AI Art Tool Free

AI Art Tool Free — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

Cloud-Based Secure File Transfer

Cloud-Based Secure File Transfer is a managed or hosted file transfer service that provides cloud storage that can be accessed via SSH File Transfer Protocol (SFTP). These services allow secure, reliable file transfers while offering the scalability, redundancy, and high availability of cloud infrastructure. == Technical overview == The evolution of file transfer protocols began with File Transfer Protocol (FTP) and SSH File Transfer Protocol (SFTP). SFTP offered enhanced security through the use of SSH (Secure Shell) encryption, which addressed many of the security concerns associated with traditional FTP. Over time, as businesses increasingly adopted cloud infrastructure, the demand for services that integrate secure file transfer with cloud storage led to the rise of Cloud-Based Secure File Transfer services. These services combine the benefits of secure, encrypted file transfer with the scalability and flexibility of cloud-based storage systems. Traditional on-premises SFTP typically involves setting up and managing physical or virtual servers to handle file transfers. In contrast, Cloud-Based Secure File Transfer utilizes managed cloud infrastructure, such as AWS EC2, Azure VMs, or Google Cloud, to automate scaling, ensure redundancy, and provide high availability. These cloud environments can be configured to automatically scale with demand, enabling businesses to handle large volumes of data transfers without the need for extensive physical hardware. == Features == Scalability and availability: Cloud-Based Secure File Transfer services are inherently scalable, with features like load balancing, multi-region deployments, and auto-scaling groups that adjust resources in response to traffic spikes. This ensures that the system can handle varying workloads and provides continuous availability, even during high-demand periods. Cost-effectiveness: By eliminating the need for physical infrastructure and reducing ongoing server maintenance costs, Cloud-Based Secure File Transfer services offer significant cost savings compared to traditional on-premises services. Cloud providers typically offer pay-as-you-go pricing models, where users only pay for the resources they use, further optimizing costs. Security and compliance: Cloud-Based Secure File Transfer products offer strong security measures, including end-to-end encryption, key management, detailed logging, and auditing. These services are often compliant with industry regulations such as HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act), GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation), and SOC 2 (System and Organization Controls), ensuring that data transfers meet necessary security and privacy standards. == Cloud-Based Secure File Transfer providers == == Uses == Cloud-Based Secure File Transfer is used across various industries to securely transfer sensitive data and integrate into business workflows. In healthcare, Cloud-Based Secure File Transfer is essential for securely transferring electronic Protected Health Information (ePHI), ensuring compliance with regulations like HIPAA. In financial institutions, it is used to protect sensitive financial data during transfer, maintaining privacy and security. Data analytics also benefits from Cloud-Based Secure File Transfer, offering a secure and efficient method for transferring large datasets between systems or partners. Technically, Cloud-Based Secure File Transfer is often integrated into enterprise workflows through automated file transfers, using scripting or APIs. It also plays a key role in cloud backup and disaster recovery, ensuring that files are securely transferred and stored in cloud environments, which supports business continuity. However, businesses must address certain implementation challenges. Despite its secure design, Cloud-Based Secure File Transfer is not immune to risks such as misconfigured SSH keys, improper access control, or inadequate encryption. Regular security audits and careful configuration management are necessary to minimize the risk of data breaches. Additionally, integrating Cloud-Based Secure File Transfer with legacy systems can present challenges, such as incompatible APIs or outdated authentication methods. == Comparisons with related technologies == Cloud-Based Secure File Transfer differs from traditional SFTP primarily in its deployment and management model. Traditional SFTP services are typically hosted on-premises or on virtual servers, requiring manual configuration, ongoing infrastructure maintenance, and security management by in-house IT teams. In contrast, Cloud-Based Secure File Transfer is offered as a Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) service, reducing infrastructure overhead by eliminating the need for dedicated hardware or virtual machines. This model simplifies management through centralized web-based interfaces, automated updates, and built-in scalability. While Cloud-Based Secure File Transfer is focused on providing secure file transfers over the SFTP protocol, Managed File Transfer (MFT) platforms generally support a broader range of protocols, including FTP, FTPS, HTTP/S, and AS2. MFT services often include advanced features such as end-to-end encryption, extensive automation, compliance reporting, and integration with enterprise systems. Cloud-Based Secure File Transfer services may offer some of these features but are typically more lightweight and streamlined, targeting organizations seeking a secure and scalable alternative to traditional SFTP without the full suite of MFT capabilities. As such, Cloud-Based Secure File Transfer can be seen as a specialized subset within the broader managed file transfer ecosystem.
Read more →
Croissant (metadata format)

Croissant is a metadata format design to support sharing of datasets for machine learning applications. It is a platform-agnostic schema used to standardize metadata in data repositories like Hugging Face, kaggle, Dataverse and OpenML. == Structure == Croissant builds upon schema.org, uses primarily JSON-LD, and divides metadata in four "layers": Dataset Metadata, Resource, Structure and Semantic: The Dataset Metadata layer constrains which schema.org properties should be used, including additional properties, linking together the resources (files) of the dataset with general metadata, like licensing and citation information. The Resource layer describes the individual files and sets of those using two new classes, FileObject and FileSet. A FileSet may be a collection of related images. The Structure layer specifies how the files are organized in the dataset. A RecordSet class describes how resources are present, configurations that may very a lot between modality. This specification facilitates interoperability of the datasets. Finally, the Semantic layer adds information for practical reuse of the dataset, such as splits for train, test and validation subsets. It also provides a default extension for metadata related to responsible AI. The use of a standard machine-readable structure increases, for example, the discoverability of datasets in search engines such as Google Dataset Search. == History == Croissant was shared in arXiv in March 2024 and published in the proceedings of NeurIPS 2024. It started as community driven as a MLCommons Croissant Working Group, including stakeholders organizations from academia and industry, including Google, the open data institute, Sage Bionetworks and King's College London. Variations of Croissant are developed to support datasets in different areas of research, such as Geo-Croissant for geospatial datasets. Other technical extensions, such as support for RDF, soon followed.
Read more →
Data-centric AI

Data-centric AI is an approach within artificial intelligence that emphasizes on improving the quality, consistency and representativeness of the data used to train machine learning models, rather than focusing primarily on optimizing model architectures or algorithms. This idea has gained traction as researchers and practitioners have come to believe that many performance limitations of machine learning systems stem from issues such as noisy labels, biased datasets, and lack of coverage in the data. Data-centric AI involves disciplined approach to data cleaning, augmentation, labeling, and governance that improves model performance and reliability in applications such as computer vision, natural language processing, and further.
Read more →
Psychology of reasoning

