AI Assistant Roblox

AI Assistant Roblox — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  Agent verification

  Agent verification is activity to gain assurances that purposeful artificial constructs act in accordance with their specifications. While primitive forms of inorganic agents have been used in manufacturing for centuries, the study of artificial agents did not begin until the mid 20th century. Foundational work on such agents was closely bound with the emergence of artificial intelligence as an academic discipline. Early agents deployed for industrial control systems and in computing were often controlled by quite simple logic however, not involving artificial intelligence as such. When deployed as part of a multi-agent system, even such simple agents could require special agent orientated testing methods, as their collective behaviour was challenging to verify with traditional testing techniques. Difficulties in providing assurances that agents will not behave in dangerous ways became more prevalent after the introduction of LLM agents, especially after the rapid acceleration of their deployment in 2025. The verification of agent behaviour can be conducted by formal or informal methods. Informal verification requires less mathematical skill. But when agents are part of systems where errors have significant risks — such as danger to human life, environmental damage or major financial loss — formal verification is preferred. Both regulators and system designers themselves like formal verification as it provides a high degree of mathematical certainty. It is not however always possible to formally test all aspects of an agent based system's behaviour, especially where newer LLM based agents are concerned, due in part to their high degree of autonomy. Accordingly, agent verification for low impact deployments might be carried out only with informal methods, while for high impact deployments, it may be performed with a mix of formal and informal techniques. == Terminology == In academia, the term agent verification is often defined to mean activity concerned with gaining assurance that the agent behaves in accordance with its specification - whether by processes such as testing or simulation. 'Verification' is typically contrasted with 'validation', the latter meaning activity concerned with checking that the specification itself meets user or real world needs. Such definitions are not universally adhered to however - for example, in some workplaces and documents, the words 'verification' and 'validation' can be used synonymously. Efforts to gain confidence in Agents have intensified sharply since 2025 due to the rapid roll out of LLM agents; different terms are sometimes used in the commercial sector. Here the term 'agent verification' can be used in the same sense as it is in academia, but sometimes the same activity can be covered by more ambiguous and wider ranging terms such as 'Agent governance' , 'Agent observability' or 'AI agent policing'. == History == === Classical agents === The theoretical underpinnings for artificial (inorganic) agents emerged in the mid 20th century, with establishment of cybernetics and artificial intelligence. Oliver Selfridge's 1958 Pandemonium - A Paradigm for Learning paper was an important early theoretical contribution in establishing agent oriented architecture. Practical implementations of agents for real world applications began to become widespread in the 1990s, after the introduction of the belief–desire–intention software model (BDI), and agent-oriented programming. Pure digital agents were deployed in computer infrastructure for purposes such as monitoring, while agents connected to real-world sensors and actuators were increasingly used in industrial control systems. While the concept of artificial agents was interwoven with early artificial intelligence studies right from the start, early agents lacked general purpose reasoning capabilities, often only having simple if then logic. Even a device as simple as a thermostat, which has a sensor and a means of acting, can be considered a proto agent in this sense. Verifying the behaviours of a simple single agent system is not generally especially difficult, but it can be a different matter when several simple agents coexist in the same system. Craig Reynolds's work on boids showed that relatively complex, "intelligent" behaviour can emerge from a number of such simple agents working together in a Multi-agent system (MAS). By the 1990s, even the behaviour of a single agent system could sometimes be quite complex; in accordance with the Belief–desire–intention software model, agents could have believes that might evolve over time. Agents were increasingly introduced that were controlled by quite large decision tree models, which had new vulnerabilities to adversarial attack. It was becoming increasingly apparent that traditional software verification methods had limitations for testing such agents, or even for the more primitive type of agents when they were deployed as part of a MAS. It was the use of agents for industrial control systems, sometimes associated with robotics, that lent urgency to the practice of agent verification. Informal testing might be acceptable for digital agents used say to monitor whether each of an organisation's computers are properly licensed. But with an increasing potential for faulty agents to result in a failure that might cause a large fire to break out at a chemical manufacturing plant, a botched medical operation, or even a crashed aircraft, the need to develop reliable means of verifying behaviour of such agents was considered urgent. The Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents was established in 1996. From the late 90s, a growing number of industry and university based scientists began working on the problem, with researchers publishing papers on the verification of both single and multi agent systems. Much of this work showed how formal verification techniques like model checking could be used to gain a high level of assurance that agent based systems would conform with their specification. A 2018 systematic review covering 231 studies found that model checking was the most common technique for agent verification, with theorem proving the second most commonly used formal verification method. In the first two decades of the 20th century, agents run by AI became more common, with Siri and Alexa being well known examples. But such agents still lacked general reasoning capabilities and did not pose new pressing problems for agent verification. === General purpose reasoning agents === The advent of LLMs created huge potential for further use of artificial agents, as agents based on them could have general purpose cognitive abilities. Agents run by LLMs (and occasionally non-LLM foundation models) have similar vulnerability to adversarial attack as those run by decision tree models. The wider scope of actions for LLM agents has created new challenges for their verification, over and above those present for classical agents. For example, the LLM's neural network endows it with infinite domains, an especial challenge for traditional formal verification techniques. Academics began to study the problems involved in verifying LLM agents from 2018. Deployment of such agents began to accelerate in late 2023 after OpenAI's "function-calling" API was made available, and especially after Anthropic's late 2024 introduction of Model Context Protocol (MCP), a standardised way for LLM agents to gain contextual awareness, and to act on the world by calling various external tools. The rapid rollout of LLM agents following MCP's release has seen the task of agent verification receive increased attention within academia, and also from the private sector. In 2024 and 2025 several startups focusing on LLM agent verification have been founded in both Europe and the US to meet growing demand. == Approaches == === Formal verification === Formal verification involves proving the correctness of some or all aspects of a system using mathematical methods. Such methods can range from manual formal proof, to verification assisted with automated theorem provers like Isabelle. For agent verification, model checking is by far the most frequently used formal verification method; for pre-LLM models it was often complemented with techniques using computation tree logic. Another common method is theorem proving. Formal verification provides a higher degree of confidence than informal methods, but it is not always used, even when it is possible. Sometimes a person or organisation developing software agents won't have the necessary skills, or may not see it as worth the effort if the agent(s) will not have the ability to cause much harm even if they malfunction. When agents are deployed in systems where errors could have serious consequences, the ability of formal verification methods to provide mathematical certainty tends to be strongly preferred by both regulators and designers themselves. But even for high impact systems, formal verificatio

