AI Face Grader

AI Face Grader — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  Symbolic regression

  Symbolic regression (SR) is a type of regression analysis that searches the space of mathematical expressions to find the model that best fits a given dataset, both in terms of accuracy and simplicity. No particular model is provided as a starting point for symbolic regression. Instead, initial expressions are formed by randomly combining mathematical building blocks such as mathematical operators, analytic functions, constants, and state variables. Usually, a subset of these primitives will be specified by the person operating it, but that's not a requirement of the technique. The symbolic regression problem for mathematical functions has been tackled with a variety of methods, including recombining equations most commonly using genetic programming, as well as more recent methods utilizing Bayesian methods and neural networks. Another non-classical alternative method to SR is called Universal Functions Originator (UFO), which has a different mechanism, search-space, and building strategy. Further methods such as Exact Learning attempt to transform the fitting problem into a moments problem in a natural function space, usually built around generalizations of the Meijer-G function. By not requiring a priori specification of a model, symbolic regression isn't affected by human bias, or unknown gaps in domain knowledge. It attempts to uncover the intrinsic relationships of the dataset, by letting the patterns in the data itself reveal the appropriate models, rather than imposing a model structure that is deemed mathematically tractable from a human perspective. The fitness function that drives the evolution of the models takes into account not only error metrics (to ensure the models accurately predict the data), but also special complexity measures, thus ensuring that the resulting models reveal the data's underlying structure in a way that's understandable from a human perspective. This facilitates reasoning and favors the odds of getting insights about the data-generating system, as well as improving generalisability and extrapolation behaviour by preventing overfitting. Accuracy and simplicity may be left as two separate objectives of the regression—in which case the optimum solutions form a Pareto front—or they may be combined into a single objective by means of a model selection principle such as minimum description length. It has been proven that symbolic regression is an NP-hard problem. Nevertheless, if the sought-for equation is not too complex it is possible to solve the symbolic regression problem exactly by generating every possible function (built from some predefined set of operators) and evaluating them on the dataset in question. == Difference from classical regression == While conventional regression techniques seek to optimize the parameters for a pre-specified model structure, symbolic regression avoids imposing prior assumptions, and instead infers the model from the data. In other words, it attempts to discover both model structures and model parameters. This approach has the disadvantage of having a much larger space to search, because not only the search space in symbolic regression is infinite, but there are an infinite number of models which will perfectly fit a finite data set (provided that the model complexity isn't artificially limited). This means that it will possibly take a symbolic regression algorithm longer to find an appropriate model and parametrization, than traditional regression techniques. This can be attenuated by limiting the set of building blocks provided to the algorithm, based on existing knowledge of the system that produced the data; but in the end, using symbolic regression is a decision that has to be balanced with how much is known about the underlying system. Nevertheless, this characteristic of symbolic regression also has advantages: because the evolutionary algorithm requires diversity in order to effectively explore the search space, the result is likely to be a selection of high-scoring models (and their corresponding set of parameters). Examining this collection could provide better insight into the underlying process, and allows the user to identify an approximation that better fits their needs in terms of accuracy and simplicity. == Benchmarking == === SRBench === In 2021, SRBench was proposed as a large benchmark for symbolic regression. In its inception, SRBench featured 14 symbolic regression methods, 7 other ML methods, and 252 datasets from PMLB. The benchmark intends to be a living project: it encourages the submission of improvements, new datasets, and new methods, to keep track of the state of the art in SR. === SRBench Competition 2022 === In 2022, SRBench announced the competition Interpretable Symbolic Regression for Data Science, which was held at the GECCO conference in Boston, MA. The competition pitted nine leading symbolic regression algorithms against each other on a novel set of data problems and considered different evaluation criteria. The competition was organized in two tracks, a synthetic track and a real-world data track. ==== Synthetic Track ==== In the synthetic track, methods were compared according to five properties: re-discovery of exact expressions; feature selection; resistance to local optima; extrapolation; and sensitivity to noise. Rankings of the methods were: QLattice PySR (Python Symbolic Regression) uDSR (Deep Symbolic Optimization) ==== Real-world Track ==== In the real-world track, methods were trained to build interpretable predictive models for 14-day forecast counts of COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths in New York State. These models were reviewed by a subject expert and assigned trust ratings and evaluated for accuracy and simplicity. The ranking of the methods was: uDSR (Deep Symbolic Optimization) QLattice geneticengine (Genetic Engine) == Non-standard methods == Most symbolic regression algorithms prevent combinatorial explosion by implementing evolutionary algorithms that iteratively improve the best-fit expression over many generations. Recently, researchers have proposed algorithms utilizing other tactics in AI. Silviu-Marian Udrescu and Max Tegmark developed the "AI Feynman" algorithm, which attempts symbolic regression by training a neural network to represent the mystery function, then runs tests against the neural network to attempt to break up the problem into smaller parts. For example, if f ( x 1 , . . . , x i , x i + 1 , . . . , x n ) = g ( x 1 , . . . , x i ) + h ( x i + 1 , . . . , x n ) {\displaystyle f(x_{1},...,x_{i},x_{i+1},...,x_{n})=g(x_{1},...,x_{i})+h(x_{i+1},...,x_{n})} , tests against the neural network can recognize the separation and proceed to solve for g {\displaystyle g} and h {\displaystyle h} separately and with different variables as inputs. This is an example of divide and conquer, which reduces the size of the problem to be more manageable. AI Feynman also transforms the inputs and outputs of the mystery function in order to produce a new function which can be solved with other techniques, and performs dimensional analysis to reduce the number of independent variables involved. The algorithm was able to "discover" 100 equations from The Feynman Lectures on Physics, while a leading software using evolutionary algorithms, Eureqa, solved only 71. AI Feynman, in contrast to classic symbolic regression methods, requires a very large dataset in order to first train the neural network and is naturally biased towards equations that are common in elementary physics.

