Mark Jerome Steedman (born 18 September 1946) is a British computational linguist and cognitive scientist. == Biography == Steedman graduated from the University of Sussex in 1968, with a B.Sc. in Experimental Psychology, and from the University of Edinburgh in 1973, with a Ph.D. in Artificial Intelligence (Dissertation: The Formal Description of Musical Perception gained in 1972. Advisor: Prof. H.C. Longuet-Higgins FRS). He has held posts as Lecturer in Psychology, University of Warwick (1977–83); Lecturer and Reader in Computational Linguistics, University of Edinburgh (1983–8); Associate and full Professor in Computer and Information Sciences, University of Pennsylvania (1988–98). He has held visiting positions at the University of Texas at Austin, the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Radboud University Nijmegen, and the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Steedman currently holds the Chair of Cognitive Science in the School of Informatics at the University of Edinburgh (1998– ). He works in computational linguistics, artificial intelligence, and cognitive science, on Generation of Meaningful Intonation for Speech by Artificial Agents, Animated Conversation, The Communicative Use of Gesture, Tense and Aspect, and combinatory categorial grammar (CCG). He is also interested in Computational Musical Analysis and combinatory logic. == Distinctions == Member of the Academia Europæa (2006) Fellow of the British Academy (2002). Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh (2002) AAAI Fellow (1993) President elect for 2008 of the Association for Computational Linguistics Fellow of the Association for Computational Linguistics (2012) == Principal publications == Steedman, Mark (1996). Surface structure and interpretation. Linguistic Inquiry Monograph. Vol. 30. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. p. 123. ISBN 978-0-262-19379-5. Steedman, Mark (2000). The Syntactic Process. Language, Speech, and Communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. p. 344. ISBN 978-0-262-69268-7. Steedman, Mark (Fall 2000). "Information Structure and the Syntax-Phonology Interface". Linguistic Inquiry. 31 (4): 649–689. doi:10.1162/002438900554505. ISSN 0024-3892. S2CID 9084597.
Kdb+
kdb+ is a column-based relational time series database (TSDB) with in-memory (IMDB) abilities, developed and marketed by KX Systems. The database is commonly used in high-frequency trading (HFT) to store, analyze, process, and retrieve large data sets at high speed. kdb+ has the ability to handle billions of records and analyzes data within a database. The database is available in 32-bit and 64-bit versions for several operating systems. Financial institutions use kdb+ to analyze time series data such as stock or commodity exchange data. The database has also been used for other time-sensitive data applications including commodity markets such as energy trading, telecommunications, sensor data, log data, machine and computer network usage monitoring along with real time analytics in Formula One racing. == Overview == kdb+ is a high-performance column-store database that was designed to process and store large amounts of data. Commonly accessed data is pushed into random-access memory (RAM), which is faster to access than data in disk storage. Created with financial institutions in mind, the database was developed as a central repository to store time series data that supports real-time analysis of billions of records. kdb+ has the ability to analyze data over time and responds to queries similar to Structured Query Language (SQL). Columnar databases return answers to some queries in a more efficient way than row-based database management systems. kdb+ dictionaries, tables and nanosecond time stamps are native data types and are used to store time series data. At the core of kdb+ is the built-in programming language, q, a concise, expressive query array language, and dialect of the language APL. Q can manipulate streaming, real-time, and historical data. kdb+ uses q to aggregate and analyze data, perform statistical functions, and join data sets and supports SQL queries The vector language q was built for speed and expressiveness and eliminates most need for looping structures. kdb+ includes interfaces in C, C++, Java, C#, and Python. == History == In 1998, KX released kdb, a database built on the language K written by Arthur Whitney. In 2003, kdb+ was released as a 64-bit version of kdb. In 2004, the kdb+ tick market database framework was released along with kdb+ taq, a loader for the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) taq data. kdb+ was created by Arthur Whitney, building on his prior work with array languages. In April 2007, KX announced that it was releasing a version of kdb+ for Mac OS X. Then, kdb+ was also available on the operating systems Linux, Windows, and Solaris. In September 2012, version 3.0 was released. It was optimized for Intel's upgraded processors with support for WebSockets, and universally unique identifiers (UUIDs, termed globally unique identifiers (GUID)s in Microsoft software). Intel's Advanced Vector Extensions (AVX) and Streaming SIMD Extensions 4 (SSE4) 4.2 on the Sandy Bridge processors of the time allowed for enhanced support of the kdb+ system. In June 2013, version 3.1 was released, with benchmarks up to 8 times faster than older versions. In March 2020, version 4.0 was released. New features included Multithreaded primitives, Intel Optane DC persistent memory support and Data at Rest Encryption.
