AI Generator Girl Image

AI Generator Girl Image — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

  • Swap chain

    Swap chain

    In computer graphics, a swap chain (also swapchain) is a series of virtual framebuffers used by the graphics card and graphics API for frame rate stabilization, stutter reduction, and several other purposes. Because of these benefits, many graphics APIs require the use of a swap chain. The swap chain usually exists in graphics memory, but it can exist in system memory as well. A swap chain with two buffers is a kind of double buffer. == Function == In every swap chain there are at least two buffers. The first framebuffer, the screenbuffer, is the buffer that is rendered to the output of the video card. The remaining buffers are known as backbuffers. Each time a new frame is displayed, the first backbuffer in the swap chain takes the place of the screenbuffer, this is called presentation or swapping. A variety of other actions may be taken on the previous screenbuffer and other backbuffers (if they exist). The screenbuffer may be simply overwritten or returned to the back of the swap chain for further processing. The action taken is decided by the client application and is API dependent. == Direct3D == Microsoft Direct3D implements a SwapChain class. Each host device has at least one swap chain assigned to it, and others may be created by the client application. The API provides three methods of swapping: copy, discard, and flip. When the SwapChain is set to flip, the screenbuffer is copied onto the last backbuffer, then all the existing backbuffers are copied forward in the chain. When copy is set, each backbuffer is copied forward, but the screenbuffer is not wrapped to the last buffer, leaving it unchanged. Flip does not work when there is only one backbuffer, as the screenbuffer is copied over the only backbuffer before it can be presented. In discard mode, the driver selects the best method. == Comparison with triple buffering == Outside the context of Direct3D, triple buffering refers to the technique of allowing an application to draw to whichever back buffer was least recently updated. This allows the application to always proceed with rendering, regardless of the pace at which frames are being drawn by the application or the pace at which frames are being sent to the display. Triple buffering may result in a frame being discarded without being displayed if two or more newer frames are completely rendered in the time it takes for one frame to be sent to the display. By contrast, Direct3D swap chains are a strict first-in, first-out queue, so every frame that is drawn by the application will be displayed even if newer frames are available. Direct3D does not implement a most-recent buffer swapping strategy, and Microsoft's documentation calls a Direct3D swap chain of three buffers "triple buffering". Triple buffering as described above is superior for interactive purposes such as gaming, but Direct3D swap chains of more than three buffers can be better for tasks such as presenting frames of a video where the time taken to decode each frame may be highly variable.

    Read more →
  • AI Safety Summit 2023

    AI Safety Summit 2023

    The AI Safety Summit 2023 was an international conference on the safety and regulation of artificial intelligence. Organized by the British government, it was held in November 2023 at Bletchley Park, Milton Keynes, England. The event was the first ever global summit on artificial intelligence. The event led to the release of the Bletchley Declaration, which focused on "identifying AI safety risks of shared concern" and "building respective risk-based policies" to "ensure that the benefits of the technology can be harnessed responsibly for good and for all." == Background == The prime minister of the United Kingdom at the time, Rishi Sunak, made AI one of the priorities of his government, announcing that the UK would host a global AI Safety conference in autumn 2023. == Venue == Bletchley Park was a World War II codebreaking facility established by the British government on the site of a Victorian manor and is in the British city of Milton Keynes. It has played an important role in the history of computing, with some of the first modern computers being built at the facility. == Outcomes == 28 countries at the summit, including the United States, China, Australia, and the European Union, have issued an agreement known as the Bletchley Declaration, calling for international co-operation to manage the challenges and risks of artificial intelligence. The Bletchley Declaration affirms that AI should be designed, developed, deployed, and used in a manner that is safe, human-centric, trustworthy and responsible. Emphasis has been placed on regulating "Frontier AI", a term for the latest and most powerful AI systems. Concerns that have been raised at the summit include the potential use of AI for terrorism, criminal activity, and warfare, as well as existential risk posed to humanity as a whole.The president of the United States, Joe Biden, signed an executive order requiring AI developers to share safety results with the US government. The US government also announced the creation of an American AI Safety Institute, as part of the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The tech entrepreneur Elon Musk and Sunak did a live interview on AI safety on 2 November on X. == Notable attendees == The following individuals attended the summit: Rishi Sunak, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Kamala Harris, Vice President of the United States Charles III, King of the United Kingdom (attending virtually) Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla, owner of X, SpaceX, Neuralink, and xAI Giorgia Meloni, Prime Minister of Italy Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI Nick Clegg, former British politician and president of global affairs at Meta Platforms Mustafa Suleyman, co-founder of DeepMind Michelle Donelan, UK secretary of state for Science, Innovation and Technology Věra Jourová, the European Commission’s vice-president for Values and Transparency Gina Raimondo, United States secretary of commerce Wu Zhaohui, Chinese vice-minister of science and technology == Global AI Summit series ==

    Read more →
  • Galatea (video game)

    Galatea (video game)

    Galatea is an interactive fiction video game by Emily Short featuring a modern rendition of the Greek myth of Galatea, the sculpture of a woman that gained life. It took "Best of Show" in the 2000 IF Art Show and won a XYZZY Award for Best non-player character. The game displays an unusually rich approach to non-player character dialogue and diverts from the typical puzzle-solving in interactive fiction: gameplay consists entirely of interacting with a single character in a single room. Galatea is licensed under the Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 3.0 US license. == Gameplay == Galatea alters the typical interactive fiction game mechanics by concentrating instead on the player's interactions with a single non-player character (NPC), the eponymous Galatea. Much of the interest of the piece derives from the ambiguous nature of the player–NPC dialogue: the form of the conversation and, indeed, the nature of Galatea herself shift depending on the focus the player places on certain aspects of the character's personality. Numerous endings are possible. Gameplay centers around the developing dialogue between Galatea and the player when asking about topics in the previous conversation. Two commands, "think about" and "recap", are provided to keep track of what has already been said; the former is also used to advance the storyline, as the player character draws conclusions about the story as it has unfolded to that point. The game also encourages using sensory commands ("touch", "listen to", "look at"), adding immersion to the experience. == Plot == Galatea is loosely based on the myth of Pygmalion, who carved the sculpture of a woman. In the myth, he falls in love with the statue, named Galatea or Elise in different versions, and the goddess Venus brings her to life. The story begins at the opening of an exhibition of artificial intelligences. The player, alone, discovers Galatea displayed on a pedestal with a small information placard. She is illuminated by a spotlight and wears an emerald dress. Seeing the player about to turn away, Galatea says, "They told me you were coming." From this point, the story may proceed in a number of ways depending on the player's words and actions. === Multilinear interactive fiction === Short describes this as "multilinear interactive fiction": while interactive fiction in general allows the player to find their own way through the story, this leads in most cases to a single ending (or at least a single desired 'correct' ending). With Galatea, Short presents a story with around 70 different endings and hundreds of possible ways of reaching them. The plot is thus designed to appear open-ended with the development of the story entirely dependent on what the player decides to talk or ask about or what actions they choose to perform. Thus the original author and the player share in the creation of a work of fiction. == Development == In interviews, Emily Short has explained that Galatea arose out of her efforts to develop advanced dialog coding for interactive fiction engines. Although code for simple conversational programs like ELIZA have existed since the 1960s, and limited dialog options have existed in interactive fiction since the 1970s, Short's efforts to develop chatterbot-like dialog required her to produce a simple test case scenario to test NPC interaction. Thus the single-room, single-occupant Galatea was a natural result. Development of the game progressed organically with Short engaging in test runs and drafting new dialog options for every conversational dead-end that arose. The game's multiple endings also arose in a similar fashion although Short had intended that there be multiple endings from the start. Although the nature of the game's development as well as its minimalist final form has led to questions regarding whether it is really a game and not just an experimental conversational program, Short has suggested that to her the definition of interactive fiction requires nothing more than a world model and a parser, and "anything you can cook up with those features counts as IF." Short has acknowledged the helpful influence of the close-knit IF community and the "atmosphere in which experimentation is valued" as leading to the success of her works like Galatea. == Reception == Galatea was well received, achieving critical acclaim from interactive fiction reviewers and literary scholars. The game is considered to aspire to a new level of art in interactive fiction, and thereby to have revolutionized the genre, establishing its author, Emily Short, as one of the key figures in the modern interactive fiction scene. Fellow award-winning IF author, Adam Cadre has called Galatea "the best NPC ever"—a view that was echoed by Joystiq's John Bardinelli. Cadre also describes the game as an example of an alternative kind of puzzle where "interactivity comes in deciding where to go, what to see, what to say. Rather than having to open gates along a path, you discover that they're all open at first, but stepping through one causes others to close." Galatea was described in 2007 by Indiegames.com as a "fascinating journey." In a 2009 article, Rock, Paper, Shotgun praised the depth and detail of the game, the complexities of the character design and its "masterful balance between intricacy and simplicity", and "Galatea's emotional turmoil" that is "encoded sweetly into the subtext of what's going on. By simply interacting in a logical manner, you learn more about this character than any cut-scene or info-dump could ever hope to convey." This was reiterated in a 2010 1UP.com article that listed Galatea as #2 in its "Top 5 Introductory Interactive Fiction Games" feature, describing it as intriguingly replayable, and as a "surprisingly rich game for its apparent minimalism". In 2011, PC Gamer highlighted Galatea as an example of the artistic and literary aspects of the interactive fiction genre. The titular character, Galatea, has been compared to the 2007 Portal character GLaDOS due to similarities in the personalities of the characters.

