AI Avatar Talking Free

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

• 

  Fabric Connect

  Fabric Connect, in computer networking usage, is the name used by Extreme Networks to market an extended implementation of the IEEE 802.1aq and IEEE 802.1ah-2008 standards. The Fabric Connect technology was originally developed by the Enterprise Solutions R&D department within Nortel Networks. In 2009, Avaya, Inc acquired Nortel Networks Enterprise Business Solutions; this transaction included the Fabric Connect intellectual property together with all of the Ethernet Switching platforms that supported it. Subsequently, the Fabric Connect technology became part of the Extreme Networks portfolio by virtue of their 2017 purchase of the Avaya Networking business and assets. It was during the Avaya era that this technology was promoted as the lead element of the Virtual Enterprise Network Architecture (VENA). == Technologies == === Fabric Connect === Fabric Connect's provides network-wide, end-to-end, multi-layer virtualization. A network virtualization capability, based on an enhanced implementation of the IEEE 802.1aq Shortest Path Bridging (SPB) standard, Fabric Connect offers the ability to create a simplified network that can dynamically virtualize elements to efficiently provision and utilize resources, thus reducing the strain on the network and personnel. Extreme Networks base the Fabric Connect technology on the SPB standard, including support for RFC 6329, and have integrated IP Routing and IP Multicast support; this unified technology allows for the replacement of multiple conventional protocols such as Spanning Tree, RIP and/or OSPF, ECMP, and PIM. === Fabric Attach === An adjunct to the Fabric Connect technology, Fabric Attach allows network operators to extend network virtualization directly into conventional wiring closets (using existing non-Fabric Ethernet switches) and automate the provisioning of devices to their appropriate virtual network. This is particularly relevant for the mass of unattended network end-point that are now appearing, such as IP Phones, Wireless Access Points, and IP Cameras. Fabric Attach standardized protocols such as 802.1AB LLDP to exchange credentials and obtain provisioning information that allows "Client" Switches to be automatically re-configured on the fly with parameters that let Traffic Flows Map through to Fabric Connect Edge Switches (aka "Backbone Edge Bridge" in SPB definition) functioning as a Fabric Attach "Server" Switch. This method is described by an IETF "Internet Draft", pending further standardization activity. Fabric Attach is typically used to automate Wiring Closet connectivity, but has the potential to be extensible for use in the Data Center, with Virtual Machines being able to dynamically request VLAN/VSN (Virtual Service Network) assignment based upon application requirements. == Hardware products == === Virtual Services Platform 9000 Series === A range of modular chassis-based products, featuring a carrier-grade Linux operation system, and designed for high-performance deployment scenarios that need to scale to multiple terabits of switching capacity and support 10 and 40 gigabit Ethernet connections, and is designed eventually to support 100 gigabit Ethernet. === Virtual Services Platform 8000 Series === A compact form-factor platform delivering high-density 10/40 gigabit Ethernet connectivity, and targeted at mid-market through to mid-size enterprise core switch applications. === Virtual Services Platform 7000 Series === A range of high-end 10 gigabit Ethernet stackable switches that extend fabric-based networking to the data center top-of-rack. They support 40 gigabit Ethernet via the MDA Slot. === Virtual Services Platform 4000 Series === A range of high-end gigabit Ethernet stackable switches that extend Fabric-based networking to branch and metro locations. === Ethernet Routing Switch 5000 Series === A range of high-end gigabit Ethernet stackable switches that provides enterprise-class desktop features, including PoE, and offers 10 Gbit/s uplink connections. Each Switch supports up to 144 Gbit/s of virtual backplane capacity, delivering up to 1.152 Tbit/s for a system of eight, creating a virtual backplane through a stacking configuration. === Ethernet Routing Switch 4000 Series === A range of gigabit Ethernet stackable switches that provide enterprise-class desktop features, including PoE/PoE+, and offer 1/10 Gbit/s uplink connections. Each switch supports up to 48 Gbit/s of virtual backplane capacity, delivering up to 384 Gbit/s for a system of 8, creating a virtual backplane through a stacking configuration. === Ethernet Routing Switch 3500 Series === These entry-level gigabit Ethernet stackable switches provide enterprise-class desktop features, including PoE/PoE+, and 1 Gbit/s uplink connections.

  Read more →
• 

  Information space analysis

  Within the field of information science, information space analysis is a deterministic method, enhanced by machine intelligence, for locating and assessing resources for team-centric efforts. Organizations need to be able to quickly assemble teams backed by the support services, information, and material to do the job. To do so, these teams need to find and assess sources of services that are potential participants in the team effort. To support this initial team and resource development, information needs to be developed via analysis tools that help make sense of sets of data sources in an Intranet or Internet. Part of the process is to characterize them, partition them, and sort and filter them. These tools focus on three key issues in forming a collaborative team: Help individuals responsible for forming the team understand what is available. Assist team members in identifying the structure and categorize the information available to them in a manner specifically suited to the task at hand. Aid team members to understand the mappings of their information between their organization and that used by others who might participate. Information space analysis tools combine multiple methods to assist in this task. This causes the tools to be particularly well-suited to integrating additional technologies in order to create specialized systems.

  Read more →
• 

  Equalized odds

  Equalized odds, also referred to as conditional procedure accuracy equality and disparate mistreatment, is a measure of fairness in machine learning. A classifier satisfies this definition if the subjects in the protected and unprotected groups have equal true positive rate and equal false positive rate, satisfying the formula: P ( R = + | Y = y , A = a ) = P ( R = + | Y = y , A = b ) y ∈ { + , − } ∀ a , b ∈ A {\displaystyle P(R=+|Y=y,A=a)=P(R=+|Y=y,A=b)\quad y\in \{+,-\}\quad \forall a,b\in A} For example, A {\displaystyle A} could be gender, race, or any other characteristics that we want to be free of bias, while Y {\displaystyle Y} would be whether the person is qualified for the degree, and the output R {\displaystyle R} would be the school's decision whether to offer the person to study for the degree. In this context, higher university enrollment rates of African Americans compared to whites with similar test scores might be necessary to fulfill the condition of equalized odds, if the "base rate" of Y {\displaystyle Y} differs between the groups. The concept was originally defined for binary-valued Y {\displaystyle Y} . In 2017, Woodworth et al. generalized the concept further for multiple classes.

