Invoicera is an online invoicing software. The software was created by a company with the same name that was founded in 2006, had 125 employees, and is based in India. It allows users to monitor, dispatch, and accept invoices in one web service. After signing up for the service, users are assigned a personal subdomain to set up their invoice configuration. It allows users to add clients' data to the service through uploading a Microsoft Excel file. Invoicera is compatible with businesses of varying sizes, including freelancers, small businesses, and large businesses. It is compatible with Basecamp, a project-management tool, so Invoicera can upload data from Basecamp. The software interfaces with more than 25 payment gateways. It supports subscriptions and repeated invoices and allows clients to schedule late fees when payments have not been made on time. Invoicera uses freemium model, letting users dispatch an unrestricted number of invoices to at most three customers. Chelsea Krause wrote in a 2019 review for Merchant Maverick, "Unfortunately, the software isn't as developed as it could be. Time tracking and reporting are limited and there are no live bank feeds — which is surprising for a company so focused on automation (especially since even many of the worst invoicing options out there still offer live bank feeds)." She further criticized Invoicera for having bad customer service and the software for not having recent changes. Brian Turner wrote in TechRadar that Invoicera had fewer templates compared to the other services he reviewed but "the ones offered are fully customizable". Rob Clymo wrote in TechRadar that "Invoicera lets you automate your invoicing and billing needs without too much in the way of hassle" and that although it "isn't a complete accounts solution ... it's a powerful supplement".
COVID-19 apps
COVID-19 apps include mobile-software applications for digital contact-tracing—i.e. the process of identifying persons ("contacts") who may have been in contact with an infected individual—deployed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Numerous tracing applications have been developed or proposed, with official government support in some territories and jurisdictions. Several frameworks for building contact-tracing apps have been developed. Privacy concerns have been raised, especially about systems that are based on tracking the geographical location of app users. Less overtly intrusive alternatives include the co-option of Bluetooth signals to log a user's proximity to other cellphones. (Bluetooth technology has form in tracking cell-phones' locations.)) On 10 April 2020, Google and Apple jointly announced that they would integrate functionality to support such Bluetooth-based apps directly into their Android and iOS operating systems. India's COVID-19 tracking app Aarogya Setu became the world's fastest growing application—beating Pokémon Go—with 50 million users in the first 13 days of its release. == Rationale == Contact tracing is an important tool in infectious disease control, but as the number of cases rises time constraints make it more challenging to effectively control transmission. Digital contact tracing, especially if widely deployed, may be more effective than traditional methods of contact tracing. In a March 2020 model by the University of Oxford Big Data Institute's Christophe Fraser's team, a coronavirus outbreak in a city of one million people is halted if 80% of all smartphone users take part in a tracking system; in the model, the elderly are still expected to self-isolate en masse, but individuals who are neither symptomatic nor elderly are exempt from isolation unless they receive an alert that they are at risk of carrying the disease. Some proponents advocate for legislation exempting certain COVID-19 apps from general privacy restrictions. == Issues == === Uptake === Ross Anderson, professor of security engineering at Cambridge University, listed a number of potential practical problems with app-based systems, including false positives and the potential lack of effectiveness if takeup of the app is limited to only a small fraction of the population. In Singapore, only one person in three had downloaded the TraceTogether app by the end of June 2020, despite legal requirements for most workers; the app was also underused, as it required users to keep it open at all times on iOS. A team at the University of Oxford simulated the effect of a contact tracing app on a city of 1 million. They estimated that if the app was used in conjunction with the shielding of over-70s, then 56% of the population would have to be using the app for it to suppress the virus. This would be equivalent to 80% of smartphone users in the United Kingdom. They found that the app could still slow the spread of the virus if fewer people downloaded it, with one infection being prevented for every one or two users. In August 2020, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) argued that there were disparities in smartphone use between demographics and minority groups, and that "even the most comprehensive, all-seeing contact tracing system is of little use without social and medical systems in place to help those who may have the virus — including access to medical care, testing, and support for those who are quarantined." === App store restrictions === Addressing concerns about the spread of misleading or harmful apps, Apple, Google and Amazon set limits on which types of organizations could add coronavirus-related apps to its App Store, limiting them to only "official" or otherwise reputable organizations. === Ethical principles of mass surveillance using COVID-19 contact tracing apps === The advent of COVID-19 contact tracing apps has led to concerns around privacy, the rights of app users, and governmental authority. The European Convention on Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the United Nations and the Siracusa Principles have outlined 4 principles to consider when looking at the ethical principles of mass surveillance with COVID-19 contact tracing apps. These