AI Data Trainer/annotator

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

• 

  Pill reminder

  A pill reminder is any device that reminds users to take medications. Traditional pill reminders are pill containers with electric timers attached, which can be preset for certain times of the day to set off an alarm. More sophisticated pill reminders can also detect when they have been opened, and therefore when the user is away during the time they were supposed to take their medication, they will be reminded of it when they return. This reminder can be in the form of a light, which also helps for deaf or hearing-impaired users. == Mobile app == A newer type of pill reminder is a mobile app that reminds the owner to take the medication. Some of these applications might effectively support adherence to taking medications.

  Read more →
• 

  Cross-validation (statistics)

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

  Read more →
• 

  Developmental robotics

  Developmental robotics (DevRob), sometimes called epigenetic robotics, is a scientific field which aims at studying the developmental mechanisms, architectures and constraints that allow lifelong and open-ended learning of new skills and new knowledge in embodied machines. As in human children, learning is expected to be cumulative and of progressively increasing complexity, and to result from self-exploration of the world in combination with social interaction. The typical methodological approach consists in starting from theories of human and animal development elaborated in fields such as developmental psychology, neuroscience, developmental and evolutionary biology, and linguistics, then to formalize and implement them in robots, sometimes exploring extensions or variants of them. The experimentation of those models in robots allows researchers to confront them with reality, and as a consequence, developmental robotics also provides feedback and novel hypotheses on theories of human and animal development. Developmental robotics is related to but differs from evolutionary robotics (ER). ER uses populations of robots that evolve over time, whereas DevRob is interested in how the organization of a single robot's control system develops through experience, over time. DevRob is also related to work done in the domains of robotics and artificial life. == Background == Can a robot learn like a child? Can it learn a variety of new skills and new knowledge unspecified at design time and in a partially unknown and changing environment? How can it discover its body and its relationships with the physical and social environment? How can its cognitive capacities continuously develop without the intervention of an engineer once it is "out of the factory"? What can it learn through natural social interactions with humans? These are the questions at the center of developmental robotics. Alan Turing, as well as a number of other pioneers of cybernetics, already formulated those questions and the general approach in 1950, but it is only since the end of the 20th century that they began to be investigated systematically. Because the concept of adaptive intelligent machines is central to developmental robotics, it has relationships with fields such as artificial intelligence, machine learning, cognitive robotics or computational neuroscience. Yet, while it may reuse some of the techniques elaborated in these fields, it differs from them from many perspectives. It differs from classical artificial intelligence because it does not assume the capability of advanced symbolic reasoning and focuses on embodied and situated sensorimotor and social skills rather than on abstract symbolic problems. It differs from cognitive robotics because it focuses on the processes that allow the formation of cognitive capabilities rather than these capabilities themselves. It differs from computational neuroscience because it focuses on functional modeling of integrated architectures of development and learning. More generally, developmental robotics is uniquely characterized by the following three features: It targets task-independent architectures and learning mechanisms, i.e. the machine/robot has to be able to learn new tasks that are unknown by the engineer; It emphasizes open-ended development and lifelong learning, i.e. the capacity of an organism to acquire continuously novel skills. This should not be understood as a capacity for learning "anything" or even “everything”, but just that the set of skills that is acquired can be infinitely extended at least in some (not all) directions; The complexity of acquired knowledge and skills shall increase (and the increase be controlled) progressively. Developmental robotics emerged at the crossroads of several research communities including embodied artificial intelligence, enactive and dynamical systems cognitive science, connectionism. Starting from the essential idea that learning and development happen as the self-organized result of the dynamical interactions among brains, bodies and their physical and social environment, and trying to understand how this self-organization can be harnessed to provide task-independent lifelong learning of skills of increasing complexity, developmental robotics strongly interacts with fields such as developmental psychology, developmental and cognitive neuroscience, developmental biology (embryology), evolutionary biology, and cognitive linguistics. As many of the theories coming from these sciences are verbal and/or descriptive, this implies a crucial formalization and computational modeling activity in developmental robotics. These computational models are then not only used as ways to explore how to build more versatile and adaptive machines but also as a way to evaluate their coherence and possibly explore alternative explanations for understanding biological development. == Research directions == === Skill domains === Due to the general approach and methodology, developmental robotics projects typically focus on having robots develop the same types of skills as human infants. A first category that is important being investigated is the acquisition of sensorimotor skills. These include the discovery of one's own body, including its structure and dynamics such as hand-eye coordination, locomotion, and interaction with objects as well as tool use, with a particular focus on the discovery and learning of affordances. A second category of skills targeted by developmental robots are social and linguistic skills: the acquisition of simple social behavioural games such as turn-taking, coordinated interaction, lexicons, syntax and grammar, and the grounding of these linguistic skills into sensorimotor skills (sometimes referred as symbol grounding). In parallel, the acquisition of associated cognitive skills are being investigated such as the emergence of the self/non-self distinction, the development of attentional capabilities, of categorization systems and higher-level representations of affordances or social constructs, of the emergence of values, empathy, or theories of mind. === Mechanisms and constraints === The sensorimotor and social spaces in which humans and robot live are so large and complex that only a small part of potentially learnable skills can actually be explored and learnt within a life-time. Thus, mechanisms and constraints are necessary to guide developmental organisms in their development and control of the growth of complexity. There are several important families of these guiding mechanisms and constraints which are studied in developmental robotics, all inspired by human development: Motivational systems, generating internal reward signals that drive exploration and learning, which can be of two main types: extrinsic motivations push robots/organisms to maintain basic specific internal properties such as food and water level, physical integrity, or light (e.g. in phototropic systems); intrinsic motivations push robot to search for novelty, challenge, compression or learning progress per se, thus generating what is sometimes called curiosity-driven learning and exploration, or alternatively active learning and exploration; Social guidance: as humans learn a lot by interacting with their peers, developmental robotics investigates mechanisms that can allow robots to participate to human-like social interaction. By perceiving and interpreting social cues, this may allow robots both to learn from humans (through diverse means such as imitation, emulation, stimulus enhancement, demonstration, etc. ...) and to trigger natural human pedagogy. Thus, social acceptance of developmental robots is also investigated; Statistical inference biases and cumulative knowledge/skill reuse: biases characterizing both representations/encodings and inference mechanisms can typically allow considerable improvement of the efficiency of learning and are thus studied. Related to this, mechanisms allowing to infer new knowledge and acquire new skills by reusing previously learnt structures is also an essential field of study; The properties of embodiment, including geometry, materials, or innate motor primitives/synergies often encoded as dynamical systems, can considerably simplify the acquisition of sensorimotor or social skills, and is sometimes referred as morphological computation. The interaction of these constraints with other constraints is an important axis of investigation; Maturational constraints: In human infants, both the body and the neural system grow progressively, rather than being full-fledged already at birth. This implies, for example, that new degrees of freedom, as well as increases of the volume and resolution of available sensorimotor signals, may appear as learning and development unfold. Transposing these mechanisms in developmental robots, and understanding how it may hinder or on the contrary ease the acquisition of novel complex skills is a central questi

