AI Detector Accuracy

AI Detector Accuracy — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  Software requirements

  Software requirements for a system are the description of what the system should do, the service or services that it provides and the constraints on its operation. The IEEE Standard Glossary of Software Engineering Terminology defines a requirement as: A condition or capability needed by a user to solve a problem or achieve an objective A condition or capability that must be met or possessed by a system or system component to satisfy a contract, standard, specification, or other formally imposed document A documented representation of a condition or capability as in 1 or 2 The activities related to working with software requirements can broadly be broken down into elicitation, analysis, specification, and management. Note that the wording Software requirements is additionally used in software release notes to explain, which depending on software packages are required for a certain software to be built/installed/used. == Elicitation == Elicitation is the gathering and discovery of requirements from stakeholders and other sources. A variety of techniques can be used such as joint application design (JAD) sessions, interviews, document analysis, focus groups, etc. Elicitation is the first step of requirements development. == Analysis == Analysis is the logical breakdown that proceeds from elicitation. Analysis involves reaching a richer and more precise understanding of each requirement and representing sets of requirements in multiple, complementary ways. Requirements Triage or prioritization of requirements is another activity which often follows analysis. This relates to Agile software development in the planning phase, e.g. by Planning poker, however it might not be the same depending on the context and nature of the project and requirements or product/service that is being built. == Specification == Specification involves representing and storing the collected requirements knowledge in a persistent and well-organized fashion that facilitates effective communication and change management. Use cases, user stories, functional requirements, and visual analysis models are popular choices for requirements specification. == Validation == Validation involves techniques to confirm that the correct set of requirements has been specified to build a solution that satisfies the project's business objectives, and to detect and correct errors in the requirements before implementation. == Management == Requirements change during projects and there are often many of them. Management of this change becomes paramount to ensuring that the correct software is built for the stakeholders. == Tool support for Requirements Engineering == === Tools for Requirements Elicitation, Analysis and Validation === Taking into account that these activities may involve some artifacts such as observation reports (user observation), questionnaires (interviews, surveys and polls), use cases, user stories; activities such as requirement workshops (charrettes), brainstorming, mind mapping, role-playing; and even, prototyping; software products providing some or all of these capabilities can be used to help achieve these tasks. There is at least one author who advocates, explicitly, for mind mapping tools such as FreeMind; and, alternatively, for the use of specification by example tools such as Concordion. Additionally, the ideas and statements resulting from these activities may be gathered and organized with wikis and other collaboration tools such as Trello. The features actually implemented and standards compliance vary from product to product. === Tools for Requirements Specification === A Software requirements specification (SRS) document might be created using general-purpose software like a word processor or one of several specialized tools. Some of these tools can import, edit, export and publish SRS documents. It may help to make SRS documents while following a standardised structure and methodology, such as ISO/IEC/IEEE 29148:2018. Likewise, software may or not use some standard to import or export requirements (such as ReqIF) or not allow these exchanges at all. === Tools for Requirements Document Verification === Tools of this kind verify if there are any errors in a requirements document according to some expected structure or standard. === Tools for Requirements Comparison === Tools of this kind compare two requirement sets according to some expected document structure and standard. === Tools for Requirements Merge and Update === Tools of this kind allow the merging and update of requirement documents. === Tools for Requirements Traceability === Tools of this kind allow tracing requirements to other artifacts such as models and source code (forward traceability) or, to previous ones such as business rules and constraints (backwards traceability). === Tools for Model-Based Software or Systems Requirement Engineering === Model-based systems engineering (MBSE) is the formalised application of modelling to support system requirements, design, analysis, verification and validation activities beginning in the conceptual design phase and continuing throughout development and later lifecycle phases. It is also possible to take a model-based approach for some stages of the requirements engineering and, a more traditional one, for others. Very many combinations might be possible. The level of formality and complexity depends on the underlying methodology involved (for instance, i is much more formal than SysML and, even more formal than UML) === Tools for general Requirements Engineering === Tools in this category may provide some mix of the capabilities mentioned previously and others such as requirement configuration management and collaboration. The features actually implemented and standards compliance vary from product to product. There are even more capable or general tools that support other stages and activities. They are classified as ALM tools.

