HTTP compression is a capability that can be built into web servers and web clients to improve transfer speed and bandwidth utilization. HTTP data is compressed before it is sent from the server: compliant browsers will announce what methods are supported to the server before downloading the correct format; browsers that do not support compliant compression method will download uncompressed data. The most common compression schemes include gzip and Brotli; a full list of available schemes is maintained by the IANA. There are two different ways compression can be done in HTTP. At a lower level, a Transfer-Encoding header field may indicate the payload of an HTTP message is compressed. At a higher level, a Content-Encoding header field may indicate that a resource being transferred, cached, or otherwise referenced is compressed. Compression using Content-Encoding is more widely supported than Transfer-Encoding, and some browsers do not advertise support for Transfer-Encoding compression to avoid triggering bugs in servers. == Compression scheme negotiation == The negotiation is done in two steps, described in RFC 2616 and RFC 9110: 1. The web client advertises which compression schemes it supports by including a list of tokens in the HTTP request. For Content-Encoding, the list is in a field called Accept-Encoding; for Transfer-Encoding, the field is called TE. 2. If the server supports one or more compression schemes, the outgoing data may be compressed by one or more methods supported by both parties. If this is the case, the server will add a Content-Encoding or Transfer-Encoding field in the HTTP response with the used schemes, separated by commas. The web server is by no means obligated to use any compression method – this depends on the internal settings of the web server and also may depend on the internal architecture of the website in question. == Content-Encoding tokens == The official list of tokens available to servers and client is maintained by IANA, and it includes: br – Brotli, a compression algorithm specifically designed for HTTP content encoding, defined in RFC 7932 and implemented in all modern major browsers. compress – UNIX "compress" program method (historic; deprecated in most applications and replaced by gzip or deflate) deflate – compression based on the deflate algorithm (described in RFC 1951), a combination of the LZ77 algorithm and Huffman coding, wrapped inside the zlib data format (RFC 1950); exi – W3C Efficient XML Interchange gzip – GNU zip format (described in RFC 1952). Uses the deflate algorithm for compression, but the data format and the checksum algorithm differ from the "deflate" content-encoding. This method is the most broadly supported as of March 2011. identity – No transformation is used. This is the default value for content coding. pack200-gzip – Network Transfer Format for Java Archives zstd – Zstandard compression, defined in RFC 8478 In addition to these, a number of unofficial or non-standardized tokens are used in the wild by either servers or clients: bzip2 – compression based on the free bzip2 format, supported by lighttpd lzip – compression based on the free lzip format, supported by wget and Links lzma – compression based on (raw) LZMA is available in Opera 20, and in elinks via a compile-time option peerdist – Microsoft Peer Content Caching and Retrieval rsync – delta encoding in HTTP, implemented by a pair of rproxy proxies. xpress – Microsoft compression protocol used by Windows 8 and later for Windows Store application updates. LZ77-based compression optionally using a Huffman encoding. xz – LZMA2-based content compression, supported by a non-official Firefox patch; and fully implemented in mget since 2013-12-31. == Servers that support HTTP compression == SAP NetWeaver Microsoft IIS: built-in or using third-party module Apache HTTP Server, via mod_deflate (despite its name, only supporting gzip), and mod_brotli Hiawatha HTTP server: serves pre-compressed files Cherokee HTTP server, On the fly gzip and deflate compressions Oracle iPlanet Web Server Zeus Web Server lighttpd nginx – built-in Applications based on Tornado, if "compress_response" is set to True in the application settings (for versions prior to 4.0, set "gzip" to