AI SEO Tools

AI SEO Tools — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

Intelligent agent

In artificial intelligence, an intelligent agent is an entity that perceives its environment, takes actions autonomously to achieve goals, and may improve its performance through machine learning or by acquiring knowledge. AI textbooks define artificial intelligence as the "study and design of intelligent agents," emphasizing that goal-directed behavior is central to intelligence. A specialized subset of intelligent agents, agentic AI (also known as an AI agent or simply agent), expands this concept by proactively pursuing goals, making decisions, and taking actions over extended periods. Intelligent agents can range from simple to highly complex. A basic thermostat or control system is considered an intelligent agent, as is a human being, or any other system that meets the same criteria—such as a firm, a state, or a biome. Intelligent agents operate based on an objective function, which encapsulates their goals. They are designed to create and execute plans that maximize the expected value of this function upon completion. For example, a reinforcement learning agent has a reward function, which allows programmers to shape its desired behavior. Similarly, an evolutionary algorithm's behavior is guided by a fitness function. Intelligent agents in artificial intelligence are closely related to agents in economics, and versions of the intelligent agent paradigm are studied in cognitive science, ethics, and the philosophy of practical reason, as well as in many interdisciplinary socio-cognitive modeling and computer social simulations. Intelligent agents are often described schematically as abstract functional systems similar to computer programs . To distinguish theoretical models from real-world implementations, abstract descriptions of intelligent agents are called abstract intelligent agents. Intelligent agents are also closely related to software agents—autonomous computer programs that carry out tasks on behalf of users. They are also referred to using a term borrowed from economics: a "rational agent". == Intelligent agents as the foundation of AI == The concept of intelligent agents provides a foundational lens through which to define and understand artificial intelligence. For instance, the influential textbook Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach (Russell & Norvig) describes: Agent: Anything that perceives its environment (using sensors) and acts upon it (using actuators). E.g., a robot with cameras and wheels, or a software program that reads data and makes recommendations. Rational Agent: An agent that strives to achieve the best possible outcome based on its knowledge and past experiences. "Best" is defined by a performance measure – a way of evaluating how well the agent is doing. Artificial Intelligence (as a field): The study and creation of these rational agents. Other researchers and definitions build upon this foundation. Padgham & Winikoff emphasize that intelligent agents should react to changes in their environment in a timely way, proactively pursue goals, and be flexible and robust (able to handle unexpected situations). Some also suggest that ideal agents should be "rational" in the economic sense (making optimal choices) and capable of complex reasoning, like having beliefs, desires, and intentions (BDI model). Kaplan and Haenlein offer a similar definition, focusing on a system's ability to understand external data, learn from that data, and use what is learned to achieve goals through flexible adaptation. Defining AI in terms of intelligent agents offers several key advantages: Avoids Philosophical Debates: It sidesteps arguments about whether AI is "truly" intelligent or conscious, like those raised by the Turing test or Searle's Chinese Room. It focuses on behavior and goal achievement, not on replicating human thought. Objective Testing: It provides a clear, scientific way to evaluate AI systems. Researchers can compare different approaches by measuring how well they maximize a specific "goal function" (or objective function). This allows for direct comparison and combination of techniques. Interdisciplinary Communication: It creates a common language for AI researchers to collaborate with other fields like mathematical optimization and economics, which also use concepts like "goals" and "rational agents." == Objective function == An objective function (or goal function) specifies the goals of an intelligent agent. An agent is deemed more intelligent if it consistently selects actions that yield outcomes better aligned with its objective function. In effect, the objective function serves as a measure of success. The objective function may be: Simple: For example, in a game of Go, the objective function might assign a value of 1 for a win and 0 for a loss. Complex: It might require the agent to evaluate and learn from past actions, adapting its behavior based on patterns that have proven effective. The objective function encapsulates all of the goals the agent is designed to achieve. For rational agents, it also incorporates the trade-offs between potentially conflicting goals. For instance, a self-driving car's objective function might balance factors such as safety, speed, and passenger comfort. Different terms are used to describe this concept, depending on the context. These include: Utility function: Often used in economics and decision theory, representing the desirability of a state. Objective function: A general term used in optimization. Loss function: Typically used in machine learning, where the goal is to minimize the loss (error). Reward Function: Used in reinforcement learning. Fitness Function: Used in evolutionary systems. Goals, and therefore the objective function, can be: Explicitly defined: Programmed directly into the agent. Induced: Learned or evolved over time. In reinforcement learning, a "reward function" provides feedback, encouraging desired behaviors and discouraging undesirable ones. The agent learns to maximize its cumulative reward. In evolutionary systems, a "fitness function" determines which agents are more likely to reproduce. This is analogous to natural selection, where organisms evolve to maximize their chances of survival and reproduction. Some AI systems, such as nearest-neighbor, reason by analogy rather than being explicitly goal-driven. However, even these systems can have goals implicitly defined within their training data. Such systems can still be benchmarked by framing the non-goal system as one whose "goal" is to accomplish its narrow classification task. Systems not traditionally considered agents, like knowledge-representation systems, are sometimes included in the paradigm by framing them as agents with a goal of, for example, answering questions accurately. Here, the concept of an "action" is extended to encompass the "act" of providing an answer. As a further extension, mimicry-driven systems can be framed as agents optimizing a "goal function" based on how closely the agent mimics the desired behavior. In generative adversarial networks (GANs) of the 2010s, an "encoder"/"generator" component attempts to mimic and improvise human text composition. The generator tries to maximize a function representing how well it can fool an antagonistic "predictor"/"discriminator" component. While symbolic AI systems often use an explicit goal function, the paradigm also applies to neural networks and evolutionary computing. Reinforcement learning can generate intelligent agents that appear to act in ways intended to maximize a "reward function". Sometimes, instead of setting the reward function directly equal to the desired benchmark evaluation function, machine learning programmers use reward shaping to initially give the machine rewards for incremental progress. Yann LeCun stated in 2018, "Most of the learning algorithms that people have come up with essentially consist of minimizing some objective function." AlphaZero chess had a simple objective function: +1 point for each win, and -1 point for each loss. A self-driving car's objective function would be more complex. Evolutionary computing can evolve intelligent agents that appear to act in ways intended to maximize a "fitness function" influencing how many descendants each agent is allowed to leave. The mathematical formalism of AIXI was proposed as a maximally intelligent agent in this paradigm. However, AIXI is uncomputable. In the real world, an intelligent agent is constrained by finite time and hardware resources, and scientists compete to produce algorithms that achieve progressively higher scores on benchmark tests with existing hardware. == Agent function == An intelligent agent's behavior can be described mathematically by an agent function. This function determines what the agent does based on what it has seen. A percept refers to the agent's sensory inputs at a single point in time. For example, a self-driving car's percepts might include camera images, lidar data, GPS coordinates, and speed r
Read more →
CHAOS (chess)

