AI Data Labeling

AI Data Labeling — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  Color space

  A color space is a specific organization of colors. In combination with color profiling supported by various physical devices, it supports reproducible representations of color – whether such representation entails an analog or a digital representation. A color space may be arbitrary, i.e. with physically realized colors assigned to a set of physical color swatches with corresponding assigned color names (including discrete numbers in – for example – the Pantone collection), or structured with mathematical rigor (as with the NCS System, Adobe RGB and sRGB). A "color space" is a useful conceptual tool for understanding the color capabilities of a particular device or digital file. When trying to reproduce color on another device, color spaces can show whether shadow/highlight detail and color saturation can be retained, and by how much either will be compromised. A "color model" is an abstract mathematical model describing the way colors can be represented as tuples of numbers (e.g. triples in RGB or quadruples in CMYK); however, a color model with no associated mapping function to an absolute color space is a more or less arbitrary color system with no connection to any globally understood system of color interpretation. Adding a specific mapping function between a color model and a reference color space establishes within the reference color space a definite "footprint", known as a gamut, and for a given color model, this defines a color space. For example, Adobe RGB and sRGB are two different absolute color spaces, both based on the RGB color model. When defining a color space, the usual reference standard is the CIELAB or CIEXYZ color spaces, which were specifically designed to encompass all colors the average human can see. Since "color space" identifies a particular combination of the color model and the mapping function, the word is often used informally to identify a color model. However, even though identifying a color space automatically identifies the associated color model, this usage is incorrect in a strict sense. For example, although several specific color spaces are based on the RGB color model, there is no such thing as the singular RGB color space. == History == In 1802, Thomas Young postulated the existence of three types of photoreceptors (now known as cone cells) in the eye, each of which was sensitive to a particular range of visible light. Hermann von Helmholtz developed the Young–Helmholtz theory further in 1850: that the three types of cone photoreceptors could be classified as short-preferring (blue), middle-preferring (green), and long-preferring (red), according to their response to the wavelengths of light striking the retina. The relative strengths of the signals detected by the three types of cones are interpreted by the brain as a visible color. But it is not clear that they thought of colors as being points in color space. The color-space concept was likely due to Hermann Grassmann, who developed it in two stages. First, he developed the idea of vector space, which allowed the algebraic representation of geometric concepts in n-dimensional space. Fearnley-Sander (1979) describes Grassmann's foundation of linear algebra as follows: The definition of a linear space (vector space)... became widely known around 1920, when Hermann Weyl and others published formal definitions. In fact, such a definition had been given thirty years previously by Peano, who was thoroughly acquainted with Grassmann's mathematical work. Grassmann did not put down a formal definition—the language was not available—but there is no doubt that he had the concept. With this conceptual background, in 1853, Grassmann published a theory of how colors mix; it and its three color laws are still taught, as Grassmann's law. As noted first by Grassmann... the light set has the structure of a cone in the infinite-dimensional linear space. As a result, a quotient set (with respect to metamerism) of the light cone inherits the conical structure, which allows color to be represented as a convex cone in the 3- D linear space, which is referred to as the color cone. == Examples == Colors can be created in printing with color spaces based on the CMYK color model, using the subtractive primary colors of pigment (cyan, magenta, yellow, and key [black]). To create a three-dimensional representation of a given color space, we can assign the amount of magenta color to the representation's X axis, the amount of cyan to its Y axis, and the amount of yellow to its Z axis. The resulting 3-D space provides a unique position for every possible color that can be created by combining those three pigments. Colors can be created on computer monitors with color spaces based on the RGB color model, using the additive primary colors (red, green, and blue). A three-dimensional representation would assign each of the three colors to the X, Y, and Z axes. Colors generated on a given monitor will be limited by the reproduction medium, such as the phosphor (in a CRT monitor) or filters and backlight (LCD monitor). Another way of creating colors on a monitor is with an HSL or HSV color model, based on hue, saturation, brightness (value/lightness). With such a model, the variables are assigned to cylindrical coordinates. Many color spaces can be represented as three-dimensional values in this manner, but some have more, or fewer dimensions, and some, such as Pantone, cannot be represented in this way at all. == Conversion == Color space conversion is the translation of the representation of a color from one basis to another. This typically occurs in the context of converting an image that is represented in one color space to another color space, the goal being to make the translated image look as similar as possible to the original. == RGB density == The RGB color model is implemented in different ways, depending on the capabilities of the system used. The most common incarnation in general use as of 2021 is the 24-bit implementation, with 8 bits, or 256 discrete levels of color per channel. Any color space based on such a 24-bit RGB model is thus limited to a range of 256×256×256 ≈ 16.7 million colors. Some implementations use 16 bits per component for 48 bits total, resulting in the same gamut with a larger number of distinct colors. This is especially important when working with wide-gamut color spaces (where most of the more common colors are located relatively close together), or when a large number of digital filtering algorithms are used consecutively. The same principle applies for any color space based on the same color model, but implemented at different bit depths. == Lists == CIE 1931 XYZ color space was one of the first attempts to produce a color space based on measurements of human color perception (earlier efforts were by James Clerk Maxwell, König & Dieterici, and Abney at Imperial College) and it is the basis for almost all other color spaces. The CIERGB color space is a linearly-related companion of CIE XYZ. Additional derivatives of CIE XYZ include the CIELUV, CIEUVW, and CIELAB. === Generic === RGB uses additive color mixing, because it describes what kind of light needs to be emitted to produce a given color. RGB stores individual values for red, green and blue. RGBA is RGB with an additional channel, alpha, to indicate transparency. Common color spaces based on the RGB model include sRGB, Adobe RGB, ProPhoto RGB, scRGB, and CIE RGB. CMYK uses subtractive color mixing used in the printing process, because it describes what kind of inks need to be applied so the light reflected from the substrate and through the inks produces a given color. One starts with a white substrate (canvas, page, etc.), and uses ink to subtract color from white to create an image. CMYK stores ink values for cyan, magenta, yellow and black. There are many CMYK color spaces for different sets of inks, substrates, and press characteristics (which change the dot gain or transfer function for each ink and thus change the appearance). YIQ was formerly used in NTSC (North America, Japan and elsewhere) television broadcasts for historical reasons. This system stores a luma value roughly analogous to (and sometimes incorrectly identified as) luminance, along with two chroma values as approximate representations of the relative amounts of blue and red in the color. It is similar to the YUV scheme used in most video capture systems and in PAL (Australia, Europe, except France, which uses SECAM) television, except that the YIQ color space is rotated 33° with respect to the YUV color space and the color axes are swapped. The YDbDr scheme used by SECAM television is rotated in another way. YPbPr is a scaled version of YUV. It is most commonly seen in its digital form, YCbCr, used widely in video and image compression schemes such as MPEG and JPEG. xvYCC is an international digital video color space standard published by the IEC (IEC 61966-2-4). It is based on the ITU BT.601 and BT.709