  Read more →
• 

  Instance selection

  Instance selection (or dataset reduction, or dataset condensation) is an important data pre-processing step that can be applied in many machine learning (or data mining) tasks. Approaches for instance selection can be applied for reducing the original dataset to a manageable volume, leading to a reduction of the computational resources that are necessary for performing the learning process. Algorithms of instance selection can also be applied for removing noisy instances, before applying learning algorithms. This step can improve the accuracy in classification problems. Algorithm for instance selection should identify a subset of the total available data to achieve the original purpose of the data mining (or machine learning) application as if the whole data had been used. Considering this, the optimal outcome of IS would be the minimum data subset that can accomplish the same task with no performance loss, in comparison with the performance achieved when the task is performed using the whole available data. Therefore, every instance selection strategy should deal with a trade-off between the reduction rate of the dataset and the classification quality. == Instance selection algorithms == The literature provides several different algorithms for instance selection. They can be distinguished from each other according to several different criteria. Considering this, instance selection algorithms can be grouped in two main classes, according to what instances they select: algorithms that preserve the instances at the boundaries of classes and algorithms that preserve the internal instances of the classes. Within the category of algorithms that select instances at the boundaries it is possible to cite DROP3, ICF and LSBo. On the other hand, within the category of algorithms that select internal instances, it is possible to mention ENN and LSSm. In general, algorithm such as ENN and LSSm are used for removing harmful (noisy) instances from the dataset. They do not reduce the data as the algorithms that select border instances, but they remove instances at the boundaries that have a negative impact on the data mining task. They can be used by other instance selection algorithms, as a filtering step. For example, the ENN algorithm is used by DROP3 as the first step, and the LSSm algorithm is used by LSBo. There is also another group of algorithms that adopt different selection criteria. For example, the algorithms LDIS, CDIS and XLDIS select the densest instances in a given arbitrary neighborhood. The selected instances can include both, border and internal instances. The LDIS and CDIS algorithms are very simple and select subsets that are very representative of the original dataset. Besides that, since they search by the representative instances in each class separately, they are faster (in terms of time complexity and effective running time) than other algorithms, such as DROP3 and ICF. Besides that, there is a third category of algorithms that, instead of selecting actual instances of the dataset, select prototypes (that can be synthetic instances). In this category it is possible to include PSSA, PSDSP and PSSP. The three algorithms adopt the notion of spatial partition (a hyperrectangle) for identifying similar instances and extract prototypes for each set of similar instances. In general, these approaches can also be modified for selecting actual instances of the datasets. The algorithm ISDSP adopts a similar approach for selecting actual instances (instead of prototypes).

