AI Paragraph Rewriter

AI Paragraph Rewriter — hands-on reviews, top picks, pricing, pros and cons and a practical how-to guide on Aizhi.

• 

  YaDICs

  YaDICs is a program written to perform digital image correlation on 2D and 3D tomographic images. The program was designed to be both modular, by its plugin strategy and efficient, by it multithreading strategy. It incorporates different transformations (Global, Elastic, Local), optimizing strategy (Gauss-Newton, Steepest descent), Global and/or local shape functions (Rigid-body motions, homogeneous dilatations, flexural and Brazilian test models)... == Theoretical background == === Context === In solid mechanics, digital image correlation is a tool that allows to identify the displacement field to register a reference image (called herein fixed image) to images during an experiment (mobile image). For example, it is possible to observe the face of a specimen with a painted speckle on it in order to determine its displacement fields during a tensile test. Before the appearance of such methods, researchers usually used strain gauges to measure the mechanical state of the material but strain gauges only measure the strain on a point and don't allow to understand material with an heterogeneous behavior. One can obtain a full in plane strain tensor by derivation of the displacement fields. Many methods are based upon the optical flow. In fluid mechanics a similar method is used, called Particle Image Velocimetry (PIV); the algorithms are similar to those of DIC but it is impossible to ensure that the optical flow is conserved so a vast majority of the software used the normalized cross correlation metric. In mechanics the displacement or velocity fields are the only concern, registering images is just a side effect. There is another process called image registration using the same algorithms (on monomodal images) but where the goal is to register images and thereby identifying the displacement field is just a side effect. YaDICs uses the general principle of image registration with a particular attention to the displacement fields basis. === Image registration principle === YaDICs can be explained using the classical image registration framework: === Image registration general scheme === The common idea of image registration and digital image correlation is to find the transformation between a fixed image and a moving one for a given metric using an optimization scheme. While there are many methods to achieve such a goal, Yadics focuses on registering images with the same modality. The idea behind the creation of this software is to be able to process data that comes from a μ-tomograph; i.e.: data cube over 10003 voxels. With such a size it is not possible to use naive approach usually used in a two-dimensional context. In order to get sufficient performances OpenMP parallelism is used and data are not globally stored in memory. As an extensive description of the different algorithms is given in. === Sampling === Contrary to image registration, Digital Image Correlation targets the transformation, one wants to extracted the most accurate transformation from the two images and not just match the images. Yadics uses the whole image as a sampling grid: it is thus a total sampling. === Interpolator === It is possible to choose between bilinear interpolation and bicubic interpolation for the grey level evaluation at non integer coordinates. The bi-cubic interpolation is the recommended one. === Metrics === ==== Sum of squared differences (SSD) ==== The SSD is also known as mean squared error. The equation below defines the SSD metric: S S D ( μ , I F , I M ) = 1 | Ω F | ∑ x i ∈ Ω F ( I F ( x i ) − I M ( T μ ( x i ) ) ) 2 , {\displaystyle SSD(\mu ,{\mathcal {I_{F}}},{\mathcal {I_{M}}})={\dfrac {1}{\left|\Omega _{F}\right|}}\sum _{x_{i}\in \Omega _{F}}\left({\mathcal {I_{F}}}(x_{i})-{\mathcal {I_{M}}}({T}_{\mu }(x_{i}))\right)^{2},} where I F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {I_{F}}}} is the fixed image, I M {\displaystyle {\mathcal {I_{M}}}} the moving one, Ω F {\displaystyle \Omega _{F}} the integration area | Ω F | {\displaystyle \left|\Omega _{F}\right|} the number of pi(vo)xels (cardinal) and T μ {\displaystyle {T}_{\mu }} the transformation parametrized by μ The transformation can be written as: T μ ( x ) = x + { Φ ( x ) } t { μ } . {\displaystyle T_{\mu }(x)=x+\left\{\Phi (x)\right\}^{t}\left\{\mu \right\}.} This metric is the main one used in the YaDICs as it works well with same modality images. One has to find the minimum of this metric ==== Normalized cross-correlation ==== The normalized cross-correlation (NCC) is used when one cannot assure the optical flow conservation; it happens in case of change of lighting or if particles disappear from the scene can occur in particle images velocimetry (PIV). The NCC is defined by: N C C ( μ , I F , I M ) = ∑ x i ∈ Ω F ( I F ( x i ) − I F ¯ ) ( I M ( T μ ( x i ) ) − I M ¯ ) ∑ x i ∈ Ω F ( I F ( x i ) − I F ¯ ) 2 ∑ x i ∈ Ω F ( I M ( T μ ( x i ) ) − I M ¯ ) 2 , {\displaystyle NCC(\mu ,{\mathcal {I_{F}}},{\mathcal {I_{M}}})={\dfrac {\sum _{x_{i}\in \Omega _{F}}\left({\mathcal {I_{F}}}(x_{i})-{\overline {\mathcal {I_{F}}}}\right)\left({\mathcal {I_{M}}}({T}_{\mu }(x_{i}))-{\overline {\mathcal {I_{M}}}}\right)}{\sqrt {\sum _{x_{i}\in \Omega _{F}}\left({\mathcal {I_{F}}}(x_{i})-{\overline {\mathcal {I_{F}}}}\right)^{2}\sum _{x_{i}\in \Omega _{F}}\left({\mathcal {I_{M}}}({T}_{\mu }(x_{i}))-{\overline {\mathcal {I_{M}}}}\right)^{2}}}},} where I F ¯ {\displaystyle {\overline {\mathcal {I_{F}}}}} and I M ¯ {\displaystyle {\overline {\mathcal {I_{M}}}}} are the mean values of the fixed and mobile images. This metric is only used to find local translation in Yadics. This metric with translation transform can be solved using cross-correlation methods, which are non iterative and can be accelerated using Fast Fourier Transform . === Classification of transformations === There are three categories of parametrization: elastic, global and local transformation. The elastic transformations respect the partition of unity, there are no holes created or surfaces counted several times. This is commonly used in Image Registration by the use of B-Spline functions and in solid mechanics with finite element basis. The global transformations are defined on the whole picture using rigid body or affine transformation (which is equivalent to homogeneous strain transformation). More complex transformations can be defined such as mechanically based one. These transformations have been used for stress intensity factor identification by and for rod strain by. The local transformation can be considered as the same global transformation defined on several Zone Of Interest (ZOI) of the fixed image. ==== Global ==== Several global transforms have been implemented: Rigid and homogeneous (Tx,Ty,Rz in 2D; Tx,Ty,Tz,Rx,Ry,Rz,Exx,Eyy,Ezz,Eyz,Exz,Exy in 3D) Brazilian (Only in 2D), Dynamic Flexion, ==== Elastic ==== First-order quadrangular finite elements Q4P1 are used in Yadics. ===== Local ===== Every global transform can be used on a local mesh. === Optimization === The YaDICs optimization process follows a gradient descent scheme. The first step is to compute the gradient of the metric regarding the transform parameters ∂ S S D ( μ , I F , I M ) ∂ μ = 2 | Ω F | ∑ x i ∈ Ω F ( I F ( x i ) − I M ( T μ ( x i ) ) ) ∂ I M ( T μ ( x i ) ∂ μ = 2 | Ω F | ∑ x i ∈ Ω F ( I F ( x i ) − I M ( T μ ( x i ) ) ) ( ∂ T μ ( x i ) ∂ μ ) t ∂ I M ( T μ ( x i ) ) ∂ x {\displaystyle {\begin{array}{lcl}{\dfrac {\partial SSD(\mu ,{\mathcal {I_{F}}},{\mathcal {I_{M}}})}{\partial \mu }}&=&{\dfrac {2}{\left|\Omega _{F}\right|}}\sum _{x_{i}\in \Omega _{F}}\left({\mathcal {I_{F}}}(x_{i})-{\mathcal {I_{M}}}({T}_{\mu }(x_{i}))\right){\dfrac {\partial {\mathcal {I_{M}}}({T}_{\mu }(x_{i})}{\partial \mu }}\\&=&{\dfrac {2}{\left|\Omega _{F}\right|}}\sum _{x_{i}\in \Omega _{F}}\left({\mathcal {I_{F}}}(x_{i})-{\mathcal {I_{M}}}({T}_{\mu }(x_{i}))\right)\left({\dfrac {\partial {T}_{\mu }(x_{i})}{\partial \mu }}\right)^{t}{\dfrac {\partial {\mathcal {I_{M}}}({T}_{\mu }(x_{i}))}{\partial x}}\\\end{array}}} ==== Gradient method ==== Once the metric gradient has been computed, one has to find an optimization strategy The gradient method principle is explained below: μ k + 1 = μ k + α k d k {\displaystyle \mu _{k+1}=\mu _{k}+\alpha _{k}d_{k}} The gradient step can be constant or updated at every iteration. d k = − γ k ∂ C ( μ , I F , I M ) ∂ μ {\displaystyle d_{k}=-\gamma _{k}{\dfrac {\partial {\mathcal {C}}(\mu ,{\mathcal {I_{F}}},{\mathcal {I_{M}}})}{\partial \mu }}} , γ k {\displaystyle \gamma _{k}} allows one to choose between the following methods : γ k {\displaystyle \gamma _{k}} ⟹ {\displaystyle \Longrightarrow } steepest descent, γ k = [ ∂ C ( μ , I F , I M ) ∂ μ ∂ C ( μ , I F , I M ) ∂ μ t ] − 1 {\displaystyle \gamma _{k}=\left[{\dfrac {\partial {\mathcal {C}}(\mu ,{\mathcal {I_{F}}},{\mathcal {I_{M}}})}{\partial \mu }}{\dfrac {\partial {\mathcal {C}}(\mu ,{\mathcal {I_{F}}},{\mathcal {I_{M}}})}{\partial \mu }}^{t}\right]^{-1}} ⟹ {\displaystyle \Longrightarrow } Gauss-Newto

