MDS matrix

An MDS matrix (maximum distance separable) is a matrix representing a function with certain diffusion properties that have useful applications in cryptography. Technically, an m × n {\displaystyle m\times n} matrix A {\displaystyle A} over a finite field K {\displaystyle K} is an MDS matrix if it is the transformation matrix of a linear transformation f ( x ) = A x {\displaystyle f(x)=Ax} from K n {\displaystyle K^{n}} to K m {\displaystyle K^{m}} such that no two different ( m + n ) {\displaystyle (m+n)} -tuples of the form ( x , f ( x ) ) {\displaystyle (x,f(x))} coincide in n {\displaystyle n} or more components. Equivalently, the set of all ( m + n ) {\displaystyle (m+n)} -tuples ( x , f ( x ) ) {\displaystyle (x,f(x))} is an MDS code, i.e., a linear code that reaches the Singleton bound. Let A ~ = ( I n A ) {\displaystyle {\tilde {A}}={\begin{pmatrix}\mathrm {I} _{n}\\\hline \mathrm {A} \end{pmatrix}}} be the matrix obtained by joining the identity matrix I n {\displaystyle \mathrm {I} _{n}} to A {\displaystyle A} . Then a necessary and sufficient condition for a matrix A {\displaystyle A} to be MDS is that every possible n × n {\displaystyle n\times n} submatrix obtained by removing m {\displaystyle m} rows from A ~ {\displaystyle {\tilde {A}}} is non-singular. This is also equivalent to the following: all the sub-determinants of the matrix A {\displaystyle A} are non-zero. Then a binary matrix A {\displaystyle A} (namely over the field with two elements) is never MDS unless it has only one row or only one column with all components 1 {\displaystyle 1} . Reed–Solomon codes have the MDS property and are frequently used to obtain the MDS matrices used in cryptographic algorithms. Serge Vaudenay suggested using MDS matrices in cryptographic primitives to produce what he called multipermutations, not-necessarily linear functions with this same property. These functions have what he called perfect diffusion: changing t {\displaystyle t} of the inputs changes at least m − t + 1 {\displaystyle m-t+1} of the outputs. He showed how to exploit imperfect diffusion to cryptanalyze functions that are not multipermutations. MDS matrices are used for diffusion in such block ciphers as AES, SHARK, Square, Twofish, Anubis, KHAZAD, Manta, Hierocrypt, Kalyna, Camellia and HADESMiMC, and in the stream cipher MUGI and the cryptographic hash function Whirlpool, Poseidon.

Brave Leo

Brave Leo is a large language model-based chatbot developed by Brave Software and included with the Brave browser. == History == In November 2023, the company said versions for iOS and Android would be available "in the coming months". == Features == Since January 2024, Leo has used the open-source Mixtral 8x7B from Mistral AI as its default large language model, in addition to LLaMA 2 from Meta Platforms and Claude from Anthropic, both of which have been used previously. Leo can suggest follow-up questions, and summarize webpages, PDFs, and videos. Leo has a $15 (US) per month premium version that enables more requests and uses larger LLMs. == Privacy == The answers given by Leo are not saved. Brave uses the slogan Love Privacy to emphasize its focus on user privacy and data protection. The phrase has been featured in Brave's official marketing campaigns and has been cited in media coverage of the browser's privacy-first approach. == Controversies == In 2023, PC World reported that Leo evades questions about US elections.

Blended artificial intelligence

Blended artificial intelligence (blended AI) refers to the blending of different artificial intelligence techniques or approaches to achieve more robust and practical solutions. It involves integrating multiple AI models, algorithms, and technologies to leverage their respective strengths and compensate for their weaknesses. == Background == In the context of machine learning, blended AI can involve using different types of models, such as generative AI, decision trees, neural networks, and support vector machines. By combining their results, predictions are more accurate and reliable. This blending of models can be done through techniques like ensemble learning, where multiple models are trained independently and their predictions are combined to make a final decision. Blended AI can also involve combining different AI techniques or technologies, such as natural language processing, computer vision, and expert systems, to tackle complex problems that require a multi-dimensional approach. For example, in a sales scenario AI could be used for lead generation and gathering information from social media such as LinkedIn posts, or understanding a prospect's hobbies and interests. Another blended AI could achieve customer profiling including past interactions and purchasing habits, by them, their industry and growth areas. Blended AI could be used to do predictive analytics to look at historical sales data, market trends, and external factors to generate accurate sales forecasts. This method is critical to gauge and increase "efficiency, revenue, and productivity". Lastly, another could integrate all the information into the CRM to build and maintain better prospect and customer profiles. Blended AI aims to leverage the strengths of different AI techniques and technologies, allowing them to complement each other and create more powerful and comprehensive AI solutions. By combining multiple approaches, blended AI aims to achieve better performance, higher accuracy, improved robustness, and enhanced capabilities in solving diverse and challenging problems.