  Read more →
• 

  Reasoning model

  A reasoning model, also known as a reasoning language model (RLM) or large reasoning model (LRM), is a type of large language model (LLM) that has been specifically trained to solve complex tasks requiring multiple steps of logical reasoning. These models demonstrate superior performance on logic, mathematics, and programming tasks compared to standard LLMs. They possess the ability to revisit and revise earlier reasoning steps and utilize additional computation during inference as a method to scale performance, complementing traditional scaling approaches based on training data size, model parameters, and training compute. == Overview == Unlike traditional language models that generate responses immediately, reasoning models allocate additional compute, or thinking, time before producing an answer to solve multi-step problems. OpenAI introduced this terminology in September 2024 when it released the o1 series, describing the models as designed to "spend more time thinking" before responding. The company framed o1 as a reset in model naming that targets complex tasks in science, coding, and mathematics, and it contrasted o1's performance with GPT-4o on benchmarks such as AIME and Codeforces. Independent reporting the same week summarized the launch and highlighted OpenAI's claim that o1 automates chain-of-thought style reasoning to achieve large gains on difficult exams. In operation, reasoning models generate internal chains of intermediate steps, then select and refine a final answer. OpenAI reported that o1's accuracy improves as the model is given more reinforcement learning during training and more test-time compute at inference. The company initially chose to hide raw chains and instead return a model-written summary, stating that it "decided not to show" the underlying thoughts so researchers could monitor them without exposing unaligned content to end users. Commercial deployments document separate "reasoning tokens" that meter hidden thinking and a control for "reasoning effort" that tunes how much compute the model uses. These features make the models slower than ordinary chat systems while enabling stronger performance on difficult problems. == History == The research trajectory toward reasoning models combined advances in supervision, prompting, and search-style inference. Early alignment work on reinforcement learning from human feedback showed that models can be fine-tuned to follow instructions with "human feedback" and preference-based rewards. In 2022, Google Research scientists Jason Wei and Denny Zhou showed that chain-of-thought prompting "significantly improves the ability" of large models on complex reasoning tasks. Input → Step 1 → Step 2 → ⋯ → Step n ⏟ Reasoning chain → Answer {\displaystyle {\text{Input}}\rightarrow \underbrace {{\text{Step}}_{1}\rightarrow {\text{Step}}_{2}\rightarrow \cdots \rightarrow {\text{Step}}_{n}} _{\text{Reasoning chain}}\rightarrow {\text{Answer}}} A companion result demonstrated that the simple instruction "Let's think step by step" can elicit zero-shot reasoning. Follow-up work introduced self-consistency decoding, which "boosts the performance" of chain-of-thought by sampling diverse solution paths and choosing the consensus, and tool-augmented methods such as ReAct, a portmanteau of Reason and Act, that prompt models to "generate both reasoning traces" and actions. Research then generalized chain-of-thought into search over multiple candidate plans. The Tree-of-Thoughts framework from Princeton computer scientist Shunyu Yao proposes that models "perform deliberate decision making" by exploring and backtracking over a tree of intermediate thoughts. OpenAI's reported breakthrough focused on supervising reasoning processes rather than only outcomes, with Lightman et al.'s "Let's Verify Step by Step" reporting that rewarding each correct step "significantly outperforms outcome supervision" on challenging math problems and improves interpretability by aligning the chain-of-thought with human judgment. OpenAI's o1 announcement ties these strands together with a large-scale reinforcement learning algorithm that trains the model to refine its own chain of thought, and it reports that accuracy rises with more training compute and more time spent thinking at inference. Together, these developments define the core of reasoning models. They use supervision signals that evaluate the quality of intermediate steps, they exploit inference-time exploration such as consensus or tree search, and they expose controls for how much internal thinking compute to allocate. OpenAI's o1 family made this approach available at scale in September 2024 and popularized the label "reasoning model" for LLMs that deliberately think before they answer. The development of reasoning models illustrates Richard S. Sutton's "bitter lesson" that scaling compute typically outperforms methods based on human-designed insights. This principle was demonstrated by researchers at the Generative AI Research Lab (GAIR), who initially attempted to replicate o1's capabilities using sophisticated methods including tree search and reinforcement learning in late 2024. Their findings, published in the "o1 Replication Journey" series, revealed that knowledge distillation, a comparatively straightforward technique that trains a smaller model to mimic o1's outputs, produced unexpectedly strong performance. This outcome illustrated how direct scaling approaches can, at times, outperform more complex engineering solutions. === Drawbacks === Reasoning models require significantly more computational resources during inference compared to non-reasoning models. Research on the American Invitational Mathematics Examination (AIME) benchmark found that reasoning models were 10 to 74 times more expensive to operate than their non-reasoning counterparts. The extended inference time is attributed to the detailed, step-by-step reasoning outputs that these models generate, which are typically much longer than responses from standard large language models that provide direct answers without showing their reasoning process. One researcher in early 2025 argued that these models may face potential additional denial-of-service concerns with "overthinking attacks." === Releases === ==== 2024 ==== In September 2024, OpenAI released o1-preview, a large language model with enhanced reasoning capabilities. The full version, o1, was released in December 2024. OpenAI initially shared preliminary results on its successor model, o3, in December 2024, with the full o3 model becoming available in 2025. Alibaba released reasoning versions of its Qwen large language models in November 2024. In December 2024, the company introduced QvQ-72B-Preview, an experimental visual reasoning model. In December 2024, Google introduced Deep Research in Gemini, a feature designed to conduct multi-step research tasks. On December 16, 2024, researchers demonstrated that by scaling test-time compute, a relatively small Llama 3B model could outperform a much larger Llama 70B model on challenging reasoning tasks. This experiment suggested that improved inference strategies can unlock reasoning capabilities even in smaller models. ==== 2025 ==== In January 2025, DeepSeek released R1, a reasoning model that achieved performance comparable to OpenAI's o1 at significantly lower computational cost. The release demonstrated the effectiveness of Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO), a reinforcement learning technique used to train the model. On January 25, 2025, DeepSeek enhanced R1 with web search capabilities, allowing the model to retrieve information from the internet while performing reasoning tasks. Research during this period further validated the effectiveness of knowledge distillation for creating reasoning models. The s1-32B model achieved strong performance through budget forcing and scaling methods, reinforcing findings that simpler training approaches can be highly effective for reasoning capabilities. On February 2, 2025, OpenAI released Deep Research, a feature powered by their o3 model that enables users to conduct comprehensive research tasks. The system generates detailed reports by automatically gathering and synthesizing information from multiple web sources. OpenAI called GPT-4.5 its "last non-chain-of-thought model", and implemented with GPT-5 a router model that selects a model based on the difficulty of the task. ==== 2026 ==== In January 2026, Moonshot AI released Kimi K2.5, an open-source 1 trillion parameter MoE model with 32 billion active parameters. It uses an “Agent Swarm” system that dynamically decomposes tasks into sub-agents for reasoning and execution, enabling more scalable multi-step problem solving than a single sequential reasoning chain. == Training == Reasoning models follow the familiar large-scale pretraining used for frontier language models, then diverge in the post-training and optimization. OpenAI reports that o1 is trained with a large-

  Read more →
• 

  Organoid intelligence

  Organoid intelligence (OI) is an emerging field of study in computer science and biology that develops and studies biological wetware computing using 3D cultures of human brain cells (or brain organoids) and brain-machine interface technologies. Such technologies may be referred to as OIs or the nervous filesystem. Organoid intelligent computer systems can be an example of biohybrid systems. == Differences with non-organic computing == As opposed to traditional non-organic silicon-based approaches, OI seeks to use lab-grown cerebral organoids to serve as "biological hardware". While these structures are still far from being able to think like a regular human brain and do not yet possess strong computing capabilities, OI research currently offers the potential to improve the understanding of brain development, learning and memory, potentially finding treatments for neurological disorders such as dementia. Thomas Hartung, a professor from Johns Hopkins University, argued in 2023 that "while silicon-based computers are certainly better with numbers, brains are better at learning." He noted that transistor density in computer chip may be approaching its limits, whereas brains, being wired differently, are more energy-efficient and can store large amounts of information. Some researchers claim that even though human brains are slower than machines at processing simple information, they are far better at processing complex information as brains can deal with fewer and more uncertain data, perform both sequential and parallel processing, being highly heterogenous, use incomplete datasets, and is said to outperform non-organic machines in decision-making. Training OIs involve the process of biological learning (BL) as opposed to machine learning (ML) for AIs. == Bioinformatics in OI == OI generates complex biological data, necessitating sophisticated methods for processing and analysis. Bioinformatics provides the tools and techniques to decipher raw data, uncovering the patterns and insights. Researchers have developed a platform named Neuroplatform for experimenting remotely with brain organoids via an API. == Intended functions == Brain-inspired computing hardware aims to emulate the structure and working principles of the brain and could be used to address current limitations in AI technologies. However, brain-inspired silicon chips are still limited in their ability to fully mimic brain function, as most examples are built on digital electronic principles. One study performed OI computation (which they termed Brainoware) by sending and receiving information from the brain organoid using a high-density multielectrode array. By applying spatiotemporal electrical stimulation, nonlinear dynamics, and fading memory properties, as well as unsupervised learning from training data by reshaping the organoid functional connectivity, the study showed the potential of this technology by using it for speech recognition and nonlinear equation prediction in a reservoir computing framework. == Ethical concerns == While researchers are hoping to use OI and biological computing to complement traditional silicon-based computing, there are also questions about the ethics of such an approach. Concerns include the possibility that an organoid could develop sentience or consciousness, and the question of the relationship between a stem cell donor (for growing the organoid) and the respective OI system.

  Read more →
• 

  Hello World: How to be Human in the Age of the Machine

  Hello World: How to Be Human in the Age of the Machine (also titled Hello World: Being Human in the Age of Algorithms) is a book on the growing influence of algorithms and artificial intelligence (AI) on human life, authored by mathematician and science communicator Hannah Fry. The book examines how algorithms are increasingly shaping decisions in critical areas such as healthcare, transportation, justice, finance, and the arts. == Overview == Fry uses real-world examples, such as driverless cars and predictive policing, to illustrate her points. She emphasizes that algorithms are not inherently objective; they reflect biases embedded in their design and data inputs. While acknowledging their potential to improve efficiency and accuracy, Fry cautions against over-reliance on machines without human judgment. Fry explores moral questions surrounding algorithmic decision-making, such as whether machines can replace human empathy in critical situations. She advocates for greater scrutiny of algorithms to ensure fairness and avoid harmful biases. The book proposes a "cyborg future", where humans work alongside algorithms to enhance decision-making while retaining ultimate control. == Reception == Hello World has been praised for its clarity, engaging storytelling, and balanced perspective. Critics have highlighted Fry's ability to make complex topics accessible to general audiences while raising important questions about technology's impact on society. The book was shortlisted for awards such as the 2018 Baillie Gifford Prize and the Royal Society Science Book Prize.

