Pandemonium architecture is a theory in cognitive science that describes how visual images are processed by the brain. It has applications in artificial intelligence and pattern recognition. The theory was introduced by the artificial intelligence pioneer Oliver Selfridge in his 1959 paper "Pandemonium - A Paradigm for Learning". It describes the process of object recognition as the exchange of signals within a hierarchical system of detection and association, the elements of which Selfridge metaphorically termed "demons". This model is now recognized as the basis of visual perception in cognitive science. Pandemonium architecture arose in response to the inability of template matching theories to offer a biologically plausible explanation of the image constancy phenomenon. Contemporary researchers praise this architecture for its elegancy and creativity; that the idea of having multiple independent systems (e.g., feature detectors) working in parallel to address the image constancy phenomena of pattern recognition is powerful yet simple. The basic idea of the pandemonium architecture is that a pattern is first perceived in its parts before the "whole". Pandemonium architecture was one of the first computational models in pattern recognition. Although not perfect, the pandemonium architecture influenced the development of modern connectionist, artificial intelligence, and word recognition models. == History == Most research in perception has been focused on the visual system, investigating the mechanisms of how we see and understand objects. A critical function of our visual system is its ability to recognize patterns, but the mechanism by which this is achieved is unclear. The earliest theory that attempted to explain how we recognize patterns is the template matching model. According to this model, we compare all external stimuli against an internal mental representation. If there is "sufficient" overlap between the perceived stimulus and the internal representation, we will "recognize" the stimulus. Although some machines follow a template matching model (e.g., bank machines verifying signatures and accounting numbers), the theory is critically flawed in explaining the phenomena of image constancy: we can easily recognize a stimulus regardless of the changes in its form of presentation (e.g., T and T are both easily recognized as the letter T). It is highly unlikely that we have a stored template for all of the variations of every single pattern. As a result of the biological plausibility criticism of the template matching model, feature detection models began to rise. In a feature detection model, the image is first perceived in its basic individual elements before it is recognized as a whole object. For example, when we are presented with the letter A, we would first see a short horizontal line and two slanted long diagonal lines. Then we would combine the features to complete the perception of A. Each unique pattern consists of different combination of features, which means those that are formed with the same features will generate the same recognition. That is, regardless of how we rotate the letter A, is still perceived as the letter A. It is easy for this sort of architecture to account for the image constancy phenomena because you only need to "match" at the basic featural level, which is presumed to be limited and finite, thus biologically plausible. The best known feature detection model is called the pandemonium architecture. == Pandemonium architecture == The pandemonium architecture was originally developed by Oliver Selfridge in the late 1950s. The architecture is composed of different groups of "demons" working independently to process the visual stimulus. Each group of demons is assigned to a specific stage in recognition, and within each group, the demons work in parallel. There are four major groups of demons in the original architecture. The concept of feature demons, that there are specific neurons dedicated to perform specialized processing is supported by research in neuroscience. Hubel and Wiesel found there were specific cells in a cat's brain that responded to specific lengths and orientations of a line. Similar findings were discovered in frogs, octopuses and a variety of other animals. Octopuses were discovered to be only sensitive to verticality of lines, whereas frogs demonstrated a wider range of sensitivity. These animal experiments demonstrate that feature detectors seem to be a very primitive development. That is, it did not result from the higher cognitive development of humans. Not surprisingly, there is also evidence that the human brain possesses these elementary feature detectors as well. Moreover, this architecture is capable of learning, similar to a back-propagation styled neural network. The weight between the cognitive and feature demons can be adjusted in proportion to the difference between the correct pattern and the activation from the cognitive demons. To continue with our previous example, when we first learned the letter R, we know is composed of a curved, long straight, and a short angled line. Thus when we perceive those features, we perceive R. However, the letter P consists of very similar features, so during the beginning stages of learning, it is likely for this architecture to mistakenly identify R as P. But through constant exposure of confirming R's