The Georges Giralt PhD Award is a European scientific prize for extraordinary contributions to robotics. It is awarded yearly at the European Robotics Forum by euRobotics AISBL, a non-profit organisation based in Brussels with the objective of turning robotics beneficial for Europe’s economy and society. Georges Giralt received his PhD in 1958, from Paul Sabatier University, in the domain of electrical machines, and soon afterwards became a pioneer in robotics, in Europe and worldwide. He was especially instrumental in bringing in scientific foundations and methodology when the domain was still young, and a loose coupling of mechanical and electrical engineering, adopting the early results of automatic control. The high reputation of the Georges Giralt PhD Award is based on the prominent role of the awarding institution euRobotics. With more than 250 member organisations, euRobotics represents the academic and industrial robotics community in Europe. Moreover, it provides the European robotics community with a legal entity to engage in a public/private partnership with the European Commission. The award is covered by various media. Entitled for participation in the Georges Giralt PhD Award are all robotics-related dissertations which have been successfully defended at a European university. The US-American counterpart is the Dick Volz Award. == Award winners == 2026: Antonio González Morgado 2025: Erfan Shahriari 2024: Manuel Keppler 2023: Antonio Andriella, Ribin Balachandran 2022: Antonio Loquercio, Michael Lutter 2021: Giuseppe Averta, Bernd Henze 2020: Cosimo Della Santina 2019: Grazioso Stanislao, Teodor Tomic 2018: Frank Bonnet, Daniel Leidner 2017: Johannes Englsberger 2016: Alexander Dietrich, Mark Müller 2015: Jörg Stückler 2014: Manuel Catalano, Fabien Expert, Rainer Jaekel 2013: Jens Kober 2012: Sami Haddadin 2011: Mario Pratts 2010: Ludovic Righetti 2009: Alejandro-Dizan Vasquez-Govea 2008: Cyrill Stachniss, Eduardo Rocon 2007: Pierre Lamon 2006: Martijn Wisse 2005: Juan Andrade Cetto 2004: Gilles Duchemin 2003: Ralf Koeppe 2002: Gianluca Antonelli, Jens-Steffen Gutmann
Image moment
In image processing, computer vision and related fields, an image moment is a certain particular weighted average (moment) of the image pixels' intensities, or a function of such moments, usually chosen to have some attractive property or interpretation. Image moments are useful to describe objects after segmentation. Simple properties of the image which are found via image moments include area (or total intensity), its centroid, and information about its orientation. == Raw moments == For a 2D continuous function f(x,y) the moment (sometimes called "raw moment") of order (p + q) is defined as M p q = ∫ − ∞ ∞ ∫ − ∞ ∞ x p y q f ( x , y ) d x d y {\displaystyle M_{pq}=\int \limits _{-\infty }^{\infty }\int \limits _{-\infty }^{\infty }x^{p}y^{q}f(x,y)\,dx\,dy} for p,q = 0,1,2,... Adapting this to scalar (grayscale) image with pixel intensities I(x,y), raw image moments Mij are calculated by M i j = ∑ x ∑ y x i y j I ( x , y ) {\displaystyle M_{ij}=\sum _{x}\sum _{y}x^{i}y^{j}I(x,y)\,\!