  Read more →
• 

  Exploration–exploitation dilemma

  The exploration–exploitation dilemma, also known as the explore–exploit tradeoff, is a fundamental concept in decision-making that arises in many domains. It is depicted as the balancing act between two opposing strategies. Exploitation involves choosing the best option based on current knowledge of the system (which may be incomplete or misleading), while exploration involves trying out new options that may lead to better outcomes in the future at the expense of an exploitation opportunity. Finding the optimal balance between these two strategies is a crucial challenge in many decision-making problems whose goal is to maximize long-term benefits. == Application in machine learning == In the context of machine learning, the exploration–exploitation tradeoff is fundamental in reinforcement learning (RL), a type of machine learning that involves training agents to make decisions based on feedback from the environment. Crucially, this feedback may be incomplete or delayed. The agent must decide whether to exploit the current best-known policy or explore new policies to improve its performance. === Multi-armed bandit methods === The multi-armed bandit (MAB) problem was a classic example of the tradeoff, and many methods were developed for it, such as epsilon-greedy, Thompson sampling, and the upper confidence bound (UCB). See the page on MAB for details. In more complex RL situations than the MAB problem, the agent can treat each choice as a MAB, where the payoff is the expected future reward. For example, if the agent performs an epsilon-greedy method, then the agent will often "pull the best lever" by picking the action that had the best predicted expected reward (exploit). However, it would pick a random action with probability epsilon (explore). Monte Carlo tree search, for example, uses a variant of the UCB method. === Exploration problems === There are some problems that make exploration difficult. Sparse reward. If rewards occur only once a long while, then the agent might not persist in exploring. Furthermore, if the space of actions is large, then the sparse reward would mean the agent would not be guided by the reward to find a good direction for deeper exploration. A standard example is Montezuma's Revenge. Deceptive reward. If some early actions give immediate small reward, but other actions give later large reward, then the agent might be lured away from exploring the other actions. Noisy TV problem. If certain observations are irreducibly noisy (such as a television showing random images), then the agent might be trapped exploring those observations (watching the television). === Exploration reward === This section based on. The exploration reward (also called exploration bonus) methods convert the exploration-exploitation dilemma into a balance of exploitations. That is, instead of trying to get the agent to balance exploration and exploitation, exploration is simply treated as another form of exploitation, and the agent simply attempts to maximize the sum of rewards from exploration and exploitation. The exploration reward can be treated as a form of intrinsic reward. We write these as r t i , r t e {\displaystyle r_{t}^{i},r_{t}^{e}} , meaning the intrinsic and extrinsic rewards at time step t {\displaystyle t} . However, exploration reward is different from exploitation in two regards: The reward of exploitation is not freely chosen, but given by the environment, but the reward of exploration may be picked freely. Indeed, there are many different ways to design r t i {\displaystyle r_{t}^{i}} described below. The reward of exploitation is usually stationary (i.e. the same action in the same state gives the same reward), but the reward of exploration is non-stationary (i.e. the same action in the same state should give less and less reward). Count-based exploration uses N n ( s ) {\displaystyle N_{n}(s)} , the number of visits to a state s {\displaystyle s} during the time-steps 1 : n {\displaystyle 1:n} , to calculate the exploration reward. This is only possible in small and discrete state space. Density-based exploration extends count-based exploration by using a density model ρ n ( s ) {\displaystyle \rho _{n}(s)} . The idea is that, if a state has been visited, then nearby states are also partly-visited. In maximum entropy exploration, the entropy of the agent's policy π {\displaystyle \pi } is included as a term in the intrinsic reward. That is, r t i = − ∑ a π ( a | s t ) ln ⁡ π ( a | s t ) + ⋯ {\displaystyle r_{t}^{i}=-\sum _{a}\pi (a|s_{t})\ln \pi (a|s_{t})+\cdots } . === Prediction-based === This section based on. The forward dynamics model is a function for predicting the next state based on the current state and the current action: f : ( s t , a t ) ↦ s t + 1 {\displaystyle f:(s_{t},a_{t})\mapsto s_{t+1}} . The forward dynamics model is trained as the agent plays. The model becomes better at predicting state transition for state-action pairs that had been done many times. A forward dynamics model can define an exploration reward by r t i = ‖ f ( s t , a t ) − s t + 1 ‖ 2 2 {\displaystyle r_{t}^{i}=\|f(s_{t},a_{t})-s_{t+1}\|_{2}^{2}} . That is, the reward is the squared-error of the prediction compared to reality. This rewards the agent to perform state-action pairs that had not been done many times. This is however susceptible to the noisy TV problem. Dynamics model can be run in latent space. That is, r t i = ‖ f ( s t , a t ) − ϕ ( s t + 1 ) ‖ 2 2 {\displaystyle r_{t}^{i}=\|f(s_{t},a_{t})-\phi (s_{t+1})\|_{2}^{2}} for some featurizer ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } . The featurizer can be the identity function (i.e. ϕ ( x ) = x {\displaystyle \phi (x)=x} ), randomly generated, the encoder-half of a variational autoencoder, etc. A good featurizer improves forward dynamics exploration. The Intrinsic Curiosity Module (ICM) method trains simultaneously a forward dynamics model and a featurizer. The featurizer is trained by an inverse dynamics model, which is a function for predicting the current action based on the features of the current and the next state: g : ( ϕ ( s t ) , ϕ ( s t + 1 ) ) ↦ a t {\displaystyle g:(\phi (s_{t}),\phi (s_{t+1}))\mapsto a_{t}} . By optimizing the inverse dynamics, both the inverse dynamics model and the featurizer are improved. Then, the improved featurizer improves the forward dynamics model, which improves the exploration of the agent. Random Network Distillation (RND) method attempts to solve this problem by teacher–student distillation. Instead of a forward dynamics model, it has two models f , f ′ {\displaystyle f,f'} . The f ′ {\displaystyle f'} teacher model is fixed, and the f {\displaystyle f} student model is trained to minimize ‖ f ( s ) − f ′ ( s ) ‖ 2 2 {\displaystyle \|f(s)-f'(s)\|_{2}^{2}} on states s {\displaystyle s} . As a state is visited more and more, the student network becomes better at predicting the teacher. Meanwhile, the prediction error is also an exploration reward for the agent, and so the agent learns to perform actions that result in higher prediction error. Thus, we have a student network attempting to minimize the prediction error, while the agent attempting to maximize it, resulting in exploration. The states are normalized by subtracting a running average and dividing a running variance, which is necessary since the teacher model is frozen. The rewards are normalized by dividing with a running variance. Exploration by disagreement trains an ensemble of forward dynamics models, each on a random subset of all ( s t , a t , s t + 1 ) {\displaystyle (s_{t},a_{t},s_{t+1})} tuples. The exploration reward is the variance of the models' predictions. === Noise === For neural network–based agents, the NoisyNet method changes some of its neural network modules by noisy versions. That is, some network parameters are random variables from a probability distribution. The parameters of the distribution are themselves learnable. For example, in a linear layer y = W x + b {\displaystyle y=Wx+b} , both W , b {\displaystyle W,b} are sampled from Gaussian distributions N ( μ W , Σ W ) , N ( μ b , Σ b ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {N}}(\mu _{W},\Sigma _{W}),{\mathcal {N}}(\mu _{b},\Sigma _{b})} at every step, and the parameters μ W , Σ W , μ b , Σ b {\displaystyle \mu _{W},\Sigma _{W},\mu _{b},\Sigma _{b}} are learned via the reparameterization trick.

  Read more →
• 

  Centurion Guard

  Centurion Guard is a PC hardware and software-based security product, developed by Centurion Technologies. It was first released in 1996. There were several different releases and versions of this product, and many were distributed in computers donated to libraries by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. == Operating system compatibility == Microsoft Windows 7 Microsoft Windows Vista Microsoft Windows XP

  Read more →
• 

  The AI Con

  The AI Con: How to Fight Big Tech's Hype and Create the Future We Want is a 2025 non-fiction book by linguist Emily M. Bender and sociologist Alex Hanna. It argues that much of what is labeled "artificial intelligence" is a misleading term that obscures ordinary automation while concentrating power in a small number of technology firms. The book was published in May 2025 by Harper in the United States and Bodley Head in the United Kingdom. It was developed alongside the authors' long-running podcast Mystery AI Hype Theater 3000, which critiques exaggerated claims about AI. == Synopsis == The authors present AI as a marketing umbrella that encourages audiences to infer understanding and agency where none exist. They argue readers should treat such language skeptically and to separate specific automated tasks from broad claims of intelligence. The book describes a recurring hype cycle in which corporate narratives justify data and labor extraction, the replacement of human services with cheaper substitutes, and the diversion of attention from present harms to speculative futures. While acknowledging limited uses such as pattern recognition, the authors argue that contemporary systems are best understood as text and media generators shaped by training data and human labor, not as thinking or reasoning entities. A central theme is the social and environmental cost of scaling these systems, including increased energy and water use, the appropriation of creative work for training, and the outsourcing of ghost work to low-paid data workers worldwide. These costs are linked to workplace effects, with the authors arguing that automation rarely eliminates jobs outright and more often degrades them through surveillance, work intensification, and unpaid oversight. As alternatives to passive adoption, the authors propose concrete responses: asking precise questions about what is being automated and why, demanding transparency about data and evaluation, and practicing what they call strategic refusal when deployment conflicts with evidence or values. The book also develops a vocabulary for public debate, rejecting both boosterish and doomerish narratives as grounded in the same assumption that AI is a singular, autonomous force. The authors recommend reading strategies such as favoring trusted human sources over automated summaries and using humor to deflate inflated claims. They describe a link between language to policy and power, arguing that precise terminology can help policymakers and the public resist austerity-driven automation and demand accountability for errors and harms. == Reception == The Guardian praised the book's myth-busting approach and its analysis of how hype erodes cultural and civic life by normalizing synthetic media as a substitute for human judgment. Kirkus Reviews described it as a contrarian account that catalogs concrete risks while cutting through speculative predictions. An interview in Business Insider highlighted the authors' accessible frameworks, including their proposal to describe chatbots as conversation simulators and to evaluate systems in terms of values, labor, and evidence. Coverage in GeekWire emphasized the book's call for resistance through collective bargaining, stronger data rights, and a norm of rejecting deployments that fail basic standards of necessity and evaluation. Some reviews were more critical. A review in LLRX argued that the book's tone could be overly polemical and that it gave limited attention to potential benefits claimed for generative systems. Coverage in the Financial Times, focused on Bender's broader public scholarship, situated the book within her long-standing critique of anthropomorphic narratives about large language models and her advocacy for more democratic oversight of automated systems.