features to be identified as R, the weights of R's features to P are adjusted so the P response becomes inhibited (e.g., learning to inhibit the P response when a short angled line is detected). In principle, a pandemonium architecture can recognize any pattern. As mentioned earlier, this architecture makes error predictions based on the amount of overlapping features. Such as, the most likely error for R should be P. Thus, in order to show this architecture represents the human pattern recognition system we must put these predictions into test. Researchers have constructed scenarios where various letters are presented in situations that make them difficult to identify; then types of errors were observed, which was used to generate confusion matrices: where all of the errors for each letter are recorded. Generally, the results from these experiments matched the error predictions from the pandemonium architecture. Also as a result of these experiments, some researchers have proposed models that attempted to list all of the basic features in the Roman alphabet. == Criticism == A major criticism of the pandemonium architecture is that it adopts a completely bottom-up processing: recognition is entirely driven by the physical characteristics of the targeted stimulus. This means that it is unable to account for any top-down processing effects, such as context effects (e.g., pareidolia), where contextual cues can facilitate (e.g., word superiority effect: it is relatively easier to identify a letter when it is part of a word than in isolation) processing. However, this is not a fatal criticism to the overall architecture, because is relatively easy to add a group of contextual demons to work along with the cognitive demons to account for these context effects. Although the pandemonium architecture is built on the fact that it can account for the image constancy phenomena, some researchers have argued otherwise; and pointed out that the pandemonium architecture might share the same flaws from the template matching models. For example, the letter H is composed of 2 long vertical lines and a short horizontal line; but if we rotate the H 90 degrees in either direction, it is now composed of 2 long horizontal lines and a short vertical line. In order to recognize the rotated H as H, we would need a rotated H cognitive demon. Thus we might end up with a system that requires a large number of cognitive demons in order to produce accurate recognition, which would lead to the same biological plausibility criticism of the template matching models. However, it is rather difficult to judge the validity of this criticism because the pandemonium architecture does not specify how and what features are extracted from incoming sensory information, it simply outlines the possible stages of pattern recognition. But of course that raises its own questions, to which it is almost impossible to criticize such a model if it does not include specific parameters. Also, the theory appears to be rather incomplete without defining how and what features are extracted, which proves to be especially problematic with complex patterns (e.g., extracting the weight and features of a dog). Some researchers have also pointed out that the evidence supporting the pandemonium architecture has been very narrow in its methodology. Majority of the research that supports this architecture has often referred to its ability to recognize simple schematic drawings that are selected from a small finite set (e.g., letters in the Roman alphabet). Evidence from these types of exper
Creately
Creately is a SaaS visual collaboration tool with diagramming and design capabilities designed by Cinergix. The application is mostly known for creating flowcharts, organization charts, project charts, UML diagrams, mind maps, and other business visuals. == History == The initial beta version of Creately was released by Chandika Jayasundara. Hiraash Thawfeek, Nick Foster and Charanjit Singh joined the project in the same year. Chandika Jayasundara is CEO of Cinergix. The headquarters of the company is located at Mentone, Victoria, Australia. == Features and reception == Creately provides predefined templates and diagram elements for incorporating in the projects. It provides drag and drop feature with which both predefined and custom made shapes can be included to build the desired diagram while the same workspace can be shared with multiple persons for collaboration. Some experts have reviewed the application by commenting on its lacking in accessible integration options as its downside. The company claims Creately to have integration feature with Slack, Confluence while not having the integration with Zapier and OneDrive yet. It is compatible with Google Drive and Dropbox. The software is available as both freemium and paid option.
AI Sales Assistants Reviews: What Actually Works in 2026
Curious about the best AI sales assistant? An AI sales assistant is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it combines speed, accuracy, and an interface that just works. Hands-on testing shows real-world results vary, so a short free trial is the smartest way to decide. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI sales assistant slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. This guide breaks down the top picks, their pros and cons, and who each one is best for.