} In some cases, this may be calculated by considering the image as a probability density function, i.e., by dividing the above by ∑ x ∑ y I ( x , y ) {\displaystyle \sum _{x}\sum _{y}I(x,y)\,\!} A uniqueness theorem states that if f(x,y) is piecewise continuous and has nonzero values only in a finite part of the xy plane, moments of all orders exist, and the moment sequence (Mpq) is uniquely determined by f(x,y). Conversely, (Mpq) uniquely determines f(x,y). In practice, the image is summarized with functions of a few lower order moments. === Examples === Simple image properties derived via raw moments include: Area (for binary images) or sum of grey level (for greytone images): M 00 {\displaystyle M_{00}} Centroid: { x ¯ , y ¯ } = { M 10 M 00 , M 01 M 00 } {\displaystyle \{{\bar {x}},\ {\bar {y}}\}=\left\{{\frac {M_{10}}{M_{00}}},{\frac {M_{01}}{M_{00}}}\right\}} == Central moments == Central moments are defined as μ p q = ∫ − ∞ ∞ ∫ − ∞ ∞ ( x − x ¯ ) p ( y − y ¯ ) q f ( x , y ) d x d y {\displaystyle \mu _{pq}=\int \limits _{-\infty }^{\infty }\int \limits _{-\infty }^{\infty }(x-{\bar {x}})^{p}(y-{\bar {y}})^{q}f(x,y)\,dx\,dy} where x ¯ = M 10 M 00 {\displaystyle {\bar {x}}={\frac {M_{10}}{M_{00}}}} and y ¯ = M 01 M 00 {\displaystyle {\bar {y}}={\frac {M_{01}}{M_{00}}}} are the components of the centroid. If ƒ(x, y) is a digital image, then the previous equation becomes μ p q = ∑ x ∑ y ( x − x ¯ ) p ( y − y ¯ ) q f ( x , y ) {\displaystyle \mu _{pq}=\sum _{x}\sum _{y}(x-{\bar {x}})^{p}(y-{\bar {y}})^{q}f(x,y)} The central moments of order up to 3 are: μ 00 = M 00 , μ 01 = 0 , μ 10 = 0 , μ 11 = M 11 − x ¯ M 01 = M 11 − y ¯ M 10 , μ 20 = M 20 − x ¯ M 10 , μ 02 = M 02 − y ¯ M 01 , μ 21 = M 21 − 2 x ¯ M 11 − y ¯ M 20 + 2 x ¯ 2 M 01 , μ 12 = M 12 − 2 y ¯ M 11 − x ¯ M 02 + 2 y ¯ 2 M 10 , μ 30 = M 30 − 3 x ¯ M 20 + 2 x ¯ 2 M 10 , μ 03 = M 03 − 3 y ¯ M 02 + 2 y ¯ 2 M 01 . {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\mu _{00}&=M_{00},&\mu _{01}&=0,\\\mu _{10}&=0,&\mu _{11}&=M_{11}-{\bar {x}}M_{01}=M_{11}-{\bar {y}}M_{10},\\\mu _{20}&=M_{20}-{\bar {x}}M_{10},&\mu _{02}&=M_{02}-{\bar {y}}M_{01},\\\mu _{21}&=M_{21}-2{\bar {x}}M_{11}-{\bar {y}}M_{20}+2{\bar {x}}^{2}M_{01},&\mu _{12}&=M_{12}-2{\bar {y}}M_{11}-{\bar {x}}M_{02}+2{\bar {y}}^{2}M_{10},\\\mu _{30}&=M_{30}-3{\bar {x}}M_{20}+2{\bar {x}}^{2}M_{10},&\mu _{03}&=M_{03}-3{\bar {y}}M_{02}+2{\bar {y}}^{2}M_{01}.\end{aligned}}} It can be shown that: μ p q = ∑ m p ∑ n q ( p m ) ( q n ) ( − x ¯ ) ( p − m ) ( − y ¯ ) ( q − n ) M m n {\displaystyle \mu _{pq}=\sum _{m}^{p}\sum _{n}^{q}{p \choose m}{q \choose n}(-{\bar {x}})^{(p-m)}(-{\bar {y}})^{(q-n)}M_{mn}} Central moments are translational invariant. === Examples === Information about image orientation can be derived by first using the second order central moments to construct a covariance matrix. μ 20 ′ = μ 20 / μ 00 = M 20 / M 00 − x ¯ 2 μ 02 ′ = μ 02 / μ 00 = M 02 / M 00 − y ¯ 2 μ 11 ′ = μ 11 / μ 00 = M 11 / M 00 − x ¯ y ¯ {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\mu '_{20}&=\mu _{20}/\mu _{00}=M_{20}/M_{00}-{\bar {x}}^{2}\\\mu '_{02}&=\mu _{02}/\mu _{00}=M_{02}/M_{00}-{\bar {y}}^{2}\\\mu '_{11}&=\mu _{11}/\mu _{00}=M_{11}/M_{00}-{\bar {x}}{\bar {y}}\end{aligned}}} The covariance matrix of the image I ( x , y ) {\displaystyle I(x,y)} is now cov [ I ( x , y ) ] = [ μ 20 ′ μ 11 ′ μ 11 ′ μ 02 ′ ] . {\displaystyle \operatorname {cov} [I(x,y)]={\begin{bmatrix}\mu '_{20}&\mu '_{11}\\\mu '_{11}&\mu '_{02}\end{bmatrix}}.