are necessity, proportionality, scientific validity, and time boundedness. Necessity is defined as the idea that governments should only interfere with a person's rights when deemed essential for public health interests. The potential risks associated with infringements of personal privacy must be outweighed by the possibility of reducing significant harm to others. Potential benefits of contact-tracing apps that may be considered include allowing for blanket population-level quarantine measures to be lifted sooner and the minimization of people under quarantine. Hence, some contend that contact-tracing apps are justified as they may be less intrusive than blanket quarantine measures. Furthermore, the delay of an effective contact-tracing app with significant health and economic benefits may be considered unethical. Proportionality refers to the concept that a contact tracing app's potential negative impact on a person's rights should be justifiable by the severity of the health risks that are being addressed. Apps must use the most privacy-preserving options available to achieve their goals, and the selected option should not only be a logical option for achieving the goal but also an effective one. Scientific validity evaluates whether an app is effective, timely and accurate. Traditional manual contact-tracing procedures are not efficient enough for the COVID-19 pandemic, and do not consider asymptomatic transmission. Contact-tracing apps, on the other hand, can be effective COVID-19 contact-tracing tools that reduce R value to less than 1, leading to sustained epidemic suppression. However, for apps to be effective, there needs to be a minimum 56-60% uptake in the population. Apps should be continually modified to reflect current knowledge on the diseases being monitored. Some argue that contact-tracing apps should be considered societal experimental trials where results and adverse effects are evaluated according to the stringent guidelines of social experiments. Analyses should be conducted by independent research bodies and published for wide dissemination. Despite the current urgency of our pandemic situation, we should still adhere to the standard rigors of scientific evaluation. Time boundedness describe the need for establishing legal and technical sunset clauses so that they are only allowed to operate as long as necessary to address the pandemic situation. Apps should be withdrawn as soon as possible after the end of the pandemic. If the end of the pandemic cannot be predicted, the use of apps should be regularly reviewed and decisions about continued use should be made at each review. Collected data should only be retained by public health authorities for research purposes with clear stipulations on how long the data will be held for and who will be responsible for security, oversight, and ownership. === Privacy, discrimination and marginalisation concerns === The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has published a set of principles for technology-assisted contact tracing and Amnesty International and over 100 other organizations issued a statement calling for limits on this kind of surveillance. The organisations declared eight conditions on governmental projects: surveillance would have to be "lawful, necessary and proportionate"; extensions of monitoring and surveillance would have to have sunset clauses; the use of data would have to be limited to COVID-19 purposes; data security and anonymity would have to be protected and shown to be protected based on evidence; digital surveillance would have to address the risk of exacerbating discrimination and marginalisation; any sharing of data with third parties would have to be defined in law; there would have to be safeguards against abuse and the rights of citizens to respond to abuses; "meaningful participation" by all "relevant stakeholders" would be required, including that of public health experts and marginalised groups. The German Chaos Computer Club (CCC) and Reporters Without Borders also issued checklists. The Exposure Notification service intends to address the problem of persistent surveillance by removing the tracing mechanism from their device operating systems once it is no longer needed. On 20 April 2020, it was reported that over 300 academics had signed a statement favouring decentralised proximity tracing applications over centralised models, given the difficulty in precluding centralised options being used "to enable unwarranted discrimination and surveillance." In a centralised model, a central database records the ID codes of meetings between users. In a decentralised model, this information is recorded on individual phones, with the role of the central
Pattern theory
Pattern theory, formulated by Ulf Grenander, is a mathematical formalism to describe knowledge of the world as patterns. It differs from other approaches to artificial intelligence in that it does not begin by prescribing algorithms and machinery to recognize and classify patterns; rather, it prescribes a vocabulary to articulate and recast the pattern concepts in precise language. Broad in its mathematical coverage, Pattern Theory spans algebra and statistics, as well as local topological and global entropic properties. In addition to the new algebraic vocabulary, its statistical approach is novel in its aim to: Identify the hidden variables of a data set using real world data rather than artificial stimuli, which was previously commonplace. Formulate prior distributions for hidden variables and models for the observed variables that form the vertices of a Gibbs-like graph. Study the randomness and variability of these graphs. Create the basic classes of stochastic models applied by listing the deformations of the patterns. Synthesize (sample) from the models, not just analyze signals with them. The Brown University Pattern Theory Group was formed in 1972 by Ulf Grenander. Many mathematicians are currently working in this group, noteworthy among them being the Fields Medalist David Mumford. Mumford regards Grenander as his "guru" in Pattern Theory.
