NovelAI is an online cloud-based, SaaS model, and a paid subscription service for AI-assisted storywriting and text-to-image synthesis, originally launched in beta on June 15, 2021, with the image generation feature being implemented later on October 3, 2022. NovelAI is owned and operated by Anlatan, which is headquartered in Wilmington, Delaware. == Features == NovelAI uses GPT-based large language models (LLMs) to generate storywriting and prose. It has several models, such as Calliope, Sigurd, Euterpe, Krake, and Genji, with Genji being a Japanese-language model. The service also offers encrypted servers and customizable editors. For AI art generation, which generates images from text prompts, NovelAI uses a custom version of the source-available Stable Diffusion text-to-image diffusion model called NovelAI Diffusion, which is trained on a Danbooru-based dataset. NovelAI is also capable of generating a new image based on an existing image. The NovelAI terms of service states that all generated content belongs to the user, regardless if the user is an individual or a corporation. Anlatan states that generated images are not stored locally on their servers. == History == On April 28, 2021, Anlatan officially launched NovelAI. On June 15, 2021, Anlatan released their finetuned GPT-Neo-2.7B model from EleutherAI named Calliope, after the Greek Muses. A day later, they released their Opus-exclusive GPT-J-6B finetuned model named Sigurd, after the Norse/Germanic hero. On March 21, 2023, Nvidia and CoreWeave announced Anlatan being one of the first CoreWeave customers to deploy NVIDIA's H100 Tensor Core GPUs for new LLM model inferencing and training. On April 1, 2023, Anlatan added ControlNet features to their text-to-image NovelAI Diffusion model. On May 16, 2023, Anlatan announced that they named their H100 cluster Shoggy, a reference to H.P. Lovecraft's Shoggoths, which was used to pre-train an undisclosed 8192 token context LLM in-house model. == Reception and controversy == Following the implementation of image generation, NovelAI became a widely-discussed topic in Japan, with some online commentators noting that its image synthesis features are very adept at producing close impressions of anime characters, including lolicon and shotacon imagery, while others have expressed concern that it is a paid service reliant on a diffusion model, while the original machine learning training data consists of images used without the consent of the original artists. Attorney Kosuke Terauchi notes that, since a revision of the law in 2018, it is no longer illegal in Japan for machine learning models to scrape copyrighted content from the internet to use as training data; meanwhile, in the United States where NovelAI is based, there is no specific legal framework which regulates machine learning, and thus the fair use doctrine of US copyright law applies instead. Danbooru has posted an official statement in regards to NovelAI's use of the site's content for AI training, expressing that Danbooru is not affiliated with NovelAI, and does not endorse nor condone NovelAI's use of artists' artworks for machine learning. FayerWayer described NovelAI as a service capable of generating hentai. Manga artist Izumi Ū commented that while the manga style art generated by NovelAI is highly accurate, there are still imperfections in the output, although he views these as human-like in a favourable light nonetheless. In response to the topic of NovelAI, Narugami, founder of the Japanese freelance artist commissioning website Skeb, stated on October 5, 2022 that the use of AI image generation is prohibited on the platform since 2018. Illustrations using NovelAI have been posted on social media and illustration posting sites, and by October 13, 2,111 works tagged with #NovelAI were posted on Pixiv. Pixiv has stated that it is not considering a complete elimination of creations that use AI, though it requires AI-generated posts to be marked as such and allows users to filter them out. == Incidents == On October 6, 2022, NovelAI experienced a data breach where its software's source code was leaked.
ZygoteBody
ZygoteBody, formerly Google Body, is a web application by Zygote Media Group that renders manipulable 3D anatomical models of the human body. Several layers, from muscle tissues down to blood vessels, can be removed or made transparent to allow better study of individual body parts. Most of the body parts are labelled and are searchable. == Technology == The human models are based on data from the Zygote Media Group. The website uses JavaScript and WebGL technology to display 3D images inside the web browser without requiring the installation of external browser plug-ins. == History == ZygoteBody was launched as Google Body on December 15, 2010. On April Fools' Day 2011, users were greeted with the anatomy of a cow on the home page. The cow model is still available as part of the open-3d-viewer open source project. As part of the wind down on Google Labs, it was announced that Google Body will be shut down but will continue to be maintained by Zygote as ZygoteBody. On October 13, 2011, the Google Body site was shut down. Then, on January 9, 2012, ZygoteBody was launched and core code base (with the Google Cow model as a demo) was made available as an open source project called open-3d-viewer.
