AI Coding Benchmark Ranking

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

• 

  Deep Learning Anti-Aliasing

  Deep Learning Anti-Aliasing (DLAA) is a form of spatial anti-aliasing developed by Nvidia. DLAA depends on and requires Tensor Cores available in Nvidia RTX cards. DLAA is similar to Deep Learning Super Sampling (DLSS) in its anti-aliasing method, with one important differentiation being that the goal of DLSS is to increase performance at the cost of image quality, whereas the main priority of DLAA is improving image quality at the cost of performance (irrelevant of resolution upscaling or downscaling). DLAA is similar to temporal anti-aliasing (TAA) in that they are both spatial anti-aliasing solutions relying on past frame data. Compared to TAA, DLAA is substantially better when it comes to shimmering, flickering, and handling small meshes like wires. == Technical overview == DLAA collects game rendering data including raw low-resolution input, motion vectors, depth buffers, and exposure information. This information feeds into a convolutional neural network that processes the image to reduce aliasing while preserving fine detail. The neural network architecture employs an auto-encoder design trained on high-quality reference images. The training dataset includes diverse scenarios focusing on challenging cases like sub-pixel details, high-contrast edges, and transparent surfaces. The network then processes frames in real-time. Unlike traditional anti-aliasing solutions that rely on manually written heuristics, such as TAA, DLAA uses its neural network to preserve fine details while eliminating unwanted visual artifacts. == History == DLAA was initially called and marketed by Nvidia as DLSS 2x. The first game that added support for DLAA was The Elder Scrolls Online, which implemented the feature in 2021. By June 2022, DLAA was only available in six games. This number rose to 17 by February 2023. In June 2023, TechPowerUp reported that "DLAA is seeing sluggish adoption among game developers", and that Nvidia was working on adding DLAA to the quality presets of DLSS to boost adoption. By December 2023, DLAA was supported in 41 games. In early 2025, an update for the Nvidia App added a driver-based DLSS override feature that enables users to activate DLAA even in games that do not support it natively. == Differences between TAA and DLAA == TAA is used in many modern video games and game engines; however, all previous implementations have used some form of manually written heuristics to prevent temporal artifacts such as ghosting and flickering. One example of this is neighborhood clamping which forcefully prevents samples collected in previous frames from deviating too much compared to nearby pixels in newer frames. This helps to identify and fix many temporal artifacts, but deliberately removing fine details in this way is analogous to applying a blur filter, and thus the final image can appear blurry when using this method. DLAA uses an auto-encoder convolutional neural network trained to identify and fix temporal artifacts, instead of manually programmed heuristics as mentioned above. Because of this, DLAA can generally resolve detail better than other TAA and TAAU implementations, while also removing most temporal artifacts. == Differences between DLSS and DLAA == While DLSS handles upscaling with a focus on performance, DLAA handles anti-aliasing with a focus on visual quality. DLAA runs at the given screen resolution with no upscaling or downscaling functionality provided by DLAA. DLSS and DLAA share the same AI-driven anti-aliasing method. As such, DLAA functions like DLSS without the upscaling part. Both are made by Nvidia and require Tensor Cores. However, DLSS and DLAA cannot be enabled at the same time, only one can be selected depending on whether performance or image quality is prioritized. == Reception == TechPowerUp found that "[c]ompared to TAA and DLSS, DLAA is clearly producing the best image quality, especially at lower resolutions", arguing that, while "DLSS was already doing a better job than TAA at reconstructing small objects", "DLAA does an even better job". In a Cyberpunk 2077 performance test, IGN stated that "DLAA provided somewhat similar results [FPS wise] to the normal raster mode in most cases but got significant performance boost with the help of frame generation", a feature not available when using native resolution. Rock Paper Shotgun noted that, while DLAA is "not a completely perfect form of anti-aliasing, as the occasional jaggies are present", it "looks a lot sharper overall [than TAA], and especially in motion." According to PC World, "DLAA offers very good anti-aliasing without losing visual information — alternatives like TAA tend to struggle during motion-filled scenes, where DLAA doesn’t. Furthermore, DLAA’s loss of performance is lower than with conventional anti-aliasing methods."

  Read more →
• 

  Artificial intelligence controversies

  The controversies surrounding artificial intelligence encompass a broad range of public, academic, and political debates regarding the societal effects of artificial intelligence (AI). These debates intensified particularly in the late 2010s and 2020s, coinciding with an accelerated period of development known as the AI boom. While advocates emphasize the technology's potential to solve complex problems and enhance human quality of life, detractors highlight a wide array of dangers and challenges. These include concerns over ethics, plagiarism and theft, fraud, safety and alignment, environmental impacts, technological unemployment, and the spread of misinformation. It also covers severe future or theoretical challenges, such as the emergence of artificial superintelligence and existential risks. == 2016 == === Microsoft Tay chatbot (2016) === On March 23, 2016, Microsoft released Tay, a chatbot designed to mimic the language patterns of a 19-year-old American girl and learn from interactions with Twitter users. Soon after its launch, Tay began posting racist, sexist, and otherwise inflammatory tweets after Twitter users deliberately taught it offensive phrases and exploited its "repeat after me" capability. Examples of controversial outputs included Holocaust denial and calls for genocide using racial slurs. Within 16 hours of its release, Microsoft suspended the Twitter account, deleted the offensive tweets, and stated that Tay had suffered from a "coordinated attack by a subset of people" that "exploited a vulnerability." Tay was briefly and accidentally re-released on March 30 during testing, after which it was permanently shut down. Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella later stated that Tay "has had a great influence on how Microsoft is approaching AI" and taught the company the importance of taking accountability. == 2022 == === Voiceverse NFT plagiarism scandal (2022) === On January 14, 2022, voice actor Troy Baker announced a partnership with Voiceverse, a blockchain-based company that marketed proprietary AI voice cloning technology as non-fungible tokens (NFT), triggering immediate backlash over environmental concerns, fears that AI could displace human voice actors, and concerns about fraud. Later that same day, the pseudonymous creator of 15.ai—a free, non-commercial AI voice synthesis research project—revealed through server logs that Voiceverse had used 15.ai to generate voice samples, pitch-shifted them to make them unrecognizable, and falsely marketed them as their own proprietary technology before selling them as NFTs; the developer of 15.ai had previously stated that they had no interest in incorporating NFTs into their work. Voiceverse confessed within an hour and stated that their marketing team had used 15.ai without attribution while rushing to create a demo. News publications and AI watchdog groups universally characterized the incident as theft stemming from generative artificial intelligence. === Théâtre D'opéra Spatial (2022) === On August 29, 2022, Jason Michael Allen won first place in the "emerging artist" (non-professional) division of the "Digital Arts/Digitally-Manipulated Photography" category of the Colorado State Fair's fine arts competition with Théâtre D'opéra Spatial, a digital artwork created using the AI image generator Midjourney, Adobe Photoshop, and AI upscaling tools, becoming one of the first images made using generative AI to win such a prize. Allen disclosed his use of Midjourney when submitting, though the judges did not know it was an AI tool but stated they would have awarded him first place regardless. While there was little contention about the image at the fair, reactions to the win on social media were negative. On September 5, 2023, the United States Copyright Office ruled that the work was not eligible for copyright protection as the human creative input was de minimis and that copyright rules "exclude works produced by non-humans." == 2023 == === Statements on AI risk (2023) === On March 22, 2023, the Future of Life Institute published an open letter calling on "all AI labs to immediately pause for at least 6 months the training of AI systems more powerful than GPT-4", citing risks such as AI-generated propaganda, extreme automation of jobs, human obsolescence, and a society-wide loss of control. The letter, published a week after the release of OpenAI's GPT-4, asserted that current large language models were "becoming human-competitive at general tasks". It received more than 30,000 signatures, including academic AI researchers and industry CEOs such as Yoshua Bengio, Stuart Russell, Elon Musk, Steve Wozniak and Yuval Noah Harari. The letter was criticized for diverting attention from more immediate societal risks such as algorithmic biases, with Timnit Gebru and others arguing that it amplified "some futuristic, dystopian sci-fi scenario" instead of current problems with AI. On May 30, 2023, the Center for AI Safety released a one-sentence statement signed by hundreds of artificial intelligence experts and other notable figures: "Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war." Signatories included Turing laureates Geoffrey Hinton and Yoshua Bengio, as well as the scientific and executive leaders of several major AI companies, including Sam Altman, Demis Hassabis, and Bill Gates. The statement prompted responses from political leaders, including UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, who retweeted it with a statement that the UK government would look carefully into it, and White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, who commented that AI "is one of the most powerful technologies that we see currently in our time." Skeptics, including from Human Rights Watch, argued that scientists should focus on known risks of AI instead of speculative future risks. === Removal of Sam Altman from OpenAI (2023) === On November 17, 2023, OpenAI's board of directors ousted co-founder and chief executive Sam Altman, stating that "the board no longer has confidence in his ability to continue leading OpenAI." The removal was precipitated by employee concerns about his handling of artificial intelligence safety and allegations of abusive behavior. Altman was reinstated on November 22 after pressure from employees and investors, including a letter signed by 745 of OpenAI's 770 employees threatening mass resignations if the board did not resign. The removal and subsequent reinstatement caused widespread reactions, including Microsoft's stock falling nearly three percent following the initial announcement and then rising over two percent to an all-time high after Altman was hired to lead a Microsoft AI research team before his reinstatement. The incident also prompted investigations from the Competition and Markets Authority and the Federal Trade Commission into Microsoft's relationship with OpenAI. == 2024 == === Taylor Swift deepfake pornography controversy (2024) === In late January 2024, sexually explicit AI-generated deepfake images of Taylor Swift were proliferated on X, with one post reported to have been seen over 47 million times before its removal. Disinformation research firm Graphika traced the images back to 4chan, while members of a Telegram group had discussed ways to circumvent censorship safeguards of AI image generators to create pornographic images of celebrities. The images prompted responses from anti-sexual assault advocacy groups, US politicians, and Swifties. Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella called the incident "alarming and terrible." X briefly blocked searches of Swift's name on January 27, 2024, and Microsoft enhanced its text-to-image model safeguards to prevent future abuse. On January 30, US senators Dick Durbin, Lindsey Graham, Amy Klobuchar, and Josh Hawley introduced a bipartisan bill that would allow victims to sue individuals who produced or possessed "digital forgeries" with intent to distribute, or those who received the material knowing it was made without consent. === Google Gemini image generation controversy (2024) === In February 2024, social media users reported that Google's Gemini chatbot was generating images that featured people of color and women in historically inaccurate contexts—such as Vikings, Nazi soldiers, and the Founding Fathers—and refusing prompts to generate images of white people. The images were derided on social media, including by conservatives who cited them as evidence of Google's "wokeness", and criticized by Elon Musk, who denounced Google's products as biased and racist. In response, Google paused Gemini's ability to generate images of people. Google executive Prabhakar Raghavan released a statement explaining that Gemini had "overcompensate[d]" in its efforts to strive for diversity and acknowledging that the images were "embarrassing and wrong". Google CEO Sundar Pichai called the incident offensive and unacceptable in an internal memo, promising struc