Automated medical scribe
Automated medical scribes (also called artificial intelligence scribes, AI scribes, digital scribes, virtual scribes, ambient AI scribes, AI documentation assistants, and digital/virtual/smart clinical assistants) are tools for transcribing medical speech, such as patient consultations and dictated medical notes. Many also produce summaries of consultations. Automated medical scribes based on large language models (LLMs, commonly called "AI", short for "artificial intelligence") increased drastically in popularity in 2024. There are privacy and antitrust concerns. Accuracy concerns also exist, and intensify in situations in which tools try to go beyond transcribing and summarizing, and are asked to format information by its meaning, since LLMs do not deal well with meaning (see weak artificial intelligence). Medics using these scribes are generally expected to understand the ethical and legal considerations, and supervise the outputs. The privacy protections of automated medical scribes vary widely. While it is possible to do all the transcription and summarizing locally, with no connection to the internet, most closed-source providers require that data be sent to their own servers over the internet, processed there, and the results sent back (as with digital voice assistants). Some retailers say their tools use zero-knowledge encryption (meaning that the service provider can't access the data). Others explicitly say that they use patient data to train their AIs, or rent or resell it to third parties; the nature of privacy protections used in such situations is unclear, and they are likely not to be fully effective. Most providers have not published any safety or utility data in academic journals, and are not responsive to requests from medical researchers studying their products. == Privacy == Some providers unclear about what happens to user data. Some may sell data to third parties. Some explicitly send user data to for-profit tech companies for secondary purposes, which may not be specified. Some require users to sign consents to such reuse of their data. Some ingest user data to train the software, promising to anonymize it; however, deanonymization may be possible (that is, it may become obvious who the patient is). It is intrinsically impossible to prevent an LLM from correlating its inputs; they work by finding similar patterns across very large data sets. Some information on the patient will be known from other sources (for instance, information that they were injured in an incident on a certain day might be available from the news media; information that they attended specific appointment locations at specific times is probably available to their cellphone provider/apps/data brokers; information about when they had a baby is probably implied by their online shopping records; and they might mention lifestyle changes to their doctor and on a forum or blog). The software may correlate such information with the "anonymized" clinical consultation record, and, asked about the named patient, provide information which they only told their doctor privately. Because a patient's record is all about the same patient, it is all unavoidably linked; in very many cases, medical histories are intrinsically identifiable. Depending on how common a condition and what other data is available, K-anonymity may be useless. Differential privacy could theoretically preserve privacy. Data broker companies like Google, Amazon, Apple and Microsoft have produced or bought up medical scribes, some of which use user data for secondary purposes, which has led to antitrust concerns. Transfer of patient records for AI training has, in the past, prompted legal action. Open-source programs typically do all the transcription locally, on the doctor's own computer. Open-source software is widely used in healthcare, with some national public healthcare bodies holding hack days. === Data resale and commercialization === Several AI medical scribe providers include terms in their service agreements that allow the reuse, sale, or commercialization of de-identified or user-submitted data. Although such data are generally described as anonymized or aggregated, these practices have raised ethical concerns among clinicians and privacy advocates regarding secondary uses of medical information beyond clinical documentation. Freed, an AI transcription and scribe platform, states in its Terms of Use that it may "collect, use, publish, disseminate, sell, transfer, and otherwise exploit" de-identified and aggregated data derived from user inputs. OpenEvidence similarly states that it may "collect, use, transfer, sell, and disclose non-personal information and customer usage data for any purpose including commercial uses." Doximity, which offers an AI-enabled medical scribe as part of its physician platform, grants itself a "nonexclusive, irrevocable, worldwide, perpetual, unlimited, assignable, sublicensable, royalty-free" license to "copy, prepare derivative