AI Code Model Ranking

AI Code Model Ranking — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  KoalaPad

  The KoalaPad is a graphics tablet, released in 1983 by US company Koala Technologies Corporation, for the Apple II, TRS-80 Color Computer (as the TRS-80 Touch Pad), Atari 8-bit computers, Commodore 64, and IBM PC compatibles. Originally designed by Dr. David Thornburg as a low-cost computer drawing tool for schools, the Koala Pad and the bundled drawing program, KoalaPainter, was popular with home users as well. KoalaPainter was called KoalaPaint in some versions for the Apple II, and PC Design for the IBM PC. A program called Graphics Exhibitor was included for creating slideshow presentations from KoalaPainter drawings. == Description == The pad was four inches square (i.e. roughly 10×10 cm) and mounted on a slightly inclined base with the back of the pad higher than the front. At the top, "behind" the pad, were two buttons. The pad hooked into the computer using the analog signals of the joystick ports (the so-called paddle inputs), which meant that it had a low resolution and tended to jostle the cursor if moved during use. As an alternative to the drawing stylus, the pad could as easily be operated by the user's fingers for tasks that demanded less precision, such as selecting between menu items (thus using the pad as a kind of "indirect touch screen"). The top-mounted buttons tended to be somewhat frustrating to use, as the user had to "reach around" the stylus to push the buttons in order to start or stop drawing. A similar tablet from Atari, the Atari CX77 Touch Tablet, addressed this with a built-in button on the stylus, which some enterprising users adapted for use with their KoalaPad. == KoalaPainter == The pad shipped with a simple bitmap graphics editor developed by Audio Light called KoalaPainter, PC Design or Micro Illustrator depending on the target machine (see release history). Although bundled with the pad, KoalaPainter could also be operated using an ordinary digital joystick. One unique feature of the program, for its time, was that it held two pictures in the computer's memory, allowing the user to flip from one to the other—a function commonly used in order to study the differences between an original and a modified picture, and to copy and paste between two different pictures. Some third-party bitmap editors could also be used with the KoalaPad, such as Broderbund's Dazzle Draw for the Apple II. === Release history === KoalaPainter for Commodore 64 (1983) and Atari 8-bit computers (1983) PC Design for the IBM PC (1983) Micro Illustrator for the Apple II (1983), Atari 8-bit computers (1983) and Commodore Plus/4 (1984) KoalaPainter II for Commodore 64 (1984) === Reception === Ahoy! called KoalaPainter "a very powerful and effective color drawing package", and concluded that it and the KoalaPad were "excellent in ease of use, a fine choice for a beginner as well as young children". BYTE's reviewer stated in December 1984 that he made far fewer errors when using an Apple Mouse with MousePaint than with a KoalaPad and its software. He found that MousePaint was easier to use and more efficient, predicting that the mouse would receive more software support than the pad. Cassie Stahl in InfoWorld's Essential Guide to Atari Computers praised the tablet and its documentation, rating it "Excellent" among all categories and stating that "Playing with the KoalaPad becomes addictive. It does everything it claims to, and it does it well". She also liked Micro Illustrator, rating it "Excellent" except for "Good" for Performance. While criticizing the limited erase function, Stahl reported an undocumented feature enabling exporting pictures to other software. === File format === The Commodore 64 version of KoalaPainter used a fairly simple file format corresponding directly to the way bitmapped graphics are handled on the computer: A two-byte load address, followed immediately by 8,000 bytes of raw bitmap data, 1,000 bytes of raw "Video Matrix" data, 1,000 bytes of raw "Color RAM" data, and a one-byte Background Color field. == KoalaWare == Koala Technologies offered more software beyond the bundled KoalaPainter and Graphics Exhibitor for use with the pad. Among these applications, marketed under the moniker KoalaWare (like KoalaPainter itself), was educational software for use with customized keypads and overlays, such as spelling tools, music programs, and mathematics instruction software, as well as software for "translating" graphical designs into Logo programs.

  Read more →
• 

  EfficientNet

  EfficientNet is a family of convolutional neural networks (CNNs) for computer vision published by researchers at Google AI in 2019. Its key innovation is compound scaling, which uniformly scales all dimensions of depth, width, and resolution using a single parameter. EfficientNet models have been adopted in various computer vision tasks, including image classification, object detection, and segmentation. == Compound scaling == EfficientNet introduces compound scaling, which, instead of scaling one dimension of the network at a time, such as depth (number of layers), width (number of channels), or resolution (input image size), uses a compound coefficient ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } to scale all three dimensions simultaneously. Specifically, given a baseline network, the depth, width, and resolution are scaled according to the following equations: depth multiplier: d = α ϕ width multiplier: w = β ϕ resolution multiplier: r = γ ϕ {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}{\text{depth multiplier: }}d&=\alpha ^{\phi }\\{\text{width multiplier: }}w&=\beta ^{\phi }\\{\text{resolution multiplier: }}r&=\gamma ^{\phi }\end{aligned}}} subject to α ⋅ β 2 ⋅ γ 2 ≈ 2 {\displaystyle \alpha \cdot \beta ^{2}\cdot \gamma ^{2}\approx 2} and α ≥ 1 , β ≥ 1 , γ ≥ 1 {\displaystyle \alpha \geq 1,\beta \geq 1,\gamma \geq 1} . The α ⋅ β 2 ⋅ γ 2 ≈ 2 {\displaystyle \alpha \cdot \beta ^{2}\cdot \gamma ^{2}\approx 2} condition is such that increasing ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } by a factor of ϕ 0 {\displaystyle \phi _{0}} would increase the total FLOPs of running the network on an image approximately 2 ϕ 0 {\displaystyle 2^{\phi _{0}}} times. The hyperparameters α {\displaystyle \alpha } , β {\displaystyle \beta } , and γ {\displaystyle \gamma } are determined by a small grid search. The original paper suggested 1.2, 1.1, and 1.15, respectively. Architecturally, they optimized the choice of modules by neural architecture search (NAS), and found that the inverted bottleneck convolution (which they called MBConv) used in MobileNet worked well. The EfficientNet family is a stack of MBConv layers, with shapes determined by the compound scaling. The original publication consisted of 8 models, from EfficientNet-B0 to EfficientNet-B7, with increasing model size and accuracy. EfficientNet-B0 is the baseline network, and subsequent models are obtained by scaling the baseline network by increasing ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } . == Variants == EfficientNet has been adapted for fast inference on edge TPUs and centralized TPU or GPU clusters by NAS. EfficientNet V2 was published in June 2021. The architecture was improved by further NAS search with more types of convolutional layers. It also introduced a training method, which progressively increases image size during training, and uses regularization techniques like dropout, RandAugment, and Mixup. The authors claim this approach mitigates accuracy drops often associated with progressive resizing.

