In computer networking, a private message (PM), or direct message (DM), refers to a private communication, often text-based, sent or received by a user of a private communication channel on any given platform. Unlike public posts, PMs are only viewable by the participants. Long a function present on IRCs and Internet forums, private channels for PMs have also been prevalent features on instant messaging (IM) and on social media networks. It may be either synchronous (e.g. on an IM) or asynchronous (e.g. on an Internet forum). The term private message (PM) originated as a feature on internet forums, while the term direct message (DM) originated as a feature on Twitter. Due to the popularity of the latter service, DM has since been appropriated by other platforms, such as Instagram, and is often genericized in popular usage. == Overview == There are two main types of private messages, and one obscure type: One type includes those found on IRCs and Internet forums, as well as on social media services like Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram, where the focus is public posting, PMs allow users to communicate privately without leaving the platform. The second type are those relayed through instant messaging platforms such as WhatsApp and Snapchat, where users join the networks primarily to exchange PMs. A third type, peer-to-peer messaging, occurs when users create and own the infrastructure used to transmit and store the messages; while features vary depending on application, they give the user full control over the data they transmit. An example of software that enables this kind of messaging is Classified-ads. Besides serving as a tool to connect privately with friends and family, PMs have gained momentum in the workplace. Working professionals use PMs to reach coworkers in other spaces and increase efficiency during meetings. Although useful, using PMs in the workplace may blur the boundary between work and private lives. Some common forms of private messaging today include Facebook messaging (sometimes referred to as "inboxing"), Twitter direct messaging, and Instagram direct messaging. These forms of private messaging provide a private space on a usually public site. For instance, most activity on Twitter is public, but Twitter DMs provide a private space for communication between two users. This differs from mediums like email, texting, and Snapchat, where most or all activity is always private. Modern forms of private messaging may include multimedia messages, such as pictures or videos. == History == Email was first developed to send messages between different computers on ARPANET in 1971. Access to ARPANET was primarily limited to universities and other research institutions. Starting in 1983 or 1984, FidoNet allowed home computer users to send and receive email via bulletin board systems. Information services such as CompuServe, America Online, and Prodigy also helped to popularizes online messaging. The advent of the public World Wide Web in 1993 increased access to email via internet service providers, and later via webmail. Instant messaging systems became popular in the mid 1990s, as Internet access improved and personal computers became more common. The introduction of Skype in 2003 popularized Internet-based voice and video messaging. Direct messaging is now a feature of all major social networking services. == Privacy concerns == In January 2014, Matthew Campbell and Michael Hurley filed a class-action lawsuit against Facebook for breaching the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. They alleged that private messages which contained URLs were being read and used to generate profit, through data mining and user profiling, and that it was misleading for Facebook to refer to the functionality as "private" with the implication that the communication was "free from surveillance". In 2012, some Facebook users misinterpreted a redesign of the Facebook wall as publicly sharing private messages from 2008–2009. These were found to be public wall posts from those years, made at a time when it was not possible to like or comment on a wall post, making the notes look like private messages.
