In statistical learning theory, the principle of empirical risk minimization defines a family of learning algorithms based on evaluating performance over a known and fixed dataset. The core idea is based on an application of the law of large numbers; more specifically, we cannot know exactly how well a predictive algorithm will work in practice (i.e. the "true risk") because we do not know the true distribution of the data, but we can instead estimate and optimize the performance of the algorithm on a known set of training data. The performance over the known set of training data is referred to as the "empirical risk". == Background == The following situation is a general setting of many supervised learning problems. There are two spaces of objects X {\displaystyle X} and Y {\displaystyle Y} and we would like to learn a function h : X → Y {\displaystyle \ h:X\to Y} (often called hypothesis) which outputs an object y ∈ Y {\displaystyle y\in Y} , given x ∈ X {\displaystyle x\in X} . To do so, there is a training set of n {\displaystyle n} examples ( x 1 , y 1 ) , … , ( x n , y n ) {\displaystyle \ (x_{1},y_{1}),\ldots ,(x_{n},y_{n})} where x i ∈ X {\displaystyle x_{i}\in X} is an input and y i ∈ Y {\displaystyle y_{i}\in Y} is the corresponding response that is desired from h ( x i ) {\displaystyle h(x_{i})} . To put it more formally, assuming that there is a joint probability distribution P ( x , y ) {\displaystyle P(x,y)} over X {\displaystyle X} and Y {\displaystyle Y} , and that the training set consists of n {\displaystyle n} instances ( x 1 , y 1 ) , … , ( x n , y n ) {\displaystyle \ (x_{1},y_{1}),\ldots ,(x_{n},y_{n})} drawn i.i.d. from P ( x , y ) {\displaystyle P(x,y)} . The assumption of a joint probability distribution allows for the modelling of uncertainty in predictions (e.g. from noise in data) because y {\displaystyle y} is not a deterministic function of x {\displaystyle x} , but rather a random variable with conditional distribution P ( y | x ) {\displaystyle P(y|x)} for a fixed x {\displaystyle x} . It is also assumed that there is a non-negative real-valued loss function L ( y ^ , y ) {\displaystyle L({\hat {y}},y)} which measures how different the prediction y ^ {\displaystyle {\hat {y}}} of a hypothesis is from the true outcome y {\displaystyle y} . For classification tasks, these loss functions can be scoring rules. The risk associated with hypothesis h ( x ) {\displaystyle h(x)} is then defined as the expectation of the loss function: R ( h ) = E [ L ( h ( x ) , y ) ] = ∫ L ( h ( x ) , y ) d P ( x , y ) . {\displaystyle R(h)=\mathbf {E} [L(h(x),y)]=\int L(h(x),y)\,dP(x,y).} A loss function commonly used in theory is the 0-1 loss function: L ( y ^ , y ) = { 1 if y ^ ≠ y 0 if y ^ = y {\displaystyle L({\hat {y}},y)={\begin{cases}1&{\mbox{ if }}\quad {\hat {y}}\neq y\\0&{\mbox{ if }}\quad {\hat {y}}=y\end{cases}}} . The ultimate goal of a learning algorithm is to find a hypothesis h ∗ {\displaystyle h^{}} among a fixed class of functions H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} for which the risk R ( h ) {\displaystyle R(h)} is minimal: h ∗ = a r g m i n h ∈ H R ( h ) . {\displaystyle h^{}={\underset {h\in {\mathcal {H}}}{\operatorname {arg\,min} }}\,{R(h)}.} For classification problems, the Bayes classifier is defined to be the classifier minimizing the risk defined with the 0–1 loss function. == Formal definition == In general, the risk R ( h ) {\displaystyle R(h)} cannot be computed because the distribution P ( x , y ) {\displaystyle P(x,y)} is unknown to the learning algorithm. However, given a sample of iid training data points, we can compute an estimate, called the empirical risk, by computing the average of the loss function over the training set; more formally, computing the expectation with respect to the empirical measure: R emp ( h ) = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n L ( h ( x i ) , y i ) . {\displaystyle \!R_{\text{emp}}(h)={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}L(h(x_{i}),y_{i}).} The empirical risk minimization principle states that the learning algorithm should choose a hypothesis h ^ {\displaystyle {\hat {h}}} which minimizes the empirical risk over the hypothesis class H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} : h ^ = a r g m i n h ∈ H R emp ( h ) . {\displaystyle {\hat {h}}={\underset {h\in {\mathcal {H}}}{\operatorname {arg\,min} }}\,R_{\text{emp}}(h).