AI Art Tool Free

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

  • Zero-day vulnerability

    Zero-day vulnerability

    A zero-day (also known as a 0-day) is a vulnerability or security hole in a computer system unknown to its developers or anyone capable of mitigating it. Until the vulnerability is remedied, threat actors can exploit it in a zero-day exploit, or zero-day attack. The term "zero-day" originally referred to the number of days since a new piece of software was released to the public, so "zero-day software" was obtained by hacking into a developer's computer before release. Eventually the term was applied to the vulnerabilities that allowed this hacking, and to the number of days that the vendor has had to fix them. Vendors who discover the vulnerability may create patches or advise workarounds to mitigate it, though users need to deploy that mitigation to eliminate the vulnerability in their systems. Zero-day attacks are severe threats. == Definition == Despite developers' goal of delivering a product that works entirely as intended, virtually all products contain software and hardware bugs. If a bug creates a security risk, it is called a vulnerability. Vulnerabilities vary in their ability to be exploited by malicious actors. Some are not usable at all, while others can be used to disrupt the device with a denial of service attack. The most dangerous allow the attacker to inject and run their own code, without the user being aware of it. Although the term "zero-day" initially referred to the time since the vendor had become aware of the vulnerability, zero-day vulnerabilities can also be defined as the subset of vulnerabilities for which no patch or other fix is available. A zero-day exploit is any exploit that takes advantage of such a vulnerability. == Exploits == An exploit is the delivery mechanism that takes advantage of the vulnerability to penetrate the target's systems, for such purposes as disrupting operations, installing malware, or exfiltrating data. Researchers Lillian Ablon and Andy Bogart write that "little is known about the true extent, use, benefit, and harm of zero-day exploits". Exploits based on zero-day vulnerabilities are considered more dangerous than those that take advantage of a known vulnerability. However, it is likely that most cyberattacks use known vulnerabilities, not zero-days. Governments of states are the primary users of zero-day exploits, not only because of the high cost of finding or buying vulnerabilities, but also the significant cost of writing the attack software. Nevertheless, anyone can use a vulnerability, and according to research by the RAND Corporation, "any serious attacker can always get an affordable zero-day for almost any target". Many targeted attacks and most advanced persistent threats rely on zero-day vulnerabilities. In 2017, the average time to develop an exploit from a zero-day vulnerability was estimated at 22 days. The difficulty of developing exploits has been increasing over time due to increased anti-exploitation features in popular software. === Window of vulnerability === Zero-day vulnerabilities are often classified as alive—meaning that there is no public knowledge of the vulnerability—and dead—the vulnerability has been disclosed, but not patched. If the software's maintainers are actively searching for vulnerabilities, it is a living vulnerability; such vulnerabilities in unmaintained software are called immortal. Zombie vulnerabilities can be exploited in older versions of the software but have been patched in newer versions. Even publicly known and zombie vulnerabilities are often exploitable for an extended period. Security patches can take months to develop, or may never be developed. A patch can have negative effects on the functionality of software and users may need to test the patch to confirm functionality and compatibility. Larger organizations may fail to identify and patch all dependencies, while smaller enterprises and personal users may not install patches. Research suggests that risk of cyberattack increases if the vulnerability is made publicly known or a patch is released. Cybercriminals can reverse engineer the patch to find the underlying vulnerability and develop exploits, often faster than users install the patch. According to research by RAND Corporation published in 2017, zero-day exploits remain usable for 6.9 years on average, although those purchased from a third party only remain usable for 1.4 years on average. The researchers were unable to determine if any particular platform or software (such as open-source software) had any relationship to the life expectancy of a zero-day vulnerability. Although the RAND researchers found that 5.7 percent of a stockpile of secret zero-day vulnerabilities will have been discovered by someone else within a year, another study found a higher overlap rate, as high as 10.8 percent to 21.9 percent per year. == Countermeasures == Because, by definition, there is no patch that can block a zero-day exploit, all systems employing the software or hardware with the vulnerability are at risk. This includes secure systems such as banks and governments that have all patches up to date. Security systems are designed around known vulnerabilities, and repeated exploitations of a zero-day exploit could continue undetected for an extended period of time. Although there have been many proposals for a system that is effective at detecting zero-day exploits, this remains an active area of research in 2023. Many organizations have adopted defense-in-depth tactics so that attacks are likely to require breaching multiple levels of security, which makes it more difficult to achieve. Conventional cybersecurity measures such as training and access control — including multi-factor authentication, least-privilege access, and air-gapping makes it harder to compromise systems with a zero-day exploit. Since writing perfectly secure software is impossible, some researchers argue that driving up the cost of exploits is considered a good strategy to reduce the burden of cyberattacks. == Market == Zero-day exploits can fetch millions of dollars. There are three main types of buyers: White: the vendor, or to third parties such as the Zero Day Initiative that disclose to the vendor. Often such disclosure is in exchange for a bug bounty. Not all companies respond positively to disclosures, as they can cause legal liability and operational overhead. It is not uncommon to receive cease-and-desist letters from software vendors after disclosing a vulnerability for free. Gray: the largest and most lucrative. Government or intelligence agencies buy zero-days and may use it in an attack, stockpile the vulnerability, or notify the vendor. The United States federal government is one of the largest buyers. As of 2013, the Five Eyes (United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand) captured the plurality of the market and other significant purchasers included Russia, India, Brazil, Malaysia, Singapore, North Korea, and Iran. Middle Eastern countries were poised to become the biggest spenders. Black: organized crime, which typically prefers exploit software rather than just knowledge of a vulnerability. These users are more likely to employ "half-days" where a patch is already available. In 2015, the markets for government and crime were estimated at least ten times larger than the white market. Sellers are often hacker groups that seek out vulnerabilities in widely used software for financial reward. Some will only sell to certain buyers, while others will sell to anyone. White market sellers are more likely to be motivated by non pecuniary rewards such as recognition and intellectual challenge. Selling zero-day exploits is legal. Despite calls for more regulation, law professor Mailyn Fidler says there is little chance of an international agreement because key players such as Russia and Israel are not interested. The sellers and buyers that trade in zero-days tend to be secretive, relying on non-disclosure agreements and classified information laws to keep the exploits secret. If the vulnerability becomes known, it can be patched and its value consequently crashes. Because the market lacks transparency, it can be hard for parties to find a fair price. Sellers might not be paid if the vulnerability was disclosed before it was verified, or if the buyer declined to purchase it but used it anyway. With the proliferation of middlemen, sellers could never know to what use the exploits could be put. Buyers could not guarantee that the exploit was not sold to another party. Both buyers and sellers advertise on the dark web. Research published in 2022 based on maximum prices paid as quoted by a single exploit broker found a 44 percent annualized inflation rate in exploit pricing. Remote zero-click exploits could fetch the highest price, while those that require local access to the device are much cheaper. Vulnerabilities in widely used software are also more expensive. They estimated that around 400 to 1,500 people sold exploits to th

    Read more →
  • DialogOS

    DialogOS

    DialogOS is a graphical programming environment to design computer system which can converse through voice with the user. Dialogs are clicked together in a Flowchart. DialogOS includes bindings to control Lego Mindstorms robots by voice and has bindings to SQL databases, as well as a generic plugin architecture to integrate with other types of backends. DialogOS is used in computer science courses in schools and universities to teach programming and to introduce beginners in the basic principles of human/computer interaction and dialog design. It has also been used in research systems. DialogOS was initially developed commercially by CLT Sprachtechnologie GmbH until its liquidation in 2017. The rights were then acquired by Saarland University and the software was released as open-source. == Bindings to Lego Mindstorms NXT == DialogOS can control the LEGO Mindstorms NXT Series. It uses sensor-nodes to obtain values for the following sensors: noise sensor ultrasonic sensor touch sensor luminosity sensor

