AI Chat List

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

Are You Dead?

Are You Dead? (Chinese: 死了么; pinyin: Sǐleme), also known by its English name Demumu, is a Chinese application designed for young people living alone. It requires setting up one emergency contact and sends automatic notifications if the user has not checked in via the app for consecutive days. The app was released on the App Store on 10 June 2025. In early January 2026, the application gained popularity due to its name and the issue of safety for people living alone, and ranked high on the list of paid applications in the Chinese region of the Apple App Store before being removed. The app's rise in popularity sparked discussions about taboos about death in China. == History == Are You Dead? was founded and operated independently by three people born in the 1990s, and developed in a way that involved remote collaboration in their spare time. According to the New Yellow River report, Guo, the product manager, said that the application was designed for young people and that the inspiration came from the discussion of netizens on social platforms about "an app that everyone must have and will definitely download" that he observed two or three years ago. The name was also "not their original creation". After realizing its potential demand and social significance, the team successfully registered the name and completed the product development in about a month. Regarding the development entity, the New Yellow River cited information from the Apple App Store that the application was developed by Yuejing (Zhengzhou) Technology Service Co., Ltd. According to Tianyancha information, the company was established in March 2025 with a registered capital of 100,000 yuan. === Rise in popularity === The app has been generating buzz on social media since 9 January 2026, due to its name and the topic of safety for people living alone. Around 10 January, it topped the Apple paid app chart. As of 10:00 a.m. on January 11, it ranked first in the App Store paid app chart. It also ranked highly in the utility app chart; it ranked first or second in the paid utility app charts in the United States, Singapore and Hong Kong, and first or fourth in Australia and Spain. The app was subsequently removed from the Apple App Store in China. In terms of functionality and usage, First Financial praised the product for its "simple interface and single function," but pointed out that the interface lacks a display of consecutive check-in days, and there is also the possibility that users may forget to check in, leading to the mistaken issuance of reminders. In addition, since the application mainly relies on email reminders and lacks SMS or telephone notifications, it does not conform to Chinese social habits; the untimely notifications also make the application more like a "death notification" tool, losing its early warning significance for emergency rescue. Hu Xijin, former editor-in-chief of the Global Times, commented on the application on Weibo that it is "really good and can help many lonely elderly people." The Beijing News Quick Review pointed out that the role of technical tools is limited and needs to be connected with real support such as community patrols and liaison mechanisms. Due to the price increase, there have also been questions about the motivation for the price increase. The app's rise in popularity sparked discussions about taboos about death in China. Regarding the popularity of the application, both Southern Metropolis Daily and The Beijing News commented that it reflects the public issue of the risks of living alone and reflects the general anxiety of the living alone group about dying alone. Shangguan News further pointed out that although such technology products provide a certain "low-cost sense of security", their "cold notifications" may not only cause false alarms, but also highlight the embarrassing reality that "there is no one to fill in the emergency contact". It also emphasized that algorithms or applications cannot bring true happiness and called on society to reconstruct a support network full of humanistic care while relying on technology. The name of the application has also sparked controversy. Most netizens believe that the name "Are You Dead?" is unlucky and makes it awkward to share the application. They suggest changing it to a milder name such as "Are You Alive?". Hu Xijin also said that the name change could "give the elderly who use it more psychological comfort" and "believe that the application will become more popular after the name change". Some people also believe that this straightforward name just points out the real dilemma faced by people living alone and has a special meaning. BBC News commented that the name "Are You Dead" is playing a word game with Ele.me (Chinese: 饿了么; pinyin: Èleme) and the pronunciation is also similar. Legal professionals believe that its name is highly similar to Ele.me and may cause confusion. They also raised the possibility of trademark infringement and unfair competition. However, the developers said that the application is developed for young people and death is not a sensitive topic. They will "consider launching a new application that is more suitable for middle-aged and elderly people". They have not yet received any name change requests from relevant departments. On the evening of 13 January 2026, the Are You Dead? team announced that it would change its name to the English brand name Demumu in the upcoming new version. On 11 January, the development team also issued a statement through its official Weibo account, stating that it would study the renaming suggestion and plan to enrich the SMS reminder function, consider adding the message function and explore the direction of age-friendly products; it also stated that it would launch an 8 yuan paid plan to cover the costs of SMS, servers, etc., and welcomed investors to discuss cooperation. In terms of financing and valuation, it plans to sell 10% of the company's shares for 1 million yuan and proposed a valuation of 10 million yuan. On the evening of January 15, the application was removed from the app store in mainland China. == Functions == The application does not require users to enter phone numbers or other information to register. After filling in their name and setting an emergency contact, users can click the sign-in button every day. If they fail to sign in for two consecutive days, the system will send an email reminder to the emergency contact the next day. In addition, users can also bind a smart bracelet to monitor physiological signs, pre-designate a hearse driver and funeral music, and trigger the "one-click body collection" function when no pulse is detected. The application was initially available for free download, but a one yuan paid download option was introduced at the end of 2025. In January 2026, the application team issued a statement saying that an 8 yuan paid option would be launched based on the costs of SMS, servers, etc.
Read more →
FERET database

The Facial Recognition Technology (FERET) database is a dataset used for facial recognition system evaluation as part of the Face Recognition Technology (FERET) program. It was first established in 1993 under a collaborative effort between Harry Wechsler at George Mason University and Jonathon Phillips at the Army Research Laboratory in Adelphi, Maryland. The FERET database serves as a standard database of facial images for researchers to use to develop various algorithms and report results. The use of a common database also allowed one to compare the effectiveness of different approaches in methodology and gauge their strengths and weaknesses. The facial images for the database were collected between December 1993 and August 1996, accumulating a total of 14,126 images pertaining to 1,199 individuals along with 365 duplicate sets of images that were taken on a different day. In 2003, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) released a high-resolution, 24-bit color version of these images. The dataset tested includes 2,413 still facial images, representing 856 individuals. The FERET database has been used by more than 460 research groups and is managed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
Read more →
KXEN Inc.