  Read more →
• 

  Alliance for Secure AI

  The Alliance for Secure AI is a U.S.-based nonprofit organization which educates the public about the risks of advanced artificial intelligence (AI). Politico has described the Alliance as a "bipartisan nonprofit trying to push a middle-ground approach to AI guardrails." == History == In June 2025, the Alliance was launched as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit watchdog in Washington, D.C. That same month, the organization rolled out a six-figure advertising campaign featuring bipartisan warnings about advanced AI. The ad campaign presented different messages for different political audiences. The Alliance opposed the idea of a moratorium on state AI laws as part of the July 2025 budget bill, in addition to President Donald Trump's December 2025 executive order on the issue. The group has also criticized AI companies like Meta and OpenAI for what it says are failures to prevent harms to children. In addition, the Alliance has criticized OpenAI for subpoenaing nonprofit organizations in the AI safety space. In March 2026, the Alliance launched JobLoss.ai, a website that tracks the jobs that have been eliminated with AI cited as a contributing factor. As of April 2026, JobLoss.ai has tracked more than 127,000 lost jobs. == Leadership == Brendan Steinhauser, a longtime political and communications strategist, is the founder and CEO of the Alliance. He was an early Tea Party movement organizer, and ran campaigns for multiple members of Congress, including Sen. John Cornyn, Rep. Dan Crenshaw, and Rep. Michael McCaul. Peyton Hornberger is the group's communications director. In July 2025, Hornberger criticized Palantir for its use of AI in a USA Today op-ed column.

  Read more →
• 

  Quantum Artificial Intelligence Lab

  The Quantum Artificial Intelligence Lab (also called the Quantum AI Lab or QuAIL) is a joint initiative of NASA, Universities Space Research Association, and Google (specifically, Google Research) whose goal is to pioneer research on how quantum computing might help with machine learning and other difficult computer science problems. The lab is hosted at NASA's Ames Research Center. == History == The Quantum AI Lab was announced by Google Research in a blog post on May 16, 2013. At the time of launch, the Lab was using the most advanced commercially available quantum computer, D-Wave Two from D-Wave Systems. On October 10, 2013, Google released a short film describing the current state of the Quantum AI Lab. On October 18, 2013, Google announced that it had incorporated quantum physics into Minecraft. In January 2014, Google reported results comparing the performance of the D-Wave Two in the lab with that of classical computers. The results were ambiguous and provoked heated discussion on the Internet. On 2 September 2014, it was announced that the Google Quantum AI Lab, in partnership with UC Santa Barbara, would be launching an initiative to create quantum information processors based on superconducting electronics. On the 23rd of October 2019, the Quantum AI Lab announced in a paper that it had achieved quantum supremacy with their Sycamore processor. The claim of quantum supremacy achievement has since been debated, with a far more accurate simulation on a classical computer being possible in 2.5 days as a conservative estimate. == Present == On December 9, 2024, Google introduced the Willow processor, describing it as a "state-of-the-art quantum chip". Google claims that this new chip takes just five minutes to solve a problem that takes traditional supercomputers ten septillion years. However, experts say Willow is, for now, a largely experimental device.