  Read more →
• 

  Actor-critic algorithm

  The actor-critic algorithm (AC) is a family of reinforcement learning (RL) algorithms that combine policy-based RL algorithms such as policy gradient methods, and value-based RL algorithms such as value iteration, Q-learning, SARSA, and TD learning. An AC algorithm consists of two main components: an "actor" that determines which actions to take according to a policy function, and a "critic" that evaluates those actions according to a value function. Some AC algorithms are on-policy, some are off-policy. Some apply to either continuous or discrete action spaces. Some work in both cases. == Overview == The actor-critic methods can be understood as an improvement over pure policy gradient methods like REINFORCE via introducing a baseline. === Actor === The actor uses a policy function π ( a | s ) {\displaystyle \pi (a|s)} , while the critic estimates either the value function V ( s ) {\displaystyle V(s)} , the action-value Q-function Q ( s , a ) , {\displaystyle Q(s,a),} the advantage function A ( s , a ) {\displaystyle A(s,a)} , or any combination thereof. The actor is a parameterized function π θ {\displaystyle \pi _{\theta }} , where θ {\displaystyle \theta } are the parameters of the actor. The actor takes as argument the state of the environment s {\displaystyle s} and produces a probability distribution π θ ( ⋅ | s ) {\displaystyle \pi _{\theta }(\cdot |s)} . If the action space is discrete, then ∑ a π θ ( a | s ) = 1 {\displaystyle \sum _{a}\pi _{\theta }(a|s)=1} . If the action space is continuous, then ∫ a π θ ( a | s ) d a = 1 {\displaystyle \int _{a}\pi _{\theta }(a|s)da=1} . The goal of policy optimization is to improve the actor. That is, to find some θ {\displaystyle \theta } that maximizes the expected episodic reward J ( θ ) {\displaystyle J(\theta )} : J ( θ ) = E π θ [ ∑ t = 0 T γ t r t ] {\displaystyle J(\theta )=\mathbb {E} _{\pi _{\theta }}\left[\sum _{t=0}^{T}\gamma ^{t}r_{t}\right]} where γ {\displaystyle \gamma } is the discount factor, r t {\displaystyle r_{t}} is the reward at step t {\displaystyle t} , and T {\displaystyle T} is the time-horizon (which can be infinite). The goal of policy gradient method is to optimize J ( θ ) {\displaystyle J(\theta )} by gradient ascent on the policy gradient ∇ J ( θ ) {\displaystyle \nabla J(\theta )} . As detailed on the policy gradient method page, there are many unbiased estimators of the policy gradient: ∇ θ J ( θ ) = E π θ [ ∑ 0 ≤ j ≤ T ∇ θ ln ⁡ π θ ( A j | S j ) ⋅ Ψ j | S 0 = s 0 ] {\displaystyle \nabla _{\theta }J(\theta )=\mathbb {E} _{\pi _{\theta }}\left[\sum _{0\leq j\leq T}\nabla _{\theta }\ln \pi _{\theta }(A_{j}|S_{j})\cdot \Psi _{j}{\Big |}S_{0}=s_{0}\right]} where Ψ j {\textstyle \Psi _{j}} is a linear sum of the following: ∑ 0 ≤ i ≤ T ( γ i R i ) {\textstyle \sum _{0\leq i\leq T}(\gamma ^{i}R_{i})} . γ j ∑ j ≤ i ≤ T ( γ i − j R i ) {\textstyle \gamma ^{j}\sum _{j\leq i\leq T}(\gamma ^{i-j}R_{i})} : the REINFORCE algorithm. γ j ∑ j ≤ i ≤ T ( γ i − j R i ) − b ( S j ) {\textstyle \gamma ^{j}\sum _{j\leq i\leq T}(\gamma ^{i-j}R_{i})-b(S_{j})} : the REINFORCE with baseline algorithm. Here b {\displaystyle b} is an arbitrary function. γ j ( R j + γ V π θ ( S j + 1 ) − V π θ ( S j ) ) {\textstyle \gamma ^{j}\left(R_{j}+\gamma V^{\pi _{\theta }}(S_{j+1})-V^{\pi _{\theta }}(S_{j})\right)} : TD(1) learning. γ j Q π θ ( S j , A j ) {\textstyle \gamma ^{j}Q^{\pi _{\theta }}(S_{j},A_{j})} . γ j A π θ ( S j , A j ) {\textstyle \gamma ^{j}A^{\pi _{\theta }}(S_{j},A_{j})} : Advantage Actor-Critic (A2C). γ j ( R j + γ R j + 1 + γ 2 V π θ ( S j + 2 ) − V π θ ( S j ) ) {\textstyle \gamma ^{j}\left(R_{j}+\gamma R_{j+1}+\gamma ^{2}V^{\pi _{\theta }}(S_{j+2})-V^{\pi _{\theta }}(S_{j})\right)} : TD(2) learning. γ j ( ∑ k = 0 n − 1 γ k R j + k + γ n V π θ ( S j + n ) − V π θ ( S j ) ) {\textstyle \gamma ^{j}\left(\sum _{k=0}^{n-1}\gamma ^{k}R_{j+k}+\gamma ^{n}V^{\pi _{\theta }}(S_{j+n})-V^{\pi _{\theta }}(S_{j})\right)} : TD(n) learning. γ j ∑ n = 1 ∞ λ n − 1 1 − λ ⋅ ( ∑ k = 0 n − 1 γ k R j + k + γ n V π θ ( S j + n ) − V π θ ( S j ) ) {\textstyle \gamma ^{j}\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }{\frac {\lambda ^{n-1}}{1-\lambda }}\cdot \left(\sum _{k=0}^{n-1}\gamma ^{k}R_{j+k}+\gamma ^{n}V^{\pi _{\theta }}(S_{j+n})-V^{\pi _{\theta }}(S_{j})\right)} : TD(λ) learning, also known as GAE (generalized advantage estimate). This is obtained by an exponentially decaying sum of the TD(n) learning terms. === Critic === In the unbiased estimators given above, certain functions such as V π θ , Q π θ , A π θ {\displaystyle V^{\pi _{\theta }},Q^{\pi _{\theta }},A^{\pi _{\theta }}} appear. These are approximated by the critic. Since these functions all depend on the actor, the critic must learn alongside the actor. The critic is learned by value-based RL algorithms. For example, if the critic is estimating the state-value function V π θ ( s ) {\displaystyle V^{\pi _{\theta }}(s)} , then it can be learned by any value function approximation method. Let the critic be a function approximator V ϕ ( s ) {\displaystyle V_{\phi }(s)} with parameters ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } . The simplest example is TD(1) learning, which trains the critic to minimize the TD(1) error: δ i = R i + γ V ϕ ( S i + 1 ) − V ϕ ( S i ) {\displaystyle \delta _{i}=R_{i}+\gamma V_{\phi }(S_{i+1})-V_{\phi }(S_{i})} The critic parameters are updated by gradient descent on the squared TD error: ϕ ← ϕ − α ∇ ϕ ( δ i ) 2 = ϕ + α δ i ∇ ϕ V ϕ ( S i ) {\displaystyle \phi \leftarrow \phi -\alpha \nabla _{\phi }(\delta _{i})^{2}=\phi +\alpha \delta _{i}\nabla _{\phi }V_{\phi }(S_{i})} where α {\displaystyle \alpha } is the learning rate. Note that the gradient is taken with respect to the ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } in V ϕ ( S i ) {\displaystyle V_{\phi }(S_{i})} only, since the ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } in γ V ϕ ( S i + 1 ) {\displaystyle \gamma V_{\phi }(S_{i+1})} constitutes a moving target, and the gradient is not taken with respect to that. This is a common source of error in implementations that use automatic differentiation, and requires "stopping the gradient" at that point. Similarly, if the critic is estimating the action-value function Q π θ {\displaystyle Q^{\pi _{\theta }}} , then it can be learned by Q-learning or SARSA. In SARSA, the critic maintains an estimate of the Q-function, parameterized by ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } , denoted as Q ϕ ( s , a ) {\displaystyle Q_{\phi }(s,a)} . The temporal difference error is then calculated as δ i = R i + γ Q θ ( S i + 1 , A i + 1 ) − Q θ ( S i , A i ) {\displaystyle \delta _{i}=R_{i}+\gamma Q_{\theta }(S_{i+1},A_{i+1})-Q_{\theta }(S_{i},A_{i})} . The critic is then updated by θ ← θ + α δ i ∇ θ Q θ ( S i , A i ) {\displaystyle \theta \leftarrow \theta +\alpha \delta _{i}\nabla _{\theta }Q_{\theta }(S_{i},A_{i})} The advantage critic can be trained by training both a Q-function Q ϕ ( s , a ) {\displaystyle Q_{\phi }(s,a)} and a state-value function V ϕ ( s ) {\displaystyle V_{\phi }(s)} , then let A ϕ ( s , a ) = Q ϕ ( s , a ) − V ϕ ( s ) {\displaystyle A_{\phi }(s,a)=Q_{\phi }(s,a)-V_{\phi }(s)} . Although, it is more common to train just a state-value function V ϕ ( s ) {\displaystyle V_{\phi }(s)} , then estimate the advantage by A ϕ ( S i , A i ) ≈ ∑ j ∈ 0 : n − 1 γ j R i + j + γ n V ϕ ( S i + n ) − V ϕ ( S i ) {\displaystyle A_{\phi }(S_{i},A_{i})\approx \sum _{j\in 0:n-1}\gamma ^{j}R_{i+j}+\gamma ^{n}V_{\phi }(S_{i+n})-V_{\phi }(S_{i})} Here, n {\displaystyle n} is a positive integer. The higher n {\displaystyle n} is, the more lower is the bias in the advantage estimation, but at the price of higher variance. The Generalized Advantage Estimation (GAE) introduces a hyperparameter λ {\displaystyle \lambda } that smoothly interpolates between Monte Carlo returns ( λ = 1 {\displaystyle \lambda =1} , high variance, no bias) and 1-step TD learning ( λ = 0 {\displaystyle \lambda =0} , low variance, high bias). This hyperparameter can be adjusted to pick the optimal bias-variance trade-off in advantage estimation. It uses an exponentially decaying average of n-step returns with λ {\displaystyle \lambda } being the decay strength. == Variants == Asynchronous Advantage Actor-Critic (A3C): Parallel and asynchronous version of A2C. Soft Actor-Critic (SAC): Incorporates entropy maximization for improved exploration. Deep Deterministic Policy Gradient (DDPG): Specialized for continuous action spaces.