Personoid
Personoid is the concept coined by Stanisław Lem, a Polish science-fiction writer, in Non Serviam, from his book A Perfect Vacuum (1971). His personoids are an abstraction of functions of human mind and they live in computers; they do not need any human-like physical body. In cognitive and software modeling, personoid is a research approach to the development of intelligent autonomous agents. In frame of the IPK (Information, Preferences, Knowledge) architecture, it is a framework of abstract intelligent agent with a cognitive and structural intelligence. It can be seen as an essence of high intelligent entities. From the philosophical and systemics perspectives, personoid societies can also be seen as the carriers of a culture. According to N. Gessler, the personoids study can be a base for the research on artificial culture and culture evolution. == Personoids on TV and cinema == Welt am Draht (1973) The Thirteenth Floor (1999)
Environmental impact of AI
The environmental impact of the design, training, deployment and use of artificial intelligence includes the greenhouse gas emissions from generating electricity for data centres and computing hardware, operational and upstream water use, and material impacts from hardware manufacturing, mining and electronic waste. Estimating AI's environmental effects can be difficult because results depend on how impacts are measured, including whether accounting includes only model computation or also data-centre overhead, idle capacity, hardware manufacture, and local electricity supply. As these issues have received greater attention, governments and regulators have increasingly considered data-centre reporting requirements, energy-efficiency standards, and broader transparency measures for AI-related resource use. == Carbon footprint and energy use == AI-related energy use arises at multiple stages, including model training, fine-tuning, inference, storage, networking, and supporting infrastructure such as cooling and power conversion. === Individual level === Published estimates of energy use per AI request vary widely across models, tasks and measurement methods. A benchmark study presented at the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency found substantial differences between task types, with lower energy use for some text tasks and much higher energy use for image generation in the study's test conditions. In that benchmark, simple classification tasks consumed about 0.002–0.007 Wh per prompt on average (about 9% of a smartphone charge for 1,000 prompts), while text generation and text summarisation each used about 0.05 Wh per prompt; image generation averaged 2.91 Wh per prompt, and the least efficient image model in the study used 11.49 Wh per image (roughly equivalent to half a smartphone charge). First-party measurements in production environments have also been published. A 2025 Google study on Gemini assistant serving reported median per-prompt energy, emissions, and water-use estimates under the authors' accounting framework, while noting that different system boundaries can produce substantially different results. The study reported a median text-prompt estimate of about 0.24 Wh, which is roughly as much energy as watching nine seconds of television. The study also stated that software and infrastructure improvements reduced energy use by a factor of 33 and carbon emissions by a factor of 44 for a typical prompt over one year within the authors' framework. Researchers at the University of Michigan measured the energy consumption of various Meta Llama 3.1 models released in 2024 and found that smaller language models (8 billion parameters) use about 114 joules (0.03167 Wh) per response, while larger models (405 billion parameters) require up to 6,700 joules (1.861 Wh) per response. This corresponds to the energy needed to run a microwave oven for roughly one-tenth of a second and eight seconds, respectively. Comparisons between AI systems and human labour for specific tasks have produced mixed results and remain sensitive to assumptions about output quality, workload and system boundaries. A 2024 study in Scientific Reports reported 130 to 2900 times lower estimated carbon emissions for selected AI systems than for human writers and illustrators under its assumptions. A later Scientific Reports paper reported a counterexample for programming tasks under its assumptions, finding 5 to 19 times higher estimated emissions for the evaluated AI system than for human programmers on the benchmark used in that study. === System level === ==== Energy use and efficiency ==== AI electricity intensity depends not only on model architecture but also on hardware and facility efficiency. Data-centre operators commonly report Power usage effectiveness (PUE), which measures the ratio of total facility energy to IT equipment energy; a lower PUE indicates less overhead energy for cooling and other supporting infrastructure. Operators may also publish metrics and case studies on hardware efficiency, cooling systems and power sourcing. In its 2024 environmental report, Google stated that its 2023 total greenhouse gas emissions increased 13% year over year, primarily because of increased data-centre energy consumption and supply-chain emissions, while also reporting lower PUE than industry averages for its own facilities. The International Energy Agency has also reported that data centres remain a relatively small share of global electricity use overall, but that their