The psychology of reasoning (also known as the cognitive science of reasoning) is the study of how people reason, often broadly defined as the process of drawing conclusions to inform how people solve problems and make decisions. It overlaps with psychology, philosophy, linguistics, cognitive science, artificial intelligence, logic, and probability theory. Psychological experiments on how humans and other animals reason have been carried out for over 100 years. An enduring question is whether or not people have the capacity to be rational. Current research in this area addresses various questions about reasoning, rationality, judgments, intelligence, relationships between emotion and reasoning, and development. == Everyday reasoning == One of the most obvious areas in which people employ reasoning is with sentences in everyday language. Most experimentation on deduction has been carried out on hypothetical thought, in particular, examining how people reason about conditionals, e.g., If A then B. Participants in experiments make the modus ponens inference, given the indicative conditional If A then B, and given the premise A, they conclude B. However, given the indicative conditional and the minor premise for the modus tollens inference, not-B, about half of the participants in experiments conclude not-A and the remainder concludes that nothing follows. The ease with which people make conditional inferences is affected by context, as demonstrated in the well-known selection task developed by Peter Wason. Participants are better able to test a conditional in an ecologically relevant context, e.g., if the envelope is sealed then it must have a 50 cent stamp on it compared to one that contains symbolic content, e.g., if the letter is a vowel then the number is even. Background knowledge can also lead to the suppression of even the simple modus ponens inference Participants given the conditional if Lisa has an essay to write then she studies late in the library and the premise Lisa has an essay to write make the modus ponens inference 'she studies late in the library', but the inference is suppressed when they are also given a second conditional if the library stays open then she studies late in the library. Interpretations of the suppression effect are controversial Other investigations of propositional inference examine how people think about disjunctive alternatives, e.g., A or else B, and how they reason about negation, e.g., It is not the case that A and B. Many experiments have been carried out to examine how people make relational inferences, including comparisons, e.g., A is better than B. Such investigations also concern spatial inferences, e.g. A is in front of B and temporal inferences, e.g. A occurs before B. Other common tasks include categorical syllogisms, used to examine how people reason about quantifiers such as All or Some, e.g., Some of the A are not B. For example if all A are B and some B are C, what (if anything) follows? == Theories of reasoning == There are several alternative theories of the cognitive processes that human reasoning is based on. One view is that people rely on a mental logic consisting of formal (abstract or syntactic) inference rules similar to those developed by logicians in the propositional calculus. Another view is that people rely on domain-specific or content-sensitive rules of inference. A third view is that people rely on mental models, that is, mental representations that correspond to imagined possibilities. A fourth view is that people compute probabilities. One controversial theoretical issue is the identification of an appropriate competence model, or a standard against which to compare human reasoning. Initially classical logic was chosen as a competence model. Subsequently, some researchers opted for non-monotonic logic and Bayesian probability. Research on mental models and reasoning has led to the suggestion that people are rational in principle but err in practice. Connectionist approaches towards reasoning have also been proposed. Despite the ongoing debate about the cognitive processes involved in human reasoning, recent research has shown that multiple approaches can be useful in modeling human thinking. For instance, studies have found that people's reasoning is often influenced by their prior beliefs, which can be modeled using Bayesian probability theory. Additionally, research on mental models has shown that people tend to reason about problems by constructing multiple mental representations of the situation, which can help them to identify relevant features and make inferences based on their understanding of the problem. Moreover, connectionist approaches to reasoning have also gained attention, which focus on the neural network models that can learn from data and generalize to new situations. == Development of reasoning == It is an active question in psychology how, why, and when the ability to reason develops from infancy to adulthood. Jean Piaget's theory of cognitive development posited general mechanisms and stages in the development of reasoning from infancy to adulthood. According to the neo-Piagetian theories of cognitive development, changes in reasoning with development come from increasing working memory capacity, increasing speed of processing, and enhanced executive functions and control. Increasing self-awareness is also an important factor. In their book The Enigma of Reason, the cognitive scientists Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber put forward an "argumentative" theory of reasoning, claiming that humans evolved to reason primarily to justify our beliefs and actions and to convince others in a social environment. Key evidence for their theory includes the errors in reasoning that solitary individuals are prone to when their arguments are not criticized, such as logical fallacies, and how groups become much better at performing cognitive reasoning tasks when they communicate with one another and can evaluate each other's arguments. Sperber and Mercier offer one attempt to resolve the apparent paradox that the confirmation bias is so strong despite the function of reasoning naively appearing to be to come to veridical conclusions about the world. The study of the development of reasoning abilities is an ongoing area of research in psychology, and multiple factors have been proposed to explain how, why, and when reasoning develops from infancy to adulthood. Recent research has suggested that early experiences and social interactions play a critical role in the development of reasoning abilities. For example, studies have shown that infants as young as six months old can engage in basic logical reasoning, such as reasoning about the relationship between objects and their properties. Furthermore, research has highlighted the importance of parental interaction and cognitive stimulation in the development of children's reasoning abilities. Additionally, studies have suggested that cultural factors, such as educational practices and the emphasis on critical thinking, can also influence the development of reasoning skills across different populations. == Different sorts of reasoning == Philip Johnson-Laird trying to taxonomize thought, distinguished between goal-directed thinking and thinking without goal, noting that association was involved in unrelated reading. He argues that goal directed reasoning can be classified based on the problem space involved in a solution, citing Allen Newell and Herbert A. Simon. Inductive reasoning makes broad generalizations from specific cases or observations. In this process of reasoning, general assertions are made based on past specific pieces of evidence. This kind of reasoning allows the conclusion to be false even if the original statement is true. For example, if one observes a college athlete, one makes predictions and assumptions about other college athletes based on that one observation. Scientists use inductive reasoning to create theories and hypotheses. Philip Johnson-Laird distinguished inductive from deductive reasoning, in that the former creates semantic information while the later does not . In opposition, deductive reasoning is a basic form of valid reasoning. In this reasoning process a person starts with a known claim or a general belief and from there asks what follows from these foundations or how will these premises influence other beliefs. In other words, deduction starts with a hypothesis and examines the possibilities to reach a conclusion. Deduction helps people understand why their predictions are wrong and indicates that their prior knowledge or beliefs are off track. An example of deduction can be seen in the scientific method when testing hypotheses and theories. Although the conclusion usually corresponds and therefore proves the hypothesis, there are some cases where the conclusion is logical, but the generalization is not. For example, the argument, "All young girls wear skirts; Julie is a young
Read more →
Level-set method