  Read more →
• 

  Linear belief function

  Linear belief functions are an extension of the Dempster–Shafer theory of belief functions to the case when variables of interest are continuous. Examples of such variables include financial asset prices, portfolio performance, and other antecedent and consequent variables. The theory was originally proposed by Arthur P. Dempster in the context of Kalman Filters and later was elaborated, refined, and applied to knowledge representation in artificial intelligence and decision making in finance and accounting by Liping Liu. == Concept == A linear belief function intends to represent our belief regarding the location of the true value as follows: We are certain that the truth is on a so-called certainty hyperplane but we do not know its exact location; along some dimensions of the certainty hyperplane, we believe the true value could be anywhere from –∞ to +∞ and the probability of being at a particular location is described by a normal distribution; along other dimensions, our knowledge is vacuous, i.e., the true value is somewhere from –∞ to +∞ but the associated probability is unknown. A belief function in general is defined by a mass function over a class of focal elements, which may have nonempty intersections. A linear belief function is a special type of belief function in the sense that its focal elements are exclusive, parallel sub-hyperplanes over the certainty hyperplane and its mass function is a normal distribution across the sub-hyperplanes. Based on the above geometrical description, Shafer and Liu propose two mathematical representations of a LBF: a wide-sense inner product and a linear functional in the variable space, and as their duals over a hyperplane in the sample space. Monney proposes still another structure called Gaussian hints. Although these representations are mathematically neat, they tend to be unsuitable for knowledge representation in expert systems. == Knowledge representation == A linear belief function can represent both logical and probabilistic knowledge for three types of variables: deterministic such as an observable or controllable, random whose distribution is normal, and vacuous on which no knowledge bears. Logical knowledge is represented by linear equations, or geometrically, a certainty hyperplane. Probabilistic knowledge is represented by a normal distribution across all parallel focal elements. In general, assume X is a vector of multiple normal variables with mean μ and covariance Σ. Then, the multivariate normal distribution can be equivalently represented as a moment matrix: M ( X ) = ( μ Σ ) . {\displaystyle M(X)=\left({\begin{array}{{20}c}\mu \\\Sigma \end{array}}\right).} If the distribution is non-degenerate, i.e., Σ has a full rank and its inverse exists, the moment matrix can be fully swept: M ( X → ) = ( μ Σ − 1 − Σ − 1 ) {\displaystyle M({\vec {X}})=\left({\begin{array}{{20}c}\mu \Sigma ^{-1}\\-\Sigma ^{-1}\end{array}}\right)} Except for normalization constant, the above equation completely determines the normal density function for X. Therefore, M ( X → ) {\displaystyle M({\vec {X}})} represents the probability distribution of X in the potential form. These two simple matrices allow us to represent three special cases of linear belief functions. First, for an ordinary normal probability distribution M(X) represents it. Second, suppose one makes a direct observation on X and obtains a value μ. In this case, since there is no uncertainty, both variance and covariance vanish, i.e., Σ = 0. Thus, a direct observation can be represented as: M ( X ) = ( μ 0 ) {\displaystyle M(X)=\left({\begin{array}{{20}c}\mu \\0\end{array}}\right)} Third, suppose one is completely ignorant about X. This is a very thorny case in Bayesian statistics since the density function does not exist. By using the fully swept moment matrix, we represent the vacuous linear belief functions as a zero matrix in the swept form follows: M ( X → ) = [ 0 0 ] {\displaystyle M({\vec {X}})=\left[{\begin{array}{{20}c}0\\0\end{array}}\right]} One way to understand the representation is to imagine complete ignorance as the limiting case when the variance of X approaches to ∞, where one can show that Σ−1 = 0 and hence M ( X → ) {\displaystyle M({\vec {X}})} vanishes. However, the above equation is not the same as an improper prior or normal distribution with infinite variance. In fact, it does not correspond to any unique probability distribution. For this reason, a better way is to understand the vacuous linear belief functions as the neutral element for combination (see later). To represent the remaining three special cases, we need the concept of partial sweeping. Unlike a full sweeping, a partial sweeping is a transformation on a subset of variables. Suppose X and Y are two vectors of normal variables with the joint moment matrix: M ( X , Y ) = [ μ 1 Σ 11 Σ 21 μ 2 Σ 12 Σ 22 ] {\displaystyle M(X,Y)=\left[{\begin{array}{{20}c}{\begin{array}{{20}c}\mu _{1}\\\Sigma _{11}\\\Sigma _{21}\end{array}}&{\begin{array}{{20}c}\mu _{2}\\\Sigma _{12}\\\Sigma _{22}\end{array}}\end{array}}\right]} Then M(X, Y) may be partially swept. For example, we can define the partial sweeping on X as follows: M ( X → , Y ) = [ μ 1 ( Σ 11 ) − 1 − ( Σ 11 ) − 1 Σ 21 ( Σ 11 ) − 1 μ 2 − μ 1 ( Σ 11 ) − 1 Σ 12 ( Σ 11 ) − 1 Σ 12 Σ 22 − Σ 21 ( Σ 11 ) − 1 Σ 12 ] {\displaystyle M({\vec {X}},Y)=\left[{\begin{array}{{20}c}{\begin{array}{{20}c}\mu _{1}(\Sigma _{11})^{-1}\\-(\Sigma _{11})^{-1}\\\Sigma _{21}(\Sigma _{11})^{-1}\end{array}}&{\begin{array}{{20}c}\mu _{2}-\mu _{1}(\Sigma _{11})^{-1}\Sigma _{12}\\(\Sigma _{11})^{-1}\Sigma _{12}\\\Sigma _{22}-\Sigma _{21}(\Sigma _{11})^{-1}\Sigma _{12}\end{array}}\end{array}}\right]} If X is one-dimensional, a partial sweeping replaces the variance of X by its negative inverse and multiplies the inverse with other elements. If X is multidimensional, the operation involves the inverse of the covariance matrix of X and other multiplications. A swept matrix obtained from a partial sweeping on a subset of variables can be equivalently obtained by a sequence of partial sweepings on each individual variable in the subset and the order of the sequence does not matter. Similarly, a fully swept matrix is the result of partial sweepings on all variables. We can make two observations. First, after the partial sweeping on X, the mean vector and covariance matrix of X are respectively μ 1 ( Σ 11 ) − 1 {\displaystyle \mu _{1}(\Sigma _{11})^{-1}} and − ( Σ 11 ) − 1 {\displaystyle -(\Sigma _{11})^{-1}} , which are the same as that of a full sweeping of the marginal moment matrix of X. Thus, the elements corresponding to X in the above partial sweeping equation represent the marginal distribution of X in potential form. Second, according to statistics, μ 2 − μ 1 ( Σ 11 ) − 1 Σ 12 {\displaystyle \mu _{2}-\mu _{1}(\Sigma _{11})^{-1}\Sigma _{12}} is the conditional mean of Y given X = 0; Σ 22 − Σ 21 ( Σ 11 ) − 1 Σ 12 {\displaystyle \Sigma _{22}-\Sigma _{21}(\Sigma _{11})^{-1}\Sigma _{12}} is the conditional covariance matrix of Y given X = 0; and ( Σ 11 ) − 1 Σ 12 {\displaystyle (\Sigma _{11})^{-1}\Sigma _{12}} is the slope of the regression model of Y on X. Therefore, the elements corresponding to Y indices and the intersection of X and Y in M ( X → , Y ) {\displaystyle M({\vec {X}},Y)} represents the conditional distribution of Y given X = 0. These semantics render the partial sweeping operation a useful method for manipulating multivariate normal distributions. They also form the basis of the moment matrix representations for the three remaining important cases of linear belief functions, including proper belief functions, linear equations, and linear regression models. === Proper linear belief functions === For variables X and Y, assume there exists a piece of evidence justifying a normal distribution for variables Y while bearing no opinions for variables X. Also, assume that X and Y are not perfectly linearly related, i.e., their correlation is less than 1. This case involves a mix of an ordinary normal distribution for Y and a vacuous belief function for X. Thus, we represent it using a partially swept matrix as follows: M ( X → , Y ) = [ 0 0 0 μ 2 0 Σ 22 ] {\displaystyle M({\vec {X}},Y)=\left[{\begin{array}{{20}c}{\begin{array}{{20}c}0\\0\\0\end{array}}&{\begin{array}{{20}c}\mu _{2}\\0\\\Sigma _{22}\\\end{array}}\end{array}}\right]} This is how we could understand the representation. Since we are ignorant on X, we use its swept form and set μ 1 ( Σ 11 ) − 1 = 0 {\displaystyle \mu _{1}(\Sigma _{11})^{-1}=0} and − ( Σ 11 ) − 1 = 0 {\displaystyle -(\Sigma _{11})^{-1}=0} . Since the correlation between X and Y is less than 1, the regression coefficient of X on Y approaches to 0 when the variance of X approaches to ∞. Therefore, ( Σ 11 ) − 1 Σ 12 = 0 {\displaystyle (\Sigma _{11})^{-1}\Sigma _{12}=0} . Similarly, one can prove that μ 1 ( Σ 11 ) − 1 Σ 12 = 0 {\displaystyle \mu _{1}(\Sigma _{11})^{-1}\Sigma _{12}=0} and Σ 21 ( Σ 11 ) −

  Read more →
• 

  Vicuna LLM

  Vicuna LLM is an omnibus large language model used in AI research. Its methodology is to enable the public at large to contrast and compare the accuracy of LLMs "in the wild" (an example of citizen science) and to vote on their output; a question-and-answer chat format is used. At the beginning of each round two LLM chatbots from a diverse pool of nine are presented randomly and anonymously, their identities only being revealed upon voting on their answers. The user has the option of either replaying ("regenerating") a round, or beginning an entirely fresh one with new LLMs. (The user also has the option of choosing which LLMs to do battle.) Based on Llama 2, it is an open source project, and it itself has become the subject of academic research in the burgeoning field. A non-commercial, public demo of the Vicuna-13b model is available to access using LMSYS.