local effects can be much more pronounced because demand is geographically concentrated. ==== Carbon footprint ==== At system level, AI contributes to rising electricity demand in data centres and related infrastructure. The International Energy Agency estimated that data centres used about 415 TWh of electricity in 2024, or around 1.5% of global electricity consumption, and projected that data-centre electricity use could rise to about 945 TWh by 2030, with AI identified as the main driver of that growth alongside other digital services. The carbon footprint of AI systems depends strongly on electricity sources, hardware efficiency, utilisation rates, and what stages are included in the accounting. Training large models can require substantial electricity, while total lifecycle impacts also depend on deployment scale and the amount of inference performed after training. Early analyses of frontier-model development reported rapid historical growth in training compute for selected systems, although later trends have depended on changes in model design, hardware and efficiency gains. Accounting methods that include upstream or embodied impacts, such as hardware manufacture and facilities construction, can materially affect estimates of AI-related emissions. === Decisions and strategies by individual companies === Large technology companies have reported that the expansion of AI and cloud infrastructure affects their sustainability targets, electricity demand, and resource use. Google, for example, attributed part of its emissions growth in 2023 to increased data-centre energy consumption and supply-chain emissions in its 2024 environmental report. Cloud and AI companies have also announced measures intended to reduce environmental impacts, including investment in more efficient hardware, low-carbon electricity procurement, alternative cooling systems, and water stewardship programmes. The extent, comparability, and third-party verification of such disclosures vary between firms and jurisdictions. == Water usage == Data centres can use water directly for cooling and indirectly through the water used in electricity generation, depending on the local energy mix. Public reporting on data-centre water use has often been inconsistent, making comparisons between operators and regions difficult. To standardise operational reporting, The Green Grid proposed the metric water usage effectiveness (WUE), defined as annual site water use divided by IT equipment energy use. WUE does not by itself measure local water stress, source sustainability, or all upstream water impacts. Studies of AI water use also distinguish between water withdrawal and water consumption. Research on AI-specific water use has argued that the water footprint of AI systems can be difficult to observe and may vary substantially by location, cooling design, and electricity source. A 2025 Communications of the ACM article summarised methods for estimating AI water footprints and emphasised the distinction between water withdrawal and water consumption. Li and colleagues estimated that global AI water withdrawal could reach 4.2–6.6 billion cubic metres in 2027 under the scenarios examined in their article. Using GPT-3, released by OpenAI in 2020, as an example, they estimated that training the model in Microsoft's U.S. data centres could consume about 700,000 litres of onsite water and about 5.4 million litres in total when offsite electricity-related water use was included; they also estimated that 10–50 medium-length GPT-3 responses could consume about 500 mL of water, depending on when and where the model was deployed. Published prompt-level estimates have also varied by system and accounting framework: the 2025 Google study on Gemini assistant serving reported a median text-prompt estimate of about 0.26 mL under its framework. Location can materially affect the significance of data-centre water use. Research on U.S. data centres found that one-fifth of servers' direct water footprint came from moderately to highly water-stressed watersheds, while nearly half of servers were fully or partially powered by plants located in water-stressed regions. A 2025 Reuters report, citing data from Verisk Maplecroft and NatureFinance, said that an average mid-sized data centre uses about 1.4 million litres of water per day for cooling and that Phoenix would experience a 32% increase in annual water stress if currently pl
Case-based reasoning
Case-based reasoning (CBR), broadly construed, is the process of solving new problems based on the solutions of similar past problems. In everyday life, an auto mechanic who fixes an engine by recalling another car that exhibited similar symptoms is using case-based reasoning. A lawyer who advocates a particular outcome in a trial based on legal precedents or a judge who creates case law is using case-based reasoning. So, too, an engineer copying working elements of nature (practicing biomimicry) is treating nature as a database of solutions to problems. Case-based reasoning is a prominent type of analogy solution making. It has been argued that case-based reasoning is not only a powerful method for computer reasoning, but also a pervasive behavior in everyday human problem solving; or, more radically, that all reasoning is based on past cases personally experienced. This view is related to prototype theory, which is most deeply explored in cognitive science. == Process == Case-based reasoning has been formalized for purposes of computer reasoning