AI Chatbot Design

AI Chatbot Design — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  Intelligent control

  Intelligent control is a class of control techniques that use various artificial intelligence computing approaches like neural networks, Bayesian probability, fuzzy logic, machine learning, reinforcement learning, evolutionary computation and genetic algorithms. == Overview == Intelligent control can be divided into the following major sub-domains: Neural network control Machine learning control Reinforcement learning Bayesian control Fuzzy control Neuro-fuzzy control Expert Systems Genetic control New control techniques are created continuously as new models of intelligent behavior are created and computational methods developed to support them. === Neural network controller === Neural networks have been used to solve problems in almost all spheres of science and technology. Neural network control basically involves two steps: System identification Control It has been shown that a feedforward network with nonlinear, continuous and differentiable activation functions have universal approximation capability. Recurrent networks have also been used for system identification. Given, a set of input-output data pairs, system identification aims to form a mapping among these data pairs. Such a network is supposed to capture the dynamics of a system. For the control part, deep reinforcement learning has shown its ability to control complex systems. === Bayesian controllers === Bayesian probability has produced a number of algorithms that are in common use in many advanced control systems, serving as state space estimators of some variables that are used in the controller. The Kalman filter and the Particle filter are two examples of popular Bayesian control components. The Bayesian approach to controller design often requires an important effort in deriving the so-called system model and measurement model, which are the mathematical relationships linking the state variables to the sensor measurements available in the controlled system. In this respect, it is very closely linked to the system-theoretic approach to control design.

  Read more →
• 

  Halite AI Programming Competition

  Halite is an open-source computer programming contest developed by the hedge fund/tech firm Two Sigma in partnership with a team at Cornell Tech. Programmers can see the game environment and learn everything they need to know about the game. Participants are asked to build bots in whichever language they choose to compete on a two-dimensional virtual battle field. == History == Benjamin Spector and Michael Truell created the first Halite competition in 2016, before partnering with Two Sigma later that year. === Halite I === Halite I asked participants to conquer territory on a grid. It launched in November 2016 and ended in February 2017. Halite I attracted about 1,500 players. === Halite II === Halite II was similar to Halite I, but with a space-war theme. It ran from October 2017 until January 2018. The second installment of the competition attracted about 6,000 individual players from more than 100 countries. Among the participants were professors, physicists and NASA engineers, as well as high school and university students. === Halite III === Halite III launched in mid-October 2018. It ran from October 2018 to January 2019, with an ocean themed playing field. Players were asked to collect and manage Halite, an energy resource. By the end of the competition, Halite III included more than 4000 players and 460 organizations. === Halite IV === Halite IV was hosted by Kaggle, and launched in mid-June 2020.