    Read more →
  • Abu Dhabi Autonomous Racing League

    Abu Dhabi Autonomous Racing League

    The Abu Dhabi Autonomous Racing League (A2RL) is an autonomous racing league based in Abu Dhabi and organized by ASPIRE, part of the UAE government's Advanced Technology Research Council. It has three distinct categories: the "car race", the drone race, and the buggy race. The first car race was held on 27 April 2024 at the Yas Marina Circuit, marking the first major autonomous formula race outside the US since the now-folded Roborace championship. The first drone race was held on 11 and 12 April 2025. == Formats == A2RL has three distinct formats, the formula racing format (dubbed the Car Race), the quadcopter drone racing format (dubbed the Drone Race), and the off-road dune buggy racing format (dubbed the Buggy Race). === Car Race === A2RL's main event, the car race is a standard formula racing format with self-driving formula cars. The cars are made by Dallara and are modified versions of Super Formula cars with Yokohama tires. These cars had the CPUs of their AIs mounted where the driver's seat is on a non-modified chassis, as well as hydraulic actuators for AI control of the vehicle, multiple sensor systems including LIDAR and GPS, and a large LED indicator showing the status of the AI. The first car race was held on 27 April 2024. This race was marked by the cars' subpar performance: Out of four cars that qualified, only two finished the race - the other two did not. The next race was held on 15 November 2025, with 11 teams. ==== Technical specifications ==== The full list of technical specifications are as follows: Chassis: Dallara EAV24 (modified Dallara SF23) Forward suspension: Pushrod type, torsion bar spring, adjustable dampers, third element Rear suspension: Pushrod type, torsion bar, coil springs, adjustable dampers, third element Tires: Yokohama Advan Drive-by-wire system: Provided by Meccanica 42, the DBW system consists of steering and brake actuators, with a central ECU that coordinates the driving actions and reacts to any critical situation in real-time. Brakes: Brembo calipers, Brembo carbon discs, electro-hydraulically activated Engine: 4 Piston Racing K20C1 (based on Honda 2.0l; turbocharged 4-cylinder engine) Gearbox: 3MO 6-speed gearbox Sensor suite: 7x Sony IMX728 cameras, 4x ZF ProWave radar units, 3x Seyond Falcon Kinetic lidar units Main computer: Neousys RGS-8805GC ==== Races held ==== === Drone Race === Created in partnership with the Drone Champions' League, the drone race is the quadcopter drone racing aerial format of the A2RL. The first race was held on 11/12 April 2025 at the ADNEC Marina Hall. 10 teams are scheduled to take part. === Buggy Race === The buggy race will be the off-road format of the A2RL using self-driving dune buggies. No date or number of teams has been announced for the first race. === Other events === A2RL is known to host AI vs AI and Human vs AI events, in Abu Dhabi and abroad. One such event took place at the Suzuka Circuit in Japan. The Human vs AI race was precluded due to AI car "Yalla" crashing into the wall during the formation lap. == Team lists ==

    Read more →
  • AI-assisted targeting in the Gaza Strip

    AI-assisted targeting in the Gaza Strip

    As part of the Gaza war, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) have used artificial intelligence to rapidly and automatically perform much of the process of determining what to bomb. Israel has greatly expanded the bombing of the Gaza Strip, which in previous wars had been limited by the Israeli Air Force running out of targets. These tools include the Gospel, an AI which automatically reviews surveillance data looking for buildings, equipment and people thought to belong to the enemy, and upon finding them, recommends bombing targets to a human analyst who may then decide whether to pass it along to the field. Another is Lavender, an "AI-powered database" which lists tens of thousands of Palestinian men linked by AI to Hamas or Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and which is also used for target recommendation. Critics have argued the use of these AI tools puts civilians at risk, blurs accountability, and results in militarily disproportionate violence in violation of international humanitarian law. == The Gospel == Israel uses an AI system dubbed "Habsora", "the Gospel", to determine which targets the Israeli Air Force would bomb. It automatically provides a targeting recommendation to a human analyst, who decides whether to pass it along to soldiers in the field. The recommendations can be anything from individual fighters, rocket launchers, Hamas command posts, to private homes of suspected Hamas or Islamic Jihad members. AI can process military intelligence far faster than humans. Retired Lt Gen. Aviv Kohavi, head of the IDF until 2023, stated that the system could produce 100 bombing targets in Gaza a day, with real-time recommendations which ones to attack, where human analysts might produce 50 a year. A lecturer interviewed by NPR estimated these figures as 50–100 targets in 300 days for 20 intelligence officers, and 200 targets within 10–12 days for the Gospel. === Technological background === The Gospel uses machine learning, where an AI is tasked with identifying commonalities in vast amounts of data (e.g. scans of cancerous tissue, photos of a facial expression, surveillance of Hamas members identified by human analysts), then looking for those commonalities in new material. What information the Gospel uses is not known, but it is thought to combine surveillance data from diverse sources in enormous amounts. Recommendations are based on pattern-matching. A person with enough similarities to other people labeled as enemy combatants may be labelled a combatant themselves. Regarding the suitability of AIs for the task, NPR cited Heidy Khlaaf, engineering director of AI Assurance at the technology security firm Trail of Bits, as saying "AI algorithms are notoriously flawed with high error rates observed across applications that require precision, accuracy, and safety." Bianca Baggiarini, lecturer at the Australian National University's Strategic and Defence Studies Centre wrote AIs are "more effective in predictable environments where concepts are objective, reasonably stable, and internally consistent." She contrasted this with telling the difference between a combatant and non-combatant, which even humans frequently can't do. Khlaaf went on to point out that such a system's decisions depend entirely on the data it's trained on, and are not based on reasoning, factual evidence or causation, but solely on statistical probability. === Operation === The IAF ran out of targets to strike in the 2014 war and 2021 crisis. In an interview on France 24, investigative journalist Yuval Abraham of +972 Magazine stated that to maintain military pressure, and due to political pressure to continue the war, the military would bomb the same places twice. Since then, the integration of AI tools has significantly sped up the selection of targets. In early November, the IDF stated more than 12,000 targets in Gaza had been identified by the target administration division that uses the Gospel. NPR wrote on December 14 that it was unclear how many targets from the Gospel had been acted upon, but that the Israeli military said it was currently striking as many as 250 targets a day. The bombing, too, has intensified to what the December 14 article called an astonishing pace: the Israeli military stated at the time it had struck more than 22,000 targets inside Gaza, at a daily rate more than double that of the 2021 conflict, more than 3,500 of them since the collapse of the truce on December 1. Early in the offensive the head of the Air Force stated his forces only struck military targets, but added: "We are not being surgical." Once a recommendation is accepted, another AI, Fire Factory, cuts assembling the attack down from hours to minutes by calculating munition loads, prioritizing and assigning targets to aircraft and drones, and proposing a schedule, according to a pre-war Bloomberg article that described such AI tools as tailored for a military confrontation and proxy war with Iran. One change that The Guardian noted is that since senior Hamas leaders disappear into tunnels at the start of an offensive, systems such as the Gospel have allowed the IDF to locate and attack a much larger pool of more junior Hamas operatives. It cited an official who worked on targeting decisions in previous Gaza operations as saying that while the homes of junior Hamas members had previously not been targeted for bombing, the official believes the houses of suspected Hamas operatives were now targeted regardless of rank. In the France 24 interview, Abraham, of +972 Magazine, characterized this as enabling the systematization of dropping a 2000 lb bomb into a home to kill one person and everybody around them, something that had previously been done to a very small group of senior Hamas leaders. NPR cited a report by +972 Magazine and its sister publication Local Call as asserting the system is being used to manufacture targets so that Israeli military forces can continue to bombard Gaza at an enormous rate, punishing the general Palestinian population. NPR noted it had not verified this; it was unclear how many targets are being generated by AI alone, but there had been a substantial increase in targeting, with an enormous civilian toll. In principle, the combination of a computer's speed to identify opportunities and a human's judgment to evaluate them can enable more precise attacks and fewer civilian casualties. Israeli military and media have emphasized this capacity to minimize harm to non-combatants. Richard Moyes, researcher and head of the NGO Article 36, pointed to "the widespread flattening of an urban area with heavy explosive weapons" to question these claims, while Lucy Suchman, professor emeritus at Lancaster University, described the bombing as "aimed at maximum devastation of the Gaza Strip". The Guardian wrote that when a strike was authorized on private homes of those identified as Hamas or Islamic Jihad operatives, target researchers knew in advance the expected number of civilians killed, each target had a file containing a collateral damage score stipulating how many civilians were likely to be killed in a strike, and according to a senior Israeli military source, operatives use a "very accurate" measurement of the rate of civilians evacuating a building shortly before a strike. "We use an algorithm to evaluate how many civilians are remaining. It gives us a green, yellow, red, like a traffic signal." ==== 2021 use ==== Kohavi compared the target division using the Gospel to a machine and stated that once the machine was activated in the war of May 2021, it generated 100 targets a day, with half of them being attacked, in contrast with 50 targets in Gaza per year beforehand. Approximately 200 targets came from the Gospel out of the 1,500 targets Israel struck in Gaza in the war, including both static and moving targets according to the military. The Jewish Institute for National Security of America's after action report identified an issue, stating the system had data on what was a target, but lacked data on what wasn't. The system depends entirely on training data, and intel that human analysts had examined and deemed didn't constitute a target had been discarded, risking bias. The vice president expressed his hopes this had since been rectified. === Organization === The Gospel is used by the military's target administration division (or Directorate of Targets or Targeting Directorate), which was formed in 2019 in the IDF's intelligence directorate to address the air force running out of targets to bomb, and which Kohavi described as "powered by AI capabilities" and including hundreds of officers of soldiers. In addition to its wartime role, The Guardian wrote it'd helped the IDF build a database of between 30,000 and 40,000 suspected militants in recent years, and that systems such as the Gospel had played a critical role in building lists of individuals authorized to be assassinated. The Gospel was developed by Unit 8200 of the Israeli Intelligence C

