Liang Wenfeng (Chinese: 梁文锋; pinyin: Liáng Wénfēng; born 1985) is a Chinese entrepreneur and businessman who is the co-founder of the quantitative hedge fund High-Flyer, as well as the founder and CEO of its artificial intelligence company DeepSeek. Liang attended Zhejiang University, and began his career by applying machine learning methods to quantitative finance. Through High-Flyer, he built large-scale computing infrastructure that was later used to support artificial intelligence research, leading to the creation of DeepSeek in 2023. DeepSeek gained international attention following the release of DeepSeek-R1, which analysts described as demonstrating high-level performance with comparatively limited compute resources. In 2025, Liang was named to Time magazine's list of 100 Most Influential People in AI and Fortune's list of the Most Powerful People in Business. == Early life == Liang was born in 1985 in the village of Mililing (米历岭村), Qinba town (覃巴镇), Wuchuan city (吴川市), Guangdong. His parents were both primary school teachers. Liang was routinely praised by both locals and teachers alike. Even since middle school, Liang was recalled for being well-known for reading comic books, while also being very proficient in mathematics. == Education == After elementary school, Liang attended Wuchuan No. 1 Middle School. There, he quickly excelled in class and ranked highly amongst his peers. He taught himself high school and university-level mathematics courses. Liang then attended Wuchaun No. 1 High School. In these years, he developed hobbies of mathematical modeling and conducting research projects. Compared to his peers, he was always ranked highly. For every mathematics exam, he always ranked within the top three. He was also the top scorer in the Zhanjiang region of Guangdong for the college entrance exam. Thus, in 2002, Liang left high school early to further pursue his education at the university level at the young age of 17. Attending Zhejiang University at the age of 17, Liang earned a Bachelor of Engineering in Electronic Information Engineering in 2007 and his Master of Engineering in Information & Communication Engineering in 2010. His master's dissertation was titled "Study on Object Tracking Algorithm Based on Low-Cost PTZ camera" (基于低成本PTZ摄像机的目标跟踪算法研究). In his college years, DJI founder Wang Tao asked Liang to join as a co-founder. Liang declined the invitation to pursue artificial intelligence methodologies in financial markets. While he states that those around him had entrepreneurial mindsets, he himself valued academics. == Career == === Early career (2008–2016) === During the 2008 financial crisis, Liang formed a team with his classmates to accumulate data related to financial markets. He also led the team to explore quantitative trading using machine learning and other technologies. After his graduation, Liang moved to a cheap flat in Chengdu, Sichuan, where he experimented with ways to apply AI to various fields. These ventures failed, until he tried applying AI to finance. In 2013, Liang attempted to integrate artificial intelligence with quantitative trading and founded Hangzhou Yakebi Investment Management Co Ltd with Xu Jin, an alumnus of Zhejiang University. In 2015, they co-founded Hangzhou Huanfang Technology Co Ltd, which is today's Zhejiang Jiuzhang Asset Management Co Ltd. === High-Flyer (2016–2023) === In February 2016, Liang and two other engineering classmates co-founded Ningbo High-Flyer Quantitative Investment Management Partnership (Limited Partnership). The team relied on mathematics and AI to make investments. Much of the early startup culture was described by former employees to be "geeky" and "quirky," often seen as contrary to the existing culture in large Chinese tech companies. In 2019, Liang founded High-Flyer AI which was dedicated to research on AI algorithms and its basic applications. By this time, High-Flyer had over 10 billion yuan in assets under management. On 30 August 2019, Liang Wenfeng delivered a keynote speech entitled "The Future of Quantitative Investment in China from a Programmer's Perspective" at the Private Equity Golden Bull Award ceremony held by China Securities Journal, and sparked heated discussions. Liang stated that the criterion for determining what is quantitative or non-quantitative is whether the investment decision is made by quantitative methods or by people. Quantitative funds do not have portfolio managers making the decisions and instead are just servers. He also stated High-Flyer's mission is to improve the effectiveness of China's secondary market. In February 2021, Gregory Zuckerman's book The Man Who Solved the Market: How Jim Simons Launched the Quant Revolution was published. Liang wrote the preface for the Chinese edition of the book where he stated that whenever he encountered difficulties at work, he would think of Simons' words "There must be a way to model prices". In