  Read more →
• 

  Kolmogorov–Arnold Networks

  Kolmogorov–Arnold Networks (KANs) are a type of artificial neural network architecture inspired by the Kolmogorov–Arnold representation theorem, also known as the superposition theorem. Unlike traditional multilayer perceptrons (MLPs), which rely on fixed activation functions and linear weights, KANs replace each weight with a learnable univariate function, often represented using splines. == History == KANs (Kolmogorov–Arnold Networks) were proposed by Liu et al. (2024) as a generalization of the Kolmogorov–Arnold representation theorem (KART), aiming to outperform MLPs in small-scale AI and scientific tasks. Before KANs, numerous studies explored KART's connections to neural networks or used it as a basis for designing new network architectures. In the 1980s and 1990s, early research applied KART to neural network design. Kůrková et al. (1992), Hecht-Nielsen (1987), and Nees (1994) established theoretical foundations for multilayer networks based on KART. Igelnik et al. (2003) introduced the Kolmogorov Spline Network using cubic splines to model complex functions. Sprecher (1996, 1997) introduced numerical methods for building network layers, while Nakamura et al. (1993) created activation functions with guaranteed approximation accuracy. These works linked KART's theoretical potential with practical neural network implementation. KART has also been used in other computational and theoretical fields. Coppejans (2004) developed nonparametric regression estimators using B-splines, Bryant (2008) applied it to high-dimensional image tasks, Liu (2015) investigated theoretical applications in optimal transport and image encryption, and more recently, Polar and Poluektov (2021) used Urysohn operators for efficient KART construction, while Fakhoury et al. (2022) introduced ExSpliNet, integrating KART with probabilistic trees and multivariate B-splines for improved function approximation. == Architecture == KANs are based on the Kolmogorov–Arnold representation theorem, which was linked to the 13th Hilbert problem. Given x = ( x 1 , x 2 , … , x n ) {\displaystyle x=(x_{1},x_{2},\dots ,x_{n})} consisting of n variables, a multivariate continuous function f ( x ) {\displaystyle f(x)} can be represented as: f ( x ) = f ( x 1 , … , x n ) = ∑ q = 1 2 n + 1 Φ q ( ∑ p = 1 n φ q , p ( x p ) ) {\displaystyle f(x)=f(x_{1},\dots ,x_{n})=\sum _{q=1}^{2n+1}\Phi _{q}\left(\sum _{p=1}^{n}\varphi _{q,p}(x_{p})\right)} (1) This formulation contains two nested summations: an outer and an inner sum. The outer sum ∑ q = 1 2 n + 1 {\displaystyle \sum _{q=1}^{2n+1}} aggregates 2 n + 1 {\displaystyle 2n+1} terms, each involving a function Φ q : R → R {\displaystyle \Phi _{q}:\mathbb {R} \to \mathbb {R} } . The inner sum ∑ p = 1 n {\displaystyle \sum _{p=1}^{n}} computes n terms for each q, where each term φ q , p : [ 0 , 1 ] → R {\displaystyle \varphi _{q,p}:[0,1]\to \mathbb {R} } is a continuous function of the single variable x p {\displaystyle x_{p}} . The inner continuous functions φ q , p {\displaystyle \varphi _{q,p}} are universal, independent of f {\displaystyle f} , while the outer functions Φ q {\displaystyle \Phi _{q}} depend on the specific function f {\displaystyle f} being represented. The representation (1) holds for all multivariate functions f {\displaystyle f} as proved in . If f {\displaystyle f} is continuous, then the outer functions Φ q {\displaystyle \Phi _{q}} are continuous; if f {\displaystyle f} is discontinuous, then the corresponding Φ q {\displaystyle \Phi _{q}} are generally discontinuous, while the inner functions φ q , p {\displaystyle \varphi _{q,p}} remain the same universal functions. Liu et al. proposed the name KAN. A general KAN network consisting of L layers takes x to generate the output as: K A N ( x ) = ( Φ L − 1 ∘ Φ L − 2 ∘ ⋯ ∘ Φ 1 ∘ Φ 0 ) x {\displaystyle \mathrm {KAN} (x)=(\Phi ^{L-1}\circ \Phi ^{L-2}\circ \cdots \circ \Phi ^{1}\circ \Phi ^{0})x} (3) Here, Φ l {\displaystyle \Phi ^{l}} is the function matrix of the l-th KAN layer or a set of pre-activations. Let i denote the neuron of the l-th layer and j the neuron of the (l+1)-th layer. The activation function φ j , i l {\displaystyle \varphi _{j,i}^{l}} connects (l, i) to (l+1, j): φ j , i l , l = 0 , … , L − 1 , i = 1 , … , n l , j = 1 , … , n l + 1 {\displaystyle \varphi _{j,i}^{l},\quad l=0,\dots ,L-1,\;i=1,\dots ,n_{l},\;j=1,\dots ,n_{l+1}} (4) where nl is the number of nodes of the l-th layer. Thus, the function matrix Φ l {\displaystyle \Phi ^{l}} can be represented as an n l + 1 × n l {\displaystyle n_{l+1}\times n_{l}} matrix of activations: x l + 1 = ( φ 1 , 1 l ( ⋅ ) φ 1 , 2 l ( ⋅ ) ⋯ φ 1 , n l l ( ⋅ ) φ 2 , 1 l ( ⋅ ) φ 2 , 2 l ( ⋅ ) ⋯ φ 2 , n l l ( ⋅ ) ⋮ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ φ n l + 1 , 1 l ( ⋅ ) φ n l + 1 , 2 l ( ⋅ ) ⋯ φ n l + 1 , n l l ( ⋅ ) ) x l {\displaystyle x^{l+1}={\begin{pmatrix}\varphi _{1,1}^{l}(\cdot )&\varphi _{1,2}^{l}(\cdot )&\cdots &\varphi _{1,n_{l}}^{l}(\cdot )\\\varphi _{2,1}^{l}(\cdot )&\varphi _{2,2}^{l}(\cdot )&\cdots &\varphi _{2,n_{l}}^{l}(\cdot )\\\vdots &\vdots &\ddots &\vdots \\\varphi _{n_{l+1},1}^{l}(\cdot )&\varphi _{n_{l+1},2}^{l}(\cdot )&\cdots &\varphi _{n_{l+1},n_{l}}^{l}(\cdot )\end{pmatrix}}x^{l}} == Implementations == To make the KAN layers optimizable, the inner function is formed by the combination of spline and basic functions as the formula: φ ( x ) = w b b ( x ) + w s spline ( x ) {\displaystyle \varphi (x)=w_{b}\,b(x)+w_{s}\,{\text{spline}}(x)} where b ( x ) {\displaystyle b(x)} is the basic function, usually defined as s i l u ( x ) = x / ( 1 + e x ) {\displaystyle silu(x)=x/(1+e^{x})} and w b {\displaystyle w_{b}} is the base weight matrix. Also, w s {\displaystyle w_{s}} is the spline weight matrix and spline ( x ) {\displaystyle {\text{spline}}(x)} is the spline function. The spline function can be a sum of B-splines. spline ( x ) = ∑ i c i B i ( x ) {\displaystyle {\text{spline}}(x)=\sum _{i}c_{i}B_{i}(x)} Many studies suggested to use other polynomial and curve functions instead of B-spline to create new KAN variants. == Functions used == The choice of functional basis strongly influences the performance of KANs. Common function families include: B-splines: Provide locality, smoothness, and interpretability; they are the most widely used in current implementations. RBFs (include Gaussian RBFs): Capture localized features in data and are effective in approximating functions with non-linear or clustered structures. Chebyshev polynomials: Offer efficient approximation with minimized error in the maximum norm, making them useful for stable function representation. Rational function: Useful for approximating functions with singularities or sharp variations, as they can model asymptotic behavior better than polynomials. Fourier series: Capture periodic patterns effectively and are particularly useful in domains such as physics-informed machine learning. Wavelet functions (DoG, Mexican hat, Morlet, and Shannon): Used for feature extraction as they can capture both high-frequency and low-frequency data components. Piecewise linear functions: Provide efficient approximation for multivariate functions in KANs. == Usage == In some modern neural architectures like convolutional neural networks (CNNs), recurrent neural networks (RNNs), and Transformers, KANs are typically used as drop-in substitutes for MLP layers. Despite KANs' general-purpose design, researchers have created and used them for a number of tasks: Scientific machine learning (SciML): Function fitting, partial differential equations (PDEs) and physical/mathematical laws. Continual learning: KANs better preserve previously learned information during incremental updates, avoiding catastrophic forgetting due to the locality of spline adjustments. Graph neural networks: Extensions such as Kolmogorov–Arnold Graph Neural Networks (KA-GNNs) integrate KAN modules into message-passing architectures, showing improvements in molecular property prediction tasks. Sensor data processing: Kolmogorov–Arnold Networks (KANs) have recently been applied to sensor data processing due to their ability to model complex nonlinear relationships with relatively few parameters and improved interpretability compared to conventional multilayer perceptrons. Applications include industrial soft sensors, biomedical signal analysis, remote sensing, and environmental monitoring systems. == Drawbacks == KANs can be computationally intensive and require a large number of parameters due to their use of polynomial functions to capture data.

  Read more →
• 

  Hybrid intelligent system

  Hybrid intelligent system denotes a software system which employs, in parallel, a combination of methods and techniques from artificial intelligence subfields, such as: Neuro-symbolic systems Neuro-fuzzy systems Hybrid connectionist-symbolic models Fuzzy expert systems Connectionist expert systems Evolutionary neural networks Genetic fuzzy systems Rough fuzzy hybridization Reinforcement learning with fuzzy, neural, or evolutionary methods as well as symbolic reasoning methods. From the cognitive science perspective, every natural intelligent system is hybrid because it performs mental operations on both the symbolic and subsymbolic levels. For the past few years, there has been an increasing discussion of the importance of A.I. Systems Integration. Based on notions that there have already been created simple and specific AI systems (such as systems for computer vision, speech synthesis, etc., or software that employs some of the models mentioned above) and now is the time for integration to create broad AI systems. Proponents of this approach are researchers such as Marvin Minsky, Ron Sun, Aaron Sloman, Angelo Dalli and Michael A. Arbib. An example hybrid is a hierarchical control system in which the lowest, reactive layers are sub-symbolic. The higher layers, having relaxed time constraints, are capable of reasoning from an abstract world model and performing planning (even by hybrid wisdom). Intelligent systems usually rely on hybrid reasoning processes, which include induction, deduction, abduction and reasoning by analogy.

  Read more →
• 

  Scientific Working Group – Imaging Technology

  The Scientific Working Group on Imaging Technology was convened by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in 1997 to provide guidance to law enforcement agencies and others in the criminal justice system regarding the best practices for photography, videography, and video and image analysis. This group was terminated in 2015. == History == As technology has advanced through the years, law enforcement has needed to stay abreast of emerging technological advances and use these in the investigation of crime. A factor that is considered when new technology is used in these investigations is the determination of whether the use of that new technology will be admissible in court. The judicial system in the United States currently has two standards used in the determination of admissibility of testimony regarding scientific evidence; the Daubert Standard and the Frye Standard. These standards guide the courts in the admissibility of testimony derived from the use of new technologies and scientific techniques. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), seeking to address possible admissibility issues with such testimony, established Scientific Working Groups starting with the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis and Methods (SWGDAM) in 1988. The goal of these groups is to open lines of communication between law enforcement agencies and forensic laboratories around the world while providing guidance on the use of new and innovative technologies and techniques. This guidance can lead to admissibility of evidence and/or testimony, provided proper methods in the collection of evidence and its analysis are employed. In 2009, the National Academy of Sciences released a report entitled, "Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward." This report addresses many topics including challenges and disparities facing the forensic science community, standardization, certification of practitioners and accreditation of their respective entities, problems related to the interpretation of forensic evidence, the need for research, and the admission of forensic science evidence in litigation. This report mentions the Scientific Working Groups and their role in forensic science. The history of imaging technology (photography) can be said to extend back to the times of Chinese philosopher Mo-Ti (470-390 B.C.) who described the principles behind the precursor to the camera obscura. Since that time, advances in imaging technology include the discovery of chemical photographic processes in the 19th century and the use of electronic imaging technology that includes analog video cameras and digital video and still cameras. By the mid 1990s, it was apparent that technologically advanced camera systems such as these were being adopted for use in the criminal justice system. This led the FBI to convene a meeting of individuals working in the field of forensic imaging from federal, state, local, and foreign law enforcement, and the U.S. military, during the summer of 1997. As a result of this meeting, the Technical Working Group on Imaging Technology was formed from a core group of the meeting’s participants. This group later became the Scientific Working Group on Imaging Technology (SWGIT). Prior to the inception of SWGIT, some law enforcement agencies began adopting digital imaging technology. Due to the lack of guidelines or standards, some of these agencies attempted to replace all their film cameras with substandard digital cameras, only to find that the equipment they had purchased was not capable of accomplishing the mission for which they were intended. At that time only low resolution digital cameras were deemed affordable by some law enforcement agencies. Some of these agencies were forced to rethink their photography procedures and reverted to the use of film cameras or replaced their low-resolution digital cameras with higher quality, more expensive equipment. Also lacking at this early stage was guidance on how to store and archive digital image files. When SWGIT was formed, it was tasked with providing guidance to law enforcement and others in the criminal justice system by releasing documents that describe the best practices and guidelines for the use of imaging technology, to include these concerns and many others. This group was terminated in 2015. == SWGIT Function == During its existence, SWGIT provided information on the appropriate use of various imaging technologies including both established and new. This was accomplished through the release of documents such as the SWGIT Best Practices documents. As changes in technology occurred, these documents were updated. Over the course of its existence, SWGIT collaborated with other Scientific Working Groups to address imaging concerns within their respective disciplines. SWGIT published over 20 documents that dealt specifically with imaging technology. SWGIT also co-published documents with the Scientific Working Group on Digital Evidence (SWGDE) that had a component or components dealing with imaging technology. SWGIT also provided imaging technology guidance and input for documents from the Scientific Working Group on Friction Ridge Analysis, Study and Technology (SWGFAST), the Scientific Working Group for Forensic Document Examination (SWGDOC), and the Scientific Working Group on Shoeprint and Tire Tread Evidence (SWGTREAD). SWGIT assisted the American Society of Crime Lab Directors/Laboratory Accreditation Board (ASCLD/LAB) in the writing of definitions and standards for the accreditation of Digital and Multimedia Evidence sections of crime laboratories. In addition to releasing documents, SWGIT members disseminated best practices for law enforcement professionals where imaging technology was concerned. This was carried out by attending and lecturing at meetings and conferences of various forensic organizations that included: The American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS) The International Association for Identification (IAI) The Law Enforcement and Emergency Services Video Association (LEVA) The American Society of Crime Lab Directors (ASCLD) The SWGIT membership consisted of approximately fifty scientists, photographers, instructors, and managers from more than two dozen federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies, as well as from the academic and research communities. The membership elected its officers from within. SWGIT was composed of the Executive Committee, four standing subcommittees, and ad hoc subcommittees appointed on an as-needed basis. The standing subcommittees were: Image Analysis, Forensic Photography, Video, and Outreach. This group was terminated in 2015. == Legal Proceedings == The following court cases have conducted Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) hearings in which SWGIT best practice documents have been cited as accepted protocol, methodology, and as generally accepted techniques in the forensic community: U. S. v. Rudy Frabizio, U.S. District Court, Boston, MA, 2008 (Image Authentication) U.S. v. Nobumochi Furukawa, U.S. District Court, Minnesota, 2007 (Video Authentication) U.S. v. John Stroman, U.S. District Court, South Carolina, 2007 (Facial Comparison Analysis) State of Texas v. Daniel Day, Tarrant County Texas, 2005 (Camera Identification to Images) U.S. v. Marc Watzman, U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois, 2004 (Video Authentication) U.S. v. McKreith, U.S. District Court, Fort Lauderdale, FL, 2002 (Photo comparison of shirt) == Termination == This group was unfunded by the FBI in 2015.