    Read more →
  • Frankenstein complex

    Frankenstein complex

    The Frankenstein complex is a term coined by Isaac Asimov in his robot series, referring to the fear of mechanical men. == History == Some of Asimov's science fiction short stories and novels predict that this suspicion will become strongest and most widespread in respect of "mechanical men" that most-closely resemble human beings (see android), but it is also present on a lower level against robots that are plainly electromechanical automatons. The "Frankenstein complex" is similar in many respects to Masahiro Mori's uncanny valley hypothesis. The name, "Frankenstein complex", is derived from the name of Victor Frankenstein in the 1818 novel Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus by Mary Shelley. In Shelley's story, Frankenstein created an intelligent, somewhat superhuman being, but he finds that his creation is horrifying to behold and abandons it. This ultimately leads to Victor's death at the conclusion of a vendetta between himself and his creation. In much of his fiction, Asimov depicts the general attitude of the public towards robots as negative, with ordinary people fearing that robots will either replace them or dominate them, although dominance would not be allowed under the specifications of the Three Laws of Robotics, the first of which is: "A robot may not harm a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm." However, Asimov's fictitious earthly public is not fully persuaded by this, and remains largely suspicious and fearful of robots. I, Robot's short story "Little Lost Robot" is about this "fear of robots". In Asimov's robot novels, the Frankenstein complex is a major problem for roboticists and robot manufacturers. They do all they can to reassure the public that robots are harmless, even though this sometimes involves hiding the truth because they think that the public would misunderstand it. The fear by the public and the response of the manufacturers is an example of the theme of paternalism, the dread of paternalism, and the conflicts that arise from it in Asimov's fiction. The same theme occurs in many later works of fiction featuring robots, although it is rarely referred to as such.

    Read more →
  • Dartmouth workshop

    Dartmouth workshop

    The Dartmouth Summer Research Project on Artificial Intelligence was a 1956 summer workshop widely considered to be the founding event of artificial intelligence as a field. The workshop has been referred to as "the Constitutional Convention of AI". The project's four organizers, Claude Shannon, John McCarthy, Nathaniel Rochester and Marvin Minsky, are considered some of the "founding fathers" of AI. However it was not the first conference devoted to what would now be described as the question of artificial intelligence: it postdated meetings such as the 1951 Paris cybernetics conference and the Macy meetings. The project lasted approximately six to eight weeks and consisted largely of brainstorming sessions. Eleven mathematicians and scientists originally planned to attend; not all of them attended, but more than ten others came for short times. == Background == In the early 1950s, there were various names for the field of "thinking machines": cybernetics, automata theory, and complex information processing. The variety of names suggests the variety of conceptual orientations. In 1955, John McCarthy, then a young Assistant Professor of Mathematics at Dartmouth College, decided to organize a group to clarify and develop ideas about thinking machines. He picked the name 'Artificial Intelligence' for the new field. He chose the name partly for its neutrality; avoiding a focus on narrow automata theory, and avoiding cybernetics which was heavily focused on analog feedback, as well as him potentially having to accept the assertive Norbert Wiener as guru or having to argue with him. In early 1955, McCarthy approached the Rockefeller Foundation to request funding for a summer seminar at Dartmouth for about 10 participants. In June, he and Claude Shannon, a founder of information theory then at Bell Labs, met with Robert Morison, Director of Biological and Medical Research to discuss the idea and possible funding, though Morison was unsure whether money would be made available for such a visionary project. On September 2, 1955, the project was formally proposed by McCarthy, Marvin Minsky, Nathaniel Rochester and Claude Shannon. The proposal is credited with introducing the term 'artificial intelligence'. The Proposal states: We propose that a 2-month, 10-man study of artificial intelligence be carried out during the summer of 1956 at Dartmouth College in Hanover, New Hampshire. The study is to proceed on the basis of the conjecture that every aspect of learning or any other feature of intelligence can in principle be so precisely described that a machine can be made to simulate it. An attempt will be made to find how to make machines use language, form abstractions and concepts, solve kinds of problems now reserved for humans, and improve themselves. We think that a significant advance can be made in one or more of these problems if a carefully selected group of scientists work on it together for a summer. The proposal goes on to discuss computers, natural language processing, neural networks, theory of computation, abstraction and creativity (these areas within the field of artificial intelligence are considered still relevant to the work of the field). On May 26, 1956, McCarthy notified Robert Morison of the planned 11 attendees: For the full period: 1) Dr. Marvin Minsky 2) Dr. Julian Bigelow 3) Professor D.M. Mackay 4) Mr. Ray Solomonoff 5) Mr. John Holland 6) Dr. John McCarthy For four weeks: 7) Dr. Claude Shannon 8) Mr. Nathaniel Rochester 9) Mr. Oliver Selfridge For the first two weeks: 10) Dr. Allen Newell 11) Professor Herbert Simon He noted, "we will concentrate on a problem of devising a way of programming a calculator to form concepts and to form generalizations. This of course is subject to change when the group gets together." The actual participants came at different times, mostly for much shorter times. Trenchard More replaced Rochester for three weeks and MacKay and Holland did not attend—but the project was set to begin. Around June 18, 1956, the earliest participants (perhaps only Ray Solomonoff, maybe with Tom Etter) arrived at the Dartmouth campus in Hanover, N.H., to join John McCarthy who already had an apartment there. Solomonoff and Minsky stayed at Professors' apartments, but most would stay at the Hanover Inn. == Dates == The Dartmouth Workshop is usually said to have run for six weeks. Ray Solomonoff's notes taken during the workshop, however, indicate that it ran for roughly eight weeks, from about June 18 to August 17. Solomonoff's notes start on June 22; June 28 mentions Minsky, June 30 mentions Hanover, N.H., July 1 mentions Tom Etter. On August 17, Solomonoff gave a final talk. == Participants == Initially, McCarthy lost his list of attendees. Instead, after the workshop, McCarthy sent Solomonoff a preliminary list of participants and visitors plus those interested in the subject. 47 people were listed. Solomonoff, however, made a list of participants in his notes of the summer project: Ray Solomonoff Marvin Minsky John McCarthy Claude Shannon Trenchard More Nat Rochester Oliver Selfridge Julian Bigelow W. Ross Ashby W.S. McCulloch Abraham Robinson Tom Etter John Nash David Sayre Arthur Samuel Kenneth R. Shoulders Shoulders' friend Alex Bernstein Herbert Simon Allen Newell Shannon attended Solomonoff's talk on July 10 and Bigelow gave a talk on August 15. Solomonoff doesn't mention Bernard Widrow, but in 1994 Widrow said that he and an unidentified colleague from the same lab in MIT had attended for one week. In the same interview Widrow recalled that "I think [Wesley] Clark and [Belmont] Farley were there from Lincoln Lab." Trenchard mentions R. Culver and Solomonoff mentions Bill Shutz. Herb Gelernter didn't attend, but was influenced later by what Rochester learned. In an article in IEEE Spectrum, Grace Solomonoff additionally identifies Peter Milner in a photo taken by Nathaniel Rochester in front of Dartmouth Hall. Ray Solomonoff, Marvin Minsky, and John McCarthy were the only three who stayed for the full time. Trenchard took attendance during two weeks of his three-week visit. From three to about eight people would attend the daily sessions. == Event and aftermath == They had the entire top floor of the Dartmouth Math Department to themselves, and most weekdays they would meet at the main math classroom where someone might lead a discussion focusing on his ideas, or more frequently, a general discussion would be held. It was not a directed group research project; discussions covered many topics, but several directions are considered to have been initiated or encouraged by the Workshop: the rise of symbolic methods, systems focused on limited domains (early expert systems), and deductive systems versus inductive systems. One participant, Arthur Samuel, said, "It was very interesting, very stimulating, very exciting". Ray Solomonoff kept notes giving his impression of the talks and the ideas from various discussions. === McCarthy's 1956 AI distribution list === This is the list in the "People Interested in the Artificial Intelligence Problem" document which McCarthy produced in 1956, partly in lieu of a list of attendees at the Dartmouth workshop. According to McCarthy the list was "being sent to the people on the list and a few others", and its purpose was "to let those on it know who is interested in receiving documents on the problem" of artificial intelligence. McCarthy also promised to deliver them a report on the Dartmouth conference, and to send an updated list soon afterwards. It includes people who did not attend the conference and does not include everyone who did attend it.