  Read more →
• 

  Cross-validation (statistics)

  Cross-validation, sometimes called rotation estimation or out-of-sample testing, is any of various similar model validation techniques for assessing how the results of a statistical analysis will generalize to an independent data set. Cross-validation includes resampling and sample splitting methods that use different portions of the data to test and train a model on different iterations. It is often used in settings where the goal is prediction, and one wants to estimate how accurately a predictive model will perform in practice. It can also be used to assess the quality of a fitted model and the stability of its parameters. In a prediction problem, a model is usually given a dataset of known data on which training is run (training dataset), and a dataset of unknown data (or first seen data) against which the model is tested (called the validation dataset or testing set). The goal of cross-validation is to test the model's ability to predict new data that was not used in estimating it, in order to flag problems like overfitting or selection bias and to give an insight on how the model will generalize to an independent dataset (i.e., an unknown dataset, for instance from a real problem). One round of cross-validation involves partitioning a sample of data into complementary subsets, performing the analysis on one subset (called the training set), and validating the analysis on the other subset (called the validation set or testing set). To reduce variability, in most methods multiple rounds of cross-validation are performed using different partitions, and the validation results are combined (e.g. averaged) over the rounds to give an estimate of the model's predictive performance. In summary, cross-validation combines (averages) measures of fitness in prediction to derive a more accurate estimate of model prediction performance. == Motivation == Assume a model with one or more unknown parameters, and a data set to which the model can be fit (the training data set). The fitting process optimizes the model parameters to make the model fit the training data as well as possible. If an independent sample of validation data is taken from the same population as the training data, it will generally turn out that the model does not fit the validation data as well as it fits the training data. The size of this difference is likely to be large especially when the size of the training data set is small, or when the number of parameters in the model is large. Cross-validation is a way to estimate the size of this effect. === Example: linear regression === In linear regression, there exist real response values y 1 , … , y n {\textstyle y_{1},\ldots ,y_{n}} , and n p-dimensional vector covariates x1, ..., xn. The components of the vector xi are denoted xi1, ..., xip. If least squares is used to fit a function in the form of a hyperplane ŷ = a + βTx to the data (xi, yi) 1 ≤ i ≤ n, then the fit can be assessed using the mean squared error (MSE). The MSE for given estimated parameter values a and β on the training set (xi, yi) 1 ≤ i ≤ n is defined as: MSE = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n ( y i − y ^ i ) 2 = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n ( y i − a − β T x i ) 2 = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n ( y i − a − β 1 x i 1 − ⋯ − β p x i p ) 2 {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}{\text{MSE}}&={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}(y_{i}-{\hat {y}}_{i})^{2}={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}(y_{i}-a-{\boldsymbol {\beta }}^{T}\mathbf {x} _{i})^{2}\\&={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}(y_{i}-a-\beta _{1}x_{i1}-\dots -\beta _{p}x_{ip})^{2}\end{aligned}}} If the model is correctly specified, it can be shown under mild assumptions that the expected value of the MSE for the training set is (n − p − 1)/(n + p + 1) < 1 times the expected value of the MSE for the validation set (the expected value is taken over the distribution of training sets). Thus, a fitted model and computed MSE on the training set will result in an optimistically biased assessment of how well the model will fit an independent data set. This biased estimate is called the in-sample estimate of the fit, whereas the cross-validation estimate is an out-of-sample estimate. Since in linear regression it is possible to directly compute the factor (n − p − 1)/(n + p + 1) by which the training MSE underestimates the validation MSE under the assumption that the model specification is valid, cross-validation can be used for checking whether the model has been overfitted, in which case the MSE in the validation set will substantially exceed its anticipated value. (Cross-validation in the context of linear regression is also useful in that it can be used to select an optimally regularized cost function.) === General case === In most other regression procedures (e.g. logistic regression), there is no simple formula to compute the expected out-of-sample fit. Cross-validation is, thus, a generally applicable way to predict the performance of a model on unavailable data using numerical computation in place of theoretical analysis. == Types == Two types of cross-validation can be distinguished: exhaustive and non-exhaustive cross-validation. === Exhaustive cross-validation === Exhaustive cross-validation methods are cross-validation methods which learn and test on all possible ways to divide the original sample into a training and a validation set. ==== Leave-p-out cross-validation ==== Leave-p-out cross-validation (LpO CV) involves using p observations as the validation set and the remaining observations as the training set. This is repeated on all ways to cut the original sample on a validation set of p observations and a training set. LpO cross-validation require training and validating the model C p n {\displaystyle C_{p}^{n}} times, where n is the number of observations in the original sample, and where C p n {\displaystyle C_{p}^{n}} is the binomial coefficient. For p > 1 and for even moderately large n, LpO CV can become computationally infeasible. For example, with n = 100 and p = 30, C 30 100 ≈ 3 × 10 25 . {\displaystyle C_{30}^{100}\approx 3\times 10^{25}.} A variant of LpO cross-validation with p=2 known as leave-pair-out cross-validation has been recommended as a nearly unbiased method for estimating the area under ROC curve of binary classifiers. ==== Leave-one-out cross-validation ==== Leave-one-out cross-validation (LOOCV) is a particular case of leave-p-out cross-validation with p = 1. The process looks similar to jackknife; however, with cross-validation one computes a statistic on the left-out sample(s), while with jackknifing one computes a statistic from the kept samples only. LOO cross-validation requires less computation time than LpO cross-validation because there are only C 1 n = n {\displaystyle C_{1}^{n}=n} passes rather than C p n {\displaystyle C_{p}^{n}} . However, n {\displaystyle n} passes may still require quite a large computation time, in which case other approaches such as k-fold cross validation may be more appropriate. Pseudo-code algorithm: Input: x, {vector of length N with x-values of incoming points} y, {vector of length N with y-values of the expected result} interpolate( x_in, y_in, x_out ), { returns the estimation for point x_out after the model is trained with x_in-y_in pairs} Output: err, {estimate for the prediction error} Steps: err ← 0 for i ← 1, ..., N do // define the cross-validation subsets x_in ← (x[1], ..., x[i − 1], x[i + 1], ..., x[N]) y_in ← (y[1], ..., y[i − 1], y[i + 1], ..., y[N]) x_out ← x[i] y_out ← interpolate(x_in, y_in, x_out) err ← err + (y[i] − y_out)^2 end for err ← err/N === Non-exhaustive cross-validation === Non-exhaustive cross validation methods do not compute all ways of splitting the original sample. These methods are approximations of leave-p-out cross-validation. ==== k-fold cross-validation ==== In k-fold cross-validation, the original sample is randomly partitioned into k equal sized subsamples, often referred to as "folds". Of the k subsamples, a single subsample is retained as the validation data for testing the model, and the remaining k − 1 subsamples are used as training data. The cross-validation process is then repeated k times, with each of the k subsamples used exactly once as the validation data. The k results can then be averaged to produce a single estimation. The advantage of this method over repeated random sub-sampling (see below) is that all observations are used for both training and validation, and each observation is used for validation exactly once. 10-fold cross-validation is commonly used, but in general k remains an unfixed parameter. For example, setting k = 2 results in 2-fold cross-validation. In 2-fold cross-validation, the dataset is randomly shuffled into two sets d0 and d1, so that both sets are equal size (this is usually implemented by shuffling the data array and then splitting it in two). We then train on d0 and validate on d1, followed by training on d1 and validating on d0. When k = n (the number of observations), k-fold cross-validation is equivalent to leave-one-out cr