as a four-step process: Retrieve: Given a target problem, retrieve cases relevant to solving it from memory. A case consists of a problem, its solution, and, typically, annotations about how the solution was derived. For example, suppose Fred wants to prepare blueberry pancakes. Being a novice cook, the most relevant experience he can recall is one in which he successfully made plain pancakes. The procedure he followed for making the plain pancakes, together with justifications for decisions made along the way, constitutes Fred's retrieved case. Reuse: Map the solution from the previous case to the target problem. This may involve adapting the solution as needed to fit the new situation. In the pancake example, Fred must adapt his retrieved solution to include the addition of blueberries. Revise: Having mapped the previous solution to the target situation, test the new solution in the real world (or a simulation) and, if necessary, revise. Suppose Fred adapted his pancake solution by adding blueberries to the batter. After mixing, he discovers that the batter has turned blue – an undesired effect. This suggests the following revision: delay the addition of blueberries until after the batter has been ladled into the pan. Retain: After the solution has been successfully adapted to the target problem, store the resulting experience as a new case in memory. Fred, accordingly, records his new-found procedure for making blueberry pancakes, thereby enriching his set of stored experiences, and better preparing him for future pancake-making demands. == Comparison to other methods == At first glance, CBR may seem similar to the rule induction algorithms of machine learning. Like a rule-induction algorithm, CBR starts with a set of cases or training examples; it forms generalizations of these examples, albeit implicit ones, by identifying commonalities between a retrieved case and the target problem. If for instance a procedure for plain pancakes is mapped to blueberry pancakes, a decision is made to use the same basic batter and frying method, thus implicitly generalizing the set of situations under which the batter and frying method can be used. The key difference, however, between the implicit generalization in CBR and the generalization in rule induction lies in when the generalization is made. A rule-induction algorithm draws its generalizations from a set of training examples before the target problem is even known; that is, it performs eager generalization. For instance, if a rule-induction algorithm were given recipes for plain pancakes, Dutch apple pancakes, and banana pancakes as its training examples, it would have to derive, at training time, a set of general rules for making all types of pancakes. It would not be until testing time that it would be given, say, the task of cooking blueberry pancakes. The difficulty for the rule-induction algorithm is in anticipating the different directions in which it should attempt to generalize its training examples. This is in contrast to CBR, which delays (implicit) generalization of its cases until testing time – a strategy of lazy generalization. In the pancake example, CBR has already been given the target problem of cooking blueberry pancakes; thus it can generalize its cases exactly as needed to cover this situation. CBR therefore tends to be a good approach for rich, complex domains in which there are myriad ways to generalize a case. In law, there is often explicit delegation of CBR to courts, recognizing the limits of rule based reasons: limiting delay, limited knowledge of future context, limit of negotiated agreement, etc. While CBR in law and cognitively inspired CBR have long been associated, the former is more clearly an interpolation of rule based reasoning, and judgment, while the latter is more closely tied to recall and process adaptation. The difference is clear in their attitude toward error and appellate review. Another name for case-based reasoning in problem solving is symptomatic strategies. It does require à priori domain knowledge that is gleaned from past experience which established connections between symptoms and causes. This knowledge is referred to as shallow, compiled, evidential, history-based as well as case-based knowledge. This is the strategy most associated with diagnosis by experts. Diagnosis of a problem transpires as a rapid recognition process in which symptoms evoke appropriate situation categories. An expert knows the cause by virtue of having previously encountered similar cases. Case-based reasoning is the most powerful strategy, and that used most commonly. However, the strategy won't work independently with truly novel problems, or where deeper understanding of whatever is taking place is sought. An alternative approach to problem solving is the topographic strategy which falls into the category of deep reasoning. With deep reasoning, in-depth knowledge of a system is used. Topography in this context means a description or an analysis of a structured entity, showing the relations among its elements. Also known as reasoning from first principles, deep reasoning is applied to novel faults when experience-based approaches aren't viable. The topographic strategy is therefore linked to à priori domain knowledge that is developed from a more a fundamental understanding of a system, possibly using first-principles knowledge. Such knowledge is referred to as deep, causal or model-based knowledge. Hoc and Carlier noted that symptomatic