Language identification in the limit is a formal model for inductive inference of formal languages, mainly by computers (see machine learning and induction of regular languages). It was introduced by E. Mark Gold in a technical report and a journal article with the same title. In this model, a teacher provides to a learner some presentation (i.e. a sequence of strings) of some formal language. The learning is seen as an infinite process. Each time the learner reads an element of the presentation, it should provide a representation (e.g. a formal grammar) for the language. Gold defines that a learner can identify in the limit a class of languages if, given any presentation of any language in the class, the learner will produce only a finite number of wrong representations, and then stick with the correct representation. However, the learner need not be able to announce its correctness; and the teacher might present a counterexample to any representation arbitrarily long after. Gold defined two types of presentations: Text (positive information): an enumeration of all strings the language consists of. Complete presentation (positive and negative information): an enumeration of all possible strings, each with a label indicating if the string belongs to the language or not. == Learnability == This model is an early attempt to formally capture the notion of learnability. Gold's journal article introduces for contrast the stronger models Finite identification (where the learner has to announce correctness after a finite number of steps), and Fixed-time identification (where correctness has to be reached after an apriori-specified number of steps). A weaker formal model of learnability is the Probably approximately correct learning (PAC) model, introduced by Leslie Valiant in 1984. == Examples == It is instructive to look at concrete examples (in the tables) of learning sessions the definition of identification in the limit speaks about. A fictitious session to learn a regular language L over the alphabet {a,b} from text presentation:In each step, the teacher gives a string belonging to L, and the learner answers a guess for L, encoded as a regular expression. In step 3, the learner's guess is not consistent with the strings seen so far; in step 4, the teacher gives a string repeatedly. After step 6, the learner sticks to the regular expression (ab+ba). If this happens to be a description of the language L the teacher has in mind, it is said that the learner has learned that language.If a computer program for the learner's role would exist that was able to successfully learn each regular language, that class of languages would be identifiable in the limit. Gold has shown that this is not the case. A particular learning algorithm always guessing L to be just the union of all strings seen so far:If L is a finite language, the learner will eventually guess it correctly, however, without being able to tell when. Although the guess didn't change during step 3 to 6, the learner couldn't be sure to be correct.Gold has shown that the class of finite languages is identifiable in the limit, however, this class is neither finitely nor fixed-time identifiable. Learning from complete presentation by telling:In each step, the teacher gives a string and tells whether it belongs to L (green) or not (red, struck-out). Each possible string is eventually classified in this way by the teacher. Learning from complete presentation by request:The learner gives a query string, the teacher tells whether it belongs to L (yes) or not (no); the learner then gives a guess for L, followed by the next query string. In this example, the learner happens to query in each step just the same string as given by the teacher in example 3.In general, Gold has shown that each language class identifiable in the request-presentation setting is also identifiable in the telling-presentation setting, since the learner, instead of querying a string, just needs to wait until it is eventually given by the teacher. == Gold's theorem == More formally, a language L {\displaystyle L} is a nonempty set, and its elements are called sentences. a language family is a set of languages. a language-learning environment E {\displaystyle E} for a language L {\displaystyle L} is a stream of sentences from L {\displaystyle L} , such that each sentence in L {\displaystyle L} appears at least once. a language learner is a function f {\displaystyle f} that sends a list of sentences to a language. This is interpreted as saying that, after seeing sentences a 1 , a 2 . . . , a n {\displaystyle a_{1},a_{2}...,a_{n}} in that order, the language learner guesses that the language that produces the sentences should be f ( a 1 , . . . , a n ) {\displaystyle f(a_{1},...,a_{n})} . Note that the learner is not obliged to be correct — it could very well guess a language that does not even contain a 1 , . . . , a n {\displaystyle a_{1},...,a_{n}} . a language learner f {\displaystyle f} learns a language L {\displaystyle L} in environment E = ( a 1 , a 2 , . . . ) {\displaystyle E=(a_{1},a_{2},...)