  Read more →
• 

  Pedagogical agent

  A pedagogical agent is a concept borrowed from computer science and artificial intelligence and applied to education, usually as part of an intelligent tutoring system (ITS). It is a simulated human-like interface between the learner and the content, in an educational environment. A pedagogical agent is designed to model the type of interactions between a student and another person. Mabanza and de Wet define it as "a character enacted by a computer that interacts with the user in a socially engaging manner". A pedagogical agent can be assigned different roles in the learning environment, such as tutor or co-learner, depending on the desired purpose of the agent. "A tutor agent plays the role of a teacher, while a co-learner agent plays the role of a learning companion". == History == The history of Pedagogical Agents is closely aligned with the history of computer animation. As computer animation progressed, it was adopted by educators to enhance computerized learning by including a lifelike interface between the program and the learner. The first versions of a pedagogical agent were more cartoon than person, like Microsoft's Clippy which helped users of Microsoft Office load and use the program's features in 1997. However, with developments in computer animation, pedagogical agents can now look lifelike. By 2006 there was a call to develop modular, reusable agents to decrease the time and expertise required to create a pedagogical agent. There was also a call in 2009 to enact agent standards. The standardization and re-usability of pedagogical agents is less of an issue since the decrease in cost and widespread availability of animation tools. Individualized pedagogical agents can be found across disciplines including medicine, math, law, language learning, automotive, and armed forces. They are used in applications directed to every age, from preschool to adult. == Learning theories related to pedagogical agent design == === Distributed cognition theory === Distributed cognition theory is the method in which cognition progresses in the context of collaboration with others. Pedagogical agents can be designed to assist the cognitive transfer to the learner, operating as artifacts or partners with collaborative role in learning. To support the performance of an action by the user, the pedagogical agent can act as a cognitive tool as long as the agent is equipped with the knowledge that the user lacks. The interactions between the user and the pedagogical agent can facilitate a social relationship. The pedagogical agent may fulfill the role of a working partner. === Socio-cultural learning theory === Socio-cultural learning theory is how the user develops when they are involved in learning activities in which there is interaction with other agents. A pedagogical agent can: intervene when the user requests, provide support for tasks that the user cannot address, and potentially extend the learners cognitive reach. Interaction with the pedagogical agent may elicit a variety of emotions from the learner. The learner may become excited, confused, frustrated, and/or discouraged. These emotions affect the learners' motivation. === Extraneous Cognitive Load === Extraneous cognitive load is the extra effort being exerted by an individual's working memory due to the way information is being presented. A pedagogical agent can increase the user's cognitive load by distracting them and becoming the focus of their attention, causing split attention between the instructional material and the agent. Agents can reduce the perceived cognitive load by providing narration and personalization that can also promote a user's interest and motivation. While research on the reduction of cognitive load from pedagogical agents is minimal, more studies have shown that agents do not increase it. == Effectiveness == It has been suggested by researchers that pedagogical agents may take on different roles in the learning environment. Examples of these roles are: supplanting, scaffolding, coaching, testing, or demonstrating or modelling a procedure. A pedagogical agent as a tutor has not been demonstrated to add any benefit to an educational strategy in equivalent lessons with and without a pedagogical agent. According to Richard Mayer, there is some support in research for pedagogical agent increasing learning, but only as a presenter of social cues. A co-learner pedagogical agent is believed to increase the student's self-efficacy. By pointing out important features of instructional content, a pedagogical agent can fulfill the signaling function, which research on multimedia learning has shown to enhance learning. Research has demonstrated that human-human interaction may not be completely replaced by pedagogical agents, but learners may prefer the agents to non-agent multimedia systems. This finding is supported by social agency theory. Much like the varying effectiveness of the pedagogical agent roles in the learning environment, agents that take into account the user's affect have had mixed results. Research has shown pedagogical agents that make use of the users’ affect have been found to increase user knowledge retention, motivation, and perceived self-efficacy. However, with such a broad range of modalities in affective expressions, it is often difficult to utilize them. Additionally, having agents detect a user's affective state with precision remains challenging, as displays of affect are different across individuals. == Design == === Attractiveness === The appearance of a pedagogical agent can be manipulated to meet the learning requirements. The attractiveness of a pedagogical agent can enhance student's learning when the users were the opposite gender of the pedagogical agent. Male students prefer a sexy appearance of a female pedagogical agents and dislike the sexy appearance of male agents. Female students were not attracted by the sexy appearance of either male or female pedagogical agents. === Affective Response === Pedagogical agents have reached a point where they can convey and elicit emotion, but also reason about and respond to it. These agents are often designed to elicit and respond to affective actions from users through various modalities such as speech, facial expressions, and body gestures. They respond to the affective state of the given user, and make use of these modalities using a wide array of sensors incorporated into the design of the agent. Specifically in education and training applications, pedagogical agents are often designed to increasingly recognize when users or learners exhibit frustration, boredom, confusion, and states of flow. The added recognition in these agents is a step toward making them more emotionally intelligent, comforting and motivating the users as they interact. === Digital Representation === The design of a pedagogical agent often begins with its digital representation, whether it will be 2D or 3D and static or animated. Several studies have developed pedagogical agents that were both static and animated, then evaluated the relative benefits. Similar to other design considerations, the improved learning from static or animated agents remains questionable. One study showed that the appearance of an agent portrayed using a static image can impact a user's recall, based on the visual appearance. Other research found results that suggest static agent images improve learning outcomes. However, several other studies found user's learned more when the pedagogical agent was animated rather than static. Recently a meta-analysis of such research found a negligible improvement in learning via pedagogical agents, suggesting more work needs to be done in the area to support any claims.

  Read more →
• 

  Flo (app)

  Flo is a period-tracking app that provides menstrual cycle, ovulation and pregnancy tracking as well as perimenopause symptom tracking that was developed by Flo Health, Inc. It has over 380 million downloads worldwide and over 70 million monthly active users as of November 2024. In mid-2024, it reached unicorn status, and became Europe’s first femtech unicorn. The company has been accused of sharing users' sensitive health data with third parties without consent and misleading its users about data practices. == History == Flo Health, Inc. was co-founded in 2015 by Dmitry and Yuri Gurski, in Belarus. Their backgrounds helped build the first version of the software having experience in other fitness and health apps. Dmitry serves as the company's CEO. The company's development hubs are in London, Amsterdam and Vilnius. In 2016, the company raised $1 million in seed round funding from Flint Capital and Haxus Venture Fund. In 2017, Flo received an investment of $5 million from Flint Capital and model Natalia Vodianova with Vodianova helping develop an awareness campaign for the company. In 2018, Flo received an investment of $6 million from Mangrove Capital Partners, with participation from Flint Capital and Haxus, giving the company a valuation of $200 million. In mid-2019, Flo received an additional investment of $7.5 million led by Founders Fund. In 2020, the Federal Trade Commission alleged that Flo had misled users about its handling of health information to third parties including Google, Facebook, AppsFlyer, and Flurry since 2016. These allegations followed a 2019 report by The Wall Street Journal in reference to Facebook. The company reached a settlement in 2021 and was required to notify users of how their personal information was shared and obtain permission before any further information was shared. The agreement also required that Flo to undertake an independent privacy audit which it completed in March 2022. In early September 2021, Flo announced it closed $50M in a Series B financing, bringing the total capital raised to $65 million and company valuation to $800M led by VNV Global and Target Global. In March 2024, the Supreme Court of British Columbia certified a class action suit against Flo for sharing intimate data with Facebook and other third parties without user knowledge. In July 2024, Flo announced it raised more than $200M in Series C financing from General Atlantic bringing its valuation beyond $1 billion. As of November 2024, the app had over 380 million downloads world wide, and over 70 million monthly active users. In 2025, Flo adopted a data intelligence platform from Databricks to power its analytics and AI features, allowing users personalized cycle predictions. In 2025, a class action lawsuit in California was settled for $56 million with Flo paying $8 million and Google paying $48 million. == Features and privacy == Flo was initially created as a period and ovulation tracking application. It now provides reminders of upcoming menstrual cycles and a place to record various other health symptoms such as contraceptive methods, vaginal discharge (leukorrhea), water intake, pains, mood swings, and sexual activity. The application is available on iOS and Android. Flo is free to download and the free basic version gives you access to period and ovulation tracking and predictions, symptom tracking, cycle history, and anonymous mode. In Pregnancy mode, the app provides tracking features and educational material for pregnancy. In October 2023, Flo launched Flo for Partners, a feature that allows users to share their Flo data with their partner. In September 2022, as a response to Roe v. Wade being overturned, Flo sped up the release of a feature called "Anonymous Mode". Flo said this mode allows users to access the app without any personal identifiers such as name, email address, or technical identifiers being associated with their health data. Flo said it uses a technology called Oblivious HTTP to help protect user privacy in Anonymous Mode. == Recognition == Flo was named to Bloomberg’s Top 25 UK Startups to Watch for 2024. Flo's Anonymous Mode feature was recognized on both Fast Company's World Changing Ideas 2023 and TIME's Best Inventions List 2023. Flo is a CES 2019 Innovation Awards Honoree in the Software and Mobile Applications category.

