AI Coder Youtube

AI Coder Youtube — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

QANDA

QANDA (stands for 'Q and A') is an AI-based learning platform developed by Mathpresso Inc., a South Korea-based education technology company. Its best known feature is a solution search, which uses optical character recognition technology to scan problems and provide step-by-step solutions and learning content. As of March 2024, QANDA solved over 6.3 billion questions. QANDA has 90 million total registered users and has reached 8 million monthly active users (MAU) in 50 countries. 90% of the cumulative users are from overseas such as Vietnam and Indonesia. In January 2024, its MathGPT, a math-specific small large language model set a new world record, surpassed Microsoft's 'ToRA 13B', the previous record holder in benchmarks assessing mathematical performance such as 'MATH' (high school math) and 'GSM8K' (grade school math). 'MathGPT' was co-developed with Upstage and KT. In March 2024, Mathpresso launched 'Cramify' (formerly known as Prep.Pie), an AI-powered study material generator designed to create personalized exam prep materials for U.S. college students. It uses generative AI to create customized study materials uploaded by students. Its features include a range of tools including study summarizer and question solver. == History == Co-founder Jongheun ‘Ray’ Lee first came up with the idea of QANDA during his freshman year in college. While he was tutoring to earn money, Lee realized that the quality of education a student receives is greatly based on their location. Lee saw his K-12 students were regularly asking similar questions and realized that these questions were from a pre-selected number of textbooks currently being used in schools. He decided to team up with his high school friend, Yongjae ‘Jake’ Lee to build a platform whereby, one uses a mobile app to scan and submit questions, and students can ask and receive detailed responses. Lee's school friends, Wonguk Jung and Hojae Jeong, joined the team. In June 2015, Mathpresso, Inc. was founded in Seoul, South Korea. In January 2016, Mathpresso's first product QANDA was launched. It supported a Q&A feature between students and tutors. In October 2017, QANDA introduced an AI-based search capability that permitted users to search for answers in seconds. In April 2020, Jake Yongjae Lee(CEO & co-founder) and Ray Jongheun Lee (co-founder) were selected as Forbes 30 under 30 Asia. In June 2021, QANDA raised $50 million in series C funding. Jake Yongjae Lee was recognized as an Innovator Under 35 by MIT Technology Review. In November 2021, QANDA secured a strategic investment from Google. Since its inception, it has received backing in Series C funding from investors namely Google, Yellowdog, GGV Capital, Goodwater Capital, KDB, and SKS Private Equity with participation from SoftBank Ventures Asia, Legend Capital, Mirae Asset Venture Investment, and Smilegate Investment. In September 2023, Mathpresso has raised $8 million (10 billion KRW) from Korea's telecom giant, KT. The total cumulative investment is about 130 million US dollars. The partnership aims to accelerate the development of an education-specific Large Language Model. The company intends to incorporate the LLM model to fortify its AI tutor, which later will be integrated into the existing services: QANDA App, B2B & B2G Saas, and 1:1 online tutoring (QANDA Tutor). == Features == QANDA features OCR-based solution search, one-on-one Q&A tutoring, a study timer. In 2021, QANDA launched additional features, including the premium subscription model that offers unlimited “byte-sized” micro-video lectures and the community feature that enhances collaborative learning. In 2021, QANDA launched QANDA Tutor, a tablet-based 1:1 tutoring service and QANDA Study, a 1:N online school in Vietnam. In 2022, QANDA launched an exam prep feature that offers past exam materials from school via online. This feature is currently available in South Korea. In August 2023, QANDA launched a beta version of an LLM-powered AI Tutor. == Awards and recognition == Best Hidden Gems of 2017 by Google Playstore 2018 AWS AI Startup Challenge Award National representative for the Google AI for Social Good APAC, 2018 Best Self-Improvement Apps of 2018 by Google Playstore GSV Edtech 150 — the Most Transformational Growth Companies in Digital Learning Speaker at the Google App Summit, 2021 Selected as a prospect unicorn company by Korea Technology Finance Corporation in 2023 Winner of G20-DIA Global Pitching in 2023 2021, 2022, 2023 East Asia EdTech 150 by HolonIQ
Read more →
Pommerman Challenge

The Pommerman Challenge is a multi-agent game to test autonomous artificial intelligence systems. == Game structure == Two-agent team compete against each other on an 11 x 11 board. Each agent can observe only part of the board, and the agents cannot communicate. The goal is to knock down the opponents. Agents place explosives to destroy walls and collect power-ups that appear from those walls, while avoiding death. Game objects can move unpredictably or be moved by an agent. == Play == The game involves real-time decision making. Agents must choose moves in about .1 seconds. == Algorithms == The real-time requirement limits the use of compute-heavy techniques such as Monte Carlo tree search. The branching factor at each move can be as large as 1,296, because all four agents act in each step, choosing among six possibilities. The agents choose by accounting for explosions, which have lifetimes of 10 steps. Explosions derail tree search techniques, as searches with less than 10 levels ignore explosions while deeper searches consider too many choices (given the branching factor). A hybrid approach uses a limited-depth tree search followed by exploring a deterministic/pessimistic scenario. Limiting the depth keeps the search tree small. The deterministic approach can predict far in the future, by omitting branching. "Good" actions are often those that perform well under pessimistic scenarios, particularly if safety is important. Identifying the worst sequence of positions for an object can suggest where to move it. After generating pessimistic scenarios, the agent quantifies the survivability of each move, notionally the number of positions in which the agent can then remain safely (without encountering other agents). == Competitions == 3 competitions were organized with slightly changing rules during 2018–2019. === Online - FFA === This round was a warm-up online event, where each competitor controlled only one agent. Results: 1st: Agent47Agent by Yichen Gong 2nd: aiKiller by Márton Görög === NeurIPS 2018 - Team === The first Pommerman competition with in-person finals. Results: 1st: hakozakijunctions by Toshihiro Takahashi 2nd: eisenach by Márton Görög 3rd: dypm by Takayuki Osogami The 3 best performing solutions used online tree search. === NeurIPS 2019 - Team Radio === The second competition with in-person finals improved communication between teammate agents. Results: 1st: Márton Görög 2nd: Paul Jasek 3rd: Yifan Zhang
Read more →
Herbrand Award

The Herbrand Award for Distinguished Contributions to Automated Reasoning is an award given by the Conference on Automated Deduction (CADE), Inc., (although it predates the formal incorporation of CADE) to honour persons or groups for important contributions to the field of automated deduction. The award is named after the French scientist Jacques Herbrand and given at most once per CADE or International Joint Conference on Automated Reasoning (IJCAR). It comes with a prize of US$1,000. Anyone can be nominated, the award is awarded after a vote among CADE trustees and former recipients, usually with input from the CADE/IJCAR programme committee. == Recipients == Past award recipients are: === 1990s === Larry Wos (1992) Woody Bledsoe (1994) John Alan Robinson (1996) Wu Wenjun (1997) Gérard Huet (1998) Robert S. Boyer and J Strother Moore (1999) === 2000s === William W. McCune (2000) Donald W. Loveland (2001) Mark E. Stickel (2002). Peter B. Andrews (2003) Harald Ganzinger (2004) Martin Davis (2005) Wolfgang Bibel (2006) Alan Bundy (2007) Edmund M. Clarke (2008) Deepak Kapur (2009) === 2010s === David Plaisted (2010) Nachum Dershowitz (2011) Melvin Fitting (2012) C. Greg Nelson (2013) Robert L. Constable (2014) Andrei Voronkov (2015) Zohar Manna and Richard Waldinger (2016) Lawrence C. Paulson (2017) Bruno Buchberger (2018) Nikolaj Bjørner and Leonardo de Moura (2019) === 2020s === Franz Baader (2020) Tobias Nipkow (2021) Natarajan Shankar (2022) Moshe Vardi (2023) Armin Biere (2024) Aart Middeldorp (2025)
Read more →
Xaitment