} if the learner always guesses L {\displaystyle L} after seeing enough examples from the environment. a language learner f {\displaystyle f} learns a language L {\displaystyle L} if it learns L {\displaystyle L} in any environment E {\displaystyle E} for L {\displaystyle L} . a language family is learnable if there exists a language learner that can learn all languages in the family. Notes: In the context of Gold's theorem, sentences need only be distinguishable. They need not be anything in particular, such as finite strings (as usual in formal linguistics). Learnability is not a concept for individual languages. Any individual language L {\displaystyle L} could be learned by a trivial learner that always guesses L {\displaystyle L} . Learnability is not a concept for individual learners. A language family is learnable if, and only if, there exists some learner that can learn the family. It does not matter how well the learner performs for learning languages outside the family. Gold's theorem is easily bypassed if negative examples are allowed. In particular, the language family { L 1 , L 2 , . . . , L ∞ } {\displaystyle \{L_{1},L_{2},...,L_{\infty }\}} can be learned by a learner that always guesses L ∞ {\displaystyle L_{\infty }} until it receives the first negative example ¬ a n {\displaystyle \neg a_{n}} , where a n ∈ L n + 1 ∖ L n {\displaystyle a_{n}\in L_{n+1}\setminus L_{n}} , at which point it always guesses L n {\displaystyle L_{n}} . == Learnability characterization == Dana Angluin gave the characterizations of learnability from text (positive information) in a 1980 paper. If a learner is required to be effective, then an indexed class of recursive languages is learnable in the limit if there is an effective procedure that uniformly enumerates tell-tales for each language in the class (Condition 1). It is not hard to see that if an ideal learner (i.e., an arbitrary function) is allowed, then an indexed class of languages is learnable in the limit if each language in the class has a tell-tale (Condition 2). == Language classes learnable in the limit == The table shows which language classes are identifiable in the limit in which learning model. On the right-hand side, each language class is a superclass of all lower classes. Each learning model (i.e. type of presentation) can identify in the limit all classes below it. In particular, the class of finite languages is identifiable in the limit by text presentation (cf. Example 2 above), while the class of regular languages is not. Pattern Languages, introduced by Dana Angluin in another 1980 paper, are also identifiable by normal text presentation; they are omitted in the table, since they are above the singleton and below the primitive recursive language class, but incomparable to the classes in between. == Sufficient conditions for learnability == Condition 1 in Angluin's paper is not always easy to verify. Therefore, people come up with various sufficient conditions for the learnability of a language class. See also Induction of regular languages for learnable subclasses of regular languages. === Finite thickness === A class of languages has finite thickness if every non-empty set of strings is contained in at most finitely many languages of the class. This is exactly Condition 3 in Angluin's paper. Angluin showed that if a class of recursive languages has finite thickness, then it is learnable in the limit. A class with finite thickness certainly satisfies MEF-condition and MFF-condition; in other words, finite thickness implies M-finite thickness. === Finite elasticity === A class of languages is said to have finite elasticity if for every infinite sequence of strings s 0 , s 1 , . . . {\displaystyle s_{0},s_{1},...} and every infinite sequence of languages in the class L 1 , L 2 , . . . {\displaystyle L_{1},L_{2},...} , there exists a finite number n such
View synthesis
In computer graphics, view synthesis, or novel view synthesis, is a task which consists of generating images of a specific subject or scene from a specific point of view, when the only available information is pictures taken from different points of view. This task was only recently (late 2010s – early 2020s) tackled with significant success, mostly as a result of advances in machine learning. Notable successful methods are Neural radiance fields and 3D Gaussian Splatting. Applications of view synthesis are numerous, one of them being Free view point television. The technique has also been applied to real-estate marketing, where novel views of a listing's interior are generated from a limited set of photographs for use in virtual home staging.
Adversarial machine learning
Adversarial machine learning is the study of the attacks on machine learning algorithms, and of the defenses against such attacks. Machine learning techniques are mostly designed to work on specific problem sets, under the assumption that the training and test data are generated from the same statistical distribution (IID). However, this assumption is often violated in practical high-stake applications, where users may intentionally supply fabricated data that violates the statistical assumption. Most common attacks in adversarial machine learning include evasion attacks, data poisoning attacks, Byzantine attacks and model extraction. == History == At the MIT Spam Conference in January 2004, John Graham-Cumming showed that a machine-learning spam filter could be used to defeat another machine-learning spam filter by automatically learning which words to add to a spam email to get the email classified as not spam. In 2004, Nilesh Dalvi and others noted that linear classifiers used in spam filters could be defeated by simple "evasion attacks" as spammers inserted "good words" into their spam emails. (Around 2007, some spammers added random noise to fuzz words within "image spam" in order to defeat OCR-based filters.) In 2006, Marco Barreno and others published "Can Machine Learning Be Secure?", outlining a broad taxonomy of attacks. As late as 2013 many researchers continued to hope that non-linear classifiers (such as support vector machines and neural networks) might be robust to adversaries, until Battista Biggio and others demonstrated the first gradient-based attacks on such machine-learning models (2012–2013). In 2012, deep neural networks began to dominate computer vision problems; starting in 2014, Christian Szegedy and others demonstrated that deep neural networks could be fooled by adversaries, again using a gradient-based attack to craft adversarial perturbations. Further work would show that adversarial attacks are harder to produce in uncontrolled environments, due to the different environmental constraints that cancel out the effect of noise. For example, any small rotation or slight illumination on an adversarial image can destroy the adversariality. In addition, researchers such as Google Brain's Nick Frosst point out that it is much easier to make self-driving cars miss stop signs by physically removing the sign itself, rather than creating adversarial examples. Frosst also believes that the adversarial machine learning community incorrectly assumes models trained on a certain data distribution will also perform well on a completely different data distribution. He suggests that a new approach to machine learning should be explored, and is currently working on a unique neural network that has characteristics more similar to human perception than state-of-the-art approaches. While adversarial machine learning continues to be heavily rooted in academia, large tech companies such as Google, Microsoft, and IBM have begun curating documentation and open source code bases to allow others to concretely assess the robustness of machine learning models and minimize the risk of adversarial attacks. === Examples === Examples include attacks in spam filtering, where spam messages are obfuscated through the misspelling of "bad" words or the insertion of "good" words; attacks in computer security, such as obfuscating malware code within network packets or modifying the characteristics of a network flow to mislead intrusion detection; attacks in biometric recognition where fake biometric traits may be exploited to impersonate a legitimate user; or to compromise users' template galleries that adapt to updated traits over time. Researchers showed that by changing only one-pixel it was possible to fool deep learning algorithms. Others 3-D printed a toy turtle with a texture engineered to make Google's object detection AI classify it as a rifle regardless of the angle from which the turtle was viewed. Creating the turtle required only low-cost commercially available 3-D printing technology. A machine-tweaked image of a dog was shown to look like a cat to both computers and humans. A 2019 study reported that humans can guess how machines will classify adversarial images. Researchers discovered methods for perturbing the appearance of a stop sign such that an autonomous vehicle classified it as a merge or speed limit sign. A data poisoning filter called Nightshade was released in 2023 by researchers at the University of Chicago. It was created for use by visual artists to put on their artwork to corrupt the data set of text-to-image models, which usually scrape their data from the internet without the consent of the image creator. McAfee attacked Tesla's former Mobileye system, fooling it into driving 50 mph over the speed limit, simply by adding a two-inch strip of black tape to a speed limit sign. Adversarial patterns on glasses or clothing designed to deceive facial-recognition systems or license-plate readers, have led to a niche industry of "stealth streetwear". An adversarial attack on a neural network can allow an attacker to inject algorithms into the target system. Researchers can also create adversarial audio inputs to disguise commands to intelligent assistants in benign-seeming audio; a parallel literature explores human perception of such stimuli. Clustering algorithms are used in security applications. Malware and computer virus analysis aims to identify malware families, and to generate specific detection signatures. In the context of malware detection, researchers have proposed methods for adversarial malware generation that automatically craft binaries to evade learning-based detectors while preserving malicious functionality. Optimization-based attacks such as GAMMA use genetic algorithms to inject benign content (for example, padding or new PE sections) into Windows executables, framing evasion as a constrained optimization problem that balances misclassification success with the size of the injected payload and showing transferability to commercial antivirus products. Complementary work uses generative adversarial networks (GANs) to learn feature-space perturbations that cause malware to be classified as benign; Mal-LSGAN, for instance, replaces the standard GAN loss with a least-squares objective and modified activation functions to improve training stability and produce adversarial malware examples that substantially reduce true positive rates across multiple detectors. == Challenges in applying machine learning to security == Researchers have observed that the constraints under which machine-learning techniques function in the security domain are different from those of common benchmark domains. Security data may change over time, include mislabeled samples, or reflect adversarial behavior, which complicates evaluation and reproducibility. === Data collection issues === Security datasets vary across formats, including binaries, network traces, and log files. Studies have reported that the process of converting these sources into features can introduce bias or inconsistencies. In addition, time-based leakage can occur when related malware samples are not properly separated across training and testing splits, which may lead to overly optimistic results. === Labeling and ground truth challenges === Malware labels are often unstable because different antivirus engines may classify the same sample in conflicting ways. Ceschin et al. note that families may be renamed or reorganized over time, causing further discrepancies in ground truth and reducing the reliability of benchmarks. === Concept drift === Because malware creators continuously adapt their techniques, the statistical properties of malicious samples also change. This form of concept drift has been widely documented and may reduce model performance unless systems are updated regularly or incorporate mechanisms for incremental learning. === Feature robustness === Researchers differentiate between features that can be easily manipulated and those that are more resistant to modification. For example, simple static attributes, such as header fields, may be altered by attackers, while structural features, such as control-flow graphs, are generally more stable but computationally expensive to extract. === Class imbalance === In realistic deployment environments, the proportion of malicious samples can be extremely low, ranging from 0.01% to 2% of total data. This unbalanced distribution causes models to develop a bias towards the majority class, achieving high accuracy but failing to identify malicious samples. Prior approaches to this problem have included both data-level solutions and sequence-specific models. Methods like n-gram and Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) networks can model sequential data, but their performance has been shown to decline significantly when malware samples are realistically proportioned in the training set, demonstrating the limitations in
Energy-based model
An energy-based model (EBM), also called Canonical Ensemble Learning (CEL) or Learning via Canonical Ensemble (LCE), is an application of canonical ensemble formulation from statistical physics for learning from data. The approach prominently appears in generative artificial intelligence. EBMs provide a unified framework for many probabilistic and non-probabilistic approaches to such learning, particularly for training graphical and other structured models. An EBM learns the characteristics of a target dataset and generates a similar but larger dataset. EBMs detect the latent variables of a dataset and generate new datasets with a similar distribution. Energy-based generative neural networks is a class of generative models, which aim to learn explicit probability distributions of data in the form of energy-based models, the energy functions of which are parameterized by modern deep neural networks. Boltzmann machines are a special form of energy-based models with a specific parametrization of the energy. == Description == For a given input x {\displaystyle x} , the model describes an energy E θ ( x ) {\displaystyle E_{\theta }(x)} such that the Boltzmann distribution P θ ( x ) = e − β E θ ( x ) Z ( θ ) {\displaystyle P_{\theta }(x)={e^{-\beta E_{\theta }(x)} \over Z(\theta )}} is a probability (density), and typically β = 1 {\displaystyle \beta =1} . Since the normalization constant: Z ( θ ) := ∫ x ∈ X e − β E θ ( x ) d x {\displaystyle Z(\theta ):=\int _{x\in X}e^{-\beta E_{\theta }(x)}dx} (also known as the partition function) depends on all the Boltzmann factors