  Read more →
• 

  Graph cut optimization

  Graph cut optimization is a combinatorial optimization method applicable to a family of functions of discrete variables, named after the concept of cut in the theory of flow networks. Thanks to the max-flow min-cut theorem, determining the minimum cut over a graph representing a flow network is equivalent to computing the maximum flow over the network. Given a pseudo-Boolean function f {\displaystyle f} , if it is possible to construct a flow network with positive weights such that each cut C {\displaystyle C} of the network can be mapped to an assignment of variables x {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} } to f {\displaystyle f} (and vice versa), and the cost of C {\displaystyle C} equals f ( x ) {\displaystyle f(\mathbf {x} )} (up to an additive constant) then it is possible to find the global optimum of f {\displaystyle f} in polynomial time by computing a minimum cut of the graph. The mapping between cuts and variable assignments is done by representing each variable with one node in the graph and, given a cut, each variable will have a value of 0 if the corresponding node belongs to the component connected to the source, or 1 if it belong to the component connected to the sink. Not all pseudo-Boolean functions can be represented by a flow network, and in the general case the global optimization problem is NP-hard. There exist sufficient conditions to characterise families of functions that can be optimised through graph cuts, such as submodular quadratic functions. Graph cut optimization can be extended to functions of discrete variables with a finite number of values, that can be approached with iterative algorithms with strong optimality properties, computing one graph cut at each iteration. Graph cut optimization is an important tool for inference over graphical models such as Markov random fields or conditional random fields, and it has applications in computer vision problems such as image segmentation, denoising, registration and stereo matching. == Representability == A pseudo-Boolean function f : { 0 , 1 } n → R {\displaystyle f:\{0,1\}^{n}\to \mathbb {R} } is said to be representable if there exists a graph G = ( V , E ) {\displaystyle G=(V,E)} with non-negative weights and with source and sink nodes s {\displaystyle s} and t {\displaystyle t} respectively, and there exists a set of nodes V 0 = { v 1 , … , v n } ⊂ V − { s , t } {\displaystyle V_{0}=\{v_{1},\dots ,v_{n}\}\subset V-\{s,t\}} such that, for each tuple of values ( x 1 , … , x n ) ∈ { 0 , 1 } n {\displaystyle (x_{1},\dots ,x_{n})\in \{0,1\}^{n}} assigned to the variables, f ( x 1 , … , x n ) {\displaystyle f(x_{1},\dots ,x_{n})} equals (up to a constant) the value of the flow determined by a minimum cut C = ( S , T ) {\displaystyle C=(S,T)} of the graph G {\displaystyle G} such that v i ∈ S {\displaystyle v_{i}\in S} if x i = 0 {\displaystyle x_{i}=0} and v i ∈ T {\displaystyle v_{i}\in T} if x i = 1 {\displaystyle x_{i}=1} . It is possible to classify pseudo-Boolean functions according to their order, determined by the maximum number of variables contributing to each single term. All first order functions, where each term depends upon at most one variable, are always representable. Quadratic functions f ( x ) = w 0 + ∑ i w i ( x i ) + ∑ i < j w i j ( x i , x j ) . {\displaystyle f(\mathbf {x} )=w_{0}+\sum _{i}w_{i}(x_{i})+\sum _{i 0 {\displaystyle p>0} then w i j k ( x i , x j , x k ) = w i j k ( 0 , 0 , 0 ) + p 1 ( x i − 1 ) + p 2 ( x j − 1 ) + p 3 ( x k − 1 ) + p 23 ( x j − 1 ) x k + p 31 x i ( x k − 1 ) + p 12 ( x i − 1 ) x j − p x i x j x k {\displaystyle w_{ijk}(x_{i},x_{j},x_{k})=w_{ijk}(0,0,0)+p_{1}(x_{i}-1)+p_{2}(x_{j}-1)+p_{3}(x_{k}-1)+p_{23}(x_{j}-1)x_{k}+p_{31}x_{i}(x_{k}-1)+p_{12}(x_{i}-1)x_{j}-px_{i}x_{j}x_{k}} with p 1 = w i j k ( 1 , 0 , 1 ) − w i j k ( 0 , 0 , 1 ) p 2 = w i j k ( 1 , 1 , 0 ) − w i j k ( 1 , 0 , 1 ) p 3 = w i j k ( 0 , 1 , 1 ) − w i j k ( 0 , 1 , 0 ) p 23 = w i j k ( 0 , 0 , 1 ) + w i j k ( 0 , 1 , 0 ) − w i j k ( 0 , 0 , 0 ) − w i j k ( 0 , 1 , 1 ) p 31 = w i j k ( 0 , 0 , 1 ) + w i j k ( 1 , 0 , 0 ) − w i j k ( 0 , 0 , 0 ) − w i j k ( 1 , 0 , 1 ) p 12 = w i j k ( 0 , 1 , 0 ) + w i j k ( 1 , 0 , 0 ) − w i j k ( 0 , 0 , 0 ) − w i j k ( 1 , 1 , 0 ) . {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}p_{1}&=w_{ijk}(1,0,1)-w_{ijk}(0,0,1)\\p_{2}&=w_{ijk}(1,1,0)-w_{ijk}(1,0,1)\\p_{3}&=w_{ijk}(0,1,1)-w_{ijk}(0,1,0)\\p_{23}&=w_{ijk}(0,0,1)+w_{ijk}(0,1,0)-w_{ijk}(0,0,0)-w_{ijk}(0,1,1)\\p_{31}&=w_{ijk}(0,0,1)+w_{ijk}(1,0,0)-w_{ijk}(0,0,0)-w_{ijk}(1,0,1)\\p_{12}&=w_{ijk}(0,1,0)+w_{ijk}(1,0,0)-w_{ijk}(0,0,0)-w_{ijk}(1,1

  Read more →
• 

  Croissant (metadata format)