  Read more →
• 

  Dynamic epistemic logic

  Dynamic epistemic logic (DEL) is a logical framework dealing with knowledge and information change. Typically, DEL focuses on situations involving multiple agents and studies how their knowledge changes when events occur. These events can change factual properties of the actual world (they are called ontic events): for example a red card is painted in blue. They can also bring about changes of knowledge without changing factual properties of the world (they are called epistemic events): for example, a card is revealed publicly (or privately) to be red. Originally, DEL focused on epistemic events. Only some of the basic ideas are present in this entry of the original DEL framework; more details about DEL in general can be found in the references. Due to the nature of its object of study and its abstract approach, DEL is related and has applications to numerous research areas, such as computer science (artificial intelligence), philosophy (formal epistemology), economics (game theory) and cognitive science. In computer science, DEL is for example very much related to multi-agent systems, which are systems where multiple intelligent agents interact and exchange information. As a combination of dynamic logic and epistemic logic, dynamic epistemic logic is a young field of research. It really started in 1989 with Plaza's logic of public announcement. Independently, Gerbrandy and Groeneveld proposed a system dealing moreover with private announcement and that was inspired by the work of Veltman. Another system was proposed by van Ditmarsch whose main inspiration was the Cluedo game. But the most influential and original system was the system proposed by Baltag, Moss and Solecki. This system can deal with all the types of situations studied in the works above and its underlying methodology is conceptually grounded. This entry will present some of its basic ideas. Formally, DEL extends ordinary epistemic logic by the inclusion of event models to describe actions, and a product update operator that defines how epistemic models are updated as the consequence of executing actions described through event models. Epistemic logic will first be recalled. Then, actions and events will enter into the picture and we will introduce the DEL framework. == Epistemic logic == Epistemic logic is a modal logic dealing with the notions of knowledge and belief. As a logic, it is concerned with understanding the process of reasoning about knowledge and belief: which principles relating the notions of knowledge and belief are intuitively plausible? Like epistemology, it stems from the Greek word ϵ π ι σ τ η μ η {\displaystyle \epsilon \pi \iota \sigma \tau \eta \mu \eta } or ‘episteme’ meaning knowledge. Epistemology is nevertheless more concerned with analyzing the very nature and scope of knowledge, addressing questions such as “What is the definition of knowledge?” or “How is knowledge acquired?”. In fact, epistemic logic grew out of epistemology in the Middle Ages thanks to the efforts of Burley and Ockham. The formal work, based on modal logic, that inaugurated contemporary research into epistemic logic dates back only to 1962 and is due to Hintikka. It then sparked in the 1960s discussions about the principles of knowledge and belief and many axioms for these notions were proposed and discussed. For example, the interaction axioms K p → B p {\displaystyle Kp\rightarrow Bp} and B p → K B p {\displaystyle Bp\rightarrow KBp} are often considered to be intuitive principles: if an agent Knows p {\displaystyle p} then (s)he also Believes p {\displaystyle p} , or if an agent Believes p {\displaystyle p} , then (s)he Knows that (s)he Believes p {\displaystyle p} . More recently, these kinds of philosophical theories were taken up by researchers in economics, artificial intelligence and theoretical computer science where reasoning about knowledge is a central topic. Due to the new setting in which epistemic logic was used, new perspectives and new features such as computability issues were then added to the research agenda of epistemic logic. === Syntax === In the sequel, A G T S = { 1 , … , n } {\displaystyle AGTS=\{1,\ldots ,n\}} is a finite set whose elements are called agents and P R O P {\displaystyle PROP} is a set of propositional letters. The epistemic language is an extension of the basic multi-modal language of modal logic with a common knowledge operator C A {\displaystyle C_{A}} and a distributed knowledge operator D A {\displaystyle D_{A}} . Formally, the epistemic language L EL C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {L}}_{\textsf {EL}}^{C}} is defined inductively by the following grammar in BNF: L EL C : ϕ ::= p ∣ ¬ ϕ ∣ ( ϕ ∧ ϕ ) ∣ K j ϕ ∣ C A ϕ ∣ D A ϕ {\displaystyle {\mathcal {L}}_{\textsf {EL}}^{C}:\phi ~~::=~~p~\mid ~\neg \phi ~\mid ~(\phi \land \phi )~\mid ~K_{j}\phi ~\mid ~C_{A}\phi ~\mid ~D_{A}\phi } where p ∈ P R O P {\displaystyle p\in PROP} , j ∈ A G T S {\displaystyle j\in {AGTS}} and A ⊆ A G T S {\displaystyle A\subseteq {AGTS}} . The basic epistemic language L E L {\displaystyle {\mathcal {L}}_{EL}} is the language L E L C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {L}}_{EL}^{C}} without the common knowledge and distributed knowledge operators. The formula ⊥ {\displaystyle \bot } is an abbreviation for ¬ p ∧ p {\displaystyle \neg p\land p} (for a given p ∈ P R O P {\displaystyle p\in PROP} ), ⟨ K j ⟩ ϕ {\displaystyle \langle K_{j}\rangle \phi } is an abbreviation for ¬ K j ¬ ϕ {\displaystyle \neg K_{j}\neg \phi } , E A ϕ {\displaystyle E_{A}\phi } is an abbreviation for ⋀ j ∈ A K j ϕ {\displaystyle \bigwedge \limits _{j\in A}K_{j}\phi } and C ϕ {\displaystyle C\phi } an abbreviation for C A G T S ϕ {\displaystyle C_{AGTS}\phi } . Group notions: general, common and distributed knowledge. In a multi-agent setting there are three important epistemic concepts: general knowledge, distributed knowledge and common knowledge. The notion of common knowledge was first studied by Lewis in the context of conventions. It was then applied to distributed systems and to game theory, where it allows to express that the rationality of the players, the rules of the game and the set of players are commonly known. General knowledge. General knowledge of ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } means that everybody in the group of agents A G T S {\displaystyle {AGTS}} knows that ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } . Formally, this corresponds to the following formula: E ϕ := ⋀ j ∈ A G T S K j ϕ . {\displaystyle E\phi :={\underset {j\in {AGTS}}{\bigwedge }}K_{j}\phi .} Common knowledge. Common knowledge of ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } means that everybody knows ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } but also that everybody knows that everybody knows ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } , that everybody knows that everybody knows that everybody knows ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } , and so on ad infinitum. Formally, this corresponds to the following formula C ϕ := E ϕ ∧ E E ϕ ∧ E E E ϕ ∧ … {\displaystyle C\phi :=E\phi \land EE\phi \land EEE\phi \land \ldots } As we do not allow infinite conjunction the notion of common knowledge will have to be introduced as a primitive in our language. Before defining the language with this new operator, we are going to give an example introduced by Lewis that illustrates the difference between the notions of general knowledge and common knowledge. Lewis wanted to know what kind of knowledge is needed so that the statement p {\displaystyle p} : “every driver must drive on the right” be a convention among a group of agents. In other words, he wanted to know what kind of knowledge is needed so that everybody feels safe to drive on the right. Suppose there are only two agents i {\displaystyle i} and j {\displaystyle j} . Then everybody knowing p {\displaystyle p} (formally E p {\displaystyle Ep} ) is not enough. Indeed, it might still be possible that the agent i {\displaystyle i} considers possible that the agent j {\displaystyle j} does not know p {\displaystyle p} (formally ¬ K i K j p {\displaystyle \neg K_{i}K_{j}p} ). In that case the agent i {\displaystyle i} will not feel safe to drive on the right because he might consider that the agent j {\displaystyle j} , not knowing p {\displaystyle p} , could drive on the left. To avoid this problem, we could then assume that everybody knows that everybody knows that p {\displaystyle p} (formally E E p {\displaystyle EEp} ). This is again not enough to ensure that everybody feels safe to drive on the right. Indeed, it might still be possible that agent i {\displaystyle i} considers possible that agent j {\displaystyle j} considers possible that agent i {\displaystyle i} does not know p {\displaystyle p} (formally ¬ K i K j K i p {\displaystyle \neg K_{i}K_{j}K_{i}p} ). In that case and from i {\displaystyle i} ’s point of view, j {\displaystyle j} considers possible that i {\displaystyle i} , not knowing p {\displaystyle p} , will drive on the left. So from i {\displaystyle i} ’s point of view, j {\displaystyle j} might drive on the left as well (by the same argument as abov