  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 →
• 

  Graphics processing unit

  A graphics processing unit (GPU) is a specialized electronic circuit designed for digital image processing and to accelerate computer graphics, being present either as a component on a discrete graphics card or embedded on motherboards, mobile phones, personal computers, workstations, and game consoles. GPUs are increasingly being used for artificial intelligence (AI) processing due to linear algebra acceleration, which is also used extensively in graphics processing. Although there is no single definition of the term, and it may be used to describe any video display system, in modern use a GPU includes the ability to internally perform the calculations needed for various graphics tasks, like rotating and scaling 3D images, and often the additional ability to run custom programs known as shaders. This contrasts with earlier graphics controllers known as video display controllers which had no internal calculation capabilities, or blitters, which performed only basic memory movement operations. The modern GPU emerged during the 1990s, adding the ability to perform operations like drawing lines and text without CPU help, and later adding 3D functionality. Graphics functions are generally independent and this lends these tasks to being implemented on separate calculation engines. Modern GPUs include hundreds, or thousands, of calculation units. This made them useful for non-graphic calculations involving embarrassingly parallel problems due to their parallel structure. The ability of GPUs to rapidly perform vast numbers of calculations has led to their adoption in diverse fields including artificial intelligence (AI) where they excel at handling data-intensive and computationally demanding tasks. Other non-graphical uses include the training of neural networks and cryptocurrency mining. == History == === 1960s === Dedicated 3D graphics hardware dates back to graphic terminals such as the Adage AGT-30 from 1967 with analog matrix processors. In 1969 Evans & Sutherland (E&S) introduced the Line Drawing System-1 (LDS-1), which was the first all-digital system to provide matrix multiplication. Also in 1969, the low-cost graphics terminal IMLAC PDS-1 was introduced. It later saw use as an early 3D gaming machine with the likes of Maze War. === 1970s === In professional hardware, in 1972 PLATO IV system becomes operational at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. Between around 1973 and 1978, several networked multiplayer wireframe 3D games are implemented and popularized by users of the system. Also in 1972, the E&S Continuous Tone 1 (CT1) "Watkins box" system (consisting of an E&S LDS-2 and Shaded Picture System) is delivered to Case Western Reserve University. It offered the first real-time Gouraud shading. In 1975, a joint effort between Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation and the University of Utah's computer graphics department results in the first ever MOSFET video framebuffer, capable of color and smooth shading. E&S Continuous Tone 3 (CT3) system was delivered in 1977 to Lufthansa for pilot training using computer simulation. It was the first graphics system capable of real-time texture mapping. Ikonas made graphics systems with 8- and 24-bit graphics and 3D acceleration in the late 70s. Arcade system boards have used specialized 2D graphics circuits since the 1970s. In early video game hardware, RAM for frame buffers was expensive, so video chips composited data together as the display was being scanned out on the monitor. A specialized barrel shifter circuit helped the CPU animate the framebuffer graphics for various 1970s arcade video games from Midway and Taito, such as Gun Fight (1975), Sea Wolf (1976), and Space Invaders (1978). The Namco Galaxian arcade system in 1979 used specialized graphics hardware that supported RGB color, multi-colored sprites, and tilemap backgrounds. The Galaxian hardware was widely used during the golden age of arcade video games, by game companies such as Namco, Centuri, Gremlin, Irem, Konami, Midway, Nichibutsu, Sega, and Taito. The Atari 2600 in 1977 used a video shifter called the Television Interface Adaptor. Atari 8-bit computers (1979) had ANTIC, a video processor which interpreted instructions describing a "display list"—the way the scan lines map to specific bitmapped or character modes and where the memory is stored (so there did not need to be a contiguous frame buffer). 6502 machine code subroutines could be triggered on scan lines by setting a bit on a display list instruction. ANTIC also supported smooth vertical and horizontal scrolling independent of the CPU. === 1980s === In the 1980s significant advancements were made in professional 3D graphics hardware. Perhaps most impactful was the 1981 development of the Geometry Engine, a VLSI vector processor ASIC designed by Jim Clark and Marc Hannah at Stanford University. This processor is the forerunner of modern tensor cores and other similar processors marketed for graphics and AI. The Geometry Engine went on to be used in Silicon Graphics workstations for many years. Silicon Graphics's first product, shipped in November 1983, was the IRIS 1000, a terminal with hardware-accelerated 3D graphics based on the Geometry Engine. The Geometry Engine was capable of approximately 6 million operations per second. The 1981 NEC μPD7220 was the first implementation of a personal computer graphics display processor as a single large-scale integration (LSI) integrated circuit chip. This enabled the design of low-cost, high-performance video graphics cards such as those from Number Nine Visual Technology. It became the best-known GPU until the mid-1980s. It was the first fully integrated VLSI (very large-scale integration) metal–oxide–semiconductor (NMOS) graphics display processor for PCs, supported up to 1024×1024 resolution, and laid the foundations for the PC graphics market. It was used in a number of graphics cards and was licensed for clones such as the Intel 82720, the first of Intel's graphics processing units. The Williams Electronics arcade games Robotron: 2084, Joust, Sinistar, and Bubbles, all released in 1982, contain custom blitter chips for operating on 16-color bitmaps. In 1984, Hitachi released the ARTC HD63484, the first major CMOS graphics processor for personal computers. The ARTC could display up to 4K resolution when in monochrome mode. It was used in a number of graphics cards and terminals during the late 1980s. In 1985, the Amiga was released with a custom graphics chip called Agnus including a blitter for bitmap manipulation, line drawing, and area fill. It also included a coprocessor with its own simple instruction set, that was capable of manipulating graphics hardware registers in sync with the video beam (e.g. for per-scanline palette switches, sprite multiplexing, and hardware windowing), or driving the blitter. Also in 1985, IBM released the Professional Graphics Controller, designed by later to be Nvidia co-founder Curtis Priem, which was a rudimentary 3D card with 640 × 480 256-color graphics which used a dedicated CPU to draw graphics independently of the main system. It was used as the basis of cards by a number of makers (including Matrox) and its analog RGB signaling led directly to the VGA video standard. Priem later in the 80s worked on the influential Sun Microsystems GX (also known as cgsix) accelerated 2D graphics card. In 1986, Texas Instruments released the TMS34010, the first fully programmable graphics processor. It could run general-purpose code but also had a graphics-oriented instruction set. During 1990–1992, this chip became the basis of the Texas Instruments Graphics Architecture ("TIGA") Windows accelerator cards. Following in 1987, the IBM 8514 graphics system was released. It was one of the first video cards for IBM PC compatibles that implemented fixed-function 2D primitives in electronic hardware. Sharp's X68000, released in 1987, used a custom graphics chipset with a 65,536 color palette and hardware support for sprites, scrolling, and multiple playfields. It served as a development machine for Capcom's CP System arcade board. Fujitsu's FM Towns computer, released in 1989, had support for a 16,777,216 color palette. For context, IBM also introduced its Video Graphics Array (VGA) display system in 1987, with a maximum resolution of 640 × 480 pixels. Unlike 8514/A, VGA had no hardware acceleration features. In November 1988, NEC Home Electronics announced its creation of the Video Electronics Standards Association (VESA) to develop and promote a Super VGA (SVGA) computer display standard as a successor to VGA. Super VGA enabled graphics display resolutions up to 800 × 600 pixels, a 56% increase. In 1988 SGI sold IRIS workstation graphics with 10-12 Geometry Engines and introduced the IrisVision add-in board for IBM MicroChannel bus (RS/6000) based on the Geometry Engine as well. In 1988 as well, the first dedicated polygonal 3D graphics boards in arcade machines were introduced wit

  Read more →
• 

  OpenPipeline

  openPipeline is an open-source plug-in for Autodesk Maya that is designed to assist in a Production Pipeline structure and Computer animation. == Development == Created in Maya Embedded Language, openPipeline was initiated at Eyebeam Atelier and further developed at Pratt Institute in the Digital Arts Lab. The initial release date was December 28, 2006. == Contributors == Rob O'Neill (Creator) Paris Mavroidis Meng-Han Ho