The Level-set method (LSM) is a conceptual framework for using level sets as a tool for numerical analysis of surfaces and shapes. LSM can perform numerical computations involving curves and surfaces on a fixed Cartesian grid without having to parameterize these objects. LSM makes it easier to perform computations on shapes with sharp corners and shapes that change topology (such as by splitting in two or developing holes). These characteristics make LSM effective for modeling objects that vary in time, such as an airbag inflating or a drop of oil floating in water. == Overview == The figure on the right illustrates several ideas about LSM. In the upper left corner is a bounded region with a well-behaved boundary. Below it, the red surface is the graph of a level set function φ {\displaystyle \varphi } determining this shape, and the flat blue region represents the X-Y plane. The boundary of the shape is then the zero-level set of φ {\displaystyle \varphi } , while the shape itself is the set of points in the plane for which φ {\displaystyle \varphi } is positive (interior of the shape) or zero (at the boundary). In the top row, the shape's topology changes as it is split in two. It is challenging to describe this transformation numerically by parameterizing the boundary of the shape and following its evolution. An algorithm can be used to detect the moment the shape splits in two and then construct parameterizations for the two newly obtained curves. On the bottom row, however, the plane at which the level set function is sampled is translated upwards, on which the shape's change in topology is described. It is less challenging to work with a shape through its level-set function rather than with itself directly, in which a method would need to consider all the possible deformations the shape might undergo. Thus, in two dimensions, the level-set method amounts to representing a closed curve Γ {\displaystyle \Gamma } (such as the shape boundary in our example) using an auxiliary function φ {\displaystyle \varphi } , called the level-set function. The curve Γ {\displaystyle \Gamma } is represented as the zero-level set of φ {\displaystyle \varphi } by Γ = { ( x , y ) ∣ φ ( x , y ) = 0 } , {\displaystyle \Gamma =\{(x,y)\mid \varphi (x,y)=0\},} and the level-set method manipulates Γ {\displaystyle \Gamma } implicitly through the function φ {\displaystyle \varphi } . This function φ {\displaystyle \varphi } is assumed to take positive values inside the region delimited by the curve Γ {\displaystyle \Gamma } and negative values outside. == The level-set equation == If the curve Γ {\displaystyle \Gamma } moves in the normal direction with a speed v {\displaystyle v} , then by chain rule and implicit differentiation, it can be determined that the level-set function φ {\displaystyle \varphi } satisfies the level-set equation ∂ φ ∂ t = v | ∇ φ | . {\displaystyle {\frac {\partial \varphi }{\partial t}}=v|\nabla \varphi |.} Here, | ⋅ | {\displaystyle |\cdot |} is the Euclidean norm (denoted customarily by single bars in partial differential equations), and t {\displaystyle t} is time. This is a partial differential equation, in particular a Hamilton–Jacobi equation, and can be solved numerically, for example, by using finite differences on a Cartesian grid. However, the numerical solution of the level set equation may require advanced techniques. Simple finite difference methods fail quickly. Upwinding methods such as the Godunov method are considered better; however, the level set method does not guarantee preservation of the volume and shape of the set level in an advection field that maintains shape and size, for example, a uniform or rotational velocity field. Instead, the shape of the level set may become distorted, and the level set may disappear over a few time steps. Therefore, high-order finite difference schemes, such as high-order essentially non-oscillatory (ENO) schemes, are often required, and even then, the feasibility of long-term simulations is questionable. More advanced methods have been developed to overcome this; for example, combinations of the leveling method with tracking marker particles suggested by the velocity field. == Example == Consider a unit circle in R 2 {\textstyle \mathbb {R} ^{2}} , shrinking in on itself at a constant rate, i.e. each point on the boundary of the circle moves along its inwards pointing normally at some fixed speed. The circle will shrink and eventually collapse down to a point. If an initial distance field is constructed (i.e. a function whose value is the signed Euclidean distance to the boundary, positive interior, negative exterior) on the initial circle, the normalized gradient of this field will be the circle normal. If the field has a constant value subtracted from it in time, the zero level (which was the initial boundary) of the new fields will also be circular and will similarly collapse to a point. This is due to this being effectively the temporal integration of the Eikonal equation with a fixed front velocity. == Applications == In mathematical modeling of combustion, LSM is used to describe the instantaneous flame surface, known as the G equation. Level-set data structures have been developed to facilitate the use of the level-set method in computer applications. Computational fluid dynamics Trajectory planning Optimization Image processing Computational biophysics Discrete complex dynamics (visualization of the parameter plane and the dynamic plane) == History == The level-set method was developed in 1979 by Alain Dervieux, and subsequently popularized by Stanley Osher and James Sethian. It has since become popular in many disciplines, such as image processing, computer graphics, computational geometry, optimization, computational fluid dynamics, and computational biology.
Read more →
Algorithmic bias

Algorithmic bias describes systematic and repeatable harmful tendency in a computerized sociotechnical system to create "unfair" outcomes, such as "privileging" one category over another in ways that may or may not be different from the intended function of the algorithm. Bias can emerge from many factors, including intentionally biased design decisions or the unintended or unanticipated use or decisions relating to the way data is coded, collected, selected or used to train the algorithm. For example, algorithmic bias has been observed in search engine results and social media platforms. This bias can have impacts ranging from privacy violations to reinforcing social biases of race, gender, sexuality, and ethnicity. The study of algorithmic bias is most concerned with algorithms that reflect "systematic and unfair" discrimination. This bias has only recently been addressed in legal frameworks, such as the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (enforced in 2018) and the Artificial Intelligence Act (proposed in 2021 and adopted in 2024). As algorithms expand their ability to organize society, politics, institutions, and behavior, sociologists have become concerned with the ways in which unanticipated output and manipulation of data can impact the physical world. Because algorithms are often considered to be neutral and unbiased, they can inaccurately project greater authority than human expertise (in part due to the psychological phenomenon of automation bias), and in some cases, reliance on algorithms can displace human responsibility for their outcomes, without last mile thinking. Bias can enter into algorithmic systems as a result of pre-existing cultural, social, or institutional expectations; by how features and labels are chosen; because of technical limitations of their design; or by being used in unanticipated contexts or by audiences who are not considered in the software's initial design. Algorithmic bias has been cited in cases ranging from election outcomes to the spread of online hate speech. It has also arisen in criminal justice, healthcare, and hiring, compounding existing racial, socioeconomic, and gender biases. The relative inability of facial recognition technology to accurately identify darker-skinned faces has been linked to multiple wrongful arrests of black men, an issue stemming from imbalanced datasets. Problems in understanding, researching, and discovering algorithmic bias persist due to the proprietary nature of algorithms, which are typically treated as trade secrets. Even when full transparency is provided, the complexity of certain algorithms poses a barrier to understanding their functioning. Furthermore, algorithms may change, or respond to input or output in ways that cannot be anticipated or easily reproduced for analysis. In many cases, even within a single website or application, there is no single "algorithm" to examine, but a network of many interrelated programs and data inputs, even between users of the same service. A 2021 survey identified multiple forms of algorithmic bias, including historical, representation, and measurement biases, each of which can contribute to unfair outcomes. == Definitions == Algorithms are difficult to define, but may be generally understood as lists of instructions that determine how programs read, collect, process, and analyze data to generate a usable output. For a rigorous technical introduction, see Algorithms. Advances in computer hardware and software have led to an increased capability to process, store and transmit data. This has in turn made the design and adoption of technologies such as machine learning and artificial intelligence technically and commercially feasible. By analyzing and processing data, algorithms are the backbone of search engines, social media websites, recommendation engines, online retail, online advertising, and more. Contemporary social scientists are concerned with algorithmic processes embedded into hardware and software applications because of their political and social impact, and question the underlying assumptions of an algorithm's neutrality. The term algorithmic bias describes systematic and repeatable errors that create unfair outcomes, such as privileging one arbitrary group of users over others. For example, a credit score algorithm may deny a loan without being unfair, if it is consistently weighing relevant financial criteria. If the algorithm recommends loans to one group of users, but denies loans to another set of nearly identical users based on unrelated criteria, and if this behavior can be repeated across multiple occurrences, an algorithm can be described as biased. This bias may be intentional or unintentional (for example, it can come from biased data obtained from a worker that previously did the job the algorithm is going to do from now on). == Methods == Bias can be introduced to an algorithm in several ways. During the assemblage of a dataset, data may be collected, digitized, adapted, and entered into a database according to human-designed cataloging criteria. Next, programmers assign priorities, or hierarchies, for how a program assesses and sorts that data. This requires human decisions about how data is categorized, and which data is included or discarded. Some algorithms collect their own data based on human-selected criteria, which can also reflect the bias of human designers. Other algorithms may reinforce stereotypes and preferences as they process and display "relevant" data for human users, for example, by selecting information based on previous choices of a similar user or group of users. Beyond assembling and processing data, bias can emerge as a result of design. For example, algorithms that determine the allocation of resources or scrutiny (such as determining school placements) may inadvertently discriminate against a category when determining risk based on similar users (as in credit scores). Meanwhile, recommendation engines that work by associating users with similar users, or that make use of inferred marketing traits, might rely on inaccurate associations that reflect broad ethnic, gender, socio-economic, or racial stereotypes. Another example comes from determining criteria for what is included and excluded from results. These criteria could present unanticipated outcomes for search results, such as with flight-recommendation software that omits flights that do not follow the sponsoring airline's flight paths. Algorithms may also display an uncertainty bias, offering more confident assessments when larger data sets are available. This can skew algorithmic processes toward results that more closely correspond with larger samples, which may disregard data from underrepresented populations. == History == === Early critiques === The earliest computer programs were designed to mimic human reasoning and deductions, and were deemed to be functioning when they successfully and consistently reproduced that human logic. In his 1976 book Computer Power and Human Reason, artificial intelligence pioneer Joseph Weizenbaum suggested that bias could arise both from the data used in a program, but also from the way a program is coded. Weizenbaum wrote that programs are a sequence of rules created by humans for a computer to follow. By following those rules consistently, such programs "embody law", that is, enforce a specific way to solve problems. The rules a computer follows are based on the assumptions of a computer programmer for how these problems might be solved. That means the code could incorporate the programmer's imagination of how the world works, including their biases and expectations. While a computer program can incorporate bias in this way, Weizenbaum also noted that any data fed to a machine additionally reflects "human decision making processes" as data is being selected. Finally, he noted that machines might also transfer good information with unintended consequences if users are unclear about how to interpret the results. Weizenbaum warned against trusting decisions made by computer programs that a user doesn't understand, comparing such faith to a tourist who can find his way to a hotel room exclusively by turning left or right on a coin toss. Crucially, the tourist has no basis of understanding how or why he arrived at his destination, and a successful arrival does not mean the process is accurate or reliable. An early example of algorithmic bias resulted in as many as 60 women and ethnic minorities denied entry to St. George's Hospital Medical School per year from 1982 to 1986, based on implementation of a new computer-guidance assessment system that denied entry to women and men with "foreign-sounding names" based on historical trends in admissions. While many schools at the time employed similar biases in their selection process, St. George was most notable for automating said bias through the use of an algorithm, thus gaining the attention of people on a much
Read more →
Explanation-based learning