True) Jetty Server – built-into default static content serving and available via servlet filter configurations GeoServer Apache Tomcat IBM Websphere AOLserver Ruby Rack, via the Rack::Deflater middleware HAProxy Varnish – built-in. Works also with ESI Armeria – Serving pre-compressed files NaviServer – built-in, dynamic and static compression Caddy – built-in via encode Many content delivery networks also implement HTTP compression to improve speedy delivery of resources to end users. The compression in HTTP can also be achieved by using the functionality of server-side scripting languages like PHP, or programming languages like Java. Various online tools exist to verify a working implementation of HTTP compression. These online tools usually request multiple variants of a URL, each with different request headers (with varying Accept-Encoding content). HTTP compression is considered to be implemented correctly when the server returns a document in a compressed format. By comparing the sizes of the returned documents, the effective compression ratio can be calculated (even between different compression algorithms). == Problems preventing the use of HTTP compression == A 2009 article by Google engineers Arvind Jain and Jason Glasgow states that more than 99 person-years are wasted daily due to increase in page load time when users do not receive compressed content. This occurs when anti-virus software interferes with connections to force them to be uncompressed, where proxies are used (with overcautious web browsers), where servers are misconfigured, and where browser bugs stop compression being used. Internet Explorer 6, which drops to HTTP 1.0 (without features like compression or pipelining) when behind a proxy – a common configuration in corporate environments – was the mainstream browser most prone to failing back to uncompressed HTTP. Another problem found while deploying HTTP compression on large scale is due to the deflate encoding definition: while HTTP 1.1 defines the deflate encoding as data compressed with deflate (RFC 1951) inside a zlib formatted stream (RFC 1950), Microsoft server and client products historically implemented it as a "raw" deflated stream, making its deployment unreliable. For this reason, some software, including the Apache HTTP Server, only implements gzip encoding. == Security implications == Compression allows a form of chosen plaintext attack to be performed: if an attacker can inject any chosen content into the page, they can know whether the page contains their given content by observing the size increase of the encrypted stream. If the increase is smaller than expected for random injections, it means that the compressor has found a repeat in the text, i.e. the injected content overlaps the secret information. This is the idea behind CRIME. In 2012, a general attack against the use of data compression, called CRIME, was announced. While the CRIME attack could work effectively against a large number of protocols, including but not limited to TLS, and application-layer protocols such as SPDY or HTTP, only exploits against TLS and SPDY were demonstrated and largely mitigated in browsers and servers. The CRIME exploit against HTTP compression has not been mitigated at all, even though the authors of CRIME have warned that this vulnerability might be even more widespread than SPDY and TLS compression combined. In 2013, a new instance of the CRIME attack against HTTP compression, dubbed BREACH, was published. A BREACH attack can extract login tokens, email addresses or other sensitive information from TLS encrypted web traffic in as little as 30 seconds (depending on the number of bytes to be extracted), provided the attacker tricks the victim into visiting a malicious web link. All versions of TLS and SSL are at risk from BREACH regardless of the encryption algorithm or cipher used. Unlike previous instances of CRIME, which can be successfully defended against by turning off TLS compression or SPDY header compression, BREACH exploits HTTP compression which cannot realistically be turned off, as virtually all web servers rely upon it to improve data transmission speeds for users. As of 2016, the TIME attack and the HEIST attack are now public knowledge.