} The eigenvectors of this matrix correspond to the major and minor axes of the image intensity, so the orientation can thus be extracted from the angle of the eigenvector associated with the largest eigenvalue towards the axis closest to this eigenvector. It can be shown that this angle Θ is given by the following formula: Θ = 1 2 arctan ( 2 μ 11 ′ μ 20 ′ − μ 02 ′ ) {\displaystyle \Theta ={\frac {1}{2}}\arctan \left({\frac {2\mu '_{11}}{\mu '_{20}-\mu '_{02}}}\right)} The above formula holds as long as: μ 20 ′ − μ 02 ′ ≠ 0 {\displaystyle \mu '_{20}-\mu '_{02}\neq 0} The eigenvalues of the covariance matrix can easily be shown to be λ i = μ 20 ′ + μ 02 ′ 2 ± 4 μ ′ 11 2 + ( μ ′ 20 − μ ′ 02 ) 2 2 , {\displaystyle \lambda _{i}={\frac {\mu '_{20}+\mu '_{02}}{2}}\pm {\frac {\sqrt {4{\mu '}_{11}^{2}+({\mu '}_{20}-{\mu '}_{02})^{2}}}{2}},} and are proportional to the squared length of the eigenvector axes. The relative difference in magnitude of the eigenvalues are thus an indication of the eccentricity of the image, or how elongated it is. The eccentricity is 1 − λ 2 λ 1 . {\displaystyle {\sqrt {1-{\frac {\lambda _{2}}{\lambda _{1}}}}}.} == Moment invariants == Moments are well-known for their application in image analysis, since they can be used to derive invariants with respect to specific transformation classes. The term invariant moments is often abused in this context. However, while moment invariants are invariants that are formed from moments, the only moments that are invariants themselves are the central moments. Note that the invariants detailed below are exactly invariant only in the continuous domain. In a discrete domain, neither scaling nor rotation are well defined: a discrete image transformed in such a way is generally an approximation, and the transformation is not reversible. These invariants therefore are only approximately invariant when describing a shape in a discrete image. === Translation invariants === The central moments μi j of any order are, by construction, invariant with respect to translations. === Scale invariants === Invariants ηi j with respect to both translation and scale can be constructed from central moments by dividing through a properly scaled zero-th central moment: η i j = μ i j μ 00 ( 1 + i + j 2 ) {\displaystyle \eta _{ij}={\frac {\mu _{ij}}{\mu _{00}^{\left(1+{\frac {i+j}{2}}\right)}}}\,\!