  Read more →
• 

  Polythematic Structured Subject Heading System

  Polythematic Structured Subject Heading System (abbreviated as PSH from the Czech Polytematický Strukturovaný Heslář) is a bilingual Czech–English controlled vocabulary of subject headings developed and maintained by the National Technical Library (the former State Technical Library) in Prague. It was designed for describing and searching information resources according to their subject. PSH contains more than 13,900 terms, which cover the main fields of human knowledge. Because of its release in SKOS, PSH can be used not only for describing documents in a library, but also for indexing web pages. Everyone can use PSH for free. PSH is a part of the Linked Open Data cloud diagram (LOD cloud diagram). The image of the LOD cloud diagram shows datasets that have been published in Linked Data format, by contributors to the Linked Open Data community project and other individuals and organisations. == History and development == The PSH preparation project started in 1993, supported by several grants from the Czech Ministry of Culture and Czech Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport. Since 1995, PSH has been used for indexing the State Technical Library's documents. Starting 1997, PSH has been distributed to other libraries and companies, originally as a commercial, paid product; since 2009 for free. In 2000, the State Technical Library received a grant from the Ministry of Culture to translate PSH into English. The next milestone in its development was its releasing in the SKOS format, in 2009. The vast majority of new subject headings is suggested and approved by the indexing experts from the National Technical Library. However, the users and public can also make suggestions, using an online form, which are then assessed by the experts. The main decisions about the development and the future of PSH are done by the Committee for Coordination of Polythematic Structured Subject Heading System. The Committee consists of specialists from the National Technical Library and cooperating institutions, and representatives from the libraries and companies which use PSH. The Committee meets once a year in the National Technical Library; in the meantime, the members communicate using an electronic mailing list. == Browsing PSH == PSH Browser was released in June 2009. It serves for browsing the PSH system and its distribution in SKOS format. This tool navigates users through PSH from general to specific terms. Users can also use the Search field. PSH manager tool was released in 2012. It serves as an indexing tool especially to catalogers. Catalogers can easy orient in its clear structure. All the terms in PSH manager contain link to the catalogue of NTK. There can be also viewed the record in MARC21 format. == Autoindexing == In 2012 was released beta version of autoindexing application. It is accessible on Autoindexing. Users enter chosen text into indexing field and activate indexing. In few seconds the terms describing content are displayed. == PSH structure == PSH is a tree structure with 44 thematic sections. Subject headings are included in a hierarchy of six (or seven) levels according to their semantic content and specificity. There are hierarchical, associative ("see also") and equivalence ("see") relations in PSH. Hierarchical relations are represented by broader and narrower terms (e.g. physical diagnostic methods is broader term to electrocardiography, and on the other hand, electrocardiography is narrower term to physical diagnostic methods). Equivalence relations link subject headings with their nonpreferred versions (e.g. electrocardiography and ECG). Moreover, associative relations are used to link related subject headings from different parts of PSH, regardless their affiliation to a section, (e.g. electrocardiography: see also cardiology). Every subject heading belongs to just one section, which has its own two-character abbreviation, assigned to every subject heading of the section. This enables users to recognize affiliation of subject headings from lower levels to the thematic sections. The 44 thematic sections have following root nodes: == PSH formats == The main format for storage, maintenance and sharing PSH is the MARC 21 Format for Authority Data, which is implemented in library automated systems. PSH is also available in SKOS, using RDF/XML syntax, which is a version suitable for web distribution. Single headings can be accessed on the PSH website through URI links. Alternatively, the whole vocabulary can be downloaded in one file. It is possible to display tags from PSH (metadata snippets – Dublin Core and CommonTag), which can be embedded in an HTML document to provide its semantic description in a machine-readable way. == New subject headings == New subject headings are primarily obtained through the log analysis in the National Technical Library's on-line catalogue of documents, which are the terms used by end-users when searching various documents. Google Analytics service is now used for gaining search queries used by users. Within the data analysis, users queries are divided into seven categories that contain the title of the document, person, subject, action, institution, geographical terms and others. Then the candidates for new preferred terms and non-preferred terms are identified in the subject category. Users can suggest preferred or non-preferred terms through the web form or via e-mail psh(@)techlib.cz. == PSH and Creative Commons == PSH/SKOS has been available under the Creative Commons License CC BY 3.0 CZ (Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Czech Republic)since 2011. Users are free to copy, distribute, display and perform the work and make derivative works, but they must give the original author credit and if they alter, transform, or build upon this work, they have to distribute the resulting work only under a licence identical to this one. Users can download all data in one zip file, which is continuously updated.

  Read more →
• 

  Xinhua–Sogou AI news anchor

  Xinhua News Agency and Sogou of China developed an artificial intelligence (AI) for news reporting purposes. The AI was unveiled in 2018. It is touted to be the "world's first AI news anchor". == History == The AI was unveiled at the 2018 World Internet Conference in Wuzhen, Zhejiang, China. The AI devises avatars patterned after real life Xinhua anchors. The AI patterned after Qiu Hao spoke in Chinese, while the one derived from the likeness of Zhang Zhao speaks in English. The unveiling of the AI raised concerns of its impact on employment. Xinhua and Sogou unveiled Xin Xiaomeng, an AI with a female avatar in 2019. People's Daily followed suit by unveiling its own AI newscaster in 2023.