CogX Festival
CogX Festival is a global festival focusing on the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) and emerging technology on industry, government, and society. It takes place annually, usually in September, in London, England. Founded by Charlie Muirhead and Tabitha Goldstaub in 2017, CogX aims to facilitate dialogue and understanding about AI and its implications across various sectors. CogX Festival 2023 was held from September 12 to September 14 across multiple sites in London. == History == The inaugural CogX event took place in 2017, intending to bring together experts from diverse fields to discuss the role and impact of AI and emerging technologies. Since then, it has evolved to include a broader range of topics and attract a diverse audience. In 2018, the first CogX Awards festival was hosted. That year, over 50 awards were shown to 300 guests. In 2021, CogX and Hopin, a video conferencing software, signed an agreement lasting 4 years to make CogX a hybrid conference due to the COVID-19 pandemic. CogX 2021 attracted over 5,000 attendees in-person and over 100,000 virtually. In 2022, they returned to a live event format after two years of hybrid events and controlled physical attendance. They also launched the CogX app, which curated insights from the world's top podcasts. In 2023, after he had delivered the keynote address guest speaker Stephen Fry fell off the stage and subsequently broke his leg, hip, pelvis and a "bunch of ribs". A court filing in 2026 revealed that Fry was seeking £100,000 in damages from CogX Festival Ltd and creative agency Blonstein Events. == Programming == The festival features sessions, discussions, workshops, and exhibitions, encompassing various domains of AI and technology. In recent CogX Festivals, they have featured summits encompassing topics like global leadership and industry transformation.
Course of Action Display and Evaluation Tool
Course of Action Display and Evaluation Tool (CADET) was a research program, and the eponymous prototype software system, that applied knowledge-based techniques of Artificial Intelligence to the problem of battle planning. CADET was also known as Course of Action Display and Elaboration Tool. It was considered an early example of such systems and was funded by the United States Army and by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). CADET influenced a later DARPA program called RAID which in turn produced a technology adopted by the United States Army and the United States Marine Corps. == History == The development of Course of Action Display and Evaluation Tool (CADET) began in 1996, at the Carnegie Group, Inc., Pittsburgh PA, funded under the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program. The goal of the first phase SBIR project was to produce “...a live storyboard of [Course of Action] COA development, wargaming, animation, and assessment.” In 1997, the United States Army awarded the Carnegie Group Inc. $750K for SBIR Phase II. The intent was to develop “...a war-gaming modeling and analysis Decision Support System (DSS), … CADET will consist of a combination of Knowledge-Based and decision analytic tools and technologies to provide fast nimble COA war-gaming modeling, simulation, and animation under direct control of the commander and staff. ...Phase II will result in an operations prototype (OP) suitable for use and evaluation in field exercises.” In 2000, CADET was integrated and experimentally evaluated within the framework of the Integrated Course of Action Critiquing and Elaboration System (ICCES) experiment, conducted by the Battle Command Battle Laboratory – Leavenworth (BCBL-L) within the program Concept Experimentation Program (CEP) sponsored by TRADOC. In 2000-2002, DARPA applied CADET in the program titled Command Post of the Future (CPoF) as a tool to generate a course of action. Under the umbrella of the CPoF program, CADET was integrated with the FOX GA system to provide a detailed planner, coupled with COA generation capability. In the same period, Battle Command Battle Lab-Huachuca (BCBL-H) performed an integration CADET with the system called All Source Analysis System-Light (ASAS-L); here CADET was intended to generate plans for intelligence assets, and conduct wargames of different COAs, enemy versus friendly. From 1996 through 2002, work on CADET was performed by the Carnegie Group, Inc., and supported by funding from the US Army CECOM (CADET SBIR Phase I, CADET SBIR Phase II and CADET Enhancements); DARPA (Command Post of the Future); and TRADOC BCBL-H. == Operation == CADET was intended to be used by the staff of the United States Army Brigade, within the Military Decision Making Process (MDMP). In particular, CADET helped produce, automatically or semi-automatically, the products generated within the step of MDMP called Course of Action (COA) Development and the following step of MDMP called COA Analysis and Wargaming. CADET software resided on a laptop computer. Using the computer, the staff officers entered the input to CADET, or alternatively this input arrived at CADET from upstream computer systems. The input consisted of: Order of Battle, i.e., the units constituting the