of all possible inputs x {\displaystyle x} , it cannot be easily computed or reliably estimated during training simply using standard maximum likelihood estimation. However, for maximizing the likelihood during training, the gradient of the log-likelihood of a single training example x {\displaystyle x} is given by using the chain rule: ∂ θ log ( P θ ( x ) ) = E x ′ ∼ P θ [ ∂ θ E θ ( x ′ ) ] − ∂ θ E θ ( x ) ( ∗ ) {\displaystyle \partial _{\theta }\log \left(P_{\theta }(x)\right)=\mathbb {E} _{x'\sim P_{\theta }}[\partial _{\theta }E_{\theta }(x')]-\partial _{\theta }E_{\theta }(x)\,()} The expectation in the above formula for the gradient can be approximately estimated by drawing samples x ′ {\displaystyle x'} from the distribution P θ {\displaystyle P_{\theta }} using Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC). Early energy-based models, such as the 2003 Boltzmann machine by Hinton, estimated this expectation via blocked Gibbs sampling. Newer approaches make use of more efficient Stochastic Gradient Langevin Dynamics (LD), drawing samples using: x 0 ′ ∼ P 0 , x i + 1 ′ = x i ′ − α 2 ∂ E θ ( x i ′ ) ∂ x i ′ + ϵ {\displaystyle x_{0}'\sim P_{0},x_{i+1}'=x_{i}'-{\frac {\alpha }{2}}{\frac {\partial E_{\theta }(x_{i}')}{\partial x_{i}'}}+\epsilon } , where ϵ ∼ N ( 0 , α ) {\displaystyle \epsilon \sim {\mathcal {N}}(0,\alpha )} . A replay buffer of past values x i ′ {\displaystyle x_{i}'} is used with LD to initialize the optimization module. The parameters θ {\displaystyle \theta } of the neural network are therefore trained in a generative manner via MCMC-based maximum likelihood estimation: the learning process follows an "analysis by synthesis" scheme, where within each learning iteration, the algorithm samples the synthesized examples from the current model by a gradient-based MCMC method (e.g., Langevin dynamics or Hybrid Monte Carlo), and then updates the parameters θ {\displaystyle \theta } based on the difference between the training examples and the synthesized ones – see equation ( ∗ ) {\displaystyle ()} . This process can be interpreted as an alternating mode seeking and mode shifting process, and also has an adversarial interpretation. Essentially, the model learns a function E θ {\displaystyle E_{\theta }} that associates low energies to correct values, and higher energies to incorrect values. After training, given a converged energy model E θ {\displaystyle E_{\theta }} , the Metropolis–Hastings algorithm can be used to draw new samples. The acceptance probability is given by: P a c c ( x i → x ∗ ) = min ( 1 , P θ ( x ∗ ) P θ ( x i ) ) . {\displaystyle P_{acc}(x_{i}\to x^{})=\min \left(1,{\frac {P_{\theta }(x^{})}{P_{\theta }(x_{i})}}\right).} == History == The term "energy-based models" was first coined in a 2003 JMLR paper where the authors defined a generalisation of independent components analysis to the overcomplete setting using EBMs. Other early work on EBMs proposed models that represented energy as a composition of latent and observable variables. == Characteristics == EBMs demonstrate useful properties: Simplicity and stability. The EBM is the only object that needs to be designed and trained. Separate networks need not be trained to ensure balance. Adaptive computation time. An EBM can generate sharp, diverse samples or (more quickly) coarse, less diverse samples. Given infinite time, this procedure produces true samples. Flexibility. In Variational Autoencoders (VAE) and flow-based models, the generator learns a map from a continuous space to a (possibly) discontinuous space containing different data modes. EBMs can learn to assign low energies to disjoint regions (multiple modes). Adaptive generation. EBM generators are implicitly defined by the probability distribution, and automatically adapt as the distribution changes (without training), allowing EBMs to address domains where generator training is impractical, as well as minimizing mode collapse and avoiding spurious modes from out-of-distribution samples. Compositionality. Individual models are unnormalized probability distributions, allowing models to be combined through product of experts or other hierarchical techniques. == Experimental results == On image datasets such as CIFAR-10 and ImageNet 32x32, an EBM model generated high-quality images relatively quickly. It supported combining features learned from one type of image for generating other types of images. It was able to generalize using out-of-distribution datasets, outperforming flow-based and autoregressive models. EBM was relatively resistant to adversarial perturbations, behaving better than models explicitly trained against them with training for classification. == Applications == Target applications include natural language processing, robotics and computer vision. The first energy-based generative neural network is the generative ConvNet proposed in 2016 for image patterns, where the neural network is a convolutional neural network. The model has been generalized to various domains to learn distributions of videos, and 3D voxels. They are made more effective in their variants. They have proven useful for data generation (e.g., image synthesis, video synthesis, 3D shape synthesis, etc.), data recovery (e.g., recovering videos with missing pixels or image frames, 3D