    Read more →
  • Model collapse

    Model collapse

    Model collapse, also known by other names such as "AI inbreeding", "AI cannibalism", "Habsburg AI", and "model autophagy disorder" or "MAD" is a phenomenon noted in artificial intelligence studies, where machine learning models gradually degrade due to errors coming from uncurated synthetic data, or due to training on the outputs of another model such as prior versions of itself. It is unclear to what extent the phenomenon threatens the long-term development of such models, and some techniques have been proposed to mitigate the effect. == Characteristics == Shumailov et al. coined the term to describe two specific stages to the degradation of machine learning models: early model collapse and late model collapse: In early model collapse, the model begins losing information about the tails of the distribution – mostly affecting minority data. Later work highlighted that early model collapse is hard to notice, since overall performance may appear to improve, while the model loses performance on minority data. In late model collapse, the model loses a significant proportion of its performance, confusing concepts and losing most of its variance. == Mechanism == Using synthetic data as training data can lead to issues with the quality and reliability of the trained model. Model collapse occurs for three main reasons: functional approximation errors sampling errors learning errors Importantly, it happens in even the simplest of models, where not all of the error sources are present. In more complex models the errors often compound, leading to faster collapse. == Disagreement over real-world impact == Some researchers and commentators on model collapse warn that the phenomenon could fundamentally threaten future generative AI development: As AI-generated data is shared on the Internet, it will inevitably end up in future training datasets, which are often crawled from the Internet. If training on "slop" (large quantities of unlabeled synthetic data) inevitably leads to model collapse, this could therefore pose a difficult problem. However, recently, other researchers have disagreed with this argument, showing that if synthetic data accumulates alongside human-generated data, model collapse is avoided. The researchers argue that data accumulating over time is a more realistic description of reality than deleting all existing data every year, and that the real-world impact of model collapse may not be as catastrophic as feared. An alternative branch of the literature investigates the use of machine learning detectors and watermarking to identify model generated data and filter it out. == Mathematical models of the phenomenon == === 1D Gaussian model === In 2024, a first attempt has been made at illustrating collapse for the simplest possible model — a single dimensional normal distribution fit using unbiased estimators of mean and variance, computed on samples from the previous generation. To make this more precise, we say that original data follows a normal distribution X 0 ∼ N ( μ , σ 2 ) {\displaystyle X^{0}\sim {\mathcal {N}}(\mu ,\sigma ^{2})} , and we possess M 0 {\displaystyle M_{0}} samples X j 0 {\displaystyle X_{j}^{0}} for j ∈ { 1 , … , M 0 } {\displaystyle j\in {\{\,1,\dots ,M_{0}\,{}\}}} . Denoting a general sample X j i {\displaystyle X_{j}^{i}} as sample j ∈ { 1 , … , M i } {\displaystyle j\in {\{\,1,\dots ,M_{i}\,{}\}}} at generation i {\displaystyle i} , then the next generation model is estimated using the sample mean and variance: μ i + 1 = 1 M i ∑ j X j i ; σ i + 1 2 = 1 M i − 1 ∑ j ( X j i − μ i + 1 ) 2 . {\displaystyle \mu _{i+1}={\frac {1}{M_{i}}}\sum _{j}X_{j}^{i};\quad \sigma _{i+1}^{2}={\frac {1}{M_{i}-1}}\sum _{j}(X_{j}^{i}-\mu _{i+1})^{2}.} Leading to a conditionally normal next generation model X j i + 1 | μ i + 1 , σ i + 1 ∼ N ( μ i + 1 , σ i + 1 2 ) {\displaystyle X_{j}^{i+1}|\mu _{i+1},\;\sigma _{i+1}\sim {\mathcal {N}}(\mu _{i+1},\sigma _{i+1}^{2})} . In theory, this is enough to calculate the full distribution of X j i {\displaystyle X_{j}^{i}} . However, even after the first generation, the full distribution is no longer normal: It follows a variance-gamma distribution. To continue the analysis, instead of writing the probability density function at each generation, it is possible to explicitly construct them in terms of independent random variables using Cochran's theorem. To be precise, μ 1 {\displaystyle \mu _{1}} and σ 1 {\displaystyle \sigma _{1}} are independent, with μ 1 ∼ N ( μ , σ 2 M 0 ) {\displaystyle \mu _{1}\sim {\mathcal {N}}\left(\mu ,{\frac {\sigma ^{2}}{M_{0}}}\right)} and ( M 0 − 1 ) σ 1 2 ∼ σ 2 Γ ( M 0 − 1 2 , 1 2 ) {\displaystyle (M_{0}-1)\,\sigma _{1}^{2}\sim \sigma ^{2}\,\Gamma \left({\frac {M_{0}-1}{2}},{\frac {1}{2}}\right)} , following a Gamma distribution. Denoting with Z {\displaystyle Z} Gaussian random variables distributed according to N ( 0 , 1 ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {N}}(0,1)} and with S i {\displaystyle S^{i}} random variables distributed with 1 M i − 1 − 1 Γ ( M i − 1 − 1 2 , 1 2 ) {\displaystyle {\frac {1}{M_{i-1}-1}}\Gamma \left({\frac {M_{i-1}-1}{2}},{\frac {1}{2}}\right)} , it turns out to be possible to write samples at each generation as X j 0 = μ + σ Z j 0 , {\textstyle X_{j}^{0}=\mu +\sigma Z_{j}^{0},} X j 1 = μ + σ M 0 Z 1 + σ S 1 Z j 1 , {\textstyle X_{j}^{1}=\mu +{\frac {\sigma }{\sqrt {M_{0}}}}Z^{1}+\sigma {\sqrt {S^{1}}}Z_{j}^{1},} and more generally X j n = μ + σ M 0 Z 1 + σ M 1 S 1 Z 2 + ⋯ + σ M n − 1 S 1 × ⋯ × S n − 1 Z n + σ S 1 × ⋯ × S n Z j n . {\displaystyle X_{j}^{n}=\mu +{\frac {\sigma }{\sqrt {M_{0}}}}Z^{1}+{\frac {\sigma }{\sqrt {M_{1}}}}{\sqrt {S^{1}}}Z^{2}+\dots +{\frac {\sigma }{\sqrt {M_{n-1}}}}{\sqrt {S^{1}\times \dots \times S^{n-1}}}Z^{n}+\sigma {\sqrt {S^{1}\times \dots \times S^{n}}}Z_{j}^{n}.} Note, that these are not joint distributions, as Z n {\displaystyle Z^{n}} and S n {\displaystyle S^{n}} depend directly on Z j n − 1 {\displaystyle Z_{j}^{n-1}} , but when considering X j n {\displaystyle X_{j}^{n}} on its own the formula above provides all the information about the full distribution. To analyse the model collapse, we can first calculate variance and mean of samples at generation n {\displaystyle n} . This would tell us what kind of distributions we expect to arrive at after n {\displaystyle n} generations. It is possible to find its exact value in closed form, but the mean and variance of the square root of gamma distribution are expressed in terms of gamma functions, making the result quite clunky. Following, it is possible to expand all results to second order in each of 1 / M i {\displaystyle 1/M_{i}} , assuming each sample size to be large. It is then possible to show that 1 σ 2 Var ⁡ ( X j n ) = 1 M 0 + 1 M 1 + ⋯ + 1 M n − 1 + 1 + O ( M i − 2 ) . {\displaystyle {\frac {1}{\sigma ^{2}}}\operatorname {Var} (X_{j}^{n})={\frac {1}{M_{0}}}+{\frac {1}{M_{1}}}+\dots +{\frac {1}{M_{n-1}}}+1+{\mathcal {O}}\left(M_{i}^{-2}\right).} And if all sample sizes M i = M {\displaystyle M_{i}=M} are constant, this diverges linearly as n → ∞ {\displaystyle n\to \infty } : Var ⁡ ( X j n ) = σ 2 ( 1 + n M ) ; E ( X j n ) = μ . {\displaystyle \operatorname {Var} (X_{j}^{n})=\sigma ^{2}\left(1+{\frac {n}{M}}\right);\quad \mathbb {E} (X_{j}^{n})=\mu .} This is the same scaling as for a single dimensional Gaussian random walk. However, divergence of the variance of X j n {\displaystyle X_{j}^{n}} does not directly provide any information about the corresponding estimates of μ n + 1 {\displaystyle \mu _{n+1}} and σ n + 1 {\displaystyle \sigma _{n+1}} , particularly how different they are from the original μ {\displaystyle \mu } and σ {\displaystyle \sigma } . It turns out to be possible to calculate the distance between the true distribution and the approximated distribution at step n + 1 {\displaystyle n+1} , using the Wasserstein-2 distance (which is also sometimes referred to as risk): E [ W 2 2 ( N ( μ , σ 2 ) , N ( μ n + 1 , σ n + 1 2 ) ) ] = 3 2 σ 2 ( 1 M 0 + 1 M 1 + ⋯ + 1 M n ) + O ( M i − 2 ) , {\displaystyle \mathbb {E} \left[\mathbb {W} _{2}^{2}\left({\mathcal {N}}(\mu ,\sigma ^{2}),{\mathcal {N}}(\mu _{n+1},\sigma _{n+1}^{2})\right)\right]={\frac {3}{2}}\sigma ^{2}\left({\frac {1}{M_{0}}}+{\frac {1}{M_{1}}}+\dots +{\frac {1}{M_{n}}}\right)+{\mathcal {O}}\left(M_{i}^{-2}\right),} Var ⁡ [ W 2 2 ( N ( μ , σ 2 ) , N ( μ n + 1 , σ n + 1 2 ) ) ] = 1 2 σ 4 ( 3 M 0 2 + 3 M 1 2 + ⋯ + 3 M n 2 + ∑ i ≠ j 4 M i M j ) + O ( M i − 3 ) . {\displaystyle \operatorname {Var} \left[\mathbb {W} _{2}^{2}\left({\mathcal {N}}(\mu ,\sigma ^{2}),{\mathcal {N}}(\mu _{n+1},\sigma _{n+1}^{2})\right)\right]={\frac {1}{2}}\sigma ^{4}\left({\frac {3}{M_{0}^{2}}}+{\frac {3}{M_{1}^{2}}}+\dots +{\frac {3}{M_{n}^{2}}}+\sum _{i\neq j}{\frac {4}{M_{i}M_{j}}}\right)+{\mathcal {O}}\left(M_{i}^{-3}\right).} This directly shows why model collapse occurs in this simple model. Due to errors from re-sampling the approximated distribution, each generation ends up corresponding to a