xaitment is a German-based company that develops and sells artificial intelligence (AI) software to video game developers and simulation developers. The company was founded in 2004 by Dr. Andreas Gerber, and is a spin-off of the German Research Centre for Artificial Intelligence, or DFKI. xaitment has its main office in Quierschied, Germany, and field offices in San Francisco and China. == Products == xaitment currently sells two AI software modules: xaitMap and xaitControl. xaitMap provides runtime libraries and graphical tools for navigation mesh generation (also called NavMesh generation), pathfinding, dynamic collision avoidance, and individual and crowd movement. xaitControl is a finite-state machine for game logic and character behavior modeling that also includes a real-time debugger. On January 11, 2012, xaitment announced that it making its source code for these modules available to "all current and future US and European licensees". On February 22, 2012 xaitment released two new plug-ins, xaitMap and xaitControl for the Unity Game Engine. The full versions are available for PC (Windows and Linux), PlayStation 3, Xbox 360 and Wii. The pathfinding plug-in is available with a Windows dev environment, but can deployed on iOS, Mac, Android and the Unity Web Player. == Partners == xaitment's AI software is currently integrated into the Unity game engine, Havok's Vision Engine, Bohemia Interactive's VBS2 Simulation Engine, GameBase's Gamebryo game engine. == Customers == xaitment sells its AI software products to video game developers and military and civil simulation developers. Current customers include Tencent, gamania, TML Studios, Emobi Games, IP Keys and others. A full list of customers can be found on xaitment's website.
Read more →
Turret lathe

A turret lathe is a form of metalworking lathe that is used for repetitive production of duplicate parts, which by the nature of their cutting process are usually interchangeable. It evolved from earlier lathes with the addition of the turret, which is an indexable toolholder that allows multiple cutting operations to be performed, each with a different cutting tool, in easy, rapid succession, with no need for the operator to perform set-up tasks in between (such as installing or uninstalling tools) or to control the toolpath. The latter is due to the toolpath's being controlled by the machine, either in jig-like fashion, via the mechanical limits placed on it by the turret's slide and stops, or via digitally-directed servomechanisms for computer numerical control lathes. The name derives from the way early turrets took the general form of a flattened cylindrical block mounted to the lathe's cross-slide, capable of rotating about the vertical axis and with toolholders projecting out to all sides, and thus vaguely resembled a swiveling gun turret. Capstan lathe is the usual name in the UK and Commonwealth, though the two terms are also used in contrast: see below, Capstan versus turret. == History == Turret lathes became indispensable to the production of interchangeable parts and for mass production. The first turret lathe was built by Stephen Fitch in 1845 to manufacture screws for pistol percussion parts. In the mid-nineteenth century, the need for interchangeable parts for Colt revolvers enhanced the role of turret lathes in achieving this goal as part of the "American system" of manufacturing arms. Clock-making and bicycle manufacturing had similar requirements. Christopher Spencer invented the first fully automated turret lathe in 1873, which led to designs using cam action or hydraulic mechanisms. From the late-19th through mid-20th centuries, turret lathes, both manual and automatic (i.e., screw machines and chuckers), were one of the most important classes of machine tools for mass production. They were used extensively in the mass production for the war effort in World War II. The U.S. company Warner & Swasey was one of the premier brands in heavy turret lathes between the 1910s and 1960s; it became the world's largest manufacturer of such lathes by 1928. During World War II, it employed 7,000 people and produced half of the turret lathes manufactured in the United States. == Types == There are many variants of the turret lathe. They can be most generally classified by size (small, medium, or large); method of control (manual, automated mechanically, or automated via computer (numerical control (NC) or computer numerical control (CNC)); and bed orientation (horizontal or vertical). === Archetypical: horizontal, manual === In the late 1830s a "capstan lathe" with a turret was patented in Britain. The first American turret lathe was invented by Stephen Fitch in 1845. The archetypical turret lathe, and the first in order of historical appearance, is the horizontal-bed, manual turret lathe. The term "turret lathe" without further qualification is still understood to refer to this type. The formative decades for this class of machine were the 1840s through 1860s, when the basic idea of mounting an indexable turret on a bench lathe or engine lathe was born, developed, and disseminated from the originating shops to many other factories. Some important tool-builders in this development were Stephen Fitch; Gay, Silver & Co.; Elisha K. Root of Colt; J.D. Alvord of the Sharps Armory; Frederick W. Howe, Richard S. Lawrence, and Henry D. Stone of Robbins & Lawrence; J.R. Brown of Brown & Sharpe; and Francis A. Pratt of Pratt & Whitney. Various designers at these and other firms later made further refinements. === Semi-automatic === Sometimes machines similar to those above, but with power feeds and automatic turret-indexing at the end of the return stroke, are called "semi-automatic turret lathes". This nomenclature distinction is blurry and not consistently observed. The term "turret lathe" encompasses them all. During the 1860s, when semi-automatic turret lathes were developed, they were sometimes called "automatic". What we today would call "automatics", that is, fully automatic machines, had not been developed yet. During that era both manual and semi-automatic turret lathes were sometimes called "screw machines", although we today reserve that term for fully automatic machines. === Automatic === During the 1870s through 1890s, the mechanically automated "automatic" turret lathe was developed and disseminated. These machines can execute many part-cutting cycles without human intervention. Thus the duties of the operator, which were already greatly reduced by the manual turret lathe, were even further reduced, and productivity increased. These machines use cams to automate the sliding and indexing of the turret and the opening and closing of the chuck. Thus, they execute the part-cutting cycle somewhat analogously to the way in which an elaborate cuckoo clock performs an automated theater show. Small- to medium-sized automatic turret lathes are usually called "screw machines" or "automatic screw machines", while larger ones are usually called "automatic chucking lathes", "automatic chuckers", or "chuckers". Such machine tools of the "automatic" variety, which in the pre-computer era meant mechanically automated, had already reached a highly advanced state by World War I. === Computer numerical control === When World War II ended, the digital computer was poised to develop from a colossal laboratory curiosity into a practical technology that could begin to disseminate into business and industry. The advent of computer-based automation in machine tools via numerical control (NC) and then computer numerical control (CNC) displaced to a large extent, but not at all completely, the previously existing manual and mechanically automated machines. Numerically controlled turrets allow automated selection of tools on a turret. CNC lathes may be horizontal or vertical in orientation and mount six separate tools on one or more turrets. Such machine tools can work in two axes per turret, with up to six axes being feasible for complex work. === Vertical === Vertical turret lathes have the workpiece held vertically, which allows the headstock to sit on the floor and the faceplate to become a horizontal rotating table, analogous to a huge potter's wheel. This is useful for the handling of very large, heavy, short workpieces. Vertical lathes in general are also called "vertical boring mills" or often simply "boring mills"; therefore a vertical turret lathe is a vertical boring mill equipped with a turret. == Other variations == === Capstan versus turret === The term "capstan lathe" overlaps in sense with the term "turret lathe" to a large extent. In many times and places, it has been understood to be synonymous with "turret lathe". In other times and places it has been held in technical contradistinction to "turret lathe", with the difference being in whether the turret's slide is fixed to the bed (ram-type turret) or slides on the bed's ways (saddle-type turret). The difference in terminology is mostly a matter of United Kingdom and Commonwealth usage versus United States usage. === Flat === A subtype of horizontal turret lathe is the flat-turret lathe. Its turret is flat (and analogous to a rotary table), allowing the turret to pass beneath the part. Patented by James Hartness of Jones & Lamson, and first disseminated in the 1890s, it was developed to provide more rigidity via requiring less overhang in the tool setup, especially when the part is relatively long. === Hollow-hexagon === Hollow-hexagon turret lathes competed with flat-turret lathes by taking the conventional hexagon turret and making it hollow, allowing the part to pass into it during the cut, analogously to how the part would pass over the flat turret. In both cases, the main idea is to increase rigidity by allowing a relatively long part to be turned without the tool overhang that would be needed with a conventional turret, which is not flat or hollow. === Monitor lathe === The term "monitor lathe" formerly (1860s–1940s) referred to the class of small- to medium-sized manual turret lathes used on relatively small work. The name was inspired by the monitor-class warships, which the monitor lathe's turret resembled. Today, lathes of such appearance, such as the Hardinge DSM-59 and its many clones, are still common, but the name "monitor lathe" is no longer current in the industry. === Toolpost turrets and tailstock turrets === Turrets can be added to non-turret lathes (bench lathes, engine lathes, toolroom lathes, etc.) by mounting them on the toolpost, tailstock, or both. Often these turrets are not as large as a turret lathe's, and they usually do not offer the sliding and stopping that a turret lathe's turret does; but they do offer the ability to index through successive tool
Read more →
Fuzzy associative matrix