Explanation-based learning (EBL) is a form of machine learning that exploits a very strong, or even perfect, domain theory (i.e. a formal theory of an application domain akin to a domain model in ontology engineering, not to be confused with Scott's domain theory) in order to make generalizations or form concepts from training examples. It is also linked with Encoding (memory) to help with Learning. == Details == An example of EBL using a perfect domain theory is a program that learns to play chess through example. A specific chess position that contains an important feature such as "Forced loss of black queen in two moves" includes many irrelevant features, such as the specific scattering of pawns on the board. EBL can take a single training example and determine what are the relevant features in order to form a generalization. A domain theory is perfect or complete if it contains, in principle, all information needed to decide any question about the domain. For example, the domain theory for chess is simply the rules of chess. Knowing the rules, in principle, it is possible to deduce the best move in any situation. However, actually making such a deduction is impossible in practice due to combinatoric explosion. EBL uses training examples to make searching for deductive consequences of a domain theory efficient in practice. In essence, an EBL system works by finding a way to deduce each training example from the system's existing database of domain theory. Having a short proof of the training example extends the domain-theory database, enabling the EBL system to find and classify future examples that are similar to the training example very quickly. The main drawback of the method—the cost of applying the learned proof macros, as these become numerous—was analyzed by Minton. === Basic formulation === EBL software takes four inputs: a hypothesis space (the set of all possible conclusions) a domain theory (axioms about a domain of interest) training examples (specific facts that rule out some possible hypothesis) operationality criteria (criteria for determining which features in the domain are efficiently recognizable, e.g. which features are directly detectable using sensors) == Application == An especially good application domain for an EBL is natural language processing (NLP). Here a rich domain theory, i.e., a natural language grammar—although neither perfect nor complete, is tuned to a particular application or particular language usage, using a treebank (training examples). Rayner pioneered this work. The first successful industrial application was to a commercial NL interface to relational databases. The method has been successfully applied to several large-scale natural language parsing systems, where the utility problem was solved by omitting the original grammar (domain theory) and using specialized LR-parsing techniques, resulting in huge speed-ups, at a cost in coverage, but with a gain in disambiguation. EBL-like techniques have also been applied to surface generation, the converse of parsing. When applying EBL to NLP, the operationality criteria can be hand-crafted, or can be inferred from the treebank using either the entropy of its or-nodes or a target coverage/disambiguation trade-off (= recall/precision trade-off = f-score). EBL can also be used to compile grammar-based language models for speech recognition, from general unification grammars. Note how the utility problem, first exposed by Minton, was solved by discarding the original grammar/domain theory, and that the quoted articles tend to contain the phrase grammar specialization—quite the opposite of the original term explanation-based generalization. Perhaps the best name for this technique would be data-driven search space reduction. Other people who worked on EBL for NLP include Guenther Neumann, Aravind Joshi, Srinivas Bangalore, and Khalil Sima'an.
Read more →
Belief–desire–intention model

For popular psychology, the belief–desire–intention (BDI) model of human practical reasoning was developed by Michael Bratman as a way of explaining future-directed intention. BDI is fundamentally reliant on folk psychology (the 'theory theory'), which is the notion that our mental models of the world are theories. It was used as a basis for developing the belief–desire–intention software model. == Applications == BDI was part of the inspiration behind the BDI software architecture, which Bratman was also involved in developing. Here, the notion of intention was seen as a way of limiting time spent on deliberating about what to do, by eliminating choices inconsistent with current intentions. BDI has also aroused some interest in psychology. BDI formed the basis for a computational model of childlike reasoning CRIBB.
Read more →
Endomondo

Endomondo is a health and wellness website. It allows users to track their health statistics and provides insights on fitness trends. Originally launched in 2007, Endomondo was acquired by Under Armour in 2015. Under Armour shut down Endomondo in 2020, but, by 2024, Endomondo re-launched as its own entity. == History == Endomondo started in Denmark in 2007 by Mette Lykke, Christian Birk and Jakob Nordenhof Jønck. In 2011, the company opened an office in Silicon Valley, USA, but kept its research and development department in Denmark. In 2013, Endomondo LLC was listed in Red Herring as a European finalists for promising start-ups. The same year, Christian Birk and Jakob Nordenhof Jønck left the daily operation of the company, but kept co-ownership. In February 2015, Endomondo LLC was acquired by athletic apparel maker Under Armour for $85 million. Endomondo, at that time, had over 20 million users. In October 2020, Under Armour announced that Endomondo would be shutting down and selling off MyFitnessPal to the private equity firm Francisco Partners for $345 million. Service stopped on 31 December 2020, giving customers until 15 February 2021 to download an archive of their historic data. In 2024, Endomondo.com was brought back online as a professional fitness guidance website. == Features == Endomondo provides numerous workouts, guidance on exercises, performance-enhancing nutrition, and tips. Previously, Endomondo was able to track numerous fitness attributes such as running routes, distance, duration, and calories. The software helped analyze performance and recommend improvements. There was a free and a paid version available of Endomondo. The free version had advertisements. The paid Premium version was free of advertisements and included additional features such as the possibility to create one's own training plan. The offering of additional features was different between the Android, IOS and Windows platforms, and had significantly better features for tracking performance over time than UnderArmours suggested replacement. Endomondo offered challenges of various types to the user and allowed users to create their own challenges.
Read more →
AI-assisted software development

AI-assisted software development is the use of artificial intelligence (AI) to augment software development. It uses large language models (LLMs), AI agents and other AI technologies to assist software developers. It helps in a range of tasks of the software development life cycle, from code generation to debugging, editing, testing, UI design, understanding the code, and documentation. Agentic coding denotes the use of AI agents for software development. == Technologies == === Source code generation === Large language models trained or fine-tuned on source-code corpora can generate source code from natural-language descriptions, comments, or docstrings. Research on code-generation systems often evaluates generated programs by functional correctness, such as whether the output passes automated test cases, rather than by syntax alone. Such tools can be features or extensions of integrated development environments (IDEs). === Intelligent code completion === AI agents using pre-trained and fine-tuned LLMs can predict and suggest code completions based on context. According to Husein, Aburajouh & Catal in a 2025 literature review in Computer Standards & Interfaces, "LLMs significantly enhance code completion performance across several programming languages and contexts, and their capability to predict relevant code snippets based on context and partial input boosts developer productivity substantially." === Testing, debugging, code review and analysis === AI is used to automatically generate test cases, identify potential bugs and security vulnerabilities, and suggest fixes. AI can also be used to perform static code analysis and suggest potential performance improvements. == Limitations == Both ownership of and responsibility for AI-generated code is disputed. According to a report from the German Federal Office for Information Security, the use of AI coding assistants without careful oversight from experienced developers can introduce both minor and major security vulnerabilities, and any potential gain in productivity should be weighed against the cost of additional quality control and security measures. According to Deloitte, outputs from AI-assisted software development must be validated through a combination of automated testing, static analysis tools and human review, creating a governance layer to improve quality and accountability. == Vibe coding ==
Read more →
Solomonoff's theory of inductive inference

