Dynamic epistemic logic (DEL) is a logical framework dealing with knowledge and information change. Typically, DEL focuses on situations involving multiple agents and studies how their knowledge changes when events occur. These events can change factual properties of the actual world (they are called ontic events): for example a red card is painted in blue. They can also bring about changes of knowledge without changing factual properties of the world (they are called epistemic events): for example, a card is revealed publicly (or privately) to be red. Originally, DEL focused on epistemic events. Only some of the basic ideas are present in this entry of the original DEL framework; more details about DEL in general can be found in the references. Due to the nature of its object of study and its abstract approach, DEL is related and has applications to numerous research areas, such as computer science (artificial intelligence), philosophy (formal epistemology), economics (game theory) and cognitive science. In computer science, DEL is for example very much related to multi-agent systems, which are systems where multiple intelligent agents interact and exchange information. As a combination of dynamic logic and epistemic logic, dynamic epistemic logic is a young field of research. It really started in 1989 with Plaza's logic of public announcement. Independently, Gerbrandy and Groeneveld proposed a system dealing moreover with private announcement and that was inspired by the work of Veltman. Another system was proposed by van Ditmarsch whose main inspiration was the Cluedo game. But the most influential and original system was the system proposed by Baltag, Moss and Solecki. This system can deal with all the types of situations studied in the works above and its underlying methodology is conceptually grounded. This entry will present some of its basic ideas. Formally, DEL extends ordinary epistemic logic by the inclusion of event models to describe actions, and a product update operator that defines how epistemic models are updated as the consequence of executing actions described through event models. Epistemic logic will first be recalled. Then, actions and events will enter into the picture and we will introduce the DEL framework. == Epistemic logic == Epistemic logic is a modal logic dealing with the notions of knowledge and belief. As a logic, it is concerned with understanding the process of reasoning about knowledge and belief: which principles relating the notions of knowledge and belief are intuitively plausible? Like epistemology, it stems from the Greek word ϵ π ι σ τ η μ η {\displaystyle \epsilon \pi \iota \sigma \tau \eta \mu \eta } or ‘episteme’ meaning knowledge. Epistemology is nevertheless more concerned with analyzing the very nature and scope of knowledge, addressing questions such as “What is the definition of knowledge?” or “How is knowledge acquired?”. In fact, epistemic logic grew out of epistemology in the Middle Ages thanks to the efforts of Burley and Ockham. The formal work, based on modal logic, that inaugurated contemporary research into epistemic logic dates back only to 1962 and is due to Hintikka. It then sparked in the 1960s discussions about the principles of knowledge and belief and many axioms for these notions were proposed and discussed. For example, the interaction axioms K p → B p {\displaystyle Kp\rightarrow Bp} and B p → K B p {\displaystyle Bp\rightarrow KBp} are often considered to be intuitive principles: if an agent Knows p {\displaystyle p} then (s)he also Believes p {\displaystyle p} , or if an agent Believes p {\displaystyle p} , then (s)he Knows that (s)he Believes p {\displaystyle p} . More recently, these kinds of philosophical theories were taken up by researchers in economics, artificial intelligence and theoretical computer science where reasoning about knowledge is a central topic. Due to the new setting in which epistemic logic was used, new perspectives and new features such as computability issues were then added to the research agenda of epistemic logic. === Syntax === In the sequel, A G T S = { 1 , … , n } {\displaystyle AGTS=\{1,\ldots ,n\}} is a finite set whose elements are called agents and P R O P {\displaystyle PROP} is a set of propositional letters. The epistemic language is an extension of the basic multi-modal language of modal logic with a common knowledge operator C A {\displaystyle C_{A}} and a distributed knowledge operator D A {\displaystyle D_{A}} . Formally, the epistemic language L EL C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {L}}_{\textsf {EL}}^{C}} is defined inductively by the following grammar in BNF: L EL C : ϕ ::= p ∣ ¬ ϕ ∣ ( ϕ ∧ ϕ ) ∣ K j ϕ ∣ C A ϕ ∣ D A ϕ {\displaystyle {\mathcal {L}}_{\textsf {EL}}^{C}:\phi ~~::=~~p~\mid ~\neg \phi ~\mid ~(\phi \land \phi )~\mid ~K_{j}\phi ~\mid ~C_{A}\phi ~\mid ~D_{A}\phi } where p ∈ P R O P {\displaystyle p\in PROP} , j ∈ A G T S {\displaystyle j\in {AGTS}} and A ⊆ A G T S {\displaystyle A\subseteq {AGTS}} . The basic epistemic language L E L {\displaystyle {\mathcal {L}}_{EL}} is the language L E L C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {L}}_{EL}^{C}} without