January 2025, Zuckerman wrote in The Wall Street Journal where he acknowledged this fact and stated he has been trying to get in touch with Liang but much like Simons, Liang is very secretive and difficult to contact. During 2021, Liang started buying thousands of Nvidia GPUs for his AI side project while running High-Flyer. Liang wanted to build something and it will be a game changer which his business partners thought was only possible from giants such as ByteDance and Alibaba Group. === DeepSeek (since 2023) === ==== DeepSeek begins ==== In May 2023, Liang announced High-Flyer would pursue the development of artificial general intelligence and launched DeepSeek. During that month in an interview with 36Kr, Liang stated that High-Flyer had acquired 10,000 Nvidia A100 GPUs before the US government imposed AI chip restrictions on China. That laid the foundation for DeepSeek to operate as an LLM developer. Liang also stated DeepSeek gets funding from High-Flyer. This was because when DeepSeek was founded, venture capital firms were reluctant in providing funding as it was unlikely that it would be able to generate an exit in a short period of time. Liang only personally holds 1% of the company, with 99% of the company being held by Ningbo High-Flyer Quantitative Investment Management Partnership (Limited Partnership). With DeepSeek's funding model, it lacks commercial pressure and rigid key performance indicators, enabling the company to deviate from previously established model architectures. ==== Early development ==== In July 2024, Liang was interviewed again by 36Kr. He stated that when DeepSeek-V2 was released and triggered an AI price war in China, it came as a huge surprise as the team did not expect pricing to be so sensitive. Liang's aggressive pricing of the language model forced domestic tech giants including Alibaba and Baidu to cut their own rates by over 95%. He also stated that as China's economy develops, it should gradually become a contributor instead of freeriding. What is lacking in China's innovation is not capital but a lack of confidence and knowledge on organizing talent into it. DeepSeek has not hired anyone particularly special and employees tend to be locally educated. When it comes to disruptive technologies, closed source approaches can only temporarily delay others in catching up. As the goal was long-term, DeepSeek sought employees who had ability and passion rather than experience. To retain a high talent density relative to larger firms like Bytedance or Baidu, DeepSeek aimed to maintain a low-hierarchy corporate culture, with members working in project-based groups, as well as competitive compensation. Liang emphasized his vision for DeepSeek employees to bring their "unique experience and ideas" instead of needing to be explicitly directed, with an overall bottom-up approach to division of labor. Liang noted that a significant outcome of this approach was the multi-head latent attention training architecture, which was attributed directly to a young DeepSeek researcher's personal interest. This advancement played a core role in reducing the cost of training the DeepSeek-V3 model, released in December 2024. ==== Release of DeepSeek-R1 ==== Also on 20 January 2025, DeepSeek, the company Liang founded and served as the CEO, released DeepSeek-R1, a 671-billion-parameter open-source reasoning AI model, alongside the publication of a detailed technical paper explaining its architecture and training methodology. The model was built using just 2,048 Nvidia H800 GPUs at a cost of $5.6 million, showcasing a resource-efficient approach that contrasted sharply with the billion-dollar budgets of Western competitors. The development of DeepSeek-R1 occurred amidst U.S. sanctions where Trump limited sales of Nvidia chips to China. By 27 January, DeepSeek surpassed ChatGPT to become the #1 free app on the United States iOS App Store. U.S. stocks plummeted, as more than $1 trillion was erased in market capitalization amid panic over DeepSeek. Technology journ
Image destriping
Image destriping is the process of removing stripes or streaks from images and videos without disrupting the original image/video. These artifacts plague a range of fields in scientific imaging including atomic force microscopy, light sheet fluorescence microscopy, and planetary satellite imaging. The most common image processing techniques to reduce stripe artifacts is with Fourier filtering. Unfortunately, filtering methods risk altering or suppressing useful image data. Methods developed for multiple-sensor imaging systems in planetary satellites use statistical-based methods to match signal distribution across multiple sensors. More recently, a new class of approaches leverage compressed sensing, to regularize an optimization problem, and recover stripe free images. In many cases, these destriped images have little to no artifacts, even at low signal to noise ratios.