super-resolution, etc), data reconstruction (e.g., image reconstruction and linear interpolation ). == Alternatives == EBMs compete with techniques such as variational autoencoders (VAEs), generative adversarial networks (GANs) or normalizing flows. == Extensions == === Joint energy-based models === Joint energy-based models (JEM), proposed in 2020 by Grathwohl et al., allow any classifier with softmax output to be interpreted as energy-based model. The key observation is that such a classifier is trained to predict the conditional probability p θ ( y | x ) = e f → θ ( x ) [ y ] ∑ j = 1 K e f → θ ( x ) [ j ] for y = 1 , … , K and f → θ = ( f 1 , … , f K ) ∈ R K , {\displaystyle p_{\theta }(y|x)={\frac {e^{{\vec {f}}_{\theta }(x)[y]}}{\sum _{j=1}^{K}e^{{\vec {f}}_{\theta }(x)[j]}}}\ \ {\text{ for }}y=1,\dotsc ,K{\text{ and }}{\vec {f}}_{\theta }=(f_{1},\dotsc ,f_{K})\in \mathbb {R} ^{K},} where f → θ ( x ) [ y ] {\displaystyle {\vec {f}}_{\theta }(x)[y]} is the y-th index of the logits f → {\displaystyle {\vec {f}}} corresponding to class y. Without any change to the logits it was proposed to reinterpret the logits to describe a joint probability density: p θ ( y , x ) = e f → θ ( x ) [ y ] Z ( θ ) , {\displaystyle p_{\theta }(y,x)={\frac {e^{{\vec {f}}_{\theta }(x)[y]}}{Z(\theta )}},} with unknown partition function Z ( θ ) {\displaystyle Z(\theta )} and energy E θ ( x , y ) = − f θ ( x ) [ y ] {\displaystyle E_{\theta }(x,y)=-f_{\theta }(x)[y]} . By marginalization, we obtain the unnormalized density p θ ( x ) = ∑ y p θ ( y , x ) = ∑ y e f → θ ( x ) [ y ] Z ( θ ) =: e − E θ ( x ) , {\displaystyle p_{\theta }(x)=\sum _{y}p_{\theta }(y,x)=\sum _{y}{\frac {e^{{\vec {f}}_{\theta }(x)[y]}}{Z(\theta )}}=:e^{-E_{\theta }(x)},} therefore, E θ ( x ) = − log ( ∑ y e f → θ ( x ) [ y ] Z ( θ ) ) , {\displaystyle E_{\theta }(x)=-\log \left(\sum _{y}{\frac {e^{{\vec {f}}_{\theta }(x)[y]}}{Z(\theta )}}\right),} so that any classifier can be used to define an energy function E θ ( x ) {\displaystyle E_{\theta }(x)} .
List of artificial intelligence journals
This is a list of notable peer-reviewed academic journals that publish research in the field of artificial intelligence (AI), including areas such as machine learning, computer vision, natural language processing, robotics, and intelligent systems. == General artificial intelligence == Artificial Intelligence (journal) – Elsevier Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research (JAIR) – AI Access Foundation Knowledge-Based Systems – Elsevier == Machine learning == Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery – Springer Machine Learning (journal) – Springer Journal of Machine Learning Research – Microtome Pattern Recognition (journal) – Elsevier Neural Networks (journal) – Elsevier Neural Computation (journal) – MIT Press Neurocomputing (journal) - Elsevier == Deep learning and neural computation == IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation – IEEE IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems – IEEE Nature Machine Intelligence – Springer Nature == Computer vision == International Journal of Computer Vision – Springer IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence – IEEE Machine Vision and Applications – Springer == Natural language processing == Computational Linguistics (journal) – MIT Press Natural Language Processing Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics – ACL == Robotics and intelligent systems == IEEE Transactions on Robotics – IEEE Autonomous Robots – Springer Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems – Springer == Interdisciplinary and ethics in AI == AI & Society – Springer Artificial Life – MIT Press Philosophy & Technology – Springer Minds and Machines – Springer
Deep tomographic reconstruction
Deep Tomographic Reconstruction is a set of methods for using deep learning methods to perform tomographic reconstruction of medical and industrial images. It uses artificial intelligence and machine learning, especially deep artificial neural networks or deep learning, to overcome challenges such as measurement noise, data sparsity, image artifacts, and computational inefficiency. This approach has been applied across various imaging modalities, including CT, MRI, PET, SPECT, ultrasound, and optical imaging == Historical background == Traditional tomographic reconstruction relies on analytic methods such as filtered back-projection, or iterative methods which incrementally compute inverse transformations from measurement data (e.g., Radon or Fourier transform data). However, these approaches are not sufficient for certain imaging techniques such as low-dose CT and fast MRI, or scenarios involving metal artifacts and patient motion. == Use in imaging modalities == === Computed tomography (CT) === In CT, deep learning models can be particularly effective in reducing radiation exposure while maintaining image quality. Deep neural networks can also be able to reconstruct images of fair quality from sparsely sampled data without sacrificing diagnostic performance. Deep learning-based generative AI models can reduce CT metal artifacts. === Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) === In magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), deep learning can lead to reduced MRI motion artifacts, and