KXEN was an American software company which existed from 1998 to 2013 when it was acquired by SAP AG. == History == KXEN was founded in June 1998 by Roger Haddad and Michel Bera. It was based in San Francisco, California with offices in Paris and London. On September 10, 2013, SAP AG announced plans to acquire KXEN. On October 1, 2013, a letter to KXEN customers announced the acquisition closed. KXEN primarily marketed predictive analytics software. == Predictive analytics == InfiniteInsight is a predictive modeling suite developed by KXEN that assists analytic professionals, and business executives to extract information from data. Among other functions, InfiniteInsight is used for variable importance, classification, regression, segmentation, time series, product recommendation, as described and expressed by the Java Data Mining interface, and for social network analysis. InfiniteInsight allows prediction of a behavior or a value, the forecast of a time series or the understanding of a group of individuals with similar behavior. Advanced functions include behavioral modeling, exporting the model code into different target environments or building predictive models on top of SAS or SPSS data files. Competitors are SAS Enterprise Miner, IBM SPSS Modeler, and Statistica. Open source predictive tools like the R package or Weka are also competitors, since they provide similar features free of charge.
Read more →
Pruning (artificial neural network)

In deep learning, pruning is the practice of removing parameters from an existing artificial neural network. The goal of this process is to reduce the size (parameter count) of the neural network (and therefore the computational resources required to run it) whilst maintaining accuracy. This can be compared to the biological process of synaptic pruning which takes place in mammalian brains during development. == Node (neuron) pruning == A basic algorithm for pruning is as follows: Evaluate the importance of each neuron. Rank the neurons according to their importance (assuming there is a clearly defined measure for "importance"). Remove the least important neuron. Check a termination condition (to be determined by the user) to see whether to continue pruning. == Edge (weight) pruning == Most work on neural network pruning does not remove full neurons or layers (structured pruning). Instead, it focuses on removing the most insignificant weights (unstructured pruning), namely, setting their values to zero. This can either be done globally by comparing weights from all layers in the network or locally by comparing weights in each layer separately. Different metrics can be used to measure the importance of each weight. Weight magnitude as well as combinations of weight and gradient information are commonly used metrics. Early work suggested also to change the values of non-pruned weights. == When to prune the neural network? == Pruning can be applied at three different stages: before training, during training, or after training. When pruning is performed during or after training, additional fine-tuning epochs are typically required. Each approach involves different trade-offs between accuracy and computational cost.
Read more →
Semantic decomposition (natural language processing)

A semantic decomposition is an algorithm that breaks down the meanings of phrases or concepts into less complex concepts. The result of a semantic decomposition is a representation of meaning. This representation can be used for tasks, such as those related to artificial intelligence or machine learning. Semantic decomposition is common in natural language processing applications. The basic idea of a semantic decomposition is taken from the learning skills of adult humans, where words are explained using other words. It is based on Meaning-text theory. Meaning-text theory is used as a theoretical linguistic framework to describe the meaning of concepts with other concepts. == Background == Given that an AI does not inherently have language, it is unable to think about the meanings behind the words of a language. An artificial notion of meaning needs to be created for a strong AI to emerge. Creating an artificial representation of meaning requires the analysis of what meaning is. Many terms are associated with meaning, including semantics, pragmatics, knowledge and understanding or word sense. Each term describes a particular aspect of meaning, and contributes to a multitude of theories explaining what meaning is. These theories need to be analyzed further to develop an artificial notion of meaning best fit for our current state of knowledge. == Graph representations == Representing meaning as a graph is one of the two ways that both an AI cognition and a linguistic researcher think about meaning (connectionist view). Logicians utilize a formal representation of meaning to build upon the idea of symbolic representation, whereas description logics describe languages and the meaning of symbols. This contention between 'neat' and 'scruffy' techniques has been discussed since the 1970s. Research has so far identified semantic measures and with that word-sense disambiguation (WSD) - the differentiation of meaning of words - as the main problem of language understanding. As an AI-complete environment, WSD is a core problem of natural language understanding. AI approaches that use knowledge-given reasoning creates a notion of meaning combining the state of the art knowledge of natural meaning with the symbolic and connectionist formalization of meaning for AI. The abstract approach is shown in Figure. First, a connectionist knowledge representation is created as a semantic network consisting of concepts and their relations to serve as the basis for the representation of meaning. This graph is built out of different knowledge sources like WordNet, Wiktionary, and BabelNET. The graph is created by lexical decomposition that recursively breaks each concept semantically down into a set of semantic primes. The primes are taken from the theory of Natural Semantic Metalanguage, which has been analyzed for usefulness in formal languages. Upon this graph marker passing is used to create the dynamic part of meaning representing thoughts. The marker passing algorithm, where symbolic information is passed along relations form one concept to another, uses node and edge interpretation to guide its markers. The node and edge interpretation model is the symbolic influence of certain concepts. Future work uses the created representation of meaning to build heuristics and evaluate them through capability matching and agent planning, chatbots or other applications of natural language understanding.
Read more →
GraphLab