  Read more →
• 

  Agentive logic

  Agentive logic (also called the logic of action or logic of agency) is the field of philosophical logic and logic in computer science that studies formal representations of agents, their actions, and their abilities. An agentive logic in the narrower sense is a formal system whose primitive operators express that an agent does something, can do something, or sees to it that something is the case. Agentive logics generalise modal logic by adding modalities indexed to agents and to actions. Typical examples include: STIT logics (from sees to it that) with operators of the form [ i s t i t : φ ] {\displaystyle [i\ {\mathsf {stit}}:\varphi ]} meaning that agent i {\displaystyle i} sees to it that φ {\displaystyle \varphi } holds; dynamic logics of action with program-like modalities [ α ] φ {\displaystyle [\alpha ]\varphi } and ⟨ α ⟩ φ {\displaystyle \langle \alpha \rangle \varphi } meaning, roughly, that after every (respectively, some) execution(s) of action α {\displaystyle \alpha } , φ {\displaystyle \varphi } holds; logics with explicit agentive operators such as "can do", "brings about", or "is able to ensure". Agentive logics are used in action theory in philosophy, in the semantics of natural language, in the theory of program verification, and in artificial intelligence, where they underpin formalisms for reasoning about actions, planning, and intelligent agents. == Terminology and scope == The adjective agentive derives from the Latin agens ("one who acts") and originally referred to the grammatical agent of a verb. In logical contexts it designates operators or predicates whose primary argument position is an agent rather than a proposition alone, for example A i φ {\displaystyle A_{i}\varphi } ("agent i {\displaystyle i} does φ {\displaystyle \varphi } ") or C i φ {\displaystyle C_{i}\varphi } ("agent i {\displaystyle i} can bring about φ {\displaystyle \varphi } "). In contemporary literature, agentive logic is sometimes used narrowly for formal reconstructions of St. Anselm's modal account of facere ("to do"). More broadly, the term is used interchangeably with logic of action or logic of agency to cover a family of modal and dynamic logics designed to capture the structure of action and choice. == Historical background == === Medieval and early modern roots === Medieval logicians already explored analogies between modalities of action and alethic modalities such as possibility and necessity, for instance, in discussions of obligation and power. An influential early agentive analysis is due to St. Anselm (11th century), who treated "doing φ {\displaystyle \varphi } " as a kind of modal operator on propositions, anticipating later modal logics of agency. Modern reconstructions of Anselm's theory show that the resulting "agentive logic" can be modelled with neighbourhood semantics and satisfies a recognisable square of opposition. === Modern logic of action === Modern study of the logic of action began in the mid-20th century, parallel to developments in deontic logic and tense logic. Early systems were proposed by Georg Henrik von Wright, Stig Kanger, and others, often motivated by questions about norms and responsibility. From the 1960s onward, two largely independent but eventually converging traditions emerged: a branching-time tradition, culminating in STIT logics, emphasising agents' choices among possible futures; and dynamic logics of programs and actions, developed within computer science to reason about program execution. In the 1990s and 2000s, action logics were further developed in connection with knowledge representation, planning, and multi-agent systems in AI, and with dynamic and update semantics in linguistics. == Core ideas == Despite their diversity, most agentive logics share some general themes: Agents are treated as explicit indices of modal operators, as in [ i d o e s ] φ {\displaystyle [i\ {\mathsf {does}}]\varphi } or C i φ {\displaystyle C_{i}\varphi } . Actions are represented either implicitly, via changes between possible worlds along an accessibility relation, or explicitly, as terms denoting primitive and composite actions. Choice and ability are captured by modalities describing what an agent can ensure, usually relative to assumptions about the environment and other agents. Formal properties such as closure under composition, interaction between different agents, and connections to obligation (what an agent ought to do) and knowledge (what an agent knows how to do) are investigated. == STIT logics == STIT ("sees to it that") logics, originating in work by Nuel Belnap and collaborators, treat agency in a branching-time framework. A STIT model consists of a partially ordered set of moments with a tree-like structure, sets of histories (maximal branches through the tree), and for each agent at each moment, a partition of the histories through that moment representing the choices available to the agent. Intuitively, an agent's action at a moment determines which equivalence class (choice cell) of histories becomes actual; a formula [ i s t i t : φ ] {\displaystyle [i\ {\mathsf {stit}}:\varphi ]} is true at a history–moment pair if φ {\displaystyle \varphi } holds on all histories in the choice cell corresponding to the agent's current action. Different STIT operators have been distinguished, notably: the Chellas STIT operator, often written [ i c s t i t : φ ] {\displaystyle [i\ {\mathsf {cstit}}:\varphi ]} , which requires only that the agent's choice guarantees φ {\displaystyle \varphi } ; and the deliberative STIT operator, [ i d s t i t : φ ] {\displaystyle [i\ {\mathsf {dstit}}:\varphi ]} , which additionally requires that φ {\displaystyle \varphi } is not already historically necessary. STIT frameworks have been extended with group agency operators, temporal modalities, epistemic operators, and deontic operators to study responsibility, collective action, and obligations under indeterminism. == Dynamic logics of action == Dynamic logic was originally developed to reason about the behaviour of computer programs, treating program execution as a kind of action. In propositional dynamic logic (PDL), action terms α , β , … {\displaystyle \alpha ,\beta ,\dots } denote abstract programs or actions, and formulas of the form [ α ] φ {\displaystyle [\alpha ]\varphi } and ⟨ α ⟩ φ {\displaystyle \langle \alpha \rangle \varphi } express that all, respectively some, terminating executions of α {\displaystyle \alpha } lead to states where φ {\displaystyle \varphi } holds. From the standpoint of agentive logic, dynamic logic provides: a language for building complex actions from primitives via sequencing, choice, and iteration (e.g., α ; β {\displaystyle \alpha ;\beta } , α ∪ β {\displaystyle \alpha \cup \beta } , α ∗ {\displaystyle \alpha ^{}} ); a Kripke semantics in which actions correspond to labelled accessibility relations; and proof systems (such as Hoare logic and weakest precondition calculi) for reasoning about the correctness of action sequences. Extensions such as concurrent dynamic logic add operators for parallel composition, allowing reasoning about interacting processes and concurrent actions. John-Jules Ch. Meyer and others have argued that dynamic logic is a natural base for logics of agents, by adding modalities for knowledge, belief, and ability on top of the action modalities. Dynamic logics have also been applied to normative reasoning, yielding dynamic deontic logics where actions are related to obligations and permissions, and to dynamic epistemic logics in which information-changing actions such as announcements are modelled as programs. == Situation calculus and other action formalisms == In artificial intelligence, reasoning about action and change is often based on first-order languages that explicitly represent situations, events, and fluents (time-varying properties). The best known is situation calculus, introduced by John McCarthy and developed extensively by Raymond Reiter. In such formalisms: action terms name primitive actions; a function symbol (often d o {\displaystyle {\mathsf {do}}} ) maps an action and a situation to a successor situation; and axioms describe which fluents hold in which situations and how actions change them. Reiter's successor state axioms give compact specifications of how each fluent changes under all actions, and precondition axioms specify when actions are possible. Related formalisms include the event calculus and fluent calculus, which provide alternative ways of representing events and their effects. While these systems are often first-order rather than modal, they are closely related to agentive logics: their action terms and transition structures can be seen as providing models for dynamic or STIT-style modalities, and conversely, dynamic logics can be used as abstract specification languages for such AI formalisms. == Ability, agency, and related modalities == Many agentive logics introduce explicit operators for ability or "can-do"