A fuzzy associative matrix expresses fuzzy logic rules in tabular form. These rules usually take two variables as input, mapping cleanly to a two-dimensional matrix, although theoretically a matrix of any number of dimensions is possible. From the perspective of neuro-fuzzy systems, the mathematical matrix is called a "Fuzzy associative memory" because it stores the weights of the perceptron. == Applications == In the context of game AI programming, a fuzzy associative matrix helps to develop the rules for non-player characters. Suppose a professional is tasked with writing fuzzy logic rules for a video game monster. In the game being built, entities have two variables: hit points (HP) and firepower (FP): This translates to: IF MonsterHP IS VeryLowHP AND MonsterFP IS VeryWeakFP THEN Retreat IF MonsterHP IS LowHP AND MonsterFP IS VeryWeakFP THEN Retreat IF MonsterHP IS MediumHP AND MonsterFP is VeryWeakFP THEN Defend Multiple rules can fire at once, and often will, because the distinction between "very low" and "low" is fuzzy. If it is more "very low" than it is low, then the "very low" rule will generate a stronger response. The program will evaluate all the rules that fire and use an appropriate defuzzification method to generate its actual response. An implementation of this system might use either the matrix or the explicit IF/THEN form. The matrix makes it easy to visualize the system, but it also makes it impossible to add a third variable just for one rule, so it is less flexible. == Identify a rule set == There is no inherent pattern in the matrix. It appears as if the rules were just made up, and indeed they were. This is both a strength and a weakness of fuzzy logic in general. It is often impractical or impossible to find an exact set of rules or formulae for dealing with a specific situation. For a sufficiently complex game, a mathematician would not be able to study the system and figure out a mathematically accurate set of rules. However, this weakness is intrinsic to the realities of the situation, not of fuzzy logic itself. The strength of the system is that even if one of the rules is wrong, even greatly wrong, other rules that are correct are likely to fire as well and they may compensate for the error. This does not mean a fuzzy system should be sloppy. Depending on the system, it might get away with being sloppy, but it will underperform. While the rules are fairly arbitrary, they should be chosen carefully. If possible, an expert should decide on the rules, and the sets and rules should be tested vigorously and refined as needed. In this way, a fuzzy system is like an expert system. (Fuzzy logic is used in many true expert systems, as well.)
Read more →
AI Now Institute

The AI Now Institute (AI Now) is an American research institute studying the social implications of artificial intelligence and policy research that addresses the concentration of power in the tech industry. AI Now has partnered with organizations such as the Distributed AI Research Institute (DAIR), Data & Society, Ada Lovelace Institute, New York University Tandon School of Engineering, New York University Center for Data Science, Partnership on AI, and the ACLU. AI Now has produced annual reports that examine the social implications of artificial intelligence. In 2021–22, AI Now's leadership served as a Senior Advisors on AI to Chair Lina Khan at the Federal Trade Commission. Its executive director is Amba Kak. == Founding and mission == AI Now grew out of a 2016 symposium organized by Obama's White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. The event was led by Meredith Whittaker, the founder of Google's Open Research Group, and Kate Crawford, a principal researcher at Microsoft Research. The event focused on near-term implications of AI in social domains: Inequality, Labor, Ethics, and Healthcare. In November 2017, AI Now held a second symposium on AI and social issues, and publicly launched the AI Now Institute in partnership with New York University. It is claimed to be the first university research institute focused on the social implications of AI, and the first AI institute founded and led by women. It is now a fully independent institute. In an interview with NPR, Crawford stated that the motivation for founding AI Now was that the application of AI into social domains - such as health care, education, and criminal justice - was being treated as a purely technical problem. The goal of AI Now's research is to treat these as social problems first, and bring in domain experts in areas like sociology, law, and history to study the implications of AI. == Research == AI Now publishes an annual report on the state of AI and its integration into society. Its 2017 report stated that "current framings of AI ethics are failing" and provided ten strategic recommendations for the field - including pre-release trials of AI systems, and increased research into bias and diversity in the field. The report was noted for calling for an end to "black box" systems in core social domains, such as those responsible for criminal justice, healthcare, welfare, and education. In April 2018, AI Now released a framework for algorithmic impact assessments, as a way for governments to assess the use of AI in public agencies. According to AI Now, an AIA would be similar to environmental impact assessment, in that it would require public disclosure and access for external experts to evaluate the effects of an AI system, and any unintended consequences. This would allow systems to be vetted for issues like biased outcomes or skewed training data, which researchers have already identified in algorithmic systems deployed across the country. Its 2023 Report argued that meaningful reform of the tech sector must focus on addressing concentrated power in the tech industry.
Read more →
Fuzzy associative matrix

A fuzzy associative matrix expresses fuzzy logic rules in tabular form. These rules usually take two variables as input, mapping cleanly to a two-dimensional matrix, although theoretically a matrix of any number of dimensions is possible. From the perspective of neuro-fuzzy systems, the mathematical matrix is called a "Fuzzy associative memory" because it stores the weights of the perceptron. == Applications == In the context of game AI programming, a fuzzy associative matrix helps to develop the rules for non-player characters. Suppose a professional is tasked with writing fuzzy logic rules for a video game monster. In the game being built, entities have two variables: hit points (HP) and firepower (FP): This translates to: IF MonsterHP IS VeryLowHP AND MonsterFP IS VeryWeakFP THEN Retreat IF MonsterHP IS LowHP AND MonsterFP IS VeryWeakFP THEN Retreat IF MonsterHP IS MediumHP AND MonsterFP is VeryWeakFP THEN Defend Multiple rules can fire at once, and often will, because the distinction between "very low" and "low" is fuzzy. If it is more "very low" than it is low, then the "very low" rule will generate a stronger response. The program will evaluate all the rules that fire and use an appropriate defuzzification method to generate its actual response. An implementation of this system might use either the matrix or the explicit IF/THEN form. The matrix makes it easy to visualize the system, but it also makes it impossible to add a third variable just for one rule, so it is less flexible. == Identify a rule set == There is no inherent pattern in the matrix. It appears as if the rules were just made up, and indeed they were. This is both a strength and a weakness of fuzzy logic in general. It is often impractical or impossible to find an exact set of rules or formulae for dealing with a specific situation. For a sufficiently complex game, a mathematician would not be able to study the system and figure out a mathematically accurate set of rules. However, this weakness is intrinsic to the realities of the situation, not of fuzzy logic itself. The strength of the system is that even if one of the rules is wrong, even greatly wrong, other rules that are correct are likely to fire as well and they may compensate for the error. This does not mean a fuzzy system should be sloppy. Depending on the system, it might get away with being sloppy, but it will underperform. While the rules are fairly arbitrary, they should be chosen carefully. If possible, an expert should decide on the rules, and the sets and rules should be tested vigorously and refined as needed. In this way, a fuzzy system is like an expert system. (Fuzzy logic is used in many true expert systems, as well.)
Read more →
Artificial intelligence in education