    Read more →
  • Fragile Dreams: Farewell Ruins of the Moon

    Fragile Dreams: Farewell Ruins of the Moon

    Fragile Dreams: Farewell Ruins of the Moon (フラジール ~さよなら月の廃墟~, Furajīru: Sayonara Tsuki no Haikyo; known in Japan as Fragile) is an action role-playing game for the Wii developed by Namco Bandai Games in co-operation with Tri-Crescendo. The game was released by Namco Bandai Games in Japan on January 22, 2009. It was later published by Xseed Games in North America on March 16, 2010, and in Europe by Rising Star Games on March 19, 2010, followed by its release in Australia on April 1, 2010. == Gameplay == In Fragile Dreams, the player character, Seto, must traverse the ruins of Tokyo and the surrounding areas, fighting off ghosts that lurk within these ruins. The game's heads-up display includes a mini-map and HP gauge for Seto's location and health, respectively. Seto will fall unconscious if his HP reaches zero, resulting in a game over. The player controls Seto from a third-person perspective with the Wii Remote and Nunchuk. Seto can use his flashlight (controlled by the Wii Remote pointer) to illuminate his surroundings or solve puzzles and interact with the environment. When searching for certain objectives or hidden enemies, pointing Seto's light in their direction picks up and plays their sounds through the Wii Remote's mini speaker. The Wii Nunchuk, meanwhile, directly controls Seto's movement: aside of basic movement, he can crouch to hide and crawl through small spaces. Seto will often come across damaged floors, which require slow movement (and for heavily damaged floors, crouching) to cross without falling through. As Seto, the player can use weapons found throughout the world to fight off ghosts, ranging from slingshots and golf clubs to crossbows and katanas. Each weapon can only take a certain amount of use: once a weapon reaches its limit, it will break after battle. The player can also find other usable and collectable items in the field, marked with fireflies. The player can only save their game by resting at small fire pits scattered throughout the world: used fire pits are marked with a bonfire. The player can also examine and identify Mystery Items, organize their inventory, as well as after encountering the Merchant, buy and sell items. As stated by the producer of the game, Kentarō Kawashima, Fragile Dreams is not strictly a survival horror: rather, its story focuses on human drama. In Fragile Dreams, aside of the main story, the player can find and examine objects and graffiti throughout the world. Objects called memory items (ranging from origami and stones to cell phones and books) hold the memories of their former owners (only accessible at bonfires), while the graffiti contains messages only seen by pointing at them in first-person. By examining these messages, the player can piece together hints to the game's backstory. == Story == === Setting and characters === Fragile Dreams is set in a post-apocalyptic version of Earth in the near-future. Almost all the world's population has vanished, leaving the surviving buildings and structures abandoned. The game is set in and near the ruins of Tokyo, Japan, where the event that nearly wiped out humanity may have originated. The protagonist, Seto, is a 15-year-old boy who searches the world for other living humans. He encounters Ren, a silver-haired girl who often leaves behind large, cryptic drawings. Other characters include: Sai, the ghost of a young woman; Crow, a mischievous and straightforward amnesiac boy; Personal Frame (P.F.), a portable computer who loves having conversations more than anything else; Chiyo, the ghost of a little girl; and the Merchant, a mysterious yet merry man who trades various goods. The game's host of enemies mainly consist of ghosts, but also include humanoid robots and security proxies. The main antagonist, Shin, is the AI of a scientist who considers speech to be an inferior means of communication. Various memory items include a greater set of characters, each giving hints to the game's backstory. === Plot === At the end of Seto's fifteenth summer, his grandfather dies. Seto buries him in front of their home, an old observatory, and that from then on he became "truly alone". At night, he searches for anything the old man had left for him and discovers a letter, along with a strange blue stone in a locket. Suddenly, a mask-like ghost appears and attacks Seto. After driving the creature off, Seto reads the old man's letter, who tells him to "reach a tall red tower" east of the observatory, where he might find other survivors. After departing for the tower, Seto reaches an old subway entrance in the Azabudai district and finds Ren sitting on a collapsed pillar, singing to the stars. He accidentally startles her and the frightened Ren flees into the subway station: getting over the shock of meeting another person, Seto follows her. While searching the station, he discovers a Personal Frame, who guides him towards Ren. Unfortunately, just as they reach the exit, P.F.'s battery dies out: Seto buries the device, keeping a screw from it in his locket. From the underground, Seto finds himself at an abandoned amusement park and encounters Crow, who steals Seto's locket. After a long chase across the park and another encounter with the masked ghost, Crow returns Seto's locket and directs him to a hotel nearby, where he saw a girl who might know something about Ren. Crow also gives Seto his skull ring to keep in his locket and kisses him. At the hotel, Seto encounters Sai and fights the masked ghost again. After laying to rest the spirit of an old woman named Chiyo, the two discover Ren's drawings by a sewer. Returning to the underground, Seto and Sai find themselves at a hydropower dam. While searching for Ren, Seto discovers that Crow is actually a robot, but his battery begins to fail and Seto mourns for him as he "die[s]". Finally, they encounter Ren in a cell: although glad to see him again, Ren runs off after Shin calls. Sai explains to Seto that most of humanity died because of a "human empathy expansion project" called Glass Cage. The project was meant to make human thoughts transparent, meaning that no one would need words to communicate. However, after Glass Cage activated, people who went to sleep never woke up again. Sai reveals that she was Glass Cage's first catalyst: this time, Shin intends to use Ren as the catalyst. After exiting the dam, a demolition crane attempts to destroy it. Hearing both Shin's and the masked ghost's voices from the crane — saying, "Any threat to the project must be eliminated." — the player realizes both are manifestations of Glass Cage. After Seto destroys the crane, Sai leads him to the facility where Ren was taken to. Entering the laboratory, Seto and Sai are confronted by Shin, who coldly dismisses Sai's attempts at reasoning with him and is adamant about proceeding with his plans. As they traverse the laboratory, they overhear a voice announcing "Glass Cage Launch Preparations Complete", strengthening their resolve to save Ren. Making it into the room where Ren is being held, Shin tells them of his intention to use Glass Cage to "obliterate corporeal beings". After Seto defeats him, Shin disappears and Seto releases Ren from the device holding her. Their reunion is cut short as Sai tells them that the backup system has "finished copying her psyche to the AI", allowing Glass Cage to proceed. Ren reveals Shin has escaped to the top of the Tokyo Tower and Seto asks Ren to wait at the base of the tower and for Sai to accompany her. On his way up the tower, Seto hears the voices of P.F., Chiyo and Crow wishing him luck. He confronts and defeats Shin a second time, who reveals his motivations: he had secretly used himself as the first test subject of the human empathy expansion project and gained the ability to hear the thoughts of those around him. Despite his initial belief in the project as a way for humans to empathize with one another, all he heard around him was "jealousy and contempt" and he soon grew disillusioned with the world as even his parents turned against him. Believing no person loved him, Shin wants to put an end to humanity. His words meet with a vehement response from Sai, as she tells him that she loves him, having developed those feelings while she was the catalyst and all she ever wanted was to be part of his life. Hearing this, Shin finds peace, tossing the AI mainframe away so Glass Cage can never be reactivated and vanishes together with Sai, hand-in-hand, after thanking Seto. Descending from the tower, Seto finally learns Ren's name and they resolve to look for other survivors together. == Development == Fragile Dreams was developed by the team at Namco Bandai Games. Director and producer Kentarō Kawashima came up with the concept for the game in 2003, before the Wii console was revealed. When the Wii was unveiled, it became the obvious choice as the game's platform as the Wii remote could be used to control the flashlight. Kawashima wrote the main scenario for the title, w