friendly brigade and the enemy units participating in the battle, and their various characteristics; primary activities of the Course of Action, where each activity is typically linked to one or more geographic areas or a route, and sometimes to a major unit executing the activity; digital map of the region where the battle was to take place, including the digital description of significant features such as locations of friendly and enemy units, roads, assembly areas, objectives, and axes of attacks. Taking this input, CADET automatically performed the following tasks (not sequentially): Planning and scheduling the low-level tasks necessary for a given COA Allocating tasks to various units and assets constituting the brigade Assigning suitable locations and routes Estimating the battle losses (attrition) of friendly and enemy forces, and consumption of resources (e.g., fuel and ammunition) Predicting enemy actions or reactions. CADET produced the following outputs: Synchronization matrix, directly editable and printable; synchronization matrix is a kind of Gantt chart that shows assignments of activities to units, to locations/routes and to time periods Map overlays in PPT or JPG formats Animation output XML formally-encoded plan Textual Operation Plan (OPLAN) draft E-mail messages with attachments: XML and text versions of OPLAN == Design == The core algorithm is a planning algorithm where CADET uses a knowledge-based approach of the hierarchical-task-network type. Each task class is associated with a model of more detailed subtasks that should be performed in order to accomplish the higher-level task. Algorithms selected (heuristically) a task and then decomposes it into subtasks. Although similar to hierarchical-task-network planning algorithm, CADET’s algorithm includes elements of adversarial reasoning. After adding a subtask, the algorithm uses rules to determine the enemy’s probable actions and reactions as well as friendly counteractions This approximated the action-reaction-counteraction technique of manual wargaming used by the United States Army. When a task involves movements of a unit, the algorithm performs routing, i.e., finds a route for the movement that minimizes the time required for the movement as well as exposure to the enemy attacks. Each added tasks (subtask) normally requires a unit which would execute the task, and a time period when the task would be executed. Therefore, when a certain number of subtasks is added by the planning process, the algorithm also performs the allocation of the newly added subtasks to units and to time periods (i.e., scheduling). allocation and scheduling of tasks relies on both domain-specific and constraint-guided heuristics. A tasks may also require expenditures of fuel and ammunition. If the tasks involves engagement with the enemy, the performing units will experience lossesof personnel and weapon systems (attrition). CADET’s algorithm includes estimates of consumption of different types of consumables, and also attrition. Depending on the degree of attrition and consumption, CADET adds tasks that are needed to refuel or reconstitute the units. The algorithm continually interleaves incremental steps of planning, routing, scheduling, and attrition and consumption estimates. == Evaluation == Two evaluation experiments are described in literature. The first experiment called ICCES took three days. The subjects were Army officers from combat arms branches, with 11 to 23 years of active service, in the ranks of majors and lieutenant colonels, a total of 8. Each officer was given 4 hours of training learning to operate CADET and related computer tools. Officers were divided into two groups and given a tactical scenario. One group (the control group) used the traditional, manual process; the other used the system called ICCES, the automated core of which was CADET. Each group produced three COA sketches and statements and one COA synchronization matrix. Then, the experiment was repeated with another scenario but the control group became the automated group and vice versa. The users were generally satisfied with the quality of the ICCES-generated products. The group using ICCES made only a few changes to the product that was automatically generated, indicating that they agreed with the majority of the plan that ICCES produced. The second experiment was reminiscent of Turing test. The experiment involved one user, nine judges (active-duty officers, mainly colonels and lieutenant colonels), and five scenarios obtained from several US Army exercises. For each scenario, experimenters obtained synchronization matrices that were produced in earlier exercises, typically by a team of four to five officers in three to four hours, spending approximately 16 person-hours in total. Using these scenarios and COAs, the user had CADET generate automatically detailed plans and express them as synchronization matrices. The user, a retired US Army officer, reviewed and slightly edited the matrices. The entire process took less than two minutes of computations by and approximately 20 minutes of review and post-editing, approximately 0.4 person-hour in total per product. The experimenters gave the resulting matrices the same visual style as those produced by humans. The judges, who did not know whether a planning product was a traditional product of humans, or with computerized aids, were asked to grade the products. The result was that the average grades for manual products and CADET-generated products were statistically indistinguishable, even though CADET-generated products required far less time to produce. == Legacy == CADET served as “...an example of how even relatively basic A