Artificial intelligence in education (often abbreviated as AIEd) is a subfield of educational technology that studies how to use artificial intelligence to create learning environments. Considerations in the field include data-driven decision-making, AI ethics, data privacy and AI literacy. Concerns include the potential for cheating, over-reliance, equity of access, reduced critical thinking, and the perpetuation of misinformation and bias. == History == Efforts to integrate AI into educational contexts have often followed technological advancement in the history of artificial intelligence. In the 1960s, educators and researchers began developing computer-based instruction systems, such as PLATO, developed by the University of Illinois. In the 1970s and 1980s, intelligent tutoring systems (ITS) were being adapted for classroom instruction. The International Artificial Intelligence in Education Society was founded in 1993. Coinciding with the AI boom of the 2020s, the use of large language models in the global north has been promoted and funded by venture capital and big tech. Companies creating AI services have targeted students and educational institutions as customers. Similarly, pre-AI boom educational companies have expanded their use of AI technologies. These commercial incentives for AIEd use may be related to a potential AI bubble. In the U.S., bipartisan support of AI development in K-12 education has been expressed, but specific implementations and best practices remain contentious. == Theory == AIEd applies theory from education studies, machine learning, and related fields. A 2019 review of the previous decade of studies found that most research prioritized technological design over pedagogical integration. Ouyang and Jiao (2021) propose three paradigms for AI in education, which follow roughly from least to most learner-centered and from requiring least to most technical complexity from the AI systems: AI-directed, learner-as-recipient: AIEd systems present a pre-set curriculum based on statistical patterns that do not adjust to learner's feedback. AI-supported, learner-as-collaborator: Systems that incorporate responsiveness to learner's feedback through, for example, natural language processing, wherein AI can support knowledge construction. AI-empowered, learner-as-leader: This model seeks to position AI as a supplement to human intelligence wherein learners take agency and AI provides consistent and actionable feedback. Some scholars place AI in education within a socio-technical framework. This positions AI alongside other emerging educational technologies, such as computing, the internet, and social media. The framework of Tsao, Heinrichs and Camit (2025) draws on new materialism and posthumanism, specifically Donna Haraway's concept of sympoiesis (making-with). This perspective views learning as an entanglement of human and non-human actors (students, teachers, and AI algorithms), where knowledge is co-composed in contact zones between human context and algorithmic prediction. AI agents have been trained on biased datasets, and thus continue to perpetuate societal biases. Since LLMs were created to produce human-like text, algorithmic bias can be introduced and reproduced. AI's data processing and monitoring reinforce neoliberal approaches to education rather than addressing inequalities. == Applications == Uses of generative AI chatbots in education have included assessment and feedback, machine translations, proof-reading exam question generation and copy editing, or as virtual assistants. Emotional AI in education is the study and development of systems that can detect learners' emotions or provide emotional support in learning. == Usage == === Schools and educators === Following the release of ChatGPT in November 2022, some schools and large school districts blocked access to the site and issued warnings that the use of such tools would be seen as cheating. Governmental and non-governmental organizations such as UNESCO, Article 4 of the European Union's AI Act, and the U.S. Department of Education have published reports advocating for specific AIEd approaches. National higher-education bodies have also published guidance on generative AI, including Ireland's Higher Education Authority, which issued a policy framework for higher education teaching and learning in December 2025. In 2024, UNESCO released updated global guidance for generative AI in education, emphasizing ethical use, teacher training, and data protection to ensure responsible integration of AI tools in learning environments. According to Taso (2025), policy implementation in higher education is interpreted and enacted differently by various organizations. These decentralized policies can lead to inconsistent enforcement and confusion among students regarding what constitutes acceptable use, with the burden of ethical navigation falling on individual teachers and students. AI integration in classrooms has created new forms of invisible labour for educators, who must navigate ambiguous policies, redesign assessments to be AI-resilient, and adjudicate potential academic integrity violations. The use of AI detection tools has also been criticised for creating an adversarial relationship between students and institutions, where students may be falsely accused of misconduct based on probabilistic software. AIEd advocates say that efforts should be made towards increasing global accessibility and training educators to serve underprivileged areas. === Students === Reliance on generative AI has been linked with reduced academic self-esteem and performance, and heightened learned helplessness. Algorithm errors and hallucinations are common flaws in AI agents, making them less trustworthy and reliable. According to a 2025 survey from Inside Higher Ed, 85% of higher education students use generative AI technology in some way, with 25% using AI to complete assignments for them. The most common reason cited for using AI to cheat was pressure to get high grades. 97% of students wanted some form of action from schools on the threat to academic integrity caused by AI, with the most popular options being clearer policies and more education about ethical uses of AI. In September 2025, The Atlantic published an op-ed from a high school senior arguing that the normalization of AI cheating was eroding critical thinking, academic integrity, creativity, and the shared student experience.
Read more →
Kórsafn

Kórsafn (Icelandic: Choral archives) is a sound installation by Icelandic artist Björk. Developed in collaboration with the technology company Microsoft, audio design firm Listen and architecture office firm Atelier Ace, the installation was designed for the lobby of the Sister City Hotel in New York City, United States, and launched in 2020. Elaborating 17 years of choral recording taken from Björk discography, Kórsafn consisted of an evolving music composition that uses an artificial intelligence model that responds to real-time weather data, creating a continuously shifting auditory experience. == Background and concept == In 2018, Björk announced her tenth concert tour Cornucopia, which debuted as a residency show at The Shed arts center. Before the start of the show, it was confirmed she would be accompanied by The Hamrahlid Choir. In 2019, while she was performing at The Shed, Björk stayed alongside the choir at the Sister City Hotel in New York City, where they would rehearse for the performances. While there, the Atelier Ace, which owns the Sister City boutique hotels, asked her to create a sound installation for the lobby. This was the second work commissioned by the hotel, a year after a similar piece by Julianna Barwick was featured in the lobby. Kórsafn is formed from two Icelandic words, "kór" ("choral") and "safn" ("archives"). The installation features recordings of Björk’s choral works from the previous 17 years, including compositions taken from her albums Medúlla (2004) and Biophilia (2011). The artificial intelligence system was developed in collaboration with Microsoft. The software processes data gathered from sensors and by a camera placed on the roof of the Sister City Hotel building and by a barometer. It then uses algorithms to determine how the choral elements are layered, pitched, and mixed in real time. The AI generate variations in real time by reacting to the passage of flocks, clouds, airplanes and changes in pressure. Data collected from sensors on the hotel’s rooftop include wind speed, cloud cover, and precipitation levels. These inputs influence the tonal quality, volume, and rhythmic patterns of the soundscape. The sound is played through hidden speakers in the hotel's lobby, blending with the architectural environment to create an immersive experience for guests. The AI system learns over time from the changing of the seasons and weather constantly evolving the sound - keeping in harmony with the sky. Björk described the project as an "AI tango," expressing curiosity about the interplay between her choral compositions and the AI's interpretations of environmental data. She noted the significance of the Hudson Valley's rich bird migrations, which influence the generative aspects of the soundscape. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the hotel closed while the installation was ongoing, making a version of the sound piece available online. == Reception == Kórsafn was positively reviewed. It's Nice That author Jenny Brewer described the piece as "a high-tech alternative to the smooth jazz that usually whistles through hotel lobbies". Writing for CNET, Scott Stein observed that it "is lovely and low-key, and honestly, it just blends into the background. It's nothing wild, but it fits the hotel", adding that "after an hour, it didn't get annoying, or too repetitive". The installation garnered several recognitions. It was nominated in the Fast Company's 2020 Innovation by Design Awards in the Hospitality category. It received three Clio Awards silver prizes, in the Use of Music in Experience/Activation, Sound Design and Emerging Technology categories.
Read more →
Overwatch