    Read more →
  • Fuzzy pay-off method for real option valuation

    Fuzzy pay-off method for real option valuation

    The fuzzy pay-off method for real option valuation (FPOM or pay-off method) is a method for valuing real options, developed by Mikael Collan, Robert Fullér, and József Mezei; and published in 2009. It is based on the use of fuzzy logic and fuzzy numbers for the creation of the possible pay-off distribution of a project (real option). The structure of the method is similar to the probability theory based Datar–Mathews method for real option valuation, but the method is not based on probability theory and uses fuzzy numbers and possibility theory in framing the real option valuation problem. == Method == The Fuzzy pay-off method derives the real option value from a pay-off distribution that is created by using three or four cash-flow scenarios (most often created by an expert or a group of experts). The pay-off distribution is created simply by assigning each of the three cash-flow scenarios a corresponding definition with regards to a fuzzy number (triangular fuzzy number for three scenarios and a trapezoidal fuzzy number for four scenarios). This means that the pay-off distribution is created without any simulation whatsoever. This makes the procedure easy and transparent. The scenarios used are a minimum possible scenario (the lowest possible outcome), the maximum possible scenario (the highest possible outcome) and a best estimate (most likely to happen scenario) that is mapped as a fully possible scenario with a full degree of membership in the set of possible outcomes, or in the case of four scenarios used - two best estimate scenarios that are the upper and lower limit of the interval that is assigned a full degree of membership in the set of possible outcomes. The main observations that lie behind the model for deriving the real option value are the following: The fuzzy NPV of a project is (equal to) the pay-off distribution of a project value that is calculated with fuzzy numbers. The mean value of the positive values of the fuzzy NPV is the "possibilistic" mean value of the positive fuzzy NPV values. Real option value, ROV, calculated from the fuzzy NPV is the "possibilistic" mean value of the positive fuzzy NPV values multiplied with the positive area of the fuzzy NPV over the total area of the fuzzy NPV. The real option formula can then be written simply as: R O V = A ( P o s ) A ( P o s ) + A ( N e g ) × E [ A + ] {\displaystyle \mathrm {ROV} ={\frac {A(\mathrm {Pos} )}{A(\mathrm {Pos} )+A(\mathrm {Neg} )}}\times E[A_{+}]} where A(Pos) is the area of the positive part of the fuzzy distribution, A(Neg) is the area of the negative part of the fuzzy distribution, and E[A+] is the mean value of the positive part of the distribution. It can be seen that when the distribution is totally positive, the real options value reduces to the expected (mean) value, E[A+]. As can be seen, the real option value can be derived directly from the fuzzy NPV, without simulation. At the same time, simulation is not an absolutely necessary step in the Datar–Mathews method, so the two methods are not very different in that respect. But what is totally different is that the Datar–Mathews method is based on probability theory and as such has a very different foundation from the pay-off method that is based on possibility theory: the way that the two models treat uncertainty is fundamentally different. == Use of the method == The pay-off method for real option valuation is very easy to use compared to the other real option valuation methods and it can be used with the most commonly used spreadsheet software without any add-ins. The method is useful in analyses for decision making regarding investments that have an uncertain future, and especially so if the underlying data is in the form of cash-flow scenarios. The method is less useful if optimal timing is the objective. The method is flexible and accommodates easily both one-stage investments and multi-stage investments (compound real options). The method has been taken into use in some large international industrial companies for the valuation of research and development projects and portfolios. In these analyses triangular fuzzy numbers are used. Other uses of the method so far are, for example, R&D project valuation IPR valuation, valuation of M&A targets and expected synergies, valuation and optimization of M&A strategies, valuation of area development (construction) projects, valuation of large industrial real investments. The use of the pay-off method is lately taught within the larger framework of real options, for example at the Lappeenranta University of Technology and at the Tampere University of Technology in Finland.

    Read more →
  • Algorithmic probability

    Algorithmic probability

    In algorithmic information theory, algorithmic probability, also known as Solomonoff probability, is a mathematical method of assigning a prior probability to a given observation. It was invented by Ray Solomonoff in the 1960s. It is used in inductive inference theory and analyses of algorithms. In his general theory of inductive inference, Solomonoff uses the method together with Bayes' rule to obtain probabilities of prediction for an algorithm's future outputs. In the mathematical formalism used, the observations have the form of finite binary strings viewed as outputs of Turing machines, and the universal prior is a probability distribution over the set of finite binary strings calculated from a probability distribution over programs (that is, inputs to a universal Turing machine). The prior is universal in the Turing-computability sense, i.e. no string has zero probability. It is not computable, but it can be approximated. Formally, the probability P {\displaystyle P} is not a probability and it is not computable. It is only "lower semi-computable" and a "semi-measure". By "semi-measure", it means that 0 ≤ ∑ x P ( x ) < 1 {\displaystyle 0\leq \sum _{x}P(x)<1} . That is, the "probability" does not actually sum up to one, unlike actual probabilities. This is because some inputs to the Turing machine causes it to never halt, which means the probability mass allocated to those inputs is lost. By "lower semi-computable", it means there is a Turing machine that, given an input string x {\displaystyle x} , can print out a sequence y 1 < y 2 < ⋯ {\displaystyle y_{1} Read more →