Xuedong Huang
Xuedong David Huang (born October 20, 1962) is a Chinese-American computer scientist and technology executive who has made contributions to spoken language processing and artificial intelligence, including Azure AI Services. He is Zoom's chief technology officer after serving as Microsoft's Technical Fellow and Azure AI Chief Technology Officer for 30 years. Huang is a strong advocate of AI for Accessibility, and AI for Cultural Heritage. == Education == Huang received his PhD from the University of Edinburgh in 1989 (sponsored by the British ORS and Edinburgh University Scholarship), his MS from Tsinghua University in 1984, and BS from Hunan University in 1982. == Career == After receiving his PhD in 1989, Huang joined Carnegie Mellon University and worked with Raj Reddy and Kai-Fu Lee on speech recognition. At CMU, he directed the Sphinx-II speech system research which achieved the best performance in every category of DARPA's 1992 benchmarking. Microsoft Research recruited him to found and lead Microsoft's spoken language initiatives in 1993. His co-authored book Spoken Language Processing and his Historical speech recognition review succinctly summarize several generations of spoken language research. As Microsoft's Mr. Speech for three decades, Huang has been instrumental in creating Microsoft's Speech Application Programming Interface (SAPI), shipping Microsoft Speech Server, and modernizing spoken language and integrative AI services via Azure AI, which not only enables millions of 3rd party customers but also powers up Microsoft's Windows, Office, Teams, and Azure OpenAI Services. Huang helped Microsoft and Azure Cognitive Services achieve multiple industry's first human parity milestones on the following open research tasks: transcribing conversational speech, machine translation, conversational QnA, and computer vision image captioning. Huang has made significant contributions to the software and AI industry through his executive leadership and his scientific publications, owning more than 170 US patents and impacting billions through Azure AI enabled products and services. In 2016, Wired magazine named him one of 25 Geniuses. In 2021, Azure AI was named the winner of InfoWorld's Technology of the Year Award. Huang was awarded the Allen Newell research excellence medal in 1992, and IEEE Speech Processing Best Paper in 1993. He was recognized as an IEEE Fellow by Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers in 2000, named ACM Fellow by Association for Computing Machinery in 2017, and a member of Washington State Academy of Sciences. Huang received 2022 Asian American Corporate Leadership Award, and IEEE Amar Bose Industrial Leader Award. In 2023, he was elected a member of the US National Academy of Engineering (NAE), and a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.
Eric Brill
Eric Brill is a computer scientist specializing in natural language processing. He created the Brill tagger, a supervised part of speech tagger. Another research paper of Brill introduced a machine learning technique now known as transformation-based learning. == Biography == Brill earned a BA in mathematics from the University of Chicago in 1987 and a MS in Computer Science from UT Austin in 1989. In 1994, he completed his PhD at the University of Pennsylvania. He was an assistant professor at Johns Hopkins University from 1994 to 1999. In 1999, he left JHU for Microsoft Research, he developed a system called "Ask MSR" that answered search engine queries written as questions in English, and was quoted in 2004 as predicting the shift of Google's web-page based search to information based search. In 2009 he moved to eBay to head their research laboratories.
Nouvelle AI
Nouvelle artificial intelligence (Nouvelle AI) is an approach to artificial intelligence pioneered in the 1980s by Rodney Brooks, who was then part of MIT artificial intelligence laboratory. Nouvelle AI differs from classical AI by aiming to produce robots with intelligence levels similar to insects. Researchers believe that intelligence can emerge organically from simple behaviors as these intelligences interacted with the "real world", instead of using the constructed worlds which symbolic AIs typically needed to have programmed into them. == Motivation == The differences between nouvelle AI and symbolic AI are apparent in early robots Shakey and Freddy. These robots contained an internal model (or "representation") of their micro-worlds consisting of symbolic descriptions. As a result, this structure of symbols had to be renewed as the robot moved or the world changed. Shakey's planning programs assessed the program structure and broke it down into the necessary steps to complete the desired action. This level of computation required a large amount time to process, so Shakey typically performed its tasks very slowly. Symbolic AI researchers had long been plagued by the problem of updating, searching, and otherwise manipulating the symbolic worlds