} Thus, the learning algorithm defined by the empirical risk minimization principle consists in solving the above optimization problem. == Properties == Guarantees for the performance of empirical risk minimization depend strongly on the function class selected as well as the distributional assumptions made. In general, distribution-free methods are too coarse, and do not lead to practical bounds. However, they are still useful in deriving asymptotic properties of learning algorithms, such as consistency. In particular, distribution-free bounds on the performance of empirical risk minimization given a fixed function class can be derived using bounds on the VC complexity of the function class. For simplicity, considering the case of binary classification tasks, it is possible to bound the probability of the selected classifier, ϕ n {\displaystyle \phi _{n}} being much worse than the best possible classifier ϕ ∗ {\displaystyle \phi ^{}} . Consider the risk L {\displaystyle L} defined over the hypothesis class C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}} with growth function S ( C , n ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}({\mathcal {C}},n)} given a dataset of size n {\displaystyle n} . Then, for every ϵ > 0 {\displaystyle \epsilon >0} : P ( L ( ϕ n ) − L ( ϕ ∗ ) > ϵ ) ≤ 8 S ( C , n ) exp { − n ϵ 2 / 32 } {\displaystyle \mathbb {P} \left(L(\phi _{n})-L(\phi ^{})>\epsilon \right)\leq {\mathcal {8}}S({\mathcal {C}},n)\exp\{-n\epsilon ^{2}/32\}} Similar results hold for regression tasks. These results are often based on uniform laws of large numbers, which control the deviation of the empirical risk from the true risk, uniformly over the hypothesis class. === Impossibility results === It is also possible to show lower bounds on algorithm performance if no distributional assumptions are made. This is sometimes referred to as the No free lunch theorem. Even though a specific learning algorithm may provide the asymptotically optimal performance for any distribution, the finite sample performance is always poor for at least one data distribution. This means that no classifier can improve on the error for a given sample size for all distributions. Specifically, let ϵ > 0 {\displaystyle \epsilon >0} and consider a sample size n {\displaystyle n} and classification rule ϕ n {\displaystyle \phi _{n}} , there exists a distribution of ( X , Y ) {\displaystyle (X,Y)} with risk L ∗ = 0 {\displaystyle L^{}=0} (meaning that perfect prediction is possible) such that: E L n ≥ 1 / 2 − ϵ . {\displaystyle \mathbb {E} L_{n}\geq 1/2-\epsilon .} It is further possible to show that the convergence rate of a learning algorithm is poor for some distributions. Specifically, given a sequence of decreasing positive numbers a i {\displaystyle a_{i}} converging to zero, it is possible to find a distribution such that: E L n ≥ a i {\displaystyle \mathbb {E} L_{n}\geq a_{i}} for all n {\displaystyle n} . This result shows that universally good classification rules do not exist, in the sense that the rule must be low quality for at least one distribution. === Computational complexity === Empirical risk minimization for a classification problem with a 0-1 loss function is known to be an NP-hard problem even for a relatively simple class of functions such as linear classifiers. Nevertheless, it can be solved efficiently when the minimal empirical risk is zero, i.e., data is linearly separable. In practice, machine learning algorithms cope with this issue either by employing a convex approximation to the 0–1 loss function (like hinge loss for SVM), which is easier to optimize, or by imposing assumptions on the distribution P ( x , y ) {\displaystyle P(x,y)} (and thus stop being agnostic learning algorithms to which the above result applies). In the case of convexification, Zhang's lemma majors the excess risk of the original problem using the excess risk of the convexified problem. Minimizing the latter using convex optimization also allow to control the former. == Tilted empirical risk minimization == Tilted empirical risk minimization is a machine learning technique used to modify standard loss functions like squared error, by introducing a tilt parameter. This parameter dynamically adjusts the weight of data points during training, allowing the algorithm to focus on specific regions or characteristics of the data distribution. Tilted empirical risk minimization is particularly useful in scenarios with imbalanced data or when there is a need to emphasize errors in certain parts of the prediction space.