  Read more →
• 

  Workplace impact of artificial intelligence

  The impact of artificial intelligence on workers includes both applications to improve worker safety and health, and potential hazards that must be controlled. One potential application is using AI to eliminate hazards by removing humans from hazardous situations that involve risk of stress, overwork, or musculoskeletal injuries. Predictive analytics may also be used to identify conditions that may lead to hazards such as fatigue, repetitive strain injuries, or toxic substance exposure, leading to earlier interventions. Another is to streamline workplace safety and health workflows through automating repetitive tasks, enhancing safety training programs through virtual reality, or detecting and reporting near misses. When used in the workplace, AI also presents the possibility of new hazards. These may arise from machine learning techniques leading to unpredictable behavior and inscrutability in their decision-making, or from cybersecurity and information privacy issues. Many hazards of AI are psychosocial due to its potential to cause changes in work organization. These include increased monitoring leading to micromanagement, algorithms unintentionally or intentionally mimicking undesirable human biases, and assigning blame for machine errors to the human operator instead. AI may also lead to physical hazards in the form of human–robot collisions, and ergonomic risks of control interfaces and human–machine interactions. Hazard controls include cybersecurity and information privacy measures, communication and transparency with workers about data usage, and limitations on collaborative robots. From a workplace safety and health perspective, only "weak" or "narrow" AI that is tailored to a specific task is relevant, as there are many examples that are currently in use or expected to come into use in the near future. Certain digital technologies are predicted to result in job losses. Starting in the 2020s, the adoption of modern robotics has led to net employment growth. However, many businesses anticipate that automation, or employing robots would result in job losses in the future. This is especially true for companies in Central and Eastern Europe. Other digital technologies, such as platforms or big data, are projected to have a more neutral impact on employment. A large number of tech workers have been laid off starting in 2023; many such job cuts have been attributed to artificial intelligence. == Health and safety applications == In order for any potential AI health and safety application to be adopted, it requires acceptance by both managers and workers. For example, worker acceptance may be diminished by concerns about information privacy, or from a lack of trust and acceptance of the new technology, which may arise from inadequate transparency or training. Alternatively, managers may emphasize increases in economic productivity rather than gains in worker safety and health when implementing AI-based systems. === Eliminating hazardous tasks === AI may increase the scope of work tasks where a worker can be removed from a situation that carries risk. In a sense, while traditional automation can replace the functions of a worker's body with a robot, AI effectively replaces the functions of their brain with a computer. Hazards that can be avoided include stress, overwork, musculoskeletal injuries, and boredom. This can expand the range of affected job sectors into white-collar and service sector jobs such as in medicine, finance, and information technology. === Analytics to reduce risk === Machine learning is used for people analytics to make predictions about worker behavior to assist management decision-making, such as hiring and performance assessment. These could also be used to improve worker health. The analytics may be based on inputs such as online activities, monitoring of communications, location tracking, and voice analysis and body language analysis of filmed interviews. For example, sentiment analysis may be used to spot fatigue to prevent overwork. Decision support systems have a similar ability to be used to, for example, prevent industrial disasters or make disaster response more efficient. For manual material handling workers, predictive analytics and artificial intelligence may be used to reduce musculoskeletal injury. Traditional guidelines are based on statistical averages and are geared towards anthropometrically typical humans. The analysis of large amounts of data from wearable sensors may allow real-time, personalized calculation of ergonomic risk and fatigue management, as well as better analysis of the risk associated with specific job roles. Wearable sensors may also enable earlier intervention against exposure to toxic substances than is possible with area or breathing zone testing on a periodic basis. Furthermore, the large data sets generated could improve workplace health surveillance, risk assessment, and research. === Streamlining safety and health workflows === AI has also been used to attempt to make the workplace safety and health workflow more efficient. One example is coding of workers' compensation claims, which are submitted in a prose narrative form and must manually be assigned standardized codes. AI is being investigated to perform this task faster, more cheaply, and with fewer errors. == Hazards == There are several broad aspects of AI that may give rise to specific hazards. The risks depend on implementation rather than the mere presence of AI. Systems using sub-symbolic AI such as machine learning may behave unpredictably and are more prone to inscrutability in their decision-making. This is especially true if a situation is encountered that was not part of the AI's training dataset, and is exacerbated in environments that are less structured. Undesired behavior may also arise from flaws in the system's perception (arising either from within the software or from sensor degradation), knowledge representation and reasoning, or from software bugs. They may arise from improper training, such as a user applying the same algorithm to two problems that do not have the same requirements. Machine learning applied during the design phase may have different implications than that applied at runtime. Systems using symbolic AI are less prone to unpredictable behavior. The use of AI also increases cybersecurity risks relative to platforms that do not use AI, and information privacy concerns about collected data may pose a hazard to workers. === Psychosocial === Psychosocial hazards are those that arise from the way work is designed, organized, and managed, or its economic and social contexts, rather than arising from a physical substance or object. They cause not only psychiatric and psychological outcomes such as occupational burnout, anxiety disorders, and depression, but they can also cause physical injury or illness such as cardiovascular disease or musculoskeletal injury. Many hazards of AI are psychosocial in nature due to its potential to cause changes in work organization, in terms of increasing complexity and interaction between different organizational factors. However, psychosocial risks are often overlooked by designers of advanced manufacturing systems. Einola and Khoreva explore how different organizational groups perceive and interact with AI technologies. Their research shows that successful AI integration depends on human ownership and contextual understanding. They caution against blind technological optimism and stress the importance of tailoring AI use to specific workplace ecosystems. This perspective reinforces the need for inclusive design and transparent implementation strategies. ==== Changes in work practices ==== Over-reliance on AI tools may lead to deskilling of some professions. When AI becomes a substitute for traditional peer collaboration and mentorship, there is a risk of diminishing opportunities for interpersonal skill development and team-based learning. Increased monitoring may lead to micromanagement and thus to stress and anxiety. A perception of surveillance may also lead to stress. Controls for these include consultation with worker groups, extensive testing, and attention to introduced bias. Wearable sensors, activity trackers, and augmented reality may also lead to stress from micromanagement, both for assembly line workers and gig workers. Gig workers also lack the legal protections and rights of formal workers. Newell & Marabelli argue that AI alters power dynamics and employee autonomy, requiring a more nuanced understanding of its social and organizational implications. There is also the risk of people being forced to work at a robot's pace, or to monitor robot performance at nonstandard hours. A 2025 preprint paper based on users' interactions with the AI chatbot Microsoft Copilot identified forty jobs that the author's claimed had high overlaps with the capabilities of AI. Some media outlets used this paper to report on jobs becoming obsolete. Cri

  Read more →
• 

  Rademacher complexity

  In computational learning theory (machine learning and theory of computation), Rademacher complexity, named after Hans Rademacher, measures richness of a class of sets with respect to a probability distribution. The concept can also be extended to real valued functions. == Definitions == === Rademacher complexity of a set === Given a set A ⊆ R m {\displaystyle A\subseteq \mathbb {R} ^{m}} , the Rademacher complexity of A is defined as follows: Rad ⁡ ( A ) := 1 m E σ [ sup a ∈ A ∑ i = 1 m σ i a i ] {\displaystyle \operatorname {Rad} (A):={\frac {1}{m}}\mathbb {E} _{\sigma }\left[\sup _{a\in A}\sum _{i=1}^{m}\sigma _{i}a_{i}\right]} where σ 1 , σ 2 , … , σ m {\displaystyle \sigma _{1},\sigma _{2},\dots ,\sigma _{m}} are independent random variables drawn from the Rademacher distribution i.e. Pr ( σ i = + 1 ) = Pr ( σ i = − 1 ) = 1 / 2 {\displaystyle \Pr(\sigma _{i}=+1)=\Pr(\sigma _{i}=-1)=1/2} for i ∈ { 1 , 2 , … , m } {\displaystyle i\in \{1,2,\dots ,m\}} , and a = ( a 1 , … , a m ) ∈ A {\displaystyle a=(a_{1},\ldots ,a_{m})\in A} . Some authors take the absolute value of the sum before taking the supremum, but if A {\displaystyle A} is symmetric this makes no difference. === Rademacher complexity of a function class === Let S = { z 1 , z 2 , … , z m } ⊆ Z {\displaystyle S=\{z_{1},z_{2},\dots ,z_{m}\}\subseteq Z} be a sample of points and consider a function class F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} of real-valued functions over Z {\displaystyle Z} . Then, the empirical Rademacher complexity of F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} given S {\displaystyle S} is defined as: Rad S ⁡ ( F ) = 1 m E σ [ sup f ∈ F | ∑ i = 1 m σ i f ( z i ) | ] {\displaystyle \operatorname {Rad} _{S}({\mathcal {F}})={\frac {1}{m}}\mathbb {E} _{\sigma }\left[\sup _{f\in {\mathcal {F}}}\left|\sum _{i=1}^{m}\sigma _{i}f(z_{i})\right|\right]} This can also be written using the previous definition: Rad S ⁡ ( F ) = Rad ⁡ ( F ∘ S ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {Rad} _{S}({\mathcal {F}})=\operatorname {Rad} ({\mathcal {F}}\circ S)} where F ∘ S {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}\circ S} denotes function composition, i.e.: F ∘ S := { ( f ( z 1 ) , … , f ( z m ) ) ∣ f ∈ F } {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}\circ S:=\{(f(z_{1}),\ldots ,f(z_{m}))\mid f\in {\mathcal {F}}\}} The worst case empirical Rademacher complexity is Rad ¯ m ( F ) = sup S = { z 1 , … , z m } Rad S ⁡ ( F ) {\displaystyle {\overline {\operatorname {Rad} }}_{m}({\mathcal {F}})=\sup _{S=\{z_{1},\dots ,z_{m}\}}\operatorname {Rad} _{S}({\mathcal {F}})} Let P {\displaystyle P} be a probability distribution over Z {\displaystyle Z} . The Rademacher complexity of the function class F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} with respect to P {\displaystyle P} for sample size m {\displaystyle m} is: Rad P , m ⁡ ( F ) := E S ∼ P m [ Rad S ⁡ ( F ) ] {\displaystyle \operatorname {Rad} _{P,m}({\mathcal {F}}):=\mathbb {E} _{S\sim P^{m}}\left[\operatorname {Rad} _{S}({\mathcal {F}})\right]} where the above expectation is taken over an identically independently distributed (i.i.d.) sample S = ( z 1 , z 2 , … , z m ) {\displaystyle S=(z_{1},z_{2},\dots ,z_{m})} generated according to P {\displaystyle P} . == Intuition == The Rademacher complexity is typically applied on a function class of models that are used for classification, with the goal of measuring their ability to classify points drawn from a probability space under arbitrary labellings. When the function class is rich enough, it contains functions that can appropriately adapt for each arrangement of labels, simulated by the random draw of σ i {\displaystyle \sigma _{i}} under the expectation, so that this quantity in the sum is maximized. The Rademacher complexity of a set A {\displaystyle A} can be rewritten as Rad ⁡ ( A ) := 1 m E σ [ sup a ∈ A ∑ i = 1 m σ i a i ] = 1 m 2 m ∑ σ ∈ { − 1 / m , + 1 / m } m [ sup a ∈ A ⟨ σ , a ⟩ ] . {\displaystyle \operatorname {Rad} (A):={\frac {1}{m}}\mathbb {E} _{\sigma }\left[\sup _{a\in A}\sum _{i=1}^{m}\sigma _{i}a_{i}\right]={\frac {1}{{\sqrt {m}}2^{m}}}\sum _{\sigma \in \{-1/{\sqrt {m}},+1/{\sqrt {m}}\}^{m}}\left[\sup _{a\in A}\langle \sigma ,a\rangle \right].} Each term in the summation is the farthest distance of the set A {\displaystyle A} from the origin, along a unit-length direction σ {\displaystyle \sigma } . The directions are along the vertices of a hypercube. Thus, we can also write it as Rad ⁡ ( A ) = 1 2 m 1 2 m − 1 ∑ σ ∈ { − 1 / m , + 1 / m } m / { − 1 , + 1 } [ sup a ∈ A ⟨ σ , a ⟩ − inf a ∈ A ⟨ σ , a ⟩ ] {\displaystyle \operatorname {Rad} (A)={\frac {1}{2{\sqrt {m}}}}{\frac {1}{2^{m-1}}}\sum _{\sigma \in \{-1/{\sqrt {m}},+1/{\sqrt {m}}\}^{m}/\{-1,+1\}}\left[\sup _{a\in A}\langle \sigma ,a\rangle -\inf _{a\in A}\langle \sigma ,a\rangle \right]} Here, the set { − 1 / m , + 1 / m } m / { − 1 , + 1 } {\displaystyle \{-1/{\sqrt {m}},+1/{\sqrt {m}}\}^{m}/\{-1,+1\}} denotes half of the vertices of a hypercube, selected so that each diagonal has exactly one vertex selected. In words, this states that 2 m Rad ⁡ ( A ) {\displaystyle 2{\sqrt {m}}\operatorname {Rad} (A)} is precisely the average width of the set A {\displaystyle A} along all diagonal directions of a hypercube. == Examples == A singleton set has 0 width in any direction, so it has Rademacher complexity 0. The set A = { ( 1 , 1 ) , ( 1 , 2 ) } ⊆ R 2 {\displaystyle A=\{(1,1),(1,2)\}\subseteq \mathbb {R} ^{2}} has average width 1 / 2 {\displaystyle 1/{\sqrt {2}}} along the two diagonal directions of the square, so it has Rademacher complexity 1 / 4 {\displaystyle 1/4} . The unit cube [ 0 , 1 ] m {\displaystyle [0,1]^{m}} has constant width m {\displaystyle {\sqrt {m}}} along the diagonal directions, so it has Rademacher complexity 1 / 2 {\displaystyle 1/2} . Similarly, the unit cross-polytope { x ∈ R m : ‖ x ‖ 1 ≤ 1 } {\displaystyle \{x\in \mathbb {R} ^{m}:\|x\|_{1}\leq 1\}} has constant width 2 / m {\displaystyle 2/{\sqrt {m}}} along the diagonal directions, so it has Rademacher complexity 1 / m {\displaystyle 1/m} . == Using the Rademacher complexity == The Rademacher complexity can be used to derive data-dependent upper-bounds on the learnability of function classes. Intuitively, a function-class with smaller Rademacher complexity is easier to learn. === Bounding the representativeness === In machine learning, it is desired to have a training set that represents the true distribution of some sample data S {\displaystyle S} . This can be quantified using the notion of representativeness. Denote by P {\displaystyle P} the probability distribution from which the samples are drawn. Denote by H {\displaystyle H} the set of hypotheses (potential classifiers) and denote by F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} the corresponding set of error functions, i.e., for every hypothesis h ∈ H {\displaystyle h\in H} , there is a function f h ∈ F {\displaystyle f_{h}\in F} , that maps each training sample (features,label) to the error of the classifier h {\displaystyle h} (note in this case hypothesis and classifier are used interchangeably). For example, in the case that h {\displaystyle h} represents a binary classifier, the error function is a 0–1 loss function, i.e. the error function f h {\displaystyle f_{h}} returns 0 if h {\displaystyle h} correctly classifies a sample and 1 else. We omit the index and write f {\displaystyle f} instead of f h {\displaystyle f_{h}} when the underlying hypothesis is irrelevant. Define: L P ( f ) := E z ∼ P [ f ( z ) ] {\displaystyle L_{P}(f):=\mathbb {E} _{z\sim P}[f(z)]} – the expected error of some error function f ∈ F {\displaystyle f\in {\mathcal {F}}} on the real distribution P {\displaystyle P} ; L S ( f ) := 1 m ∑ i = 1 m f ( z i ) {\displaystyle L_{S}(f):={1 \over m}\sum _{i=1}^{m}f(z_{i})} – the estimated error of some error function f ∈ F {\displaystyle f\in {\mathcal {F}}} on the sample S {\displaystyle S} . The representativeness of the sample S {\displaystyle S} , with respect to P {\displaystyle P} and F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} , is defined as: Rep P ⁡ ( F , S ) := sup f ∈ F ( L P ( f ) − L S ( f ) ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {Rep} _{P}({\mathcal {F}},S):=\sup _{f\in F}(L_{P}(f)-L_{S}(f))} Smaller representativeness is better, since it provides a way to avoid overfitting: it means that the true error of a classifier is not much higher than its estimated error, and so selecting a classifier that has low estimated error will ensure that the true error is also low. Note however that the concept of representativeness is relative and hence can not be compared across distinct samples. The expected representativeness of a sample can be bounded above by the Rademacher complexity of the function class: If F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} is a set of functions with range within [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle [0,1]} , then Rad P , m ⁡ ( F ) − ln ⁡ 2 2 m ≤ E S ∼ P m [ Rep P ⁡ ( F , S ) ] ≤ 2 Rad P , m ⁡ ( F ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {Rad} _{P,m}({\mathcal {F}})-{\sqrt {\frac {\ln 2}{2m}}}\leq \mathbb {E} _{S\sim P^{m}}[\operatorname {Rep} _{P}({\