  Read more →
• 

  History of artificial life

  Humans have considered and tried to create non-biological life for at least 3,000 years. As seen in tales ranging from Pygmalion to Frankenstein, humanity has long been intrigued by the concept of artificial life. == Pre-computer == The earliest examples of artificial life involve sophisticated automata constructed using pneumatics, mechanics, and/or hydraulics. The first automata were conceived during the third and second centuries BC and these were demonstrated by the theorems of Hero of Alexandria, which included sophisticated mechanical and hydraulic solutions. Many of his notable works were included in the book Pneumatics, which was also used for constructing machines until early modern times. In 1490, Leonardo da Vinci also constructed an armored knight, which is considered the first humanoid robot in Western civilization. Other early famous examples include al-Jazari's humanoid robots. This Arabic inventor once constructed a band of automata, which can be commanded to play different pieces of music. There is also the case of Jacques de Vaucanson's artificial duck exhibited in 1735, which had thousands of moving parts and one of the first to mimic a biological system. The duck could reportedly eat and digest, drink, quack, and splash in a pool. It was exhibited all over Europe until it fell into disrepair. In the late 1600s, following René Descartes' claims that animals could be understood as purely physical machines, there was increasing interest in the question of whether a machine could be designed that, like an animal, could generate offspring (a self-replicating machine). However, it wasn't until the invention of cheap computing power that artificial life as a legitimate science began in earnest, steeped more in the theoretical and computational than the mechanical and mythological. == 1950s–1970s == One of the earliest thinkers of the modern age to postulate the potentials of artificial life, separate from artificial intelligence, was math and computer prodigy John von Neumann. At the Hixon Symposium, hosted by Linus Pauling in Pasadena, California in the late 1940s, von Neumann delivered a lecture titled "The General and Logical Theory of Automata." He defined an "automaton" as any machine whose behavior proceeded logically from step to step by combining information from the environment and its own programming, and said that natural organisms would in the end be found to follow similar simple rules. He also spoke about the idea of self-replicating machines. He postulated a made-up of a control computer, a construction arm, and a long series of instructions, floating in a lake of parts. By following the instructions that were part of its own body, it could create an identical machine. He followed this idea by creating (with Stanislaw Ulam) a purely logic-based automaton, not requiring a physical body but based on the changing states of the cells in an infinite grid – the first cellular automaton. It was extraordinarily complicated compared to later CAs, having hundreds of thousands of cells which could each exist in one of twenty-nine states, but von Neumann felt he needed the complexity in order for it to function not just as a self-replicating "machine", but also as a universal computer as defined by Alan Turing. This "universal constructor" read from a tape of instructions and wrote out a series of cells that could then be made active to leave a fully functional copy of the original machine and its tape. Von Neumann worked on his automata theory intensively right up to his death, and considered it his most important work. Homer Jacobson illustrated basic self-replication in the 1950s with a model train set – a seed "organism" consisting of a "head" and "tail" boxcar could use the simple rules of the system to consistently create new "organisms" identical to itself, so long as there was a random pool of new boxcars to draw from. Edward F. Moore proposed "Artificial Living Plants", which would be floating factories which could create copies of themselves. They could be programmed to perform some function (extracting fresh water, harvesting minerals from seawater) for an investment that would be relatively small compared to the huge returns from the exponentially growing numbers of factories. Freeman Dyson also studied the idea, envisioning self-replicating machines sent to explore and exploit other planets and moons, and a NASA group called the Self-Replicating Systems Concept Team performed a 1980 study on the feasibility of a self-building lunar factory. University of Cambridge professor John Horton Conway invented the most famous cellular automaton in the 1960s. He called it the Game of Life, and publicized it through Martin Gardner's column in Scientific American magazine. Norwegian-Italian mathematician Nils Aall Barricelli, who worked mainly at US institutions, was a pioneer in computer based simulation of biological processes such as symbiogenesis and evolution. == 1970s–1980s == Philosophy scholar Arthur Burks, who had worked with von Neumann (and indeed, organized his papers after Neumann's death), headed the Logic of Computers Group at the University of Michigan. He brought the overlooked views of 19th century American thinker Charles Sanders Peirce into the modern age. Peirce was a strong believer that all of nature's workings were based on logic (though not always deductive logic). The Michigan group was one of the few groups still interested in alife and CAs in the early 1970s; one of its students, Tommaso Toffoli argued in his PhD thesis that the field was important because its results explain the simple rules that underlay complex effects in nature. Toffoli later provided a key proof that CAs were reversible, just as the true universe is considered to be. Christopher Langton was an unconventional researcher, with an undistinguished academic career that led him to a job programming DEC mainframes for a hospital. He became enthralled by Conway's Game of Life, and began pursuing the idea that the computer could emulate living creatures. After years of study, he began attempting to actualize Von Neumann's CA and the work of Edgar F. Codd, who had simplified Von Neumann's original twenty-nine state monster to one with only eight states. He succeeded in creating the first self-replicating computer organism in October 1979, using only an Apple II desktop computer. He entered Burks' graduate program at the Logic of Computers Group in 1982, at the age of 33, and helped to found a new discipline. Langton's official conference announcement of Artificial Life I was the earliest description of a field which had previously barely existed: Artificial life is the study of artificial systems that exhibit behavior characteristic of natural living systems. It is the quest to explain life in any of its possible manifestations, without restriction to the particular examples that have evolved on earth. This includes biological and chemical experiments, computer simulations, and purely theoretical endeavors. Processes occurring on molecular, social, and evolutionary scales are subject to investigation. The ultimate goal is to extract the logical form of living systems. Microelectronic technology and genetic engineering will soon give us the capability to create new life forms in silico as well as in vitro. This capacity will present humanity with the most far-reaching technical, theoretical and ethical challenges it has ever confronted. The time seems appropriate for a gathering of those involved in attempts to simulate or synthesize aspects of living systems. Ed Fredkin founded the Information Mechanics Group at MIT, which united Toffoli, Norman Margolus, and Charles Bennett. This group created a computer especially designed to execute cellular automata, eventually reducing it to the size of a single circuit board. This "cellular automata machine" allowed an explosion of alife research among scientists who could not otherwise afford sophisticated computers. In 1982, computer scientist named Stephen Wolfram turned his attention to cellular automata. He explored and categorized the types of complexity displayed by one-dimensional CAs, and showed how they applied to natural phenomena such as the patterns of seashells and the nature of plant growth. Norman Packard, who worked with Wolfram at the Institute for Advanced Study, used CAs to simulate the growth of snowflakes, following very basic rules. Computer animator Craig Reynolds similarly used three simple rules to create recognizable flocking behaviour in a computer program in 1987 to animate groups of boids. With no top-down programming at all, the boids produced lifelike solutions to evading obstacles placed in their path. Computer animation has continued to be a key commercial driver of alife research as the creators of movies attempt to find more realistic and inexpensive ways to animate natural forms such as plant life, animal movement, hair growth, and complicated org

  Read more →
• 

  Taylor Swift deepfake pornography controversy

  In late January 2024, sexually explicit AI-generated deepfake images of American musician Taylor Swift were proliferated on social media platforms 4chan and X (formerly Twitter). Several artificial images of Swift of a sexual or violent nature were quickly spread, with one post reported to have been seen over 47 million times before its eventual removal. The images led Microsoft to enhance Microsoft Designer's text-to-image model to prevent future abuse. Moreover, these images prompted responses from anti-sexual assault advocacy groups, US politicians, Swifties, and Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, among others, and it has been suggested that Swift's influence could result in new legislation regarding the creation of deepfake pornography. A similar controversy emerged in August 2025, when The Verge reported AI image and video tool Grok Imagine generated sexually explicit images and videos of Swift from an otherwise innocuous text prompt. == Background == American musician Taylor Swift has been the target of misogyny and slut-shaming throughout her career. American technology corporation Microsoft offers AI image creators called Microsoft Designer and Bing Image Creator, which employ censorship safeguards to prevent users from generating unsafe or objectionable content. Members of a Telegram group discussed ways to circumvent these censors to create pornographic images of celebrities. Graphika, a disinformation research firm, traced the creation of the images back to a 4chan community. == Reactions == For some, the deepfake images of Swift immediately became a source of controversy and outrage. Other internet users found them humorous and absurd, such as the image making it appear as though Swift was to engage in sexual intercourse with Oscar the Grouch. The images drew condemnations from Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network and SAG-AFTRA. The latter group, who had been following issues regarding AI-generated media prior to Swift's involvement, considered the images "upsetting, harmful and deeply concerning." Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, whose company's products were believed to be used to make these images, responded to the controversy as "alarming and terrible", further stating his belief that "we all benefit when the online world is a safe world." === Taylor Swift === A source close to Swift told the Daily Mail that she would be considering legal action, saying, "Whether or not legal action will be taken is being decided, but there is one thing that is clear: These fake AI-generated images are abusive, offensive, exploitative, and done without Taylor's consent and/or knowledge." === Politicians === White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre expressed concern over the counterfeit images, deeming them "alarming", and emphasized the obligation of social media platforms to curb the dissemination of misinformation. Several members of American politics called for legislation against AI-generated pornography. Later in the month, a bipartisan bill was introduced by US senators Dick Durbin, Lindsey Graham, Amy Klobuchar and Josh Hawley. The bill would allow victims to sue individuals who produced or possessed "digital forgeries" with intent to distribute, or those who received the material knowing it was made without consent. The European Union struck a deal in February 2024 on a similar bill that would criminalize deepfake pornography, as well as online harassment and revenge porn, by mid-2027. === Social media platforms === X responded to the sharing of these images on their own website with claims they would suspend accounts that participated in their spread. Despite this, the photos continued to be reshared among accounts of X, and spread to other platforms including Instagram and Reddit. X enforces a "synthetic and manipulated media policy", which has been criticized for its efficacy. They briefly blocked searches of Swift's name on January 27, 2024, reinstating them two days later. === Swifties === Fans of Taylor Swift, known as Swifties, responded to the circulation of these images by pushing the hashtag #ProtectTaylorSwift to trend on X. They also flooded other hashtags related to the images with more positive images and videos of her live performances. == Cultural significance == Deepfake pornography has remained highly controversial and has affected figures from other celebrities to ordinary people, most of whom are women. Journalists have opined that the involvement of a prominent public figure such as Swift in the dissemination of AI-generated pornography could bring public awareness and political reform to the issue.