Solomonoff's theory of inductive inference proves that, under its common sense assumptions (axioms), the best possible scientific model is the shortest algorithm that generates the empirical data under consideration. In addition to the choice of data, other assumptions are that, to avoid the post-hoc fallacy, the programming language must be chosen prior to the data and that the environment being observed is generated by an unknown algorithm. This is also called a theory of induction. Due to its basis in the dynamical (state-space model) character of Algorithmic Information Theory, it encompasses statistical as well as dynamical information criteria for model selection. It was introduced by Ray Solomonoff, based on probability theory and theoretical computer science. In essence, Solomonoff's induction derives the posterior probability of any computable theory, given a sequence of observed data. This posterior probability is derived from Bayes' rule and some universal prior, that is, a prior that assigns a positive probability to any computable theory. Solomonoff proved that this induction is incomputable (or more precisely, lower semi-computable), but noted that "this incomputability is of a very benign kind", and that it "in no way inhibits its use for practical prediction" (as it can be approximated from below more accurately with more computational resources). It is only "incomputable" in the benign sense that no scientific consensus is able to prove that the best current scientific theory is the best of all possible theories. However, Solomonoff's theory does provide an objective criterion for deciding among the current scientific theories explaining a given set of observations. Solomonoff's induction naturally formalizes Occam's razor by assigning larger prior credences to theories that require a shorter algorithmic description. == Origin == === Philosophical === The theory is based in philosophical foundations, and was founded by Ray Solomonoff around 1960. It is a mathematically formalized combination of Occam's razor and the Principle of Multiple Explanations. All computable theories which perfectly describe previous observations are used to calculate the probability of the next observation, with more weight put on the shorter computable theories. Marcus Hutter's universal artificial intelligence builds upon this to calculate the expected value of an action. === Principle === Solomonoff's induction has been argued to be the computational formalization of pure Bayesianism. To understand, recall that Bayesianism derives the posterior probability P [ T | D ] {\displaystyle \mathbb {P} [T|D]} of a theory T {\displaystyle T} given data D {\displaystyle D} by applying Bayes rule, which yields P [ T | D ] = P [ D | T ] P [ T ] P [ D | T ] P [ T ] + ∑ A ≠ T P [ D | A ] P [ A ] {\displaystyle \mathbb {P} [T|D]={\frac {\mathbb {P} [D|T]\mathbb {P} [T]}{\mathbb {P} [D|T]\mathbb {P} [T]+\sum _{A\neq T}\mathbb {P} [D|A]\mathbb {P} [A]}}} where theories A {\displaystyle A} are alternatives to theory T {\displaystyle T} . For this equation to make sense, the quantities P [ D | T ] {\displaystyle \mathbb {P} [D|T]} and P [ D | A ] {\displaystyle \mathbb {P} [D|A]} must be well-defined for all theories T {\displaystyle T} and A {\displaystyle A} . In other words, any theory must define a probability distribution over observable data D {\displaystyle D} . Solomonoff's induction essentially boils down to demanding that all such probability distributions be computable. Interestingly, the set of computable probability distributions is a subset of the set of all programs, which is countable. Similarly, the sets of observable data considered by Solomonoff were finite. Without loss of generality, we can thus consider that any observable data is a finite bit string. As a result, Solomonoff's induction can be defined by only invoking discrete probability distributions. Solomonoff's induction then allows to make probabilistic predictions of future data F {\displaystyle F} , by simply obeying the laws of probability. Namely, we have P [ F | D ] = E T [ P [ F | T , D ] ] = ∑ T P [ F | T , D ] P [ T | D ] {\displaystyle \mathbb {P} [F|D]=\mathbb {E} _{T}[\mathbb {P} [F|T,D]]=\sum _{T}\mathbb {P} [F|T,D]\mathbb {P} [T|D]} . This quantity can be interpreted as the average predictions P [ F | T , D ] {\displaystyle \mathbb {P} [F|T,D]} of all theories T {\displaystyle T} given past data D {\displaystyle D} , weighted by their posterior credences P [ T | D ] {\displaystyle \mathbb {P} [T|D]} . === Mathematical === The proof of the "razor" is based on the known mathematical properties of a probability distribution over a countable set. These properties are relevant because the infinite set of all programs is a denumerable set. The sum S of the probabilities of all programs must be exactly equal to one (as per the definition of probability) thus the probabilities must roughly decrease as we enumerate the infinite set of all programs, otherwise S will be strictly greater than one. To be more precise, for every ϵ {\displaystyle \epsilon } > 0, there is some length l such that the probability of all programs longer than l is at most ϵ {\displaystyle \epsilon } . This does not, however, preclude very long programs from having very high probability. Fundamental ingredients of the theory are the concepts of algorithmic probability and Kolmogorov complexity. The universal prior probability of any prefix p of a computable sequence x is the sum of the probabilities of all programs (for a universal computer) that compute something starting with p. Given some p and any computable but unknown probability distribution from which x is sampled, the universal prior and Bayes' theorem can be used to predict the yet unseen parts of x in optimal fashion. == Mathematical guarantees == === Solomonoff's completeness === The remarkable property of Solomonoff's induction is its completeness. In essence, the completeness theorem guarantees that the expected cumulative errors made by the predictions based on Solomonoff's induction are upper-bounded by the Kolmogorov complexity of the (stochastic) data generating process. The errors can be measured using the Kullback–Leibler divergence or the square of the difference between the induction's prediction and the probability assigned by the (stochastic) data generating process. === Solomonoff's uncomputability === Unfortunately, Solomonoff also proved that Solomonoff's induction is uncomputable. In fact, he showed that computability and completeness are mutually exclusive: any complete theory must be uncomputable. The proof of this is derived from a game between the induction and the environment. Essentially, any computable induction can be tricked by a computable environment, by choosing the computable environment that negates the computable induction's prediction. This fact can be regarded as an instance of the no free lunch theorem. == Modern applications == === Artificial intelligence === Though Solomonoff's inductive inference is not computable, several AIXI-derived algorithms approximate it in order to make it run on a modern computer. The more computing power they are given, the closer their predictions are to the predictions of inductive inference (their mathematical limit is Solomonoff's inductive inference). Another direction of inductive inference is based on E. Mark Gold's model of learning in the limit from 1967 and has developed since then more and more models of learning. The general scenario is the following: Given a class S of computable functions, is there a learner (that is, recursive functional) which for any input of the form (f(0),f(1),...,f(n)) outputs a hypothesis (an index e with respect to a previously agreed on acceptable numbering of all computable functions; the indexed function may be required consistent with the given values of f). A learner M learns a function f if almost all its hypotheses are the same index e, which generates the function f; M learns S if M learns every f in S. Basic results are that all recursively enumerable classes of functions are learnable while the class REC of all computable functions is not learnable. Many related models have been considered and also the learning of classes of recursively enumerable sets from positive data is a topic studied from Gold's pioneering paper in 1967 onwards. A far reaching extension of the Gold’s approach is developed by Schmidhuber's theory of generalized Kolmogorov complexities, which are kinds of super-recursive algorithms.
Read more →
EfficientNet