  Read more →
• 

  Right to explanation

  In the regulation of algorithms, particularly artificial intelligence and its subfield of machine learning, a right to [an] explanation is a right to be given an explanation for an output of the algorithm. Such rights primarily refer to individual rights to be given an explanation for decisions that significantly affect an individual, particularly legally or financially. For example, a person who applies for a loan and is denied may ask for an explanation, which could be "Credit bureau X reports that you declared bankruptcy last year; this is the main factor in considering you too likely to default, and thus we will not give you the loan you applied for." Some such legal rights already exist, while the scope of a general "right to explanation" is a matter of ongoing debate. There have been arguments made that a "social right to explanation" is a crucial foundation for an information society, particularly as the institutions of that society will need to use digital technologies, artificial intelligence, machine learning. In other words, that the related automated decision making systems that use explainability would be more trustworthy and transparent. Without this right, which could be constituted both legally and through professional standards, the public will be left without much recourse to challenge the decisions of automated systems. == Examples == === Credit scoring in the United States === Under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (Regulation B of the Code of Federal Regulations), Title 12, Chapter X, Part 1002, §1002.9, creditors are required to notify applicants who are denied credit with specific reasons for the detail. As detailed in §1002.9(b)(2): (2) Statement of specific reasons. The statement of reasons for adverse action required by paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section must be specific and indicate the principal reason(s) for the adverse action. Statements that the adverse action was based on the creditor's internal standards or policies or that the applicant, joint applicant, or similar party failed to achieve a qualifying score on the creditor's credit scoring system are insufficient. The official interpretation of this section details what types of statements are acceptable. Creditors comply with this regulation by providing a list of reasons (generally at most 4, per interpretation of regulations), consisting of a numeric reason code (as identifier) and an associated explanation, identifying the main factors affecting a credit score. An example might be: 32: Balances on bankcard or revolving accounts too high compared to credit limits === European Union === The European Union General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR, enacted 2016, taking effect 2018) extends the automated decision-making rights in the 1995 Data Protection Directive to provide a legally disputed form of a right to an explanation, stated as such in Recital 71: "[the data subject should have] the right ... to obtain an explanation of the decision reached". In full: The data subject should have the right not to be subject to a decision, which may include a measure, evaluating personal aspects relating to him or her which is based solely on automated processing and which produces legal effects concerning him or her or similarly significantly affects him or her, such as automatic refusal of an online credit application or e-recruiting practices without any human intervention. ... In any case, such processing should be subject to suitable safeguards, which should include specific information to the data subject and the right to obtain human intervention, to express his or her point of view, to obtain an explanation of the decision reached after such assessment and to challenge the decision. However, the extent to which the regulations themselves provide a "right to explanation" is heavily debated. There are two main strands of criticism. There are significant legal issues with the right as found in Article 22 — as recitals are not binding, and the right to an explanation is not mentioned in the binding articles of the text, having been removed during the legislative process. In addition, there are significant restrictions on the types of automated decisions that are covered — which must be both "solely" based on automated processing, and have legal or similarly significant effects — which significantly limits the range of automated systems and decisions to which the right would apply. In particular, the right is unlikely to apply in many of the cases of algorithmic controversy that have been picked up in the media. The UK has also recently amended its implementation of Article 22. A second potential source of such a right has been pointed to in Article 15, the "right of access by the data subject". This restates a similar provision from the 1995 Data Protection Directive, allowing the data subject access to "meaningful information about the logic involved" in the same significant, solely automated decision-making, found in Article 22. Yet this too suffers from alleged challenges that relate to the timing of when this right can be drawn upon, as well as practical challenges that mean it may not be binding in many cases of public concern. Other EU legislative instruments contain explanation rights. The European Union's Artificial Intelligence Act provides in Article 86 a "[r]ight to explanation of individual decision-making" of certain high risk systems which produce significant, adverse effects to an individual's health, safety or fundamental rights. The right provides for "clear and meaningful explanations of the role of the AI system in the decision-making procedure and the main elements of the decision taken", although only applies to the extent other law does not provide such a right. The Digital Services Act in Article 27, and the Platform to Business Regulation in Article 5, both contain rights to have the main parameters of certain recommender systems to be made clear, although these provisions have been criticised as not matching the way that such systems work. The Platform Work Directive, which provides for regulation of automation in gig economy work as an extension of data protection law, further contains explanation provisions in Article 11, using the specific language of "explanation" in a binding article rather than a recital as is the case in the GDPR. Scholars note that remains uncertainty as to whether these provisions imply sufficiently tailored explanation in practice which will need to be resolved by courts. === France === In France the 2016 Loi pour une République numérique (Digital Republic Act or loi numérique) amends the country's administrative code to introduce a new provision for the explanation of decisions made by public sector bodies about individuals. It notes that where there is "a decision taken on the basis of an algorithmic treatment", the rules that define that treatment and its "principal characteristics" must be communicated to the citizen upon request, where there is not an exclusion (e.g. for national security or defence). These should include the following: the degree and the mode of contribution of the algorithmic processing to the decision- making; the data processed and its source; the treatment parameters, and where appropriate, their weighting, applied to the situation of the person concerned; the operations carried out by the treatment. Scholars have noted that this right, while limited to administrative decisions, goes beyond the GDPR right to explicitly apply to decision support rather than decisions "solely" based on automated processing, as well as provides a framework for explaining specific decisions. Indeed, the GDPR automated decision-making rights in the European Union, one of the places a "right to an explanation" has been sought within, find their origins in French law in the late 1970s. == Criticism == Some argue that a "right to explanation" is at best unnecessary, at worst harmful, and threatens to stifle innovation. Specific criticisms include: favoring human decisions over machine decisions, being redundant with existing laws, and focusing on process over outcome. Authors of study "Slave to the Algorithm? Why a 'Right to an Explanation' Is Probably Not the Remedy You Are Looking For" Lilian Edwards and Michael Veale argue that a right to explanation is not the solution to harms caused to stakeholders by algorithmic decisions. They also state that the right of explanation in the GDPR is narrowly defined, and is not compatible with how modern machine learning technologies are being developed. With these limitations, defining transparency within the context of algorithmic accountability remains a problem. For example, providing the source code of algorithms may not be sufficient and may create other problems in terms of privacy disclosures and the gaming of technical systems. To mitigate this issue, Edwards and Veale argue that an auditing system could be more effective, to allow auditors to loo

  Read more →
• 

  Perusall

  Perusall is a social web annotation tool intended for use by students at schools and universities. It allows users to annotate the margins of a text in a virtual group setting that is similar to social media—with upvoting, emojis, chat functionality, and notification. It also includes automatic AI grading. == History == Perusall began as a research project at Harvard University. It later became an educational product for students and teachers. As of 2024, Perusall states more than 5 million students have used the tool at over 5,000 educational institutions in 112 countries." == Functionality == Perusall integrates with learning management systems such as Moodle, Canvas and Blackboard to aid with collaborative annotation. The tool supports annotation of a range of media including text, images, equations, videos, PDFs and snapshots of webpages.

  Read more →
• 

  Deep Learning Super Sampling

  Deep Learning Super Sampling (DLSS) is a suite of real-time deep learning image enhancement and upscaling technologies developed by Nvidia that are available in a number of video games. The goal of these technologies is to allow the majority of the graphics pipeline to run at a lower resolution for increased performance, and then infer a higher resolution image from this that approximates the same level of detail as if the image had been rendered at this higher resolution. This allows for higher graphical settings or frame rates for a given output resolution, depending on user preference. All generations of DLSS are available on all RTX-branded cards from Nvidia in supported titles. However, the Frame Generation feature is only supported on RTX 40 series GPUs or newer and Multi Frame Generation is only available on 50 series GPUs. == History == Nvidia advertised DLSS as a key feature of GeForce RTX 20 series GPUs when they launched in September 2018. At that time, the results were limited to a few video games, namely Battlefield V, or Metro Exodus, because the algorithm had to be trained specifically on each game on which it was applied and the results were usually not as good as simple resolution upscaling. In 2019, Control shipped with ray tracing and an image processing algorithm that approximated DLSS, which did not use the Tensor Cores. In April 2020, Nvidia advertised and shipped an improved version of DLSS named DLSS 2 with driver version 445.75. DLSS 2.0 was available for a few existing games including Control and Wolfenstein: Youngblood, and would later be added to many newly released games and game engines such as Unreal Engine and Unity. This time Nvidia said that it used the Tensor Cores again, and that the AI did not need to be trained specifically on each game. Despite sharing the DLSS branding, the two iterations of DLSS differ significantly and are not backwards-compatible. In January 2025, Nvidia stated that there are over 540 games and apps supporting DLSS, and that over 80% of Nvidia RTX users activate DLSS. In March 2025, there were more than 100 games that support DLSS 4, according to Nvidia. By May 2025, over 125 games supported DLSS 4. The first video game console to use DLSS, the Nintendo Switch 2, was released on June 5, 2025. Nvidia announced DLSS 4.5 at CES 2026. In January 2026, Nvidia stated that over 250 games and applications support Multi Frame Generation. On March 16, 2026, at GTC 2026, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang presented DLSS 5, a real-time AI model based on neural rendering that realistically enhances lighting and material surfaces at up to 4K resolution while retaining the developer's intended art style. It is planned to release in fall of 2026. In a blog post on its website, Nvidia has announced that DLSS 5 will be available in such games as Assassin's Creed Shadows, Delta Force, Hogwarts Legacy, Naraka: Bladepoint, Phantom Blade Zero, Resident Evil Requiem, Starfield, The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion Remastered, and more. On May 31, 2026, Nvidia announced an updated version of Ray Reconstruction for DLSS 4.5 in a blog post, scheduled for release on all RTX GPUs in August of the same year. They said it is designed to better embed spatial awareness into scenes and analyze engine data on movements and lighting conditions, resulting in a sharper, more stable, and less noisy image. === Release timeline === == Technology == === DLSS 1 === The first iteration of DLSS is a predominantly spatial image upscaler with two stages, both relying on convolutional auto-encoder neural networks. The first step is an image enhancement network which uses the current frame and motion vectors to perform edge enhancement, and spatial anti-aliasing. The second stage is an image upscaling step which uses the single raw, low-resolution frame to upscale the image to the desired output resolution. Using just a single frame for upscaling means the neural network itself must generate a large amount of new information to produce the high-resolution output, which can result in slight hallucinations such as leaves that differ in style to the source content. The neural networks are trained on a per-game basis by generating a "perfect frame" using traditional supersampling to 64 samples per pixel, as well as the motion vectors for each frame. The data collected must be as comprehensive as possible, including as many levels, times of day, graphical settings, resolutions, etc. as possible. This data is also augmented using common augmentations such as rotations, colour changes, and random noise to help generalize the test data. Training is performed on Nvidia's Saturn V supercomputer. This first iteration received a mixed response, with many criticizing the often soft appearance and artifacts along with glitches in certain situations; likely a side effect of the limited data from only using a single frame input to the neural networks which could not be trained to perform optimally in all scenarios and edge-cases. Nvidia also demonstrated the ability for the auto-encoder networks to learn the ability to recreate depth-of-field and motion blur, although this functionality has never been included in a publicly released product. === DLSS 2 === DLSS 2 is a temporal anti-aliasing upsampling (TAAU) implementation, using data from previous frames extensively through sub-pixel jittering to resolve fine detail and reduce aliasing. The data DLSS 2 collects includes: the raw low-resolution input, motion vectors, depth buffers, and exposure / brightness information. It can also be used as a simpler TAA implementation where the image is rendered at 100% resolution, rather than being upsampled by DLSS, Nvidia brands this as DLAA (Deep Learning Anti-Aliasing). TAA(U) 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. DLSS 2 uses a convolutional auto-encoder neural network trained to identify and fix temporal artifacts, instead of manually programmed heuristics as mentioned above. Because of this, DLSS 2 can generally resolve detail better than other TAA and TAAU implementations, while also removing most temporal artifacts. This is why DLSS 2 can sometimes produce a sharper image than rendering at higher, or even native resolutions using traditional TAA. However, no temporal solution is perfect, and artifacts (ghosting in particular) are still visible in some scenarios when using DLSS 2. Because temporal artifacts occur in most art styles and environments in broadly the same way, the neural network that powers DLSS 2 does not need to be retrained when being used in different games. Despite this, Nvidia does frequently ship new minor revisions of DLSS 2 with new titles, so this could suggest some minor training optimizations may be performed as games are released, although Nvidia does not provide changelogs for these minor revisions to confirm this. The main advancements compared to DLSS 1 include: Significantly improved detail retention, a generalized neural network that does not need to be re-trained per-game, and ~2x less overhead (~1–2 ms vs ~2–4 ms). It should also be noted that forms of TAAU such as DLSS 2 are not upscalers in the same sense as techniques such as ESRGAN or DLSS 1, which attempt to create new information from a low-resolution source; instead, TAAU works to recover data from previous frames, rather than creating new data. In practice, this means low resolution textures in games will still appear low-resolution when using current TAAU techniques. This is why Nvidia recommends game developers use higher resolution textures than they would normally for a given rendering resolution by applying a mip-map bias when DLSS 2 is enabled. === DLSS 3 === Augments DLSS 2 with improved image quality and the introduction of a new motion interpolation feature, called Frame Generation. The DLSS Frame Generation algorithm takes two rendered frames from the rendering pipeline and generates a new frame that smoothly transitions between them. For every frame rendered, one additional frame is generated. DLSS 3.0 makes use of a new generation Optical Flow Accelerator (OFA) included in the Ada Lovelace architecture of GeForce RTX 40 series GPUs and with that is exclusive to them. The new OFA is said to be faster and more accurate than the one already available in previous Turing and Ampere RTX GPUs. === DLSS 3.5 === DLSS 3.5 adds Ray Reconstruction, replacing multiple denoising algorithms with a single AI model trained o