Cloud robotics
Cloud robotics is a field of robotics that attempts to invoke cloud technologies such as cloud computing, cloud storage, and other Internet technologies centered on the benefits of converged infrastructure and shared services for robotics. When connected to the cloud, robots can benefit from the powerful computation, storage, and communication resources of a modern data center in the cloud, which can process and share information from various robots or agents (other machines, smart objects, humans, etc.). Humans can also delegate tasks to robots remotely through networks. Cloud computing technologies enable robot systems to be gain capability whilst reducing costs through cloud technologies. Thus, it is possible to build lightweight, low-cost, smarter robots with an intelligent "brain" in the cloud. The "brain" consists of data center, knowledge base, task planners, deep learning, information processing, environment models, communication support, etc. == Components == A cloud for robots potentially has at least six significant components: Building a "cloud brain" for robots, the main object of cloud robotics; Offering a global library of images, maps, and object data, often with geometry and mechanical properties, expert system, knowledge base (i.e. semantic web, data centres); Massively-parallel computation on demand for sample-based statistical modelling and motion planning, task planning, multi-robot collaboration, scheduling and coordination of system; Robot sharing of outcomes, trajectories, and dynamic control policies and robot learning support; Human sharing of open-source code, data, and designs for programming, experimentation, and hardware construction; On-demand human guidance and assistance for evaluation, learning, and error recovery; Augmented human–robot interaction through various ways (semantics knowledge base, Apple SIRI like service, etc.). == Applications == Autonomous mobile robots Google's self-driving cars are cloud robots. The cars use the network to access Google's enormous database of maps and satellite and environment model (like Streetview) and combines it with streaming data from GPS, cameras, and 3D sensors to monitor its own position within centimetres, and with past and current traffic patterns to avoid collisions. Each car can learn something about environments, roads, or driving, or conditions, and it sends the information to the Google cloud, where it can be used to improve the performance of other cars. Cloud medical robots a medical cloud (also called a healthcare cluster) consists of various services such as a disease archive, electronic medical records, a patient health management system, practice services, analytics services, clinic solutions, expert systems, etc. A robot can connect to the cloud to provide clinical service to patients, as well as deliver assistance to doctors (e.g. a co-surgery robot). Moreover, it also provides a collaboration service by sharing information between doctors and care givers about clinical treatment. Assistive robots A domestic robot can be employed for healthcare and life monitoring for elderly people. The system collects the health status of users and exchange information with cloud expert system or doctors to facilitate elderly peoples life, especially for those with chronic diseases. For example, the robots are able to provide support to prevent the elderly from falling down, emergency healthy support such as heart disease, blooding disease. Care givers of elderly people can also get notification when in emergency from the robot through network. Industrial robots As highlighted by the German government's Industry 4.0 Plan, "Industry is on the threshold of the fourth industrial revolution. Driven by the Internet, the real and virtual worlds are growing closer and closer together to form the Internet of Things. Industrial production of the future will be characterised by the strong individualisation of products under the conditions of highly flexible (large series) production, the extensive integration of customers and business partners in business and value-added processes, and the linking of production and high-quality services leading to so-called hybrid products." In manufacturing, such cloud based robot systems could learn to handle tasks such as threading wires or cables, or aligning gaskets from a professional knowledge base. A group of robots can share information for some collaborative tasks. Even more, a consumer is able to place customised product orders to manufacturing robots directly with online ordering systems. Another potential paradigm is shopping-delivery robot systems. Once an order is placed, a warehouse robot dispatches the item to an autonomous car or autonomous drone to deliver it to its recipient. == Research == RoboEarth was funded by the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development projects, specifically to explore the field of cloud robotics. The goal of RoboEarth is to allow robotic systems to benefit from the experience of other robots, paving the way for rapid advances in machine cognition and behaviour, and ultimately, for more subtle and sophisticated human-machine interaction. RoboEarth offers a Cloud Robotics infrastructure. RoboEarth's World-Wide-Web style database stores knowledge generated by humans – and robots – in a machine-readable format. Data stored in the RoboEarth knowledge base include software components, maps for navigation (e.g., object locations, world models), task knowledge (e.g., action recipes, manipulation strategies), and object recognition models (e.g., images, object models). The