Turi is a graph-based, high performance, distributed computation framework written in C++. The GraphLab project was started by Prof. Carlos Guestrin of Carnegie Mellon University in 2009. It is an open source project that uses the Apache License. While GraphLab was originally developed for machine learning tasks, it has also been developed for other data-mining tasks. == Motivation == As the amounts of collected data and computing power grow (multicore, GPUs, clusters, clouds), modern datasets no longer fit into one computing node. Efficient distributed parallel algorithms for handling large-scale data are required. The GraphLab framework is a parallel programming abstraction targeted for sparse iterative graph algorithms. GraphLab provides a programming interface, allowing deployment of distributed machine learning algorithms. The main design considerations behind the design of GraphLab are: Sparse data with local dependencies Iterative algorithms Potentially asynchronous execution == GraphLab toolkits == On top of GraphLab, several implemented libraries of algorithms: Topic modeling - contains applications like LDA, which can be used to cluster documents and extract topical representations. Graph analytics - contains applications like pagerank and triangle counting, which can be applied to general graphs to estimate community structure. Clustering - contains standard data clustering tools such as Kmeans Collaborative filtering - contains a collection of applications used to make predictions about users interests and factorize large matrices. Graphical models - contains tools for making joint predictions about collections of related random variables. Computer vision - contains a collection of tools for reasoning about images. == Turi == Turi (formerly called Dato and before that GraphLab Inc.) is a company that was founded by Prof. Carlos Guestrin from University of Washington in May 2013 to continue development support of the GraphLab open source project. Dato Inc. raised a $6.75M Series A from Madrona Venture Group and New Enterprise Associates (NEA). They raised a $18.5M Series B from Vulcan Capital and Opus Capital, with participation from Madrona and NEA. On August 5, 2016, Turi was acquired by Apple Inc. for $200,000,000.
Read more →
Common Voice

Common Voice is a crowdsourcing project started by Mozilla to create a free and open speech corpus. The project is supported by volunteers who record sample sentences with a microphone and review recordings of other users. The transcribed sentences are collected in a voice database available under the public domain license CC0. This license ensures that developers can use the database for voice-to-text and text-to-voice applications without restrictions or costs. == Aims == Common Voice aims to provide diverse voice samples. According to Mozilla's Katharina Borchert, many existing projects took datasets from public radio or otherwise had datasets that underrepresented both women and people with pronounced accents. == Voice database == The first dataset was released in November 2017. More than 20,000 users worldwide had recorded 500 hours of English sentences. In February 2019, the first batch of languages was released for use. This included 18 languages such as English, French, German and Mandarin Chinese, but also less prevalent languages like Welsh and Kabyle. In total, this included almost 1,400 hours of recorded voice data from more than 42,000 contributors. By July 2020 the database had amassed 7,226 hours of voice recordings in 54 languages, 5,591 hours of which had been verified by volunteers. In May 2021, following the work to add Kinyarwanda, the project received a grant to add Kiswahili. At the beginning of 2022, Bengali.AI partnered with Common Voice to launch the "Bangla Speech Recognition" project that aims to make machines understand the Bangla language. 2000 hours of voice was collected. In September 2022, it was announced that the Twi language of Ghana was the 100th language to be added to the database. As of December 2025, Mozilla Common Voice collects voice data for over 250 languages, with the most hours having been collected in English, Catalan, Kinyarwanda, Belarusian and Esperanto.
Read more →
Proximal policy optimization