Course of Action Display and Evaluation Tool

Course of Action Display and Evaluation Tool (CADET) was a research program, and the eponymous prototype software system, that applied knowledge-based techniques of Artificial Intelligence to the problem of battle planning. CADET was also known as Course of Action Display and Elaboration Tool. It was considered an early example of such systems and was funded by the United States Army and by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). CADET influenced a later DARPA program called RAID which in turn produced a technology adopted by the United States Army and the United States Marine Corps. == History == The development of Course of Action Display and Evaluation Tool (CADET) began in 1996, at the Carnegie Group, Inc., Pittsburgh PA, funded under the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program. The goal of the first phase SBIR project was to produce “...a live storyboard of [Course of Action] COA development, wargaming, animation, and assessment.” In 1997, the United States Army awarded the Carnegie Group Inc. $750K for SBIR Phase II. The intent was to develop “...a war-gaming modeling and analysis Decision Support System (DSS), … CADET will consist of a combination of Knowledge-Based and decision analytic tools and technologies to provide fast nimble COA war-gaming modeling, simulation, and animation under direct control of the commander and staff. ...Phase II will result in an operations prototype (OP) suitable for use and evaluation in field exercises.” In 2000, CADET was integrated and experimentally evaluated within the framework of the Integrated Course of Action Critiquing and Elaboration System (ICCES) experiment, conducted by the Battle Command Battle Laboratory – Leavenworth (BCBL-L) within the program Concept Experimentation Program (CEP) sponsored by TRADOC. In 2000-2002, DARPA applied CADET in the program titled Command Post of the Future (CPoF) as a tool to generate a course of action. Under the umbrella of the CPoF program, CADET was integrated with the FOX GA system to provide a detailed planner, coupled with COA generation capability. In the same period, Battle Command Battle Lab-Huachuca (BCBL-H) performed an integration CADET with the system called All Source Analysis System-Light (ASAS-L); here CADET was intended to generate plans for intelligence assets, and conduct wargames of different COAs, enemy versus friendly. From 1996 through 2002, work on CADET was performed by the Carnegie Group, Inc., and supported by funding from the US Army CECOM (CADET SBIR Phase I, CADET SBIR Phase II and CADET Enhancements); DARPA (Command Post of the Future); and TRADOC BCBL-H. == Operation == CADET was intended to be used by the staff of the United States Army Brigade, within the Military Decision Making Process (MDMP). In particular, CADET helped produce, automatically or semi-automatically, the products generated within the step of MDMP called Course of Action (COA) Development and the following step of MDMP called COA Analysis and Wargaming. CADET software resided on a laptop computer. Using the computer, the staff officers entered the input to CADET, or alternatively this input arrived at CADET from upstream computer systems. The input consisted of: Order of Battle, i.e., the units constituting the friendly brigade and the enemy units participating in the battle, and their various characteristics; primary activities of the Course of Action, where each activity is typically linked to one or more geographic areas or a route, and sometimes to a major unit executing the activity; digital map of the region where the battle was to take place, including the digital description of significant features such as locations of friendly and enemy units, roads, assembly areas, objectives, and axes of attacks. Taking this input, CADET automatically performed the following tasks (not sequentially): Planning and scheduling the low-level tasks necessary for a given COA Allocating tasks to various units and assets constituting the brigade Assigning suitable locations and routes Estimating the battle losses (attrition) of friendly and enemy forces, and consumption of resources (e.g., fuel and ammunition) Predicting enemy actions or reactions. CADET produced the following outputs: Synchronization matrix, directly editable and printable; synchronization matrix is a kind of Gantt chart that shows assignments of activities to units, to locations/routes and to time periods Map overlays in PPT