AI Chat Free Unlimited

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

• 

  AI-complete

  In the field of artificial intelligence (AI), tasks that are hypothesized to require artificial general intelligence to solve are informally known as AI-complete or AI-hard. Calling a problem AI-complete reflects the belief that it cannot be solved by a simple specific algorithm. Prior to 2013, problems supposed to be AI-complete included computer vision, natural language understanding, and dealing with unexpected circumstances while solving any real-world problem. AI-complete tasks were notably considered useful for distinguishing humans from automated agents, as CAPTCHAs aim to do. == History == The term was coined by Fanya Montalvo by analogy with NP-complete and NP-hard in complexity theory, which formally describes the most famous class of difficult problems. Early uses of the term are in Erik Mueller's 1987 PhD dissertation and in Eric Raymond's 1991 Jargon File. Expert systems, that were popular in the 1980s, were able to solve very simple and/or restricted versions of AI-complete problems, but never in their full generality. When AI researchers attempted to "scale up" their systems to handle more complicated, real-world situations, the programs tended to become excessively brittle without commonsense knowledge or a rudimentary understanding of the situation: they would fail as unexpected circumstances outside of its original problem context would begin to appear. When human beings are dealing with new situations in the world, they are helped by their awareness of the general context: they know what the things around them are, why they are there, what they are likely to do and so on. They can recognize unusual situations and adjust accordingly. Expert systems lacked this adaptability and were brittle when facing new situations. DeepMind published a work in May 2022 in which they trained a single model to do several things at the same time. The model, named Gato, can "play Atari, caption images, chat, stack blocks with a real robot arm and much more, deciding based on its context whether to output text, joint torques, button presses, or other tokens." Similarly, some tasks once considered to be AI-complete, like machine translation, are among the capabilities of large language models. == AI-complete problems == AI-complete problems have been hypothesized to include: AI peer review (composite natural language understanding, automated reasoning, automated theorem proving, formalized logic expert system) Bongard problems Computer vision (and subproblems such as object recognition) Natural language understanding (and subproblems such as text mining, machine translation, and word-sense disambiguation) Autonomous driving Dealing with unexpected circumstances while solving any real world problem, whether navigation, planning, or even the kind of reasoning done by expert systems. == Formalization == Computational complexity theory deals with the relative computational difficulty of computable functions. By definition, it does not cover problems whose solution is unknown or has not been characterized formally. Since many AI problems have no formalization yet, conventional complexity theory does not enable a formal definition of AI-completeness. == Research == Roman Yampolskiy suggests that a problem C {\displaystyle C} is AI-Complete if it has two properties: It is in the set of AI problems (Human Oracle-solvable). Any AI problem can be converted into C {\displaystyle C} by some polynomial time algorithm. On the other hand, a problem H {\displaystyle H} is AI-Hard if and only if there is an AI-Complete problem C {\displaystyle C} that is polynomial time Turing-reducible to H {\displaystyle H} . This also gives as a consequence the existence of AI-Easy problems, that are solvable in polynomial time by a deterministic Turing machine with an oracle for some problem. Yampolskiy has also hypothesized that the Turing Test is a defining feature of AI-completeness. Groppe and Jain classify problems which require artificial general intelligence to reach human-level machine performance as AI-complete, while only restricted versions of AI-complete problems can be solved by the current AI systems. For Šekrst, getting a polynomial solution to AI-complete problems would not necessarily be equal to solving the issue of artificial general intelligence, while emphasizing the lack of computational complexity research being the limiting factor towards achieving artificial general intelligence. For Kwee-Bintoro and Velez, solving AI-complete problems would have strong repercussions on society.

  Read more →
• 

  Local ternary patterns

  Local ternary patterns (LTP) are an extension of local binary patterns (LBP). Unlike LBP, it does not threshold the pixels into 0 and 1, rather it uses a threshold constant to threshold pixels into three values. Considering k as the threshold constant, c as the value of the center pixel, a neighboring pixel p, the result of threshold is: { 1 , if p > c + k 0 , if p > c − k and p < c + k − 1 if p < c − k {\displaystyle {\begin{cases}1,&{\text{if }}p>c+k\\0,&{\text{if }}p>c-k{\text{ and }}p Read more →

• 

  BLOOM (language model)

  The BigScience Large Open-science Open-access Multilingual Language Model (BLOOM) is an open-access large language model (LLM) released in 2022. It was created by a volunteer-driven research effort to provide a transparently-created alternative to proprietary AI models. With 176 billion parameters, BLOOM is a transformer-based autoregressive model designed to generate text in 46 natural languages and 13 programming languages. The model is distributed under the project's "Responsible AI License". == Development == BLOOM is the main outcome of the BigScience initiative, a one-year-long research workshop. The project was coordinated by Hugging Face using funding from the French government and involved several hundred volunteer researchers and engineers from academia and the private sector. The model was trained between March and July 2022 on the Jean Zay public supercomputer in France, managed by GENCI and IDRIS (CNRS). Unlike GPT-3, BLOOM was trained to be multilingual. The source code is released under the Apache 2.0 license. The model's parameters are released under BigScience's "Responsible AI License" (RAIL), which grants open access and reuse rights but with some usage restrictions. BLOOM was used in the chatbots BLOOMChat and HuggingChat due to its multilingual abilities. BLOOM's training corpus, named ROOTS, combines data extracted from the then-latest version of the web-based OSCAR corpus (38% of ROOTS) and newly collected data extracted from a manually selected and documented list of language data sources. In total, the model was trained on approximately 366 billion (1.6TB) tokens. It was developed using the open-source libraries DeepSpeed Megatron. BigScience then released xP3, a multilingual dataset for LLM supervised learning. It also released BLOOMZ, a variant of BLOOM fine-tuned on xP3 to follow instructions.