Proximal policy optimization (PPO) is a reinforcement learning (RL) algorithm for training an intelligent agent. Specifically, it is a policy gradient method, often used for deep RL when the policy network is very large. == History == The predecessor to PPO, Trust Region Policy Optimization (TRPO), was published in 2015. It addressed the instability issue of another algorithm, the Deep Q-Network (DQN), by using the trust region method to limit the KL divergence between the old and new policies. However, TRPO uses the Hessian matrix (a matrix of second derivatives) to enforce the trust region, but the Hessian is inefficient for large-scale problems. PPO was published in 2017. It was essentially an approximation of TRPO that does not require computing the Hessian. The KL divergence constraint was approximated by simply clipping the policy gradient. Since 2018, PPO was the default RL algorithm at OpenAI. PPO has been applied to many areas, such as controlling a robotic arm, beating professional players at Dota 2 (OpenAI Five), and playing Atari games. == TRPO == TRPO, the predecessor of PPO, is an on-policy algorithm. It can be used for environments with either discrete or continuous action spaces. The pseudocode is as follows: Input: initial policy parameters θ 0 {\textstyle \theta _{0}} , initial value function parameters ϕ 0 {\textstyle \phi _{0}} Hyperparameters: KL-divergence limit δ {\textstyle \delta } , backtracking coefficient α {\textstyle \alpha } , maximum number of backtracking steps K {\textstyle K} for k = 0 , 1 , 2 , … {\textstyle k=0,1,2,\ldots } do Collect set of trajectories D k = { τ i } {\textstyle {\mathcal {D}}_{k}=\left\{\tau _{i}\right\}} by running policy π k = π ( θ k ) {\textstyle \pi _{k}=\pi \left(\theta _{k}\right)} in the environment. Compute rewards-to-go R ^ t {\textstyle {\hat {R}}_{t}} . Compute advantage estimates, A ^ t {\textstyle {\hat {A}}_{t}} (using any method of advantage estimation) based on the current value function V ϕ k {\textstyle V_{\phi _{k}}} . Estimate policy gradient as g ^ k = 1 | D k | ∑ τ ∈ D k ∑ t = 0 T ∇ θ log ⁡ π θ ( a t ∣ s t ) | θ k A ^ t {\displaystyle {\hat {g}}_{k}=\left.{\frac {1}{\left|{\mathcal {D}}_{k}\right|}}\sum _{\tau \in {\mathcal {D}}_{k}}\sum _{t=0}^{T}\nabla _{\theta }\log \pi _{\theta }\left(a_{t}\mid s_{t}\right)\right|_{\theta _{k}}{\hat {A}}_{t}} Use the conjugate gradient algorithm to compute x ^ k ≈ H ^ k − 1 g ^ k {\displaystyle {\hat {x}}_{k}\approx {\hat {H}}_{k}^{-1}{\hat {g}}_{k}} where H ^ k {\textstyle {\hat {H}}_{k}} is the Hessian of the sample average KL-divergence. Update the policy by backtracking line search with θ k + 1 = θ k + α j 2 δ x ^ k T H ^ k x ^ k x ^ k {\displaystyle \theta _{k+1}=\theta _{k}+\alpha ^{j}{\sqrt {\frac {2\delta }{{\hat {x}}_{k}^{T}{\hat {H}}_{k}{\hat {x}}_{k}}}}{\hat {x}}_{k}} where j ∈ { 0 , 1 , 2 , … K } {\textstyle j\in \{0,1,2,\ldots K\}} is the smallest value which improves the sample loss and satisfies the sample KL-divergence constraint. Fit value function by regression on mean-squared error: ϕ k + 1 = arg ⁡ min ϕ 1 | D k | T ∑ τ ∈ D k ∑ t = 0 T ( V ϕ ( s t ) − R ^ t ) 2 {\displaystyle \phi _{k+1}=\arg \min _{\phi }{\frac {1}{\left|{\mathcal {D}}_{k}\right|T}}\sum _{\tau \in {\mathcal {D}}_{k}}\sum _{t=0}^{T}\left(V_{\phi }\left(s_{t}\right)-{\hat {R}}_{t}\right)^{2}} typically via some gradient descent algorithm. == PPO == The pseudocode is as follows: Input: initial policy parameters θ 0 {\textstyle \theta _{0}} , initial value function parameters ϕ 0 {\textstyle \phi _{0}} for k = 0 , 1 , 2 , … {\textstyle k=0,1,2,\ldots } do Collect set of trajectories D k = { τ i } {\textstyle {\mathcal {D}}_{k}=\left\{\tau _{i}\right\}} by running policy π k = π ( θ k ) {\textstyle \pi _{k}=\pi \left(\theta _{k}\right)} in the environment. Compute rewards-to-go R ^ t {\textstyle {\hat {R}}_{t}} . Compute advantage estimates, A ^ t {\textstyle {\hat {A}}_{t}} (using any method of advantage estimation) based on the current value function V ϕ k {\textstyle V_{\phi _{k}}} . Update the policy by maximizing the PPO-Clip objective: θ k + 1 = arg ⁡ max θ 1 | D k | T ∑ τ ∈ D k ∑ t = 0 T min ( π θ ( a t ∣ s t ) π θ k ( a t ∣ s t ) A π θ k ( s t , a t ) , g ( ϵ , A π θ k ( s t , a t ) ) ) {\displaystyle \theta _{k+1}=\arg \max _{\theta }{\frac {1}{\left|{\mathcal {D}}_{k}\right|T}}\sum _{\tau \in {\mathcal {D}}_{k}}\sum _{t=0}^{T}\min \left({\frac {\pi _{\theta }\left(a_{t}\mid s_{t}\right)}{\pi _{\theta _{k}}\left(a_{t}\mid