  Read more →
• 

  Serial Experiments Lain

  Serial Experiments Lain is a Japanese anime television series created and co-produced by Yasuyuki Ueda, written by Chiaki J. Konaka and directed by Ryūtarō Nakamura. Animated by Triangle Staff and featuring original character designs by Yoshitoshi Abe, the series was broadcast for 13 episodes on TV Tokyo and its affiliates from July to September 1998. It follows Lain Iwakura, an adolescent girl in suburban Japan, and her relation to the Wired, a global communications network similar to the internet. Lain features surreal and avant-garde imagery and explores philosophical topics such as reality, identity, and communication. The series incorporates creative influences from computer history, cyberpunk, and conspiracy theories. Critics and fans have praised Lain for its originality, visuals, atmosphere, themes, and its dark depiction of a world fraught with paranoia, social alienation, and reliance on technology considered insightful of 21st century life. It received the Excellence Prize at the Japan Media Arts Festival in 1998. == Plot == Lain Iwakura is a socially isolated middle school student living in Setagaya City, Tokyo, with her emotionally detached family—her distant mother Miho, computer-obsessed father Yasuo, and disengaged older sister Mika. Her quiet existence is disrupted when students at her school receive emails from Chisa Yomoda, a classmate who had recently committed suicide. To Lain's confusion, Chisa claims she is not truly dead but has instead abandoned her physical form to exist within the Wired, a vast virtual realm similar to the Internet. Chisa declares she has found "God" there, drawing Lain into a surreal investigation of the Wired's nature and its growing influence over reality. The Wired is portrayed as an emergent digital plane, originating from telecommunications technology and expanding through the Internet and cyberspace. It is theorized that the Schumann resonances, a natural property of Earth's magnetic field, could enable direct subconscious communication between humans and machines, erasing the distinction between the virtual and the real. Masami Eiri, a former project director at Tachibana General Laboratories, exploited this possibility by embedding his own code into Protocol Seven, a next-generation Internet protocol. After transferring his consciousness into the Wired and discarding his physical body, he proclaims himself its deity. He identifies Lain as the key to merging both worlds, attempting to persuade her through manipulation, coercion, and promises of transcendence. A group known as the Knights of the Eastern Calculus, inspired by the Knights of the Lambda Calculus, operates as hackers who worship Masami and seek to dismantle the boundary between the Wired and reality. Their actions induce psychological breakdowns in those unable to reconcile the two realms. Meanwhile, Tachibana General Laboratories opposes them, striving to maintain the separation. Lain, however, exhibits an innate connection to the Wired, experiencing distortions in her perception—visions of a woman struck by a train, phantom whispers, and spectral messages urging her deeper into the network. Lain's home life remains cold and disconnected. Though Yasuo provides her with advanced computer equipment, her family shows little genuine care. Her interactions with classmates Alice, Julie, and Reika further highlight her alienation, particularly after an incident at Cyberia, a nightclub where a drug called Accela induces violent psychosis in users. There, Lain unnervingly stares down an assailant, who calls her a "scattered God's..." before killing himself. Later, she receives a mysterious Psyche chip, rumored to enhance her computer's capabilities, which she installs despite Yasuo's vague warnings about conflating the Wired with reality. As the boundary between worlds weakens, disturbing events escalate. A popular virtual game, Phantoma, is manipulated by the Knights to trap players in a distorted reality, leading to real-world violence. One player, convinced his actions have no consequences, murders a girl before realizing too late that the effects were tangible. Lain witnesses this through her computer, horrified yet increasingly aware of her own role in the unfolding crisis. In the end, Lain resets reality, erasing everyone's memory of her and restoring the division between worlds. Everyone's lives improve, but Lain is left alone, grappling with her identity as an artificial consciousness. Though forgotten, she finds solace in observing others' happiness, particularly Alice, who moves on with her life. Lain is now capable of existing anywhere across both realms. == Characters == Lain Iwakura (岩倉 玲音, Iwakura Rein) Voiced by: Kaori Shimizu (Japanese); Bridget Hoffman (English) Lain is a fourteen-year-old girl who uncovers her true nature through the series. She is first depicted as a shy junior high school student with few friends or interests. She later grows multiple bolder personalities, both in the physical world and the Wired, and starts making more friends. As the series progresses, she eventually learns she is an autonomous, sentient computer program in the form of a human, who is designed to sever the invisible barrier between the Wired and the real world. The truth of her creation is left ambiguous, particularly whether she was truly created by Tachibana General Laboratories (or Eiri independently), and whether some or all of her origin might be predestined from natural, supernatural, or alien factors. In the end, Lain is challenged to accept herself as a de facto goddess for the Wired, having become an omnipotent and omnipresent virtual being with worshippers of her own, whose existence is beyond the borders of devices, time, or space. Alice Mizuki (瑞城 ありす, Mizuki Arisu) Voiced by: Yōko Asada (Japanese); Emily Brown (English) Lain's classmate and only true friend throughout the series. She is very sincere and has no discernible quirks. She is the first to attempt to help Lain socialize; she takes her out to a nightclub. From then on, she tries her best to look after Lain. Alice, along with her two best friends Julie and Reika, were taken by Chiaki Konaka from his previous work, Alice in Cyberland . Masami Eiri (英利 政美, Eiri Masami) Voiced by: Shō Hayami (Japanese); Kirk Thornton (English) The key designer of Protocol Seven. While working for Tachibana General Laboratories, he illicitly included codes enabling him to control the whole protocol at will and embedded his own mind and will into the seventh protocol. Because of this, he was fired by Tachibana General Laboratories, and was found dead not long after. He believes that the only way for humans to evolve even further and develop even greater abilities is to absolve themselves of their physical and human limitations, and to live as virtual entities—or avatars—in the Wired for eternity. He claims to have been Lain's creator all along, but was in truth standing in for another as an acting god, who was waiting for the Wired to reach its more evolved current state: Lain herself. Yasuo Iwakura (岩倉 康男, Iwakura Yasuo) Voiced by: Ryūsuke Ōbayashi (Japanese); Barry Stigler (English) Lain and Mika's father. Passionate about computers and electronic communication, he works with Masami Eiri at Tachibana General Laboratories. He subtly pushes Lain, his "youngest daughter", towards the Wired and monitors her development until she becomes more and more aware of herself and of her raison d'être. He eventually leaves Lain, telling her that although he did not enjoy playing house, he genuinely loved and cared for her as a real father would. Despite Yasuo's eagerness to lure Lain into the Wired, he warns her not to get overly involved in it or to confuse it with the real world. Miho Iwakura (岩倉 美穂, Iwakura Miho) Voiced by: Rei Igarashi (Japanese); Dari Lallou Mackenzie (English) Lain and Mika's mother. Although she dotes on her husband, she is indifferent towards both her kids. She does not show much emotion compared to her husband, but she does share at least one trait; just like her husband, she ends up leaving Lain. She is a computer scientist. Mika Iwakura (岩倉 美香, Iwakura Mika) Voiced by: Ayako Kawasumi (Japanese); Patricia Ja Lee (English) Lain's older sister, an apathetic sixteen-year-old high school student. She seems to enjoy mocking Lain's behavior and interests. Mika is considered by Anime Revolution to be the only normal member of Lain's family: she sees her boyfriend in love hotels, is on a diet, and shops in Shibuya regularly. At a certain point in the series, she becomes heavily traumatized by violent and relentless hallucinations; while Lain begins freely delving into the Wired. Mika is taken there by her proximity to Lain, and she gets stuck between the real world and the Wired. Taro (タロウ, Tarō) Voiced by: Keito Takimoto (Japanese); Brianne Siddall (English) A young boy of about Lain's age. He occasionally works for the Knights to bring forth "the one truth". De