  Read more →
• 

  Neurorobotics

  Neurorobotics is the combined study of neuroscience, robotics, and artificial intelligence. It is the science and technology of embodied autonomous neural systems. Neural systems include brain-inspired algorithms (e.g. connectionist networks), computational models of biological neural networks (e.g. artificial spiking neural networks, large-scale simulations of neural microcircuits) and actual biological systems (e.g. in vivo and in vitro neural nets). Such neural systems can be embodied in machines with mechanic or any other forms of physical actuation. This includes robots, prosthetic or wearable systems but also, at smaller scale, micro-machines and, at the larger scales, furniture and infrastructures. Neurorobotics is that branch of neuroscience with robotics, which deals with the study and application of science and technology of embodied autonomous neural systems like brain-inspired algorithms. It is based on the idea that the brain is embodied and the body is embedded in the environment. Therefore, most neurorobots are required to function in the real world, as opposed to a simulated environment. Beyond brain-inspired algorithms for robots neurorobotics may also involve the design of brain-controlled robot systems. == Major classes of models == Neurorobots can be divided into various major classes based on the robot's purpose. Each class is designed to implement a specific mechanism of interest for study. Common types of neurorobots are those used to study motor control, memory, action selection, and perception. === Locomotion and motor control === Neurorobots are often used to study motor feedback and control systems, and have proved their merit in developing controllers for robots. Locomotion is modeled by a number of neurologically inspired theories on the action of motor systems. Locomotion control has been mimicked using models or central pattern generators, clumps of neurons capable of driving repetitive behavior, to make four-legged walking robots. Other groups have expanded the idea of combining rudimentary control systems into a hierarchical set of simple autonomous systems. These systems can formulate complex movements from a combination of these rudimentary subsets. This theory of motor action is based on the organization of cortical columns, which progressively integrate from simple sensory input into a complex afferent signals, or from complex motor programs to simple controls for each muscle fiber in efferent signals, forming a similar hierarchical structure. Another method for motor control uses learned error correction and predictive controls to form a sort of simulated muscle memory. In this model, awkward, random, and error-prone movements are corrected for using error feedback to produce smooth and accurate movements over time. The controller learns to create the correct control signal by predicting the error. Using these ideas, robots have been designed which can learn to produce adaptive arm movements or to avoid obstacles in a course. === Learning and memory systems === Robots designed to test theories of animal memory systems. Many studies examine the memory system of rats, particularly the rat hippocampus, dealing with place cells, which fire for a specific location that has been learned. Systems modeled after the rat hippocampus are generally able to learn mental maps of the environment, including recognizing landmarks and associating behaviors with them, allowing them to predict the upcoming obstacles and landmarks. Another study has produced a robot based on the proposed learning paradigm of barn owls for orientation and localization based on primarily auditory, but also visual stimuli. The hypothesized method involves synaptic plasticity and neuromodulation, a mostly chemical effect in which reward neurotransmitters such as dopamine or serotonin affect the firing sensitivity of a neuron to be sharper. The robot used in the study adequately matched the behavior of barn owls. Furthermore, the close interaction between motor output and auditory feedback proved to be vital in the learning process, supporting active sensing theories that are involved in many of the learning models. Neurorobots in these studies are presented with simple mazes or patterns to learn. Some of the problems presented to the neurorobot include recognition of symbols, colors, or other patterns and execute simple actions based on the pattern. In the case of the barn owl simulation, the robot had to determine its location and direction to navigate in its environment. === Action selection and value systems === Action selection studies deal with negative or positive weighting to an action and its outcome. Neurorobots can and have been used to study simple ethical interactions, such as the classical thought experiment where there are more people than a life raft can hold, and someone must leave the boat to save the rest. However, more neurorobots used in the study of action selection contend with much simpler persuasions such as self-preservation or perpetuation of the population of robots in the study. These neurorobots are modeled after the neuromodulation of synapses to encourage circuits with positive results. In biological systems, neurotransmitters such as dopamine or acetylcholine positively reinforce neural signals that are beneficial. One study of such interaction involved the robot Darwin VII, which used visual, auditory, and a simulated taste input to "eat" conductive metal blocks. The arbitrarily chosen good blocks had a striped pattern on them while the bad blocks had a circular shape on them. The taste sense was simulated by conductivity of the blocks. The robot had positive and negative feedbacks to the taste based on its level of conductivity. The researchers observed the robot to see how it learned its action selection behaviors based on the inputs it had. Other studies have used herds of small robots which feed on batteries strewn about the room, and communicate its findings to other robots. === Sensory perception === Neurorobots have also been used to study sensory perception, particularly vision. These are primarily systems that result from embedding neural models of sensory pathways in automatas. This approach gives exposure to the sensory signals that occur during behavior and also enables a more realistic assessment of the degree of robustness of the neural model. It is well known that changes in the sensory signals produced by motor activity provide useful perceptual cues that are used extensively by organisms. For example, researchers have used the depth information that emerges during replication of human head and eye movements to establish robust representations of the visual scene. == Biological robots == Biological robots are not officially neurorobots in that they are not neurologically inspired AI systems, but actual neuron tissue wired to a robot. This employs the use of cultured neural networks to study brain development or neural interactions. These typically consist of a neural culture raised on a multielectrode array (MEA), which is capable of both recording the neural activity and stimulating the tissue. In some cases, the MEA is connected to a computer which presents a simulated environment to the brain tissue and translates brain activity into actions in the simulation, as well as providing sensory feedback The ability to record neural activity gives researchers a window into a brain, which they can use to learn about a number of the same issues neurorobots are used for. An area of concern with the biological robots is ethics. Many questions are raised about how to treat such experiments. The central question concerns consciousness and whether or not the rat brain experiences it. There are many theories about how to define consciousness. == Implications for neuroscience == Neuroscientists benefit from neurorobotics because it provides a blank slate to test various possible methods of brain function in a controlled and testable environment. While robots are more simplified versions of the systems they emulate, they are more specific, allowing more direct testing of the issue at hand. They also have the benefit of being accessible at all times, while it is more difficult to monitor large portions of a brain while the human or animal is active, especially individual neurons. The development of neuroscience has produced neural treatments. These include pharmaceuticals and neural rehabilitation. Progress is dependent on an intricate understanding of the brain and how exactly it functions. It is difficult to study the brain, especially in humans, due to the danger associated with cranial surgeries. Neurorobots can improved the range of tests and experiments that can be performed in the study of neural processes.

  Read more →
• 

  Data exploration

  Data exploration is an approach similar to initial data analysis, whereby a data analyst uses visual exploration to understand what is in a dataset and the characteristics of the data, rather than through traditional data management systems. These characteristics can include size or amount of data, completeness of the data, correctness of the data, possible relationships amongst data elements or files/tables in the data. Data exploration is typically conducted using a combination of automated and manual activities. Automated activities can include data profiling or data visualization or tabular reports to give the analyst an initial view into the data and an understanding of key characteristics. This is often followed by manual drill-down or filtering of the data to identify anomalies or patterns identified through the automated actions. Data exploration can also require manual scripting and queries into the data (e.g. using languages such as SQL or R) or using spreadsheets or similar tools to view the raw data. All of these activities are aimed at creating a mental model and understanding of the data in the mind of the analyst, and defining basic metadata (statistics, structure, relationships) for the data set that can be used in further analysis. Once this initial understanding of the data is had, the data can be pruned or refined by removing unusable parts of the data (data cleansing), correcting poorly formatted elements and defining relevant relationships across datasets. This process is also known as determining data quality. Data exploration can also refer to the ad hoc querying or visualization of data to identify potential relationships or insights that may be hidden in the data and does not require to formulate assumptions beforehand. Traditionally, this had been a key area of focus for statisticians, with John Tukey being a key evangelist in the field. Today, data exploration is more widespread and is the focus of data analysts and data scientists; the latter being a relatively new role within enterprises and larger organizations. == Interactive Data Exploration == This area of data exploration has become an area of interest in the field of machine learning. This is a relatively new field and is still evolving. As its most basic level, a machine-learning algorithm can be fed a data set and can be used to identify whether a hypothesis is true based on the dataset. Common machine learning algorithms can focus on identifying specific patterns in the data. Many common patterns include regression and classification or clustering, but there are many possible patterns and algorithms that can be applied to data via machine learning. By employing machine learning, it is possible to find patterns or relationships in the data that would be difficult or impossible to find via manual inspection, trial and error or traditional exploration techniques. == Software == Trifacta – a data preparation and analysis platform Paxata – self-service data preparation software Alteryx – data blending and advanced data analytics software Microsoft Power BI - interactive visualization and data analysis tool OpenRefine - a standalone open source desktop application for data clean-up and data transformation Tableau software – interactive data visualization software