Right to explanation
In the regulation of algorithms, particularly artificial intelligence and its subfield of machine learning, a right to [an] explanation is a right to be given an explanation for an output of the algorithm. Such rights primarily refer to individual rights to be given an explanation for decisions that significantly affect an individual, particularly legally or financially. For example, a person who applies for a loan and is denied may ask for an explanation, which could be "Credit bureau X reports that you declared bankruptcy last year; this is the main factor in considering you too likely to default, and thus we will not give you the loan you applied for." Some such legal rights already exist, while the scope of a general "right to explanation" is a matter of ongoing debate. There have been arguments made that a "social right to explanation" is a crucial foundation for an information society, particularly as the institutions of that society will need to use digital technologies, artificial intelligence, machine learning. In other words, that the related automated decision making systems that use explainability would be more trustworthy and transparent. Without this right, which could be constituted both legally and through professional standards, the public will be left without much recourse to challenge the decisions of automated systems. == Examples == === Credit scoring in the United States === Under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (Regulation B of the Code of Federal Regulations), Title 12, Chapter X, Part 1002, §1002.9, creditors are required to notify applicants who are denied credit with specific reasons for the detail. As detailed in §1002.9(b)(2): (2) Statement of specific reasons. The statement of reasons for adverse action required by paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section must be specific and indicate the principal reason(s) for the adverse action. Statements that the adverse action was based on the creditor's internal standards or policies or that the applicant, joint applicant, or similar party failed to achieve a qualifying score on the creditor's credit scoring system are insufficient. The official interpretation of this section details what types of statements are acceptable. Creditors comply with this regulation by providing a list of reasons (generally at most 4, per interpretation of regulations), consisting of a numeric reason code (as identifier) and an associated explanation, identifying the main factors affecting a credit score. An example might be: 32: Balances on bankcard or revolving accounts too high compared to credit limits === European Union === The European Union General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR, enacted 2016, taking effect 2018) extends the automated decision-making rights in the 1995 Data Protection Directive to provide a legally disputed form of a right to an explanation, stated as such in Recital 71: "[the data subject should have] the right ... to obtain an explanation of the decision reached". In full: The data subject should have the right not to be subject to a decision, which may include a measure, evaluating personal aspects relating to him or her which is based solely on automated processing and which produces legal effects concerning him or her or similarly significantly affects him or her, such as automatic refusal of an online credit application or e-recruiting practices without any human intervention. ... In any case, such processing should be subject to suitable safeguards, which should include specific information to the data subject and the right to obtain human intervention, to express his or her point of view, to obtain an explanation of the decision reached after such assessment and to challenge the decision. However, the extent to which the regulations themselves provide a "right to explanation" is heavily debated. There are two main strands of criticism. There are significant legal issues with the right as found in Article 22 — as recitals are not binding, and the right to an explanation is not mentioned in the binding articles of the text, having been removed during the legislative process. In addition, there are significant restrictions on the types of automated decisions that are covered — which must be both "solely" based on automated processing, and have legal or similarly significant effects — which significantly limits the range of automated systems and decisions to which the right would apply. In particular, the right is unlikely to apply in many of the cases of algorithmic controversy that have been picked up in the media. The UK has also recently amended its implementation of Article 22. A second potential source of such a right has been pointed to in Article 15, the "right of access by the data subject". This restates a similar provision from the 1995 Data Protection Directive, allowing the data subject access to "meaningful information about the logic involved" in the same significant, solely automated decision-making, found in