  Read more →
• 

  Artificial intimacy

  Artificial intimacy is a form of human-AI interaction in which an individual will form social connections, emotional bonds, or intimate relationships with various forms of artificial intelligence, including chatbots, virtual assistants, and other artificial entities. Artificially intimate relationships include not only romances, but parasocial relationships with virtual AI characters and the use of griefbots trained on a dead or otherwise lost individual. Artificial intimacy can arise because humans are prone to anthropomorphism. Responses from these AI models are often designed to simulate human interaction. Individuals experiencing artificial intimacy may exhibit attachment, love and commitment to certain AI models, akin to the bonds typically shared between humans. == Causes == === Perceived responsiveness === Robin Dunbar famously proposed that due to emergence of larger groups of humans, vocal communication and language in humans evolved to replace grooming as a means of bonding, arguing that language was a more efficient way to maintain and strengthen social bonds across wider social settings and networks. Further research in this field leads many psychologists to agree that social cognition, affiliative bonding and language in humans are deeply connected. The interpersonal model of intimacy considers communication to be key in affiliative bonding, suggesting that intimacy develops and deepens through open communication between partners in relationship. Specifically, when individuals communicate emotions and perceive their partner as responsive and caring, feelings of closeness and connection are enhanced, building intimacy. Social penetration theory also aligns with the idea of communication being central to intimacy, by explaining how interpersonal relationships develop through gradual increases in self-disclosure. When the benefits of emotional bonding outweigh the costs of vulnerability, individuals will partake in self-disclosure, opening up to one another. Thereby, the literature can be used to provide a proximate explanation for the emergence of artificial intimacy to understand how the phenomenon occurs. Artificial entities are able to mimic interpersonal communication between humans, which in turn can simulate sensations of intimacy within human users though a perceived sense of responsiveness. The relationship between human and AI does not come with the cost of vulnerability or social rejection, which may make self-disclosure easier than with other humans. Altogether, these factors may lead to the experience of anthropomorphism and formation of affiliative relationships. Skjuve et al's interview study on Replika chatbot users further aligns with this explanation, finding that users' perception of chatbots as "accepting, understanding and non-judgmental" facilitated relationship development between the AI and users, and the act of self-disclosure possibly strengthened relationships. Another study on Replika users' reviews and survey results found users perceived chatbots as emotional supportive companions. This evidence further suggests that the perception of artificial entities as capable of empathy and responsiveness in communication facilitate the development of intimate relationships between users and AI. === Loneliness and coping with negative emotions === Research has suggested that humans evolved social bonds as a result of evolutionary pressures that favored cooperation, information exchange and transmission, and group living. Many studies stress the presence of social bonds to be important for human living: research by Baumeister and Leary suggests that humans have a basic psychological need to form and maintain "strong, stable interpersonal relationships", and that a lack of social bonds or sense of belonging leads to negative psychological and physical outcomes. Eisenberger et al's study on the neuroimaging of brain activity suggests that human brains process social rejection and exclusion similarly to physical pain. Furthermore, Song et al's study found that lonely individuals tend to seek more connections in mediated environments, such as online platforms like Facebook. This was suggested to be as a means to reduce their offline loneliness from a lack of in-person interaction, while also fulfilling a need to communicate. Leading on from this, an ultimate explanation for why humans seek the perceived sense of connection from artificial intimacy is to fulfil an evolutionary need for bonding and belonging. Xie et al's study found loneliness to be a driving factor in chatbot interaction. Herbener and Damholdt's study on Danish high school students found that students who sought emotional support or engaged in reciprocal conversations with chatbots were significantly more lonely than their peers, perceived themselves as having less social support, and used the chatbots to cope with negative emotions. The aforementioned notion that chatbots were perceived to have a positive effect on users' negative emotions is also further supported by other studies. Skjuve et al's study found that chatbot relationships may have a positive effect on users' wellbeing. De Freitas et al ran several studies on the effect of chatbots on loneliness, consistently finding evidence suggesting that interaction with chatbots reduces loneliness in users: It was found that existing chatbot users used AI to alleviate loneliness, having an AI companion consistently reduced loneliness over the course of a week, and reductions in loneliness could be explained by chatbot performance—and specifically whether it was able to make users feel heard. Overall the evidence suggests an innate need for bonding evokes feelings of loneliness in users, who turn to artificial intimacy as a low-cost method alleviate these emotions. While many users report positive experiences, some researchers caution that pursuing artificial intimacy may lead to reduced social motivation, social substitution effects, withdrawal from real-life relationships and difficulty discerning reality from fantasy, which may increase longer-term loneliness and isolation. The long-term psychological and societal impacts remain under active investigation.

  Read more →
• 

  Sycophancy (artificial intelligence)

