AI Chatbot Login

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

• 

  List of chatbots

  A chatbot is a software application or web interface that is designed to mimic human conversation through text or voice interactions. Modern chatbots are typically online and use generative artificial intelligence systems that are capable of maintaining a conversation with a user in natural language and simulating the way a human would behave as a conversational partner. Such chatbots often use large language models (LLMs) and natural language processing, but simpler chatbots have existed for decades. == LLM chatbots == == General chatbots == == Historical chatbots ==

  Read more →
• 

  Learning to rank

  Learning to rank (LTR) or machine-learned ranking (MLR) is the application of machine learning, often supervised, semi-supervised or reinforcement learning, in the construction of ranking models for information retrieval and recommender systems. Training data may, for example, consist of lists of items with some partial order specified between items in each list. This order is typically induced by giving a numerical or ordinal score or a binary judgment (e.g. "relevant" or "not relevant") for each item. The goal of constructing the ranking model is to rank new, unseen lists in a similar way to rankings in the training data. == Applications == === In information retrieval === Ranking is a central part of many information retrieval problems, such as document retrieval, collaborative filtering, sentiment analysis, and online advertising. A possible architecture of a machine-learned search engine is shown in the accompanying figure. Training data consists of queries and documents matching them together with the relevance degree of each match. It may be prepared manually by human assessors (or raters, as Google calls them), who check results for some queries and determine relevance of each result. It is not feasible to check the relevance of all documents, and so typically a technique called pooling is used — only the top few documents, retrieved by some existing ranking models are checked. This technique may introduce selection bias. Alternatively, training data may be derived automatically by analyzing clickthrough logs (i.e. search results which got clicks from users), query chains, or such search engines' features as Google's (since-replaced) SearchWiki. Clickthrough logs can be biased by the tendency of users to click on the top search results on the assumption that they are already well-ranked. Training data is used by a learning algorithm to produce a ranking model which computes the relevance of documents for actual queries. Typically, users expect a search query to complete in a short time (such as a few hundred milliseconds for web search), which makes it impossible to evaluate a complex ranking model on each document in the corpus, and so a two-phase scheme is used. First, a small number of potentially relevant documents are identified using simpler retrieval models which permit fast query evaluation, such as the vector space model, Boolean model, weighted AND, or BM25. This phase is called top- k {\displaystyle k} document retrieval and many heuristics were proposed in the literature to accelerate it, such as using a document's static quality score and tiered indexes. In the second phase, a more accurate but computationally expensive machine-learned model is used to re-rank these documents. === In other areas === Learning to rank algorithms have been applied in areas other than information retrieval: In machine translation for ranking a set of hypothesized translations; In computational biology for ranking candidate 3-D structures in protein structure prediction problems; In recommender systems for identifying a ranked list of related news articles to recommend to a user after he or she has read a current news article. == Feature vectors == For the convenience of MLR algorithms, query-document pairs are usually represented by numerical vectors, which are called feature vectors. Such an approach is sometimes called bag of features and is analogous to the bag of words model and vector space model used in information retrieval for representation of documents. Components of such vectors are called features, factors or ranking signals. They may be divided into three groups (features from document retrieval are shown as examples): Query-independent or static features — those features, which depend only on the document, but not on the query. For example, PageRank or document's length. Such features can be precomputed in off-line mode during indexing. They may be used to compute document's static quality score (or static rank), which is often used to speed up search query evaluation. Query-dependent or dynamic features — those features, which depend both on the contents of the document and the query, such as TF-IDF score or other non-machine-learned ranking functions. Query-level features or query features, which depend only on the query. For example, the number of words in a query. Some examples of features, which were used in the well-known LETOR dataset: TF, TF-IDF, BM25, and language modeling scores of document's zones (title, body, anchors text, URL) for a given query; Lengths and IDF sums of document's zones; Document's PageRank, HITS ranks and their variants. Selecting and designing good features is an important area in machine learning, which is called feature engineering. == Evaluation measures == There are several measures (metrics) which are commonly used to judge how well an algorithm is doing on training data and to compare the performance of different MLR algorithms. Often a learning-to-rank problem is reformulated as an optimization problem with respect to one of these metrics. Examples of ranking quality measures: Mean average precision (MAP); DCG and NDCG; Precision@n, NDCG@n, where "@n" denotes that the metrics are evaluated only on top n documents; Mean reciprocal rank; Kendall's tau; Spearman's rho. DCG and its normalized variant NDCG are usually preferred in academic research when multiple levels of relevance are used. Other metrics such as MAP, MRR and precision, are defined only for binary judgments. Recently, there have been proposed several new evaluation metrics which claim to model user's satisfaction with search results better than the DCG metric: Expected reciprocal rank (ERR); Yandex's pfound. Both of these metrics are based on the assumption that the user is more likely to stop looking at search results after examining a more relevant document, than after a less relevant document. == Approaches == Learning to Rank approaches are often categorized using one of three approaches: pointwise (where individual documents are ranked), pairwise (where pairs of documents are ranked into a relative order), and listwise (where an entire list of documents are ordered). Tie-Yan Liu of Microsoft Research Asia has analyzed existing algorithms for learning to rank problems in his book Learning to Rank for Information Retrieval. He categorized them into three groups by their input spaces, output spaces, hypothesis spaces (the core function of the model) and loss functions: the pointwise, pairwise, and listwise approach. In practice, listwise approaches often outperform pairwise approaches and pointwise approaches. This statement was further supported by a large scale experiment on the performance of different learning-to-rank methods on a large collection of benchmark data sets. In this section, without further notice, x {\displaystyle x} denotes an object to be evaluated, for example, a document or an image, f ( x ) {\displaystyle f(x)} denotes a single-value hypothesis, h ( ⋅ ) {\displaystyle h(\cdot )} denotes a bi-variate or multi-variate function and L ( ⋅ ) {\displaystyle L(\cdot )} denotes the loss function. === Pointwise approach === In this case, it is assumed that each query-document pair in the training data has a numerical or ordinal score. Then the learning-to-rank problem can be approximated by a regression problem — given a single query-document pair, predict its score. Formally speaking, the pointwise approach aims at learning a function f ( x ) {\displaystyle f(x)} predicting the real-value or ordinal score of a document x {\displaystyle x} using the loss function L ( f ; x j , y j ) {\displaystyle L(f;x_{j},y_{j})} . A number of existing supervised machine learning algorithms can be readily used for this purpose. Ordinal regression and classification algorithms can also be used in pointwise approach when they are used to predict the score of a single query-document pair, and it takes a small, finite number of values. === Pairwise approach === In this case, the learning-to-rank problem is approximated by a classification problem — learning a binary classifier h ( x u , x v ) {\displaystyle h(x_{u},x_{v})} that can tell which document is better in a given pair of documents. The classifier shall take two documents as its input and the goal is to minimize a loss function L ( h ; x u , x v , y u , v ) {\displaystyle L(h;x_{u},x_{v},y_{u,v})} . The loss function typically reflects the number and magnitude of inversions in the induced ranking. In many cases, the binary classifier h ( x u , x v ) {\displaystyle h(x_{u},x_{v})} is implemented with a scoring function f ( x ) {\displaystyle f(x)} . As an example, RankNet adapts a probability model and defines h ( x u , x v ) {\displaystyle h(x_{u},x_{v})} as the estimated probability of the document x u {\displaystyle x_{u}} has higher quality than x v {\displaystyle x_{v}} : P u , v ( f ) = CDF ( f ( x u ) − f ( x v ) ) , {\displaystyle P_{u,v}(f)={\text{CDF}