s_{t}\right)}}A^{\pi _{\theta _{k}}}\left(s_{t},a_{t}\right),\quad g\left(\epsilon ,A^{\pi _{\theta _{k}}}\left(s_{t},a_{t}\right)\right)\right)} typically via stochastic gradient ascent with Adam. Fit value function by regression on mean-squared error: ϕ k + 1 = arg ⁡ min ϕ 1 | D k | T ∑ τ ∈ D k ∑ t = 0 T ( V ϕ ( s t ) − R ^ t ) 2 {\displaystyle \phi _{k+1}=\arg \min _{\phi }{\frac {1}{\left|{\mathcal {D}}_{k}\right|T}}\sum _{\tau \in {\mathcal {D}}_{k}}\sum _{t=0}^{T}\left(V_{\phi }\left(s_{t}\right)-{\hat {R}}_{t}\right)^{2}} typically via some gradient descent algorithm. Like all policy gradient methods, PPO is used for training an RL agent whose actions are determined by a differentiable policy function by gradient ascent. Intuitively, a policy gradient method takes small policy update steps, so the agent can reach higher and higher rewards in expectation. Policy gradient methods may be unstable: A step size that is too big may direct the policy in a suboptimal direction, thus having little possibility of recovery; a step size that is too small lowers the overall efficiency. To solve the instability, PPO implements a clip function that constrains the policy update of an agent from being too large, so that larger step sizes may be used without negatively affecting the gradient ascent process. === Basic concepts === To begin the PPO training process, the agent is set in an environment to perform actions based on its current input. In the early phase of training, the agent can freely explore solutions and keep track of the result. Later, with a certain amount of transition samples and policy updates, the agent will select an action to take by randomly sampling from the probability distribution P ( A | S ) {\displaystyle P(A|S)} generated by the policy network. The actions that are most likely to be beneficial will have the highest probability of being selected from the random sample. After an agent arrives at a different scenario (a new state) by acting, it is rewarded with a positive reward or a negative reward. The objective of an agent is to maximize the cumulative reward signal across sequences of states, known as episodes. === Policy gradient laws: the advantage function === The advantage function (denoted as A {\displaystyle A} ) is central to PPO, as it tries to answer the question of whether a specific action of the agent is better or worse than some other possible action in a given state. By definition, the advantage function is an estimate of the relative value for a selected action. If the output of this function is positive, it means that the action in question is better than the average return, so the possibilities of selecting that specific action will increase. The opposite is true for a negative advantage output. The advantage function can be defined as A = Q − V {\displaystyle A=Q-V} , where Q {\displaystyle Q} is the discounted sum of rewards (the total weighted reward for the completion of an episode) and V {\displaystyle V} is the baseline estimate. Since the advantage function is calculated after the completion of an episode, the program records the outcome of the episode. Therefore, calculating advantage is essentially an unsupervised learning problem. The baseline estimate comes from the value function that outputs the expected discounted sum of an episode starting from the current state. In the PPO algorithm, the baseline estimate will be noisy (with some variance), as it also uses a neural network, like the policy function itself. With Q {\displaystyle Q} and V {\displaystyle V} computed, the advantage function is calculated by subtracting the baseline estimate from the actual discounted return. If A > 0 {\displaystyle A>0} , the actual return of the action is better than the expected return from experience; if A < 0 {\displaystyle A<0} , the actual return is worse. === Ratio function === In PPO, the ratio function ( r t {\displaystyle r_{t}} ) calculates the probability of selecting action a {\displaystyle a} in state s {\displaystyle s} given the current policy network, divided by the previous probability under the old policy. In other words: If r t ( θ ) > 1 {\displaystyle r_{t}(\theta )>1} , where θ {\displaystyle \theta } are the policy network parameters, then selecting action a {\displaystyle a} in state s {\displaystyle s} is more likely based on the current policy than the previous policy. If 0 ≤ r t ( θ ) < 1 {\displaystyle 0\leq r_{t}(\theta )<1} , then selecting actio
Read more →
Sequence labeling