Article 22. Yet this too suffers from alleged challenges that relate to the timing of when this right can be drawn upon, as well as practical challenges that mean it may not be binding in many cases of public concern. Other EU legislative instruments contain explanation rights. The European Union's Artificial Intelligence Act provides in Article 86 a "[r]ight to explanation of individual decision-making" of certain high risk systems which produce significant, adverse effects to an individual's health, safety or fundamental rights. The right provides for "clear and meaningful explanations of the role of the AI system in the decision-making procedure and the main elements of the decision taken", although only applies to the extent other law does not provide such a right. The Digital Services Act in Article 27, and the Platform to Business Regulation in Article 5, both contain rights to have the main parameters of certain recommender systems to be made clear, although these provisions have been criticised as not matching the way that such systems work. The Platform Work Directive, which provides for regulation of automation in gig economy work as an extension of data protection law, further contains explanation provisions in Article 11, using the specific language of "explanation" in a binding article rather than a recital as is the case in the GDPR. Scholars note that remains uncertainty as to whether these provisions imply sufficiently tailored explanation in practice which will need to be resolved by courts. === France === In France the 2016 Loi pour une République numérique (Digital Republic Act or loi numérique) amends the country's administrative code to introduce a new provision for the explanation of decisions made by public sector bodies about individuals. It notes that where there is "a decision taken on the basis of an algorithmic treatment", the rules that define that treatment and its "principal characteristics" must be communicated to the citizen upon request, where there is not an exclusion (e.g. for national security or defence). These should include the following: the degree and the mode of contribution of the algorithmic processing to the decision- making; the data processed and its source; the treatment parameters, and where appropriate, their weighting, applied to the situation of the person concerned; the operations carried out by the treatment. Scholars have noted that this right, while limited to administrative decisions, goes beyond the GDPR right to explicitly apply to decision support rather than decisions "solely" based on automated processing, as well as provides a framework for explaining specific decisions. Indeed, the GDPR automated decision-making rights in the European Union, one of the places a "right to an explanation" has been sought within, find their origins in French law in the late 1970s. == Criticism == Some argue that a "right to explanation" is at best unnecessary, at worst harmful, and threatens to stifle innovation. Specific criticisms include: favoring human decisions over machine decisions, being redundant with existing laws, and focusing on process over outcome. Authors of study "Slave to the Algorithm? Why a 'Right to an Explanation' Is Probably Not the Remedy You Are Looking For" Lilian Edwards and Michael Veale argue that a right to explanation is not the solution to harms caused to stakeholders by algorithmic decisions. They also state that the right of explanation in the GDPR is narrowly defined, and is not compatible with how modern machine learning technologies are being developed. With these limitations, defining transparency within the context of algorithmic accountability remains a problem. For example, providing the source code of algorithms may not be sufficient and may create other problems in terms of privacy disclosures and the gaming of technical systems. To mitigate this issue, Edwards and Veale argue that an auditing system could be more effective, to allow auditors to loo
Decision list
Decision lists are a representation for Boolean functions which can be easily learned from examples. Single term decision lists are more expressive than disjunctions and conjunctions; however, 1-term decision lists are less expressive than the general disjunctive normal form and the conjunctive normal form. The language specified by a k-length decision list includes as a subset the language specified by a k-depth decision tree. Learning decision lists can be used for attribute efficient learning, a type of machine learning. == Definition == A decision list (DL) of length r is of the form: if f1 then output b1 else if f2 then output b2 ... else if fr then output br where fi is the ith formula and bi is the ith boolean for i ∈ { 1... r } {\displaystyle i\in \{1...r\}} . The last if-then-else is the default case, which means formula fr is always equal to true. A k-DL is a decision list where all of formulas have at most k terms. Sometimes "decision list" is used to refer to a 1-DL, where all of the formulas are either a variable or its negation.