  Read more →
• 

  Plotting algorithms for the Mandelbrot set

  There are many programs and algorithms used to plot the Mandelbrot set and other fractals, some of which are described in fractal-generating software. These programs use a variety of algorithms to determine the color of individual pixels efficiently. == Escape time algorithm == The simplest algorithm for generating a representation of the Mandelbrot set is known as the "escape time" algorithm. A repeating calculation is performed for each x, y point in the plot area and based on the behavior of that calculation, a color is chosen for that pixel. === Unoptimized naïve escape time algorithm === In both the unoptimized and optimized escape time algorithms, the x and y locations of each point are used as starting values in a repeating, or iterating calculation (described in detail below). The result of each iteration is used as the starting values for the next. The values are checked during each iteration to see whether they have reached a critical "escape" condition, or "bailout". If that condition is reached, the calculation is stopped, the pixel is drawn, and the next x, y point is examined. For some starting values, escape occurs quickly, after only a small number of iterations. For starting values very close to but not in the set, it may take hundreds or thousands of iterations to escape. For values within the Mandelbrot set, escape will never occur. The programmer or user must choose how many iterations–or how much "depth"–they wish to examine. The higher the maximal number of iterations, the more detail and subtlety emerge in the final image, but the longer time it will take to calculate the fractal image. Escape conditions can be simple or complex. Because no complex number with a real or imaginary part greater than 2 can be part of the set, a common bailout is to escape when either coefficient exceeds 2. A more computationally complex method that detects escapes sooner, is to compute distance from the origin using the Pythagorean theorem, i.e., to determine the absolute value, or modulus, of the complex number. If this value exceeds 2, or equivalently, when the sum of the squares of the real and imaginary parts exceed 4, the point has reached escape. More computationally intensive rendering variations include the Buddhabrot method, which finds escaping points and plots their iterated coordinates. The color of each point represents how quickly the values reached the escape point. Often black is used to show values that fail to escape before the iteration limit, and gradually brighter colors are used for points that escape. This gives a visual representation of how many cycles were required before reaching the escape condition. To render such an image, the region of the complex plane we are considering is subdivided into a certain number of pixels. To color any such pixel, let c {\displaystyle c} be the midpoint of that pixel. We now iterate the critical point 0 under P c {\displaystyle P_{c}} , checking at each step whether the orbit point has modulus larger than 2. When this is the case, we know that c {\displaystyle c} does not belong to the Mandelbrot set, and we color our pixel according to the number of iterations used to find out. Otherwise, we keep iterating up to a fixed number of steps, after which we decide that our parameter is "probably" in the Mandelbrot set, or at least very close to it, and color the pixel black. In pseudocode, this algorithm would look as follows. The algorithm does not use complex numbers and manually simulates complex-number operations using two real numbers, for those who do not have a complex data type. The program may be simplified if the programming language includes complex-data-type operations. for each pixel (Px, Py) on the screen do x0 := scaled x coordinate of pixel (scaled to lie in the Mandelbrot X scale (-2.00, 0.47)) y0 := scaled y coordinate of pixel (scaled to lie in the Mandelbrot Y scale (-1.12, 1.12)) x := 0.0 y := 0.0 iteration := 0 max_iteration := 1000 while (xx + yy ≤ 22 AND iteration < max_iteration) do xtemp := xx - yy + x0 y := 2xy + y0 x := xtemp iteration := iteration + 1 color := palette[iteration] plot(Px, Py, color) Here, relating the pseudocode to c {\displaystyle c} , z {\displaystyle z} and P c {\displaystyle P_{c}} : z = x + i y {\displaystyle z=x+iy\ } z 2 = x 2 + 2 i x y {\displaystyle z^{2}=x^{2}+2ixy} - y 2 {\displaystyle y^{2}\ } c = x 0 + i y 0 {\displaystyle c=x_{0}+iy_{0}\ } and so, as can be seen in the pseudocode in the computation of x and y: x = R e ⁡ ( z 2 + c ) = x 2 − y 2 + x 0 {\displaystyle x=\mathop {\mathrm {Re} } (z^{2}+c)=x^{2}-y^{2}+x_{0}} and y = I m ⁡ ( z 2 + c ) = 2 x y + y 0 . {\displaystyle y=\mathop {\mathrm {Im} } (z^{2}+c)=2xy+y_{0}.\ } To get colorful images of the set, the assignment of a color to each value of the number of executed iterations can be made using one of a variety of functions (linear, exponential, etc.). One practical way, without slowing down calculations, is to use the number of executed iterations as an entry to a palette initialized at startup. If the color table has, for instance, 500 entries, then the color selection is n mod 500, where n is the number of iterations. === Optimized escape time algorithms === The code in the previous section uses an unoptimized inner while loop for clarity. In the unoptimized version, one must perform five multiplications per iteration. To reduce the number of multiplications the following code for the inner while loop may be used instead: x2:= 0 y2:= 0 w:= 0 while (x2 + y2 ≤ 4 and iteration < max_iteration) do x:= x2 - y2 + x0 y:= w - x2 - y2 + y0 x2:= x x y2:= y y w:= (x + y) (x + y) iteration:= iteration + 1 The above code works via some algebraic simplification of the complex multiplication: ( i y + x ) 2 = − y 2 + 2 i y x + x 2 = x 2 − y 2 + 2 i y x {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}(iy+x)^{2}&=-y^{2}+2iyx+x^{2}\\&=x^{2}-y^{2}+2iyx\end{aligned}}} Using the above identity, the number of multiplications can be reduced to three instead of five. The above inner while loop can be further optimized by expanding w to w = x 2 + 2 x y + y 2 {\displaystyle w=x^{2}+2xy+y^{2}} Substituting w into y = w − x 2 − y 2 + y 0 {\displaystyle y=w-x^{2}-y^{2}+y_{0}} yields y = 2 x y + y 0 {\displaystyle y=2xy+y_{0}} and hence calculating w is no longer needed. The further optimized pseudocode for the above is: x:= 0 y:= 0 x2:= 0 y2:= 0 while (x2 + y2 ≤ 4 and iteration < max_iteration) do x2:= x x y2:= y y y:= 2 x y + y0 x:= x2 - y2 + x0 iteration:= iteration + 1 Note that in the above pseudocode, 2 x y {\displaystyle 2xy} seems to increase the number of multiplications by 1, but since 2 is the multiplier the code can be optimized via ( x + x ) y {\displaystyle (x+x)y} . == Coloring algorithms == In addition to plotting the set, a variety of algorithms have been developed to efficiently color the set in an aesthetically pleasing way show structures of the data (scientific visualisation) === Histogram coloring === A more complex coloring method involves using a histogram which pairs each pixel with said pixel's maximum iteration count before escape/bailout. This method will equally distribute colors to the same overall area, and, importantly, is independent of the maximum number of iterations chosen. This algorithm has four passes. The first pass involves calculating the iteration counts associated with each pixel (but without any pixels being plotted). These are stored in an array IterationCounts[x][y], where x and y are the x and y coordinates of said pixel on the screen respectively. The first step of the second pass is to create an array NumIterationsPerPixel[n], where the array size n is the maximum iteration count. Next, one must iterate over the array of pixel-iteration count pairs IterationCounts[x][y], and retrieve each pixel's saved iteration count, i, via e.g. i = IterationCounts[x][y]. After each pixel's iteration count i is retrieved, it is necessary to index the NumIterationsPerPixel array at i and increment the indexed value (which is initially zero) -- e.g. NumIterationsPerPixel[i] = NumIterationsPerPixel[i] + 1. for (x = 0; x < width; x++) do for (y = 0; y < height; y++) do i:= IterationCounts[x][y] NumIterationsPerPixel[i]++ The third pass iterates through the NumIterationsPerPixel array and adds up all the stored values, saving them in total. The array index represents the number of pixels that reached that iteration count before bailout. total: = 0 for (i = 0; i < max_iterations; i++) do total += NumIterationsPerPixel[i] After this, the fourth pass begins and all the values in the IterationCounts array are indexed, and, for each iteration count i, associated with each pixel, the count is added to a global sum of all the iteration counts from 1 to i in the NumIterationsPerPixel array . This value is then normalized by dividing the sum by the total value computed earlier. hue[][]:= 0.0 for (x = 0; x < width; x++) do for (y = 0; y < height; y++) do iteration:= Iteration

  Read more →
• 

  Kernel embedding of distributions

  In machine learning, the kernel embedding of distributions (also called the kernel mean or mean map) comprises a class of nonparametric methods in which a probability distribution is represented as an element of a reproducing kernel Hilbert space (RKHS). A generalization of the individual data-point feature mapping done in classical kernel methods, the embedding of distributions into infinite-dimensional feature spaces can preserve all of the statistical features of arbitrary distributions, while allowing one to compare and manipulate distributions using Hilbert space operations such as inner products, distances, projections, linear transformations, and spectral analysis. This learning framework is very general and can be applied to distributions over any space Ω {\displaystyle \Omega } on which a sensible kernel function (measuring similarity between elements of Ω {\displaystyle \Omega } ) may be defined. For example, various kernels have been proposed for learning from data which are: vectors in R d {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{d}} , discrete classes/categories, strings, graphs/networks, images, time series, manifolds, dynamical systems, and other structured objects. The theory behind kernel embeddings of distributions has been primarily developed by Alex Smola, Le Song, Arthur Gretton, and Bernhard Schölkopf. A review of recent works on kernel embedding of distributions can be found in. The analysis of distributions is fundamental in machine learning and statistics, and many algorithms in these fields rely on information theoretic approaches such as entropy, mutual information, or Kullback–Leibler divergence. However, to estimate these quantities, one must first either perform density estimation, or employ sophisticated space-partitioning/bias-correction strategies which are typically infeasible for high-dimensional data. Commonly, methods for modeling complex distributions rely on parametric assumptions that may be unfounded or computationally challenging (e.g. Gaussian mixture models), while nonparametric methods like kernel density estimation (Note: the smoothing kernels in this context have a different interpretation than the kernels discussed here) or characteristic function representation (via the Fourier transform of the distribution) break down in high-dimensional settings. Methods based on the kernel embedding of distributions sidestep these problems and also possess the following advantages: Data may be modeled without restrictive assumptions about the form of the distributions and relationships between variables Intermediate density estimation is not needed Practitioners may specify the properties of a distribution most relevant for their problem (incorporating prior knowledge via choice of the kernel) If a characteristic kernel is used, then the embedding can uniquely preserve all information about a distribution, while thanks to the kernel trick, computations on the potentially infinite-dimensional RKHS can be implemented in practice as simple Gram matrix operations Dimensionality-independent rates of convergence for the empirical kernel mean (estimated using samples from the distribution) to the kernel embedding of the true underlying distribution can be proven. Learning algorithms based on this framework exhibit good generalization ability and finite sample convergence, while often being simpler and more effective than information theoretic methods Thus, learning via the kernel embedding of distributions offers a principled drop-in replacement for information theoretic approaches and is a framework which not only subsumes many popular methods in machine learning and statistics as special cases, but also can lead to entirely new learning algorithms. == Definitions == Let X {\displaystyle X} denote a random variable with domain Ω {\displaystyle \Omega } and distribution P {\displaystyle P} . Given a symmetric, positive-definite kernel k : Ω × Ω → R {\displaystyle k:\Omega \times \Omega \rightarrow \mathbb {R} } the Moore–Aronszajn theorem asserts the existence of a unique RKHS H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} on Ω {\displaystyle \Omega } (a Hilbert space of functions f : Ω → R {\displaystyle f:\Omega \to \mathbb {R} } equipped with an inner product ⟨ ⋅ , ⋅ ⟩ H {\displaystyle \langle \cdot ,\cdot \rangle _{\mathcal {H}}} and a norm ‖ ⋅ ‖ H {\displaystyle \|\cdot \|_{\mathcal {H}}} ) for which k {\displaystyle k} is a reproducing kernel, i.e., in which the element k ( x , ⋅ ) {\displaystyle k(x,\cdot )} satisfies the reproducing property ⟨ f , k ( x , ⋅ ) ⟩ H = f ( x ) ∀ f ∈ H , ∀ x ∈ Ω . {\displaystyle \langle f,k(x,\cdot )\rangle _{\mathcal {H}}=f(x)\qquad \forall f\in {\mathcal {H}},\quad \forall x\in \Omega .} One may alternatively consider x ↦ k ( x , ⋅ ) {\displaystyle x\mapsto k(x,\cdot )} as an implicit feature mapping φ : Ω → H {\displaystyle \varphi :\Omega \rightarrow {\mathcal {H}}} (which is therefore also called the feature space), so that k ( x , x ′ ) = ⟨ φ ( x ) , φ ( x ′ ) ⟩ H {\displaystyle k(x,x')=\langle \varphi (x),\varphi (x')\rangle _{\mathcal {H}}} can be viewed as a measure of similarity between points x , x ′ ∈ Ω . {\displaystyle x,x'\in \Omega .} While the similarity measure is linear in the feature space, it may be highly nonlinear in the original space depending on the choice of kernel. === Kernel embedding === The kernel embedding of the distribution P {\displaystyle P} in H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} (also called the kernel mean or mean map) is given by: μ X := E [ k ( X , ⋅ ) ] = E [ φ ( X ) ] = ∫ Ω φ ( x ) d P ( x ) {\displaystyle \mu _{X}:=\mathbb {E} [k(X,\cdot )]=\mathbb {E} [\varphi (X)]=\int _{\Omega }\varphi (x)\ \mathrm {d} P(x)} If P {\displaystyle P} allows a square integrable density p {\displaystyle p} , then μ X = E k p {\displaystyle \mu _{X}={\mathcal {E}}_{k}p} , where E k {\displaystyle {\mathcal {E}}_{k}} is the Hilbert–Schmidt integral operator. A kernel is characteristic if the mean embedding μ : { family of distributions over Ω } → H {\displaystyle \mu :\{{\text{family of distributions over }}\Omega \}\to {\mathcal {H}}} is injective. Each distribution can thus be uniquely represented in the RKHS and all statistical features of distributions are preserved by the kernel embedding if a characteristic kernel is used. === Empirical kernel embedding === Given n {\displaystyle n} training examples { x 1 , … , x n } {\displaystyle \{x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n}\}} drawn independently and identically distributed (i.i.d.) from P , {\displaystyle P,} the kernel embedding of P {\displaystyle P} can be empirically estimated as μ ^ X = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n φ ( x i ) {\displaystyle {\widehat {\mu }}_{X}={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}\varphi (x_{i})} === Joint distribution embedding === If Y {\displaystyle Y} denotes another random variable (for simplicity, assume the co-domain of Y {\displaystyle Y} is also Ω {\displaystyle \Omega } with the same kernel k {\displaystyle k} which satisfies ⟨ φ ( x ) ⊗ φ ( y ) , φ ( x ′ ) ⊗ φ ( y ′ ) ⟩ = k ( x , x ′ ) k ( y , y ′ ) {\displaystyle \langle \varphi (x)\otimes \varphi (y),\varphi (x')\otimes \varphi (y')\rangle =k(x,x')k(y,y')} ), then the joint distribution P ( x , y ) ) {\displaystyle P(x,y))} can be mapped into a tensor product feature space H ⊗ H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}\otimes {\mathcal {H}}} via C X Y = E [ φ ( X ) ⊗ φ ( Y ) ] = ∫ Ω × Ω φ ( x ) ⊗ φ ( y ) d P ( x , y ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}_{XY}=\mathbb {E} [\varphi (X)\otimes \varphi (Y)]=\int _{\Omega \times \Omega }\varphi (x)\otimes \varphi (y)\ \mathrm {d} P(x,y)} By the equivalence between a tensor and a linear map, this joint embedding may be interpreted as an uncentered cross-covariance operator C X Y : H → H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}_{XY}:{\mathcal {H}}\to {\mathcal {H}}} from which the cross-covariance of functions f , g ∈ H {\displaystyle f,g\in {\mathcal {H}}} can be computed as Cov ⁡ ( f ( X ) , g ( Y ) ) := E [ f ( X ) g ( Y ) ] − E [ f ( X ) ] E [ g ( Y ) ] = ⟨ f , C X Y g ⟩ H = ⟨ f ⊗ g , C X Y ⟩ H ⊗ H {\displaystyle \operatorname {Cov} (f(X),g(Y)):=\mathbb {E} [f(X)g(Y)]-\mathbb {E} [f(X)]\mathbb {E} [g(Y)]=\langle f,{\mathcal {C}}_{XY}g\rangle _{\mathcal {H}}=\langle f\otimes g,{\mathcal {C}}_{XY}\rangle _{{\mathcal {H}}\otimes {\mathcal {H}}}} Given n {\displaystyle n} pairs of training examples { ( x 1 , y 1 ) , … , ( x n , y n ) } {\displaystyle \{(x_{1},y_{1}),\dots ,(x_{n},y_{n})\}} drawn i.i.d. from P {\displaystyle P} , we can also empirically estimate the joint distribution kernel embedding via C ^ X Y = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n φ ( x i ) ⊗ φ ( y i ) {\displaystyle {\widehat {\mathcal {C}}}_{XY}={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}\varphi (x_{i})\otimes \varphi (y_{i})} === Conditional distribution embedding === Given a conditional distribution P ( y ∣ x ) , {\displaystyle P(y\mid x),} one can define the corresponding RKHS embedding as μ Y ∣ x = E [ φ ( Y ) ∣ X ] = ∫ Ω φ ( y ) d P ( y ∣ x ) {\displaystyle \mu _{Y\mid x}=\mathbb {E} [\varphi (Y)\mid X]=\int _{\Omega