    Read more →
  • Psychology of reasoning

    Psychology of reasoning

    The psychology of reasoning (also known as the cognitive science of reasoning) is the study of how people reason, often broadly defined as the process of drawing conclusions to inform how people solve problems and make decisions. It overlaps with psychology, philosophy, linguistics, cognitive science, artificial intelligence, logic, and probability theory. Psychological experiments on how humans and other animals reason have been carried out for over 100 years. An enduring question is whether or not people have the capacity to be rational. Current research in this area addresses various questions about reasoning, rationality, judgments, intelligence, relationships between emotion and reasoning, and development. == Everyday reasoning == One of the most obvious areas in which people employ reasoning is with sentences in everyday language. Most experimentation on deduction has been carried out on hypothetical thought, in particular, examining how people reason about conditionals, e.g., If A then B. Participants in experiments make the modus ponens inference, given the indicative conditional If A then B, and given the premise A, they conclude B. However, given the indicative conditional and the minor premise for the modus tollens inference, not-B, about half of the participants in experiments conclude not-A and the remainder concludes that nothing follows. The ease with which people make conditional inferences is affected by context, as demonstrated in the well-known selection task developed by Peter Wason. Participants are better able to test a conditional in an ecologically relevant context, e.g., if the envelope is sealed then it must have a 50 cent stamp on it compared to one that contains symbolic content, e.g., if the letter is a vowel then the number is even. Background knowledge can also lead to the suppression of even the simple modus ponens inference Participants given the conditional if Lisa has an essay to write then she studies late in the library and the premise Lisa has an essay to write make the modus ponens inference 'she studies late in the library', but the inference is suppressed when they are also given a second conditional if the library stays open then she studies late in the library. Interpretations of the suppression effect are controversial Other investigations of propositional inference examine how people think about disjunctive alternatives, e.g., A or else B, and how they reason about negation, e.g., It is not the case that A and B. Many experiments have been carried out to examine how people make relational inferences, including comparisons, e.g., A is better than B. Such investigations also concern spatial inferences, e.g. A is in front of B and temporal inferences, e.g. A occurs before B. Other common tasks include categorical syllogisms, used to examine how people reason about quantifiers such as All or Some, e.g., Some of the A are not B. For example if all A are B and some B are C, what (if anything) follows? == Theories of reasoning == There are several alternative theories of the cognitive processes that human reasoning is based on. One view is that people rely on a mental logic consisting of formal (abstract or syntactic) inference rules similar to those developed by logicians in the propositional calculus. Another view is that people rely on domain-specific or content-sensitive rules of inference. A third view is that people rely on mental models, that is, mental representations that correspond to imagined possibilities. A fourth view is that people compute probabilities. One controversial theoretical issue is the identification of an appropriate competence model, or a standard against which to compare human reasoning. Initially classical logic was chosen as a competence model. Subsequently, some researchers opted for non-monotonic logic and Bayesian probability. Research on mental models and reasoning has led to the suggestion that people are rational in principle but err in practice. Connectionist approaches towards reasoning have also been proposed. Despite the ongoing debate about the cognitive processes involved in human reasoning, recent research has shown that multiple approaches can be useful in modeling human thinking. For instance, studies have found that people's reasoning is often influenced by their prior beliefs, which can be modeled using Bayesian probability theory. Additionally, research on mental models has shown that people tend to reason about problems by constructing multiple mental representations of the situation, which can help them to identify relevant features and make inferences based on their understanding of the problem. Moreover, connectionist approaches to reasoning have also gained attention, which focus on the neural network models that can learn from data and generalize to new situations. == Development of reasoning == It is an active question in psychology how, why, and when the ability to reason develops from infancy to adulthood. Jean Piaget's theory of cognitive development posited general mechanisms and stages in the development of reasoning from infancy to adulthood. According to the neo-Piagetian theories of cognitive development, changes in reasoning with development come from increasing working memory capacity, increasing speed of processing, and enhanced executive functions and control. Increasing self-awareness is also an important factor. In their book The Enigma of Reason, the cognitive scientists Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber put forward an "argumentative" theory of reasoning, claiming that humans evolved to reason primarily to justify our beliefs and actions and to convince others in a social environment. Key evidence for their theory includes the errors in reasoning that solitary individuals are prone to when their arguments are not criticized, such as logical fallacies, and how groups become much better at performing cognitive reasoning tasks when they communicate with one another and can evaluate each other's arguments. Sperber and Mercier offer one attempt to resolve the apparent paradox that the confirmation bias is so strong despite the function of reasoning naively appearing to be to come to veridical conclusions about the world. The study of the development of reasoning abilities is an ongoing area of research in psychology, and multiple factors have been proposed to explain how, why, and when reasoning develops from infancy to adulthood. Recent research has suggested that early experiences and social interactions play a critical role in the development of reasoning abilities. For example, studies have shown that infants as young as six months old can engage in basic logical reasoning, such as reasoning about the relationship between objects and their properties. Furthermore, research has highlighted the importance of parental interaction and cognitive stimulation in the development of children's reasoning abilities. Additionally, studies have suggested that cultural factors, such as educational practices and the emphasis on critical thinking, can also influence the development of reasoning skills across different populations. == Different sorts of reasoning == Philip Johnson-Laird trying to taxonomize thought, distinguished between goal-directed thinking and thinking without goal, noting that association was involved in unrelated reading. He argues that goal directed reasoning can be classified based on the problem space involved in a solution, citing Allen Newell and Herbert A. Simon. Inductive reasoning makes broad generalizations from specific cases or observations. In this process of reasoning, general assertions are made based on past specific pieces of evidence. This kind of reasoning allows the conclusion to be false even if the original statement is true. For example, if one observes a college athlete, one makes predictions and assumptions about other college athletes based on that one observation. Scientists use inductive reasoning to create theories and hypotheses. Philip Johnson-Laird distinguished inductive from deductive reasoning, in that the former creates semantic information while the later does not . In opposition, deductive reasoning is a basic form of valid reasoning. In this reasoning process a person starts with a known claim or a general belief and from there asks what follows from these foundations or how will these premises influence other beliefs. In other words, deduction starts with a hypothesis and examines the possibilities to reach a conclusion. Deduction helps people understand why their predictions are wrong and indicates that their prior knowledge or beliefs are off track. An example of deduction can be seen in the scientific method when testing hypotheses and theories. Although the conclusion usually corresponds and therefore proves the hypothesis, there are some cases where the conclusion is logical, but the generalization is not. For example, the argument, "All young girls wear skirts; Julie is a young

    Read more →
  • Micah Xavier Johnson

    Micah Xavier Johnson

    Micah Xavier Johnson (July 2, 1991 – July 8, 2016) was an American Army reserve Afghan war veteran, black nationalist, and mass murderer who perpetrated the 2016 shooting of Dallas police officers during a Black Lives Matter protest. He ambushed and killed five officers and wounded eleven others in Downtown, Dallas, Texas. He was killed by police during a standoff after expressing anger over police killings of black men. The shootings were the second-deadliest targeted attack on law enforcement officers in U.S. history, surpassed only by the September 11 attacks. == Early life == Micah Xavier Johnson was born in Magee, Mississippi, on July 2, 1991, and he was raised in Mesquite, Texas. When he was four years old, his parents divorced. At 17, Johnson enrolled at John Horn High School, where he joined the Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps, as reported by the Mesquite Independent school district. He faced academic challenges, graduating in 2009 with a 1.98 GPA and ranking 430th out of 453 students in his class. In Spring 2011, Johnson registered for four courses at Richland college but did not complete any. Evidence suggests his enrollment at Richland gave him access to El Centro College, due to his pre-planned and coordinated movements throughout Building B during his standoff with police in 2016. == Military service == === Enlistment and early service === Micah Xavier Johnson enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve in March 2009 at the age of 18, shortly after graduating high school in Mesquite, Texas. His initial service was primarily stateside, where he trained as a carpentry and masonry specialist (military occupational specialty 51B). This role involved engineering tasks such as construction and repair in support of military operations. During his reserve tenure, Johnson served part-time while living at home, and he was described by family and friends as initially idealistic about the military, even aspiring to become a police officer. === Deployment to Afghanistan === In September 2013, Johnson was activated for full-time duty and deployed to Afghanistan as part of the 420th Engineer Brigade, a unit based in Seagoville, Texas. His tour began in November 2013 and lasted approximately eight months, ending in July 2014. During this period, he performed non-combat engineering duties, though the stresses of serving in a combat zone were noted by those close to him. Associates from his service later suggested he experienced significant psychological strain, including the loss of friends and general disillusionment with military life, which contrasted with his pre-deployment enthusiasm. His mother later reflected that "the military was not what Micah thought it would be." === Sexual harassment allegation and early return === About six months into his deployment, in May 2014, Johnson faced a serious accusation of sexual harassment from a higher-ranking female soldier. She filed for a military protective order against him, prompting an investigation. As a result, his chain of command recommended an "other than honorable" discharge—the second (more severe is a dishonorable discharge, which does not require a court martial) most severe administrative separation short of a court-martial—and he was sent back to the United States ahead of schedule. Despite this, Johnson was not court-martialed, and the case did not lead to criminal charges. A military lawyer who represented him described the handling as unusual, noting that "someone really screwed up" in allowing him to avoid harsher consequences. === Post-deployment and discharge === Upon returning stateside in August 2014, Johnson resumed reserve duties with his engineering brigade until April 2015. He was honorably discharged at the rank of private first class (E-3), a relatively low junior enlisted rank after six years of service, which military sources attributed partly to the unresolved harassment allegation impacting his promotions and evaluations. Friends and family observed a marked change in his demeanor post-deployment: he became more reclusive, resentful toward the government, and withdrawn, with some speculating that the Afghanistan experience and the scandal contributed to a "small breakdown." In July 2016, following the Dallas shooting, the U.S. Army launched an internal review of his service record, including the harassment claims, to assess whether all misconduct allegations had been fully investigated. == Shootings == On July 7, 2016, a peaceful Black Lives Matter protest marched through downtown Dallas, Texas, drawing about 800 demonstrators. The event responded to the recent police killings of Alton Sterling in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on July 5, and Philando Castile in Falcon Heights, Minnesota, on July 6—both black men shot during encounters captured on video. Around 100 officers monitored the march, which passed near El Centro College without incident until gunfire erupted around 8:45 p.m. Johnson arrived in a dark SUV, armed with an SKS semi-automatic rifle, a handgun, extra ammunition, and ballistic vests. He parked near the protest's end, chatted briefly with two officers, then opened fire on police from an elevated position on Lamar Street (now Botham Jean Boulevard). He shot from behind barriers, through windows, and while moving, targeting white officers specifically. The ambush killed five officers and wounded seven more, plus two civilians. Gunfire scattered protesters in panic as Johnson used military-style tactics, like quick position changes, to prolong the assault. === Standoff and Johnson's end === Johnson fled into El Centro College's Building C, then Building B, navigating pre-planned routes with familiarity from prior enrollment at nearby Richland College. He barricaded in a parking garage, wounding more officers in close-range fights. During two-hour negotiations, he taunted police via phone—laughing, singing, asking kill counts, and claiming planted bombs (none found). He admitted solo action, rage at White officers, and no group ties. At 2:30 a.m. on July 8, SWAT ended the standoff by detonating a bomb via remote-controlled robot in the garage, killing Johnson. This marked the first U.S. police use of such a tactic. === Victims and investigation findings === The slain officers were: Brent Thompson (Transit Authority, 36), Patrick Zamarripa (Dallas PD, 33), Michael Krol (Dallas PD, 40), Lorne Ahrens (Dallas PD, 48), and Michael Smith (Dallas PD, 55). Wounded officers included Sheik Smith, John Mitchell, and others; civilians She Tamara El-Sobky and Hillary Castro. Searches of Johnson's home revealed bomb-making materials, rifles, vests, and notes on tactics, suggesting plans for a larger attack. He had practiced explosions and honed skills post-discharge, including marksmanship. === Aftermath and impact === Dallas mourned with vigils and memorials, while national protests against police violence continued amid grief. President Barack Obama, the first African American president of the United States, called Johnson a "demented individual" and formed a task force on race and policing. The incident fueled debates on gun control, race relations, and veteran mental health—Johnson had sought VA treatment for stress and anxiety but showed no prior violent signs to friends. El Centro College canceled all classes on July 8. Police barricaded the perimeter and began canvassing the crime scene. The explosion that killed Johnson also destroyed the school's servers, further delaying reopening. The school partially reopened on July 20, with staff returning that day and students on the following day. Buildings A, B, and C remained closed pending the FBI investigation. == Motive == An investigation into his online activities uncovered his interest in black nationalist groups. The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), and news outlets reported that Johnson "liked" the Facebook pages of black nationalist organizations such as the New Black Panther Party (NBPP), Nation of Islam, and Black Riders Liberation Party, three groups which are listed by the SPLC as hate groups. On Facebook, Johnson posted an angry and "disjointed" post against White people on July 2, several days before the attack. NBPP head Quanell X said after the shooting that Johnson had been a member of the NBPP's Houston chapter for about six months, several years before. Quanell X added that Johnson had been "asked to leave" the group for violating the organization's "chain of command" and espousing dangerous rhetoric, such as asking the NBPP why they had not purchased more weapons and ammunition, and expressing his desire to harm black church preachers because he believed they were more interested in money than God. Following the shooting, a national NBPP leader distanced the group from Johnson, saying that he "was not a member of" the party. Further investigation into his digital footprint showed that Johnson visited the sites of Marxist Leninist groups associated with "Revolutionary Black Nationalism",