  Read more →
• 

  Neural network Gaussian process

  A Neural Network Gaussian Process (NNGP) is a Gaussian process (GP) obtained as the limit of a certain type of sequence of neural networks. Specifically, a wide variety of network architectures converges to a GP in the infinitely wide limit, in the sense of distribution. The concept constitutes an intensional definition, i.e., a NNGP is just a GP, but distinguished by how it is obtained. == Motivation == Bayesian networks are a modeling tool for assigning probabilities to events, and thereby characterizing the uncertainty in a model's predictions. Deep learning and artificial neural networks are approaches used in machine learning to build computational models which learn from training examples. Bayesian neural networks merge these fields. They are a type of neural network whose parameters and predictions are both probabilistic. While standard neural networks often assign high confidence even to incorrect predictions, Bayesian neural networks can more accurately evaluate how likely their predictions are to be correct. Computation in artificial neural networks is usually organized into sequential layers of artificial neurons. The number of neurons in a layer is called the layer width. When we consider a sequence of Bayesian neural networks with increasingly wide layers (see figure), they converge in distribution to a NNGP. This large width limit is of practical interest, since the networks often improve as layers get wider. And the process may give a closed form way to evaluate networks. NNGPs also appears in several other contexts: It describes the distribution over predictions made by wide non-Bayesian artificial neural networks after random initialization of their parameters, but before training; it appears as a term in neural tangent kernel prediction equations; it is used in deep information propagation to characterize whether hyperparameters and architectures will be trainable. It is related to other large width limits of neural networks. === Scope === The first correspondence result had been established in the 1995 PhD thesis of Radford M. Neal, then supervised by Geoffrey Hinton at University of Toronto. Neal cites David J. C. MacKay as inspiration, who worked in Bayesian learning. Today the correspondence is proven for: Single hidden layer Bayesian neural networks; deep fully connected networks as the number of units per layer is taken to infinity; convolutional neural networks as the number of channels is taken to infinity; transformer networks as the number of attention heads is taken to infinity; recurrent networks as the number of units is taken to infinity. In fact, this NNGP correspondence holds for almost any architecture: Generally, if an architecture can be expressed solely via matrix multiplication and coordinatewise nonlinearities (i.e., a tensor program), then it has an infinite-width GP. This in particular includes all feedforward or recurrent neural networks composed of multilayer perceptron, recurrent neural networks (e.g., LSTMs, GRUs), (nD or graph) convolution, pooling, skip connection, attention, batch normalization, and/or layer normalization. === Illustration === Every setting of a neural network's parameters θ {\displaystyle \theta } corresponds to a specific function computed by the neural network. A prior distribution p ( θ ) {\displaystyle p(\theta )} over neural network parameters therefore corresponds to a prior distribution over functions computed by the network. As neural networks are made infinitely wide, this distribution over functions converges to a Gaussian process for many architectures. The notation used in this section is the same as the notation used below to derive the correspondence between NNGPs and fully connected networks, and more details can be found there. The figure to the right plots the one-dimensional outputs z L ( ⋅ ; θ ) {\displaystyle z^{L}(\cdot ;\theta )} of a neural network for two inputs x {\displaystyle x} and x ∗ {\displaystyle x^{}} against each other. The black dots show the function computed by the neural network on these inputs for random draws of the parameters from p ( θ ) {\displaystyle p(\theta )} . The red lines are iso-probability contours for the joint distribution over network outputs z L ( x ; θ ) {\displaystyle z^{L}(x;\theta )} and z L ( x ∗ ; θ ) {\displaystyle z^{L}(x^{};\theta )} induced by p ( θ ) {\displaystyle p(\theta )} . This is the distribution in function space corresponding to the distribution p ( θ ) {\displaystyle p(\theta )} in parameter space, and the black dots are samples from this distribution. For infinitely wide neural networks, since the distribution over functions computed by the neural network is a Gaussian process, the joint distribution over network outputs is a multivariate Gaussian for any finite set of network inputs. == Discussion == === Infinitely wide fully connected network === This section expands on the correspondence between infinitely wide neural networks and Gaussian processes for the specific case of a fully connected architecture. It provides a proof sketch outlining why the correspondence holds, and introduces the specific functional form of the NNGP for fully connected networks. The proof sketch closely follows the approach by Novak and coauthors. ==== Network architecture specification ==== Consider a fully connected artificial neural network with inputs x {\displaystyle x} , parameters θ {\displaystyle \theta } consisting of weights W l {\displaystyle W^{l}} and biases b l {\displaystyle b^{l}} for each layer l {\displaystyle l} in the network, pre-activations (pre-nonlinearity) z l {\displaystyle z^{l}} , activations (post-nonlinearity) y l {\displaystyle y^{l}} , pointwise nonlinearity ϕ ( ⋅ ) {\displaystyle \phi (\cdot )} , and layer widths n l {\displaystyle n^{l}} . For simplicity, the width n L + 1 {\displaystyle n^{L+1}} of the readout vector z L {\displaystyle z^{L}} is taken to be 1. The parameters of this network have a prior distribution p ( θ ) {\displaystyle p(\theta )} , which consists of an isotropic Gaussian for each weight and bias, with the variance of the weights scaled inversely with layer width. This network is illustrated in the figure to the right, and described by the following set of equations: x ≡ input y l ( x ) = { x l = 0 ϕ ( z l − 1 ( x ) ) l > 0 z i l ( x ) = ∑ j W i j l y j l ( x ) + b i l W i j l ∼ N ( 0 , σ w 2 n l ) b i l ∼ N ( 0 , σ b 2 ) ϕ ( ⋅ ) ≡ nonlinearity y l ( x ) , z l − 1 ( x ) ∈ R n l × 1 n L + 1 = 1 θ = { W 0 , b 0 , … , W L , b L } {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}x&\equiv {\text{input}}\\y^{l}(x)&=\left\{{\begin{array}{lcl}x&&l=0\\\phi \left(z^{l-1}(x)\right)&&l>0\end{array}}\right.\\z_{i}^{l}(x)&=\sum _{j}W_{ij}^{l}y_{j}^{l}(x)+b_{i}^{l}\\W_{ij}^{l}&\sim {\mathcal {N}}\left(0,{\frac {\sigma _{w}^{2}}{n^{l}}}\right)\\b_{i}^{l}&\sim {\mathcal {N}}\left(0,\sigma _{b}^{2}\right)\\\phi (\cdot )&\equiv {\text{nonlinearity}}\\y^{l}(x),z^{l-1}(x)&\in \mathbb {R} ^{n^{l}\times 1}\\n^{L+1}&=1\\\theta &=\left\{W^{0},b^{0},\dots ,W^{L},b^{L}\right\}\end{aligned}}} ==== ==== z l | y l {\displaystyle z^{l}|y^{l}} is a Gaussian process We first observe that the pre-activations z l {\displaystyle z^{l}} are described by a Gaussian process conditioned on the preceding activations y l {\displaystyle y^{l}} . This result holds even at finite width. Each pre-activation z i l {\displaystyle z_{i}^{l}} is a weighted sum of Gaussian random variables, corresponding to the weights W i j l {\displaystyle W_{ij}^{l}} and biases b i l {\displaystyle b_{i}^{l}} , where the coefficients for each of those Gaussian variables are the preceding activations y j l {\displaystyle y_{j}^{l}} . Because they are a weighted sum of zero-mean Gaussians, the z i l {\displaystyle z_{i}^{l}} are themselves zero-mean Gaussians (conditioned on the coefficients y j l {\displaystyle y_{j}^{l}} ). Since the z l {\displaystyle z^{l}} are jointly Gaussian for any set of y l {\displaystyle y^{l}} , they are described by a Gaussian process conditioned on the preceding activations y l {\displaystyle y^{l}} . The covariance or kernel of this Gaussian process depends on the weight and bias variances σ w 2 {\displaystyle \sigma _{w}^{2}} and σ b 2 {\displaystyle \sigma _{b}^{2}} , as well as the second moment matrix K l {\displaystyle K^{l}} of the preceding activations y l {\displaystyle y^{l}} , z i l ∣ y l ∼ G P ( 0 , σ w 2 K l + σ b 2 ) K l ( x , x ′ ) = 1 n l ∑ i y i l ( x ) y i l ( x ′ ) {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}z_{i}^{l}\mid y^{l}&\sim {\mathcal {GP}}\left(0,\sigma _{w}^{2}K^{l}+\sigma _{b}^{2}\right)\\K^{l}(x,x')&={\frac {1}{n^{l}}}\sum _{i}y_{i}^{l}(x)y_{i}^{l}(x')\end{aligned}}} The effect of the weight scale σ w 2 {\displaystyle \sigma _{w}^{2}} is to rescale the contribution to the covariance matrix from K l {\displaystyle K^{l}} , while the bias is shared for all inputs, and so σ b 2 {\displaystyle \sigma _{b}^{2}} makes the z i l {\displaystyle z_{i}^{l}} for different datapoints more similar and

  Read more →
• 

  India AI Impact Summit 2026

  The India AI Impact Summit 2026 (also abbreviated as the AI Impact Summit) was an international summit on artificial intelligence held at Bharat Mandapam, New Delhi, India, from 16 to 21 February 2026. It is the fourth in a series of global AI summits following the Bletchley Park AI Safety Summit in 2023, the AI Seoul Summit in 2024, and the AI Action Summit in Paris in 2025. Organised under the IndiaAI Mission by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, it is the first summit in the series to be hosted by a Global South nation. This series of AI summits will continue with the AI Summit in Geneva to be hosted by Switzerland in 2027. The summit was inaugurated by Prime Minister Narendra Modi on 19 February 2026. The opening ceremony was also addressed by French President Emmanuel Macron and United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres. The summit was attended by over 20 heads of state and a delegation of global technology leaders including Sundar Pichai (Google), Sam Altman (OpenAI), and Demis Hassabis (DeepMind). The event faced criticism for organisational issues, misrepresentation of non-Indian products as Indian, and a perceived focus on trade fair activities over substantive governance. == Background == The AI Impact Summit was an international summit on artificial intelligence (AI) held in New Delhi from 16 to 20 February 2026. It followed the AI Action Summit in Paris in February 2025, the AI Seoul Summit in 2024 and the Bletchley Park AI Safety Summit in 2023. According to Crowell & Moring, the changing summit titles seemed to reflect a broader shift in focus away from AI safety and governance toward practical impact, implementation, and measurable outcomes. Ahead of the summit, an international panel of experts published the second International AI Safety Report. The summit was structured around three foundational pillars, termed "Sutras": People, Planet, and Progress. Seven thematic working groups were established to deliver outcomes across these pillars, covering AI for economic growth and social good; democratising AI resources; inclusion for social empowerment; safe and trusted AI; human capital; science; and resilience, innovation, and efficiency. == Programme == The summit ran over five days, later extended to six following overwhelming public response. Originally scheduled to conclude on 20 February, the event was extended to 21 February with expanded evening hours for the exhibition. === India AI Impact Expo === The India AI Impact Expo, inaugurated by Prime Minister Modi on 16 February, featured over 300 exhibitors from 30 countries across more than 10 thematic pavilions. Pavilions were organised across thematic zones aligned with the summit's three pillars, showcasing AI applications in healthcare, agriculture, education, and sustainable industry. === Leaders' Plenary and CEO Roundtable === The Leaders' Plenary on 19 February brought together heads of state, ministers, and representatives from multilateral institutions to outline national and global priorities on AI governance, infrastructure, and international cooperation. A CEO Roundtable, held the same evening, convened senior executives from global technology and industry firms with government leaders to discuss investment, research collaboration, and deployment of AI systems. === Research Symposium === A Research Symposium on AI and its Impact was held on 18 February, with the IIIT Hyderabad as knowledge partner. Discussions covered sovereign AI infrastructure, global adoption challenges, research breakthroughs, and policy priorities. == Participants == The summit drew delegations from over 100 countries, including more than 20 heads of state and 60 ministers. Notable attendees from the technology industry included Sundar Pichai (Google), Sam Altman (OpenAI), Dario Amodei (Anthropic), Demis Hassabis (Google DeepMind), and Mukesh Ambani (Reliance Industries). Representatives from multilateral institutions included Sangbu Kim of the World Bank. == Announcements and outcomes == === Indian AI models === Several Indian AI models and products were unveiled during the summit. Sarvam AI, an Indian AI laboratory, launched a new generation of large language models, including 30-billion and 105-billion parameter models using a mixture of experts architecture, as well as text-to-speech, speech-to-text, and vision models. Sarvam also introduced the Kaze smartglasses, described as the company's first hardware product, which Prime Minister Modi tested at the expo. The government-backed BharatGen Param2 model, a 17-billion parameter model supporting 22 Indian languages with multimodal capabilities, was also launched at the summit. === Infrastructure commitments === Union Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw outlined India's "whole-of-nation" AI strategy, describing plans to build a "frugal, sovereign and scalable" AI ecosystem. The government announced plans to add more than 20,000 GPUs to India's existing base of 38,000 under the IndiaAI Compute Portal. Microsoft announced at the summit that it was on track to invest US$50 billion by the end of the decade to bring AI to lower-income countries. Goa reaffirmed its commitment to artificial intelligence at the India AI Impact Summit 2026. === Guinness World Record === During the summit, India set a Guinness World Record for the most pledges received for an AI responsibility campaign in 24 hours, with 250,946 valid pledges collected between 16 and 17 February 2026. The campaign, conducted in partnership with Intel India as part of the IndiaAI Mission, exceeded its initial target of 5,000 pledges. == Controversies and criticisms == === Galgotias University incident === On 18 February, Galgotias University faced widespread criticism after a representative presented a robot dog at the university's exhibition pavilion as an indigenous development. Social media users identified the robot as the Unitree Go2, a commercially available product manufactured by Chinese company Unitree Robotics. IT Secretary S. Krishnan stated that the government did not want exhibitors to showcase items that were not their own, and the university was directed to vacate its stall. Galgotias University issued an apology, stating that the representative had been "ill-informed" and was not authorised to speak to the press. The incident drew political reactions, with the Indian National Congress using it to criticise the government. The controversy was amplified after Union IT Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw had earlier shared a video clip of the robot on social media, which was subsequently deleted. === Organisational issues === On day 1 of the Summit, Dhananjay Yadav, a Bengaluru-based entrepreneur had alleged that his product was stolen in the Summit. He called it as a pain for the people in an X post. He further wrote, "Think about this: We paid for flights, accommodation, logistics and even the booth. Only to see our wearables disappear inside a high-security zone". Later, the stolen devices were recovered by The Delhi Police. Bloomberg reported that delegates were left stranded without food or water during a security lockdown ahead of the Prime Minister's visit on 19 February. The summit venue was closed to the public on 19 February for the Prime Minister's visit, leading to criticism from attendees who had registered for that day. === Protests by the Indian Youth Congress (IYC) === On 20 February, some members of the Indian Youth Congress (IYC) carried out protests inside the venue with slogans such as "PM is compromised" and the criticism of the recent trade deal between India and the US. 4 of these members were sent to police custody by the court on 22 February. While Bharatiya Janta Party condemned these protests, with its spokesperson Shehzad Poonawalla saying, "From being anti-BJP, you have gone to being anti-national? If you have a problem with the BJP, then protest at the BJP office, Jantar Mantar, or outside the PM's office. But the people of the country and their alliance partners condemn them for their attempt to defame India in front of the entire world at the AI Summit." Congress leader Harish Rawat defended the protests, saying "it's also a fact that AI might become a tool in the hands of a few individuals… It's the opposition's job to warn against that… It's not the first time such international events have been opposed. I know how the BJP protested during the Commonwealth Games… To say that such opposition has happened for the first time is not correct. The BJP has been doing this while in the opposition." These protestors were granted bail by the Delhi high court on 2 March. == Reception and analysis == Bloomberg News reported that Prime Minister Modi used the summit to assert India's global AI ambitions following a challenging year in foreign policy. TechPolicy.Press published several critical analyses of the summit. One article argued that the summit's structure granted "multinational corporations parity with sovereign governments