  Read more →
• 

  Artificial general intelligence

  Artificial general intelligence (AGI) is a hypothetical type of artificial intelligence that matches or surpasses human capabilities across virtually all cognitive tasks. Beyond AGI, artificial superintelligence (ASI) would outperform the best human abilities across every domain by a wide margin. Unlike artificial narrow intelligence (ANI), whose competence is confined to well‑defined tasks, an AGI system can generalise knowledge, transfer skills between domains, and solve novel problems without task‑specific reprogramming. Creating AGI is a stated goal of technology companies such as OpenAI, Google, xAI, and Meta. A 2020 survey identified 72 active AGI research and development projects across 37 countries. AGI is a common topic in science fiction and futures studies. Contention exists over whether AGI represents an existential risk. Some AI experts and industry figures have stated that mitigating the risk of human extinction posed by AGI should be a global priority. Others find the development of AGI to be in too remote a stage to present such a risk. == Terminology == AGI is also known as strong AI, full AI, human-level AI, human-level intelligent AI, or general intelligent action. The term "artificial general intelligence" was used in 1997 by Mark Gubrud in a discussion of the implications of fully automated military production and operations. A mathematical formalism of AGI named AIXI was proposed in 2000 by Marcus Hutter, who defines intelligence as "an agent’s ability to achieve goals or succeed in a wide range of environments". This type of AGI has also been called "universal artificial intelligence". The term AGI was re-introduced and popularized by Shane Legg and Ben Goertzel around 2002. Some academic sources reserve the term "strong AI" for computer programs that will experience sentience or consciousness. In contrast, weak AI (or narrow AI) can solve a specific problem but lacks general cognitive abilities. Some academic sources use "weak AI" to refer more broadly to any programs that neither experience consciousness nor have a mind in the same sense as humans. Related concepts include artificial superintelligence and transformative AI. An artificial superintelligence (ASI) is a hypothetical type of AGI that is much more generally intelligent than humans, while the notion of transformative AI relates to AI having a large impact on society, for example, similar to the agricultural or industrial revolution. A framework for classifying AGI was proposed in 2023 by Google DeepMind researchers. They define five performance levels of AGI: emerging, competent, expert, virtuoso, and superhuman. For example, a competent AGI is defined as an AI that outperforms 50% of skilled adults in a wide range of non-physical tasks, and a superhuman AGI (i.e., an artificial superintelligence) is similarly defined but with a threshold of 100%. They consider large language models like ChatGPT or LLaMA 2 to be instances of emerging AGI (comparable to unskilled humans). Regarding the autonomy of AGI and associated risks, they define five levels: tool (fully in human control), consultant, collaborator, expert, and agent (fully autonomous). == Characteristics == There is no single agreed-upon definition of intelligence as applied to computers. Computer scientist John McCarthy wrote in 2007: "We cannot yet characterize in general what kinds of computational procedures we want to call intelligent." === Intelligence traits === Researchers generally hold that a system is required to do all of the following to be regarded as an AGI: reason, use strategy, solve puzzles, and make judgments under uncertainty, represent knowledge, including common sense knowledge, plan, learn, communicate in natural language, if necessary, integrate these skills in completion of any given goal. Many interdisciplinary approaches (e.g. cognitive science, computational intelligence, and decision making) consider additional traits such as imagination (the ability to form novel mental images and concepts) and autonomy. Computer-based systems exhibiting these capabilities are now widespread, with modern large language models demonstrating computational creativity, automated reasoning, and decision support simultaneously across domains. === Physical traits === Other capabilities are considered desirable in intelligent systems, as they may affect intelligence or aid in its expression. These include: the ability to sense (e.g. see, hear, etc.), and the ability to act (e.g. move and manipulate objects, change location to explore, etc.) This includes the ability to detect and respond to hazard. === Tests for human-level AGI === Several tests meant to confirm human-level AGI have been considered. ==== Turing test ==== The Turing test was proposed by Alan Turing in his 1950 paper "Computing Machinery and Intelligence". This test involves a human judge engaging in natural language conversations with both a human and a machine designed to generate human-like responses. The machine passes the test if it can convince the judge that it is human a significant fraction of the time. Turing proposed this as a practical measure of machine intelligence, focusing on the ability to produce human-like responses rather than on the internal workings of the machine. The idea of the test is that the machine has to try and pretend to be a man, by answering questions put to it, and it will only pass if the pretence is reasonably convincing. A considerable portion of a jury, who should not be experts about machines, must be taken in by the pretence. In 2014, a chatbot named Eugene Goostman, designed to imitate a 13-year-old Ukrainian boy, reportedly passed a Turing Test event by convincing 33% of judges that it was human. However, this claim was met with significant skepticism from the AI research community, who questioned the test's implementation and its relevance to AGI. A 2025 pre‑registered, three‑party Turing‑test study by Cameron R. Jones and Benjamin K. Bergen showed that GPT-4.5 was judged to be the human in 73% of five‑minute text conversations—surpassing the 67% humanness rate of real confederates and meeting the researchers' criterion for having passed the test. ==== Ikea test ==== The "Ikea test", also known as the Flat Pack Furniture Test, involves an AI controlling a robot which attempts to assemble an Ikea flat-pack furniture product after having been shown the parts and instructions. As early as 2013, MIT's IkeaBot demonstrated fully autonomous multi-robot assembly of an IKEA Lack table in ten minutes, with no human intervention and no pre-programmed assembly instructions. The robots inferred the assembly sequence from the geometry of the parts alone. ==== Coffee test ==== Steve Wozniak proposed a test where a machine is required to enter an average American home and figure out how to make coffee. It must find the coffee machine, find the coffee, add water, find a mug, and brew the coffee by pushing the proper buttons. This test has been substantially approached across multiple systems. In January 2024, Figure AI's Figure 01 humanoid learned to operate a Keurig coffee machine autonomously after watching video demonstrations, using end-to-end neural networks to translate visual input into motor actions. In 2025, researchers at the University of Edinburgh published the ELLMER framework in Nature Machine Intelligence, demonstrating a robotic arm that interprets verbal instructions, analyses its surroundings, and autonomously makes coffee in dynamic kitchen environments — adapting to unforeseen obstacles in real time rather than following pre-programmed sequences. ==== Suleyman's test ==== Mustafa Suleyman's test proposes giving an AI model US$100,000 and asking it to obtain US$1 million. ==== Use of video-games ==== Adams, et al. propose that the ability to learn and succeed in a wide range of video games can be used to test AI intelligence. This range would include games unknown to the AGI developers before the test is administered. === AI-complete problems === A problem is informally called "AI-complete" or "AI-hard" if it is believed that AGI would be needed to solve it, because the solution is beyond the capabilities of a purpose-specific algorithm. == History == === Classical AI === Modern AI research began in the mid-1950s. The first generation of AI researchers were convinced that artificial general intelligence was possible and that it would exist in just a few decades. AI pioneer Herbert A. Simon wrote in 1965: "machines will be capable, within twenty years, of doing any work a man can do". Their predictions were the inspiration for Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke's fictional character HAL 9000, who embodied what AI researchers believed they could create by the year 2001. AI pioneer Marvin Minsky was a consultant on the project of making HAL 9000 as realistic as possible according to the consensus predictions of the time. He said in 1967, "Within a generation... the problem of

