WebGPU Shading Language (WGSL, internet media type: text/wgsl) is a high-level shading language and the normative shader language for the WebGPU API on the web. WGSL's syntax is influenced by Rust and is designed with strong static validation, explicit resource binding, and portability in mind for secure execution in browsers. In web contexts, WebGPU implementations accept WGSL source and perform compilation to platform-specific intermediate forms (for example, to SPIR‑V, DXIL, or MSL via the user agent), but such backends are not exposed to web content. == History and background == Graphics on the web historically used WebGL, with shaders written in GLSL ES. As applications demanded more modern GPU features and finer control over compute and graphics pipelines, the W3C's GPU for the Web Community Group and Working Group created WebGPU and its companion shading language, WGSL, to provide a secure, portable model suitable for the web platform. WGSL was developed to be human-readable, avoid undefined behavior common in legacy shading languages, and align closely with WebGPU's resource and validation model. == Design goals == WGSL's design emphasizes: Safety and determinism suitable for web security constraints (extensive static validation and well-defined semantics). Portability across diverse GPU backends via an abstract resource model shared with WebGPU. Readability and explicitness (no preprocessor, minimal implicit conversions, explicit address spaces and bindings). Alignment with modern GPU features (compute, storage buffers, textures, atomics) while retaining a familiar C/Rust-like syntax. == Language overview == === Types and values === Core scalar types include bool, i32, u32, and f32. Vectors (e.g., vec2, vec3, vec4) and matrices (up to 4×4) are available for floating-point element types. Optional f16 (half precision) may be enabled via a WebGPU feature; availability is implementation-dependent. Atomic types (atomic
E-gree (app)
E-gree is a legal app that became well known in 2020. It was the first app of its kind to protect users against a number of dating-related issues, including revenge porn. == Background == The app was co-founded by Araz Mamet, Keith Fraser and Ilya Flaks. The app focuses on privacy, with users being able to set up various contracts to protect themselves following a breakup, or while dating. This notably included signing an NDA when sexting. The app received investment from a number of notable people and companies, including Natalia Vodianova.
Class activation mapping
Class activation mapping methods are explainable AI (XAI) techniques used to visualize the regions of an input image that are the most relevant for a particular task, especially image classification, in convolutional neural networks (CNNs). These methods generate heatmaps by weighting the feature maps from a convolutional layer according to their relevance to the target class. In the field of artificial intelligence, generically defined as "the effort to automate intellectual tasks normally performed by humans", machine learning and deep learning were created. They both use statistical and computational methods to learn patterns from data, reducing the need for manually coded rules. Machine learning models are trained on input data and the known respective answers, learning the underlying patterns or structures present in the data. Traditional Machine learning algorithms employ manually designed feature sets, posing a direct link between machine learning designers and employed features. Deep learning is a subfield of machine learning, based on the concept of successive layers of representation, in which the data is progressively unfolded in different ways, to extract relevant and informative patterns in data analysis. Deep learning algorithms are defined as feature learning algorithms automatically learning hierarchical feature representations from raw data, extracting increasingly abstract features through multiple layers. CNNs are a specific architecture of deep learning models, designed to process spatially structured data, such as images, exploiting a series of convolution, non-linear activation and pooling operations to extract relevant features, contained in the so-called feature maps from input data. CNNs have demonstrated to be highly effective in a variety of computer vision and image processing tasks. CNNs (and deep learning models more broadly) are described as black boxes due to their complex and non-transparent internal layers of