    Read more →
  • Artificial intelligence engineering

    Artificial intelligence engineering

    Artificial intelligence engineering (AI engineering) is a technical discipline that focuses on the design, development, and deployment of AI systems. AI engineering involves applying engineering principles and methodologies to create scalable, efficient, and reliable AI-based solutions. It merges aspects of data engineering and software engineering to create real-world applications in diverse domains such as healthcare, finance, autonomous systems, and industrial automation. == Terminology ambiguity == According to Chip Huyen's book AI Engineering: Building Applications with Foundation Models, the term AI engineering refers to the process of building applications that use foundation models, which are typically models developed by a small number of research laboratories and made available as a service. Huyen distinguishes this from machine learning (ML) engineering, which involves building and deploying models developed in-house. She notes that most practical AI systems combine both approaches. For example, a customer-support chatbot may use a generative model to produce responses while also incorporating locally built components such as request classifiers or scoring mechanisms to assess response quality. As a result, the terms AI engineering and ML engineering are often used together or interchangeably in practice. The distinction and broader usage of the term have been discussed in industry publications and interviews, where AI engineering has been described as an emerging discipline focused on productionizing applications built with foundation models. == Key components == AI engineering integrates a variety of technical domains and practices, all of which are essential to building scalable, reliable, and ethical AI systems. === Data engineering and infrastructure === Data serves as the cornerstone of AI systems, necessitating careful engineering to ensure premium quality, wide spread availability, and usability. AI engineers gather large, diverse datasets from multiple sources such as databases, APIs, and real-time streams. This data undergoes cleaning, normalization, and preprocessing, often facilitated by automated data pipelines that manage extraction, transformation, and loading (ETL) processes. Efficient storage solutions, such as SQL (or NoSQL) databases and data lakes, must be selected based on data characteristics and use cases. Security measures, including encryption and access controls, are critical for protecting sensitive information and ensuring compliance with regulations like GDPR. Scalability is essential, frequently involving cloud services and distributed computing frameworks to handle growing data volumes effectively. === Algorithm selection and optimization === Selecting the appropriate algorithm is crucial for the success of any AI system. Engineers evaluate the problem (which could be classification or regression, for example) to determine the most suitable machine learning algorithm, including deep learning paradigms. Once an algorithm is chosen, optimizing it through hyperparameter tuning is essential to enhance efficiency and accuracy. Techniques such as grid search or Bayesian optimization are employed, and engineers often utilize parallelization to expedite training processes, particularly for large models and datasets. For existing models, techniques like transfer learning can be applied to adapt pre-trained models for specific tasks, reducing the time and resources needed for training. === Deep learning engineering === Deep learning is particularly important for tasks involving large and complex datasets. Engineers design neural network architectures tailored to specific applications, such as convolutional neural networks for visual tasks or recurrent neural networks for sequence-based tasks. Transfer learning, where pre-trained models are fine-tuned for specific use cases, helps streamline development and often enhances performance. Optimization for deployment in resource-constrained environments, such as mobile devices, involves techniques like pruning and quantization to minimize model size while maintaining performance. Engineers also mitigate data imbalance through augmentation and synthetic data generation, ensuring robust model performance across various classes. === Natural language processing === Natural language processing (NLP) is a crucial component of AI engineering, focused on enabling machines to understand and generate human language. The process begins with text preprocessing to prepare data for machine learning models. Recent advancements, particularly transformer-based models like BERT and GPT, have greatly improved the ability to understand context in language. AI engineers work on various NLP tasks, including sentiment analysis, machine translation, and information extraction. These tasks require sophisticated models that utilize attention mechanisms to enhance accuracy. Applications range from virtual assistants and chatbots to more specialized tasks like named-entity recognition (NER) and Part of speech (POS) tagging. === Reasoning and decision-making systems === Developing systems capable of reasoning and decision-making is a significant aspect of AI engineering. Whether starting from scratch or building on existing frameworks, engineers create solutions that operate on data or logical rules. Symbolic AI employs formal logic and predefined rules for inference, while probabilistic reasoning techniques like Bayesian networks help address uncertainty. These models are essential for applications in dynamic environments, such as autonomous vehicles, where real-time decision-making is critical. === Security === Security is a critical consideration in AI engineering, particularly as AI systems become increasingly integrated into sensitive and mission-critical applications. AI engineers implement robust security measures to protect models from adversarial attacks, such as evasion and poisoning, which can compromise system integrity and performance. Techniques such as adversarial training, where models are exposed to malicious inputs during development, help harden systems against these attacks. Additionally, securing the data used to train AI models is of paramount importance. Encryption, secure data storage, and access control mechanisms are employed to safeguard sensitive information from unauthorized access and breaches. AI systems also require constant monitoring to detect and mitigate vulnerabilities that may arise post-deployment. In high-stakes environments like autonomous systems and healthcare, engineers incorporate redundancy and fail-safe mechanisms to ensure that AI models continue to function correctly in the presence of security threats. === Ethics and compliance === As AI systems increasingly influence societal aspects, ethics and compliance are vital components of AI engineering. Engineers design models to mitigate risks such as data poisoning and ensure that AI systems adhere to legal frameworks, such as data protection regulations like GDPR. Privacy-preserving techniques, including data anonymization and differential privacy, are employed to safeguard personal information and ensure compliance with international standards. Ethical considerations focus on reducing bias in AI systems, preventing discrimination based on race, gender, or other protected characteristics. By developing fair and accountable AI solutions, engineers contribute to the creation of technologies that are both technically sound and socially responsible. == Workload == An AI engineer's workload revolves around the AI system's life cycle, which is a complex, multi-stage process. This process may involve building models from scratch or using pre-existing models through transfer learning, depending on the project's requirements. Each approach presents unique challenges and influences the time, resources, and technical decisions involved. === Problem definition and requirements analysis === Regardless of whether a model is built from scratch or based on a pre-existing model, the work begins with a clear understanding of the problem. The engineer must define the scope, understand the business context, and identify specific AI objectives that align with strategic goals. This stage includes consulting with stakeholders to establish key performance indicators (KPIs) and operational requirements. When developing a model from scratch, the engineer must also decide which algorithms are most suitable for the task. Conversely, when using a pre-trained model, the workload shifts toward evaluating existing models and selecting the one most aligned with the task. The use of pre-trained models often allows for a more targeted focus on fine-tuning, as opposed to designing an entirely new model architecture. === Data acquisition and preparation === Data acquisition and preparation are critical stages regardless of the development method chosen, as the performance of any AI system relies heavily on high-quality, re

    Read more →
  • Document AI

    Document AI

    Document AI, also known as Document Intelligence, refers to a field of technology that employs machine learning (ML) techniques, such as natural language processing (NLP). These techniques are used to develop computer models capable of analyzing documents in a manner akin to human review. Through NLP, computer systems are able to understand relationships and contextual nuances in document contents, which facilitates the extraction of information and insights. Additionally, this technology enables the categorization and organization of the documents themselves. The applications of Document AI extend to processing and parsing a variety of semi-structured documents, such as forms, tables, receipts, invoices, tax forms, contracts, loan agreements, and financial reports. == Key features == Machine learning is utilized in Document AI to extract information from both printed and digital documents. This technology recognizes images, text, and characters in various languages, aiding in the extraction of insights from unstructured documents. The use of this technology can improve the speed and quality of decision-making in document analysis. Additionally, the automation of data extraction and validation can contribute to increased efficiency in document analysis processes. Since the early 2020s, the integration of large language models has extended Document AI beyond extraction toward generative tasks, including the automated drafting of forms, contracts, and document summaries. == Example == A business letter contains information in the form of text, as well as other types of information, such as the position of the text. For instance, a typical letter contains two addresses before the body of the text. The address at the very top (sometimes aligned to the right) is the sender address. This is normally followed by the date of the letter, with the place of writing. After this, the receiver address is listed. The distinction between the sender address and the receiver address is conveyed solely by the position of the address on the page, i.e. there is no textual indication like Sender: in front of the addresses. == Data dimensions and ML architecture == Data is typically distinguished into spatial data and time-series data, the former includes things like images, maps and graphs, while the latter includes signals such as stock prices or voice recordings. Document AI combines text data, which has a time dimension, with other types of data, such as the position of an address in a business letter, which is spatial. Historically in machine learning spatial data was analyzed using a convolutional neural network, and temporal data using a recurrent neural network. With the advent of dimension-type agnostic transformer architecture, these two different types of dimension can be more easily combined, Document AI is an example of this. == Benchmarks == Several public datasets are used to evaluate Document AI systems. FUNSD (Form Understanding in Noisy Scanned Documents) contains 199 annotated forms with token- and block-level labels for form understanding tasks. CORD (Consolidated Receipt Dataset) supports key information extraction from receipts. DocVQA contains approximately 50,000 questions over 12,000 document images for layout-aware visual question answering. == Common uses == Document AI systems are used to automate document processing and information extraction in business and financial workflows, including invoice and receipt processing, data entry automation, anomaly detection, mortgage processing, loan portfolio monitoring, credit risk management, and fraud detection such as counterfeit currency and fraudulent checks. They are also applied in regulatory compliance and contract analysis, including assessing changes in legal and regulatory documents. In real estate, Document AI supports document classification and structured information extraction for standardized processing and analytics. With the adoption of generative AI, Document AI systems can also generate and pre-fill structured documents such as contracts or business forms from natural language prompts.