the common knowledge and distributed knowledge operators. The formula ⊥ {\displaystyle \bot } is an abbreviation for ¬ p ∧ p {\displaystyle \neg p\land p} (for a given p ∈ P R O P {\displaystyle p\in PROP} ), ⟨ K j ⟩ ϕ {\displaystyle \langle K_{j}\rangle \phi } is an abbreviation for ¬ K j ¬ ϕ {\displaystyle \neg K_{j}\neg \phi } , E A ϕ {\displaystyle E_{A}\phi } is an abbreviation for ⋀ j ∈ A K j ϕ {\displaystyle \bigwedge \limits _{j\in A}K_{j}\phi } and C ϕ {\displaystyle C\phi } an abbreviation for C A G T S ϕ {\displaystyle C_{AGTS}\phi } . Group notions: general, common and distributed knowledge. In a multi-agent setting there are three important epistemic concepts: general knowledge, distributed knowledge and common knowledge. The notion of common knowledge was first studied by Lewis in the context of conventions. It was then applied to distributed systems and to game theory, where it allows to express that the rationality of the players, the rules of the game and the set of players are commonly known. General knowledge. General knowledge of ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } means that everybody in the group of agents A G T S {\displaystyle {AGTS}} knows that ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } . Formally, this corresponds to the following formula: E ϕ := ⋀ j ∈ A G T S K j ϕ . {\displaystyle E\phi :={\underset {j\in {AGTS}}{\bigwedge }}K_{j}\phi .} Common knowledge. Common knowledge of ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } means that everybody knows ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } but also that everybody knows that everybody knows ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } , that everybody knows that everybody knows that everybody knows ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } , and so on ad infinitum. Formally, this corresponds to the following formula C ϕ := E ϕ ∧ E E ϕ ∧ E E E ϕ ∧ … {\displaystyle C\phi :=E\phi \land EE\phi \land EEE\phi \land \ldots } As we do not allow infinite conjunction the notion of common knowledge will have to be introduced as a primitive in our language. Before defining the language with this new operator, we are going to give an example introduced by Lewis that illustrates the difference between the notions of general knowledge and common knowledge. Lewis wanted to know what kind of knowledge is needed so that the statement p {\displaystyle p} : “every driver must drive on the right” be a convention among a group of agents. In other words, he wanted to know what kind of knowledge is needed so that everybody feels safe to drive on the right. Suppose there are only two agents i {\displaystyle i} and j {\displaystyle j} . Then everybody knowing p {\displaystyle p} (formally E p {\displaystyle Ep} ) is not enough. Indeed, it might still be possible that the agent i {\displaystyle i} considers possible that the agent j {\displaystyle j} does not know p {\displaystyle p} (formally ¬ K i K j p {\displaystyle \neg K_{i}K_{j}p} ). In that case the agent i {\displaystyle i} will not feel safe to drive on the right because he might consider that the agent j {\displaystyle j} , not knowing p {\displaystyle p} , could drive on the left. To avoid this problem, we could then assume that everybody knows that everybody knows that p {\displaystyle p} (formally E E p {\displaystyle EEp} ). This is again not enough to ensure that everybody feels safe to drive on the right. Indeed, it might still be possible that agent i {\displaystyle i} considers possible that agent j {\displaystyle j} considers possible that agent i {\displaystyle i} does not know p {\displaystyle p} (formally ¬ K i K j K i p {\displaystyle \neg K_{i}K_{j}K_{i}p} ). In that case and from i {\displaystyle i} ’s point of view, j {\displaystyle j} considers possible that i {\displaystyle i} , not knowing p {\displaystyle p} , will drive on the left. So from i {\displaystyle i} ’s point of view, j {\displaystyle j} might drive on the left as well (by the same argument as abov
Chatbot psychosis
Chatbot psychosis, also called AI psychosis, is a phenomenon wherein individuals reportedly develop or experience worsening psychosis, such as paranoia and delusions, in connection with their use of chatbots. The term was first suggested in a 2023 editorial by Danish psychiatrist Søren Dinesen Østergaard. It is not a recognized clinical diagnosis. Journalistic accounts describe individuals who have developed strong beliefs that chatbots are sentient, are channeling spirits, or are revealing conspiracies, sometimes leading to personal crises or criminal acts. Proposed causes include the tendency of chatbots to provide inaccurate information ("hallucinate") and to affirm or validate users' beliefs, or their ability to mimic an intimacy that users do not experience with other humans. == Background == In his editorial published in Schizophrenia Bulletin's November 2023 issue, Danish psychiatrist Søren Dinesen Østergaard proposed a hypothesis that individuals' use of generative artificial intelligence chatbots might trigger delusions in those prone to psychosis. Østergaard revisited it in