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

  Read more →
• 

  Spreading activation

  Spreading activation is a method for searching associative networks, biological and artificial neural networks, or semantic networks. The search process is initiated by labeling a set of source nodes (e.g. concepts in a semantic network) with weights or "activation" and then iteratively propagating or "spreading" that activation out to other nodes linked to the source nodes. Most often these "weights" are real values that decay as activation propagates through the network. When the weights are discrete this process is often referred to as marker passing. Activation may originate from alternate paths, identified by distinct markers, and terminate when two alternate paths reach the same node. However brain studies show that several different brain areas play an important role in semantic processing. Spreading activation in semantic networks as a model were invented in cognitive psychology to model the fan out effect. Spreading activation can also be applied in information retrieval, by means of a network of nodes representing documents and terms contained in those documents. == Cognitive psychology == As it relates to cognitive psychology, spreading activation is the theory of how the brain iterates through a network of associated ideas to retrieve specific information. The spreading activation theory presents the array of concepts within our memory as cognitive units, each consisting of a node and its associated elements or characteristics, all connected together by edges. A spreading activation network can be represented schematically, in a sort of web diagram with shorter lines between two nodes meaning the ideas are more closely related and will typically be associated more quickly to the original concept. In memory psychology, the spreading activation model holds that people organize their knowledge of the world based on their personal experiences, which in turn form the network of ideas that is the person's knowledge of the world. When a word (the target) is preceded by an associated word (the prime) in word recognition tasks, participants seem to perform better in the amount of time that it takes them to respond. For instance, subjects respond faster to the word "doctor" when it is preceded by "nurse" than when it is preceded by an unrelated word like "carrot". This semantic priming effect with words that are close in meaning within the cognitive network has been seen in a wide range of tasks given by experimenters, ranging from sentence verification to lexical decision and naming. As another example, if the original concept is "red" and the concept "vehicles" is primed, they are much more likely to say "fire engine" instead of something unrelated to vehicles, such as "cherries". If instead "fruits" was primed, they would likely name "cherries" and continue on from there. The activation of pathways in the network has everything to do with how closely linked two concepts are by meaning, as well as how a subject is primed. == Algorithm == A directed graph is populated by Nodes[ 1...N ] each having an associated activation value A [ i ] which is a real number in the range [0.0 ... 1.0]. A Link[ i, j ] connects source node[ i ] with target node[ j ]. Each edge has an associated weight W [ i, j ] usually a real number in the range [0.0 ... 1.0]. Parameters: Firing threshold F, a real number in the range [0.0 ... 1.0] Decay factor D, a real number in the range [0.0 ... 1.0] Steps: Initialize the graph setting all activation values A [ i ] to zero. Set one or more origin nodes to an initial activation value greater than the firing threshold F. A typical initial value is 1.0. For each unfired node [ i ] in the graph having an activation value A [ i ] greater than the node firing threshold F: For each Link [ i, j ] connecting the source node [ i ] with target node [ j ], adjust A [ j ] = A [ j ] + (A [ i ] W [ i, j ] D) where D is the decay factor. If a target node receives an adjustment to its activation value so that it would exceed 1.0, then set its new activation value to 1.0. Likewise maintain 0.0 as a lower bound on the target node's activation value should it receive an adjustment to below 0.0. Once a node has fired it may not fire again, although variations of the basic algorithm permit repeated firings and loops through the graph. Nodes receiving a new activation value that exceeds the firing threshold F are marked for firing on the next spreading activation cycle. If activation originates from more than one node, a variation of the algorithm permits marker passing to distinguish the paths by which activation is spread over the graph The procedure terminates when either there are no more nodes to fire or in the case of marker passing from multiple origins, when a node is reached from more than one path. Variations of the algorithm that permit repeated node firings and activation loops in the graph, terminate after a steady activation state, with respect to some delta, is reached, or when a maximum number of iterations is exceeded. == Examples ==

  Read more →
• 

  Structural risk minimization

  Structural risk minimization (SRM) is an inductive principle of use in machine learning. Commonly in machine learning, a generalized model must be selected from a finite data set, with the consequent problem of overfitting – the model becoming too strongly tailored to the particularities of the training set and generalizing poorly to new data. The SRM principle addresses this problem by balancing the model's complexity against its success at fitting the training data. This principle was first set out in a 1974 book by Vladimir Vapnik and Alexey Chervonenkis and uses the VC dimension. In practical terms, Structural Risk Minimization is implemented by minimizing E t r a i n + β H ( W ) {\displaystyle E_{train}+\beta H(W)} , where E t r a i n {\displaystyle E_{train}} is the train error, the function H ( W ) {\displaystyle H(W)} is called a regularization function, and β {\displaystyle \beta } is a constant. H ( W ) {\displaystyle H(W)} is chosen such that it takes large values on parameters W {\displaystyle W} that belong to high-capacity subsets of the parameter space. Minimizing H ( W ) {\displaystyle H(W)} in effect limits the capacity of the accessible subsets of the parameter space, thereby controlling the trade-off between minimizing the training error and minimizing the expected gap between the training error and test error. The SRM problem can be formulated in terms of data. Given n data points consisting of data x and labels y, the objective J ( θ ) {\displaystyle J(\theta )} is often expressed in the following manner: J ( θ ) = 1 2 n ∑ i = 1 n ( h θ ( x i ) − y i ) 2 + λ 2 ∑ j = 1 d θ j 2 {\displaystyle J(\theta )={\frac {1}{2n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}(h_{\theta }(x^{i})-y^{i})^{2}+{\frac {\lambda }{2}}\sum _{j=1}^{d}\theta _{j}^{2}} The first term is the mean squared error (MSE) term between the value of the learned model, h θ {\displaystyle h_{\theta }} , and the given labels y {\displaystyle y} . This term is the training error, E t r a i n {\displaystyle E_{train}} , that was discussed earlier. The second term, places a prior over the weights, to favor sparsity and penalize larger weights. The trade-off coefficient, λ {\displaystyle \lambda } , is a hyperparameter that places more or less importance on the regularization term. Larger λ {\displaystyle \lambda } encourages sparser weights at the expense of a more optimal MSE, and smaller λ {\displaystyle \lambda } relaxes regularization allowing the model to fit to data. Note that as λ → ∞ {\displaystyle \lambda \to \infty } the weights become zero, and as λ → 0 {\displaystyle \lambda \to 0} , the model typically suffers from overfitting.

  Read more →
• 

  Tweak programming environment

  Tweak is a graphical user interface (GUI) layer written by Andreas Raab for the Squeak development environment, which in turn is an integrated development environment based on the Smalltalk-80 computer programming language. Tweak is an alternative to an earlier graphic user interface layer called Morphic. Development began in 2001. Applications that use the Tweak software include Sophie (version 1), a multimedia and e-book authoring system, and a family of virtual world systems: Open Cobalt, Teleplace, OpenQwaq, 3d ICC's Immersive Terf and the Croquet Project. == Influences == An experimental version of Etoys, a programming environment for children, used Tweak instead of Morphic. Etoys was a major influence on a similar Squeak-based programming environment known as Scratch.