    Read more →
  • Dominant resource fairness

    Dominant resource fairness

    Dominant resource fairness (DRF) is a rule for fair division. It is particularly useful for dividing computing resources in among users in cloud computing environments, where each user may require a different combination of resources. DRF was presented by Ali Ghodsi, Matei Zaharia, Benjamin Hindman, Andy Konwinski, Scott Shenker and Ion Stoica in 2011. == Motivation == In an environment with a single resource, a widely used criterion is max-min fairness, which aims to maximize the minimum amount of resource given to a user. But in cloud computing, it is required to share different types of resource, such as: memory, CPU, bandwidth and disk-space. Previous fair schedulers, such as in Apache Hadoop, reduced the multi-resource setting to a single-resource setting by defining nodes with a fixed amount of each resource (e.g. 4 CPU, 32 MB memory, etc.), and dividing slots which are fractions of nodes. But this method is inefficient, since not all users need the same ratio of resources. For example, some users need more CPU whereas other users need more memory. As a result, most tasks either under-utilize or over-utilize their resources. DRF solves the problem by maximizing the minimum amount of the dominant resource given to a user (then the second-minimum etc., in a leximin order). The dominant resource may be different for different users. For example, if user A runs CPU-heavy tasks and user B runs memory-heavy tasks, DRF will try to equalize the CPU share given to user A and the memory share given to user B. == Definition == There are m resources. The total capacities of the resources are r1,...,rm. There are n users. Each users runs individual tasks. Each task has a demand-vector (d1,..,dm), representing the amount it needs of each resource. It is implicitly assumed that the utility of a user equals the number of tasks he can perform. For example, if user A runs tasks with demand-vector [1 CPU, 4 GB RAM], and receives 3 CPU and 8 GB RAM, then his utility is 2, since he can perform only 2 tasks. More generally, the utility of a user receiving x1,...,xm resources is minj(xj/dj), that is, the users have Leontief utilities. The demand-vectors are normalized to fractions of the capacities. For example, if the system has 9 CPUs and 18 GB RAM, then the above demand-vector is normalized to [1/9 CPU, 2/9 GB]. For each user, the resource with the highest demand-fraction is called the dominant resource. In the above example, the dominant resource is memory, as 2/9 is the largest fraction. If user B runs a task with demand-vector [3 CPU, 1 GB], which is normalized to [1/3 CPU, 1/18 GB], then his dominant resource is CPU. DRF aims to find the maximum x such that all agents can receive at least x of their dominant resource. In the above example, this maximum x is 2/3: User A gets 3 tasks, which require 3/9 CPU and 2/3 GB. User B gets 2 tasks, which require 2/3 CPU and 1/9 GB. The maximum x can be found by solving a linear program; see Lexicographic max-min optimization. Alternatively, the DRF can be computed sequentially. The algorithm tracks the amount of dominant resource used by each user. At each round, it finds a user with the smallest allocated dominant resource so far, and allocates the next task of this user. Note that this procedure allows the same user to run tasks with different demand vectors. == Properties == DRF has several advantages over other policies for resource allocation. Proportionality: each user receives at least as much resources as they could get in a system in which all resources are partitioned equally among users (the authors call this condition "sharing incentive"). Strategyproofness: a user cannot get a larger allocation by lying about his needs. Strategyproofness is important, as evidence from cloud operators show that users try to manipulate the servers in order to get better allocations. Envy-freeness: no user would prefer the allocation of another user. Pareto efficiency: no other allocation is better for some users and not worse for anyone. Population monotonicity: when a user leaves the system, the allocations of remaining users do not decrease. When there is a single resource that is a bottleneck resource (highly demanded by all users), DRF reduces to max-min fairness. However, DRF violates resource monotonicity: when resources are added to the system, some allocations might decrease. == Extensions == Weighted DRF is an extension of DRF to settings in which different users have different weights (representing their different entitlements). Parkes, Procaccia and Shah formally extend weighted DRF to a setting in which some users do not need all resources (that is, they may have demand 0 to some resource). They prove that the extended version still satisfies proportionality, Pareto-efficiency, envy-freeness, strategyproofness, and even Group strategyproofness. On the other hand, they show that DRF may yield poor utilitarian social welfare, that is, the sum of utilities may be only 1/m of the optimum. However, they prove that any mechanism satisfying one of proportionality, envy-freeness or strategyproofness may suffers from the same low utilitarian welfare. They also extend DRF to the setting in which the users' demands are indivisible (as in fair item allocation). For the indivisible setting, they relax envy-freeness to EF1. They show that strategyproofness is incompatible with PO+EF1 or with PO+proportionality. However, a mechanism called SequentialMinMax satisfies efficiency, proportionality and EF1. Wang, Li and Liang present DRFH - an extension of DRF to a system with several heterogeneous servers. == Implementation == DRF was first implemented in Apache Mesos - a cluster resource manager, and it led to better throughput and fairness than previously used fair-sharing schemes.

    Read more →
  • Argument Web

    Argument Web

    The Argument Web is a large-scale Web of interconnected arguments created by individuals as they express their opinions and interact with the opinions of others. The Argument Web aims to make online debate intuitive for participants such as mediators, students, academics, broadcasters and bloggers, to create a Web infrastructure that allows for the storage, automatic retrieval and analysis of linked argument data, and to improve the quality of online argument and debate. The Argument Web can be described as a portion of a larger Semantic Web. == AIFdb == AIFdb is a database implementation or ‘reification’ of the Argument Interchange Format (AIF), which allows for the storage and retrieval of AIF compliant argument structures. This database solution was provided as a foundation for an open, integrated Argument Web. It offers an extensive range of web services for interacting with stored argument data, while also offering search and argument visualisation features that are all consistent with the formal ontology of AIF. At a basic level, the AIFdb web services allow for the insertion and querying of basic components of an AIF argument, such as nodes, edges and schemes. Building upon this basis, it also facilitates more complex interactions with these AIF argument structures. Such complex queries could make it possible, for example, to determine all the statements made by a particular person in support a given I-Node. While, at its highest level of interaction, AIFdb can handle the import and export of many standard file formats, including SVG, DOT, RDF/XML and other formats of argument theory tools, like Carneades, Rationale and Araucaria. == Argument blogging == ArguBlogging is software which allows its users to select portions of hypertext on webpages in their Web browsers and to agree or disagree with the selected content, posting their arguments to their blogs with linked argument data. It is implemented as a bookmarklet, adding functionality to Web browsers and interoperating with blogging platforms such as Blogger and Tumblr.