works from, improve, distribute, publish, ... analyze, index, tag, [and] commercialize" content submitted by users, subject to its privacy policy. Because these terms allow broad secondary use—including sale, licensing, model-training, derivative works, and commercial exploitation of de-identified or user-submitted data—some commentators have recommended that clinicians review data-handling provisions carefully when adopting AI-scribe tools, particularly in clinical environments where patient privacy and regulatory compliance are critical. === Encryption === Multifactor authentication for access to the data is expected practice. Typically, Diffie–Hellman key exchange is used for encryption; this is the standard method commonly used for things like online banking. This encryption is expensive but not impossible to break; it is not generally considered safe against eavesdroppers with the resources of a nation-state. If content is encrypted between the client and the service provider's remote server (transport cryptography), then the server has an unencrypted copy. This is necessary if the data is used by the service provider (for instance, to train the software). Zero-knowledge encryption implies that the only unencrypted copy is at the client, and the server cannot decrypt the data any more easily than a monster-in-the-middle attacker. == Platforms == Scribes may operate on desktops, laptop, or mobile computers, under a variety of operating systems. These vary in their risks; for instance, mobiles can be lost. The underlying mobile or desktop operating systems are also part of the trusted computing base, and if they are not secure, the software relying on them cannot be secure either. Some AI medical scribe platforms are designed to operate as cloud-based applications that generate structured clinical documentation from clinician–patient conversations. These systems may offer features such as real-time transcription, document generation, and integration with electronic health record (EHR) systems. == Confabulation, omissions, and other errors == Like other LLMs, medical-scribe LLMs are prone to hallucinations, where they make up content based on statistically associations between their training data and the transcription audio. LLMs do not distinguish between trying to transcribe the audio and guessing what words will come next, but perform both processes mixed together. They are especially likely to take short silences or non-speech noises and invent some sort of speech to transcribe them as. LLM medical scribes have been known to confabulate racist and otherwise prejudiced content; this is partly because the training datasets of many LLMs contain pseudoscientific texts about medical racism. They may misgender patients. A survey found that most doctors preferred, in principle, that scribes be trained on data reviewed by medical subject experts. Relevant, accurate training data increases the probability of an accurate transcription, but does not guarantee accuracy. Software trained on thousands of real clinical conversations generated transcripts with lower word error rates. Software trained on manually-transcribed training data did better than software trained with automatically transcribed training data such as YouTube captions. Autoscribes omit parts of the conversation classes as irrelevant. The may wrongly classify pertinent information as irrelevant and omit it. They may also confuse historic and current symptoms, or otherwise misclassify information. They may also simply wrongly transcribe the speech, writing something incorrect instead. If clinicians do not carefully check the recording, such mistakes could make their way into their medical records and cause patient harms. == Patient consent == Professional organizations generally require that scribes be used only with patient consent; some bodies may require written consent. Medics must also abide by local surveillance laws, which may criminalize recording pri
Apprenticeship learning
In artificial intelligence, apprenticeship learning (or learning from demonstration or imitation learning) is the process of learning by observing an expert. It can be viewed as a form of supervised learning, where the training dataset consists of task executions by a demonstration teacher. == Mapping function approach == Mapping methods try to mimic the expert by forming a direct mapping either from states to actions, or from states to reward values. For example, in 2002 researchers used such an approach to teach an AIBO robot basic soccer skills. === Inverse reinforcement learning approach === Inverse reinforcement learning (IRL) is the process of deriving a reward function from observed behavior. While ordinary "reinforcement learning" involves using rewards and punishments to learn behavior, in IRL the direction is reversed, and a robot observes a person's behavior to figure out what goal that behavior seems to be trying to achieve. The IRL problem can be defined as: Given 1) measurements of an