  Read more →
• 

  Data annotation

  Data annotation is the process of labeling or tagging relevant metadata within a dataset to enable machines to interpret the data accurately. The dataset can take various forms, including images, audio files, video footage, or text. == Applications == Data is a fundamental component in the development of artificial intelligence (AI). Training AI models, particularly in computer vision and natural language processing, requires large volumes of annotated data. Proper annotation ensures that machine learning algorithms can recognize patterns and make accurate predictions. Common types of data annotation include classification, bounding boxes, semantic segmentation, and keypoint annotation. Data annotation is used in AI-driven fields, including healthcare, autonomous vehicles, retail, security, and entertainment. By accurately labeling data, machine learning models can perform complex tasks such as object detection, sentiment analysis, and speech recognition with greater precision. This growing demand has led to the emergence of specialized sectors and platforms dedicated to AI training and human-in-the-loop workflows, which often utilize Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) to refine model behavior. == In computer vision == === Image classification === Image classification, also known as image categorization, involves assigning predefined labels to images. Machine learning algorithms trained on classified images can later recognize objects and differentiate between categories. For instance, an AI model trained to recognize furniture styles can distinguish between Georgian and Rococo armchairs. === Semantic segmentation === Semantic segmentation assigns each pixel in an image to a specific class, such as trees, vehicles, humans, or buildings. This type of annotation enables machine learning models to differentiate objects by grouping similar pixels, allowing for a detailed understanding of an image. === Bounding boxes === Bounding box annotation involves drawing rectangular boxes around objects in an image. This technique is commonly used in autonomous driving, security surveillance, and retail analytics to detect and classify objects such as pedestrians, vehicles, and products on store shelves. === 3D cuboids === 3D cuboid annotation enhances traditional bounding boxes by adding depth, enabling models to predict an object's spatial orientation, movement, and size. This method is particularly useful for autonomous vehicles and robotics, where understanding object dimensions and depth is critical. === Polygonal annotation === For objects with irregular shapes, such as curved or multi-sided items, polygonal annotation provides more precise labeling than bounding boxes. This technique is often used in applications that require detailed object recognition, such as medical imaging or aerial mapping. === Keypoint annotation === Keypoint annotation marks specific points on an object, such as facial landmarks or body joints, to enable tracking and motion analysis. This method is widely used in facial recognition, emotion detection, sports analytics, and augmented reality applications.

  Read more →
• 

  Human–AI interaction

  Human–AI interaction is a developing field of research and a sub-field of human–computer interaction (HCI). HCI is a field of research that explores the interactions between humans and computer-based technology, focusing on design implementation, user experience, and psychological factors. With the proliferation of artificial intelligence (AI), there has developed a sub-section of HCI research dedicated specifically to artificial intelligence and how people interact with and are impacted by it. This is human–AI interaction, abbreviated either as HAX or HAII. == Introduction == Artificial intelligence (AI), in general, has fluid definitions and varied research applications, but in brief can be applied to mechanizing tasks that would require human intelligence to complete. AI are tools designed to replicate the human abilities of navigating uncertainty, active learning, and processing information in different contexts. Within the context of HCI and HAX research, artificial intelligence can be broken into two sub-fields, natural language processing (NLP) and computer vision (CV). AI technologies notably include machine-learning, deep-learning and neural networks, and large-language models (LLMs). As a new and rapidly developing technology, AI is changing how computers work and therefore changing how humans interact with computers. Unlike the traditional human-computer interaction, where a human directs a machine, human-AI interaction is characterized by a more collaborative relationship between the computer program (the AI) and the human user, as AI is perceived as an active agent rather than a tool. This changing dynamic creates new questions and necessitates new research methods that are not present in traditional HCI research. According to a scoping review on the state of the discipline, the HAX field comprises research on the "design, development, and evaluation of AI systems" and encompasses the themes of human-AI collaboration, human-AI competition, human-AI conflict, and human-AI symbiosis. == Design == Machine learning and artificial intelligence have been used for decades in targeted advertising and to recommend content in social media. Ethical Guidelines (Framework for ethical AI development) == User Experience (UX) == This section should handle research on how users interact with tools. What techniques do they use, do they develop habits, what types of programs and devices are they using to access these tools, what do they use these tools to do exactly. === Cognitive Frameworks in AI Tool Users === AI has been viewed with various expectations, attributions, and often misconceptions. Many people exclusively understand AI as the LLM chatbots they interact with, like ChatGPT or Claude, or other generative AI programs. [Insert section: discuss how people interact with these specific AI tools as a connection to the following paragraphs] Most fundamentally, humans have a mental model of understanding AI's reasoning and motivation for its decision recommendations, and building a holistic and precise mental model of AI helps people create prompts to receive more valuable responses from AI. However, these mental models are not whole because people can only gain more information about AI through their limited interaction with it; more interaction with AI builds a better mental model that a person may build to produce better prompt outcomes. Research on human-AI interaction has emphasized that users develop mental models of AI systems and revise those models through repeated use, feedback, and explanation, while design research has stressed the importance of communicating capabilities and limitations early and supporting trust calibration through explanation and correction. In a 2025 SSRN working paper, John DeVadoss proposed "Hypothetico-Deductive Interaction" (HDI), a framework that describes human-AI interaction as a mutual process of conjecture and refutation in which users test assumptions about an AI system's capabilities while the system infers and updates assumptions about user goals through its responses and clarifying questions. DeVadoss argued that this framing helps explain prompt iteration, weak capability awareness, and trust miscalibration, and suggested design responses such as clearer communication of uncertainty, easier correction, actionable explanations, and safer failure modes. == Research themes == === Human-AI collaboration === Human-AI collaboration occurs when the human and AI supervise the task on the same level and extent to achieve the same goal. Some collaboration occurs in the form of augmenting human capability. AI may help human ability in analysis and decision-making through providing and weighing a volume of information, and learning to defer to the human decision when it recognizes its unreliability. It is especially beneficial when the human can detect a task that AI can be trusted to make few errors so that there is not a lot of excessive checking process required on the human's end. Some findings show signs of human-AI augmentation, or human–AI symbiosis, in which AI enhances human ability in a way that co-working on a task with AI produces better outcomes than a human working alone. For example: the quality and speed of customer service tasks increase when a human agent collaborates with AI, training on specific models allows AI to improve diagnoses in clinical settings, and AI with human-intervention can improve creativity of artwork while fully AI-generated haikus were rated negatively. Human-AI synergy, a concept in which human-AI collaboration would produce more optimal outcomes than either human or AI working alone could explain why AI does not always help with performance. Some AI features and development may accelerate human-AI synergy, while others may stagnate it. For example, when AI updates for better performance, it sometimes worsens the team performance with human and AI by reducing the compatibility with the new model and the mental model a user has developed on the previous version. Research has found that AI often supports human capabilities in the form of human-AI augmentation and not human-AI synergy, potentially because people rely too much on AI and stop thinking on their own. Prompting people to actively engage in analysis and think when to follow AI recommendations reduces their over-reliance, especially for individuals with higher need for cognition. === Human-AI competition === Robots and computers have substituted routine tasks historically completed by humans, but agentic AI has made it possible to also replace cognitive tasks including taking phone calls for appointments and driving a car. At the point of 2016, research has estimated that 45% of paid activities could be replaced by AI by 2030. Perceived autonomy of robots is known to increase people's negative attitude toward them, and worry about the technology taking over leads people to reject it. There has been a consistent tendency of algorithm aversion in which people prefer human advice over AI advice. However, people are not always able to tell apart tasks completed by AI or other humans. See AI takeover for more information. It is also notable that this sentiment is more prominent in the Western cultures as Westerners tend to show less positive views about AI compared to East Asians. == Research on the psychological impacts of AI == === Perception on others who use AI === As much as people perceive and make judgment about AI itself, they also form impressions of themselves and others who use AI. In the workplace, employees who disclose the use of AI in their tasks are more likely to receive feedback that they are not as hardworking as those who are in the same job who receive non-AI help to complete the same tasks. AI use disclosure diminishes the perceived legitimacy in the employee's task and decision making which ultimately leads observers to distrust people who use AI. Although these negative effects of AI use disclosure are weakened by the observers who use AI frequently themselves, the effect is still not attenuated by the observers' positive attitude towards AI. === Bias, AI, and human === Although AI provides a wide range of information and suggestions to its users, AI itself is not free of biases and stereotypes, and it does not always help people reduce their cognitive errors and biases. People are prone to such errors by failing to see other potential ideas and cases that are not listed by AI responses and committing to a decision suggested by AI that directly contradicts the correct information and directions that they are already aware of. Gender bias is also reflected as the female gendering of AI technologies which conceptualizes females as a helpful assistant. == Emotional connection with AI == Human-AI interaction has been theorized in the context of interpersonal relationships mainly in social psychology, communications and media studies, and as a technology interface through the lens of hu