  Read more →
• 

  Explanation-based learning

  Explanation-based learning (EBL) is a form of machine learning that exploits a very strong, or even perfect, domain theory (i.e. a formal theory of an application domain akin to a domain model in ontology engineering, not to be confused with Scott's domain theory) in order to make generalizations or form concepts from training examples. It is also linked with Encoding (memory) to help with Learning. == Details == An example of EBL using a perfect domain theory is a program that learns to play chess through example. A specific chess position that contains an important feature such as "Forced loss of black queen in two moves" includes many irrelevant features, such as the specific scattering of pawns on the board. EBL can take a single training example and determine what are the relevant features in order to form a generalization. A domain theory is perfect or complete if it contains, in principle, all information needed to decide any question about the domain. For example, the domain theory for chess is simply the rules of chess. Knowing the rules, in principle, it is possible to deduce the best move in any situation. However, actually making such a deduction is impossible in practice due to combinatoric explosion. EBL uses training examples to make searching for deductive consequences of a domain theory efficient in practice. In essence, an EBL system works by finding a way to deduce each training example from the system's existing database of domain theory. Having a short proof of the training example extends the domain-theory database, enabling the EBL system to find and classify future examples that are similar to the training example very quickly. The main drawback of the method—the cost of applying the learned proof macros, as these become numerous—was analyzed by Minton. === Basic formulation === EBL software takes four inputs: a hypothesis space (the set of all possible conclusions) a domain theory (axioms about a domain of interest) training examples (specific facts that rule out some possible hypothesis) operationality criteria (criteria for determining which features in the domain are efficiently recognizable, e.g. which features are directly detectable using sensors) == Application == An especially good application domain for an EBL is natural language processing (NLP). Here a rich domain theory, i.e., a natural language grammar—although neither perfect nor complete, is tuned to a particular application or particular language usage, using a treebank (training examples). Rayner pioneered this work. The first successful industrial application was to a commercial NL interface to relational databases. The method has been successfully applied to several large-scale natural language parsing systems, where the utility problem was solved by omitting the original grammar (domain theory) and using specialized LR-parsing techniques, resulting in huge speed-ups, at a cost in coverage, but with a gain in disambiguation. EBL-like techniques have also been applied to surface generation, the converse of parsing. When applying EBL to NLP, the operationality criteria can be hand-crafted, or can be inferred from the treebank using either the entropy of its or-nodes or a target coverage/disambiguation trade-off (= recall/precision trade-off = f-score). EBL can also be used to compile grammar-based language models for speech recognition, from general unification grammars. Note how the utility problem, first exposed by Minton, was solved by discarding the original grammar/domain theory, and that the quoted articles tend to contain the phrase grammar specialization—quite the opposite of the original term explanation-based generalization. Perhaps the best name for this technique would be data-driven search space reduction. Other people who worked on EBL for NLP include Guenther Neumann, Aravind Joshi, Srinivas Bangalore, and Khalil Sima'an.

  Read more →
• 

  Application framework

  In computer programming, an application framework consists of a software framework used by software developers to implement the standard structure of application software. Application frameworks became popular with the rise of graphical user interfaces (GUIs), since these tended to promote a standard structure for applications. Programmers find it much simpler to create automatic GUI creation tools when using a standard framework, since this defines the underlying code structure of the application in advance. Developers usually use object-oriented programming (OOP) techniques to implement frameworks such that the unique parts of an application can simply inherit from classes extant in the framework. == Examples == Apple Computer developed one of the first commercial application frameworks, MacApp (first release 1985), for the Macintosh. Originally written in an extended (object-oriented) version of Pascal termed Object Pascal, it was later rewritten in C++. Another notable framework for the Mac is Metrowerks' PowerPlant, based on Carbon. Cocoa for macOS offers a different approach to an application framework, based on the OpenStep framework developed at NeXT. Since the 2010s, many apps have been created with the frameworks based on Google's Chromium project. The two prominent ones are Electron and the Chromium Embedded Framework. Free and open-source software frameworks exist as part of the Mozilla, LibreOffice, GNOME, KDE, NetBeans, and Eclipse projects. Microsoft markets a framework for developing Windows applications in C++ called the Microsoft Foundation Class Library, and a similar framework for developing applications with Visual Basic or C#, named .NET Framework. Several frameworks can build cross-platform applications for Linux, Macintosh, and Windows from common source code, such as Qt, wxWidgets, Juce, Fox toolkit, or Eclipse Rich Client Platform (RCP). Oracle Application Development Framework (Oracle ADF) aids in producing Java-oriented systems. Silicon Laboratories offers an embedded application framework for developing wireless applications on its series of wireless chips.

  Read more →
• 

  .ai

  .ai is the Internet country code top-level domain (ccTLD) for Anguilla, a British Overseas Territory in the Caribbean. It is administered by the government of Anguilla. It is a popular domain hack with companies and projects related to the artificial intelligence industry (AI). Google's ad targeting treats .ai as a generic top-level domain (gTLD) because "users and website owners frequently see [the domain] as being more generic than country-targeted." In 2021, Google Search analyst Gary Illyes announced that ".ai" had been added to Google’s list of generic country-code top-level domains, meaning that Google would no longer infer Anguilla-specific targeting from the ccTLD. Identity Digital began managing the domain as of January 2025. == Second and third level registrations == Registrations within off.ai, com.ai, net.ai, and org.ai are available worldwide without restriction. From 15 September 2009, second level registrations within .ai are available to everyone worldwide. == Registration == The minimum registration term allowed for .ai domains is 2 through 10 years for registration and renewal, and a 2-year renewal for domain transfer. Identity Digital is the authority in charge of managing this extension. Registrations began on 16 February 1995. The limits on the number of characters used for the domain name are, at a minimum, from 1 to 3, depending on the registrar, and always at most 63 characters. The character set supported for .ai domain names includes A–Z, a–z, 0–9, and hyphen. As of November 2022, .ai domains cannot accommodate IDN characters. There are no requirements for registering a domain, including local and foreign residents. A .ai domain can be suspended or revoked, if the domain is involved in illegal activity such as violating trademarks or copyrights. Usage must not violate the laws of Anguilla. Anguilla uses the UDRP. Filing a UDRP challenge requires using one of the ICANN Approved Dispute Resolution Service Providers. If the domain is with an ICANN accredited registrar, they should work with the arbitrator. Usually this means either doing nothing or transferring a domain. .ai domains are transferable to any desired registrars as the registration of domain is done maintaining EPP. There used to be a whois.ai-based platform of expired domains in which those could be procured and auctioned every ten days through a standard online process. The last auctions of such kind closed there in December 2024; the platform had been scheduled for shutdown on 30 June 2025, but remained online in the months following that date. == Valuation == Domains cost depends on the registrar, with yearly fees ranging from US$140 (the base fee, as established by Anguilla) to $200. As of July 2025, the highest-valued .ai domain is an undisclosed one sold on 8 November 2023, on Escrow.com, for US$1,500,000—months after an initial $300,000 sale to the same buyer. Among the publicly disclosed ones, the most valued, fin.ai, was sold for $1,000,000 in March 2025. On 16 December 2017, the .ai registry started supporting the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) and migrated all of its domains onto an EPP system. Consequently, many registrars are allowed to sell .ai domains. Since that date, the .ai ccTLD has also been popular with artificial intelligence companies and organisations. Though such trends are primarily seen among new AI based companies or startups, many established AI and Tech companies preferred not to opt for .ai domains. For example, DeepMind has its domain retained at .com; Meta has redirected its facebook.ai domain to ai.meta.com. == Impact on Anguilla's economy == The registration fees earned from the .ai domains go to the treasury of the Government of Anguilla. As per a 2018 New York Times report, the total revenue generated out of selling .ai domains was $2.9 million. In 2023, Anguilla's government made about US$32 million from fees collected for registering .ai domains; that amounted to over 10% of gross domestic product for the territory. "In the years before the real breakthrough of AI, revenue from .ai domains made up less than 1% of our state income, by 2025 it will be around 47%," explained Jose Vanterpool, Minister of Infrastructure and Communications (MICUHITES), in an interview with BBC. The high 90% renewal rate of .ai domains and the 2025 renewal wave of domains registered in 2023 are driving another surge in state revenues, according to Domaintechnik.