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

The primary value learned value (PVLV) model is a possible explanation for the reward-predictive firing properties of dopamine (DA) neurons. It simulates behavioral and neural data on Pavlovian conditioning and the midbrain dopaminergic neurons that fire in proportion to unexpected rewards. It is an alternative to the temporal-differences (TD) algorithm. It is used as part of Leabra.
Read more →
Clustering illusion

The clustering illusion is the tendency to erroneously consider the inevitable "streaks" or "clusters" arising in small samples from random distributions to be non-random. The illusion is caused by a human tendency to underpredict the amount of variability likely to appear in a small sample of random or pseudorandom data. Thomas Gilovich, an early author on the subject, argued that the effect occurs for different types of random dispersions. Some might perceive patterns in stock market price fluctuations over time, or clusters in two-dimensional data such as the locations of impact of World War II V-1 flying bombs on maps of London. Although Londoners developed specific theories about the pattern of impacts within London, a statistical analysis by R. D. Clarke originally published in 1946 showed that the impacts of V-2 rockets on London were a close fit to a random distribution. == Similar biases == Using this cognitive bias in causal reasoning may result in the Texas sharpshooter fallacy, in which differences in data are ignored and similarities are overemphasized. More general forms of erroneous pattern recognition are pareidolia and apophenia. Related biases are the illusion of control which the clustering illusion could contribute to, and insensitivity to sample size in which people don't expect greater variation in smaller samples. A different cognitive bias involving misunderstanding of chance streams is the gambler's fallacy. == Possible causes == Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky explained this kind of misprediction as being caused by the representativeness heuristic (which itself they also first proposed).
Read more →
Algorithmic learning theory

Algorithmic learning theory is a mathematical framework for analyzing machine learning problems and algorithms. Synonyms include formal learning theory and algorithmic inductive inference. Algorithmic learning theory is different from statistical learning theory in that it does not make use of statistical assumptions and analysis. Both algorithmic and statistical learning theory are concerned with machine learning and can thus be viewed as branches of computational learning theory. == Distinguishing characteristics == Unlike statistical learning theory and most statistical theory in general, algorithmic learning theory does not assume that data are random samples, that is, that data points are independent of each other. This makes the theory suitable for domains where observations are (relatively) noise-free but not random, such as language learning and automated scientific discovery. The fundamental concept of algorithmic learning theory is learning in the limit: as the number of data points increases, a learning algorithm should converge to a correct hypothesis on every possible data sequence consistent with the problem space. This is a non-probabilistic version of statistical consistency, which also requires convergence to a correct model in the limit, but allows a learner to fail on data sequences with probability measure 0 . Algorithmic learning theory investigates the learning power of Turing machines. Other frameworks consider a much more restricted class of learning algorithms than Turing machines, for example, learners that compute hypotheses more quickly, for instance in polynomial time. An example of such a framework is probably approximately correct learning . == Learning in the limit == The concept was introduced in E. Mark Gold's seminal paper "Language identification in the limit". The objective of language identification is for a machine running one program to be capable of developing another program by which any given sentence can be tested to determine whether it is "grammatical" or "ungrammatical". The language being learned need not be English or any other natural language - in fact the definition of "grammatical" can be absolutely anything known to the tester. In Gold's learning model, the tester gives the learner an example sentence at each step, and the learner responds with a hypothesis, which is a suggested program to determine grammatical correctness. It is required of the tester that every possible sentence (grammatical or not) appears in the list eventually, but no particular order is required. It is required of the learner that at each step the hypothesis must be correct for all the sentences so far. A particular learner is said to be able to "learn a language in the limit" if there is a certain number of steps beyond which its hypothesis no longer changes. At this point it has indeed learned the language, because every possible sentence appears somewhere in the sequence of inputs (past or future), and the hypothesis is correct for all inputs (past or future), so the hypothesis is correct for every sentence. The learner is not required to be able to tell when it has reached a correct hypothesis, all that is required is that it be true. Gold showed that any language which is defined by a Turing machine program can be learned in the limit by another Turing-complete machine using enumeration. This is done by the learner testing all possible Turing machine programs in turn until one is found which is correct so far - this forms the hypothesis for the current step. Eventually, the correct program will be reached, after which the hypothesis will never change again (but note that the learner does not know that it won't need to change). Gold also showed that if the learner is given only positive examples (that is, only grammatical sentences appear in the input, not ungrammatical sentences), then the language can only be guaranteed to be learned in the limit if there are only a finite number of possible sentences in the language (this is possible if, for example, sentences are known to be of limited length). Language identification in the limit is a highly abstract model. It does not allow for limits of runtime or computer memory which can occur in practice, and the enumeration method may fail if there are errors in the input. However the framework is very powerful, because if these strict conditions are maintained, it allows the learning of any program known to be computable. This is because a Turing machine program can be written to mimic any program in any conventional programming language. See Church-Turing thesis. == Other identification criteria == Learning theorists have investigated other learning criteria, such as the following. Efficiency: minimizing the number of data points required before convergence to a correct hypothesis. Mind Changes: minimizing the number of hypothesis changes that occur before convergence. Mind change bounds are closely related to mistake bounds that are studied in statistical learning theory. Kevin Kelly has suggested that minimizing mind changes is closely related to choosing maximally simple hypotheses in the sense of Occam’s Razor. == Annual conference == Since 1990, there is an International Conference on Algorithmic Learning Theory (ALT), called Workshop in its first years (1990–1997). Between 1992 and 2016, proceedings were published in the LNCS series. Starting from 2017, they are published by the Proceedings of Machine Learning Research. The 34th conference will be held in Singapore in Feb 2023. The topics of the conference cover all of theoretical machine learning, including statistical and computational learning theory, online learning, active learning, reinforcement learning, and deep learning.
Read more →
Manual override