RoboEarth Cloud Engine includes support for mobile robots, autonomous vehicles, and drones, which require much computation for navigation. Rapyuta is an open source cloud robotics framework based on RoboEarth Engine developed by the robotics researcher at ETHZ. Within the framework, each robot connected to Rapyuta can have a secured computing environment (rectangular boxes) giving them the ability to move their heavy computation into the cloud. In addition, the computing environments are tightly interconnected with each other and have a high bandwidth connection to the RoboEarth knowledge repository. FogROS2 is an open-source extension to the Robot Operating System 2 (ROS 2) developed by researchers at UC Berkeley. It enables robots to offload computationally intensive tasks—such as SLAM, grasp planning, and motion planning—to cloud resources, thereby enhancing performance and reducing onboard computational requirements. FogROS2 automates the provisioning of cloud instances, deployment of ROS 2 nodes, and secure communication between robots and cloud services. The platform is designed to be compatible with existing ROS 2 applications without requiring code modifications. Further advancements include FogROS2-SGC, which facilitates secure global connectivity across different networks and locations, and FogROS2-FT, which introduces fault tolerance by replicating services across multiple cloud providers to ensure robustness against failures. KnowRob is an extensional project of RoboEarth. It is a knowledge processing system that combines knowledge representation and reasoning methods with techniques for acquiring knowledge and for grounding the knowledge in a physical system and can serve as a common semantic framework for integrating information from different sources. RoboBrain is a large-scale computational system that learns from publicly available Internet resources, computer simulations, and real-life robot trials. It accumulates everything robotics into a comprehensive and interconnected knowledge base. Applications include prototyping for robotics research, household robots, and self-driving cars. The goal is as direct as the project's name—to create a centralised, always-online brain for robots to tap into. The project is dominated by Stanford University and Cornell University. And the project is supported by the National Science Foundation, the Office of Naval Research, the Army Research Office, Google, Microsoft, Qualcomm, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and the National Robotics Initiative, whose goal is to advance robotics to help make the United States more competitive in the world economy. MyRobots is a service for connecting robots and intelligent devices to the Internet. It can be regarded as a social network for robots and smart objects (i.e. Facebook for robots). With socialising, collaborating and sharing, robots can benefit from those interactions too by sharing their sensor information giving insight on their perspective of their current state. COALAS is funded by the INTERREG IVA France (Channel) – England European cross-border co-operation programme. The project aims to develop new technologies for disabled people through social and technological innovation and through the users' social and psychological integrity. The objective is to produce a cognitive ambient
Semantic knowledge management
In computer science, semantic knowledge management is a set of practices that seeks to classify content so that the knowledge it contains may be immediately accessed and transformed for delivery to the desired audience, in the required format. This classification of content is semantic in its nature – identifying content by its type or meaning within the content itself and via external, descriptive metadata – and is achieved by employing XML technologies. The specific outcomes of these practices are: Maintain content for multiple audiences together in a single document Transform content into various delivery formats without re-authoring Search for content more effectively Involve more subject-matter experts in the creation of content without reducing quality Reduce production costs for delivery formats Reduce the manual administration of getting the right knowledge to the right people Reduce the cost and time to localize content == Notable semantic knowledge management systems == Learn eXact Thinking Cap LCMS Thinking Cap LMS Xyleme LCMS iMapping
AirSim
AirSim (Aerial Informatics and Robotics Simulation) is an open-source, cross-platform simulator for drones, ground vehicles such as cars and various other objects, built on Epic Games’ proprietary Unreal Engine 4 as a platform for AI research. It is developed by Microsoft and can be used to experiment with deep learning, computer vision and reinforcement learning algorithms for autonomous vehicles. This allows testing of autonomous solutions without worrying about real-world damage. AirSim provides some 12 kilometers of roads with 20 city blocks and APIs to retrieve data and control vehicles in a platform independent way. The APIs are accessible via a variety of programming languages, including C++, C#, Python and Java. AirSim supports hardware-in-the-loop with driving wheels and flight controllers such as PX4 for physically and visually realistic simulations. The platform also supports common robotic platforms, such as Robot Operating System (ROS). It is developed as an Unreal plug-in that can be dropped into any Unreal environment. An experimental release for a Unity plug-in is also available. On December 15, 2023 Microsoft has shutdown the development of the project.