CHAOS (Chess Heuristics and Other Stuff) is a chess playing program that was developed by programmers working at the RCA Systems Programming division in the late 1960s. It played competitively in computer chess competitions in the 1970s and 1980s. It differed from other programs of that era in its look-ahead philosophy, choosing to use chess knowledge to evaluate fewer positions and continuations as opposed to simple evaluations that relied on deep look-ahead to avoid bad moves. == Introduction == CHAOS was originally developed by Ira Ruben, Fred Swartz, Victor Berman, Joe Winograd and William Toikka while working at RCA in Cinnaminson, NJ. Its name is an acronym for 'Chess Heuristics and Other Stuff.' Program development moved to the Computing Center of the University of Michigan when Swartz changed jobs, and Mike Alexander joined the development group. Swartz, Alexander and Berman were continuously group members from that point onward in CHAOS' evolution, as others of the original authors left and new members contributed episodically. Chess Senior Master Jack O'Keefe contributed to CHAOS' development from about 1980 onwards. CHAOS was written in Fortran, except for low-level board representation manipulations written in assembly language or C. Due to this portability, it ran on RCA, Univac and IBM-compatible mainframes in its lifetime. CHAOS heralds from the mainframe computing era when only machines of that capacity were able to play at a high level. Consequently, development and testing could only take place at off-peak times for production use of the machine. In a competition, CHAOS had to run on a dedicated mainframe with a telephone link to the match venue. In its later years, CHAOS ran on computers on the machine assembly floor of Amdahl Corporation on MTS. == Background == === Chess and artificial intelligence === Mathematicians Claude Shannon and Alan Turing, working separately, were the first to view playing chess as a challenge to machines. Working for AT&T / Bell Labs with its access to telephone switching equipment, Shannon built a relay-based machine that learned how to work its way through a two-dimensional, 5x5 cell maze in 1949. Shannon viewed this as an analogue of the way that organisms learn things about their natural environment. There is a random element to searching it, a memory element to benefit from the search outcome, and a reward element that reinforces learning when the global outcome is favorable to the organism. Soon afterward, Shannon wrote a mathematical analysis of the game of chess, published in 1950. Like with the maze, he broke down game play into the necessary elements for reinforcement learning. Associated with each board configuration a move will be made from, there is a numerical score. To decide what move to make, a player wants to maximize their own position's score after the move and to minimize their opponent's score (a minimax view). Since there are about 32 possible moves at each of the early stages of the game, and about 40 moves and responses in each game, then there are about 32 80 {\displaystyle 32^{80}} or about 10 120 {\displaystyle 10^{120}} possible games - an impossibly large set to evaluate completely. Therefore, there must be a way to limit the number of moves to look ahead for to find the best one. Reducing the game to these few key elements provided a way to think about human intelligence in general. Shannon became part of a wider group using computing machines to mimic aspects of human intelligence that grew into the general idea of artificial intelligence. (Other members of this group were John McCarthy, Herbert Simon, Allen Newell, Alan Kotok, Alex Bernstein and Richard Greenblatt.) The paradigm that evolved was that there was a quantification of the position on the board into a score, an evaluation method to find favorable outcomes (minimax, later alpha-beta pruning), and a strategy to manage the combinatorial explosion of the look-ahead possibilities. By the early 1960s, there were computer programs that played chess at a rudimentary level. They used very simple evaluation functions for each position and tried to search as far forward as was practical given the time constraints and available compute power. Naturally, programmers optimized their code to use the available computing resources. This led to a major philosophical divide among chess programs: those that tried to evaluate as many positions as possible, and those that tried to evaluate the most promising move sequences as deeply as possible. CHAOS was firmly in the camp believing only the most promising moves should be evaluated in depth. Said Swartz, "The 'brute force people' ... look at every (possible move) no matter what garbage it is. Most moves are just terrible, terrible moves, and most computing time is being spent on pure garbage." The program spent more time evaluating each board position in the expectation that it would find the most promising lines of play to explore in depth. In 1983, the then-fastest chess program (Belle) evaluated 110,000 positions per second, and typical programs 1000–50,000 per second, whereas CHAOS evaluated about 50-100 per second. === Machine learning and strategies to manage search === From about 1949 onward, Arthur Samuel began work for IBM on machine learning, culminating in a checkers-playing program in 1952 and publications on the topic. Concurrently, Christopher Strachey created Checkers, a program to play the board game of checkers in 1951, but it had no capacity to learn from its play. Checkers was chosen by both authors because it was simpler than chess yet contained the basic characteristics of an intellectual activity, and, in Samuel's view, was a test-bed in which heuristic procedures and learning processes could be evaluated quickly. Checker playing programs introduced the notion of the game tree and evaluating play to various depths to choose the best move. The complexity of chess, however, promoted it to the status of an analogue for human intelligence, and it attracted computer scientists' attention, who referred to it as research into artificial intelligence (AI). Like checkers, it required a numerical assessment of each arrangement of chess pieces on a board. It also required looking ahead to future moves to decide how to play the present position. Due to the enormous number of possible moves, there had to be a way to confine the look-ahead search to the most promising lines of play. From these factors, the notion of minimax score evaluation developed and, later, alpha-beta tree pruning to abandon looking at positions worse than any that have already been examined. === Chess search strategies === The AI community viewed artificial intelligence as comprising two parts: a way to symbolically quantify the knowledge in hand (a chess board position), and a set of heuristics to limit look-ahead to the consequences of a move. The early chess playing programs attempted to look forward as far as possible, perhaps to 3 moves ahead by each player, and to choose the best outcome. This led to the horizon effect, whereby a key move 4 or more moves ahead would be unexamined and therefore missed. Consequently, the programs were quite weak and heuristics to manage the search became important in their development. CHAOS used a selective search strategy with iterative widening. As chess programs evolved, they incorporated books of opening lines of play from historic sources. Nowadays, book moves are catalogued in machine-readable form, but originally programmers had to type them in. CHAOS had an extensive book for its time of around 10,000 moves that O'Keefe helped to develop. A problem with play from an opening book is the behavior of the program when the play leaves the book: the positional advantage may be so subtle that the evaluation scheme may be unable to understand it, leading to very wide and shallow searches to establish a line of play. The horizon effect again plagues move selection after leaving the book. CHAOS mitigated these problems by only using book lines that it could understand, and by relying on cached analyses of continuations out of the book made while the opponent's clock was running. == Game Play History == CHAOS played in twelve ACM computer chess tournaments and four World Computer Chess Championships (WCCC). Its debut was the ACM computer chess tournament in 1973, taking 2nd place. In 1974, it again won 2nd place in the WCCC, defeating the tournament favorite Chess 4.0 but losing to Kaissa. CHAOS was close to winning the 1980 WCCC, but lost to Belle in a playoff. The 1985 ACM computer chess tournament was CHAOS' last competition. One of CHAOS' notable victories was over Chess 4.0 at the 1974 WCCC tournament. Chess 4.0 was unbeaten by any other program up until then. Playing as white, CHAOS made a knight sacrifice (16 Nd4-e6!!) that traded material for open lines of attack and eventually won the game. CHAOS’ authors thought the move was due to a
Read more →
Energy-based model