EfficientNet is a family of convolutional neural networks (CNNs) for computer vision published by researchers at Google AI in 2019. Its key innovation is compound scaling, which uniformly scales all dimensions of depth, width, and resolution using a single parameter. EfficientNet models have been adopted in various computer vision tasks, including image classification, object detection, and segmentation. == Compound scaling == EfficientNet introduces compound scaling, which, instead of scaling one dimension of the network at a time, such as depth (number of layers), width (number of channels), or resolution (input image size), uses a compound coefficient ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } to scale all three dimensions simultaneously. Specifically, given a baseline network, the depth, width, and resolution are scaled according to the following equations: depth multiplier: d = α ϕ width multiplier: w = β ϕ resolution multiplier: r = γ ϕ {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}{\text{depth multiplier: }}d&=\alpha ^{\phi }\\{\text{width multiplier: }}w&=\beta ^{\phi }\\{\text{resolution multiplier: }}r&=\gamma ^{\phi }\end{aligned}}} subject to α ⋅ β 2 ⋅ γ 2 ≈ 2 {\displaystyle \alpha \cdot \beta ^{2}\cdot \gamma ^{2}\approx 2} and α ≥ 1 , β ≥ 1 , γ ≥ 1 {\displaystyle \alpha \geq 1,\beta \geq 1,\gamma \geq 1} . The α ⋅ β 2 ⋅ γ 2 ≈ 2 {\displaystyle \alpha \cdot \beta ^{2}\cdot \gamma ^{2}\approx 2} condition is such that increasing ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } by a factor of ϕ 0 {\displaystyle \phi _{0}} would increase the total FLOPs of running the network on an image approximately 2 ϕ 0 {\displaystyle 2^{\phi _{0}}} times. The hyperparameters α {\displaystyle \alpha } , β {\displaystyle \beta } , and γ {\displaystyle \gamma } are determined by a small grid search. The original paper suggested 1.2, 1.1, and 1.15, respectively. Architecturally, they optimized the choice of modules by neural architecture search (NAS), and found that the inverted bottleneck convolution (which they called MBConv) used in MobileNet worked well. The EfficientNet family is a stack of MBConv layers, with shapes determined by the compound scaling. The original publication consisted of 8 models, from EfficientNet-B0 to EfficientNet-B7, with increasing model size and accuracy. EfficientNet-B0 is the baseline network, and subsequent models are obtained by scaling the baseline network by increasing ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } . == Variants == EfficientNet has been adapted for fast inference on edge TPUs and centralized TPU or GPU clusters by NAS. EfficientNet V2 was published in June 2021. The architecture was improved by further NAS search with more types of convolutional layers. It also introduced a training method, which progressively increases image size during training, and uses regularization techniques like dropout, RandAugment, and Mixup. The authors claim this approach mitigates accuracy drops often associated with progressive resizing.
Read more →
Hyperparameter optimization

In machine learning, hyperparameter optimization or tuning is the problem of choosing a set of optimal hyperparameters for a learning algorithm. A hyperparameter is a parameter whose value is used to control the learning process, which must be configured before the process starts. Hyperparameter optimization determines the set of hyperparameters that yields an optimal model which minimizes a predefined loss function on a given data set. The objective function takes a set of hyperparameters and returns the associated loss. Cross-validation is often used to estimate this generalization performance, and therefore choose the set of values for hyperparameters that maximize it. == Approaches == === Grid search === The traditional method for hyperparameter optimization has been grid search, or a parameter sweep, which is simply an exhaustive searching through a manually specified subset of the hyperparameter space of a learning algorithm. A grid search algorithm must be guided by some performance metric, typically measured by cross-validation on the training set or evaluation on a hold-out validation set. Since the parameter space of a machine learner may include real-valued or unbounded value spaces for certain parameters, manually set bounds and discretization may be necessary before applying grid search. For example, a typical soft-margin SVM classifier equipped with an RBF kernel has at least two hyperparameters that need to be tuned for good performance on unseen data: a regularization constant C and a kernel hyperparameter γ. Both parameters are continuous, so to perform grid search, one selects a finite set of "reasonable" values for each, say C ∈ { 10 , 100 , 1000 } {\displaystyle C\in \{10,100,1000\}} γ ∈ { 0.1 , 0.2 , 0.5 , 1.0 } {\displaystyle \gamma \in \{0.1,0.2,0.5,1.0\}} Grid search then trains an SVM with each pair (C, γ) in the Cartesian product of these two sets and evaluates their performance on a held-out validation set (or by internal cross-validation on the training set, in which case multiple SVMs are trained per pair). Finally, the grid search algorithm outputs the settings that achieved the highest score in the validation procedure. Grid search suffers from the curse of dimensionality, but is often embarrassingly parallel because the hyperparameter settings it evaluates are typically independent of each other. === Random search === Random Search replaces the exhaustive enumeration of all combinations by selecting them randomly. This can be simply applied to the discrete setting described above, but also generalizes to continuous and mixed spaces. A benefit over grid search is that random search can explore many more values than grid search could for continuous hyperparameters. It can outperform Grid search, especially when only a small number of hyperparameters affects the final performance of the machine learning algorithm. In this case, the optimization problem is said to have a low intrinsic dimensionality. Random Search is also embarrassingly parallel, and additionally allows the inclusion of prior knowledge by specifying the distribution from which to sample. Despite its simplicity, random search remains one of the important base-lines against which to compare the performance of new hyperparameter optimization methods. === Bayesian optimization === Bayesian optimization is a global optimization method for noisy black-box functions. Applied to hyperparameter optimization, Bayesian optimization builds a probabilistic model of the function mapping from hyperparameter values to the objective evaluated on a validation set. By iteratively evaluating a promising hyperparameter configuration based on the current model, and then updating it, Bayesian optimization aims to gather observations revealing as much information as possible about this function and, in particular, the location of the optimum. It tries to balance exploration (hyperparameters for which the outcome is most uncertain) and exploitation (hyperparameters expected close to the optimum). In practice, Bayesian optimization has been shown to obtain better results in fewer evaluations compared to grid search and random search, due to the ability to reason about the quality of experiments before they are run. === Gradient-based optimization === For specific learning algorithms, it is possible to compute the gradient with respect to hyperparameters and then optimize the hyperparameters using gradient descent. The first usage of these techniques was focused on neural networks. Since then, these methods have been extended to other models such as support vector machines or logistic regression. A different approach in order to obtain a gradient with respect to hyperparameters consists in differentiating the steps of an iterative optimization algorithm using automatic differentiation. A more recent work along this direction uses the implicit function theorem to calculate hypergradients and proposes a stable approximation of the inverse Hessian. The method scales to millions of hyperparameters and requires constant memory. In a different approach, a hypernetwork is trained to approximate the best response function. One of the advantages of this method is that it can handle discrete hyperparameters as well. Self-tuning networks offer a memory efficient version of this approach by choosing a compact representation for the hypernetwork. More recently, Δ-STN has improved this method further by a slight reparameterization of the hypernetwork which speeds up training. Δ-STN also yields a better approximation of the best-response Jacobian by linearizing the network in the weights, hence removing unnecessary nonlinear effects of large changes in the weights. Apart from hypernetwork approaches, gradient-based methods can be used to optimize discrete hyperparameters also by adopting a continuous relaxation of the parameters. Such methods have been extensively used for the optimization of architecture hyperparameters in neural architecture search. === Evolutionary optimization === Evolutionary optimization is a methodology for the global optimization of noisy black-box functions. In hyperparameter optimization, evolutionary optimization uses evolutionary algorithms to search the space of hyperparameters for a given algorithm. Evolutionary hyperparameter optimization follows a process inspired by the biological concept of evolution: Create an initial population of random solutions (i.e., randomly generate tuples of hyperparameters, typically 100+) Evaluate the hyperparameter tuples and acquire their fitness function (e.g., 10-fold cross-validation accuracy of the machine learning algorithm with those hyperparameters) Rank the hyperparameter tuples by their relative fitness Replace the worst-performing hyperparameter tuples with new ones generated via crossover and mutation Repeat steps 2-4 until satisfactory algorithm performance is reached or is no longer improving. Evolutionary optimization has been used in hyperparameter optimization for statistical machine learning algorithms, automated machine learning, typical neural network and deep neural network architecture search, as well as training of the weights in deep neural networks. === Population-based === Population Based Training (PBT) learns both hyperparameter values and network weights. Multiple learning processes operate independently, using different hyperparameters. As with evolutionary methods, poorly performing models are iteratively replaced with models that adopt modified hyperparameter values and weights based on the better performers. This replacement model warm starting is the primary differentiator between PBT and other evolutionary methods. PBT thus allows the hyperparameters to evolve and eliminates the need for manual hypertuning. The process makes no assumptions regarding model architecture, loss functions or training procedures. PBT and its variants are adaptive methods: they update hyperparameters during the training of the models. On the contrary, non-adaptive methods have the sub-optimal strategy to assign a constant set of hyperparameters for the whole training. === Early stopping-based === A class of early stopping-based hyperparameter optimization algorithms is purpose-built for large search spaces of continuous and discrete hyperparameters, particularly when the computational cost to evaluate the performance of a set of hyperparameters is high. Irace implements the iterated racing algorithm, that focuses the search around the most promising configurations, using statistical tests to discard the ones that perform poorly. Another early stopping hyperparameter optimization algorithm is successive halving (SHA), which begins as a random search but periodically prunes low-performing models, thereby focusing computational resources on more promising models. Asynchronous successive halving (ASHA) further improves upon SHA's resource utilization profile by removing the need to synchronously evaluate a
Read more →
Solomonoff's theory of inductive inference