agent's behaviour over time, in a variety of circumstances; 2) measurements of the sensory inputs to that agent; 3) a model of the physical environment (including the agent's body): Determine the reward function that the agent is optimizing. IRL researcher Stuart J. Russell proposes that IRL might be used to observe humans and attempt to codify their complex "ethical values", in an effort to create "ethical robots" that might someday know "not to cook your cat" without needing to be explicitly told. The scenario can be modeled as a "cooperative inverse reinforcement learning game", where a "person" player and a "robot" player cooperate to secure the person's implicit goals, despite these goals not being explicitly known by either the person nor the robot. In 2017, OpenAI and DeepMind applied deep learning to the cooperative inverse reinforcement learning in simple domains such as Atari games and straightforward robot tasks such as backflips. The human role was limited to answering queries from the robot as to which of two different actions were preferred. The researchers found evidence that the techniques may be economically scalable to modern systems. Apprenticeship via inverse reinforcement learning (AIRP) was developed by in 2004 Pieter Abbeel, Professor in Berkeley's EECS department, and Andrew Ng, Associate Professor in Stanford University's Computer Science Department. AIRP deals with "Markov decision process where we are not explicitly given a reward function, but where instead we can observe an expert demonstrating the task that we want to learn to perform". AIRP has been used to model reward functions of highly dynamic scenarios where there is no obvious reward function intuitively. Take the task of driving for example, there are many different objectives working simultaneously - such as maintaining safe following distance, a good speed, not changing lanes too often, etc. This task, may seem easy at first glance, but a trivial reward function may not converge to the policy wanted. One domain where AIRP has been used extensively is helicopter control. While simple trajectories can be intuitively derived, complicated tasks like aerobatics for shows has been successful. These include aerobatic maneuvers like - in-place flips, in-place rolls, loops, hurricanes and even auto-rotation landings. This work was developed by Pieter Abbeel, Adam Coates, and Andrew Ng - "Autonomous Helicopter Aerobatics through Apprenticeship Learning" === System model approach === System models try to mimic the expert by modeling world dynamics. == Plan approach == The system learns rules to associate preconditions and postconditions with each action. In one 1994 demonstration, a humanoid learns a generalized plan from only two demonstrations of a repetitive ball collection task. == Example == Learning from demonstration is often explained from a perspective that the working Robot-control-system is available and the human-demonstrator is using it. And indeed, if the software works, the Human operator takes the robot-arm, makes a move with it, and the robot will reproduce the action later. For example, he teaches the robot-arm how to put a cup under a coffeemaker and press the start-button. In the replay phase, the robot is imitating this behavior 1:1. But that is not how the system works internally; it is only what the audience can observe. In reality, Learning from demonstration is much more complex. One of the first works on learning by robot apprentices (anthropomorphic robots learning by imitation) was Adrian Stoica's PhD thesis in 1995. In 1997, robotics expert Stefan Schaal was working on the Sarcos robot-arm. The goal was simple: solve the pendulum swingup task. The robot itself can execute a movement, and as a result, the pendulum is moving. The problem is, that it is unclear what actions will result into which movement. It is an Optimal control-problem which can be described with mathematical formulas but is hard to solve. The idea from Schaal was, not to use a Brute-force solver but record the movements of a human-demonstration. The angle of the pendulum is logged over three seconds at the y-axis. This results into a diagram which produces a pattern. In computer animation, the principle is called spline animation. That means, on the x-axis the time is given, for example 0.5 seconds, 1.0 seconds, 1.5 seconds, while on the y-axis is the variable given. In most cases it's the position of an object. In the inverted pendulum it is the angle. The overall task consists of two parts: recording the angle over time and reproducing the recorded motion. The reproducing step is surprisingly simple. As an input we know, in which time step which angle the pendulum must have. Bringing the system to a state is called “Tracking control” or PID control. That means, we have a trajectory over time, and must find control actions to map the system to this trajectory. Other authors call the principle “steering behavior”, because the aim is to bring a robot to a given line.