} where i + j ≥ 2. Note that translational invariance directly follows by only using central moments. === Rotation invariants === As shown in the work of Hu, invariants with respect to translation, scale, and rotation can be constructed: I 1 = η 20 + η 02 {\displaystyle I_{1}=\eta _{20}+\eta _{02}} I 2 = ( η 20 − η 02 ) 2 + 4 η 11 2 {\displaystyle I_{2}=(\eta _{20}-\eta _{02})^{2}+4\eta _{11}^{2}} I 3 = ( η 30 − 3 η 12 ) 2 + ( 3 η 21 − η 03 ) 2 {\displaystyle I_{3}=(\eta _{30}-3\eta _{12})^{2}+(3\eta _{21}-\eta _{03})^{2}} I 4 = ( η 30 + η 12 ) 2 + ( η 21 + η 03 ) 2 {\displaystyle I_{4}=(\eta _{30}+\eta _{12})^{2}+(\eta _{21}+\eta _{03})^{2}} I 5 = ( η 30 − 3 η 12 ) ( η 30 + η 12 ) [ ( η 30 + η 12 ) 2 − 3 ( η 21 + η 03 ) 2 ] + ( 3 η 21 − η 03 ) ( η 21 + η 03 ) [ 3 ( η 30 + η 12 ) 2 − ( η 21 + η 03 ) 2 ] {\displaystyle I_{5}=(\eta _{30}-3\eta _{12})(\eta _{30}+\eta _{12})[(\eta _{30}+\eta _{12})^{2}-3(\eta _{21}+\eta _{03})^{2}]+(3\eta _{21}-\eta _{03})(\eta _{21}+\eta _{03})[3(\eta _{30}+\eta _{12})^{2}-(\eta _{21}+\eta _{03})^{2}]} I 6 = ( η 20 − η 02 ) [ ( η 30 + η 12 ) 2 − ( η 21 + η 03 ) 2 ] + 4 η 11 ( η 30 + η 12 ) ( η 21 + η 03 ) {\displaystyle I_{6}=(\eta _{20}-\eta _{02})[(\eta _{30}+\eta _{12})^{2}-(\eta _{21}+\eta _{03})^{2}]+4\eta _{11}(\eta _{30}+\eta _{12})(\eta _{21}+\eta _{03})} I 7 = ( 3 η 21 − η 03 ) ( η 30 + η 12 ) [ ( η 30 + η 12 ) 2 − 3 ( η 21 + η 03 ) 2 ] − ( η 30 − 3 η 12 ) ( η 21 + η 03 ) [ 3 ( η 30 + η 12 ) 2 − ( η 21 + η 03 ) 2 ] . {\displaystyle I_{7}=(3\eta _{21}-\eta _{03})(\eta _{30}+\eta _{12})[(\eta _{30}+\eta _{12})^{2}-3(\eta _{21}+\eta _{03})^{2}]-(\eta _{30}-3\eta _{12})(\eta _{21}+\eta _{03})[3(\eta _{30}+\eta _{12})^{2}-(\eta _{21}+\eta _{03})^{2}].} These are well-known as Hu moment invariants. The first one, I1, is analogous to the moment of inertia around the image's centroid, where the pixels' intensities are analogous to physical density. The first six, I1 ... I6, are reflection symmetric, i.e. they are unchanged if the image is changed to a mirror image. The last one, I7, is reflection antisymmetric (changes sign under reflection), which enables it to distinguish mirror images of otherwise identical im
Pattern theory
Pattern theory, formulated by Ulf Grenander, is a mathematical formalism to describe knowledge of the world as patterns. It differs from other approaches to artificial intelligence in that it does not begin by prescribing algorithms and machinery to recognize and classify patterns; rather, it prescribes a vocabulary to articulate and recast the pattern concepts in precise language. Broad in its mathematical coverage, Pattern Theory spans algebra and statistics, as well as local topological and global entropic properties. In addition to the new algebraic vocabulary, its statistical approach is novel in its aim to: Identify the hidden variables of a data set using real world data rather than artificial stimuli, which was previously commonplace. Formulate prior distributions for hidden variables and models for the observed variables that form the vertices of a Gibbs-like graph. Study the randomness and variability of these graphs. Create the basic classes of stochastic models applied by listing the deformations of the patterns. Synthesize (sample) from the models, not just analyze signals with them. The Brown University Pattern Theory Group was formed in 1972 by Ulf Grenander. Many mathematicians are currently working in this group, noteworthy among them being the Fields Medalist David Mumford. Mumford regards Grenander as his "guru" in Pattern Theory.