  Read more →
• 

  Commonsense knowledge (artificial intelligence)

  In artificial intelligence research, commonsense knowledge consists of facts about the everyday world, such as "Lemons are sour" or "Cows say moo", that all humans are expected to know. It is currently an unsolved problem in artificial general intelligence. The first AI program to address common sense knowledge was Advice Taker in 1959 by John McCarthy. Commonsense knowledge can underpin a commonsense reasoning process, to attempt inferences such as "You might bake a cake because you want people to eat the cake." A natural language processing process can be attached to the commonsense knowledge base to allow the knowledge base to attempt to answer questions about the world. Common sense knowledge also helps to solve problems in the face of incomplete information. Using widely held beliefs about everyday objects, or common sense knowledge, AI systems make common sense assumptions or default assumptions about the unknown similar to the way people do. In an AI system or in English, this is expressed as "Normally P holds", "Usually P" or "Typically P so Assume P". For example, if we know the fact "Tweety is a bird", because we know the commonly held belief about birds, "typically birds fly," without knowing anything else about Tweety, we may reasonably assume the fact that "Tweety can fly." As more knowledge of the world is discovered or learned over time, the AI system can revise its assumptions about Tweety using a truth maintenance process. If we later learn that "Tweety is a penguin" then truth maintenance revises this assumption because we also know "penguins do not fly". == Commonsense reasoning == Commonsense reasoning simulates the human ability to use commonsense knowledge to make presumptions about the type and essence of ordinary situations they encounter every day, and to change their "minds" should new information come to light. This includes time, missing or incomplete information and cause and effect. The ability to explain cause and effect is an important aspect of explainable AI. Truth maintenance algorithms automatically provide an explanation facility because they create elaborate records of presumptions. Compared with humans, all existing computer programs that attempt human-level AI perform extremely poorly on modern "commonsense reasoning" benchmark tests such as the Winograd Schema Challenge. The problem of attaining human-level competency at "commonsense knowledge" tasks is considered to probably be "AI complete" (that is, solving it would require the ability to synthesize a fully human-level intelligence), although some oppose this notion and believe compassionate intelligence is also required for human-level AI. Common sense reasoning has been applied successfully in more limited domains such as natural language processing and automated diagnosis or analysis. == Commonsense knowledge base construction == Compiling comprehensive knowledge bases of commonsense assertions (CSKBs) is a long-standing challenge in AI research. From early expert-driven efforts like CYC and WordNet, significant advances were achieved via the crowdsourced OpenMind Commonsense project, which led to the crowdsourced ConceptNet KB. Several approaches have attempted to automate CSKB construction, most notably, via text mining (WebChild, Quasimodo, TransOMCS, Ascent), as well as harvesting these directly from pre-trained language models (AutoTOMIC). These resources are significantly larger than ConceptNet, though the automated construction mostly makes them of moderately lower quality. Challenges also remain on the representation of commonsense knowledge: Most CSKB projects follow a triple data model, which is not necessarily best suited for breaking more complex natural language assertions. A notable exception here is GenericsKB, which applies no further normalization to sentences, but retains them in full. == Applications == Around 2013, MIT researchers developed BullySpace, an extension of the commonsense knowledgebase ConceptNet, to catch taunting social media comments. BullySpace included over 200 semantic assertions based around stereotypes, to help the system infer that comments like "Put on a wig and lipstick and be who you really are" are more likely to be an insult if directed at a boy than a girl. ConceptNet has also been used by chatbots and by computers that compose original fiction. At Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, common sense knowledge was used in an intelligent software agent to detect violations of a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. == Data == As an example, as of 2012 ConceptNet includes these 21 language-independent relations: IsA (An "RV" is a "vehicle" | X is an instance of a Y) UsedFor (a "cake tin" is used for "making cakes" | X is used for the purpose Y) HasA (A "rabbit" has a "tail" | X possesses Y element or feature) CapableOf (a "cook" is capable of "making baked goods" | X is capable of doing Y) Desires (a "child" desires "the aroma of baking" | X has a desire for Y) CreatedBy ("cake" is created by a "baker" | X is created by Y) PartOf (a "knife" is be part of a "knife set" | X is a part of Y) Causes ("Heat" causes "cooking"| X is what causes Y) LocatedNear (the "oven" is located near the "refrigerator" | X is located near Y) AtLocation (Somewhere a "Cook" can be at a "restaurant" | X is at the location of Y) DefinedAs (a "Cupcake" is defined as a "cake" that also has the qualities of being "small", "baked within a wrapper", and "containing only one area of frosting or icing" | X is defined as Y that also has the properties A, B & C) SymbolOf (a "heart" is a symbol of "affection" | X is a symbolic representation of Y) ReceivesAction ("cake" can receive the action of being "eaten" | X is capable of receiving action Y) HasPrerequisite ("baking" has the prerequisite of obtaining the "ingredients" | X cannot do Y unless A does B) MotivatedByGoal ("baking" is motivated by the goal of "consumption"/"eating" | X has the motivation of Y goal) CausesDesire ("baking" makesYou want to "follow recipe" | X causes the desire to do Y) MadeOf ("Cake" is made of "flour"/"eggs"/"sugar"/"oil"/etc | X is made of Y) HasFirstSubevent ("baking" has first subevent "make batter" | To do X the first thing that needs to be done is Y) HasSubevent ("eat" has subevent "swallow" | Doing X will lead to Y event following) HasLastSubevent ("sleeping" has last subevent of "waking" | Doing X ends with the event Y) == Commonsense knowledge bases == Cyc Open Mind Common Sense (data source) and ConceptNet (datastore and NLP engine) Evi Graphiq

  Read more →
• 

  Empirical risk minimization

  In statistical learning theory, the principle of empirical risk minimization defines a family of learning algorithms based on evaluating performance over a known and fixed dataset. The core idea is based on an application of the law of large numbers; more specifically, we cannot know exactly how well a predictive algorithm will work in practice (i.e. the "true risk") because we do not know the true distribution of the data, but we can instead estimate and optimize the performance of the algorithm on a known set of training data. The performance over the known set of training data is referred to as the "empirical risk". == Background == The following situation is a general setting of many supervised learning problems. There are two spaces of objects X {\displaystyle X} and Y {\displaystyle Y} and we would like to learn a function h : X → Y {\displaystyle \ h:X\to Y} (often called hypothesis) which outputs an object y ∈ Y {\displaystyle y\in Y} , given x ∈ X {\displaystyle x\in X} . To do so, there is a training set of n {\displaystyle n} examples ( x 1 , y 1 ) , … , ( x n , y n ) {\displaystyle \ (x_{1},y_{1}),\ldots ,(x_{n},y_{n})} where x i ∈ X {\displaystyle x_{i}\in X} is an input and y i ∈ Y {\displaystyle y_{i}\in Y} is the corresponding response that is desired from h ( x i ) {\displaystyle h(x_{i})} . To put it more formally, assuming that there is a joint probability distribution P ( x , y ) {\displaystyle P(x,y)} over X {\displaystyle X} and Y {\displaystyle Y} , and that the training set consists of n {\displaystyle n} instances ( x 1 , y 1 ) , … , ( x n , y n ) {\displaystyle \ (x_{1},y_{1}),\ldots ,(x_{n},y_{n})} drawn i.i.d. from P ( x , y ) {\displaystyle P(x,y)} . The assumption of a joint probability distribution allows for the modelling of uncertainty in predictions (e.g. from noise in data) because y {\displaystyle y} is not a deterministic function of x {\displaystyle x} , but rather a random variable with conditional distribution P ( y | x ) {\displaystyle P(y|x)} for a fixed x {\displaystyle x} . It is also assumed that there is a non-negative real-valued loss function L ( y ^ , y ) {\displaystyle L({\hat {y}},y)} which measures how different the prediction y ^ {\displaystyle {\hat {y}}} of a hypothesis is from the true outcome y {\displaystyle y} . For classification tasks, these loss functions can be scoring rules. The risk associated with hypothesis h ( x ) {\displaystyle h(x)} is then defined as the expectation of the loss function: R ( h ) = E [ L ( h ( x ) , y ) ] = ∫ L ( h ( x ) , y ) d P ( x , y ) . {\displaystyle R(h)=\mathbf {E} [L(h(x),y)]=\int L(h(x),y)\,dP(x,y).} A loss function commonly used in theory is the 0-1 loss function: L ( y ^ , y ) = { 1 if y ^ ≠ y 0 if y ^ = y {\displaystyle L({\hat {y}},y)={\begin{cases}1&{\mbox{ if }}\quad {\hat {y}}\neq y\\0&{\mbox{ if }}\quad {\hat {y}}=y\end{cases}}} . The ultimate goal of a learning algorithm is to find a hypothesis h ∗ {\displaystyle h^{}} among a fixed class of functions H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} for which the risk R ( h ) {\displaystyle R(h)} is minimal: h ∗ = a r g m i n h ∈ H R ( h ) . {\displaystyle h^{}={\underset {h\in {\mathcal {H}}}{\operatorname {arg\,min} }}\,{R(h)}.} For classification problems, the Bayes classifier is defined to be the classifier minimizing the risk defined with the 0–1 loss function. == Formal definition == In general, the risk R ( h ) {\displaystyle R(h)} cannot be computed because the distribution P ( x , y ) {\displaystyle P(x,y)} is unknown to the learning algorithm. However, given a sample of iid training data points, we can compute an estimate, called the empirical risk, by computing the average of the loss function over the training set; more formally, computing the expectation with respect to the empirical measure: R emp ( h ) = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n L ( h ( x i ) , y i ) . {\displaystyle \!R_{\text{emp}}(h)={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}L(h(x_{i}),y_{i}).} The empirical risk minimization principle states that the learning algorithm should choose a hypothesis h ^ {\displaystyle {\hat {h}}} which minimizes the empirical risk over the hypothesis class H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} : h ^ = a r g m i n h ∈ H R emp ( h ) . {\displaystyle {\hat {h}}={\underset {h\in {\mathcal {H}}}{\operatorname {arg\,min} }}\,R_{\text{emp}}(h).} Thus, the learning algorithm defined by the empirical risk minimization principle consists in solving the above optimization problem. == Properties == Guarantees for the performance of empirical risk minimization depend strongly on the function class selected as well as the distributional assumptions made. In general, distribution-free methods are too coarse, and do not lead to practical bounds. However, they are still useful in deriving asymptotic properties of learning algorithms, such as consistency. In particular, distribution-free bounds on the performance of empirical risk minimization given a fixed function class can be derived using bounds on the VC complexity of the function class. For simplicity, considering the case of binary classification tasks, it is possible to bound the probability of the selected classifier, ϕ n {\displaystyle \phi _{n}} being much worse than the best possible classifier ϕ ∗ {\displaystyle \phi ^{}} . Consider the risk L {\displaystyle L} defined over the hypothesis class C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}} with growth function S ( C , n ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}({\mathcal {C}},n)} given a dataset of size n {\displaystyle n} . Then, for every ϵ > 0 {\displaystyle \epsilon >0} : P ( L ( ϕ n ) − L ( ϕ ∗ ) > ϵ ) ≤ 8 S ( C , n ) exp ⁡ { − n ϵ 2 / 32 } {\displaystyle \mathbb {P} \left(L(\phi _{n})-L(\phi ^{})>\epsilon \right)\leq {\mathcal {8}}S({\mathcal {C}},n)\exp\{-n\epsilon ^{2}/32\}} Similar results hold for regression tasks. These results are often based on uniform laws of large numbers, which control the deviation of the empirical risk from the true risk, uniformly over the hypothesis class. === Impossibility results === It is also possible to show lower bounds on algorithm performance if no distributional assumptions are made. This is sometimes referred to as the No free lunch theorem. Even though a specific learning algorithm may provide the asymptotically optimal performance for any distribution, the finite sample performance is always poor for at least one data distribution. This means that no classifier can improve on the error for a given sample size for all distributions. Specifically, let ϵ > 0 {\displaystyle \epsilon >0} and consider a sample size n {\displaystyle n} and classification rule ϕ n {\displaystyle \phi _{n}} , there exists a distribution of ( X , Y ) {\displaystyle (X,Y)} with risk L ∗ = 0 {\displaystyle L^{}=0} (meaning that perfect prediction is possible) such that: E L n ≥ 1 / 2 − ϵ . {\displaystyle \mathbb {E} L_{n}\geq 1/2-\epsilon .} It is further possible to show that the convergence rate of a learning algorithm is poor for some distributions. Specifically, given a sequence of decreasing positive numbers a i {\displaystyle a_{i}} converging to zero, it is possible to find a distribution such that: E L n ≥ a i {\displaystyle \mathbb {E} L_{n}\geq a_{i}} for all n {\displaystyle n} . This result shows that universally good classification rules do not exist, in the sense that the rule must be low quality for at least one distribution. === Computational complexity === Empirical risk minimization for a classification problem with a 0-1 loss function is known to be an NP-hard problem even for a relatively simple class of functions such as linear classifiers. Nevertheless, it can be solved efficiently when the minimal empirical risk is zero, i.e., data is linearly separable. In practice, machine learning algorithms cope with this issue either by employing a convex approximation to the 0–1 loss function (like hinge loss for SVM), which is easier to optimize, or by imposing assumptions on the distribution P ( x , y ) {\displaystyle P(x,y)} (and thus stop being agnostic learning algorithms to which the above result applies). In the case of convexification, Zhang's lemma majors the excess risk of the original problem using the excess risk of the convexified problem. Minimizing the latter using convex optimization also allow to control the former. == Tilted empirical risk minimization == Tilted empirical risk minimization is a machine learning technique used to modify standard loss functions like squared error, by introducing a tilt parameter. This parameter dynamically adjusts the weight of data points during training, allowing the algorithm to focus on specific regions or characteristics of the data distribution. Tilted empirical risk minimization is particularly useful in scenarios with imbalanced data or when there is a need to emphasize errors in certain parts of the prediction space.