Solomonoff's theory of inductive inference proves that, under its common sense assumptions (axioms), the best possible scientific model is the shortest algorithm that generates the empirical data under consideration. In addition to the choice of data, other assumptions are that, to avoid the post-hoc fallacy, the programming language must be chosen prior to the data and that the environment being observed is generated by an unknown algorithm. This is also called a theory of induction. Due to its basis in the dynamical (state-space model) character of Algorithmic Information Theory, it encompasses statistical as well as dynamical information criteria for model selection. It was introduced by Ray Solomonoff, based on probability theory and theoretical computer science. In essence, Solomonoff's induction derives the posterior probability of any computable theory, given a sequence of observed data. This posterior probability is derived from Bayes' rule and some universal prior, that is, a prior that assigns a positive probability to any computable theory. Solomonoff proved that this induction is incomputable (or more precisely, lower semi-computable), but noted that "this incomputability is of a very benign kind", and that it "in no way inhibits its use for practical prediction" (as it can be approximated from below more accurately with more computational resources). It is only "incomputable" in the benign sense that no scientific consensus is able to prove that the best current scientific theory is the best of all possible theories. However, Solomonoff's theory does provide an objective criterion for deciding among the current scientific theories explaining a given set of observations. Solomonoff's induction naturally formalizes Occam's razor by assigning larger prior credences to theories that require a shorter algorithmic description. == Origin == === Philosophical === The theory is based in philosophical foundations, and was founded by Ray Solomonoff around 1960. It is a mathematically formalized combination of Occam's razor and the Principle of Multiple Explanations. All computable theories which perfectly describe previous observations are used to calculate the probability of the next observation, with more weight put on the shorter computable theories. Marcus Hutter's universal artificial intelligence builds upon this to calculate the expected value of an action. === Principle === Solomonoff's induction has been argued to be the computational formalization of pure Bayesianism. To understand, recall that Bayesianism derives the posterior probability P [ T | D ] {\displaystyle \mathbb {P} [T|D]} of a theory T {\displaystyle T} given data D {\displaystyle D} by applying Bayes rule, which yields P [ T | D ] = P [ D | T ] P [ T ] P [ D | T ] P [ T ] + ∑ A ≠ T P [ D | A ] P [ A ] {\displaystyle \mathbb {P} [T|D]={\frac {\mathbb {P} [D|T]\mathbb {P} [T]}{\mathbb {P} [D|T]\mathbb {P} [T]+\sum _{A\neq T}\mathbb {P} [D|A]\mathbb {P} [A]}}} where theories A {\displaystyle A} are alternatives to theory T {\displaystyle T} . For this equation to make sense, the quantities P [ D | T ] {\displaystyle \mathbb {P} [D|T]} and P [ D | A ] {\displaystyle \mathbb {P} [D|A]} must be well-defined for all theories T {\displaystyle T} and A {\displaystyle A} . In other words, any theory must define a probability distribution over observable data D {\displaystyle D} . Solomonoff's induction essentially boils down to demanding that all such probability distributions be computable. Interestingly, the set of computable probability distributions is a subset of the set of all programs, which is countable. Similarly, the sets of observable data considered by Solomonoff were finite. Without loss of generality, we can thus consider that any observable data is a finite bit string. As a result, Solomonoff's induction can be defined by only invoking discrete probability distributions. Solomonoff's induction then allows to make probabilistic predictions of future data F {\displaystyle F} , by simply obeying the laws of probability. Namely, we have P [ F | D ] = E T [ P [ F | T , D ] ] = ∑ T P [ F | T , D ] P [ T | D ] {\displaystyle \mathbb {P} [F|D]=\mathbb {E} _{T}[\mathbb {P} [F|T,D]]=\sum _{T}\mathbb {P} [F|T,D]\mathbb {P} [T|D]} . This quantity can be interpreted as the average predictions P [ F | T , D ] {\displaystyle \mathbb {P} [F|T,D]} of all theories T {\displaystyle T} given past data D {\displaystyle D} , weighted by their posterior credences P [ T | D ] {\displaystyle \mathbb {P} [T|D]} . === Mathematical === The proof of the "razor" is based on the known mathematical properties of a probability distribution over a countable set. These properties are relevant because the infinite set of all programs is a denumerable set. The sum S of the probabilities of all programs must be exactly equal to one (as per the definition of probability) thus the probabilities must roughly decrease as we enumerate the infinite set of all programs, otherwise S will be strictly greater than one. To be more precise, for every ϵ {\displaystyle \epsilon } > 0, there is some length l such that the probability of all programs longer than l is at most ϵ {\displaystyle \epsilon } . This does not, however, preclude very long programs from having very high probability. Fundamental ingredients of the theory are the concepts of algorithmic probability and Kolmogorov complexity. The universal prior probability of any prefix p of a computable sequence x is the sum of the probabilities of all programs (for a universal computer) that compute something starting with p. Given some p and any computable but unknown probability distribution from which x is sampled, the universal prior and Bayes' theorem can be used to predict the yet unseen parts of x in optimal fashion. == Mathematical guarantees == === Solomonoff's completeness === The remarkable property of Solomonoff's induction is its completeness. In essence, the completeness theorem guarantees that the expected cumulative errors made by the predictions based on Solomonoff's induction are upper-bounded by the Kolmogorov complexity of the (stochastic) data generating process. The errors can be measured using the Kullback–Leibler divergence or the square of the difference between the induction's prediction and the probability assigned by the (stochastic) data generating process. === Solomonoff's uncomputability === Unfortunately, Solomonoff also proved that Solomonoff's induction is uncomputable. In fact, he showed that computability and completeness are mutually exclusive: any complete theory must be uncomputable. The proof of this is derived from a game between the induction and the environment. Essentially, any computable induction can be tricked by a computable environment, by choosing the computable environment that negates the computable induction's prediction. This fact can be regarded as an instance of the no free lunch theorem. == Modern applications == === Artificial intelligence === Though Solomonoff's inductive inference is not computable, several AIXI-derived algorithms approximate it in order to make it run on a modern computer. The more computing power they are given, the closer their predictions are to the predictions of inductive inference (their mathematical limit is Solomonoff's inductive inference). Another direction of inductive inference is based on E. Mark Gold's model of learning in the limit from 1967 and has developed since then more and more models of learning. The general scenario is the following: Given a class S of computable functions, is there a learner (that is, recursive functional) which for any input of the form (f(0),f(1),...,f(n)) outputs a hypothesis (an index e with respect to a previously agreed on acceptable numbering of all computable functions; the indexed function may be required consistent with the given values of f). A learner M learns a function f if almost all its hypotheses are the same index e, which generates the function f; M learns S if M learns every f in S. Basic results are that all recursively enumerable classes of functions are learnable while the class REC of all computable functions is not learnable. Many related models have been considered and also the learning of classes of recursively enumerable sets from positive data is a topic studied from Gold's pioneering paper in 1967 onwards. A far reaching extension of the Gold’s approach is developed by Schmidhuber's theory of generalized Kolmogorov complexities, which are kinds of super-recursive algorithms.
Read more →
Machine-learned interatomic potential