  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 →
• 

  AI agent

  In the context of generative artificial intelligence, AI agents (also referred to as compound AI systems or agentic AI) are a class of intelligent agents that can pursue goals, use tools, and take actions with varying degrees of autonomy. In practice, they usually operate within human-defined objectives, constraints, and available tools. == Overview == AI agents possess several key attributes, including goal-directed behavior, natural language interfaces, the capacity to use external tools, and the ability to perform multi-step tasks. Their control flow is frequently driven by large language models (LLMs). Agent systems may also include memory components, planning logic, tool interfaces, and orchestration software for coordinating agent components. AI agents do not have a standard definition. NIST describes agentic AI as an emerging area requiring standards for secure operation, interoperability, and reliable interaction with external systems. A common application of AI agents is task automation: for example, booking travel plans based on a user's prompted request. Companies such as Google, Microsoft and Amazon Web Services have offered platforms for deploying pre-built AI agents. Several protocols have been proposed for standardizing inter-agent communication, with examples including the Model Context Protocol, Gibberlink, and many others. Some of these protocols are also used for connecting agents to external applications. In December 2025, Linux Foundation announced the formation of the Agentic AI Foundation (AAIF), with the goal of ensuring agentic AI evolves transparently and collaboratively. == History == AI agents have been traced back to research from the 1990s, with Harvard professor Milind Tambe noting that the definition of an AI agent was not clear at the time. Researcher Andrew Ng has been credited with spreading the term "agentic" to a wider audience in 2024. == Training and testing == Researchers have attempted to build world models and reinforcement learning environments to train or evaluate AI agents. For example, video games such as Minecraft and No Man's Sky as well as replicas of company websites, have also been used for training such agents. == Autonomous capabilities == The Financial Times compared the autonomy of AI agents to the SAE classification of self-driving cars, likening most applications to level 2 or level 3, with some achieving level 4 in highly specialized circumstances, and level 5 being theoretical. == Cognitive architecture == The following are some internal design options for reasoning within an agent: Retrieval-augmented generation ReAct (Reason + Act) pattern is an iterative process in which an AI agent alternates between reasoning and taking actions, receives observations from the environment or external tools, and integrates these observations into subsequent reasoning steps. Reflexion, which uses an LLM to create feedback on the agent's plan of action and stores that feedback in a memory cache. A tool/agent registry, for organizing software functions or other agents that the agent can use. One-shot model querying, which queries the model once to create the plan of action. === Reference architecture === Ken Huang proposed an AI agent reference architecture, which consists of seven interconnected layers, with each layer building on the functionality of the layers beneath it: Layer 1: Foundation models - provide the core AI engines to power agent capabilities. Layer 2: Data operations - manage the complex data infrastructure required for AI agent operations, including Vector database, data loaders, RAG. Layer 3: Agent frameworks - sophisticated software and tools that simplify the development and management of the AI agents. Layer 4: Deployment and infrastructure - provide the robust technical foundation for running AI agents. Layer 5: Evaluation and observability - focus on assessing the safety and performance of AI agents. Layer 6: Security and compliance - a crucial protective framework ensuring AI agents operate safely, securely, and conform to regulatory boundaries. At this layer security and compliance features embedded into all the AI agent stack layers are integrated together. Layer 7: Agent ecosystem - represents the AI agents' interface with real-world applications and users. == Orchestration patterns == To execute complex tasks, autonomous agents are often integrated with other agents or specialized tools. These configurations, known as orchestration patterns or workflows, include the following: Prompt chaining: A sequence where the output of one step serves as the input for the next. Routing: The classification of an input to direct it to a specialized downstream task or tool. Parallelization: The simultaneous execution of multiple tasks. Sequential processing: A fixed, linear progression of tasks through a predefined pipeline. Planner-critic: An iterative pattern where one agent generates a proposal and another evaluates it to provide feedback for refinement. == Multimodal AI agents == In addition to large language models (LLMs), vision-language models (VLMs) and multimodal foundation models can be used as the basis for agents. In September 2024, Allen Institute for AI released an open-source vision-language model. Nvidia released a framework for developers to use VLMs, LLMs and retrieval-augmented generation for building AI agents that can analyze images and videos, including video search and video summarization. Microsoft released a multimodal agent model – trained on images, video, software user interface interactions, and robotics data – that the company claimed can manipulate software and robots. == Applications == As of April 2025, per the Associated Press, there are few real-world applications of AI agents. As of June 2025, per Fortune, many companies are primarily experimenting with AI agents. The Information divided AI agents into seven archetypes: business-task agents, for acting within enterprise software; conversational agents, which act as chatbots for customer support; research agents, for querying and analyzing information (such as OpenAI Deep Research); analytics agents, for analyzing data to create reports; software developer or coding agents (such as Cursor); domain-specific agents, which include specific subject matter knowledge; and web browser agents (such as OpenAI Operator). By mid-2025, AI agents have been used in video game development, gambling (including sports betting), cryptocurrency wallets (including cryptocurrency trading and meme coins) and social media. In August 2025, New York Magazine described software development as the most definitive use case of AI agents. Likewise, by October 2025, noting a decline in expectations, The Information noted AI coding agents and customer support as the primary use cases by businesses. In November 2025, The Wall Street Journal reported that few companies that deployed AI agents have received a return on investment. === Applications in government === Several government bodies in the United States and United Kingdom have deployed or announced the deployment of agents, at the local and national level. The city of Kyle, Texas deployed an AI agent from Salesforce in March 2025 for 311 customer service. In November 2025, the Internal Revenue Service stated that it would use Agentforce, AI agents from Salesforce, for the Office of Chief Counsel, Taxpayer Advocate Services and the Office of Appeals. That same month, Staffordshire Police announced that they would trial Agentforce agents for handling non-emergency 101 calls in the United Kingdom starting in 2026. In December 2025, the Department of Neighborhoods in Detroit, Michigan, in partnership with a local business, deployed a pilot project in two Detroit districts for an AI agent to be used for customer service calls. In February 2025, Thomas Shedd, the director of the Technology Transformation Services, proposed using AI coding agents across the United States federal government. A recruiter for the Department of Government Efficiency proposed in April 2025 to use AI agents to automate the work of about 70,000 United States federal government employees, as part of a startup with funding from OpenAI and a partnership agreement with Palantir. This proposal was criticized by experts for its impracticality, if not impossibility, and the lack of corresponding widespread adoption by businesses. In December 2025, the Food and Drug Administration announced that it would offer "agentic AI capabilities" to its staff for "meeting management, pre-market reviews, review validation, post-market surveillance, inspections and compliance and administrative functions." That same month, the United States Department of Defense launched GenAI.mil, an internal platform for American military personnel to use generative AI-based applications based on Google Gemini, including "intelligent agentic workflows". Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth listed applications such as "[conducting] deep r

  Read more →
• 

  Intelligent database

  Until the 1980s, databases were viewed as computer systems that stored record-oriented and business data such as manufacturing inventories, bank records, and sales transactions. A database system was not expected to merge numeric data with text, images, or multimedia information, nor was it expected to automatically notice patterns in the data it stored. In the late 1980s the concept of an intelligent database was put forward as a system that manages information (rather than data) in a way that appears natural to users and which goes beyond simple record keeping. The term was introduced in 1989 by the book Intelligent Databases by Kamran Parsaye, Mark Chignell, Setrag Khoshafian and Harry Wong. The concept postulated three levels of intelligence for such systems: high level tools, the user interface and the database engine. The high level tools manage data quality and automatically discover relevant patterns in the data with a process called data mining. This layer often relies on the use of artificial intelligence techniques. The user interface uses hypermedia in a form that uniformly manages text, images and numeric data. The intelligent database engine supports the other two layers, often merging relational database techniques with object orientation. In the twenty-first century, intelligent databases have now become widespread, e.g. hospital databases can now call up patient histories consisting of charts, text and x-ray images just with a few mouse clicks, and many corporate databases include decision support tools based on sales pattern analysis.

