed HTML Living Standard). On 9 May 2007, the new HTML working group of the W3C resolved to do that. An Internet Explorer platform architect from Microsoft was invited but did not join, citing the lack of a patent policy to ensure all specifications can be implemented on a royalty-free basis. Since then, the W3C and the WHATWG had been developing HTML independently, at times causing specifications to diverge. In 2017, the WHATWG established an intellectual property rights agreement that includes a patent policy. This spurred a renewed attempt to allow the W3C and the WHATWG to work together on specifications. In 2019, the W3C and WHATWG agreed to a memorandum of understanding where development of HTML and DOM specifications would be done principally in the WHATWG. The editor has significant control over the specification, but the community can influence the decisions of the editor. In one case, editor Ian Hickson proposed replacing the tag with a more generic tag, but the community disagreed and the change was reverted. === Web Hypertext Application Technology Task Force === Initially, the name Web Hypertext Application Technology Task Force was also used, along with variant abbreviations including WHAT Working Group, WHAT Task Force and WHATTF. After some time using both the whattf.org and whatwg.org domain names, the name WHATWG was eventually standardized on. The namespace URI http://whattf.org/datatype-draft remains in use for the HTML validator's data type library. === Transition of HTML Publication to WHATWG === On 28 May 2019, the W3C announced that WHATWG would be the sole publisher of the HTML and DOM standards. The W3C and WHATWG had been publishing competing standards since 2012. While the W3C standard was identical to the WHATWG in 2007 the standards have since progressively diverged due to different design decisions. The WHATWG "Living Standard" had been the de facto web standard for some time. == Specifications == The WHATWG publishes a number of standards that form a substantial portion of the web platform including: The HTML Living Standard (sometimes informally called HTML5). The HTML specification has been a living document without version numbers since 2011. It includes both HTML, the core markup language for the web, and a number of related APIs. The DOM Standard, defines how the Document Object Model on the web is supposed to work and replaces W3C DOM level 3. For example, it replaces mutation events with mutation observers. Fetch Standard, which "defines requests, responses, and the process that binds them: fetching." The fetch standard defines the 'fetch' JavaScript API, and supersedes the HTML5 fetch functionality, CORS and the HTTP Origin header semantics. The Streams Standard provides APIs for creating, composing, and consuming streams of data. These streams are designed to map efficiently to low-level I/O primitives, and allow easy composition with built-in backpressure and queueing. On top of streams, the web platform can build higher-level abstractions, such as filesystem or socket APIs, while at the same time users can use the supplied tools to build their own streams which integrate well with those of the web platform. The Encoding Standard defines how character encodings such as Windows-1252 and UTF-8 are handled in web browsers and is intended to replace the IETF encodings registry. The MIME type sniffing standard defines how MIME types are supposed to be sniffed in web browsers. The URL standard defines how URLs are supposed to be parsed in web browsers. Web IDL used to describe interfaces that are intended to be implemented in web browsers.

  Read more →
• 

  Domain adaptation

  Domain adaptation is a field associated with machine learning and transfer learning. It addresses the challenge of training a model on one data distribution (the source domain) and applying it to a related but different data distribution (the target domain). A common example is spam filtering, where a model trained on emails from one user (source domain) is adapted to handle emails for another user with significantly different patterns (target domain). Domain adaptation techniques can also leverage unrelated data sources to improve learning. When multiple source distributions are involved, the problem extends to multi-source domain adaptation. Domain adaptation is a specific type of transfer learning. According to the taxonomy laid out by Pan and Yang (2010), it falls into the category of transductive transfer learning. In this setting, the source and target tasks are the same (e.g., both are object recognition), but the domains differ (different marginal distributions). This distinguishes it from inductive transfer learning (where labeled data is available for the target task) and unsupervised transfer learning (where labels are unavailable in both domains). == Classification of domain adaptation problems == Domain adaptation setups are classified in two different ways: according to the distribution shift between the domains, and according to the available data from the target domain. === Distribution shifts === Common distribution shifts are classified as follows: Covariate Shift occurs when the input distributions of the source and destination change, but the relationship between inputs and labels remains unchanged. The above-mentioned spam filtering example typically falls in this category. Namely, the distributions (patterns) of emails may differ between the domains, but emails labeled as spam in the one domain should similarly be labeled in another. Prior Shift (Label Shift) occurs when the label distribution differs between the source and target datasets, while the conditional distribution of features given labels remains the same. An example is a classifier of hair color in images from Italy (source domain) and Norway (target domain). The proportions of hair colors (labels) differ, but images within classes like blond and black-haired populations remain consistent across domains. A classifier for the Norway population can exploit this prior knowledge of class proportions to improve its estimates. Concept Shift (Conditional Shift) refers to changes in the relationship between features and labels, even if the input distribution remains the same. For instance, in medical diagnosis, the same symptoms (inputs) may indicate entirely different diseases (labels) in different populations (domains). === Data available during training === Domain adaptation problems typically assume that some data from the target domain is available during training. Problems can be classified according to the type of this available data: Unsupervised: Unlabeled data from the target domain is available, but no labeled data. In the above-mentioned example of spam filtering, this corresponds to the case where emails from the target domain (user) are available, but they are not labeled as spam. Domain adaptation methods can benefit from such unlabeled data, by comparing its distribution (patterns) with the labeled source domain data. Semi-supervised: Most data that is available from the target domain is unlabelled, but some labeled data is also available. In the above-mentioned case of spam filter design, this corresponds to the case that the target user has labeled some emails as being spam or not. Supervised: All data that is available from the target domain is labeled. In this case, domain adaptation reduces to refinement of the source domain predictor. In the above-mentioned example classification of hair-color from images, this could correspond to the refinement of a network already trained on a large dataset of labeled images from Italy, using newly available labeled images from Norway. == Formalization == Let X {\displaystyle X} be the input space (or description space) and let Y {\displaystyle Y} be the output space (or label space). The objective of a machine learning algorithm is to learn a mathematical model (a hypothesis) h : X → Y {\displaystyle h:X\to Y} able to attach a label from Y {\displaystyle Y} to an example from X {\displaystyle X} . This model is learned from a learning sample S = { ( x i , y i ) ∈ ( X × Y ) } i = 1 m {\displaystyle S=\{(x_{i},y_{i})\in (X\times Y)\}_{i=1}^{m}} . Usually in supervised learning (without domain adaptation), we suppose that the examples ( x i , y i ) ∈ S {\displaystyle (x_{i},y_{i})\in S} are drawn i.i.d. from a distribution D S {\displaystyle D_{S}} of support X × Y {\displaystyle X\times Y} (unknown and fixed). The objective is then to learn h {\displaystyle h} (from S {\displaystyle S} ) such that it commits the least error possible for labelling new examples coming from the distribution D S {\displaystyle D_{S}} . The main difference between supervised learning and domain adaptation is that in the latter situation we study two different (but related) distributions D S {\displaystyle D_{S}} and D T {\displaystyle D_{T}} on X × Y {\displaystyle X\times Y} . The domain adaptation task then consists of the transfer of knowledge from the source domain D S {\displaystyle D_{S}} to the target one D T {\displaystyle D_{T}} . The goal is then to learn h {\displaystyle h} (from labeled or unlabelled samples coming from the two domains) such that it commits as little error as possible on the target domain D T {\displaystyle D_{T}} . The major issue is the following: if a model is learned from a source domain, what is its capacity to correctly label data coming from the target domain? == Four algorithmic principles == === Reweighting algorithms === The objective is to reweight the source labeled sample such that it "looks like" the target sample (in terms of the error measure considered). === Iterative algorithms === A method for adapting consists in iteratively "auto-labeling" the target examples. The principle is simple: a model h {\displaystyle h} is learned from the labeled examples; h {\displaystyle h} automatically labels some target examples; a new model is learned from the new labeled examples. Note that there exist other iterative approaches, but they usually need target labeled examples. === Search of a common representation space === The goal is to find or construct a common representation space for the two domains. The objective is to obtain a space in which the domains are close to each other while keeping good performances on the source labeling task. This can be achieved through the use of Adversarial machine learning techniques where feature representations from samples in different domains are encouraged to be indistinguishable. === Hierarchical Bayesian Model === The goal is to construct a Bayesian hierarchical model p ( n ) {\displaystyle p(n)} , which is essentially a factorization model for counts n {\displaystyle n} , to derive domain-dependent latent representations allowing both domain-specific and globally shared latent factors. == Software packages == Several compilations of domain adaptation and transfer learning algorithms have been implemented over the past decades: SKADA (Python) ADAPT (Python) TLlib (Python) Domain-Adaptation-Toolbox (MATLAB)