or JPG formats Animation output XML formally-encoded plan Textual Operation Plan (OPLAN) draft E-mail messages with attachments: XML and text versions of OPLAN == Design == The core algorithm is a planning algorithm where CADET uses a knowledge-based approach of the hierarchical-task-network type. Each task class is associated with a model of more detailed subtasks that should be performed in order to accomplish the higher-level task. Algorithms selected (heuristically) a task and then decomposes it into subtasks. Although similar to hierarchical-task-network planning algorithm, CADET’s algorithm includes elements of adversarial reasoning. After adding a subtask, the algorithm uses rules to determine the enemy’s probable actions and reactions as well as friendly counteractions This approximated the action-reaction-counteraction technique of manual wargaming used by the United States Army. When a task involves movements of a unit, the algorithm performs routing, i.e., finds a route for the movement that minimizes the time required for the movement as well as exposure to the enemy attacks. Each added tasks (subtask) normally requires a unit which would execute the task, and a time period when the task would be executed. Therefore, when a certain number of subtasks is added by the planning process, the algorithm also performs the allocation of the newly added subtasks to units and to time periods (i.e., scheduling). allocation and scheduling of tasks relies on both domain-specific and constraint-guided heuristics. A tasks may also require expenditures of fuel and ammunition. If the tasks involves engagement with the enemy, the performing units will experience lossesof personnel and weapon systems (attrition). CADET’s algorithm includes estimates of consumption of different types of consumables, and also attrition. Depending on the degree of attrition and consumption, CADET adds tasks that are needed to refuel or reconstitute the units. The algorithm continually interleaves incremental steps of planning, routing, scheduling, and attrition and consumption estimates. == Evaluation == Two evaluation experiments are described in literature. The first experiment called ICCES took three days. The subjects were Army officers from combat arms branches, with 11 to 23 years of active service, in the ranks of majors and lieutenant colonels, a total of 8. Each officer was given 4 hours of training learning to operate CADET and related computer tools. Officers were divided into two groups and given a tactical scenario. One group (the control group) used the traditional, manual process; the other used the system called ICCES, the automated core of which was CADET. Each group produced three COA sketches and statements and one COA synchronization matrix. Then, the experiment was repeated with another scenario but the control group became the automated group and vice versa. The users were generally satisfied with the quality of the ICCES-generated products. The group using ICCES made only a few changes to the product that was automatically generated, indicating that they agreed with the majority of the plan that ICCES produced. The second experiment was reminiscent of Turing test. The experiment involved one user, nine judges (active-duty officers, mainly colonels and lieutenant colonels), and five scenarios obtained from several US Army exercises. For each scenario, experimenters obtained synchronization matrices that were produced in earlier exercises, typically by a team of four to five officers in three to four hours, spending approximately 16 person-hours in total. Using these scenarios and COAs, the user had CADET generate automatically detailed plans and express them as synchronization matrices. The user, a retired US Army officer, reviewed and slightly edited the matrices. The entire process took less than two minutes of computations by and approximately 20 minutes of review and post-editing, approximately 0.4 person-hour in total per product. The experimenters gave the resulting matrices the same visual style as those produced by humans. The judges, who did not know whether a planning product was a traditional product of humans, or with computerized aids, were asked to grade the products. The result was that the average grades for manual products and CADET-generated products were statistically indistinguishable, even though CADET-generated products required far less time to produce. == Legacy == CADET served as “...an example of how even relatively basic A