  Read more →
• 

  Cloudflare

  Cloudflare, Inc., is an American technology company headquartered in San Francisco, California, that provides a range of internet services, including content delivery network (CDN) services, cloud cybersecurity, DDoS mitigation, and ICANN-accredited domain registration. The company's services act primarily as a reverse proxy between website visitors and a customer's hosting provider, improving performance and protecting against malicious traffic. Cloudflare was founded in 2009 by Matthew Prince, Lee Holloway, and Michelle Zatlyn. The company went public on the New York Stock Exchange in 2019 under the ticker symbol NET. Cloudflare has since expanded its offerings to include edge computing through its Workers platform, a public DNS resolver (1.1.1.1), and a VPN-like service known as WARP. In recent years, the company has integrated artificial intelligence into its infrastructure, acquiring companies such as Replicate and launching tools to manage AI bots and scrapers. According to W3Techs, Cloudflare is used by approximately 21.3% of all websites on the Internet as of January 2026. The company has been the subject of controversy regarding its policy of content neutrality. While Cloudflare executives have historically advocated for remaining a neutral infrastructure provider, the company has terminated services for specific high-profile websites associated with hate speech and violence, including The Daily Stormer, 8chan, and Kiwi Farms, following significant public pressure. Cloudflare has also faced criticism and litigation regarding copyright infringement by websites using its services, notably losing a lawsuit against Japanese publishers in 2025. The company experienced significant global outages in late 2025 which disrupted services for major platforms internationally. == History == Cloudflare was founded on July 26, 2009, by Matthew Prince, Lee Holloway, and Michelle Zatlyn. Prince and Holloway had previously collaborated on Project Honey Pot, a product of Unspam Technologies that partly inspired the basis of Cloudflare. In 2009, the company was venture-capital funded. On August 15, 2019, Cloudflare submitted its S-1 filing for an initial public offering on the New York Stock Exchange under the stock ticker NET. It opened for public trading on September 13, 2019, at $15 per share. According to the company, the name 'Cloudflare' was chosen, over the initial 'WebWall', because it best described what they were trying to do: build a "firewall in the cloud." In 2020, Cloudflare co-founder and COO Michelle Zatlyn was named president. Cloudflare has acquired web-services and security companies, including StopTheHacker (February 2014), CryptoSeal (June 2014), Eager Platform Co. (December 2016), Neumob (November 2017), S2 Systems (January 2020), Linc (December 2020), Zaraz (December 2021), Vectrix (February 2022), Area 1 Security (February 2022), Nefeli Networks (March 2024), BastionZero (May 2024), and Kivera (October 2024). Replicate (November 2025), and Human Native (January 2026). Since at least 2017, Cloudflare has used a wall of lava lamps at its San Francisco headquarters as a source of randomness for encryption keys, alongside double pendulums at its London offices and a Geiger counter at its Singapore offices. The lava lamp installation implements the Lavarand method, where a camera transforms the unpredictable shapes of the "lava" blobs into a digital image. In Q4 2022, Cloudflare provided paid services to 162,086 customers. In October 2024, Cloudflare won a lawsuit against patent troll Sable Networks. Sable paid Cloudflare $225,000, granted it a royalty-free license to its patent portfolio, and dedicated its patents to the public by abandoning its patent rights. In November 2025, it was announced Cloudflare had agreed to acquire Replicate, a San Francisco–based platform that enables software developers to run, fine-tune, and deploy open-source machine-learning models via an API without managing infrastructure. In January 2026, Cloudflare released an analysis regarding BGP routing leaks observed from the Venezuelan state-owned ISP CANTV (AS8048), which occurred on January 2 coincides with the arrest of Nicolás Maduro. While some security researchers had speculated that the outages were linked to U.S. cyber operations, Cloudflare's data indicated that the anomalies were consistent with a pattern of "insufficient routing export and import policies" by the ISP rather than malicious external interference. In January 2026, Cloudflare acquired Human Native, an AI data marketplace that brokers transactions between developers and content creators, for an undisclosed amount. On January 16, 2026, Cloudflare acquired The Astro Technology Company, the developers behind the open-source web framework Astro. In May 2026, Cloudflare announced the elimination of approximately 1,100 positions, around 20 percent of its workforce, in a restructuring the company attributed to the rapid adoption of artificial intelligence tools. The announcement coincided with the company's first-quarter 2026 earnings, which reported a record $639.8 million in quarterly revenue, a 34 percent year-over-year increase. CEO Matthew Prince stated the cuts were not driven by performance concerns but reflected roles made obsolete by AI, and that Cloudflare expected to employ more people by the end of 2027 than at any point during 2026. == Products == Cloudflare provides network and security products for consumers and businesses, utilizing edge computing, reverse proxies for web traffic, data center interconnects, and a content distribution network to serve content across its network of servers. It supports transport layer protocols TCP, UDP, QUIC, and many application layer protocols such as DNS over HTTPS, SMTP, and HTTP/2 with support for HTTP/2 Server Push. As of 2023, Cloudflare handles an average of 45 million HTTP requests per second. As of 2024, Cloudflare servers are powered by AMD EPYC 9684X processors. Cloudflare also provides analysis and reports on large-scale outages, including Verizon's October 2024 outage. === Artificial intelligence === In 2023, Cloudflare launched "Workers AI", a framework allowing for use of Nvidia GPU's within Cloudflare's network. In 2024, Cloudflare launched a tool that prevents bots from scraping websites. To build automatic bot detector models, the company analyzed "AI" bots and crawler traffic. The company also launched an "AI" assistant to generate charts based on queries by leveraging "Workers AI". Cloudflare announced plans in September 2024 to launch a marketplace where website owners can sell "AI" model providers access to scrape their site's content. In March 2025, Cloudflare announced a new feature called "AI Labyrinth", which combats unauthorized "AI" data scraping by serving fake "AI"-generated content to LLM bots. In July, the company rolled out a permission-based setting to allow websites to automatically block online bots from scraping data and content. Cloudflare released AutoRAG into beta in 2025. AutoRAG (retrieval augmented generation) creates a vector database of a website's unstructured content to identify relationships between concepts. It is part of an initiative with Microsoft, alongside their NLWeb standard, to make websites easier for people and automated systems to query. Cloudflare and GoDaddy partnered in April 2026 to enable AI Crawl Control features on GoDaddy hosted websites. This would allow site owners to decide how AI bot crawlers interact with their content. === DDoS mitigation === Cloudflare provides free and paid DDoS mitigation services that protect customers from distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks. Cloudflare received media attention in June 2011 for providing DDoS mitigation for the website of LulzSec, a black hat hacking group. In March 2013, The Spamhaus Project was targeted by a DDoS attack that Cloudflare reported exceeded 300 gigabits per second (Gbit/s). Patrick Gilmore, of Akamai, stated that at the time it was "the largest publicly announced DDoS attack in the history of the Internet". While trying to defend Spamhaus against the DDoS attacks, Cloudflare ended up being attacked as well; Google and other companies eventually came to Spamhaus' defense and helped it to absorb the unprecedented amount of attack traffic. In 2014, Cloudflare began providing free DDoS mitigation for artists, activists, journalists, and human rights groups under the name "Project Galileo". In 2017, it extended the service to electoral infrastructure and political campaigns under the name "Athenian Project". By 2025, more than 2,900 users and organizations were participating in Project Galileo, including 31 US states. In February 2014, Cloudflare claimed to have mitigated an NTP reflection attack against an unnamed European customer, which it stated peaked at 400 Gbit/s. In November 2014, it reported a 500 Gbit/s DDoS attack in Hong Kong. In July 2021, the company claimed to have absorbed a DDoS atta