increased acquisition speed, referred to as fast MRI. Despite suffering from disadvantages such as lower signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), deep learning can enhance image quality in low field MRI, making these systems clinically viable. === Positron emission tomography (PET) and single-photon emission CT (SPECT) === For PET imaging, deep learning models can provide substantial improvements in low-dose imaging and motion artifact correction. Also, deep learning can help SPECT for generation of attenuation background. A notable technique for PET denoising involves integrating MR data through multimodal networks, which use anatomical information from MRI to enhance PET image quality. === Ultrasound imaging === Deep learning can enhance ultrasound imaging by reducing speckle noise and motion blur. For ultrasound beamforming, deep neural networks can allow superior image quality with limited data at high speed. === Optical imaging and microscopy === Diffuse optical tomography, optical coherence tomography and microscopy can be improved by deep neural networks beyond traditional methods. Furthermore, deep learning can also enhance Photoacoustic imaging (see Deep learning in photoacoustic imaging), addressing challenges like high noise, low contrast, and limited resolution. Deep learning has also been applied to label-free live-cell imaging, where convolutional neural networks predict fluorescence labels from transmitted light images, a technique known as in silico labeling. This method can enable high-throughput, non-invasive cell analysis and phenotyping without the need for traditional fluorescent dyes.
Wetware computer
A wetware computer is an organic computer (which can also be known as an artificial organic brain or a neurocomputer) composed of organic material "wetware" such as "living" neurons. Wetware computers composed of neurons are different than conventional computers because they use biological materials, and offer the possibility of substantially more energy-efficient computing. While a wetware computer is still largely conceptual, there has been limited success with construction and prototyping, which has acted as a proof of the concept's realistic application to computing in the future. The most notable prototypes have stemmed from the research completed by biological engineer William Ditto during his time at the Georgia Institute of Technology. His work constructing a simple neurocomputer capable of basic addition from leech neurons in 1999 was a significant discovery for the concept. This research was a primary example driving interest in creating these artificially constructed, but still organic brains. == Origins and theoretical foundations == The term wetware came from cyberpunk fiction, notably through Gibson's Neuromancer, but was quickly taken up in scientific literature to explain computation by biological material. Theories of early biological computation borrowed from Alan Turing's morphogenesis model, which showed that chemical interactions could produce complex patterns without centralized control. Hopfield's associative memory networks also provided a foundation for biological information systems with fault tolerance and self-organization. == Major characteristics and processes == Biological wetware systems demonstrate dynamic reconfigurability underpinned by neuroplasticity and enable continuous learning and adaptation. Reaction-diffusion-based computing and molecular logic gates allow spatially parallel information processing unachievable in conventional systems. These systems also show fault tolerance and self-repair at the cellular and network level. The development of cerebral organoids—miniature lab-grown brains—demonstrates spontaneous learning behavior and suggests biological tissue as a viable computational substrate. == Overview == The concept of wetware is an application of specific interest to the field of computer manufacturing. Moore's law, which states that the number of transistors which can be placed on a silicon chip is doubled roughly every two years, has acted as a goal for the industry for decades, but as the size of computers continues to decrease, the ability to meet this goal has become more difficult, threatening to reach a plateau. Due to the difficulty in reducing the size of computers because of size limitations of transistors and integrated circuits, wetware provides an unconventional alternative. A wetware computer composed of neurons is an ideal concept because, unlike conventional materials which operate in binary (on/off), a neuron can shift between thousands of states, constantly altering its chemical conformation, and redirecting electrical pulses through over 200,000 channels in any of its many synaptic connections. Because of this large difference in the possible settings for any one neuron, compared to the binary limitations of conventional computers, the space limitations are far fewer. == Background == The concept of wetware is distinct and unconventional and draws slight resonance with both hardware and software from conventional computers. While hardware is understood as the physical architecture of traditional computational devices, comprising integrated circuits and supporting infrastructure, software represents the encoded architecture of storage