AZFinText
Arizona Financial Text System (AZFinText) is a textual-based quantitative financial prediction system written by Robert P. Schumaker of University of Texas at Tyler and Hsinchun Chen of the University of Arizona. == System == This system differs from other systems in that it uses financial text as one of its key means of predicting stock price movement. This reduces the information lag-time problem evident in many similar systems where new information must be transcribed (e.g., such as losing a costly court battle or having a product recall), before the quant can react appropriately. AZFinText overcomes these limitations by utilizing the terms used in financial news articles to predict future stock prices twenty minutes after the news article has been released. It is believed that certain article terms can move stocks more than others. Terms such as factory exploded or workers strike will have a depressing effect on stock prices whereas terms such as earnings rose will tend to increase stock prices. The AZFinText system analyzes financial news to identify the patterns in how investors react to such specific information. It uses methods like sentiment analysis and term weighting to examine the text of news articles. This system is designed to find price differences that occur when the market responds to news stories. This approach provides an alternative and easier method for predicting stock market movements. == Overview of research == The foundation of AZFinText can be found in the ACM TOIS article. Within this paper, the authors tested several different prediction models and linguistic textual representations. From this work, it was found that using the article terms and the price of the stock at the time the article was released was the most effective model and using proper nouns was the most effective textual representation technique. Combining the two, AZFinText netted a 2.84% trading return over the five-week study period. AZFinText was then extended to study what combination of peer organizations help to best train the system. Using the premise that IBM has more in common with Microsoft than GM, AZFinText studied the effect of varying peer-based training sets. To do this, AZFinText trained on the various levels of GICS and evaluated the results. It was found that sector-based training was most effective, netting an 8.50% trading return, outperforming Jim Cramer, Jim Jubak and DayTraders.com during the study period. AZFinText was also compared against the top 10 quantitative systems and outperformed 6 of them. A third study investigated the role of portfolio building in a textual financial prediction system. From this study, Momentum and Contrarian stock portfolios were created and tested. Using the premise that past winning stocks will continue to win and past losing stocks will continue to lose, AZFinText netted a 20.79% return during the study period. It was also noted that traders were generally overreacting to news events, creating the opportunity of abnormal returns. A fourth study looked into using author sentiment as an added predictive variable. Using the premise that an author can unwittingly influence market trades simply by the terms they use, AZFinText was tested using tone and polarity features. It was found that Contrarian activity was occurring within the market, where articles of a positive tone would decrease in price and articles of a negative tone would increase in price. A further study investigated what article verbs have the most influence on stock price movement. From this work, it was found that planted, announcing, front, smaller and crude had the highest positive impact on stock price. == Notable publicity == AZFinText has been the topic of discussion by numerous media outlets. Some of the more notable ones include The Wall Street Journal, MIT's Technology Review, Dow Jones Newswire, WBIR in Knoxville, TN, Slashdot and other media outlets.
Nanosemantics
Nanosemantics Lab is a Russian IT company specializing in natural language processing (NLP), computer vision (CV), speech technologies (ASR/TTS) and creation of interactive dialog interfaces, particularly chatbots and virtual assistants, based on artificial intelligence (AI). The company uses neural network platforms, including its own-made platform PuzzleLib which works on Russian-made microprocessor architecture Elbrus and Russia-based Astra Linux operating system. The company was founded in 2005 by Igor Ashmanov and Natalya Kaspersky. == Profile == The company was one of the first on Russian market to develop dialog interfaces for different branches of businesses, as well as to support community of AI developers. The company's most demanded product, as for beginning of the 2020s, is the automated "online advisers", functioning as chat bots, made for helping customers with usage of commercial products. In 2009 the company released an online service called iii.ru, where visitors were able to create their own AI-based virtual personalities entitles "infs" (for free). A visitor was able to train its own "inf" and let them chat to other "live" visitors as well with other "infs". More than 2.3 million of "infs" were created and trained by visitors over several years. Nanosemantics Lab maintains its own linguistic programming language for AI development called Dialog Language (DL). Popular social networks and instant messaging services may be used as base platforms. Nanosemantics' AI bots support different types of businesses: banks and financial services, telecommunications, retail, travel and automobile industry, home appliances production, etc. Among its solutions, Nanosemantics lists projects for various companies and institutions, among them VTB, Beeline, MTS, Sberbank, Higher School of Economics, Webmoney, Gazpromneft, Rostelecom, Ford Motors, Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation and others. The company uses the term "inf" for naming its numerous types of chat bots. The term was coined by co-founder Igor Ashmanov, head of Ashmanov & Partners. A 2014 scholarly research at Higher School of Economics, called "Basics of Business Informatics", states that such "infs", when used at business, may lower load on employees, collect statistics useful for understanding