AI For Students Exam Generator

AI For Students Exam Generator — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

Microsoft Fresh Paint

Fresh Paint is a painting app developed by Microsoft and released on May 25, 2012. == History == Fresh Paint originated from a Microsoft Research project known as Project Gustav, an endeavor to reproduce the behavior of physical oil paint on a digital medium. To push the boundaries of simulating oil on a digital medium, the research team created a physics model that precisely replicated on a screen what would happen in the real world if you combined oil, a surface and a tool such as a paint brush. Two publications, Detail-Preserving Paint Modeling for 3D Brushes and Simple Data-Driven Modeling of Brushes, were released as a result of the team’s findings. After a variety of internal testing Project, Gustav was codenamed Digital Art. Partnering with The Museum of Modern Art, Digital Art was tested for a year by 60,000 people. With feedback culled from MoMA, developers expanded the existing physics model, experimenting with how real oil paint blended and reacted to the texture of a canvas. After final adjustments were made, Digital Art was rebranded as Fresh Paint. It was released to the public on 25 May 2012.
Read more →
Description logic

Description logics (DL) are a family of formal knowledge representation languages. Many DLs are more expressive than propositional logic but less expressive than first-order logic. In contrast to the latter, the core reasoning problems for DLs are (usually) decidable, and efficient decision procedures have been designed and implemented for these problems. There are general, spatial, temporal, spatiotemporal, and fuzzy description logics, and each description logic features a different balance between expressive power and reasoning complexity by supporting different sets of mathematical constructors. DLs are used in artificial intelligence to describe and reason about the relevant concepts of an application domain (known as terminological knowledge). It is of particular importance in providing a logical formalism for ontologies and the Semantic Web: the Web Ontology Language (OWL) and its profiles are based on DLs. A major area of application of DLs and OWL is in biomedical informatics, where they assist in the codification of biomedical knowledge. DLs and OWL are also applied in other domains, including defense, climate modeling, and large-scale industrial knowledge graphs. == Introduction == A DL models concepts, roles and individuals, and their relationships. The fundamental modeling concept of a DL is the axiom—a logical statement relating roles and/or concepts. This is a key difference from the frames paradigm where a frame specification declares and completely defines a class. == Nomenclature == === Terminology compared to FOL and OWL === The description logic community uses different terminology than the first-order logic (FOL) community for operationally equivalent notions; some examples are given below. The Web Ontology Language (OWL) uses again a different terminology, also given in the table below. === Naming convention === There are many varieties of description logics and there is an informal naming convention, roughly describing the operators allowed. The expressivity is encoded in the label for a logic starting with one of the following basic logics: Followed by any of the following extensions: ==== Exceptions ==== Some canonical DLs that do not exactly fit this convention are: ==== Examples ==== As an example, A L C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {ALC}}} is a centrally important description logic from which comparisons with other varieties can be made. A L C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {ALC}}} is simply A L {\displaystyle {\mathcal {AL}}} with complement of any concept allowed, not just atomic concepts. A L C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {ALC}}} is used instead of the equivalent A L U E {\displaystyle {\mathcal {ALUE}}} . A further example, the description logic S H I Q {\displaystyle {\mathcal {SHIQ}}} is the logic A L C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {ALC}}} plus extended cardinality restrictions, and transitive and inverse roles. The naming conventions aren't purely systematic so that the logic A L C O I N {\displaystyle {\mathcal {ALCOIN}}} might be referred to as A L C N I O {\displaystyle {\mathcal {ALCNIO}}} and other abbreviations are also made where possible. The Protégé ontology editor supports S H O I N ( D ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {SHOIN}}^{\mathcal {(D)}}} . Three major biomedical informatics terminology bases, SNOMED CT, GALEN, and GO, are expressible in E L {\displaystyle {\mathcal {EL}}} (with additional role properties). OWL 2 provides the expressiveness of S R O I Q ( D ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {SROIQ}}^{\mathcal {(D)}}} , OWL-DL is based on S H O I N ( D ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {SHOIN}}^{\mathcal {(D)}}} , and for OWL-Lite it is S H I F ( D ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {SHIF}}^{\mathcal {(D)}}} . == History == Description logic was given its current name in the 1980s. Previous to this it was called (chronologically): terminological systems, and concept languages. === Knowledge representation === Frames and semantic networks lack formal (logic-based) semantics. DL was first introduced into knowledge representation (KR) systems to overcome this deficiency. The first DL-based KR system was KL-ONE (by Ronald J. Brachman and Schmolze, 1985). During the '80s other DL-based systems using structural subsumption algorithms were developed including KRYPTON (1983), LOOM (1987), BACK (1988), K-REP (1991) and CLASSIC (1991). This approach featured DL with limited expressiveness but relatively efficient (polynomial time) reasoning. In the early '90s, the introduction of a new tableau based algorithm paradigm allowed efficient reasoning on more expressive DL. DL-based systems using these algorithms — such as KRIS (1991) — show acceptable reasoning performance on typical inference problems even though the worst case complexity is no longer polynomial. From the mid '90s, reasoners were created with good practical performance on very expressive DL with high worst case complexity. Examples from this period include FaCT, RACER (2001), CEL (2005), and KAON 2 (2005). DL reasoners, such as FaCT, FaCT++, RACER, DLP and Pellet, implement the method of analytic tableaux. KAON2 is implemented by algorithms which reduce a SHIQ(D) knowledge base to a disjunctive datalog program. === Semantic web === The DARPA Agent Markup Language (DAML) and Ontology Inference Layer (OIL) ontology languages for the Semantic Web can be viewed as syntactic variants of DL. In particular, the formal semantics and reasoning in OIL use the S H I Q {\displaystyle {\mathcal {SHIQ}}} DL. The DAML+OIL DL was developed as a submission to—and formed the starting point of—the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Web Ontology Working Group. In 2004, the Web Ontology Working Group completed its work by issuing the OWL recommendation. The design of OWL is based on the S H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {SH}}} family of DL with OWL DL and OWL Lite based on S H O I N ( D ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {SHOIN}}^{\mathcal {(D)}}} and S H I F ( D ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {SHIF}}^{\mathcal {(D)}}} respectively. The W3C OWL Working Group began work in 2007 on a refinement of - and extension to - OWL. In 2009, this was completed by the issuance of the OWL2 recommendation. OWL2 is based on the description logic S R O I Q ( D ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {SROIQ}}^{\mathcal {(D)}}} . Practical experience demonstrated that OWL DL lacked several key features necessary to model complex domains. == Modeling == === TBox vs Abox === In DL, a distinction is drawn between the so-called TBox (terminological box) and the ABox (assertional box). In general, the TBox contains sentences describing concept hierarchies (i.e., relations between concepts) while the ABox contains ground sentences stating where in the hierarchy, individuals belong (i.e., relations between individuals and concepts). For example, the statement: belongs in the TBox, while the statement: belongs in the ABox. Note that the TBox/ABox distinction is not significant, in the same sense that the two "kinds" of sentences are not treated differently in first-order logic (which subsumes most DL). When translated into first-order logic, a subsumption axiom like (1) is simply a conditional restriction to unary predicates (concepts) with only variables appearing in it. Clearly, a sentence of this form is not privileged or special over sentences in which only constants ("grounded" values) appear like (2). === Motivation for having Tbox and Abox === So why was the distinction introduced? The primary reason is that the separation can be useful when describing and formulating decision-procedures for various DL. For example, a reasoner might process the TBox and ABox separately, in part because certain key inference problems are tied to one but not the other one ('classification' is related to the TBox, 'instance checking' to the ABox). Another example is that the complexity of the TBox can greatly affect the performance of a given decision-procedure for a certain DL, independently of the ABox. Thus, it is useful to have a way to talk about that specific part of the knowledge base. The secondary reason is that the distinction can make sense from the knowledge base modeler's perspective. It is plausible to distinguish between our conception of terms/concepts in the world (class axioms in the TBox) and particular manifestations of those terms/concepts (instance assertions in the ABox). In the above example: when the hierarchy within a company is the same in every branch but the assignment to employees is different in every department (because there are other people working there), it makes sense to reuse the TBox for different branches that do not use the same ABox. There are two features of description logic that are not shared by most other data description formalisms: DL does not make the unique name assumption (UNA) or the closed-world assumption (CWA). Not having UNA means that two concepts with different names may be allowed by some inference to be shown to be equivalent. Not having CWA, or rather having the open world assumption (OWA) means that
Read more →
Cross-validation (statistics)