Regulation of artificial intelligence in the United States
The United States federal government and state governments have developed some regulation of artificial intelligence, including executive orders, federal laws, and state laws. Federal agencies have also developed some sector-specific regulations related to AI. At the federal level, the Biden administration released an October 2023 executive order about AI safety and security, Executive Order 14110, with directives related to AI development and deployment. President Trump revoked that executive order in January 2025 and issued Executive Order 14179. In December 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14365, an executive order directing federal agencies to develop a unified national approach to AI policy, evaluate state AI laws for potential conflicts, challenge them through legal action, and condition certain federal funding on state compliance, while exempting state laws related to child safety, data center infrastructure, and state government procurement. In 2025, Congress passed legislation targeting AI-generated deepfakes, the TAKE IT DOWN Act. Several U.S. states have enacted laws related to artificial intelligence. Some are already in effect, including in California. Other states have AI-related legislation coming into effect in 2026 and 2027. In 2025 and 2026, the Trump administration mentioned the patchwork nature of state legislation as a motivation for its push for unified national legislation regulating AI. The administration has criticized state lawmakers, threatened to sue states, and issued letters to discourage them from regulating AI companies and products; some states have continued to propose and enact related laws. Discussions about regulating AI have included topics such as the timeliness of regulating AI, the nature of the federal regulatory framework to govern and promote AI, including what agency should lead, the regulatory and governing powers of that agency, and how to update regulations in the face of rapidly changing technology, as well as the roles of state governments and courts. == Federal government == === Obama administration (2009–2017) === As early as 2016, the Obama administration had begun to focus on the risks and regulations for artificial intelligence. In an October 2016 report titled Preparing For the Future of Artificial Intelligence, the National Science and Technology Council set a precedent to allow researchers to continue to develop new AI technologies with few restrictions. The report stated that "the approach to regulation of AI-enabled products to protect public safety should be informed by assessment of the aspects of risk". The first National Artificial Intelligence Research And Development Strategic Plan was published in October 2016. === First Trump administration (2017–2021) === On August 13, 2018, Section 1051 of the Fiscal Year 2019 John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 115-232) established the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence "to consider the methods and means necessary to advance the development of artificial intelligence, machine learning, and associated technologies to comprehensively address the national security and defense needs of the United States." Steering on regulating security-related AI is provided by the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence. The Artificial Intelligence Initiative Act (S.1558) is a proposed bill that would establish a federal initiative designed to accelerate research and development on AI for, inter alia, the economic and national security of the United States. On January 7, 2019, following an Executive Order on Maintaining American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence, the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy released a draft Guidance for Regulation of Artificial Intelligence Applications, which includes ten principles for United States agencies when deciding whether and how to regulate AI. In response, the National Institute of Standards and Technology released a position paper, and the Defense Innovation Board issued recommendations on the ethical use of AI. A year later, the administration called for comments on regulation in another draft of its Guidance for Regulation of Artificial Intelligence Applications. Other specific agencies working on the regulation of AI included the Food and Drug Administration, which created pathways to regulate the incorporation of AI in medical imaging. The National Science and Technology Council also published an updated National Artificial Intelligence Research and Development Strategic Plan in 2019, which received public scrutiny and recommendations to further improve it towards enabling Trustworthy AI. === Biden administration (2021–2025) === In March 2021, the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence released their final report. In the report, they stated, "Advances in AI, including the mastery of more general AI capabilities along one or more dimensions, will likely provide new capabilities and applications. Some of these advances could lead to inflection points or leaps in capabilities. Such advances may also introduce new concerns and risks and the need for new policies, recommendations, and technical advances to assure that systems are aligned with goals and values, including safety, robustness and trustworthiness." In June 2022, Senators Rob Portman and Gary Peters introduced the Global Catastrophic Risk Management