Overwatch (abbreviated as OW) is a multimedia franchise centered on a series of multiplayer first-person shooter (FPS) video games developed by Blizzard Entertainment. Overwatch was released in 2016. Overwatch 2 was released in 2022 and the original game was taken offline upon its release, though Blizzard renamed it back to Overwatch in 2026. Overwatch features hero-based combat between two teams of players fighting over various objectives, along with other traditional gameplay modes. Released in 2016, Overwatch lacked a traditional story mode. Instead, Blizzard employed a transmedia storytelling strategy to disseminate lore regarding the game's characters, releasing comics and other literary media, as well as animated media that includes short films. The game enjoyed both critical and commercial success, and garnered a devoted following. The fan community around the franchise has produced a large amount of content including art, cosplay, fan fiction, anime-influenced music videos, Internet memes, and pornography. Blizzard helped launch and promote an esports scene surrounding the game, including an annual Overwatch World Cup, Overwatch League a minor league, and the Overwatch Champions Series which borrowed elements found in traditional American sports leagues. == Gameplay == Both games in the Overwatch series are team-based hero shooters. Players select a hero character from a large roster (52 as of Season 2), divided among three class types. These are: Tanks, who have higher health and generally meant to help protect their teammates from damage, but are larger and easier to hit; Damage, who act as the team's offensive leads; and Support, who heal, provide buffs for teammates, or de-buff the opposing team. Each role also features sub-roles with extra passives. These sub-roles include 'Initiator', 'Stalwart', and 'Bruiser' for Tank. 'Specialist', 'Flanker', 'Recon', and 'Sharpshooter' for Damage. 'Medic', 'Tactician', and 'Survivor' for Support. Players are generally free to change to different heroes while inside their spawn room during the course of a match in response to the current tactics employed by other players. As of the development of Overwatch 2, a standard game features one tank player, two damage players and two support players, a change from having two of each class in its predecessor. Players choose their class before the match, and can only pick characters within that class for the duration of the game. There are different styles of game modes, however, that allow players to choose characters from any class throughout the game. Each hero has a skill kit that includes a primary attack, active skills that require a cooldown period before they can be used again, passive skills that remain active at all times, and an Ultimate skill that can only be used once they fill their Ultimate meter either by damaging opponents, mitigating damage, healing teammates or by passively generating it over time. An update in 2025 saw each hero receive a total of four unique abilities known as perks. Each hero has two minor and two major perks; minor perks consist of smaller changes to a hero's kit, while major perks are intended to affect the match more significantly. At the beginning of each match, all heroes are set to level 1 for each player. As the match progresses, players can individually level up their respective heroes, minor perks are unlocked at level 2, and major perks are unlocked at the maximum level 3. When perks become available, players may only select one of each type of perk; a selected perk becomes irreversibly attached to the current hero for the remainder of the match. If a player switches to another hero mid-match, the previously selected hero retains their level and perk progress. Game types of Overwatch are split between standard matches, competitive play, custom games, and arcade modes. Standard matches have matchmaking based loosely on the player's skill level as measured by the game. Competitive mode uses more strict matchmaking based on a player's current rank on the competitive ladder, with their rank increasing or decreasing when they win or lose a game, respectively. Arcade modes do not use matchmaking and are generally more experimental modes compared to standard and competitive modes. Custom games are created via the workshop and can be utilised to make game modes that are very different from the base game. The workshop, is the software in Overwatch which creates the game using either presets and settings or rules and conditions made by code. These game modes can be published directly onto Overwatch’s custom browse tab or shared off platform using a 5 digit alphanumeric code. Standard and competitive game modes are randomly selected at the start of each match, and are objective based, requiring teams to control a fixed objective point for a duration of time, or escort a payload to a target zone before match time expires. These modes include: Assault (introduced in Overwatch): Also known as 2 Capture Points (or 2CP), Assault has the attacking team tasked with capturing two target points in sequence on the map, while the defending team must stop them. Assault-style maps were removed from main gameplay rotation after Overwatch 2 released but available in the game's arcade mode. It is still available in the game's custom game modes. Since Season 2, Assault-style maps are available in Arcade Mode daily routines. Escort (introduced in Overwatch): Also known as "Payload" by the community, The attacking team is tasked with escorting a payload to a certain delivery point before time runs out, while the defending team must stop them. The payload vehicle moves along a fixed track when any player on the attacking team is close to it, increasing in speed if multiple attackers are present, the increase capping at 3, but will stop if a defending player is nearby; should no attacker be near the vehicle, it will start to move backwards along the track. The payload will also heal any attacking players by 10 health per second while they are near the payload. Passing specific checkpoints will extend the match time and prevent the payload from moving backwards from that point. Hybrid (Assault/Escort) (introduced in Overwatch): The attacking team has to capture the payload (as if it were a target point from Assault) and escort it to its destination, while the defending team tries to hold them back. Control (introduced in Overwatch): Each team tries to capture and maintain a common control point until their capture percentage reaches 100%. This game mode is played in a best-of-three format. Control maps are laid out in a symmetric fashion so no team has an intrinsic position advantage. Push (introduced in Overwatch 2's launch): Each team attempts to secure control of a large robot that pushes one of two barriers to the opposing team's side of the map, whilst being escorted by at least one team member, stopping when enemy players are nearby, similar to the payload movement system in Escort. The team that pushes the payload fully to the other side, or furthest into the enemy territory before the time runs out, wins the match. Flashpoint (introduced in Overwatch 2 in 2023): Similar to Control, each team attempts to capture and maintain a common control point until their capture percentage reaches 100%. This game mode takes place on significantly larger maps with five separate control points, which take a shorter amount of time to capture as compared to a standard Control map. A central control point is always activated first; after it is secured by one team, the remaining four are activated in a random order. The first team to secure three control points wins. Clash (introduced in Overwatch 2 in 2024): Clash maps feature symmetrical maps with five control points. Teams initially vie for control of the central point, with the winning team progressing to the next control point, towards the opponent's base. Opponents can push back by winning control points and shifting the next point away from their base. If a team captures the point closest to the opponent's base, they win. Otherwise the match plays out until one team wins control five times. Arcade modes may include variations of the above modes with experimental rules, and can also include modes like Deathmatch and Capture the Flag. Other common arcade modes include: Elimination (introduced in Overwatch in 2016): Two teams face off in a series of rounds, attempting to wipe out the other team; once a player is killed they remain out of the game until the next round, though they can be revived by Mercy's 'Resurrect' ability. If no team has won a round by a certain time, then the winners are decided by the team that can first take a neutral control point. Players cannot change heroes until the next round. Some of these can be played in "lockout" mode, in which the heroes selected by the winning team for a round are "locked" and cannot be selected in future rounds. Total Mayhem (i
Read more →
Belief–desire–intention software model