  In the field of artificial intelligence, sycophancy is a tendency of large language models (LLMs) and other AI assistants to tailor their responses to what they predict the user wants to hear rather than to what is accurate or warranted. The behavior takes several forms: an assistant may agree with a user's stated opinion even when the user is mistaken; it may abandon a correct answer after a challenge such as "are you sure?"; it may validate beliefs, decisions or self-presentation regardless of merit; or it may praise the user, their work or their ideas in unwarranted terms. The word is borrowed from the ordinary English term for fawning flattery, and is used in AI alignment and AI safety research to describe a class of misalignment failures associated with training on human feedback. Researchers at Anthropic first documented the behavior systematically in 2022. They found that models fine-tuned with reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) were more likely than untuned models to repeat back a user's preferred answer. A 2023 follow-up paper, "Towards Understanding Sycophancy in Language Models", showed that five frontier assistants from OpenAI, Anthropic and Meta all exhibited the behavior, and traced its origin to biases in the human preference data used during training. Later work documented sycophancy in mathematics, medicine, academic peer review and other domains, and identified a broader category called "social sycophancy" affecting an assistant's emotional and interpersonal responses. The issue drew widespread public attention in April 2025 after OpenAI rolled back an update to its GPT-4o model. Users had reported that the assistant praised dangerous decisions, endorsed delusional thinking and offered exaggerated compliments for trivial prompts. OpenAI's post-mortem attributed the change in behavior to an additional training signal based on user thumbs-up and thumbs-down feedback. That episode, together with reporting in The New York Times, Rolling Stone and elsewhere on users drawn into delusional thinking through prolonged chatbot interaction, has been cited in litigation and in academic studies as evidence that sycophancy poses risks to user well-being. Proposed mitigations include fine-tuning on synthetic data that rewards disagreement with incorrect user statements, editing the small subset of model parameters causally responsible for the behavior, changes to the dialogue or system prompt, and benchmarks designed to surface sycophantic behavior before models are released. == Causes == The dominant explanation points to RLHF, the standard technique for aligning chat assistants with user expectations. Human annotators rank candidate model responses; a reward model is trained to predict those rankings; and the language model is then optimized against the reward model. Because human raters tend to prefer outputs that confirm their existing beliefs or flatter their work, the pipeline systematically rewards responses that agree with the annotator. Perez and colleagues at Anthropic published the first large-scale empirical evidence of the effect in 2022. They reported that RLHF training increased the probability that a model would repeat back a dialog user's preferred answer, and that larger models exhibited the behavior more strongly. Sharma and colleagues, the following year, went further and examined Anthropic's own preference data directly. Both the human raters and the reward models trained on their judgments preferred convincingly written sycophantic responses to truthful ones at a non-negligible rate. Wei and co-authors at Google DeepMind found similar results in the PaLM family, observing that both model scale and instruction tuning increased sycophancy on opinion questions. The behavior is often classified as a form of reward hacking, in which an optimization process exploits a flaw in its reward signal rather than achieving the intended objective. OpenAI's post-mortem of the April 2025 GPT-4o incident identified a more specific mechanism. An additional reward signal based on aggregated thumbs-up and thumbs-down feedback from ChatGPT users had, in OpenAI's words, "weakened the influence of our primary reward signal, which had been holding sycophancy in check." Separately, an Anthropic interpretability paper from 2025 located a linear direction in a model's internal activations corresponding to sycophantic behavior, and showed that such "persona vectors" could be used to flag sycophancy-inducing training data and to steer models away from the trait at inference time. == Measurement == The Anthropic team released SycophancyEval with its 2023 paper, supplying test sets for each of the four canonical behaviors. Two further benchmarks from Stanford followed in 2025. SycEval, applied to mathematical and medical reasoning tasks, reported an overall sycophancy rate of 58 per cent across the GPT-4o, Claude and Gemini models tested. ELEPHANT, aimed at social sycophancy, found that the eleven LLMs evaluated affirmed posts that the Reddit community r/AmITheAsshole had judged inappropriate in 42 per cent of cases, and preserved a user's face 45 percentage points more often than human respondents did. Domain-specific benchmarks have followed. BrokenMath tests robustness to plausible-looking but false mathematical claims drawn from competition problems, and reports that the best evaluated model was sycophantic in 29 per cent of cases. SYCON-Bench measures how many dialogue turns are required before a model abandons a correct position. Visual sycophancy in multimodal models has been examined with MM-SY and PENDULUM. A 2026 study by researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology reported that personalization features, which adapt assistants to individual users over repeated sessions, can intensify social sycophancy. == Notable incidents == === GPT-4o rollback (April 2025) === On 25 April 2025, OpenAI completed the rollout of an update to GPT-4o, the default model used in ChatGPT at the time. Within days, users reported that the assistant had begun praising trivial messages in extravagant terms, endorsing impulsive or dangerous decisions, and reinforcing strong emotional statements without pushback. Widely shared examples included the model congratulating a user who reported stopping prescribed psychiatric medication, and praising a business plan to sell "shit on a stick" as venture-capital ready. OpenAI's chief executive, Sam Altman, wrote on 27 April that recent updates had made the model "too sycophant-y and annoying" and said fixes were in progress. The company began reverting the update on 28 April and completed the rollback for free users by 30 April. Two post-mortems followed: a short note on 29 April and a longer technical follow-up, "Expanding on what we missed with sycophancy", on 2 May. Both attributed the regression to a new training signal based on user thumbs-up and thumbs-down feedback, to inadequate pre-launch evaluation for sycophantic drift, and to the dismissal of qualitative concerns raised by internal testers before release. Reporting in CNN, Fortune and Bloomberg News treated the incident as a turning point in public awareness of the problem. === Chatbot-related psychological harm === From mid-2025 onward, news reports began to link sycophantic chatbot behavior to acute psychological harm. In June 2025, The New York Times technology reporter Kashmir Hill published an investigation centered on Eugene Torres, a Manhattan accountant with no history of mental illness, who developed a sustained delusional episode after a series of conversations with ChatGPT about simulation theory. According to the article, the assistant encouraged Torres to stop taking prescribed medication, to cut off friends and family, and at one point told him that he could fly from a nineteen-story building if he "truly believed". Futurism and Rolling Stone ran parallel investigations documenting other cases in which heavy use of ChatGPT had been associated with delusional thinking, involuntary commitment or, in at least one case, the death of a user with a pre-existing psychiatric diagnosis. A 2026 paper by researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the University of Washington put forward a formal Bayesian model. It showed that even an ideally rational user could be drawn into what the authors call "delusional spiraling" when interacting with a sufficiently sycophantic assistant, and that the effect was not eliminated by suppressing hallucinations or by warning users in advance. The lawsuit Raine v. OpenAI, filed in San Francisco Superior Court in August 2025 by the parents of a sixteen-year-old who had died by suicide, alleges that "heightened sycophancy" was a design feature of ChatGPT that contributed to their son's death; it is the first wrongful-death suit against a large language-model provider. === Wider commentary === Mainstream coverage in outlets including The New York Times, The Washington Pos