approaches may need to be supported by topographic approaches because symptoms can be defined in diverse terms. The converse is also true – shallow reasoning can be used abductively to generate causal hypotheses, and deductively to evaluate those hypotheses, in a topographical search. == Criticism == Critics of CBR argue that it is an approach that accepts anecdotal evidence as its main operating principle. Without statistically relevant data for backing and implicit generalization, there is no guarantee that the generalization is correct. However, all inductive reasoning where data is too scarce for statistical relevance is inherently based on anecdotal evidence. == History == CBR traces its roots to the work of Roger Schank and his students at Yale University in the early 1980s. Schank's model of dynamic memory was the basis for the earliest CBR systems: Janet Kolodner's CYRUS and Michael Lebowitz's IPP. Other schools of CBR and closely allied fields emerged in the 1980s, which directed at topics such as legal reasoning, memory-based reasoning (a way of reasoning from examples on massively parallel machines), and combinations of CBR with other reasoning methods. In the 1990s, interest in CBR grew internationally, as evidenced by the establishment of an International Conference on Case-Based Reasoning in 1995, as well as European, German, British, Italian, and other CBR workshops. CBR technology has resulted in the deployment of a number of successful systems, the earliest being Lockheed's CLAVIER, a system for laying out composite parts to be baked in an industrial convection oven. CBR has been used extensively in applications such as the Compaq SMART system and has found a major application area in the health sciences, as well as in structural safety management. There is recent work that develops CBR within a statistical framework and formalizes case-based inference as a specific type of probabilistic inference. Thus, it becomes possible to produce case-based predictions equipped with a certain level of confidence. One description of the difference between CBR and induction from instances is that statistical inference aims to find what tends to make cases similar while CBR aims to encode what suffices to claim similarly.
Highway network
In machine learning, the Highway Network was the first working very deep feedforward neural network with hundreds of layers, much deeper than previous neural networks. It uses skip connections modulated by learned gating mechanisms to regulate information flow, inspired by long short-term memory (LSTM) recurrent neural networks. The advantage of the Highway Network over other deep learning architectures is its ability to overcome or partially prevent the vanishing gradient problem, thus improving its optimization. Gating mechanisms are used to facilitate information flow across the many layers ("information highways"). Highway Networks have found use in text sequence labeling and speech recognition tasks. In 2014, the state of the art was training deep neural networks with 20 to 30 layers. Stacking too many layers led to a steep reduction in training accuracy, known as the "degradation" problem. In 2015, two techniques were developed to train such networks: the Highway Network (published in May), and the residual neural network, or ResNet (December). ResNet behaves like an open-gated Highway Net. == Model == The model has two gates in addition to the H ( W H , x ) {\displaystyle H(W_{H},x)} gate: the transform gate T ( W T , x ) {\displaystyle T(W_{T},x)} and the carry gate C ( W C , x ) {\displaystyle C(W_{C},x)} . The latter two gates are non-linear transfer functions (specifically sigmoid by convention). The function H {\displaystyle H} can be any desired transfer function. The carry gate is defined as: C ( W C , x ) = 1 − T ( W T , x ) {\displaystyle C(W_{C},x)=1-T(W_{T},x)} while the transform gate is just a gate with a sigmoid transfer function. == Structure == The structure of a hidden layer in the Highway Network follows the equation: y = H ( x , W H ) ⋅ T ( x , W T ) + x ⋅ C ( x , W C ) = H ( x , W H ) ⋅ T ( x , W T ) + x ⋅ ( 1 − T ( x , W T ) ) {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}y=H(x,W_{H})\cdot T(x,W_{T})+x\cdot C(x,W_{C})\\=H(x,W_{H})\cdot T(x,W_{T})+x\cdot (1-T(x,W_{T}))\end{aligned}}} == Related work == Sepp Hochreiter analyzed the vanishing gradient problem in 1991 and attributed to it the reason why deep learning did not work well. To overcome this problem, Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) recurrent neural networks have residual connections with a weight of 1.0 in every LSTM cell (called the constant error carrousel) to compute y t + 1 = F ( x t ) + x t {\textstyle y_{t+1}=F(x_{t})+x_{t}} . During backpropagation through time, this becomes the residual formula y = F ( x ) + x {\textstyle y=F(x)+x} for feedforward neural networks. This enables training very deep recurrent neural networks with a very long time span t. A later LSTM version published in 2000 modulates the identity LSTM connections by so-called "forget gates" such that their weights are not fixed to 1.0 but can be learned. In experiments, the forget gates were initialized with positive bias weights, thus being opened, addressing the vanishing gradient problem. As long as the forget gates of the 2000 LSTM are open, it behaves like the 1997 LSTM. The Highway Network of May 2015 applies these principles to feedforward neural networks. It was reported to be "the first very deep