market demand and also may increase customer loyalty by providing fast and informative answers due to usage of large databases. The same research describes Nanosemantics' project for Russian branch of Ford Motors company, when AI capabilities were used for promoting the car model Ford Kuga. The research pointed out that within 2 months since beginning, the promo-website conducted 47774 talks of visitors with the specialized "inf", which indicated several hundred thousand of questions and the longest chat lasted for 3 hours 10 minutes. One-year promo campaign showed that 28.6% of people who made pre-orders talked to an "inf". In 2016 Nanosemantics launched a SaaS platform aimed at creating customized virtual assistants by users. The company's flagship product is considered to be Dialog Operating System (DialogOS), a professional corporate platform for creating intellectual voice and textual bots. It has its own linguistic programming language for creation of flexible scenarios and ready-studied neural natural language processing modules that are able to understand human interlocutors. In 2021 the company presented technology called NLab Speech ASR which contains a set of neural-networking algorithms for processing audio signals and analysis of texts that were trained and calibrated using speech-based big data marked up manually. The technology allows speed of processing of data up to "6 real-time factor" and precision values in noisy audio data may exceed 82%. In March 2022 the technology was included in Russia's Joint Registry for Russian Programs for Computers and Databases. As well, another technology was included: NLab Speech TTS, which is text-to-speech system that produces synthesized speech from printed text. == Joint projects == Nanosemantics participates in Ashmanov & Partners' projects related to AI. Since 2014, it helps in development of hardware "personal assistant" called Lexy, a solution similar to Amazon Alexa and the analogues. In August 2019 it was announced that Nanosemantics is going to participate in creation of open operating system for creating automated voice assistants. The project was called SOVA (Smart Open Virtual Assistant) and received investment of 300 million roubles (~$4,6 million) from Russian state-maintained National Technological Initiative. The company maintains long-term partnerships with Skolkovo Innovation Center (resident of IT cluster), branch association "Neuronet" and Yandex. Together with USA-based startup Remedy Logic, Nanosemantics has developed a medical diagnostic system for finding, using AI, spinal pathologies in tomography images of human bodies. Among them: central, foraminal and lateral lumbar stenosis, hernias, arthrosis. The system offers options of treatment. Since August 2021 the company is the resident of Technology Valley of Moscow State University. Also in 2021, Nanosemantics became a member of Committee on Artificial Intelligence within the Russian Association of Software Developers "Native Soft". The company states as one of its missions support of initiatives aimed at preservation and development of the Russian language. In May 2021, together with Pushkin Institute, the company created a chat bot called Phil, that explains to Russian people meaning of different Russian neologisms, and offers synonyms for them. Bot's vocabulary contains more than 500 neologisms, as well the bot can give advice on jargonisms and other types of specific words. Also in 2021, Nanosemanics Lab has signed the first-ever Russian "Codex of ethics of artificial intelligence". It establishes guidelines for ethical behavior of businesses that implement AI-based solutions. === IT contests === The company regularly organizes All-Russian Turing Test competitions for IT developers. Some of these events are co-organized with Microsoft. During the competitions, judges randomly choose virtual interlocutor and have a short conversation with them. They have to determine if a human or a machine is talking to them. An interlocutor may be either a bot or its human creator or operator. The results are measured in per cent of judges that were successfully convinced by a machine that it was a human. In 2021 Nanosemantics took part in federal project "Artificial Intelligence" by National Technological Initiative. In December 2021 the company together with state enterprise "Resource Center of Universal Design and Rehabilitation Technologies" (RCUD-RT) held an all-Russian hackathon aimed at development of AI solutions for medicine. During 3 days, participants created several training programs for patients with speech disorders. In April 2022, another hackathon by Nanosemantics was held together with MIREA – Russian Technological University. Students were participating and trying to generate algorithms for voice deepfakes. 17 teams contested in creation of software that generated artificial voice of a certain person. == Recognition == Since its foundation, Nanosemantics Lab has received a number of recognitions and awards. Among them are several professional ROTOR awards for the website iii.ru (created in 2009). The website gives the general public the means to create and train virtual assistants, which can then be used on a website or integrated into social networks. In 2013, a virtual assistant called Dana, created for Beeline Kazakhstan, was awarded with professional prize "Crystal Headset" in nomination "the best applying of technology". In 2015, the RBTH international media service included Nanosemantics in its list of "Top 50 Startups" in Russia. In 2016, the company received Russian state-maintained award called Runet Prize in two nominations: "State and Society" and "Technology and Innovation". In 2021, in Velikiy Novgorod, Nanosemantics team has won a hackathon aimed at finding means of discovering corruption schemes in Russian laws. In February 2022 the company won another contest by National Technological Initiative, called "Prochtenie", aimed at creation of AI systems for checking schoolchildren's school essays. The Nanosemantics team was awarded 20 million rubles for "overcoming technological barrier" in contest dedicated to English language, and 12 million for 1st place in special nomination "Structure" in Russian-language essay contest.