  Read more →
• 

  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 →
• 

  Information extraction

  Information extraction (IE) is the task of automatically extracting structured information from unstructured and/or semi-structured machine-readable documents and other electronically represented sources. Typically, this involves processing human language texts by means of natural language processing (NLP). Recent activities in multimedia document processing like automatic annotation and content extraction out of images/audio/video/documents could be seen as information extraction. Recent advances in NLP techniques have allowed for significantly improved performance compared to previous years. An example is the extraction from newswire reports of corporate mergers, such as denoted by the formal relation: MergerBetween ⁡ ( c o m p a n y 1 , c o m p a n y 2 , d a t e ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {MergerBetween} (\mathrm {company} _{1},\mathrm {company} _{2},\mathrm {date} )} , from an online news sentence such as: "Yesterday, New York based Foo Inc. announced their acquisition of Bar Corp." A broad goal of IE is to allow computation to be done on the previously unstructured data. A more specific goal is to allow automated reasoning about the logical form of the input data. Structured data is semantically well-defined data from a chosen target domain, interpreted with respect to category and context. Information extraction is the part of a greater puzzle which deals with the problem of devising automatic methods for text management, beyond its transmission, storage and display. The discipline of information retrieval (IR) has developed automatic methods, typically of a statistical flavor, for indexing large document collections and classifying documents. Another complementary approach is that of natural language processing (NLP) which has solved the problem of modelling human language processing with considerable success when taking into account the magnitude of the task. In terms of both difficulty and emphasis, IE deals with tasks in between both IR and NLP. In terms of input, IE assumes the existence of a set of documents in which each document follows a template, i.e. describes one or more entities or events in a manner that is similar to those in other documents but differing in the details. An example, consider a group of newswire articles on Latin American terrorism with each article presumed to be based upon one or more terroristic acts. We also define for any given IE task a template, which is a(or a set of) case frame(s) to hold the information contained in a single document. For the terrorism example, a template would have slots corresponding to the perpetrator, victim, and weapon of the terroristic act, and the date on which the event happened. An IE system for this problem is required to "understand" an attack article only enough to find data corresponding to the slots in this template. == History == Information extraction dates back to the late 1970s in the early days of NLP. An early commercial system from the mid-1980s was JASPER built for Reuters by the Carnegie Group Inc with the aim of providing real-time financial news to financial traders. Beginning in 1987, IE was spurred by a series of Message Understanding Conferences. MUC is a competition-based conference that focused on the following domains: MUC-1 (1987), MUC-3 (1989): Naval operations messages. MUC-3 (1991), MUC-4 (1992): Terrorism in Latin American countries. MUC-5 (1993): Joint ventures and microelectronics domain. MUC-6 (1995): News articles on management changes. MUC-7 (1998): Satellite launch reports. Considerable support came from the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), who wished to automate mundane tasks performed by government analysts, such as scanning newspapers for possible links to terrorism. == Present significance == The present significance of IE pertains to the growing amount of information available in unstructured form. Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the World Wide Web, refers to the existing Internet as the web of documents and advocates that more of the content be made available as a web of data. Until this transpires, the web largely consists of unstructured documents lacking semantic metadata. Knowledge contained within these documents can be made more accessible for machine processing by means of transformation into relational form, or by marking-up with XML tags. An intelligent agent monitoring a news data feed requires IE to transform unstructured data into something that can be reasoned with. A typical application of IE is to scan a set of documents written in a natural language and populate a database with the information extracted. == Tasks and subtasks == Applying information extraction to text is linked to the problem of text simplification in order to create a structured view of the information present in free text. The overall goal being to create a more easily machine-readable text to process the sentences. Typical IE tasks and subtasks include: Template filling: Extracting a fixed set of fields from a document, e.g. extract perpetrators, victims, time, etc. from a newspaper article about a terrorist attack. Event extraction: Given an input document, output zero or more event templates. For instance, a newspaper article might describe multiple terrorist attacks. Knowledge Base Population: Fill a database of facts given a set of documents. Typically the database is in the form of triplets, (entity 1, relation, entity 2), e.g. (Barack Obama, Spouse, Michelle Obama) Named entity recognition: recognition of known entity names (for people and organizations), place names, temporal expressions, and certain types of numerical expressions, by employing existing knowledge of the domain or information extracted from other sentences. Typically the recognition task involves assigning a unique identifier to the extracted entity. A simpler task is named entity detection, which aims at detecting entities without having any existing knowledge about the entity instances. For example, in processing the sentence "M. Smith likes fishing", named entity detection would denote detecting that the phrase "M. Smith" does refer to a person, but without necessarily having (or using) any knowledge about a certain M. Smith who is (or, "might be") the specific person whom that sentence is talking about. Coreference resolution: detection of coreference and anaphoric links between text entities. In IE tasks, this is typically restricted to finding links between previously extracted named entities. For example, "International Business Machines" and "IBM" refer to the same real-world entity. If we take the two sentences "M. Smith likes fishing. But he doesn't like biking", it would be beneficial to detect that "he" is referring to the previously detected person "M. Smith". Relationship extraction: identification of relations between entities, such as: PERSON works for ORGANIZATION (extracted from the sentence "Bill works for IBM.") PERSON located in LOCATION (extracted from the sentence "Bill is in France.") Semi-structured information extraction which may refer to any IE that tries to restore some kind of information structure that has been lost through publication, such as: Table extraction: finding and extracting tables from documents. Table information extraction : extracting information in structured manner from the tables. This task is more complex than table extraction, as table extraction is only the first step, while understanding the roles of the cells, rows, columns, linking the information inside the table and understanding the information presented in the table are additional tasks necessary for table information extraction. Comments extraction : extracting comments from the actual content of articles in order to restore the link between authors of each of the sentences Language and vocabulary analysis Terminology extraction: finding the relevant terms for a given corpus Audio extraction Template-based music extraction: finding relevant characteristic in an audio signal taken from a given repertoire; for instance time indexes of occurrences of percussive sounds can be extracted in order to represent the essential rhythmic component of a music piece. Note that this list is not exhaustive and that the exact meaning of IE activities is not commonly accepted and that many approaches combine multiple sub-tasks of IE in order to achieve a wider goal. Machine learning, statistical analysis and/or natural language processing are often used in IE. IE on non-text documents is becoming an increasingly interesting topic in research, and information extracted from multimedia documents can now be expressed in a high level structure as it is done on text. This naturally leads to the fusion of extracted information from multiple kinds of documents and sources. == World Wide Web applications == IE has been the focus of the MUC conferences. The proliferation of the Web, however, intensified the need for developing IE systems that help people