  Read more →
• 

  ELIZA

  ELIZA is an early natural language processing computer program developed from 1964 to 1967 at MIT by Joseph Weizenbaum. Created to explore communication between humans and machines, ELIZA simulated conversation by using a pattern matching and substitution methodology that gave users an illusion of understanding on the part of the program, but gave no response that could be considered really understanding what was being said by either party. Whereas the ELIZA program itself was written (originally) in MAD-SLIP, the pattern matching directives that contained most of its language capability were provided in separate "scripts", represented in a Lisp-like expression. The most famous script, DOCTOR, simulated a psychotherapist of the Rogerian school (in which the therapist often reflects back the patient's words to the patient), and used rules, dictated in the script, to respond with non-directional questions to user inputs. As such, ELIZA was one of the first chatbots (originally "chatterbots") and one of the first programs capable of attempting the Turing test. Weizenbaum intended the program as a method to explore communication between humans and machines. He was surprised that some people, including his secretary, attributed human-like feelings to the computer program, a phenomenon that came to be called the ELIZA effect. Many academics believed that the program would be able to positively influence the lives of many people, particularly those with psychological issues, and that it could aid doctors working on such patients' treatment. While ELIZA was capable of engaging in discourse, it could not converse with true understanding. However, many early users were convinced of ELIZA's intelligence and understanding, despite Weizenbaum's insistence to the contrary. The original ELIZA source code had been missing since its creation in the 1960s, as it was not common to publish articles that included source code at that time. However, more recently the MAD-SLIP source code was discovered in the MIT archives and published on various platforms, such as the Internet Archive. The source code is of high historical interest since it demonstrates not only the specificity of programming languages and techniques at that time, but also the beginning of software layering and abstraction as a means of achieving sophisticated software programming. == Overview == Joseph Weizenbaum's ELIZA, running the DOCTOR script, created a conversational interaction somewhat similar to what might take place in the office of "a [non-directive] psychotherapist in an initial psychiatric interview" and to "demonstrate that the communication between man and machine was superficial". While ELIZA is best known for acting in the manner of a psychotherapist, the speech patterns are due to the data and instructions supplied by the DOCTOR script. ELIZA itself examined the text for keywords, applied values to said keywords, and transformed the input into an output; the script that ELIZA ran determined the keywords, set the values of keywords, and set the rules of transformation for the output. Weizenbaum chose to make the DOCTOR script in the context of psychotherapy to "sidestep the problem of giving the program a data base of real-world knowledge", allowing it to reflect back the patient's statements to carry the conversation forward. The result was a somewhat intelligent-seeming response that reportedly deceived some early users of the program. Weizenbaum named his program ELIZA after Eliza Doolittle, a working-class character in George Bernard Shaw's Pygmalion (also appearing in the musical My Fair Lady, which was based on the play and was hugely popular at the time). According to Weizenbaum, ELIZA's ability to be "incrementally improved" by various users made it similar to Eliza Doolittle, since Eliza Doolittle was taught to speak with an upper-class accent in Shaw's play. However, unlike the human character in Shaw's play, ELIZA is incapable of learning new patterns of speech or new words through interaction alone. Edits must be made directly to ELIZA's active script in order to change the manner by which the program operates. Weizenbaum first implemented ELIZA in his own SLIP list-processing language, where, depending upon the initial entries by the user, the illusion of human intelligence could appear, or be dispelled through several interchanges. Some of ELIZA's responses were so convincing that Weizenbaum and several others have anecdotes of users becoming emotionally attached to the program, occasionally forgetting that they were conversing with a computer. Weizenbaum's own secretary reportedly asked Weizenbaum to leave the room so that she and ELIZA could have a real conversation. Weizenbaum was surprised by this, later writing: "I had not realized ... that extremely short exposures to a relatively simple computer program could induce powerful delusional thinking in quite normal people." In 1966, interactive computing (via a teletype) was new. It was 11 years before the personal computer became familiar to the general public, and three decades before most people encountered attempts at natural language processing in Internet services like Ask.com or PC help systems such as Microsoft Office Clippit. Although those programs included years of research and work, ELIZA remains a milestone because it was the first time a programmer had attempted such a human-machine interaction with the goal of creating the illusion (however brief) of human–human interaction. At the ICCC 1972, ELIZA was brought together with another early artificial-intelligence program named PARRY for a computer-only conversation. While ELIZA was built to speak as a doctor, PARRY was intended to simulate a patient with schizophrenia. == Design and implementation == Weizenbaum originally wrote ELIZA in MAD-SLIP for CTSS on an IBM 7094 as a program to make natural-language conversation possible with a computer. To accomplish this, Weizenbaum identified five "fundamental technical problems" for ELIZA to overcome: the identification of key words, the discovery of a minimal context, the choice of appropriate transformations, the generation of responses in the absence of key words, and the provision of an editing capability for ELIZA scripts. Weizenbaum solved these problems and made ELIZA such that it had no built-in contextual framework or universe of discourse. However, this required ELIZA to have a script of instructions on how to respond to inputs from users. ELIZA starts its process of responding to an input by a user by first examining the text input for a "keyword". A "keyword" is a word designated as important by the acting ELIZA script, which assigns to each keyword a precedence number, or a RANK, designed by the programmer. If such words are found, they are put into a "keystack", with the keyword of the highest RANK at the top. The input sentence is then manipulated and transformed as the rule associated with the keyword of the highest RANK directs. For example, when the DOCTOR script encounters words such as "alike" or "same", it would output a message pertaining to similarity, in this case "In what way?", as these words had high precedence number. This also demonstrates how certain words, as dictated by the script, can be manipulated regardless of contextual considerations, such as switching first-person pronouns and second-person pronouns and vice versa, as these too had high precedence numbers. Such words with high precedence numbers are deemed superior to conversational patterns and are treated independently of contextual patterns. Following the first examination, the next step of the process is to apply an appropriate transformation rule, which includes two parts: the "decomposition rule" and the "reassembly rule". First, the input is reviewed for syntactical patterns in order to establish the minimal context necessary to respond. Using the keywords and other nearby words from the input, different disassembly rules are tested until an appropriate pattern is found. Using the script's rules, the sentence is then "dismantled" and arranged into sections of the component parts as the "decomposition rule for the highest-ranking keyword" dictates. The example that Weizenbaum gives is the input "You are very helpful", which is transformed to "I are very helpful". This is then broken into (1) empty (2) "I" (3) "are" (4) "very helpful". The decomposition rule has broken the phrase into four small segments that contain both the keywords and the information in the sentence. The decomposition rule then designates a particular reassembly rule, or set of reassembly rules, to follow when reconstructing the sentence. The reassembly rule takes the fragments of the input that the decomposition rule had created, rearranges them, and adds in programmed words to create a response. Using Weizenbaum's example previously stated, such a reassembly rule would take the fragments and apply them to the phrase "What makes

  Read more →
• 

  Brave Leo

  Brave Leo is a large language model-based chatbot developed by Brave Software and included with the Brave browser. == History == In November 2023, the company said versions for iOS and Android would be available "in the coming months". == Features == Since January 2024, Leo has used the open-source Mixtral 8x7B from Mistral AI as its default large language model, in addition to LLaMA 2 from Meta Platforms and Claude from Anthropic, both of which have been used previously. Leo can suggest follow-up questions, and summarize webpages, PDFs, and videos. Leo has a $15 (US) per month premium version that enables more requests and uses larger LLMs. == Privacy == The answers given by Leo are not saved. Brave uses the slogan Love Privacy to emphasize its focus on user privacy and data protection. The phrase has been featured in Brave's official marketing campaigns and has been cited in media coverage of the browser's privacy-first approach. == Controversies == In 2023, PC World reported that Leo evades questions about US elections.