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

Empirical dynamic modeling (EDM) is a framework for analysis and prediction of nonlinear dynamical systems. Applications include population dynamics, ecosystem service, medicine, neuroscience, dynamical systems, geophysics, and human-computer interaction. EDM was originally developed by Robert May and George Sugihara. It can be considered a methodology for data modeling, predictive analytics, dynamical system analysis, machine learning and time series analysis. == Description == Mathematical models have tremendous power to describe observations of real-world systems. They are routinely used to test hypothesis, explain mechanisms and predict future outcomes. However, real-world systems are often nonlinear and multidimensional, in some instances rendering explicit equation-based modeling problematic. Empirical models, which infer patterns and associations from the data instead of using hypothesized equations, represent a natural and flexible framework for modeling complex dynamics. Donald DeAngelis and Simeon Yurek illustrated that canonical statistical models are ill-posed when applied to nonlinear dynamical systems. A hallmark of nonlinear dynamics is state-dependence: system states are related to previous states governing transition from one state to another. EDM operates in this space, the multidimensional state-space of system dynamics rather than on one-dimensional observational time series. EDM does not presume relationships among states, for example, a functional dependence, but projects future states from localised, neighboring states. EDM is thus a state-space, nearest-neighbors paradigm where system dynamics are inferred from states derived from observational time series. This provides a model-free representation of the system naturally encompassing nonlinear dynamics. A cornerstone of EDM is recognition that time series observed from a dynamical system can be transformed into higher-dimensional state-spaces by time-delay embedding with Takens's theorem. The state-space models are evaluated based on in-sample fidelity to observations, conventionally with Pearson correlation between predictions and observations. == Methods == Primary EDM algorithms include Simplex projection, Sequential locally weighted global linear maps (S-Map) projection, Multivariate embedding in Simplex or S-Map, Convergent cross mapping (CCM), and Multiview Embeding, described below. Nearest neighbors are found according to: NN ( y , X , k ) = ‖ X N i E − y ‖ ≤ ‖ X N j E − y ‖ if 1 ≤ i ≤ j ≤ k {\displaystyle {\text{NN}}(y,X,k)=\|X_{N_{i}}^{E}-y\|\leq \|X_{N_{j}}^{E}-y\|{\text{ if }}1\leq i\leq j\leq k} === Simplex === Simplex projection is a nearest neighbor projection. It locates the k {\displaystyle k} nearest neighbors to the location in the state-space from which a prediction is desired. To minimize the number of free parameters k {\displaystyle k} is typically set to E + 1 {\displaystyle E+1} defining an E + 1 {\displaystyle E+1} dimensional simplex in the state-space. The prediction is computed as the average of the weighted phase-space simplex projected T p {\displaystyle Tp} points ahead. Each neighbor is weighted proportional to their distance to the projection origin vector in the state-space. Find k {\displaystyle k} nearest neighbor: N k ← NN ( y , X , k ) {\displaystyle N_{k}\gets {\text{NN}}(y,X,k)} Define the distance scale: d ← ‖ X N 1 E − y ‖ {\displaystyle d\gets \|X_{N_{1}}^{E}-y\|} Compute weights: For{ i = 1 , … , k {\displaystyle i=1,\dots ,k} } : w i ← exp ⁡ ( − ‖ X N i E − y ‖ / d ) {\displaystyle w_{i}\gets \exp(-\|X_{N_{i}}^{E}-y\|/d)} Average of state-space simplex: y ^ ← ∑ i = 1 k ( w i X N i + T p ) / ∑ i = 1 k w i {\displaystyle {\hat {y}}\gets \sum _{i=1}^{k}\left(w_{i}X_{N_{i}+T_{p}}\right)/\sum _{i=1}^{k}w_{i}} === S-Map === S-Map extends the state-space prediction in Simplex from an average of the E + 1 {\displaystyle E+1} nearest neighbors to a linear regression fit to all neighbors, but localised with an exponential decay kernel. The exponential localisation function is F ( θ ) = exp ( − θ d / D ) {\displaystyle F(\theta )={\text{exp}}(-\theta d/D)} , where d {\displaystyle d} is the neighbor distance and D {\displaystyle D} the mean distance. In this way, depending on the value of θ {\displaystyle \theta } , neighbors close to the prediction origin point have a higher weight than those further from it, such that a local linear approximation to the nonlinear system is reasonable. This localisation ability allows one to identify an optimal local scale, in-effect quantifying the degree of state dependence, and hence nonlinearity of the system. Another feature of S-Map is that for a properly fit model, the regression coefficients between variables have been shown to approximate the gradient (directional derivative) of variables along the manifold. These Jacobians represent the time-varying interaction strengths between system variables. Find k {\displaystyle k} nearest neighbor: N ← NN ( y , X , k ) {\displaystyle N\gets {\text{NN}}(y,X,k)} Sum of distances: D ← 1 k ∑ i = 1 k ‖ X N i E − y ‖ {\displaystyle D\gets {\frac {1}{k}}\sum _{i=1}^{k}\|X_{N_{i}}^{E}-y\|} Compute weights: For{ i = 1 , … , k {\displaystyle i=1,\dots ,k} } : w i ← exp ⁡ ( − θ ‖ X N i E − y ‖ / D ) {\displaystyle w_{i}\gets \exp(-\theta \|X_{N_{i}}^{E}-y\|/D)} Reweighting matrix: W ← diag ( w i ) {\displaystyle W\gets {\text{diag}}(w_{i})} Design matrix: A ← [ 1 X N 1 X N 1 − 1 … X N 1 − E + 1 1 X N 2 X N 2 − 1 … X N 2 − E + 1 ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ 1 X N k X N k − 1 … X N k − E + 1 ] {\displaystyle A\gets {\begin{bmatrix}1&X_{N_{1}}&X_{N_{1}-1}&\dots &X_{N_{1}-E+1}\\1&X_{N_{2}}&X_{N_{2}-1}&\dots &X_{N_{2}-E+1}\\\vdots &\vdots &\vdots &\ddots &\vdots \\1&X_{N_{k}}&X_{N_{k}-1}&\dots &X_{N_{k}-E+1}\end{bmatrix}}} Weighted design matrix: A ← W A {\displaystyle A\gets WA} Response vector at T p {\displaystyle Tp} : b ← [ X N 1 + T p X N 2 + T p ⋮ X N k + T p ] {\displaystyle b\gets {\begin{bmatrix}X_{N_{1}+T_{p}}\\X_{N_{2}+T_{p}}\\\vdots \\X_{N_{k}+T_{p}}\end{bmatrix}}} Weighted response vector: b ← W b {\displaystyle b\gets Wb} Least squares solution (SVD): c ^ ← argmin c ‖ A c − b ‖ 2 2 {\displaystyle {\hat {c}}\gets {\text{argmin}}_{c}\|Ac-b\|_{2}^{2}} Local linear model c ^ {\displaystyle {\hat {c}}} is prediction: y ^ ← c ^ 0 + ∑ i = 1 E c ^ i y i {\displaystyle {\hat {y}}\gets {\hat {c}}_{0}+\sum _{i=1}^{E}{\hat {c}}_{i}y_{i}} === Multivariate Embedding === Multivariate Embedding recognizes that time-delay embeddings are not the only valid state-space construction. In Simplex and S-Map one can generate a state-space from observational vectors, or time-delay embeddings of a single observational time series, or both. === Convergent Cross Mapping === Convergent cross mapping (CCM) leverages a corollary to the Generalized Takens Theorem that it should be possible to cross predict or cross map between variables observed from the same system. Suppose that in some dynamical system involving variables X {\displaystyle X} and Y {\displaystyle Y} , X {\displaystyle X} causes Y {\displaystyle Y} . Since X {\displaystyle X} and Y {\displaystyle Y} belong to the same dynamical system, their reconstructions (via embeddings) M x {\displaystyle M_{x}} , and M y {\displaystyle M_{y}} , also map to the same system. The causal variable X {\displaystyle X} leaves a signature on the affected variable Y {\displaystyle Y} , and consequently, the reconstructed states based on Y {\displaystyle Y} can be used to cross predict values of X {\displaystyle X} . CCM leverages this property to infer causality by predicting X {\displaystyle X} using the M y {\displaystyle M_{y}} library of points (or vice versa for the other direction of causality), while assessing improvements in cross map predictability as larger and larger random samplings of M y {\displaystyle M_{y}} are used. If the prediction skill of X {\displaystyle X} increases and saturates as the entire M y {\displaystyle M_{y}} is used, this provides evidence that X {\displaystyle X} is casually influencing Y {\displaystyle Y} . === Multiview Embedding === Multiview Embedding is a Dimensionality reduction technique where a large number of state-space time series vectors are combitorially assessed towards maximal model predictability. == Extensions == Extensions to EDM techniques include: Generalized Theorems for Nonlinear State Space Reconstruction Extended Convergent Cross Mapping Dynamic stability S-Map regularization Visual analytics with EDM Convergent Cross Sorting Expert system with EDM hybrid Sliding windows based on the extended convergent cross-mapping Empirical Mode Modeling Accounting for missing data and variable step sizes Accounting for observation noise Hierarchical Bayesian EDM via Gaussian processes Intelligent and Adaptive Control Optimal control via Empirical dynamic programming Multiview distance regularised S-map
Read more →
Manual override