Ordered weighted averaging

In applied mathematics, specifically in fuzzy logic, the ordered weighted averaging (OWA) operators provide a parameterized class of mean type aggregation operators. They were introduced by Ronald R. Yager. Many notable mean operators such as the max, arithmetic average, median and min, are members of this class. They have been widely used in computational intelligence because of their ability to model linguistically expressed aggregation instructions. == Definition == An OWA operator of dimension n {\displaystyle \ n} is a mapping F : R n → R {\displaystyle F:\mathbb {R} ^{n}\rightarrow \mathbb {R} } that has an associated collection of weights W = [ w 1 , … , w n ] {\displaystyle \ W=[w_{1},\ldots ,w_{n}]} lying in the unit interval and summing to one and with F ( a 1 , … , a n ) = ∑ j = 1 n w j b j {\displaystyle F(a_{1},\ldots ,a_{n})=\sum _{j=1}^{n}w_{j}b_{j}} where b j {\displaystyle b_{j}} is the jth largest of the a i {\displaystyle a_{i}} . By choosing different W one can implement different aggregation operators. The OWA operator is a non-linear operator as a result of the process of determining the bj. == Notable OWA operators == F ( a 1 , … , a n ) = max ( a 1 , … , a n ) {\displaystyle \ F(a_{1},\ldots ,a_{n})=\max(a_{1},\ldots ,a_{n})} if w 1 = 1 {\displaystyle \ w_{1}=1} and w j = 0 {\displaystyle \ w_{j}=0} for j ≠ 1 {\displaystyle j\neq 1} F ( a 1 , … , a n ) = min ( a 1 , … , a n ) {\displaystyle \ F(a_{1},\ldots ,a_{n})=\min(a_{1},\ldots ,a_{n})} if w n = 1 {\displaystyle \ w_{n}=1} and w j = 0 {\displaystyle \ w_{j}=0} for j ≠ n {\displaystyle j\neq n} F ( a 1 , … , a n ) = a v e r a g e ( a 1 , … , a n ) {\displaystyle \ F(a_{1},\ldots ,a_{n})=\mathrm {average} (a_{1},\ldots ,a_{n})} if w j = 1 n {\displaystyle \ w_{j}={\frac {1}{n}}} for all j ∈ [ 1 , n ] {\displaystyle j\in [1,n]} == Properties == The OWA operator is a mean operator. It is bounded, monotonic, symmetric, and idempotent, as defined below. == Characterizing features == Two features have been used to characterize the OWA operators. The first is the attitudinal character, also called orness. This is defined as A − C ( W ) = 1 n − 1 ∑ j = 1 n ( n − j ) w j . {\displaystyle A-C(W)={\frac {1}{n-1}}\sum _{j=1}^{n}(n-j)w_{j}.} It is known that A − C ( W ) ∈ [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle A-C(W)\in [0,1]} . In addition A − C(max) = 1, A − C(ave) = A − C(med) = 0.5 and A − C(min) = 0. Thus the A − C goes from 1 to 0 as we go from Max to Min aggregation. The attitudinal character characterizes the similarity of aggregation to OR operation(OR is defined as the Max). The second feature is the dispersion. This defined as H ( W ) = − ∑ j = 1 n w j ln ⁡ ( w j ) . {\displaystyle H(W)=-\sum _{j=1}^{n}w_{j}\ln(w_{j}).} An alternative definition is E ( W ) = ∑ j = 1 n w j 2 . {\displaystyle E(W)=\sum _{j=1}^{n}w_{j}^{2}.} The dispersion characterizes how uniformly the arguments are being used. == Type-1 OWA aggregation operators == The above Yager's OWA operators are used to aggregate the crisp values. Can we aggregate fuzzy sets in the OWA mechanism? The Type-1 OWA operators have been proposed for this purpose. So the type-1 OWA operators provides us with a new technique for directly aggregating uncertain information with uncertain weights via OWA mechanism in soft decision making and data mining, where these uncertain objects are modelled by fuzzy sets. The type-1 OWA operator is defined according to the alpha-cuts of fuzzy sets as follows: Given the n linguistic weights { W i } i = 1 n {\displaystyle \left\{{W^{i}}\right\}_{i=1}^{n}} in the form of fuzzy sets defined on the domain of discourse U = [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle U=[0,\;\;1]} , then