    Read more →
  • Possibility theory

    Possibility theory

    Possibility theory is a mathematical theory for dealing with certain types of uncertainty and is an alternative to probability theory. It uses measures of possibility and necessity between 0 and 1, ranging from impossible to possible and unnecessary to necessary, respectively. Professor Lotfi Zadeh first introduced possibility theory in 1978 as an extension of his theory of fuzzy sets and fuzzy logic. Didier Dubois and Henri Prade further contributed to its development. Earlier, in the 1950s, economist G. L. S. Shackle proposed the min/max algebra to describe degrees of potential surprise. == Formalization of possibility == For simplicity, assume that the universe of discourse Ω is a finite set. A possibility measure is a function Π {\displaystyle \Pi } from 2 Ω {\displaystyle 2^{\Omega }} to [0, 1] such that: Axiom 1: Π ( ∅ ) = 0 {\displaystyle \Pi (\varnothing )=0} Axiom 2: Π ( Ω ) = 1 {\displaystyle \Pi (\Omega )=1} Axiom 3: Π ( U ∪ V ) = max ( Π ( U ) , Π ( V ) ) {\displaystyle \Pi (U\cup V)=\max \left(\Pi (U),\Pi (V)\right)} for any disjoint subsets U {\displaystyle U} and V {\displaystyle V} . It follows that, like probability on finite probability spaces, the possibility measure is determined by its behavior on singletons: Π ( U ) = max ω ∈ U Π ( { ω } ) . {\displaystyle \Pi (U)=\max _{\omega \in U}\Pi (\{\omega \}).} Axiom 1 can be interpreted as the assumption that Ω is an exhaustive description of future states of the world, because it means that no belief weight is given to elements outside Ω. Axiom 2 could be interpreted as the assumption that the evidence from which Π {\displaystyle \Pi } was constructed is free of any contradiction. Technically, it implies that there is at least one element in Ω with possibility 1. Axiom 3 corresponds to the additivity axiom in probabilities. However, there is an important practical difference. Possibility theory is computationally more convenient because Axioms 1–3 imply that: Π ( U ∪ V ) = max ( Π ( U ) , Π ( V ) ) {\displaystyle \Pi (U\cup V)=\max \left(\Pi (U),\Pi (V)\right)} for any subsets U {\displaystyle U} and V {\displaystyle V} . Because one can know the possibility of the union from the possibility of each component, it can be said that possibility is compositional with respect to the union operator. Note however that it is not compositional with respect to the intersection operator. Generally: Π ( U ∩ V ) ≤ min ( Π ( U ) , Π ( V ) ) ≤ max ( Π ( U ) , Π ( V ) ) . {\displaystyle \Pi (U\cap V)\leq \min \left(\Pi (U),\Pi (V)\right)\leq \max \left(\Pi (U),\Pi (V)\right).} When Ω is not finite, Axiom 3 can be replaced by: For all index sets I {\displaystyle I} , if the subsets U i , i ∈ I {\displaystyle U_{i,\,i\in I}} are pairwise disjoint, Π ( ⋃ i ∈ I U i ) = sup i ∈ I Π ( U i ) . {\displaystyle \Pi \left(\bigcup _{i\in I}U_{i}\right)=\sup _{i\in I}\Pi (U_{i}).} == Necessity == Whereas probability theory uses a single number, the probability, to describe how likely an event is to occur, possibility theory uses two concepts, the possibility and the necessity of the event. For any set U {\displaystyle U} , the necessity measure is defined by N ( U ) = 1 − Π ( U ¯ ) {\displaystyle N(U)=1-\Pi ({\overline {U}})} . In the above formula, U ¯ {\displaystyle {\overline {U}}} denotes the complement of U {\displaystyle U} , that is the elements of Ω {\displaystyle \Omega } that do not belong to U {\displaystyle U} . It is straightforward to show that: N ( U ) ≤ Π ( U ) {\displaystyle N(U)\leq \Pi (U)} for any U {\displaystyle U} and that: N ( U ∩ V ) = min ( N ( U ) , N ( V ) ) {\displaystyle N(U\cap V)=\min(N(U),N(V))} . Note that contrary to probability theory, possibility is not self-dual. That is, for any event U {\displaystyle U} , we only have the inequality: Π ( U ) + Π ( U ¯ ) ≥ 1 {\displaystyle \Pi (U)+\Pi ({\overline {U}})\geq 1} However, the following duality rule holds: For any event U {\displaystyle U} , either Π ( U ) = 1 {\displaystyle \Pi (U)=1} , or N ( U ) = 0 {\displaystyle N(U)=0} Accordingly, beliefs about an event can be represented by a number and a bit. == Interpretation == There are four cases that can be interpreted as follows: N ( U ) = 1 {\displaystyle N(U)=1} means that U {\displaystyle U} is necessary. U {\displaystyle U} is certainly true. It implies that Π ( U ) = 1 {\displaystyle \Pi (U)=1} . Π ( U ) = 0 {\displaystyle \Pi (U)=0} means that U {\displaystyle U} is impossible. U {\displaystyle U} is certainly false. It implies that N ( U ) = 0 {\displaystyle N(U)=0} . Π ( U ) = 1 {\displaystyle \Pi (U)=1} means that U {\displaystyle U} is possible. I would not be surprised at all if U {\displaystyle U} occurs. It leaves N ( U ) {\displaystyle N(U)} unconstrained. N ( U ) = 0 {\displaystyle N(U)=0} means that U {\displaystyle U} is unnecessary. I would not be surprised at all if U {\displaystyle U} does not occur. It leaves Π ( U ) {\displaystyle \Pi (U)} unconstrained. The intersection of the last two cases is N ( U ) = 0 {\displaystyle N(U)=0} and Π ( U ) = 1 {\displaystyle \Pi (U)=1} meaning that I believe nothing at all about U {\displaystyle U} . Because it allows for indeterminacy like this, possibility theory relates to the graduation of a many-valued logic, such as intuitionistic logic, rather than the classical two-valued logic. Note that unlike possibility, fuzzy logic is compositional with respect to both the union and the intersection operator. The relationship with fuzzy theory can be explained with the following classic example. Fuzzy logic: When a bottle is half full, it can be said that the level of truth of the proposition "The bottle is full" is 0.5. The word "full" is seen as a fuzzy predicate describing the amount of liquid in the bottle. Possibility theory: There is one bottle, either completely full or totally empty. The proposition "the possibility level that the bottle is full is 0.5" describes a degree of belief. One way to interpret 0.5 in that proposition is to define its meaning as: I am ready to bet that it's empty as long as the odds are even (1:1) or better, and I would not bet at any rate that it's full. == Possibility theory as an imprecise probability theory == There is an extensive formal correspondence between probability and possibility theories, where the addition operator corresponds to the maximum operator. A possibility measure can be seen as a consonant plausibility measure in the Dempster–Shafer theory of evidence. The operators of possibility theory can be seen as a hyper-cautious version of the operators of the transferable belief model, a modern development of the theory of evidence. Possibility can be seen as an upper probability: any possibility distribution defines a unique credal set of admissible probability distributions by K = { P ∣ ∀ S P ( S ) ≤ Π ( S ) } . {\displaystyle K=\{\,P\mid \forall S\ P(S)\leq \Pi (S)\,\}.} This allows one to study possibility theory using the tools of imprecise probabilities. == Necessity logic == We call generalized possibility every function satisfying Axiom 1 and Axiom 3. We call generalized necessity the dual of a generalized possibility. The generalized necessities are related to a very simple and interesting fuzzy logic called necessity logic. In the deduction apparatus of necessity logic the logical axioms are the usual classical tautologies. Also, there is only a fuzzy inference rule extending the usual modus ponens. Such a rule says that if α and α → β are proved at degree λ and μ, respectively, then we can assert β at degree min{λ,μ}. It is easy to see that the theories of such a logic are the generalized necessities and that the completely consistent theories coincide with the necessities (see for example Gerla 2001).

    Read more →
  • Legal expert system

    Legal expert system

    A legal expert system is a domain-specific expert system that uses artificial intelligence to emulate the decision-making abilities of a human expert in the field of law. Legal expert systems employ a rule base or knowledge base and an inference engine to accumulate, reference and produce expert knowledge on specific subjects within the legal domain. == Purpose == It has been suggested that legal expert systems could help to manage the rapid expansion of legal information and decisions that began to intensify in the late 1960s. Many of the first legal expert systems were created in the 1970s and 1980s. Lawyers were originally identified as primary target users of legal expert systems. Potential motivations for this work included: quicker delivery of legal advice; reduced time spent in repetitive, labour-intensive legal tasks; development of knowledge management techniques that were not dependent on staff; reduced overhead and labour costs and higher profitability for law firms; and reduced fees for clients. Some early development work was oriented toward the creation of automated judges. One of the first use cases was the encoding of the British Nationality Act at Imperial College carried out under the supervision of Marek Sergot and Robert Kowalski. Lance Elliot wrote: "The British Nationality Act was passed in 1981 and shortly thereafter was used as a means of showcasing the efficacy of using Artificial Intelligence (AI) techniques and technologies, doing so to explore how the at-the-time newly enacted statutory law might be encoded into a computerized logic-based formalization." The authors’ seminal article, "The British Nationality Act as a Logic Program," published in 1986 in the Communications of the ACM journal, is one of the first and best-known works in computational law, and one of the most widely cited papers in the field. In 2021, the Inaugural CodeX Prize was awarded to Robert Kowalski, Fariba Sadri, and Marek Sergot in acknowledgment of their groundbreaking work on the application of logic programming to the formalization and analysis of the British Nationality Act. Later work on legal expert systems has identified potential benefits to non-lawyers as a means to increase access to legal knowledge. Legal expert systems can also support administrative processes, facilitate decision-making processes, automate rule-based analyses, and exchange information directly with citizen-users. == Types == === Architectural variations === Rule-based expert systems rely on a model of deductive reasoning that utilizes "If A, then B" rules. In a rule-based legal expert system, information is represented in the form of deductive rules within the knowledge base. In rule-based legal expert systems, logic programming has historically been applied to automate complex compliance paperwork. A notable early example designed for high-volume regulatory filings was the 1999 Intelligent Filing Manager (INTELLIFM), which utilized Prolog rules as its core inference engine to automate the generation, publishing, and population of structured forms via distributed COM interfaces. Case-based reasoning models, which store and manipulate examples or cases, hold the potential to emulate an analogical reasoning process thought to be well-suited for the legal domain. This model effectively draws on known experiences our outcomes for similar problems. A neural net relies on a computer model that mimics that structure of a human brain, and operates in a very similar way to the case-based reasoning model. This expert system model is capable of recognizing and classifying patterns within the realm of legal knowledge and dealing with imprecise inputs. Fuzzy logic models attempt to create 'fuzzy' concepts or objects that can then be converted into quantitative terms or rules that are indexed and retrieved by the system. In the legal domain, fuzzy logic can be used for rule-based and case-based reasoning models. === Theoretical variations === Some legal expert system architects have adopted a very practical approach, employing scientific modes of reasoning within a given set of rules or cases. Others have opted for a broader philosophical approach inspired by jurisprudential reasoning modes emanating from established legal theoreticians. === Functional variations === Some legal expert systems aim to arrive at a particular conclusion in law, while others are designed to predict a particular outcome. An example of a predictive system is one that predicts the outcome of judicial decisions, the value of a case, or the outcome of litigation. == Reception == Many forms of legal expert systems have become widely used and accepted by both the legal community and the users of legal services. == Challenges == === Domain-related problems === The inherent complexity of law as a discipline raises immediate challenges for legal expert system knowledge engineers. Legal matters often involve interrelated facts and issues, which further compound the complexity. Factual uncertainty may also arise when there are disputed versions of factual representations that must be input into an expert system to begin the reasoning process. === Computerized problem solving === The limitations of most computerized problem solving techniques inhibit the success of many expert systems in the legal domain. Expert systems typically rely on deductive reasoning models that have difficulty according degrees of weight to certain principles of law or importance to previously decided cases that may or may not influence a decision in an immediate case or context. === Representation of legal knowledge === Expert legal knowledge can be difficult to represent or formalize within the structure of an expert system. For knowledge engineers, challenges include: Open texture: Law is rarely applied in an exact way to specific facts, and exact outcomes are rarely a certainty. Statutes may be interpreted according to different linguistic interpretations, reliance on precedent cases or other contextual factors including a particular judge's conception of fairness. The balancing of reasons: Many arguments involve considerations or reasons that are not easily represented in a logical way. For instance, many constitutional legal issues are said to balance independently well-established considerations for state interests against individual rights. Such balancing may draw on extra-legal considerations that would be difficult to represent logically in an expert system. Indeterminacy of legal reasoning: In the adversarial arena of law, it is common to have two strong arguments on a single point. Determining the 'right' answer may depend on a majority vote among expert judges, as in the case of an appeal. === Time and cost effectiveness === Creating a functioning expert system requires significant investments in software architecture, subject matter expertise and knowledge engineering. Faced with these challenges, many system architects restrict the domain in terms of subject matter and jurisdiction. The consequence of this approach is the creation of narrowly focused and geographically restricted legal expert systems that are difficult to justify on a cost-benefit basis. Current applications of AI in the legal field utilize machines to review documents, particularly when a high level of completeness and confidence in the quality of document analysis is depended upon, such as in instances of litigation and where due diligence play a role. Among the numerically most quantifiable advantages of AI in the legal field are the time and money saving impact by freeing lawyers from having to spend inordinate amounts of their valuable time on routine tasks, aiding in setting free lawyers’ creative energy by reducing stress. This in turn increases the rate of case load reduction by accomplishing better results in less time, which unlocks potential additional revenue per unit of time spend on a case. The cost of setting up and maintaining AI systems in law is more than offset by the attained savings through increased efficacy; unbalanced cost can be assigned to clients. === Lack of correctness in results or decisions === Legal expert systems may lead non-expert users to incorrect or inaccurate results and decisions. This problem could be compounded by the fact that users may rely heavily on the correctness or trustworthiness of results or decisions generated by these systems. == Examples == ASHSD-II is a hybrid legal expert system that blends rule-based and case-based reasoning models in the area of matrimonial property disputes under English law. CHIRON is a hybrid legal expert system that blends rule-based and case-based reasoning models to support tax planning activities under United States tax law and codes. JUDGE is a rule-based legal expert system that deals with sentencing in the criminal legal domain for offences relating to murder, assault and manslaughter. Legislate is a knowledge graph powered contract management platform whi