A manual override (MO) or manual analog override (MAO) is a mechanism where control is taken from an automated system and given to the user. For example, a manual override in photography refers to the ability for the human photographer to turn off the automatic aperture sizing, automatic focusing, or any other automated system on the camera. Some manual overrides can be used to veto an automated system's judgment when the system is in error. An example of this is a printer's ink level detection: in one case, a researcher found that when he overrode the system, up to 38% more pages could be printed at good quality by the printer than the automated system would have allowed. Automated systems are becoming increasingly common and integrated into everyday objects such as automobiles and domestic appliances. This development of ubiquitous computing raises general issues of policy and law about the need for manual overrides for matters of great importance such as life-threatening situations and major economic decisions. The loyalty of such autonomous devices then becomes an issue. If they follow rules installed by the manufacturer or required by law and refuse to cede control in some situations then the owners of the devices may feel disempowered, alienated and lacking true ownership. == Major incidents == China Airlines Flight 140 crashed, causing many deaths, due to a misunderstanding about the manual overrides for the autopilot. The Take-Off/Go Around system had been activated to abort a landing. It was programmed to ignore manual controls in this situation but the human pilots tried to continue the landing. The conflicting control signals from the pilots and autopilot then resulted in the aircraft stalling and crashing. The autopilot for this aircraft type was then reprogrammed so that it would never ignore a manual override.
Read more →
Computational intelligence

In computer science, computational intelligence (CI) refers to concepts, paradigms, algorithms and implementations of systems that are designed to show "intelligent" behavior in complex and changing environments. These systems are aimed at mastering complex tasks in a wide variety of technical or commercial areas and offer solutions that recognize and interpret patterns, control processes, support decision-making or autonomously manoeuvre vehicles or robots in unknown environments, among other things. These concepts and paradigms are characterized by the ability to learn or adapt to new situations, to generalize, to abstract, to discover and associate. Nature-analog or nature-inspired methods play a key role in this. CI approaches primarily address those complex real-world problems for which traditional or mathematical modeling is not appropriate for various reasons: the processes cannot be described exactly with complete knowledge, the processes are too complex for mathematical reasoning, they contain some uncertainties during the process, such as unforeseen changes in the environment or in the process itself, or the processes are simply stochastic in nature. Thus, CI techniques are properly aimed at processes that are ill-defined, complex, nonlinear, time-varying and/or stochastic. A recent definition of the IEEE Computational Intelligence Societey describes CI as the theory, design, application and development of biologically and linguistically motivated computational paradigms. Traditionally the three main pillars of CI have been Neural Networks, Fuzzy Systems and Evolutionary Computation. ... CI is an evolving field and at present in addition to the three main constituents, it encompasses computing paradigms like ambient intelligence, artificial life, cultural learning, artificial endocrine networks, social reasoning, and artificial hormone networks. ... Over the last few years there has been an explosion of research on Deep Learning, in particular deep convolutional neural networks. Nowadays, deep learning has become the core method for artificial intelligence. In fact, some of the most successful AI systems are based on CI. However, as CI is an emerging and developing field there is no final definition of CI, especially in terms of the list of concepts and paradigms that belong to it. The general requirements for the development of an “intelligent system” are ultimately always the same, namely the simulation of intelligent thinking and action in a specific area of application. To do this, the knowledge about this area must be represented in a model so that it can be processed. The quality of the resulting system depends largely on how well the model was chosen in the development process. Sometimes data-driven methods are suitable for finding a good model and sometimes logic-based knowledge representations deliver better results. Hybrid models are usually used in real applications. According to actual textbooks, the following methods and paradigms, which largely complement each other, can be regarded as parts of CI: Fuzzy systems Neural networks and, in particular, convolutional neural networks Evolutionary computation and, in particular, multi-objective evolutionary optimization Swarm intelligence Bayesian networks Artificial immune systems Learning theory Probabilistic methods == Relationship between hard and soft computing and artificial and computational intelligence == Artificial intelligence (AI) is used in the media, but also by some of the scientists involved, as a kind of umbrella term for the various techniques associated with it or with CI. Craenen and Eiben state that attempts to define or at least describe CI can usually be assigned to one or more of the following groups: "Relative definition” comparing CI to AI Conceptual treatment of key notions and their roles in CI Listing of the (established) areas that belong to it The relationship between CI and AI has been a frequently discussed topic during the development of CI. While the above list implies that they are synonyms, the vast majority of AI/CI researchers working on the subject consider them to be distinct fields, where either CI is an alternative to AI AI includes CI CI includes AI The view of the first of the above three points goes back to Zadeh, the founder of the fuzzy set theory, who differentiated machine intelligence into hard and soft computing techniques, which are used in artificial intelligence on the one hand and computational intelligence on the other. In hard computing (HC) and traditional AI (e.g. expert systems), inaccuracy and uncertainty are undesirable characteristics of a system, while soft computing (SC) and thus CI focus on dealing with these characteristics. The adjacent figure illustrates this view and lists the most important CI techniques. Another frequently mentioned distinguishing feature is the representation of information in symbolic form in AI and in sub-symbolic form in CI techniques. Hard computing is a conventional computing method based on the principles of certainty and accuracy and it is deterministic. It requires a precisely stated analytical model of the task to be processed and a prewritten program, i.e. a fixed set of instructions. The models used are based on Boolean logic (also called crisp logic), where e.g. an element can be either a member of a set or not and there is nothing in between. When applied to real-world tasks, systems based on HC result in specific control actions defined by a mathematical model or algorithm. If an unforeseen situation occurs that is not included in the model or algorithm used, the action will most likely fail. Soft computing, on the other hand, is based on the fact that the human mind is capable of storing information and processing it in a goal-oriented way, even if it is imprecise and lacks certainty. SC is based on the model of the human brain with probabilistic thinking, fuzzy logic and multi-valued logic. Soft computing can process a wealth of data and perform a large number of computations, which may not be exact, in parallel. For hard problems for which no satisfying exact solutions based on HC are available, SC methods can be applied successfully. SC methods are usually stochastic in nature i.e., they are a randomly defined processes that can be analyzed statistically but not with precision. Up to now, the results of some CI methods, such as deep learning, cannot be verified and it is also not clear what they are based on. This problem represents an important scientific issue for the future. AI and CI are catchy terms, but they are also so similar that they can be confused. The meaning of both terms has developed and changed over a long period of time, with AI being used first. Bezdek describes this impressively and concludes that such buzzwords are frequently used and hyped by the scientific community, science management and (science) journalism. Not least because AI and biological intelligence are emotionally charged terms and it is still difficult to find a generally accepted definition for the basic term intelligence. == History == In 1950, Alan Turing, one of the founding fathers of computer science, developed a test for computer intelligence known as the Turing test. In this test, a person can ask questions via a keyboard and a monitor without knowing whether his counterpart is a human or a computer. A computer is considered intelligent if the interrogator cannot distinguish the computer from a human. This illustrates the discussion about intelligent computers at the beginning of the computer age. The term Computational Intelligence was first used as the title of the journal of the same name in 1985 and later by the IEEE Neural Networks Council (NNC), which was founded 1989 by a group of researchers interested in the development of biological and artificial neural networks. On November 21, 2001, the NNC became the IEEE Neural Networks Society, to become the IEEE Computational Intelligence Society two years later by including new areas of interest such as fuzzy systems and evolutionary computation. The NNC helped organize the first IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence in Orlando, Florida in 1994. On this conference the first clear definition of Computational Intelligence was introduced by Bezdek: A system is computationally intelligent when it: deals with only numerical (low-level) data, has pattern-recognition components, does not use knowledge in the AI sense; and additionally when it (begins to) exhibit (1) computational adaptivity; (2) computational fault tolerance; (3) speed approaching human-like turnaround and (4) error rates that approximate human performance. Today, with machine learning and deep learning in particular utilizing a breadth of supervised, unsupervised, and reinforcement learning approaches, the CI landscape has been greatly enhanced, with novell intelligent approaches. == The main algorithmic approaches of CI and their applicati
Read more →
Croissant (metadata format)

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

Operation Serenata de Amor is an artificial intelligence project designed to analyze public spending in Brazil. The project has been funded by a recurrent financing campaign since September 7, 2016, and came in the wake of major scandals of misappropriation of public funds in Brazil, such as the Mensalão scandal and what was revealed in the Operation Car Wash investigations. The analysis began with data from the National Congress then expanded to other types of budget and instances of government, such as the Federal Senate. The project is built through collaboration on GitHub and using a public group with more than 600 participants on Telegram. The name "Serenata de Amor," which means "serenade of love," was taken from a popular cashew cream bonbon produced by Chocolates Garoto in Brazil. == Modules == Throughout development of the project, new modules have been newly introduced in addition to the main repository: The main repository, serenata-de-amor, serves as the starting point for investigative work. Rosie is the robot programmed to identify public funds expenses with discrepancies, starting with CEAP (Quota for Exercise of Parliamentary Activity); it analyzes each of the reimbursements requested by the deputies and senators, indicating the reasons that lead it to believe they are suspicious. From Rosie was born whistleblower, which tweets under the name of @RosieDaSerenata, distributing the results found on social media. Jarbas (Github repository) is a data visualization tool which shows a complete list of reimbursements made available by the Chamber of Deputies and mined by Rosie. Toolbox is a Python installable package that supports the development of Serenata de Amor and Rosie. == History == Operation Serenata de Amor is an Artificial intelligence project for analysis of public expenditures. It was conceived in March 2016 by data scientist Irio Musskopf, sociologist Eduardo Cuducos and entrepreneur Felipe Cabral. The project was financed collectively in the Catarse platform, where it reached 131% of the collection goal paying 3 months of project development. Ana Schwendler, also a data scientist, Pedro Vilanova "Tonny", data journalist, Bruno Pazzim, software engineer, Filipe Linhares, a frontend engineer, Leandro Devegili, an entrepreneur and André Pinho took the first steps towards constructing the platform, such as collecting and structuring the first datasets. Jessica Temporal, data scientist and Yasodara Córdova "Yaso", researcher, Tatiana Balachova "Russa", UX designer, joined the project after the financing took place. The members created a recurring financing campaign, expanding the analysis of public spending to the Federal Senate. Donors make monthly payments ranging from 5 BRL to 200 BRL to maintain group activities. The monthly amount collected is around 10,000 BRL. == Results == In January 2017, concluding the period financed by the initial campaign, the group carried out an investigation into the suspicious activities found by the data analysis system. 629 complaints were made to the Ombudsman's Office of the Chamber of Deputies, questioning expenses of 216 federal deputies. In addition, the Facebook project page has more than 25,000 followers, and users frequently cite the operation as a benchmark in transparency in the Brazilian government. One of the examples of results obtained by the operation is the case of the Deputy who had to return about 700 BRL to the House after his expenses were analyzed by the platform. The platform was able to analyze more than 3 million notes, raising about 8,000 suspected cases in public spending. The community that supports the work of the team benefits from open source repositories, with licenses open for the collaboration. So much so that the two main data scientists of the project presented it at the CivicTechFest in Taipei, obtaining several mentions even in the international press. The technical leader presented the project in Poland during DevConf2017 in Kraków. It was also presented in the Google News Lab in 2017. It was presented by Yaso, when she was the Director of the initiative, at the MIT Media Lab/Berkman Klein Center Initiative for Artificial Intelligence ethics, and at the Artificial Intelligence and Inclusion Symposium, an initiative of the Global Network of Internet & Society Centers (NoC). It was also presented both by Irio and Yaso at the Digital Harvard Kennedy School, over a lunch seminar, where the transparency of the platform and the main solutions found were discussed, so that the code and data are always available to verify its suitability. This infographic provides information about the first results of Operation Serenata de Amor, a project that analyzes open data on public spending to find discrepancies. The project was presented by Yaso to the House Audit and Control Committee of the Chamber of Deputies in August 2017, and raised the interest of House officials who work with open data. The operation has been a source of inspiration for other civic projects that aim to work with similar goals, demonstrating the broader impact of artificial intelligence also in industry in Brazil. Participation of several team members in events throughout Brazil and abroad can be found on the Internet, such as presentation at OpenDataDay, held at Calango Hackerspace in the Federal District, Campus Party Bahia, Campus Party Brasilia, Friends of Tomorrow, XIII National Meeting of Internal Control, in the event USP Talks Hackfest against corruption in João Pessoa, the latter being also highlighted in the National Press.
Read more →
Automated Mathematician

The Automated Mathematician (AM) is one of the earliest successful discovery systems. It was created by Douglas Lenat in Lisp, and in 1977 led to Lenat being awarded the IJCAI Computers and Thought Award. AM worked by generating and modifying short Lisp programs which were then interpreted as defining various mathematical concepts; for example, a program that tested equality between the length of two lists was considered to represent the concept of numerical equality, while a program that produced a list whose length was the product of the lengths of two other lists was interpreted as representing the concept of multiplication. The system had elaborate heuristics for choosing which programs to extend and modify, based on the experiences of working mathematicians in solving mathematical problems. == Controversy == Lenat claimed that the system was composed of hundreds of data structures called "concepts", together with hundreds of "heuristic rules" and a simple flow of control: "AM repeatedly selects the top task from the agenda and tries to carry it out. This is the whole control structure!" Yet the heuristic rules were not always represented as separate data structures; some had to be intertwined with the control flow logic. Some rules had preconditions that depended on the history, or otherwise could not be represented in the framework of the explicit rules. What's more, the published versions of the rules often involve vague terms that are not defined further, such as "If two expressions are structurally similar, ..." (Rule 218) or "... replace the value obtained by some other (very similar) value..." (Rule 129). Another source of information is the user, via Rule 2: "If the user has recently referred to X, then boost the priority of any tasks involving X." Thus, it appears quite possible that much of the real discovery work is buried in unexplained procedures. Lenat claimed that the system had rediscovered both Goldbach's conjecture and the fundamental theorem of arithmetic. Later critics accused Lenat of over-interpreting the output of AM. In his paper Why AM and Eurisko appear to work, Lenat conceded that any system that generated enough short Lisp programs would generate ones that could be interpreted by an external observer as representing equally sophisticated mathematical concepts. However, he argued that this property was in itself interesting—and that a promising direction for further research would be to look for other languages in which short random strings were likely to be useful. == Successor == This intuition was the basis of AM's successor Eurisko, which attempted to generalize the search for mathematical concepts to the search for useful heuristics.
Read more →
Inception score

The Inception Score (IS) is an algorithm used to assess the quality of images created by a generative image model such as a generative adversarial network (GAN). The score is calculated based on the output of a separate, pretrained Inception v3 image classification model applied to a sample of (typically around 30,000) images generated by the generative model. The Inception Score is maximized when the following conditions are true: The entropy of the distribution of labels predicted by the Inceptionv3 model for the generated images is minimized. In other words, the classification model confidently predicts a single label for each image. Intuitively, this corresponds to the desideratum of generated images being "sharp" or "distinct". The predictions of the classification model are evenly distributed across all possible labels. This corresponds to the desideratum that the output of the generative model is "diverse". It has been somewhat superseded by the related Fréchet inception distance. While the Inception Score only evaluates the distribution of generated images, the FID compares the distribution of generated images with the distribution of a set of real images ("ground truth"). == Definition == Let there be two spaces, the space of images Ω X {\displaystyle \Omega _{X}} and the space of labels Ω Y {\displaystyle \Omega _{Y}} . The space of labels is finite. Let p g e n {\displaystyle p_{gen}} be a probability distribution over Ω X {\displaystyle \Omega _{X}} that we wish to judge. Let a discriminator be a function of type p d i s : Ω X → M ( Ω Y ) {\displaystyle p_{dis}:\Omega _{X}\to M(\Omega _{Y})} where M ( Ω Y ) {\displaystyle M(\Omega _{Y})} is the set of all probability distributions on Ω Y {\displaystyle \Omega _{Y}} . For any image x {\displaystyle x} , and any label y {\displaystyle y} , let p d i s ( y | x ) {\displaystyle p_{dis}(y|x)} be the probability that image x {\displaystyle x} has label y {\displaystyle y} , according to the discriminator. It is usually implemented as an Inception-v3 network trained on ImageNet. The Inception Score of p g e n {\displaystyle p_{gen}} relative to p d i s {\displaystyle p_{dis}} is I S ( p g e n , p d i s ) := exp ⁡ ( E x ∼ p g e n [ D K L ( p d i s ( ⋅ | x ) ‖ ∫ p d i s ( ⋅ | x ) p g e n ( x ) d x ) ] ) {\displaystyle IS(p_{gen},p_{dis}):=\exp \left(\mathbb {E} _{x\sim p_{gen}}\left[D_{KL}\left(p_{dis}(\cdot |x)\|\int p_{dis}(\cdot |x)p_{gen}(x)dx\right)\right]\right)} Equivalent rewrites include ln ⁡ I S ( p g e n , p d i s ) := E x ∼ p g e n [ D K L ( p d i s ( ⋅ | x ) ‖ E x ∼ p g e n [ p d i s ( ⋅ | x ) ] ) ] {\displaystyle \ln IS(p_{gen},p_{dis}):=\mathbb {E} _{x\sim p_{gen}}\left[D_{KL}\left(p_{dis}(\cdot |x)\|\mathbb {E} _{x\sim p_{gen}}[p_{dis}(\cdot |x)]\right)\right]} ln ⁡ I S ( p g e n , p d i s ) := H [ E x ∼ p g e n [ p d i s ( ⋅ | x ) ] ] − E x ∼ p g e n [ H [ p d i s ( ⋅ | x ) ] ] {\displaystyle \ln IS(p_{gen},p_{dis}):=H[\mathbb {E} _{x\sim p_{gen}}[p_{dis}(\cdot |x)]]-\mathbb {E} _{x\sim p_{gen}}[H[p_{dis}(\cdot |x)]]} ln ⁡ I S {\displaystyle \ln IS} is nonnegative by Jensen's inequality. Pseudocode:INPUT discriminator p d i s {\displaystyle p_{dis}} . INPUT generator g {\displaystyle g} . Sample images x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} from generator. Compute p d i s ( ⋅ | x i ) {\displaystyle p_{dis}(\cdot |x_{i})} , the probability distribution over labels conditional on image x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} . Sum up the results to obtain p ^ {\displaystyle {\hat {p}}} , an empirical estimate of ∫ p d i s ( ⋅ | x ) p g e n ( x ) d x {\displaystyle \int p_{dis}(\cdot |x)p_{gen}(x)dx} . Sample more images x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} from generator, and for each, compute D K L ( p d i s ( ⋅ | x i ) ‖ p ^ ) {\displaystyle D_{KL}\left(p_{dis}(\cdot |x_{i})\|{\hat {p}}\right)} . Average the results, and take its exponential. RETURN the result. === Interpretation === A higher inception score is interpreted as "better", as it means that p g e n {\displaystyle p_{gen}} is a "sharp and distinct" collection of pictures. ln ⁡ I S ( p g e n , p d i s ) ∈ [ 0 , ln ⁡ N ] {\displaystyle \ln IS(p_{gen},p_{dis})\in [0,\ln N]} , where N {\displaystyle N} is the total number of possible labels. ln ⁡ I S ( p g e n , p d i s ) = 0 {\displaystyle \ln IS(p_{gen},p_{dis})=0} iff for almost all x ∼ p g e n {\displaystyle x\sim p_{gen}} p d i s ( ⋅ | x ) = ∫ p d i s ( ⋅ | x ) p g e n ( x ) d x {\displaystyle p_{dis}(\cdot |x)=\int p_{dis}(\cdot |x)p_{gen}(x)dx} That means p g e n {\displaystyle p_{gen}} is completely "indistinct". That is, for any image x {\displaystyle x} sampled from p g e n {\displaystyle p_{gen}} , discriminator returns exactly the same label predictions p d i s ( ⋅ | x ) {\displaystyle p_{dis}(\cdot |x)} . The highest inception score N {\displaystyle N} is achieved if and only if the two conditions are both true: For almost all x ∼ p g e n {\displaystyle x\sim p_{gen}} , the distribution p d i s ( y | x ) {\displaystyle p_{dis}(y|x)} is concentrated on one label. That is, H y [ p d i s ( y | x ) ] = 0 {\displaystyle H_{y}[p_{dis}(y|x)]=0} . That is, every image sampled from p g e n {\displaystyle p_{gen}} is exactly classified by the discriminator. For every label y {\displaystyle y} , the proportion of generated images labelled as y {\displaystyle y} is exactly E x ∼ p g e n [ p d i s ( y | x ) ] = 1 N {\displaystyle \mathbb {E} _{x\sim p_{gen}}[p_{dis}(y|x)]={\frac {1}{N}}} . That is, the generated images are equally distributed over all labels.
Read more →
Highway network

In machine learning, the Highway Network was the first working very deep feedforward neural network with hundreds of layers, much deeper than previous neural networks. It uses skip connections modulated by learned gating mechanisms to regulate information flow, inspired by long short-term memory (LSTM) recurrent neural networks. The advantage of the Highway Network over other deep learning architectures is its ability to overcome or partially prevent the vanishing gradient problem, thus improving its optimization. Gating mechanisms are used to facilitate information flow across the many layers ("information highways"). Highway Networks have found use in text sequence labeling and speech recognition tasks. In 2014, the state of the art was training deep neural networks with 20 to 30 layers. Stacking too many layers led to a steep reduction in training accuracy, known as the "degradation" problem. In 2015, two techniques were developed to train such networks: the Highway Network (published in May), and the residual neural network, or ResNet (December). ResNet behaves like an open-gated Highway Net. == Model == The model has two gates in addition to the H ( W H , x ) {\displaystyle H(W_{H},x)} gate: the transform gate T ( W T , x ) {\displaystyle T(W_{T},x)} and the carry gate C ( W C , x ) {\displaystyle C(W_{C},x)} . The latter two gates are non-linear transfer functions (specifically sigmoid by convention). The function H {\displaystyle H} can be any desired transfer function. The carry gate is defined as: C ( W C , x ) = 1 − T ( W T , x ) {\displaystyle C(W_{C},x)=1-T(W_{T},x)} while the transform gate is just a gate with a sigmoid transfer function. == Structure == The structure of a hidden layer in the Highway Network follows the equation: y = H ( x , W H ) ⋅ T ( x , W T ) + x ⋅ C ( x , W C ) = H ( x , W H ) ⋅ T ( x , W T ) + x ⋅ ( 1 − T ( x , W T ) ) {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}y=H(x,W_{H})\cdot T(x,W_{T})+x\cdot C(x,W_{C})\\=H(x,W_{H})\cdot T(x,W_{T})+x\cdot (1-T(x,W_{T}))\end{aligned}}} == Related work == Sepp Hochreiter analyzed the vanishing gradient problem in 1991 and attributed to it the reason why deep learning did not work well. To overcome this problem, Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) recurrent neural networks have residual connections with a weight of 1.0 in every LSTM cell (called the constant error carrousel) to compute y t + 1 = F ( x t ) + x t {\textstyle y_{t+1}=F(x_{t})+x_{t}} . During backpropagation through time, this becomes the residual formula y = F ( x ) + x {\textstyle y=F(x)+x} for feedforward neural networks. This enables training very deep recurrent neural networks with a very long time span t. A later LSTM version published in 2000 modulates the identity LSTM connections by so-called "forget gates" such that their weights are not fixed to 1.0 but can be learned. In experiments, the forget gates were initialized with positive bias weights, thus being opened, addressing the vanishing gradient problem. As long as the forget gates of the 2000 LSTM are open, it behaves like the 1997 LSTM. The Highway Network of May 2015 applies these principles to feedforward neural networks. It was reported to be "the first very deep feedforward network with hundreds of layers". It is like a 2000 LSTM with forget gates unfolded in time, while the later Residual Nets have no equivalent of forget gates and are like the unfolded original 1997 LSTM. If the skip connections in Highway Networks are "without gates," or if their gates are kept open (activation 1.0), they become Residual Networks. The residual connection is a special case of the "short-cut connection" or "skip connection" by Rosenblatt (1961) and Lang & Witbrock (1988) which has the form x ↦ F ( x ) + A x {\displaystyle x\mapsto F(x)+Ax} . Here the randomly initialized weight matrix A does not have to be the identity mapping. Every residual connection is a skip connection, but almost all skip connections are not residual connections. The original Highway Network paper not only introduced the basic principle for very deep feedforward networks, but also included experimental results with 20, 50, and 100 layers networks, and mentioned ongoing experiments with up to 900 layers. Networks with 50 or 100 layers had lower training error than their plain network counterparts, but no lower training error than their 20 layers counterpart (on the MNIST dataset, Figure 1 in ). No improvement on test accuracy was reported with networks deeper than 19 layers (on the CIFAR-10 dataset; Table 1 in ). The ResNet paper, however, provided strong experimental evidence of the benefits of going deeper than 20 layers. It argued that the identity mapping without modulation is crucial and mentioned that modulation in the skip connection can still lead to vanishing signals in forward and backward propagation (Section 3 in ). This is also why the forget gates of the 2000 LSTM were initially opened through positive bias weights: as long as the gates are open, it behaves like the 1997 LSTM. Similarly, a Highway Net whose gates are opened through strongly positive bias weights behaves like a ResNet. The skip connections used in modern neural networks (e.g., Transformers) are dominantly identity mappings.
Read more →
CrewAI

CrewAI is an open-source software framework and platform for building AI agents and multi-agent systems. Written primarily in Python, it is used to define artificial-intelligence agents, assign tasks to them, and coordinate their work through agent teams and workflows. The framework is associated with CrewAI Inc., a startup developing enterprise tools for automating business workflows with large language model-based agents. == History == CrewAI was first released on the Python Package Index in December 2023. The project was created by João Moura and later developed by CrewAI Inc. and open-source contributors. In October 2024, TechCrunch reported that CrewAI had raised $18 million across seed and Series A funding rounds from investors including Boldstart Ventures, Craft Ventures, Earl Grey Capital, and Insight Partners. The report also stated that Andrew Ng and HubSpot co-founder Dharmesh Shah had invested in the company. SiliconANGLE described the company as the developer of an open-source framework for building artificial-intelligence agents and reported that the funding consisted of a seed round led by Boldstart Ventures and a Series A led by Insight Partners. By late 2024, CrewAI had introduced commercial enterprise products built on top of its open-source components. TechCrunch reported that the company's enterprise offering added access controls, analytics, support, and templates for workflow automation. == Features == CrewAI is designed around groups of agents, sometimes called "crews", that can be assigned roles, goals, and tasks. The framework supports agent collaboration, task delegation, tool use, memory, and knowledge sources for retrieval-augmented generation workflows. The project describes two main building blocks: "Crews", which are used for autonomous agent collaboration, and "Flows", which are used for more controlled event-driven workflows. The framework is independent of LangChain and is released under the MIT License. It can be installed as a Python package and is commonly used with external large language model APIs or local models, depending on the developer's configuration. == Business model == CrewAI combines an open-source framework with commercial enterprise products. Its enterprise products are intended for organizations that need to build, monitor, and manage agent-based automations with additional security, observability, and administrative controls.
Read more →
Transparency in the software supply chain