  Read more →
• 

  Kuki AI

  Kuki is an embodied AI bot designed for usage in the metaverse. Formerly known as Mitsuku, Kuki is a chatbot created from the Pandorabots framework. The bot has won the Loebner Prize 5 times. == Features == Kuki claims to be an 18-year-old female chatbot from the Metaverse, and the developers have stated she has been worked on since 2005. Early work by one of the company's co-founders inspired the Spike Jonze movie Her. As of 2015, she conversed, on average, in excess of a quarter of a million times daily, and it was estimated 5 million unique users had interacted with her between 2016 and 2020. == Virtual talent, model, and influencer == Kuki has appeared as a Virtual Model in Vogue Business and at Crypto Fashion Week where she modelled NFTs and spoke about the future of digital fashion. In 2021, Kuki modelled five digital looks from emerging Vogue Talents designers for Italian Vogue, that sold out as NFTs in under an hour. Kuki has also modeled for H&M on Instagram in a digital campaign that resulted in an "11x increase in ad recall" per a case study by Meta. == Awards == As of 2019, Kuki had been awarded the Loebner Prize five times, more than any other entrant. In 2020, Kuki competed against Facebook AI's Blenderbot in a 24/7 verbal sparring match called "Bot Battle", winning 79% of the audience vote.

  Read more →
• 

  VLLM

  vLLM is an open-source software framework for inference and serving of large language models and related multimodal models. Originally developed at the University of California, Berkeley's Sky Computing Lab, the project is centered on PagedAttention, a memory-management method for transformer key–value caches, and supports features such as continuous batching, distributed inference, quantization, and OpenAI-compatible APIs. According to a project maintainer, the "v" in vLLM originally referred to "virtual", inspired by virtual memory. == History == vLLM was introduced in 2023 by researchers affiliated with the Sky Computing Lab at UC Berkeley. Its core ideas were described in the 2023 paper Efficient Memory Management for Large Language Model Serving with PagedAttention, which presented the system as a high-throughput and memory-efficient serving engine for large language models. In 2025, the PyTorch Foundation announced that vLLM had become a Foundation-hosted project. PyTorch's project page states that the University of California, Berkeley contributed vLLM to the Linux Foundation in July 2024. In January 2026, TechCrunch reported that the creators of vLLM had launched the startup Inferact to commercialize the project, raising $150 million in seed funding. == Architecture == According to its 2023 paper, vLLM was designed to improve the efficiency of large language model serving by reducing memory waste in the key–value cache used during transformer inference. The paper introduced PagedAttention, an algorithm inspired by virtual memory and paging techniques in operating systems, and described vLLM as using block-level memory management and request scheduling to increase throughput while maintaining similar latency. The project documentation and repository describe support for continuous batching, chunked prefill, speculative decoding, prefix caching, quantization, and multiple forms of distributed inference and serving. PyTorch has described vLLM as a high-throughput, memory-efficient inference and serving engine that supports a range of hardware back ends, including NVIDIA and AMD GPUs, Google TPUs, AWS Trainium, and Intel processors.