STIT logic
STIT logic (from seeing to it that) is a family of modal and branching-time logics for reasoning about agency and choice. A typical STIT operator has the form [ i s t i t : φ ] {\displaystyle [i\ {\mathsf {stit}}:\varphi ]} , usually read as "agent i {\displaystyle i} sees to it that φ {\displaystyle \varphi } ", and is interpreted in models where agents choose between alternative possible futures. STIT logics are used in action theory, deontic logic, epistemic logic, and the theory of intelligent agents to formalise notions such as "could have done otherwise", responsibility, joint action, and strategic ability in an indeterministic world. == Etymology == The acronym STIT comes from the English phrase "seeing to it that", introduced in influential work by Nuel Belnap and Michael Perloff on the logical analysis of agentive expressions. In this tradition, "to see to it that φ {\displaystyle \varphi } " is treated as a primitive agency operator, rather than being reduced to ordinary modal necessity. == History == Modern STIT logic arose in the 1980s in the context of branching-time semantics and formal theories of agency. Belnap and Perloff's article "Seeing to it that: A canonical form for agentives" introduced the idea of treating expressions of the form "agent i sees to it that φ" as a primitive modal operator, and analysed such sentences using a branching tree of moments and histories. This approach was further developed in a series of papers on indeterminism and agency and provided the conceptual core for later STIT formalisms. In the 1990s the basic formal systems of STIT logic were worked out. Horty and Belnap's influential paper on the deliberative STIT operator distinguished between a "Chellas" STIT that merely records the result of an agent's present choice and a "deliberative" STIT that requires the agent's choice to make a difference, and connected STIT with issues of action, omission, ability and obligation. Around the same time, Ming Xu proved completeness and decidability results for basic STIT systems, including a single-agent logic with Kripke-style semantics and axiomatizations for multi-agent deliberative STIT, thereby establishing STIT as a well-behaved normal modal framework. This early work was systematised in Belnap, Perloff and Xu's monograph Facing the Future: Agents and Choices in Our Indeterminist World, which presents a general branching-time semantics for individual and group STIT operators, discusses independence-of-agents conditions and articulates the metaphysical picture of an indeterministic "tree" of moments. At roughly the same time, Horty's book Agency and Deontic Logic developed deontic STIT logics in which obligations are tied to agents' available choices rather than to static states of affairs, and used the resulting systems to analyse "ought implies can", contrary-to-duty obligations and deontic paradoxes. These works helped to position STIT at the intersection of action theory, temporal logic and deontic logic. From the late 1990s and 2000s onward, STIT logics were combined with epistemic, temporal and strategic modalities. Broersen introduced complete STIT logics for knowledge and action and deontic-epistemic STIT systems that distinguish different modes of mens rea, with applications to responsibility and the specification of multi-agent systems. Work on group and coalitional agency investigated axiomatisations and complexity results for group STIT logics, and related STIT-based analyses of agency to coalition logic and alternating-time temporal logic (ATL) by exhibiting formal embeddings between the frameworks. Explicit temporal operators were added to STIT in so-called temporal STIT logics. Lorini proposed a temporal STIT with "next" and "until" operators along histories and showed how it can be applied to normative reasoning about ongoing behaviour and commitments. Ciuni and Lorini compared different semantics for temporal STIT, clarifying the relationships between branching-time, game-based and epistemic approaches, while Boudou and Lorini gave a semantics for temporal STIT based on concurrent game structures, thus strengthening links with standard models of multi-agent interaction used for ATL and strategy logic. In parallel, complexity-theoretic work by Balbiani, Herzig and Troquard and by Schwarzentruber and co-authors investigated the satisfiability and model-checking problems for various STIT fragments, showing for instance that many expressive group STIT logics