  Read more →
• 

  Curse of dimensionality

  The curse of dimensionality refers to various phenomena that arise when analyzing and organizing data in high-dimensional spaces that do not occur in low-dimensional settings such as the three-dimensional physical space of everyday experience. The expression was coined by Richard E. Bellman when considering problems in dynamic programming. The curse generally refers to issues that arise when the number of datapoints is small (in a suitably defined sense) relative to the intrinsic dimension of the data. Dimensionally cursed phenomena occur in domains such as numerical analysis, sampling, combinatorics, machine learning, data mining and databases. The common theme of these problems is that when the dimensionality increases, the volume of the space increases so fast that the available data becomes sparse. In order to obtain a reliable result, the amount of data needed often grows exponentially with the dimensionality. Also, organizing and searching data often relies on detecting areas where objects form groups with similar properties; in high dimensional data, however, all objects appear to be sparse and dissimilar in many ways, which prevents common data organization strategies from being efficient. == Domains == === Combinatorics === In some problems, each variable can take one of several discrete values, or the range of possible values is divided to give a finite number of possibilities. Taking the variables together, a huge number of combinations of values must be considered. This effect is also known as the combinatorial explosion. Even in the simplest case of d {\displaystyle d} binary variables, the number of possible combinations already is 2 d {\displaystyle 2^{d}} , exponential in the dimensionality. Naively, each additional dimension doubles the effort needed to try all combinations. === Sampling === There is an exponential increase in volume associated with adding extra dimensions to a mathematical space. For example, 102 = 100 evenly spaced sample points suffice to sample a unit interval (try to visualize a "1-dimensional" cube, i.e. a line) with no more than 10−2 = 0.01 distance between points; an equivalent sampling of a 10-dimensional unit hypercube with a lattice that has a spacing of 10−2 = 0.01 between adjacent points would require 1020 = [(102)10] sample points. In general, with a spacing distance of 10−n the 10-dimensional hypercube appears to be a factor of 10n(10−1) = [(10n)10/(10n)] "larger" than the 1-dimensional hypercube, which is the unit interval. In the above example n = 2: when using a sampling distance of 0.01 the 10-dimensional hypercube appears to be 1018 "larger" than the unit interval. This effect is a combination of the combinatorics problems above and the distance function problems explained below. === Optimization === When solving dynamic optimization problems by numerical backward induction, the objective function must be computed for each combination of values. This is a significant obstacle when the dimension of the "state variable" is large. === Machine learning === In machine learning problems that involve learning a "state-of-nature" from a finite number of data samples in a high-dimensional feature space with each feature having a range of possible values, typically an enormous amount of training data is required to ensure that there are several samples with each combination of values. In an abstract sense, as the number of features or dimensions grows, the amount of data we need to generalize accurately grows exponentially. A typical rule of thumb is that there should be at least 5 training examples for each dimension in the representation. In machine learning and insofar as predictive performance is concerned, the curse of dimensionality is used interchangeably with the peaking phenomenon, which is also known as Hughes phenomenon. This phenomenon states that with a fixed number of training samples, the average (expected) predictive power of a classifier or regressor first increases as the number of dimensions or features used is increased but beyond a certain dimensionality it starts deteriorating instead of improving steadily. Nevertheless, in the context of a simple classifier (e.g., linear discriminant analysis in the multivariate Gaussian model under the assumption of a common known covariance matrix), Zollanvari et al. showed both analytically and empirically that as long as the relative cumulative efficacy of an additional feature set (with respect to features that are already part of the classifier) is greater (or less) than the size of this additional feature set, the expected error of the classifier constructed using these additional features will be less (or greater) than the expected error of the classifier constructed without them. In other words, both the size of additional features and their (relative) cumulative discriminatory effect are important in observing a decrease or increase in the average predictive power. In metric learning, higher dimensions can sometimes allow a model to achieve better performance. After normalizing embeddings to the surface of a hypersphere, FaceNet achieves the best performance using 128 dimensions as opposed to 64, 256, or 512 dimensions in one ablation study. A loss function for unitary-invariant dissimilarity between word embeddings was found to be minimized in high dimensions. === Data mining === In data mining, the curse of dimensionality refers to a data set with too many features. Consider the first table, which depicts 200 individuals and 2000 genes (features) with a 1 or 0 denoting whether or not they have a genetic mutation in that gene. A data mining application to this data set may be finding the correlation between specific genetic mutations and creating a classification algorithm such as a decision tree to determine whether an individual has cancer or not. A common practice of data mining in this domain would be to create association rules between genetic mutations that lead to the development of cancers. To do this, one would have to loop through each genetic mutation of each individual and find other genetic mutations that occur over a desired threshold and create pairs. They would start with pairs of two, then three, then four until they result in an empty set of pairs. The complexity of this algorithm can lead to calculating all permutations of gene pairs for each individual or row. Given the formula for calculating the permutations of n items with a group size of r is: n ! ( n − r ) ! {\displaystyle {\frac {n!}{(n-r)!}}} , calculating the number of three pair permutations of any given individual would be 7988004000 different pairs of genes to evaluate for each individual. The number of pairs created will grow by an order of factorial as the size of the pairs increase. The growth is depicted in the permutation table (see right). As we can see from the permutation table above, one of the major problems data miners face regarding the curse of dimensionality is that the space of possible parameter values grows exponentially or factorially as the number of features in the data set grows. This problem critically affects both computational time and space when searching for associations or optimal features to consider. Another problem data miners may face when dealing with too many features is that the number of false predictions or classifications tends to increase as the number of features grows in the data set. In terms of the classification problem discussed above, keeping every data point could lead to a higher number of false positives and false negatives in the model. This may seem counterintuitive, but consider the genetic mutation table from above, depicting all genetic mutations for each individual. Each genetic mutation, whether they correlate with cancer or not, will have some input or weight in the model that guides the decision-making process of the algorithm. There may be mutations that are outliers or ones that dominate the overall distribution of genetic mutations when in fact they do not correlate with cancer. These features may be working against one's model, making it more difficult to obtain optimal results. This problem is up to the data miner to solve, and there is no universal solution. The first step any data miner should take is to explore the data, in an attempt to gain an understanding of how it can be used to solve the problem. One must first understand what the data means, and what they are trying to discover before they can decide if anything must be removed from the data set. Then they can create or use a feature selection or dimensionality reduction algorithm to remove samples or features from the data set if they deem it necessary. One example of such methods is the interquartile range method, used to remove outliers in a data set by calculating the standard deviation of a feature or occurrence. === Distance function === When a measure such as a Euclidean distance is defined using many coordinat

  Read more →
• 

  Meta-Labeling

  Meta-labeling, also known as corrective AI, is a machine learning (ML) technique utilized in quantitative finance to enhance the performance of investment and trading strategies, developed in 2017 by Marcos López de Prado at Guggenheim Partners and Cornell University. The core idea is to separate the decision of trade direction (side) from the decision of trade sizing, addressing the inefficiencies of simultaneously learning both side and size predictions. The side decision involves forecasting market movements (long, short, neutral), while the size decision focuses on risk management and profitability. It serves as a secondary decision-making layer that evaluates the signals generated by a primary predictive model. By assessing the confidence and likely profitability of those signals, meta-labeling allows investors and algorithms to dynamically size positions and suppress false positives. == Motivation == Meta-labeling is designed to improve precision without sacrificing recall. As noted by López de Prado, attempting to model both the direction and the magnitude of a trade using a single algorithm can result in poor generalization. By separating these tasks, meta-labeling enables greater flexibility and robustness: Enhances control over capital allocation. Reduces overfitting by limiting model complexity. Allows the use of interpretability tools and tailored thresholds to manage risk. Enables dynamic trade suppression in unfavorable regimes. == Applications == Meta-labeling has been applied in a variety of financial ML contexts, including: Algorithmic trading: Filtering and sizing trades to reduce false positives. Portfolio optimization: Scaling exposure across multiple signals with differing confidence levels. Risk management: Dynamically disabling strategies in adverse market conditions. Model validation: Interpreting when and why a model may be underperforming due to regime shifts. == General architecture == Meta-labeling decouples two core components of systematic trading strategies: directional prediction and position sizing. The process involves training a primary model to generate trade signals (e.g., buy, sell, or hold) and then training a secondary model to determine whether each signal is likely to lead to a profitable trade. The second model outputs a probability that is interpreted as the confidence in the forecast, which can be used to adjust the position size or to filter out unreliable trades. Meta-labeling is typically implemented as a three-stage process: Primary model (M1): Predicts the direction or label of a financial outcome using features such as market prices, returns, or volatility indicators. A typical output is directional, e.g., Y ∈ {−1,0,1}, representing short, neutral, or long positions. Secondary model (M2): A binary classifier trained to predict whether the primary model's prediction will be profitable. The target variable is a binary meta-label F ∈ { 0 , 1 } {\displaystyle F\in \{0,1\}} . Inputs can include features used in the primary model, performance diagnostics, or market regime data. Position sizing algorithm (M3): Translates the output probability of the secondary model into a position size. Higher confidence scores result in larger allocations, while lower confidence leads to reduced or zero exposure. === Stage 1: Forecasting side === Primary model architecture Figure 1 Figure 1 presents the architecture of a primary model. It focuses on forecasting the side of the trade. Following the example, this model (M1) takes in input data – such as open-high-low-close data and determines the side of the position to take: a negative number is a short position, and positive number is a long position, the range is set between −1 and 1 (the closer it is to −1 or 1, the stronger the models conviction is). When training the model, the labels are −1 and 1, based on the direction of forward returns for some predefined investment horizon. The researcher may decide to apply a recall check (τ: "Tau") by setting a minimum threshold that the initial output needs to be to qualify of a short or long position (if the threshold is not met, no side forecast is predicted, leading to closing of any open positions), this leads to the primary model output which is one of three possible side forecasts: −1, 0, or 1. The primary model also generates evaluation data which can be used by the secondary model, to improve performance of size forecasts. Some examples of evaluation data include rolling accuracy, F1, recall, precision, and AUC scores. === Stage 2: Filtering out false positives === General meta-labeling architecture Figure 2 Next comes the phase of filtering out false positives, by applying a secondary machine learning model (M2), which is a binary classifier trained to determine if the trade will be profitable or not. The model takes as input four general groupings of data: General input data which is predictive of a false positive. For example the last 30 days rolling volatility of the underlying asset. Evaluation data. Market state and regime data, one may find that macro economic data or clustering the market into regimes may help as specific trading strategies are known to perform better in particular regimes. Example: momentum based strategies perform best in periods with low volatility and strong directional moves. Primary models initial input which is a value between −1 and 1. This highlights the strength of the primary models conviction. The output of the model is a value between −1 and 1 (if using a Tanh function) which will indicate the strength of the conviction that a short or long position is profitable, or it could simply be between 0 and 1 (using a sigmoid function) if one only wanted to know if it made money or not. This output allows filtering out trades that are likely to lead to losses. One could stop at this point or use the outputs of the secondary model as inputs to a position sizing algorithm (M3) which could further enhance strategy performance metrics by translating the output probability of the secondary model into a position size. Higher confidence scores result in larger allocations, while lower confidence leads to reduced or zero exposure. === Stage 3: Optimizing position sizes === ==== Position sizing methods (M3) ==== Various algorithms have been proposed for transforming predicted probabilities into trade sizes: All-or-nothing: Allocate 100% of capital if the probability exceeds a predefined threshold (e.g., 0.5); otherwise, do not trade. Model confidence: Use the probability score directly as the fraction of capital allocated. Linear scaling: Rescale the model's probabilities using min-max normalization based on the training data. Normal CDF (NCDF): Use a normal cumulative distribution function applied to a z-statistic derived from the predicted probability. Empirical CDF (ECDF): Rank probabilities based on their percentile in the training data to ensure relative allocation. Sigmoid Optimal Position Sizing (SOPS): Applies a smooth non-linear sigmoid transformation optimized to maximize risk-adjusted returns (Sharpe ratio). ==== Model calibration ==== Each machine learning algorithm used in meta-labeling tends to produce outputs with different characteristic distributions; for example, some are approximately normally distributed, whereas others exhibit a pronounced U-shape, concentrating probabilities near the extremes. Due to these varying distributions, simply summing the outputs of different models can inadvertently lead to uneven weighting of signals, biasing trade decisions. To address this, model calibration techniques are essential to adjust the predicted probabilities towards frequentist probabilities, ensuring that model outputs reflect true likelihoods more accurately. Two common calibration techniques are: Platt scaling (Sigmoid scaling): Suitable for correcting S-shaped calibration plots typically produced by models such as support vector machines (SVMs). Isotonic regression: Fits a non-decreasing step function to probabilities and is effective particularly with larger datasets, though it can sometimes lead to overfitting. Transforming predictions to frequentist probabilities is crucial as it provides probabilistic outputs that are directly interpretable as the actual likelihood of an event occurring. Such calibration significantly enhances the effectiveness of fixed position sizing methods, reducing maximum drawdowns and increasing risk-adjusted returns. However, calibration has less impact on position sizing methods that directly estimate parameters from the training data, such as ECDF and SOPS, suggesting that calibration is a critical step mainly for fixed methods that rely heavily on raw model outputs. =

  Read more →
• 

  Qloo

  Qloo (pronounced "clue") is a company that uses artificial intelligence (AI) to understand taste and cultural correlations. It provides companies with an application programming interface (API). It received funding from Leonardo DiCaprio, Elton John, Barry Sternlicht, Pierre Lagrange and others. Qloo establishes consumer preference correlations via machine learning across data spanning cultural domains including music, film, television, dining, nightlife, fashion, books, and travel. The recommender system uses AI to predict correlations for further applications. == History == Qloo was founded in 2012 by chief executive officer Alex Elias and chief operating officer Jay Alger. Qloo initially launched an app designed for consumers, allowing them to understand their own tastes and receive personalized recommendations. The company amassed several million users and built a large catalog of cultural entities and corresponding user sentiment. In 2012, Qloo raised $1.4 million in seed funding from investors including Cedric the Entertainer, and venture capital firm Kindler Capital. Qloo had a public beta release in November 2012 after its initial funding. In 2013, the company raised an additional $1.6 million from Cross Creek Pictures founding partner Tommy Thompson, and Samih Toukan and Hussam Khoury, founders of Maktoob, an Internet services company purchased by Yahoo! for $164 million in 2009. On November 14, 2013, a website and an iPhone app were announced. The company later released an Android app, and tablet versions, in mid-2014. In 2015, Twitter approached Qloo about powering personalized social feeds and targeted eCommerce ads on the platform based on what users were posting. Qloo developed an enterprise-grade API to support Twitter’s needs. Twitter ended up pivoting to enable brands to use the social platform for customer service and support, but Qloo was able to sell access to its cultural intelligence via API to many other enterprise clients, marking the official transition from a B2C company to a B2B company. In 2016, Qloo secured $4.5 million in venture capital investment. The $4.5 million was split between a number of investors, including Barry Sternlicht, Pierre Lagrange, and Leonardo DiCaprio. In July 2017, Qloo raised $6.5 million in funding rounds from AXA Strategic Ventures, and Elton John. Following the investment, the founders stated in an interview with Tech Crunch that they would use the investment to expand Qloo's database. They hoped the move would secure larger contracts with corporate clients. At the time, clients already included Fortune 500 companies such as Twitter, PepsiCo, and BMW. In 2019, the company announced that it had acquired cultural recommendation service TasteDive, with Alex Elias becoming chairman of TasteDive. In September 2019, Qloo was named among the Top 14 Artificial Intelligence APIs by ProgrammableWeb. In 2022, Qloo raised $15M in Series B funding from Eldridge and AXA Venture Partners, enabling the privacy-centric AI leader to expand its team of world-class data scientists, enrich its technology, and build on its sales channels in order to continue to offer premier insights into global consumer taste for Fortune 500 companies across the globe. Qloo was recognized as the "Best Decision Intelligence Company" at the 2023 AI Breakthrough Awards. Also in 2023, the company was awarded a Top Performer Award by SourceForge. As of 2024, Qloo is a three-time Inc. 5000 honoree: No. 360 (2022), No. 344 (2021), No. 187 (2020). Qloo raised $25 million Series C round on February 21, 2024. The round was led by AI Ventures with participation from AXA Venture Partners, Eldridge, and Moderne Ventures, allowing Qloo to address new commercial surface areas for Taste AI, including on-device learning and foundational models leveraging Qloo, as well as introduce self-service platform to make consumer and taste analytics available to small and mid-sized enterprises and individuals. Qloo also announced pursuing opportunistic M&A using its balance sheet along the lines of the TasteDive acquisition completed, which expanded Qloo's first-party data moat and corpus of cultural learning. This latest financing brought the total amount raised since the company's founding in 2012 to over $56 million. == Services and features == Qloo calls itself a cultural AI platform to provide real-time correlation data across domains of culture and entertainment including: film, music, television, dining, nightlife, fashion, books, and travel. Each category contains subcategories. Qloo’s knowledge of a user's taste in one category can be utilized to offer suggestions in other categories. Users then rate the suggestions, providing it with feedback for future suggestions. Qloo has partnerships with companies such as Expedia and iTunes. == Technology == Qloo’s Taste AI technology uses machine learning to decode and predict consumers’ interests, maintaining user anonymity. It is powered by 3.7 billion lifestyle entities (brands, music, film, TV, dining, nightlife, fashion, books, travel, and more) and trillions of anonymized consumer behavioral signals. Through AI, Qloo identifies patterns in these data signals, making predictions about how much interest a person or group has in a concept or thing. Central to Qloo’s technology are algorithms designed to detect and mitigate biases within datasets and models, allowing Qloo to assess the fairness of its AI systems with a focus on attributes such as age, gender, and race, enabling the company to fine-tune its AI models to align with their ethical standards. They also use visualization tools to probe the behavior of their AI models for conducting counterfactual analyses and for comparing the performances of the AI models across diverse demographic segments. Qloo’s Taste AI doesn’t collect or use any Personally Identifiable Information (PII). Instead, it derives recommendations for audience segments based on co-occurrences between lifestyle entities and anonymized behavioral signals. == Applications == Starbucks uses Qloo to create in-store music playlists tailored to specific neighborhoods. Hershey’s uses Qloo to customize the content of assorted candy bags. Michelin uses Qloo to serve recommendations in its Michelin Guide app. Netflix leverages Qloo’s technology to enhance merchandising by identifying actors who resonate with certain demographics. Qloo also works with PepsiCo, Samsung, The New York Mets, BuzzFeed, and Ticketmaster, Universal Music Group, and OOH advertising company JCDecaux.

  Read more →
• 

  CloudPassage

  CloudPassage is a company that provides an automation platform, delivered via software as a service, that improves security for private, public, and hybrid cloud computing environments. CloudPassage is headquartered in San Francisco. == History == CloudPassage was founded by Carson Sweet, Talli Somekh, and Vitaliy Geraymovych in 2010. The company used cloud computing and big data analytics to implement security monitoring and control in a platform called Halo. CloudPassage spent a year in stealth developing the Halo technology, coming out of stealth mode to a closed beta in January 2011. In June 2012, the company launched the commercial product that included configuration security monitoring, network microsegmentation, and two-factor authentication for privileged access management. By 2013, CloudPassage expanded Halo to support large enterprises with advanced security and compliance requirements with a product called Halo Enterprise. The first round of venture funding for the company raised $6.5 million. In April 2012, CloudPassage raised $14 million. The financing round was led by Tenaya Capital. In February 2014, CloudPassage announced that it had raised $25.5 million in funding led by Shasta Ventures. In total, the company has invested over $30 million in its technology and raised approximately $88 million in capital. == Product == The CloudPassage platform provides cloud workload security and compliance for systems hosted in public or private cloud infrastructure environments, including hybrid cloud and multi-cloud workload hosting models. The flagship product the company offers is called Halo. Halo secures virtual servers in public, private, and hybrid cloud infrastructures and provides file integrity monitoring (FIM) while also administering firewall automation, vulnerability monitoring, network access control, security event alerting, and assessment. The Halo platform also provides security applications such as privileged access management, software vulnerability scanning, multifactor authentication, and log-based IDS. In December 2013, CloudPassage set up six servers with Microsoft Windows and Linux operating systems and combinations of popular programs and invited hackers to attempt to hack into the servers. The top prize was $5,000 and the winning hacker was a novice that completed the task in four hours. CloudPassage programmed the servers to use basic default security settings to show how vulnerable cloud computing programs can be to security threats. == Awards and recognition == In May 2011, Gigaom named CloudPassage in its list of the Top 50 Cloud Innovators. That same month, eWeek recognized CloudPassage as one of 16 Hot Startup Companies Flying Under the Radar. SC Magazine named CloudPassage an Industry Innovator in the Virtualization and Cloud Security category in 2012. Also in 2012, The Wall Street Journal named CloudPassage a runner-up in the Information Security category of its Technology Innovation Awards. The CloudPassage large-scale security program, Halo, won Best Security Solution in 2014 at the SIIA Codie awards.

  Read more →
• 

  Right to explanation

  In the regulation of algorithms, particularly artificial intelligence and its subfield of machine learning, a right to [an] explanation is a right to be given an explanation for an output of the algorithm. Such rights primarily refer to individual rights to be given an explanation for decisions that significantly affect an individual, particularly legally or financially. For example, a person who applies for a loan and is denied may ask for an explanation, which could be "Credit bureau X reports that you declared bankruptcy last year; this is the main factor in considering you too likely to default, and thus we will not give you the loan you applied for." Some such legal rights already exist, while the scope of a general "right to explanation" is a matter of ongoing debate. There have been arguments made that a "social right to explanation" is a crucial foundation for an information society, particularly as the institutions of that society will need to use digital technologies, artificial intelligence, machine learning. In other words, that the related automated decision making systems that use explainability would be more trustworthy and transparent. Without this right, which could be constituted both legally and through professional standards, the public will be left without much recourse to challenge the decisions of automated systems. == Examples == === Credit scoring in the United States === Under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (Regulation B of the Code of Federal Regulations), Title 12, Chapter X, Part 1002, §1002.9, creditors are required to notify applicants who are denied credit with specific reasons for the detail. As detailed in §1002.9(b)(2): (2) Statement of specific reasons. The statement of reasons for adverse action required by paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section must be specific and indicate the principal reason(s) for the adverse action. Statements that the adverse action was based on the creditor's internal standards or policies or that the applicant, joint applicant, or similar party failed to achieve a qualifying score on the creditor's credit scoring system are insufficient. The official interpretation of this section details what types of statements are acceptable. Creditors comply with this regulation by providing a list of reasons (generally at most 4, per interpretation of regulations), consisting of a numeric reason code (as identifier) and an associated explanation, identifying the main factors affecting a credit score. An example might be: 32: Balances on bankcard or revolving accounts too high compared to credit limits === European Union === The European Union General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR, enacted 2016, taking effect 2018) extends the automated decision-making rights in the 1995 Data Protection Directive to provide a legally disputed form of a right to an explanation, stated as such in Recital 71: "[the data subject should have] the right ... to obtain an explanation of the decision reached". In full: The data subject should have the right not to be subject to a decision, which may include a measure, evaluating personal aspects relating to him or her which is based solely on automated processing and which produces legal effects concerning him or her or similarly significantly affects him or her, such as automatic refusal of an online credit application or e-recruiting practices without any human intervention. ... In any case, such processing should be subject to suitable safeguards, which should include specific information to the data subject and the right to obtain human intervention, to express his or her point of view, to obtain an explanation of the decision reached after such assessment and to challenge the decision. However, the extent to which the regulations themselves provide a "right to explanation" is heavily debated. There are two main strands of criticism. There are significant legal issues with the right as found in Article 22 — as recitals are not binding, and the right to an explanation is not mentioned in the binding articles of the text, having been removed during the legislative process. In addition, there are significant restrictions on the types of automated decisions that are covered — which must be both "solely" based on automated processing, and have legal or similarly significant effects — which significantly limits the range of automated systems and decisions to which the right would apply. In particular, the right is unlikely to apply in many of the cases of algorithmic controversy that have been picked up in the media. The UK has also recently amended its implementation of Article 22. A second potential source of such a right has been pointed to in Article 15, the "right of access by the data subject". This restates a similar provision from the 1995 Data Protection Directive, allowing the data subject access to "meaningful information about the logic involved" in the same significant, solely automated decision-making, found in Article 22. Yet this too suffers from alleged challenges that relate to the timing of when this right can be drawn upon, as well as practical challenges that mean it may not be binding in many cases of public concern. Other EU legislative instruments contain explanation rights. The European Union's Artificial Intelligence Act provides in Article 86 a "[r]ight to explanation of individual decision-making" of certain high risk systems which produce significant, adverse effects to an individual's health, safety or fundamental rights. The right provides for "clear and meaningful explanations of the role of the AI system in the decision-making procedure and the main elements of the decision taken", although only applies to the extent other law does not provide such a right. The Digital Services Act in Article 27, and the Platform to Business Regulation in Article 5, both contain rights to have the main parameters of certain recommender systems to be made clear, although these provisions have been criticised as not matching the way that such systems work. The Platform Work Directive, which provides for regulation of automation in gig economy work as an extension of data protection law, further contains explanation provisions in Article 11, using the specific language of "explanation" in a binding article rather than a recital as is the case in the GDPR. Scholars note that remains uncertainty as to whether these provisions imply sufficiently tailored explanation in practice which will need to be resolved by courts. === France === In France the 2016 Loi pour une République numérique (Digital Republic Act or loi numérique) amends the country's administrative code to introduce a new provision for the explanation of decisions made by public sector bodies about individuals. It notes that where there is "a decision taken on the basis of an algorithmic treatment", the rules that define that treatment and its "principal characteristics" must be communicated to the citizen upon request, where there is not an exclusion (e.g. for national security or defence). These should include the following: the degree and the mode of contribution of the algorithmic processing to the decision- making; the data processed and its source; the treatment parameters, and where appropriate, their weighting, applied to the situation of the person concerned; the operations carried out by the treatment. Scholars have noted that this right, while limited to administrative decisions, goes beyond the GDPR right to explicitly apply to decision support rather than decisions "solely" based on automated processing, as well as provides a framework for explaining specific decisions. Indeed, the GDPR automated decision-making rights in the European Union, one of the places a "right to an explanation" has been sought within, find their origins in French law in the late 1970s. == Criticism == Some argue that a "right to explanation" is at best unnecessary, at worst harmful, and threatens to stifle innovation. Specific criticisms include: favoring human decisions over machine decisions, being redundant with existing laws, and focusing on process over outcome. Authors of study "Slave to the Algorithm? Why a 'Right to an Explanation' Is Probably Not the Remedy You Are Looking For" Lilian Edwards and Michael Veale argue that a right to explanation is not the solution to harms caused to stakeholders by algorithmic decisions. They also state that the right of explanation in the GDPR is narrowly defined, and is not compatible with how modern machine learning technologies are being developed. With these limitations, defining transparency within the context of algorithmic accountability remains a problem. For example, providing the source code of algorithms may not be sufficient and may create other problems in terms of privacy disclosures and the gaming of technical systems. To mitigate this issue, Edwards and Veale argue that an auditing system could be more effective, to allow auditors to loo

  Read more →
• 

  Cognitive computing

  Cognitive computing refers to technology platforms that, broadly speaking, are based on the scientific disciplines of artificial intelligence and signal processing. These platforms encompass machine learning, reasoning, natural language processing, speech recognition and vision (object recognition), human–computer interaction, dialog and narrative generation, among other technologies. == Definition == At present, there is no widely agreed upon definition for cognitive computing in either academia or industry. In general, the term cognitive computing has been used to refer to new hardware and/or software that mimics the functioning of the human brain (2004). In this sense, cognitive computing is a new type of computing with the goal of more accurate models of how the human brain/mind senses, reasons, and responds to stimulus. Cognitive computing applications link data analysis and adaptive page displays (AUI) to adjust content for a particular type of audience. As such, cognitive computing hardware and applications strive to be more affective and more influential by design. The term "cognitive system" also applies to any artificial construct able to perform a cognitive process where a cognitive process is the transformation of data, information, knowledge, or wisdom to a new level in the DIKW Pyramid. While many cognitive systems employ techniques having their origination in artificial intelligence research, cognitive systems, themselves, may not be artificially intelligent. For example, a neural network trained to recognize cancer on an MRI scan may achieve a higher success rate than a human doctor. This system is certainly a cognitive system but is not artificially intelligent. Cognitive systems may be engineered to feed on dynamic data in real-time, or near real-time, and may draw on multiple sources of information, including both structured and unstructured digital information, as well as sensory inputs (visual, gestural, auditory, or sensor-provided). == Cognitive analytics == Cognitive computing-branded technology platforms typically specialize in the processing and analysis of large, unstructured datasets. == Applications == Education Even if cognitive computing can not take the place of teachers, it can still be a heavy driving force in the education of students. Cognitive computing being used in the classroom is applied by essentially having an assistant that is personalized for each individual student. This cognitive assistant can relieve the stress that teachers face while teaching students, while also enhancing the student's learning experience over all. Teachers may not be able to pay each and every student individual attention, this being the place that cognitive computers fill the gap. Some students may need a little more help with a particular subject. For many students, Human interaction between student and teacher can cause anxiety and can be uncomfortable. With the help of Cognitive Computer tutors, students will not have to face their uneasiness and can gain the confidence to learn and do well in the classroom. While a student is in class with their personalized assistant, this assistant can develop various techniques, like creating lesson plans, to tailor and aid the student and their needs. Healthcare Numerous tech companies are in the process of developing technology that involves cognitive computing that can be used in the medical field. The ability to classify and identify is one of the main goals of these cognitive devices. This trait can be very helpful in the study of identifying carcinogens. This cognitive system that can detect would be able to assist the examiner in interpreting countless numbers of documents in a lesser amount of time than if they did not use Cognitive Computer technology. This technology can also evaluate information about the patient, looking through every medical record in depth, searching for indications that can be the source of their problems. Commerce Together with Artificial Intelligence, it has been used in warehouse management systems to collect, store, organize and analyze all related supplier data. All these aims at improving efficiency, enabling faster decision-making, monitoring inventory and fraud detection Human Cognitive Augmentation In situations where humans are using or working collaboratively with cognitive systems, called a human/cog ensemble, results achieved by the ensemble are superior to results obtainable by the human working alone. Therefore, the human is cognitively augmented. In cases where the human/cog ensemble achieves results at, or superior to, the level of a human expert then the ensemble has achieved synthetic expertise. In a human/cog ensemble, the "cog" is a cognitive system employing virtually any kind of cognitive computing technology. Other use cases Speech recognition Sentiment analysis Face detection Risk assessment Fraud detection Behavioral recommendations == Industry work == Cognitive computing in conjunction with big data and algorithms that comprehend customer needs, can be a major advantage in economic decision making. The powers of cognitive computing and artificial intelligence hold the potential to affect almost every task that humans are capable of performing. This can negatively affect employment for humans, as there would be no such need for human labor anymore. It would also increase the inequality of wealth; the people at the head of the cognitive computing industry would grow significantly richer, while workers without ongoing, reliable employment would become less well off. The more industries start to use cognitive computing, the more difficult it will be for humans to compete. Increased use of the technology will also increase the amount of work that AI-driven robots and machines can perform. The influence of competitive individuals in conjunction with artificial intelligence/cognitive computing has the potential to change the course of humankind.