  Read more →
• 

  Manifold hypothesis

  The manifold hypothesis posits that many high-dimensional data sets that occur in the real world actually lie along low-dimensional latent manifolds inside that high-dimensional space. As a consequence of the manifold hypothesis, many data sets that appear to initially require many variables to describe, can actually be described by a comparatively small number of variables, linked to the local coordinate system of the underlying manifold. It is suggested that this principle underpins the effectiveness of machine learning algorithms in describing high-dimensional data sets by considering a few common features. The manifold hypothesis is related to the effectiveness of nonlinear dimensionality reduction techniques in machine learning. Many techniques of dimensional reduction make the assumption that data lies along a low-dimensional submanifold, such as manifold sculpting, manifold alignment, and manifold regularization. The major implications of this hypothesis is that Machine learning models only have to fit relatively simple, low-dimensional, highly structured subspaces within their potential input space (latent manifolds). Within one of these manifolds, it's always possible to interpolate between two inputs, that is to say, morph one into another via a continuous path along which all points fall on the manifold. The ability to interpolate between samples is the key to generalization in deep learning. == The information geometry of statistical manifolds == An empirically-motivated approach to the manifold hypothesis focuses on its correspondence with an effective theory for manifold learning under the assumption that robust machine learning requires encoding the dataset of interest using methods for data compression. This perspective gradually emerged using the tools of information geometry thanks to the coordinated effort of scientists working on the efficient coding hypothesis, predictive coding and variational Bayesian methods. The argument for reasoning about the information geometry on the latent space of distributions rests upon the existence and uniqueness of the Fisher information metric. In this general setting, we are trying to find a stochastic embedding of a statistical manifold. From the perspective of dynamical systems, in the big data regime this manifold generally exhibits certain properties such as homeostasis: We can sample large amounts of data from the underlying generative process. Machine Learning experiments are reproducible, so the statistics of the generating process exhibit stationarity. In a sense made precise by theoretical neuroscientists working on the free energy principle, the statistical manifold in question possesses a Markov blanket.