    Read more →
  • Referring expression generation

    Referring expression generation

    Referring expression generation (REG) is the subtask of natural language generation (NLG) that received most scholarly attention. While NLG is concerned with the conversion of non-linguistic information into natural language, REG focuses only on the creation of referring expressions (noun phrases) that identify specific entities called targets. This task can be split into two sections. The content selection part determines which set of properties distinguish the intended target and the linguistic realization part defines how these properties are translated into natural language. A variety of algorithms have been developed in the NLG community to generate different types of referring expressions. == Types of referring expressions == A referring expression (RE), in linguistics, is any noun phrase, or surrogate for a noun phrase, whose function in discourse is to identify some individual object (thing, being, event...) The technical terminology for identify differs a great deal from one school of linguistics to another. The most widespread term is probably refer, and a thing identified is a referent, as for example in the work of John Lyons. In linguistics, the study of reference relations belongs to pragmatics, the study of language use, though it is also a matter of great interest to philosophers, especially those wishing to understand the nature of knowledge, perception and cognition more generally. Various devices can be used for reference: determiners, pronouns, proper names... Reference relations can be of different kinds; referents can be in a "real" or imaginary world, in discourse itself, and they may be singular, plural, or collective. === Pronouns === The simplest type of referring expressions are pronoun such as he and it. The linguistics and natural language processing communities have developed various models for predicting anaphor referents, such as centering theory, and ideally referring-expression generation would be based on such models. However most NLG systems use much simpler algorithms, for example using a pronoun if the referent was mentioned in the previous sentence (or sentential clause), and no other entity of the same gender was mentioned in this sentence. === Definite noun phrases === There has been a considerable amount of research on generating definite noun phrases, such as the big red book. Much of this builds on the model proposed by Dale and Reiter. This has been extended in various ways, for example Krahmer et al. present a graph-theoretic model of definite NP generation with many nice properties. In recent years a shared-task event has compared different algorithms for definite NP generation, using the TUNA corpus. === Spatial and temporal reference === Recently there has been more research on generating referring expressions for time and space. Such references tend to be imprecise (what is the exact meaning of tonight?), and also to be interpreted in different ways by different people. Hence it may be necessary to explicitly reason about false positive vs false negative tradeoffs, and even calculate the utility of different possible referring expressions in a particular task context. === Criteria for good expressions === Ideally, a good referring expression should satisfy a number of criteria: Referential success: It should unambiguously identify the referent to the reader. Ease of comprehension: The reader should be able to quickly read and understand it. Computational complexity: The generation algorithm should be fast No false inferences: The expression should not confuse or mislead the reader by suggesting false implicatures or other pragmatic inferences. For example, a reader may be confused if he is told Sit by the brown wooden table in a context where there is only one table. == History == === Pre-2000 era === REG goes back to the early days of NLG. One of the first approaches was done by Winograd in 1972 who developed an "incremental" REG algorithm for his SHRDLU program. Afterwards researchers started to model the human abilities to create referring expressions in the 1980s. This new approach to the topic was influenced by the researchers Appelt and Kronfeld who created the programs KAMP and BERTRAND and considered referring expressions as parts of bigger speech acts. Some of their most interesting findings were the fact that referring expressions can be used to add information beyond the identification of the referent as well as the influence of communicative context and the Gricean maxims on referring expressions. Furthermore, its skepticism concerning the naturalness of minimal descriptions made Appelt and Kronfeld's research a foundation of later work on REG. The search for simple, well-defined problems changed the direction of research in the early 1990s. This new approach was led by Dale and Reiter who stressed the identification of the referent as the central goal. Like Appelt they discuss the connection between the Gricean maxims and referring expressions in their culminant paper in which they also propose a formal problem definition. Furthermore, Reiter and Dale discuss the Full Brevity and Greedy Heuristics algorithms as well as their Incremental Algorithm(IA) which became one of the most important algorithms in REG. === Later developments === After 2000 the research began to lift some of the simplifying assumptions, that had been made in early REG research in order to create more simple algorithms. Different research groups concentrated on different limitations creating several expanded algorithms. Often these extend the IA in a single perspective for example in relation to: Reference to Sets like "the t-shirt wearers" or "the green apples and the banana on the left" Relational Descriptions like "the cup on the table" or "the woman who has three children" Context Dependency, Vagueness and Gradeability include statements like "the older man" or "the car on the left" which are often unclear without a context Salience and Generation of Pronouns are highly discourse dependent making for example "she" a reference to "the (most salient) female person" Many simplifying assumptions are still in place or have just begun to be worked on. Also a combination of the different extensions has yet to be done and is called a "non-trivial enterprise" by Krahmer and van Deemter. Another important change after 2000 was the increasing use of empirical studies in order to evaluate algorithms. This development took place due to the emergence of transparent corpora. Although there are still discussions about what the best evaluation metrics are, the use of experimental evaluation has already led to a better comparability of algorithms, a discussion about the goals of REG and more task-oriented research. Furthermore, research has extended its range to related topics such as the choice of Knowledge Representation(KR) Frameworks. In this area the main question, which KR framework is most suitable for the use in REG remains open. The answer to this question depends on how well descriptions can be expressed or found. A lot of the potential of KR frameworks has been left unused so far. Some of the different approaches are the usage of: Graph search which treats relations between targets in the same way as properties. Constraint Satisfaction which allows for a separation between problem specification and the implementation. Modern Knowledge Representation which offers logical inference in for example Description Logic or Conceptual Graphs. == Problem definition == Dale and Reiter (1995) think about referring expressions as distinguishing descriptions. They define: The referent as the entity that should be described The context set as set of salient entities The contrast set or potential distractors as all elements of the context set except the referent A property as a reference to a single attribute–value pair Each entity in the domain can be characterised as a set of attribute–value pairs for example ⟨ {\displaystyle \langle } type, dog ⟩ {\displaystyle \rangle } , ⟨ {\displaystyle \langle } gender, female ⟩ {\displaystyle \rangle } or ⟨ {\displaystyle \langle } age, 10 years ⟩ {\displaystyle \rangle } . The problem then is defined as follows: Let r {\displaystyle r} be the intended referent, and C {\displaystyle C} be the contrast set. Then, a set L {\displaystyle L} of attribute–value pairs will represent a distinguishing description if the following two conditions hold: Every attribute–value pair in L {\displaystyle L} applies to r {\displaystyle r} : that is, every element of L {\displaystyle L} specifies an attribute–value that r {\displaystyle r} possesses. For every member c {\displaystyle c} of C {\displaystyle C} , there is at least one element l {\displaystyle l} of L {\displaystyle L} that does not apply to c {\displaystyle c} : that is, there is an l {\displaystyle l} in L {\displaystyle L} that specifies an attribute–value that c {\displaystyle c} does not possess. l {\displaystyle l} is said