  Read more →
• 

  Multi-agent reinforcement learning

  Multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL) is a sub-field of reinforcement learning. It focuses on studying the behavior of multiple learning agents that coexist in a shared environment. Each agent is motivated by its own rewards, and does actions to advance its own interests; in some environments these interests are opposed to the interests of other agents, resulting in complex group dynamics. Multi-agent reinforcement learning is closely related to game theory and especially repeated games, as well as multi-agent systems. Its study combines the pursuit of finding ideal algorithms that maximize rewards with a more sociological set of concepts. While research in single-agent reinforcement learning is concerned with finding the algorithm that gets the biggest number of points for one agent, research in multi-agent reinforcement learning evaluates and quantifies social metrics, such as cooperation, reciprocity, equity, social influence, language and discrimination. == Definition == Similarly to single-agent reinforcement learning, multi-agent reinforcement learning is modeled as some form of a Markov decision process (MDP). Fix a set of agents I = { 1 , . . . , N } {\displaystyle I=\{1,...,N\}} . We then define: A set S {\displaystyle S} of environment states. One set A i {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}_{i}} of actions for each of the agents i ∈ I = { 1 , … , N } {\displaystyle i\in I=\{1,\dots ,N\}} . P a → ( s , s ′ ) = Pr ( s t + 1 = s ′ ∣ s t = s , a → t = a → ) {\displaystyle P_{\vec {a}}(s,s')=\Pr(s_{t+1}=s'\mid s_{t}=s,{\vec {a}}_{t}={\vec {a}})} is the probability of transition (at time t {\displaystyle t} ) from state s {\displaystyle s} to state s ′ {\displaystyle s'} under joint action a → {\displaystyle {\vec {a}}} . R → a → ( s , s ′ ) {\displaystyle {\vec {R}}_{\vec {a}}(s,s')} is the immediate joint reward after the transition from s {\displaystyle s} to s ′ {\displaystyle s'} with joint action a → {\displaystyle {\vec {a}}} . In settings with perfect information, such as the games of chess and Go, the MDP would be fully observable. In settings with imperfect information, especially in real-world applications like self-driving cars, each agent would access an observation that only has part of the information about the current state. In the partially observable setting, the core model is the partially observable stochastic game in the general case, and the decentralized POMDP in the cooperative case. == Cooperation vs. competition == When multiple agents are acting in a shared environment their interests might be aligned or misaligned. MARL allows exploring all the different alignments and how they affect the agents' behavior: In pure competition settings, the agents' rewards are exactly opposite to each other, and therefore they are playing against each other. Pure cooperation settings are the other extreme, in which agents get the exact same rewards, and therefore they are playing with each other. Mixed-sum settings cover all the games that combine elements of both cooperation and competition. === Pure competition settings === When two agents are playing a zero-sum game, they are in pure competition with each other. Many traditional games such as chess and Go fall under this category, as do two-player variants of video games like StarCraft. Because each agent can only win at the expense of the other agent, many complexities are stripped away. There is no prospect of communication or social dilemmas, as neither agent is incentivized to take actions that benefit its opponent. The Deep Blue and AlphaGo projects demonstrate how to optimize the performance of agents in pure competition settings. One complexity that is not stripped away in pure competition settings is autocurricula. As the agents' policy is improved using self-play, multiple layers of learning may occur. === Pure cooperation settings === MARL is used to explore how separate agents with identical interests can communicate and work together. Pure cooperation settings are explored in recreational cooperative games such as Overcooked, as well as real-world scenarios in robotics. In pure cooperation settings all the agents get identical rewards, which means that social dilemmas do not occur. In pure cooperation settings, oftentimes there are an arbitrary number of coordination strategies, and agents converge to specific "conventions" when coordinating with each other. The notion of conventions has been studied in language and also alluded to in more general multi-agent collaborative tasks. === Mixed-sum settings === Most real-world scenarios involving multiple agents have elements of both cooperation and competition. For example, when multiple self-driving cars are planning their respective paths, each of them has interests that are diverging but not exclusive: Each car is minimizing the amount of time it's taking to reach its destination, but all cars have the shared interest of avoiding a traffic collision. Zero-sum settings with three or more agents often exhibit similar properties to mixed-sum settings, since each pair of agents might have a non-zero utility sum between them. Mixed-sum settings can be explored using classic matrix games such as prisoner's dilemma, more complex sequential social dilemmas, and recreational games such as Among Us, Diplomacy and StarCraft II. Mixed-sum settings can give rise to communication and social dilemmas. == Social dilemmas == As in game theory, much of the research in MARL revolves around social dilemmas, such as prisoner's dilemma, chicken and stag hunt. While game theory research might focus on Nash equilibria and what an ideal policy for an agent would be, MARL research focuses on how the agents would learn these ideal policies using a trial-and-error process. The reinforcement learning algorithms that are used to train the agents are maximizing the agent's own reward; the conflict between the needs of the agents and the needs of the group is a subject of active research. Various techniques have been explored in order to induce cooperation in agents: Modifying the environment rules, adding intrinsic rewards, and more. === Sequential social dilemmas === Social dilemmas like prisoner's dilemma, chicken and stag hunt are "matrix games". Each agent takes only one action from a choice of two possible actions, and a simple 2x2 matrix is used to describe the reward that each agent will get, given the actions that each agent took. In humans and other living creatures, social dilemmas tend to be more complex. Agents take multiple actions over time, and the distinction between cooperating and defecting is not as clear cut as in matrix games. The concept of a sequential social dilemma (SSD) was introduced in 2017 as an attempt to model that complexity. There is ongoing research into defining different kinds of SSDs and showing cooperative behavior in the agents that act in them. == Autocurricula == An autocurriculum (plural: autocurricula) is a reinforcement learning concept that's salient in multi-agent experiments. As agents improve their performance, they change their environment; this change in the environment affects themselves and the other agents. The feedback loop results in several distinct phases of learning, each depending on the previous one. The stacked layers of learning are called an autocurriculum. Autocurricula are especially apparent in adversarial settings, where each group of agents is racing to counter the current strategy of the opposing group. The Hide and Seek game is an accessible example of an autocurriculum occurring in an adversarial setting. In this experiment, a team of seekers is competing against a team of hiders. Whenever one of the teams learns a new strategy, the opposing team adapts its strategy to give the best possible counter. When the hiders learn to use boxes to build a shelter, the seekers respond by learning to use a ramp to break into that shelter. The hiders respond by locking the ramps, making them unavailable for the seekers to use. The seekers then respond by "box surfing", exploiting a glitch in the game to penetrate the shelter. Each "level" of learning is an emergent phenomenon, with the previous level as its premise. This results in a stack of behaviors, each dependent on its predecessor. Autocurricula in reinforcement learning experiments are compared to the stages of the evolution of life on Earth and the development of human culture. A major stage in evolution happened 2-3 billion years ago, when photosynthesizing life forms started to produce massive amounts of oxygen, changing the balance of gases in the atmosphere. In the next stages of evolution, oxygen-breathing life forms evolved, eventually leading up to land mammals and human beings. These later stages could only happen after the photosynthesis stage made oxygen widely available. Similarly, human culture could not have gone through the Industrial Revolution in the 18th century without the resources and insights gaine