Gene expression programming
Gene expression programming (GEP) in computer programming is an evolutionary algorithm that creates computer programs or models. These computer programs are complex tree structures that learn and adapt by changing their sizes, shapes, and composition, much like a living organism. And like living organisms, the computer programs of GEP are also encoded in simple linear chromosomes of fixed length. Thus, GEP is a genotype–phenotype system, benefiting from a simple genome to keep and transmit the genetic information and a complex phenotype to explore the environment and adapt to it. == Background == Evolutionary algorithms use populations of individuals, select individuals according to fitness, and introduce genetic variation using one or more genetic operators. Their use in artificial computational systems dates back to the 1950s where they were used to solve optimization problems (e.g. Box 1957 and Friedman 1959). But it was with the introduction of evolution strategies by Rechenberg in 1965 that evolutionary algorithms gained popularity. A good overview text on evolutionary algorithms is the book "An Introduction to Genetic Algorithms" by Mitchell (1996). Gene expression programming belongs to the family of evolutionary algorithms and is closely related to genetic algorithms and genetic programming. From genetic algorithms it inherited the linear chromosomes of fixed length; and from genetic programming it inherited the expressive parse trees of varied sizes and shapes. In gene expression programming the linear chromosomes work as the genotype and the parse trees as the phenotype, creating a genotype/phenotype system. This genotype/phenotype system is multigenic, thus encoding multiple parse trees in each chromosome. This means that the computer programs created by GEP are composed of multiple parse trees. Because these parse trees are the result of gene expression, in GEP they are called expression trees. Masood Nekoei, et al. utilized this expression programming style in ABC optimization to conduct ABCEP as a method that outperformed other evolutionary algorithms.ABCEP == Encoding: the genotype == The genome of gene expression programming consists of a linear, symbolic string or chromosome of fixed length composed of one or more genes of equal size. These genes, despite their fixed length, code for expression trees of different sizes and shapes. An example of a chromosome with two genes, each of size 9, is the string (position zero indicates the start of each gene): 012345678012345678 L+a-baccdcLabacd where “L” represents the natural logarithm function and “a”, “b”, “c”, and “d” represent the variables and constants used in a problem. == Expression trees: the phenotype == As shown above, the genes of gene expression programming have all the same size. However, these fixed length strings code for expression trees of different sizes. This means that the size of the coding regions varies from gene to gene, allowing for adaptation and evolution to occur smoothly. For example, the mathematical expression: ( a − b ) ( c + d ) {\displaystyle {\sqrt {(a-b)(c+d)}}\,} can also be represented as an expression tree: where "Q” represents the square root function. This kind of expression tree consists of the phenotypic expression of GEP genes, whereas the genes are linear strings encoding these complex structures. For this particular example, the linear string corresponds to: 01234567 Q-+abcd which is the straightforward reading of the expression tree from top to bottom and from left to right. These linear strings are called k-expressions (from Karva notation). Going from k-expressions to expression trees is also very simple. For example, the following k-expression: 01234567890 Qb+baQba is composed of two different terminals (the variables “a” and “b”), two different functions of two arguments (“” and “+”), and a function of one argument (“Q”). Its expression gives: == K-expressions and genes == The k-expressions of gene expression programming correspond to the region of genes that gets expressed. This means that there might be sequences in the genes that are not expressed, which is indeed true for most genes. The reason for these noncoding regions is to provide a buffer of terminals so that all k-expressions encoded in GEP genes correspond always to valid programs or expressions. The genes of gene expression programming are therefore composed of two different domains – a head and a tail – each with different properties and functions. The head is used mainly to encode the functions and variables chosen to solve the problem at hand, whereas the tail, while also used to encode the variables, provides essentially a reservoir of