  Read more →
• 

  Deadbot

  A deadbot, deathbot, or griefbot is a digital avatar, created with artificial intelligence, which resembles a person who is dead. Griefbots employ natural language processing and machine-learning techniques to approximate the style and personality of a deceased person. They may appear as chatbots, voice assistants, or animated avatars, and are often trained on an individual's digital remains. == History == Among the earliest researchers, Muhammad Aurangzeb Ahmad of the University of Washington, developed the Grandpa Bot project, a conversational simulation of his late father designed for his children to interact with. Other efforts include journalist James Vlahos's Dadbot, which evolved into the commercial platform HereAfter AI. Hossein Rahnama's Augmented Eternity research at MIT Media Lab and Toronto Metropolitan University, and game designer Jason Rohrer's "Project December", have enabled users to converse with language-model representations of loved ones. Early commercial projects such as Eternime, founded by Marius Ursache, also popularized the notion of interactive digital immortality. == Cultural and societal impact == Scholars have proposed frameworks and critiques addressing the ethics of these technologies. Tomasz Hollanek and Katarzyna Nowaczyk-Basińska developed a design-ethics taxonomy distinguishing the data donor, data recipient, and interactant. Edina Harbinja and Lilian Edwards formalized the concept of post-mortem privacy, and Carl J. Öhman at the Oxford Internet Institute studied the management of large-scale digital remains. Cultural acceptance varies: while some view them as expressions of remembrance, others regard them as unsettling or ethically problematic. Concerns have been raised about deadbots' potential for creating psychological harm. Griefbots are considered part of the phenomenon of artificial intimacy.

  Read more →
• 

  Expectation propagation

  Expectation propagation (EP) is a technique in Bayesian machine learning. EP finds approximations to a probability distribution. It uses an iterative approach that uses the factorization structure of the target distribution. It differs from other Bayesian approximation approaches such as variational Bayesian methods. More specifically, suppose we wish to approximate an intractable probability distribution p ( x ) {\displaystyle p(\mathbf {x} )} with a tractable distribution q ( x ) {\displaystyle q(\mathbf {x} )} . Expectation propagation achieves this approximation by minimizing the Kullback–Leibler divergence K L ( p | | q ) {\displaystyle \mathrm {KL} (p||q)} . Variational Bayesian methods minimize K L ( q | | p ) {\displaystyle \mathrm {KL} (q||p)} instead. If q ( x ) {\displaystyle q(\mathbf {x} )} is a Gaussian N ( x | μ , Σ ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {N}}(\mathbf {x} |\mu ,\Sigma )} , then K L ( p | | q ) {\displaystyle \mathrm {KL} (p||q)} is minimized with μ {\displaystyle \mu } and Σ {\displaystyle \Sigma } being equal to the mean of p ( x ) {\displaystyle p(\mathbf {x} )} and the covariance of p ( x ) {\displaystyle p(\mathbf {x} )} , respectively; this is called moment matching. == Applications == Expectation propagation via moment matching plays a vital role in approximation for indicator functions that appear when deriving the message passing equations for TrueSkill.

  Read more →
• 

  Mountain car problem

  Mountain Car, a standard testing domain in Reinforcement learning, is a problem in which an under-powered car must drive up a steep hill. Since gravity is stronger than the car's engine, even at full throttle, the car cannot simply accelerate up the steep slope. The car is situated in a valley and must learn to leverage potential energy by driving up the opposite hill before the car is able to make it to the goal at the top of the rightmost hill. The domain has been used as a test bed in various reinforcement learning papers. == Introduction == The mountain car problem, although fairly simple, is commonly applied because it requires a reinforcement learning agent to learn on two continuous variables: position and velocity. For any given state (position and velocity) of the car, the agent is given the possibility of driving left, driving right, or not using the engine at all. In the standard version of the problem, the agent receives a negative reward at every time step when the goal is not reached; the agent has no information about the goal until an initial success. == History == The mountain car problem appeared first in Andrew Moore's PhD thesis (1990). It was later more strictly defined in Singh and Sutton's reinforcement learning paper with eligibility traces. The problem became more widely studied when Sutton and Barto added it to their book Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction (1998). Throughout the years many versions of the problem have been used, such as those which modify the reward function, termination condition, and the start state. == Techniques used to solve mountain car == Q-learning and similar techniques for mapping discrete states to discrete actions need to be extended to be able to deal with the continuous state space of the problem. Approaches often fall into one of two categories, state space discretization or function approximation. === Discretization === In this approach, two continuous state variables are pushed into discrete states by bucketing each continuous variable into multiple discrete states. This approach works with properly tuned parameters but a disadvantage is information gathered from one state is not used to evaluate another state. Tile coding can be used to improve discretization and involves continuous variables mapping into sets of buckets offset from one another. Each step of training has a wider impact on the value function approximation because when the offset grids are summed, the information is diffused. === Function approximation === Function approximation is another way to solve the mountain car. By choosing a set of basis functions beforehand, or by generating them as the car drives, the agent can approximate the value function at each state. Unlike the step-wise version of the value function created with discretization, function approximation can more cleanly estimate the true smooth function of the mountain car domain. === Eligibility traces === One aspect of the problem involves the delay of actual reward. The agent is not able to learn about the goal until a successful completion. Given a naive approach for each trial the car can only backup the reward of the goal slightly. This is a problem for naive discretization because each discrete state will only be backed up once, taking a larger number of episodes to learn the problem. This problem can be alleviated via the mechanism of eligibility traces, which will automatically backup the reward given to states before, dramatically increasing the speed of learning. Eligibility traces can be viewed as a bridge from temporal difference learning methods to Monte Carlo methods. == Technical details == The mountain car problem has undergone many iterations. This section focuses on the standard well-defined version from Sutton (2008). === State variables === Two-dimensional continuous state space. V e l o c i t y = ( − 0.07 , 0.07 ) {\displaystyle Velocity=(-0.07,0.07)} P o s i t i o n = ( − 1.2 , 0.6 ) {\displaystyle Position=(-1.2,0.6)} === Actions === One-dimensional discrete action space. m o t o r = ( l e f t , n e u t r a l , r i g h t ) {\displaystyle motor=(left,neutral,right)} === Reward === For every time step: r e w a r d = − 1 {\displaystyle reward=-1} === Update function === For every time step: A c t i o n = [ − 1 , 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle Action=[-1,0,1]} V e l o c i t y = V e l o c i t y + ( A c t i o n ) ∗ 0.001 + cos ⁡ ( 3 ∗ P o s i t i o n ) ∗ ( − 0.0025 ) {\displaystyle Velocity=Velocity+(Action)0.001+\cos(3Position)(-0.0025)} P o s i t i o n = P o s i t i o n + V e l o c i t y {\displaystyle Position=Position+Velocity} === Starting condition === Optionally, many implementations include randomness in both parameters to show better generalized learning. P o s i t i o n = − 0.5 {\displaystyle Position=-0.5} V e l o c i t y = 0.0 {\displaystyle Velocity=0.0} === Termination condition === End the simulation when: P o s i t i o n ≥ 0.6 {\displaystyle Position\geq 0.6} == Variations == There are many versions of the mountain car which deviate in different ways from the standard model. Variables that vary include but are not limited to changing the constants (gravity and steepness) of the problem so specific tuning for specific policies become irrelevant and altering the reward function to affect the agent's ability to learn in a different manner. An example is changing the reward to be equal to the distance from the goal, or changing the reward to zero everywhere and one at the goal. Additionally, a 3D mountain car can be used, with a 4D continuous state space.