A manual override (MO) or manual analog override (MAO) is a mechanism where control is taken from an automated system and given to the user. For example, a manual override in photography refers to the ability for the human photographer to turn off the automatic aperture sizing, automatic focusing, or any other automated system on the camera. Some manual overrides can be used to veto an automated system's judgment when the system is in error. An example of this is a printer's ink level detection: in one case, a researcher found that when he overrode the system, up to 38% more pages could be printed at good quality by the printer than the automated system would have allowed. Automated systems are becoming increasingly common and integrated into everyday objects such as automobiles and domestic appliances. This development of ubiquitous computing raises general issues of policy and law about the need for manual overrides for matters of great importance such as life-threatening situations and major economic decisions. The loyalty of such autonomous devices then becomes an issue. If they follow rules installed by the manufacturer or required by law and refuse to cede control in some situations then the owners of the devices may feel disempowered, alienated and lacking true ownership. == Major incidents == China Airlines Flight 140 crashed, causing many deaths, due to a misunderstanding about the manual overrides for the autopilot. The Take-Off/Go Around system had been activated to abort a landing. It was programmed to ignore manual controls in this situation but the human pilots tried to continue the landing. The conflicting control signals from the pilots and autopilot then resulted in the aircraft stalling and crashing. The autopilot for this aircraft type was then reprogrammed so that it would never ignore a manual override.
Read more →
Ground truth

Ground truth is information that is known to be real or true, provided by direct observation and measurement (i.e. empirical evidence) as opposed to information provided by inference. The term ground truth appeared in remote sensing literature as early as 1972, when NASA described it as essential "data about ... materials on the earth's surface" used to calibrate measurements. It was later adopted by the statistical modeling and machine learning communities. == Etymology == The Oxford English Dictionary (s.v. ground truth) records the use of the word Groundtruth in the sense of 'fundamental truth' from Henry Ellison's poem "The Siberian Exile's Tale", published in 1833. == Usage == The term "ground truth" can be used as a noun, adjective, and verb. Noun: "ground truth" (no hyphen). Example: "The ground truth is essential for training accurate models." Adjective: "ground-truth" (hyphenated compound adjective). Example: "We need to use ground-truth data to validate the model." Verb: "to ground-truth" or "to groundtruth" (compound verb,). Example: "We need to ground-truth the results to ensure their accuracy." == Statistics and machine learning == In statistics and machine learning, ground truth is the ideal expected result, used in statistical models to prove or disprove research hypotheses. "Ground truthing" is the process of gathering the good data for this test. Ground truth is typically included in labeled data. In machine learning, "ground truth" is not necessarily objectively correct or true. For example, in training AI models or relevance rankers, it may be a set of judgments made by people or inferred from user behavior, which may depend on context. For example, in Bayesian spam filtering, a supervised learning system is typically trained by examples labeled as spam and non-spam. Although these labels may be subjective or inaccurate, they are considered ground truth. True ground truth in machine learning is objective data. For example, suppose we are testing a stereo vision system to see how well it can estimate 3D positions. A calibrated laser rangefinder may provide accurate distances as ground truth. == Remote sensing == In remote sensing, "ground truth" refers to information collected at the imaged location. Ground truth allows image data to be related to real features and materials on the ground. The collection of ground truth data enables calibration of remote-sensing data, and aids in the interpretation and analysis of what is being sensed. Examples include cartography, meteorology, analysis of aerial photographs, satellite imagery and other techniques in which data are gathered at a distance. More specifically, ground truth may refer to a process in which "pixels" on a satellite image are compared to what is imaged (at the time of capture) in order to verify the contents of the "pixels" in the image (noting that the concept of "pixel" is imaging-system-dependent). In the case of a classified image, supervised classification can help to determine the accuracy of the classification by the remote sensing system which can minimize error in the classification. Ground truth is usually done on site, correlating what is known with surface observations and measurements of various properties of the features of the ground resolution cells under study in the remotely sensed digital image. The process also involves taking geographic coordinates of the ground resolution cell with GPS technology and comparing those with the coordinates of the "pixel" being studied provided by the remote sensing software to understand and analyze the location errors and how it may affect a particular study. Ground truth is important in the initial supervised classification of an image. When the identity and location of land cover types are known through a combination of field work, maps, and personal experience these areas are known as training sites. The spectral characteristics of these areas are used to train the remote sensing software using decision rules for classifying the rest of the image. These decision rules such as Maximum Likelihood Classification, Parallelopiped Classification, and Minimum Distance Classification offer different techniques to classify an image. Additional ground truth sites allow the remote sensor to establish an error matrix that validates the accuracy of the classification method used. Different classification methods may have different percentages of error for a given classification project. It is important that the remote sensor chooses a classification method that works best with the number of classifications used while providing the least amount of error. Ground truth also helps with atmospheric correction. Since images from satellites have to pass through the atmosphere, they can get distorted because of absorption in the atmosphere. So ground truth can help fully identify objects in satellite photos. === Errors of commission === An example of an error of commission is when a pixel reports the presence of a feature (such a tree) that, in reality, is absent (no tree is actually present). Ground truthing ensures that the error matrices have a higher accuracy percentage than would be the case if no pixels were ground-truthed. This value is the complement of the user's accuracy, i.e. Commission Error = 1 - user's accuracy. === Errors of omission === An example of an error of omission is when pixels of a certain type, for example, maple trees, are not classified as maple trees. The process of ground-truthing helps to ensure that the pixel is classified correctly and the error matrices are more accurate. This value is the complement of the producer's accuracy, i.e. Omission Error = 1 - producer's accuracy == Geographical information systems == In GIS the spatial data is modeled as field (like in remote sensing raster images) or as object (like in vectorial map representation). They are modeled from the real world (also named geographical reality), typically by a cartographic process (illustrated). Geographic information systems such as GIS, GPS, and GNSS, have become so widespread that the term "ground truth" has taken on special meaning in that context. If the location coordinates returned by a location method such as GPS are an estimate of a location, then the "ground truth" is the actual location on Earth. A smart phone might return a set of estimated location coordinates such as 43.87870, −103.45901. The ground truth being estimated by those coordinates is the tip of George Washington's nose on Mount Rushmore. The accuracy of the estimate is the maximum distance between the location coordinates and the ground truth. We could say in this case that the estimate accuracy is 10 meters, meaning that the point on Earth represented by the location coordinates is thought to be within 10 meters of George's nose—the ground truth. In slang, the coordinates indicate where we think George Washington's nose is located, and the ground truth is where it really is. In practice a smart phone or hand-held GPS unit is routinely able to estimate the ground truth within 6–10 meters. Specialized instruments can reduce GPS measurement error to under a centimeter. == Military usage == US military slang uses "ground truth" to refer to the facts comprising a tactical situation—as opposed to intelligence reports, mission plans, and other descriptions reflecting the conative or policy-based projections of the industrial·military complex. The term appears in the title of the Iraq War documentary film The Ground Truth (2006), and also in military publications, for example Stars and Stripes saying: "Stripes decided to figure out what the ground truth was in Iraq."
Read more →
Distribution learning theory