Argumentation framework
In artificial intelligence and related fields, an argumentation framework is a way to deal with contentious information and draw conclusions from it using formalized arguments. In an abstract argumentation framework, entry-level information is a set of abstract arguments that, for instance, represent data or a proposition. Conflicts between arguments are represented by a binary relation on the set of arguments. In concrete terms, an argumentation framework is represented with a directed graph such that the nodes are the arguments, and the arrows represent the attack relation. There exist some extensions of the Dung's framework, like the logic-based argumentation frameworks or the value-based argumentation frameworks. == Abstract argumentation frameworks == === Formal framework === Abstract argumentation frameworks, also called argumentation frameworks à la Dung, are defined formally as a pair: A set of abstract elements called arguments, denoted A {\displaystyle A} A binary relation on A {\displaystyle A} , called attack relation, denoted R {\displaystyle R} For instance, the argumentation system S = ⟨ A , R ⟩ {\displaystyle S=\langle A,R\rangle } with A = { a , b , c , d } {\displaystyle A=\{a,b,c,d\}} and R = { ( a , b ) , ( b , c ) , ( d , c ) } {\displaystyle R=\{(a,b),(b,c),(d,c)\}} contains four arguments ( a , b , c {\displaystyle a,b,c} and d {\displaystyle d} ) and three attacks ( a {\displaystyle a} attacks b {\displaystyle b} , b {\displaystyle b} attacks c {\displaystyle c} and d {\displaystyle d} attacks c {\displaystyle c} ). Dung defines some notions : an argument a ∈ A {\displaystyle a\in A} is acceptable with respect to E ⊆ A {\displaystyle E\subseteq A} if and only if E {\displaystyle E} defends a {\displaystyle a} , that is ∀ b ∈ A {\displaystyle \forall b\in A} such that ( b , a ) ∈ R , ∃ c ∈ E {\displaystyle (b,a)\in R,\exists c\in E} such that ( c , b ) ∈ R {\displaystyle (c,b)\in R} , a set of arguments E {\displaystyle E} is conflict-free if there is no attack between its arguments, formally : ∀ a , b ∈ E , ( a , b ) ∉ R {\displaystyle \forall a,b\in E,(a,b)\not \in R} , a set of arguments E {\displaystyle E} is admissible if and only if it is conflict-free and all its arguments are acceptable with respect to E {\displaystyle E} . === Different semantics of acceptance === ==== Extensions ==== To decide if an argument can be accepted or not, or if several arguments can be accepted together, Dung defines several semantics of acceptance that allows, given an argumentation system, sets of arguments (called extensions) to be computed. For instance, given S = ⟨ A , R ⟩ {\displaystyle S=\langle A,R\rangle } , E {\displaystyle E} is a complete extension of S {\displaystyle S} only if it is an admissible set and every acceptable argument with respect to E {\displaystyle E} belongs to E {\displaystyle E} , E {\displaystyle E} is a preferred extension of S {\displaystyle S} only if it is a maximal element (with respect to the set-theoretical inclusion) among the admissible sets with respect to S {\displaystyle S} , E {\displaystyle E} is a stable extension of S {\displaystyle S} only if it is a conflict-free set that attacks every argument that does not belong in E {\displaystyle E} (formally, ∀ a ∈ A ∖ E , ∃ b ∈ E {\displaystyle \forall a\in A\backslash E,\exists b\in E} such that ( b , a ) ∈ R {\displaystyle (b,a)\in R} , E {\displaystyle E} is the (unique) grounded extension of S {\displaystyle S} only if it is the smallest element (with respect to set inclusion) among the complete extensions of S {\displaystyle S} . There exists some inclusions between the sets of extensions built with these semantics : Every stable extension is preferred, Every preferred extension is complete, The grounded extension is complete, If the system is well-founded (there exists no infinite sequence a 0 , a 1 , … , a n , … {\displaystyle a_{0},a_{1},\dots ,a_{n},\dots } such that ∀ i > 0 , ( a i + 1 , a i ) ∈ R {\displaystyle \forall i>0,(a_{i+1},a_{i})\in R} ), all these semantics coincide—only one extension is grounded, stable, preferred, and complete. Some other semantics have been defined. One introduce the notation E x t σ ( S ) {\displaystyle Ext_{\sigma }(S)} to note the set of σ {\displaystyle \sigma } -extensions of the system S {\displaystyle S} . In the case of the system S {\displaystyle S} in the figure above, E x t σ ( S ) = { { a , d } } {\displaystyle Ext_{\sigma }(S)=\{\{a,d\}\}} for every Dung's semantic—the system is well-founded. That explains why the semantics coincide, and the accepted arguments are: a {\displaystyle a} and d {\displaystyle d} . ==== Labellings ==== Labellings are a more expressive