Vulnerability assessment (computing)
Vulnerability assessment is a process of defining, identifying and classifying the security holes in information technology systems. An attacker can exploit a vulnerability to violate the security of a system. Some known vulnerabilities are Authentication Vulnerability, Authorization Vulnerability and Input Validation Vulnerability. == Purpose == Before deploying a system, it first must go through from a series of vulnerability assessments that will ensure that the build system is secure from all the known security risks. When a new vulnerability is discovered, the system administrator can again perform an assessment, discover which modules are vulnerable, and start the patch process. After the fixes are in place, another assessment can be run to verify that the vulnerabilities were actually resolved. This cycle of assess, patch, and re-assess has become the standard method for many organizations to manage their security issues. The primary purpose of the assessment is to find the vulnerabilities in the system, but the assessment report conveys to stakeholders that the system is secured from these vulnerabilities. If an intruder gained access to a network consisting of vulnerable Web servers, it is safe to assume that he gained access to those systems as well. Because of assessment report, the security administrator will be able to determine how intrusion occurred, identify compromised assets and take appropriate security measures to prevent critical damage to the system. == Assessment types == Depending on the system a vulnerability assessment can have many types and level. === Host assessment === A host assessment looks for system-level vulnerabilities such as insecure file permissions, application level bugs, backdoor and Trojan horse installations. It requires specialized tools for the operating system and software packages being used, in addition to administrative access to each system that should be tested. Host assessment is often very costly in term of time, and thus is only used in the assessment of critical systems. Tools like COPS and Tiger are popular in host assessment. === Network assessment === In a network assessment one assess the network for known vulnerabilities. It locates all systems on a network, determines what network services are in use, and then analyzes those services for potential vulnerabilities. This process does not require any configuration changes on the systems being assessed. Unlike host assessment, network assessment requires little computational cost and effort. == Vulnerability assessment vs penetration testing == Vulnerability assessment and penetration testing are two different testing methods. They are differentiated on the basis of certain specific parameters. == Regulatory requirements == Vulnerability assessments are mandated or strongly recommended by several regulatory frameworks. In the United States healthcare sector, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Security Rule requires covered entities to conduct periodic evaluations of their security posture, and a December 2024 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking would explicitly require vulnerability scanning at least every six months for systems containing electronic protected health information. The Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI DSS) requires quarterly vulnerability scans for organizations that process credit card transactions, and the NIST Cybersecurity Framework includes vulnerability assessment as a core component of its Identify function.
Jaime Carbonell
Jaime Guillermo Carbonell (July 29, 1953 – February 28, 2020) was a computer scientist who made seminal contributions to the development of natural language processing tools and technologies. His research in machine translation resulted in the development of several state-of-the-art language translation and artificial intelligence systems. He earned his B.S. degrees in Physics and in Mathematics from MIT in 1975 and did his Ph.D. under Dr. Roger Schank at Yale University in 1979. He joined Carnegie Mellon University as an assistant professor of computer science in 1979 and moved to Pittsburgh. He was affiliated with the Language Technologies Institute, Computer Science Department, Machine Learning Department, and Computational Biology Department at Carnegie Mellon. His interests spanned several areas of artificial intelligence, language technologies and machine learning. In particular, his research focused on areas such as text mining (extraction, categorization, novelty detection) and in new theoretical frameworks such as a unified utility-based theory bridging information retrieval, summarization, free-text question-answering and related tasks. He also worked on machine translation, both high-accuracy knowledge-based MT and machine learning for corpus-based