  Read more →
• 

  AlphaChip (controversy)

  The AlphaChip controversy refers to a series of public, scholarly, and legal disputes surrounding a 2021 Nature paper by Google-affiliated researchers. The paper describes an approach to macro placement, a stage of chip floorplanning, based on reinforcement learning (RL), a machine learning method in which a system iteratively improves its decisions by optimizing performance-based reward signals. The primary technical question is whether the new techniques are better than existing (non-AI) techniques. Both internal Google studies and external attempts to replicate the algorithm have failed to show the claimed benefits. No head-to-head comparison is available because the data used in the paper is proprietary, and Google has not released any results from running its algorithm on public benchmarks. This has resulted in considerable skepticism over the paper's claims. In addition, the inability of others (both inside and outside of Google) to replicate the claimed results have sparked concerns about the paper’s methodology, reproducibility, and scientific integrity. The lead researchers of the Nature paper were affiliated with Google Brain, which became part of Google DeepMind, and later spun off into the company Ricursive. == Motivation for research: Macro placement in chip layout == Chip design for modern integrated circuits is a complex, expert-driven process that relies on electronic design automation. It determines the performance of the final chip, and takes weeks or months to complete. Advances that produce better designs, or complete the process faster, are commercially and academically significant. Macro placement is a step during chip design that determines the locations of large circuit components (macros) within a chip. It is followed by detailed placement, which places the far more numerous but much smaller standard cells. Alternatively, mixed-size placement simultaneously places both large macros and millions of small cells, requiring algorithms to handle objects that differ by several orders of magnitude in area and mobility. The number of macros per circuit typically ranges from several to thousands. Wiring must be performed after placement, and the details of this wiring strongly influence the power, performance, and area (PPA) of the completed chip. The full wiring calculation is very resource intensive, so placement tools typically use a proxy cost, a simplified objective function used to guide the placement algorithm during training and evaluation. The faithfulness of the chosen proxy cost to the final objective cost is a critical aspect of placer performance. === State of the art as of 2021 === Chips have been designed since the 1960s, so there were many existing methods as of 2021. Available options included manual design, academic tools, and commercial offerings. Academic methods include combinatorial optimization techniques such as simulated annealing, analytical placement, hierarchical heuristics, and as of 2019 reinforcement learning and broader machine learning techniques.. Existing (non-AI) academic tools for solving the same problem include APlace, NTUplace3, ePlace, RePlace, and DREAMPlace. Commercial EDA vendors also offered automated software tools for floorplanning and mixed-size placement. For instance, as of 2019 Cadence’s Innovus implementation software offered a Concurrent Macro Placer (CMP) feature to automatically place large blocks and standard cells. == The 2021 Nature paper and its claims == In 2021, Nature published a paper under the title “A graph‑placement methodology for fast chip design” co‑authored by 21 Google-affiliated researchers. The paper reported that an RL agent could generate macro placements for integrated circuits "in under six hours" and achieve improvements over human-designed layouts in power, timing performance, and area (PPA), standard chip-quality metrics referring respectively to energy consumption, chip operating speed, and silicon footprint (evaluated after wire routing). It introduced a sequential macro placement algorithm in which macros are placed one at a time instead of optimizing their locations concurrently. At each step, the algorithm selects a location for a single macro on a discretized chip canvas, conditioning its decision on the placements of previously placed macros. This sequential formulation converts macro placement into a long-horizon decision process in which early placement choices constrain later ones. After macro placement, force-directed placement is applied to place standard cells connected to the macros. Deep reinforcement learning is used to train a policy network to place macros by maximizing a reward that reflects final placement quality (for example, wirelength and congestion). Policy learning occurs during self‑play for one or multiple circuit designs. Further placement optimizations refine the overall layout by balancing wirelength, density, and overlap constraints, while treating the macro locations produced by the RL policy as fixed obstacles. The approach relies on pre-training, in which the RL model is first trained on a corpus of prior designs (twenty in the Nature paper) to learn general placement patterns before being fine-tuned on a specific chip. Circuit examples used in the study were parts of proprietary Google TPU designs, called blocks (or floorplan partitions). The paper reported results on five blocks and described the approach as generalizable across chip designs. == Controversy == Soon after the paper's publication, controversy arose over whether the claims were true, whether they were sufficiently proven, and whether academic standards were followed. These controversies arose both within Google and among external academic experts. === Internal dispute at Google and legal proceedings === In 2022, Satrajit Chatterjee, a Google engineer involved in reviewing the AlphaChip work, raised concerns internally and drafted an alternative analysis, (Stronger Baselines) arguing that established methods outperformed the RL approach under fair comparison. In March 2022, Google declined to publish this analysis and terminated Chatterjee's employment. Chatterjee filed a wrongful dismissal lawsuit, alleging that representations related to the AlphaChip research involved fraud and scientific misconduct. According to court documents, Chatterjee's study was conducted "in the context of a large potential Google Cloud deal". He noted that it "would have been unethical to imply that we had revolutionary technology when our tests showed otherwise" and claimed Google was deliberately withholding material information. Furthermore, the committee that reviewed his paper and disapproved its publication was allegedly chaired by subordinates of Jeff Dean, a senior co-author of the Nature paper. Google’s subsequent motion to dismiss was denied, holding that Chatterjee had plausibly alleged retaliation for refusing to engage in conduct he believed would violate state or federal law. === External controversy === The external questions can be summarized in four main points: (a) Are the claims supported by the evidence provided? (b) Did the paper provide enough information to allow the results to be independently reproduced and verified? If so, are the results an improvement over existing academic and commercial tools? (c) Were the comparisons in the paper done fairly and with full disclosure? (d) Were academic standards followed? Each of these is discussed below. ==== Are the claims supported by the evidence provided? ==== The Nature paper described the reduction in design-process time as going from "days or weeks" to "hours", but did not provide per-design time breakdowns or specify the number of engineers, their level of expertise, or the baseline tools and workflow against which this comparison was made. It was also unclear whether the "days or weeks" baseline included time spent on other tasks such as functional design changes. The paper also evaluated the method on fewer benchmarks (five) than is common in the field, and showed mixed results across different evaluation goals While the approach was described as improving circuit area, this claim seems unsupported, as the RL optimization did not alter the overall circuit area, as it adjusted only the locations of fixed-shape non-overlapping circuit components within a fixed rectangular layout boundary. ==== Comparison with existing methods, and replicating the algorithm ==== Because macro placement is largely geometric and its fundamental algorithms are not tied to a specific process node, competing approaches can be evaluated on public benchmarks (tests) across technologies, rather than primarily on proprietary internal designs. This is standard procedure when comparing academic placers, see . In contrast, Google has only reported results only on internal proprietary designs, and as of 2026 has not offered comparisons with prior methods on common benchmarks. Researchers at the University of Califor