feedforward network with hundreds of layers". It is like a 2000 LSTM with forget gates unfolded in time, while the later Residual Nets have no equivalent of forget gates and are like the unfolded original 1997 LSTM. If the skip connections in Highway Networks are "without gates," or if their gates are kept open (activation 1.0), they become Residual Networks. The residual connection is a special case of the "short-cut connection" or "skip connection" by Rosenblatt (1961) and Lang & Witbrock (1988) which has the form x ↦ F ( x ) + A x {\displaystyle x\mapsto F(x)+Ax} . Here the randomly initialized weight matrix A does not have to be the identity mapping. Every residual connection is a skip connection, but almost all skip connections are not residual connections. The original Highway Network paper not only introduced the basic principle for very deep feedforward networks, but also included experimental results with 20, 50, and 100 layers networks, and mentioned ongoing experiments with up to 900 layers. Networks with 50 or 100 layers had lower training error than their plain network counterparts, but no lower training error than their 20 layers counterpart (on the MNIST dataset, Figure 1 in ). No improvement on test accuracy was reported with networks deeper than 19 layers (on the CIFAR-10 dataset; Table 1 in ). The ResNet paper, however, provided strong experimental evidence of the benefits of going deeper than 20 layers. It argued that the identity mapping without modulation is crucial and mentioned that modulation in the skip connection can still lead to vanishing signals in forward and backward propagation (Section 3 in ). This is also why the forget gates of the 2000 LSTM were initially opened through positive bias weights: as long as the gates are open, it behaves like the 1997 LSTM. Similarly, a Highway Net whose gates are opened through strongly positive bias weights behaves like a ResNet. The skip connections used in modern neural networks (e.g., Transformers) are dominantly identity mappings.
Problem solving
Problem solving is the process of achieving a goal by overcoming obstacles, a frequent part of most activities. Problems in need of solutions range from simple personal tasks (e.g. how to get from point A to B) to complex issues in business and technical fields. The former is an example of simple problem solving (SPS) addressing one issue, whereas the latter is complex problem solving (CPS) with multiple interrelated obstacles. Another classification of problem-solving tasks is into well-defined problems with specific obstacles and goals, and ill-defined problems in which the current situation is troublesome but it is not clear what kind of resolution to aim for. Similarly, one may distinguish formal or fact-based problems requiring psychometric intelligence, versus socio-emotional problems which depend on the changeable emotions of individuals or groups, such as tactful behavior, fashion, or gift choices. Solutions require sufficient resources and knowledge to attain the goal. Professionals such as lawyers, doctors, programmers, and consultants are largely problem solvers for issues that require technical skills and knowledge beyond general competence. Many businesses have found profitable markets by recognizing a problem and creating a solution: the more widespread and inconvenient the problem, the greater the opportunity to develop a scalable solution. There are many specialized problem-solving techniques and methods in fields such as science, engineering, business, medicine, mathematics, computer science, philosophy, and social organization. The mental techniques to identify, analyze, and solve problems are studied in psychology and cognitive sciences. Also widely researched are the mental obstacles that prevent people from finding solutions; problem-solving impediments include confirmation bias, mental set, and functional fixedness. == Definition == The term problem solving has a slightly different meaning depending on the discipline. For instance, it is a mental process in psychology and a computerized process in computer science. There are two different types of problems: ill-defined and well-defined; different approaches are used for each. Well-defined problems have specific end goals and clearly expected solutions, while ill-defined problems do not. Well-defined problems allow for more initial planning than ill-defined problems. Solving problems sometimes involves dealing with pragmatics (the way that context contributes to meaning) and semantics (the interpretation of the problem). The ability to understand what the end goal of the problem is, and what rules could be applied, represents the key to solving the problem. Sometimes a problem requires abstract thinking or coming up with a creative solution. Problem solving has two major domains: mathematical problem solving and personal problem solving. Each concerns some difficulty or barrier that is encountered. === Psychology === Problem solving in psychology refers to the process of finding solutions to problems encountered in life. Solutions to these problems are usually situation- or context-specific. The process starts with problem finding and problem shaping, in which the problem is discovered and simplified. The next step is to generate possible solutions and evaluate them. Finally a solution is selected to be implemented and verified. Problems have an end goal to be reached; how you get there depends upon problem orientation (problem-solving coping style and skills) and systematic analysis. Mental health professionals study the human problem-solving processes using methods such as introspection, behaviorism, simulation, computer modeling, and experiment. Social psychologists look into the person-environment relationship aspect of the problem and independent and interdependent problem-solving methods. Problem solving has been defined as a higher-order cognitive process and intellectual function that requires the modulation and control of more routine or fundamental skills. Empirical research shows many different strategies and factors influence everyday problem solving. Rehabilitation psychologists studying people with frontal lobe injuries have found that deficits in emotional control and reasoning can be re-mediated with effective rehabilitation and could improve the capacity of injured persons to resolve everyday problems. Interpersonal everyday problem solving is dependent upon personal motivational and contextual components. One such component is the emotional valence of "real-world" problems, which can either impede or aid problem-solving performance. Researchers have focused on the role of emotions in problem solving, demonstrating that poor emotional control can disrupt focus on the target task, impede problem resolution, and lead to negative outcomes such as fatigue, depression, and inertia. In conceptualization,human problem solving consists of two related processes: problem orientation, and the motivational/attitudinal/affective approach to problematic situations and problem-solving skills. People's strategies cohere with their goals and stem from the process of comparing oneself with others. === Cognitive sciences === Among the first experimental psychologists to study problem solving were the Gestaltists in Germany, such as Karl Duncker in The Psychology of Productive Thinking (1935). Perhaps best known is the work of Allen Newell and Herbert A. Simon. Experiments in the 1960s and early 1970s asked participants to solve relatively simple, well-defined, but not previously seen laboratory tasks. These simple problems, such as the Tower of Hanoi, admitted optimal solutions that could be found quickly, allowing researchers to observe the full problem-solving process. Researchers assumed that these model problems would elicit the characteristic cognitive processes by which more complex "real world" problems are solved. An outstanding problem-solving technique found by this research is the principle of decomposition. === Computer science === Much of computer science and artificial intelligence involves designing automated systems to solve a specified type of problem: to accept input data and calculate a correct or adequate response, reasonably quickly. Algorithms are recipes or instructions that direct such systems, written into computer programs. Steps for designing such systems include problem determination, heuristics, root cause analysis, de-duplication, analysis, diagnosis, and repair. Analytic techniques include linear and nonlinear programming, queuing systems, and simulation. A large, perennial obstacle is to find and fix errors in computer programs: debugging. === Logic === Formal logic concerns issues like validity, truth, inference, argumentation, and proof. In a problem-solving context, it can be used to formally represent a problem as a theorem to be proved, and to represent the knowledge needed to solve the problem as the premises to be used in a proof that the problem has a solution. The use of computers to prove mathematical theorems using formal logic emerged as the field of automated theorem proving in the 1950s. It included the use of heuristic methods designed to simulate human problem solving, as in the Logic Theory Machine, developed by Allen Newell, Herbert A. Simon and J. C. Shaw, as well as algorithmic methods such as the resolution principle developed by John Alan Robinson. In addition to its use for finding proofs of mathematical theorems, automated theorem-proving has also been used for program verification in computer science. In 1958, John McCarthy proposed the advice taker, to represent information in formal logic and to derive answers to questions using automated theorem-proving. An important step in this direction was made by Cordell Green in 1969, who used a resolution theorem prover for question-answering and for such other applications in artificial intelligence as robot planning. The resolution theorem-prover used by Cordell Green bore little resemblance to human problem solving methods. In response to criticism of that approach from researchers at MIT, Robert Kowalski developed logic programming and SLD resolution, which solves problems by problem decomposition. He has advocated logic for both computer and human problem solving and computational logic to improve human thinking. === Engineering === When products or processes fail, problem solving techniques can be used to develop corrective actions that can be taken to prevent further failures. Such techniques can also be applied to a product or process prior to an actual failure event—to predict, analyze, and mitigate a potential problem in advance. Techniques such as failure mode and effects analysis can proactively reduce the likelihood of problems. In either the reactive or the proactive case, it is necessary to build a causal explanation through a process of diagnosis. In deriving an explanation of effects in terms of causes, abduction generates new ideas or hypothes