  Read more →
• 

  Universal IR Evaluation

  In computer science, Universal IR Evaluation (information retrieval evaluation) aims to develop measures of database retrieval performance that shall be comparable across all information retrieval tasks. == Measures of "relevance" == IR (information retrieval) evaluation begins whenever a user submits a query (search term) to a database. If the user is able to determine the relevance of each document in the database (relevant or not relevant), then for each query, the complete set of documents is naturally divided into four distinct (mutually exclusive) subsets: relevant documents that are retrieved, not relevant documents that are retrieved, relevant documents that are not retrieved, and not relevant documents that are not retrieved. These four subsets (of documents) are denoted by the letters a, b, c, d respectively and are called Swets variables, named after their inventor. In addition to the Swets definitions, four relevance metrics have also been defined: Recall refers to the fraction of relevant documents that are retrieved (a/(a+b)), and Precision refers to the fraction of retrieved documents that are relevant (a/(a+c)). These are the most commonly used and well-known relevance metrics found in the IR evaluation literature. Two less commonly used metrics include the Fallout, i.e., the fraction of not relevant documents that are retrieved (b/(b+d)), and the Miss, which refers to the fraction of relevant documents that are not retrieved (c/(c+d)) during any given search. == Universal IR evaluation techniques == Universal IR evaluation addresses the mathematical possibilities and relationships among the four relevance metrics Precision, Recall, Fallout and Miss, denoted by P, R, F and M, respectively. One aspect of the problem involves finding a mathematical derivation of a complete set of universal IR evaluation points. The complete set of 16 points, each one a quadruple of the form (P, R, F, M), describes all the possible universal IR outcomes. For example, many of us have had the experience of querying a database and not retrieving any documents at all. In this case, the Precision would take on the undetermined form 0/0, the Recall and Fallout would both be zero, and the Miss would be any value greater than zero and less than one (assuming a mix of relevant and not relevant documents were in the database, none of which were retrieved). This universal IR evaluation point would thus be denoted by (0/0, 0, 0, M), which represents only one of the 16 possible universal IR outcomes. The mathematics of universal IR evaluation is a fairly new subject since the relevance metrics P, R, F, M were not analyzed collectively until recently (within the past decade). A lot of the theoretical groundwork has already been formulated, but new insights in this area await discovery.

  Read more →
• 

  AIXI

  AIXI is a theoretical mathematical formalism for artificial general intelligence. It combines Solomonoff induction with sequential decision theory. AIXI was first proposed by Marcus Hutter in 2000 and several results regarding AIXI are proved in Hutter's 2005 book Universal Artificial Intelligence. AIXI is a reinforcement learning (RL) agent. It maximizes the expected total rewards received from the environment. Intuitively, it simultaneously considers every computable hypothesis (or environment). In each time step, it looks at every possible program and evaluates how many rewards that program generates depending on the next action taken. The promised rewards are then weighted by the subjective belief that this program constitutes the true environment. This belief is computed from the length of the program: longer programs are considered less likely, in line with Occam's razor. AIXI then selects the action that has the highest expected total reward in the weighted sum of all these programs. == Etymology == According to Hutter, the word "AIXI" can have several interpretations. AIXI can stand for AI based on Solomonoff's distribution, denoted by ξ {\displaystyle \xi } (which is the Greek letter xi), or e.g. it can stand for AI "crossed" (X) with induction (I). There are other interpretations. == Definition == AIXI is a reinforcement learning agent that interacts with some stochastic and unknown but computable environment μ {\displaystyle \mu } . The interaction proceeds in time steps, from t = 1 {\displaystyle t=1} to t = m {\displaystyle t=m} , where m ∈ N {\displaystyle m\in \mathbb {N} } is the lifespan of the AIXI agent. At time step t, the agent chooses an action a t ∈ A {\displaystyle a_{t}\in {\mathcal {A}}} (e.g. a limb movement) and executes it in the environment, and the environment responds with a "percept" e t ∈ E = O × R {\displaystyle e_{t}\in {\mathcal {E}}={\mathcal {O}}\times \mathbb {R} } , which consists of an "observation" o t ∈ O {\displaystyle o_{t}\in {\mathcal {O}}} (e.g., a camera image) and a reward r t ∈ R {\displaystyle r_{t}\in \mathbb {R} } , distributed according to the conditional probability μ ( o t r t | a 1 o 1 r 1 . . . a t − 1 o t − 1 r t − 1 a t ) {\displaystyle \mu (o_{t}r_{t}|a_{1}o_{1}r_{1}...a_{t-1}o_{t-1}r_{t-1}a_{t})} , where a 1 o 1 r 1 . . . a t − 1 o t − 1 r t − 1 a t {\displaystyle a_{1}o_{1}r_{1}...a_{t-1}o_{t-1}r_{t-1}a_{t}} is the "history" of actions, observations and rewards. The environment μ {\displaystyle \mu } is thus mathematically represented as a probability distribution over "percepts" (observations and rewards) which depend on the full history, so there is no Markov assumption (as opposed to other RL algorithms). Note again that this probability distribution is unknown to the AIXI agent. Furthermore, note again that μ {\displaystyle \mu } is computable, that is, the observations and rewards received by the agent from the environment μ {\displaystyle \mu } can be computed by some program (which runs on a Turing machine), given the past actions of the AIXI agent. The only goal of the AIXI agent is to maximize ∑ t = 1 m r t {\displaystyle \sum _{t=1}^{m}r_{t}} , that is, the sum of rewards from time step 1 to m. The AIXI agent is associated with a stochastic policy π : ( A × E ) ∗ → A {\displaystyle \pi :({\mathcal {A}}\times {\mathcal {E}})^{}\rightarrow {\mathcal {A}}} , which is the function it uses to choose actions at every time step, where A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} is the space of all possible actions that AIXI can take and E {\displaystyle {\mathcal {E}}} is the space of all possible "percepts" that can be produced by the environment. The environment (or probability distribution) μ {\displaystyle \mu } can also be thought of as a stochastic policy (which is a function): μ : ( A × E ) ∗ × A → E {\displaystyle \mu :({\mathcal {A}}\times {\mathcal {E}})^{}\times {\mathcal {A}}\rightarrow {\mathcal {E}}} , where the ∗ {\displaystyle } is the Kleene star operation. In general, at time step t {\displaystyle t} (which ranges from 1 to m), AIXI, having previously executed actions a 1 … a t − 1 {\displaystyle a_{1}\dots a_{t-1}} (which is often abbreviated in the literature as a < t {\displaystyle a_{ Read more →