  Read more →
• 

  Unspent transaction output

  In cryptocurrencies, an unspent transaction output (UTXO, often capitalized as UTxO) is a distinctive element in a subset of digital currency models. A UTXO represents a certain amount of cryptocurrency that has been authorized by a sender and is available to be spent by a recipient. The utilization of UTXOs in transaction processes is a key feature of many cryptocurrencies, but it primarily characterizes those implementing the UTXO model. UTXOs employ public key cryptography to ascertain and transfer ownership. More specifically, the recipient's public key is formatted into the UTXO, thereby limiting the capability to spend the UTXO to the account that can demonstrate ownership of the corresponding private key. A valid digital signature associated with the public key must be included for the UTXO to be spent. In the UTXO model, each unit of currency is treated as a discrete object. The history of a UTXO is documented only within the blocks where it is transferred. To ascertain the total balance of an account, one must scan each block to find the latest UTXOs linked to that account. While all nodes within a blockchain network must consent to the block history, the blocks relevant to an account's balance are unique to that account. UTXOs constitute a chain of ownership depicted as a series of digital signatures dating back to the coin's inception, regardless of whether the coin was minted via mining, staking, or another procedure determined by the cryptocurrency protocol. The UTXO model was invented for Bitcoin. Cardano uses an extended version of the UTXO model known as EUTXO. == Origins == The conceptual framework of the UTXO model can be traced back to Hal Finney's Reusable Proofs of Work proposal, which itself was based on Adam Back's 1997 Hashcash proposal. Bitcoin, released in 2009, was the first widespread implementation of the UTXO model in practice. == UTXO model vs. account Model == Cryptocurrencies that utilize the UTXO model function differently compared to those using the account model. In the UTXO model, individual units of cryptocurrency, termed as unspent transaction outputs (UTXOs), are transferred between users, analogous to the exchange of physical cash. This model impacts how transactions and ownership are recorded and verified within the blockchain network. The account model preserves a record of each account and its corresponding balance for every block added to the network. This setup enables quicker balance verification without the need to scan historical blocks, but it increases the raw size of each block (though data compression techniques can be utilized to alleviate this). However, both models necessitate the inspection of past blocks to fully authenticate the origin of coins. In the UTXO model, each object is immutable - units of coins cannot be 'edited' in the same way an account balance is modified when a transaction occurs. Rather, the balance is computed from the transaction history dating back to when the coins were first minted. This simplicity enhances security, as a UTXO either exists in its anticipated form or it does not. In contrast, the account model requires meticulous verification of the account's status during transactions, which can lead to oversights if not conducted correctly. In valid blockchain transactions, only unspent outputs (UTXOs) are permissible for funding subsequent transactions. This requirement is critical to prevent double-spending and fraud. Accordingly, inputs in a transaction are removed from the UTXO set, while outputs create new UTXOs that are added to the set. The holders of private keys, such as those with cryptocurrency wallets, can utilize these UTXOs for future transactions.

  Read more →
• 

  Highway network

  In machine learning, the Highway Network was the first working very deep feedforward neural network with hundreds of layers, much deeper than previous neural networks. It uses skip connections modulated by learned gating mechanisms to regulate information flow, inspired by long short-term memory (LSTM) recurrent neural networks. The advantage of the Highway Network over other deep learning architectures is its ability to overcome or partially prevent the vanishing gradient problem, thus improving its optimization. Gating mechanisms are used to facilitate information flow across the many layers ("information highways"). Highway Networks have found use in text sequence labeling and speech recognition tasks. In 2014, the state of the art was training deep neural networks with 20 to 30 layers. Stacking too many layers led to a steep reduction in training accuracy, known as the "degradation" problem. In 2015, two techniques were developed to train such networks: the Highway Network (published in May), and the residual neural network, or ResNet (December). ResNet behaves like an open-gated Highway Net. == Model == The model has two gates in addition to the H ( W H , x ) {\displaystyle H(W_{H},x)} gate: the transform gate T ( W T , x ) {\displaystyle T(W_{T},x)} and the carry gate C ( W C , x ) {\displaystyle C(W_{C},x)} . The latter two gates are non-linear transfer functions (specifically sigmoid by convention). The function H {\displaystyle H} can be any desired transfer function. The carry gate is defined as: C ( W C , x ) = 1 − T ( W T , x ) {\displaystyle C(W_{C},x)=1-T(W_{T},x)} while the transform gate is just a gate with a sigmoid transfer function. == Structure == The structure of a hidden layer in the Highway Network follows the equation: y = H ( x , W H ) ⋅ T ( x , W T ) + x ⋅ C ( x , W C ) = H ( x , W H ) ⋅ T ( x , W T ) + x ⋅ ( 1 − T ( x , W T ) ) {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}y=H(x,W_{H})\cdot T(x,W_{T})+x\cdot C(x,W_{C})\\=H(x,W_{H})\cdot T(x,W_{T})+x\cdot (1-T(x,W_{T}))\end{aligned}}} == Related work == Sepp Hochreiter analyzed the vanishing gradient problem in 1991 and attributed to it the reason why deep learning did not work well. To overcome this problem, Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) recurrent neural networks have residual connections with a weight of 1.0 in every LSTM cell (called the constant error carrousel) to compute y t + 1 = F ( x t ) + x t {\textstyle y_{t+1}=F(x_{t})+x_{t}} . During backpropagation through time, this becomes the residual formula y = F ( x ) + x {\textstyle y=F(x)+x} for feedforward neural networks. This enables training very deep recurrent neural networks with a very long time span t. A later LSTM version published in 2000 modulates the identity LSTM connections by so-called "forget gates" such that their weights are not fixed to 1.0 but can be learned. In experiments, the forget gates were initialized with positive bias weights, thus being opened, addressing the vanishing gradient problem. As long as the forget gates of the 2000 LSTM are open, it behaves like the 1997 LSTM. The Highway Network of May 2015 applies these principles to feedforward neural networks. It was reported to be "the first very deep feedforward network with hundreds of layers". It is like a 2000 LSTM with forget gates unfolded in time, while the later Residual Nets have no equivalent of forget gates and are like the unfolded original 1997 LSTM. If the skip connections in Highway Networks are "without gates," or if their gates are kept open (activation 1.0), they become Residual Networks. The residual connection is a special case of the "short-cut connection" or "skip connection" by Rosenblatt (1961) and Lang & Witbrock (1988) which has the form x ↦ F ( x ) + A x {\displaystyle x\mapsto F(x)+Ax} . Here the randomly initialized weight matrix A does not have to be the identity mapping. Every residual connection is a skip connection, but almost all skip connections are not residual connections. The original Highway Network paper not only introduced the basic principle for very deep feedforward networks, but also included experimental results with 20, 50, and 100 layers networks, and mentioned ongoing experiments with up to 900 layers. Networks with 50 or 100 layers had lower training error than their plain network counterparts, but no lower training error than their 20 layers counterpart (on the MNIST dataset, Figure 1 in ). No improvement on test accuracy was reported with networks deeper than 19 layers (on the CIFAR-10 dataset; Table 1 in ). The ResNet paper, however, provided strong experimental evidence of the benefits of going deeper than 20 layers. It argued that the identity mapping without modulation is crucial and mentioned that modulation in the skip connection can still lead to vanishing signals in forward and backward propagation (Section 3 in ). This is also why the forget gates of the 2000 LSTM were initially opened through positive bias weights: as long as the gates are open, it behaves like the 1997 LSTM. Similarly, a Highway Net whose gates are opened through strongly positive bias weights behaves like a ResNet. The skip connections used in modern neural networks (e.g., Transformers) are dominantly identity mappings.

  Read more →
• 

  Aporia (company)

  Aporia is a machine learning observability platform based in Tel Aviv, Israel. The company has a US office located in San Jose, California. Aporia has developed software for monitoring and controlling undetected defects and failures used by other companies to detect and report anomalies, and warn in the early stages of faults. == History == Aporia was founded in 2019 by Liran Hason and Alon Gubkin. In April 2021, the company raised a $5 million seed round for its monitoring platform for ML models. In February 2022, the company closed a Series A round of $25 million for its ML observability platform. Aporia was named by Forbes as the Next Billion-Dollar Company in June 2022. In November, the company partnered with ClearML, an MLOPs platform, to improve ML pipeline optimization. In January 2023, Aporia launched Direct Data Connectors, a novel technology allowing organizations to monitor their ML models in minutes (previously the process of integrating ML monitoring into a customer’s cloud environment took weeks or more.) DDC (Direct Data Connectors) enables users to connect Aporia to their preferred data source and monitor all of their data at once, without data sampling or data duplication (which is a huge security risk for major organizations. In April 2023, Aporia announced the company partnered with Amazon Web Services (AWS) to provide more reliable ML observability to AWS consumers by deploying Aporia's architecture to their AWS environment, this will allow customers to monitor their models in production regardless of platform.

  Read more →