inside their AIs. A nouvelle system refers continuously to its sensors rather than to an internal model of the world. It processes the external world information it needs from the senses when it is required. As Brooks puts it, "the world is its own best model--always exactly up to date and complete in every detail." A central idea of nouvelle AI is that simple behaviors combine to form more complex behaviors over time. For example, simple behaviors can include elements like "move forward" and "avoid obstacles." A robot using nouvelle AI with simple behaviors like collision avoidance and moving toward a moving object could possibly come together to produce a more complex behavior like chasing a moving object. === The frame problem === The frame problem describes an issue with using first-order logic (FOL) to express facts about a robot in the world. Representing the state of a robot with traditional FOL requires the use of many axioms (symbolic language) to imply that things about an environment do not change arbitrarily. Nouvelle AI seeks to sidestep the frame problem by dispensing with filling the AI or robot with volumes of symbolic language and instead letting more complex behaviors emerge by combining simpler behavioral elements. === Embodiment === The goal of traditional AI was to build intelligences without bodies, which would only have been able to interact with the world via keyboard, screen, or printer. However, nouvelle AI attempts to build embodied intelligence situated in the real world. Brooks quotes approvingly from the brief sketches that Turing gave in 1948 and 1950 of the "situated" approach. Turing wrote of equipping a machine "with the best sense organs that money can buy" and teaching it "to understand and speak English" by a process that would "follow the normal teaching of a child." This approach was contrasted to the others where they focused on abstract activities such as playing chess. == Brooks' robots == === Insectoid robots === Brooks focused on building robots that acted like simple insects while simultaneously working to remove some traditional AI characteristics. He created insect-like robots, named Allen and Herbert after cognitive science and AI pioneers Allen Newell and Herbert A. Simon. Brooks's insectoid robots contained no internal models of the world. Herbert, for example, discarded a high volume of the information received from its sensors and never stored information for more than two seconds. ==== Allen ==== Allen had a ring of twelve ultrasonic sonars as its primary sensors and three independent behavior-producing modules. These modules were programmed to avoid both stationary and moving objects. With only this module activated, Allen stayed in the middle of a room until an object approached and then it ran away while avoiding obstacles in its way. ==== Herbert ==== Herbert used infrared sensors to avoid obstacles and a laser system to collect 3D data over a distance of about 12 feet. Herbert also carried a number of simple sensors in its "hand." The robot's testing ground was the real world environment of the busy offices and workspaces of the MIT AI lab where it searched for empty soda cans and carried them away, a seemingly goal-oriented activity that emerged as a result of 15 simple behavior units combining. As a parallel, Simon noted that an ant's complicated path is due to the structure of its environment rather than the depth of its thought processes. ==== Other insectoid robots ==== Other robots by Brooks' team were Genghis and Squirt. Genghis had six legs and was able to walk over rough terrain and follow a human. Squirt's behavior modules had it stay in dark corners until it heard a noise, then it would begin to follow the source of the noise. Brooks agreed that the level of nouvelle AI had come near the complexity of a real insect, which raised a question about whether or not insect level-behavior was and is a reasonable goal for nouvelle AI. === Humanoid robots === Brooks' own recent work has taken the opposite direction to that proposed by Von Neumann in the quotations "theorists who select the human nervous system as their model are unrealistically picking 'the most complicated object under the sun,' and that there is little advantage in selecting instead the ant, since any nervous system at all exhibits exceptional complexity." ==== Cog ==== In the 1990s, Brooks decided to pursue the goal of human-level intelligence and, with Lynn Andrea Stein, built a humanoid robot called Cog. Cog is a robot with an extensive collection of sensors, a face, and arms (among other features) that allow it to interact with the world and gather information and experience so as to assemble intelligence organically in the manner described above by Turing. The team believed that Cog would be able to learn and able to find a correlation between the sensory information it received and its actions, and to learn common sense knowledge on its own. As of 2003, all development of the project had ceased.