  Read more →
• 

  ReRites

  ReRites (also known as RERITES, ReadingRites, Big Data Poetry) is a literary work of "Human + A.I. poetry" by David Jhave Johnston that used neural network models trained to generate poetry which the author then edited. ReRites won the Robert Coover Award for a Work of Electronic Literature in 2022. == About the project == The ReRites project began as a daily rite of writing with a neural network, expanded into a series of performances from which video documentation has been published online, and concluded with a set of 12 books and an accompanying book of essays published by Anteism Books in 2019. In Electronic Literature, Scott Rettberg describes the early phases of the project in 2016, when it bore the preliminary name Big Data Poetry. Jhave (the artist name that David Jhave Johnston goes by) describes the process of writing ReRites as a rite: "Every morning for 2 hours (normally 6:30–8:30am) I get up and edit the poetic output of a neural net. Deleting, weaving, conjugating, lineating, cohering. Re-writing. Re-wiring authorship: hybrid augmented enhanced evolutionary". There is video documentation of the writing process. The human editing of the neural network's output is fundamental to this project, and Jhave gives examples of both unedited text extracts and his edited versions in publications about the project. Kyle Booten describes ReRites as "simultaneously dusty and outrageously verdant, monotonously sublime and speckled with beautiful and rare specimens". === Performances === ReRites was first shared with an audience through a series of performances where audience members and poets would participate in reading the automatically generated texts, which appeared on screen so fast that human readers could barely keep up. This has been described as allowing participants to "re-discover[..] the peculiar pleasures of being embodied", or, in Jhave's own words, as a space where human participants were "playing their wits and voices against an evocative infinite deep-learning muse". The first performance was at Brown University's Interrupt Festival in 2019. It has been performed many times since, including at the Barbican Centre in London and Anteism Books. === Print publications === For a single year Jhave published one book of poetry from the ReRites project each month. These twelve volumes are accompanied by a book of essays, all published by Anteism Books. The accompanying essays provide critical responses to the project from poets and scholars including Allison Parrish, Johanna Drucker, Kyle Booten, Stephanie Strickland, John Cayley, Lai-Tze Fan, Nick Montfort, Mairéad Byrne, and Chris Funkhouser. Allison Parrish notes elsewhere that these paratexts to ReRites serve a legitimising function for a genre of poetry that is not yet institutionally acknowledged. === Technical details === Starting in 2016 under the name Big Data Poetry, Jhave generated poems using, in his own words, "neural network code (..) adapted from three corporate github-hosted machine-learning libraries: TensorFlow (Google), PyTorch (Facebook), and AWD-LSTM (SalesForce)". He explains that the "models were trained on a customised corpus of 600,000 lines of poetry ranging from the romantic epoch to the 20th century avant garde". Jhave maintains a GitHub repository with some of the code supporting ReRites. == Reception == ReRites is described by John Cayley as "one of the most thorough and beautiful" poetic responses to machine learning. The work's influence on the field of electronic literature was acknowledged in 2022, when the work won the Electronic Literature Organization's Robert Coover Award for a Work of Electronic Literature. The jury described ReRites as particularly poignant in the time of the pandemic, as it was "a documentation of the performance of the private ritual of writing and the obsessive-compulsive need for writers to communicate — even when no one else is reading". The question of authorship and voice in ReRites has been raised by several critics. Although generated poetry is an established genre in electronic literature, Cayley notes that unlike the combinatory poems created by authors like Nick Montfort, where the author explicitly defines which words and phrases will be recombined, ReRites has "not been directed by literary preconceptions inscribed in the program itself, but only by patterns and rhythms pre-existing in the corpora". In an essay for the Australian journal TEXT, David Thomas Henry Wright asks how to understand authorship and authority in ReRites: "Who or what is the authority of the work? The original data fed into the machine, that is not currently retrievable or discernible from the final works? The code that was taken and adapted for his purposes? Or Jhave, the human editor?" Wright concludes that Jhave is the only actor with any intentionality and therefore the authority of the work. The centrality of the human editor is also emphasised by other scholars. In a chapter analysing ReRites Malthe Stavning Erslev argues that the machine learning misrepresents the dataset it is trained on. While ReRites uses 21st century neural networks, it has been compared to earlier literary traditions. Poet Victoria Stanton, who read at one of the ReRites performances, has compared ReRites to found poetry, while David Thomas Henry Wright compares it to the Oulipo movement and Mark Amerika to the cut-up technique. Scholars also position ReRites firmly within the long tradition of generative poetry both in electronic literature and print, stretching from the I Ching, Queneau's Cent Mille Milliards de Poemes and Nabokov's Pale Fire to computer-generated poems like Christopher Strachey's Love Letter Generator (1952) and more contemporary examples. Jhave describes the process of working with the output from the neural network as "carving". In his book My Life as an Artificial Creative Intelligence, Mark Amerika writes that the "method of carving the digital outputs provided by the language model as part of a collaborative remix jam session with GPT-2, where the language artist and the language model play off each other’s unexpected outputs as if caught in a live postproduction set, is one I share with electronic literature composer David Jhave Johnston, whose AI poetry experiments precede my own investigations."