  Read more →
• 

  Capture the flag (cybersecurity)

  In computer security, Capture the Flag (CTF) is an exercise in which participants attempt to find text strings, called "flags", which are secretly hidden in purposefully vulnerable programs or websites. They can be used for both competitive or educational purposes. In two main variations of CTFs, participants either steal flags from other participants (attack/defense-style CTFs) or from organizers (jeopardy-style challenges). A mixed competition combines these two styles. Competitions can include hiding flags in hardware devices, they can be both online or in-person, and can be advanced or entry-level. The game is inspired by the traditional outdoor sport with the same name. CTFs are used as a tool for developing and refining cybersecurity skills, making them popular in both professional and academic settings. == Overview == Capture the Flag (CTF) is a cybersecurity competition that is used to test and develop computer security skills. It was first developed in 1996 at DEF CON, the largest cybersecurity conference in the United States which is hosted annually in Las Vegas, Nevada. The conference hosts a weekend of cybersecurity competitions, including their flagship CTF. Two popular CTF formats are jeopardy and attack-defense. Both formats test participant’s knowledge in cybersecurity, but differ in objective. In the Jeopardy format, participating teams must complete as many challenges of varying point values from a various categories such as cryptography, web exploitation, and reverse engineering. In the attack-defense format, competing teams must defend their vulnerable computer systems while attacking their opponent's systems. The exercise involves a diverse array of tasks, including exploitation and cracking passwords, but there is little evidence showing how these tasks translate into cybersecurity knowledge held by security experts. Recent research has shown that the Capture the Flag tasks mainly covered technical knowledge but lacked social topics like social engineering and awareness on cybersecurity. == Educational applications == CTFs have been shown to be an effective way to improve cybersecurity education through gamification. There are many examples of CTFs designed to teach cybersecurity skills to a wide variety of audiences, including PicoCTF, organized by the Carnegie Mellon CyLab, which is oriented towards high school students, and Arizona State University supported pwn.college. Beyond educational CTF events and resources, CTFs has been shown to be a highly effective way to instill cybersecurity concepts in the classroom. CTFs have been included in undergraduate computer science classes such as Introduction to Information Security at the National University of Singapore. CTFs are also popular in military academies. They are often included as part of the curriculum for cybersecurity courses, with the NSA organized Cyber Exercise culminating in a CTF competition between the US service academies and military colleges. == Competitions == Many CTF organizers register their competition with the CTFtime platform. This allows the tracking of the position of teams over time and across competitions. These include "Plaid Parliament of Pwning", "More Smoked Leet Chicken", "Dragon Sector", "dcua", "Eat, Sleep, Pwn, Repeat", "perfect blue", "organizers" and "Blue Water". Overall the "Plaid Parliament of Pwning" and "Dragon Sector" have both placed first worldwide the most with three times each. === Community competitions === Every year there are dozens of CTFs organized in a variety of formats. Many CTFs are associated with cybersecurity conferences such as DEF CON, various editions of SANS Institute's NetWars, HITCON, and BSides. The DEF CON CTF, an attack-defence CTF, is notable for being one of the oldest CTF competitions to exist, and has been variously referred to as the "World Series", "Superbowl", and "Olympics", of hacking by media outlets. The NYU Tandon hosted Cybersecurity Awareness Worldwide (CSAW) CTF is one of the largest open-entry competitions for students learning cybersecurity from around the world. In 2021, it hosted over 1200 teams during the qualification round. In addition to conference organized CTFs, many CTF clubs and teams organize CTF competitions. Many CTF clubs and teams are associated with universities, such as the CMU associated Plaid Parliament of Pwning, which hosts PlaidCTF, and the ASU associated Shellphish. Some community CTFs are online and open to all participants. The SANS Institute Holiday Hack Challenge and TryHackMe Advent of Cyber. === Government-supported competitions === Governmentally supported CTF competitions include the DARPA Cyber Grand Challenge and ENISA European Cybersecurity Challenge. In 2023, the US Space Force-sponsored Hack-a-Sat CTF competition included, for the first time, a live orbital satellite for participants to exploit. === Corporate-supported competitions === Corporations and other organizations sometimes use CTFs as a training or evaluation exercise, with benefits similar to those in educational settings. In addition to internal CTF exercises, some corporations such as Google and Tencent host publicly accessible CTF competitions. == In popular culture == In Mr. Robot, a qualification round for the DEF CON CTF competition is depicted in the season 3 opener "eps3.0_power-saver-mode.h". The logo for DEF CON can be seen in the background. In The Undeclared War, a CTF is depicted in the opening scene of the series as a recruitment exercise used by GCHQ. Go Go Squid!, a Chinese television series, is based around training for and competing in highly stylized CTF competitions .