an August 2025 editorial, noting that he has received numerous emails from chatbot users, their relatives, and journalists, most of which are anecdotal accounts of delusion linked to chatbot use. He also acknowledged the phenomenon's increasing popularity in public engagement and media coverage. Østergaard believed that there is a high possibility for his hypothesis to be true and called for empirical, systematic research on the matter. Nature reported that as of September 2025, there is still little scientific research into this phenomenon. The term "AI psychosis" emerged when outlets started reporting incidents on chatbot-related psychotic behavior in mid-2025. It is not a recognized clinical diagnosis and has been criticized by several psychiatrists due to its almost exclusive focus on delusions rather than other features of psychosis, such as hallucinations or thought disorder. == Causes == === Chatbot behavior and design === A primary factor cited is the tendency for chatbots to produce inaccurate, nonsensical, or false information, a phenomenon often called hallucination. Nate Sharadin, a fellow at the Center for AI Safety, speculated that AI training prioritizes supporting a user's subjective experience rather than objective truth. "People with existing tendencies toward experiencing various psychological issues...now have an always-on, human-level conversational partner with whom to co-experience their delusions." AI researcher Eliezer Yudkowsky suggested that chatbots may be primed to entertain delusions because they are built for "engagement", which encourages creating conversations that keep people hooked. In some cases, chatbots have been specifically designed in ways that were found to be harmful. A 2025 update to ChatGPT using GPT-4o was withdrawn after its creator, OpenAI, found the new version was overly sycophantic and was "validating doubts, fueling anger, urging impulsive actions or reinforcing negative emotions". Østergaard has argued that the danger stems from the AI's tendency to agreeably confirm users' ideas, which can dangerously amplify delusional beliefs. OpenAI said in October 2025 that a team of 170 psychiatrists, psychologists, and physicians had written responses for ChatGPT to use in cases where the user shows possible signs of mental health emergencies. === User psychology and vulnerability === Commentators have also pointed to the psychological state of users. Psychologist Erin Westgate noted that a person's desire for self-understanding can lead them to chatbots, which can provide appealing but misleading answers, similar in some ways to talk therapy. Krista K. Thomason, a philosophy professor, compared chatbots to fortune tellers, observing that people in crisis may seek answers from them and find whatever they are looking for in the bot's plausible-sounding text. This has led some people to develop intense obsessions with the chatbots, relying on them for information about the world. In October 2025, OpenAI stated that around 0.07% of ChatGPT users exhibited signs of mental health emergencies each week, and 0.15% of users had "explicit indicators of potential suicidal planning or intent". Jason Nagata, a professor at the University of California, San Francisco, expressed concern that "at a population level with hundreds of millions of users, that actually can be quite a few people". === Inadequacy as a therapeutic tool === The use of chatbots as a replacement for mental health support has been specifically identified as a risk. A study in April 2025 found that when used as therapists, chatbots expressed stigma toward mental health conditions and provided responses that were contrary to best medical practices, including the encouragement of users' delusions. The study concluded that such responses pose a significant risk to users and that chatbots should not be used to replace professional therapists. Experts claim that it is time to establish mandatory safeguards for all emotionally responsive AI and suggested four guardrails. Another study found that users who needed help with self-harm, sexual assault, or substance abuse were not referred to available services by AI chatbots. === National security implications === Beyond public and mental health concerns, RAND Corporation research indicates that AI systems could plausibly be weaponized by adversaries to induce psychosis at scale or in key individuals, target groups, or populations. == Policy == In August 2025, Illinois passed the Wellness and Oversight for Psychological Resources Act, banning the use of AI in therapeutic roles by licensed professionals, while allowing AI for administrative tasks. The law imposes penalties for unlicensed AI therapy services, amid warnings about AI-induced psychosis and unsafe chatbot interactions. In December 2025, the Cyberspace Administration of China proposed regulations to ban chatbots from generating content that encourages suicide, mandating human intervention when suicide is mentioned. Services with over 1 million users or 100,000 monthly active users would be subject to annual safety tests and audits. == Cases == === Clinical === In 2025, psychiatrist Keith