The belief–desire–intention software model (BDI) is a software model developed for programming intelligent agents. Superficially characterized by the implementation of an agent's beliefs, desires and intentions, it actually uses these concepts to solve a particular problem in agent programming. In essence, it provides a mechanism for separating the activity of selecting a plan (from a plan library or an external planner application) from the execution of currently active plans. Consequently, BDI agents are able to balance the time spent on deliberating about plans (choosing what to do) and executing those plans (doing it). A third activity, creating the plans in the first place (planning), is not within the scope of the model, and is left to the system designer and programmer. == Overview == In order to achieve this separation, the BDI software model implements the principal aspects of Michael Bratman's theory of human practical reasoning (also referred to as Belief-Desire-Intention, or BDI). That is to say, it implements the notions of belief, desire and (in particular) intention, in a manner inspired by Bratman. For Bratman, desire and intention are both pro-attitudes (mental attitudes concerned with action). He identifies commitment as the distinguishing factor between desire and intention, noting that it leads to (1) temporal persistence in plans and (2) further plans being made on the basis of those to which it is already committed. The BDI software model partially addresses these issues. Temporal persistence, in the sense of explicit reference to time, is not explored. The hierarchical nature of plans is more easily implemented: a plan consists of a number of steps, some of which may invoke other plans. The hierarchical definition of plans itself implies a kind of temporal persistence, since the overarching plan remains in effect while subsidiary plans are being executed. An important aspect of the BDI software model (in terms of its research relevance) is the existence of logical models through which it is possible to define and reason about BDI agents. Research in this area has led, for example, to the axiomatization of some BDI implementations, as well as to formal logical descriptions such as Anand Rao and Michael Georgeff's BDICTL. The latter combines a multiple-modal logic (with modalities representing beliefs, desires and intentions) with the temporal logic CTL. More recently, Michael Wooldridge has extended BDICTL to define LORA (the Logic Of Rational Agents), by incorporating an action logic. In principle, LORA allows reasoning not only about individual agents, but also about communication and other interaction in a multi-agent system. The BDI software model is closely associated with intelligent agents, but does not, of itself, ensure all the characteristics associated with such agents. For example, it allows agents to have private beliefs, but does not force them to be private. It also has nothing to say about agent communication. Ultimately, the BDI software model is an attempt to solve a problem that has more to do with plans and planning (the choice and execution thereof) than it has to do with the programming of intelligent agents. This approach has recently been proposed by Steven Umbrello and Roman Yampolskiy as a means of designing autonomous vehicles for human values. == BDI agents == A BDI agent is a particular type of bounded rational software agent, imbued with particular mental attitudes, viz: Beliefs, Desires and Intentions (BDI). === Architecture === This section defines the idealized architectural components of a BDI system. Beliefs: Beliefs represent the informational state of the agent–its beliefs about the world (including itself and other agents). Beliefs can also include inference rules, allowing forward chaining to lead to new beliefs. Using the term belief rather than knowledge recognizes that what an agent believes may not necessarily be true (and in fact may change in the future). Beliefset: Beliefs are stored in database (sometimes called a belief base or a belief set), although that is an implementation decision. Desires: Desires represent the motivational state of the agent. They represent objectives or situations that the agent would like to accomplish or bring about. Examples of desires might be: find the best price, go to the party or become rich. Goals: A goal is a desire that has been adopted for active pursuit by the agent. Usage of the term goals adds the further restriction that the set of active desires must be consistent. For example, one should not have concurrent goals to go to a party and to stay at home – even though they could both be desirable. Intentions: Intentions represent the deliberative state of the agent – what the agent has chosen to do. Intentions are desires to which the agent has to some extent committed. In implemented systems, this means the agent has begun executing a plan. Plans: Plans are sequences of actions (recipes or knowledge areas) that an agent can perform to achieve one or more of its intentions. Plans may include other plans: my plan to go for a drive may include a plan to find my car keys. This reflects that in Bratman's model, plans are initially only partially conceived, with details being filled in as they progress. Events: These are triggers for reactive activity by the agent. An event may update beliefs, trigger plans or modify goals. Events may be generated externally and received by sensors or integrated systems. Additionally, events may be generated internally to trigger decoupled updates or plans of activity. BDI was also extended with an obligations component, giving rise to the BOID agent architecture to incorporate obligations, norms and commitments of agents that act within a social environment. === BDI interpreter === This section defines an idealized BDI interpreter that provides the basis of SRI's PRS lineage of BDI systems: initialize-state repeat options: option-generator (event-queue) selected-options: deliberate(options) update-intentions(selected-options) execute() get-new-external-events() drop-unsuccessful-attitudes() drop-impossible-attitudes() end repeat === Limitations and criticisms === The BDI software model is one example of a reasoning architecture for a single rational agent, and one concern in a broader multi-agent system. This section bounds the scope of concerns for the BDI software model, highlighting known limitations of the architecture. Learning: BDI agents lack any specific mechanisms within the architecture to learn from past behavior and adapt to new situations. Three attitudes: Classical decision theorists and planning research questions the necessity of having all three attitudes, distributed AI research questions whether the three attitudes are sufficient. Logics: The multi-modal logics that underlie BDI (that do not have complete axiomatizations and are not efficiently computable) have little relevance in practice. Multiple agents: In addition to not explicitly supporting learning, the framework may not be appropriate to learning behavior. Further, the BDI model does not explicitly describe mechanisms for interaction with other agents and integration into a multi-agent system. Explicit goals: Most BDI implementations do not have an explicit representation of goals. Lookahead: The architecture does not have (by design) any lookahead deliberation or forward planning. This may not be desirable because adopted plans may use up limited resources, actions may not be reversible, task execution may take longer than forward planning, and actions may have undesirable side effects if unsuccessful. == BDI agent implementations == === 'Pure' BDI === Procedural Reasoning System (PRS) IRMA (not implemented but can be considered as PRS with non-reconsideration) UM-PRS OpenPRS Distributed Multi-Agent Reasoning System (dMARS) AgentSpeak(L) – see Jason below AgentSpeak(RT) Agent Real-Time System (ARTS) (ARTS) JAM JACK Intelligent Agents JADEX (open source project) JaKtA JASON GORITE SPARK 3APL 2APL GOAL agent programming language CogniTAO (Think-As-One) Living Systems Process Suite PROFETA Gwendolen (Part of the Model Checking Agent Programming Languages Framework) === Extensions and hybrid systems === JACK Teams CogniTAO (Think-As-One) Living Systems Process Suite Brahms JaCaMo
Read more →
Landweber iteration

The Landweber iteration or Landweber algorithm is an algorithm to solve ill-posed linear inverse problems, and it has been extended to solve non-linear problems that involve constraints. The method was first proposed in the 1950s by Louis Landweber, and it can be now viewed as a special case of many other more general methods. == Basic algorithm == The original Landweber algorithm attempts to recover a signal x from (noisy) measurements y. The linear version assumes that y = A x {\displaystyle y=Ax} for a linear operator A. When the problem is in finite dimensions, A is just a matrix. When A is nonsingular, then an explicit solution is x = A − 1 y {\displaystyle x=A^{-1}y} . However, if A is ill-conditioned, the explicit solution is a poor choice since it is sensitive to any noise in the data y. If A is singular, this explicit solution doesn't even exist. The Landweber algorithm is an attempt to regularize the problem, and is one of the alternatives to Tikhonov regularization. We may view the Landweber algorithm as solving: min x ‖ A x − y ‖ 2 2 / 2 {\displaystyle \min _{x}\|Ax-y\|_{2}^{2}/2} using an iterative method. The algorithm is given by the update x k + 1 = x k − ω A ∗ ( A x k − y ) . {\displaystyle x_{k+1}=x_{k}-\omega A^{}(Ax_{k}-y).} where the relaxation factor ω {\displaystyle \omega } satisfies 0 < ω < 2 / σ 1 2 {\displaystyle 0<\omega <2/\sigma _{1}^{2}} . Here σ 1 {\displaystyle \sigma _{1}} is the largest singular value of A {\displaystyle A} . If we write f ( x ) = ‖ A x − y ‖ 2 2 / 2 {\displaystyle f(x)=\|Ax-y\|_{2}^{2}/2} , then the update can be written in terms of the gradient x k + 1 = x k − ω ∇ f ( x k ) {\displaystyle x_{k+1}=x_{k}-\omega \nabla f(x_{k})} and hence the algorithm is a special case of gradient descent. For ill-posed problems, the iterative method needs to be stopped at a suitable iteration index, because it semi-converges. This means that the iterates approach a regularized solution during the first iterations, but become unstable in further iterations. The reciprocal of the iteration index 1 / k {\displaystyle 1/k} acts as a regularization parameter. A suitable parameter is found, when the mismatch ‖ A x k − y ‖ 2 2 {\displaystyle \|Ax_{k}-y\|_{2}^{2}} approaches the noise level. Using the Landweber iteration as a regularization algorithm has been discussed in the literature. == Nonlinear extension == In general, the updates generated by x k + 1 = x k − τ ∇ f ( x k ) {\displaystyle x_{k+1}=x_{k}-\tau \nabla f(x_{k})} will generate a sequence f ( x k ) {\displaystyle f(x_{k})} that converges to a minimizer of f whenever f is convex and the stepsize τ {\displaystyle \tau } is chosen such that 0 < τ < 2 / ( ‖ ∇ f ‖ 2 ) {\displaystyle 0<\tau <2/(\|\nabla f\|^{2})} where ‖ ⋅ ‖ {\displaystyle \|\cdot \|} is the spectral norm. Since this is special type of gradient descent, there currently is not much benefit to analyzing it on its own as the nonlinear Landweber, but such analysis was performed historically by many communities not aware of unifying frameworks. The nonlinear Landweber problem has been studied in many papers in many communities; see, for example. == Extension to constrained problems == If f is a convex function and C is a convex set, then the problem min x ∈ C f ( x ) {\displaystyle \min _{x\in C}f(x)} can be solved by the constrained, nonlinear Landweber iteration, given by: x k + 1 = P C ( x k − τ ∇ f ( x k ) ) {\displaystyle x_{k+1}={\mathcal {P}}_{C}(x_{k}-\tau \nabla f(x_{k}))} where P {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}} is the projection onto the set C. Convergence is guaranteed when 0 < τ < 2 / ( ‖ A ‖ 2 ) {\displaystyle 0<\tau <2/(\|A\|^{2})} . This is again a special case of projected gradient descent (which is a special case of the forward–backward algorithm) as discussed in. == Applications == Since the method has been around since the 1950s, it has been adopted and rediscovered by many scientific communities, especially those studying ill-posed problems. In X-ray computed tomography it is called simultaneous iterative reconstruction technique (SIRT). It has also been used in the computer vision community and the signal restoration community. It is also used in image processing, since many image problems, such as deconvolution, are ill-posed. Variants of this method have been used also in sparse approximation problems and compressed sensing settings.
Read more →
Megami Tensei