terminals to ensure that all programs are error-free. For GEP genes the length of the tail is given by the formula: t = h ( n max − 1 ) + 1 {\displaystyle t=h(n_{\max }-1)+1} where h is the head's length and nmax is maximum arity. For example, for a gene created using the set of functions F = {Q, +, −, ∗, /} and the set of terminals T = {a, b}, nmax = 2. And if we choose a head length of 15, then t = 15 (2–1) + 1 = 16, which gives a gene length g of 15 + 16 = 31. The randomly generated string below is an example of one such gene: 0123456789012345678901234567890 b+a-aQab+//+b+babbabbbababbaaa It encodes the expression tree: which, in this case, only uses 8 of the 31 elements that constitute the gene. It's not hard to see that, despite their fixed length, each gene has the potential to code for expression trees of different sizes and shapes, with the simplest composed of only one node (when the first element of a gene is a terminal) and the largest composed of as many nodes as there are elements in the gene (when all the elements in the head are functions with maximum arity). It's also not hard to see that it is trivial to implement all kinds of genetic modification (mutation, inversion, insertion, recombination, and so on) with the guarantee that all resulting offspring encode correct, error-free programs. == Multigenic chromosomes == The chromosomes of gene expression programming are usually composed of more than one gene of equal length. Each gene codes for a sub-expression tree (sub-ET) or sub-program. Then the sub-ETs can interact with one another in different ways, forming a more complex program. The figure shows an example of a program composed of three sub-ETs. In the final program the sub-ETs could be linked by addition or some other function, as there are no restrictions to the kind of linking function one might choose. Some examples of more complex linkers include taking the average, the median, the midrange, thresholding their sum to make a binomial classification, applying the sigmoid function to compute a probability, and so on. These linking functions are usually chosen a priori for each problem, but they can also be evolved elegantly and efficiently by the cellular system of gene expression programming. == Cells and code reuse == In gene expression programming, homeotic genes control the interactions of the different sub-ETs or modules of the main program. The expression of such genes results in different main programs or cells, that is, they determine which genes are expressed in each cell and how the sub-ETs of each cell interact with one another. In other words, homeotic genes determine which sub-ETs are called upon and how often in which main program or cell and what kind of connections they establish with one another. === Homeotic genes and the cellular system === Homeotic genes have exactly the same kind of structural organization as normal genes and they are built using an identical process. They also contain a head domain and a tail domain, with the difference that the heads contain now linking functions and a special kind of terminals – genic terminals – that represent the normal genes. The expression of the normal genes results as usual in different sub-ETs, which in the cellular system are called ADFs (automatically defined functions). As for the tails, they contain only genic terminals, that is, derived features generated on the fly by the algorithm. For example, the chromosome in the figure has three normal genes and one homeotic gene and encodes a main program that invokes three different functions a total of four times, linking them in a particular way. From this example it is clear that the cellular system not only allows the unconstrained evolution of linking functions but also code reuse. And it shouldn't be hard to implement recursion in this system. === Multiple main programs and multicellular systems === Multicellular systems are composed of more than one homeotic gene. Each homeotic gene in this system puts together a different combination of sub-expression trees or ADFs, creating multiple cells or main programs. For example, the program shown in the figure was created using a cellular system with two cells and three normal genes. The applications of these multicellular systems are mu
Cache language model
A cache language model is a type of statistical language model. These occur in the natural language processing subfield of computer science and assign probabilities to given sequences of words by means of a probability distribution. Statistical language models are key components of speech recognition systems and of many machine translation systems: they tell such systems which possible output word sequences are probable and which are improbable. The particular characteristic of a cache language model is that it contains a cache component and assigns relatively high probabilities to words or word sequences that occur elsewhere in a given text. The primary, but by no means sole, use of cache language models is in speech recognition systems. To understand why it is a good idea for a statistical language model to contain a cache component one might consider someone who is dictating a letter about