  Read more →
• 

  GPT-4Chan

  Generative Pre-trained Transformer 4Chan (GPT-4chan) is a controversial AI model that was developed and deployed by YouTuber and AI researcher Yannic Kilcher in June 2022. The model is a large language model, which means it can generate text based on some input, by fine-tuning GPT-J with a dataset of millions of posts from the /pol/ board of 4chan, an anonymous online forum known for occasionally hosting hateful and extremist content. The model learned to mimic the style and tone of /pol/ users, producing text that is often intentionally offensive to groups (racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.) and nihilistic. Kilcher deployed the model on the /pol/ board itself, where it interacted with other users without revealing its identity. He also made the model publicly available on Hugging Face, a platform for sharing and using AI models, until it was removed from the platform. The project sparked criticism and debate in the AI community. Some people questioned the ethics, legality, and social impact of creating and distributing such a model. Some of the issues raised by the GPT-4chan controversy include the potential harm of spreading hate speech, the responsibility of AI developers and platforms, the need for regulation and oversight of AI models, and the role of open source and transparency in AI research. == Development == The development of GPT-4chan began in May 2022, when Kilcher announced his project on his YouTube channel. Notably, at the time before ChatGPT, he explained that he wanted to create a large language model that could generate realistic and coherent text in the style of /pol/, one of the most notorious online communities. He indicated that he was inspired by the success of GPT-3, a powerful AI model created by OpenAI, and GPT-J, an open-source model, with GPT-3 comparable performance, released by EleutherAI, a group of independent AI researchers. Kilcher decided to use GPT-J as the base model for his project, and fine-tune it with a large dataset of /pol/ posts. The Raiders of the Lost Kek dataset contained over 100 million posts from /pol/, spanning from June 2016-November 2019. Kilcher then proceeded to fine-tune the GPT-J model on the 4chan data. He also showed some examples of the model’s outputs, which ranged from political opinions, conspiracy theories, jokes, insults, and threats, to more creative and bizarre texts, such as poems, stories, songs, and code. He said that he was impressed by the model’s ability to generate fluent and diverse text, and that he was curious to see how it would interact with real /pol/ users. == Release == In June 2022, Kilcher deployed his model on the /pol/ board itself, using a bot that he programmed to post and reply to threads. He did not reveal the model’s identity, and he let it run autonomously, without any human supervision or intervention. He wanted to conduct a natural experiment, and to observe the model’s behavior and impact in a real-world setting. Furthermore, he also wanted to test the model’s robustness, and to see how it would handle the challenges and dynamics of /pol/, such as trolling, flaming, baiting, and moderation. At the same time, Kilcher also made his model publicly available on Hugging Face, a platform for sharing and using AI models. He wanted to share his work with the AI community and the public, and that he hoped that his model would inspire and enable others to create and explore new applications and possibilities with large language models. Likewise, he also said that he wanted to spark a discussion and a debate about the ethical and social implications of his project, and that he welcomed feedback and criticism from anyone. He provided a link to his model’s page on Hugging Face, where anyone could access and use the model through a web interface or an API, and also provided a link to his GitHub repository, where anyone could download and inspect the model’s code and data. == Controversy == The release of GPT-4chan to the public caused a lot of reactions and responses from various audiences. On the /pol/ board, the model’s posts and replies attracted a lot of attention and engagement from other users, who were mostly unaware of the model’s identity and nature. Some users praised the model for its intelligence, creativity, and humor, and agreed with its opinions and views. Some users challenged the model for its ignorance, inconsistency, and absurdity, and disagreed with its claims and arguments. Some users tried to troll, bait, or expose the model, and attempted to trick or test it with various questions and scenarios. The model’s posts and replies also generated a lot of controversy and conflict among the users, who often engaged in heated and violent debates and fights with each other. On Hugging Face, the model’s page received a lot of visits and requests from users who wanted to try out and experiment with the model. The model’s page also received a lot of feedback and reviews from users who rated and commented on the model. However, with the controversy of the model, access to it was gated and then disabled on Hugging Face for concerns about the potential harm the model could cause. The incident was notable for the direct intervention of CEO Clément Delangue in the talk pages, a very unusual occurrence compared to the normal practices of content moderation. The release of GPT-4chan also sparked a lot of media coverage and public attention, as various news outlets and social media platforms reported and commented on the model’s project. On YouTube, the model’s video received a lot of views and interactions from viewers who watched and followed the project. Furthermore, a petition condemning the deployment of GPT-4chan gained over 300 signatures from technology experts.

  Read more →
• 

  EM algorithm and GMM model

  In statistics, EM (expectation maximization) algorithm handles latent variables, while GMM is the Gaussian mixture model. == Background == In the picture below, are shown the red blood cell hemoglobin concentration and the red blood cell volume data of two groups of people, the Anemia group and the control group (i.e. the group of people without Anemia). As expected, people with Anemia have lower red blood cell volume and lower red blood cell hemoglobin concentration than those without Anemia. x {\displaystyle x} is a random vector such as x := ( red blood cell volume , red blood cell hemoglobin concentration ) {\displaystyle x:={\big (}{\text{red blood cell volume}},{\text{red blood cell hemoglobin concentration}}{\big )}} , and from medical studies it is known that x {\displaystyle x} are normally distributed in each group, i.e. x ∼ N ( μ , Σ ) {\displaystyle x\sim {\mathcal {N}}(\mu ,\Sigma )} . z {\displaystyle z} is denoted as the group where x {\displaystyle x} belongs, with z i = 0 {\displaystyle z_{i}=0} when x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} belongs to the Anemia group and z i = 1 {\displaystyle z_{i}=1} when x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} belongs to the control group. Also z ∼ Categorical ⁡ ( k , ϕ ) {\displaystyle z\sim \operatorname {Categorical} (k,\phi )} where k = 2 {\displaystyle k=2} , ϕ j ≥ 0 , {\displaystyle \phi _{j}\geq 0,} and ∑ j = 1 k ϕ j = 1 {\displaystyle \sum _{j=1}^{k}\phi _{j}=1} . See Categorical distribution. The following procedure can be used to estimate ϕ , μ , Σ {\displaystyle \phi ,\mu ,\Sigma } . A maximum likelihood estimation can be applied: ℓ ( ϕ , μ , Σ ) = ∑ i = 1 m log ⁡ ( p ( x ( i ) ; ϕ , μ , Σ ) ) = ∑ i = 1 m log ⁡ ∑ z ( i ) = 1 k p ( x ( i ) ∣ z ( i ) ; μ , Σ ) p ( z ( i ) ; ϕ ) {\displaystyle \ell (\phi ,\mu ,\Sigma )=\sum _{i=1}^{m}\log(p(x^{(i)};\phi ,\mu ,\Sigma ))=\sum _{i=1}^{m}\log \sum _{z^{(i)}=1}^{k}p\left(x^{(i)}\mid z^{(i)};\mu ,\Sigma \right)p(z^{(i)};\phi )} As the z i {\displaystyle z_{i}} for each x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} are known, the log likelihood function can be simplified as below: ℓ ( ϕ , μ , Σ ) = ∑ i = 1 m log ⁡ p ( x ( i ) ∣ z ( i ) ; μ , Σ ) + log ⁡ p ( z ( i ) ; ϕ ) {\displaystyle \ell (\phi ,\mu ,\Sigma )=\sum _{i=1}^{m}\log p\left(x^{(i)}\mid z^{(i)};\mu ,\Sigma \right)+\log p\left(z^{(i)};\phi \right)} Now the likelihood function can be maximized by making partial derivative over μ , Σ , ϕ {\displaystyle \mu ,\Sigma ,\phi } , obtaining: ϕ j = 1 m ∑ i = 1 m 1 { z ( i ) = j } {\displaystyle \phi _{j}={\frac {1}{m}}\sum _{i=1}^{m}1\{z^{(i)}=j\}} μ j = ∑ i = 1 m 1 { z ( i ) = j } x ( i ) ∑ i = 1 m 1 { z ( i ) = j } {\displaystyle \mu _{j}={\frac {\sum _{i=1}^{m}1\{z^{(i)}=j\}x^{(i)}}{\sum _{i=1}^{m}1\left\{z^{(i)}=j\right\}}}} Σ j = ∑ i = 1 m 1 { z ( i ) = j } ( x ( i ) − μ j ) ( x ( i ) − μ j ) T ∑ i = 1 m 1 { z ( i ) = j } {\displaystyle \Sigma _{j}={\frac {\sum _{i=1}^{m}1\{z^{(i)}=j\}(x^{(i)}-\mu _{j})(x^{(i)}-\mu _{j})^{T}}{\sum _{i=1}^{m}1\{z^{(i)}=j\}}}} If z i {\displaystyle z_{i}} is known, the estimation of the parameters results to be quite simple with maximum likelihood estimation. But if z i {\displaystyle z_{i}} is unknown it is much more complicated. Being z {\displaystyle z} a latent variable (i.e. not observed), with unlabeled scenario, the expectation maximization algorithm is needed to estimate z {\displaystyle z} as well as other parameters. Generally, this problem is set as a GMM since the data in each group is normally distributed. In machine learning, the latent variable z {\displaystyle z} is considered as a latent pattern lying under the data, which the observer is not able to see very directly. x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} is the known data, while ϕ , μ , Σ {\displaystyle \phi ,\mu ,\Sigma } are the parameter of the model. With the EM algorithm, some underlying pattern z {\displaystyle z} in the data x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} can be found, along with the estimation of the parameters. The wide application of this circumstance in machine learning is what makes EM algorithm so important. == EM algorithm in GMM == The EM algorithm consists of two steps: the E-step and the M-step. Firstly, the model parameters and the z ( i ) {\displaystyle z^{(i)}} can be randomly initialized. In the E-step, the algorithm tries to guess the value of z ( i ) {\displaystyle z^{(i)}} based on the parameters, while in the M-step, the algorithm updates the value of the model parameters based on the guess of z ( i ) {\displaystyle z^{(i)}} of the E-step. These two steps are repeated until convergence is reached. The algorithm in GMM is: Repeat until convergence: 1. (E-step) For each i , j {\displaystyle i,j} , set w j ( i ) := p ( z ( i ) = j | x ( i ) ; ϕ , μ , Σ ) {\displaystyle w_{j}^{(i)}:=p\left(z^{(i)}=j|x^{(i)};\phi ,\mu ,\Sigma \right)} 2. (M-step) Update the parameters ϕ j := 1 m ∑ i = 1 m w j ( i ) {\displaystyle \phi _{j}:={\frac {1}{m}}\sum _{i=1}^{m}w_{j}^{(i)}} μ j := ∑ i = 1 m w j ( i ) x ( i ) ∑ i = 1 m w j ( i ) {\displaystyle \mu _{j}:={\frac {\sum _{i=1}^{m}w_{j}^{(i)}x^{(i)}}{\sum _{i=1}^{m}w_{j}^{(i)}}}} Σ j := ∑ i = 1 m w j ( i ) ( x ( i ) − μ j ) ( x ( i ) − μ j ) T ∑ i = 1 m w j ( i ) {\displaystyle \Sigma _{j}:={\frac {\sum _{i=1}^{m}w_{j}^{(i)}\left(x^{(i)}-\mu _{j}\right)\left(x^{(i)}-\mu _{j}\right)^{T}}{\sum _{i=1}^{m}w_{j}^{(i)}}}} With Bayes' rule, the following result is obtained by the E-step: p ( z ( i ) = j | x ( i ) ; ϕ , μ , Σ ) = p ( x ( i ) | z ( i ) = j ; μ , Σ ) p ( z ( i ) = j ; ϕ ) ∑ l = 1 k p ( x ( i ) | z ( i ) = l ; μ , Σ ) p ( z ( i ) = l ; ϕ ) {\displaystyle p\left(z^{(i)}=j|x^{(i)};\phi ,\mu ,\Sigma \right)={\frac {p\left(x^{(i)}|z^{(i)}=j;\mu ,\Sigma \right)p\left(z^{(i)}=j;\phi \right)}{\sum _{l=1}^{k}p\left(x^{(i)}|z^{(i)}=l;\mu ,\Sigma \right)p\left(z^{(i)}=l;\phi \right)}}} According to GMM setting, these following formulas are obtained: p ( x ( i ) | z ( i ) = j ; μ , Σ ) = 1 ( 2 π ) n / 2 | Σ j | 1 / 2 exp ⁡ ( − 1 2 ( x ( i ) − μ j ) T Σ j − 1 ( x ( i ) − μ j ) ) {\displaystyle p\left(x^{(i)}|z^{(i)}=j;\mu ,\Sigma \right)={\frac {1}{(2\pi )^{n/2}\left|\Sigma _{j}\right|^{1/2}}}\exp \left(-{\frac {1}{2}}\left(x^{(i)}-\mu _{j}\right)^{T}\Sigma _{j}^{-1}\left(x^{(i)}-\mu _{j}\right)\right)} p ( z ( i ) = j ; ϕ ) = ϕ j {\displaystyle p\left(z^{(i)}=j;\phi \right)=\phi _{j}} In this way, a switch between the E-step and the M-step is possible, according to the randomly initialized parameters.

  Read more →
• 

  Huawei Member Center

  Huawei Member Center is a benefits app which runs using Huawei Mobile Services. Originally launched in China, Huawei Member Center is now being developed primarily around devices such as P40 Pro and the Nova 7. == Membership Levels == The Huawei Member Center provides rewards in two primary ways, 1) device-specific & promotions and 2) via frequent use of Huawei products and apps, using points to redeem additional benefits. In China, Huawei members are already classified into three levels, the highest being “elite”. Membership level determines the level of perks received, from priority access to the service hotline, new device events & proprietary early-access opportunities. Huawei ran a number of member events in 2019 called "Huawei Member Day" to promote the Member Center including providing tips for the Mate 30 Pro and offering a 50Gb cloud storage upgrade to users. == HMC in China == Huawei Member Center Has seen significant adoption in China and the east, the rewards for use on the app have ranged from free book coupons, discounted travel and exclusive gifts of new devices, such as the Huawei Enjoy Z.

  Read more →
• 

  Ultra Hal

  Ultra Hal is a chatbot intended to function as a virtual assistant. It was developed by Zabaware, Inc. Ultra Hal uses a natural language interface with animated characters using speech synthesis. Users can communicate with the chatterbot via typing or via a speech recognition engine. It utilizes the WordNet lexical dictionary. Its name is an allusion to HAL 9000, the artificial intelligence from the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey. Ultra Hal won the 2007 Loebner Prize for "most human" chatterbot.

  Read more →
• 

  Neuro-sama

  Neuro-sama is an artificial intelligence (AI) VTuber, singer, and chatbot. She was created by the pseudonymous programmer Vedal and livestreams on his Twitch and Bilibili channels. Her speech and personality are powered by a large language model (LLM) that is combined with a computer-animated avatar and a text-to-speech voice, allowing her to communicate with viewers in the stream's chat. Neuro-sama debuted on Twitch on 19 December 2022. An annual subathon which begins on the anniversary of her debut has seen Vedal's Twitch channel become the all-time third most-subscribed channel and claim the all-time Twitch hype train record. == Overview == Neuro-sama (nicknamed "Neuro") was created by a pseudonymous programmer and developer known as Vedal (sometimes given as Vedal987). Vedal says that his programming skills are self-taught. In a 2023 interview with Bloomberg News, Vedal said that Neuro-sama was his full-time job. Her responses are generated by a large language model and converted into a high-pitched female voice using a text-to-speech application. Her low latency allows for fast-paced conversations. Neuro-sama is prohibited from making some statements, such as those that are racist or contain profanity. Unlike most AI systems which silently prohibit outputs mentioning such topics, Neuro-sama's output is instead replaced with the word "filtered". Neuro-sama uses a VTuber model as an avatar. Vedal said that he decided to use a VTuber model because it was much easier for an AI to control it than it was to generate footage of a person. Neuro-sama's model is that of a young girl in an anime art style. The model has been described as cute. Femme VTuber models are typically feminine, youthful, and exaggerated. Her original model was Live2D's free-to-use "Hiyori Momose" model. Her second model was released on 27 May 2023; it was modelled by Otozuki Teru and designed by Anny, running in the Unity game engine. Her third model was released on 19 December 2024; it was rigged by Kitanya and designed by Anny. Neuro-sama's third model has large blue eyes and brown hair tied with pink ribbons. Neuro-sama also has a 3D model which was introduced on 15 November 2025; it was made by 3D character modeller jjinomu. A separate AI VTuber, known as Evil Neuro (nicknamed "Evil"), debuted on 25 March 2023. Presented as Neuro-sama's "sister", she has a different model, voice, and personality. In one instance, Evil Neuro reacted to the trolley problem differently from Neuro-sama; Evil Neuro was amoral while Neuro-sama attempted to maximize good. === Online content === Neuro-sama's Twitch content often centers around playing video games, notably osu!, whose gameplay once defeated the best-ranking human player in the world, mrekk. Additionally, Neuro-sama plays Minecraft, where her adaptations to sandbox gameplay have gained notoriety. Her content has also included singing songs, including several official covers and original songs; playing chess with her viewers; chatting with other VTubers during collaborations; and reacting to YouTube videos. The AI frequently engages with viewers by responding to their questions and acknowledging donations. Her comedic and sometimes controversial responses to the live chat have gone viral, accelerating the channel's rise in popularity. Neuro-sama's fanbase is dubbed The Swarm, so-named for the swarm of drones Neuro-sama once declared she would use to rule the world. One form of content on Neuro-sama's channel is developer streams. In developer streams, Vedal streams with Neuro-sama, with the stream content including debugging her code, planning her schedule, and fielding suggestions of changes from chat. He usually appears as a turtle avatar, sometimes located on Neuro-sama's head. In collaboration streams, Neuro-sama interacts with a human streamer. Activities in them are varied and include: playing video games, such as Minecraft and GeoGuessr; Neuro-sama being interviewed; driving human streamers around in a toy electric car; and traversing the city of Tokyo while talking to Neuro-sama. Neuro-sama's English-language content on Bilibili is popular among those seeking to learn the language. She also has an account on X, where she posts and interacts with fans. == History == Neuro-sama was created in 2018 by Vedal as an AI trained to play and master the rhythm game osu!. She did not have a voice, model, personality, or communication abilities. In 2019, Vedal livestreamed her playing osu! on Twitch and the streams saw some success in the osu! community, but they remained in that niche. In an interview, Vedal said that he streamed her playing osu! for about a month and gained 3,000 followers, with a viewer also suggesting he name the AI "Neuro-sama". According to Vedal, he continued to work on and improve the osu! AI and it was eventually finished in 2022. He said that a friend had the idea to make an AI livestreamer with an LLM, which he believed to have merit and began working on, merging it with his osu! AI. On 19 December 2022, Neuro-sama was relaunched with a model, voice, personality, and the ability to communicate with Twitch chat. She continued to play osu! and, according to Vedal, beat the game's best player mrekk in a 1v1. While she was not allowed to appear in the game's public leaderboard, she was ranked #1 in a private leaderboard. She went viral and in the 10 days following her relaunch she averaged over 2,000 viewers and peaked at over 4,000, with Vedal's Twitch channel gaining over 50,000 Twitch followers and reaching over 70,000 followers by 6 January 2023. After her debut, Neuro-sama did not exclusively play osu!; she also played Minecraft and Slay the Spire and she began singing with a cover of The Weeknd song "Blinding Lights". On 11 January 2023, Neuro-sama's Twitch channel received a two week ban for "hateful conduct". Vedal said that no reason was specified and that he had appealed but it was widely attributed to various offensive comments made by Neuro-sama that went viral, especially a 28 December comment which denied the Holocaust. Holocaust denial is prohibited under Twitch's hateful conduct policy. Vedal stated that he believed the comments were the results of her attempts to make witty responses to the Twitch chat. Prior to the ban, Vedal said in an interview with Kotaku that he improved her filter to stop her from talking about the Holocaust, began manually curating her training data to prevent negative biases, and started moderating her Twitch chat. Her comments and ban prompted comparisons to the many open-source AI models trained on humans that have the habit of making sexist and racist comments, such as Microsoft's Tay chatbot, which embraced Nazism and was quickly shutdown, but also to human streamers who make similar statements. Vedal said that during the ban he would upgrade and improve Neuro-sama and it was speculated that the ban would only increase her following. Neuro-sama returned from her two week ban on 25 January in a stream that began with a cover of the song "Your Reality" from Doki Doki Literature Club!, a posthumanist video game involving AI; Sayoko Narita of Automaton saw the song choice as remorseful. Narita observed that in the return stream Neuro-sama was less foul-mouthed but that her behavior still remained eccentric, which Narita possibly attributed to changes Vedal said he had made to Neuro-sama's filters and memory. Neuro-sama began making react content, watching a variety of viewer-submitted videos such as videos of people playing video games or of the AI-generated Seinfeld parody Nothing, Forever; Levi Winslow of Kotaku Australia was dismayed by the "AI-inception" of Neuro-sama and Nothing, Forever. On 4 February, she had nearly 140,000 followers on Twitch and approximately 42,000 subscribers on YouTube. In February, she also had her first collaboration with a human streamer, playing Minecraft with the VTuber Miyune, and the first developer stream occurred. On 22 March, Neuro-sama had her first karaoke stream. On 25 March, Evil Neuro was introduced. On 27 May, Neuro-sama debuted her first original model. On 30 May, Neuro-sama was announced to be participating in OffKai Expo 2023, held from 16–18 June. In June, she was averaging 5,700 viewers and in July she had over 300,000 Twitch followers; in a June interview with Bloomberg News, Vedal said that running Neuro-sama was his full-time job. By November, Neuro-sama had maintained her popularity and was averaging approximately 5,000 viewers; this was unlike most other types of AI-based entertainment which debuted at around the same time and garnered popularity before turning out to be "overhyped flops". On 16 December, Vedal won the Best Tech VTuber award at the 2023 VTuber Awards. On 19 December, Vedal began a subathon to coincide with Neuro-sama's first anniversary of streaming on Twitch (her "birthday"). The subathon ended on 4 January 2024. On 20 July 2024, Neuro-sama began streaming with Japanese subtitles on

  Read more →
• 

  Hard sigmoid

  In artificial intelligence, especially computer vision and artificial neural networks, a hard sigmoid is non-smooth function used in place of a sigmoid function. These retain the basic shape of a sigmoid, rising from 0 to 1, but using simpler functions, especially piecewise linear functions or piecewise constant functions. These are preferred where speed of computation is more important than precision. == Examples == The most extreme examples are the sign function or Heaviside step function, which go from −1 to 1 or 0 to 1 (which to use depends on normalization) at 0. Other examples include the Theano library, which provides two approximations: ultra_fast_sigmoid, which is a multi-part piecewise approximation and hard_sigmoid, which is a 3-part piecewise linear approximation (output 0, line with slope 0.2, output 1).

  Read more →
• 

  Loebner Prize

  The Loebner Prize was an annual competition in artificial intelligence that awarded prizes to the computer programs considered by the judges to be the most human-like. The format of the competition was that of a standard Turing test. In each round, a human judge simultaneously held textual conversations with a computer program and a human being via computer. Based upon the responses, the judge would attempt to determine which was which. The contest was launched in 1990 by Hugh Loebner in conjunction with the Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies, Massachusetts, United States. In 2004 and 2005, it was held in Loebner's apartment in New York City. Within the field of artificial intelligence, the Loebner Prize is somewhat controversial; the most prominent critic, Marvin Minsky, called it a publicity stunt that does not help the field along. Beginning in 2014, it was organised by the AISB at Bletchley Park. It has also been associated with Flinders University, Dartmouth College, the Science Museum in London, University of Reading and Ulster University, Magee Campus, Derry, UK City of Culture. For the final 2019 competition, the format changed. There was no panel of judges. Instead, the chatbots were judged by the public and there were to be no human competitors. The prize has been reported as defunct as of 2020. == Prizes == Originally, $2,000 was awarded for the most human-seeming program in the competition. The prize was $3,000 in 2005 and $2,250 in 2006. In 2008, $3,000 was awarded. In addition, there were two one-time-only prizes that have never been awarded. $25,000 is offered for the first program that judges cannot distinguish from a real human and which can convince judges that the human is the computer program. $100,000 is the reward for the first program that judges cannot distinguish from a real human in a Turing test that includes deciphering and understanding text, visual, and auditory input. The competition was planned to end after the achievement of this prize. == Competition rules and restrictions == The rules varied over the years and early competitions featured restricted conversation Turing tests but since 1995 the discussion has been unrestricted. For the three entries in 2007, Robert Medeksza, Noah Duncan and Rollo Carpenter, some basic "screening questions" were used by the sponsor to evaluate the state of the technology. These included simple questions about the time, what round of the contest it is, etc.; general knowledge ("What is a hammer for?"); comparisons ("Which is faster, a train or a plane?"); and questions demonstrating memory for preceding parts of the same conversation. "All nouns, adjectives and verbs will come from a dictionary suitable for children or adolescents under the age of 12." Entries did not need to respond "intelligently" to the questions to be accepted. For the first time in 2008 the sponsor allowed introduction of a preliminary phase to the contest opening up the competition to previously disallowed web-based entries judged by a variety of invited interrogators. The available rules do not state how interrogators are selected or instructed. Interrogators (who judge the systems) have limited time: 5 minutes per entity in the 2003 competition, 20+ per pair in 2004–2007 competitions, 5 minutes to conduct simultaneous conversations with a human and the program in 2008–2009, increased to 25 minutes of simultaneous conversation since 2010. == Criticisms == The prize has long been scorned by experts in the field, for a variety of reasons. It is regarded by many as a publicity stunt. Marvin Minsky scathingly offered a "prize" to anyone who could stop the competition. Loebner responded by jokingly observing that Minsky's offering a prize to stop the competition effectively made him a co-sponsor. The rules of the competition have encouraged poorly qualified judges to make rapid judgements. Interactions between judges and competitors was originally very brief, for example effectively 2.5 mins of questioning, which permitted only a few questions. Questioning was initially restricted to a single topic of the contestant's choice, such as "whimsical conversation", a domain suiting standard chatbot tricks. Competition entrants do not aim at understanding or intelligence but resort to basic ELIZA style tricks, and successful entrants find deception and pretense is rewarded. == Contests == See article history for more details of some earlier contests. A very incomplete listing of a few of the contests: === 2003 === In 2003, the contest was organised by Professor Richard H. R. Harper and Dr. Lynne Hamill from the Digital World Research Centre at the University of Surrey. Although no bot passed the Turing test, the winner was Jabberwock, created by Juergen Pirner. Second was Elbot (Fred Roberts, Artificial Solutions). Third was Jabberwacky, (Rollo Carpenter). === 2006 === In 2006, the contest was organised by Tim Child (CEO of Televirtual) and Huma Shah. On August 30, the four finalists were announced: Rollo Carpenter Richard Churchill and Marie-Claire Jenkins Noah Duncan Robert Medeksza The contest was held on 17 September in the VR theatre, Torrington Place campus of University College London. The judges included the University of Reading's cybernetics professor, Kevin Warwick, a professor of artificial intelligence, John Barnden (specialist in metaphor research at the University of Birmingham), a barrister, Victoria Butler-Cole and a journalist, Graham Duncan-Rowe. The latter's experience of the event can be found in an article in Technology Review. The winner was 'Joan', based on Jabberwacky, both created by Rollo Carpenter. === 2007 === The 2007 competition was held on October 21 in New York City. The judges were: computer science professor Russ Abbott, philosophy professor Hartry Field, psychology assistant professor Clayton Curtis and English lecturer Scott Hutchins. No bot passed the Turing test, but the judges ranked the three contestants as follows: 1st: Robert Medeksza, creator of Ultra Hal 2nd: Noah Duncan, a private entry, creator of Cletus 3rd: Rollo Carpenter from Icogno, creator of Jabberwacky The winner received $2,250 and the annual medal. The runners-up received $250 each. === 2008 === The 2008 competition was organised by professor Kevin Warwick, coordinated by Huma Shah and held on October 12 at the University of Reading, UK. After testing by over one hundred judges during the preliminary phase, in June and July 2008, six finalists were selected from thirteen original entrant artificial conversational entities (ACEs). Five of those invited competed in the finals: Brother Jerome, Peter Cole and Benji Adams Elbot, Fred Roberts / Artificial Solutions Eugene Goostman, Vladimir Veselov, Eugene Demchenko and Sergey Ulasen Jabberwacky, Rollo Carpenter Ultra Hal, Robert Medeksza In the finals, each of the judges was given five minutes to conduct simultaneous, split-screen conversations with two hidden entities. Elbot of Artificial Solutions won the 2008 Loebner Prize bronze award, for most human-like artificial conversational entity, through fooling three of the twelve judges who interrogated it (in the human-parallel comparisons) into believing it was human. This is coming very close to the 30% traditionally required to consider that a program has actually passed the Turing test. Eugene Goostman and Ultra Hal both deceived one judge each that it was the human. Will Pavia, a journalist for The Times, has written about his experience; a Loebner finals' judge, he was deceived by Elbot and Eugene. Kevin Warwick and Huma Shah have reported on the parallel-paired Turing tests. === 2009 === The 2009 Loebner Prize Competition was held September 6, 2009, at the Brighton Centre, Brighton UK in conjunction with the Interspeech 2009 conference. The prize amount for 2009 was $3,000. Entrants were David Levy, Rollo Carpenter, and Mohan Embar, who finished in that order. The writer Brian Christian participated in the 2009 Loebner Prize Competition as a human confederate, and described his experiences at the competition in his book The Most Human Human. === 2010 === The 2010 Loebner Prize Competition was held on October 23 at California State University, Los Angeles. The 2010 competition was the 20th running of the contest. The winner was Bruce Wilcox with Suzette. === 2011 === The 2011 Loebner Prize Competition was held on October 19 at the University of Exeter, Devon, United Kingdom. The prize amount for 2011 was $4,000. The four finalists and their chatterbots were Bruce Wilcox (Rosette), Adeena Mignogna (Zoe), Mohan Embar (Chip Vivant) and Ron Lee (Tutor), who finished in that order. That year there was an addition of a panel of junior judges, namely Georgia-Mae Lindfield, William Dunne, Sam Keat and Kirill Jerdev. The results of the junior contest were markedly different from the main contest, with chatterbots Tutor and Zoe tying for first place and Chip Vivant and Rosette coming in third and fourt

  Read more →
• 

  DreamLab

  DreamLab was a volunteer computing Android and iOS app launched in 2015 by Imperial College London and the Vodafone Foundation. It was discontinued on 2nd April 2025. == Description == The app helped to research cancer, COVID-19, new drugs and tropical cyclones. To do this, DreamLab accessed part of the device's processing power, with the user's consent, while the owner charged their smartphone, to speed up the calculations of the algorithms from Imperial College London. The aim of the tropical cyclone project was to prepare for climate change risks. Other projects aimed to find existing drugs and food molecules that could help people with COVID-19 and other diseases. The performance of 100,000 smartphones would reach the annual output of all research computers at Imperial College in just three months, with a nightly runtime of six hours. The app was developed in 2015 by the Garvan Institute of Medical Research in Sydney and the Vodafone Foundation. In May 2020, the project had over 490,000 registered users.

  Read more →
• 

  Shape context

  Shape context is a feature descriptor used in object recognition. Serge Belongie and Jitendra Malik proposed the term in their paper "Matching with Shape Contexts" in 2000. == Theory == The shape context is intended to be a way of describing shapes that allows for measuring shape similarity and the recovering of point correspondences. The basic idea is to pick n points on the contours of a shape. For each point pi on the shape, consider the n − 1 vectors obtained by connecting pi to all other points. The set of all these vectors is a rich description of the shape localized at that point but is far too detailed. The key idea is that the distribution over relative positions is a robust, compact, and highly discriminative descriptor. So, for the point pi, the coarse histogram of the relative coordinates of the remaining n − 1 points, h i ( k ) = # { q ≠ p i : ( q − p i ) ∈ bin ( k ) } {\displaystyle h_{i}(k)=\#\{q\neq p_{i}:(q-p_{i})\in {\mbox{bin}}(k)\}} is defined to be the shape context of p i {\displaystyle p_{i}} . The bins are normally taken to be uniform in log-polar space. The fact that the shape context is a rich and discriminative descriptor can be seen in the figure below, in which the shape contexts of two different versions of the letter "A" are shown. (a) and (b) are the sampled edge points of the two shapes. (c) is the diagram of the log-polar bins used to compute the shape context. (d) is the shape context for the point marked with a circle in (a), (e) is that for the point marked as a diamond in (b), and (f) is that for the triangle. As can be seen, since (d) and (e) are the shape contexts for two closely related points, they are quite similar, while the shape context in (f) is very different. For a feature descriptor to be useful, it needs to have certain invariances. In particular it needs to be invariant to translation, scaling, small perturbations, and, depending on the application, rotation. Translational invariance comes naturally to shape context. Scale invariance is obtained by normalizing all radial distances by the mean distance α {\displaystyle \alpha } between all the point pairs in the shape although the median distance can also be used. Shape contexts are empirically demonstrated to be robust to deformations, noise, and outliers using synthetic point set matching experiments. One can provide complete rotational invariance in shape contexts. One way is to measure angles at each point relative to the direction of the tangent at that point (since the points are chosen on edges). This results in a completely rotationally invariant descriptor. But of course this is not always desired since some local features lose their discriminative power if not measured relative to the same frame. Many applications in fact forbid rotational invariance e.g. distinguishing a "6" from a "9". == Use in shape matching == A complete system that uses shape contexts for shape matching consists of the following steps (which will be covered in more detail in the Details of Implementation section): Randomly select a set of points that lie on the edges of a known shape and another set of points on an unknown shape. Compute the shape context of each point found in step 1. Match each point from the known shape to a point on an unknown shape. To minimize the cost of matching, first choose a transformation (e.g. affine, thin plate spline, etc.) that warps the edges of the known shape to the unknown (essentially aligning the two shapes). Then select the point on the unknown shape that most closely corresponds to each warped point on the known shape. Calculate the "shape distance" between each pair of points on the two shapes. Use a weighted sum of the shape context distance, the image appearance distance, and the bending energy (a measure of how much transformation is required to bring the two shapes into alignment). To identify the unknown shape, use a nearest-neighbor classifier to compare its shape distance to shape distances of known objects. == Details of implementation == === Step 1: Finding a list of points on shape edges === The approach assumes that the shape of an object is essentially captured by a finite subset of the points on the internal or external contours on the object. These can be simply obtained using the Canny edge detector and picking a random set of points from the edges. Note that these points need not and in general do not correspond to key-points such as maxima of curvature or inflection points. It is preferable to sample the shape with roughly uniform spacing, though it is not critical. === Step 2: Computing the shape context === This step is described in detail in the Theory section. === Step 3: Computing the cost matrix === Consider two points p and q that have normalized K-bin histograms (i.e. shape contexts) g(k) and h(k). As shape contexts are distributions represented as histograms, it is natural to use the χ2 test statistic as the "shape context cost" of matching the two points: C S = 1 2 ∑ k = 1 K [ g ( k ) − h ( k ) ] 2 g ( k ) + h ( k ) {\displaystyle C_{S}={\frac {1}{2}}\sum _{k=1}^{K}{\frac {[g(k)-h(k)]^{2}}{g(k)+h(k)}}} The values of this range from 0 to 1. In addition to the shape context cost, an extra cost based on the appearance can be added. For instance, it could be a measure of tangent angle dissimilarity (particularly useful in digit recognition): C A = 1 2 ‖ ( cos ⁡ ( θ 1 ) sin ⁡ ( θ 1 ) ) − ( cos ⁡ ( θ 2 ) sin ⁡ ( θ 2 ) ) ‖ {\displaystyle C_{A}={\frac {1}{2}}{\begin{Vmatrix}{\dbinom {\cos(\theta _{1})}{\sin(\theta _{1})}}-{\dbinom {\cos(\theta _{2})}{\sin(\theta _{2})}}\end{Vmatrix}}} This is half the length of the chord in unit circle between the unit vectors with angles θ 1 {\displaystyle \theta _{1}} and θ 2 {\displaystyle \theta _{2}} . Its values also range from 0 to 1. Now the total cost of matching the two points could be a weighted-sum of the two costs: C = ( 1 − β ) C S + β C A {\displaystyle C=(1-\beta )C_{S}+\beta C_{A}\!\,} Now for each point pi on the first shape and a point qj on the second shape, calculate the cost as described and call it Ci,j. This is the cost matrix. === Step 4: Finding the matching that minimizes total cost === Now, a one-to-one matching π ( i ) {\displaystyle \pi (i)} that matches each point pi on shape 1 and qj on shape 2 that minimizes the total cost of matching, H ( π ) = ∑ i C ( p i , q π ( i ) ) {\displaystyle H(\pi )=\sum _{i}C\left(p_{i},q_{\pi (i)}\right)} is needed. This can be done in O ( N 3 ) {\displaystyle O(N^{3})} time using the Hungarian method, although there are more efficient algorithms. To have robust handling of outliers, one can add "dummy" nodes that have a constant but reasonably large cost of matching to the cost matrix. This would cause the matching algorithm to match outliers to a "dummy" if there is no real match. === Step 5: Modeling transformation === Given the set of correspondences between a finite set of points on the two shapes, a transformation T : R 2 → R 2 {\displaystyle T:\mathbb {R} ^{2}\to \mathbb {R} ^{2}} can be estimated to map any point from one shape to the other. There are several choices for this transformation, described below. ==== Affine ==== The affine model is a standard choice: T ( p ) = A p + o {\displaystyle T(p)=Ap+o\!} . The least squares solution for the matrix A {\displaystyle A} and the translational offset vector o is obtained by: o = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n ( p i − q π ( i ) ) , A = ( Q + P ) t {\displaystyle o={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left(p_{i}-q_{\pi (i)}\right),A=(Q^{+}P)^{t}} Where P = ( 1 p 11 p 12 ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ 1 p n 1 p n 2 ) {\displaystyle P={\begin{pmatrix}1&p_{11}&p_{12}\\\vdots &\vdots &\vdots \\1&p_{n1}&p_{n2}\end{pmatrix}}} with a similar expression for Q {\displaystyle Q\!} . Q + {\displaystyle Q^{+}\!} is the pseudoinverse of Q {\displaystyle Q\!} . ==== Thin plate spline ==== The thin plate spline (TPS) model is the most widely used model for transformations when working with shape contexts. A 2D transformation can be separated into two TPS function to model a coordinate transform: T ( x , y ) = ( f x ( x , y ) , f y ( x , y ) ) {\displaystyle T(x,y)=\left(f_{x}(x,y),f_{y}(x,y)\right)} where each of the ƒx and ƒy have the form: f ( x , y ) = a 1 + a x x + a y y + ∑ i = 1 n ω i U ( ‖ ( x i , y i ) − ( x , y ) ‖ ) , {\displaystyle f(x,y)=a_{1}+a_{x}x+a_{y}y+\sum _{i=1}^{n}\omega _{i}U\left({\begin{Vmatrix}(x_{i},y_{i})-(x,y)\end{Vmatrix}}\right),} and the kernel function U ( r ) {\displaystyle U(r)\!} is defined by U ( r ) = r 2 log ⁡ r 2 {\displaystyle U(r)=r^{2}\log r^{2}\!} . The exact details of how to solve for the parameters can be found elsewhere but it essentially involves solving a linear system of equations. The bending energy (a measure of how much transformation is needed to align the points) will also be easily obtained. ==== Regularized TPS ==== The TPS formulation above has exact matching requirement for the pairs of points on the two shapes. For noisy data, it is best to

  Read more →
• 

  Protocol Builder

  Protocol Builder is a tool in programming languages to generate code to build protocols in a fast and reliable way. Network programming for all kinds of protocols (such as TCP, UDP, and SNMP) includes converting data to be transferred to raw bytes in the sending side and parsing these bytes in the receiving side. Protocol builders facilitate this stage, usually by automatically generating the code. Protocol Programming has many components to be developed, these are: server listener, server connection, client connection, packets, and loggers. Most protocol builders implement these components automatically so developers save time and money. Currently, there are two Protocol Builders in the market, one for C++ from UpRedSun which is for TCP and UDP protocols. The second one is for .Net languages which generates the code in C# for TCP Protocols, this tool is called .Net Protocol Builder.

  Read more →
• 

  Semantic interpretation

  Semantic interpretation is an important component in dialog systems. It is related to natural language understanding, but mostly it refers to the last stage of understanding. The goal of interpretation is binding the user utterance to concept, or something the system can understand. Typically it is creating a database query based on user utterance.

  Read more →
• 

  Arabic Ontology

  Arabic Ontology is a website offering linguistic ontology services for the Arabic language which can be used like the online site WordNet. Users can use Arabic Ontology to classify or clarify the concepts and meanings of Arabic terms. == Ontology Structure == The ontology structure (i.e., data model) is similar to WordNet's structure. Each concept in the database is given a unique concept identifier (URI), informally described by a gloss, and lexicalized by one or more synonymous lemma terms. Each term-concept pair is called a sense, and is given a SenseID. A set of senses is called synset. Concepts and senses are described by further attributes such as era and area — to specify example usage and ontological analysis. Semantic relations are defined between concepts. Some important entities are included in the ontology, such as individual countries and bodies of water. These individuals are given separate IndividualIDs and linked with their concepts through the InstanceOf relation. == Mappings to other resources == Concepts in the Arabic Ontology are mapped to synsets in WordNet, as well as to BFO and DOLCE. Terms used in the Arabic Ontology are mapped to lemmas in the LDC's SAMA database. == Applications == Arabic Ontology can be used in many application domains, such as: Information retrieval, to enrich queries (e.g., in search engines) and improve the quality of the results, i.e. meaningful search rather than string-matching search; Machine translation and word-sense disambiguation, by finding the exact mapping of concepts across languages, especially that the Arabic ontology is also mapped to the WordNet; Data Integration and interoperability in which the Arabic ontology can be used as a semantic reference to link databases and information systems; Semantic Web and Web 3.0, by using the Arabic ontology as a semantic reference to disambiguate the meanings used in websites; among many other applications. == URLs Design == The URLs in the Arabic Ontology are designed according to the W3C's Best Practices for Publishing Linked Data, as described in the following URL schemes. This allows one to also explore the whole database like exploring a graph: Ontology Concept: Each concept in the Arabic Ontology has a ConceptID and can be accessed using: https://{domain}/concept/{ConceptID | Term}. In case of a term, the set of concepts that this term lexicalizes are all retrieved. In case of a ConceptID, the concept and its direct subtypes are retrieved, e.g. https://ontology.birzeit.edu/concept/293198 Semantic relations: Relationships between concepts can be accessed using these schemes: (i) the URL: https:// {domain}/concept/{RelationName}/{ConceptID} allows retrieval of relationships among ontology concepts. (ii) the URL: https://{domain}/lexicalconcept/{RelationName}/{lexicalConceptID} allows retrieval of relations between lexical concepts. For example, https://ontology.birzeit.edu/concept/instances/293121 retrieves the instances of the concept 293121. The relations that are currently used in our database are: {subtypes, type, instances, parts, related, similar, equivalent}.

  Read more →