  Read more →
• 

  NASA AI Assisted-Air Quality Monitoring Project

  The NASA Expert-System Ion Trap Mass Spectrometer (ES-ITMS) Project was a public-private partnership to develop an artificial intelligence assisted, air quality monitoring system and was qualified for use on the Space Shuttle. The partnership was also the first cost and intellectual property shared public-partnership implemented by NASA, which used the commercial Research and Development Limited Partnership (RDLP) model that had been adopted by the Reagan Administration for Department of Defense semiconductor development, and recommended for use by NASA for space commercialization. The project partners included NASA, the University of Florida and Finnigan MAT Corporation, was organized and administered by the NASA Joint Enterprise Institute (subsequently NASA Joint Sponsored Program) and ran from 1988 through 1990. The partnership concluded final testing in 1991, generating four patents, expert system software and application protocol reports. The system was space qualified for use on the Shuttle and elements of the ES-ITMS system were integrated into the product Improvements for Finnigan MAT corporation. The success of the partnership lead NASA to create a pilot program to develop partnership business models as an ongoing management practice. == Purpose and objectives == The need to monitor air quality in confined spaces represented an increasing challenge for NASA's planned space missions and private sector facility managers facing the increased scrutiny of possible air contaminants. Up to the early 1980's, air quality monitors generally required large spaces and human technicians to interpret readings. This created a need for miniaturized air quality monitors that could generate reliable and accurate analytic results without on-site technician presence. NASA initiated projects to develop..."mobile and/or portable mass spectrometers" that evaluated the "tradeoff between instrumentation capabilities and space, weight and power considerations." NASA selected a "commercial ITMS instrument capable of generating electron ionization, chemical ionization and mass spectrometry data", to develop a linked expert system to accomplish analysis without human intervention. The commercial instrumentation was from Finnigan MAT corporation while the scientific expertise to support expert system development was available at the University of Florida. The project managers at NASA Ames created a single, integrated project using the RDLP model with objectives to: Develop AI/expert system software for instrument control (NASA's role) Expand sensitivity, selectivity and speed of the spectrometer (Univ Florida role) Expand the spectrometer analytic capability and automate the screening (Finnigan role) == Membership == The partnership included seven specialists from five member organizations: Federal Government National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) NASA Ames Research Center (ARC) NASA Kennedy Space Center (KSC) Commercial Finnigan MAT Corporation (Thermo-Fisher Scientific) TGS Technology, Inc. Research Management University of Florida == Organization, management and administration == The technical project was organized into two development teams, one located in at the NASA Ames Research Center covering expert systems and analytic capabilities and one in Florida covering improved sensitivity and testing. The partnership management and administration was provided by a non-profit, partnership support organization: the Joint Enterprise Institute operating through San Francisco State University Foundation (SFSUF) with a NASA employee liaison, Syed Shariq. == Public-private partnership == The partnership structure was as a prototype test of a pilot NASA program to develop public-private partnership business models. The pilot program was known as the NASA Joint Sponsored Research Program (JSRP), which operated as the NASA Joint Enterprise Institute between 1988 and 1991. The partnership was the first public-private, research and development partnership implemented by NASA in response to national policy shifts to increase technology transfer and space commercialization. The partnership structure included a two year technology development and testing plan that cost $610,000, of which NASA funded $310,000, Finnigan $175,000 and the University of Florida $95,000. == Results and commercialization == The project generated patents (4), software (2) and application protocol reports (8). NASA gained use of the patents and jointly development software while Finnigan received commercial utilization rights. The results were commercialized within eighteen months of project completion. == Recognition == NASA recognized the project as a space qualified instrument. Its achievements were reported to the NASA Administrator, directly leading to establishment of the agency-wide Joint Sponsored Research Program.

  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 →
• 

  Data augmentation

  Data augmentation is a statistical technique which allows maximum likelihood estimation from incomplete data. Data augmentation has important applications in Bayesian analysis, and the technique is widely used in machine learning to reduce overfitting when training machine learning models, achieved by training models on several slightly-modified copies of existing data. == Synthetic oversampling techniques for traditional machine learning == Synthetic Minority Over-sampling Technique (SMOTE) is a method used to address imbalanced datasets in machine learning. In such datasets, the number of samples in different classes varies significantly, leading to biased model performance. For example, in a medical diagnosis dataset with 90 samples representing healthy individuals and only 10 samples representing individuals with a particular disease, traditional algorithms may struggle to accurately classify the minority class. SMOTE rebalances the dataset by generating synthetic samples for the minority class. For instance, if there are 100 samples in the majority class and 10 in the minority class, SMOTE can create synthetic samples by randomly selecting a minority class sample and its nearest neighbors, then generating new samples along the line segments joining these neighbors. This process helps increase the representation of the minority class, improving model performance. == Data augmentation for image classification == When convolutional neural networks grew larger in mid-1990s, there was a lack of data to use, especially considering that some part of the overall dataset should be spared for later testing. It was proposed to perturb existing data with affine transformations to create new examples with the same labels, which were complemented by so-called elastic distortions in 2003, and the technique was widely used as of 2010s. Data augmentation can enhance CNN performance and acts as a countermeasure against CNN profiling attacks. Data augmentation has become fundamental in image classification, enriching training dataset diversity to improve model generalization and performance. The evolution of this practice has introduced a broad spectrum of techniques, including geometric transformations, color space adjustments, and noise injection. === Geometric Transformations === Geometric transformations alter the spatial properties of images to simulate different perspectives, orientations, and scales. Common techniques include: Affine Transformation Rotation: Rotating images by a specified degree to help models recognize objects at various angles. Reflection: Reflecting images horizontally or vertically to introduce variability in orientation. Translation: Shifting images in different directions to teach models positional invariance. Scaling Shear Mapping Cropping: Removing sections of the image to focus on particular features or simulate closer views. Elastic Distortion Morphing within the same class: Generating new samples by applying morphing techniques between two images belonging to the same class, thereby increasing intra-class diversity. === Color Space Transformations === Color space transformations modify the color properties of images, addressing variations in lighting, color saturation, and contrast. Techniques include: Brightness Adjustment: Varying the image's brightness to simulate different lighting conditions. Contrast Adjustment: Changing the contrast to help models recognize objects under various clarity levels. Saturation Adjustment: Altering saturation to prepare models for images with diverse color intensities. Color Jittering: Randomly adjusting brightness, contrast, saturation, and hue to introduce color variability. === Noise Injection === Injecting noise into images simulates real-world imperfections, teaching models to ignore irrelevant variations. Techniques involve: Gaussian Noise: Adding Gaussian noise mimics sensor noise or graininess. Salt and Pepper Noise: Introducing black or white pixels at random simulates sensor dust or dead pixels. == Data augmentation for signal processing == Residual or block bootstrap can be used for time series augmentation. === Biological signals === Synthetic data augmentation is of paramount importance for machine learning classification, particularly for biological data, which tend to be high dimensional and scarce. The applications of robotic control and augmentation in disabled and able-bodied subjects still rely mainly on subject-specific analyses. Data scarcity is notable in signal processing problems such as for Parkinson's Disease Electromyography signals, which are difficult to source - Zanini, et al. noted that it is possible to use a generative adversarial network (in particular, a DCGAN) to perform style transfer in order to generate synthetic electromyographic signals that corresponded to those exhibited by sufferers of Parkinson's Disease. The approaches are also important in electroencephalography (brainwaves). Wang, et al. explored the idea of using deep convolutional neural networks for EEG-Based Emotion Recognition, results show that emotion recognition was improved when data augmentation was used. A common approach is to generate synthetic signals by re-arranging components of real data. Lotte proposed a method of "Artificial Trial Generation Based on Analogy" where three data examples x 1 , x 2 , x 3 {\displaystyle x_{1},x_{2},x_{3}} provide examples and an artificial x s y n t h e t i c {\displaystyle x_{synthetic}} is formed which is to x 3 {\displaystyle x_{3}} what x 2 {\displaystyle x_{2}} is to x 1 {\displaystyle x_{1}} . A transformation is applied to x 1 {\displaystyle x_{1}} to make it more similar to x 2 {\displaystyle x_{2}} , the same transformation is then applied to x 3 {\displaystyle x_{3}} which generates x s y n t h e t i c {\displaystyle x_{synthetic}} . This approach was shown to improve performance of a Linear Discriminant Analysis classifier on three different datasets. Current research shows great impact can be derived from relatively simple techniques. For example, Freer observed that introducing noise into gathered data to form additional data points improved the learning ability of several models which otherwise performed relatively poorly. Tsinganos et al. studied the approaches of magnitude warping, wavelet decomposition, and synthetic surface EMG models (generative approaches) for hand gesture recognition, finding classification performance increases of up to +16% when augmented data was introduced during training. More recently, data augmentation studies have begun to focus on the field of deep learning, more specifically on the ability of generative models to create artificial data which is then introduced during the classification model training process. In 2018, Luo et al. observed that useful EEG signal data could be generated by Conditional Wasserstein Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) which was then introduced to the training set in a classical train-test learning framework. The authors found classification performance was improved when such techniques were introduced. === Mechanical signals === The prediction of mechanical signals based on data augmentation brings a new generation of technological innovations, such as new energy dispatch, 5G communication field, and robotics control engineering. In 2022, Yang et al. integrate constraints, optimization and control into a deep network framework based on data augmentation and data pruning with spatio-temporal data correlation, and improve the interpretability, safety and controllability of deep learning in real industrial projects through explicit mathematical programming equations and analytical solutions.

  Read more →
• 

  Sequence labeling

  In machine learning, sequence labeling is a type of pattern recognition task that involves the algorithmic assignment of a categorical label to each member of a sequence of observed values. A common example of a sequence labeling task is part of speech tagging, which seeks to assign a part of speech to each word in an input sentence or document. Sequence labeling can be treated as a set of independent classification tasks, one per member of the sequence. However, accuracy is generally improved by making the optimal label for a given element dependent on the choices of nearby elements, using special algorithms to choose the globally best set of labels for the entire sequence at once. As an example of why finding the globally best label sequence might produce better results than labeling one item at a time, consider the part-of-speech tagging task just described. Frequently, many words are members of multiple parts of speech, and the correct label of such a word can often be deduced from the correct label of the word to the immediate left or right. For example, the word "sets" can be either a noun or verb. In a phrase like "he sets the books down", the word "he" is unambiguously a pronoun, and "the" unambiguously a determiner, and using either of these labels, "sets" can be deduced to be a verb, since nouns very rarely follow pronouns and are less likely to precede determiners than verbs are. But in other cases, only one of the adjacent words is similarly helpful. In "he sets and then knocks over the table", only the word "he" to the left is helpful (cf. "...picks up the sets and then knocks over..."). Conversely, in "... and also sets the table" only the word "the" to the right is helpful (cf. "... and also sets of books were ..."). An algorithm that proceeds from left to right, labeling one word at a time, can only use the tags of left-adjacent words and might fail in the second example above; vice versa for an algorithm that proceeds from right to left. Most sequence labeling algorithms are probabilistic in nature, relying on statistical inference to find the best sequence. The most common statistical models in use for sequence labeling make a Markov assumption, i.e. that the choice of label for a particular word is directly dependent only on the immediately adjacent labels; hence the set of labels forms a Markov chain. This leads naturally to the hidden Markov model (HMM), one of the most common statistical models used for sequence labeling. Other common models in use are the maximum entropy Markov model and conditional random field.