  Read more →
• 

  Copyright and artificial intelligence in the United Kingdom

  The interaction of artificial intelligence and copyright law has become one of the most contentious tech policy debates in the United Kingdom, centering on whether AI developers should be permitted to train their models on copyrighted material without explicit consent or remuneration. This debate has exposed a deep fracture between the creative industries, which seek to protect their intellectual property from unauthorised commercial exploitation, and tech companies. The academic and library sectors are also impacted, and argue that overly restrictive copyright laws hinder scientific research and the UK's sovereign AI capabilities. In 2024, the UK government proposed a broad text and data mining (TDM) exception to copyright that would have allowed AI companies to use publicly available copyrighted material for training, offering creators only an "opt-out" mechanism, similar to the exception introduced in Europe. This proposal faced intense opposition from across the creative sector. Trade unions representing writers, musicians, performers, and journalists argued that such an exception would effectively expropriate their members' work for the commercial benefit of tech giants. A report from the House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee, warned that generative AI posed a "clear and present danger" to the £124 billion creative economy. The government abandoned the opt-out model in March 2026, opting instead to build a stronger evidence base before pursuing any copyright reform. Conversely, the academic and library sectors have raised significant concerns that the UK's current TDM exception, which is strictly limited to non-commercial research, is too narrow. Universities and research libraries occupy a dual role as both creators of vast datasets and beneficiaries of TDM exceptions. They argue that the current legal framework restricts their ability to computationally analyse the very research they produce, thereby hobbling the UK's "AI for Science" strategy. Advocacy groups have highlighted a "triple payment" problem, wherein publicly funded research is handed over to publishers, who then charge universities substantial subscription fees and demand additional payments for specific TDM licences. This tension is further complicated by the commercial practices of major academic publishers. While publishers often restrict universities from using subscribed databases for AI training, they have simultaneously entered into lucrative, multi-million-dollar licensing agreements to sell access to this academic content to commercial AI developers. Furthermore, academics have accused publishers of actively steering authors away from permissive open-access licences towards more restrictive variants. By doing so, publishers retain the exclusive commercial rights necessary to strike these AI training deals, often without consulting the original authors or offering them any additional remuneration. This dynamic has not only reopened debates within the Open Access movement but has also created complex legal scenarios where publishers, rather than authors, control the terms of copyright litigation against major tech companies. == Training on copyrighted material == The question of whether AI developers should be permitted to train their models on copyrighted material without payment or consent has been one of the most contentious policy debates in the UK AI landscape. In 2024, the then-Conservative government proposed a broad text and data mining (TDM) exception that would have allowed AI companies to use any publicly available copyrighted material for training purposes, with creators able only to "opt out" of having their work used. This proposal provoked intense opposition from writers, musicians, visual artists, publishers, and broadcasters, who argued it would effectively expropriate their intellectual property for the commercial benefit of AI companies. The debate over text and data mining exceptions extends significantly beyond generative AI and the creative industries, implicating a wide range of scientific, industrial, and academic research applications. TDM is a foundational process for analysing large datasets to identify patterns, trends, and correlations, which is heavily utilised in fields such as medical research, climate modelling, and financial services. In the scientific and academic sectors, researchers rely on TDM to process vast amounts of published literature. For example, in biomedical research, TDM is used to accelerate drug discovery, identify new uses for existing medicines, and extract insights from clinical notes and genomic datasets. However, the application of traditional copyright frameworks to scientific literature has been criticised by academics. Researchers argue that scientific writing is intended to convey factual, verifiable information rather than creative originality, and that copyright restrictions on TDM hinder reproducibility, validation, and the advancement of science. The current UK copyright exception for TDM (Section 29A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988) is limited strictly to non-commercial research, which creates barriers for public-private research partnerships and commercial scientific development. Beyond academia, non-generative AI and TDM are critical to various industrial and commercial operations. In the financial services sector, TDM is employed to monitor transactions, detect fraud, and analyse market feeds. Other non-generative applications include search engine indexing, plagiarism detection software, and media monitoring. A 2026 report by Public First estimated that 19% of UK businesses use specialised TDM tools, and that a restrictive copyright regime requiring licenses for all copyrighted content could cost the UK economy £220 billion in lost AI-driven GDP growth by 2035 compared to a broad commercial TDM exemption. Industry advocates argue that the lack of a commercial TDM exception in the UK creates legal uncertainty that stifles innovation across these broader, non-generative applications of data analysis. === Tech and AI industry positions === The technology and artificial intelligence industries lobbied for a broad text and data mining (TDM) exception to UK copyright law, arguing that such an exception is essential for the UK to remain globally competitive in AI development. Industry bodies such as techUK have argued that without a TDM exception, the UK risks becoming an "AI taker rather than an AI maker," as developers will relocate training operations to jurisdictions with more permissive copyright regimes, such as the United States, Japan, Singapore, and the European Union. During the UK government's 2024–2025 consultation on copyright and AI, major AI developers and trade associations strongly supported "Option 2" (a broad TDM exception) or "Option 3" (a TDM exception with an opt-out mechanism). OpenAI stated in its consultation response that a broad TDM exception is "necessary to drive AI innovation and investment in the UK," arguing that developers should be permitted to train models on lawfully accessed copies without further distribution. The Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA) similarly argued that restricting TDM to non-commercial development would undermine the government's ambitions for the UK tech sector and frustrate partnerships between commercial entities and research institutions. Tech industry advocates have also highlighted the economic implications of copyright policy. According to analysis by the think tank UK Day One, adopting an overly restrictive licensing-only approach could result in the UK economy losing up to £182 billion over 20 years, whereas a broad TDM exception could generate a positive impact of £131.61 billion over the same period. Following the government's March 2026 decision to drop plans for a TDM exception in favour of a market-led licensing approach, techUK's Deputy CEO Antony Walker criticised the move, stating that "copyright material cannot be used for AI development and training without permission" under the current framework, which he argued would push AI model training to the US. === Creative sector and political opposition to text and data mining === In March 2026, the House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee published a report, AI, Copyright and the Creative Industries, which concluded that the creative industries face "a clear and present danger from generative AI" and that it would be "a very poor bet" for the government to weaken copyright protections to attract AI investment. The Committee noted that the creative industries contributed £124 billion to the UK economy in 2023 and employed 2.4 million people, compared to the AI sector's £12 billion GVA and 86,000 employees in 2024. The Committee called on the government to develop a "licensing-first" regime underpinned by mandatory transparency requirements, and to rule out any new commercial TDM exception with an opt-out model. Tra