An energy-based model (EBM), also called Canonical Ensemble Learning (CEL) or Learning via Canonical Ensemble (LCE), is an application of canonical ensemble formulation from statistical physics for learning from data. The approach prominently appears in generative artificial intelligence. EBMs provide a unified framework for many probabilistic and non-probabilistic approaches to such learning, particularly for training graphical and other structured models. An EBM learns the characteristics of a target dataset and generates a similar but larger dataset. EBMs detect the latent variables of a dataset and generate new datasets with a similar distribution. Energy-based generative neural networks is a class of generative models, which aim to learn explicit probability distributions of data in the form of energy-based models, the energy functions of which are parameterized by modern deep neural networks. Boltzmann machines are a special form of energy-based models with a specific parametrization of the energy. == Description == For a given input x {\displaystyle x} , the model describes an energy E θ ( x ) {\displaystyle E_{\theta }(x)} such that the Boltzmann distribution P θ ( x ) = e − β E θ ( x ) Z ( θ ) {\displaystyle P_{\theta }(x)={e^{-\beta E_{\theta }(x)} \over Z(\theta )}} is a probability (density), and typically β = 1 {\displaystyle \beta =1} . Since the normalization constant: Z ( θ ) := ∫ x ∈ X e − β E θ ( x ) d x {\displaystyle Z(\theta ):=\int _{x\in X}e^{-\beta E_{\theta }(x)}dx} (also known as the partition function) depends on all the Boltzmann factors of all possible inputs x {\displaystyle x} , it cannot be easily computed or reliably estimated during training simply using standard maximum likelihood estimation. However, for maximizing the likelihood during training, the gradient of the log-likelihood of a single training example x {\displaystyle x} is given by using the chain rule: ∂ θ log ⁡ ( P θ ( x ) ) = E x ′ ∼ P θ [ ∂ θ E θ ( x ′ ) ] − ∂ θ E θ ( x ) ( ∗ ) {\displaystyle \partial _{\theta }\log \left(P_{\theta }(x)\right)=\mathbb {E} _{x'\sim P_{\theta }}[\partial _{\theta }E_{\theta }(x')]-\partial _{\theta }E_{\theta }(x)\,()} The expectation in the above formula for the gradient can be approximately estimated by drawing samples x ′ {\displaystyle x'} from the distribution P θ {\displaystyle P_{\theta }} using Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC). Early energy-based models, such as the 2003 Boltzmann machine by Hinton, estimated this expectation via blocked Gibbs sampling. Newer approaches make use of more efficient Stochastic Gradient Langevin Dynamics (LD), drawing samples using: x 0 ′ ∼ P 0 , x i + 1 ′ = x i ′ − α 2 ∂ E θ ( x i ′ ) ∂ x i ′ + ϵ {\displaystyle x_{0}'\sim P_{0},x_{i+1}'=x_{i}'-{\frac {\alpha }{2}}{\frac {\partial E_{\theta }(x_{i}')}{\partial x_{i}'}}+\epsilon } , where ϵ ∼ N ( 0 , α ) {\displaystyle \epsilon \sim {\mathcal {N}}(0,\alpha )} . A replay buffer of past values x i ′ {\displaystyle x_{i}'} is used with LD to initialize the optimization module. The parameters θ {\displaystyle \theta } of the neural network are therefore trained in a generative manner via MCMC-based maximum likelihood estimation: the learning process follows an "analysis by synthesis" scheme, where within each learning iteration, the algorithm samples the synthesized examples from the current model by a gradient-based MCMC method (e.g., Langevin dynamics or Hybrid Monte Carlo), and then updates the parameters θ {\displaystyle \theta } based on the difference between the training examples and the synthesized ones – see equation ( ∗ ) {\displaystyle ()} . This process can be interpreted as an alternating mode seeking and mode shifting process, and also has an adversarial interpretation. Essentially, the model learns a function E θ {\displaystyle E_{\theta }} that associates low energies to correct values, and higher energies to incorrect values. After training, given a converged energy model E θ {\displaystyle E_{\theta }} , the Metropolis–Hastings algorithm can be used to draw new samples. The acceptance probability is given by: P a c c ( x i → x ∗ ) = min ( 1 , P θ ( x ∗ ) P θ ( x i ) ) . {\displaystyle P_{acc}(x_{i}\to x^{})=\min \left(1,{\frac {P_{\theta }(x^{})}{P_{\theta }(x_{i})}}\right).} == History == The term "energy-based models" was first coined in a 2003 JMLR paper where the authors defined a generalisation of independent components analysis to the overcomplete setting using EBMs. Other early work on EBMs proposed models that represented energy as a composition of latent and observable variables. == Characteristics == EBMs demonstrate useful properties: Simplicity and stability. The EBM is the only object that needs to be designed and trained. Separate networks need not be trained to ensure balance. Adaptive computation time. An EBM can generate sharp, diverse samples or (more quickly) coarse, less diverse samples. Given infinite time, this procedure produces true samples. Flexibility. In Variational Autoencoders (VAE) and flow-based models, the generator learns a map from a continuous space to a (possibly) discontinuous space containing different data modes. EBMs can learn to assign low energies to disjoint regions (multiple modes). Adaptive generation. EBM generators are implicitly defined by the probability distribution, and automatically adapt as the distribution changes (without training), allowing EBMs to address domains where generator training is impractical, as well as minimizing mode collapse and avoiding spurious modes from out-of-distribution samples. Compositionality. Individual models are unnormalized probability distributions, allowing models to be combined through product of experts or other hierarchical techniques. == Experimental results == On image datasets such as CIFAR-10 and ImageNet 32x32, an EBM model generated high-quality images relatively quickly. It supported combining features learned from one type of image for generating other types of images. It was able to generalize using out-of-distribution datasets, outperforming flow-based and autoregressive models. EBM was relatively resistant to adversarial perturbations, behaving better than models explicitly trained against them with training for classification. == Applications == Target applications include natural language processing, robotics and computer vision. The first energy-based generative neural network is the generative ConvNet proposed in 2016 for image patterns, where the neural network is a convolutional neural network. The model has been generalized to various domains to learn distributions of videos, and 3D voxels. They are made more effective in their variants. They have proven useful for data generation (e.g., image synthesis, video synthesis, 3D shape synthesis, etc.), data recovery (e.g., recovering videos with missing pixels or image frames, 3D super-resolution, etc), data reconstruction (e.g., image reconstruction and linear interpolation ). == Alternatives == EBMs compete with techniques such as variational autoencoders (VAEs), generative adversarial networks (GANs) or normalizing flows. == Extensions == === Joint energy-based models === Joint energy-based models (JEM), proposed in 2020 by Grathwohl et al., allow any classifier with softmax output to be interpreted as energy-based model. The key observation is that such a classifier is trained to predict the conditional probability p θ ( y | x ) = e f → θ ( x ) [ y ] ∑ j = 1 K e f → θ ( x ) [ j ] for y = 1 , … , K and f → θ = ( f 1 , … , f K ) ∈ R K , {\displaystyle p_{\theta }(y|x)={\frac {e^{{\vec {f}}_{\theta }(x)[y]}}{\sum _{j=1}^{K}e^{{\vec {f}}_{\theta }(x)[j]}}}\ \ {\text{ for }}y=1,\dotsc ,K{\text{ and }}{\vec {f}}_{\theta }=(f_{1},\dotsc ,f_{K})\in \mathbb {R} ^{K},} where f → θ ( x ) [ y ] {\displaystyle {\vec {f}}_{\theta }(x)[y]} is the y-th index of the logits f → {\displaystyle {\vec {f}}} corresponding to class y. Without any change to the logits it was proposed to reinterpret the logits to describe a joint probability density: p θ ( y , x ) = e f → θ ( x ) [ y ] Z ( θ ) , {\displaystyle p_{\theta }(y,x)={\frac {e^{{\vec {f}}_{\theta }(x)[y]}}{Z(\theta )}},} with unknown partition function Z ( θ ) {\displaystyle Z(\theta )} and energy E θ ( x , y ) = − f θ ( x ) [ y ] {\displaystyle E_{\theta }(x,y)=-f_{\theta }(x)[y]} . By marginalization, we obtain the unnormalized density p θ ( x ) = ∑ y p θ ( y , x ) = ∑ y e f → θ ( x ) [ y ] Z ( θ ) =: e − E θ ( x ) , {\displaystyle p_{\theta }(x)=\sum _{y}p_{\theta }(y,x)=\sum _{y}{\frac {e^{{\vec {f}}_{\theta }(x)[y]}}{Z(\theta )}}=:e^{-E_{\theta }(x)},} therefore, E θ ( x ) = − log ⁡ ( ∑ y e f → θ ( x ) [ y ] Z ( θ ) ) , {\displaystyle E_{\theta }(x)=-\log \left(\sum _{y}{\frac {e^{{\vec {f}}_{\theta }(x)[y]}}{Z(\theta )}}\right),} so that any classifier can be used to define an energy function E θ ( x ) {\displaystyle E_{\theta }(x)} .
Read more →
Artificial intelligence of things

Artificial Intelligence of Things (AIoT) is the combination of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies with the Internet of things (IoT) infrastructure to create systems capable of sensing, learning, and acting on data without continuous human intervention. While IoT focuses on connectivity and sensor data collection, AI enables IoT devices to analyse data in real time and produce actionable outputs, including automated decisions at the edge. == Applications == === Manufacturing and predictive maintenance === Manufacturing accounts for the largest share of AIoT adoption by industry vertical. A common application is predictive maintenance, where sensors measuring vibration, temperature, current draw, and acoustic emissions feed machine learning models trained to detect signatures that precede equipment failure. These systems can flag developing faults weeks or months in advance, and in more advanced deployments can autonomously adjust machine parameters such as motor speed or cooling cycles to delay or prevent failure. === Other industries === In healthcare, AIoT enables remote patient monitoring through wearable devices that collect vital signs and apply AI models to detect anomalies or predict deterioration. In logistics, GPS and telematics sensors combined with AI models support real-time route optimisation, vehicle maintenance prediction, and fuel cost forecasting. Smart building systems use occupancy, temperature, and energy sensors with AI to dynamically adjust HVAC and lighting, reducing energy consumption. == Architecture == AIoT systems typically operate across three layers: a device layer of sensors and actuators that collect data, a connectivity layer that transmits data via protocols such as MQTT or HTTP, and a compute layer where AI models process the data either in the cloud or at the edge. The trend toward edge-based processing, where inference runs on low-cost processors near the data source rather than in a centralised cloud, has accelerated as hardware costs have fallen and applications increasingly require sub-second response times. == Market == Market sizing estimates for AIoT vary significantly depending on scope and definition. Fortune Business Insights valued the AIoT market at USD 35.65 billion in 2023, projecting growth to USD 253.86 billion by 2030 at a compound annual growth rate of 32.4%. Grand View Research estimated the broader market at USD 171.4 billion in 2024 with a CAGR of 31.7% through 2030, reflecting a wider definition that includes AI-integrated hardware components. North America accounted for approximately 40% of global market share in 2024, with the Asia-Pacific region projected as the fastest-growing market.
Read more →
GasBuddy

GasBuddy is a technology company headquartered in Dallas, United States, that offers mobile applications and websites for tracking crowd-sourced locations and prices of gas stations and convenience stores in the United States and Canada. Their platforms offer information sourced from users, gas station operators, and partner companies. They also provide business-to-business services to gas stations and convenience store owners. == History == GasBuddy was founded in Minneapolis in 2000 by Dustin Coupal, Jason Toews as a community website for sharing gas prices. In 2004, they filed as a for-profit corporation in Minnesota under the name GasBuddy Organization Inc. In 2009, GasBuddy launched OpenStore, a platform that allows convenience stores to build and manage their own mobile apps. In 2010, the company launched its own mobile apps that allowed users to input gas prices from their smartphones. In 2013, Oil Price Information Service (OPIS), a subsidiary of UCG, acquired GasBuddy. OPIS is a provider of petroleum pricing and news for businesses. In 2016, IHS acquired OPIS, separating from GasBuddy, which remained with UCG as a subsidiary company. Initially only available in the United States and Canada, GasBuddy launched in Australia in March 2016. Also in that year, GasBuddy released a completely redesigned app, its first major redesign since its release in 2010. GasBuddy also unveiled a new logo and launched GasBuddy Business Pages. GasBuddy shut down the Australian version of their app in 2022. In 2017, GasBuddy launched a gas savings program titled "Pay with GasBuddy" intended to let consumers save at gas stations in the United States. In the same year, GasBuddy was involved in a lawsuit with Reveal Mobile, a location-based marketing company, over the sale of user location data. It was revealed that GasBuddy sold information on more than 4.5 million users to Reveal each month for $9.50 per 1000 users. According to CNET, that information included "users' latitude, longitude, IP address, and time stamps on the data collected," which sparked concern in the media and between its users. In 2021, the GasBuddy app rose to the most popular app on both Android and iPhone platforms in the wake of the Colonial Pipeline ransomware attack PDI acquired GasBuddy in 2021.
Read more →
Commonsense knowledge (artificial intelligence)