  • Residuated lattice

    Residuated lattice

    In abstract algebra, a residuated lattice is an algebraic structure that is simultaneously a lattice x ≤ y and a monoid x•y that admits operations x\z and z/y, loosely analogous to division or implication, when x•y is viewed as multiplication or conjunction, respectively. Called respectively right and left residuals, these operations coincide when the monoid is commutative. The general concept was introduced by Morgan Ward and Robert P. Dilworth in 1939. Examples, some of which existed prior to the general concept, include Boolean algebras, Heyting algebras, residuated Boolean algebras, relation algebras, and MV-algebras. Residuated semilattices omit the meet operation ∧, for example Kleene algebras and action algebras. == Definition == In mathematics, a residuated lattice is an algebraic structure L = (L, ≤, •, I) such that (i) (L, ≤) is a lattice. (ii) (L, •, I) is a monoid. (iii) For all z there exists for every x a greatest y, and for every y a greatest x, such that x•y ≤ z (the residuation properties). In (iii), the "greatest y", being a function of z and x, is denoted x\z and called the right residual of z by x. Think of it as what remains of z on the right after "dividing" z on the left by x. Dually, the "greatest x" is denoted z/y and called the left residual of z by y. An equivalent, more formal statement of (iii) that uses these operations to name these greatest values is (iii)' for all x, y, z in L, y ≤ x\z ⇔ x•y ≤ z ⇔ x ≤ z/y. As suggested by the notation, the residuals are a form of quotient. More precisely, for a given x in L, the unary operations x• and x\ are respectively the lower and upper adjoints of a Galois connection on L, and dually for the two functions •y and /y. By the same reasoning that applies to any Galois connection, we have yet another definition of the residuals, namely, x•(x\y) ≤ y ≤ x\(x•y), and (y/x)•x ≤ y ≤ (y•x)/x, together with the requirement that x•y be monotone in x and y. (When axiomatized using (iii) or (iii)' monotonicity becomes a theorem and hence not required in the axiomatization.) These give a sense in which the functions x• and x\ are pseudoinverses or adjoints of each other, and likewise for •x and /x. This last definition is purely in terms of inequalities, noting that monotonicity can be axiomatized as x • y ≤ (x∨z) • y and similarly for the other operations and their arguments. Moreover, any inequality x ≤ y can be expressed equivalently as an equation, either x∧y = x or x∨y = y. This along with the equations axiomatizing lattices and monoids then yields a purely equational definition of residuated lattices, provided the requisite operations are adjoined to the signature (L, ≤, •, I) thereby expanding it to (L, ∧, ∨, •, I, /, \). When thus organized, residuated lattices form an equational class or variety, whose homomorphisms respect the residuals as well as the lattice and monoid operations. Note that distributivity x • (y ∨ z) = (x • y) ∨ (x • z) and x•0 = 0 are consequences of these axioms and so do not need to be made part of the definition. This necessary distributivity of • over ∨ does not in general entail distributivity of ∧ over ∨, that is, a residuated lattice need not be a distributive lattice. However distributivity of ∧ over ∨ is entailed when • and ∧ are the same operation, a special case of residuated lattices called a Heyting algebra. Alternative notations for x•y include x◦y, x;y (relation algebra), and x⊗y (linear logic). Alternatives for I include e and 1'. Alternative notations for the residuals are x → y for x\y and y ← x for y/x, suggested by the similarity between residuation and implication in logic, with the multiplication of the monoid understood as a form of conjunction that need not be commutative. When the monoid is commutative the two residuals coincide. When not commutative, the intuitive meaning of the monoid as conjunction and the residuals as implications can be understood as having a temporal quality: x•y means x and then y, x → y means had x (in the past) then y (now), and y ← x means if-ever x (in the future) then y (at that time), as illustrated by the natural language example at the end of the examples. == Examples == One of the original motivations for the study of residuated lattices was the lattice of (two-sided) ideals of a ring. Given a ring R, the ideals of R, denoted Id(R), forms a complete lattice with set intersection acting as the meet operation and "ideal addition" acting as the join operation. The monoid operation • is given by "ideal multiplication", and the element R of Id(R) acts as the identity for this operation. Given two ideals A and B in Id(R), the residuals are given by A / B := { r ∈ R ∣ r B ⊆ A } {\displaystyle A/B:=\{r\in R\mid rB\subseteq A\}} B ∖ A := { r ∈ R ∣ B r ⊆ A } {\displaystyle B\setminus A:=\{r\in R\mid Br\subseteq A\}} It is worth noting that {0}/B and B\{0} are respectively the left and right annihilators of B. This residuation is related to the conductor (or transporter) in commutative algebra written as (A:B)=A/B. One difference in usage is that B need not be an ideal of R: it may just be a subset. Boolean algebras and Heyting algebras are commutative residuated lattices in which x•y = x∧y (whence the unit I is the top element 1 of the algebra) and both residuals x\y and y/x are the same operation, namely implication x → y. The second example is quite general since Heyting algebras include all finite distributive lattices, as well as all chains or total orders, for example the unit interval [0,1] in the real line, or the integers and ± ∞ {\displaystyle \pm \infty } . The structure (Z, min, max, +, 0, −, −) (the integers with subtraction for both residuals) is a commutative residuated lattice such that the unit of the monoid is not the greatest element (indeed there is no least or greatest integer), and the multiplication of the monoid is not the meet operation of the lattice. In this example the inequalities are equalities because − (subtraction) is not merely the adjoint or pseudoinverse of + but the true inverse. Any totally ordered group under addition such as the rationals or the reals can be substituted for the integers in this example. The nonnegative portion of any of these examples is an example provided min and max are interchanged and − is replaced by monus, defined (in this case) so that x-y = 0 when x ≤ y and otherwise is ordinary subtraction. A more general class of examples is given by the Boolean algebra of all binary relations on a set X, namely the power set of X2, made a residuated lattice by taking the monoid multiplication • to be composition of relations and the monoid unit to be the identity relation I on X consisting of all pairs (x,x) for x in X. Given two relations R and S on X, the right residual R\S of S by R is the binary relation such that x(R\S)y holds just when for all z in X, zRx implies zSy (notice the connection with implication). The left residual is the mirror image of this: y(S/R)x holds just when for all z in X, xRz implies ySz. This can be illustrated with the binary relations < and > on {0,1} in which 0 < 1 and 1 > 0 are the only relationships that hold. Then x(>\<)y holds just when x = 1, while x()y holds just when y = 0, showing that residuation of < by > is different depending on whether we residuate on the right or the left. This difference is a consequence of the difference between <•> and >•<, where the only relationships that hold are 0(<•>)0 (since 0<1>0) and 1(>•<)1 (since 1>0<1). Had we chosen ≤ and ≥ instead of < and >, ≥\≤ and ≤/≥ would have been the same because ≤•≥ = ≥•≤, both of which always hold between all x and y (since x≤1≥y and x≥0≤y). The Boolean algebra 2Σ of all formal languages over an alphabet (set) Σ forms a residuated lattice whose monoid multiplication is language concatenation LM and whose monoid unit I is the language {ε} consisting of just the empty string ε. The right residual M\L consists of all words w over Σ such that Mw ⊆ L. The left residual L/M is the same with wM in place of Mw. The residuated lattice of all binary relations on X is finite just when X is finite, and commutative just when X has at most one element. When X is empty the algebra is the degenerate Boolean algebra in which 0 = 1 = I. The residuated lattice of all languages on Σ is commutative just when Σ has at most one letter. It is finite just when Σ is empty, consisting of the two languages 0 (the empty language {}) and the monoid unit I = {ε} = 1. The examples forming a Boolean algebra have special properties treated in the article on residuated Boolean algebras. == Residuated semilattice == A residuated semilattice is defined almost identically for residuated lattices, omitting just the meet operation ∧. Thus it is an algebraic structure L = (L, ∨, •, 1, /, \) satisfying all the residuated lattice equations as specified above except those containing an occurrence of the symbol ∧. The option of defining x ≤ y as x∧y = x is then not available, leaving on