  Read more →
• 

  Brain technology

  Brain technology, or self-learning know-how systems, defines a technology that employs latest findings in neuroscience. [see also neuro implants] The term was first introduced by the Artificial Intelligence Laboratory in Zurich, Switzerland, in the context of the Roboy project. Brain Technology can be employed in robots, know-how management systems and any other application with self-learning capabilities. In particular, Brain Technology applications allow the visualization of the underlying learning architecture often coined as "know-how maps". == Research and applications == The first demonstrations of BC in humans and animals took place in the 1960s when Grey Walter demonstrated use of non-invasively recorded encephalogram (EEG) signals from a human subject to control a slide projector (Graimann et al., 2010). Soon after Jacques J. Vidal coined the term brain–computer interface (BCI) in 1971, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) first starting funding brain–computer interface research and has since funded several brain–computer interface projects. That market is expected to reach a value of $1.72 billion by 2022. Brain–computer interfaces record brain activity, transmit the information out of the body, signal-process the data via algorithms, and convert them into command control signals. In 2012, a landmark study in Nature, led by pioneer Leigh Hochberg, MD, PhD, demonstrated that two people with tetraplegia were able to control robotic arms through thought when connected to the BrainGate neural interface system. The two participants were able to reach for and grasp objects in three-dimensional space, and one participant used the system to serve herself coffee for the first time since becoming paralyzed nearly 15 years prior. And in October 2020, two patients were able to wirelessly control an operating system to text, email, shop and bank using direct thought through the Stentrode brain computer interface (Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery) in a study led by Thomas Oxley. This was the first time a brain–computer interface was implanted via the patient's blood vessels, eliminating the need for open brain surgery. Currently a number of groups are exploring a range of experimental devices using brain–computer interfaces, which have the potential to fundamentally change the way of life for patients with paralysis and a wide range of neurological disorders. These include: as Elon Musk, Facebook, and the University of California in San Francisco. The systems. This technology is also being explored as a neuromodulation device and may ultimately help diagnose and treat a range of brain pathologies, such as epilepsy and Parkinson's disease.

  Read more →
• 

  AI washing

  AI washing is a deceptive marketing tactic that consists of promoting a product or a service by overstating the role of artificial intelligence (AI) and the integration of it. Companies often involve in the practice to mislead customers to boost their offerings, and to secure funding from investors. The practice raises concerns regarding transparency, and legal issues. == Definition == AI washing is a deceptive marketing practice. It involves promoting a product or a service by overstating the role of artificial intelligence (AI) and its integration in the design and manufacture of the same. The practice raises concerns regarding transparency, compliance with security regulations, and consumer trust in the AI industry potentially hampering legitimate advancements in AI. The term was first defined by the AI Now Institute, a research institute based at New York University in 2019. The term is derived from greenwashing, another deceptive marketing technique that misrepresents a product's environmental impact in a similar manner. AI washing might involve a company claiming to have used AI in the development or enhancement of its products or services without its actual involvement, or using buzzwords such as "smart" or "AI-powered" without the product actually offering it or making use of it. A company may overstate the usage of AI or misuse the term, which is also construed as AI washing. In 2026, The Washington Post defined AI washing as "a trend for bosses to blame layoffs on the productive capabilities of AI and its ability to replace workers, even when job cuts may have little to do with the technology". == Usage and effects == AI washing can lead to deception of customers and misleading of investors. It is also an illegal and unethical practice that lacks transparency regarding disclosing the details of a product or a service. Companies get involved in such a practice often in response to competition who might have used AI in their offerings. It might also be used as a ploy to secure funding and investment, assuming that it will attract them towards it. AI washing has been compared to dot-com bubble, when businesses appended "dot-com" to the end of the business name to boost their valuation. In September 2023, Coca-Cola released a new product called Coca-Cola Y3000, and the company stated that the Y3000 flavor had been "co-created with human and artificial intelligence". The company was accused of AI washing due to no proof of AI involvement in the creation of the product, and critics believed that AI was used as a way to grab consumer attention more than it was used in the actual product creation. In 2026, mass tech layoffs were attributed to AI washing from AI innovation instead of balance sheet restructuring. == Mitigation == Companies are expected to be transparent and clearer in communicating the usage of AI in their products or services. Consumers can mitigate the same by requesting for hard evidence from the companies regarding the usage of AI tools. Customers should evaluate the product or service as a whole rather than being swayed by the usage of AI. Informed decision making and purchasing can keep them from falling for such marketing gimmicks. The United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) imposes penalties for companies indulging in such practices. In March 2024, the SEC imposed the first civil penalties on two companies for misleading statements about their use of AI, and in July 2024, it charged a corporate executive from a supposed AI hiring startup with fraud for the usage of buzzwords related to AI.

  Read more →
• 

  Percept (artificial intelligence)

  A percept is the input that an intelligent agent is perceiving at any given moment. It is essentially the same concept as a percept in psychology, except that it is being perceived not by the brain but by the agent. A percept is detected by a sensor, often a camera, processed accordingly, and acted upon by an actuator. Each percept is added to a "percept sequence", which is a complete history of each percept ever detected. The agent's action at any instant point may depend on the entire percept sequence up to that particular instant point. An intelligent agent chooses how to act not only based on the current percept, but the percept sequence. The next action is chosen by the agent function, which maps every percept to an action. For example, if a camera were to record a gesture, the agent would process the percepts, calculate the corresponding spatial vectors, examine its percept history, and use the agent program (the application of the agent function) to act accordingly. == Examples == Examples of percepts include inputs from touch sensors, cameras, infrared sensors, sonar, microphones, mice, and keyboards. A percept can also be a higher-level feature of the data, such as lines, depth, objects, faces, or gestures.

  Read more →
• 

  Adversarial stylometry

  Adversarial stylometry is the practice of altering writing style to reduce the potential for stylometry to discover the author's identity or their characteristics. This task is also known as authorship obfuscation or authorship anonymisation. Stylometry poses a significant privacy challenge in its ability to unmask anonymous authors or to link pseudonyms to an author's other identities, which, for example, creates difficulties for whistleblowers, activists, and hoaxers and fraudsters. The privacy risk is expected to grow as machine learning techniques and text corpora develop. All adversarial stylometry shares the core idea of faithfully paraphrasing the source text so that the meaning is unchanged but the stylistic signals are obscured. Such a faithful paraphrase is an adversarial example for a stylometric classifier. Several broad approaches to this exist, with some overlap: imitation, substituting the author's own style for another's; translation, applying machine translation with the hope that this eliminates characteristic style in the source text; and obfuscation, deliberately modifying a text's style to make it not resemble the author's own. Manually obscuring style is possible, but laborious; in some circumstances, it is preferable or necessary. Automated tooling, either semi- or fully-automatic, could assist an author. How best to perform the task and the design of such tools is an open research question. While some approaches have been shown to be able to defeat particular stylometric analyses, particularly those that do not account for the potential of adversariality, establishing safety in the face of unknown analyses is an issue. Ensuring the faithfulness of the paraphrase is a critical challenge for automated tools. It is uncertain if the practice of adversarial stylometry is detectable in itself. Some studies have found that particular methods produced signals in the output text, but a stylometrist who is uncertain of what methods may have been used may not be able to reliably detect them. == History == Rao & Rohatgi (2000), an early work in adversarial stylometry, identified machine translation as a possibility, but noted that the quality of translators available at the time presented severe challenges. Kacmarcik & Gamon (2006) is another early work. Brennan, Afroz & Greenstadt (2012) performed the first evaluation of adversarial stylometric methods on actual texts. Brennan & Greenstadt (2009) introduced the first corpus of adversarially authored texts specifically for evaluating stylometric methods; other corpora include the International Imitation Hemingway Competition, the Faux Faulkner contest, and the hoax blog A Gay Girl in Damascus. == Motivations == Rao & Rohatgi (2000) suggest that short, unattributed documents (i.e., anonymous posts) are not at risk of stylometric identification, but pseudonymous authors who have not practiced adversarial stylometry in producing corpuses of thousands of words may be vulnerable. Narayanan et al. (2012) attempted large-scale deanonymisation of 100,000 blog authors with mixed results: the identifications were significantly better than chance, but only accurately matched the blog and author a fifth of the time; identification improved with the number of posts written by the author in the corpus. Even if an author is not identified, some of their characteristics may still be deduced stylometrically, or stylometry may narrow the anonymity set of potential authors sufficiently for other information to complete the identification. Detecting author characteristics (e.g., gender or age) is often simpler than identifying an author from a large, possibly open, set of candidates. Modern machine learning techniques offer powerful tools for identification; further development of corpora and computational stylometric techniques are likely to raise further privacy issues. Gröndahl & Asokan (2020a) say that the general validity of the hypothesis underlying stylometry—that authors have invariant, content-independent 'style fingerprints'—is uncertain, but "the deanonymisation attack is a real privacy concern". Those interested in practicing adversarial stylometry and stylistic deception include whistleblowers avoiding retribution; journalists and activists; perpetrators of frauds and hoaxes; authors of fake reviews; literary forgers; criminals disguising their identity from investigators; and, generally, anyone with a desire for anonymity or pseudonymity. Authors, or agents acting on behalf of authors, may also attempt to remove stylistic clues to author characteristics (e.g., race or gender) so that knowledge of those characteristics cannot be used for discrimination (e.g., through algorithmic bias). Another possible use for adversarial stylometry is in disguising automatically generated text as human-authored. == Methods == With imitation, the author attempts to mislead stylometry by matching their style to another author's. An incomplete imitation, where some of the true author's unique characteristics appear alongside the imitated author's, can be a detectable signal for the use of adversarial stylometry. Imitation can be performed automatically with style transfer systems, though this typically requires a large corpus in the target style for the system to learn from. Another approach is translation, which employs machine translation of a source text to eliminate characteristic style, often through multiple translators in sequence to produce a round-trip translation. Such chained translation can lead to texts being significantly altered, even to the point of incomprehensibility; improved translation tools reduce this risk. More simply-structured texts can be easier to machine translate without losing the original meaning. Machine translation blurs into direct stylistic imitation or obfuscation achieved through automated style transfer, which can be viewed as a "translation" with the same language as input and output. With low-quality translation tools, an author can be required to manually correct major translation errors while avoiding the hazard of re-introducing stylistic characteristics. Wang, Juola & Riddell (2022) found that gross errors introduced by Google Translate were rare, but more common with several intermediate translations—however, occasional simple or short sentences and misspellings in the source text appeared verbatim in the output, potentially providing an identifying signal. Chain translation can leave characteristic traces of its application in a document, which may allow reconstruction of the intermediate languages used and the number of translation steps performed. Obfuscation involves deliberately changing the style of a text to reduce its similarity to other texts by some metric; this may be performed at the time of writing by conscious modification, or as part of a revision process with feedback from the metric being targeted as an input to decide when the text has been sufficiently obfuscated. In contrast to translation, complex texts can offer more opportunities for effective obfuscation without altering meaning, and likewise genres with more permissible variation allow more obfuscation. However, longer texts are harder to thoroughly obfuscate. Obfuscation can blend into imitation if the author develops a novel target style, distinct from their original style. With respect to masking author characteristics, obfuscation may aim to achieve a union (adding signals for imitated characteristics) or an intersection (removing signals and normalising) of other authors' styles. Avoiding the author's own idiosyncrasies and producing a "normalised" text is a critical obfuscatory step: an author may have a unique tendency to misspell certain words, use particular variants, or to format a document in a characteristic way. Stylometric signals vary in how simply they can be adversarially masked; an author may easily change their vocabulary by conscious choice, but altering the pattern of grammar or the letter frequency in their text may be harder to achieve, though Juola & Vescovi (2011) report that imitation typically succeeds at masking more characteristics than obfuscation. Automated obfuscation may require large amounts of training data written by the author. Concerning automated implementations of adversarial stylometry, two possible implementations are rule-based systems for paraphrasing; and encoder–decoder architectures, where the text passes through an intermediate format that is (intended to be) style-neutral. Another division in automated methods is whether there is feedback from an identification system or not. With such feedback, finding paraphrases for author masking has been characterised as a heuristic search problem, exploring textual variants until the result is stylistically sufficiently far (in the case of obfuscation) or near (in the case of imitation), which then constitutes an adversarial example for that identification system. == Evaluation == How