representation. The need for clearer indications on its internal working and decision-making process gave birth to XAI techniques. Among the proposed XAI techniques for computer vision tasks, Class activation mapping methods can show which pixels in an input image are important to the predicted logit for a class of interest, in a classification task. Class activation mapping methods were originally developed for class-discriminative scenarios to visualize which parts of the input image influenced the classification decision, namely to visually highlight the regions of those feature maps that contribute most strongly to the prediction of a given class. More advanced versions of these methods are not limited to image classification tasks, but have been extended also to several vision-related tasks, such as object detection, image captioning, visual question answering and image segmentation. == Background == The following methods laid the groundwork for the class activation maps approaches, forming the conceptual basis of using gradients to highlight class-discriminative regions. === Class model visualization and saliency maps for convolutional neural networks === The class model visualization and image-specific saliency maps approaches have been presented in the foundational work "Deep Inside Convolutional Networks: Visualising Image Classification Models and Saliency Maps" by Karen Simonyan, Andrea Vedaldi, and Andrew Zisserman and it generalizes the deconvnet method by Zeiler and Fergus. Class model visualization synthesizes an artificial input image that strongly activates the output neurons associated with a target class. Given a trained, fixed model, this method starts with a zero-initialized image, backpropagates the gradients from the class score to the image pixels, updates the image pixels increasing the specific class scores and it repeats the pixel updating process, showing an encoded (idealized version) prototype of the class of interest. Image-specific class saliency visualization method provides a visual explanation by highlighting the most relevant pixels in an image for predicting a certain class C of interest. This is done by computing the gradient of the class score with respect to the input image, I 0 , {\displaystyle I_{0},} w = ∂ S C ∂ I | I 0 {\displaystyle w=\left.{\frac {\partial S_{C}}{\partial I}}\right|_{I_{0}}} approximating the model locally (around I 0 {\displaystyle I_{0}} ) as linear, using a first-order Taylor expansion: S C ( I ) ≈ w C T I + b {\displaystyle S_{C}(I)\approx w_{C}^{T}I+b} . The magnitude of w C {\displaystyle w_{C}} , the gradient, indicates the importancy of the pixels: larger gradients suggest greater influence on the prediction. Once the gradient is known, the saliency map is defined as the maximum absolute gradient across the color channels: M i j = m a x C | ∂ S C ∂ I i j C | {\displaystyle M_{ij}=max_{C}\left|{\frac {\partial S_{C}}{\partial I_{ij}^{C}}}\right|} resulting in an saliency map (i.e. heatmap). === Guided backpropagation === The concept of guided backpropagation can be traced for the first time in the paper by Springenberg et al. "Striving For Simplicity: The All Convolutional Net" and also this method builds upon the work by Zeiler and Fergus "Visualizing and Understanding Convolutional Networks". Guided backpropagation core is to understand what a CNN is learning, by visualizing the patterns that activate more strongly individual neurons (or filters), in architectures which do not rely on max-pooling layer. When propagating gradients back through a rectified linear unit (ReLU), guided backpropagation passes the gradient if and only if the input to the ReLU was positive (forward pass) and the output gradient is positive (backward signal), tackling both inactive neurons, negative gradients and suppressing the noise. The result displays sharper, high-resolution visualizations of what each neuron is responding to. Guided backpropagation represents a simple and practical method for model interpretability, helping understand how and where neural networks detect semantic concepts across layers. Moreover, it can be applied to any network architecture, due to its working principle. == Base versions == Class activation mapping and gradient-weighted class activation mapping are the original and most widely used methods for visual explanations in convolutional neural networks. These methods serve as the foundation for many later developments in explainable AI. Notation: In this article, the symbols i and j represent integer indices that disappear inside sums or averages, while x and y are the continuous (or up-sampled integer) coordinates of the final heat-map that is plotted. === Class activation mapping (CAM) === Class activation mapping (CAM) was the first, and the original, version of CAM methods, and it gave the name to the whole category. The approach was firstly introduced by Zhou et al. in their seminal work "Learning Deep Features for Discriminative Localization". This approach achieves class-specific heatmaps by modifying image classification CNN architectures, replacing fully-connected layers with convolutional layers and a final global average pooling layer. Its main scope is to localize and highlight discriminative regions of an input image that a CNN uses to identify a particular class, without needing explicit bounding box annotations. ==== Global average pooling (GAP) ==== Global average pooling (GAP) represents the key element in the original CAM approach. It is a dimensionality reduction technique and, similarly to other pooling layers, it allows the downsampling of the feature maps, calculating representative values for a specific region of the feature map. The particularity of GAP is that it calculates a single value for an entire feature map, significantly reducing the model dimensions. ==== Mathematical description ==== The mathematical description considers as its key the combination of convolutional and GAP layers. In CAM, it is mandatory to have the GAP layer after the last convolutional layer and before the final linear classifier layer. This last element of the architecture connects the output logits (the network predictions) y C {\displaystyle y^{C}} , to the GAP values, with its respective fine-tuned weights, w k C {\displaystyle w_{k}^{C}} . Considering A k {\displaystyle A^{k}} as the last feature maps of the last convolutional layer, GAP produces one value for each feature map, by averaging all the matrix elements (i, j) of the feature map: F k = 1 m n ∑ i = 1 m ∑ j = 1 n A i j k {\displaystyle F^{k}={\frac {1}{mn}}\sum _{i=1}^{m}\sum _{j=1}^{n}A_{ij}^{k}} with A k = [ A 11 k A 12 k ⋯ A 1 n k A 21 k A 22 k ⋯ A 2 n k ⋮ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ A m 1 k A m 2 k ⋯ A m n k ] = { A i j k ∣ 1 ≤ i ≤ m , 1 ≤ j ≤ n } {\displaystyle A^{k}={\begin{bmatrix}A_{11}^{k}&A_{12}^{k}&\cdots &A_{1n}^{k}\\A_{21}^{k}&A_{22}^{k}&\cdots &A_{2n}^{k}\\\vdots &\vdots &\ddots &\vdots \\A_{m1}^{k}&A_{m2}^{k}&\cdots &A_{mn}^{k}\end{bmatrix}}=\left\{A_{
Inception score
The Inception Score (IS) is an algorithm used to assess the quality of images created by a generative image model such as a generative adversarial network (GAN). The score is calculated based on the output of a separate, pretrained Inception v3 image classification model applied to a sample of (typically around 30,000) images generated by the generative model. The Inception Score is maximized when the following conditions are true: The entropy of the distribution of labels predicted by the Inceptionv3 model for the generated images is minimized. In other words, the classification model confidently predicts a single label for each image. Intuitively, this corresponds to the desideratum of generated images being "sharp" or "distinct". The predictions of the classification model are evenly distributed across all possible labels. This corresponds to the desideratum that the output of the generative model is "diverse". It has been somewhat superseded by the related Fréchet inception distance. While the Inception Score only evaluates the distribution of generated images, the FID compares the distribution of generated images with the distribution of a set of real images ("ground truth"). == Definition == Let there be two spaces, the space of images Ω X {\displaystyle \Omega _{X}} and the space of labels Ω Y {\displaystyle \Omega _{Y}} . The space of labels is finite. Let p g e n {\displaystyle p_{gen}} be a probability distribution over Ω X {\displaystyle \Omega _{X}} that we wish to judge. Let a discriminator be a function of type p d i s : Ω X → M ( Ω Y ) {\displaystyle p_{dis}:\Omega _{X}\to M(\Omega _{Y})} where M ( Ω Y ) {\displaystyle M(\Omega _{Y})} is the set of all probability distributions on Ω Y {\displaystyle \Omega _{Y}} . For any image x {\displaystyle x} , and any label y {\displaystyle y} , let p d i s ( y | x ) {\displaystyle p_{dis}(y|x)} be the probability that image x {\displaystyle x} has label y {\displaystyle y} , according