    Read more →
  • ECML PKDD

    ECML PKDD

    ECML PKDD, the European Conference on Machine Learning Principles and Practice of Knowledge Discovery in Databases, is one of the leading academic conferences on machine learning and knowledge discovery, held in Europe every year. == History == ECML PKDD is a merger of two European conferences, European Conference on Machine Learning (ECML) and European Conference on Principles and Practice of Knowledge Discovery in Databases (PKDD). ECML and PKDD have been co-located since 2001; however, both ECML and PKDD retained their own identity until 2007. For example, the 2007 conference was known as "the 18th European Conference on Machine Learning (ECML) and the 11th European Conference on Principles and Practice of Knowledge Discovery in Databases (PKDD)", or in brief, "ECML/PKDD 2007", and both ECML and PKDD had their own conference proceedings. In 2008 the conferences were merged into one conference, and the division into traditional ECML topics and traditional PKDD topics was removed. The history of ECML dates back to 1986, when the European Working Session on Learning was first held. In 1993 the name of the conference was changed to European Conference on Machine Learning. PKDD was first organised in 1997. Originally PKDD stood for the European Symposium on Principles of Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery from Databases. The name European Conference on Principles and Practice of Knowledge Discovery in Databases was used since 1999. The conference remains highly competitive, consistently maintaining an average acceptance rate of around 25% for the main research track. == Upcoming conferences == == List of past conferences ==

    Read more →
  • Squirrel AI

    Squirrel AI

    Squirrel Ai Learning is an international educational technology company that specializes in intelligent adaptive learning and was one of the first companies in the world to offer large scale AI-powered adaptive education solutions. == Methodology == Squirrel Ai Learning uses artificial intelligence to tailor lesson plans to each individual student. The company's AI researchers have access to the world's largest student databases, which are used to train the AI algorithms. Squirrel Ai Learning works with teachers to identify the most fine-grained possible concepts ("knowledge points") for a course in order to precisely target learning gaps. For example, middle school mathematics is broken into over 10,000 points such as rational numbers, the properties of a triangle, and the Pythagorean theorem. Each point is linked to related items, forming a "knowledge graph". Each knowledge point is addressed by videos, examples and practice problems. A textbook might address 3,000 points; ALEKS, another adaptive learning platform, uses 1,000. Each student begins with a diagnostic test to identify where to begin their learning. The system continues to refine its graph as more students proceed. Learning is not student-directed. The system decides the order of topics. == History and milestones == Squirrel Ai Learning was founded by Derek Haoyang Li in 2014. In March, 2017, The Squirrel Ai Intelligent Adaptive Learning System (IALS) was launched. IALS utilizes artificial intelligence to customize lessons, practice and evaluations for each individual student. In 2018, Squirrel Ai Learning established a joint research lab of AI adaptive learning with the institute of Automation of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. By 2019, Squirrel Ai Learning had opened 2,000 learning centers in 200 cities and registered over a million students in Asia. In 2019, Squirrel Ai Learning opened a research lab in partnership with Carnegie Mellon University. As of 2019, Squirrel Ai Learning had raised over $180 million in funding and in 2018 it surpassed $1 billion in valuation. In 2020, Squirrel Ai Learning launched the $1 million AAAI Squirrel AI Award for Artificial Intelligence for the Benefit of Humanity in partnership with AAAI. The inaugural award was given to Regina Barzilay for her work developing machine learning models to address drug synthesis and early-stage breast cancer diagnosis. In 2020, Squirrel Ai Learning established strategic partnership with DingTalk, Alibaba Group. As of 2021, Squirrel Ai Learning had served over 60,000 public schools, in over 1200 cities in Asia. Squirrel Ai plans to start offering its services in the United States in 2026. The American arm is separate from the Chinese company to avoid regulatory hurdles. As of January 2026, it had set up an "independent technology platform" in the US. == Recognition == Squirrel Ai Learning has gained recognition both in Asia and internationally including: Squirrel Ai Learning was named one of the World's Top 30 AI application case in the 2018 Synced Machine Intelligence Awards. In June 2019, Squirrel Ai Learning was named as one of the 50 smartest companies in China by MIT technology review. Squirrel Ai Learning won the GITEX 2019 Best Education Technology Award. In 2020, Squirrel Ai Learning won the UNESCO AI Innovation Award. Squirrel Ai Learning was listed in the 2020 CB Insight's AI 100, CB Insights' annual ranking of the 100 most promising AI startups in the world. Squirrel Ai Learning won Edtech Review's Best AI in Education Company of the Year award 2020.

    Read more →
  • Nextcloud

    Nextcloud

    Nextcloud is a modular workspace platform designed to provide teams and businesses with a comprehensive environment for digital collaboration. Beyond central data management, it integrates office suites like Collabora Online and EuroOffice office suites. for seamless, cooperative workflows. The platform features built-in tools for chat, videoconferencing, and a privacy-focused AI assistant capable of running entirely on local LLMs. Supported by a rich ecosystem of apps, it can be hosted in the cloud or on premises and can scale up to millions of users. It has been translated into over 100 languages. == Features == Nextcloud files are stored in conventional directory structures, accessible via WebDAV if necessary. A SQLite, MySQL/MariaDB or PostgreSQL database is required to provide additional functionality like permissions, shares, and comments. Nextcloud can synchronize with local clients running Windows (Windows 8.1 and above), macOS (10.14 or later), Linux and FreeBSD. Nextcloud permits user and group administration locally or via different backends like OpenID or LDAP. Content can be shared inside the system by defining granular read/write permissions between users and groups. Nextcloud users can create public URLs when sharing files. Logging of file-related actions, as well as disallowing access based on file access rules is also available. Security options like brute-force protection and multi-factor authentication using TOTP, WebAuthn, Oauth2, and OpenID Connect are available. Nextcloud has planned new features such as monitoring capabilities, full-text search and Kerberos authentication, as well as audio/video conferencing, expanded federation and smaller user interface improvements. == History == In April 2016 Frank Karlitschek and most core contributors left ownCloud Inc. These included some of ownCloud's staff according to sources near to the ownCloud community. Karlitschek and many of these contributors went on to fork ownCloud, creating Nextcloud. The fork was preceded by a blog post of Karlitschek announcing his departure and raising questions about the management of the ownCloud, its community, and priorities between growth, money, and sustainability. There have been no official statements about the reason for the fork. However, Karlitschek mentioned the fork several times in a talk at the 2018 FOSDEM conference and in two appearances on the FLOSS Weekly podcast, emphasizing cultural mismatch between open source developers and business oriented people not used to the open source community. On June 2, within 12 hours of the announcement of the fork, the American entity "ownCloud Inc." announced that it is shutting down with immediate effect, stating that "[...] main lenders in the US have cancelled our credit. Following American law, we are forced to close the doors of ownCloud, Inc. with immediate effect and terminate the contracts of 8 employees." ownCloud Inc. accused Karlitschek of poaching developers, while Nextcloud developers such as Arthur Schiwon stated that he "decided to quit because not everything in the ownCloud Inc. company world evolved as I imagined". ownCloud GmbH continued operations, secured financing from new investors and took over the business of ownCloud Inc. In April 2018 Informationstechnikzentrum Bund (ITZBund) reported Nextcloud won the tender for "Bundescloud" (Germany government cloud) project. In August 2019 it was announced that the governments of France, Sweden and the Netherlands would use Nextcloud for file transfer. In January 2020 Nextcloud 18 "Nextcloud Hub" was released. The major change was direct integration with an Office suite (OnlyOffice) and Nextcloud announced that their goal was to compete with Office 365 and Google Docs. A partnership with Ionos was revealed – its hosting location in Germany and compliance with GDPR should support the goal of data sovereignty. In spring 2020 remote work and web conferencing usage increased due to the COVID-19 pandemic and Nextcloud released version 19 with chat and videoconferencing Talk app integrated into the application core. Communication with an optional "high performance back-end" allows self-hosting of web conferences with more than 10 participants. Collabora Online was introduced as another integrated office suite. In August 2021 Nextcloud was chosen as a collaboration platform for European cloud software GAIA-X. In a September 2021 European Commission report it was mentioned as "the most widely deployed Open Source content collaboration platform" Following the 2025 United States tariffs against the European Union, fear of overreliance on US cloud providers such as Microsoft 365 and Google Workspace increased, with Nextcloud being one of the foremost contenders to replace them. Some governmental organisations including the European Data Protection Supervisor and the German state of Schleswig-Holstein have since switched from Microsoft's Sharepoint to Nextcloud. According to Nextcloud, during the first 5 months of 2025, customer interest in the software had tripled.