  Read more →
• 

  Netomi

  Netomi, formerly msg.ai, is an American artificial intelligence company and developer of chatbot technologies. == History == msg.ai was founded in May 2015 by Puneet Mehta. msg.ai worked with Sony Pictures to launch a chat bot on Facebook Messenger for a $100M film, Goosebumps and subsequently joined Y Combinator as a member of the Winter 2016 class. Later that year and in 2017, msg.ai completed two rounds of seed funding, led by Y Combinator and Index Ventures. In 2018, the company changed its name to Netomi. In 2019, the company raised $14.7 million in a Series A funding round also led by Index Ventures. In 2021, the company raised $30 million in a Series B funding round led by WndrCo LLC.

  Read more →
• 

  Admissible heuristic

  In computer science, specifically in algorithms related to pathfinding, a heuristic function is said to be admissible if it never overestimates the cost of reaching the goal, i.e. the cost it estimates to reach the goal is not higher than the lowest possible cost from the current point in the path. In other words, it should act as a lower bound. It is related to the concept of consistent heuristics. While all consistent heuristics are admissible, not all admissible heuristics are consistent. == Search algorithms == An admissible heuristic is used to estimate the cost of reaching the goal state in an informed search algorithm. In order for a heuristic to be admissible to the search problem, the estimated cost must always be lower than or equal to the actual cost of reaching the goal state. The search algorithm uses the admissible heuristic to find an estimated optimal path to the goal state from the current node. For example, in A search the evaluation function (where n {\displaystyle n} is the current node) is: f ( n ) = g ( n ) + h ( n ) {\displaystyle f(n)=g(n)+h(n)} where f ( n ) {\displaystyle f(n)} = the evaluation function. g ( n ) {\displaystyle g(n)} = the cost from the start node to the current node h ( n ) {\displaystyle h(n)} = estimated cost from current node to goal. h ( n ) {\displaystyle h(n)} is calculated using the heuristic function. With a non-admissible heuristic, the A algorithm could overlook the optimal solution to a search problem due to an overestimation in f ( n ) {\displaystyle f(n)} . == Formulation == n {\displaystyle n} is a node h {\displaystyle h} is a heuristic h ( n ) {\displaystyle h(n)} is cost indicated by h {\displaystyle h} to reach a goal from n {\displaystyle n} h ∗ ( n ) {\displaystyle h^{}(n)} is the optimal cost to reach a goal from n {\displaystyle n} h ( n ) {\displaystyle h(n)} is admissible if, ∀ n {\displaystyle \forall n} h ( n ) ≤ h ∗ ( n ) {\displaystyle h(n)\leq h^{}(n)} == Construction == An admissible heuristic can be derived from a relaxed version of the problem, or by information from pattern databases that store exact solutions to subproblems of the problem, or by using inductive learning methods. == Examples == Two different examples of admissible heuristics apply to the fifteen puzzle problem: Hamming distance Manhattan distance The Hamming distance is the total number of misplaced tiles. It is clear that this heuristic is admissible since the total number of moves to order the tiles correctly is at least the number of misplaced tiles (each tile not in place must be moved at least once). The cost (number of moves) to the goal (an ordered puzzle) is at least the Hamming distance of the puzzle. The Manhattan distance of a puzzle is defined as: h ( n ) = ∑ all tiles d i s t a n c e ( tile, correct position ) {\displaystyle h(n)=\sum _{\text{all tiles}}{\mathit {distance}}({\text{tile, correct position}})} Consider the puzzle below in which the player wishes to move each tile such that the numbers are ordered. The Manhattan distance is an admissible heuristic in this case because every tile will have to be moved at least the number of spots in between itself and its correct position. The subscripts show the Manhattan distance for each tile. The total Manhattan distance for the shown puzzle is: h ( n ) = 3 + 1 + 0 + 1 + 2 + 3 + 3 + 4 + 3 + 2 + 4 + 4 + 4 + 1 + 1 = 36 {\displaystyle h(n)=3+1+0+1+2+3+3+4+3+2+4+4+4+1+1=36} == Optimality proof == If an admissible heuristic is used in an algorithm that, per iteration, progresses only the path of lowest evaluation (current cost + heuristic) of several candidate paths, terminates the moment its exploration reaches the goal and, crucially, closes all optimal paths before terminating (something that's possible with A search algorithm if special care isn't taken), then this algorithm can only terminate on an optimal path. To see why, consider the following proof by contradiction: Assume such an algorithm managed to terminate on a path T with a true cost Ttrue greater than the optimal path S with true cost Strue. This means that before terminating, the evaluated cost of T was less than or equal to the evaluated cost of S (or else S would have been picked). Denote these evaluated costs Teval and Seval respectively. The above can be summarized as follows, Strue < Ttrue Teval ≤ Seval If our heuristic is admissible it follows that at this penultimate step Teval = Ttrue because any increase on the true cost by the heuristic on T would be inadmissible and the heuristic cannot be negative. On the other hand, an admissible heuristic would require that Seval ≤ Strue which combined with the above inequalities gives us Teval < Ttrue and more specifically Teval ≠ Ttrue. As Teval and Ttrue cannot be both equal and unequal our assumption must have been false and so it must be impossible to terminate on a more costly than optimal path. As an example, let us say we have costs as follows:(the cost above/below a node is the heuristic, the cost at an edge is the actual cost) 0 10 0 100 0 START ---- O ----- GOAL | | 0| |100 | | O ------- O ------ O 100 1 100 1 100 So clearly we would start off visiting the top middle node, since the expected total cost, i.e. f ( n ) {\displaystyle f(n)} , is 10 + 0 = 10 {\displaystyle 10+0=10} . Then the goal would be a candidate, with f ( n ) {\displaystyle f(n)} equal to 10 + 100 + 0 = 110 {\displaystyle 10+100+0=110} . Then we would clearly pick the bottom nodes one after the other, followed by the updated goal, since they all have f ( n ) {\displaystyle f(n)} lower than the f ( n ) {\displaystyle f(n)} of the current goal, i.e. their f ( n ) {\displaystyle f(n)} is 100 , 101 , 102 , 102 {\displaystyle 100,101,102,102} . So even though the goal was a candidate, we could not pick it because there were still better paths out there. This way, an admissible heuristic can ensure optimality. However, note that although an admissible heuristic can guarantee final optimality, it is not necessarily efficient.