  Read more →
• 

  Snapshot isolation

  In databases, and transaction processing (transaction management), snapshot isolation is a guarantee that all reads made in a transaction will see a consistent snapshot of the database (in practice it reads the last committed values that existed at the time it started), and the transaction itself will successfully commit only if no updates it has made conflict with any concurrent updates made since that snapshot. Snapshot isolation has been adopted by several major database management systems, such as InterBase, Firebird, Oracle, MySQL, PostgreSQL, SQL Anywhere, MongoDB and Microsoft SQL Server (2005 and later). The main reason for its adoption is that it allows better performance than serializability, yet still avoids most of the concurrency anomalies that serializability avoids (but not all). In practice snapshot isolation is implemented within multiversion concurrency control (MVCC), where generational values of each data item (versions) are maintained: MVCC is a common way to increase concurrency and performance by generating a new version of a database object each time the object is written, and allowing transactions' read operations of several last relevant versions (of each object). Snapshot isolation has been used to criticize the ANSI SQL-92 standard's definition of isolation levels, as it exhibits none of the "anomalies" that the SQL standard prohibited, yet is not serializable (the anomaly-free isolation level defined by ANSI). In spite of its distinction from serializability, snapshot isolation is sometimes referred to as serializable by Oracle. == Definition == A transaction executing under snapshot isolation appears to operate on a personal snapshot of the database, taken at the start of the transaction. When the transaction concludes, it will successfully commit only if the values updated by the transaction have not been changed externally since the snapshot was taken. Such a write–write conflict will cause the transaction to abort. In a write skew anomaly, two transactions (T1 and T2) concurrently read an overlapping data set (e.g. values V1 and V2), concurrently make disjoint updates (e.g. T1 updates V1, T2 updates V2), and finally concurrently commit, neither having seen the update performed by the other. Were the system serializable, such an anomaly would be impossible, as either T1 or T2 would have to occur "first", and be visible to the other. In contrast, snapshot isolation permits write skew anomalies. As a concrete example, imagine V1 and V2 are two balances held by a single person, Phil. The bank will allow either V1 or V2 to run a deficit, provided the total held in both is never negative (i.e. V1 + V2 ≥ 0). Both balances are currently $100. Phil initiates two transactions concurrently, T1 withdrawing $200 from V1, and T2 withdrawing $200 from V2. If the database guaranteed serializable transactions, the simplest way of coding T1 is to deduct $200 from V1, and then verify that V1 + V2 ≥ 0 still holds, aborting if not. T2 similarly deducts $200 from V2 and then verifies V1 + V2 ≥ 0. Since the transactions must serialize, either T1 happens first, leaving V1 = −$100, V2 = $100, and preventing T2 from succeeding (since V1 + (V2 − $200) is now −$200), or T2 happens first and similarly prevents T1 from committing. If the database is under snapshot isolation(MVCC), however, T1 and T2 operate on private snapshots of the database: each deducts $200 from an account, and then verifies that the new total is zero, using the other account value that held when the snapshot was taken. Since neither update conflicts, both commit successfully, leaving V1 = V2 = −$100, and V1 + V2 = −$200. Some systems built using multiversion concurrency control (MVCC) may support (only) snapshot isolation to allow transactions to proceed without worrying about concurrent operations, and more importantly without needing to re-verify all read operations when the transaction finally commits. This is convenient because MVCC maintains a series of recent history consistent states. The only information that must be stored during the transaction is a list of updates made, which can be scanned for conflicts fairly easily before being committed. However, MVCC systems (such as MarkLogic) will use locks to serialize writes together with MVCC to obtain some of the performance gains and still support the stronger "serializability" level of isolation. == Workarounds == Potential inconsistency problems arising from write skew anomalies can be fixed by adding (otherwise unnecessary) updates to the transactions in order to enforce the serializability property. Materialize the conflict Add a special conflict table, which both transactions update in order to create a direct write–write conflict. Promotion Have one transaction "update" a read-only location (replacing a value with the same value) in order to create a direct write–write conflict (or use an equivalent promotion, e.g. Oracle's SELECT FOR UPDATE). In the example above, we can materialize the conflict by adding a new table which makes the hidden constraint explicit, mapping each person to their total balance. Phil would start off with a total balance of $200, and each transaction would attempt to subtract $200 from this, creating a write–write conflict that would prevent the two from succeeding concurrently. However, this approach violates the normal form. Alternatively, we can promote one of the transaction's reads to a write. For instance, T2 could set V1 = V1, creating an artificial write–write conflict with T1 and, again, preventing the two from succeeding concurrently. This solution may not always be possible. In general, therefore, snapshot isolation puts some of the problem of maintaining non-trivial constraints onto the user, who may not appreciate either the potential pitfalls or the possible solutions. The upside to this transfer is better performance. == Terminology == Snapshot isolation is called "serializable" mode in Oracle and PostgreSQL versions prior to 9.1, which may cause confusion with the "real serializability" mode. There are arguments both for and against this decision; what is clear is that users must be aware of the distinction to avoid possible undesired anomalous behavior in their database system logic. == History == Snapshot isolation arose from work on multiversion concurrency control databases, where multiple versions of the database are maintained concurrently to allow readers to execute without colliding with writers. Such a system allows a natural definition and implementation of such an isolation level. InterBase, later owned by Borland, was acknowledged to provide SI rather than full serializability in version 4, and likely permitted write-skew anomalies since its first release in 1985. Unfortunately, the ANSI SQL-92 standard was written with a lock-based database in mind, and hence is rather vague when applied to MVCC systems. Berenson et al. wrote a paper in 1995 critiquing the SQL standard, and cited snapshot isolation as an example of an isolation level that did not exhibit the standard anomalies described in the ANSI SQL-92 standard, yet still had anomalous behaviour when compared with serializable transactions. In 2008, Cahill et al. showed that write-skew anomalies could be prevented by detecting and aborting "dangerous" triplets of concurrent transactions. This implementation of serializability is well-suited to multiversion concurrency control databases, and has been adopted in PostgreSQL 9.1, where it is known as Serializable Snapshot Isolation (SSI). When used consistently, this eliminates the need for the above workarounds. The downside over snapshot isolation is an increase in aborted transactions. This can perform better or worse than snapshot isolation with the above workarounds, depending on workload.