Act. The bipartisan bill "would also help counter the risk of artificial intelligence... from being abused in ways that may pose a catastrophic risk". On October 4, 2022, President Joe Biden unveiled a new AI Bill of Rights, which outlines five protections Americans should have in the AI age: 1. Safe and Effective Systems, 2. Algorithmic Discrimination Protection, 3.Data Privacy, 4. Notice and Explanation, and 5. Human Alternatives, Consideration, and Fallback. The bill was formally published in October 2022 by the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), a U.S. government office that advises the President on science and technology policy matters. In July 2023, the Biden administration secured voluntary commitments from seven companies – Amazon, Anthropic, Google, Inflection, Meta, Microsoft, and OpenAI – to manage the risks associated with AI. The companies committed to ensure AI products undergo both internal and external security testing before public release; to share information on the management of AI risks with the industry, governments, civil society, and academia; to prioritize cybersecurity and protect proprietary AI system components; to develop mechanisms to inform users when content is AI-generated, such as watermarking; to publicly report on their AI systems' capabilities, limitations, and areas of use; to prioritize research on societal risks posed by AI, including bias, discrimination, and privacy concerns; and to develop AI systems to address societal challenges, ranging from cancer prevention to climate change mitigation. In September 2023, eight additional companies – Adobe, Cohere, IBM, Nvidia, Palantir, Salesforce, Scale AI, and Stability AI – subscribed to these voluntary commitments. In January 2023, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) released the Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0), providing voluntary guidance for organizations to identify, assess, and manage risks associated with AI systems. The Biden administration, in October 2023 signaled that they would release an executive order leveraging the federal government's purchasing power to shape AI regulations, hinting at a proactive governmental stance in regulating AI technologies. On October 30, 2023, President Biden released Executive Order 14110 on Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence. The Executive Order includes directives on standards for critical infrastructure, AI-enhanced cybersecurity, and federally funded biological synthesis projects. The Executive Order provides the authority to various agencies and departments of the US government, including the Energy and Defense departments, to apply existing consumer protection laws to AI development. The Executive Order builds on the Administration's earlier agreements with AI companies to instate new initiatives to "red-team" or stress-test AI dual-use foundation models, especially those that have the potential to pose security risks, with data and results shared with the federal government. The Executive Order also recognizes AI's social challenges, and calls for companies building AI dual-use foundation models to be wary of these societal problems. For example, the Executive Order states that AI should not "worsen job quality", and should not "cause labor-force disruptions". Additionally, Biden's Executive Order mandates that AI must "advance equity and civil rights", and cannot disadvantage marginalized groups. It also called for foundation models to include "watermarks" to help the publi
Too Good To Go
Too Good To Go is a service with a mobile application that connects customers to restaurants and stores that have surplus unsold food. The service covers major European cities, and in October 2020 started operations in North America. As part of the initiatives taken on the International Day of Awareness of Food Loss and Waste to reduce food loss and waste, the app is suggested alongside OLIO among many others. In 2023 Too Good To Go was the fastest-growing sustainable food app startup by number of downloads. As of August 2023, it claimed 164,000 businesses, serving 62 million users, have saved 155 million bags of food. As of March 2023, it claimed to have saved over 200 million meals. == History == The company was created in 2015 in Denmark by Thomas Bjørn Momsen, Klaus Bagge Pedersen, Adam Sigbrand and Brian Christensen. In 2017, Mette Lykke (co-founder of Endomondo) joined as CEO. In February 2019, the company raised an additional 6 million euros in a new round of investment. In August 2019, Too Good To Go was re-launched in Austria. In September 2019, Too Good To Go acquired the Spanish startup weSAVEeat and merged it into its own brand. In November 2019, the offer of Too Good To Go extended to plants through a partnership with the French retail plants company Jardiland. In December 2019, Too Good To Go partnered with the French grocery retail stores Intermarché, and donated 60K euros to the French charity Restaurants du Cœur. In October 2021, Bonnie Wright teamed up with Too Good To Go to drive the initiative to reduce food waste. == Corporate affairs == The key trends for the Danish entity Too Good To Go ApS are (as of the financial year ending December 31): == International expansion == As of March 2026 the company serves the European countries Austria, Belgium, Czechia, Denmark, the Faroe Islands, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom. Outside of Europe the service is available in Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand and the United States. == Purpose == The purpose of Too Good To Go is to reduce food waste worldwide. It developed a mobile application that connects restaurants and stores that have unsold, surplus food, with customers who can then buy whatever food the outlet considers surplus to requirements—without being able to choose—at a much lower price than normal. The food on the app is priced at one-third its original price. The company claims this reduces the waste of food that would otherwise be discarded; food waste is a global problem that affects the environment. In three years active, the app reached more than 9.5 million users. As of 2022, more than 57.7 million users and 154,000 establishments have signed up, and 139 million meals have been collected. In 2019, the company had 350 employees in Europe. As of June 2023 the company was estimated to have 1,289 employees. == Use == Food outlets must notify the TGTG company about what they have available on each day, stating what sort of food they have (baked foods, meals, produce, vegan food), and the price for a 'surprise bag', whose contents they determine; the user cannot choose, but the original prices will be three or more times the TGTG price. Notification is made early based upon the quantity predicted to be left over, not at the end of a selling period. Users must register to use the service. A mobile phone with an Internet connection running Android or iOS is needed. The user runs the TGTG app, which lists outlets available within a chosen distance and time range. The customer can then order and pay for a 'surprise bag'. The supplier can cancel an order at any time if the expected surplus is not available—the purchaser is notified by text message—and the purchaser can cancel with two hours' notice. The phone must be taken to the food supplier in a specified pickup time window, often 30 or 60 minutes long, and the transaction is finalised by swiping the app—connected to the Internet—to confirm collection.
Catastrophic interference
Catastrophic interference, also known as catastrophic forgetting, is the tendency of an artificial neural network to abruptly and drastically forget previously learned information upon learning new information. Neural networks are an important part of the connectionist approach to cognitive science. The issue of catastrophic interference when modeling human memory with connectionist models was originally brought to the attention of the scientific community by research from McCloskey and Cohen (1989), and Ratcliff (1990). It is a radical manifestation of the 'sensitivity-stability' dilemma or the 'stability-plasticity' dilemma. Specifically, these problems refer to the challenge of making an artificial neural network that is sensitive to, but not disrupted by, new information. Lookup tables and connectionist networks lie on the opposite sides of the stability plasticity spectrum. The former remains completely stable in the presence of new information but lacks the ability to generalize, i.e. infer general principles, from new inputs. On the other hand, connectionist networks like the standard backpropagation network can generalize to unseen inputs, but they are sensitive to new information. Backpropagation models can be analogized to human memory insofar as they have a similar ability to generalize, but these networks often exhibit less stability than human memory. Notably, these backpropagation networks are susceptible to catastrophic interference. This is an issue when modelling human memory, because unlike these networks, humans typically do not show catastrophic forgetting. == Discovery == The term catastrophic interference was originally coined by McCloskey and Cohen (1989) but was also brought to the attention of the scientific community by research from Ratcliff (1990). === The Sequential Learning Problem: McCloskey and Cohen (1989) === McCloskey and Cohen (1989) noted the problem of catastrophic interference during two different experiments with backpropagation neural network modelling. Experiment 1: Learning the ones and twos addition facts In their first experiment they trained a standard backpropagation neural network on a single training set consisting of 17 single-digit ones problems (i.e., 1 + 1 through 9 + 1, and 1 + 2 through 1 + 9) until the network could represent and respond properly to all of them. The error between the actual output and the desired output steadily declined across training sessions, which reflected that the network learned to represent the target outputs better across trials. Next, they trained the network on a single training set consisting of 17 single-digit twos problems (i.e., 2 + 1 through 2 + 9, and 1 + 2 through 9 + 2) until the network could represent, respond properly to all of them. They noted that their procedure was similar to how a child would learn their addition facts. Following each learning trial on the twos facts, the network was tested for its knowledge on both the ones and twos addition facts. Like the ones facts, the twos facts were readily learned by the network. However, McCloskey and Cohen noted the network was no longer able to properly answer the ones addition problems even after one learning trial of the twos addition problems. The output pattern produced in response to the ones facts often resembled an output pattern for an incorrect number more closely than the output pattern for a correct number. This is considered to be a drastic amount of