MT (such as generalized example-based MT). == Career == Carbonell was the Allen Newell Professor of Computer Science and head of the Language Technologies Institute at Carnegie Mellon University. He joined Carnegie Mellon in 1979, and became a key faculty member in the artificial intelligence area. He was appointed full professor in 1987, Newell Chair in 1995, and University Professor in 2012. He completed his undergraduate studies at MIT. He received dual degrees in Mathematics and Physics. He received his Ph.D. in computer science from Yale University in 1979. At the time of his appointment, Carbonell was the youngest chaired professor in the School of Computer Science at CMU. His research spanned several areas of computer science, mostly in artificial intelligence, including: machine learning, data and text mining, natural language processing, very-large-scale knowledge bases, translingual information retrieval and automated summarization. He wrote more than 300 technical papers and gave over 500 invited or refereed-paper presentations (colloquia, seminars, panels, conferences, keynotes, etc.). He died following a long illness on February 28, 2020. Mona Talat Diab became the director of CMU's Language Technologies Institute in 2023. == Research == Carbonell created MMR (maximal marginal relevance) technology for text summarization and informational novelty detection in search engines, invention of transformational analogy, a generalized method for case-based reasoning (CBR) to re-use, modify and compose past successful plans for increasingly complex problems and knowledge-based interlingual machine translation. He was instrumental in setting up the Computational Biolinguistics Program, a joint venture between Carnegie Mellon and the University of Pittsburgh, which combines Language Technologies and Machine Learning to model and predict genomic, proteomic and glycomic 3D structures. Carbonell also did work in machine learning. He organized the first four machine learning conferences, starting with CMU in 1981. The Language Technologies Institute (LTI), founded and directed by Carbonell, achieved top honors in multiple areas. These areas include machine translation, search engines (including founding of Lycos by Michael Mauldin, one of Carbonell’s PhD students), speech synthesis, and education. LTI remains the original, largest and best-known institute for language technologies, with over $12M in annual funding and 200 researchers (faculty, staff, PhD students, MS students, visiting scholars etc.). Carbonell made major technical contributions in several fields, including (1) Creation of MMR (maximal marginal relevance) technology for text summarization and informational novelty detection in search engines,(2) Proactive machine learning for multi-source cost-sensitive active learning, (3) Linked conditional random fields for predicting tertiary and quaternary protein folds, (4) Symmetric optimal phrasal alignment method for trainable example-based and statistical machine translation, (5) Series- anomaly modeling for financial fraud detection and syndromic surveillance, (6) Knowledge-based interlingual machine translation, (7) Robust case-frame parsing, (8) Seeded version-space learning and (9) Invention of transformational and derivational analogy, generalized methods for case-based reasoning (CBR) to re-use, modify and compose past successful plans for increasingly complex problems. The teams led by Carbonell achieved top honors in many areas such as first scalable high-accuracy interlingual machine translation (1991), first speech-to-speech machine translation (1992), first large-scale spider and search engine (1994), and first trainable, large-scale protein-structure topology predictor (2005). Modern machine learning, co-founded by Carbonell, Michalski and Mitchell, is a fundamental enabling technology in search engines, data mining and social networking. Starting in 1980, he co-edited the first three books on ML, launched the ML conferences and was a co-founder and editor-in-chief of ML Journal. Carbonell’s innovations have led to several successful start-ups: Carnegie Group (AI expertsystems), Lycos (web search), Wisdom (financial optimization & ML), Carnegie Speech (spoken-language tutoring), Dynamix (data mining and pattern discovery), and Meaningful Machines (context-based machine translation). Carbonell was the founding director of The Language Technology Institute, the preeminent global institution in language studies, unparalleled in size and scope and has since been adopted/imitated in Germany (DFKI), Japan (Tokyo Univ.), and the US (Johns Hopkins). == Awards and honors == Okawa Prize, 2015 Best paper award, “Translingual Search” w/Yang, International Joint Conference on AI, 1997 Allen Newell endowed chair, Carnegie Mellon University, 1995 Elected fellow of AAAI, 1991 Computer Science teaching award, Carnegie Mellon University, 1987 Sperry Fellowship for excellence in AI research, 1986 Herbert Simon teaching award, 1986 "Recognition of Service" award from the ACM for the SIGART presidency, 1983–1985 Provided congressional testimony on machine translation, 1990 == Selected works == === Books === 1983. (with Ryszard S. Michalski & Tom M. Mitchell, Eds.) Machine learning: An artificial intelligence approach. Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann. 1986. (with Ryszard S. Michalski & Tom Mitchell, Eds.) Machine learning: An artificial intelligence approach. Vol. II. Los Altos, CA: Morgan-Kaufmann. 1986. (with Ryszard S. Michalski & Tom Mitchell, Eds.) Machine Learning: A Guide to Current Research. Kluwer Academic Publishers. == Contributions == “Protein Quaternary Fold Recognition Using Conditional Graphical Models” IJCAI 2007 (w/Liu et al.) “Context-Based Machine Translation” AMTA 2006 (w/Klein et al.) “SCRFs: A New Approach for Protein Fold Recognition,’’ Journal of Computational Biology, 13,2, 2006 (w/Liu et al) “MT for Resource-Poor Languages Using Elicitation-Based Learning” Machine Translation, 2004 ‘‘Learning Approaches for Detecting and Tracking News Events,’’ IEEE Trans I.S., 14, 4, 2000 (w/Yang)
Zoubin Ghahramani
Zoubin Ghahramani FRS (Persian: زوبین قهرمانی; born 8 February 1970) is a British-Iranian machine learning and AI researcher, Vice President of Research at Google DeepMind and Professor of Information Engineering at the University of Cambridge. He has been a Fellow of St John's College, Cambridge since 2009. He held appointments at University College London from 1998 to 2005 and was Associate Research Professor in the Machine Learning Department at Carnegie Mellon University from 2003 to 2012. He was the Chief Scientist of Uber from 2016 until 2020. He joined Google Brain in 2020 as Senior Research Director, becoming a VP of Research in 2021, and heading Google Brain until its merger with DeepMind to form Google DeepMind. He was a founding Cambridge Liaison Director of the Alan Turing Institute and also founding Deputy Director of the Leverhulme Centre for the Future of Intelligence. Ghahramani contributed to the Royal Society's Machine Learning Report in 2017 and led the UK's Future of Compute Review, in 2023. == Education == Ghahramani was educated at the American School of Madrid in Spain and the University of Pennsylvania where he was awarded a dual degree in Cognitive Science and Computer Science in 1990. He obtained his Ph.D. in Cognitive Neuroscience from the Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, supervised by Michael I. Jordan and Tomaso Poggio. == Research and career == Following his Ph.D., Ghahramani moved to the University of Toronto in 1995 as a Postdoctoral Fellow in the Artificial Intelligence Lab, working with Geoffrey Hinton. From 1998 to 2005, he was a member of the faculty at the Gatsby Computational Neuroscience Unit, University College London. Ghahramani has made significant contributions in the areas of Bayesian machine learning (particularly variational methods for approximate Bayesian inference), as well as graphical models and computational neuroscience. His current research focuses on nonparametric Bayesian modelling and statistical machine learning. He has also worked on artificial intelligence, information retrieval, bioinformatics and statistics which provide the mathematical foundations for handling uncertainty, making decisions, and designing learning systems. He has published over 300 papers, receiving over 100,000 citations (an h-index of 132). He co-founded Geometric Intelligence in 2014, with Gary Marcus, Doug Bemis, and Ken Stanley, which was acquired by Uber in 2016. Afterwards, he transferred to Uber's AI Labs in 2016, and later became VP of AI and Chief Scientist at Uber. In 2020 he joined Google and became VP of Research and head of Google Brain in 2021 until its merger with DeepMind in April 2023. == Awards and honors == Ghahramani was elected Fellow of the Royal Society (FRS) in 2015. His certificate of election reads: Zoubin Ghahramani is a world leader in the field of machine learning, significantly advancing the state-of-the-art in algorithms that can learn from data. He is known in particular for fundamental contributions to probabilistic modeling and Bayesian nonparametric approaches to machine learning systems, and to the development of approximate variational inference algorithms for scalable learning. He is one of the pioneers of semi-supervised learning methods, active learning algorithms, and sparse Gaussian processes. His development of novel infinite dimensional nonparametric models, such as the infinite latent feature model, has been highly influential.He was awarded the Royal Society Milner Award in 2021 in recognition of 'his fundamental contributions to probabilistic machine learning'.