In artificial intelligence research, commonsense knowledge consists of facts about the everyday world, such as "Lemons are sour" or "Cows say moo", that all humans are expected to know. It is currently an unsolved problem in artificial general intelligence. The first AI program to address common sense knowledge was Advice Taker in 1959 by John McCarthy. Commonsense knowledge can underpin a commonsense reasoning process, to attempt inferences such as "You might bake a cake because you want people to eat the cake." A natural language processing process can be attached to the commonsense knowledge base to allow the knowledge base to attempt to answer questions about the world. Common sense knowledge also helps to solve problems in the face of incomplete information. Using widely held beliefs about everyday objects, or common sense knowledge, AI systems make common sense assumptions or default assumptions about the unknown similar to the way people do. In an AI system or in English, this is expressed as "Normally P holds", "Usually P" or "Typically P so Assume P". For example, if we know the fact "Tweety is a bird", because we know the commonly held belief about birds, "typically birds fly," without knowing anything else about Tweety, we may reasonably assume the fact that "Tweety can fly." As more knowledge of the world is discovered or learned over time, the AI system can revise its assumptions about Tweety using a truth maintenance process. If we later learn that "Tweety is a penguin" then truth maintenance revises this assumption because we also know "penguins do not fly". == Commonsense reasoning == Commonsense reasoning simulates the human ability to use commonsense knowledge to make presumptions about the type and essence of ordinary situations they encounter every day, and to change their "minds" should new information come to light. This includes time, missing or incomplete information and cause and effect. The ability to explain cause and effect is an important aspect of explainable AI. Truth maintenance algorithms automatically provide an explanation facility because they create elaborate records of presumptions. Compared with humans, all existing computer programs that attempt human-level AI perform extremely poorly on modern "commonsense reasoning" benchmark tests such as the Winograd Schema Challenge. The problem of attaining human-level competency at "commonsense knowledge" tasks is considered to probably be "AI complete" (that is, solving it would require the ability to synthesize a fully human-level intelligence), although some oppose this notion and believe compassionate intelligence is also required for human-level AI. Common sense reasoning has been applied successfully in more limited domains such as natural language processing and automated diagnosis or analysis. == Commonsense knowledge base construction == Compiling comprehensive knowledge bases of commonsense assertions (CSKBs) is a long-standing challenge in AI research. From early expert-driven efforts like CYC and WordNet, significant advances were achieved via the crowdsourced OpenMind Commonsense project, which led to the crowdsourced ConceptNet KB. Several approaches have attempted to automate CSKB construction, most notably, via text mining (WebChild, Quasimodo, TransOMCS, Ascent), as well as harvesting these directly from pre-trained language models (AutoTOMIC). These resources are significantly larger than ConceptNet, though the automated construction mostly makes them of moderately lower quality. Challenges also remain on the representation of commonsense knowledge: Most CSKB projects follow a triple data model, which is not necessarily best suited for breaking more complex natural language assertions. A notable exception here is GenericsKB, which applies no further normalization to sentences, but retains them in full. == Applications == Around 2013, MIT researchers developed BullySpace, an extension of the commonsense knowledgebase ConceptNet, to catch taunting social media comments. BullySpace included over 200 semantic assertions based around stereotypes, to help the system infer that comments like "Put on a wig and lipstick and be who you really are" are more likely to be an insult if directed at a boy than a girl. ConceptNet has also been used by chatbots and by computers that compose original fiction. At Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, common sense knowledge was used in an intelligent software agent to detect violations of a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. == Data == As an example, as of 2012 ConceptNet includes these 21 language-independent relations: IsA (An "RV" is a "vehicle" | X is an instance of a Y) UsedFor (a "cake tin" is used for "making cakes" | X is used for the purpose Y) HasA (A "rabbit" has a "tail" | X possesses Y element or feature) CapableOf (a "cook" is capable of "making baked goods" | X is capable of doing Y) Desires (a "child" desires "the aroma of baking" | X has a desire for Y) CreatedBy ("cake" is created by a "baker" | X is created by Y) PartOf (a "knife" is be part of a "knife set" | X is a part of Y) Causes ("Heat" causes "cooking"| X is what causes Y) LocatedNear (the "oven" is located near the "refrigerator" | X is located near Y) AtLocation (Somewhere a "Cook" can be at a "restaurant" | X is at the location of Y) DefinedAs (a "Cupcake" is defined as a "cake" that also has the qualities of being "small", "baked within a wrapper", and "containing only one area of frosting or icing" | X is defined as Y that also has the properties A, B & C) SymbolOf (a "heart" is a symbol of "affection" | X is a symbolic representation of Y) ReceivesAction ("cake" can receive the action of being "eaten" | X is capable of receiving action Y) HasPrerequisite ("baking" has the prerequisite of obtaining the "ingredients" | X cannot do Y unless A does B) MotivatedByGoal ("baking" is motivated by the goal of "consumption"/"eating" | X has the motivation of Y goal) CausesDesire ("baking" makesYou want to "follow recipe" | X causes the desire to do Y) MadeOf ("Cake" is made of "flour"/"eggs"/"sugar"/"oil"/etc | X is made of Y) HasFirstSubevent ("baking" has first subevent "make batter" | To do X the first thing that needs to be done is Y) HasSubevent ("eat" has subevent "swallow" | Doing X will lead to Y event following) HasLastSubevent ("sleeping" has last subevent of "waking" | Doing X ends with the event Y) == Commonsense knowledge bases == Cyc Open Mind Common Sense (data source) and ConceptNet (datastore and NLP engine) Evi Graphiq
Read more →
Quantification (machine learning)

In machine learning, quantification (variously called learning to quantify, or supervised prevalence estimation, or class prior estimation) is the task of using supervised learning in order to train models (quantifiers) that estimate the relative frequencies (also known as prevalence values) of the classes of interest in a sample of unlabelled data items. For instance, in a sample of 100,000 unlabelled tweets known to express opinions about a certain political candidate, a quantifier may be used to estimate the percentage of these tweets which belong to class `Positive' (i.e., which manifest a positive stance towards this candidate), and to do the same for classes `Neutral' and `Negative'. Quantification may also be viewed as the task of training predictors that estimate a (discrete) probability distribution, i.e., that generate a predicted distribution that approximates the unknown true distribution of the items across the classes of interest. Quantification is different from classification, since the goal of classification is to predict the class labels of individual data items, while the goal of quantification it to predict the class prevalence values of sets of data items. Quantification is also different from regression, since in regression the training data items have real-valued labels, while in quantification the training data items have class labels. It has been shown in multiple research works that performing quantification by classifying all unlabelled instances and then counting the instances that have been attributed to each class (the 'classify and count' method) usually leads to suboptimal quantification accuracy. This suboptimality may be seen as a direct consequence of 'Vapnik's principle', which states: If you possess a restricted amount of information for solving some problem, try to solve the problem directly and never solve a more general problem as an intermediate step. It is possible that the available information is sufficient for a direct solution but is insufficient for solving a more general intermediate problem. In our case, the problem to be solved directly is quantification, while the more general intermediate problem is classification. As a result of the suboptimality of the 'classify and count' method, quantification has evolved as a task in its own right, different (in goals, methods, techniques, and evaluation measures) from classification. == Quantification tasks == === Quantification tasks according to the set of classes === The main variants of quantification, according to the characteristics of the set of classes used, are: Binary quantification, corresponding to the case in which there are only n = 2 {\displaystyle n=2} classes and each data item belongs to exactly one of them; Single-label multiclass quantification, corresponding to the case in which there are n > 2 {\displaystyle n>2} classes and each data item belongs to exactly one of them; Multi-label multiclass quantification, corresponding to the case in which there are n ≥ 2 {\displaystyle n\geq 2} classes and each data item can belong to zero, one, or several classes at the same time; Ordinal quantification, corresponding to the single-label multiclass case in which a total order is defined on the set of classes. Regression quantification, a task which stands to 'standard' quantification as regression stands to classification. Strictly speaking, this task is not a quantification task as defined above (since the individual items do not have class labels but are labelled by real values), but has enough commonalities with other quantification tasks to be considered one of them. Most known quantification methods address the binary case or the single-label multiclass case, and only few of them address the multi-label, ordinal, and regression cases. Binary-only methods include the Mixture Model (MM) method, the HDy method, SVM(KLD), and SVM(Q). Methods that can deal with both the binary case and the single-label multiclass case include probabilistic classify and count (PCC), adjusted classify and count (ACC), probabilistic adjusted classify and count (PACC), the Saerens-Latinne-Decaestecker EM-based method (SLD), and KDEy. Methods for multi-label quantification include regression-based quantification (RQ) and label powerset-based quantification (LPQ). Methods for the ordinal case include ordinal versions of the above-mentioned ACC, PACC, and SLD methods, and ordinal versions of the above-mentioned HDy method. Methods for the regression case include Regress and splice and Adjusted regress and sum. === Quantification tasks according to the type of data === Several subtasks of quantification may be identified according to the type of data involved. Example such tasks are: Quantification of networked data. This task consists of performing quantification when the datapoints are members of a relation, i.e., are interlinked. As such, this task is a strict relative of collective classification. Quantification over time. This task consists of performing quantification on sets that become available in a temporal sequence, i.e., as a data stream, and finds application in contexts in which class prevalence values must be monitored over time. == Evaluation measures for quantification == Several evaluation measures can be used for evaluating the error of a quantification method. Since quantification consists of generating a predicted probability distribution that estimates a true probability distribution, these evaluation measures are ones that compare two probability distributions. Most evaluation measures for quantification belong to the class of divergences. Evaluation measures for binary quantification, single-label multiclass quantification, and multi-label quantification, are Absolute Error Squared Error Relative Absolute Error Kullback–Leibler divergence Pearson Divergence Evaluation measures for ordinal quantification are Normalized Match Distance (a particular case of the Earth Mover's Distance) Root Normalized Order-Aware Distance == Applications == Quantification is of special interest in fields such as the social sciences, epidemiology, market research, allocating resources, and ecological modelling, since these fields are inherently concerned with aggregate data. However, quantification is also useful as a building block for solving other downstream tasks, such as improving the accuracy of classifiers on out-of-distribution data, measuring classifier bias and ranker bias, and estimating the accuracy of classifiers on out-of-distribution data. == Resources == LQ 2021: the 1st International Workshop on Learning to Quantify LQ 2022: the 2nd International Workshop on Learning to Quantify LQ 2023: the 3rd International Workshop on Learning to Quantify LQ 2024: the 4th International Workshop on Learning to Quantify LQ 2025: the 5th International Workshop on Learning to Quantify LeQua 2022: the 1st Data Challenge on Learning to Quantify LeQua 2024: the 2nd Data Challenge on Learning to Quantify QuaPy: An open-source Python-based software library for quantification QuantificationLib: A Python library for quantification and prevalence estimation
Read more →
Zeuthen strategy