  Read more →
• 

  Knowledge integration

  Knowledge integration is the process of synthesizing multiple knowledge models (or representations) into a common model (representation). Compared to information integration, which involves merging information having different schemas and representation models, knowledge integration focuses more on synthesizing the understanding of a given subject from different perspectives. For example, multiple interpretations are possible of a set of student grades, typically each from a certain perspective. An overall, integrated view and understanding of this information can be achieved if these interpretations can be put under a common model, say, a student performance index. The Web-based Inquiry Science Environment (WISE), from the University of California at Berkeley has been developed along the lines of knowledge integration theory. Knowledge integration has also been studied as the process of incorporating new information into a body of existing knowledge with an interdisciplinary approach. This process involves determining how the new information and the existing knowledge interact, how existing knowledge should be modified to accommodate the new information, and how the new information should be modified in light of the existing knowledge. A learning agent that actively investigates the consequences of new information can detect and exploit a variety of learning opportunities; e.g., to resolve knowledge conflicts and to fill knowledge gaps. By exploiting these learning opportunities the learning agent is able to learn beyond the explicit content of the new information. The machine learning program KI, developed by Murray and Porter at the University of Texas at Austin, was created to study the use of automated and semi-automated knowledge integration to assist knowledge engineers constructing a large knowledge base. A possible technique which can be used is semantic matching. More recently, a technique useful to minimize the effort in mapping validation and visualization has been presented which is based on Minimal Mappings. Minimal mappings are high quality mappings such that i) all the other mappings can be computed from them in time linear in the size of the input graphs, and ii) none of them can be dropped without losing property i). The University of Waterloo operates a Bachelor of Knowledge Integration undergraduate degree program as an academic major or minor. The program started in 2008.

  Read more →
• 

  Blobotics

  Blobotics is a term describing research into chemical-based computer processors based on ions rather than electrons. Andrew Adamatzky, a computer scientist at the University of the West of England, Bristol used the term in an article in New Scientist March 28, 2005 [1]. The aim is to create 'liquid logic gates' which would be 'infinitely reconfigurable and self-healing'. The process relies on the Belousov–Zhabotinsky reaction, a repeating cycle of three separate sets of reactions. Such a processor could form the basis of a robot which, using artificial sensors, interact with its surroundings in a way which mimics living creatures. The coining of the term was featured by ABC radio in Australia [2].

  Read more →
• 

  Inductive probability

  Inductive probability attempts to give the probability of future events based on past events. It is the basis for inductive reasoning, and gives the mathematical basis for learning and the perception of patterns. It is a source of knowledge about the world. There are three sources of knowledge: inference, communication, and deduction. Communication relays information found using other methods. Deduction establishes new facts based on existing facts. Inference establishes new facts from data. Its basis is Bayes' theorem. Information describing the world is written in a language. For example, a simple mathematical language of propositions may be chosen. Sentences may be written down in this language as strings of characters. But in the computer it is possible to encode these sentences as strings of bits (1s and 0s). Then the language may be encoded so that the most commonly used sentences are the shortest. This internal language implicitly represents probabilities of statements. Occam's razor says the "simplest theory, consistent with the data is most likely to be correct". The "simplest theory" is interpreted as the representation of the theory written in this internal language. The theory with the shortest encoding in this internal language is most likely to be correct. == History == Probability and statistics was focused on probability distributions and tests of significance. Probability was formal, well defined, but limited in scope. In particular its application was limited to situations that could be defined as an experiment or trial, with a well defined population. Bayes's theorem is named after Rev. Thomas Bayes 1701–1761. Bayesian inference broadened the application of probability to many situations where a population was not well defined. But Bayes' theorem always depended on prior probabilities, to generate new probabilities. It was unclear where these prior probabilities should come from. Ray Solomonoff developed algorithmic probability which gave an explanation for what randomness is and how patterns in the data may be represented by computer programs, that give shorter representations of the data circa 1964. Chris Wallace and D. M. Boulton developed minimum message length circa 1968. Later Jorma Rissanen developed the minimum description length circa 1978. These methods allow information theory to be related to probability, in a way that can be compared to the application of Bayes' theorem, but which give a source and explanation for the role of prior probabilities. Marcus Hutter combined decision theory with the work of Ray Solomonoff and Andrey Kolmogorov to give a theory for the Pareto optimal behavior for an Intelligent agent, circa 1998. === Minimum description/message length === The program with the shortest length that matches the data is the most likely to predict future data. This is the thesis behind the minimum message length and minimum description length methods. At first sight Bayes' theorem appears different from the minimimum message/description length principle. At closer inspection it turns out to be the same. Bayes' theorem is about conditional probabilities, and states the probability that event B happens if firstly event A happens: P ( A ∧ B ) = P ( B ) ⋅ P ( A | B ) = P ( A ) ⋅ P ( B | A ) {\displaystyle P(A\land B)=P(B)\cdot P(A|B)=P(A)\cdot P(B|A)} becomes in terms of message length L, L ( A ∧ B ) = L ( B ) + L ( A | B ) = L ( A ) + L ( B | A ) . {\displaystyle L(A\land B)=L(B)+L(A|B)=L(A)+L(B|A).} This means that if all the information is given describing an event then the length of the information may be used to give the raw probability of the event. So if the information describing the occurrence of A is given, along with the information describing B given A, then all the information describing A and B has been given. ==== Overfitting ==== Overfitting occurs when the model matches the random noise and not the pattern in the data. For example, take the situation where a curve is fitted to a set of points. If a polynomial with many terms is fitted then it can more closely represent the data. Then the fit will be better, and the information needed to describe the deviations from the fitted curve will be smaller. Smaller information length means higher probability. However, the information needed to describe the curve must also be considered. The total information for a curve with many terms may be greater than for a curve with fewer terms, that has not as good a fit, but needs less information to describe the polynomial. === Inference based on program complexity === Solomonoff's theory of inductive inference is also inductive inference. A bit string x is observed. Then consider all programs that generate strings starting with x. Cast in the form of inductive inference, the programs are theories that imply the observation of the bit string x. The method used here to give probabilities for inductive inference is based on Solomonoff's theory of inductive inference. ==== Detecting patterns in the data ==== If all the bits are 1, then people infer that there is a bias in the coin and that it is more likely also that the next bit is 1 also. This is described as learning from, or detecting a pattern in the data. Such a pattern may be represented by a computer program. A short computer program may be written that produces a series of bits which are all 1. If the length of the program K is L ( K ) {\displaystyle L(K)} bits then its prior probability is, P ( K ) = 2 − L ( K ) {\displaystyle P(K)=2^{-L(K)}} The length of the shortest program that represents the string of bits is called the Kolmogorov complexity. Kolmogorov complexity is not computable. This is related to the halting problem. When searching for the shortest program some programs may go into an infinite loop. ==== Considering all theories ==== The Greek philosopher Epicurus is quoted as saying "If more than one theory is consistent with the observations, keep all theories". As in a crime novel all theories must be considered in determining the likely murderer, so with inductive probability all programs must be considered in determining the likely future bits arising from the stream of bits. Programs that are already longer than n have no predictive power. The raw (or prior) probability that the pattern of bits is random (has no pattern) is 2 − n {\displaystyle 2^{-n}} . Each program that produces the sequence of bits, but is shorter than the n is a theory/pattern about the bits with a probability of 2 − k {\displaystyle 2^{-k}} where k is the length of the program. The probability of receiving a sequence of bits y after receiving a series of bits x is then the conditional probability of receiving y given x, which is the probability of x with y appended, divided by the probability of x. ==== Universal priors ==== The programming language affects the predictions of the next bit in the string. The language acts as a prior probability. This is particularly a problem where the programming language codes for numbers and other data types. Intuitively we think that 0 and 1 are simple numbers, and that prime numbers are somehow more complex than numbers that may be composite. Using the Kolmogorov complexity gives an unbiased estimate (a universal prior) of the prior probability of a number. As a thought experiment an intelligent agent may be fitted with a data input device giving a series of numbers, after applying some transformation function to the raw numbers. Another agent might have the same input device with a different transformation function. The agents do not see or know about these transformation functions. Then there appears no rational basis for preferring one function over another. A universal prior insures that although two agents may have different initial probability distributions for the data input, the difference will be bounded by a constant. So universal priors do not eliminate an initial bias, but they reduce and limit it. Whenever we describe an event in a language, either using a natural language or other, the language has encoded in it our prior expectations. So some reliance on prior probabilities are inevitable. A problem arises where an intelligent agent's prior expectations interact with the environment to form a self reinforcing feed back loop. This is the problem of bias or prejudice. Universal priors reduce but do not eliminate this problem. === Universal artificial intelligence === The theory of universal artificial intelligence applies decision theory to inductive probabilities. The theory shows how the best actions to optimize a reward function may be chosen. The result is a theoretical model of intelligence. It is a fundamental theory of intelligence, which optimizes the agents behavior in, Exploring the environment; performing actions to get responses that broaden the agents knowledge. Competing or co-operating with another agent; games. Balancing short and long term rewards. In general no agent will always provi

  Read more →
• 

  Croissant (metadata format)

  Croissant is a metadata format design to support sharing of datasets for machine learning applications. It is a platform-agnostic schema used to standardize metadata in data repositories like Hugging Face, kaggle, Dataverse and OpenML. == Structure == Croissant builds upon schema.org, uses primarily JSON-LD, and divides metadata in four "layers": Dataset Metadata, Resource, Structure and Semantic: The Dataset Metadata layer constrains which schema.org properties should be used, including additional properties, linking together the resources (files) of the dataset with general metadata, like licensing and citation information. The Resource layer describes the individual files and sets of those using two new classes, FileObject and FileSet. A FileSet may be a collection of related images. The Structure layer specifies how the files are organized in the dataset. A RecordSet class describes how resources are present, configurations that may very a lot between modality. This specification facilitates interoperability of the datasets. Finally, the Semantic layer adds information for practical reuse of the dataset, such as splits for train, test and validation subsets. It also provides a default extension for metadata related to responsible AI. The use of a standard machine-readable structure increases, for example, the discoverability of datasets in search engines such as Google Dataset Search. == History == Croissant was shared in arXiv in March 2024 and published in the proceedings of NeurIPS 2024. It started as community driven as a MLCommons Croissant Working Group, including stakeholders organizations from academia and industry, including Google, the open data institute, Sage Bionetworks and King's College London. Variations of Croissant are developed to support datasets in different areas of research, such as Geo-Croissant for geospatial datasets. Other technical extensions, such as support for RDF, soon followed.

  Read more →