to the discriminator. It is usually implemented as an Inception-v3 network trained on ImageNet. The Inception Score of p g e n {\displaystyle p_{gen}} relative to p d i s {\displaystyle p_{dis}} is I S ( p g e n , p d i s ) := exp ( E x ∼ p g e n [ D K L ( p d i s ( ⋅ | x ) ‖ ∫ p d i s ( ⋅ | x ) p g e n ( x ) d x ) ] ) {\displaystyle IS(p_{gen},p_{dis}):=\exp \left(\mathbb {E} _{x\sim p_{gen}}\left[D_{KL}\left(p_{dis}(\cdot |x)\|\int p_{dis}(\cdot |x)p_{gen}(x)dx\right)\right]\right)} Equivalent rewrites include ln I S ( p g e n , p d i s ) := E x ∼ p g e n [ D K L ( p d i s ( ⋅ | x ) ‖ E x ∼ p g e n [ p d i s ( ⋅ | x ) ] ) ] {\displaystyle \ln IS(p_{gen},p_{dis}):=\mathbb {E} _{x\sim p_{gen}}\left[D_{KL}\left(p_{dis}(\cdot |x)\|\mathbb {E} _{x\sim p_{gen}}[p_{dis}(\cdot |x)]\right)\right]} ln I S ( p g e n , p d i s ) := H [ E x ∼ p g e n [ p d i s ( ⋅ | x ) ] ] − E x ∼ p g e n [ H [ p d i s ( ⋅ | x ) ] ] {\displaystyle \ln IS(p_{gen},p_{dis}):=H[\mathbb {E} _{x\sim p_{gen}}[p_{dis}(\cdot |x)]]-\mathbb {E} _{x\sim p_{gen}}[H[p_{dis}(\cdot |x)]]} ln I S {\displaystyle \ln IS} is nonnegative by Jensen's inequality. Pseudocode:INPUT discriminator p d i s {\displaystyle p_{dis}} . INPUT generator g {\displaystyle g} . Sample images x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} from generator. Compute p d i s ( ⋅ | x i ) {\displaystyle p_{dis}(\cdot |x_{i})} , the probability distribution over labels conditional on image x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} . Sum up the results to obtain p ^ {\displaystyle {\hat {p}}} , an empirical estimate of ∫ p d i s ( ⋅ | x ) p g e n ( x ) d x {\displaystyle \int p_{dis}(\cdot |x)p_{gen}(x)dx} . Sample more images x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} from generator, and for each, compute D K L ( p d i s ( ⋅ | x i ) ‖ p ^ ) {\displaystyle D_{KL}\left(p_{dis}(\cdot |x_{i})\|{\hat {p}}\right)} . Average the results, and take its exponential. RETURN the result. === Interpretation === A higher inception score is interpreted as "better", as it means that p g e n {\displaystyle p_{gen}} is a "sharp and distinct" collection of pictures. ln I S ( p g e n , p d i s ) ∈ [ 0 , ln N ] {\displaystyle \ln IS(p_{gen},p_{dis})\in [0,\ln N]} , where N {\displaystyle N} is the total number of possible labels. ln I S ( p g e n , p d i s ) = 0 {\displaystyle \ln IS(p_{gen},p_{dis})=0} iff for almost all x ∼ p g e n {\displaystyle x\sim p_{gen}} p d i s ( ⋅ | x ) = ∫ p d i s ( ⋅ | x ) p g e n ( x ) d x {\displaystyle p_{dis}(\cdot |x)=\int p_{dis}(\cdot |x)p_{gen}(x)dx} That means p g e n {\displaystyle p_{gen}} is completely "indistinct". That is, for any image x {\displaystyle x} sampled from p g e n {\displaystyle p_{gen}} , discriminator returns exactly the same label predictions p d i s ( ⋅ | x ) {\displaystyle p_{dis}(\cdot |x)} . The highest inception score N {\displaystyle N} is achieved if and only if the two conditions are both true: For almost all x ∼ p g e n {\displaystyle x\sim p_{gen}} , the distribution p d i s ( y | x ) {\displaystyle p_{dis}(y|x)} is concentrated on one label. That is, H y [ p d i s ( y | x ) ] = 0 {\displaystyle H_{y}[p_{dis}(y|x)]=0} . That is, every image sampled from p g e n {\displaystyle p_{gen}} is exactly classified by the discriminator. For every label y {\displaystyle y} , the proportion of generated images labelled as y {\displaystyle y} is exactly E x ∼ p g e n [ p d i s ( y | x ) ] = 1 N {\displaystyle \mathbb {E} _{x\sim p_{gen}}[p_{dis}(y|x)]={\frac {1}{N}}} . That is, the generated images are equally distributed over all labels.
Three-factor learning
In neuroscience and machine learning, three-factor learning is the combination of Hebbian plasticity with a third modulatory factor to stabilise and enhance synaptic learning. This third factor can represent various signals such as reward, punishment, error, surprise, or novelty, often implemented through neuromodulators. == Description == Three-factor learning introduces the concept of eligibility traces, which flag synapses for potential modification pending the arrival of the third factor, and helps temporal credit assignement by bridging the gap between rapid neuronal firing and slower behavioral timescales, from which learning can be done. Biological basis for Three-factor learning rules have been supported by experimental evidence. This approach addresses the instability of classical Hebbian learning by minimizing autocorrelation and maximizing cross-correlation between inputs.
List & Label
List & Label is a professional reporting tool for software developers. It provides comprehensive design, print and export functions. The software component runs on Microsoft Windows and can be implemented in desktop, cloud and web applications. List & Label can be used to create user-defined dashboards, lists, invoices, forms and labels. It supports many development environments, frameworks and programming languages such as Microsoft Visual Studio, Embarcadero RAD Studio, .NET Framework, .NET Core, ASP.NET, C++, Delphi, Java, C Sharp and some more. List & Label either retrieves data from various sources via data binding, or works database independent. Reports are designed and created in the so-called List & Label Designer and then exported into a multitude of formats like PDF, Excel, XHTML and RTF. Since version 27 a web report designer for ASP.NET MVC is available. == History == The product was first released in 1992 by combit. The current version is 30. A new major version of List & Label is released every fall, usually in October. Updates are available several times a year via Service Pack. == Features == === Report Designer === The Designer enables users to graphically layout the report. It offers report objects such as tables, charts, crosstabs, gauges, HTML, conditionally formatted text, barcodes, matrix codes, and graphics, and is extensible using third-party add-ons. User applications can interact with the report via the programmable object model of the report. The real-time preview functionality allows users to view changes instantly. Usability features include layer and appearance management, enabling conditional logic to dynamically control the visibility of objects in reports. The Designer also supports the inclusion of multiple report containers in a single project, accommodating complex layouts such as parallel tables and charts. A formula wizard and support for scripting languages such as C# facilitate advanced calculations and logic. The Designer's object model (DOM) provides developers with the ability to modify layouts and behaviors programmatically. === Web Report Designer === The web report designer works browser-based and independent from printer drivers and spoolers - that makes deployments to the cloud easier. Just like the use of the Visual Studio deployment pipeline. === Data Sources === Depending on the programming language, the product offers automatic support for data sources: Databases such as Microsoft SQL Server, Oracle, MySQL, PostgreSQL, IBM Db2, SQLite, MariaDB, MongoDB, Cosmos DB XML data, CSV Business objects Data sources that can be accessed via OLE DB, ODBC or ADO.NET LINQ data and data from web services GraphQL Additionally, the product offers support for unbound data and can be extended to support other data sources via interfaces. === Output Options === Printer Image Formats (JPEG, BMP, EMF, TIFF, PNG, SVG, HEIF, WebP) Document Formats: PDF, PDF/A, Word (DOCX), Excel (XLS), PowerPoint (PPTX) HTML, XHTML, MHTML Barcodes Plain Text, RTF, CSV, JSON XML, ZIP, Email, JSON List & Label preview file === Target Audience === List & Label can be used in Windows development environments. While it competes most notably on the Microsoft .NET platform with other products such as Crystal Reports, SQL Server Reporting Services, ActiveReports, there are few competing products for other programming languages (e.g. Progress, Alaska Xbase++, Visual DataFlex). == Awards == Reader's Choice Award 2005–2008 Stevie Awards 2021: Best Technology for Data Visualization Top 100 Publisher Award Component Source 2013-2014, 2014-2015,2016, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022
Agent verification
Agent verification is activity to gain assurances that purposeful artificial constructs act in accordance with their specifications. While primitive forms of inorganic agents have been used in manufacturing for centuries, the study of artificial agents did not begin until the mid 20th century. Foundational work on such agents was closely bound with the emergence of artificial intelligence as an academic discipline. Early agents deployed for industrial control systems and in computing were often controlled by quite simple logic however, not involving artificial intelligence as such. When deployed as part of a multi-agent system, even such simple agents could require special agent orientated testing methods, as their collective behaviour was challenging to verify with traditional testing techniques. Difficulties in providing assurances that agents will not behave in dangerous ways became more prevalent after the introduction of LLM agents, especially after the rapid acceleration of their deployment in 2025. The verification of agent behaviour can be conducted by formal or informal methods. Informal verification requires less mathematical skill. But when agents are part of systems where errors have significant risks — such as danger to human life, environmental damage or major financial loss — formal verification is preferred. Both regulators and system designers themselves like formal verification as it provides a high degree of mathematical certainty. It is not however always possible to formally test all aspects of an agent based system's behaviour, especially where newer LLM based agents are concerned, due in part to their high degree of autonomy. Accordingly, agent verification for low impact deployments might be carried out only with informal methods, while for high impact deployments, it may be performed with a mix of formal and informal techniques. == Terminology == In academia, the term agent verification is often defined to mean activity concerned with gaining assurance that the agent behaves in accordance with its specification - whether by processes such as testing or simulation. 