AI Content Generators: Free vs Paid (2026)
Shopping for the best AI content generator? An AI content generator is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it keeps getting smarter as the underlying models improve. Pricing, accuracy, and the size of the model behind the tool are the three factors that most affect daily usefulness. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI content generator slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. We tested the leading options and ranked them by quality, value, and ease of use.
Right to explanation
In the regulation of algorithms, particularly artificial intelligence and its subfield of machine learning, a right to [an] explanation is a right to be given an explanation for an output of the algorithm. Such rights primarily refer to individual rights to be given an explanation for decisions that significantly affect an individual, particularly legally or financially. For example, a person who applies for a loan and is denied may ask for an explanation, which could be "Credit bureau X reports that you declared bankruptcy last year; this is the main factor in considering you too likely to default, and thus we will not give you the loan you applied for." Some such legal rights already exist, while the scope of a general "right to explanation" is a matter of ongoing debate. There have been arguments made that a "social right to explanation" is a crucial foundation for an information society, particularly as the institutions of that society will need to use digital technologies, artificial intelligence, machine learning. In other words, that the related automated decision making systems that use explainability would be more trustworthy and transparent. Without this right, which could be constituted both legally and through professional standards, the public will be left without much recourse to challenge the decisions of automated systems. == Examples == === Credit scoring in the United States === Under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (Regulation B of the Code of Federal Regulations), Title 12, Chapter X, Part 1002, §1002.9, creditors are required to notify applicants who are denied credit with specific reasons for the detail. As detailed in §1002.9(b)(2): (2) Statement of specific reasons. The statement of reasons for adverse action required by paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section must be specific and indicate the principal reason(s) for the adverse action. Statements that the adverse action was based on the creditor's internal standards or policies or that the applicant, joint applicant, or similar party failed to achieve a qualifying score on the creditor's credit scoring system are insufficient. The official interpretation of this section details what types of statements are acceptable. Creditors comply with this regulation by providing a list of reasons (generally at most 4, per interpretation of regulations), consisting of a numeric reason code (as identifier) and an associated explanation, identifying the main factors affecting a credit score. An example might be: 32: Balances on bankcard or revolving accounts too high compared to credit limits === European Union === The European Union General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR, enacted 2016, taking effect 2018) extends the automated decision-making rights in the 1995 Data Protection Directive to provide a legally disputed form of a right to an explanation, stated as such in Recital 71: "[the data subject should have] the right ... to obtain an explanation of the decision reached". In full: The data subject should have the right not to be subject to a decision, which may include a measure, evaluating personal aspects relating to him or her which is based solely on automated processing and which produces legal effects concerning him or her or similarly significantly affects him or her, such as automatic refusal of an online credit application or e-recruiting practices without any human intervention. ... In any case, such processing should be subject to suitable safeguards, which should include specific information to the data subject and the right to obtain human intervention, to express his or her point of view, to obtain an explanation of the decision reached after such assessment and to challenge the decision. However, the extent to which the regulations themselves provide a "right to explanation" is heavily debated. There are two main strands of criticism. There are significant legal issues with the right as found in Article 22 — as recitals are not binding, and the right to an explanation is not mentioned in the binding articles of the text, having been removed during the legislative process. In addition, there are significant restrictions on the types of automated decisions that are covered — which must be both "solely" based on automated processing, and have legal or similarly significant effects — which significantly limits the range of automated systems and decisions to which the right would apply. In particular, the right is unlikely to apply in many of the cases of algorithmic controversy that have been picked up in the media. The UK