for each α ∈ [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle \alpha \in [0,\;1]} , an α {\displaystyle \alpha } -level type-1 OWA operator with α {\displaystyle \alpha } -level sets { W α i } i = 1 n {\displaystyle \left\{{W_{\alpha }^{i}}\right\}_{i=1}^{n}} to aggregate the α {\displaystyle \alpha } -cuts of fuzzy sets { A i } i = 1 n {\displaystyle \left\{{A^{i}}\right\}_{i=1}^{n}} is given as Φ α ( A α 1 , … , A α n ) = { ∑ i = 1 n w i a σ ( i ) ∑ i = 1 n w i | w i ∈ W α i , a i ∈ A α i , i = 1 , … , n } {\displaystyle \Phi _{\alpha }\left({A_{\alpha }^{1},\ldots ,A_{\alpha }^{n}}\right)=\left\{{{\frac {\sum \limits _{i=1}^{n}{w_{i}a_{\sigma (i)}}}{\sum \limits _{i=1}^{n}{w_{i}}}}\left|{w_{i}\in W_{\alpha }^{i},\;a_{i}}\right.\in A_{\alpha }^{i},\;i=1,\ldots ,n}\right\}} where W α i = { w | μ W i ( w ) ≥ α } , A α i = { x | μ A i ( x ) ≥ α } {\displaystyle W_{\alpha }^{i}=\{w|\mu _{W_{i}}(w)\geq \alpha \},A_{\alpha }^{i}=\{x|\mu _{A_{i}}(x)\geq \alpha \}} , and σ : { 1 , … , n } → { 1 , … , n } {\displaystyle \sigma :\{\;1,\ldots ,n\;\}\to \{\;1,\ldots ,n\;\}} is a permutation function such that a σ ( i ) ≥ a σ ( i + 1 ) , ∀ i = 1 , … , n − 1 {\displaystyle a_{\sigma (i)}\geq a_{\sigma (i+1)},\;\forall \;i=1,\ldots ,n-1} , i.e., a σ ( i ) {\displaystyle a_{\sigma (i)}} is the i {\displaystyle i} th largest element in the set { a 1 , … , a n } {\displaystyle \left\{{a_{1},\ldots ,a_{n}}\right\}} . The computation of the type-1 OWA output is implemented by computing the left end-points and right end-points of the intervals Φ α ( A α 1 , … , A α n ) {\displaystyle \Phi _{\alpha }\left({A_{\alpha }^{1},\ldots ,A_{\alpha }^{n}}\right)} : Φ α ( A α 1 , … , A α n ) − {\displaystyle \Phi _{\alpha }\left({A_{\alpha }^{1},\ldots ,A_{\alpha }^{n}}\right)_{-}} and Φ α ( A α 1 , … , A α n ) + , {\displaystyle \Phi _{\alpha }\left({A_{\alpha }^{1},\ldots ,A_{\alpha }^{n}}\right)_{+},} where A α i = [ A α − i , A α + i ] , W α i = [ W α − i , W α + i ] {\displaystyle A_{\alpha }^{i}=[A_{\alpha -}^{i},A_{\alpha +}^{i}],W_{\alpha }^{i}=[W_{\alpha -}^{i},W_{\alpha +}^{i}]} . Then membership function of resulting aggregation fuzzy set is: μ G ( x ) = ∨ α : x ∈ Φ α ( A α 1 , ⋯ , A α n ) α ⁡ α {\displaystyle \mu _{G}(x)=\mathop {\vee } _{\alpha :x\in \Phi _{\alpha }\left({A_{\alpha }^{1},\cdots ,A_{\alpha }^{n}}\right)_{\alpha }}\alpha } For the left end-points, we need to solve the following programming problem: Φ α ( A α 1 , ⋯ , A α n ) − = min W α − i ≤ w i ≤ W α + i A α − i ≤ a i ≤ A α + i ∑ i = 1 n w i a σ ( i ) / ∑ i = 1 n w i {\displaystyle \Phi _{\alpha }\left({A_{\alpha }^{1},\cdots ,A_{\alpha }^{n}}\right)_{-}=\min \limits _{\begin{array}{l}W_{\alpha -}^{i}\leq w_{i}\leq W_{\alpha +}^{i}A_{\alpha -}^{i}\leq a_{i}\leq A_{\alpha +}^{i}\end{array}}\sum \limits _{i=1}^{n}{w_{i}a_{\sigma (i)}/\sum \limits _{i=1}^{n}{w_{i}}}} while for the right end-points, we need to solve the following programming problem: Φ α ( A α 1 , ⋯ , A α n ) + = max W α − i ≤ w i ≤ W α + i A α − i ≤ a i ≤ A α + i ∑ i = 1 n w i a σ ( i ) / ∑ i = 1 n w i {\displaystyle \Phi _{\alpha }\left({A_{\alpha }^{1},\cdots ,A_{\alpha }^{n}}\right)_{+}=\max \limits _{\begin{array}{l}W_{\alpha -}^{i}\leq w_{i}\leq W_{\alpha +}^{i}A_{\alpha -}^{i}\leq a_{i}\leq A_{\alpha +}^{i}\end{array}}\sum \limits _{i=1}^{n}{w_{i}a_{\sigma (i)}/\sum \limits _{i=1}^{n}{w_{i}}}} Zhou et al. presented a fast method to solve two programming problem so that the type-1 OWA aggregation operation can be performed efficiently. == OWA for committee voting == Amanatidis, Barrot, Lang, Markakis and Ries present voting rules for multi-issue voting, based on OWA and the Hamming distance. Barrot, Lang and Yokoo study the manipulability of these rules.