  Read more →
• 

  Loebner Prize

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

  Read more →
• 

  Cross-language information retrieval

  Cross-language information retrieval (CLIR) is a subfield of information retrieval dealing with retrieving information written in a language different from the language of the user's query. The term "cross-language information retrieval" has many synonyms, of which the following are perhaps the most frequent: cross-lingual information retrieval, translingual information retrieval, multilingual information retrieval. The term "multilingual information retrieval" refers more generally both to technology for retrieval of multilingual collections and to technology which has been moved to handle material in one language to another. The term Multilingual Information Retrieval (MLIR) involves the study of systems that accept queries for information in various languages and return objects (text, and other media) of various languages, translated into the user's language. Cross-language information retrieval refers more specifically to the use case where users formulate their information need in one language and the system retrieves relevant documents in another. To do so, most CLIR systems use various translation techniques. CLIR techniques can be classified into different categories based on different translation resources: Dictionary-based CLIR techniques Parallel corpora based CLIR techniques Comparable corpora based CLIR techniques Machine translator based CLIR techniques CLIR systems have improved so much that the most accurate multi-lingual and cross-lingual adhoc information retrieval systems today are nearly as effective as monolingual systems. Other related information access tasks, such as media monitoring, information filtering and routing, sentiment analysis, and information extraction require more sophisticated models and typically more processing and analysis of the information items of interest. Much of that processing needs to be aware of the specifics of the target languages it is deployed in. Mostly, the various mechanisms of variation in human language pose coverage challenges for information retrieval systems: texts in a collection may treat a topic of interest but use terms or expressions which do not match the expression of information need given by the user. This can be true even in a mono-lingual case, but this is especially true in cross-lingual information retrieval, where users may know the target language only to some extent. The benefits of CLIR technology for users with poor to moderate competence in the target language has been found to be greater than for those who are fluent. Specific technologies in place for CLIR services include morphological analysis to handle inflection, decompounding or compound splitting to handle compound terms, and translations mechanisms to translate a query from one language to another. The first workshop on CLIR was held in Zürich during the SIGIR-96 conference. Workshops have been held yearly since 2000 at the meetings of the Cross Language Evaluation Forum (CLEF). Researchers also convene at the annual Text Retrieval Conference (TREC) to discuss their findings regarding different systems and methods of information retrieval, and the conference has served as a point of reference for the CLIR subfield. Early CLIR experiments were conducted at TREC-6, held at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on November 19–21, 1997. Google Search had a cross-language search feature that was removed in 2013.