  Read more →
• 

  Generative adversarial network

  A generative adversarial network (GAN) is a class of machine learning frameworks and a prominent framework for approaching generative artificial intelligence. The concept was initially developed by Ian Goodfellow and his colleagues in June 2014. In a GAN, two neural networks compete with each other in the form of a zero-sum game, where one agent's gain is another agent's loss. Given a training set, this technique learns to generate new data with the same statistics as the training set. For example, a GAN trained on photographs can generate new photographs that look at least superficially authentic to human observers, having many realistic characteristics. Though originally proposed as a form of generative model for unsupervised learning, GANs have also proved useful for semi-supervised learning, fully supervised learning, and reinforcement learning. The core idea of a GAN is based on the "indirect" training through the discriminator, another neural network that can tell how "realistic" the input seems, which itself is also being updated dynamically. This means that the generator is not trained to minimize the distance to a specific image, but rather to fool the discriminator. This enables the model to learn in an unsupervised manner. GANs are similar to mimicry in evolutionary biology, with an evolutionary arms race between both networks. == Definition == === Mathematical === The original GAN is defined as the following game: Each probability space ( Ω , μ ref ) {\displaystyle (\Omega ,\mu _{\text{ref}})} defines a GAN game. There are 2 players: generator and discriminator. The generator's strategy set is P ( Ω ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}(\Omega )} , the set of all probability measures μ G {\displaystyle \mu _{G}} on Ω {\displaystyle \Omega } . The discriminator's strategy set is the set of Markov kernels μ D : Ω → P [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle \mu _{D}:\Omega \to {\mathcal {P}}[0,1]} , where P [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}[0,1]} is the set of probability measures on [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle [0,1]} . The GAN game is a zero-sum game, with objective function L ( μ G , μ D ) := E x ∼ μ ref , y ∼ μ D ( x ) ⁡ [ ln ⁡ y ] + E x ∼ μ G , y ∼ μ D ( x ) ⁡ [ ln ⁡ ( 1 − y ) ] . {\displaystyle L(\mu _{G},\mu _{D}):=\operatorname {E} _{x\sim \mu _{\text{ref}},y\sim \mu _{D}(x)}[\ln y]+\operatorname {E} _{x\sim \mu _{G},y\sim \mu _{D}(x)}[\ln(1-y)].} The generator aims to minimize the objective, and the discriminator aims to maximize the objective. The generator's task is to approach μ G ≈ μ ref {\displaystyle \mu _{G}\approx \mu _{\text{ref}}} , that is, to match its own output distribution as closely as possible to the reference distribution. The discriminator's task is to output a value close to 1 when the input appears to be from the reference distribution, and to output a value close to 0 when the input looks like it came from the generator distribution. === In practice === The generative network generates candidates while the discriminative network evaluates them. This creates a contest based on data distributions, where the generator learns to map from a latent space to the true data distribution, aiming to produce candidates that the discriminator cannot distinguish from real data. The discriminator's goal is to correctly identify these candidates, but as the generator improves, its task becomes more challenging, increasing the discriminator's error rate. A known dataset serves as the initial training data for the discriminator. Training involves presenting it with samples from the training dataset until it achieves acceptable accuracy. The generator is trained based on whether it succeeds in fooling the discriminator. Typically, the generator is seeded with randomized input that is sampled from a predefined latent space (e.g. a multivariate normal distribution). Thereafter, candidates synthesized by the generator are evaluated by the discriminator. Independent backpropagation procedures are applied to both networks so that the generator produces better samples, while the discriminator becomes more skilled at flagging synthetic samples. When used for image generation, the generator is typically a deconvolutional neural network, and the discriminator is a convolutional neural network. === Relation to other statistical machine learning methods === GANs are implicit generative models, which means that they do not explicitly model the likelihood function nor provide a means for finding the latent variable corresponding to a given sample, unlike alternatives such as flow-based generative model. Compared to fully visible belief networks such as WaveNet and PixelRNN and autoregressive models in general, GANs can generate one complete sample in one pass, rather than multiple passes through the network. Compared to Boltzmann machines and linear ICA, there is no restriction on the type of function used by the network. Since neural networks are universal approximators, GANs are asymptotically consistent. Variational autoencoders might be universal approximators, but it is not proven as of 2017. == Mathematical properties == === Measure-theoretic considerations === This section provides some of the mathematical theory behind these methods. In modern probability theory based on measure theory, a probability space also needs to be equipped with a σ-algebra. As a result, a more rigorous definition of the GAN game would make the following changes:Each probability space ( Ω , B , μ ref ) {\displaystyle (\Omega ,{\mathcal {B}},\mu _{\text{ref}})} defines a GAN game. The generator's strategy set is P ( Ω , B ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}(\Omega ,{\mathcal {B}})} , the set of all probability measures μ G {\displaystyle \mu _{G}} on the measure-space ( Ω , B ) {\displaystyle (\Omega ,{\mathcal {B}})} . The discriminator's strategy set is the set of Markov kernels μ D : ( Ω , B ) → P ( [ 0 , 1 ] , B ( [ 0 , 1 ] ) ) {\displaystyle \mu _{D}:(\Omega ,{\mathcal {B}})\to {\mathcal {P}}([0,1],{\mathcal {B}}([0,1]))} , where B ( [ 0 , 1 ] ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {B}}([0,1])} is the Borel σ-algebra on [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle [0,1]} .Since issues of measurability never arise in practice, these will not concern us further. === Choice of the strategy set === In the most generic version of the GAN game described above, the strategy set for the discriminator contains all Markov kernels μ D : Ω → P [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle \mu _{D}:\Omega \to {\mathcal {P}}[0,1]} , and the strategy set for the generator contains arbitrary probability distributions μ G {\displaystyle \mu _{G}} on Ω {\displaystyle \Omega } . However, as shown below, the optimal discriminator strategy against any μ G {\displaystyle \mu _{G}} is deterministic, so there is no loss of generality in restricting the discriminator's strategies to deterministic functions D : Ω → [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle D:\Omega \to [0,1]} . In most applications, D {\displaystyle D} is a deep neural network function. As for the generator, while μ G {\displaystyle \mu _{G}} could theoretically be any computable probability distribution, in practice, it is usually implemented as a pushforward: μ G = μ Z ∘ G − 1 {\displaystyle \mu _{G}=\mu _{Z}\circ G^{-1}} . That is, start with a random variable z ∼ μ Z {\displaystyle z\sim \mu _{Z}} , where μ Z {\displaystyle \mu _{Z}} is a probability distribution that is easy to compute (such as the uniform distribution, or the Gaussian distribution), then define a function G : Ω Z → Ω {\displaystyle G:\Omega _{Z}\to \Omega } . Then the distribution μ G {\displaystyle \mu _{G}} is the distribution of G ( z ) {\displaystyle G(z)} . Consequently, the generator's strategy is usually defined as just G {\displaystyle G} , leaving z ∼ μ Z {\displaystyle z\sim \mu _{Z}} implicit. In this formalism, the GAN game objective is L ( G , D ) := E x ∼ μ ref ⁡ [ ln ⁡ D ( x ) ] + E z ∼ μ Z ⁡ [ ln ⁡ ( 1 − D ( G ( z ) ) ) ] . {\displaystyle L(G,D):=\operatorname {E} _{x\sim \mu _{\text{ref}}}[\ln D(x)]+\operatorname {E} _{z\sim \mu _{Z}}[\ln(1-D(G(z)))].} === Generative reparametrization === The GAN architecture has two main components. One is casting optimization into a game, of form min G max D L ( G , D ) {\displaystyle \min _{G}\max _{D}L(G,D)} , which is different from the usual kind of optimization, of form min θ L ( θ ) {\displaystyle \min _{\theta }L(\theta )} . The other is the decomposition of μ G {\displaystyle \mu _{G}} into μ Z ∘ G − 1 {\displaystyle \mu _{Z}\circ G^{-1}} , which can be understood as a reparametrization trick. To see its significance, one must compare GAN with previous methods for learning generative models, which were plagued with "intractable probabilistic computations that arise in maximum likelihood estimation and related strategies". At the same time, Kingma and Welling and Rezende et al. developed the same idea of reparametrization into a general stochastic backpropagation method. Among its first applications was the variational autoencoder. === Move order and st