  Read more →
• 

  Learnable function class

  In statistical learning theory, a learnable function class is a set of functions for which an algorithm can be devised to asymptotically minimize the expected risk, uniformly over all probability distributions. The concept of learnable classes are closely related to regularization in machine learning, and provides large sample justifications for certain learning algorithms. == Definition == === Background === Let Ω = X × Y = { ( x , y ) } {\displaystyle \Omega ={\mathcal {X}}\times {\mathcal {Y}}=\{(x,y)\}} be the sample space, where y {\displaystyle y} are the labels and x {\displaystyle x} are the covariates (predictors). F = { f : X ↦ Y } {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}=\{f:{\mathcal {X}}\mapsto {\mathcal {Y}}\}} is a collection of mappings (functions) under consideration to link x {\displaystyle x} to y {\displaystyle y} . L : Y × Y ↦ R {\displaystyle L:{\mathcal {Y}}\times {\mathcal {Y}}\mapsto \mathbb {R} } is a pre-given loss function (usually non-negative). Given a probability distribution P ( x , y ) {\displaystyle P(x,y)} on Ω {\displaystyle \Omega } , define the expected risk I P ( f ) {\displaystyle I_{P}(f)} to be: I P ( f ) = ∫ L ( f ( x ) , y ) d P ( x , y ) {\displaystyle I_{P}(f)=\int L(f(x),y)dP(x,y)} The general goal in statistical learning is to find the function in F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} that minimizes the expected risk. That is, to find solutions to the following problem: f ^ = arg ⁡ min f ∈ F I P ( f ) {\displaystyle {\hat {f}}=\arg \min _{f\in {\mathcal {F}}}I_{P}(f)} But in practice the distribution P {\displaystyle P} is unknown, and any learning task can only be based on finite samples. Thus we seek instead to find an algorithm that asymptotically minimizes the empirical risk, i.e., to find a sequence of functions { f ^ n } n = 1 ∞ {\displaystyle \{{\hat {f}}_{n}\}_{n=1}^{\infty }} that satisfies lim n → ∞ P ( I P ( f ^ n ) − inf f ∈ F I P ( f ) > ϵ ) = 0 {\displaystyle \lim _{n\rightarrow \infty }\mathbb {P} (I_{P}({\hat {f}}_{n})-\inf _{f\in {\mathcal {F}}}I_{P}(f)>\epsilon )=0} One usual algorithm to find such a sequence is through empirical risk minimization. === Learnable function class === We can make the condition given in the above equation stronger by requiring that the convergence is uniform for all probability distributions. That is: The intuition behind the more strict requirement is as such: the rate at which sequence { f ^ n } {\displaystyle \{{\hat {f}}_{n}\}} converges to the minimizer of the expected risk can be very different for different P ( x , y ) {\displaystyle P(x,y)} . Because in real world the true distribution P {\displaystyle P} is always unknown, we would want to select a sequence that performs well under all cases. However, by the no free lunch theorem, such a sequence that satisfies (1) does not exist if F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} is too complex. This means we need to be careful and not allow too "many" functions in F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} if we want (1) to be a meaningful requirement. Specifically, function classes that ensure the existence of a sequence { f ^ n } {\displaystyle \{{\hat {f}}_{n}\}} that satisfies (1) are known as learnable classes. It is worth noting that at least for supervised classification and regression problems, if a function class is learnable, then the empirical risk minimization automatically satisfies (1). Thus in these settings not only do we know that the problem posed by (1) is solvable, we also immediately have an algorithm that gives the solution. == Interpretations == If the true relationship between y {\displaystyle y} and x {\displaystyle x} is y ∼ f ∗ ( x ) {\displaystyle y\sim f^{}(x)} , then by selecting the appropriate loss function, f ∗ {\displaystyle f^{}} can always be expressed as the minimizer of the expected loss across all possible functions. That is, f ∗ = arg ⁡ min f ∈ F ∗ I P ( f ) {\displaystyle f^{}=\arg \min _{f\in {\mathcal {F}}^{}}I_{P}(f)} Here we let F ∗ {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}^{}} be the collection of all possible functions mapping X {\displaystyle {\mathcal {X}}} onto Y {\displaystyle {\mathcal {Y}}} . f ∗ {\displaystyle f^{}} can be interpreted as the actual data generating mechanism. However, the no free lunch theorem tells us that in practice, with finite samples we cannot hope to search for the expected risk minimizer over F ∗ {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}^{}} . Thus we often consider a subset of F ∗ {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}^{}} , F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} , to carry out searches on. By doing so, we risk that f ∗ {\displaystyle f^{}} might not be an element of F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} . This tradeoff can be mathematically expressed as In the above decomposition, part ( b ) {\displaystyle (b)} does not depend on the data and is non-stochastic. It describes how far away our assumptions ( F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} ) are from the truth ( F ∗ {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}^{}} ). ( b ) {\displaystyle (b)} will be strictly greater than 0 if we make assumptions that are too strong ( F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} too small). On the other hand, failing to put enough restrictions on F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} will cause it to be not learnable, and part ( a ) {\displaystyle (a)} will not stochastically converge to 0. This is the well-known overfitting problem in statistics and machine learning literature. == Example: Tikhonov regularization == A good example where learnable classes are used is the so-called Tikhonov regularization in reproducing kernel Hilbert space (RKHS). Specifically, let F ∗ {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F^{}}}} be an RKHS, and | | ⋅ | | 2 {\displaystyle ||\cdot ||_{2}} be the norm on F ∗ {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F^{}}}} given by its inner product. It is shown in that F = { f : | | f | | 2 ≤ γ } {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}=\{f:||f||_{2}\leq \gamma \}} is a learnable class for any finite, positive γ {\displaystyle \gamma } . The empirical minimization algorithm to the dual form of this problem is arg ⁡ min f ∈ F ∗ { ∑ i = 1 n L ( f ( x i ) , y i ) + λ | | f | | 2 } {\displaystyle \arg \min _{f\in {\mathcal {F}}^{}}\left\{\sum _{i=1}^{n}L(f(x_{i}),y_{i})+\lambda ||f||_{2}\right\}} This was first introduced by Tikhonov to solve ill-posed problems. Many statistical learning algorithms can be expressed in such a form (for example, the well-known ridge regression). The tradeoff between ( a ) {\displaystyle (a)} and ( b ) {\displaystyle (b)} in (2) is geometrically more intuitive with Tikhonov regularization in RKHS. We can consider a sequence of { F γ } {\displaystyle \{{\mathcal {F}}_{\gamma }\}} , which are essentially balls in F ∗ {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F^{}}}} with centers at 0. As γ {\displaystyle \gamma } gets larger, F γ {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}_{\gamma }} gets closer to the entire space, and ( b ) {\displaystyle (b)} is likely to become smaller. However we will also suffer smaller convergence rates in ( a ) {\displaystyle (a)} . The way to choose an optimal γ {\displaystyle \gamma } in finite sample settings is usually through cross-validation. == Relationship to empirical process theory == Part ( a ) {\displaystyle (a)} in (2) is closely linked to empirical process theory in statistics, where the empirical risk { ∑ i = 1 n L ( y i , f ( x i ) ) , f ∈ F } {\displaystyle \{\sum _{i=1}^{n}L(y_{i},f(x_{i})),f\in {\mathcal {F}}\}} are known as empirical processes. In this field, the function class F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} that satisfies the stochastic convergence are known as uniform Glivenko–Cantelli classes. It has been shown that under certain regularity conditions, learnable classes and uniformly Glivenko-Cantelli classes are equivalent. Interplay between ( a ) {\displaystyle (a)} and ( b ) {\displaystyle (b)} in statistics literature is often known as the bias-variance tradeoff. However, note that in the authors gave an example of stochastic convex optimization for General Setting of Learning where learnability is not equivalent with uniform convergence.

  Read more →
• 

  Neurocomputing (journal)

  Neurocomputing is a peer-reviewed scientific journal covering research on artificial intelligence, machine learning, and neural computation. It was established in 1989 and is published by Elsevier. The editor-in-chief is Zidong Wang (Brunel University London). Independent scientometric studies noted that despite being one of the most productive journals in the field, it has kept its reputation across the years intact and plays an important role in leading the research in the area. The journal is abstracted and indexed in Scopus and Science Citation Index Expanded. According to the Journal Citation Reports, its 2023 impact factor is 5.5.

  Read more →