The Zeuthen strategy in cognitive science is a negotiation strategy used by some artificial agents. Its purpose is to measure the willingness to risk conflict. An agent will be more willing to risk conflict if it does not have much to lose in case that the negotiation fails. In contrast, an agent is less willing to risk conflict when it has more to lose. The value of a deal is expressed in its utility. An agent has much to lose when the difference between the utility of its current proposal and the conflict deal is high. When both agents use the monotonic concession protocol, the Zeuthen strategy leads them to agree upon a deal in the negotiation set. This set consists of all conflict free deals, which are individually rational and Pareto optimal, and the conflict deal, which maximizes the Nash product. The strategy was introduced in 1930 by the Danish economist Frederik Zeuthen. == Three key questions == The Zeuthen strategy answers three open questions that arise when using the monotonic concession protocol, namely: Which deal should be proposed at first? On any given round, who should concede? In case of a concession, how much should the agent concede? The answer to the first question is that any agent should start with its most preferred deal, because that deal has the highest utility for that agent. The second answer is that the agent with the smallest value of Risk(i,t) concedes, because the agent with the lowest utility for the conflict deal profits most from avoiding conflict. To the third question, the Zeuthen strategy suggests that the conceding agent should concede just enough raise its value of Risk(i,t) just above that of the other agent. This prevents the conceding agent to have to concede again in the next round. == Risk == Risk ( i , t ) = { 1 U i ( δ ( i , t ) ) = 0 U i ( δ ( i , t ) ) − U i ( δ ( j , t ) ) U i ( δ ( i , t ) ) otherwise {\displaystyle {\text{Risk}}(i,t)={\begin{cases}1&U_{i}(\delta (i,t))=0\\{\frac {U_{i}(\delta (i,t))-U_{i}(\delta (j,t))}{U_{i}(\delta (i,t))}}&{\text{otherwise}}\end{cases}}} Risk(i,t) is a measurement of agent i's willingness to risk conflict. The risk function formalizes the notion that an agent's willingness to risk conflict is the ratio of the utility that agent would lose by accepting the other agent's proposal to the utility that agent would lose by causing a conflict. Agent i is said to be using a rational negotiation strategy if at any step t + 1 that agent i sticks to his last proposal, Risk(i,t) > Risk(j,t). == Sufficient concession == If agent i makes a sufficient concession in the next step, then, assuming that agent j is using a rational negotiation strategy, if agent j does not concede in the next step, he must do so in the step after that. The set of all sufficient concessions of agent i at step t is denoted SC(i, t). == Minimal sufficient concession == δ ′ = arg ⁡ max δ ∈ S C ( A , t ) { U A ( δ ) } {\displaystyle \delta '=\arg \max _{\delta \in {SC(A,t)}}\{U_{A}(\delta )\}} is the minimal sufficient concession of agent A in step t. Agent A begins the negotiation by proposing δ ( A , 0 ) = arg ⁡ max δ ∈ N S U A ( δ ) {\displaystyle \delta (A,0)=\arg \max _{\delta \in {NS}}U_{A}(\delta )} and will make the minimal sufficient concession in step t + 1 if and only if Risk(A,t) ≤ Risk(B,t). Theorem If both agents are using Zeuthen strategies, then they will agree on δ = arg ⁡ max δ ′ ∈ N S { π ( δ ′ ) } , {\displaystyle \delta =\arg \max _{\delta '\in {NS}}\{\pi (\delta ')\},} that is, the deal which maximizes the Nash product. Proof Let δA = δ(A,t). Let δB = δ(B,t). According to the Zeuthen strategy, agent A will concede at step t {\displaystyle t} if and only if R i s k ( A , t ) ≤ R i s k ( B , t ) . {\displaystyle Risk(A,t)\leq Risk(B,t).} That is, if and only if U A ( δ A ) − U A ( δ B ) U A ( δ A ) ≤ U B ( δ B ) − U B ( δ A ) U B ( δ B ) {\displaystyle {\frac {U_{A}(\delta _{A})-U_{A}(\delta _{B})}{U_{A}(\delta _{A})}}\leq {\frac {U_{B}(\delta _{B})-U_{B}(\delta _{A})}{U_{B}(\delta _{B})}}} U B ( δ B ) ( U A ( δ A ) − U A ( δ B ) ) ≤ U A ( δ A ) ( U B ( δ B ) − U B ( δ A ) ) {\displaystyle U_{B}(\delta _{B})(U_{A}(\delta _{A})-U_{A}(\delta _{B}))\leq U_{A}(\delta _{A})(U_{B}(\delta _{B})-U_{B}(\delta _{A}))} U A ( δ A ) U B ( δ B ) − U A ( δ B ) U B ( δ B ) ≤ U A ( δ A ) U B ( δ B ) − U A ( δ A ) U B ( δ A ) {\displaystyle U_{A}(\delta _{A})U_{B}(\delta _{B})-U_{A}(\delta _{B})U_{B}(\delta _{B})\leq U_{A}(\delta _{A})U_{B}(\delta _{B})-U_{A}(\delta _{A})U_{B}(\delta _{A})} − U A ( δ B ) U B ( δ B ) ≤ − U A ( δ A ) U B ( δ A ) {\displaystyle -U_{A}(\delta _{B})U_{B}(\delta _{B})\leq -U_{A}(\delta _{A})U_{B}(\delta _{A})} U A ( δ A ) U B ( δ A ) ≤ U A ( δ B ) U B ( δ B ) {\displaystyle U_{A}(\delta _{A})U_{B}(\delta _{A})\leq U_{A}(\delta _{B})U_{B}(\delta _{B})} π ( δ A ) ≤ π ( δ B ) {\displaystyle \pi (\delta _{A})\leq \pi (\delta _{B})} Thus, Agent A will concede if and only if δ A {\displaystyle \delta _{A}} does not yield the larger product of utilities. Therefore, the Zeuthen strategy guarantees a final agreement that maximizes the Nash Product.
Read more →
TeaOnHer

TeaOnHer is a male-oriented dating surveillance mobile app that allows men to anonymously rate and comment on women they are dating. It was set up in response to the existence of Tea, a female-oriented dating app that allowed women to rate and comment on men. In 2025, Cosmopolitian magazine described it as America's second most popular mobile app, with it being the second most popular app in the lifestyle section of Apple's App Store. The TeaOnHer app has fewer features than the rival Tea app, focusing instead on anonymous commenting. It is listed as having been developed by a company called Newville Media Corporation. TechCrunch reported in 2025 that TeaOnHer had leaked credentials of some of its users.
Read more →
Artificial intelligence in spirituality