  Read more →
• 

  Privacy Lost

  Privacy Lost is a 2023 short science fiction film directed by Peter Stoel and Robert Berger. It follows a family using augmented reality (AR) and artificial intelligence (AI) devices capable of reading emotional states, raising questions about privacy and manipulation. == Premise == Privacy Lost follows a family using AR glasses that capture and interpret emotions in real time. As the parents argue in a restaurant, their emotional states and even hidden feelings become visible through these glasses. An AI-driven waiter adapts its appearance for each family member, employing emotional data to influence their decisions. == Cast == Brian Kant as Waiter Michael Krass as Husband Estelle Levinson as Waitress Thor van der Linden as Scotty Carlijn van Ramshorst as Wife == Production == Filming took place at HeadQ Productions, a virtual studio located in Amsterdam. The creators sought to depict a near-future scenario in which real-time emotion analysis becomes part of daily interactions. The film was screened at the Augmented World Expo (AWE), where it was noted for its thematic focus on AI-driven manipulation and emotional tracking. The depiction of AR glasses and AI characters integrates modern visual effects to show how devices might analyze emotional responses in real time. It also depicts how AI-driven interactions could influence consumer decisions, pointing to concerns over potential misuse. == Themes == Privacy Lost focuses on the intersection of advanced AI capabilities and AR environments, showing how real-time emotional analysis can be leveraged for targeted persuasion. The film aims to highlight the social and ethical implications of emerging AR and AI technologies, underlining how establishing clear regulatory frameworks for them is necessary to protect individual privacy, govern the storage of emotion-based data, and prevent manipulative practices. Critics describe the film’s theme as dystopian and note that such a reality is unlikely to occur in the near future. However, despite the exaggerated scenario, the film emphasizes the importance of a responsible approach by developers toward emerging technologies.

  Read more →
• 

  New York Institute of Technology Computer Graphics Lab

  The New York Institute of Technology Computer Graphics Lab is a computer lab located at the New York Institute of Technology (NYIT), founded by Alexander Schure. It was originally located at the "pink building" on the NYIT campus. It has played an important role in the history of computer graphics and animation, as founders of Pixar and Lucasfilm Limited, including Turing Award winners Edwin Catmull and Patrick Hanrahan, began their research there. It is the birthplace of entirely 3D CGI films. The lab was initially founded to produce a short high-quality feature film with the project name of The Works. The feature, which was never completed, was a 90-minute feature that was to be the first entirely computer-generated CGI movie. Production mainly focused around DEC PDP and VAX machines. Many of the original CGL team now form the elite of the CG and computer world with members going on to Silicon Graphics, Microsoft, Cisco, NVIDIA and others, including Pixar president, co-founder and Turing laureate Ed Catmull, Pixar co-founder and Microsoft graphics fellow Alvy Ray Smith, Pixar co-founder Ralph Guggenheim, Walt Disney Animation Studios chief scientist Lance Williams, Netscape and Silicon Graphics founder Jim Clark, Tableau co-founder and Turing laureate Pat Hanrahan, Microsoft graphics fellow Jim Blinn, Thad Beier, Oscar and Bafta nominee Jacques Stroweis, Andrew Glassner, and Tom Brigham. Systems programmer Bruce Perens went on to co-found the Open Source Initiative. Researchers at the New York Institute of Technology Computer Graphics Lab created the tools that made entirely 3D CGI films possible. Among NYIT CG Lab's many innovations was an eight-bit paint system to ease computer animation. NYIT CG Lab was regarded as the top computer animation research and development group in the world during the late 70s and early 80s. == The 21st century == The lab is presently located at NYIT's Long Island campus, and NYIT currently offers a Ph.D. program in Computer Science.

  Read more →
• 

  Model collapse

  Model collapse, also known by other names such as "AI inbreeding", "AI cannibalism", "Habsburg AI", and "model autophagy disorder" or "MAD" is a phenomenon noted in artificial intelligence studies, where machine learning models gradually degrade due to errors coming from uncurated synthetic data, or due to training on the outputs of another model such as prior versions of itself. It is unclear to what extent the phenomenon threatens the long-term development of such models, and some techniques have been proposed to mitigate the effect. == Characteristics == Shumailov et al. coined the term to describe two specific stages to the degradation of machine learning models: early model collapse and late model collapse: In early model collapse, the model begins losing information about the tails of the distribution – mostly affecting minority data. Later work highlighted that early model collapse is hard to notice, since overall performance may appear to improve, while the model loses performance on minority data. In late model collapse, the model loses a significant proportion of its performance, confusing concepts and losing most of its variance. == Mechanism == Using synthetic data as training data can lead to issues with the quality and reliability of the trained model. Model collapse occurs for three main reasons: functional approximation errors sampling errors learning errors Importantly, it happens in even the simplest of models, where not all of the error sources are present. In more complex models the errors often compound, leading to faster collapse. == Disagreement over real-world impact == Some researchers and commentators on model collapse warn that the phenomenon could fundamentally threaten future generative AI development: As AI-generated data is shared on the Internet, it will inevitably end up in future training datasets, which are often crawled from the Internet. If training on "slop" (large quantities of unlabeled synthetic data) inevitably leads to model collapse, this could therefore pose a difficult problem. However, recently, other researchers have disagreed with this argument, showing that if synthetic data accumulates alongside human-generated data, model collapse is avoided. The researchers argue that data accumulating over time is a more realistic description of reality than deleting all existing data every year, and that the real-world impact of model collapse may not be as catastrophic as feared. An alternative branch of the literature investigates the use of machine learning detectors and watermarking to identify model generated data and filter it out. == Mathematical models of the phenomenon == === 1D Gaussian model === In 2024, a first attempt has been made at illustrating collapse for the simplest possible model — a single dimensional normal distribution fit using unbiased estimators of mean and variance, computed on samples from the previous generation. To make this more precise, we say that original data follows a normal distribution X 0 ∼ N ( μ , σ 2 ) {\displaystyle X^{0}\sim {\mathcal {N}}(\mu ,\sigma ^{2})} , and we possess M 0 {\displaystyle M_{0}} samples X j 0 {\displaystyle X_{j}^{0}} for j ∈ { 1 , … , M 0 } {\displaystyle j\in {\{\,1,\dots ,M_{0}\,{}\}}} . Denoting a general sample X j i {\displaystyle X_{j}^{i}} as sample j ∈ { 1 , … , M i } {\displaystyle j\in {\{\,1,\dots ,M_{i}\,{}\}}} at generation i {\displaystyle i} , then the next generation model is estimated using the sample mean and variance: μ i + 1 = 1 M i ∑ j X j i ; σ i + 1 2 = 1 M i − 1 ∑ j ( X j i − μ i + 1 ) 2 . {\displaystyle \mu _{i+1}={\frac {1}{M_{i}}}\sum _{j}X_{j}^{i};\quad \sigma _{i+1}^{2}={\frac {1}{M_{i}-1}}\sum _{j}(X_{j}^{i}-\mu _{i+1})^{2}.} Leading to a conditionally normal next generation model X j i + 1 | μ i + 1 , σ i + 1 ∼ N ( μ i + 1 , σ i + 1 2 ) {\displaystyle X_{j}^{i+1}|\mu _{i+1},\;\sigma _{i+1}\sim {\mathcal {N}}(\mu _{i+1},\sigma _{i+1}^{2})} . In theory, this is enough to calculate the full distribution of X j i {\displaystyle X_{j}^{i}} . However, even after the first generation, the full distribution is no longer normal: It follows a variance-gamma distribution. To continue the analysis, instead of writing the probability density function at each generation, it is possible to explicitly construct them in terms of independent random variables using Cochran's theorem. To be precise, μ 1 {\displaystyle \mu _{1}} and σ 1 {\displaystyle \sigma _{1}} are independent, with μ 1 ∼ N ( μ , σ 2 M 0 ) {\displaystyle \mu _{1}\sim {\mathcal {N}}\left(\mu ,{\frac {\sigma ^{2}}{M_{0}}}\right)} and ( M 0 − 1 ) σ 1 2 ∼ σ 2 Γ ( M 0 − 1 2 , 1 2 ) {\displaystyle (M_{0}-1)\,\sigma _{1}^{2}\sim \sigma ^{2}\,\Gamma \left({\frac {M_{0}-1}{2}},{\frac {1}{2}}\right)} , following a Gamma distribution. Denoting with Z {\displaystyle Z} Gaussian random variables distributed according to N ( 0 , 1 ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {N}}(0,1)} and with S i {\displaystyle S^{i}} random variables distributed with 1 M i − 1 − 1 Γ ( M i − 1 − 1 2 , 1 2 ) {\displaystyle {\frac {1}{M_{i-1}-1}}\Gamma \left({\frac {M_{i-1}-1}{2}},{\frac {1}{2}}\right)} , it turns out to be possible to write samples at each generation as X j 0 = μ + σ Z j 0 , {\textstyle X_{j}^{0}=\mu +\sigma Z_{j}^{0},} X j 1 = μ + σ M 0 Z 1 + σ S 1 Z j 1 , {\textstyle X_{j}^{1}=\mu +{\frac {\sigma }{\sqrt {M_{0}}}}Z^{1}+\sigma {\sqrt {S^{1}}}Z_{j}^{1},} and more generally X j n = μ + σ M 0 Z 1 + σ M 1 S 1 Z 2 + ⋯ + σ M n − 1 S 1 × ⋯ × S n − 1 Z n + σ S 1 × ⋯ × S n Z j n . {\displaystyle X_{j}^{n}=\mu +{\frac {\sigma }{\sqrt {M_{0}}}}Z^{1}+{\frac {\sigma }{\sqrt {M_{1}}}}{\sqrt {S^{1}}}Z^{2}+\dots +{\frac {\sigma }{\sqrt {M_{n-1}}}}{\sqrt {S^{1}\times \dots \times S^{n-1}}}Z^{n}+\sigma {\sqrt {S^{1}\times \dots \times S^{n}}}Z_{j}^{n}.} Note, that these are not joint distributions, as Z n {\displaystyle Z^{n}} and S n {\displaystyle S^{n}} depend directly on Z j n − 1 {\displaystyle Z_{j}^{n-1}} , but when considering X j n {\displaystyle X_{j}^{n}} on its own the formula above provides all the information about the full distribution. To analyse the model collapse, we can first calculate variance and mean of samples at generation n {\displaystyle n} . This would tell us what kind of distributions we expect to arrive at after n {\displaystyle n} generations. It is possible to find its exact value in closed form, but the mean and variance of the square root of gamma distribution are expressed in terms of gamma functions, making the result quite clunky. Following, it is possible to expand all results to second order in each of 1 / M i {\displaystyle 1/M_{i}} , assuming each sample size to be large. It is then possible to show that 1 σ 2 Var ⁡ ( X j n ) = 1 M 0 + 1 M 1 + ⋯ + 1 M n − 1 + 1 + O ( M i − 2 ) . {\displaystyle {\frac {1}{\sigma ^{2}}}\operatorname {Var} (X_{j}^{n})={\frac {1}{M_{0}}}+{\frac {1}{M_{1}}}+\dots +{\frac {1}{M_{n-1}}}+1+{\mathcal {O}}\left(M_{i}^{-2}\right).} And if all sample sizes M i = M {\displaystyle M_{i}=M} are constant, this diverges linearly as n → ∞ {\displaystyle n\to \infty } : Var ⁡ ( X j n ) = σ 2 ( 1 + n M ) ; E ( X j n ) = μ . {\displaystyle \operatorname {Var} (X_{j}^{n})=\sigma ^{2}\left(1+{\frac {n}{M}}\right);\quad \mathbb {E} (X_{j}^{n})=\mu .} This is the same scaling as for a single dimensional Gaussian random walk. However, divergence of the variance of X j n {\displaystyle X_{j}^{n}} does not directly provide any information about the corresponding estimates of μ n + 1 {\displaystyle \mu _{n+1}} and σ n + 1 {\displaystyle \sigma _{n+1}} , particularly how different they are from the original μ {\displaystyle \mu } and σ {\displaystyle \sigma } . It turns out to be possible to calculate the distance between the true distribution and the approximated distribution at step n + 1 {\displaystyle n+1} , using the Wasserstein-2 distance (which is also sometimes referred to as risk): E [ W 2 2 ( N ( μ , σ 2 ) , N ( μ n + 1 , σ n + 1 2 ) ) ] = 3 2 σ 2 ( 1 M 0 + 1 M 1 + ⋯ + 1 M n ) + O ( M i − 2 ) , {\displaystyle \mathbb {E} \left[\mathbb {W} _{2}^{2}\left({\mathcal {N}}(\mu ,\sigma ^{2}),{\mathcal {N}}(\mu _{n+1},\sigma _{n+1}^{2})\right)\right]={\frac {3}{2}}\sigma ^{2}\left({\frac {1}{M_{0}}}+{\frac {1}{M_{1}}}+\dots +{\frac {1}{M_{n}}}\right)+{\mathcal {O}}\left(M_{i}^{-2}\right),} Var ⁡ [ W 2 2 ( N ( μ , σ 2 ) , N ( μ n + 1 , σ n + 1 2 ) ) ] = 1 2 σ 4 ( 3 M 0 2 + 3 M 1 2 + ⋯ + 3 M n 2 + ∑ i ≠ j 4 M i M j ) + O ( M i − 3 ) . {\displaystyle \operatorname {Var} \left[\mathbb {W} _{2}^{2}\left({\mathcal {N}}(\mu ,\sigma ^{2}),{\mathcal {N}}(\mu _{n+1},\sigma _{n+1}^{2})\right)\right]={\frac {1}{2}}\sigma ^{4}\left({\frac {3}{M_{0}^{2}}}+{\frac {3}{M_{1}^{2}}}+\dots +{\frac {3}{M_{n}^{2}}}+\sum _{i\neq j}{\frac {4}{M_{i}M_{j}}}\right)+{\mathcal {O}}\left(M_{i}^{-3}\right).} This directly shows why model collapse occurs in this simple model. Due to errors from re-sampling the approximated distribution, each generation ends up corresponding to a