  Read more →
• 

  Reasoning model

  A reasoning model, also known as a reasoning language model (RLM) or large reasoning model (LRM), is a type of large language model (LLM) that has been specifically trained to solve complex tasks requiring multiple steps of logical reasoning. These models demonstrate superior performance on logic, mathematics, and programming tasks compared to standard LLMs. They possess the ability to revisit and revise earlier reasoning steps and utilize additional computation during inference as a method to scale performance, complementing traditional scaling approaches based on training data size, model parameters, and training compute. == Overview == Unlike traditional language models that generate responses immediately, reasoning models allocate additional compute, or thinking, time before producing an answer to solve multi-step problems. OpenAI introduced this terminology in September 2024 when it released the o1 series, describing the models as designed to "spend more time thinking" before responding. The company framed o1 as a reset in model naming that targets complex tasks in science, coding, and mathematics, and it contrasted o1's performance with GPT-4o on benchmarks such as AIME and Codeforces. Independent reporting the same week summarized the launch and highlighted OpenAI's claim that o1 automates chain-of-thought style reasoning to achieve large gains on difficult exams. In operation, reasoning models generate internal chains of intermediate steps, then select and refine a final answer. OpenAI reported that o1's accuracy improves as the model is given more reinforcement learning during training and more test-time compute at inference. The company initially chose to hide raw chains and instead return a model-written summary, stating that it "decided not to show" the underlying thoughts so researchers could monitor them without exposing unaligned content to end users. Commercial deployments document separate "reasoning tokens" that meter hidden thinking and a control for "reasoning effort" that tunes how much compute the model uses. These features make the models slower than ordinary chat systems while enabling stronger performance on difficult problems. == History == The research trajectory toward reasoning models combined advances in supervision, prompting, and search-style inference. Early alignment work on reinforcement learning from human feedback showed that models can be fine-tuned to follow instructions with "human feedback" and preference-based rewards. In 2022, Google Research scientists Jason Wei and Denny Zhou showed that chain-of-thought prompting "significantly improves the ability" of large models on complex reasoning tasks. Input → Step 1 → Step 2 → ⋯ → Step n ⏟ Reasoning chain → Answer {\displaystyle {\text{Input}}\rightarrow \underbrace {{\text{Step}}_{1}\rightarrow {\text{Step}}_{2}\rightarrow \cdots \rightarrow {\text{Step}}_{n}} _{\text{Reasoning chain}}\rightarrow {\text{Answer}}} A companion result demonstrated that the simple instruction "Let's think step by step" can elicit zero-shot reasoning. Follow-up work introduced self-consistency decoding, which "boosts the performance" of chain-of-thought by sampling diverse solution paths and choosing the consensus, and tool-augmented methods such as ReAct, a portmanteau of Reason and Act, that prompt models to "generate both reasoning traces" and actions. Research then generalized chain-of-thought into search over multiple candidate plans. The Tree-of-Thoughts framework from Princeton computer scientist Shunyu Yao proposes that models "perform deliberate decision making" by exploring and backtracking over a tree of intermediate thoughts. OpenAI's reported breakthrough focused on supervising reasoning processes rather than only outcomes, with Lightman et al.'s "Let's Verify Step by Step" reporting that rewarding each correct step "significantly outperforms outcome supervision" on challenging math problems and improves interpretability by aligning the chain-of-thought with human judgment. OpenAI's o1 announcement ties these strands together with a large-scale reinforcement learning algorithm that trains the model to refine its own chain of thought, and it reports that accuracy rises with more training compute and more time spent thinking at inference. Together, these developments define the core of reasoning models. They use supervision signals that evaluate the quality of intermediate steps, they exploit inference-time exploration such as consensus or tree search, and they expose controls for how much internal thinking compute to allocate. OpenAI's o1 family made this approach available at scale in September 2024 and popularized the label "reasoning model" for LLMs that deliberately think before they answer. The development of reasoning models illustrates Richard S. Sutton's "bitter lesson" that scaling compute typically outperforms methods based on human-designed insights. This principle was demonstrated by researchers at the Generative AI Research Lab (GAIR), who initially attempted to replicate o1's capabilities using sophisticated methods including tree search and reinforcement learning in late 2024. Their findings, published in the "o1 Replication Journey" series, revealed that knowledge distillation, a comparatively straightforward technique that trains a smaller model to mimic o1's outputs, produced unexpectedly strong performance. This outcome illustrated how direct scaling approaches can, at times, outperform more complex engineering solutions. === Drawbacks === Reasoning models require significantly more computational resources during inference compared to non-reasoning models. Research on the American Invitational Mathematics Examination (AIME) benchmark found that reasoning models were 10 to 74 times more expensive to operate than their non-reasoning counterparts. The extended inference time is attributed to the detailed, step-by-step reasoning outputs that these models generate, which are typically much longer than responses from standard large language models that provide direct answers without showing their reasoning process. One researcher in early 2025 argued that these models may face potential additional denial-of-service concerns with "overthinking attacks." === Releases === ==== 2024 ==== In September 2024, OpenAI released o1-preview, a large language model with enhanced reasoning capabilities. The full version, o1, was released in December 2024. OpenAI initially shared preliminary results on its successor model, o3, in December 2024, with the full o3 model becoming available in 2025. Alibaba released reasoning versions of its Qwen large language models in November 2024. In December 2024, the company introduced QvQ-72B-Preview, an experimental visual reasoning model. In December 2024, Google introduced Deep Research in Gemini, a feature designed to conduct multi-step research tasks. On December 16, 2024, researchers demonstrated that by scaling test-time compute, a relatively small Llama 3B model could outperform a much larger Llama 70B model on challenging reasoning tasks. This experiment suggested that improved inference strategies can unlock reasoning capabilities even in smaller models. ==== 2025 ==== In January 2025, DeepSeek released R1, a reasoning model that achieved performance comparable to OpenAI's o1 at significantly lower computational cost. The release demonstrated the effectiveness of Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO), a reinforcement learning technique used to train the model. On January 25, 2025, DeepSeek enhanced R1 with web search capabilities, allowing the model to retrieve information from the internet while performing reasoning tasks. Research during this period further validated the effectiveness of knowledge distillation for creating reasoning models. The s1-32B model achieved strong performance through budget forcing and scaling methods, reinforcing findings that simpler training approaches can be highly effective for reasoning capabilities. On February 2, 2025, OpenAI released Deep Research, a feature powered by their o3 model that enables users to conduct comprehensive research tasks. The system generates detailed reports by automatically gathering and synthesizing information from multiple web sources. OpenAI called GPT-4.5 its "last non-chain-of-thought model", and implemented with GPT-5 a router model that selects a model based on the difficulty of the task. ==== 2026 ==== In January 2026, Moonshot AI released Kimi K2.5, an open-source 1 trillion parameter MoE model with 32 billion active parameters. It uses an “Agent Swarm” system that dynamically decomposes tasks into sub-agents for reasoning and execution, enabling more scalable multi-step problem solving than a single sequential reasoning chain. == Training == Reasoning models follow the familiar large-scale pretraining used for frontier language models, then diverge in the post-training and optimization. OpenAI reports that o1 is trained with a large-