  Read more →
• 

  Protégé (software)

  Protégé is a free, open source ontology editor and a knowledge management system. The Protégé meta-tool was first built by Mark Musen in 1987 and has since been developed by a team at Stanford University. The software is the most popular and widely used ontology editor in the world. == Overview == Protégé provides a graphical user interface to define ontologies. It also includes deductive classifiers to validate that models are consistent and to infer new information based on the analysis of an ontology. Like Eclipse, Protégé is a framework for which various other projects suggest plugins. This application is written in Java and makes heavy use of Swing to create the user interface. According to their website, there are over 300,000 registered users. A 2009 book calls it "the leading ontological engineering tool". Protégé is developed at Stanford University and is made available under the BSD 2-clause license. Earlier versions of the tool were developed in collaboration with the University of Manchester.

  Read more →
• 

  Emospark

  EmoSpark is an artificial intelligence console created in London, United Kingdom by Patrick Levy-Rosenthal. The device uses facial recognition and language analysis to evaluate human emotion and convey responsive content according to the emotion. The console measures 90 mm x 90 mm x 90 mm and is cube shaped. It operates on an "Emotional Processing Unit", an emotion chip developed by Emoshape Inc. that enables the system to create emotional profile graphs of its surroundings. The emotional processing unit is a patent pending technology that is said to create synthesised emotional responses in machines. EmoSpark was funded through an Indiegogo campaign which aimed to raise $200,000. == Product overview == EmoSpark was created by French inventor Patrick Levy-Rosenthal, as an emotionally intelligent artificial life unit for the home that can interact with people. It is powered by Android and can communicate with users through typed input from a computer, tablet, smartphone or TV as well as through spoken commands. The EmoSpark's features are categorized into two types: functional and emotional. EmoSpark is said to have the ability to perform practical software-based tasks. Through the smartphone interface, it is able to gauge a person’s emotions and is reported to have a conversational library of over 2 million sentences. The face-tracking technology identifies users likes and dislikes to categorize their emotional responses to stimuli such as videos and music. The device has an emotional spectrum that is composed of eight emotions which are surprise, sadness, joy, trust, fear, disgust, anger and anticipation. EmoSpark monitors a person's facial expressions and emotions through images from an external camera, which are then processed through an emotion text analysis and content analysis. The New Scientist reported that EmoSpark had the ability to work on the best way to cheer up its users, emotionally. === Connectivity === EmoSpark is able to connect to Facebook and YouTube to present users with content designed to improve their mood, or to Wikipedia for collaborative knowledge that can be shared when users ask questions of it. Through Android OS, EmoSpark is able to be customized with Google Play store apps. The cube is expected to develop its own personality based on the communications it has had with the people using it. == EmoShape == The Emotion Chip (EPU) used in the cube is created by the US company Emoshape Inc, founded by Levy-Rosenthal. EmoShape Ltd (UK) was the company that developed EmoSpark cube. Patrick Levy-Rosenthal also received the IST Prize in 2005 from the European Council for Applied Science, Technology and Engineering.

  Read more →
• 

  Brain.js

  Brain.js is a JavaScript library used for neural networking, which is released as free and open-source software under the MIT License. It can be used in both the browser and Node.js backends. Brain.js is most commonly used as a simple introduction to neural networking, as it hides complex mathematics and has a familiar modern JavaScript syntax. It is maintained by members of the Brain.js organization and open-source contributors. == Examples == Creating a feedforward neural network with backpropagation: Creating a recurrent neural network: Train the neural network on RGB color contrast:

  Read more →
• 

  SPL notation

  SPL (Sentence Plan Language) is an abstract notation representing the semantics of a sentence in natural language. In a classical Natural Language Generation (NLG) workflow, an initial text plan (hierarchically or sequentially organized factoids, often modelled in accordance with Rhetorical Structure Theory) is transformed by a sentence planner (generator) component to a sequence of sentence plans modelled in a Sentence Plan Language. A surface generator can be used to transform the SPL notation into natural language sentences. Probably the most widely used SPL language used today (2022) is AMR (Abstract Meaning Representation, see there for further references), but is owes parts of its popularity to its application to NLP problems other than NLG, e.g., machine translation and semantic parsing.