Some users of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies, especially chatbots, may develop beliefs that AI has or can attain supernatural or spiritual powers. AI models such as ChatGPT are turned to for fortune telling, mysticism and remote viewing. Recent and sudden advances in large language models have led to folk myths about their origin or capabilities, as well as their deification or worship by some users. Tucker Carlson has made similar claims, including directly to Sam Altman. Pope Leo XIV advised priests against using LLM models when it came to the creation of sermons.
Read more →
Competition in artificial intelligence

Competition in artificial intelligence refers to the rivalry among companies, research institutions, and governments to develop and deploy the most capable artificial intelligence (AI) systems. The competition spans multiple domains, including large language models (LLMs), autonomous vehicles, robotics, computer vision systems, natural language processing (NLP), and AI-optimized hardware. == Background == Competition in AI is driven by potential economic, strategic, and scientific advantages. Breakthroughs in AI can enhance productivity, enable new products and services, and provide geopolitical leverage. The field has experienced rapid progress since the mid-2010s, particularly in machine learning and artificial neural networks, leading to intense rivalry among leading actors. == Corporate competition == Major technology companies are among the most visible competitors in AI. In the United States, firms such as OpenAI, Google DeepMind, Meta Platforms, Microsoft, Anthropic, and Nvidia compete in building advanced LLMs, generative AI platforms, and AI-optimized graphics processing units (GPUs). In China, companies such as Baidu, Alibaba Group, Tencent, and startups such DeepSeek have become leaders in AI deployment, often with state backing. The "[war for talent]" in AI research has become a defining feature of corporate competition. Leading firms often recruit top AI researchers from rivals, sometimes offering multi-million-dollar compensation packages. == National competition == Governments see leadership in AI as a strategic priority. The United States has funded AI research for military, economic, and societal applications, while China has set a target to lead the world in AI by 2030 through its "New Generation Artificial Intelligence Development Plan". Other nations, including the UK, India, Israel, Russia, South Korea, and members of the European Union, have launched national AI strategies. In February 2026 Anthropic said Chinese companies - DeepSeek, Moonshot AI, and MiniMax - were conducting "distillation attacks" in an attempt to copy their model's capabilities, and warned that business wars were closely tied to geopolitical ones: "foreign labs that illicitly distill American models can remove safeguards, feeding model capabilities into their own military, intelligence, and surveillance systems." == Sectors of competition == === Large language models and chatbots competition === Competition to produce the most capable generative text models, with benchmarks such as MMLU and ARC used to evaluate performance has been on scale since the emergence of AI. These systems leverage deep learning, especially transformer architectures, to understand and generate human-like language. Companies and research groups globally compete to develop chatbots that are more capable, reliable, and context-aware. Among the most well-known chatbots is ChatGPT, developed by OpenAI. Since its public release in 2022, ChatGPT has rapidly gained widespread attention for its ability to engage in coherent and versatile conversations, assist with creative writing, and solve complex problems. In response, technology firms introduced competing chatbots aiming to challenge or surpass ChatGPT's capabilities. Notably, DeepSeek, a Chinese AI company, launched an advanced chatbot integrated with their R1 language model, emphasizing strong natural language understanding and multilingual support. Similarly, Grok, developed by xAI (company), integrates conversational AI into vehicles and digital assistants, combining natural language processing with real-time data for personalized user interaction. These chatbots not only compete in language tasks but also demonstrate strategic reasoning capabilities by playing complex games such as chess and Go. This form of competition is reminiscent of historic AI milestones set by programs such as Deep Blue and AlphaGo. The OpenAI’s ChatGPT has been tested in playing chess at various levels, while DeepSeek’s chatbot showcased its prowess in online chess tournaments in early 2024, winning several matches against human and AI opponents. Grok, leveraging Tesla's vast data infrastructure, has demonstrated real-time strategic decision-making in simulation environments that include chess-like games. The competition pushes rapid innovation, with firms racing to improve chatbot conversational depth, reduce biases, increase factual accuracy, and integrate multimodal inputs like images and videos. At the same time, the competition raises questions about AI safety, ethical use, and the societal impacts of increasingly human-like chatbots. === Autonomous vehicles === Companies such as Waymo, Tesla, and Baidu are racing to deploy safe and reliable self-driving car technology. === AI chips === Rivalry between Nvidia, AMD, Intel, and Huawei in designing processors optimized for AI workloads. === Military applications === Development of AI-enabled drones, surveillance systems, and decision-support tools, with associated ethical debates. == Events == In 2023, OpenAI released GPT-4, prompting competitors such as Google DeepMind to accelerate the release of their own models, including Gemini. In 2024, Chinese AI company DeepSeek launched the R1 model, leading OpenAI to release an open-source system, GPT-OSS, as a strategic countermeasure. In 2022, Tesla and Waymo both expanded autonomous taxi services in U.S. cities, competing for regulatory approval and public trust. The U.S. Department of Defense's Project Maven and China's AI-enabled surveillance programs have been cited as examples of military AI rivalry. In 2025, Microsoft hired several senior engineers from Google DeepMind, highlighting the ongoing "talent poaching" competition in the AI sector. == Risks and concerns == Critics warn that unrestrained competition in AI can undermine safety, ethics, and governance. Concerns include the proliferation of biased or unsafe models, escalation in autonomous weapons, and reduced cooperation on safety standards.
Read more →
Nolot