  Read more →
• 

  Symbolic regression

  Symbolic regression (SR) is a type of regression analysis that searches the space of mathematical expressions to find the model that best fits a given dataset, both in terms of accuracy and simplicity. No particular model is provided as a starting point for symbolic regression. Instead, initial expressions are formed by randomly combining mathematical building blocks such as mathematical operators, analytic functions, constants, and state variables. Usually, a subset of these primitives will be specified by the person operating it, but that's not a requirement of the technique. The symbolic regression problem for mathematical functions has been tackled with a variety of methods, including recombining equations most commonly using genetic programming, as well as more recent methods utilizing Bayesian methods and neural networks. Another non-classical alternative method to SR is called Universal Functions Originator (UFO), which has a different mechanism, search-space, and building strategy. Further methods such as Exact Learning attempt to transform the fitting problem into a moments problem in a natural function space, usually built around generalizations of the Meijer-G function. By not requiring a priori specification of a model, symbolic regression isn't affected by human bias, or unknown gaps in domain knowledge. It attempts to uncover the intrinsic relationships of the dataset, by letting the patterns in the data itself reveal the appropriate models, rather than imposing a model structure that is deemed mathematically tractable from a human perspective. The fitness function that drives the evolution of the models takes into account not only error metrics (to ensure the models accurately predict the data), but also special complexity measures, thus ensuring that the resulting models reveal the data's underlying structure in a way that's understandable from a human perspective. This facilitates reasoning and favors the odds of getting insights about the data-generating system, as well as improving generalisability and extrapolation behaviour by preventing overfitting. Accuracy and simplicity may be left as two separate objectives of the regression—in which case the optimum solutions form a Pareto front—or they may be combined into a single objective by means of a model selection principle such as minimum description length. It has been proven that symbolic regression is an NP-hard problem. Nevertheless, if the sought-for equation is not too complex it is possible to solve the symbolic regression problem exactly by generating every possible function (built from some predefined set of operators) and evaluating them on the dataset in question. == Difference from classical regression == While conventional regression techniques seek to optimize the parameters for a pre-specified model structure, symbolic regression avoids imposing prior assumptions, and instead infers the model from the data. In other words, it attempts to discover both model structures and model parameters. This approach has the disadvantage of having a much larger space to search, because not only the search space in symbolic regression is infinite, but there are an infinite number of models which will perfectly fit a finite data set (provided that the model complexity isn't artificially limited). This means that it will possibly take a symbolic regression algorithm longer to find an appropriate model and parametrization, than traditional regression techniques. This can be attenuated by limiting the set of building blocks provided to the algorithm, based on existing knowledge of the system that produced the data; but in the end, using symbolic regression is a decision that has to be balanced with how much is known about the underlying system. Nevertheless, this characteristic of symbolic regression also has advantages: because the evolutionary algorithm requires diversity in order to effectively explore the search space, the result is likely to be a selection of high-scoring models (and their corresponding set of parameters). Examining this collection could provide better insight into the underlying process, and allows the user to identify an approximation that better fits their needs in terms of accuracy and simplicity. == Benchmarking == === SRBench === In 2021, SRBench was proposed as a large benchmark for symbolic regression. In its inception, SRBench featured 14 symbolic regression methods, 7 other ML methods, and 252 datasets from PMLB. The benchmark intends to be a living project: it encourages the submission of improvements, new datasets, and new methods, to keep track of the state of the art in SR. === SRBench Competition 2022 === In 2022, SRBench announced the competition Interpretable Symbolic Regression for Data Science, which was held at the GECCO conference in Boston, MA. The competition pitted nine leading symbolic regression algorithms against each other on a novel set of data problems and considered different evaluation criteria. The competition was organized in two tracks, a synthetic track and a real-world data track. ==== Synthetic Track ==== In the synthetic track, methods were compared according to five properties: re-discovery of exact expressions; feature selection; resistance to local optima; extrapolation; and sensitivity to noise. Rankings of the methods were: QLattice PySR (Python Symbolic Regression) uDSR (Deep Symbolic Optimization) ==== Real-world Track ==== In the real-world track, methods were trained to build interpretable predictive models for 14-day forecast counts of COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths in New York State. These models were reviewed by a subject expert and assigned trust ratings and evaluated for accuracy and simplicity. The ranking of the methods was: uDSR (Deep Symbolic Optimization) QLattice geneticengine (Genetic Engine) == Non-standard methods == Most symbolic regression algorithms prevent combinatorial explosion by implementing evolutionary algorithms that iteratively improve the best-fit expression over many generations. Recently, researchers have proposed algorithms utilizing other tactics in AI. Silviu-Marian Udrescu and Max Tegmark developed the "AI Feynman" algorithm, which attempts symbolic regression by training a neural network to represent the mystery function, then runs tests against the neural network to attempt to break up the problem into smaller parts. For example, if f ( x 1 , . . . , x i , x i + 1 , . . . , x n ) = g ( x 1 , . . . , x i ) + h ( x i + 1 , . . . , x n ) {\displaystyle f(x_{1},...,x_{i},x_{i+1},...,x_{n})=g(x_{1},...,x_{i})+h(x_{i+1},...,x_{n})} , tests against the neural network can recognize the separation and proceed to solve for g {\displaystyle g} and h {\displaystyle h} separately and with different variables as inputs. This is an example of divide and conquer, which reduces the size of the problem to be more manageable. AI Feynman also transforms the inputs and outputs of the mystery function in order to produce a new function which can be solved with other techniques, and performs dimensional analysis to reduce the number of independent variables involved. The algorithm was able to "discover" 100 equations from The Feynman Lectures on Physics, while a leading software using evolutionary algorithms, Eureqa, solved only 71. AI Feynman, in contrast to classic symbolic regression methods, requires a very large dataset in order to first train the neural network and is naturally biased towards equations that are common in elementary physics.

  Read more →
• 

  Principle of rationality

  The principle of rationality (or rationality principle) was coined by Karl R. Popper in his Harvard Lecture of 1963, and published in his book Myth of Framework. It is related to what he called the 'logic of the situation' in an Economica article of 1944/1945, published later in his book The Poverty of Historicism. According to Popper's rationality principle, agents act in the most adequate way according to the objective situation. It is an idealized conception of human behavior which he used to drive his model of situational analysis. Cognitive scientist Allen Newell elaborated on the principle in his account of knowledge level modeling. == Popper == Popper called for social science to be grounded in what he called situational analysis or situational logic. This requires building models of social situations which include individual actors and their relationship to social institutions, e.g. markets, legal codes, bureaucracies, etc. These models attribute certain aims and information to the actors. This forms the 'logic of the situation', the result of reconstructing meticulously all circumstances of an historical event. The 'principle of rationality' is the assumption that people are instrumental in trying to reach their goals, and this is what drives the model. Popper believed that this model could be continuously refined to approach the objective truth. Popper called his principle of rationality nearly empty (a technical term meaning without empirical content) and strictly speaking false, but nonetheless tremendously useful. These remarks earned him a lot of criticism because seemingly he had swerved from his famous Logic of Scientific Discovery. Among the many philosophers having discussed Popper's principle of rationality from the 1960s up to now are Noretta Koertge, R. Nadeau, Viktor J. Vanberg, Hans Albert, E. Matzner, Ian C. Jarvie, Mark A. Notturno, John Wettersten, Ian C. Böhm. == Newell == In the context of knowledge-based systems, Newell (in 1982) proposed the following principle of rationality: "If an agent has knowledge that one of its actions will lead to one of its goals, then the agent will select that action." This principle is employed by agents at the knowledge level to move closer to a desired goal. An important philosophical difference between Newell and Popper is that Newell argued that the knowledge level is real in the sense that it exists in nature and is not made up. This allowed Newell to treat the rationality principle as a way of understanding nature and avoid the problems Popper ran into by treating knowledge as non physical and therefore non empirical.