way than extensions to express the acceptance of the arguments. Concretely, a labelling is a mapping that associates every argument with a label in (the argument is accepted), out (the argument is rejected), or undec (the argument is undefined—not accepted or refused). One can also note a labelling as a set of pairs ( a r g u m e n t , l a b e l ) {\displaystyle ({\mathit {argument}},{\mathit {label}})} . Such a mapping does not make sense without additional constraint. The notion of reinstatement labelling guarantees the sense of the mapping. L {\displaystyle L} is a reinstatement labelling on the system S = ⟨ A , R ⟩ {\displaystyle S=\langle A,R\rangle } if and only if : ∀ a ∈ A , L ( a ) = i n {\displaystyle \forall a\in A,L(a)={\mathit {in}}} if and only if ∀ b ∈ A {\displaystyle \forall b\in A} such that ( b , a ) ∈ R , L ( b ) = o u t {\displaystyle (b,a)\in R,L(b)={\mathit {out}}} ∀ a ∈ A , L ( a ) = o u t {\displaystyle \forall a\in A,L(a)={\mathit {out}}} if and only if ∃ b ∈ A {\displaystyle \exists b\in A} such that ( b , a ) ∈ R {\displaystyle (b,a)\in R} and L ( b ) = i n {\displaystyle L(b)={\mathit {in}}} ∀ a ∈ A , L ( a ) = u n d e c {\displaystyle \forall a\in A,L(a)={\mathit {undec}}} if and only if L ( a ) ≠ i n {\displaystyle L(a)\neq {\mathit {in}}} and L ( a ) ≠ o u t {\displaystyle L(a)\neq {\mathit {out}}} One can convert every extension into a reinstatement labelling: the arguments of the extension are in, those attacked by an argument of the extension are out, and the others are undec. Conversely, one can build an extension from a reinstatement labelling just by keeping the arguments in. Indeed, Caminada proved that the reinstatement labellings and the complete extensions can be mapped in a bijective way. Moreover, the other Datung's semantics can be associated to some particular sets of reinstatement labellings. Reinstatement labellings distinguish arguments not accepted because they are attacked by accepted arguments from undefined arguments—that is, those that are not defended cannot defend themselves. An argument is undec if it is attacked by at least another undec. If it is attacked only by arguments out, it must be in, and if it is attacked some argument in, then it is out. The unique reinstatement labelling that corresponds to the system S {\displaystyle S} above is L = { ( a , i n ) , ( b , o u t ) , ( c , o u t ) , ( d , i n ) } {\displaystyle L=\{(a,{\mathit {in}}),(b,{\mathit {out}}),(c,{\mathit {out}}),(d,{\mathit {in}})\}} . === Inference from an argumentation system === In the general case when several extensions are computed for a given semantic σ {\displaystyle \sigma } , the agent that reasons from the system can use several mechanisms to infer information: Credulous inference: the agent accepts an argument if it belongs to at least one of the σ {\displaystyle \sigma } -extensions—in which case, the agent risks accepting some arguments that are not acceptable together ( a {\displaystyle a} attacks b {\displaystyle b} , and a {\displaystyle a} and b {\displaystyle b} each belongs to an extension) Skeptical inference: the agent accepts an argument only if it belongs to every σ {\displaystyle \sigma } -extension. In this case, the agent risks deducing too little information (if the intersection of the extensions is empty or has a very small cardinal). For these two methods to infer information, one can identify the set of accepted arguments, respectively C r σ ( S ) {\displaystyle Cr_{\sigma }(S)} the set of the arguments credulously accepted under the semantic σ {\displaystyle \sigma } , and S c σ ( S ) {\displaystyle Sc_{\sigma }(S)} the set of arguments accepted skeptically under the semantic σ {\displaystyle \sigma } (the σ {\displaystyle \sigma } can be missed if there is no possible ambiguity about the semantic). Of course, when there is only one extension (for instance, when the system is well-founded), this problem is very simple: the agent accepts arguments of the unique extension and rejects others. The same reasoning can be done with labellings that correspond to the chosen semantic : an argument can be accepted if it is in for each labelling and refused if it is out for each labelling, the others being in an undecided state (the status of the arguments can remind the
Nouvelle AI