  Read more →
• 

  Computational creativity

  Computational creativity (also known as artificial creativity, mechanical creativity, creative computing or creative computation) is a multidisciplinary endeavour that is located at the intersection of the fields of artificial intelligence, cognitive psychology, philosophy, and the arts (e.g., computational art as part of computational culture). Is the application of computer systems to emulate human-like creative processes, facilitating the generation of artistic and design outputs that mimic innovation and originality. The goal of computational creativity is to model, simulate or replicate creativity using a computer, to achieve one of several ends: To construct a program or computer capable of human-level creativity. To better understand human creativity and to formulate an algorithmic perspective on creative behavior in humans. To design programs that can enhance human creativity without necessarily being creative themselves. The field of computational creativity concerns itself with theoretical and practical issues in the study of creativity. Theoretical work on the nature and proper definition of creativity is performed in parallel with practical work on the implementation of systems that exhibit creativity, with one strand of work informing the other. The applied form of computational creativity is known as media synthesis. == Theoretical issues == Theoretical approaches concern the essence of creativity. Especially, under what circumstances it is possible to call the model a "creative" if eminent creativity is about rule-breaking or the disavowal of convention. This is a variant of Ada Lovelace's objection to machine intelligence, as recapitulated by modern theorists such as Teresa Amabile. If a machine can do only what it was programmed to do, how can its behavior ever be called creative? Indeed, not all computer theorists would agree with the premise that computers can only do what they are programmed to do—a key point in favor of computational creativity. == Defining creativity in computational terms == Because no single perspective or definition seems to offer a complete picture of creativity, the AI researchers Newell, Shaw and Simon developed the combination of novelty and usefulness into the cornerstone of a multi-pronged view of creativity, one that uses the following four criteria to categorize a given answer or solution as creative: The answer is novel and useful (either for the individual or for society) The answer demands that we reject ideas we had previously accepted The answer results from intense motivation and persistence The answer comes from clarifying a problem that was originally vague Margaret Boden focused on the first two of these criteria, arguing instead that creativity (at least when asking whether computers could be creative) should be defined as "the ability to come up with ideas or artifacts that are new, surprising, and valuable". Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi argued that creativity had to be considered instead in a social context, and his DIFI (Domain-Individual-Field Interaction) framework has since strongly influenced the field. In DIFI, an individual produces works whose novelty and value are assessed by the field—other people in society—providing feedback and ultimately adding the work, now deemed creative, to the domain of societal works from which an individual might be later influenced. Whereas the above reflects a top-down approach to computational creativity, an alternative thread has developed among bottom-up computational psychologists involved in artificial neural network research. During the late 1980s and early 1990s, for example, such generative neural systems were driven by genetic algorithms. Experiments involving recurrent nets were successful in hybridizing simple musical melodies and predicting listener expectations. == Historical evolution of computational creativity == The use computational processes to generate creative artifacts has been present from early times in history. During the late 1800's, methods for composing music combinatorily were explored, involving prominent figures like Mozart, Bach, Haydn, and Kiernberger. This approach extended to analytical endeavors as early as 1934, where simple mechanical models were built to explore mathematical problem solving. Professional interest in the creative aspect of computation also was commonly addressed in early discussions of artificial intelligence. The 1956 Dartmouth Conference, listed creativity, invention, and discovery as key goals for artificial intelligence. As the development of computers allowed systems of greater complexity, the 1970's and 1980's saw invention of early systems that modelled creativity using symbolic or rule-based approaches. The field of creative storytelling investigated several such models. Meehan's TALE-SPIN (1977) generated narratives through simulation of character goals and decision trees. Dehn's AUTHOR (1981) approached generation by simulating an author's process for crafting a story. Beyond narrative generation, computational creativity expanded into artistic and scientific domains. Artistic image generation was one of the disciplines that saw early potential in generated artifacts through computational creativity. One of the most prominent examples was Harold Cohen's AARON, which produced art through composition and adaptation of figures based on a large set of symbolic rules and heuristics for visual composition. Some systems also tackled creativity in scientific endeavors. BACON was said to rediscover natural laws like Boyle's Law and Kepler's law through hypothesis testing in constrained spaces. By the 1990's the modeling techniques became more adaptive, attempting to implement cognitive creative rules for generation. Turner's MINSTREL (1993) introduced TRAMs (Transform Recall Adapt Methods) to simulate creative re-use of prior material for generative storytelling. Meanwhile, Pérez y Pérez's MEXICA (1999) modeled the creative writing process using cycles of engagement and reflection. As systems increasingly incorporated models of internal evaluation, another approach that emerged was that of combining symbolic generation with domain-specific evaluation metrics, modeling generative and selective steps to creativity In the field of generational humor, the JAPE system (1994) generated pun-based riddles using Prolog and WordNet, applying symbolic pattern-matching rules and a large lexical database (WordNet) to compose riddles involving wordplay. WordNet is a system developed by George Miller and his team at Princeton, its platform and inspired word-mapping structures have been used as the backbone of several syntactic and semantic AI programs. A notable system for music generation was David Cope's EMI (Experiments in Musical Intelligence) or Emmy, which was trained in the styles of artists like Bach, Beethoven, or Chopin and generated novel pieces in their style through pattern abstraction and recomposition. In the 2000s and beyond, machine learning began influencing creative system design. Researchers such as Mihalcea and Strapparava trained classifiers to distinguish humorous from non-humorous text, using stylistic and semantic features. Meanwhile custom computational approaches led to chess systems like Deep Blue generating quasi-creative gameplay strategies through search algorithms and parallel processing constrained by specific rules and patterns for evaluation. The institutional development of computational creativity grew along its technical advances. Dedicated workshops such as the IJWCC emerged in the 1990s, growing out of interdisciplinary conferences focused on AI and creativity. By the early 2000s, the field coalesced around annual conferences like the International Conference on Computational Creativity (ICCC). Recently, with the advent of Deep Learning, Transformers, and further refinement in Machine Learning structures, computational creativity's implementation space has new tools for development. == Machine learning for computational creativity == While traditional computational approaches to creativity rely on the explicit formulation of prescriptions by developers and a certain degree of randomness in computer programs, machine learning methods allow computer programs to learn on heuristics from input data enabling creative capacities within the computer programs. Especially, deep artificial neural networks allow to learn patterns from input data that allow for the non-linear generation of creative artefacts. Before 1989, artificial neural networks have been used to model certain aspects of creativity. Peter Todd (1989) first trained a neural network to reproduce musical melodies from a training set of musical pieces. Then he used a change algorithm to modify the network's input parameters. The network was able to randomly generate new music in a highly uncontrolled manner. In 1992, Todd extended this work, using the so-called distal teacher approach that had been d

  Read more →
• 

  Innovation Center for Artificial Intelligence

  The Innovation Center for Artificial Intelligence (ICAI) is a Dutch national network focused on joint technology development between academia, industry and government in the area of artificial intelligence (AI). The initiative was launched in April 2018 and is based at Amsterdam Science Park. As of 2024, the director of the ICAI is Maarten de Rijke. In November 2018, ICAI announced its contribution to AINED, the first iteration of the Dutch National AI Strategy. In January 2023, Maastricht University announced the ROBUST program, led by the Innovation Center for Artificial Intelligence (ICAI) and supported by the University of Amsterdam and others. This initiative focuses on advancing research in trustworthy AI technology across various sectors, notably healthcare and energy, in the Netherlands. The program's plan includes the creation of 17 new labs and the appointment of PhD candidates, backed by a €25 million funding from the Dutch Research Council (NWO). == Labs == The ICAI network is linked to several collaborative labs: Thira Lab (Imaging): Thirona, Delft Imaging Systems and Radboud UMC, founded March 2019 AIMLab (AI for Medical Imaging): Uva and Inception Institute of Artificial Intelligence from the United Arab Emirates, founded March 2019 AFL (AI for Fintech): ING and Delft University of Technology, founded March 2019 Police Lab AI: Dutch National Police, founded January 2019 Elsevier AI Lab: Uva and Elsevier, founded October 2018 AIRLab Delft (AI for Retail Robotics): TU Delft Robotics and AholdDelhaize, founded November 2018 Quva Lab (Deep Vision): Uva and Qualcomm, founded 2016 (prior to ICAI) AIRLab Amsterdam (AI for Retail): Uva and AholdDelhaize, founded April 2018 DeltaLab (Deep Learning Technologies Amsterdam): Uva and Bosch, founded April 2017 (prior to ICAI) AI4SE (AI for Software Engineering Lab) Delft University of Technology and JetBrains, founded October 2023 Atlas Lab: Uva and TomTom (TOM2)

  Read more →