  Read more →
• 

  Schema-agnostic databases

  Schema-agnostic databases or vocabulary-independent databases aim at supporting users to be abstracted from the representation of the data, supporting the automatic semantic matching between queries and databases. Schema-agnosticism is the property of a database of mapping a query issued with the user terminology and structure, automatically mapping it to the dataset vocabulary. The increase in the size and in the semantic heterogeneity of database schemas bring new requirements for users querying and searching structured data. At this scale it can become unfeasible for data consumers to be familiar with the representation of the data in order to query it. At the center of this discussion is the semantic gap between users and databases, which becomes more central as the scale and complexity of the data grows. == Description == The evolution of data environments towards the consumption of data from multiple data sources and the growth in the schema size, complexity, dynamicity and decentralisation (SCoDD) of schemas increases the complexity of contemporary data management. The SCoDD trend emerges as a central data management concern in Big Data scenarios, where users and applications have a demand for more complete data, produced by independent data sources, under different semantic assumptions and contexts of use, which is the typical scenario for Semantic Web Data applications. The evolution of databases in the direction of heterogeneous data environments strongly impacts the usability, semiotics and semantic assumptions behind existing data accessibility methods such as structured queries, keyword-based search and visual query systems. With schema-less databases containing potentially millions of dynamically changing attributes, it becomes unfeasible for some users to become aware of the 'schema' or vocabulary in order to query the database. At this scale, the effort in understanding the schema in order to build a structured query can become prohibitive. == Schema-agnostic queries == Schema-agnostic queries can be defined as query approaches over structured databases which allow users satisfying complex information needs without the understanding of the representation (schema) of the database. Similarly, Tran et al. defines it as "search approaches, which do not require users to know the schema underlying the data". Approaches such as keyword-based search over databases allow users to query databases without employing structured queries. However, as discussed by Tran et al.: "From these points, users however have to do further navigation and exploration to address complex information needs. Unlike keyword search used on the Web, which focuses on simple needs, the keyword search elaborated here is used to obtain more complex results. Instead of a single set of resources, the goal is to compute complex sets of resources and their relations." The development of approaches to support natural language interfaces (NLI) over databases have aimed towards the goal of schema-agnostic queries. Complementarily, some approaches based on keyword search have targeted keyword-based queries which express more complex information needs. Other approaches have explored the construction of structured queries over databases where schema constraints can be relaxed. All these approaches (natural language, keyword-based search and structured queries) have targeted different degrees of sophistication in addressing the problem of supporting a flexible semantic matching between queries and data, which vary from the completely absence of the semantic concern to more principled semantic models. While the demand for schema-agnosticism has been an implicit requirement across semantic search and natural language query systems over structured data, it is not sufficiently individuated as a concept and as a necessary requirement for contemporary database management systems. Recent works have started to define and model the semantic aspects involved on schema-agnostic queries. === Schema-agnostic structured queries === Consist of schema-agnostic queries following the syntax of a structured standard (for example SQL, SPARQL). The syntax and semantics of operators are maintained, while different terminologies are used. ==== Example 1 ==== SELECT ?y { BillClinton hasDaughter ?x . ?x marriedTo ?y . } which maps to the following SPARQL query in the dataset vocabulary: ==== Example 2 ==== which maps to the following SPARQL query in the dataset vocabulary: === Schema-agnostic keyword queries === Consist of schema-agnostic queries using keyword queries. In this case the syntax and semantics of operators are different from the structured query syntax. ==== Example ==== "Bill Clinton daughter married to" "Books by William Goldman with more than 300 pages" == Semantic complexity == As of 2016 the concept of schema-agnostic queries has been developed primarily in academia. Most of schema-agnostic query systems have been investigated in the context of Natural Language Interfaces over databases or over the Semantic Web. These works explore the application of semantic parsing techniques over large, heterogeneous and schema-less databases. More recently, the individuation of the concept of schema-agnostic query systems and databases have appeared more explicitly within the literature. Freitas et al. provide a probabilistic model on the semantic complexity of mapping schema-agnostic queries.