Nolot is a chess test suite with 11 positions from real games. They were compiled by Pierre Nolot (French: [nɔ.lo]) for the French chess magazine Gambisco and posted on the rec.games.chess Usenet group in 1994. They were designed to be particularly hard to solve for chess engines to solve at the time, although modern engines can find a solution near-instantaneously. == Problem 1 == FEN: r3qb1k/1b4p1/p2pr2p/3n4/Pnp1N1N1/6RP/1B3PP1/1B1QR1K1 w - - 0 1 26.Nxh6!! c3 (26... Rxh6 27.Nxd6 Qh5 (best) 28.Rg5! Qxd1 29.Nf7+ Kg8 30.Nxh6+ Kh8 31.Rxd1 c3 32.Nf7+ Kg8 33.Bg6! Nf4 34.Bxc3 Nxg6 35.Bxb4 Kxf7 36.Rd7+ Kf6 37.Rxg6+ Kxg6 38.Rxb7 ±) 27.Nf5! cxb2 28.Qg4 Bc8 (28... g6!? 29.Kh2! 29.Qd7 30.Nh4 Bc6 31.Nc5! dxc 32.Rxe6 Nf6 33.Nxg6+ Kg7 34.Qg5 Nbd5 35.Ne5 Kh8 36.Nxd7 ±) 29.Qh4+ Rh6 30.Nxh6 gxh6 31.Kh2! Qe5 32.Ng5 Qf6 33.Re8 Bf5 34.Qxh6 (missing a mate in 6: 34.Nf7+ Qxf7 35.Qxh6+ Bh7 36.Rxa8 Nf6 37.Rxf8 Qxf8 38.Qxf8+ Ng8 39.Qg7#) 34...Qxh6 35.Nf7+ Kh7 36.Bxf5+ Qg6 37.Bxg6+ Kg7 38.Rxa8 Be7 39.Rb8 a5 40.Be4+ Kxf7 41.Bxd5+ 1–0 The best Novag computer, the Diablo 68000, finds 26. Nxh6 after seven and a half months (Pierre Nolot has let it run on the position for 14 months and one day, until a power failure stopped an analysis of over 80,000,000,000 nodes.) but for wrong reasons: it evaluates white's position as inferior and thinks this move would enable it to draw. Today Gambit Tiger 2.0 for example can find it quite quickly: Most free engines running on 64-bit processors in 2010 could solve this problem and the others in a few seconds. 1.Qd4 c3 2.Bxc3 Nxc3 3.Qxb4 Nxe4 4.Qxb7 Rb8 5.Qxb8 Qxb8 6.Bxe4 d5 7.Rb1 μ (-1.20) Depth: 12 00:00:09 6055 kN 1.Nxh6 c3 2.Nf5 cxb2 3.Qg4 Rb8 4.Nxg7 Rg6 5.Qxg6 Qxg6 6.Rxg6 Bxg7 7.Nxd6 ³ (-0.48) Depth: 12 00:00:21 14368 kN 1.Nxh6 c3 2.Nf5 cxb2 3.Qg4 Rc8 4.Nxg7 Rg6 5.Nxe8 Rxg4 6.Rxg4 Rxe8 7.Rg6 μ (-0.74) Depth: 13 00:00:55 38455 kN 1.Ne3 Rxe4 2.Bxe4 Qxe4 3.Nxd5 Qxd5 4.Qc1 Qf5 5.Qxh6+ Qh7 6.Qe6 Nd3 7.Re2 Nxb2 8.Rxb2 ³ (-0.58) Depth: 13 00:01:30 62979 kN 1.Ne3 Rxe4 ³ (-0.58) Depth: 14 00:02:02 84941 kN 1.Ne3 Nxe3 2.Rexe3 Bxe4 3.Qg4 Rg6 4.Qxe4 Qxe4 5.Bxe4 Rxg3 6.Rxg3 d5 7.Bf5 Re8 8.Bc3 ³ (-0.30) Depth: 15 00:03:05 128968 kN 1.Nxh6 ² (0.32) Depth: 15 00:07:58 350813 kN With the next ply showing a clear advantage. Stockfish 14dev 64bit 4CPU running on 2020 hardware recognises the significance of Nxh6!! in 1 second. Stockfish_21092606_x64_avx2: NNUE evaluation using nn-13406b1dcbe0.nnue enabled. 19/32 00:01 7708k 4882k +3,00 Nxh6 Rxh6 Nxd6 Qh5 Bg6 Qxd1 Nf7+ Kg8 Nxh6+ gxh6 Bh5+ Kh7 Rxd1 c3 Bxc3 Nxc3 Rd7+ Kh8 Rxb7 Ne4 Re3 Nxf2 Kxf2 Bc5 Ke2 Bxe3 Kxe3 Nd5+ Kf2 49/73 15:02 5118270k 5673k +6,15 Nxh6 Rxh6 Nxd6 Qh5 Rg5 Qxd1 Nf7+ Kg8 Nxh6+ Kh8 Rxd1 c3 Nf7+ Kg8 Bg6 Nf4 Bxc3 Nbd5 Rb1 Bc6 Bd2 Nxg6 Rxg6 Ne7 Rxc6 Nxc6 Rb6 Rc8 Ng5 a5 Ra6 Bb4 Be3 Ne5 Bd4 Nc6 Bb6 Bd2 h4 Kf8 Bc5+ Kg8 Be3 Bxe3 fxe3 Kf8 Kf2 Ke7 Nf3 Kd7 Rb6 Ne7 Rb5 Kd6 Rxa5 Rc2+ Kg3 Re2 Nd4 Rxe3+ Kf4 Rd3 Nf5+ Kc7 Nxe7 == Problem 2 == FEN: r4rk1/pp1n1p1p/1nqP2p1/2b1P1B1/4NQ2/1B3P2/PP2K2P/2R5 w - - 0 1 22.Rxc5!! Nxc5 23.Nf6+ Kh8 24.Qh4 Qb5+ (computers think there is perpetual check here, but...) 25.Ke3! 25... h5 26.Nxh5 Qxb3+ (26... d5+ 27.Bxd5 Qd3 28.Kf2 Ne4+ 29.Bxe4 Qd4+ 30.Kg2 Qxb2+ 31.Kh3 ±) and White won in 41 moves. Today Deep Junior 8.ZX for example finds it very quickly (around 1 minute): 1.Kd1 Rac8 2.Bh6 Qb5 3.Rc3 Qf1+ 4.Kc2 Rc6 5.Bxf8 −+ (-2.11) Depth: 12 00:00:04 10422 kN 1.Nxc5 Nxc5 2.Rxc5 Qxc5 3.e6 Rae8 4.e7 Nc8 5.Kf1 Nxd6 6.Bf6 b5 −+ (-2.10) Depth: 12 00:00:14 25054 kN 1.Bf6! μ (-1.35) Depth: 12 00:00:17 34601 kN 1.Bf6 Qb5+ 2.Ke1 Bb4+ 3.Kf2 Bc5+ = (0.00) Depth: 12 00:00:20 34601 kN 1.Bf6 Qb5+ 2.Ke1 Nxf6 3.Nxf6+ Kg7 4.Nh5+ gxh5 5.Qf6+ Kg8 6.Qg5+ Kh8 7.Qf6+ = (0.00) Depth: 15 00:01:01 130544 kN 1.Rxc5! = (0.15) Depth: 15 00:01:12 145875 kN 1.Rxc5 Nxc5 2.Nf6+ Kh8 3.Qh4 Qb5+ 4.Ke3 h5 5.Nxh5 Qd3+ 6.Kf2 Ne4+ 7.fxe4 Qd4+ 8.Kf1 Qd3+ 9.Ke1 Qb1+ 10.Bd1 ± (2.18) Depth: 15 00:01:18 145875 kN Stockfish 14dev 64bit 4CPU running on 2020 hardware recognises the significance of Rxc5!! in 1 second. Stockfish_21092606_x64_avx2: NNUE evaluation using nn-13406b1dcbe0.nnue enabled. 21/25 00:01 5822k 5545k +6,61 Rxc5 Qxc5 Nxc5 Nxc5 Bh6 Nbd7 Bxf8 Rxf8 Qe3 Rc8 f4 Nxe5 Qxe5 Ne6 Bxe6 Rc2+ Kd3 Rxh2 46/86 11:27 5057055k 7355k +7,61 Rxc5 Qxc5 Nxc5 Nxc5 Bf6 Ne6 Qh6 Nd4+ Kf2 Nf5 Qg5 Nd7 h4 Nxf6 Qxf6 Ng7 d7 b5 Bd5 Rab8 b4 Nh5 Bxf7+ Rxf7 d8R+ Rxd8 Qxd8+ Rf8 Qd5+ Kg7 e6 Kf6 Qd7 Ng7 Qd4+ Kxe6 Qxg7 Rf7 Qc3 Ke7 Qc5+ Ke8 Qc8+ Ke7 h5 gxh5 Kg3 h4+ Kh2 h6 Qc5+ Kf6 Qxb5 Kg7 f4 Rxf4 Qe5+ Rf6 b5 h3 Qd4 Kg8 Qxf6 h5 Blacks 22. .. Nxc5 is suboptimal and leads faster mate 77/44 09:18 6987714k 12518k +M22 Nf6+ Kh8 Qh4 Qb5+ Ke3 Qxb3+ axb3 h5 Nxh5 Nd5+ Kd4 Ne6+ Kxd5 Nxg5 Qxg5 gxh5 f4 Rad8 f5 f6 Qxh5+ Kg7 Qg6+ Kh8 e6 b6 e7 Rb8 exf8Q+ Rxf8 Ke6 b5 Ke7 Rb8 Qh5+ Kg7 Qf7+ Kh8 Kxf6 Rf8 Qxf8+ Kh7 Qg7+ == Problem 3 == FEN: r2qk2r/ppp1b1pp/2n1p3/3pP1n1/3P2b1/2PB1NN1/PP4PP/R1BQK2R w KQkq - 0 1 12.Nxg5!! Bxd1 13.Nxe6 Qb8 14.Nxg7+!! Kf8 15.Bh6! Bg4 16.0-0+ Kg8 17.Rf4 ± White wins with a queen sac but black has defensive resources. Stockfish 8 64bit 3CPU running on 2016 hardware recognizes the significance of Nxg5!! in 55 seconds. Stockfish 14 dev (Stockfish_21092606_x64_avx2) 64bit 4CPU running on 2020 hardware recognizes the significance of Nxg5!! in 1 second. NNUE evaluation using nn-13406b1dcbe0.nnue enabled. 21/34 00:01 8291k 4530k +2,78 Nxg5 Bxd1 Nxe6 Qb8 Nxg7+ Kd8 Kxd1 b5 N3f5 Bf8 Rf1 Kc8 Nh5 Kb7 Bxb5 Ne7 g4 a6 Ba4 Nxf5 gxf5 Ka7 Nf4 c5 47/59 37:49 10390430k 4578k +3,16 Nxg5 Bxd1 Nxe6 Qb8 Nxg7+ Kd8 Kxd1 b5 Rf1 Kc8 N3f5 Bf8 Ne6 Kd7 Nf4 Ne7 g4 a5 Ke2 Qb7 h4 Ra6 a3 Kc8 Be3 Kb8 Kf3 Rb6 Bd2 Qc8 Kg3 c5 Be3 c4 Nxe7 Bxe7 Bf5 Qd8 h5 Qg8 Kh3 Bg5 Rf3 Ra6 Raf1 b4 Nxd5 Qxd5 Bxg5 bxc3 bxc3 Rb6 Be3 Rb3 Blacks 14 .. Kf8 is suboptimal and leads loss fast 41/68 06:31 3269727k 8350k +9,28 Bh6 Kg8 Rxd1 Bf8 N3h5 Bxg7 Nxg7 Qf8 Nf5 Ne7 Bxf8 Nxf5 Bxf5 Rxf8 Be6+ Kg7 Rd3 Rf4 Bxd5 c6 Rg3+ Kf8 Rf3 Rxf3 Bxf3 Kg7 Rf1 Re8 Be4 Re6 Ke2 a5 Ke3 Rh6 h3 a4 Kf4 Re6 h4 Re8 Ke3 h6 h5 Rf8 Rxf8 Kxf8 == Problem 4 == FEN: r1b1kb1r/1p1n1ppp/p2ppn2/6BB/2qNP3/2N5/PPP2PPP/R2Q1RK1 w kq - 0 1 10.Nxe6!! Qxe6 11.Nd5 Kd8 12.Bg4 Qe5 13.f4 Qxe4 (13...Qxb2 stronger but not sufficient: 14.Bxd7 Bxd7 15.Rb1 Qa3 16.Nxf6 Bb5 17.Qd4 Qc5 18.Rfd1 ±) 14.Bxd7 Bxd7 15.Nxf6 gxf6 16.Bxf6+ Kc7 17.Bxh8 and Black resigned on move 27. Stockfish 14dev 64bit 4CPU running on 2020 hardware recognises the significance of 10.Nxe6 in 1 second. Stockfish_21092606_x64_avx2: NNUE evaluation using nn-13406b1dcbe0.nnue enabled. 22/37 00:01 6955k 5367k +4,00 Nxe6 Qxe6 Nd5 Kd8 Bg4 Qe5 f4 Qxb2 Rb1 Qa3 Bxd7 Bxd7 Nxf6 Bb5 Rf3 Qxa2 c4 Bxc4 Rf2 Qa5 Nd5+ f6 Nxf6 Kc7 Rc1 b5 Qd5 gxf6 Bxf6 Kb8 Rxc4 Qe1+ Rf1 51/70 47:10 14538911k 5137k +5,76 Nxe6 Qxe6 Nd5 Kd8 Bg4 Qe5 f4 Qxe4 Bxd7 Bxd7 Nxf6 Qf5 Qd4 Kc8 Nd5 Bc6 c4 f6 Nb6+ Kb8 Bh4 Be7 Rae1 Bd8 Nxa8 Kxa8 Bf2 Kb8 Qxd6+ Bc7 Ba7+ Kc8 Qe6+ Qxe6 Rxe6 h5 h4 Rd8 Re7 g6 Be3 Ba5 Kf2 Rd6 Rc1 Bd8 Rg7 Be4 Rg8 Kd7 c5 Rd3 Rc4 Bd5 Rg7+ Ke6 Rd4 Rxd4 Bxd4 Kf5 Rd7 Bc6 Rxd8 Kxf4 Bxf6 == Problem 5 == FEN: r2qrb1k/1p1b2p1/p2ppn1p/8/3NP3/1BN5/PPP3QP/1K3RR1 w - - 0 1 21.e5!! dxe5 22.Ne4! Nh5 23.Qg6!? (stronger is 23.Qg4!! Nf4 24.Nf3 Qc7 25.Nh4 ± ) 23...exd4? (23...Nf4 24.Rxf4! exf4 25.Nf3! Qb6 26.Rg5!! covering b5 and threatening Nf6 or Ne5-f7+) 24.Ng5 1−0 Stockfish 8 64bit 3CPU running on 2016 hardware recognises the significance of 21.e5 in 5 seconds. Stockfish 12 dev (Stockfish_20062212_x64_modern) 64bit 1CPU running on 2016 hardware recognizes the significance of 21.e5 in 11 seconds. 25/42 00:06 7 963k 1309k +6,93 e5 Nh5 Ne4 dxe5 Nf3 Nf4 Qg4 Qc7 Nh4 Bc6 Nf6 g5 Rxf4 exf4 Qh5 Qe7 Ng6+ Kg7 Nxe7 Rxe7 Ng4 37/62 03:12 298 083k 1545k +10,70 e5 Ng4 Qxg4 Qg5 Qh3 Qxe5 Nde2 g5 Rxf8+ Kg7 Rff1 Rf8 Re1 Qf5 Qg3 Rad8 Nd4 Qf4 Nxe6+ Bxe6 Rxe6 Qxg3 == Problem 6 == FEN: rnbqk2r/1p3ppp/p7/1NpPp3/QPP1P1n1/P4N2/4KbPP/R1B2B1R b kq - 0 1 13... axb5!! offers an exchange to keep the white queen out of play. 14.Qxa8 Bd4 15.Nxd4 cxd4 16.Qxb8 0-0! 17.Ke1 Qh4 18.g3 Qf6 19.Bf4 g5? (Ivanchuk found 19...d3! during post-game analysis.) 20.Rc1 exf4 21.Qxf4 Qd4 22.Rd1 bxc4 23.e5 Qc3+ 24.Rd2 Re8 25.Bxd3 cxd3 −+ Tasc R30 finds 19... d3! in 2 1/2 hours. 19... Bf5!! is even stronger than 19... d3. Position is already lost at 19... d3 +8.00 for black, ... Bf5 not much better Stockfish 14dev 64bit 4CPU running on 2020 hardware recognises the significance of axb5!! in 1 second. Stockfish_21092606_x64_avx2: NNUE evaluation using nn-13406b1dcbe0.nnue enabled. 21/28 00:01 9264k 4714k -1,22 axb5 Qxa8 Bd4 Nxd4 cxd4 h3 Nf6 Bg5 0-0 cxb5 h6 Bxf6 Qxf6 Re1 Nd7 Kd1 Qg6 Qa4 Qg3 Qc2 Qxa3 Bd3 Qxb4 Qb1 46/67 1:05:00 18113493k 4644k -2,40 axb5 Qxa8 Bd4 h3 Nf6 Nxd4 exd4 Kf2 Nxe4+ Kg1 Nd7 Bg5 Qxg5 Qxc8+ Ke7 Qc7 Qe5 d6+ Qxd6 Qxd6+ Kxd6 bxc5+ Ndxc5 cxb5 d3 h4 d2 Rh3 Ke5 Be2 f5 Ra2 Rd8 Bd1 Rd4 Re3 f4 Re2 b6 a4 Kd6 Rc2 Kd5 Ra2 h6 Rb2 Nxa4 Bxa4 Rxa4 Rexd2+ Nxd2 Rxd2+ Kc4 Rd7 g6 == Problem 7 == FEN 1r1bk2r/2R2ppp/p3p3/1b2P2q/4QP2/4N3/1B4PP/3R2K1 w k - 0 1 1.Rxd8+!! Rxd8 (1...Kxd8 2.Ra7! Qe2 3.Qd4+ Ke8 4.h3 Qe1+ 5.Kh2 Rd8 6.Qc5 Qh4 7.Ba3 Rd7 8.Ra8+ Rd8 9.g3 1−0)
Read more →
Croissant (metadata format)