    Read more →
  • Galatea (video game)

    Galatea (video game)

    Galatea is an interactive fiction video game by Emily Short featuring a modern rendition of the Greek myth of Galatea, the sculpture of a woman that gained life. It took "Best of Show" in the 2000 IF Art Show and won a XYZZY Award for Best non-player character. The game displays an unusually rich approach to non-player character dialogue and diverts from the typical puzzle-solving in interactive fiction: gameplay consists entirely of interacting with a single character in a single room. Galatea is licensed under the Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 3.0 US license. == Gameplay == Galatea alters the typical interactive fiction game mechanics by concentrating instead on the player's interactions with a single non-player character (NPC), the eponymous Galatea. Much of the interest of the piece derives from the ambiguous nature of the player–NPC dialogue: the form of the conversation and, indeed, the nature of Galatea herself shift depending on the focus the player places on certain aspects of the character's personality. Numerous endings are possible. Gameplay centers around the developing dialogue between Galatea and the player when asking about topics in the previous conversation. Two commands, "think about" and "recap", are provided to keep track of what has already been said; the former is also used to advance the storyline, as the player character draws conclusions about the story as it has unfolded to that point. The game also encourages using sensory commands ("touch", "listen to", "look at"), adding immersion to the experience. == Plot == Galatea is loosely based on the myth of Pygmalion, who carved the sculpture of a woman. In the myth, he falls in love with the statue, named Galatea or Elise in different versions, and the goddess Venus brings her to life. The story begins at the opening of an exhibition of artificial intelligences. The player, alone, discovers Galatea displayed on a pedestal with a small information placard. She is illuminated by a spotlight and wears an emerald dress. Seeing the player about to turn away, Galatea says, "They told me you were coming." From this point, the story may proceed in a number of ways depending on the player's words and actions. === Multilinear interactive fiction === Short describes this as "multilinear interactive fiction": while interactive fiction in general allows the player to find their own way through the story, this leads in most cases to a single ending (or at least a single desired 'correct' ending). With Galatea, Short presents a story with around 70 different endings and hundreds of possible ways of reaching them. The plot is thus designed to appear open-ended with the development of the story entirely dependent on what the player decides to talk or ask about or what actions they choose to perform. Thus the original author and the player share in the creation of a work of fiction. == Development == In interviews, Emily Short has explained that Galatea arose out of her efforts to develop advanced dialog coding for interactive fiction engines. Although code for simple conversational programs like ELIZA have existed since the 1960s, and limited dialog options have existed in interactive fiction since the 1970s, Short's efforts to develop chatterbot-like dialog required her to produce a simple test case scenario to test NPC interaction. Thus the single-room, single-occupant Galatea was a natural result. Development of the game progressed organically with Short engaging in test runs and drafting new dialog options for every conversational dead-end that arose. The game's multiple endings also arose in a similar fashion although Short had intended that there be multiple endings from the start. Although the nature of the game's development as well as its minimalist final form has led to questions regarding whether it is really a game and not just an experimental conversational program, Short has suggested that to her the definition of interactive fiction requires nothing more than a world model and a parser, and "anything you can cook up with those features counts as IF." Short has acknowledged the helpful influence of the close-knit IF community and the "atmosphere in which experimentation is valued" as leading to the success of her works like Galatea. == Reception == Galatea was well received, achieving critical acclaim from interactive fiction reviewers and literary scholars. The game is considered to aspire to a new level of art in interactive fiction, and thereby to have revolutionized the genre, establishing its author, Emily Short, as one of the key figures in the modern interactive fiction scene. Fellow award-winning IF author, Adam Cadre has called Galatea "the best NPC ever"—a view that was echoed by Joystiq's John Bardinelli. Cadre also describes the game as an example of an alternative kind of puzzle where "interactivity comes in deciding where to go, what to see, what to say. Rather than having to open gates along a path, you discover that they're all open at first, but stepping through one causes others to close." Galatea was described in 2007 by Indiegames.com as a "fascinating journey." In a 2009 article, Rock, Paper, Shotgun praised the depth and detail of the game, the complexities of the character design and its "masterful balance between intricacy and simplicity", and "Galatea's emotional turmoil" that is "encoded sweetly into the subtext of what's going on. By simply interacting in a logical manner, you learn more about this character than any cut-scene or info-dump could ever hope to convey." This was reiterated in a 2010 1UP.com article that listed Galatea as #2 in its "Top 5 Introductory Interactive Fiction Games" feature, describing it as intriguingly replayable, and as a "surprisingly rich game for its apparent minimalism". In 2011, PC Gamer highlighted Galatea as an example of the artistic and literary aspects of the interactive fiction genre. The titular character, Galatea, has been compared to the 2007 Portal character GLaDOS due to similarities in the personalities of the characters.

    Read more →
  • Fuzzy pay-off method for real option valuation

    Fuzzy pay-off method for real option valuation

    The fuzzy pay-off method for real option valuation (FPOM or pay-off method) is a method for valuing real options, developed by Mikael Collan, Robert Fullér, and József Mezei; and published in 2009. It is based on the use of fuzzy logic and fuzzy numbers for the creation of the possible pay-off distribution of a project (real option). The structure of the method is similar to the probability theory based Datar–Mathews method for real option valuation, but the method is not based on probability theory and uses fuzzy numbers and possibility theory in framing the real option valuation problem. == Method == The Fuzzy pay-off method derives the real option value from a pay-off distribution that is created by using three or four cash-flow scenarios (most often created by an expert or a group of experts). The pay-off distribution is created simply by assigning each of the three cash-flow scenarios a corresponding definition with regards to a fuzzy number (triangular fuzzy number for three scenarios and a trapezoidal fuzzy number for four scenarios). This means that the pay-off distribution is created without any simulation whatsoever. This makes the procedure easy and transparent. The scenarios used are a minimum possible scenario (the lowest possible outcome), the maximum possible scenario (the highest possible outcome) and a best estimate (most likely to happen scenario) that is mapped as a fully possible scenario with a full degree of membership in the set of possible outcomes, or in the case of four scenarios used - two best estimate scenarios that are the upper and lower limit of the interval that is assigned a full degree of membership in the set of possible outcomes. The main observations that lie behind the model for deriving the real option value are the following: The fuzzy NPV of a project is (equal to) the pay-off distribution of a project value that is calculated with fuzzy numbers. The mean value of the positive values of the fuzzy NPV is the "possibilistic" mean value of the positive fuzzy NPV values. Real option value, ROV, calculated from the fuzzy NPV is the "possibilistic" mean value of the positive fuzzy NPV values multiplied with the positive area of the fuzzy NPV over the total area of the fuzzy NPV. The real option formula can then be written simply as: R O V = A ( P o s ) A ( P o s ) + A ( N e g ) × E [ A + ] {\displaystyle \mathrm {ROV} ={\frac {A(\mathrm {Pos} )}{A(\mathrm {Pos} )+A(\mathrm {Neg} )}}\times E[A_{+}]} where A(Pos) is the area of the positive part of the fuzzy distribution, A(Neg) is the area of the negative part of the fuzzy distribution, and E[A+] is the mean value of the positive part of the distribution. It can be seen that when the distribution is totally positive, the real options value reduces to the expected (mean) value, E[A+]. As can be seen, the real option value can be derived directly from the fuzzy NPV, without simulation. At the same time, simulation is not an absolutely necessary step in the Datar–Mathews method, so the two methods are not very different in that respect. But what is totally different is that the Datar–Mathews method is based on probability theory and as such has a very different foundation from the pay-off method that is based on possibility theory: the way that the two models treat uncertainty is fundamentally different. == Use of the method == The pay-off method for real option valuation is very easy to use compared to the other real option valuation methods and it can be used with the most commonly used spreadsheet software without any add-ins. The method is useful in analyses for decision making regarding investments that have an uncertain future, and especially so if the underlying data is in the form of cash-flow scenarios. The method is less useful if optimal timing is the objective. The method is flexible and accommodates easily both one-stage investments and multi-stage investments (compound real options). The method has been taken into use in some large international industrial companies for the valuation of research and development projects and portfolios. In these analyses triangular fuzzy numbers are used. Other uses of the method so far are, for example, R&D project valuation IPR valuation, valuation of M&A targets and expected synergies, valuation and optimization of M&A strategies, valuation of area development (construction) projects, valuation of large industrial real investments. The use of the pay-off method is lately taught within the larger framework of real options, for example at the Lappeenranta University of Technology and at the Tampere University of Technology in Finland.

    Read more →