has also recently amended its implementation of Article 22. A second potential source of such a right has been pointed to in Article 15, the "right of access by the data subject". This restates a similar provision from the 1995 Data Protection Directive, allowing the data subject access to "meaningful information about the logic involved" in the same significant, solely automated decision-making, found in Article 22. Yet this too suffers from alleged challenges that relate to the timing of when this right can be drawn upon, as well as practical challenges that mean it may not be binding in many cases of public concern. Other EU legislative instruments contain explanation rights. The European Union's Artificial Intelligence Act provides in Article 86 a "[r]ight to explanation of individual decision-making" of certain high risk systems which produce significant, adverse effects to an individual's health, safety or fundamental rights. The right provides for "clear and meaningful explanations of the role of the AI system in the decision-making procedure and the main elements of the decision taken", although only applies to the extent other law does not provide such a right. The Digital Services Act in Article 27, and the Platform to Business Regulation in Article 5, both contain rights to have the main parameters of certain recommender systems to be made clear, although these provisions have been criticised as not matching the way that such systems work. The Platform Work Directive, which provides for regulation of automation in gig economy work as an extension of data protection law, further contains explanation provisions in Article 11, using the specific language of "explanation" in a binding article rather than a recital as is the case in the GDPR. Scholars note that remains uncertainty as to whether these provisions imply sufficiently tailored explanation in practice which will need to be resolved by courts. === France === In France the 2016 Loi pour une République numérique (Digital Republic Act or loi numérique) amends the country's administrative code to introduce a new provision for the explanation of decisions made by public sector bodies about individuals. It notes that where there is "a decision taken on the basis of an algorithmic treatment", the rules that define that treatment and its "principal characteristics" must be communicated to the citizen upon request, where there is not an exclusion (e.g. for national security or defence). These should include the following: the degree and the mode of contribution of the algorithmic processing to the decision- making; the data processed and its source; the treatment parameters, and where appropriate, their weighting, applied to the situation of the person concerned; the operations carried out by the treatment. Scholars have noted that this right, while limited to administrative decisions, goes beyond the GDPR right to explicitly apply to decision support rather than decisions "solely" based on automated processing, as well as provides a framework for explaining specific decisions. Indeed, the GDPR automated decision-making rights in the European Union, one of the places a "right to an explanation" has been sought within, find their origins in French law in the late 1970s. == Criticism == Some argue that a "right to explanation" is at best unnecessary, at worst harmful, and threatens to stifle innovation. Specific criticisms include: favoring human decisions over machine decisions, being redundant with existing laws, and focusing on process over outcome. Authors of study "Slave to the Algorithm? Why a 'Right to an Explanation' Is Probably Not the Remedy You Are Looking For" Lilian Edwards and Michael Veale argue that a right to explanation is not the solution to harms caused to stakeholders by algorithmic decisions. They also state that the right of explanation in the GDPR is narrowly defined, and is not compatible with how modern machine learning technologies are being developed. With these limitations, defining transparency within the context of algorithmic accountability remains a problem. For example, providing the source code of algorithms may not be sufficient and may create other problems in terms of privacy disclosures and the gaming of technical systems. To mitigate this issue, Edwards and Veale argue that an auditing system could be more effective, to allow auditors to loo
Joseph Keshet
Joseph (Yossi) Keshet (Hebrew: יוסף (יוסי) קשת; born: 28 February 1973) is an Israeli professor in the Electrical and Computer Engineering Faculty of the Technion, where he is the director of the Speech, Language, and Deep Learning Lab. His research focuses on human speech processing and machine learning. == Early life and education == Keshet was born in Tel-Aviv. He graduated from the Amal School and began his academic studies at the Department of Electrical Engineering-Systems at Tel-Aviv University in 1991 and received his B.Sc. (Cum Laude) in 1994. Keshet served in the IDF Unit 8200 from 1995 to 2002 as the head of the speech processing research section in the R&D Center. During his service, he received a national award from the Administration for the Development of Weapons and