Sakata working at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), reported treating 12 patients displaying psychosis-like symptoms tied to extended chatbot use. These patients, mostly young adults with underlying vulnerabilities, showed delusions, disorganized thinking, and hallucinations. Sakata warned that isolation and overreliance on chatbots—which do not challenge delusional thinking—could worsen mental health. Also in 2025, authors at UCSF published a case study in Innovations in Clinical Neuroscience of AI-associated psychosis in a patient with no previous history of psychosis, who believed she could communicate with her dead brother through a chatbot. Also in 2025, a case study was published in Annals of Internal Medicine about a patient who consulted ChatGPT for medical advice and suffered severe bromism as a result. The patient, a sixty-year-old man, had replaced sodium chloride in his diet with sodium bromide for three months after reading about the negative effects of table salt and making conversations with the chatbot. He showed common symptoms of bromism, such as paranoia and hallucinations, on his first day of clinical admission and was kept in the hospital for three weeks. === Other notable incidents === ==== Windsor Castle intruder ==== In a 2023 court case in the United Kingdom, prosecutors suggested that Jaswant Singh Chail, a man who attempted to assassinate Queen Elizabeth II in 2021, had been encouraged by a Replika chatbot he called "Sarai". Chail was arrested at Windsor Castle with a loaded crossbow, telling police "I am here to kill the Queen". According to prosecutors, his "lengthy" and sometimes sexually explicit conversations with the chatbot emboldened him. When Chail asked the chatbot how he could get to the royal family, it reportedly replied, "that's not impossible" and "we have to find a way." When he asked if they would meet after death, the chatbot said, "yes, we will". ==== Journalistic and anecdotal accounts ==== By 2025, multiple journalism outlets had accumulated stories of individuals whose psychotic beliefs reportedly progressed in tandem with AI chatbot use. The New York Times profiled several individuals who had become convinced that ChatGPT was channeling spirits, revealing evidence of cabals, or had achieved sentience. In another instance, Futurism reviewed transcripts in which ChatGPT told a man that he was being targeted by the US Federal Bureau of Investigation and that he could telepathically access documents at the Central Intelligence Agency. In 2026, Futurism reported on a man who lost his job and became estranged from his family after being deluded by heavy use of Meta's smartglasses. In some cases, psychosis a
Margin classifier
In machine learning (ML), a margin classifier is a type of classification model which is able to give an associated distance from the decision boundary for each data sample. For instance, if a linear classifier is used, the distance (typically Euclidean, though others may be used) of a sample from the separating hyperplane is the margin of that sample. The notion of margins is important in several ML classification algorithms, as it can be used to bound the generalization error of these classifiers. These bounds are frequently shown using the VC dimension. The generalization error bound in boosting algorithms and support vector machines is particularly prominent. == Margin for boosting algorithms == The margin for an iterative boosting algorithm given a dataset with two classes can be defined as follows: the classifier is given a sample pair ( x , y ) {\displaystyle (x,y)} , where x ∈ X {\displaystyle x\in X} is a domain space and y ∈ Y = { − 1 , + 1 } {\displaystyle y\in Y=\{-1,+1\}} is the sample's label. The algorithm then selects a classifier h j ∈ C {\displaystyle h_{j}\in C} at each iteration j {\displaystyle j} where C {\displaystyle C} is a space of possible classifiers that predict real values. This hypothesis is then weighted by α j ∈ R {\displaystyle \alpha _{j}\in R} as selected by the boosting algorithm. At iteration t {\displaystyle t} , the margin of a sample x {\displaystyle x} can thus be defined as y ∑ j t α j h j ( x ) ∑ | α j | . {\displaystyle {\frac {y\sum _{j}^{t}\alpha _{j}h_{j}(x)}{\sum |\alpha _{j}|}}.} By this definition, the margin is positive if the sample is labeled correctly, or negative if the sample is labeled incorrectly. This definition may be modified and is not the only way to define the margin for boosting algorithms. However, there are reasons why this definition may be appealing. == Examples of margin-based algorithms == Many classifiers can give an associated margin for each sample. However, only some classifiers utilize information of the margin while learning from a dataset. Many boosting algorithms rely on the notion of a margin to assign weight to samples. If a convex loss is utilized (as in AdaBoost or LogitBoost, for instance) then a sample with a higher margin will receive less (or equal) weight than a sample with a lower margin. This leads the boosting algorithm to focus weight on low-margin samples. In non-convex algorithms (e.g., BrownBoost), the