  Read more →
• 

  Artificial reproduction

  Artificial reproduction is the re-creation of life brought about by means other than natural ones. It is new life built by human plans and projects. Examples include artificial selection, artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, artificial womb, artificial cloning, and kinematic replication. Artificial reproduction is one aspect of artificial life. Artificial reproduction can be categorized into one of two classes according to its capacity to be self-sufficient: non-assisted reproductive technology and assisted reproductive technology. Cutting plants' stems and placing them in compost is a form of assisted artificial reproduction, xenobots are an example of a more autonomous type of reproduction, while the artificial womb presented in the movie the Matrix illustrates a non assisted hypothetical technology. The idea of artificial reproduction has led to various technologies. == Theology == Humans have aspired to create life since immemorial times. Most theologies and religions have conceived this possibility as exclusive of deities. Christian religions consider the possibility of artificial reproduction, in most cases, as heretical and sinful. == Philosophy == Although ancient Greek philosophy raised the concept that man could imitate the creative capacity of nature, classic Greeks thought that if possible, human beings would reproduce things as nature does, and vice versa, nature would do the things that man does in the same way. Aristotle, for example, wrote that if nature made tables, it would make them just as men do. In other words, Aristotle said that if nature were to create a table, such table will look like a human-made table. Correspondingly, Descartes envisioned the human body, and nature, as a machine. Cartesian philosophy does not stop seeing a perfect mirror between nature and the artificial. However, Kant revolutionized this old idea by criticizing such naturalism. Kant pedagogically wrote: "Reason, in order to be taught by nature, must approach nature with its principles in one hand, according to which the agreement among appearances can count as laws, and, in the other hand, the experiment thought out in accord with these principles—in order to be instructed by nature not like a pupil, who has recited to him whatever the teacher wants to say, but like an appointed judge who compels witnesses to answer the questions he puts to them.". Humans are not instructed by nature but rather use nature as raw material to invent. Humans find alternatives to the natural restrictions imposed by natural laws thus, nature is not necessarily mirrored. In accordance with Kant (and contrary to what Aristotle thought) Karl Marx, Alfred Whitehead, Jaques Derrida and Juan David García Bacca noticed that nature is incapable of reproducing tables; or airplanes, or submarines, or computers. If nature tried to create airplanes, it would produce birds. If nature tried to create submarines, it would get fishes. If nature tried to create computers, brains would grow. And if nature tried to create man, modern man, monkeys will be evolved. According to Whitehead, if we look for something natural in artificial life, in the most elaborate cases, if anything, only atoms remain natural. Juan David Garcia Bacca summarized, “It will not come out from wood, it will not be born, a galley; from clay, a vessel; from linen, a dress; from iron, a lever,...From natural, artificial. In the artificial, the natural is reduced to a simple raw material, even though it is perfectly specified with natural specification. The artificial is the real, positive, and original negation of the natural: of species, of genus and of essence. Thus, its ontology is superior to natural ontology. And for this very reason Marx did not attach any importance to Darwin, whose evolutionism is confined to the natural order: to changes, at most, from variety to variety, from species to species... natural. For the same reason, nature has no dialectics, even though continuous evolution and selection can occur. The dialectic cannot emerge from the natural, for deeper reasons than, using today's terms, from a bird, an airplane cannot emerge; from fish, a submarine; from ears, a telephone; from eyes, a television; from a brain, a digital computer; from feet, a car; from hands, an engine; from Euclid, Descartes; from Aristotle, Newton; from Plato, Marx.” According to García Bacca, the major difference between natural causes and artificial causes is that nature does not have plans and projects, while humans design things following plans and projects. In contrast, other influential authors such as Michael Behe have depicted the concept and promoted the idea of intelligent design, a notion that has aroused several doubts and heated controversies, as it reframe natural causes in accordance with a natural plan. Previous ideas that have also provided a positive 'sense' to natural reproduction, are orthogenesis, syntropy, orgone and morphic resonance, among others. Although, these ideas have been historically marginalized and often called pseudoscience, recently Bio-semioticians are reconsidering some of them under symbolic approaches. Current metaphysics of science actually recognizes that the artificial ways of reproduction are diverse from nature, i.e., unnatural, anti-natural or supernatural. Because Biosemiotics does not focus on the function of life but on its meaning, it has a better understanding of the artificial than classic biology. == Science == Biology, being the study of cellular life, addresses reproduction in terms of growth and cellular division (i.e., binary fission, mitosis and meiosis); however, the science of artificial reproduction is not restricted by the mirroring of these natural processes.The science of artificial reproduction is actually transcending the natural forms, and natural rules, of reproduction. For example, xenobots have redefined the classical conception of reproduction. Although xenobots are made of eukariotic cells they do not reproduce by mitosis, but rather by kinematic replication. Such constructive replication does not involve growing but rather building. == Assisted reproductive technologies == Assisted reproductive technology (ART)'s purpose is to assist the development of a human embryo, commonly because of medical concerns due to fertility limitations. == Non-assisted reproductive technologies == Non-assisted reproductive technologies (NART) could have medical motivations but are mostly driven by a wider heterotopic ambition. Although, NARTs are initially designed by humans, they are programed to become independent of humans to a relative or absolute extent. James Lovelock proposed that such novelties could overcome humans. === Artificial cloning === Cloning is the cellular reproductive processes where two or more genetically identical organisms are created, either by natural or artificial means. Artificial cloning normally involves editing the genetic code, somatic cell nuclear transfer and 3D bioprinting. === Non-assisted artificial womb === A non-assisted artificial womb or artificial uterus is a device that allow for ectogenesis or extracorporeal pregnancy by growing an embryonic form outside the body of an organism (that would normally carry the embryo to term) without any human assistance. The aspect of non-assistance is the key distinction between the current artificial womb technology (AWT) in modern medical research, which still relies on human assistance. With this non-assisted hypothetical technology, a zygote or stem cells are used to create an embryo that is then incubated and monitored by artificial intelligence (AI) within a chamber composed of biocompatible material. The AI maintains the necessary conditions for the embryo to develop and thrive, proceeding to mimic organic labor and childbirth in order to best help the embryo adjust to the outside world. Ectogenesis—gestation, depicted in the science fiction movie The Matrix, is a fast approaching reality. This type of innovation presupposes that vertebrate wombs are not the only way for bearing humans or other similar forms of life. === Kinematic replication === Self-replication without binary fission, meiosis, mitosis (or any other form of cellular reproduction that involves division and growing) can be achieved. Xenobots are an example of kinematic replication. They are biobots, named after the African clawed frog (Xenopus laevis). Xenobots are cellular life forms designed by using artificial intelligence to build more of themselves by combining frog cells in a liquid medium. The term kinematic replication is usually reserved for biomolecules (e.g. DNA, RNA, prions, etc.) and artificially designed cellular forms (e.g. xenobots). === Machine constructive replication === Machine constructive replication mimics human traditional manufacturing but is entirely self-automated. Such constructive replication is a more general form of kinematic replication, which does not necessarily