  Read more →
• 

  Concept drift

  In predictive analytics, data science, machine learning and related fields, concept drift or drift is an evolution of data that invalidates the data model. It happens when the statistical properties of the target variable, which the model is trying to predict, change over time in unforeseen ways. This causes problems because the predictions become less accurate as time passes. Drift detection and drift adaptation are of paramount importance in the fields that involve dynamically changing data and data models. == Predictive model decay == In machine learning and predictive analytics this drift phenomenon is called concept drift. In machine learning, a common element of a data model are the statistical properties, such as probability distribution of the actual data. If they deviate from the statistical properties of the training data set, then the learned predictions may become invalid, if the drift is not addressed. == Data configuration decay == Another important area is software engineering, where three types of data drift affecting data fidelity may be recognized. Changes in the software environment ("infrastructure drift") may invalidate software infrastructure configuration. "Structural drift" happens when the data schema changes, which may invalidate databases. "Semantic drift" is changes in the meaning of data while the structure does not change. In many cases this may happen in complicated applications when many independent developers introduce changes without proper awareness of the effects of their changes in other areas of the software system. For many application systems, the nature of data on which they operate are subject to changes for various reasons, e.g., due to changes in business model, system updates, or switching the platform on which the system operates. In the case of cloud computing, infrastructure drift that may affect the applications running on cloud may be caused by the updates of cloud software. There are several types of detrimental effects of data drift on data fidelity. Data corrosion is passing the drifted data into the system undetected. Data loss happens when valid data are ignored due to non-conformance with the applied schema. Squandering is the phenomenon when new data fields are introduced upstream in the data processing pipeline, but somewhere downstream these data fields are absent. == Inconsistent data == "Data drift" may refer to the phenomenon when database records fail to match the real-world data due to the changes in the latter over time. This is a common problem with databases involving people, such as customers, employees, citizens, residents, etc. Human data drift may be caused by unrecorded changes in personal data, such as place of residence or name, as well as due to errors during data input. "Data drift" may also refer to inconsistency of data elements between several replicas of a database. The reasons can be difficult to identify. A simple drift detection is to run checksum regularly. However the remedy may be not so easy. == Examples == The behavior of the customers in an online shop may change over time. For example, if weekly merchandise sales are to be predicted, and a predictive model has been developed that works satisfactorily. The model may use inputs such as the amount of money spent on advertising, promotions being run, and other metrics that may affect sales. The model is likely to become less and less accurate over time – this is concept drift. In the merchandise sales application, one reason for concept drift may be seasonality, which means that shopping behavior changes seasonally. Perhaps there will be higher sales in the winter holiday season than during the summer, for example. Concept drift generally occurs when the covariates that comprise the data set begin to explain the variation of your target set less accurately — there may be some confounding variables that have emerged, and that one simply cannot account for, which renders the model accuracy to progressively decrease with time. Generally, it is advised to perform health checks as part of the post-production analysis and to re-train the model with new assumptions upon signs of concept drift. == Possible remedies == To prevent deterioration in prediction accuracy because of concept drift, reactive and tracking solutions can be adopted. Reactive solutions retrain the model in reaction to a triggering mechanism, such as a change-detection test or control charts from statistical process control, to explicitly detect concept drift as a change in the statistics of the data-generating process. When concept drift is detected, the current model is no longer up-to-date and must be replaced by a new one to restore prediction accuracy. A shortcoming of reactive approaches is that performance may decay until the change is detected. Tracking solutions seek to track the changes in the concept by continually updating the model. Methods for achieving this include online machine learning, frequent retraining on the most recently observed samples, and maintaining an ensemble of classifiers where one new classifier is trained on the most recent batch of examples and replaces the oldest classifier in the ensemble. Contextual information, when available, can be used to better explain the causes of the concept drift: for instance, in the sales prediction application, concept drift might be compensated by adding information about the season to the model. By providing information about the time of the year, the rate of deterioration of your model is likely to decrease, but concept drift is unlikely to be eliminated altogether. This is because actual shopping behavior does not follow any static, finite model. New factors may arise at any time that influence shopping behavior, the influence of the known factors or their interactions may change. Concept drift cannot be avoided for complex phenomena that are not governed by fixed laws of nature. All processes that arise from human activity, such as socioeconomic processes, and biological processes are likely to experience concept drift. Therefore, periodic retraining, also known as refreshing, of any model is necessary. === Remedy methods === DDM (Drift Detection Method): detects drift by monitoring the model's error rate over time. When the error rate passes a set threshold, it enters a warning phase, and if it passes another threshold, it enters a drift phase. EDDM (Early Drift Detection Method): improves DDM's detection rate by tracking the average distance between two errors instead of only the error rate. ADWIN (Adaptive Windowing): dynamically stores a window of recent data and warns the user if it detects a significant change between the statistics of the window's earlier data compared to more recent data. KSWIN (Kolmogorov–Smirnov Windowing): detects drift based on the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistical test. DDM and EDDM: Concept Drift Detection online supervised methods that rely on sequential error monitoring to estimate the evolving error rate. ADWIN and KSWIN: Windowing maintain a "window", a subset of the most recent data, of the data stream, which it checks for statistical differences across the window. == Applications in security == Concept drift is a recurring issue in security analytics, especially in malware and intrusion detection. In these systems, models are often trained on past logs, binaries or network traces, but the behaviour of attackers changes over time as new malware families, obfuscation techniques and campaigns appear. When the data no longer resemble the training set, the decision boundaries learned by classifiers or anomaly detectors can become misaligned with the current threat landscape and detection performance can drop unless the models are updated or replaced. Several studies on Windows malware model detection as an evolving data stream and track how performance changes as time passes. They show that classifiers trained on a fixed time window can perform well on nearby data but deteriorate quickly when evaluated on samples collected months or years later, even when large amounts of training data are available. In order to keep up with this, security systems often use sliding or adaptive windows, which restrict training to the most recent portion of the data so that older, less relevant examples are gradually discarded. They also employ drift detectors such as ADWIN and KSWIN that monitor error rates or changes in the distribution of recent observations and signal when the statistics of the incoming stream differ significantly from the past, prompting retraining or model replacement. Related problems appear in spam filtering, fraud detection and intrusion detection, where adversaries change content, patterns of activity or network behavior to evade models trained on historical data. In these settings drift can be gradual, as new types of spam or fraud emerge, or abrupt, after a sudden shift in attack techniques. Common strategies to remain eff

  Read more →
• 

  Gödel machine

  A Gödel machine is a hypothetical self-improving computer program that solves problems in an optimal way. It uses a recursive self-improvement protocol in which it rewrites its own code when it can prove the new code provides a better strategy. The machine was invented by Jürgen Schmidhuber (first proposed in 2003), but is named after Kurt Gödel who inspired the mathematical theories. The Gödel machine is often discussed when dealing with issues of meta-learning, also known as "learning to learn." Applications include automating human design decisions and transfer of knowledge between multiple related tasks, and may lead to design of more robust and general learning architectures. Though theoretically possible, no full implementation has been created. The Gödel machine is often compared with Marcus Hutter's AIXI, another formal specification for an artificial general intelligence. Schmidhuber points out that the Gödel machine could start out by implementing AIXItl as its initial sub-program, and self-modify after it finds proof that another algorithm for its search code will be better. == Limitations == Traditional problems solved by a computer only require one input and provide some output. Computers of this sort had their initial algorithm hardwired. This does not take into account the dynamic natural environment, and thus was a goal for the Gödel machine to overcome. The Gödel machine has limitations of its own, however. According to Gödel's First Incompleteness Theorem, any formal system that encompasses arithmetic is either flawed or allows for statements that cannot be proved in the system. Hence even a Gödel machine with unlimited computational resources must ignore those self-improvements whose effectiveness it cannot prove. == Variables of interest == There are three variables that are particularly useful in the run time of the Gödel machine. At some time t {\displaystyle t} , the variable time {\displaystyle {\text{time}}} will have the binary equivalent of t {\displaystyle t} . This is incremented steadily throughout the run time of the machine. Any input meant for the Gödel machine from the natural environment is stored in variable x {\displaystyle x} . It is likely the case that x {\displaystyle x} will hold different values for different values of variable time {\displaystyle {\text{time}}} . The outputs of the Gödel machine are stored in variable y {\displaystyle y} , where y ( t ) {\displaystyle y(t)} would be the output bit-string at some time t {\displaystyle t} . At any given time t {\displaystyle t} , where ( 1 ≤ t ≤ T ) {\displaystyle (1\leq t\leq T)} , the goal is to maximize future success or utility. A typical utility function follows the pattern u ( s , E n v ) : S × E → R {\displaystyle u(s,\mathrm {Env} ):S\times E\rightarrow \mathbb {R} } : u ( s , E n v ) = E μ [ ∑ τ = time T r ( τ ) ∣ s , E n v ] {\displaystyle u(s,\mathrm {Env} )=E_{\mu }{\Bigg [}\sum _{\tau ={\text{time}}}^{T}r(\tau )\mid s,\mathrm {Env} {\Bigg ]}} where r ( t ) {\displaystyle r(t)} is a real-valued reward input (encoded within s ( t ) {\displaystyle s(t)} ) at time t {\displaystyle t} , E μ [ ⋅ ∣ ⋅ ] {\displaystyle E_{\mu }[\cdot \mid \cdot ]} denotes the conditional expectation operator with respect to some possibly unknown distribution μ {\displaystyle \mu } from a set M {\displaystyle M} of possible distributions ( M {\displaystyle M} reflects whatever is known about the possibly probabilistic reactions of the environment), and the above-mentioned time = time ⁡ ( s ) {\displaystyle {\text{time}}=\operatorname {time} (s)} is a function of state s {\displaystyle s} which uniquely identifies the current cycle. Note that we take into account the possibility of extending the expected lifespan through appropriate actions. == Instructions used by proof techniques == The nature of the six proof-modifying instructions below makes it impossible to insert an incorrect theorem into proof, thus trivializing proof verification. === get-axiom(n) === Appends the n-th axiom as a theorem to the current theorem sequence. Below is the initial axiom scheme: Hardware Axioms formally specify how components of the machine could change from one cycle to the next. Reward Axioms define the computational cost of hardware instruction and the physical cost of output actions. Related Axioms also define the lifetime of the Gödel machine as scalar quantities representing all rewards/costs. Environment Axioms restrict the way new inputs x are produced from the environment, based on previous sequences of inputs y. Uncertainty Axioms/String Manipulation Axioms are standard axioms for arithmetic, calculus, probability theory, and string manipulation that allow for the construction of proofs related to future variable values within the Gödel machine. Initial State Axioms contain information about how to reconstruct parts or all of the initial state. Utility Axioms describe the overall goal in the form of utility function u. === apply-rule(k, m, n) === Takes in the index k of an inference rule (such as Modus tollens, Modus ponens), and attempts to apply it to the two previously proved theorems m and n. The resulting theorem is then added to the proof. === delete-theorem(m) === Deletes the theorem stored at index m in the current proof. This helps to mitigate storage constraints caused by redundant and unnecessary theorems. Deleted theorems can no longer be referenced by the above apply-rule function. === set-switchprog(m, n) === Replaces switchprog S pm:n, provided it is a non-empty substring of S p. === check() === Verifies whether the goal of the proof search has been reached. A target theorem states that given the current axiomatized utility function u (Item 1f), the utility of a switch from p to the current switchprog would be higher than the utility of continuing the execution of p (which would keep searching for alternative switchprogs). === state2theorem(m, n) === Takes in two arguments, m and n, and attempts to convert the contents of Sm:n into a theorem. == Example applications == === Time-limited NP-hard optimization === The initial input to the Gödel machine is the representation of a connected graph with a large number of nodes linked by edges of various lengths. Within given time T it should find a cyclic path connecting all nodes. The only real-valued reward will occur at time T. It equals 1 divided by the length of the best path found so far (0 if none was found). There are no other inputs. The by-product of maximizing expected reward is to find the shortest path findable within the limited time, given the initial bias. === Fast theorem proving === Prove or disprove as quickly as possible that all even integers > 2 are the sum of two primes (Goldbach’s conjecture). The reward is 1/t, where t is the time required to produce and verify the first such proof. === Maximizing expected reward with bounded resources === A cognitive robot that needs at least 1 liter of gasoline per hour interacts with a partially unknown environment, trying to find hidden, limited gasoline depots to occasionally refuel its tank. It is rewarded in proportion to its lifetime, and dies after at most 100 years or as soon as its tank is empty or it falls off a cliff, and so on. The probabilistic environmental reactions are initially unknown but assumed to be sampled from the axiomatized Speed Prior, according to which hard-to-compute environmental reactions are unlikely. This permits a computable strategy for making near-optimal predictions. One by-product of maximizing expected reward is to maximize expected lifetime.

  Read more →
• 

  Avid DS

  Avid DS (which was called Avid DS Nitris until early 2008) is a high-end offline and finishing system comprising a non-linear editing system and visual effects software. It was developed by Softimage (this company was owned by Microsoft at the time of DS v1.0's launch before being acquired from Microsoft by Avid Technology, Inc. shortly thereafter) in Montreal. DS was discontinued on September 30, 2013 with support ending on the same date the following year. == Software == DS was called ‘Digital Studio’ in development. It was envisioned to be a complete platform for video/audio work. The first previews of the system were on the SGI platform, but this version was never released. The system was rewritten on Windows NT with different video hardware platforms (Matrox DigiSuite or Play Trinity running on a NetPower system) before the final system was released on Intergraph/StudioZ hardware in January 1998. After its acquisition by Avid, DS was always positioned as a high end video finishing tool. However, many users found it to be uniquely soup-to-nuts in its capabilities. From version 1.0 of the product, it competed with products like Autodesk Smoke, Quantel and Avid Symphony. The toolset in DS offered video timeline editing, an object-oriented vector-based paint tool, 2D layer compositing, sample based audio and starting with version 3.01 of the product, a 3D environment. Originally, a subset of the Softimage|XSI 3D software was planned to become part of the DS toolset, both were built on the same software foundation, but over time the code bases divided between the applications and the integration never happened. While the first version of the DS still lacked a few key features (no 3D, poor keying, no real-time effects), it had some significant features compared to the competing products at the time. It offered a large number of built in effects. Avid OMF import was available, positioning Softimage DS as a strong finishing tool for then typical off-line Avid systems. Lastly the integration of the toolset of Softimage DS was beyond what other product offered. A Softimage DS user could quickly go from editing, to paint, to compositing with a few mouse clicks all inside the same interface. Some of the lacking features were quickly resolved, within months of version 1.0 a new chroma keyer was released. Early versions of the software (up thru 4.0) added additional key features. Development continued with one of the first uncompressed HD editing systems (version 4.01) and an attempt to make the system more friendly to Media Composer editors in version 6. In later versions (v7.5 on beyond) DS was criticized for slow development of compositing tools, mainly lack of a new 3D environment and better tracking tools. Many DS users felt that Avid had not been giving DS the attention that it deserved. On July 7, 2013, Avid sent out an email marking the end of life of the DS product. "To Our Avid DS customers, We are writing to inform you that Avid will be realigning our business strategy to focus on a core suite of products to best leverage our developmental and creative resources. As part of this transition, we will be ceasing future development of Avid DS with a final sale date of September 30th, 2013" == Hardware == Up until version 10.5, DS was sold as a turn-key system; the software was not available without purchasing CPU, I/O and storage hardware from Avid. Beginning with 10.5, customers were able to configure their own systems using widely available components, based on recommended system requirements. In turn-key systems, there were many hardware refreshes over time. StudioZ single stream: Intergraph TDZ-425 with 30 minutes of uncompressed SCSI storage. CPUs at the time were Pentium II/300 MHz. StudioZ dual stream: Intergraph TDZ-2000 GT1 with one hour of fibre channel storage. CPUs on first systems were Pentium II/400 MHz, but last shipping systems had Pentium III/1 GHz. DS was one of the first applications to show that real-time effects could be processed with just the CPUs of the system, not requiring special video cards with real-time effect hardware. Equinox: Developed by Avid, it was one of the first uncompressed HD video cards available. Systems were available on CPUs from Pentium III/1 GHz to Pentium 4/2.8 GHz. Storage was typically SCSI, but fibre channel was also supported. Nitris DNA: Developed by Avid, the Nitris hardware was probably the largest hardware update to the system since it was released. 10-bit HD and SD support was standard. Real-time down and cross convert. This was the only hardware for DS that had on-board effect processing. This allowed a system at the time to play back dual-stream uncompressed HD effects in real-time at 16-bit precision. This was also the first hardware from Avid to support the DNxHD codec. Starting with Pentium 4, Intel Core Xeons were supported. SCSI storage was primarily used. AJA Video Systems: First available as a 4:4:4 option to be used in conjunction with Nitris hardware. Final-generation DS systems used the AJA Video Systems Kona 3 (Xena 2K) card as the only I/O for the system. The last systems shipped with two Intel Core Xeon 6-core processors. SAS is the recommended storage for these systems. == History ==

  Read more →
• 

  Attention (machine learning)

  In machine learning, attention is a method that determines the importance of each component in a sequence relative to the other components in that sequence. In natural language processing, importance is represented by "soft" weights assigned to each word in a sentence. More generally, attention encodes vectors called token embeddings across a fixed-width sequence that can range from tens to millions of tokens in size. Unlike "hard" weights, which are computed during the backwards training pass, "soft" weights exist only in the forward pass and therefore change with every step of the input. Earlier designs implemented the attention mechanism in a serial recurrent neural network (RNN) language translation system, but a more recent design, namely the transformer, removed the slower sequential RNN and relied more heavily on the faster parallel attention scheme. Inspired by ideas about attention in humans, the attention mechanism was developed to address the weaknesses of using information from the hidden layers of recurrent neural networks. Recurrent neural networks favor information contained in words at the end of a sentence and thus deemed more recent, thereby tending to attenuate the significance and associated predictive weight assigned to information earlier in the sentence. Attention allows a token equal access to any part of a sentence directly, rather than only through the previous state. == History == Additional surveys of the attention mechanism in deep learning are provided by Niu et al. and Soydaner. The major breakthrough came with self-attention, where each element in the input sequence attends to all others, enabling the model to capture global dependencies. This idea was central to the Transformer architecture, which replaced recurrence with attention mechanisms. As a result, Transformers became the foundation for models like BERT, T5 and generative pre-trained transformers (GPT). == Overview == The modern era of machine attention was revitalized by grafting an attention mechanism (Fig 1. orange) to an Encoder-Decoder. Figure 2 shows the internal step-by-step operation of the attention block (A) in Fig 1. === Interpreting attention weights === In translating between languages, alignment is the process of matching words from the source sentence to words of the translated sentence. Networks that perform verbatim translation without regard to word order would show the highest scores along the (dominant) diagonal of the matrix. The off-diagonal dominance shows that the attention mechanism is more nuanced. Consider an example of translating I love you to French. On the first pass through the decoder, 94% of the attention weight is on the first English word I, so the network offers the word je. On the second pass of the decoder, 88% of the attention weight is on the third English word you, so it offers t'. On the last pass, 95% of the attention weight is on the second English word love, so it offers aime. In the I love you example, the second word love is aligned with the third word aime. Stacking soft row vectors together for je, t', and aime yields an alignment matrix: Sometimes, alignment can be multiple-to-multiple. For example, the English phrase look it up corresponds to cherchez-le. Thus, "soft" attention weights work better than "hard" attention weights (setting one attention weight to 1, and the others to 0), as we would like the model to make a context vector consisting of a weighted sum of the hidden vectors, rather than "the best one", as there may not be a best hidden vector. == Variants == Many variants of attention implement soft weights, such as fast weight programmers, or fast weight controllers (1992). A "slow" neural network outputs the "fast" weights of another neural network through outer products. The slow network learns by gradient descent. It was later renamed as "linearized self-attention". Bahdanau-style attention, also referred to as additive attention, Luong-style attention, which is known as multiplicative attention, Early attention mechanisms similar to modern self-attention were proposed using recurrent neural networks. However, the highly parallelizable self-attention was introduced in 2017 and successfully used in the Transformer model, positional attention and factorized positional attention. For convolutional neural networks, attention mechanisms can be distinguished by the dimension on which they operate, namely: spatial attention, channel attention, or combinations. These variants recombine the encoder-side inputs to redistribute those effects to each target output. Often, a correlation-style matrix of dot products provides the re-weighting coefficients. In the figures below, W is the matrix of context attention weights, similar to the formula in Overview section above. == Optimizations == === Flash attention === The size of the attention matrix is proportional to the square of the number of input tokens. Therefore, when the input is long, calculating the attention matrix requires a lot of GPU memory. Flash attention is an implementation that reduces the memory needs and increases efficiency without sacrificing accuracy. It achieves this by partitioning the attention computation into smaller blocks that fit into the GPU's faster on-chip memory, reducing the need to store large intermediate matrices and thus lowering memory usage while increasing computational efficiency. === FlexAttention === FlexAttention is an attention kernel developed by Meta that allows users to modify attention scores prior to softmax and dynamically chooses the optimal attention algorithm. == Applications == Attention is widely used in natural language processing, computer vision, and speech recognition. In NLP, it improves context understanding in tasks like question answering and summarization. In vision, visual attention helps models focus on relevant image regions, enhancing object detection and image captioning. === Attention maps as explanations for vision transformers === From the original paper on vision transformers (ViT), visualizing attention scores as a heat map (called saliency maps or attention maps) has become an important and routine way to inspect the decision making process of ViT models. One can compute the attention maps with respect to any attention head at any layer, while the deeper layers tend to show more semantically meaningful visualization. Attention rollout is a recursive algorithm to combine attention scores across all layers, by computing the dot product of successive attention maps. Because vision transformers are typically trained in a self-supervised manner, attention maps are generally not class-sensitive. When a classification head is attached to the ViT backbone, class-discriminative attention maps (CDAM) combines attention maps and gradients with respect to the class [CLS] token. Some class-sensitive interpretability methods originally developed for convolutional neural networks can be also applied to ViT, such as GradCAM, which back-propagates the gradients to the outputs of the final attention layer. Using attention as basis of explanation for the transformers in language and vision is not without debate. While some pioneering papers analyzed and framed attention scores as explanations, higher attention scores do not always correlate with greater impact on model performances. == Mathematical representation == === Standard scaled dot-product attention === For matrices: Q ∈ R m × d k , K ∈ R n × d k {\displaystyle Q\in \mathbb {R} ^{m\times d_{k}},K\in \mathbb {R} ^{n\times d_{k}}} and V ∈ R n × d v {\displaystyle V\in \mathbb {R} ^{n\times d_{v}}} , the scaled dot-product, or QKV attention, is defined as: Attention ( Q , K , V ) = softmax ( Q K T d k ) V ∈ R m × d v {\displaystyle {\text{Attention}}(Q,K,V)={\text{softmax}}\left({\frac {QK^{T}}{\sqrt {d_{k}}}}\right)V\in \mathbb {R} ^{m\times d_{v}}} where T {\displaystyle {}^{T}} denotes transpose and the softmax function is applied independently to every row of its argument. The matrix Q {\displaystyle Q} contains m {\displaystyle m} queries, while matrices K , V {\displaystyle K,V} jointly contain an unordered set of n {\displaystyle n} key-value pairs. Value vectors in matrix V {\displaystyle V} are weighted using the weights resulting from the softmax operation, so that the rows of the m {\displaystyle m} -by- d v {\displaystyle d_{v}} output matrix are confined to the convex hull of the points in R d v {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{d_{v}}} given by the rows of V {\displaystyle V} . To understand the permutation invariance and permutation equivariance properties of QKV attention, let A ∈ R m × m {\displaystyle A\in \mathbb {R} ^{m\times m}} and B ∈ R n × n {\displaystyle B\in \mathbb {R} ^{n\times n}} be permutation matrices; and D ∈ R m × n {\displaystyle D\in \mathbb {R} ^{m\times n}} an arbitrary matrix. The softmax function is permutation equivariant in the sense that: softmax ( A D B ) = A softmax ( D ) B {\displays

  Read more →
• 

  Right to explanation

  In the regulation of algorithms, particularly artificial intelligence and its subfield of machine learning, a right to [an] explanation is a right to be given an explanation for an output of the algorithm. Such rights primarily refer to individual rights to be given an explanation for decisions that significantly affect an individual, particularly legally or financially. For example, a person who applies for a loan and is denied may ask for an explanation, which could be "Credit bureau X reports that you declared bankruptcy last year; this is the main factor in considering you too likely to default, and thus we will not give you the loan you applied for." Some such legal rights already exist, while the scope of a general "right to explanation" is a matter of ongoing debate. There have been arguments made that a "social right to explanation" is a crucial foundation for an information society, particularly as the institutions of that society will need to use digital technologies, artificial intelligence, machine learning. In other words, that the related automated decision making systems that use explainability would be more trustworthy and transparent. Without this right, which could be constituted both legally and through professional standards, the public will be left without much recourse to challenge the decisions of automated systems. == Examples == === Credit scoring in the United States === Under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (Regulation B of the Code of Federal Regulations), Title 12, Chapter X, Part 1002, §1002.9, creditors are required to notify applicants who are denied credit with specific reasons for the detail. As detailed in §1002.9(b)(2): (2) Statement of specific reasons. The statement of reasons for adverse action required by paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section must be specific and indicate the principal reason(s) for the adverse action. Statements that the adverse action was based on the creditor's internal standards or policies or that the applicant, joint applicant, or similar party failed to achieve a qualifying score on the creditor's credit scoring system are insufficient. The official interpretation of this section details what types of statements are acceptable. Creditors comply with this regulation by providing a list of reasons (generally at most 4, per interpretation of regulations), consisting of a numeric reason code (as identifier) and an associated explanation, identifying the main factors affecting a credit score. An example might be: 32: Balances on bankcard or revolving accounts too high compared to credit limits === European Union === The European Union General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR, enacted 2016, taking effect 2018) extends the automated decision-making rights in the 1995 Data Protection Directive to provide a legally disputed form of a right to an explanation, stated as such in Recital 71: "[the data subject should have] the right ... to obtain an explanation of the decision reached". In full: The data subject should have the right not to be subject to a decision, which may include a measure, evaluating personal aspects relating to him or her which is based solely on automated processing and which produces legal effects concerning him or her or similarly significantly affects him or her, such as automatic refusal of an online credit application or e-recruiting practices without any human intervention. ... In any case, such processing should be subject to suitable safeguards, which should include specific information to the data subject and the right to obtain human intervention, to express his or her point of view, to obtain an explanation of the decision reached after such assessment and to challenge the decision. However, the extent to which the regulations themselves provide a "right to explanation" is heavily debated. There are two main strands of criticism. There are significant legal issues with the right as found in Article 22 — as recitals are not binding, and the right to an explanation is not mentioned in the binding articles of the text, having been removed during the legislative process. In addition, there are significant restrictions on the types of automated decisions that are covered — which must be both "solely" based on automated processing, and have legal or similarly significant effects — which significantly limits the range of automated systems and decisions to which the right would apply. In particular, the right is unlikely to apply in many of the cases of algorithmic controversy that have been picked up in the media. The UK has also recently amended its implementation of Article 22. A second potential source of such a right has been pointed to in Article 15, the "right of access by the data subject". This restates a similar provision from the 1995 Data Protection Directive, allowing the data subject access to "meaningful information about the logic involved" in the same significant, solely automated decision-making, found in Article 22. Yet this too suffers from alleged challenges that relate to the timing of when this right can be drawn upon, as well as practical challenges that mean it may not be binding in many cases of public concern. Other EU legislative instruments contain explanation rights. The European Union's Artificial Intelligence Act provides in Article 86 a "[r]ight to explanation of individual decision-making" of certain high risk systems which produce significant, adverse effects to an individual's health, safety or fundamental rights. The right provides for "clear and meaningful explanations of the role of the AI system in the decision-making procedure and the main elements of the decision taken", although only applies to the extent other law does not provide such a right. The Digital Services Act in Article 27, and the Platform to Business Regulation in Article 5, both contain rights to have the main parameters of certain recommender systems to be made clear, although these provisions have been criticised as not matching the way that such systems work. The Platform Work Directive, which provides for regulation of automation in gig economy work as an extension of data protection law, further contains explanation provisions in Article 11, using the specific language of "explanation" in a binding article rather than a recital as is the case in the GDPR. Scholars note that remains uncertainty as to whether these provisions imply sufficiently tailored explanation in practice which will need to be resolved by courts. === France === In France the 2016 Loi pour une République numérique (Digital Republic Act or loi numérique) amends the country's administrative code to introduce a new provision for the explanation of decisions made by public sector bodies about individuals. It notes that where there is "a decision taken on the basis of an algorithmic treatment", the rules that define that treatment and its "principal characteristics" must be communicated to the citizen upon request, where there is not an exclusion (e.g. for national security or defence). These should include the following: the degree and the mode of contribution of the algorithmic processing to the decision- making; the data processed and its source; the treatment parameters, and where appropriate, their weighting, applied to the situation of the person concerned; the operations carried out by the treatment. Scholars have noted that this right, while limited to administrative decisions, goes beyond the GDPR right to explicitly apply to decision support rather than decisions "solely" based on automated processing, as well as provides a framework for explaining specific decisions. Indeed, the GDPR automated decision-making rights in the European Union, one of the places a "right to an explanation" has been sought within, find their origins in French law in the late 1970s. == Criticism == Some argue that a "right to explanation" is at best unnecessary, at worst harmful, and threatens to stifle innovation. Specific criticisms include: favoring human decisions over machine decisions, being redundant with existing laws, and focusing on process over outcome. Authors of study "Slave to the Algorithm? Why a 'Right to an Explanation' Is Probably Not the Remedy You Are Looking For" Lilian Edwards and Michael Veale argue that a right to explanation is not the solution to harms caused to stakeholders by algorithmic decisions. They also state that the right of explanation in the GDPR is narrowly defined, and is not compatible with how modern machine learning technologies are being developed. With these limitations, defining transparency within the context of algorithmic accountability remains a problem. For example, providing the source code of algorithms may not be sufficient and may create other problems in terms of privacy disclosures and the gaming of technical systems. To mitigate this issue, Edwards and Veale argue that an auditing system could be more effective, to allow auditors to loo

  Read more →