elephants to a speech recognition system. Standard (non-cache) N-gram language models will assign a very low probability to the word "elephant" because it is a very rare word in English. If the speech recognition system does not contain a cache component, the person dictating the letter may be annoyed: each time the word "elephant" is spoken another sequence of words with a higher probability according to the N-gram language model may be recognized (e.g., "tell a plan"). These erroneous sequences will have to be deleted manually and replaced in the text by "elephant" each time "elephant" is spoken. If the system has a cache language model, "elephant" will still probably be misrecognized the first time it is spoken and will have to be entered into the text manually; however, from this point on the system is aware that "elephant" is likely to occur again – the estimated probability of occurrence of "elephant" has been increased, making it more likely that if it is spoken it will be recognized correctly. Once "elephant" has occurred several times, the system is likely to recognize it correctly every time it is spoken until the letter has been completely dictated. This increase in the probability assigned to the occurrence of "elephant" is an example of a consequence of machine learning and more specifically of pattern recognition. There exist variants of the cache language model in which not only single words but also multi-word sequences that have occurred previously are assigned higher probabilities (e.g., if "San Francisco" occurred near the beginning of the text subsequent instances of it would be assigned a higher probability). The cache language model was first proposed in a paper published in 1990, after which the IBM speech-recognition group experimented with the concept. The group found that implementation of a form of cache language model yielded a 24% drop in word-error rates once the first few hundred words of a document had been dictated. A detailed survey of language modeling techniques concluded that the cache language model was one of the few new language modeling techniques that yielded improvements over the standard N-gram approach: "Our caching results show that caching is by far the most useful technique for perplexity reduction at small and medium training data sizes". The development of the cache language model has generated considerable interest among those concerned with computational linguistics in general and statistical natural language processing in particular: recently, there has been interest in applying the cache language model in the field of statistical machine translation. The success of the cache language model in improving word prediction rests on the human tendency to use words in a "bursty" fashion: when one is discussing a certain topic in a certain context, the frequency with which one uses certain words will be quite different from their frequencies when one is discussing other topics in other contexts. The traditional N-gram language models, which rely entirely on information from a very small number (four, three, or two) of words preceding the word to which a probability is to be assigned, do not adequately model this "burstiness". Recently, the cache language model concept – originally conceived for the N-gram statistical language model paradigm – has been adapted for use in the neural paradigm. For instance, recent work on continuous cache language models in the recurrent neural network (RNN) setting has applied the cache concept to much larger contexts than before, yielding significant reductions in perplexity. Another recent line of research involves incorporating a cache component in a feed-forward neural language model (FN-LM) to achieve rapid domain adaptation.
Mario Klingemann
Mario Klingemann (born 1970 in Laatzen, Lower Saxony) is a German artist best known for his work involving neural networks, code, and algorithms. Klingemann was a Google Arts and Culture resident from 2016 to 2018, and he is considered as a pioneer in the use of computer learning in the arts. His works examine creativity, culture, and perception through machine learning and artificial intelligence, and have appeared at the Ars Electronica Festival, the Museum of Modern Art New York, the Metropolitan Museum of Art New York, the Photographers’ Gallery London, the Centre Pompidou Paris, and the British Library. Today he lives in Munich, where, in addition to his art under the name "Dog & Pony", he still runs a creative free space between gallery and Wunderkammer with the paper artist Alexandra Lukaschewitz. In 2018 his work The Butcher's Son won the Lumen Prize Gold Award 2018 by working with figurative visual input. Mario Klingemann is part of ONKAOS, the new media artist support programme of SOLO. In collaboration with ONKAOS he has created works such as Memories of Passerby I, the first work made with AI to be auctioned at Sotheby's in 2019. In 2020, Mario Klingemann won an Honorary Mention in the Prix Ars Electronica with his AI installation Appropriate Response. In 2023, Klingemann presented A.I.C.C.A., a performative sculpture in the form of a dog capable of elaborating art critiques thanks to AI programming.