  Read more →
• 

  Relational data mining

  Relational data mining is the data mining technique for relational databases. Unlike traditional data mining algorithms, which look for patterns in a single table (propositional patterns), relational data mining algorithms look for patterns among multiple tables (relational patterns). For most types of propositional patterns, there are corresponding relational patterns. For example, there are relational classification rules (relational classification), relational regression tree, and relational association rules. There are several approaches to relational data mining: Inductive Logic Programming (ILP) Statistical Relational Learning (SRL) Graph Mining Propositionalization Multi-view learning == Algorithms == Multi-Relation Association Rules: Multi-Relation Association Rules (MRAR) is a new class of association rules which in contrast to primitive, simple and even multi-relational association rules (that are usually extracted from multi-relational databases), each rule item consists of one entity but several relations. These relations indicate indirect relationship between the entities. Consider the following MRAR where the first item consists of three relations live in, nearby and humid: “Those who live in a place which is near by a city with humid climate type and also are younger than 20 -> their health condition is good”. Such association rules are extractable from RDBMS data or semantic web data. == Software == Safarii: a Data Mining environment for analysing large relational databases based on a multi-relational data mining engine. Dataconda: a software, free for research and teaching purposes, that helps mining relational databases without the use of SQL. == Datasets == Relational dataset repository: a collection of publicly available relational datasets.

  Read more →
• 

  Information retrieval

  Information retrieval (IR) in computing and information science is the task of identifying and retrieving information system resources that are relevant to an information need. The information need can be specified in the form of a search query. In the case of document retrieval, queries can be based on full-text or other content-based indexing. Information retrieval is the science of searching for information in a document, searching for documents themselves, and also searching for the metadata that describes data, and for databases of texts, images, or sounds. Cross-modal retrieval implies retrieval across modalities. Automated information retrieval systems are used to reduce what has been called information overload. An IR system is a software system that provides access to books, journals, and other documents, as well as storing and managing those documents. Web search engines are the most visible IR applications. == Overview == An information retrieval process begins when a user enters a query into the system. Queries are formal statements of information needs, for example search strings in web search engines. In information retrieval, a query does not uniquely identify a single object in the collection. Instead, several objects may match the query, perhaps with different degrees of relevance. An object is an entity that is represented by information in a content collection or database. User queries are matched against the database information. However, as opposed to classical SQL queries of a database, in information retrieval the results returned may or may not match the query, so results are typically ranked. This ranking of results is a key difference of information retrieval searching compared to database searching. Depending on the application the data objects may be, for example, text documents, images, audio, mind maps or videos. Often the documents themselves are not kept or stored directly in the IR system, but are instead represented in the system by document surrogates or metadata. Most IR systems compute a numeric score on how well each object in the database matches the query, and rank the objects according to this value. The top ranking objects are then shown to the user. The process may then be iterated if the user wishes to refine the query. == History == there is ... a machine called the Univac ... whereby letters and figures are coded as a pattern of magnetic spots on a long steel tape. By this means the text of a document, preceded by its subject code symbol, can be recorded ... the machine ... automatically selects and types out those references which have been coded in any desired way at a rate of 120 words a minute The idea of using computers to search for relevant pieces of information was popularized in the article As We May Think by Vannevar Bush in 1945. It would appear that Bush was inspired by patents for a 'statistical machine' – filed by Emanuel Goldberg in the 1920s and 1930s – that searched for documents stored on film. The first description of a computer searching for information was described by Holmstrom in 1948, detailing an early mention of the Univac computer. Automated information retrieval systems were introduced in the 1950s: one even featured in the 1957 romantic comedy Desk Set. In the 1960s, the first large information retrieval research group was formed by Gerard Salton at Cornell. By the 1970s several different retrieval techniques had been shown to perform well on small text corpora such as the Cranfield collection (several thousand documents). Large-scale retrieval systems, such as the Lockheed Dialog system, came into use early in the 1970s. In 1992, the US Department of Defense along with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), cosponsored the Text Retrieval Conference (TREC) as part of the TIPSTER text program. The aim of this was to look into the information retrieval community by supplying the infrastructure that was needed for evaluation of text retrieval methodologies on a very large text collection. This catalyzed research on methods that scale to huge corpora. The introduction of web search engines has boosted the need for very large scale retrieval systems even further. By the late 1990s, the rise of the World Wide Web fundamentally transformed information retrieval. While early search engines such as AltaVista (1995) and Yahoo! (1994) offered keyword-based retrieval, they were limited in scale and ranking refinement. The breakthrough came in 1998 with the founding of Google, which introduced the PageRank algorithm, using the web's hyperlink structure to assess page importance and improve relevance ranking. During the 2000s, web search systems evolved rapidly with the integration of machine learning techniques. These systems began to incorporate user behavior data (e.g., click-through logs), query reformulation, and content-based signals to improve search accuracy and personalization. In 2009, Microsoft launched Bing, introducing features that would later incorporate semantic web technologies through the development of its Satori knowledge base. Academic analysis have highlighted Bing's semantic capabilities, including structured data use and entity recognition, as part of a broader industry shift toward improving search relevance and understanding user intent through natural language processing. A major leap occurred in 2018, when Google deployed BERT (Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers) to better understand the contextual meaning of queries and documents. This marked one of the first times deep neural language models were used at scale in real-world retrieval systems. BERT's bidirectional training enabled a more refined comprehension of word relationships in context, improving the handling of natural language queries. Because of its success, transformer-based models gained traction in academic research and commercial search applications. Simultaneously, the research community began exploring neural ranking models that outperformed traditional lexical-based methods. Long-standing benchmarks such as the Text REtrieval Conference (TREC), initiated in 1992, and more recent evaluation frameworks Microsoft MARCO(MAchine Reading COmprehension) (2019) became central to training and evaluating retrieval systems across multiple tasks and domains. MS MARCO has also been adopted in the TREC Deep Learning Tracks, where it serves as a core dataset for evaluating advances in neural ranking models within a standardized benchmarking environment. As deep learning became integral to information retrieval systems, researchers began to categorize neural approaches into three broad classes: sparse, dense, and hybrid models. Sparse models, including traditional term-based methods and learned variants like SPLADE, rely on interpretable representations and inverted indexes to enable efficient exact term matching with added semantic signals. Dense models, such as dual-encoder architectures like ColBERT, use continuous vector embeddings to support semantic similarity beyond keyword overlap. Hybrid models aim to combine the advantages of both, balancing the lexical (token) precision of sparse methods with the semantic depth of dense models. This way of categorizing models balances scalability, relevance, and efficiency in retrieval systems. As IR systems increasingly rely on deep learning, concerns around bias, fairness, and explainability have also come to the picture. Research is now focused not just on relevance and efficiency, but on transparency, accountability, and user trust in retrieval algorithms. == Applications == Areas where information retrieval techniques are employed include (the entries are in alphabetical order within each category): === General applications === Digital libraries Information filtering Recommender systems Media search Blog search Image retrieval 3D retrieval Music retrieval News search Speech retrieval Video retrieval Search engines Site search Desktop search Enterprise search Federated search Mobile search Social search Web search === Domain-specific applications === Expert search finding Genomic information retrieval Geographic information retrieval Information retrieval for chemical structures Information retrieval in software engineering Legal information retrieval Vertical search === Other retrieval methods === Methods/Techniques in which information retrieval techniques are employed include: Cross-modal retrieval Adversarial information retrieval Automatic summarization Multi-document summarization Compound term processing Cross-lingual retrieval Document classification Spam filtering Question answering == Model types == In order to effectively retrieve relevant documents by IR strategies, the documents are typically transformed into a suitable representation. Each retrieval strategy incorporates a specific model for its document representation purposes. The picture on the right illustrates the relationship of som

  Read more →
• 

  World model (artificial intelligence)

  A world model in artificial intelligence is a machine learning system that builds an internal representation of an environment. The model predicts how that environment changes over time in response to actions. Researchers design world models to help agents plan, reason, and act without constant real-world trial and error. World models differ from systems that merely classify or generate outputs. They simulate dynamics such as physics, object interactions, and causality. Early ideas date to the 1990s. Modern versions power robots, autonomous driving, and interactive video generation. == History == Jürgen Schmidhuber introduced the term world model in machine learning in 1990. He proposed recurrent neural networks that predict future states from observations and use those predictions to train agents. David Ha and Schmidhuber revived the concept in a 2018 paper. Their agents learned to drive virtual cars and play video games inside self-generated simulations. Yann LeCun advanced the idea in a 2022 position paper titled "A Path Towards Autonomous Machine Intelligence". He argued that intelligence requires predictive models of the world rather than pure pattern matching. LeCun proposed the joint embedding predictive architecture (JEPA) as a practical foundation. LeCun and collaborators developed several JEPA variants. V-JEPA 2 reached state-of-the-art performance on video understanding and physical reasoning at the time. It supports zero-shot robot control in unfamiliar environments. Introduced in March 2026, LeWorldModel trains stably end-to-end from raw pixels and uses two loss terms and avoids hand-crafted heuristics. LeCun founded Advanced Machine Intelligence Labs in 2026 to further develop world models. Google DeepMind introduced Genie in 2024. The model learned interactive environments from unlabeled internet videos. Genie 2 followed in late 2024 and added three-dimensional generation. The Genie series set benchmarks for general-purpose simulation. Genie 3 was introduced in August 2025. It produces photorealistic, real-time interactive worlds from text prompts which are displayed at 24 frames per second and explored in real time with text or image prompts. The model supports persistent three-dimensional worlds and real-time interaction. Waymo adopted Genie 3 in February 2026 and used it to create a specialized world model for autonomous driving simulation, called the Waymo World Model. It produces synchronized camera and lidar outputs and creates edge cases that real robotaxis rarely encounter. The edge cases were reported to be unusual by PCMag. General Intuition announced a $133.7 million seed round. World Labs raised $1 billion. AMI raised $1.03 billion. In April 2026, Alibaba announced Happy Oyster, its world model designed for real-time and “flowy” world model. It includes a directing mode for world building based on text and image prompts and a wandering mode for exploring the resulting world. It can generate 3-minute in-world video clips. Also in April, World Labs, co-founded by Li Fei Fei, unveiled Spark 2.0, an open-source 3D Gaussian splatting rendering engine that targets smartphone-class devices. In June 2026, Nvidia released Cosmos 3, a family of open-weight models. It combines previously independent physical reasoning, world simulation, and action generation. Cosmos 3 integrates can process and generate text, image, video, audio, and action sequences. The model employs a Mixture-of-Transformers" (MoT) approach. An autoregressive (AR) transformer handles reasoning and next-token prediction, while a diffusion transformer (DT) does multimodal generation. Encoders (ViT for vision, VAE for visual/audio, and domain-specific for actions) and generate a shared representation space using 3D multi-dimensional rotary position embedding (mRoPE) for spatial and temporal information. The family includes Cosmos3-Nano (16B parameters) for workstations; Cosmos3-Super (64B parameters) for research. == Architecture == World models process raw sensory data such as video frames or lidar scans. They compress this input into compact latent representations. The system then predicts future representations rather than pixel-by-pixel reconstructions. Many modern world models use joint embedding predictive architecture (JEPA). An encoder turns observations into embeddings. A predictor estimates one or a suite of embeddings from the current one and an action. In some cases a critic chooses one embedding as the best result. A regularizer keeps embeddings well-behaved. The model trains by minimizing prediction error in embedding space. This approach avoids the high cost of generating every detail. Some architectures add explicit components. A fast reactive path handles immediate responses. A slower deliberative path performs longer-horizon planning. Video prediction accuracy or robot success rates are key metrics, but do not always predict real-world performance. Generative world models such as Genie 3 combine these with a simulator. They accept text prompts or layouts and output consistent video, lidar, or three-dimensional scenes. World models often train with self-supervised learning. They use large unlabeled datasets of video or robot interactions. Self-supervised learning can speed learning. Reinforcement learning can fine-tune a model for specific tasks. == Applications == World models support robot learning. Agents train inside simulations and transfer skills to the physical world. This reduces the need for dangerous or expensive real-world trials. Autonomous vehicles use world models to test rare events. Waymo's system simulates tornadoes or unusual pedestrian behavior. Companies train planners without putting vehicles on public roads. Interactive entertainment benefits from world models. Genie 3 lets users generate playable environments from simple descriptions. Game studios prototype levels faster. Scientific simulation gains from these models. Researchers model physical systems or biological processes at scale. Planners in logistics or urban design test strategies inside accurate digital twins. == Comparison with large language models == Both world models and large language models (LLMs) use inferencing on their inputs to make predictions. LLMs operate on textual inputs. They predict the next token in text sequences. They excel at language-oriented tasks such as translation or summarization. However, they lack understanding of physics. World models operate on sensor inputs such as pixels. They predict state changes in that data in latent space. This design supports planning and causal reasoning. LLMs generate fluent text but often fail at consistent physical predictions. Their architecture employs transformers with refinements such as mixture of experts. World models divide an inferencing task into work performed by encoders, predictors, simulators, and other pieces. They typically handle multimodal inputs such as video, lidar, radar, and audio, guided by textual prompting. LLMs power chatbots and code assistants. World models drive embodied agents that act in dynamic environments, such as autonomous driving. The two may be combined in hybrid systems. For example, a LLM handles instructions, while a world model manages low-level control. World model proponents such as LeCun claim that because LLMs are trained only on text, they have no ability to predict anything beyond text, such as real-world events. == Benchmarks == World model benchmarks test physical understanding, long-term consistency, planning, and generalization from sensor data. Meta introduced three benchmarks for V-JEPA 2. IntPhys 2 measures a model's ability to detect physics violations. It presents pairs of videos that diverge when one breaks physical rules. Humans score near 100% accuracy. V-JEPA 2 achieves little better than random chance on many conditions. Minimal Video Pairs (MVPBench) tests physical understanding through multiple-choice questions based on short video clips. It probes object interactions and causality. Something-Something tests action recognition. Epic-Kitchens-100 tests human action anticipation. DeepMind benchmark: Interactive evaluation measures consistency over minutes of interaction, memory of off-screen objects, and response to user actions or text prompts. Waymo benchmark: Output generation quality: Metrics include realism, controllability (via text prompts), and usefulness for training planners in simulated worlds. However, pixel reconstruction error rate with episodic rewards often fails. Other: Epic-Kitchens-100 (often measured with Recall@5) Ego4D 50 Salads, Breakfast, etc. Potential benchmarks: Zero-shot transfer to robots Long-horizon planning Implausible prediction rate

  Read more →
• 

  Data preprocessing

  Data preprocessing can refer to manipulation, filtration or augmentation of data before it is analyzed, and is often an important step in the data mining process. Data collection methods are often loosely controlled, resulting in out-of-range values, impossible data combinations, and missing values, amongst other issues. Preprocessing is the process by which unstructured data is transformed into intelligible representations suitable for machine-learning models. This phase of model deals with noise in order to arrive at better and improved results from the original data set which was noisy. This dataset also has some level of missing value present in it. The preprocessing pipeline used can often have large effects on the conclusions drawn from the downstream analysis. Thus, representation and quality of data is necessary before running any analysis. If there is a high proportion of irrelevant and redundant information present or noisy and unreliable data, then knowledge discovery during the training phase may be more difficult. Data preparation and filtering steps can take a considerable amount of processing time. Examples of methods used in data preprocessing include cleaning, instance selection, normalization, one-hot encoding, data transformation, feature extraction and feature selection. == Applications == === Data mining === Data preprocessing allows for the removal of unwanted data with the use of data cleaning, this allows the user to have a dataset to contain more valuable information after the preprocessing stage for data manipulation later in the data mining process. Editing such dataset to either correct data corruption or human error is a crucial step to get accurate quantifiers like true positives, true negatives, false positives and false negatives found in a confusion matrix that are commonly used for a medical diagnosis. Users are able to join data files together and use preprocessing to filter any unnecessary noise from the data which can allow for higher accuracy. Users use Python programming scripts accompanied by the pandas library which gives them the ability to import data from a comma-separated values as a data-frame. The data-frame is then used to manipulate data that can be challenging otherwise to do in Excel. Pandas (software) which is a powerful tool that allows for data analysis and manipulation; which makes data visualizations, statistical operations and much more, a lot easier. Many also use the R programming language to do such tasks as well. The reason why a user transforms existing files into a new one is because of many reasons. Aspects of data preprocessing may include imputing missing values, aggregating numerical quantities and transforming continuous data into categories (data binning). More advanced techniques like principal component analysis and feature selection are working with statistical formulas and are applied to complex datasets which are recorded by GPS trackers and motion capture devices. === Semantic data preprocessing === Semantic data mining is a subset of data mining that specifically seeks to incorporate domain knowledge, such as formal semantics, into the data mining process. Domain knowledge is the knowledge of the environment the data was processed in. Domain knowledge can have a positive influence on many aspects of data mining, such as filtering out redundant or inconsistent data during the preprocessing phase. Domain knowledge also works as constraint. It does this by using working as set of prior knowledge to reduce the space required for searching and acting as a guide to the data. Simply put, semantic preprocessing seeks to filter data using the original environment of said data more correctly and efficiently. There are increasingly complex problems which are asking to be solved by more elaborate techniques to better analyze existing information. Instead of creating a simple script for aggregating different numerical values into a single value, it make sense to focus on semantic based data preprocessing. The idea is to build a dedicated ontology, which explains on a higher level what the problem is about. In regards to semantic data mining and semantic pre-processing, ontologies are a way to conceptualize and formally define semantic knowledge and data. The Protégé (software) is the standard tool for constructing an ontology. In general, the use of ontologies bridges the gaps between data, applications, algorithms, and results that occur from semantic mismatches. As a result, semantic data mining combined with ontology has many applications where semantic ambiguity can impact the usefulness and efficiency of data systems. Applications include the medical field, language processing, banking, and even tutoring, among many more. There are various strengths to using a semantic data mining and ontological based approach. As previously mentioned, these tools can help during the per-processing phase by filtering out non-desirable data from the data set. Additionally, well-structured formal semantics integrated into well designed ontologies can return powerful data that can be easily read and processed by machines. A specifically useful example of this exists in the medical use of semantic data processing. As an example, a patient is having a medical emergency and is being rushed to hospital. The emergency responders are trying to figure out the best medicine to administer to help the patient. Under normal data processing, scouring all the patient’s medical data to ensure they are getting the best treatment could take too long and risk the patients’ health or even life. However, using semantically processed ontologies, the first responders could save the patient’s life. Tools like a semantic reasoner can use ontology to infer the what best medicine to administer to the patient is based on their medical history, such as if they have a certain cancer or other conditions, simply by examining the natural language used in the patient's medical records. This would allow the first responders to quickly and efficiently search for medicine without having worry about the patient’s medical history themselves, as the semantic reasoner would already have analyzed this data and found solutions. In general, this illustrates the incredible strength of using semantic data mining and ontologies. They allow for quicker and more efficient data extraction on the user side, as the user has fewer variables to account for, since the semantically pre-processed data and ontology built for the data have already accounted for many of these variables. However, there are some drawbacks to this approach. Namely, it requires a high amount of computational power and complexity, even with relatively small data sets. This could result in higher costs and increased difficulties in building and maintaining semantic data processing systems. This can be mitigated somewhat if the data set is already well organized and formatted, but even then, the complexity is still higher when compared to standard data processing. Below is a simple a diagram combining some of the processes, in particular semantic data mining and their use in ontology. The diagram depicts a data set being broken up into two parts: the characteristics of its domain, or domain knowledge, and then the actual acquired data. The domain characteristics are then processed to become user understood domain knowledge that can be applied to the data. Meanwhile, the data set is processed and stored so that the domain knowledge can applied to it, so that the process may continue. This application forms the ontology. From there, the ontology can be used to analyze data and process results. Fuzzy preprocessing is another, more advanced technique for solving complex problems. Fuzzy preprocessing and fuzzy data mining make use of fuzzy sets. These data sets are composed of two elements: a set and a membership function for the set which comprises 0 and 1. Fuzzy preprocessing uses this fuzzy data set to ground numerical values with linguistic information. Raw data is then transformed into natural language. Ultimately, fuzzy data mining's goal is to help deal with inexact information, such as an incomplete database. Currently fuzzy preprocessing, as well as other fuzzy based data mining techniques see frequent use with neural networks and artificial intelligence.

  Read more →
• 

  STIT logic

  STIT logic (from seeing to it that) is a family of modal and branching-time logics for reasoning about agency and choice. A typical STIT operator has the form [ i s t i t : φ ] {\displaystyle [i\ {\mathsf {stit}}:\varphi ]} , usually read as "agent i {\displaystyle i} sees to it that φ {\displaystyle \varphi } ", and is interpreted in models where agents choose between alternative possible futures. STIT logics are used in action theory, deontic logic, epistemic logic, and the theory of intelligent agents to formalise notions such as "could have done otherwise", responsibility, joint action, and strategic ability in an indeterministic world. == Etymology == The acronym STIT comes from the English phrase "seeing to it that", introduced in influential work by Nuel Belnap and Michael Perloff on the logical analysis of agentive expressions. In this tradition, "to see to it that φ {\displaystyle \varphi } " is treated as a primitive agency operator, rather than being reduced to ordinary modal necessity. == History == Modern STIT logic arose in the 1980s in the context of branching-time semantics and formal theories of agency. Belnap and Perloff's article "Seeing to it that: A canonical form for agentives" introduced the idea of treating expressions of the form "agent i sees to it that φ" as a primitive modal operator, and analysed such sentences using a branching tree of moments and histories. This approach was further developed in a series of papers on indeterminism and agency and provided the conceptual core for later STIT formalisms. In the 1990s the basic formal systems of STIT logic were worked out. Horty and Belnap's influential paper on the deliberative STIT operator distinguished between a "Chellas" STIT that merely records the result of an agent's present choice and a "deliberative" STIT that requires the agent's choice to make a difference, and connected STIT with issues of action, omission, ability and obligation. Around the same time, Ming Xu proved completeness and decidability results for basic STIT systems, including a single-agent logic with Kripke-style semantics and axiomatizations for multi-agent deliberative STIT, thereby establishing STIT as a well-behaved normal modal framework. This early work was systematised in Belnap, Perloff and Xu's monograph Facing the Future: Agents and Choices in Our Indeterminist World, which presents a general branching-time semantics for individual and group STIT operators, discusses independence-of-agents conditions and articulates the metaphysical picture of an indeterministic "tree" of moments. At roughly the same time, Horty's book Agency and Deontic Logic developed deontic STIT logics in which obligations are tied to agents' available choices rather than to static states of affairs, and used the resulting systems to analyse "ought implies can", contrary-to-duty obligations and deontic paradoxes. These works helped to position STIT at the intersection of action theory, temporal logic and deontic logic. From the late 1990s and 2000s onward, STIT logics were combined with epistemic, temporal and strategic modalities. Broersen introduced complete STIT logics for knowledge and action and deontic-epistemic STIT systems that distinguish different modes of mens rea, with applications to responsibility and the specification of multi-agent systems. Work on group and coalitional agency investigated axiomatisations and complexity results for group STIT logics, and related STIT-based analyses of agency to coalition logic and alternating-time temporal logic (ATL) by exhibiting formal embeddings between the frameworks. Explicit temporal operators were added to STIT in so-called temporal STIT logics. Lorini proposed a temporal STIT with "next" and "until" operators along histories and showed how it can be applied to normative reasoning about ongoing behaviour and commitments. Ciuni and Lorini compared different semantics for temporal STIT, clarifying the relationships between branching-time, game-based and epistemic approaches, while Boudou and Lorini gave a semantics for temporal STIT based on concurrent game structures, thus strengthening links with standard models of multi-agent interaction used for ATL and strategy logic. In parallel, complexity-theoretic work by Balbiani, Herzig and Troquard and by Schwarzentruber and co-authors investigated the satisfiability and model-checking problems for various STIT fragments, showing for instance that many expressive group STIT logics are undecidable or of high computational complexity. In the 2010s, STIT ideas were combined with justification logic, imagination operators and refined deontic notions. Justification STIT logics, developed by Olkhovikov and others, merge explicit justifications with STIT-style agency so that producing a proof can itself be treated as an action that brings about knowledge, and they come with completeness and decidability results. Olkhovikov and Wansing introduced STIT imagination logics, together with axiomatic systems and tableau calculi, to model acts of voluntary imagining and their role in doxastic control. Other authors have proposed STIT-based logics of responsibility, blameworthiness and intentionality for use in philosophical and AI settings. Xu's survey article "Combinations of STIT with Ought and Know" (2015) reviews many of these developments and emphasises the interplay between deontic and epistemic STIT logics. Current research on STIT focuses on proof theory, automated reasoning and richer expressive resources. Lyon and van Berkel, building on earlier work on labelled calculi for STIT, have developed cut-free sequent systems and proof-search algorithms that yield syntactic decision procedures for a range of deontic and non-deontic multi-agent STIT logics and support applications such as duty checking and compliance checking in autonomous systems. Sawasaki has proposed first-order cstit-based STIT logics that can distinguish de re and de dicto readings of agency statements and has proved strong completeness results for Hilbert systems over finite models, moving the STIT programme beyond the purely propositional level. Further work investigates interpreted-system and computationally grounded semantics for STIT and its extensions in order to model the behaviour of autonomous agents in multi-agent settings, and proposes STIT-based semantics for epistemic notions based on patterns of information disclosure in interactive systems. == Branching-time semantics == STIT logics are usually interpreted over branching-time models. A standard STIT frame consists of: a non-empty set of moments T {\displaystyle T} , partially ordered by < {\displaystyle <} so that ( T , < ) {\displaystyle (T,<)} forms a tree (every pair of moments with a common predecessor has a greatest lower bound); a set of histories, each history being a maximal linearly ordered subset of T {\displaystyle T} ; a non-empty set of agents A g {\displaystyle Ag} ; for each agent i ∈ A g {\displaystyle i\in Ag} and moment m {\displaystyle m} , a choice function c h o i c e i m {\displaystyle {\mathsf {choice}}_{i}^{m}} that partitions the set of histories passing through m {\displaystyle m} into choice cells. The idea is that a moment represents a time at which choices are made, and histories represent complete possible future courses of events. At each moment, each agent's choice corresponds to selecting one of the available cells of histories determined by their choice function. Formulas are evaluated at pairs ( m , h ) {\displaystyle (m,h)} of a moment and a history through that moment (sometimes written m / h {\displaystyle m/h} ). A valuation assigns truth-values to atomic propositions at such indices; Boolean connectives are interpreted pointwise as in Kripke-style modal logic. == Chellas and deliberative STIT operators == Several STIT operators have been distinguished in the literature. A common approach uses two closely related operators, often called Chellas STIT and deliberative STIT. Let H m {\displaystyle H_{m}} be the set of histories passing through a moment m {\displaystyle m} , and write H m {\displaystyle H_{m}} ⟦ φ ⟧ m = { h ∈ H m ∣ M , m / h ⊨ φ } {\displaystyle {\text{⟦}}\varphi {\text{⟧}}_{m}=\{h\in H_{m}\mid M,m/h\models \varphi \}} for the set of histories at m {\displaystyle m} where φ {\displaystyle \varphi } holds. The Chellas STIT operator, often written [ i c s t i t : φ ] {\displaystyle [i\ {\mathsf {cstit}}:\varphi ]} , is given by M , m / h ⊨ [ i c s t i t : φ ] iff c h o i c e i m ( h ) ⊆ ⟦ φ ⟧ m . {\displaystyle M,m/h\models [i\ {\mathsf {cstit}}:\varphi ]\quad {\text{iff}}\quad {\mathsf {choice}}_{i}^{m}(h)\subseteq {\text{⟦}}\varphi {\text{⟧}}_{m}.} Intuitively, agent i {\displaystyle i} sees to it that φ {\displaystyle \varphi } if φ {\displaystyle \varphi } holds at all histories compatible with their present choice. The deliberative STIT operator, [ i d s t i t : φ ] {\displaystyle [i\ {\mathsf {dstit}}:\varphi ]} , adds

  Read more →
• 

  IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics

  IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics is a peer-reviewed scientific journal published by the IEEE Computer Society. It covers subjects related to computer graphics and visualization techniques, systems, software, hardware, and user interface issues. TVCG has been considered the top journal in the field of visualization. Since 2011, TVCG has allowed authors to present recently accepted papers at partner conferences. These include: IEEE Visualization (VIS), including VAST, InfoVis, and SciVis. IEEE Virtual Reality Conference (IEEE VR) IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR) ACM Symposium on Interactive 3D Graphics and Games (I3D) IEEE Pacific Visualization Conference (IEEE PacificVis) ACM SIGGRAPH/Eurographics Symposium on Computer Animation (SCA) Eurographics Symposium on Geometry Processing (SGP) Pacific Graphics Conference (PG) Eurovis - The EG and VGTC Conference on Visualization Graphics Interfaces (GI)

  Read more →
• 

  Multi-armed bandit

  In probability theory and machine learning, the multi-armed bandit problem (sometimes called the K- or N-armed bandit problem) is named from imagining a gambler at a row of slot machines (sometimes known as "one-armed bandits"), who has to decide which machines to play, how many times to play each machine and in which order to play them, and whether to continue with the current machine or try a different machine. More generally, it is a problem in which a decision maker iteratively selects one of multiple fixed choices (i.e., arms or actions) when the properties of each choice are only partially known at the time of allocation, and may become better understood as time passes. A fundamental aspect of bandit problems is that choosing an arm does not affect the properties of the arm or other arms. Instances of the multi-armed bandit problem include the task of iteratively allocating a fixed, limited set of resources between competing (alternative) choices in a way that minimizes the regret. A notable alternative setup for the multi-armed bandit problem includes the "best arm identification (BAI)" problem where the goal is instead to identify the best choice by the end of a finite number of rounds. The multi-armed bandit problem is a classic reinforcement learning problem that exemplifies the exploration–exploitation tradeoff dilemma. In contrast to general reinforcement learning, the selected actions in bandit problems do not affect the reward distribution of the arms. The multi-armed bandit problem also falls into the broad category of stochastic scheduling. In the problem, each machine provides a random reward from a probability distribution specific to that machine, that is not known a priori. The objective of the gambler is to maximize the sum of rewards earned through a sequence of lever pulls. The crucial tradeoff the gambler faces at each trial is between "exploitation" of the machine that has the highest expected payoff and "exploration" to get more information about the expected payoffs of the other machines. The trade-off between exploration and exploitation is also faced in machine learning. In practice, multi-armed bandits have been used to model problems such as managing research projects in a large organization, like a science foundation or a pharmaceutical company. In early versions of the problem, the gambler begins with no initial knowledge about the machines. Herbert Robbins in 1952, realizing the importance of the problem, constructed convergent population selection strategies in "some aspects of the sequential design of experiments". A theorem, the Gittins index, first published by John C. Gittins, gives an optimal policy for maximizing the expected discounted reward. == Empirical motivation == The multi-armed bandit problem models an agent that simultaneously attempts to acquire new knowledge (called "exploration") and optimize their decisions based on existing knowledge (called "exploitation"). The agent attempts to balance these competing tasks in order to maximize their total value over the period of time considered. There are many practical applications of the bandit model, for example: clinical trials investigating the effects of different experimental treatments while minimizing patient losses, adaptive routing efforts for minimizing delays in a network, financial portfolio design In these practical examples, the problem requires balancing reward maximization based on the knowledge already acquired with attempting new actions to further increase knowledge. This is known as the exploitation vs. exploration tradeoff in machine learning. The model has also been used to control dynamic allocation of resources to different projects, answering the question of which project to work on, given uncertainty about the difficulty and payoff of each possibility. Originally considered by Allied scientists in World War II, it proved so intractable that, according to Peter Whittle, the problem was proposed to be dropped over Germany so that German scientists could also waste their time on it. The version of the problem now commonly analyzed was formulated by Herbert Robbins in 1952. == The multi-armed bandit model == The multi-armed bandit (short: bandit or MAB) can be seen as a set of real distributions B = { R 1 , … , R K } {\displaystyle B=\{R_{1},\dots ,R_{K}\}} , each distribution being associated with the rewards delivered by one of the K ∈ N + {\displaystyle K\in \mathbb {N} ^{+}} levers. Let μ 1 , … , μ K {\displaystyle \mu _{1},\dots ,\mu _{K}} be the mean values associated with these reward distributions. The gambler iteratively plays one lever per round and observes the associated reward. The objective is to maximize the sum of the collected rewards. The horizon H {\displaystyle H} is the number of rounds that remain to be played. The bandit problem is formally equivalent to a one-state Markov decision process. The regret ρ {\displaystyle \rho } after T {\displaystyle T} rounds is defined as the expected difference between the reward sum associated with an optimal strategy and the sum of the collected rewards: ρ = T μ ∗ − ∑ t = 1 T r ^ t {\displaystyle \rho =T\mu ^{}-\sum _{t=1}^{T}{\widehat {r}}_{t}} , where μ ∗ {\displaystyle \mu ^{}} is the maximal reward mean, μ ∗ = max k { μ k } {\displaystyle \mu ^{}=\max _{k}\{\mu _{k}\}} , and r ^ t {\displaystyle {\widehat {r}}_{t}} is the reward in round t {\displaystyle t} . A zero-regret strategy is a strategy whose average regret per round ρ / T {\displaystyle \rho /T} tends to zero with probability 1 when the number of played rounds tends to infinity. Intuitively, zero-regret strategies are guaranteed to converge to a (not necessarily unique) optimal strategy if enough rounds are played. == Variations == A common formulation is the Binary multi-armed bandit or Bernoulli multi-armed bandit, which issues a reward of one with probability p {\displaystyle p} , and otherwise a reward of zero. Another formulation of the multi-armed bandit has each arm representing an independent Markov machine. Each time a particular arm is played, the state of that machine advances to a new one, chosen according to the Markov state evolution probabilities. There is a reward depending on the current state of the machine. In a generalization called the "restless bandit problem", the states of non-played arms can also evolve over time. There has also been discussion of systems where the number of choices (about which arm to play) increases over time. Computer science researchers have studied multi-armed bandits under worst-case assumptions, obtaining algorithms to minimize regret in both finite and infinite (asymptotic) time horizons for both stochastic and non-stochastic arm payoffs. === Best arm identification === An important variation of the classical regret minimization problem in multi-armed bandits is best arm identification (BAI), also known as pure exploration. This problem is crucial in various applications, including clinical trials, adaptive routing, recommendation systems, and A/B testing. In BAI, the objective is to identify the arm having the highest expected reward. An algorithm in this setting is characterized by a sampling rule, a decision rule, and a stopping rule, described as follows: Sampling rule: ( a t ) t ≥ 1 {\displaystyle (a_{t})_{t\geq 1}} is a sequence of actions at each time step Stopping rule: τ {\displaystyle \tau } is a (random) stopping time which suggests when to stop collecting samples Decision rule: a ^ τ {\displaystyle {\hat {a}}_{\tau }} is a guess on the best arm based on the data collected up to time τ {\displaystyle \tau } There are two predominant settings in BAI: Fixed budget setting: Given a time horizon T ≥ 1 {\displaystyle T\geq 1} , the objective is to identify the arm with the highest expected reward a ⋆ ∈ arg ⁡ max k μ k {\displaystyle a^{\star }\in \arg \max _{k}\mu _{k}} minimizing probability of error δ {\displaystyle \delta } . Fixed confidence setting: Given a confidence level δ ∈ ( 0 , 1 ) {\displaystyle \delta \in (0,1)} , the objective is to identify the arm with the highest expected reward a ⋆ ∈ arg ⁡ max k μ k {\displaystyle a^{\star }\in \arg \max _{k}\mu _{k}} with the least possible amount of trials and with probability of error P ( a ^ τ ≠ a ⋆ ) ≤ δ {\displaystyle \mathbb {P} ({\hat {a}}_{\tau }\neq a^{\star })\leq \delta } . For example using a decision rule, we could use m 1 {\displaystyle m_{1}} where m {\displaystyle m} is the machine no.1 (you can use a different variable respectively) and 1 {\displaystyle 1} is the amount for each time an attempt is made at pulling the lever, where ∫ ∑ m 1 , m 2 , ( . . . ) = M {\displaystyle \int \sum m_{1},m_{2},(...)=M} , identify M {\displaystyle M} as the sum of each attempts m 1 + m 2 {\displaystyle m_{1}+m_{2}} , (...) as needed, and from there you can get a ratio, sum or mean as quantitative probability and sample your formulation for each slots. You can also do ∫ ∑ k ∝ i N − (

  Read more →
• 

  Autognostics

  Autognostics is a new paradigm that describes the capacity for computer networks to be self-aware. It is considered one of the major components of Autonomic Networking. == Introduction == One of the most important characteristics of today's Internet that has contributed to its success is its basic design principle: a simple and transparent core with intelligence at the edges (the so-called "end-to-end principle"). Based on this principle, the network carries data without knowing the characteristics of that data (e.g., voice, video, etc.) - only the end-points have application-specific knowledge. If something goes wrong with the data, only the edge may be able to recognize that since it knows about the application and what the expected behavior is. The core has no information about what should happen with that data - it only forwards packets. Although an effective and beneficial attribute, this design principle has also led to many of today's problems, limitations, and frustrations. Currently, it is almost impossible for most end-users to know why certain network-based applications do not work well and what they need to do to make it better. Also, network operators who interact with the core in low-level terms such as router configuration have problems expressing their high-level goals into low-level actions. In high-level terms, this may be summarized as a weak coupling between the network and application layers of the overall system. As a consequence of the Internet end-to-end principle, the network performance experienced by a particular application is difficult to attribute based on the behavior of the individual elements. At any given moment, the measure of performance between any two points is typically unknown and applications must operate blindly. As a further consequence, changes to the configuration of given element, or changes in the end-to-end path, cannot easily be validated. Optimization and provisioning cannot then be automated except against only the simplest design specifications. There is an increasing interest in Autonomic Networking research, and a strong conviction that an evolution from the current networking status quo is necessary. Although to date there have not been any practical implementations demonstrating the benefits of an effective autonomic networking paradigm, there seems to be a consensus as to the characteristics which such implementations would need to demonstrate. These specifically include continuous monitoring, identifying, diagnosing and fixing problems based on high-level policies and objectives. Autognostics, as a major part of the autonomic networking concept, intends to bring networks to a new level of awareness and eliminate the lack of visibility which currently exists in today's networks. == Definition == Autognostics is a new paradigm that describes the capacity for computer networks to be self-aware, in part and as a whole, and dynamically adapt to the applications running on them by autonomously monitoring, identifying, diagnosing, resolving issues, subsequently verifying that any remediation was successful, and reporting the impact with respect to the application's use (i.e., providing visibility into the changes to networks and their effects). Although similar to the concept of network awareness, i.e., the capability of network devices and applications to be aware of network characteristics (see References section below), it is noteworthy that autognostics takes that concept one step further. The main difference is the auto part of autognostics, which entails that network devices are self-aware of network characteristics, and have the capability to adapt themselves as a result of continuous monitoring and diagnostics. == Path to autognostics == Autognostics, or in other words deep self-knowledge, can be best described as the ability of a network to know itself and the applications that run on it. This knowledge is used to autonomously adapt to dynamic network and application conditions such as utilization, capacity, quality of service/application/user experience, etc. In order to achieve autognosis, networks need a means to: Continuously monitor/test the network for application-specific performance Analyze the monitoring/test data to detect problems (e.g., performance degradation) Diagnose, identify and localize sources of degradation Automatically take actions to resolve problems via remediation/provisioning Verify the problems have been resolved (potentially rolling back changes if ineffective) Subsequently, continue to monitor/test for performance

  Read more →