  Read more →
• 

  Sample complexity

  The sample complexity of a machine learning algorithm represents the number of training-samples that it needs in order to successfully learn a target function. More precisely, the sample complexity is the number of training-samples that we need to supply to the algorithm, so that the function returned by the algorithm is within an arbitrarily small error of the best possible function, with probability arbitrarily close to 1. There are two variants of sample complexity: The weak variant fixes a particular input-output distribution; The strong variant takes the worst-case sample complexity over all input-output distributions. The No free lunch theorem, discussed below, proves that, in general, the strong sample complexity is infinite, i.e. that there is no algorithm that can learn the globally-optimal target function using a finite number of training samples. However, if we are only interested in a particular class of target functions (e.g., only linear functions) then the sample complexity is finite, and it depends linearly on the VC dimension on the class of target functions. == Definition == Let X {\displaystyle X} be a space which we call the input space, and Y {\displaystyle Y} be a space which we call the output space, and let Z {\displaystyle Z} denote the product X × Y {\displaystyle X\times Y} . For example, in the setting of binary classification, X {\displaystyle X} is typically a finite-dimensional vector space and Y {\displaystyle Y} is the set { − 1 , 1 } {\displaystyle \{-1,1\}} . Fix a hypothesis space H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} of functions h : X → Y {\displaystyle h\colon X\to Y} . A learning algorithm over H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} is a computable map from Z {\displaystyle Z} to H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} . In other words, it is an algorithm that takes as input a finite sequence of training samples and outputs a function from X {\displaystyle X} to Y {\displaystyle Y} . Typical learning algorithms include empirical risk minimization, without or with Tikhonov regularization. Fix a loss function L : Y × Y → R ≥ 0 {\displaystyle {\mathcal {L}}\colon Y\times Y\to \mathbb {R} _{\geq 0}} , for example, the square loss L ( y , y ′ ) = ( y − y ′ ) 2 {\displaystyle {\mathcal {L}}(y,y')=(y-y')^{2}} , where h ( x ) = y ′ {\displaystyle h(x)=y'} . For a given distribution ρ {\displaystyle \rho } on X × Y {\displaystyle X\times Y} , the expected risk of a hypothesis (a function) h ∈ H {\displaystyle h\in {\mathcal {H}}} is E ( h ) := E ρ [ L ( h ( x ) , y ) ] = ∫ X × Y L ( h ( x ) , y ) d ρ ( x , y ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {E}}(h):=\mathbb {E} _{\rho }[{\mathcal {L}}(h(x),y)]=\int _{X\times Y}{\mathcal {L}}(h(x),y)\,d\rho (x,y)} In our setting, we have h = A ( S n ) {\displaystyle h={\mathcal {A}}(S_{n})} , where A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} is a learning algorithm and S n = ( ( x 1 , y 1 ) , … , ( x n , y n ) ) ∼ ρ n {\displaystyle S_{n}=((x_{1},y_{1}),\ldots ,(x_{n},y_{n}))\sim \rho ^{n}} is a sequence of vectors which are all drawn independently from ρ {\displaystyle \rho } . Define the optimal risk E H ∗ = inf h ∈ H E ( h ) . {\displaystyle {\mathcal {E}}_{\mathcal {H}}^{}={\underset {h\in {\mathcal {H}}}{\inf }}{\mathcal {E}}(h).} Set h n = A ( S n ) {\displaystyle h_{n}={\mathcal {A}}(S_{n})} , for each sample size n {\displaystyle n} . h n {\displaystyle h_{n}} is a random variable and depends on the random variable S n {\displaystyle S_{n}} , which is drawn from the distribution ρ n {\displaystyle \rho ^{n}} . The algorithm A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} is called consistent if E ( h n ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {E}}(h_{n})} probabilistically converges to E H ∗ {\displaystyle {\mathcal {E}}_{\mathcal {H}}^{}} . In other words, for all ϵ , δ > 0 {\displaystyle \epsilon ,\delta >0} , there exists a positive integer N {\displaystyle N} , such that, for all sample sizes n ≥ N {\displaystyle n\geq N} , we have Pr ρ n [ E ( h n ) − E H ∗ ≥ ε ] < δ . {\displaystyle \Pr _{\rho ^{n}}[{\mathcal {E}}(h_{n})-{\mathcal {E}}_{\mathcal {H}}^{}\geq \varepsilon ]<\delta .} The sample complexity of A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} is then the minimum N {\displaystyle N} for which this holds, as a function of ρ , ϵ {\displaystyle \rho ,\epsilon } , and δ {\displaystyle \delta } . We write the sample complexity as N ( ρ , ϵ , δ ) {\displaystyle N(\rho ,\epsilon ,\delta )} to emphasize that this value of N {\displaystyle N} depends on ρ , ϵ {\displaystyle \rho ,\epsilon } , and δ {\displaystyle \delta } . If A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} is not consistent, then we set N ( ρ , ϵ , δ ) = ∞ {\displaystyle N(\rho ,\epsilon ,\delta )=\infty } . If there exists an algorithm for which N ( ρ , ϵ , δ ) {\displaystyle N(\rho ,\epsilon ,\delta )} is finite, then we say that the hypothesis space H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} is learnable. In others words, the sample complexity N ( ρ , ϵ , δ ) {\displaystyle N(\rho ,\epsilon ,\delta )} defines the rate of consistency of the algorithm: given a desired accuracy ϵ {\displaystyle \epsilon } and confidence δ {\displaystyle \delta } , one needs to sample N ( ρ , ϵ , δ ) {\displaystyle N(\rho ,\epsilon ,\delta )} data points to guarantee that the risk of the output function is within ϵ {\displaystyle \epsilon } of the best possible, with probability at least 1 − δ {\displaystyle 1-\delta } . In probably approximately correct (PAC) learning, one is concerned with whether the sample complexity is polynomial, that is, whether N ( ρ , ϵ , δ ) {\displaystyle N(\rho ,\epsilon ,\delta )} is bounded by a polynomial in 1 / ϵ {\displaystyle 1/\epsilon } and 1 / δ {\displaystyle 1/\delta } . If N ( ρ , ϵ , δ ) {\displaystyle N(\rho ,\epsilon ,\delta )} is polynomial for some learning algorithm, then one says that the hypothesis space H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} is PAC-learnable. This is a stronger notion than being learnable. == Unrestricted hypothesis space: infinite sample complexity == One can ask whether there exists a learning algorithm so that the sample complexity is finite in the strong sense, that is, there is a bound on the number of samples needed so that the algorithm can learn any distribution over the input-output space with a specified target error. More formally, one asks whether there exists a learning algorithm A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} , such that, for all ϵ , δ > 0 {\displaystyle \epsilon ,\delta >0} , there exists a positive integer N {\displaystyle N} such that for all n ≥ N {\displaystyle n\geq N} , we have sup ρ ( Pr ρ n [ E ( h n ) − E H ∗ ≥ ε ] ) < δ , {\displaystyle \sup _{\rho }\left(\Pr _{\rho ^{n}}[{\mathcal {E}}(h_{n})-{\mathcal {E}}_{\mathcal {H}}^{}\geq \varepsilon ]\right)<\delta ,} where h n = A ( S n ) {\displaystyle h_{n}={\mathcal {A}}(S_{n})} , with S n = ( ( x 1 , y 1 ) , … , ( x n , y n ) ) ∼ ρ n {\displaystyle S_{n}=((x_{1},y_{1}),\ldots ,(x_{n},y_{n}))\sim \rho ^{n}} as above. The No Free Lunch Theorem says that without restrictions on the hypothesis space H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} , this is not the case, i.e., there always exist "bad" distributions for which the sample complexity is arbitrarily large. Thus, in order to make statements about the rate of convergence of the quantity sup ρ ( Pr ρ n [ E ( h n ) − E H ∗ ≥ ε ] ) , {\displaystyle \sup _{\rho }\left(\Pr _{\rho ^{n}}[{\mathcal {E}}(h_{n})-{\mathcal {E}}_{\mathcal {H}}^{}\geq \varepsilon ]\right),} one must either constrain the space of probability distributions ρ {\displaystyle \rho } , e.g. via a parametric approach, or constrain the space of hypotheses H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} , as in distribution-free approaches. == Restricted hypothesis space: finite sample-complexity == The latter approach leads to concepts such as VC dimension and Rademacher complexity which control the complexity of the space H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} . A smaller hypothesis space introduces more bias into the inference process, meaning that E H ∗ {\displaystyle {\mathcal {E}}_{\mathcal {H}}^{}} may be greater than the best possible risk in a larger space. However, by restricting the complexity of the hypothesis space it becomes possible for an algorithm to produce more uniformly consistent functions. This trade-off leads to the concept of regularization. It is a theorem from VC theory that the following three statements are equivalent for a hypothesis space H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} : H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} is PAC-learnable. The VC dimension of H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} is finite. H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} is a uniform Glivenko-Cantelli class. This gives a way to prove that certain hypothesis spaces are PAC learnable, and by extension, learnable. === An example of a PAC-learnable hypothesis space === X = R d , Y = { − 1 , 1 } {\displaystyle X=\mathbb {R} ^{d},Y=\{-1,1\}} , and let H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} be the space of affine functions on X {\displaystyle X} , that is, functions of the form x ↦ ⟨ w , x ⟩ + b {\displaystyle x\mapsto \langl