Eugene Goostman
Eugene Goostman is a chatbot that some regard as having passed the Turing test, a test of a computer's ability to communicate indistinguishably from a human. Developed in Saint Petersburg in 2001 by a group of three programmers, the Russian-born Vladimir Veselov, Ukrainian-born Eugene Demchenko, and Russian-born Sergey Ulasen, Goostman is portrayed as a 13-year-old Ukrainian boy—characteristics that are intended to induce forgiveness in those with whom it interacts for its grammatical errors and lack of general knowledge. The Goostman bot has competed in a number of Turing test contests since its creation, and finished second in the 2005 and 2008 Loebner Prize contest. In June 2012, at an event marking what would have been the 100th birthday of the test's author, Alan Turing, Goostman won a competition promoted as the largest-ever Turing test contest, in which it successfully convinced 29% of its judges that it was human. On 7 June 2014, at a contest marking the 60th anniversary of Turing's death, 33% of the event's judges thought that Goostman was human; the event's organiser Kevin Warwick considered it to have passed Turing's test as a result, per Turing's prediction in his 1950 paper "Computing Machinery and Intelligence", that by the year 2000, machines would be capable of fooling 30% of human judges after five minutes of questioning. The validity and relevance of the announcement of Goostman's pass was questioned by critics, who noted the exaggeration of the achievement by Warwick, the bot's use of personality quirks and humour in an attempt to misdirect users from its non-human tendencies and lack of real intelligence, along with "passes" achieved by other chatbots at similar events. == Personality == Eugene Goostman is portrayed as being a 13-year-old boy from Odesa, Ukraine, who has a pet guinea pig and a father who is a gynaecologist. Veselov stated that Goostman was designed to be a "character with a believable personality". The choice of age was intentional, as, in Veselov's opinion, a thirteen-year-old is "not too old to know everything and not too young to know nothing". Goostman's young age also induces people who "converse" with him to forgive minor grammatical errors in his responses. In 2014, work was made on improving the bot's "dialog controller", allowing Goostman to output more human-like dialogue. A conversation between Scott Aaronson and Eugene Goostman ran as follows: == Competitions == Eugene Goostman has competed in a number of Turing test competitions, including the Loebner Prize contest; it finished joint second in the Loebner test in 2001, and came second to Jabberwacky in 2005 and to Elbot in 2008. On 23 June 2012, Goostman won a Turing test competition at Bletchley Park in Milton Keynes, held to mark the centenary of its namesake, Alan Turing. The competition, which featured five bots, twenty-five hidden humans, and thirty judges, was considered to be the largest-ever Turing test contest by its organizers. After a series of five-minute-long text conversations, 29% of the judges were convinced that the bot was an actual human. === 2014 "pass" === On 7 June 2014, in a Turing test competition at the Royal Society, organised by Kevin Warwick of the University of Reading to mark the 60th anniversary of Turing's death, Goostman won after 33% of the judges were convinced that the bot was human. 30 judges took part in the event, which included Lord Sharkey, a sponsor of Turing's posthumous pardon, artificial intelligence Professor Aaron Sloman, Fellow of the Royal Society Mark Pagel and Red Dwarf actor Robert Llewellyn. Each judge partook in a textual conversation with each of the five bots; at the same time, they also conversed with a human. In all, a total of 300 conversations were conducted. In Warwick's view, this made Goostman the first machine to pass a Turing test. In a press release, he added that: Some will claim that the Test has already been passed. The words Turing Test have been applied to similar competitions around the world. However this event involved more simultaneous comparison tests than ever before, was independently verified and, crucially, the conversations were unrestricted. A true Turing Test does not set the questions or topics prior to the conversations. In his 1950 paper "Computing Machinery and Intelligence", Turing predicted that by the year 2000, computer programs would be sufficiently advanced that the average interrogator would, after five minutes of questioning, "not have more than 70 per cent chance" of correctly guessing whether they were speaking to a human or a machine. Although Turing phrased this as a prediction rather than a "threshold for intelligence", commentators believe that Warwick had chosen to interpret it as meaning that if 30% of interrogators were fooled, the software had "passed the Turing test". ==== Reactions ==== Warwick's claim that Eugene Goostman was the first ever chatbot to pass a Turing test was met with scepticism; critics acknowledged similar "passes" made in the past by other chatbots under the 30% criteria, including PC Therapist in 1991 (which tricked 5 of 10 judges, 50%), and at the Techniche festival in 2011, where a modified version of Cleverbot tricked 59.3% of 1334 votes (which included the 30 judges, along with an audience). Cleverbot's developer, Rollo Carpenter, argued that Turing tests can only prove that a machine can "imitate" intelligence rather than show actual intelligence. Gary Marcus was critical of Warwick's claims, arguing that Goostman's "success" was only the result of a "cleverly-coded piece of software", going on to say that "it's easy to see how an untrained judge might mistake wit for reality, but once you have an understanding of how this sort of system works, the constant misdirection and deflection becomes obvious, even irritating. The illusion, in other words, is fleeting." While acknowledging IBM's Deep Blue and Watson projects—single-purpose computer systems meant for playing chess and the quiz show Jeopardy! respectively—as examples of computer systems that show a degree of intelligence in their specialised field, he further argued that they were not an equivalent to a computer system that shows "broad" intelligence, and could—for example, watch a television programme and answer questions on its content. Marcus stated that "no existing combination of hardware and software can learn completely new things at will the way a clever child can." However, he still believed that there were potential uses for technology such as that of Goostman, specifically suggesting the creation of "believable", interactive video game characters. Imperial College London professor Murray Shanahan questioned the validity and scientific basis of the test, stating that it was "completely misplaced, and it devalues real AI research. It makes it seem like science fiction AI is nearly here, when in fact it's not and it's incredibly difficult." Mike Masnick, editor of the blog Techdirt, was also skeptical, questioning publicity blunders such as the five chatbots being referred to in press releases as "supercomputers", and saying that "creating a chatbot that can fool humans is not really the same thing as creating artificial intelligence."