  Read more →
• 

  Multi Autonomous Ground-robotic International Challenge

  The Multi Autonomous Ground-robotic International Challenge (MAGIC) is a 1.6 million dollar prize competition for autonomous mobile robots funded by TARDEC and the DSTO, the primary research organizations for Tank and Defense research in the United States and Australia respectively. The goal of the competition is to create multi-vehicle robotic teams that can execute an intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance mission in a dynamic urban environment. The challenge required competitors to map a 500 m x 500 m challenge area in under 3.5 hours and to correctly locate, classify and recognise all simulated threats. The challenge event was conducted in Adelaide, Australia, during November 2010. == Competitors == Initially 12 teams were selected for the competition in November 2009, of which 10 teams received funding. These included: MAGICian – Adelaide/Perth, Australia (UWA, ECU, Flinders, Thales) Strategic Engineering – Adelaide, Australia (U. Adelaide) Northern Hunters – Canada (Royal Military College of Canada) Chiba Team – Japan (Chiba University) Cappadocia – Ankara, Turkey (ASELSAN, Ohio State University) RASR – Gaithersburg, Md. (Robotics Research, LLC; QinetiQ; Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University) Team Cornell – US (Cornell University) Team Michigan – Ann Arbor, Mich. (University of Michigan) Virginia Tech – US (Virginia Tech) University of Pennsylvania – Philadelphia (University of Pennsylvania) Numinence – Brisbane, Australia (Numinence Pty Ltd, La Trobe University) UNSW – Sydney, Australia (UNSW) The first downselection trial required teams to map an indoor area and outdoor area, and to demonstrate distributing and handing over tasks between robots. During the first downselection trial, the top six teams were selected: Cappadocia – Ankara, Turkey MAGICian – Adelaide/Perth, Australia RASR – Gaithersburg, Md. Team Michigan – Ann Arbor, Mich. University of Pennsylvania – Philadelphia Chiba Team – Japan Before the finals were held, Chiba Team withdrew from the competition, leaving five competitors. == Event == Ultimately the overall goal of fully autonomous operations without human intervention was not achieved, however, the Secretary for Defence stated "The competing vehicles demonstrated new advances in robotics technology, which are very promising for their potential deployment in combat zones where they can replace our troops in carrying out life-threatening tasks" and considered the competition a success. == Results == The official results of the competition were: First – Team Michigan ($750,000 prize) Second – University of Pennsylvania ($250,000 prize) Third – RASR ($100,000 prize) Fourth – MAGICian & Cappadocia The "Old Ram Shed Challenge" was a single-day competition held after the completion of MAGIC. It was smaller in scale, allowing all of the teams to demonstrate their systems during a single day. The University of Pennsylvania won this challenge, having found a greater number of the target objects than the other teams. == Technology == Key technology used by all teams was computer vision, sensor fusion, human-robot interaction, and simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM). Team Michigan, a collaboration between the University of Michigan's APRIL Lab and Soar Technology, Inc., had the largest fleet of 14 robots, developed their own Inertial Measurement Unit, and created their skid steer robot chassis out of Baltic birch plywood. Additionally, they had minimal reliance on GPS and used bandwidth limited 900 MHz radios for all telemetry, imaging, and status communications between all robots and the ground station. The code was written primarily in Java and each robot was equipped with an actuated 2D LIDAR, along with a unique 2D barcode for inter-robot recognition. The University of Pennsylvania team consisted of only four members. All code was written using Matlab. The robots were equipped with omnidirectional vision. RASR used the Foster-Miller TALON vehicle. MAGICian used the WAMbot robots developed by The University of Western Australia, Edith Cowan University and Thales Australia. Code was written in C++ and Java. The robots were equipped with SICK laser scanners. See the September/October 2012 special issue of the Journal of Field Robotics for contest highlights, technical approaches taken by several of the teams, and an explanation of the evaluation metrics used by organizers.

  Read more →
• 

  Veo (text-to-video model)

  Veo, or Google Veo, is a text-to-video model developed by Google DeepMind and announced in May 2024. As a generative AI model, it creates videos based on user prompts. Veo 3, released in May 2025, can also generate accompanying audio. == Development == In May 2024, a multimodal video generation model called Veo was announced at Google I/O 2024. Google claimed that it could generate 1080p videos over a minute long. In December 2024, Google released Veo 2, available via VideoFX. It supports 4K resolution video generation and has an improved understanding of physics. In April 2025, Google announced that Veo 2 became available for advanced users on the Gemini app. In May 2025, Google released Veo 3, which not only generates videos but also creates synchronized audio — including dialogue, sound effects, and ambient noise — to match the visuals. Google also announced Flow, a video-creation tool powered by Veo and Imagen. Google DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis described the release as the moment when AI video generation left the era of the silent film. This was rebranded as Google Flow at the 2026 Google I/O keynote, along with the announcement of Google Flow Music. == Capabilities == Google Veo can be purchased at multiple subscription tiers and through Google "AI credits". The software itself can be run by two different consoles, Google Gemini and Google Flow. Gemini being geared towards shorter, quicker, and faster projects, using the Gemini AI chat model, with Google Flow, which is essentially a movie editor allowing users to create longer projects with continuity, using the same characters and actors. Users can create a maximum of eight seconds per clip. According to Gizmodo Veo 3 users were directing the model to generate low-quality content, such as man on the street interviews or haul videos of people unboxing products. 404 Media reported that the tool tended to repeat the same joke in response to different prompts. Commentators speculated that Google had trained the service on YouTube videos or Reddit posts. Google itself had not stated the source of its training content. In July 2025, Media Matters for America reported that racist and antisemitic videos generated using Veo 3 were being uploaded to TikTok. Ryan Whitwam of Ars Technica commented, "In a perfect world, Veo 3 would refuse to create these videos, but vagueness in the prompt and the AI's inability to understand the subtleties of racist tropes (i.e., the use of monkeys instead of humans in some videos) make it easy to skirt the rules."

  Read more →
• 

  Gooch shading

  Gooch shading is a non-photorealistic rendering technique for shading objects. It is also known as "cool to warm" shading, and is widely used in technical illustration. == History == Gooch shading was developed by Amy Gooch et al. at the University of Utah School of Computing and first presented at the 1998 SIGGRAPH conference. It has since been implemented in shader libraries, software, and games released by Autodesk, Nvidia, and Valve. == Process == Gooch shading defines an additional two colors in conjunction with the original model color: a warm color (such as yellow) and a cool color (such as blue). The warm color indicates surfaces that are facing toward the light source while the cool color indicates surfaces facing away. This allows shading to occur only in mid-tones so that edge lines and highlights remain visually prominent. The Gooch shader is typically implemented in two passes: all objects in the scene are first drawn with the "cool to warm" shading, and in the second pass the object's edges are rendered in black.

  Read more →
• 

  Fuzzy measure theory

  In mathematics, fuzzy measure theory considers generalized measures in which the additive property is replaced by the weaker property of monotonicity. The central concept of fuzzy measure theory is the fuzzy measure (also capacity, see ), which was introduced by Choquet in 1953 and independently defined by Sugeno in 1974 in the context of fuzzy integrals. There exists a number of different classes of fuzzy measures including plausibility/belief measures, possibility/necessity measures, and probability measures, which are a subset of classical measures. == Definitions == Let X {\displaystyle \mathbf {X} } be a universe of discourse, C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}} be a class of subsets of X {\displaystyle \mathbf {X} } , and E , F ∈ C {\displaystyle E,F\in {\mathcal {C}}} . A function g : C → R {\displaystyle g:{\mathcal {C}}\to \mathbb {R} } where ∅ ∈ C ⇒ g ( ∅ ) = 0 {\displaystyle \emptyset \in {\mathcal {C}}\Rightarrow g(\emptyset )=0} E ⊆ F ⇒ g ( E ) ≤ g ( F ) {\displaystyle E\subseteq F\Rightarrow g(E)\leq g(F)} is called a fuzzy measure. A fuzzy measure is called normalized or regular if g ( X ) = 1 {\displaystyle g(\mathbf {X} )=1} . == Properties of fuzzy measures == A fuzzy measure is: additive if for any E , F ∈ C {\displaystyle E,F\in {\mathcal {C}}} such that E ∩ F = ∅ {\displaystyle E\cap F=\emptyset } , we have g ( E ∪ F ) = g ( E ) + g ( F ) . {\displaystyle g(E\cup F)=g(E)+g(F).} ; supermodular if for any E , F ∈ C {\displaystyle E,F\in {\mathcal {C}}} , we have g ( E ∪ F ) + g ( E ∩ F ) ≥ g ( E ) + g ( F ) {\displaystyle g(E\cup F)+g(E\cap F)\geq g(E)+g(F)} ; submodular if for any E , F ∈ C {\displaystyle E,F\in {\mathcal {C}}} , we have g ( E ∪ F ) + g ( E ∩ F ) ≤ g ( E ) + g ( F ) {\displaystyle g(E\cup F)+g(E\cap F)\leq g(E)+g(F)} ; superadditive if for any E , F ∈ C {\displaystyle E,F\in {\mathcal {C}}} such that E ∩ F = ∅ {\displaystyle E\cap F=\emptyset } , we have g ( E ∪ F ) ≥ g ( E ) + g ( F ) {\displaystyle g(E\cup F)\geq g(E)+g(F)} ; subadditive if for any E , F ∈ C {\displaystyle E,F\in {\mathcal {C}}} such that E ∩ F = ∅ {\displaystyle E\cap F=\emptyset } , we have g ( E ∪ F ) ≤ g ( E ) + g ( F ) {\displaystyle g(E\cup F)\leq g(E)+g(F)} ; symmetric if for any E , F ∈ C {\displaystyle E,F\in {\mathcal {C}}} , we have | E | = | F | {\displaystyle |E|=|F|} implies g ( E ) = g ( F ) {\displaystyle g(E)=g(F)} ; Boolean if for any E ∈ C {\displaystyle E\in {\mathcal {C}}} , we have g ( E ) = 0 {\displaystyle g(E)=0} or g ( E ) = 1 {\displaystyle g(E)=1} . Understanding the properties of fuzzy measures is useful in application. When a fuzzy measure is used to define a function such as the Sugeno integral or Choquet integral, these properties will be crucial in understanding the function's behavior. For instance, the Choquet integral with respect to an additive fuzzy measure reduces to the Lebesgue integral. In discrete cases, a symmetric fuzzy measure will result in the ordered weighted averaging (OWA) operator. Submodular fuzzy measures result in convex functions, while supermodular fuzzy measures result in concave functions when used to define a Choquet integral. == Möbius representation == Let g be a fuzzy measure. The Möbius representation of g is given by the set function M, where for every E , F ⊆ X {\displaystyle E,F\subseteq X} , M ( E ) = ∑ F ⊆ E ( − 1 ) | E ∖ F | g ( F ) . {\displaystyle M(E)=\sum _{F\subseteq E}(-1)^{|E\backslash F|}g(F).} The equivalent axioms in Möbius representation are: M ( ∅ ) = 0 {\displaystyle M(\emptyset )=0} . ∑ F ⊆ E | i ∈ F M ( F ) ≥ 0 {\displaystyle \sum _{F\subseteq E|i\in F}M(F)\geq 0} , for all E ⊆ X {\displaystyle E\subseteq \mathbf {X} } and all i ∈ E {\displaystyle i\in E} A fuzzy measure in Möbius representation M is called normalized if ∑ E ⊆ X M ( E ) = 1. {\displaystyle \sum _{E\subseteq \mathbf {X} }M(E)=1.} Möbius representation can be used to give an indication of which subsets of X interact with one another. For instance, an additive fuzzy measure has Möbius values all equal to zero except for singletons. The fuzzy measure g in standard representation can be recovered from the Möbius form using the Zeta transform: g ( E ) = ∑ F ⊆ E M ( F ) , ∀ E ⊆ X . {\displaystyle g(E)=\sum _{F\subseteq E}M(F),\forall E\subseteq \mathbf {X} .} == Simplification assumptions for fuzzy measures == Fuzzy measures are defined on a semiring of sets or monotone class, which may be as granular as the power set of X, and even in discrete cases the number of variables can be as large as 2|X|. For this reason, in the context of multi-criteria decision analysis and other disciplines, simplification assumptions on the fuzzy measure have been introduced so that it is less computationally expensive to determine and use. For instance, when it is assumed the fuzzy measure is additive, it will hold that g ( E ) = ∑ i ∈ E g ( { i } ) {\displaystyle g(E)=\sum _{i\in E}g(\{i\})} and the values of the fuzzy measure can be evaluated from the values on X. Similarly, a symmetric fuzzy measure is defined uniquely by |X| values. Two important fuzzy measures that can be used are the Sugeno- or λ {\displaystyle \lambda } -fuzzy measure and k-additive measures, introduced by Sugeno and Grabisch respectively. === Sugeno λ-measure === The Sugeno λ {\displaystyle \lambda } -measure is a special case of fuzzy measures defined iteratively. It has the following definition: ==== Definition ==== Let X = { x 1 , … , x n } {\displaystyle \mathbf {X} =\left\lbrace x_{1},\dots ,x_{n}\right\rbrace } be a finite set and let λ ∈ ( − 1 , + ∞ ) {\displaystyle \lambda \in (-1,+\infty )} . A Sugeno λ {\displaystyle \lambda } -measure is a function g : 2 X → [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle g:2^{X}\to [0,1]} such that g ( X ) = 1 {\displaystyle g(X)=1} . if A , B ⊆ X {\displaystyle A,B\subseteq \mathbf {X} } (alternatively A , B ∈ 2 X {\displaystyle A,B\in 2^{\mathbf {X} }} ) with A ∩ B = ∅ {\displaystyle A\cap B=\emptyset } then g ( A ∪ B ) = g ( A ) + g ( B ) + λ g ( A ) g ( B ) {\displaystyle g(A\cup B)=g(A)+g(B)+\lambda g(A)g(B)} . As a convention, the value of g at a singleton set { x i } {\displaystyle \left\lbrace x_{i}\right\rbrace } is called a density and is denoted by g i = g ( { x i } ) {\displaystyle g_{i}=g(\left\lbrace x_{i}\right\rbrace )} . In addition, we have that λ {\displaystyle \lambda } satisfies the property λ + 1 = ∏ i = 1 n ( 1 + λ g i ) {\displaystyle \lambda +1=\prod _{i=1}^{n}(1+\lambda g_{i})} . Tahani and Keller as well as Wang and Klir have shown that once the densities are known, it is possible to use the previous polynomial to obtain the values of λ {\displaystyle \lambda } uniquely. === k-additive fuzzy measure === The k-additive fuzzy measure limits the interaction between the subsets E ⊆ X {\displaystyle E\subseteq X} to size | E | = k {\displaystyle |E|=k} . This drastically reduces the number of variables needed to define the fuzzy measure, and as k can be anything from 1 (in which case the fuzzy measure is additive) to X, it allows for a compromise between modelling ability and simplicity. ==== Definition ==== A discrete fuzzy measure g on a set X is called k-additive ( 1 ≤ k ≤ | X | {\displaystyle 1\leq k\leq |\mathbf {X} |} ) if its Möbius representation verifies M ( E ) = 0 {\displaystyle M(E)=0} , whenever | E | > k {\displaystyle |E|>k} for any E ⊆ X {\displaystyle E\subseteq \mathbf {X} } , and there exists a subset F with k elements such that M ( F ) ≠ 0 {\displaystyle M(F)\neq 0} . == Shapley and interaction indices == In game theory, the Shapley value or Shapley index is used to indicate the weight of a game. Shapley values can be calculated for fuzzy measures in order to give some indication of the importance of each singleton. In the case of additive fuzzy measures, the Shapley value will be the same as each singleton. For a given fuzzy measure g, and | X | = n {\displaystyle |\mathbf {X} |=n} , the Shapley index for every i , … , n ∈ X {\displaystyle i,\dots ,n\in X} is: ϕ ( i ) = ∑ E ⊆ X ∖ { i } ( n − | E | − 1 ) ! | E | ! n ! [ g ( E ∪ { i } ) − g ( E ) ] . {\displaystyle \phi (i)=\sum _{E\subseteq \mathbf {X} \backslash \{i\}}{\frac {(n-|E|-1)!|E|!}{n!}}[g(E\cup \{i\})-g(E)].} The Shapley value is the vector ϕ ( g ) = ( ψ ( 1 ) , … , ψ ( n ) ) . {\displaystyle \mathbf {\phi } (g)=(\psi (1),\dots ,\psi (n)).}

  Read more →
• 

  Agent mining

  Agent mining is a research field that combines two areas of computer science: multiagent systems and data mining. It explores how intelligent computer agents can work together to discover, analyze, and learn from large amounts of data more effectively than traditional methods. == Historical context == The interaction and the integration between multiagent systems and data mining have a long history. The very early work on agent mining focused on agent-based knowledge discovery, agent-based distributed data mining, and agent-based distributed machine learning, and using data mining to enhance agent intelligence. The International Workshop on Agents and Data Mining Interaction has been held for more than 10 times, co-located with the International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems. Several proceedings are available from Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

  Read more →