• 

  Case-based reasoning

  Case-based reasoning (CBR), broadly construed, is the process of solving new problems based on the solutions of similar past problems. In everyday life, an auto mechanic who fixes an engine by recalling another car that exhibited similar symptoms is using case-based reasoning. A lawyer who advocates a particular outcome in a trial based on legal precedents or a judge who creates case law is using case-based reasoning. So, too, an engineer copying working elements of nature (practicing biomimicry) is treating nature as a database of solutions to problems. Case-based reasoning is a prominent type of analogy solution making. It has been argued that case-based reasoning is not only a powerful method for computer reasoning, but also a pervasive behavior in everyday human problem solving; or, more radically, that all reasoning is based on past cases personally experienced. This view is related to prototype theory, which is most deeply explored in cognitive science. == Process == Case-based reasoning has been formalized for purposes of computer reasoning as a four-step process: Retrieve: Given a target problem, retrieve cases relevant to solving it from memory. A case consists of a problem, its solution, and, typically, annotations about how the solution was derived. For example, suppose Fred wants to prepare blueberry pancakes. Being a novice cook, the most relevant experience he can recall is one in which he successfully made plain pancakes. The procedure he followed for making the plain pancakes, together with justifications for decisions made along the way, constitutes Fred's retrieved case. Reuse: Map the solution from the previous case to the target problem. This may involve adapting the solution as needed to fit the new situation. In the pancake example, Fred must adapt his retrieved solution to include the addition of blueberries. Revise: Having mapped the previous solution to the target situation, test the new solution in the real world (or a simulation) and, if necessary, revise. Suppose Fred adapted his pancake solution by adding blueberries to the batter. After mixing, he discovers that the batter has turned blue – an undesired effect. This suggests the following revision: delay the addition of blueberries until after the batter has been ladled into the pan. Retain: After the solution has been successfully adapted to the target problem, store the resulting experience as a new case in memory. Fred, accordingly, records his new-found procedure for making blueberry pancakes, thereby enriching his set of stored experiences, and better preparing him for future pancake-making demands. == Comparison to other methods == At first glance, CBR may seem similar to the rule induction algorithms of machine learning. Like a rule-induction algorithm, CBR starts with a set of cases or training examples; it forms generalizations of these examples, albeit implicit ones, by identifying commonalities between a retrieved case and the target problem. If for instance a procedure for plain pancakes is mapped to blueberry pancakes, a decision is made to use the same basic batter and frying method, thus implicitly generalizing the set of situations under which the batter and frying method can be used. The key difference, however, between the implicit generalization in CBR and the generalization in rule induction lies in when the generalization is made. A rule-induction algorithm draws its generalizations from a set of training examples before the target problem is even known; that is, it performs eager generalization. For instance, if a rule-induction algorithm were given recipes for plain pancakes, Dutch apple pancakes, and banana pancakes as its training examples, it would have to derive, at training time, a set of general rules for making all types of pancakes. It would not be until testing time that it would be given, say, the task of cooking blueberry pancakes. The difficulty for the rule-induction algorithm is in anticipating the different directions in which it should attempt to generalize its training examples. This is in contrast to CBR, which delays (implicit) generalization of its cases until testing time – a strategy of lazy generalization. In the pancake example, CBR has already been given the target problem of cooking blueberry pancakes; thus it can generalize its cases exactly as needed to cover this situation. CBR therefore tends to be a good approach for rich, complex domains in which there are myriad ways to generalize a case. In law, there is often explicit delegation of CBR to courts, recognizing the limits of rule based reasons: limiting delay, limited knowledge of future context, limit of negotiated agreement, etc. While CBR in law and cognitively inspired CBR have long been associated, the former is more clearly an interpolation of rule based reasoning, and judgment, while the latter is more closely tied to recall and process adaptation. The difference is clear in their attitude toward error and appellate review. Another name for case-based reasoning in problem solving is symptomatic strategies. It does require à priori domain knowledge that is gleaned from past experience which established connections between symptoms and causes. This knowledge is referred to as shallow, compiled, evidential, history-based as well as case-based knowledge. This is the strategy most associated with diagnosis by experts. Diagnosis of a problem transpires as a rapid recognition process in which symptoms evoke appropriate situation categories. An expert knows the cause by virtue of having previously encountered similar cases. Case-based reasoning is the most powerful strategy, and that used most commonly. However, the strategy won't work independently with truly novel problems, or where deeper understanding of whatever is taking place is sought. An alternative approach to problem solving is the topographic strategy which falls into the category of deep reasoning. With deep reasoning, in-depth knowledge of a system is used. Topography in this context means a description or an analysis of a structured entity, showing the relations among its elements. Also known as reasoning from first principles, deep reasoning is applied to novel faults when experience-based approaches aren't viable. The topographic strategy is therefore linked to à priori domain knowledge that is developed from a more a fundamental understanding of a system, possibly using first-principles knowledge. Such knowledge is referred to as deep, causal or model-based knowledge. Hoc and Carlier noted that symptomatic approaches may need to be supported by topographic approaches because symptoms can be defined in diverse terms. The converse is also true – shallow reasoning can be used abductively to generate causal hypotheses, and deductively to evaluate those hypotheses, in a topographical search. == Criticism == Critics of CBR argue that it is an approach that accepts anecdotal evidence as its main operating principle. Without statistically relevant data for backing and implicit generalization, there is no guarantee that the generalization is correct. However, all inductive reasoning where data is too scarce for statistical relevance is inherently based on anecdotal evidence. == History == CBR traces its roots to the work of Roger Schank and his students at Yale University in the early 1980s. Schank's model of dynamic memory was the basis for the earliest CBR systems: Janet Kolodner's CYRUS and Michael Lebowitz's IPP. Other schools of CBR and closely allied fields emerged in the 1980s, which directed at topics such as legal reasoning, memory-based reasoning (a way of reasoning from examples on massively parallel machines), and combinations of CBR with other reasoning methods. In the 1990s, interest in CBR grew internationally, as evidenced by the establishment of an International Conference on Case-Based Reasoning in 1995, as well as European, German, British, Italian, and other CBR workshops. CBR technology has resulted in the deployment of a number of successful systems, the earliest being Lockheed's CLAVIER, a system for laying out composite parts to be baked in an industrial convection oven. CBR has been used extensively in applications such as the Compaq SMART system and has found a major application area in the health sciences, as well as in structural safety management. There is recent work that develops CBR within a statistical framework and formalizes case-based inference as a specific type of probabilistic inference. Thus, it becomes possible to produce case-based predictions equipped with a certain level of confidence. One description of the difference between CBR and induction from instances is that statistical inference aims to find what tends to make cases similar while CBR aims to encode what suffices to claim similarly.