Operational system
An operational system is a term used in data warehousing to refer to a system that is used to process the day-to-day transactions of an organization. These systems are designed in a manner that processing of day-to-day transactions is performed efficiently and the integrity of the transactional data is preserved. == Synonyms == Sometimes operational systems are referred to as operational databases, transaction processing systems, or online transaction processing systems (OLTP). However, the use of the last two terms as synonyms may be confusing, because operational systems can be batch processing systems as well. Any enterprise must necessarily maintain a lot of data about its operation.
Lai–Robbins lower bound
The Lai–Robbins lower bound gives an asymptotic lower bound on the regret that any uniformly good algorithm must incur in the stochastic multi-armed bandit problem. The original result was proved by Tze Leung Lai and Herbert Robbins in 1985 for parametric exponential families. Later work extended the statement to more general classes of distributions. == Multi-armed bandit problem == The multi-armed bandit problem (MAB) is a sequential game in which the player must trade off exploration (to learn) and exploitation (to earn). The player chooses among K {\displaystyle K} actions (arms) with unknown distributions ν = ( ν 1 , … , ν K ) {\displaystyle \nu =(\nu _{1},\dots ,\nu _{K})} . The player is assumed to know a class of distributions D {\displaystyle {\mathcal {D}}} such that for every k {\displaystyle k} one has ν k ∈ D {\displaystyle \nu _{k}\in {\mathcal {D}}} (for example, D {\displaystyle {\mathcal {D}}} may be the family of Gaussian or Bernoulli distributions). At each round t = 1 , … , T {\displaystyle t=1,\dots ,T} the player selects (pulls) an arm a t {\displaystyle a_{t}} and observes a reward X t ∼ ν a t {\displaystyle X_{t}\sim \nu _{a_{t}}} . We denote N a ( t ) := ∑ s = 1 t 1 { a s = a } {\displaystyle N_{a}(t):=\sum _{s=1}^{t}\mathbf {1} _{\{a_{s}=a\}}} the number of times arm a {\displaystyle a} has been pulled in the first t {\displaystyle t} rounds, μ ( ν ) := ( μ 1 , … , μ K ) {\displaystyle \mu (\nu ):=(\mu _{1},\dots ,\mu _{K})} the vector of arm means, where μ k = E X ∼ ν k [ X ] {\displaystyle \mu _{k}=\mathbb {E} _{X\sim \nu _{k}}[X]} , μ ∗ := max a μ a {\displaystyle \mu ^{}:=\max _{a}\mu _{a}} the highest mean Δ a := μ ∗ − μ a ≥ 0 {\displaystyle \Delta _{a}:=\mu ^{}-\mu _{a}\geq 0} the gap of arm a {\displaystyle a} . An arm a {\displaystyle a} with μ a = μ ∗ {\displaystyle \mu _{a}=\mu ^{}} is called an optimal arm; otherwise it is a suboptimal arm. The goal is to minimize the regret at horizon T {\displaystyle T} , defined by R T := ∑ a = 1 K Δ a E [ N a ( T ) ] . {\displaystyle R_{T}:=\sum _{a=1}^{K}\Delta _{a}\,\mathbb {E} [N_{a}(T)].} Intuitively, the regret is the (expected) total loss compared to always playing an optimal arm: regret = ∑ a ( cost of playing a ) × ( times a is played ) . {\displaystyle {\text{regret}}=\sum _{a}\ ({\text{cost of playing }}a)\times ({\text{times }}a{\text{ is played}}).