are undecidable or of high computational complexity. In the 2010s, STIT ideas were combined with justification logic, imagination operators and refined deontic notions. Justification STIT logics, developed by Olkhovikov and others, merge explicit justifications with STIT-style agency so that producing a proof can itself be treated as an action that brings about knowledge, and they come with completeness and decidability results. Olkhovikov and Wansing introduced STIT imagination logics, together with axiomatic systems and tableau calculi, to model acts of voluntary imagining and their role in doxastic control. Other authors have proposed STIT-based logics of responsibility, blameworthiness and intentionality for use in philosophical and AI settings. Xu's survey article "Combinations of STIT with Ought and Know" (2015) reviews many of these developments and emphasises the interplay between deontic and epistemic STIT logics. Current research on STIT focuses on proof theory, automated reasoning and richer expressive resources. Lyon and van Berkel, building on earlier work on labelled calculi for STIT, have developed cut-free sequent systems and proof-search algorithms that yield syntactic decision procedures for a range of deontic and non-deontic multi-agent STIT logics and support applications such as duty checking and compliance checking in autonomous systems. Sawasaki has proposed first-order cstit-based STIT logics that can distinguish de re and de dicto readings of agency statements and has proved strong completeness results for Hilbert systems over finite models, moving the STIT programme beyond the purely propositional level. Further work investigates interpreted-system and computationally grounded semantics for STIT and its extensions in order to model the behaviour of autonomous agents in multi-agent settings, and proposes STIT-based semantics for epistemic notions based on patterns of information disclosure in interactive systems. == Branching-time semantics == STIT logics are usually interpreted over branching-time models. A standard STIT frame consists of: a non-empty set of moments T {\displaystyle T} , partially ordered by < {\displaystyle <} so that ( T , < ) {\displaystyle (T,<)} forms a tree (every pair of moments with a common predecessor has a greatest lower bound); a set of histories, each history being a maximal linearly ordered subset of T {\displaystyle T} ; a non-empty set of agents A g {\displaystyle Ag} ; for each agent i ∈ A g {\displaystyle i\in Ag} and moment m {\displaystyle m} , a choice function c h o i c e i m {\displaystyle {\mathsf {choice}}_{i}^{m}} that partitions the set of histories passing through m {\displaystyle m} into choice cells. The idea is that a moment represents a time at which choices are made, and histories represent complete possible future courses of events. At each moment, each agent's choice corresponds to selecting one of the available cells of histories determined by their choice function. Formulas are evaluated at pairs ( m , h ) {\displaystyle (m,h)} of a moment and a history through that moment (sometimes written m / h {\displaystyle m/h} ). A valuation assigns truth-values to atomic propositions at such indices; Boolean connectives are interpreted pointwise as in Kripke-style modal logic. == Chellas and deliberative STIT operators == Several STIT operators have been distinguished in the literature. A common approach uses two closely related operators, often called Chellas STIT and deliberative STIT. Let H m {\displaystyle H_{m}} be the set of histories passing through a moment m {\displaystyle m} , and write H m {\displaystyle H_{m}} ⟦ φ ⟧ m = { h ∈ H m ∣ M , m / h ⊨ φ } {\displaystyle {\text{⟦}}\varphi {\text{⟧}}_{m}=\{h\in H_{m}\mid M,m/h\models \varphi \}} for the set of histories at m {\displaystyle m} where φ {\displaystyle \varphi } holds. The Chellas STIT operator, often written [ i c s t i t : φ ] {\displaystyle [i\ {\mathsf {cstit}}:\varphi ]} , is given by M , m / h ⊨ [ i c s t i t : φ ] iff c h o i c e i m ( h ) ⊆ ⟦ φ ⟧ m . {\displaystyle M,m/h\models [i\ {\mathsf {cstit}}:\varphi ]\quad {\text{iff}}\quad {\mathsf {choice}}_{i}^{m}(h)\subseteq {\text{⟦}}\varphi {\text{⟧}}_{m}.} Intuitively, agent i {\displaystyle i} sees to it that φ {\displaystyle \varphi } if φ {\displaystyle \varphi } holds at all histories compatible with their present choice. The deliberative STIT operator, [ i d s t i t : φ ] {\displaystyle [i\ {\mathsf {dstit}}:\varphi ]} , adds