  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 →
• 

  Mean shift

  Mean shift is a non-parametric feature-space mathematical analysis technique for locating the maxima of a density function, a so-called mode-seeking algorithm. Application domains include cluster analysis in computer vision and image processing. == History == The mean shift procedure is usually credited to work by Fukunaga and Hostetler in 1975. It is, however, reminiscent of earlier work by Schnell in 1964. == Overview == Mean shift is a procedure for locating the maxima—the modes—of a density function given discrete data sampled from that function. This is an iterative method, and we start with an initial estimate x {\displaystyle x} . Let a kernel function K ( x i − x ) {\displaystyle K(x_{i}-x)} be given. This function determines the weight of nearby points for re-estimation of the mean. Typically a Gaussian kernel on the distance to the current estimate is used, K ( x i − x ) = e − c | | x i − x | | 2 {\displaystyle K(x_{i}-x)=e^{-c||x_{i}-x||^{2}}} . The weighted mean of the density in the window determined by K {\displaystyle K} is m ( x ) = ∑ x i ∈ N ( x ) K ( x i − x ) x i ∑ x i ∈ N ( x ) K ( x i − x ) {\displaystyle m(x)={\frac {\sum _{x_{i}\in N(x)}K(x_{i}-x)x_{i}}{\sum _{x_{i}\in N(x)}K(x_{i}-x)}}} where N ( x ) {\displaystyle N(x)} is the neighborhood of x {\displaystyle x} , a set of points for which K ( x i − x ) ≠ 0 {\displaystyle K(x_{i}-x)\neq 0} . The difference m ( x ) − x {\displaystyle m(x)-x} is called mean shift in Fukunaga and Hostetler. The mean-shift algorithm now sets x ← m ( x ) {\displaystyle x\leftarrow m(x)} , and repeats the estimation until m ( x ) {\displaystyle m(x)} converges. Although the mean shift algorithm has been widely used in many applications, a rigid proof for the convergence of the algorithm using a general kernel in a high dimensional space is still not known. Aliyari Ghassabeh showed the convergence of the mean shift algorithm in one dimension with a differentiable, convex, and strictly decreasing profile function. However, the one-dimensional case has limited real world applications. Also, the convergence of the algorithm in higher dimensions with a finite number of the stationary (or isolated) points has been proved. However, sufficient conditions for a general kernel function to have finite stationary (or isolated) points have not been provided. Gaussian Mean-Shift is an Expectation–maximization algorithm. == Details == Let data be a finite set S {\displaystyle S} embedded in the n {\displaystyle n} -dimensional Euclidean space, X {\displaystyle X} . Let K {\displaystyle K} be a flat kernel that is the characteristic function of the λ {\displaystyle \lambda } -ball in X {\displaystyle X} , In each iteration of the algorithm, s ← m ( s ) {\displaystyle s\leftarrow m(s)} is performed for all s ∈ S {\displaystyle s\in S} simultaneously. The first question, then, is how to estimate the density function given a sparse set of samples. One of the simplest approaches is to just smooth the data, e.g., by convolving it with a fixed kernel of width h {\displaystyle h} , where x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} are the input samples and k ( r ) {\displaystyle k(r)} is the kernel function (or Parzen window). h {\displaystyle h} is the only parameter in the algorithm and is called the bandwidth. This approach is known as kernel density estimation or the Parzen window technique. Once we have computed f ( x ) {\displaystyle f(x)} from the equation above, we can find its local maxima using gradient ascent or some other optimization technique. The problem with this "brute force" approach is that, for higher dimensions, it becomes computationally prohibitive to evaluate f ( x ) {\displaystyle f(x)} over the complete search space. Instead, mean shift uses a variant of what is known in the optimization literature as multiple restart gradient descent. Starting at some guess for a local maximum, y k {\displaystyle y_{k}} , which can be a random input data point x 1 {\displaystyle x_{1}} , mean shift computes the gradient of the density estimate f ( x ) {\displaystyle f(x)} at y k {\displaystyle y_{k}} and takes an uphill step in that direction. == Types of kernels == Kernel definition: Let X {\displaystyle X} be the n {\displaystyle n} -dimensional Euclidean space, R n {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{n}} . The norm of x {\displaystyle x} is a non-negative number, ‖ x ‖ 2 = x ⊤ x ≥ 0 {\displaystyle \|x\|^{2}=x^{\top }x\geq 0} . A function K : X → R {\displaystyle K:X\rightarrow \mathbb {R} } is said to be a kernel if there exists a profile, k : [ 0 , ∞ ] → R {\displaystyle k:[0,\infty ]\rightarrow \mathbb {R} } , such that K ( x ) = k ( ‖ x ‖ 2 ) {\displaystyle K(x)=k(\|x\|^{2})} and k is non-negative. k is non-increasing: k ( a ) ≥ k ( b ) {\displaystyle k(a)\geq k(b)} if a < b {\displaystyle a Read more →

• 

  Hierarchical navigable small world

  Hierarchical navigable small world (HNSW) is an algorithm for approximate nearest neighbor search. It is used to find items that are similar to a query item in a large collection, without comparing the query with every item one by one. The algorithm is commonly used for searching vector data. In these systems, an item such as a document, image, song, or user profile is represented by a list of numbers called a vector. Items with similar vectors are treated as similar according to the model that produced the vectors. HNSW provides a way to search these vectors quickly, especially in large datasets. HNSW stores vectors in a graph. Each vector is a node, and links connect it to some nearby vectors. The graph has several layers: upper layers contain fewer nodes and act like a rough map, while the bottom layer contains all nodes and gives a more detailed view. A search starts in an upper layer, follows links toward nodes that are closer to the query, and then repeats the process in lower layers until it finds a set of likely nearest neighbors. == Background == The nearest neighbor search problem asks which items in a dataset are closest to a query item. A direct search can compare the query with every item in the dataset, but this becomes slow when the dataset is large. Exact search methods based on spatial trees, such as the k-d tree and R-tree, can also become less effective for high-dimensional data, a problem often associated with the curse of dimensionality. Approximate nearest neighbor methods trade some exactness for speed or lower resource use. Instead of always guaranteeing the exact closest item, they try to return close items quickly. Other approximate methods include locality-sensitive hashing and product quantization. HNSW builds on research into small-world networks and navigable graphs. In a small-world graph, most nodes can be reached from other nodes through a short chain of links. In a navigable graph, a search procedure can use local information to move toward a target. Jon Kleinberg's work on navigation in small-world networks is an important example of this research area. Later work studied ways to add links that make graphs easier to navigate greedily. The HNSW algorithm extends earlier navigable small world methods for similarity search by adding a hierarchy of graph layers. This hierarchy helps the algorithm find a good region of the graph before doing a more detailed search in the bottom layer. == Algorithm == HNSW is based on a proximity graph. In this graph, nearby vectors are connected by edges. The algorithm uses these edges to move through the dataset, rather than scanning every vector. The graph is hierarchical. Every vector appears in the bottom layer. Some vectors are also placed in higher layers, with fewer vectors appearing as the layers go upward. The upper layers allow long-range movement across the dataset, while the lower layers allow a more detailed search near promising candidates. A typical search proceeds as follows: The search begins from an entry point in the highest layer. At each step, the algorithm looks at neighboring nodes and moves to a neighbor that is closer to the query. When it cannot find a closer neighbor in that layer, it moves down to the next layer. In the bottom layer, it explores a wider set of candidate nodes and returns the nearest candidates found. This search strategy is often described as greedy navigation. The algorithm repeatedly chooses locally better nodes, using the graph structure to approach the query point. == Construction and parameters == The HNSW graph is built incrementally. When a new vector is inserted, the algorithm assigns it a maximum layer, searches for nearby existing nodes, and connects the new node to selected neighbors in each layer where it appears. Implementations usually expose parameters that control the trade-off between speed, accuracy, memory use, and construction time. A higher number of graph connections can improve recall but requires more memory. A larger search candidate list can improve accuracy but makes queries slower. A larger construction candidate list can improve the quality of the graph but makes index building slower. Because HNSW is approximate, its results are not always identical to a full exact search. Its practical performance depends on the dataset, distance measure, implementation, and parameter settings. Benchmarking studies have found HNSW-based libraries to be strong performers among approximate nearest neighbor methods, although worst-case performance can differ from performance on common benchmark datasets. == Use in vector search systems == HNSW is used as an index in systems that store and search high-dimensional vectors. These systems include vector databases, search engines, and database extensions. Typical uses include semantic search, recommender systems, image similarity search, and retrieval-augmented generation. Several software projects implement or support HNSW. Libraries include hnswlib, which is associated with the original HNSW authors, and FAISS. Database and search systems that document HNSW support include Apache Lucene, Chroma, ClickHouse, DuckDB, MariaDB, Milvus, pgvector, Qdrant, and Redis.