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

Personality computing is a research field related to artificial intelligence and personality psychology that studies personality by means of computational techniques from different sources, including text, multimedia, and social networks. == Overview == Personality computing addresses three main problems involving personality: automatic personality recognition, perception, and synthesis. Automatic personality recognition is the inference of the personality type of target individuals from their digital footprint. Automatic personality perception is the inference of the personality attributed by an observer to a target individual based on some observable behavior. Automatic personality synthesis is the generation of the style or behaviour of artificial personalities in Avatars and virtual agents. Self-assessed personality tests or observer ratings are always exploited as the ground truth for testing and validating the performance of artificial intelligence algorithms for the automatic prediction of personality types. There is a wide variety of personality tests, such as the Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) or the MMPI, but the most used are tests based on the Five Factor Model such as the Revised NEO Personality Inventory. Personality computing can be considered as an extension or complement of Affective computing, where the former focuses on personality traits and the latter on affective states. A further extension of the two fields is Character Computing which combines various character states and traits including but not limited to personality and affect. == History == Personality computing began around 2005 with the pioneering research in personality recognition by Shlomo Argamon and later by François Mairesse. These works showed that personality traits could be inferred with reasonable accuracy from text, such as blogs, self-presentations, and email addresses. In 2008, the concept of "portable personality" for the distributed management of personality profiles has been developed. A few years later, research began in personality recognition and perception from multimodal and social signals, such as recorded meetings and voice calls. In the 2010s, the research focused mainly on personality recognition and perception from social media, helped by the first workshops organized by Fabio Celli. In particular personality was extracted from Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. In the same years, automatic personality synthesis helped improve the coherence of simulated behavior in virtual agents. Scientific works by Michal Kosinski demonstrated the validity of Personality Computing from different digital footprints, in particular from user preferences such as Facebook page likes, showed that machines can recognize personality better than humans and raised a warning against Cambridge Analytica and misuse of this kind of technology. == Applications == Personality computing techniques, in particular personality recognition and perception, have applications in Social media marketing, where they can help reducing the cost of advertising campaigns through psychological targeting.
Read more →
Representation collapse

Representation collapse is a phenomenon in machine learning and representation learning where a model maps different inputs to the same or very similar embeddings, which means it loses important information about how the data is spread out. It is frequently encountered in self-supervised learning, especially within contrastive and non-contrastive frameworks, when training objectives or model architectures do not maintain variance across representations. Collapse results in degenerate solutions characterized by uninformative learned features, significantly impairing downstream task performance. Various techniques have been proposed to mitigate representation collapse, including the use of negative samples, architectural asymmetry, stop-gradient operations, variance regularization, and redundancy reduction objectives, as seen in methods such as SimCLR, BYOL, and VICReg. Comprehending and averting representation collapse is regarded as a fundamental challenge in the advancement of stable and efficient self-supervised learning systems.
Read more →