Confusion matrix
In machine learning, a confusion matrix, also known as error matrix, is a specific table layout that allows visualization of the performance of an algorithm, typically a supervised learning one. In unsupervised learning it is usually called a matching matrix. The term is used specifically in the problem of statistical classification. Each row of the matrix represents the instances in an actual class while each column represents the instances in a predicted class, or vice versa – both variants are found in the literature. The diagonal of the matrix therefore represents all instances that are correctly predicted. The name stems from the fact that it makes it easy to identify whether the system is confusing two classes (i.e., commonly mislabeling one class as another). The confusion matrix has its origins in human perceptual studies of auditory stimuli. It was adapted for machine learning studies and used by Frank Rosenblatt, among other early researchers, to compare human and machine classifications of visual (and later auditory) stimuli. It is a special kind of contingency table, with two dimensions ("actual" and "predicted"), and identical sets of "classes" in both dimensions (each combination of dimension and class is a variable in the contingency table). == Example == Given a sample of 12 individuals, 8 that have been diagnosed with cancer and 4 that are cancer-free, where individuals with cancer belong to class 1 (positive) and non-cancer individuals belong to class 0 (negative), we can display that data as follows: Assume that we have a classifier that distinguishes between individuals with and without cancer in some way, we can take the 12 individuals and run them through the classifier. The classifier then makes 9 accurate predictions and misses 3: 2 individuals with cancer wrongly predicted as being cancer-free (sample 1 and 2), and 1 person without cancer that is wrongly predicted to have cancer (sample 9). Notice, that if we compare the actual classification set to the predicted classification set, there are 4 different outcomes that could result in any particular column: The actual classification is positive and the predicted classification is positive (1,1). This is called a true positive result because the positive sample was correctly identified by the classifier. The actual classification is positive and the predicted classification is negative (1,0). This is called a false negative result because the positive sample is incorrectly identified by the classifier as being negative. The actual classification is negative and the predicted classification is positive (0,1). This is called a false positive result because the negative sample is incorrectly identified by the classifier as being positive. The actual classification is negative and the predicted classification is negative (0,0). This is called a true negative result because the negative sample gets correctly identified by the classifier. We can then perform the comparison between actual and predicted classifications and add this information to the table, making correct results appear in green so they are more easily identifiable. The template for any binary confusion matrix uses the four kinds of results discussed above (true positives, false negatives, false positives, and true negatives) along with the positive and negative classifications. The four outcomes can be formulated in a 2×2 confusion matrix, as follows: The color convention of the three data tables above were picked to match this confusion matrix, in order to easily differentiate the data. Now, we can simply total up each type of result, substitute into the template, and create a confusion matrix that will concisely summarize the results of testing the classifier: In this confusion matrix, of the 8 samples with cancer, the system judged that 2 were cancer-free, and of the 4 samples without cancer, it predicted that 1 did have cancer. All correct predictions are located in the diagonal of the table (highlighted in green), so it is easy to visually inspect the table for prediction errors, as values outside the diagonal will represent them. By summing up the 2 rows of the confusion matrix, one can also deduce the total number of positive (P) and negative (N) samples in the original dataset, i.e. P = T P + F N {\displaystyle P=TP+FN} and N = F P + T N {\displaystyle N=FP+TN} . == Table of confusion == In predictive analytics, a table of confusion (sometimes also called a confusion matrix) is a table with two rows and two columns that reports the number of true positives, false negatives, false positives, and true negatives. This allows more detailed analysis than simply observing the proportion of correct classifications (accuracy). Accuracy will yield misleading results if the data set is unbalanced; that is, when the numbers of observations in different classes vary greatly. For example, if there were 95 cancer samples and only 5 non-cancer samples in the data, a particular classifier might classify all the observations as having cancer. The overall accuracy would be 95%, but in more detail the classifier would have a 100% recognition rate (sensitivity) for the cancer class but a 0% recognition rate for the non-cancer class. F1 score is even more unreliable in such cases, and here would yield over 97.4%, whereas informedness removes such bias and yields 0 as the probability of an informed decision for any form of guessing (here always guessing cancer). According to Davide Chicco and Giuseppe Jurman, the most informative metric to evaluate a confusion matrix is the Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC). Other metrics can be included in a confusion matrix, each of them having their significance and use. Some researchers have argued that the