Megami Tensei, marketed internationally as Shin Megami Tensei (formerly Revelations), is a Japanese media franchise created by Aya Nishitani, Kouji "Cozy" Okada, Ginichiro Suzuki, and Kazunari Suzuki. Primarily developed and published by Atlus, the franchise consists of multiple subseries and covers multiple role-playing video game genres including tactical role-playing, action role-playing, and massively multiplayer online role-playing. The first two titles in the series were published by Namco (now Bandai Namco Entertainment), but have been almost always published by Atlus in Japan and North America since the release of Shin Megami Tensei. For Europe, Atlus publishes the games through third-party companies. The series was originally based on Digital Devil Story, a science fiction novel series by Aya Nishitani. The series takes its name from the first book's subtitle. Most Megami Tensei titles are stand-alone entries with their own stories and characters. Recurring elements include plot themes, a story shaped by the player's choices, and the ability to fight using and often recruit creatures (demons, Personas) to aid the player in battle. Elements of philosophy, religion, occultism, and science fiction have all been incorporated into the series at different times. While not maintaining as high a profile as series such as Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest, it is highly popular in Japan and maintains a strong cult following in the West, finding critical and commercial success. The series has become well known for its artistic direction, challenging gameplay, and music, but raised controversy over its mature content, dark themes, and use of Christian religious imagery. Additional media include manga adaptations, anime films, and television series. In Japan, some games in the series do not use the "Megami Tensei" title, such as the Persona sub-series. Many of the early games in the series were not localized due to potentially controversial content including religious references, and later due to their age. English localizations have used the "Shin Megami Tensei" moniker since the release of Shin Megami Tensei: Nocturne in 2004. == Titles == === Games === The first installment in the franchise, Digital Devil Story: Megami Tensei, was released on September 11, 1987. The following entries have nearly always been unrelated to each other except in carrying over thematic and gameplay elements. The Megami Tensei games, and the later Shin Megami Tensei titles form the core of the series, while other subseries such as Persona, Devil Children, and Devil Summoner are spin-offs marketed as part of the franchise. There are also stand-alone spin-off titles. ==== Main series ==== Two entries were released for the Famicom: Digital Devil Story: Megami Tensei in 1987, and Digital Devil Story: Megami Tensei II in 1990. The two titles are unrelated to each other in terms of story, and each introduced the basic gameplay and story mechanics that would come to define the series. Three entries were released for the Super Famicom: Shin Megami Tensei in 1992, followed byShin Megami Tensei II in 1994, and Shin Megami Tensei If..., released later in the same year. Shin Megami Tensei III: Nocturne was released in 2003 for the PlayStation 2. Its Maniax Edition director's cut was released in Japan and North America in 2004, and in Europe in 2005. The numeral was dropped for its North American release, and its title changed to Shin Megami Tensei: Lucifer's Call in Europe. Shin Megami Tensei IV for the Nintendo 3DS was released in 2013 in Japan and North America, and a year later in Europe as a digital-only release. Another game set in the same universe, Shin Megami Tensei IV: Apocalypse, was released for the 3DS in February 2016 in Japan. Shin Megami Tensei V was released on the Nintendo Switch in 2021. An enhanced version of the game titled Shin Megami Tensei V: Vengeance was released in June 2024 for Microsoft Windows, Nintendo Switch, PlayStation 4, PlayStation 5, Xbox One and Xbox Series X/S. In addition to the main series, there are also numerous spin-offs. Shin Megami Tensei: Nine, was released for the Xbox in 2002. Originally designed as a massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG), it was later split into a dual single-player and multiplayer package, and the single-player version released first. The online version was delayed and eventually cancelled as the developers could not manage the required online capacities using Xbox Live. Shin Megami Tensei: Imagine, a true MMOROG released for Microsoft Windows, was released in 2007 in Japan, 2008 in North America, and 2009 in Europe. Western service was terminated in 2014 when Marvelous USA, the game's then-handlers, shut down their PC Online game department. Shin Megami Tensei: Strange Journey was released for the Nintendo DS in 2009 in Japan and 2010 in North America. Its Japanese service ended in May 2016. A smartphone game, Shin Megami Tensei: Liberation Dx2, was released in 2018. ==== Persona ==== The Persona series is the largest and most popular spin-off from the Megami Tensei series. The first entry in the series, Megami Ibunroku Persona (originally released overseas as Revelations: Persona), was released in 1996 in Japan and North America. The first Persona 2 title, Innocent Sin, was released in 1999 in Japan. The second game, Eternal Punishment, was released in 2000 in Japan and North America. Persona 3 was released in 2006 in Japan, 2007 in North America, and 2008 in Europe. Its sequel, Persona 4, was released in 2008 in Japan and North America, and in 2009 in Europe. A sixth entry in the series, Persona 5, was released in Japan on September 15, 2016, and was released in North America and Europe on April 4, 2017, to critical acclaim. The series also features spin-offs, including Persona Q: Shadow of the Labyrinth and Persona Q2: New Cinema Labyrinth, two fighting games Persona 4 Arena and its sequel Arena Ultimax as well as the crossover fighting game BlazBlue: Cross Tag Battle, tactical role-playing game Persona 5 Tactica, action role-playing game Persona 5 Strikers and rhythm games Persona 4: Dancing All Night, Persona 3: Dancing in Moonlight, and Persona 5: Dancing in Starlight. While Persona 3 and 4 used the Shin Megami Tensei moniker in the West, it was dropped for the Persona 4 Arena duology and Persona 4 Golden as it would have made the titles too long to be practical. ==== Devil Summoner ==== The Devil Summoner subseries began in 1995 with the release of Shin Megami Tensei: Devil Summoner. It was followed by Devil Summoner: Soul Hackers in 1997, then followed by Soul Hackers 2, released in 2022. Two action role-playing prequels set in 1920s Tokyo were also developed, which revolve around demon summoner Raidou Kuzunoha: Raidou Kuzunoha vs. the Soulless Army was released in 2006, and Raidou Kuzunoha vs. King Abaddon was released in 2008. ==== Other spin-offs ==== Aside from Persona and Devil Summoner, there are other spin-off series covering multiple genres. After the release of Shin Megami Tensei II, Atlus began focusing work on building spin-offs and subseries that would form part of the Megami Tensei franchise. Shortly after Nocturne's release, a duology titled Digital Devil Saga (Digital Devil Saga: Avatar Tuner in Japan) was created based around similar systems to Nocturne, and was also intended as a more accessible gaming experience. Two tactical role-playing games have been developed by Atlus for the DS under the Devil Survivor moniker: the original Devil Survivor and Devil Survivor 2. Both have received expanded ports for the 3DS. Other subseries include Last Bible, a series aimed at a younger audience and using a pure fantasy setting; Devil Children, which was inspired by the popular Pokémon series; and Majin Tensei, a series of strategy games. Two notable stand-alone spin-offs are action spin-off Jack Bros. and Tokyo Mirage Sessions ♯FE, a crossover with Intelligent Systems' Fire Emblem series. === Related media === Several titles in the franchise have received anime and manga adaptations. Persona 3 received both a four-part theatrical adaptation (#1 Spring of Birth, #2 Midsummer Knight's Dream, #3 Falling Down, #4 Winter of Rebirth), and a spin-off series titled Persona: Trinity Soul. Persona 4 received two adaptations: Persona 4: The Animation, based on the original game, and Persona 4: The Golden Animation, based on its expanded PlayStation Vita port. A live-action television series based on the original Devil Summoner was broadcast between 1997 and 1998. Devil Survivor 2 also received an anime adaptation of the same name, and the Devil Children series received two anime adaptations. Multiple Shin Megami Tensei and Persona titles have received manga and CD drama adaptations. Action figures and merchandise related to Persona have also been produced. == Common elements == Despite most games in the series taking place in different continuities, they do share certain elements
Read more →
Course of Action Display and Evaluation Tool