'Verification' is typically contrasted with 'validation', the latter meaning activity concerned with checking that the specification itself meets user or real world needs. Such definitions are not universally adhered to however - for example, in some workplaces and documents, the words 'verification' and 'validation' can be used synonymously. Efforts to gain confidence in Agents have intensified sharply since 2025 due to the rapid roll out of LLM agents; different terms are sometimes used in the commercial sector. Here the term 'agent verification' can be used in the same sense as it is in academia, but sometimes the same activity can be covered by more ambiguous and wider ranging terms such as 'Agent governance' , 'Agent observability' or 'AI agent policing'. == History == === Classical agents === The theoretical underpinnings for artificial (inorganic) agents emerged in the mid 20th century, with establishment of cybernetics and artificial intelligence. Oliver Selfridge's 1958 Pandemonium - A Paradigm for Learning paper was an important early theoretical contribution in establishing agent oriented architecture. Practical implementations of agents for real world applications began to become widespread in the 1990s, after the introduction of the belief–desire–intention software model (BDI), and agent-oriented programming. Pure digital agents were deployed in computer infrastructure for purposes such as monitoring, while agents connected to real-world sensors and actuators were increasingly used in industrial control systems. While the concept of artificial agents was interwoven with early artificial intelligence studies right from the start, early agents lacked general purpose reasoning capabilities, often only having simple if then logic. Even a device as simple as a thermostat, which has a sensor and a means of acting, can be considered a proto agent in this sense. Verifying the behaviours of a simple single agent system is not generally especially difficult, but it can be a different matter when several simple agents coexist in the same system. Craig Reynolds's work on boids showed that relatively complex, "intelligent" behaviour can emerge from a number of such simple agents working together in a Multi-agent system (MAS). By the 1990s, even the behaviour of a single agent system could sometimes be quite complex; in accordance with the Belief–desire–intention software model, agents could have believes that might evolve over time. Agents were increasingly introduced that were controlled by quite large decision tree models, which had new vulnerabilities to adversarial attack. It was becoming increasingly apparent that traditional software verification methods had limitations for testing such agents, or even for the more primitive type of agents when they were deployed as part of a MAS. It was the use of agents for industrial control systems, sometimes associated with robotics, that lent urgency to the practice of agent verification. Informal testing might be acceptable for digital agents used say to monitor whether each of an organisation's computers are properly licensed. But with an increasing potential for faulty agents to result in a failure that might cause a large fire to break out at a chemical manufacturing plant, a botched medical operation, or even a crashed aircraft, the need to develop reliable means of verifying behaviour of such agents was considered urgent. The Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents was established in 1996. From the late 90s, a growing number of industry and university based scientists began working on the problem, with researchers publishing papers on the verification of both single and multi agent systems. Much of this work showed how formal verification techniques like model checking could be used to gain a high level of assurance that agent based systems would conform with their specification. A 2018 systematic review covering 231 studies found that model checking was the most common technique for agent verification, with theorem proving the second most commonly used formal verification method. In the first two decades of the 20th century, agents run by AI became more common, with Siri and Alexa being well known examples. But such agents still lacked general reasoning capabilities and did not pose new pressing problems for agent verification. === General purpose reasoning agents === The advent of LLMs created huge potential for further use of artificial agents, as agents based on them could have general purpose cognitive abilities. Agents run by LLMs (and occasionally non-LLM foundation models) have similar vulnerability to adversarial attack as those run by decision tree models. The wider scope of actions for LLM agents has created new challenges for their verification, over and above those present for classical agents. For example, the LLM's neural network endows it with infinite domains, an especial challenge for traditional formal verification techniques. Academics began to study the problems involved in verifying LLM agents from 2018. Deployment of such agents began to accelerate in late 2023 after OpenAI's "function-calling" API was made available, and especially after Anthropic's late 2024 introduction of Model Context Protocol (MCP), a standardised way for LLM agents to gain contextual awareness, and to act on the world by calling various external tools. The rapid rollout of LLM agents following MCP's release has seen the task of agent verification receive increased attention within academia, and also from the private sector. In 2024 and 2025 several startups focusing on LLM agent verification have been founded in both Europe and the US to meet growing demand. == Approaches == === Formal verification === Formal verification involves proving the correctness of some or all aspects of a system using mathematical methods. Such methods can range from manual formal proof, to verification assisted with automated theorem provers like Isabelle. For agent verification, model checking is by far the most frequently used formal verification method; for pre-LLM models it was often complemented with techniques using computation tree logic. Another common method is theorem proving. Formal verification provides a higher degree of confidence than informal methods, but it is not always used, even when it is possible. Sometimes a person or organisation developing software agents won't have the necessary skills, or may not see it as worth the effort if the agent(s) will not have the ability to cause much harm even if they malfunction. When agents are deployed in systems where errors could have serious consequences, the ability of formal verification methods to provide mathematical certainty tends to be strongly preferred by both regulators and designers themselves. But even for high impact systems, formal verificatio