The distributional learning theory or learning of probability distribution is a framework in computational learning theory. It has been proposed from Michael Kearns, Yishay Mansour, Dana Ron, Ronitt Rubinfeld, Robert Schapire and Linda Sellie in 1994 and it was inspired from the PAC-framework introduced by Leslie Valiant. In this framework the input is a number of samples drawn from a distribution that belongs to a specific class of distributions. The goal is to find an efficient algorithm that, based on these samples, determines with high probability the distribution from which the samples have been drawn. Because of its generality, this framework has been used in a large variety of different fields like machine learning, approximation algorithms, applied probability and statistics. This article explains the basic definitions, tools and results in this framework from the theory of computation point of view. == Definitions == Let X {\displaystyle \textstyle X} be the support of the distributions of interest. As in the original work of Kearns et al. if X {\displaystyle \textstyle X} is finite it can be assumed without loss of generality that X = { 0 , 1 } n {\displaystyle \textstyle X=\{0,1\}^{n}} where n {\displaystyle \textstyle n} is the number of bits that have to be used in order to represent any y ∈ X {\displaystyle \textstyle y\in X} . We focus in probability distributions over X {\displaystyle \textstyle X} . There are two possible representations of a probability distribution D {\displaystyle \textstyle D} over X {\displaystyle \textstyle X} . probability distribution function (or evaluator) an evaluator E D {\displaystyle \textstyle E_{D}} for D {\displaystyle \textstyle D} takes as input any y ∈ X {\displaystyle \textstyle y\in X} and outputs a real number E D [ y ] {\displaystyle \textstyle E_{D}[y]} which denotes the probability that of y {\displaystyle \textstyle y} according to D {\displaystyle \textstyle D} , i.e. E D [ y ] = Pr [ Y = y ] {\displaystyle \textstyle E_{D}[y]=\Pr[Y=y]} if Y ∼ D {\displaystyle \textstyle Y\sim D} . generator a generator G D {\displaystyle \textstyle G_{D}} for D {\displaystyle \textstyle D} takes as input a string of truly random bits y {\displaystyle \textstyle y} and outputs G D [ y ] ∈ X {\displaystyle \textstyle G_{D}[y]\in X} according to the distribution D {\displaystyle \textstyle D} . Generator can be interpreted as a routine that simulates sampling from the distribution D {\displaystyle \textstyle D} given a sequence of fair coin tosses. A distribution D {\displaystyle \textstyle D} is called to have a polynomial generator (respectively evaluator) if its generator (respectively evaluator) exists and can be computed in polynomial time. Let C X {\displaystyle \textstyle C_{X}} a class of distribution over X, that is C X {\displaystyle \textstyle C_{X}} is a set such that every D ∈ C X {\displaystyle \textstyle D\in C_{X}} is a probability distribution with support X {\displaystyle \textstyle X} . The C X {\displaystyle \textstyle C_{X}} can also be written as C {\displaystyle \textstyle C} for simplicity. In order to evaluate learnability, it is necessary to have a way to measure how well an approximated distribution D ′ {\displaystyle \textstyle D'} fits the sampled distribution D {\displaystyle \textstyle D} . There are several ways to measure the divergence between two distributions. Three common possibilities are Kullback–Leibler divergence Total variation distance of probability measures Kolmogorov distance Total variation and Kolmogorov distance are true metrics, while KL divergence is not (it lacks symmetry). These measures are ordered by convergence strength: closeness in KL divergence implies closeness in total variation (via Pinsker's inequality), which in turn implies closeness in Kolmogorov distance. Therefore, a learnability result proven under KL divergence automatically holds under the weaker measures, but not vice versa. Since certain measures may be more appropriate in specific applications, we will use d ( D , D ′ ) {\displaystyle \textstyle d(D,D')} to denote a selected divergence between the distribution D {\displaystyle \textstyle D} and the distribution D ′ {\displaystyle \textstyle D'} . The basic input that we use in order to learn a distribution is a number of samples drawn by this distribution. For the computational point of view the assumption is that such a sample is given in a constant amount of time. So it's like having access to an oracle G E N ( D ) {\displaystyle \textstyle GEN(D)} that returns a sample from the distribution D {\displaystyle \textstyle D} . Sometimes the interest is, apart from measuring the time complexity, to measure the number of samples that have to be used in order to learn a specific distribution D {\displaystyle \textstyle D} in class of distributions C {\displaystyle \textstyle C} . This quantity is called sample complexity of the learning algorithm. In order for the problem of distribution learning to be more clear consider the problem of supervised learning as defined in. In this framework of statistical learning theory a training set S = { ( x 1 , y 1 ) , … , ( x n , y n ) } {\displaystyle \textstyle S=\{(x_{1},y_{1}),\dots ,(x_{n},y_{n})\}} and the goal is to find a target function f : X → Y {\displaystyle \textstyle f:X\rightarrow Y} that minimizes some loss function, e.g. the square loss function. More formally f = arg ⁡ min g ∫ V ( y , g ( x ) ) d ρ ( x , y ) {\displaystyle f=\arg \min _{g}\int V(y,g(x))d\rho (x,y)} , where V ( ⋅ , ⋅ ) {\displaystyle V(\cdot ,\cdot )} is the loss function, e.g. V ( y , z ) = ( y − z ) 2 {\displaystyle V(y,z)=(y-z)^{2}} and ρ ( x , y ) {\displaystyle \rho (x,y)} the probability distribution according to which the elements of the training set are sampled. If the conditional probability distribution ρ x ( y ) {\displaystyle \rho _{x}(y)} is known then the target function has the closed form f ( x ) = ∫ y y d ρ x ( y ) {\displaystyle f(x)=\int _{y}yd\rho _{x}(y)} . So the set S {\displaystyle S} is a set of samples from the probability distribution ρ ( x , y ) {\displaystyle \rho (x,y)} . Now the goal of distributional learning theory if to find ρ {\displaystyle \rho } given S {\displaystyle S} which can be used to find the target function f {\displaystyle f} . Definition of learnability A class of distributions C {\displaystyle \textstyle C} is called efficiently learnable if for every ϵ > 0 {\displaystyle \textstyle \epsilon >0} and 0 < δ ≤ 1 {\displaystyle \textstyle 0<\delta \leq 1} given access to G E N ( D ) {\displaystyle \textstyle GEN(D)} for an unknown distribution D ∈ C {\displaystyle \textstyle D\in C} , there exists a polynomial time algorithm A {\displaystyle \textstyle A} , called learning algorithm of C {\displaystyle \textstyle C} , that outputs a generator or an evaluator of a distribution D ′ {\displaystyle \textstyle D'} such that Pr [ d ( D , D ′ ) ≤ ϵ ] ≥ 1 − δ {\displaystyle \Pr[d(D,D')\leq \epsilon ]\geq 1-\delta } If we know that D ′ ∈ C {\displaystyle \textstyle D'\in C} then A {\displaystyle \textstyle A} is called proper learning algorithm, otherwise is called improper learning algorithm. In some settings the class of distributions C {\displaystyle \textstyle C} is a class with well known distributions which can be described by a set of parameters. For instance C {\displaystyle \textstyle C} could be the class of all the Gaussian distributions N ( μ , σ 2 ) {\displaystyle \textstyle N(\mu ,\sigma ^{2})} . In this case the algorithm A {\displaystyle \textstyle A} should be able to estimate the parameters μ , σ {\displaystyle \textstyle \mu ,\sigma } . In this case A {\displaystyle \textstyle A} is called parameter learning algorithm. Obviously the parameter learning for simple distributions is a very well studied field that is called statistical estimation and there is a very long bibliography on different estimators for different kinds of simple known distributions. But distributions learning theory deals with learning class of distributions that have more complicated description. == First results == In their seminal work, Kearns et al. deal with the case where A {\displaystyle \textstyle A} is described in term of a finite polynomial sized circuit and they proved the following for some specific classes of distribution. O R {\displaystyle \textstyle OR} gate distributions for this kind of distributions there is no polynomial-sized evaluator, unless # P ⊆ P / poly {\displaystyle \textstyle \#P\subseteq P/{\text{poly}}} . On the other hand, this class is efficiently learnable with generator. Parity gate distributions this class is efficiently learnable with both generator and evaluator. Mixtures of Hamming Balls this class is efficiently learnable with both generator and evaluator. Probabilistic Finite Automata this class is not efficiently learnable with evaluator under the Noisy Parity Assumption which is an impossibility assumption in the PAC learning fram
Read more →