MRF optimization via dual decomposition
In dual decomposition a problem is broken into smaller subproblems and a solution to the relaxed problem is found. This method can be employed for MRF optimization. Dual decomposition is applied to markov logic programs as an inference technique. == Background == Discrete MRF Optimization (inference) is very important in Machine Learning and Computer vision, which is realized on CUDA graphical processing units. Consider a graph G = ( V , E ) {\displaystyle G=(V,E)} with nodes V {\displaystyle V} and Edges E {\displaystyle E} . The goal is to assign a label l p {\displaystyle l_{p}} to each p ∈ V {\displaystyle p\in V} so that the MRF Energy is minimized: (1) min Σ p ∈ V θ p ( l p ) + Σ p q ∈ ε θ p q ( l p ) ( l q ) {\displaystyle \min \Sigma _{p\in V}\theta _{p}(l_{p})+\Sigma _{pq\in \varepsilon }\theta _{pq}(l_{p})(l_{q})} Major MRF Optimization methods are based on Graph cuts or Message passing. They rely on the following integer linear programming formulation (2) min x E ( θ , x ) = θ . x = ∑ p ∈ V θ p . x p + ∑ p q ∈ ε θ p q . x p q {\displaystyle \min _{x}E(\theta ,x)=\theta .x=\sum _{p\in V}\theta _{p}.x_{p}+\sum _{pq\in \varepsilon }\theta _{pq}.x_{pq}} In many applications, the MRF-variables are {0,1}-variables that satisfy: x p ( l ) = 1 {\displaystyle x_{p}(l)=1} ⇔ {\displaystyle \Leftrightarrow } label l {\displaystyle l} is assigned to p {\displaystyle p} , while x p q ( l , l ′ ) = 1 {\displaystyle x_{pq}(l,l^{\prime })=1} , labels l , l ′ {\displaystyle l,l^{\prime }} are assigned to p , q {\displaystyle p,q} . == Dual Decomposition == The main idea behind decomposition is surprisingly simple: decompose your original complex problem into smaller solvable subproblems, extract a solution by cleverly combining the solutions from these subproblems. A sample problem to decompose: min x Σ i f i ( x ) {\displaystyle \min _{x}\Sigma _{i}f^{i}(x)} where x ∈ C {\displaystyle x\in C} In this problem, separately minimizing every single f i ( x ) {\displaystyle f^{i}(x)} over x {\displaystyle x} is easy; but minimizing their sum is a complex problem. So the problem needs to get decomposed using auxiliary variables { x i } {\displaystyle \{x^{i}\}} and the problem will be as follows: min { x i } , x Σ i f i ( x i ) {\displaystyle \min _{\{x^{i}\},x}\Sigma _{i}f^{i}(x^{i})} where x i ∈ C , x i = x {\displaystyle x^{i}\in C,x^{i}=x} Now we can relax the constraints by multipliers { λ i } {\displaystyle \{\lambda ^{i}\}} which gives us the following Lagrangian dual function: g ( { λ i } ) = min { x i ∈ C } , x Σ i f i ( x i ) + Σ i λ i . ( x i − x ) = min { x i ∈ C } , x Σ i [ f i ( x i ) + λ i . x i ] − ( Σ i λ i ) x {\displaystyle g(\{\lambda ^{i}\})=\min _{\{x^{i}\in C\},x}\Sigma _{i}f^{i}(x^{i})+\Sigma _{i}\lambda ^{i}.(x^{i}-x)=\min _{\{x^{i}\in C\},x}\Sigma _{i}[f^{i}(x^{i})+\lambda ^{i}.x^{i}]-(\Sigma _{i}\lambda ^{i})x} Now we eliminate x {\displaystyle x} from the dual function by minimizing over x {\displaystyle x} and dual function becomes: g ( { λ i } ) = min { x i ∈ C } Σ i [ f i ( x i ) + λ i . x i ] {\displaystyle g(\{\lambda ^{i}\})=\min _{\{x^{i}\in C\}}\Sigma _{i}[f^{i}(x^{i})+\lambda ^{i}.x^{i}]} We can set up a Lagrangian dual problem: (3) max { λ i } ∈ Λ g ( λ i ) = Σ i g i ( x i ) , {\displaystyle \max _{\{\lambda ^{i}\}\in \Lambda }g({\lambda ^{i}})=\Sigma _{i}g^{i}(x^{i}),} The Master problem (4) g i ( x i ) = m i n x i f i ( x i ) + λ i . x i {\displaystyle g^{i}(x^{i})=min_{x^{i}}f^{i}(x^{i})+\lambda ^{i}.x^{i}} where x i ∈ C {\displaystyle x^{i}\in C} The Slave problems == MRF optimization via Dual Decomposition == The original MRF optimization problem is NP-hard and we need to transform it into something easier. τ {\displaystyle \tau } is a set of sub-trees of graph G {\displaystyle G} where its trees cover all nodes and edges of the main graph. And MRFs defined for every tree T {\displaystyle T} in τ {\displaystyle \tau } will be smaller. The vector of MRF parameters is θ T {\displaystyle \theta ^{T}} and the vector of MRF variables is x T {\displaystyle x^{T}} , these two are just smaller in comparison with original MRF vectors θ , x {\displaystyle \theta ,x} . For all vectors θ T {\displaystyle \theta ^{T}} we'll have the following: (5) ∑ T ∈ τ ( p ) θ p T = θ p , ∑ T ∈ τ ( p q ) θ p q T = θ p q . {\displaystyle \sum _{T\in \tau (p)}\theta _{p}^{T}=\theta _{p},\sum _{T\in \tau (pq)}\theta _{pq}^{T}=\theta _{pq}.} Where τ ( p ) {\displaystyle \tau (p)} and τ ( p q ) {\displaystyle \tau (pq)} denote all trees of τ {\displaystyle \tau } than contain node p {\displaystyle p} and edge p q {\displaystyle pq} respectively. We simply can write: (6) E ( θ , x ) = ∑ T ∈ τ E ( θ T , x T ) {\displaystyle E(\theta ,x)=\sum _{T\in \tau }E(\theta ^{T},x^{T})} And our constraints will be: (7) x T ∈ χ T , x T = x | T , ∀ T ∈ τ {\displaystyle x^{T}\in \chi ^{T},x^{T}=x_{|T},\forall T\in \tau } Our original MRF problem will become: (8) min { x T } , x Σ T ∈ τ E ( θ T , x T ) {\displaystyle \min _{\{x^{T}\},x}\Sigma _{T\in \tau }E(\theta ^{T},x^{T})} where x T ∈ χ T , ∀ T ∈ τ {\displaystyle x^{T}\in \chi ^{T},\forall T\in \tau } and x T ∈ x | T , ∀ T ∈ τ {\displaystyle x^{T}\in x_{|T},\forall T\in \tau } And we'll have the dual problem we were seeking: (9) max { λ T } ∈ Λ g ( { λ T } ) = ∑ T ∈ τ g T ( λ T ) , {\displaystyle \max _{\{\lambda ^{T}\}\in \Lambda }g(\{\lambda ^{T}\})=\sum _{T\in \tau }g^{T}(\lambda ^{T}),} The Master problem where each function g T ( . ) {\displaystyle g^{T}(.)} is defined as: (10) g T ( λ T ) = min x T E ( θ T + λ T , x T ) {\displaystyle g^{T}(\lambda ^{T})=\min _{x^{T}}E(\theta ^{T}+\lambda ^{T},x^{T})} where x T ∈ χ T {\displaystyle x^{T}\in \chi ^{T}} The Slave problems == Theoretical Properties == Theorem 1. Lagrangian relaxation (9) is equivalent to the LP relaxation of (2). min { x T } , x { E ( x , θ ) | x p T = s p , x T ∈ CONVEXHULL ( χ T ) } {\displaystyle \min _{\{x^{T}\},x}\{E(x,\theta )|x_{p}^{T}=s_{p},x^{T}\in {\text{CONVEXHULL}}(\chi ^{T})\}} Theorem 2. If the sequence of multipliers { α t } {\displaystyle \{\alpha _{t}\}} satisfies α t ≥ 0 , lim t → ∞ α t = 0 , ∑ t = 0 ∞ α t = ∞ {\displaystyle \alpha _{t}\geq 0,\lim _{t\to \infty }\alpha _{t}=0,\sum _{t=0}^{\infty }\alpha _{t}=\infty } then the algorithm converges to the optimal solution of (9). Theorem 3. The distance of the current solution { θ T } {\displaystyle \{\theta ^{T}\}} to the optimal solution { θ ¯ T } {\displaystyle \{{\bar {\theta }}^{T}\}} , which decreases at every iteration. Theorem 4. Any solution obtained by the method satisfies the WTA (weak tree agreement) condition. Theorem 5. For binary MRFs with sub-modular energies, the method computes a globally optimal solution.