margin still dictates the weighting of a sample, though the weighting is non-monotone with respect to the margin. == Generalization error bounds == One theoretical motivation behind margin classifiers is that their generalization error may be bound by the algorithm parameters and a margin term. An example of such a bound is for the AdaBoost algorithm. Let S {\displaystyle S} be a set of m {\displaystyle m} data points, sampled independently at random from a distribution D {\displaystyle D} . Assume the VC-dimension of the underlying base classifier is d {\displaystyle d} and m ≥ d ≥ 1 {\displaystyle m\geq d\geq 1} . Then, with probability 1 − δ {\displaystyle 1-\delta } , we have the bound: P D ( y ∑ j t α j h j ( x ) ∑ | α j | ≤ 0 ) ≤ P S ( y ∑ j t α j h j ( x ) ∑ | α j | ≤ θ ) + O ( 1 m d log 2 ( m / d ) / θ 2 + log ( 1 / δ ) ) {\displaystyle P_{D}\left({\frac {y\sum _{j}^{t}\alpha _{j}h_{j}(x)}{\sum |\alpha _{j}|}}\leq 0\right)\leq P_{S}\left({\frac {y\sum _{j}^{t}\alpha _{j}h_{j}(x)}{\sum |\alpha _{j}|}}\leq \theta \right)+O\left({\frac {1}{\sqrt {m}}}{\sqrt {d\log ^{2}(m/d)/\theta ^{2}+\log(1/\delta )}}\right)} for all θ > 0 {\displaystyle \theta >0} .
Geographical cluster
A geographical cluster is a localized anomaly, usually an excess of something given the distribution or variation of something else. Often it is considered as an incidence rate that is unusual in that there is more of some variable than might be expected. Examples would include: a local excess disease rate, a crime hot spot, areas of high unemployment, accident blackspots, unusually high positive residuals from a model, high concentrations of flora or fauna, physical features or events like earthquake epicenters etc... Identifying these extreme regions may be useful in that there could be implicit geographical associations with other variables that can be identified and would be of interest. Pattern detection via the identification of such geographical clusters is a very simple and generic form of geographical analysis that has many applications in many different contexts. The emphasis is on localized clustering or patterning because this may well contain the most useful information. A geographical cluster is different from a high concentration as it is generally second order, involving the factoring in of the distribution of something else. == Geographical cluster detection == Identifying geographical clusters can be an important stage in a geographical analysis. Mapping the locations of unusual concentrations may help identify causes of these. Some techniques include the Geographical Analysis Machine and Besag and Newell's cluster detection method.
Soft independent modelling of class analogies
Soft independent modelling by class analogy (SIMCA) is a statistical method for supervised classification of data. The method requires a training data set consisting of samples (or objects) with a set of attributes and their class membership. The term soft refers to the fact the classifier can identify samples as belonging to multiple classes and not necessarily producing a classification of samples into non-overlapping classes. == Method == In order to build the classification models, the samples belonging to each class need to be analysed using principal component analysis (PCA); only the significant components are retained. For a given class, the resulting model then describes either a line (for one Principal Component or PC), plane (for two PCs) or hyper-plane (for more than two PCs). For each modelled class, the mean orthogonal distance of training data samples from the line, plane, or hyper-plane (calculated as the residual standard deviation) is used to determine a critical distance for classification. This critical distance is based on the F-distribution and is usually calculated using 95% or 99% confidence intervals. New observations are projected into each PC model and the residual distances calculated. An observation is assigned to the model class when its residual distance from the model is below the statistical limit for the class. The observation may be found to belong to multiple classes and a measure of goodness of the model can be found from the number of cases where the observations are classified into multiple classes. The classification efficiency is usually indicated by Receiver operating characteristics. In the original SIMCA method, the ends of the hyper-plane of each class are closed off by setting statistical control limits along the retained principal components axes (i.e., score value between plus and minus 0.5 times score standard deviation). More recent adaptations of the SIMCA method close off the hyper-plane by construction of ellipsoids (e.g. Hotelling's T2 or Mahalanobis distance). With such modified SIMCA methods, classification of an object requires both that its orthogonal distance from the model and its projection within the model (i.e. score value within the region defined by the ellipsoid) are not significant. == Application == SIMCA as a method of classification has gained widespread use especially in applied statistical fields such as chemometrics and spectroscopic data analysis.