Nouvelle artificial intelligence (Nouvelle AI) is an approach to artificial intelligence pioneered in the 1980s by Rodney Brooks, who was then part of MIT artificial intelligence laboratory. Nouvelle AI differs from classical AI by aiming to produce robots with intelligence levels similar to insects. Researchers believe that intelligence can emerge organically from simple behaviors as these intelligences interacted with the "real world", instead of using the constructed worlds which symbolic AIs typically needed to have programmed into them. == Motivation == The differences between nouvelle AI and symbolic AI are apparent in early robots Shakey and Freddy. These robots contained an internal model (or "representation") of their micro-worlds consisting of symbolic descriptions. As a result, this structure of symbols had to be renewed as the robot moved or the world changed. Shakey's planning programs assessed the program structure and broke it down into the necessary steps to complete the desired action. This level of computation required a large amount time to process, so Shakey typically performed its tasks very slowly. Symbolic AI researchers had long been plagued by the problem of updating, searching, and otherwise manipulating the symbolic worlds inside their AIs. A nouvelle system refers continuously to its sensors rather than to an internal model of the world. It processes the external world information it needs from the senses when it is required. As Brooks puts it, "the world is its own best model--always exactly up to date and complete in every detail." A central idea of nouvelle AI is that simple behaviors combine to form more complex behaviors over time. For example, simple behaviors can include elements like "move forward" and "avoid obstacles." A robot using nouvelle AI with simple behaviors like collision avoidance and moving toward a moving object could possibly come together to produce a more complex behavior like chasing a moving object. === The frame problem === The frame problem describes an issue with using first-order logic (FOL) to express facts about a robot in the world. Representing the state of a robot with traditional FOL requires the use of many axioms (symbolic language) to imply that things about an environment do not change arbitrarily. Nouvelle AI seeks to sidestep the frame problem by dispensing with filling the AI or robot with volumes of symbolic language and instead letting more complex behaviors emerge by combining simpler behavioral elements. === Embodiment === The goal of traditional AI was to build intelligences without bodies, which would only have been able to interact with the world via keyboard, screen, or printer. However, nouvelle AI attempts to build embodied intelligence situated in the real world. Brooks quotes approvingly from the brief sketches that Turing gave in 1948 and 1950 of the "situated" approach. Turing wrote of equipping a machine "with the best sense organs that money can buy" and teaching it "to understand and speak English" by a process that would "follow the normal teaching of a child." This approach was contrasted to the others where they focused on abstract activities such as playing chess. == Brooks' robots == === Insectoid robots === Brooks focused on building robots that acted like simple insects while simultaneously working to remove some traditional AI characteristics. He created insect-like robots, named Allen and Herbert after cognitive science and AI pioneers Allen Newell and Herbert A. Simon. Brooks's insectoid robots contained no internal models of the world. Herbert, for example, discarded a high volume of the information received from its sensors and never stored information for more than two seconds. ==== Allen ==== Allen had a ring of twelve ultrasonic sonars as its primary sensors and three independent behavior-producing modules. These modules were programmed to avoid both stationary and moving objects. With only this module activated, Allen stayed in the middle of a room until an object approached and then it ran away while avoiding obstacles in its way. ==== Herbert ==== Herbert used infrared sensors to avoid obstacles and a laser system to collect 3D data over a distance of about 12 feet. Herbert also carried a number of simple sensors in its "hand." The robot's testing ground was the real world environment of the busy offices and workspaces of the MIT AI lab where it searched for empty soda cans and carried them away, a seemingly goal-oriented activity that emerged as a result of 15 simple behavior units combining. As a parallel, Simon noted that an ant's complicated path is due to the structure of its environment rather than the depth of its thought processes. ==== Other insectoid robots ==== Other robots by Brooks' team were Genghis and Squirt. Genghis had six legs and was able to walk over rough terrain and follow a human. Squirt's behavior modules had it stay in dark corners until it heard a noise, then it would begin to follow the source of the noise. Brooks agreed that the level of nouvelle AI had come near the complexity of a real insect, which raised a question about whether or not insect level-behavior was and is a reasonable goal for nouvelle AI. === Humanoid robots === Brooks' own recent work has taken the opposite direction to that proposed by Von Neumann in the quotations "theorists who select the human nervous system as their model are unrealistically picking 'the most complicated object under the sun,' and that there is little advantage in selecting instead the ant, since any nervous system at all exhibits exceptional complexity." ==== Cog ==== In the 1990s, Brooks decided to pursue the goal of human-level intelligence and, with Lynn Andrea Stein, built a humanoid robot called Cog. Cog is a robot with an extensive collection of sensors, a face, and arms (among other features) that allow it to interact with the world and gather information and experience so as to assemble intelligence organically in the manner described above by Turing. The team believed that Cog would be able to learn and able to find a correlation between the sensory information it received and its actions, and to learn common sense knowledge on its own. As of 2003, all development of the project had ceased.
Adobe After Effects
Adobe After Effects is a digital effects, motion graphics, and compositing application developed by Adobe Inc.; it is used for animation and in the post-production process of film making, video games and television production. Among other things, After Effects can be used for keying, tracking, compositing, and animation. It also functions as a very basic non-linear editor, audio editor, and media transcoder. In 2019, the program won an Academy Award for scientific and technical achievement. == History == After Effects was originally created by David Herbstman, David Simons, Daniel Wilk, David M. Cotter, and Russell Belfer at the Company of Science and Art in Providence, Rhode Island. The first two versions of the software, 1.0 (January 1993) and 1.1, were released there by the company. CoSA with After Effects was acquired by Aldus Corporation in July 1993, which in turn was acquired by Adobe in 1994. Adobe acquired PageMaker as well. Adobe's first new release of After Effects was version 3.0. == Third-party integrations == After Effects functionality can be extended through a variety of third-party integrations. The most common integrations are: plug-ins, scripts, and extensions. === Plug-ins === Plug-ins are predominantly written in C or C++ and extend the functionality of After Effects, allowing for more advanced features such as particle systems, physics engines, 3D effects, and the ability to bridge the gap between After Effects and another. === Scripts === After Effects Scripts are a series of commands written in both JavaScript and the ExtendScript language. After Effects Scripts, unlike plug-ins, can only access the core functionality of After Effects. Scripts are often developed to automate repetitive tasks, to simplify complex After Effects features, or to perform complex calculations that would otherwise take a long time to complete. Scripts can also use some functionality not directly exposed through the graphical user interface. === Extensions === After Effects Extensions offer the ability to extend After Effects functionality through modern web development technologies like HTML5, and Node.js, without the need for C++. After Effects Extensions make use of Adobe's Common Extensibility Platform or CEP Panels, which means they can be built to interact with other Adobe CC apps.
Inferential theory of learning
Inferential Theory of Learning (ITL) is an area of machine learning which describes inferential processes performed by learning agents. ITL has been continuously developed by Ryszard S. Michalski, starting in the 1980s. The first known publication of ITL was in 1983. In the ITL learning process is viewed as a search (inference) through hypotheses space guided by a specific goal. The results of learning need to be stored. Stored information will later be used by the learner for future inferences. Inferences are split into multiple categories including conclusive, deduction, and induction. In order for an inference to be considered complete it was required that all categories must be taken into account. This is how the ITL varies from other machine learning theories like Computational Learning Theory and Statistical Learning Theory; which both use singular forms of inference. == Usage == The most relevant published usage of ITL was in scientific journal published in 2012 and used ITL as a way to describe how agent-based learning works. According to the journal "The Inferential Theory of Learning (ITL) provides an elegant way of describing learning processes by agents".