  Read more →
• 

  Noisy text analytics

  Noisy text analytics is a process of information extraction whose goal is to automatically extract structured or semistructured information from noisy unstructured text data. While Text analytics is a growing and mature field that has great value because of the huge amounts of data being produced, processing of noisy text is gaining in importance because a lot of common applications produce noisy text data. Noisy unstructured text data is found in informal settings such as online chat, text messages, e-mails, message boards, newsgroups, blogs, wikis and web pages. Also, text produced by processing spontaneous speech using automatic speech recognition and printed or handwritten text using optical character recognition contains processing noise. Text produced under such circumstances is typically highly noisy containing spelling errors, abbreviations, non-standard words, false starts, repetitions, missing punctuations, missing letter case information, pause filling words such as “um” and “uh” and other texting and speech disfluencies. Such text can be seen in large amounts in contact centers, chat rooms, optical character recognition (OCR) of text documents, short message service (SMS) text, etc. Documents with historical language can also be considered noisy with respect to today's knowledge about the language. Such text contains important historical, religious, ancient medical knowledge that is useful. The nature of the noisy text produced in all these contexts warrants moving beyond traditional text analysis techniques. == Techniques for noisy text analysis == Missing punctuation and the use of non-standard words can often hinder standard natural language processing tools such as part-of-speech tagging and parsing. Techniques to both learn from the noisy data and then to be able to process the noisy data are only now being developed. == Possible source of noisy text == World Wide Web: Poorly written text is found in web pages, online chat, blogs, wikis, discussion forums, newsgroups. Most of these data are unstructured and the style of writing is very different from, say, well-written news articles. Analysis for the web data is important because they are sources for market buzz analysis, market review, trend estimation, etc. Also, because of the large amount of data, it is necessary to find efficient methods of information extraction, classification, automatic summarization and analysis of these data. Contact centers: This is a general term for help desks, information lines and customer service centers operating in domains ranging from computer sales and support to mobile phones to apparels. On an average a person in the developed world interacts at least once a week with a contact center agent. A typical contact center agent handles over a hundred calls per day. They operate in various modes such as voice, online chat and E-mail. The contact center industry produces gigabytes of data in the form of E-mails, chat logs, voice conversation transcriptions, customer feedback, etc. A bulk of the contact center data is voice conversations. Transcription of these using state of the art automatic speech recognition results in text with 30-40% word error rate. Further, even written modes of communication like online chat between customers and agents and even the interactions over email tend to be noisy. Analysis of contact center data is essential for customer relationship management, customer satisfaction analysis, call modeling, customer profiling, agent profiling, etc., and it requires sophisticated techniques to handle poorly written text. Printed Documents: Many libraries, government organizations and national defence organizations have vast repositories of hard copy documents. To retrieve and process the content from such documents, they need to be processed using Optical Character Recognition. In addition to printed text, these documents may also contain handwritten annotations. OCRed text can be highly noisy depending on the font size, quality of the print etc. It can range from 2-3% word error rates to as high as 50-60% word error rates. Handwritten annotations can be particularly hard to decipher, and error rates can be quite high in their presence. Short Messaging Service (SMS): Language usage over computer mediated discourses, like chats, emails and SMS texts, significantly differs from the standard form of the language. An urge towards shorter message length facilitating faster typing and the need for semantic clarity, shape the structure of this non-standard form known as the texting language.