  Read more →
• 

  Structural risk minimization

  Structural risk minimization (SRM) is an inductive principle of use in machine learning. Commonly in machine learning, a generalized model must be selected from a finite data set, with the consequent problem of overfitting – the model becoming too strongly tailored to the particularities of the training set and generalizing poorly to new data. The SRM principle addresses this problem by balancing the model's complexity against its success at fitting the training data. This principle was first set out in a 1974 book by Vladimir Vapnik and Alexey Chervonenkis and uses the VC dimension. In practical terms, Structural Risk Minimization is implemented by minimizing E t r a i n + β H ( W ) {\displaystyle E_{train}+\beta H(W)} , where E t r a i n {\displaystyle E_{train}} is the train error, the function H ( W ) {\displaystyle H(W)} is called a regularization function, and β {\displaystyle \beta } is a constant. H ( W ) {\displaystyle H(W)} is chosen such that it takes large values on parameters W {\displaystyle W} that belong to high-capacity subsets of the parameter space. Minimizing H ( W ) {\displaystyle H(W)} in effect limits the capacity of the accessible subsets of the parameter space, thereby controlling the trade-off between minimizing the training error and minimizing the expected gap between the training error and test error. The SRM problem can be formulated in terms of data. Given n data points consisting of data x and labels y, the objective J ( θ ) {\displaystyle J(\theta )} is often expressed in the following manner: J ( θ ) = 1 2 n ∑ i = 1 n ( h θ ( x i ) − y i ) 2 + λ 2 ∑ j = 1 d θ j 2 {\displaystyle J(\theta )={\frac {1}{2n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}(h_{\theta }(x^{i})-y^{i})^{2}+{\frac {\lambda }{2}}\sum _{j=1}^{d}\theta _{j}^{2}} The first term is the mean squared error (MSE) term between the value of the learned model, h θ {\displaystyle h_{\theta }} , and the given labels y {\displaystyle y} . This term is the training error, E t r a i n {\displaystyle E_{train}} , that was discussed earlier. The second term, places a prior over the weights, to favor sparsity and penalize larger weights. The trade-off coefficient, λ {\displaystyle \lambda } , is a hyperparameter that places more or less importance on the regularization term. Larger λ {\displaystyle \lambda } encourages sparser weights at the expense of a more optimal MSE, and smaller λ {\displaystyle \lambda } relaxes regularization allowing the model to fit to data. Note that as λ → ∞ {\displaystyle \lambda \to \infty } the weights become zero, and as λ → 0 {\displaystyle \lambda \to 0} , the model typically suffers from overfitting.

  Read more →
• 

  Autonomic networking

  Autonomic networking follows the concept of Autonomic Computing, an initiative started by IBM in 2001. Its ultimate aim is to create self-managing networks to overcome the rapidly growing complexity of the Internet and other networks and to enable their further growth, far beyond the size of today. == Increasing size and complexity == The ever-growing management complexity of the Internet caused by its rapid growth is seen by some experts as a major problem that limits its usability in the future. What's more, increasingly popular smartphones, PDAs, networked audio and video equipment, and game consoles need to be interconnected. Pervasive Computing not only adds features, but also burdens existing networking infrastructure with more and more tasks that sooner or later will not be manageable by human intervention alone. Another important aspect is the price of manually controlling huge numbers of vitally important devices of current network infrastructures. == Autonomic nervous system == The autonomic nervous system (ANS) is the part of complex biological nervous systems that is not consciously controlled. It regulates bodily functions and the activity of specific organs. As proposed by IBM, future communication systems might be designed in a similar way to the ANS. == Components of autonomic networking == As autonomics conceptually derives from biological entities such as the human autonomic nervous system, each of the areas can be metaphorically related to functional and structural aspects of a living being. In the human body, the autonomic system facilitates and regulates a variety of functions including respiration, blood pressure and circulation, and emotive response. The autonomic nervous system is the interconnecting fabric that supports feedback loops between internal states and various sources by which internal and external conditions are monitored. === Autognostics === Autognostics includes a range of self-discovery, awareness, and analysis capabilities that provide the autonomic system with a view on high-level state. In metaphor, this represents the perceptual sub-systems that gather, analyze, and report on internal and external states and conditions – for example, this might be viewed as the eyes, visual cortex and perceptual organs of the system. Autognostics, or literally "self-knowledge", provides the autonomic system with a basis for response and validation. A rich autognostic capability may include many different "perceptual senses". For example, the human body gathers information via the usual five senses, the so-called sixth sense of proprioception (sense of body position and orientation), and through emotive states that represent the gross wellness of the body. As conditions and states change, they are detected by the sensory monitors and provide the basis for adaptation of related systems. Implicit in such a system are imbedded models of both internal and external environments such that relative value can be assigned to any perceived state - perceived physical threat (e.g. a snake) can result in rapid shallow breathing related to fight-flight response, a phylogenetically effective model of interaction with recognizable threats. In the case of autonomic networking, the state of the network may be defined by inputs from: individual network elements such as switches and network interfaces including specification and configuration historical records and current state traffic flows end-hosts application performance data logical diagrams and design specifications Most of these sources represent relatively raw and unprocessed views that have limited relevance. Post-processing and various forms of analysis must be applied to generate meaningful measurements and assessments against which current state can be derived. The autognostic system interoperates with: configuration management - to control network elements and interfaces policy management - to define performance objectives and constraints autodefense - to identify attacks and accommodate the impact of defensive responses === Configuration management === Configuration management is responsible for the interaction with network elements and interfaces. It includes an accounting capability with historical perspective that provides for the tracking of configurations over time, with respect to various circumstances. In the biological metaphor, these are the hands and, to some degree, the memory of the autonomic system. On a network, remediation and provisioning are applied via configuration setting of specific devices. Implementation affecting access and selective performance with respect to role and relationship are also applied. Almost all the "actions" that are currently taken by human engineers fall under this area. With only a few exceptions, interfaces are set by hand, or by extension of the hand, through automated scripts. Implicit in the configuration process is the maintenance of a dynamic population of devices under management, a historical record of changes and the directives which invoked change. Typical to many accounting functions, configuration management should be capable of operating on devices and then rolling back changes to recover previous configurations. Where change may lead to unrecoverable states, the sub-system should be able to qualify the consequences of changes prior to issuing them. As directives for change must originate from other sub-systems, the shared language for such directives must be abstracted from the details of the devices involved. The configuration management sub-system must be able to translate unambiguously between directives and hard actions or to be able to signal the need for further detail on a directive. An inferential capacity may be appropriate to support sufficient flexibility (i.e. configuration never takes place because there is no unique one-to-one mapping between directive and configuration settings). Where standards are not sufficient, a learning capacity may also be required to acquire new knowledge of devices and their configuration. Configuration management interoperates with all of the other sub-systems including: autognostics - receives direction for and validation of changes policy management - implements policy models through mapping to underlying resources security - applies access and authorization constraints for particular policy targets autodefense - receives direction for changes === Policy management === Policy management includes policy specification, deployment, reasoning over policies, updating and maintaining policies, and enforcement. Policy-based management is required for: constraining different kinds of behavior including security, privacy, resource access, and collaboration configuration management describing business processes and defining performance defining role and relationship, and establishing trust and reputation It provides the models of environment and behavior that represent effective interaction according to specific goals. In the human nervous system metaphor, these models are implicit in the evolutionary "design" of biological entities and specific to the goals of survival and procreation. Definition of what constitutes a policy is necessary to consider what is involved in managing it. A relatively flexible and abstract framework of values, relationships, roles, interactions, resources, and other components of the network environment is required. This sub-system extends far beyond the physical network to the applications in use and the processes and end-users that employ the network to achieve specific goals. It must express the relative values of various resources, outcomes, and processes and include a basis for assessing states and conditions. Unless embodied in some system outside the autonomic network or implicit to the specific policy implementation, the framework must also accommodate the definition of process, objectives and goals. Business process definitions and descriptions are then an integral part of the policy implementation. Further, as policy management represents the ultimate basis for the operation of the autonomic system, it must be able to report on its operation with respect to the details of its implementation. The policy management sub-system interoperates (at least) indirectly with all other sub-systems but primarily interacts with: autognostics - providing the definition of performance and accepting reports on conditions configuration management - providing constraints on device configuration security - providing definitions of roles, access and permissions === Autodefense === Autodefense represents a dynamic and adaptive mechanism that responds to malicious and intentional attacks on the network infrastructure, or use of the network infrastructure to attack IT resources. As defensive measures tend to impede the operation of IT, it is optimally capable of balancing performance objectives with typically over-riding threat management actions. In the