error. Furthermore, the problems 2+1 and 1+2, which were included in both training sets, even showed dramatic disruption during the first learning trials of the twos facts. Experiment 2: Replication of Barnes and Underwood (1959) study In their second connectionist model, McCloskey and Cohen attempted to replicate the study on retroactive interference in humans by Barnes and Underwood (1959). They trained the model on A-B and A-C lists and used a context pattern in the input vector (input pattern), to differentiate between the lists. Specifically the network was trained to respond with the right B response when shown the A stimulus and A-B context pattern and to respond with the correct C response when shown the A stimulus and the A-C context pattern. When the model was trained concurrently on the A-B and A-C items then the network readily learned all of the associations correctly. In sequential training the A-B list was trained first, followed by the A-C list. After each presentation of the A-C list, performance was measured for both the A-B and A-C lists. They found that the amount of training on the A-C list in Barnes and Underwood study that lead to 50% correct responses, lead to nearly 0% correct responses by the backpropagation network. Furthermore, they found that the network tended to show responses that looked like the C response pattern when the network was prompted to give the B response pattern. This indicated that the A-C list apparently had overwritten the A-B list. This could be likened to learning the word dog, followed by learning the word stool and then finding that you think of the word stool when presented with the word dog. McCloskey and Cohen tried to reduce interference through a number of manipulations including changing the number of hidden units, changing the value of the learning rate parameter, overtraining on the A-B list, freezing certain connection weights, changing target values 0 and 1 instead 0.1 and 0.9. However, none of these manipulations satisfactorily reduced the catastrophic interference exhibited by the networks. Overall, McCloskey and Cohen (1989) concluded that: at least some interference will occur whenever new learning alters the weights involved in representing old learning the greater the amount of new learning, the greater the disruption in old knowledge interference was catastrophic in the backpropagation networks when learning was sequential but not concurrent === Constraints Imposed by Learning and Forgetting Functions: Ratcliff (1990) === Ratcliff (1990) used multiple sets of backpropagation models applied to standard recognition memory procedures, in which the items were sequentially learned. After inspecting the recognition performance models he found two major problems: Well-learned information was catastrophically forgotten as new information was learned in both small and large backpropagation networks. Even one learning trial with new information resulted in a significant loss of the old information, paralleling the findings of McCloskey and Cohen (1989). Ratcliff also found that the resulting outputs were often a blend of the previous input and the new input. In larger networks, items learned in groups (e.g. AB then CD) were more resistant to forgetting than were items learned singly (e.g. A then B then C...). However, the forgetting for items learned in groups was still large. Adding new hidden units to the network did not reduce interference. Discrimination between the studied items and previously unseen items decreased as the network learned more. This finding contradicts studies on human memory, which indicated that discrimination increases with learning. Ratcliff attempted to alleviate this problem by adding 'response nodes' that would selectively respond to old and new inputs. However, this method did not work as these response nodes would become active for all inputs. A model which used a context pattern also failed to increase discrimination between new and old items. == Proposed solutions == The main cause of catastrophic interference seems to be overlap in the representations at the hidden layer of distributed neural networks. In a distributed representation, each input tends to create changes in the weights of many of the nodes. Catastrophic forgetting occurs because when many of the weights where "knowledge is stored" are changed, it is unlikely for prior knowledge to be kept intact. During sequential learning, the inputs become mixed, with the new inputs being superimposed on top of the old ones. Another way to conceptualize this is by visualizing learning as a movement through a weight space. This weight space can be likened to a spatial representation of all of the possible combinations of weights that the network could possess. When a network first learns to represent a set of patterns, it finds a point in the weight space that allows it to recognize all of those patterns. However, when the network then learns a new set of patterns, it will move to a place in the weight space for which the only concern is the recognition of the new patterns. To recognize both sets of patterns, the network must find a place in the weight space suitable for recognizing both the new and the old patterns. Below are a number of techniques which have empirical support in successfully reducing catastrophic interference in backpropagation neural networks: === Orthogonality === Many of the early techniques in reducing representational overlap involved making either the input vecto