} An MAB algorithm is a (possibly randomized) policy that, at each round t {\displaystyle t} , choose an arm a_t by using the observations received from previous turns. === Intuitive example === Suppose a farmer must choose, each year, one of K {\displaystyle K} seed varieties to plant. Each variety k {\displaystyle k} has an unknown average yield μ k {\displaystyle \mu _{k}} . If the farmer knew the best variety (with mean μ ∗ {\displaystyle \mu ^{}} ) he would plant it every year; in reality he must try varieties to learn which is best. The cumulative regret after T {\displaystyle T} years measures the total expected loss in yield due to imperfect knowledge. Remarks The model above is the stochastic MAB; there also exist adversarial variants. One may consider a fixed-horizon setting (known T {\displaystyle T} ) or an anytime setting (unknown T {\displaystyle T} ). == Lai–Robbins lower bound == The theorem gives the right amount of time we should pull a suboptimal arm k {\displaystyle k} to distinguish whether we are in the instance with ν k {\displaystyle \nu _{k}} or with ν ~ k {\displaystyle {\tilde {\nu }}_{k}} where ν ~ k {\displaystyle {\tilde {\nu }}_{k}} is such that μ ~ k > μ ∗ {\displaystyle {\tilde {\mu }}_{k}>\mu ^{}} . Knowning a lower bound on the number of pull of every suboptimal arm gives a lower bound on the regret as only suboptimal arms contribute to the regret. Before stating the formal theorem we need to define what is a consistent algorithm. === Consistency (uniformly good algorithms) === Let D {\displaystyle {\mathcal {D}}} be a class of probability distributions and consider K {\displaystyle K} arms with reward distributions ν = ( ν 1 , … , ν K ) ∈ D K {\displaystyle \nu =(\nu _{1},\dots ,\nu _{K})\in {\mathcal {D}}^{K}} . An algorithm is said to be consistent (also called uniformly good) on D K {\displaystyle {\mathcal {D}}^{K}} if, for every instance ν ∈ D K {\displaystyle \nu \in {\mathcal {D}}^{K}} , the expected regret R T ( ν ) {\displaystyle R_{T}(\nu )} grows subpolynomially: ∀ α > 0 , R T ( ν ) = o ( T α ) as T → ∞ {\displaystyle \forall \alpha >0,\qquad R_{T}(\nu )=o(T^{\alpha })\quad {\text{as }}T\to \infty } This assumption excludes algorithms that perform well on some instances but incur linear regret on others. === Formal lower bound === For any suboptimal arm a {\displaystyle a} . For a distribution ν a ∈ D {\displaystyle \nu _{a}\in {\mathcal {D}}} and a threshold x {\displaystyle x} , define K inf ( ν a , x , D ) := inf { KL ( ν a , ν ′ ) : ν ′ ∈ D , μ ′ > x } {\displaystyle {\mathcal {K}}_{\inf }(\nu _{a},x,{\mathcal {D}}):=\inf {\Bigl \{}\operatorname {KL} (\nu _{a},\nu '):\nu '\in {\mathcal {D}},\ \mu '>x{\Bigr \}}} where KL ( ⋅ , ⋅ ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {KL} (\cdot ,\cdot )} denotes the Kullback-Leibler divergence. Then, for any algorithm consistent on D K {\displaystyle {\mathcal {D}}^{K}} and for every instance ν ∈ D K {\displaystyle \nu \in {\mathcal {D}}^{K}} , every suboptimal arm a {\displaystyle a} satisfies E ν [ N a ( T ) ] ≥ ln T K inf ( ν a , μ ∗ , D ) + o ( ln T ) {\displaystyle \mathbb {E} _{\nu }[N_{a}(T)]\geq {\frac {\ln T}{{\mathcal {K}}_{\inf }(\nu _{a},\mu ^{},{\mathcal {D}})}}+o(\ln T)} Consequently, the regret satisfies R T ( ν ) ≥ ( ∑ a : μ a < μ ∗ Δ a K inf ( ν a , μ ∗ , D ) ) ln T + o ( ln T ) {\displaystyle R_{T}(\nu )\geq \left(\sum _{a:\,\mu _{a}<\mu ^{}}{\frac {\Delta _{a}}{{\mathcal {K}}_{\inf }(\nu _{a},\mu ^{},{\mathcal {D}})}}\right)\ln T+o(\ln T)} The original 1985 paper established this result for exponential families; later work showed that the bound holds under much weaker assumptions on D {\displaystyle {\mathcal {D}}} . === Intuition === Consistency imposes that, for every ν {\displaystyle \nu } , the number of pulls of an optimal arm must be large. This means that μ ∗ {\displaystyle \mu ^{}} is estimated very accurately. The goal is to determine, for a suboptimal arm k {\displaystyle k} , how many samples are needed to be confident, with the appropriate level of confidence, that μ k < μ ∗ {\displaystyle \mu _{k}<\mu ^{}} . To do so, we use what is called the most confusing instance: an instance close to ν {\displaystyle \nu } such that arm k {\displaystyle k} is optimal. We define it as ν ~ {\displaystyle {\tilde {\nu }}} such that, for all a ≠ k {\displaystyle a\neq k} , ν ~ a = ν a {\displaystyle {\tilde {\nu }}_{a}=\nu _{a}} , and ν ~ k {\displaystyle {\tilde {\nu }}_{k}} is chosen so that μ ~ k > μ ∗ {\displaystyle {\tilde {\mu }}_{k}>\mu ^{}} . The objective is to determine how many samples of arm k {\displaystyle k} are required to distinguish whether we are in the instance with ν k {\displaystyle \nu _{k}} or with ν ~ k {\displaystyle {\tilde {\nu }}_{k}} in terms of KL {\displaystyle \operatorname {KL} } distance. == Algorithms achieving the Lai–Robbins lower bound == Several algorithms are known to achieve the Lai–Robbins asymptotic lower bound under specific assumptions on the reward distribution class D {\displaystyle {\mathcal {D}}} . The following list summarizes a non-exhaustive list of algorithms matching the lower bound. == Extension to other problems == === Structured bandit === A more complexe is structured bandit where we know that the mean of each arm is in a set with some restriction. In this case we can prove a smaller lower bound that use the knowledge of this set. === Best arm identification (BAI) === A similar result has been proved for best arm identification, which is the same game except that, instead of minimizing the regret, the goal is to identify the best arm with probability 1 − δ {\displaystyle 1-\delta } using as few rounds as possible. === Reinforcement Learning (RL) === Similar results have been proved for regret minimization in average-reward reinforcement learning. The order is also ln T {\displaystyle \ln T} , with a constant that depends on the problem.
Conceptions of Library and Information Science
Conceptions of Library and Information Science (CoLIS) is a series of conferences about historical, empirical and theoretical perspectives in Library and Information Science. == CoLIS conferences == CoLIS 1 1991 in Tampere, Finland CoLIS 2 1996 in Copenhagen, Denmark CoLIS 3 1999 in Dubrovnik, Croatia CoLIS 4 2002 in Seattle, US CoLIS 5 2005 in Glasgow, Scotland CoLIS 6 2007 in Borås, Sweden CoLIS 7 June 2010 in London, at City University London. CoLIS 8 August 19–22, 2013, in Copenhagen, Denmark, at The Royal School of Library and Information Science. CoLIS 9 June 27–29, 2016, in Uppsala, Sweden, at Uppsala University. CoLIS 10 June 16–19, 2019, in Ljubljana, Slovenia, Faculty of Arts CoLIS 11 May 29–June 1, 2022, in Oslo, Norway, Oslo Metropolitan University.