    Read more →
  • The Quantum Thief

    The Quantum Thief

    The Quantum Thief is the debut science fiction novel by Finnish writer Hannu Rajaniemi and the first novel in a trilogy featuring the character of Jean le Flambeur; the sequels are The Fractal Prince (2012) and The Causal Angel (2014). The novel was published in Britain by Gollancz in 2010, and by Tor in 2011 in the US. It is a heist story, set in a futuristic Solar System, that features a protagonist modeled on Arsène Lupin, the gentleman thief of Maurice Leblanc. The novel was nominated for the 2011 Locus Award for Best First Novel, and was second runner-up for the 2011 Campbell Memorial Award. == Setting == Several centuries after the technological singularity largely destroyed Earth, various posthuman factions compete for dominance in the Solar System. Though sentient superintelligent AGI has never been successfully developed, civilization has been greatly transformed by the proliferation of Hansonian brain emulations (termed "gogols" in reference to Nikolai Gogol, and in particular his novel Dead Souls). An alliance of powerful gogol copies rule the inner system from computronium megastructures housing trillions of virtual minds, laboring to resurrect the dead in religious devotion to the philosophy of Nikolai Fedorov. This alliance, the Sobornost, has been in conflict with a community of quantum entangled minds who adhere to the "no-cloning" principle of quantum information theory, and so do not see the Sobornost's ultimate goal as resurrection, but death. Most of this community, the Zoku, was devastated when Jupiter was destroyed with a weaponized gravitational singularity. Among the last remnants of near-baseline humanity exist on the mobile cities of Mars, where advanced cryptography and an obsessive privacy culture ensure that the Sobornost cannot upload their citizens' minds. The most notable of these cities is the Oubliette, where time is used as a currency. When a citizen's balance reaches zero their mind is transferred to a robotic body to serve the needs of the city for a set period, before being returned to their original body with a restored balance of time. == Plot summary == Countless gogols of the legendary gentleman thief Jean Le Flambeur are trapped in a virtual Sobornost prison in orbit around Neptune, playing an iterated prisoner's dilemma until his mind learns to cooperate. A warrior from the Oort Cloud, which has been settled by Finnish colonists, successfully retrieves one of the Le Flambeur gogols and uploads it into a real-space body. Acting on behalf of a competing Sobornost authority, this Oortian, Mieli, ferries the thief to the Martian city known as The Oubliette, where he has stored his memories for later recovery. The two intend to recover his memories so that he may return to an operating capacity sufficient to serve his Sobornost benefactor in a theft and repay his liberation. On the Oubliette, the young detective Isidore Beautrelet helps vigilantes catch Sobornost agents illicitly uploading human minds. These vigilantes are revealed to be in the service of a local colony of Zoku. Beautrelet is employed to investigate the arrival of Le Flambeur, and in the process becomes aware that the Oubliette's cryptographic security was always compromised. The memories of its citizens are fabrications, and the "King of Mars" long believed ousted in a revolution, still reigns behind the scenes. This King, who is another copy of Jean Le Flambeur, is defeated in the ensuing conflict. Le Flambeur fails to recover all of his memories, which he had locked with a quantum entangled revolver that required him to kill several of his old friends to open his stored memory. He and Mieli escape a liberated Mars having recovered only a mysterious "Schrödinger’s Box" from the Memory Palace. == Themes == Themes central to The Quantum Thief are the unreliability and malleability of memory and the effects of extreme longevity on an individual's perspective and personality. Prisons, surveillance and control in society are also major themes. In the book, the people living in the Oubliette society on Mars have two types of memory; in addition to a traditional, personal memory, there is the exomemory, which can be accessed by other people, from anywhere in the city. Memories about personal experiences can be stored in the exomemory and partitioned, with different levels of access granted to different people. These memories can be used, among other things, as an expedient form of communication. The Oubliette society has an economy where time is used as currency. When an individual's time is expended, their consciousness is uploaded into a "Quiet". The Quiet are mute machine servants who maintain and protect the city. Although the quiet seem to have little interest in the world outside their occupations, they do seem to retain some traces of their former personalities and memories. The conspiracy central to the plot involves the hidden rulers, called the "cryptarchs", manipulating and abusing the exomemory and through the citizens' transformations to quiet and back, the traditional memory as well. In the book, the Oubliette society is compared to a panopticon; a prison, where every action of the dwellers can be scrutinized. == History and influences == The first chapter of The Quantum Thief was presented by Rajaniemi's literary agent, John Jarrold, to Gollancz as the basis for the three-book deal that was eventually secured. Rajaniemi has stated that he had "come up with an outline that had every single idea I could cram into it, because I wanted to be worthy of what had happened." The outline eventually expanded into three parts, and the first part became The Quantum Thief. The novel's plot was inspired by one of Rajaniemi's favorite characters in fiction, Maurice Leblanc's gentleman thief Arsène Lupin, who operates on both sides of the law. What intrigued Rajaniemi were the cycles of redemption and relapse Lupin goes through as he tries to go straight, always falling short. Besides LeBlanc, Rajaniemi mentioned Roger Zelazny as a strong influence. Ian McDonald was the other science fiction author he mentioned as influential, plus Frances A.Yates's book The Art of Memory, for memory palaces. In an interview, Rajaniemi said he wasn't trying to write the novel as hard science fiction: "For me, the more important consequence of having a scientific background is a degree of speculative rigour: trying hard to work out the consequences of the assumptions one begins with." == Reception == The novel has received generally positive reviews. Gary K. Wolfe writes in his Locus review that Rajaniemi has "spectacularly delivered on the promise that this is likely the most important debut SF novel we'll see this year". James Lovegrove, reviewing the book in his Financial Times column, notes that "many an anglophone author would kill to turn out prose half as good as this, especially on their maiden effort." Eric Brown, reviewing for The Guardian, finds the novel to be "a brilliant debut", while alluding to the "apocryphal" (and incorrect) myth that "this novel sold on the strength of its first line." Sam Bandah, at SciFiNow, praises the novel for "its engaging narrative and characters backed by often almost intimidatingly good sci-fi concepts." Criticism for the novel has generally centred on Rajaniemi's sparse "show, don't tell" writing style. Brown notes that "the author makes no concessions to the lazy reader with info-dumps or convenient explanations." Niall Alexander, of the Speculative Scotsman, states that "had there been some sort of index, [he] would have gladly (and repeatedly) referred to it during the mind-boggling first third of The Quantum Thief", while proclaiming the novel to be "the sci-fi debut of 2010." == Awards == Nominee for the 2011 Locus Award for Best First Novel. Third place for the 2011 John W. Campbell Memorial Award for Best Science Fiction Novel

    Read more →
  • Oxa

    Oxa

    Oxa (formerly Oxbotica) is an autonomous vehicle software company, headquartered in Oxfordshire, England, and founded by Paul Newman and Ingmar Posner. == History == In 2013, Newman and Posner led the RobotCar UK project as part of Oxford University's Department of Engineering Science Mobile Robotics Group. RobotCar became the first autonomous vehicle on UK roads. In 2014, the pair used the newly developed technology to found Oxbotica. Oxbotica has raised over $18 million to date and is backed by the IP Group, Parkwalk Advisors and AXA XL. In 2018, Uber's former EMEA business head, Fraser Robinson, was appointed to the board of directors. In May 2019, Ozgur Tohumcu replaced Dr Graeme Smith as Oxbotica's CEO. Also in 2019, the company opened an office in Toronto, Canada. In January 2021, Oxbotica announced it had raised $47 million in a Series B round. In August 2021, the company achieved a safety landmark as the first company to have its autonomy safety case assessed by BSI (British Standards Institution) against the requirements of the UK Code of Practice 2019, PAS 1881:2020 and PAS 1883:2020, certifying the safety conformity of its autonomous vehicle trials and testing. The assessment was completed as part of Project Endeavour, the UK's first multi-city demonstration of autonomous vehicle services and capability. In December 2021, Gavin Jackson was named CEO. In January 2023, the company raised $140 million in a Series C round. In May 2023, the company changed its name to Oxa. Oxa raised $103 million (£77 million) in March 2026, including $50 million from the UK National Wealth Fund. Nvidia's venture capital division, NVentures, also invested in the Series D funding round, along with existing Oxa shareholders IP Group, Australian pension fund Hostplus, and BP Ventures, a division of the UK oil company. == Technology == Oxa designs software and hardware for the conversion of industrial vehicles into autonomous ones. Its full stack, end-to-end Universal Autonomy software is both vehicle and platform-agnostic, with no dependence on external infrastructure such as GPS. It can be deployed in any environment and on any terrain. In addition to underground uses, the technology is also useful in natural canyons and forests, where GPS signals are weak or non-existent, but also in "urban canyons" — cities with tall buildings that obstruct GPS signals for proper navigation. == Public deployments == The LUTZ Pathfinder pod had its first public demonstration in February 2015 in Milton Keynes. The Government-funded project was designed to ensure that autonomous vehicles would comply with the Highway Code. The pod featured autonomous control software from Oxbotica, including 19 sensors, cameras, radar and Lidar. As part of the GATEway Project in 2017, Oxbotica trialled seven autonomous shuttle buses in Greenwich, navigating a two-mile riverside path near London's O2 Arena on a route that is also used by pedestrians and cyclists. Oxbotica ran the UK's first trial of autonomous grocery deliveries that year, with British online supermarket Ocado in London, as the next step in the GATEway Project. In 2018, Oxbotica deployed its autonomous vehicle software at London's Gatwick Airport, which subsequently became the first airport in the world to trial an autonomous shuttle service. The electric-powered vehicles transported staff via airside roads between the airport's North and South terminals. An airside trial of Oxbotica's autonomous driving technology was then successfully completed at Heathrow Airport in partnership with IAG Cargo, the first airside trial of an autonomous vehicle at a UK airport. The Oxbotica-designed CargoPod ran autonomously along a cargo route around the airside perimeter for three weeks. As part of the UK Centre for Connected and Autonomous Vehicles-funded DRIVEN project, Oxbotica is developing and deploying a fleet of Ford Fusion autonomous vehicles running in both London and Oxford on public roads, and in conjunction with its consortium partners, running real-time insurance. AXA XL is partnering with Oxbotica on the development of smart insurance products using Oxbotica's autonomy technology to improve road safety. In 2018, Oxbotica announced a partnership with London private taxi firm Addison Lee to develop and deploy autonomous taxis in the city of London by 2021. A 3D street mapping exercise was conducted in London's Canary Wharf. In 2019, Oxbotica deployed a fleet of their autonomous technology within Ford Mondeo cars on public roads in Stratford, London to test their use in city environments. The £13.2 million project is in collaboration with The DRIVEN Project to develop self-driving cars. == Awards == 2019 Royal Academy of Engineering Silver Medal - Paul Newman 2017 Financial Times ArcelorMittal Boldness in Business Award Barclays Award for Innovation 2016 Frost & Sullivan Award, Technology Leadership for Autonomous Driving Software

    Read more →