  Read more →
• 

  Toy problem

  In scientific disciplines, a toy problem or a puzzlelike problem is a problem that is not of immediate scientific interest, yet is used as an expository device to illustrate a trait that may be shared by other, more complicated, instances of the problem, or as a way to explain a particular, more general, problem solving technique. A toy problem is useful to test and demonstrate methodologies. Researchers can use toy problems to compare the performance of different algorithms. They are also good for game designing. For instance, while engineering a large system, the large problem is often broken down into many smaller toy problems which have been well understood in detail. Often these problems distill a few important aspects of complicated problems so that they can be studied in isolation. Toy problems are thus often very useful in providing intuition about specific phenomena in more complicated problems. As an example, in the field of artificial intelligence, classical puzzles, games and problems are often used as toy problems. These include sliding-block puzzles, N-Queens problem, missionaries and cannibals problem, tic-tac-toe, chess, Tower of Hanoi and others.

  Read more →
• 

  Neural scaling law

  In machine learning, a neural scaling law is an empirical scaling law that describes how neural network performance changes as key factors are scaled up or down. These factors typically include the number of parameters, training dataset size, and training cost. Some models also exhibit performance gains by scaling inference through increased test-time compute (TTC), extending neural scaling laws beyond training to the deployment phase. == Introduction == In general, a deep learning model can be characterized by four parameters: model size, training dataset size, training cost, and the post-training error rate (e.g., the test set error rate). Each of these variables can be defined as a real number, usually written as N , D , C , L {\displaystyle N,D,C,L} (respectively: parameter count, dataset size, computing cost, and loss). A neural scaling law is a theoretical or empirical statistical law between these parameters. There are also other parameters with other scaling laws. === Size of the model === In most cases, the model's size is simply the number of parameters. However, one complication arises with the use of sparse models, such as mixture-of-expert models. With sparse models, during inference, only a fraction of their parameters are used. In comparison, most other kinds of neural networks, such as transformer models, always use all their parameters during inference. === Size of the training dataset === The size of the training dataset is usually quantified by the number of data points within it. Larger training datasets are typically preferred, as they provide a richer and more diverse source of information from which the model can learn. This can lead to improved generalization performance when the model is applied to new, unseen data. However, increasing the size of the training dataset also increases the computational resources and time required for model training. With the "pretrain, then finetune" method used for most large language models, there are two kinds of training dataset: the pretraining dataset and the finetuning dataset. Their sizes have different effects on model performance. Generally, the finetuning dataset is less than 1% the size of pretraining dataset. In some cases, a small amount of high quality data suffices for finetuning, and more data does not necessarily improve performance. Many scaling laws, due to their inherent diminishing returns nature, value data based on a submodular set function which was shown in a paper on this topic. === Cost of training === Training cost is typically measured in terms of time (how long it takes to train the model) and computational resources (how much processing power and memory are required). It is important to note that the cost of training can be significantly reduced with efficient training algorithms, optimized software libraries, and parallel computing on specialized hardware such as GPUs or TPUs. The cost of training a neural network model is a function of several factors, including model size, training dataset size, the training algorithm complexity, and the computational resources available. In particular, doubling the training dataset size does not necessarily double the cost of training, because one may train the model for several times over the same dataset (each being an "epoch"). === Performance === The performance of a neural network model is evaluated based on its ability to accurately predict the output given some input data. Common metrics for evaluating model performance include: Negative log-likelihood per token (logarithm of perplexity) for language modeling; Accuracy, precision, recall, and F1 score for classification tasks; Mean squared error (MSE) or mean absolute error (MAE) for regression tasks; Elo rating in a competition against other models, such as gameplay or preference by a human judge. Performance can be improved by using more data, larger models, different training algorithms, regularizing the model to prevent overfitting, and early stopping using a validation set. When the performance is a number bounded within the range of [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle [0,1]} , such as accuracy, precision, etc., it often scales as a sigmoid function of cost, as seen in the figures. == Examples == === (Hestness, Narang, et al, 2017) === The 2017 paper is a common reference point for neural scaling laws fitted by statistical analysis on experimental data. Previous works before the 2000s, as cited in the paper, were either theoretical or orders of magnitude smaller in scale. Whereas previous works generally found the scaling exponent to scale like L ∝ D − α {\displaystyle L\propto D^{-\alpha }} , with α ∈ { 0.5 , 1 , 2 } {\displaystyle \alpha \in \{0.5,1,2\}} , the paper found that α ∈ [ 0.07 , 0.35 ] {\displaystyle \alpha \in [0.07,0.35]} . Of the factors they varied, only task can change the exponent α {\displaystyle \alpha } . Changing the architecture optimizers, regularizers, and loss functions, would only change the proportionality factor, not the exponent. For example, for the same task, one architecture might have L = 1000 D − 0.3 {\displaystyle L=1000D^{-0.3}} while another might have L = 500 D − 0.3 {\displaystyle L=500D^{-0.3}} . They also found that for a given architecture, the number of parameters necessary to reach lowest levels of loss, given a fixed dataset size, grows like N ∝ D β {\displaystyle N\propto D^{\beta }} for another exponent β {\displaystyle \beta } . They studied machine translation with LSTM ( α ∼ 0.13 {\displaystyle \alpha \sim 0.13} ), generative language modelling with LSTM ( α ∈ [ 0.06 , 0.09 ] , β ≈ 0.7 {\displaystyle \alpha \in [0.06,0.09],\beta \approx 0.7} ), ImageNet classification with ResNet ( α ∈ [ 0.3 , 0.5 ] , β ≈ 0.6 {\displaystyle \alpha \in [0.3,0.5],\beta \approx 0.6} ), and speech recognition with two hybrid (LSTMs complemented by either CNNs or an attention decoder) architectures ( α ≈ 0.3 {\displaystyle \alpha \approx 0.3} ). === (Henighan, Kaplan, et al, 2020) === A 2020 analysis studied statistical relations between C , N , D , L {\displaystyle C,N,D,L} over a wide range of values and found similar scaling laws, over the range of N ∈ [ 10 3 , 10 9 ] {\displaystyle N\in [10^{3},10^{9}]} , C ∈ [ 10 12 , 10 21 ] {\displaystyle C\in [10^{12},10^{21}]} , and over multiple modalities (text, video, image, text to image, etc.). In particular, the scaling laws it found are (Table 1 of ): For each modality, they fixed one of the two C , N {\displaystyle C,N} , and varying the other one ( D {\displaystyle D} is varied along using D = C / 6 N {\displaystyle D=C/6N} ), the achievable test loss satisfies L = L 0 + ( x 0 x ) α {\displaystyle L=L_{0}+\left({\frac {x_{0}}{x}}\right)^{\alpha }} where x {\displaystyle x} is the varied variable, and L 0 , x 0 , α {\displaystyle L_{0},x_{0},\alpha } are parameters to be found by statistical fitting. The parameter α {\displaystyle \alpha } is the most important one. When N {\displaystyle N} is the varied variable, α {\displaystyle \alpha } ranges from 0.037 {\displaystyle 0.037} to 0.24 {\displaystyle 0.24} depending on the model modality. This corresponds to the α = 0.34 {\displaystyle \alpha =0.34} from the Chinchilla scaling paper. When C {\displaystyle C} is the varied variable, α {\displaystyle \alpha } ranges from 0.048 {\displaystyle 0.048} to 0.19 {\displaystyle 0.19} depending on the model modality. This corresponds to the β = 0.28 {\displaystyle \beta =0.28} from the Chinchilla scaling paper. Given fixed computing budget, optimal model parameter count is consistently around N o p t ( C ) = ( C 5 × 10 − 12 petaFLOP-day ) 0.7 = 9.0 × 10 − 7 C 0.7 {\displaystyle N_{opt}(C)=\left({\frac {C}{5\times 10^{-12}{\text{petaFLOP-day}}}}\right)^{0.7}=9.0\times 10^{-7}C^{0.7}} The parameter 9.0 × 10 − 7 {\displaystyle 9.0\times 10^{-7}} varies by a factor of up to 10 for different modalities. The exponent parameter 0.7 {\displaystyle 0.7} varies from 0.64 {\displaystyle 0.64} to 0.75 {\displaystyle 0.75} for different modalities. This exponent corresponds to the ≈ 0.5 {\displaystyle \approx 0.5} from the Chinchilla scaling paper. It's "strongly suggested" (but not statistically checked) that D o p t ( C ) ∝ N o p t ( C ) 0.4 ∝ C 0.28 {\displaystyle D_{opt}(C)\propto N_{opt}(C)^{0.4}\propto C^{0.28}} . This exponent corresponds to the ≈ 0.5 {\displaystyle \approx 0.5} from the Chinchilla scaling paper. The scaling law of L = L 0 + ( C 0 / C ) 0.048 {\displaystyle L=L_{0}+(C_{0}/C)^{0.048}} was confirmed during the training of GPT-3 (Figure 3.1 ). === Chinchilla scaling (Hoffmann, et al, 2022) === One particular scaling law ("Chinchilla scaling") states that, for a large language model (LLM) autoregressively trained for one epoch, with a cosine learning rate schedule, we have: { C = C 0 N D L = A N α + B D β + L 0 {\displaystyle {\begin{cases}C=C_{0}ND\\L={\frac {A}{N^{\alpha }}}+{\frac {B}{D^{\beta }}}+L_{0}\end{cases}}} where the variables are C {\displaystyle C} is the cost o

  Read more →