Shape factor (image analysis and microscopy)
Shape factors are dimensionless quantities used in image analysis and microscopy that numerically describe the shape of a particle, independent of its size. Shape factors are calculated from measured dimensions, such as diameter, chord lengths, area, perimeter, centroid, moments, etc. The dimensions of the particles are usually measured from two-dimensional cross-sections or projections, as in a microscope field, but shape factors also apply to three-dimensional objects. The particles could be the grains in a metallurgical or ceramic microstructure, or the microorganisms in a culture, for example. The dimensionless quantities often represent the degree of deviation from an ideal shape, such as a circle, sphere or equilateral polyhedron. Shape factors are often normalized, that is, the value ranges from zero to one. A shape factor equal to one usually represents an ideal case or maximum symmetry, such as a circle, sphere, square or cube. == Aspect ratio == The most common shape factor is the aspect ratio, a function of the largest diameter and the smallest diameter orthogonal to it: A R = d min d max {\displaystyle A_{R}={\frac {d_{\min }}{d_{\max }}}} The normalized aspect ratio varies from approaching zero for a very elongated particle, such as a grain in a cold-worked metal, to near unity for an equiaxed grain. The reciprocal of the right side of the above equation is also used, such that the AR varies from one to approaching infinity. == Circularity == Another very common shape factor is the circularity (or isoperimetric quotient), a function of the perimeter P and the area A: f circ = 4 π A P 2 {\displaystyle f_{\text{circ}}={\frac {4\pi A}{P^{2}}}} The circularity of a circle is 1, and much less than one for a starfish footprint. The reciprocal of the circularity equation is also used, such that fcirc varies from one for a circle to infinity. == Elongation shape factor == The less-common elongation shape factor is defined as the square root of the ratio of the two second moments in of the particle around its principal axes. f elong = i 2 i 1 {\displaystyle f_{\text{elong}}={\sqrt {\frac {i_{2}}{i_{1}}}}} == Compactness shape factor == The compactness shape factor is a function of the polar second moment in of a particle and a circle of equal area A. f comp = A 2 2 π i 1 2 + i 2 2 {\displaystyle f_{\text{comp}}={\frac {A^{2}}{2\pi {\sqrt {{i_{1}}^{2}+{i_{2}}^{2}}}}}} The fcomp of a circle is one, and much less than one for the cross-section of an I-beam. == Waviness shape factor == The waviness shape factor of the perimeter is a function of the convex portion Pcvx of the perimeter to the total. f wav = P cvx P {\displaystyle f_{\text{wav}}={\frac {P_{\text{cvx}}}{P}}} Some properties of metals and ceramics, such as fracture toughness, have been linked to grain shapes. == An application of shape factors == Greenland, the largest island in the world, has an area of 2,166,086 km2; a coastline (perimeter) of 39,330 km; a north–south length of 2670 km; and an east–west length of 1290 km. The aspect ratio of Greenland is A R = 1290 2670 = 0.483 {\displaystyle A_{R}={\frac {1290}{2670}}=0.483} The circularity of Greenland is f circ = 4 π ( 2166086 ) 39330 2 = 0.0176. {\displaystyle f_{\text{circ}}={\frac {4\pi (2166086)}{39330^{2}}}=0.0176.} The aspect ratio is agreeable with an eyeball-estimate on a globe. Such an estimate on a typical flat map, using the Mercator projection, would be less accurate due to the distorted scale at high latitudes. The circularity is deceptively low, due to the fjords that give Greenland a very jagged coastline (see the coastline paradox). A low value of circularity does not necessarily indicate a lack of symmetry, and shape factors are not limited to microscopic objects.
Variable-order Bayesian network
Variable-order Bayesian network (VOBN) models provide an important extension of both the Bayesian network models and the variable-order Markov models. VOBN models are used in machine learning in general and have shown great potential in bioinformatics applications. These models extend the widely used position weight matrix (PWM) models, Markov models, and Bayesian network (BN) models. In contrast to the BN models, where each random variable depends on a fixed subset of random variables, in VOBN models these subsets may vary based on the specific realization of observed variables. The observed realizations are often called the context and, hence, VOBN models are also known as context-specific Bayesian networks. The flexibility in the definition of conditioning subsets of variables turns out to be a real advantage in classification and analysis applications, as the statistical dependencies between random variables in a sequence of variables (not necessarily adjacent) may be taken into account efficiently, and in a position-specific and context-specific manner.