  Read more →
• 

  Gödel machine

  A Gödel machine is a hypothetical self-improving computer program that solves problems in an optimal way. It uses a recursive self-improvement protocol in which it rewrites its own code when it can prove the new code provides a better strategy. The machine was invented by Jürgen Schmidhuber (first proposed in 2003), but is named after Kurt Gödel who inspired the mathematical theories. The Gödel machine is often discussed when dealing with issues of meta-learning, also known as "learning to learn." Applications include automating human design decisions and transfer of knowledge between multiple related tasks, and may lead to design of more robust and general learning architectures. Though theoretically possible, no full implementation has been created. The Gödel machine is often compared with Marcus Hutter's AIXI, another formal specification for an artificial general intelligence. Schmidhuber points out that the Gödel machine could start out by implementing AIXItl as its initial sub-program, and self-modify after it finds proof that another algorithm for its search code will be better. == Limitations == Traditional problems solved by a computer only require one input and provide some output. Computers of this sort had their initial algorithm hardwired. This does not take into account the dynamic natural environment, and thus was a goal for the Gödel machine to overcome. The Gödel machine has limitations of its own, however. According to Gödel's First Incompleteness Theorem, any formal system that encompasses arithmetic is either flawed or allows for statements that cannot be proved in the system. Hence even a Gödel machine with unlimited computational resources must ignore those self-improvements whose effectiveness it cannot prove. == Variables of interest == There are three variables that are particularly useful in the run time of the Gödel machine. At some time t {\displaystyle t} , the variable time {\displaystyle {\text{time}}} will have the binary equivalent of t {\displaystyle t} . This is incremented steadily throughout the run time of the machine. Any input meant for the Gödel machine from the natural environment is stored in variable x {\displaystyle x} . It is likely the case that x {\displaystyle x} will hold different values for different values of variable time {\displaystyle {\text{time}}} . The outputs of the Gödel machine are stored in variable y {\displaystyle y} , where y ( t ) {\displaystyle y(t)} would be the output bit-string at some time t {\displaystyle t} . At any given time t {\displaystyle t} , where ( 1 ≤ t ≤ T ) {\displaystyle (1\leq t\leq T)} , the goal is to maximize future success or utility. A typical utility function follows the pattern u ( s , E n v ) : S × E → R {\displaystyle u(s,\mathrm {Env} ):S\times E\rightarrow \mathbb {R} } : u ( s , E n v ) = E μ [ ∑ τ = time T r ( τ ) ∣ s , E n v ] {\displaystyle u(s,\mathrm {Env} )=E_{\mu }{\Bigg [}\sum _{\tau ={\text{time}}}^{T}r(\tau )\mid s,\mathrm {Env} {\Bigg ]}} where r ( t ) {\displaystyle r(t)} is a real-valued reward input (encoded within s ( t ) {\displaystyle s(t)} ) at time t {\displaystyle t} , E μ [ ⋅ ∣ ⋅ ] {\displaystyle E_{\mu }[\cdot \mid \cdot ]} denotes the conditional expectation operator with respect to some possibly unknown distribution μ {\displaystyle \mu } from a set M {\displaystyle M} of possible distributions ( M {\displaystyle M} reflects whatever is known about the possibly probabilistic reactions of the environment), and the above-mentioned time = time ⁡ ( s ) {\displaystyle {\text{time}}=\operatorname {time} (s)} is a function of state s {\displaystyle s} which uniquely identifies the current cycle. Note that we take into account the possibility of extending the expected lifespan through appropriate actions. == Instructions used by proof techniques == The nature of the six proof-modifying instructions below makes it impossible to insert an incorrect theorem into proof, thus trivializing proof verification. === get-axiom(n) === Appends the n-th axiom as a theorem to the current theorem sequence. Below is the initial axiom scheme: Hardware Axioms formally specify how components of the machine could change from one cycle to the next. Reward Axioms define the computational cost of hardware instruction and the physical cost of output actions. Related Axioms also define the lifetime of the Gödel machine as scalar quantities representing all rewards/costs. Environment Axioms restrict the way new inputs x are produced from the environment, based on previous sequences of inputs y. Uncertainty Axioms/String Manipulation Axioms are standard axioms for arithmetic, calculus, probability theory, and string manipulation that allow for the construction of proofs related to future variable values within the Gödel machine. Initial State Axioms contain information about how to reconstruct parts or all of the initial state. Utility Axioms describe the overall goal in the form of utility function u. === apply-rule(k, m, n) === Takes in the index k of an inference rule (such as Modus tollens, Modus ponens), and attempts to apply it to the two previously proved theorems m and n. The resulting theorem is then added to the proof. === delete-theorem(m) === Deletes the theorem stored at index m in the current proof. This helps to mitigate storage constraints caused by redundant and unnecessary theorems. Deleted theorems can no longer be referenced by the above apply-rule function. === set-switchprog(m, n) === Replaces switchprog S pm:n, provided it is a non-empty substring of S p. === check() === Verifies whether the goal of the proof search has been reached. A target theorem states that given the current axiomatized utility function u (Item 1f), the utility of a switch from p to the current switchprog would be higher than the utility of continuing the execution of p (which would keep searching for alternative switchprogs). === state2theorem(m, n) === Takes in two arguments, m and n, and attempts to convert the contents of Sm:n into a theorem. == Example applications == === Time-limited NP-hard optimization === The initial input to the Gödel machine is the representation of a connected graph with a large number of nodes linked by edges of various lengths. Within given time T it should find a cyclic path connecting all nodes. The only real-valued reward will occur at time T. It equals 1 divided by the length of the best path found so far (0 if none was found). There are no other inputs. The by-product of maximizing expected reward is to find the shortest path findable within the limited time, given the initial bias. === Fast theorem proving === Prove or disprove as quickly as possible that all even integers > 2 are the sum of two primes (Goldbach’s conjecture). The reward is 1/t, where t is the time required to produce and verify the first such proof. === Maximizing expected reward with bounded resources === A cognitive robot that needs at least 1 liter of gasoline per hour interacts with a partially unknown environment, trying to find hidden, limited gasoline depots to occasionally refuel its tank. It is rewarded in proportion to its lifetime, and dies after at most 100 years or as soon as its tank is empty or it falls off a cliff, and so on. The probabilistic environmental reactions are initially unknown but assumed to be sampled from the axiomatized Speed Prior, according to which hard-to-compute environmental reactions are unlikely. This permits a computable strategy for making near-optimal predictions. One by-product of maximizing expected reward is to maximize expected lifetime.

  Read more →
• 

  Principle of rationality

  The principle of rationality (or rationality principle) was coined by Karl R. Popper in his Harvard Lecture of 1963, and published in his book Myth of Framework. It is related to what he called the 'logic of the situation' in an Economica article of 1944/1945, published later in his book The Poverty of Historicism. According to Popper's rationality principle, agents act in the most adequate way according to the objective situation. It is an idealized conception of human behavior which he used to drive his model of situational analysis. Cognitive scientist Allen Newell elaborated on the principle in his account of knowledge level modeling. == Popper == Popper called for social science to be grounded in what he called situational analysis or situational logic. This requires building models of social situations which include individual actors and their relationship to social institutions, e.g. markets, legal codes, bureaucracies, etc. These models attribute certain aims and information to the actors. This forms the 'logic of the situation', the result of reconstructing meticulously all circumstances of an historical event. The 'principle of rationality' is the assumption that people are instrumental in trying to reach their goals, and this is what drives the model. Popper believed that this model could be continuously refined to approach the objective truth. Popper called his principle of rationality nearly empty (a technical term meaning without empirical content) and strictly speaking false, but nonetheless tremendously useful. These remarks earned him a lot of criticism because seemingly he had swerved from his famous Logic of Scientific Discovery. Among the many philosophers having discussed Popper's principle of rationality from the 1960s up to now are Noretta Koertge, R. Nadeau, Viktor J. Vanberg, Hans Albert, E. Matzner, Ian C. Jarvie, Mark A. Notturno, John Wettersten, Ian C. Böhm. == Newell == In the context of knowledge-based systems, Newell (in 1982) proposed the following principle of rationality: "If an agent has knowledge that one of its actions will lead to one of its goals, then the agent will select that action." This principle is employed by agents at the knowledge level to move closer to a desired goal. An important philosophical difference between Newell and Popper is that Newell argued that the knowledge level is real in the sense that it exists in nature and is not made up. This allowed Newell to treat the rationality principle as a way of understanding nature and avoid the problems Popper ran into by treating knowledge as non physical and therefore non empirical.

  Read more →