  Read more →
• 

  Circle Hough Transform

  The circle Hough Transform (CHT) is a basic feature extraction technique used in digital image processing for detecting circles in imperfect images. The circle candidates are produced by “voting” in the Hough parameter space and then selecting local maxima in an accumulator matrix. It is a specialization of the Hough transform. == Theory == In a two-dimensional space, a circle can be described by: ( x − a ) 2 + ( y − b ) 2 = r 2 ( 1 ) {\displaystyle \left(x-a\right)^{2}+\left(y-b\right)^{2}=r^{2}\ \ \ \ \ (1)} where (a,b) is the center of the circle, and r is the radius. If a 2D point (x,y) is fixed, then the parameters can be found according to (1). The parameter space would be three dimensional, (a, b, r). And all the parameters that satisfy (x, y) would lie on the surface of an inverted right-angled cone whose apex is at (x, y, 0). In the 3D space, the circle parameters can be identified by the intersection of many conic surfaces that are defined by points on the 2D circle. This process can be divided into two stages. The first stage is fixing radius then find the optimal center of circles in a 2D parameter space. The second stage is to find the optimal radius in a one dimensional parameter space. === Find parameters with known radius R === If the radius is fixed, then the parameter space would be reduced to 2D (the position of the circle center). For each point (x, y) on the original circle, it can define a circle centered at (x, y) with radius R according to (1). The intersection point of all such circles in the parameter space would be corresponding to the center point of the original circle. Consider 4 points on a circle in the original image (left). The circle Hough transform is shown in the right. Note that the radius is assumed to be known. For each (x,y) of the four points (white points) in the original image, it can define a circle in the Hough parameter space centered at (x, y) with radius r. An accumulator matrix is used for tracking the intersection point. In the parameter space, the voting number of those points that have a newly defined circle passing through them would be increased by one for every circle. Then the local maxima point (the red point in the center in the right figure) can be found. The position (a, b) of the maxima would be the center of the original circle. === Multiple circles with known radius R === Multiple circles with same radius can be found with the same technique. Note that, in the accumulator matrix (right fig), there would be at least 3 local maxima points. === Accumulator matrix and voting === In practice, an accumulator matrix is introduced to find the intersection point in the parameter space. First, we need to divide the parameter space into “buckets” using a grid and produce an accumulator matrix according to the grid. The element in the accumulator matrix denotes the number of “circles” in the parameter space that are passing through the corresponding grid cell in the parameter space. The number is also called “voting number”. Initially, every element in the matrix is zeros. Then for each “edge” point in the original space, we can formulate a circle in the parameter space and increase the voting number of the grid cell which the circle passes through. This process is called “voting”. After voting, we can find local maxima in the accumulator matrix. The positions of the local maxima are corresponding to the circle centers in the original space. === Find circle parameter with unknown radius === Since the parameter space is 3D, the accumulator matrix would be 3D, too. We can iterate through possible radii; for each radius, we use the previous technique. Finally, find the local maxima in the 3D accumulator matrix. Accumulator array should be A[x,y,r] in the 3D space. Voting should be for each pixels, radius and theta A[x,y,r] += 1 The algorithm : For each A[a,b,r] = 0; Process the filtering algorithm on image Gaussian Blurring, convert the image to grayscale ( grayScaling), make Canny operator, The Canny operator gives the edges on image. Vote on all possible circles in accumulator. The local maximum voted circles of Accumulator A gives the circle Hough space. The maximum voted circle of Accumulator gives the circle. The Incrementing for Best Candidate : For each A[a,b,r] = 0; // fill with zeroes initially, instantiate 3D matrix For each cell(x,y) For each theta t = 0 to 360 // the possible theta 0 to 360 b = y – r sin(t PI / 180); //polar coordinate for center (convert to radians) a = x – r cos(t PI / 180); //polar coordinate for center (convert to radians) A[a,b,r] +=1; //voting end end == Examples == === Find circles in a shoe-print === The original picture (right) is first turned into a binary image (left) using a threshold and Gaussian filter. Then edges (mid) are found from it using canny edge detection. After this, all the edge points are used by the Circle Hough Transform to find underlying circle structure. == Limitations == Since the parameter space of the CHT is three dimensional, it may require lots of storage and computation. Choosing a bigger grid size can ameliorate this problem. However, choosing an appropriate grid size is difficult. Since too coarse a grid can lead to large values of the vote being obtained falsely because many quite different structures correspond to a single bucket. Too fine a grid can lead to structures not being found because votes resulting from tokens that are not exactly aligned end up in different buckets, and no bucket has a large vote. Also, the CHT is not very robust to noise. == Extensions == === Adaptive Hough Transform === J. Illingworth and J. Kittler introduced this method for implementing Hough Transform efficiently. The AHT uses a small accumulator array and the idea of a flexible iterative "coarse to fine" accumulation and search strategy to identify significant peaks in the Hough parameter spaces. This method is substantially superior to the standard Hough Transform implementation in both storage and computational requirements. == Application == === People Counting === Since the head would be similar to a circle in an image, CHT can be used for detecting heads in a picture, so as to count the number of persons in the image. === Brain Aneurysm Detection === Modified Hough Circle Transform (MHCT) is used on the image extracted from Digital Subtraction Angiogram (DSA) to detect and classify aneurysms type. == Implementation code == Circle Detection via Standard Hough Transform, by Amin Sarafraz, Mathworks (File Exchange) Hough Circle Transform, OpenCV-Python Tutorials (archived version on archive.org)

  Read more →
• 

  Keyword extraction

  Keyword extraction is tasked with the automatic identification of terms that best describe the subject of a document. Key phrases, key terms, key segments or just keywords are the terminology which is used for defining the terms that represent the most relevant information contained in the document. Although the terminology is different, function is the same: characterization of the topic discussed in a document. The task of keyword extraction is an important problem in text mining, information extraction, information retrieval and natural language processing (NLP). == Keyword assignment vs. extraction == Keyword assignment methods can be roughly divided into: keyword assignment (keywords are chosen from controlled vocabulary or taxonomy) and keyword extraction (keywords are chosen from words that are explicitly mentioned in original text). Methods for automatic keyword extraction can be supervised, semi-supervised, or unsupervised. Unsupervised methods can be further divided into simple statistics, linguistics or graph-based, or ensemble methods that combine some or most of these methods.

  Read more →
• 

  Photo-consistency

  In computer vision, photo-consistency determines whether a given voxel is occupied. A voxel is considered to be photo consistent when its color appears to be similar to all the cameras that can see it. Most voxel coloring or space carving techniques require using photo consistency as a check condition in Image-based modeling and rendering applications. == Usage == 3D Volumetric Reconstruction. Image registration. Multi-view reconstruction.

  Read more →