Machine-learned interatomic potentials (MLIPs), or simply machine learning potentials (MLPs), are interatomic potentials constructed using machine learning. Beginning in the 1990s, researchers have employed such programs to construct interatomic potentials by mapping atomic structures to their potential energies. These potentials are referred to as MLIPs or MLPs. Such machine learning potentials promised to fill the gap between density functional theory, a highly accurate but computationally intensive modelling method, and empirically derived or intuitively-approximated potentials, which were far lighter computationally but substantially less accurate. Improvements in artificial intelligence technology heightened the accuracy of MLPs while lowering their computational cost, increasing the role of machine learning in fitting potentials. Machine learning potentials began by using neural networks to tackle low-dimensional systems. While promising, these models could not systematically account for interatomic energy interactions; they could be applied to small molecules in a vacuum, or molecules interacting with frozen surfaces, but not much else – and even in these applications, the models often relied on force fields or potentials derived empirically or with simulations. These models thus remained confined to academia. Modern neural networks construct highly accurate and computationally light potentials, as theoretical understanding of materials science was increasingly built into their architectures and preprocessing. Almost all are local, accounting for all interactions between an atom and its neighbor up to some cutoff radius. There exist some nonlocal models, but these have been experimental for almost a decade. For most systems, reasonable cutoff radii enable highly accurate results. Almost all neural networks intake atomic coordinates and output potential energies. For some, these atomic coordinates are converted into atom-centered symmetry functions. From this data, a separate atomic neural network is trained for each element; each atomic network is evaluated whenever that element occurs in the given structure, and then the results are pooled together at the end. This process – in particular, the atom-centered symmetry functions which convey translational, rotational, and permutational invariances – has greatly improved machine learning potentials by significantly constraining the neural network search space. Other models use a similar process but emphasize bonds over atoms, using pair symmetry functions and training one network per atom pair. Other models to learn their own descriptors rather than using predetermined symmetry-dictating functions. These models, called message-passing neural networks (MPNNs), are graph neural networks. Treating molecules as three-dimensional graphs (where atoms are nodes and bonds are edges), the model takes feature vectors describing the atoms as input, and iteratively updates these vectors as information about neighboring atoms is processed through message functions and convolutions. These feature vectors are then used to predict the final potentials. The flexibility of this method often results in stronger, more generalizable models. In 2017, the first-ever MPNN model (a deep tensor neural network) was used to calculate the properties of small organic molecules. == Gaussian Approximation Potential (GAP) == One popular class of machine-learned interatomic potential is the Gaussian Approximation Potential (GAP), which combines compact descriptors of local atomic environments with Gaussian process regression to machine learn the potential energy surface of a given system. To date, the GAP framework has been used to successfully develop a number of MLIPs for various systems, including for elemental systems such as carbon, silicon, phosphorus, and tungsten, as well as for multicomponent systems such as Ge2Sb2Te5 and austenitic stainless steel, Fe7Cr2Ni. == Equivariant graph neural networks == A significant limitation of early MPNNs was that they were not inherently equivariant to rotations and reflections of atomic structures — meaning predictions could change depending on how a molecule was oriented in space. Beginning around 2021, a new class of models addressed this by incorporating equivariance directly into the message-passing layers using spherical harmonics and irreducible representations. Notable examples include NequIP (2021), MACE (2022), and GemNet-OC (2022). These equivariant architectures proved substantially more data-efficient and accurate than their predecessors, and became the dominant paradigm for high-accuracy MLIPs. == Universal MLIPs and large-scale datasets == Early MLIPs were system-specific, trained on a few thousand structures of a single material. A major shift occurred with the creation of large, chemically diverse datasets enabling models that generalize across many elements, bonding environments, and application domains — so-called universal MLIPs. A key driver was the Open Catalyst Project (OC20, OC22), a collaboration between Meta AI (FAIR) and Carnegie Mellon University launched in 2020. OC20 comprises approximately 1.3 million DFT relaxations across 82 elements, designed to accelerate the discovery of catalysts for renewable energy applications. It was among the first datasets large enough to train GNNs that generalize across diverse chemical systems, and established a widely-used benchmark for the field. A subsequent dataset, Open Direct Air Capture (OpenDAC 2023 and OpenDAC 2025), applied the same approach to carbon capture, providing a large computational database of metal-organic frameworks and sorbent candidates evaluated for CO₂ capture, generated using nearly 400 million CPU hours of quantum chemistry calculations in collaboration with Georgia Tech. These datasets revealed a new challenge: the GNN architectures most effective for atomic simulations were memory-intensive, as they model higher-order interactions between triplets or quadruplets of atoms, making it difficult to scale model size. Graph Parallelism, introduced by Sriram et al. (ICLR 2022), addressed this by distributing a single input graph across multiple GPUs — a distinct strategy from data parallelism (which distributes training examples) or model parallelism (which distributes layers). This enabled training GNNs with hundreds of millions to billions of parameters for the first time. Building on these foundations, Meta FAIR released the Universal Model for Atoms (UMA) in 2025, trained on approximately 500 million unique 3D atomic structures spanning molecules, materials, and catalysts — the largest training run to date for an MLIP. UMA introduced a Mixture of Linear Experts (MoLE) architecture, enabling one model to learn from datasets generated by different DFT codes and settings without significant inference overhead. It matches or surpasses specialized models across catalysis, materials, and molecular benchmarks without task-specific fine-tuning, and has been described as marking a "pre/post-UMA" divide in the field. == Applications == Catalyst discovery: MLIPs have significantly accelerated the computational screening of heterogeneous catalysts by replacing expensive DFT relaxations with fast neural network surrogates. The Open Catalyst Project explicitly targets this application, aiming to identify new catalysts for green hydrogen production and other renewable energy reactions. Carbon capture: The OpenDAC project applies universal MLIPs to screening sorbent materials for direct air capture of CO₂, a key technology for climate change mitigation. AI-accelerated screening allows evaluation of orders of magnitude more candidate materials than traditional DFT workflows. Drug discovery and molecular design: MLIPs are increasingly used in pharmaceutical research to model molecular conformations and binding energies. The Open Molecules 2025 (OMol25) dataset, released by Meta FAIR in 2025, provides high-accuracy calculations for a large set of molecular systems to support this use case. Materials discovery: Universal MLIPs enable high-throughput screening of novel inorganic materials, including battery electrolytes, semiconductors, and superconductors, by rapidly estimating stability and properties across large chemical spaces.
Read more →