confusion matrix, and the metrics derived from it, do not truly reflect a model's knowledge. In particular, the confusion matrix cannot show whether correct predictions were reached through sound reasoning or merely by chance (a problem known in philosophy as epistemic luck). It also does not capture situations where the facts used to make a prediction later change or turn out to be wrong (defeasibility). This means that while the confusion matrix is a useful tool for measuring classification performance, it may give an incomplete picture of a model’s true reliability. == Confusion matrices with more than two categories == Confusion matrix is not limited to binary classification and can be used in multi-class classifiers as well. The confusion matrices discussed above have only two conditions: positive and negative. For example, the table below summarizes communication of a whistled language between two speakers, with zero values omitted for clarity. == Confusion matrices in multi-label and soft-label classification == Confusion matrices are not limited to single-label classification (where only one class is present) or hard-label settings (where classes are either fully present, 1, or absent, 0). They can also be extended to Multi-label classification (where multiple classes can be predicted at once) and soft-label classification (where classes can be partially present). One such extension is the Transport-based Confusion Matrix (TCM), which builds on the theory of optimal transport and the principle of maximum entropy. TCM applies to single-label, multi-label, and soft-label settings. It retains the familiar structure of the standard confusion matrix: a square matrix sized by the number of classes, with diagonal entries indicating correct predictions and off-diagonal entries indicating confusion. In the single-label case, TCM is identical to the standard confusion matrix. TCM follows the same reasoning as the standard confusion matrix: if class A is overestimated (its predicted value is greater than its label value) and class B is underestimated (its predicted value is less than its label value), A is considered confused with B, and the entry (B, A) is increased. If a class is both predicted and present, it is correctly identified, and the diagonal entry (A, A) increases. Optimal transport and maximum entropy are used to determine the extent to which these entries are updated. TCM enables clearer comparison between predictions and labels in complex classification tasks, while maintaining a consistent matrix format across settings.
Computational intelligence
In computer science, computational intelligence (CI) refers to concepts, paradigms, algorithms and implementations of systems that are designed to show "intelligent" behavior in complex and changing environments. These systems are aimed at mastering complex tasks in a wide variety of technical or commercial areas and offer solutions that recognize and interpret patterns, control processes, support decision-making or autonomously manoeuvre vehicles or robots in unknown environments, among other things. These concepts and paradigms are characterized by the ability to learn or adapt to new situations, to generalize, to abstract, to discover and associate. Nature-analog or nature-inspired methods play a key role in this. CI approaches primarily address those complex real-world problems for which traditional or mathematical modeling is not appropriate for various reasons: the processes cannot be described exactly with complete knowledge, the processes are too complex for mathematical reasoning, they contain some uncertainties during the process, such as unforeseen changes in the environment or in the process itself, or the processes are simply stochastic in nature. Thus, CI techniques are properly aimed at processes that are ill-defined, complex, nonlinear, time-varying and/or stochastic. A recent definition of the IEEE Computational Intelligence Societey describes CI as the theory, design, application and development of biologically and linguistically motivated computational paradigms. Traditionally the three main pillars of CI have been Neural Networks, Fuzzy Systems and Evolutionary Computation. ... CI is an evolving field and at present in addition to the three main constituents, it encompasses computing paradigms like ambient intelligence, artificial life, cultural learning, artificial endocrine networks, social reasoning, and artificial hormone networks. ... Over the last few years there has been an explosion of research on Deep Learning, in particular deep convolutional neural networks. Nowadays, deep learning has become the core method for artificial intelligence. In fact, some of the most successful AI systems are based on CI. However, as CI is an emerging and developing field there is no final definition of CI, especially in terms of the list of concepts and paradigms that belong to it. The general requirements for the development of an “intelligent system” are ultimately always the same, namely the simulation of intelligent thinking and action in a specific area of application. To do this, the knowledge about this area must be represented in a model so that it can be processed. The quality of the resulting system depends largely on how well the model was chosen in the development process. Sometimes data-driven methods are suitable for finding a good model and sometimes logic-based knowledge representations deliver better results. Hybrid models are usually used in real applications. According to actual textbooks, the following methods and paradigms, which largely complement each other, can be regarded as parts of CI: Fuzzy systems Neural networks and, in particular, convolutional neural networks Evolutionary computation and, in