  Read more →
• 

  Artificial reproduction

  Artificial reproduction is the re-creation of life brought about by means other than natural ones. It is new life built by human plans and projects. Examples include artificial selection, artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, artificial womb, artificial cloning, and kinematic replication. Artificial reproduction is one aspect of artificial life. Artificial reproduction can be categorized into one of two classes according to its capacity to be self-sufficient: non-assisted reproductive technology and assisted reproductive technology. Cutting plants' stems and placing them in compost is a form of assisted artificial reproduction, xenobots are an example of a more autonomous type of reproduction, while the artificial womb presented in the movie the Matrix illustrates a non assisted hypothetical technology. The idea of artificial reproduction has led to various technologies. == Theology == Humans have aspired to create life since immemorial times. Most theologies and religions have conceived this possibility as exclusive of deities. Christian religions consider the possibility of artificial reproduction, in most cases, as heretical and sinful. == Philosophy == Although ancient Greek philosophy raised the concept that man could imitate the creative capacity of nature, classic Greeks thought that if possible, human beings would reproduce things as nature does, and vice versa, nature would do the things that man does in the same way. Aristotle, for example, wrote that if nature made tables, it would make them just as men do. In other words, Aristotle said that if nature were to create a table, such table will look like a human-made table. Correspondingly, Descartes envisioned the human body, and nature, as a machine. Cartesian philosophy does not stop seeing a perfect mirror between nature and the artificial. However, Kant revolutionized this old idea by criticizing such naturalism. Kant pedagogically wrote: "Reason, in order to be taught by nature, must approach nature with its principles in one hand, according to which the agreement among appearances can count as laws, and, in the other hand, the experiment thought out in accord with these principles—in order to be instructed by nature not like a pupil, who has recited to him whatever the teacher wants to say, but like an appointed judge who compels witnesses to answer the questions he puts to them.". Humans are not instructed by nature but rather use nature as raw material to invent. Humans find alternatives to the natural restrictions imposed by natural laws thus, nature is not necessarily mirrored. In accordance with Kant (and contrary to what Aristotle thought) Karl Marx, Alfred Whitehead, Jaques Derrida and Juan David García Bacca noticed that nature is incapable of reproducing tables; or airplanes, or submarines, or computers. If nature tried to create airplanes, it would produce birds. If nature tried to create submarines, it would get fishes. If nature tried to create computers, brains would grow. And if nature tried to create man, modern man, monkeys will be evolved. According to Whitehead, if we look for something natural in artificial life, in the most elaborate cases, if anything, only atoms remain natural. Juan David Garcia Bacca summarized, “It will not come out from wood, it will not be born, a galley; from clay, a vessel; from linen, a dress; from iron, a lever,...From natural, artificial. In the artificial, the natural is reduced to a simple raw material, even though it is perfectly specified with natural specification. The artificial is the real, positive, and original negation of the natural: of species, of genus and of essence. Thus, its ontology is superior to natural ontology. And for this very reason Marx did not attach any importance to Darwin, whose evolutionism is confined to the natural order: to changes, at most, from variety to variety, from species to species... natural. For the same reason, nature has no dialectics, even though continuous evolution and selection can occur. The dialectic cannot emerge from the natural, for deeper reasons than, using today's terms, from a bird, an airplane cannot emerge; from fish, a submarine; from ears, a telephone; from eyes, a television; from a brain, a digital computer; from feet, a car; from hands, an engine; from Euclid, Descartes; from Aristotle, Newton; from Plato, Marx.” According to García Bacca, the major difference between natural causes and artificial causes is that nature does not have plans and projects, while humans design things following plans and projects. In contrast, other influential authors such as Michael Behe have depicted the concept and promoted the idea of intelligent design, a notion that has aroused several doubts and heated controversies, as it reframe natural causes in accordance with a natural plan. Previous ideas that have also provided a positive 'sense' to natural reproduction, are orthogenesis, syntropy, orgone and morphic resonance, among others. Although, these ideas have been historically marginalized and often called pseudoscience, recently Bio-semioticians are reconsidering some of them under symbolic approaches. Current metaphysics of science actually recognizes that the artificial ways of reproduction are diverse from nature, i.e., unnatural, anti-natural or supernatural. Because Biosemiotics does not focus on the function of life but on its meaning, it has a better understanding of the artificial than classic biology. == Science == Biology, being the study of cellular life, addresses reproduction in terms of growth and cellular division (i.e., binary fission, mitosis and meiosis); however, the science of artificial reproduction is not restricted by the mirroring of these natural processes.The science of artificial reproduction is actually transcending the natural forms, and natural rules, of reproduction. For example, xenobots have redefined the classical conception of reproduction. Although xenobots are made of eukariotic cells they do not reproduce by mitosis, but rather by kinematic replication. Such constructive replication does not involve growing but rather building. == Assisted reproductive technologies == Assisted reproductive technology (ART)'s purpose is to assist the development of a human embryo, commonly because of medical concerns due to fertility limitations. == Non-assisted reproductive technologies == Non-assisted reproductive technologies (NART) could have medical motivations but are mostly driven by a wider heterotopic ambition. Although, NARTs are initially designed by humans, they are programed to become independent of humans to a relative or absolute extent. James Lovelock proposed that such novelties could overcome humans. === Artificial cloning === Cloning is the cellular reproductive processes where two or more genetically identical organisms are created, either by natural or artificial means. Artificial cloning normally involves editing the genetic code, somatic cell nuclear transfer and 3D bioprinting. === Non-assisted artificial womb === A non-assisted artificial womb or artificial uterus is a device that allow for ectogenesis or extracorporeal pregnancy by growing an embryonic form outside the body of an organism (that would normally carry the embryo to term) without any human assistance. The aspect of non-assistance is the key distinction between the current artificial womb technology (AWT) in modern medical research, which still relies on human assistance. With this non-assisted hypothetical technology, a zygote or stem cells are used to create an embryo that is then incubated and monitored by artificial intelligence (AI) within a chamber composed of biocompatible material. The AI maintains the necessary conditions for the embryo to develop and thrive, proceeding to mimic organic labor and childbirth in order to best help the embryo adjust to the outside world. Ectogenesis—gestation, depicted in the science fiction movie The Matrix, is a fast approaching reality. This type of innovation presupposes that vertebrate wombs are not the only way for bearing humans or other similar forms of life. === Kinematic replication === Self-replication without binary fission, meiosis, mitosis (or any other form of cellular reproduction that involves division and growing) can be achieved. Xenobots are an example of kinematic replication. They are biobots, named after the African clawed frog (Xenopus laevis). Xenobots are cellular life forms designed by using artificial intelligence to build more of themselves by combining frog cells in a liquid medium. The term kinematic replication is usually reserved for biomolecules (e.g. DNA, RNA, prions, etc.) and artificially designed cellular forms (e.g. xenobots). === Machine constructive replication === Machine constructive replication mimics human traditional manufacturing but is entirely self-automated. Such constructive replication is a more general form of kinematic replication, which does not necessarily

  Read more →