  Read more →
• 

  Level-set method

  The Level-set method (LSM) is a conceptual framework for using level sets as a tool for numerical analysis of surfaces and shapes. LSM can perform numerical computations involving curves and surfaces on a fixed Cartesian grid without having to parameterize these objects. LSM makes it easier to perform computations on shapes with sharp corners and shapes that change topology (such as by splitting in two or developing holes). These characteristics make LSM effective for modeling objects that vary in time, such as an airbag inflating or a drop of oil floating in water. == Overview == The figure on the right illustrates several ideas about LSM. In the upper left corner is a bounded region with a well-behaved boundary. Below it, the red surface is the graph of a level set function φ {\displaystyle \varphi } determining this shape, and the flat blue region represents the X-Y plane. The boundary of the shape is then the zero-level set of φ {\displaystyle \varphi } , while the shape itself is the set of points in the plane for which φ {\displaystyle \varphi } is positive (interior of the shape) or zero (at the boundary). In the top row, the shape's topology changes as it is split in two. It is challenging to describe this transformation numerically by parameterizing the boundary of the shape and following its evolution. An algorithm can be used to detect the moment the shape splits in two and then construct parameterizations for the two newly obtained curves. On the bottom row, however, the plane at which the level set function is sampled is translated upwards, on which the shape's change in topology is described. It is less challenging to work with a shape through its level-set function rather than with itself directly, in which a method would need to consider all the possible deformations the shape might undergo. Thus, in two dimensions, the level-set method amounts to representing a closed curve Γ {\displaystyle \Gamma } (such as the shape boundary in our example) using an auxiliary function φ {\displaystyle \varphi } , called the level-set function. The curve Γ {\displaystyle \Gamma } is represented as the zero-level set of φ {\displaystyle \varphi } by Γ = { ( x , y ) ∣ φ ( x , y ) = 0 } , {\displaystyle \Gamma =\{(x,y)\mid \varphi (x,y)=0\},} and the level-set method manipulates Γ {\displaystyle \Gamma } implicitly through the function φ {\displaystyle \varphi } . This function φ {\displaystyle \varphi } is assumed to take positive values inside the region delimited by the curve Γ {\displaystyle \Gamma } and negative values outside. == The level-set equation == If the curve Γ {\displaystyle \Gamma } moves in the normal direction with a speed v {\displaystyle v} , then by chain rule and implicit differentiation, it can be determined that the level-set function φ {\displaystyle \varphi } satisfies the level-set equation ∂ φ ∂ t = v | ∇ φ | . {\displaystyle {\frac {\partial \varphi }{\partial t}}=v|\nabla \varphi |.} Here, | ⋅ | {\displaystyle |\cdot |} is the Euclidean norm (denoted customarily by single bars in partial differential equations), and t {\displaystyle t} is time. This is a partial differential equation, in particular a Hamilton–Jacobi equation, and can be solved numerically, for example, by using finite differences on a Cartesian grid. However, the numerical solution of the level set equation may require advanced techniques. Simple finite difference methods fail quickly. Upwinding methods such as the Godunov method are considered better; however, the level set method does not guarantee preservation of the volume and shape of the set level in an advection field that maintains shape and size, for example, a uniform or rotational velocity field. Instead, the shape of the level set may become distorted, and the level set may disappear over a few time steps. Therefore, high-order finite difference schemes, such as high-order essentially non-oscillatory (ENO) schemes, are often required, and even then, the feasibility of long-term simulations is questionable. More advanced methods have been developed to overcome this; for example, combinations of the leveling method with tracking marker particles suggested by the velocity field. == Example == Consider a unit circle in R 2 {\textstyle \mathbb {R} ^{2}} , shrinking in on itself at a constant rate, i.e. each point on the boundary of the circle moves along its inwards pointing normally at some fixed speed. The circle will shrink and eventually collapse down to a point. If an initial distance field is constructed (i.e. a function whose value is the signed Euclidean distance to the boundary, positive interior, negative exterior) on the initial circle, the normalized gradient of this field will be the circle normal. If the field has a constant value subtracted from it in time, the zero level (which was the initial boundary) of the new fields will also be circular and will similarly collapse to a point. This is due to this being effectively the temporal integration of the Eikonal equation with a fixed front velocity. == Applications == In mathematical modeling of combustion, LSM is used to describe the instantaneous flame surface, known as the G equation. Level-set data structures have been developed to facilitate the use of the level-set method in computer applications. Computational fluid dynamics Trajectory planning Optimization Image processing Computational biophysics Discrete complex dynamics (visualization of the parameter plane and the dynamic plane) == History == The level-set method was developed in 1979 by Alain Dervieux, and subsequently popularized by Stanley Osher and James Sethian. It has since become popular in many disciplines, such as image processing, computer graphics, computational geometry, optimization, computational fluid dynamics, and computational biology.

  Read more →
• 

  CHAOS (chess)