Course of Action Display and Evaluation Tool (CADET) was a research program, and the eponymous prototype software system, that applied knowledge-based techniques of Artificial Intelligence to the problem of battle planning. CADET was also known as Course of Action Display and Elaboration Tool. It was considered an early example of such systems and was funded by the United States Army and by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). CADET influenced a later DARPA program called RAID which in turn produced a technology adopted by the United States Army and the United States Marine Corps. == History == The development of Course of Action Display and Evaluation Tool (CADET) began in 1996, at the Carnegie Group, Inc., Pittsburgh PA, funded under the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program. The goal of the first phase SBIR project was to produce “...a live storyboard of [Course of Action] COA development, wargaming, animation, and assessment.” In 1997, the United States Army awarded the Carnegie Group Inc. $750K for SBIR Phase II. The intent was to develop “...a war-gaming modeling and analysis Decision Support System (DSS), … CADET will consist of a combination of Knowledge-Based and decision analytic tools and technologies to provide fast nimble COA war-gaming modeling, simulation, and animation under direct control of the commander and staff. ...Phase II will result in an operations prototype (OP) suitable for use and evaluation in field exercises.” In 2000, CADET was integrated and experimentally evaluated within the framework of the Integrated Course of Action Critiquing and Elaboration System (ICCES) experiment, conducted by the Battle Command Battle Laboratory – Leavenworth (BCBL-L) within the program Concept Experimentation Program (CEP) sponsored by TRADOC. In 2000-2002, DARPA applied CADET in the program titled Command Post of the Future (CPoF) as a tool to generate a course of action. Under the umbrella of the CPoF program, CADET was integrated with the FOX GA system to provide a detailed planner, coupled with COA generation capability. In the same period, Battle Command Battle Lab-Huachuca (BCBL-H) performed an integration CADET with the system called All Source Analysis System-Light (ASAS-L); here CADET was intended to generate plans for intelligence assets, and conduct wargames of different COAs, enemy versus friendly. From 1996 through 2002, work on CADET was performed by the Carnegie Group, Inc., and supported by funding from the US Army CECOM (CADET SBIR Phase I, CADET SBIR Phase II and CADET Enhancements); DARPA (Command Post of the Future); and TRADOC BCBL-H. == Operation == CADET was intended to be used by the staff of the United States Army Brigade, within the Military Decision Making Process (MDMP). In particular, CADET helped produce, automatically or semi-automatically, the products generated within the step of MDMP called Course of Action (COA) Development and the following step of MDMP called COA Analysis and Wargaming. CADET software resided on a laptop computer. Using the computer, the staff officers entered the input to CADET, or alternatively this input arrived at CADET from upstream computer systems. The input consisted of: Order of Battle, i.e., the units constituting the friendly brigade and the enemy units participating in the battle, and their various characteristics; primary activities of the Course of Action, where each activity is typically linked to one or more geographic areas or a route, and sometimes to a major unit executing the activity; digital map of the region where the battle was to take place, including the digital description of significant features such as locations of friendly and enemy units, roads, assembly areas, objectives, and axes of attacks. Taking this input, CADET automatically performed the following tasks (not sequentially): Planning and scheduling the low-level tasks necessary for a given COA Allocating tasks to various units and assets constituting the brigade Assigning suitable locations and routes Estimating the battle losses (attrition) of friendly and enemy forces, and consumption of resources (e.g., fuel and ammunition) Predicting enemy actions or reactions. CADET produced the following outputs: Synchronization matrix, directly editable and printable; synchronization matrix is a kind of Gantt chart that shows assignments of activities to units, to locations/routes and to time periods Map overlays in PPT or JPG formats Animation output XML formally-encoded plan Textual Operation Plan (OPLAN) draft E-mail messages with attachments: XML and text versions of OPLAN == Design == The core algorithm is a planning algorithm where CADET uses a knowledge-based approach of the hierarchical-task-network type. Each task class is associated with a model of more detailed subtasks that should be performed in order to accomplish the higher-level task. Algorithms selected (heuristically) a task and then decomposes it into subtasks. Although similar to hierarchical-task-network planning algorithm, CADET’s algorithm includes elements of adversarial reasoning. After adding a subtask, the algorithm uses rules to determine the enemy’s probable actions and reactions as well as friendly counteractions This approximated the action-reaction-counteraction technique of manual wargaming used by the United States Army. When a task involves movements of a unit, the algorithm performs routing, i.e., finds a route for the movement that minimizes the time required for the movement as well as exposure to the enemy attacks. Each added tasks (subtask) normally requires a unit which would execute the task, and a time period when the task would be executed. Therefore, when a certain number of subtasks is added by the planning process, the algorithm also performs the allocation of the newly added subtasks to units and to time periods (i.e., scheduling). allocation and scheduling of tasks relies on both domain-specific and constraint-guided heuristics. A tasks may also require expenditures of fuel and ammunition. If the tasks involves engagement with the enemy, the performing units will experience lossesof personnel and weapon systems (attrition). CADET’s algorithm includes estimates of consumption of different types of consumables, and also attrition. Depending on the degree of attrition and consumption, CADET adds tasks that are needed to refuel or reconstitute the units. The algorithm continually interleaves incremental steps of planning, routing, scheduling, and attrition and consumption estimates. == Evaluation == Two evaluation experiments are described in literature. The first experiment called ICCES took three days. The subjects were Army officers from combat arms branches, with 11 to 23 years of active service, in the ranks of majors and lieutenant colonels, a total of 8. Each officer was given 4 hours of training learning to operate CADET and related computer tools. Officers were divided into two groups and given a tactical scenario. One group (the control group) used the traditional, manual process; the other used the system called ICCES, the automated core of which was CADET. Each group produced three COA sketches and statements and one COA synchronization matrix. Then, the experiment was repeated with another scenario but the control group became the automated group and vice versa. The users were generally satisfied with the quality of the ICCES-generated products. The group using ICCES made only a few changes to the product that was automatically generated, indicating that they agreed with the majority of the plan that ICCES produced. The second experiment was reminiscent of Turing test. The experiment involved one user, nine judges (active-duty officers, mainly colonels and lieutenant colonels), and five scenarios obtained from several US Army exercises. For each scenario, experimenters obtained synchronization matrices that were produced in earlier exercises, typically by a team of four to five officers in three to four hours, spending approximately 16 person-hours in total. Using these scenarios and COAs, the user had CADET generate automatically detailed plans and express them as synchronization matrices. The user, a retired US Army officer, reviewed and slightly edited the matrices. The entire process took less than two minutes of computations by and approximately 20 minutes of review and post-editing, approximately 0.4 person-hour in total per product. The experimenters gave the resulting matrices the same visual style as those produced by humans. The judges, who did not know whether a planning product was a traditional product of humans, or with computerized aids, were asked to grade the products. The result was that the average grades for manual products and CADET-generated products were statistically indistinguishable, even though CADET-generated products required far less time to produce. == Legacy == CADET served as “...an example of how even relatively basic A
Read more →