particular, multi-objective evolutionary optimization Swarm intelligence Bayesian networks Artificial immune systems Learning theory Probabilistic methods == Relationship between hard and soft computing and artificial and computational intelligence == Artificial intelligence (AI) is used in the media, but also by some of the scientists involved, as a kind of umbrella term for the various techniques associated with it or with CI. Craenen and Eiben state that attempts to define or at least describe CI can usually be assigned to one or more of the following groups: "Relative definition” comparing CI to AI Conceptual treatment of key notions and their roles in CI Listing of the (established) areas that belong to it The relationship between CI and AI has been a frequently discussed topic during the development of CI. While the above list implies that they are synonyms, the vast majority of AI/CI researchers working on the subject consider them to be distinct fields, where either CI is an alternative to AI AI includes CI CI includes AI The view of the first of the above three points goes back to Zadeh, the founder of the fuzzy set theory, who differentiated machine intelligence into hard and soft computing techniques, which are used in artificial intelligence on the one hand and computational intelligence on the other. In hard computing (HC) and traditional AI (e.g. expert systems), inaccuracy and uncertainty are undesirable characteristics of a system, while soft computing (SC) and thus CI focus on dealing with these characteristics. The adjacent figure illustrates this view and lists the most important CI techniques. Another frequently mentioned distinguishing feature is the representation of information in symbolic form in AI and in sub-symbolic form in CI techniques. Hard computing is a conventional computing method based on the principles of certainty and accuracy and it is deterministic. It requires a precisely stated analytical model of the task to be processed and a prewritten program, i.e. a fixed set of instructions. The models used are based on Boolean logic (also called crisp logic), where e.g. an element can be either a member of a set or not and there is nothing in between. When applied to real-world tasks, systems based on HC result in specific control actions defined by a mathematical model or algorithm. If an unforeseen situation occurs that is not included in the model or algorithm used, the action will most likely fail. Soft computing, on the other hand, is based on the fact that the human mind is capable of storing information and processing it in a goal-oriented way, even if it is imprecise and lacks certainty. SC is based on the model of the human brain with probabilistic thinking, fuzzy logic and multi-valued logic. Soft computing can process a wealth of data and perform a large number of computations, which may not be exact, in parallel. For hard problems for which no satisfying exact solutions based on HC are available, SC methods can be applied successfully. SC methods are usually stochastic in nature i.e., they are a randomly defined processes that can be analyzed statistically but not with precision. Up to now, the results of some CI methods, such as deep learning, cannot be verified and it is also not clear what they are based on. This problem represents an important scientific issue for the future. AI and CI are catchy terms, but they are also so similar that they can be confused. The meaning of both terms has developed and changed over a long period of time, with AI being used first. Bezdek describes this impressively and concludes that such buzzwords are frequently used and hyped by the scientific community, science management and (science) journalism. Not least because AI and biological intelligence are emotionally charged terms and it is still difficult to find a generally accepted definition for the basic term intelligence. == History == In 1950, Alan Turing, one of the founding fathers of computer science, developed a test for computer intelligence known as the Turing test. In this test, a person can ask questions via a keyboard and a monitor without knowing whether his counterpart is a human or a computer. A computer is considered intelligent if the interrogator cannot distinguish the computer from a human. This illustrates the discussion about intelligent computers at the beginning of the computer age. The term Computational Intelligence was first used as the title of the journal of the same name in 1985 and later by the IEEE Neural Networks Council (NNC), which was founded 1989 by a group of researchers interested in the development of biological and artificial neural networks. On November 21, 2001, the NNC became the IEEE Neural Networks Society, to become the IEEE Computational Intelligence Society two years later by including new areas of interest such as fuzzy systems and evolutionary computation. The NNC helped organize the first IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence in Orlando, Florida in 1994. On this conference the first clear definition of Computational Intelligence was introduced by Bezdek: A system is computationally intelligent when it: deals with only numerical (low-level) data, has pattern-recognition components, does not use knowledge in the AI sense; and additionally when it (begins to) exhibit (1) computational adaptivity; (2) computational fault tolerance; (3) speed approaching human-like turnaround and (4) error rates that approximate human performance. Today, with machine learning and deep learning in particular utilizing a breadth of supervised, unsupervised, and reinforcement learning approaches, the CI landscape has been greatly enhanced, with novell intelligent approaches. == The main algorithmic approaches of CI and their applicati