Technological Infrastructure (Maf’at). Keshet was award his M.Sc. from the same department after he completed his Israel Defense Force service in 2002. His Dissertation was titled: Stop consonant spotting in continuous speech and was supervised by Dan Chazan from IBM Research Labs, Haifa. He continued his Ph.D. studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem until 2008. Prof. Yoram Singer supervised his thesis on Large Margin Algorithms for Discriminative Continuous Speech. == Career == Keshet was a Research Associate (postdoc) at IDIAP Research Institute, Martigny, Switzerland in 2007, and joined the TTI-Chicago and Department of Computer Science, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL in 2009 as Research Assistant Professor. In 2013, he returned to Israel and joined the Computer Science department at Bar-Ilan University as a senior lecturer and head of the Speech, Language, and Deep Learning Lab. In 2020, Keshet became a Founding Venture Partner at the Disruptive AI Venture Capital. In the same year, he also joined Amazon in Tel-Aviv as an Amazon Scholar. In 2022, Keshet joined the Faculty of Electrical and Computer Engineering at the Technion. == Research == Keshet's research work focuses on both machine learning and computational study of human speech and language. His work on speech and language concentrates on speech processing, speech recognition, acoustic phonetics, and pathological speech. In machine learning, Keshet is focused on deep learning and structured tasks. According to Google Scholar (September 2020), Keshet is one of the 15 most cited researchers in the field of spoken language processing. The algorithms that were developed in the Speech, Language, and Deep Learning Lab can analyze different pathological conditions in the throat and vocal cords based on the subject's voice. Other algorithms showed that the voice can be used to estimate physical and emotional state of the speaker. Another research led by Keshet suggested that it is possible to fool structured AI systems (like Google Voice). == Membership in professional societies == Keshet is the founder and chair of the Machine Learning for Speech and Language Processing Special Interest Group (SIGML) of the International Speech Communication Association (ISCA), from 2011. He is a senior member of the IEEE Signal Processing Society since 2018 and a member of ISCA since 2002. == Publications == Prof. Keshet has authored more than 70 scientific publications and edited one book. === Book === Joseph Keshet and Samy Bengio, Eds., Automatic Speech and Speaker Recognition: Large Margin and Kernel Methods, John Wiley & Sons, March 2009. === Selected articles === Jacob T. Cohen, Alma Cohen, Limor Benyamini, Yossi Adi, Joseph Keshet, Predicting glottal closure insufficiency using fundamental frequency contour analysis, Head & Neck, Journal of the Sciences and Specialities of the Head and Neck, Volume 41, Issue 7, pp. 2324–2331, July 2019. Yehoshua Dissen, Jacob Goldberger, and Joseph Keshet, Formant Estimation and Tracking: A Deep Learning Approach, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 145 (2), February 2019. Joseph Keshet, Automatic speech recognition: A primer for speech-language pathology researchers, International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 599–609, 2018. Yossi Adi, Carsten Baum, Moustapha Cisse, Benny Pinkas, Joseph Keshet, Turning Your Weakness Into a Strength: Watermarking Deep Neural Networks by Backdooring, Usenix, 2018. Tzeviya Fuchs, Joseph Keshet, Spoken Term Detection Automatically Adjusted for a Given Threshold, IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing, Dec 2017, Volume 11, Issue 8, pp. 1–8. Moustapha Cisse, Yossi Adi, Natalia Neverova, Joseph Keshet, Houdini: Fooling Deep Structured Visual and Speech Recognition Models with Adversarial Examples, Neural Information and Processing Systems (NIPS), 2017. Joseph Keshet, Subhransu Maji, Tamir Hazan, and Tommi Jaakkola, Perturbation Models and PAC-Bayesian Generalization Bounds, in Perturbations, Optimization, and Statistics, Tamir Hazan, George Papandreou, and Daniel Tarlow, Eds., The MIT Press, 2016. Matthew Goldrick, Joseph Keshet, Erin Gustafson, Jordana Heller, and Jeremy Needle, Automatic Analysis of Slips of the Tongue: Insights into the Cognitive Architecture of Speech Production, Cognition, 149, 31–39, 2016. Joseph Keshet, Optimizing the Measure of Performance in Structured Prediction, in Advanced Structured Prediction, Sebastian Nowozin, Peter V. Gehler, Jeremy January, and Christoph H. Lampert, Eds., The MIT Press, 2014. Morgan Sonderegger and Joseph Keshet, Automatic Measurement of Voice Onset Time using Discriminative Structured Prediction, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, Vol. 132, Issue 6, pp. 3965−3979, 2012. David McAllester, Tamir Hazan and Joseph Keshet, Direct Loss Minimization for Structured Prediction, The 24th Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS), 2010. Joseph Keshet, David Grangier and Samy Bengio, Discriminative Keyword Spotting, Speech Communication, Volume 51, Issue 4, pp. 317–329, April 2009. == Personal life == Keshet is married to Lital. They have three children.