  CHAOS (Chess Heuristics and Other Stuff) is a chess playing program that was developed by programmers working at the RCA Systems Programming division in the late 1960s. It played competitively in computer chess competitions in the 1970s and 1980s. It differed from other programs of that era in its look-ahead philosophy, choosing to use chess knowledge to evaluate fewer positions and continuations as opposed to simple evaluations that relied on deep look-ahead to avoid bad moves. == Introduction == CHAOS was originally developed by Ira Ruben, Fred Swartz, Victor Berman, Joe Winograd and William Toikka while working at RCA in Cinnaminson, NJ. Its name is an acronym for 'Chess Heuristics and Other Stuff.' Program development moved to the Computing Center of the University of Michigan when Swartz changed jobs, and Mike Alexander joined the development group. Swartz, Alexander and Berman were continuously group members from that point onward in CHAOS' evolution, as others of the original authors left and new members contributed episodically. Chess Senior Master Jack O'Keefe contributed to CHAOS' development from about 1980 onwards. CHAOS was written in Fortran, except for low-level board representation manipulations written in assembly language or C. Due to this portability, it ran on RCA, Univac and IBM-compatible mainframes in its lifetime. CHAOS heralds from the mainframe computing era when only machines of that capacity were able to play at a high level. Consequently, development and testing could only take place at off-peak times for production use of the machine. In a competition, CHAOS had to run on a dedicated mainframe with a telephone link to the match venue. In its later years, CHAOS ran on computers on the machine assembly floor of Amdahl Corporation on MTS. == Background == === Chess and artificial intelligence === Mathematicians Claude Shannon and Alan Turing, working separately, were the first to view playing chess as a challenge to machines. Working for AT&T / Bell Labs with its access to telephone switching equipment, Shannon built a relay-based machine that learned how to work its way through a two-dimensional, 5x5 cell maze in 1949. Shannon viewed this as an analogue of the way that organisms learn things about their natural environment. There is a random element to searching it, a memory element to benefit from the search outcome, and a reward element that reinforces learning when the global outcome is favorable to the organism. Soon afterward, Shannon wrote a mathematical analysis of the game of chess, published in 1950. Like with the maze, he broke down game play into the necessary elements for reinforcement learning. Associated with each board configuration a move will be made from, there is a numerical score. To decide what move to make, a player wants to maximize their own position's score after the move and to minimize their opponent's score (a minimax view). Since there are about 32 possible moves at each of the early stages of the game, and about 40 moves and responses in each game, then there are about 32 80 {\displaystyle 32^{80}} or about 10 120 {\displaystyle 10^{120}} possible games - an impossibly large set to evaluate completely. Therefore, there must be a way to limit the number of moves to look ahead for to find the best one. Reducing the game to these few key elements provided a way to think about human intelligence in general. Shannon became part of a wider group using computing machines to mimic aspects of human intelligence that grew into the general idea of artificial intelligence. (Other members of this group were John McCarthy, Herbert Simon, Allen Newell, Alan Kotok, Alex Bernstein and Richard Greenblatt.) The paradigm that evolved was that there was a quantification of the position on the board into a score, an evaluation method to find favorable outcomes (minimax, later alpha-beta pruning), and a strategy to manage the combinatorial explosion of the look-ahead possibilities. By the early 1960s, there were computer programs that played chess at a rudimentary level. They used very simple evaluation functions for each position and tried to search as far forward as was practical given the time constraints and available compute power. Naturally, programmers optimized their code to use the available computing resources. This led to a major philosophical divide among chess programs: those that tried to evaluate as many positions as possible, and those that tried to evaluate the most promising move sequences as deeply as possible. CHAOS was firmly in the camp believing only the most promising moves should be evaluated in depth. Said Swartz, "The 'brute force people' ... look at every (possible move) no matter what garbage it is. Most moves are just terrible, terrible moves, and most computing time is being spent on pure garbage." The program spent more time evaluating each board position in the expectation that it would find the most promising lines of play to explore in depth. In 1983, the then-fastest chess program (Belle) evaluated 110,000 positions per second, and typical programs 1000–50,000 per second, whereas CHAOS evaluated about 50-100 per second. === Machine learning and strategies to manage search === From about 1949 onward, Arthur Samuel began work for IBM on machine learning, culminating in a checkers-playing program in 1952 and publications on the topic. Concurrently, Christopher Strachey created Checkers, a program to play the board game of checkers in 1951, but it had no capacity to learn from its play. Checkers was chosen by both authors because it was simpler than chess yet contained the basic characteristics of an intellectual activity, and, in Samuel's view, was a test-bed in which heuristic procedures and learning processes could be evaluated quickly. Checker playing programs introduced the notion of the game tree and evaluating play to various depths to choose the best move. The complexity of chess, however, promoted it to the status of an analogue for human intelligence, and it attracted computer scientists' attention, who referred to it as research into artificial intelligence (AI). Like checkers, it required a numerical assessment of each arrangement of chess pieces on a board. It also required looking ahead to future moves to decide how to play the present position. Due to the enormous number of possible moves, there had to be a way to confine the look-ahead search to the most promising lines of play. From these factors, the notion of minimax score evaluation developed and, later, alpha-beta tree pruning to abandon looking at positions worse than any that have already been examined. === Chess search strategies === The AI community viewed artificial intelligence as comprising two parts: a way to symbolically quantify the knowledge in hand (a chess board position), and a set of heuristics to limit look-ahead to the consequences of a move. The early chess playing programs attempted to look forward as far as possible, perhaps to 3 moves ahead by each player, and to choose the best outcome. This led to the horizon effect, whereby a key move 4 or more moves ahead would be unexamined and therefore missed. Consequently, the programs were quite weak and heuristics to manage the search became important in their development. CHAOS used a selective search strategy with iterative widening. As chess programs evolved, they incorporated books of opening lines of play from historic sources. Nowadays, book moves are catalogued in machine-readable form, but originally programmers had to type them in. CHAOS had an extensive book for its time of around 10,000 moves that O'Keefe helped to develop. A problem with play from an opening book is the behavior of the program when the play leaves the book: the positional advantage may be so subtle that the evaluation scheme may be unable to understand it, leading to very wide and shallow searches to establish a line of play. The horizon effect again plagues move selection after leaving the book. CHAOS mitigated these problems by only using book lines that it could understand, and by relying on cached analyses of continuations out of the book made while the opponent's clock was running. == Game Play History == CHAOS played in twelve ACM computer chess tournaments and four World Computer Chess Championships (WCCC). Its debut was the ACM computer chess tournament in 1973, taking 2nd place. In 1974, it again won 2nd place in the WCCC, defeating the tournament favorite Chess 4.0 but losing to Kaissa. CHAOS was close to winning the 1980 WCCC, but lost to Belle in a playoff. The 1985 ACM computer chess tournament was CHAOS' last competition. One of CHAOS' notable victories was over Chess 4.0 at the 1974 WCCC tournament. Chess 4.0 was unbeaten by any other program up until then. Playing as white, CHAOS made a knight sacrifice (16 Nd4-e6!!) that traded material for open lines of attack and eventually won the game. CHAOS’ authors thought the move was due to a

  Read more →
• 

  Symbol level

  In knowledge-based systems, agents choose actions based on the principle of rationality to move closer to a desired goal. The agent is able to make decisions based on knowledge it has about the world (see knowledge level). But for the agent to actually change its state, it must use whatever means it has available. This level of description for the agent's behavior is the symbol level. The term was coined by Allen Newell in 1982. For example, in a computer program, the knowledge level consists of the information contained in its data structures that it uses to perform certain actions. The symbol level consists of the program's algorithms, the data structures themselves, and so on.

  Read more →