Alice AI (AI model family)

Alice AI is a neural network family developed by the Russian company Yandex LLC. Alice AI can create and revise texts, generate new ideas and capture the context of the conversation with the user. Alice AI is trained using a dataset which includes information from books, magazines, newspapers and other open sources available on the internet. The neural network may get facts wrong and hallucinate, but as it learns, it will produce increasingly accurate answers. == Usage == YandexGPT is integrated into virtual assistant Alice (an analog of Siri and Alexa) and is available in Yandex services and applications. The company gives businesses access to the neural network’s API through the public cloud platform Yandex Cloud and develops its own B2B solutions on its basis. Since July 2023, 800 companies have participated in the closed testing of YandexGPT. IT developers, banks, retail businesses, and companies from other industries can use the technology in two modes — API and Playground (an interface in the Yandex Cloud console for testing models and hypotheses). Two model versions are available to businesses: one works in asynchronous mode and is better able to handle complex tasks, while the other is suitable for creating quick responses in real time. As a result, YandexGPT has been tested in dozens of scenarios such as content tasks, tech support, creating chatbots, virtual assistants, etc. == History == In February 2023, Yandex announced that it was working on its own version of the ChatGPT generative neural network while developing a language model from the YaLM (Yet another Language Model) family. The project was tentatively named YaLM 2.0, which was later changed to YandexGPT. On May 17, the company unveiled a neural network called YandexGPT (YaGPT) and enabled its virtual assistant Alice to interact with the new language model. On June 15, 2023, Yandex added the YandexGPT language model to the image generation application Shedevrum. This enabled its users to create fully-fledged posts complete with a title, text, and relevant illustration. In July 2023, YandexGPT launched new features enabling businesses to create virtual assistants and chatbots, as well as generate and structure texts. On September 7, 2023, Yandex presented a new version of the language model, YandexGPT 2, at the Practical ML Conf. Compared to the previous one, the new version is able to perform more types of tasks, and the quality of answers has improved. The developers claimed that YandexGPT 2 answered user questions better than the first version in 67% of cases. From October 6, 2023, YandexGPT can create short retellings of online Russian-language videos on the Internet. It can summarize videos that are from two minutes to four hours long and contain speech.

SmartAction

SmartAction Company LLC is a U.S.-based software company that develops artificial intelligence–driven virtual agents for customer service applications, including voice-based interactive voice response (IVR) systems, chat, and SMS. The company was founded in 2009 by inventor and entrepreneur Peter Voss and is headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas. == History == In 2001, Peter Voss founded Adaptive AI, Inc., a research and development company focused on artificial intelligence concepts. In 2009, Voss founded SmartAction Company, LLC to commercialize customer-service automation software derived from this work. The company’s initial products focused on automating inbound and outbound calls for contact center environments. In November 2022, Kyle Johnson was appointed chief executive officer, succeeding Gary Davis, who had served as CEO since 2020. In 2024, SmartAction was acquired by Capacity, an AI-powered customer support automation company based in St. Louis, Missouri. == Technology == SmartAction develops cloud-based voice automation software that integrates speech recognition and natural language processing to support automated customer interactions in contact center environments. The platform supports automated handling of common customer service tasks and is designed to integrate with enterprise systems.