and instructions. Wetware is a separate concept that uses the formation of organic molecules, mostly complex cellular structures (such as neurons), to create a computational device such as a computer. In wetware, the ideas of hardware and software are intertwined and interdependent. The molecular and chemical composition of the organic or biological structure would represent not only the physical structure of the wetware but also the software, being continually reprogrammed by the discrete shifts in electrical pulses and chemical concentration gradients as the molecules change their structures to communicate signals. The responsiveness of a cell, proteins, and molecules to changing conformations, both within their structures and around them, ties the idea of internal programming and external structure together in a way that is alien to the current model of conventional computer architecture. The structure of wetware represents a model where the external structure and internal programming are interdependent and unified; meaning that changes to the programming or internal communication between molecules of the device would represent a physical change in the structure. The dynamic nature of wetware borrows from the function of complex cellular structures in biological organisms. The combination of "hardware" and "software" into one dynamic, and interdependent system which uses organic molecules and complexes to create an unconventional model for computational devices is a specific example of applied biorobotics. === The cell as a model of wetware === Cells in many ways can be seen as their form of naturally occurring wetware, similar to the concept that the human brain is the preexisting model system for complex wetware. In his book Wetware: A Computer in Every Living Cell (2009) Dennis Bray explains his theory that cells, which are the most basic form of life, are just a highly complex computational structure, like a computer. To simplify one of his arguments a cell can be seen as a type of computer, using its structured architecture. In this architecture, much like a traditional computer, many smaller components operate in tandem to receive input, process the information, and compute an output. In an overly simplified, non-technical analysis, cellular function can be broken into the following components: Information and instructions for execution are stored as DNA in the cell, RNA acts as a source for distinctly encoded input, processed by ribosomes and other transcription factors to access and process the DNA and to output a protein. Bray's argument in favor of viewing cells and cellular structures as models of natural computational devices is important when considering the more applied theories of wetware to biorobotics. === Biorobotics === Wetware and biorobotics are closely related concepts, which both borrow from similar overall principles. A biorobotic structure can be defined as a system modeled from a preexisting organic complex or model such as cells (neurons) or more complex structures like organs (brain) or whole organisms. Unlike wetware, the concept of biorobotics is not always a system composed of organic molecules, but instead could be composed of conventional material which is designed and assembled in a structure similar or derived from a biological model. Biorobotics have many applications and are used to address the challenges of conventional computer architecture. Conceptually, designing a program, robot, or computational device after a preexisting biological model such as a cell, or even a whole organism, provides the engineer or programmer the benefits of incorporating into the structure the evolutionary advantages of the model. == Effects on users == Wetware technologies such as BCIs and neuromorphic chips offer new possibilities for user autonomy. For those with disabilities, such systems could restore motor or sensory functions and enhance quality of life. However, these technologies raise ethical questions: cognitive privacy, consent over biological data, and risk of exploitation. Without proper oversight, wetware technologies may also widen inequality, favoring those with access to cognitive enhancements. Open governance frameworks and ethical AI design grounded in neuro ethics will be essential. With the development of wetware devices, disparities in access could exacerbate social inequalities, benefiting those who have resources to enhance cognitive or physical abilities. It is necessary to create strong ethical frameworks, inclusive development practices, and open systems of governance to reduce risks and make sure that wetware advances are beneficial to all segments of society. == Applications and goals == === Basic neurocomputer composed of leech neurons === In 1999 William Ditto and his team of researchers at Georgia Institute of Technology and Emory University created a basic form of a wetware computer capable of simple addition by harnessing leech neurons. Leeches were used as a model organism due to the large size of their neuron, and the ease associated with their collection and manipulation. However, these results have never been published in a peer-reviewed journal, prompting questions about the validity of the claims. The computer was able to complete basic addition through electrical probes