Transparency in the software supply chain is a condition in which participants involved in the development, procurement, operation, auditing, or regulation of software can determine which components, dependencies, build stages, identifiers, and relationships within the supply chain make up the delivered product. The disclosure of information about software components, their interrelationships, origins, and development methods—for the purposes of risk management, vulnerability detection, and compliance—takes place throughout the software lifecycle. Transparency is one of the key security attributes of the software supply chain, as a deeper understanding of the chain enables participants to identify vulnerabilities and mitigate threats. Problems in the software supply chain can cause billions in losses and create operational challenges for government and commercial entities, as demonstrated by incidents involving SolarWinds, Bybit, 3CX, Jaguar Land Rover, GitHub, and NotPetya. Modern software is often assembled from third-party libraries and open-source components. According to research by the Linux Foundation and Synopsys, 96% of the commercial codebases analyzed contained open-source software, and 70–90% of a typical codebase may consist of open-source components. Without transparency, any software component can become a threat. As a result, companies may spend billions of dollars building robust external defenses, but this will not protect against vulnerabilities in legitimate software inside the perimeter. At the same time, supply chain attacks also erode trust between customers and their IT providers, as malicious code is often embedded in official updates with certificates and digital signatures. One of the primary ways to ensure transparency is through a software bill of materials, which documents the components used to create the software and the relationships within the supply chain. == Concept == The software supply chain is the collection of systems, devices, people, artifacts, and processes involved in the creation of the final software product. Attacks on the software supply chain differ from conventional attacks in that they follow a four-stage pattern: compromise, modification, distribution, and subsequent exploitation of the compromised or modified component. A defining feature of a supply chain attack is the introduction or manipulation of a change at an upstream stage, which is subsequently exploited at a downstream stage. Transparency refers to the availability of knowledge about the chain, while validity concerns the integrity of operations and artifacts and the authentication of participants, and separation involves reducing unnecessary trust relationships and the radius of impact through compartmentalization. In this framework, transparency primarily helps during the pre-compromise and detection phases, as a clearer understanding of participants, operations, and artifacts makes it easier to identify weak links before attackers exploit them. Current major attack vectors include dependencies and containers, build infrastructure, and human participants, such as maintainers or developers. == History == Software supply-chain transparency developed from earlier efforts to document software components, long before the term came into widespread use in the cybersecurity field. Early component-documentation formats included SPDX, first published in 2011, and CycloneDX, first published in 2017. Initially, these formats were created to support license compliance, package identification, and tool compatibility. Their development helped shape a broader concept of software supply chain transparency, encompassing component documentation, disclosure practices, risk management, security analysis, and regulatory compliance. In 2018, the U.S. National Telecommunications and Information Administration launched a multistakeholder process on promoting software component transparency. This process helped move work on SBOMs from a specialized technical practice into the realm of policy and procurement to identify components used in software products. The 2020 compromise of the SolarWinds Orion platform made software supply chain security a central issue in government cybersecurity policy. An analysis of the “Sunburst” campaign prepared by the Atlantic Council noted that the vulnerability of the software supply chain had become a realized risk for national-security agencies. In May 2021, U.S. President Joe Biden issued Executive Order 14028, which directed federal agencies to improve cybersecurity and increase transparency in the software supply chain, including requirements related to SBOMs. Reuters reported that the executive order required software developers selling their products to the federal government to provide greater visibility into their software and make security data available. In July 2021, the NTIA published the document “The Minimum Elements for a Software Bill of Materials (SBOM)”, defining the basic data fields and practices for creating SBOMs. Between 2021 and 2025, the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency updated its guidance on “Framing Software Component Transparency”, expanding the set of SBOM attributes, metadata requirements, and operational recommendations for the creation, exchange, and use of SBOMs. Major incidents that occurred following the SolarWinds attack have underscored the importance of transparency in vulnerability management and supply chain security. The Log4Shell vulnerability in the Log4j library, disclosed in December 2021, demonstrated how difficult it can be for organizations to identify a vulnerable component deeply embedded within applications and services. In 2024, an attempt to plant a backdoor in XZ Utils showed how attackers could exploit trust in open-source maintenance processes to introduce malicious code into widely used infrastructure software. By the mid-2020s, software supply chain transparency had become part of international cybersecurity coordination and regulation. On September 3, 2025, Japan's Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry and the National Cybersecurity Office, in collaboration with cybersecurity agencies from 15 countries, released the document “A Shared Vision of Software Bill of Materials (SBOM) for Cybersecurity.” In the European Union, the Cyber Resilience Act required manufacturers of products with digital elements to create, maintain, and retain SBOMs as part of the technical documentation for software placed on the EU market. == Transparency mechanisms == The primary mechanism for ensuring transparency is the software bill of materials (SBOM). An SBOM is a structured list of components, libraries, and tools used to build and distribute a software product, and it records dependencies in a way that helps organizations understand and assess their software supply chains. It can also be described as a formal record of components and their interdependencies, which gives users insight into their actual exposure to risks and threats. Five key areas of SBOM application in software supply chain security have been identified: vulnerability management, ensuring transparency, component evaluation, risk assessment, and ensuring supply chain integrity. In software supply chains, an SBOM documents all components, both open-source and proprietary. Under Executive Order 14028, U.S. federal agencies require software suppliers to provide SBOMs for government-procured software. The list of minimum required SBOM elements defined by NTIA includes three main categories: required data fields for describing each component (name, version, identifiers), automation support (machine-readable format, generation tools), and recommendations for creating SBOMs during development and purchasing. The post-2021 push for SBOMs was intended to provide visibility into the components used within software and to expose parts of an application that would otherwise remain hidden. This information can be used to prioritize patches, manage vulnerabilities, and support compliance work. Transparency also supports software traceability, which is becoming a standard feature of developer platforms. Traceability has become important because organizations are increasingly required to demonstrate how software was created, rather than simply listing its components. Higher levels of assurance require signed, tamper-proof traceability and more isolated, verifiable build environments. A related mechanism is build reproducibility. Reproducible builds are defined as build processes that make the compilation process deterministic, ensuring that the same source code always produces the same binary file. These builds are considered a foundational element for distributed verification, transparency-log maintenance, supply-chain workflow integration, and the creation of keyless signatures based on verifiable logs. Although reproducibility does not replace inventory or attestation, it gives external par
Read more →
Halite AI Programming Competition

Halite is an open-source computer programming contest developed by the hedge fund/tech firm Two Sigma in partnership with a team at Cornell Tech. Programmers can see the game environment and learn everything they need to know about the game. Participants are asked to build bots in whichever language they choose to compete on a two-dimensional virtual battle field. == History == Benjamin Spector and Michael Truell created the first Halite competition in 2016, before partnering with Two Sigma later that year. === Halite I === Halite I asked participants to conquer territory on a grid. It launched in November 2016 and ended in February 2017. Halite I attracted about 1,500 players. === Halite II === Halite II was similar to Halite I, but with a space-war theme. It ran from October 2017 until January 2018. The second installment of the competition attracted about 6,000 individual players from more than 100 countries. Among the participants were professors, physicists and NASA engineers, as well as high school and university students. === Halite III === Halite III launched in mid-October 2018. It ran from October 2018 to January 2019, with an ocean themed playing field. Players were asked to collect and manage Halite, an energy resource. By the end of the competition, Halite III included more than 4000 players and 460 organizations. === Halite IV === Halite IV was hosted by Kaggle, and launched in mid-June 2020.
Read more →
AI Security Institute

The AI Security Institute (AISI) is a research organisation under the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, UK, that aims "to equip governments with a scientific understanding of the risks posed by advanced AI". It conducts research and develop and test mitigations. Previously, it was known as the AI Safety Institute. Its creation followed world's first major AI Safety Summit that was held in Bletchley Park in 2023. The institute's professed goal is "building the world's leading understanding of advanced AI risks and solutions, to inform governments so they can keep the public safe". It is designed like a startup in the government "combining the authority of government with the expertise and agility of the private sector". AISI has made access agreements with Anthropic, Google and OpenAI to test their models before release. It has an open source platform called Inspect that permits companies, governments and academics to run standardised safety tests for AI usage. Among the works AISI has done is the reported detection of multiple serious vulnerabilities that could enable development of biological weapons; the vulnerabilities were fixed before the model was launched. It conducts research on diverse fields of AI application. One study by AISI found that LLMs post-trained for political persuasiveness became systematically less accurate and up to 51% more persuasive on political issues. AISI has also worked on the usage of AI for emotional needs. It found that nearly 10 percent of UK citizens used systems like chatbots for emotional purposes on a weekly basis. It found that "systems are now outperforming PhD-level researchers on scientific knowledge tests and helping non-experts succeed at lab work that would previously have been out of reach" in a report published in December 2025. Former chief AI officer of GCHQ Adam Beaumont is the institution's interim director. UK prime minister's AI advisor Jade Leung is the chief technology officer.
Read more →