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
Algorithm engineering
Algorithm engineering focuses on the design, analysis, implementation, optimization, profiling and experimental evaluation of computer algorithms, bridging the gap between algorithmics theory and practical applications of algorithms in software engineering. It is a general methodology for algorithmic research. == Origins == In 1995, a report from an NSF-sponsored workshop "with the purpose of assessing the current goals and directions of the Theory of Computing (TOC) community" identified the slow speed of adoption of theoretical insights by practitioners as an important issue and suggested measures to reduce the uncertainty by practitioners whether a certain theoretical breakthrough will translate into practical gains in their field of work, and tackle the lack of ready-to-use algorithm libraries, which provide stable, bug-free and well-tested implementations for algorithmic problems and expose an easy-to-use interface for library consumers. But also, promising algorithmic approaches have been neglected due to difficulties in mathematical analysis. The term "algorithm engineering" was first used with specificity in 1997, with the first Workshop on Algorithm Engineering (WAE97), organized by Giuseppe F. Italiano. == Difference from algorithm theory == Algorithm engineering does not intend to replace or compete with algorithm theory, but tries to enrich, refine and reinforce its formal approaches with experimental algorithmics (also called empirical algorithmics). This way it can provide new insights into the efficiency and performance of algorithms in cases where the algorithm at hand is less amenable to algorithm theoretic analysis, formal analysis pessimistically suggests bounds which are unlikely to appear on inputs of practical interest, the algorithm relies on the intricacies of modern hardware architectures like data locality, branch prediction, instruction stalls, instruction latencies which the machine model used in Algorithm Theory is unable to capture in the required detail, the crossover between competing algorithms with different constant costs and asymptotic behaviors needs to be determined. == Methodology == Some researchers describe algorithm engineering's methodology as a cycle consisting of algorithm design, analysis, implementation and experimental evaluation, joined by further aspects like machine models or realistic inputs. They argue that equating algorithm engineering with experimental algorithmics is too limited, because viewing design and analysis, implementation and experimentation as separate activities ignores the crucial feedback loop between those elements of algorithm engineering. === Realistic models and real inputs === While specific applications are outside the methodology of algorithm engineering, they play an important role in shaping realistic models of the problem and the underlying machine, and supply real inputs and other design parameters for experiments. === Design === Compared to algorithm theory, which usually focuses on the asymptotic behavior of algorithms, algorithm engineers need to keep further requirements in mind: Simplicity of the algorithm, implementability in programming languages on real hardware, and allowing code reuse. Additionally, constant factors of algorithms have such a considerable impact on real-world inputs that sometimes an algorithm with worse asymptotic behavior performs better in practice due to lower constant factors. === Analysis === Some problems can be solved with heuristics and randomized algorithms in a simpler and more efficient fashion than with deterministic algorithms. Unfortunately, this makes even simple randomized algorithms difficult to analyze because there are subtle dependencies to be taken into account. === Implementation === Huge semantic gaps between theoretical insights, formulated algorithms, programming languages and hardware pose a challenge to efficient implementations of even simple algorithms, because small implementation details can have rippling effects on execution behavior. The only reliable way to compare several implementations of an algorithm is to spend an considerable amount of time on tuning and profiling, running those algorithms on multiple architectures, and looking at the generated machine code. === Experiments === See: Experimental algorithmics === Application engineering === Implementations of algorithms used for experiments differ in significant ways from code usable in applications. While the former prioritizes fast prototyping, performance and instrumentation for measurements during experiments, the latter requires thorough testing, maintainability, simplicity, and tuning for particular classes of inputs. === Algorithm libraries === Stable, well-tested algorithm libraries like LEDA play an important role in technology transfer by speeding up the adoption of new algorithms in applications. Such libraries reduce the required investment and risk for practitioners, because it removes the burden of understanding and implementing the results of academic research. == Conferences == Two main conferences on Algorithm Engineering are organized annually, namely: Symposium on Experimental Algorithms (SEA), established in 1997 (formerly known as WEA). SIAM Meeting on Algorithm Engineering and Experiments (ALENEX), established in 1999. The 1997 Workshop on Algorithm Engineering (WAE'97) was held in Venice (Italy) on September 11–13, 1997. The Third International Workshop on Algorithm Engineering (WAE'99) was held in London, UK in July 1999. The first Workshop on Algorithm Engineering and Experimentation (ALENEX99) was held in Baltimore, Maryland on January 15–16, 1999. It was sponsored by DIMACS, the Center for Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science (at Rutgers University), with additional support from SIGACT, the ACM Special Interest Group on Algorithms and Computation Theory, and SIAM, the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics.