Agentive logic (also called the logic of action or logic of agency) is the field of philosophical logic and logic in computer science that studies formal representations of agents, their actions, and their abilities. An agentive logic in the narrower sense is a formal system whose primitive operators express that an agent does something, can do something, or sees to it that something is the case. Agentive logics generalise modal logic by adding modalities indexed to agents and to actions. Typical examples include: STIT logics (from sees to it that) with operators of the form [ i s t i t : φ ] {\displaystyle [i\ {\mathsf {stit}}:\varphi ]} meaning that agent i {\displaystyle i} sees to it that φ {\displaystyle \varphi } holds; dynamic logics of action with program-like modalities [ α ] φ {\displaystyle [\alpha ]\varphi } and ⟨ α ⟩ φ {\displaystyle \langle \alpha \rangle \varphi } meaning, roughly, that after every (respectively, some) execution(s) of action α {\displaystyle \alpha } , φ {\displaystyle \varphi } holds; logics with explicit agentive operators such as "can do", "brings about", or "is able to ensure". Agentive logics are used in action theory in philosophy, in the semantics of natural language, in the theory of program verification, and in artificial intelligence, where they underpin formalisms for reasoning about actions, planning, and intelligent agents. == Terminology and scope == The adjective agentive derives from the Latin agens ("one who acts") and originally referred to the grammatical agent of a verb. In logical contexts it designates operators or predicates whose primary argument position is an agent rather than a proposition alone, for example A i φ {\displaystyle A_{i}\varphi } ("agent i {\displaystyle i} does φ {\displaystyle \varphi } ") or C i φ {\displaystyle C_{i}\varphi } ("agent i {\displaystyle i} can bring about φ {\displaystyle \varphi } "). In contemporary literature, agentive logic is sometimes used narrowly for formal reconstructions of St. Anselm's modal account of facere ("to do"). More broadly, the term is used interchangeably with logic of action or logic of agency to cover a family of modal and dynamic logics designed to capture the structure of action and choice. == Historical background == === Medieval and early modern roots === Medieval logicians already explored analogies between modalities of action and alethic modalities such as possibility and necessity, for instance, in discussions of obligation and power. An influential early agentive analysis is due to St. Anselm (11th century), who treated "doing φ {\displaystyle \varphi } " as a kind of modal operator on propositions, anticipating later modal logics of agency. Modern reconstructions of Anselm's theory show that the resulting "agentive logic" can be modelled with neighbourhood semantics and satisfies a recognisable square of opposition. === Modern logic of action === Modern study of the logic of action began in the mid-20th century, parallel to developments in deontic logic and tense logic. Early systems were proposed by Georg Henrik von Wright, Stig Kanger, and others, often motivated by questions about norms and responsibility. From the 1960s onward, two largely independent but eventually converging traditions emerged: a branching-time tradition, culminating in STIT logics, emphasising agents' choices among possible futures; and dynamic logics of programs and actions, developed within computer science to reason about program execution. In the 1990s and 2000s, action logics were further developed in connection with knowledge representation, planning, and multi-agent systems in AI, and with dynamic and update semantics in linguistics. == Core ideas == Despite their diversity, most agentive logics share some general themes: Agents are treated as explicit indices of modal operators, as in [ i d o e s ] φ {\displaystyle [i\ {\mathsf {does}}]\varphi } or C i φ {\displaystyle C_{i}\varphi } . Actions are represented either implicitly, via changes between possible worlds along an accessibility relation, or explicitly, as terms denoting primitive and composite actions. Choice and ability are captured by modalities describing what an agent can ensure, usually relative to assumptions about the environment and other agents. Formal properties such as closure under composition, interaction between different agents, and connections to obligation (what an agent ought to do) and knowledge (what an agent knows how to do) are investigated. == STIT logics == STIT ("sees to it that") logics, originating in work by Nuel Belnap and collaborators, treat agency in a branching-time framework. A STIT model consists of a partially ordered set of moments with a tree-like structure, sets of histories (maximal branches through the tree), and for each agent at each moment, a partition of the histories through that moment representing the choices available to the agent. Intuitively, an agent's action at a moment determines which equivalence class (choice cell) of histories becomes actual; a formula [ i s t i t : φ ] {\displaystyle [i\ {\mathsf {stit}}:\varphi ]} is true at a history–moment pair if φ {\displaystyle \varphi } holds on all histories in the choice cell corresponding to the agent's current action. Different STIT operators have been distinguished, notably: the Chellas STIT operator, often written [ i c s t i t : φ ] {\displaystyle [i\ {\mathsf {cstit}}:\varphi ]} , which requires only that the agent's choice guarantees φ {\displaystyle \varphi } ; and the deliberative STIT operator, [ i d s t i t : φ ] {\displaystyle [i\ {\mathsf {dstit}}:\varphi ]} , which additionally requires that φ {\displaystyle \varphi } is not already historically necessary. STIT frameworks have been extended with group agency operators, temporal modalities, epistemic operators, and deontic operators to study responsibility, collective action, and obligations under indeterminism. == Dynamic logics of action == Dynamic logic was originally developed to reason about the behaviour of computer programs, treating program execution as a kind of action. In propositional dynamic logic (PDL), action terms α , β , … {\displaystyle \alpha ,\beta ,\dots } denote abstract programs or actions, and formulas of the form [ α ] φ {\displaystyle [\alpha ]\varphi } and ⟨ α ⟩ φ {\displaystyle \langle \alpha \rangle \varphi } express that all, respectively some, terminating executions of α {\displaystyle \alpha } lead to states where φ {\displaystyle \varphi } holds. From the standpoint of agentive logic, dynamic logic provides: a language for building complex actions from primitives via sequencing, choice, and iteration (e.g., α ; β {\displaystyle \alpha ;\beta } , α ∪ β {\displaystyle \alpha \cup \beta } , α ∗ {\displaystyle \alpha ^{}} ); a Kripke semantics in which actions correspond to labelled accessibility relations; and proof systems (such as Hoare logic and weakest precondition calculi) for reasoning about the correctness of action sequences. Extensions such as concurrent dynamic logic add operators for parallel composition, allowing reasoning about interacting processes and concurrent actions. John-Jules Ch. Meyer and others have argued that dynamic logic is a natural base for logics of agents, by adding modalities for knowledge, belief, and ability on top of the action modalities. Dynamic logics have also been applied to normative reasoning, yielding dynamic deontic logics where actions are related to obligations and permissions, and to dynamic epistemic logics in which information-changing actions such as announcements are modelled as programs. == Situation calculus and other action formalisms == In artificial intelligence, reasoning about action and change is often based on first-order languages that explicitly represent situations, events, and fluents (time-varying properties). The best known is situation calculus, introduced by John McCarthy and developed extensively by Raymond Reiter. In such formalisms: action terms name primitive actions; a function symbol (often d o {\displaystyle {\mathsf {do}}} ) maps an action and a situation to a successor situation; and axioms describe which fluents hold in which situations and how actions change them. Reiter's successor state axioms give compact specifications of how each fluent changes under all actions, and precondition axioms specify when actions are possible. Related formalisms include the event calculus and fluent calculus, which provide alternative ways of representing events and their effects. While these systems are often first-order rather than modal, they are closely related to agentive logics: their action terms and transition structures can be seen as providing models for dynamic or STIT-style modalities, and conversely, dynamic logics can be used as abstract specification languages for such AI formalisms. == Ability, agency, and related modalities == Many agentive logics introduce explicit operators for ability or "can-do"
Predictive text
Predictive text is an input technology used where one key or button represents many letters, such as on the physical numeric keypads of mobile phones and in accessibility technologies. Each key press results in a prediction rather than repeatedly sequencing through the same group of "letters" it represents, in the same, invariable order. Predictive text could allow for an entire word to be input by a single keypress. Predictive text makes efficient use of fewer device keys to input writing into a text message, an e-mail, an address book, a calendar, and the like. The most widely used, general, predictive text systems are T9, iTap, eZiText, and LetterWise/WordWise. There are many ways to build a device that predicts text, but all predictive text systems have initial linguistic settings that offer predictions that are re-prioritized to adapt to each user. This learning adapts, by way of the device memory, to a user's disambiguating feedback that results in corrective key presses, such as pressing a "next" key to get to the intention. Most predictive text systems have a user database to facilitate this process. Theoretically the number of keystrokes required per desired character in the finished writing is, on average, comparable to using a keyboard. This is approximately true provided that all words used are in its database, punctuation is ignored, and no input mistakes are made when typing or spelling. The theoretical keystrokes per character, KSPC, of a keyboard is KSPC=1.00, and of multi-tap is KSPC=2.03. Eatoni's LetterWise is a predictive multi-tap hybrid, which when operating on a standard telephone keypad achieves KSPC=1.15 for English. The choice of which predictive text system is the best to use involves matching the user's preferred interface style, the user's level of learned ability to operate predictive text software, and the user's efficiency goal. There are various levels of risk in predictive text systems, versus multi-tap systems, because the predicted text that is automatically written provides the speed and mechanical efficiency benefit, which, if the user is not careful to review, results in transmitting misinformation. Predictive text systems take time to learn to use well, and so generally, a device's system has user options to set up the choice of multi-tap or any one of several schools of predictive text methods. == Background == Short message service (SMS) permits a mobile phone user to send text messages (also called messages, SMSes, texts, and txts) as a short message. The most common system of SMS text input is referred to as "multi-tap". Using multi-tap, a key is pressed multiple times to access the list of letters on that key. For instance, pressing the "2" key once displays an "a", twice displays a "b" and three times displays a "c". To enter two successive letters that are on the same key, the user must either pause or hit a "next" button. A user can type by pressing an alphanumeric keypad without looking at the electronic equipment display. Thus, multi-tap is easy to understand and can be used without any visual feedback. However, multi-tap is not very efficient, requiring potentially many keystrokes to enter a single letter. In ideal predictive text entry, all words used are in the dictionary, punctuation is ignored, no spelling mistakes are made, and no typing mistakes are made. The ideal dictionary would include all slang, proper nouns, abbreviations, URLs, foreign-language words and other user-unique words. This ideal circumstance gives predictive text software a reduction in the number of key strokes a user is required to enter a word. The user presses the number corresponding to each letter. As long as the word exists in the predictive text dictionary or is correctly disambiguated by non-dictionary systems, it will appear. For instance, pressing "4663" will typically be interpreted as the word good, provided that a linguistic database in English is currently in use, though alternatives such as home, hood and hoof are also valid interpretations of the sequence of key strokes. The most widely used systems of predictive text are Tegic's T9, Motorola's iTap, and the Eatoni Ergonomics' LetterWise and WordWise. T9 and iTap use dictionaries, but Eatoni Ergonomics' products use a disambiguation process, a set of statistical rules to recreate words from keystroke sequences. All predictive text systems require a linguistic database for every supported input language. == Dictionary vs. non-dictionary systems == Traditional disambiguation works by referencing a dictionary of commonly used words, though Eatoni offers a dictionaryless disambiguation system. In dictionary-based systems, as the user presses the number buttons, an algorithm searches the dictionary for a list of possible words that match the keypress combination and offers up the most probable choice. The user can then confirm the selection and move on, or use a key to cycle through the possible combinations. A non-dictionary system constructs words and other sequences of letters from the statistics of word parts. To attempt predictions of the intended result of keystrokes not yet entered, disambiguation may be combined with a word completion facility. Either system (disambiguation or predictive) may include a user database, which can be further classified as a "learning" system when words or phrases are entered into the user database without direct user intervention. The user database is for storing words or phrases that are not well disambiguated by the pre-supplied database. Some disambiguation systems further attempt to correct spelling, format text or perform other automatic rewrites, with the risky effect of either enhancing or frustrating user efforts to enter text. == History == The predictive text and autocomplete technology was invented out of necessities by Chinese scientists and linguists in the 1950s to solve the input inefficiency of the Chinese typewriter, as the typing process involved finding and selecting thousands of logographic characters on a tray, drastically slowing down the word processing speed. The actuating keys of the Chinese typewriter created by Lin Yutang in the 1940s included suggestions for the characters following the one selected. In 1951, the Chinese typesetter Zhang Jiying arranged Chinese characters in associative clusters, a precursor of modern predictive text entry, and broke speed records by doing so. Predictive entry of text from a telephone keypad has been known at least since the 1970s (Smith and Goodwin, 1971). Predictive text was mainly used to look up names in directories over the phone until mobile phone text messaging came into widespread use. == Example == On a typical phone keypad, if users wished to type the in a "multi-tap" keypad entry system, they would need to: Press 8 (tuv) once to select t. Press 4 (ghi) twice to select h. Press 3 (def) twice to select e. Meanwhile, in a phone with predictive text, they need only: Press 8 once to select the (tuv) group for the first character. Press 4 once to select the (ghi) group for the second character. Press 3 once to select the (def) group for the third character. The system updates the display as each keypress is entered, to show the most probable entry. In this example, prediction reduced the number of button presses from five to three. The effect is even greater with longer words and those composed of letters later in each key's sequence. A dictionary-based predictive system is based on the hope that the desired word is in the dictionary. That hope may be misplaced if the word differs in any way from common usage—in particular, if the word is not spelled or typed correctly, is slang, or is a proper noun. In these cases, some other mechanism must be used to enter the word. Furthermore, the simple dictionary approach fails with agglutinative languages, where a single word does not necessarily represent a single semantic entity. == Companies and products == Predictive text is developed and marketed in a variety of competing products, such as Nuance Communications's T9. Other products include Motorola's iTap; Eatoni Ergonomic's LetterWise (character, rather than word-based prediction); WordWise (word-based prediction without a dictionary); EQ3 (a QWERTY-like layout compatible with regular telephone keypads); Prevalent Devices's Phraze-It; Xrgomics' TenGO (a six-key reduced QWERTY keyboard system); Adaptxt (considers language, context, grammar and semantics); Lightkey (a predictive typing software for Windows); Clevertexting (statistical nature of the language, dictionaryless, dynamic key allocation); and Oizea Type (temporal ambiguity); Intelab's Tauto; WordLogic's Intelligent Input Platform™ (patented, layer-based advanced text prediction, includes multi-language dictionary, spell-check, built-in Web search); Google's Gboard. == Textonyms == Words produced by the same combination of keypresses have been called "textonyms"; also "txtonyms"; or "T9o
Lori Levin
Lorraine Susan (Lori) Levin is an American computer scientist and computational linguist specializing in natural language processing, particularly involving syntax, morphosyntax, and languages with small corpora. She is a research professor in the Language Technologies Institute of the Carnegie Mellon University School of Computer Science, and one of the founders of the North American Computational Linguistics Open Competition. == Education and career == Levin has a 1979 bachelor's degree in linguistics (summa cum laude) from the University of Pennsylvania, and a 1986 Ph.D. in linguistics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Her dissertation, Operations on Lexical Forms: Unaccusative Rules in Germanic Languages, was jointly supervised by Joan Bresnan and Kenneth L. Hale. She worked as an assistant professor of linguistics at the University of Pittsburgh from 1983 until 1988, when she joined the Carnegie Mellon University Language Technologies Institute. == Recognition == Levin was named as a Fellow of the Association for Computational Linguistics in 2025, "for pioneering work on the use of phonetics, syntax, lexical semantics and dialogue modeling in machine translation and in the transfer of NLP technologies to low resource languages, as well as an enduring contribution to the North American Computational Linguistics Olympiad". Levin was awarded the Antonio Zampolli prize of the ELRA Language Resources Association at the LREC 2026 conference.
AI Logo Makers Reviews: What Actually Works in 2026
Shopping for the best AI logo maker? An AI logo maker is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it keeps getting smarter as the underlying models improve. Pricing, accuracy, and the size of the model behind the tool are the three factors that most affect daily usefulness. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI logo maker slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. We tested the leading options and ranked them by quality, value, and ease of use.
Powerset construction
In the theory of computation and automata theory, the powerset construction or subset construction is a standard method for converting a nondeterministic finite automaton (NFA) into a deterministic finite automaton (DFA) that recognizes the same formal language. It is important in theory because it establishes that NFAs, despite their additional flexibility, are unable to recognize any language that cannot be recognized by some DFA. It is also important in practice for converting easier-to-construct NFAs into more efficiently executable DFAs. However, if the NFA has n states, the resulting DFA may have up to 2n states, an exponentially larger number, which sometimes makes the construction impractical for large NFAs. The construction, sometimes called the Rabin–Scott powerset construction (or subset construction) to distinguish it from similar constructions for other types of automata, was first published by Michael O. Rabin and Dana Scott in 1959. == Intuition == To simulate the operation of a DFA on a given input string, one needs to keep track of a single state at any time: the state that the automaton will reach after seeing a prefix of the input. In contrast, to simulate an NFA, one needs to keep track of a set of states: all of the states that the automaton could reach after seeing the same prefix of the input, according to the nondeterministic choices made by the automaton. If, after a certain prefix of the input, a set S of states can be reached, then after the next input symbol x the set of reachable states is a deterministic function of S and x. Therefore, the sets of reachable NFA states play the same role in the NFA simulation as single DFA states play in the DFA simulation, and in fact the sets of NFA states appearing in this simulation may be re-interpreted as being states of a DFA. == Construction == The powerset construction applies most directly to an NFA that does not allow state transformations without consuming input symbols (aka: "ε-moves"). Such an automaton may be defined as a 5-tuple (Q, Σ, T, q0, F), in which Q is the set of states, Σ is the set of input symbols, T is the transition function (mapping a state and an input symbol to a set of states), q0 is the initial state, and F is the set of accepting states. The corresponding DFA has states corresponding to subsets of Q. The initial state of the DFA is {q0}, the (one-element) set of initial states. The transition function of the DFA maps a state S (representing a subset of Q) and an input symbol x to the set T(S,x) = ∪{T(q,x) | q ∈ S}, the set of all states that can be reached by an x-transition from a state in S. A state S of the DFA is an accepting state if and only if at least one member of S is an accepting state of the NFA. In the simplest version of the powerset construction, the set of all states of the DFA is the powerset of Q, the set of all possible subsets of Q. However, many states of the resulting DFA may be useless as they may be unreachable from the initial state. An alternative version of the construction creates only the states that are actually reachable. === NFA with ε-moves === For an NFA with ε-moves (also called an ε-NFA), the construction must be modified to deal with these by computing the ε-closure of states: the set of all states reachable from some given state using only ε-moves. Van Noord recognizes three possible ways of incorporating this closure computation in the powerset construction: Compute the ε-closure of the entire automaton as a preprocessing step, producing an equivalent NFA without ε-moves, then apply the regular powerset construction. This version, also discussed by Hopcroft and Ullman, is straightforward to implement, but impractical for automata with large numbers of ε-moves, as commonly arise in natural language processing application. During the powerset computation, compute the ε-closure { q ′ | q → ε ∗ q ′ } {\displaystyle \{q'~|~q\to _{\varepsilon }^{}q'\}} of each state q that is considered by the algorithm (and cache the result). During the powerset computation, compute the ε-closure { q ′ | ∃ q ∈ Q ′ , q → ε ∗ q ′ } {\displaystyle \{q'~|~\exists q\in Q',q\to _{\varepsilon }^{}q'\}} of each subset of states Q' that is considered by the algorithm, and add its elements to Q'. === Multiple initial states === If NFAs are defined to allow for multiple initial states, the initial state of the corresponding DFA is the set of all initial states of the NFA, or (if the NFA also has ε-moves) the set of all states reachable from initial states by ε-moves. == Example == The NFA below has four states; state 1 is initial, and states 3 and 4 are accepting. Its alphabet consists of the two symbols 0 and 1, and it has ε-moves. The initial state of the DFA constructed from this NFA is the set of all NFA states that are reachable from state 1 by ε-moves; that is, it is the set {1,2,3}. A transition from {1,2,3} by input symbol 0 must follow either the arrow from state 1 to state 2, or the arrow from state 3 to state 4. Additionally, neither state 2 nor state 4 have outgoing ε-moves. Therefore, T({1,2,3},0) = {2,4}, and by the same reasoning the full DFA constructed from the NFA is as shown below. As can be seen in this example, there are five states reachable from the start state of the DFA; the remaining 11 sets in the powerset of the set of NFA states are not reachable. == Complexity == Because the DFA states consist of sets of NFA states, an n-state NFA may be converted to a DFA with at most 2n states. For every n, there exist n-state NFAs such that every subset of states is reachable from the initial subset, so that the converted DFA has exactly 2n states, giving Θ(2n) worst-case time complexity. A simple example requiring nearly this many states is the language of strings over the alphabet {0,1} in which there are at least n characters, the nth from last of which is 1. It can be represented by an (n + 1)-state NFA, but it requires 2n DFA states, one for each n-character suffix of the input; cf. picture for n=4. == Applications == Brzozowski's algorithm for DFA minimization uses the powerset construction, twice. It converts the input DFA into an NFA for the reverse language, by reversing all its arrows and exchanging the roles of initial and accepting states, converts the NFA back into a DFA using the powerset construction, and then repeats its process. Its worst-case complexity is exponential, unlike some other known DFA minimization algorithms, but in many examples it performs more quickly than its worst-case complexity would suggest. Safra's construction, which converts a non-deterministic Büchi automaton with n states into a deterministic Muller automaton or into a deterministic Rabin automaton with 2O(n log n) states, uses the powerset construction as part of its machinery.
Inductive programming
Inductive programming (IP) is a special area of automatic programming, covering research from artificial intelligence and programming, which addresses learning of typically declarative (logic or functional) and often recursive programs from incomplete specifications, such as input/output examples or constraints. Depending on the programming language used, there are several kinds of inductive programming. Inductive functional programming, which uses functional programming languages such as Lisp or Haskell, and most especially inductive logic programming, which uses logic programming languages such as Prolog and other logical representations such as description logics, have been more prominent, but other (programming) language paradigms have also been used, such as constraint programming or probabilistic programming. == Definition == Inductive programming incorporates all approaches which are concerned with learning programs or algorithms from incomplete (formal) specifications. Possible inputs in an IP system are a set of training inputs and corresponding outputs or an output evaluation function, describing the desired behavior of the intended program, traces or action sequences which describe the process of calculating specific outputs, constraints for the program to be induced concerning its time efficiency or its complexity, various kinds of background knowledge such as standard data types, predefined functions to be used, program schemes or templates describing the data flow of the intended program, heuristics for guiding the search for a solution or other biases. Output of an IP system is a program in some arbitrary programming language containing conditionals and loop or recursive control structures, or any other kind of Turing-complete representation language. In many applications the output program must be correct with respect to the examples and partial specification, and this leads to the consideration of inductive programming as a special area inside automatic programming or program synthesis, usually opposed to 'deductive' program synthesis, where the specification is usually complete. In other cases, inductive programming is seen as a more general area where any declarative programming or representation language can be used and we may even have some degree of error in the examples, as in general machine learning, the more specific area of structure mining or the area of symbolic artificial intelligence. A distinctive feature is the number of examples or partial specification needed. Typically, inductive programming techniques can learn from just a few examples. The diversity of inductive programming usually comes from the applications and the languages that are used: apart from logic programming and functional programming, other programming paradigms and representation languages have been used or suggested in inductive programming, such as functional logic programming, constraint programming, probabilistic programming, abductive logic programming, modal logic, action languages, agent languages and many types of imperative languages. == History == The early works of Plotkin, and his "relative least general generalization (rlgg)", had an enormous impact in inductive logic programming. There were some encouraging results on learning recursive Prolog programs such as quicksort from examples together with suitable background knowledge, for example with GOLEM. However, after initial success, the community got disappointed by limited progress about the induction of recursive programs with ILP less and less focusing on recursive programs and leaning more and more towards a machine learning setting with applications in relational data mining and knowledge discovery. In parallel to work in ILP, Koza proposed genetic programming in the early 1990s as a generate-and-test based approach to learning programs. The idea of genetic programming was further developed into the inductive programming system ADATE and the systematic-search-based system MagicHaskeller. Here again, functional programs are learned from sets of positive examples together with an output evaluation (fitness) function which specifies the desired input/output behavior of the program to be learned. The early work in grammar induction (also known as grammatical inference) is related to inductive programming, as rewriting systems or logic programs can be used to represent production rules. In fact, early works in inductive inference considered grammar induction and Lisp program inference as basically the same problem. The results in terms of learnability were related to classical concepts, such as identification-in-the-limit, as introduced in the seminal work of Gold. More recently, the language learning problem was addressed by the inductive programming community. In the recent years, the classical approaches have been resumed and advanced with great success. Therefore, the synthesis problem has been reformulated on the background of constructor-based term rewriting systems taking into account modern techniques of functional programming, as well as moderate use of search-based strategies and usage of background knowledge as well as automatic invention of subprograms. Many new and successful applications have recently appeared beyond program synthesis, most especially in the area of data manipulation, programming by example and cognitive modelling (see below). Other ideas have also been explored with the common characteristic of using declarative languages for the representation of hypotheses. For instance, the use of higher-order features, schemes or structured distances have been advocated for a better handling of recursive data types and structures; abstraction has also been explored as a more powerful approach to cumulative learning and function invention. One powerful paradigm that has been recently used for the representation of hypotheses in inductive programming (generally in the form of generative models) is probabilistic programming (and related paradigms, such as stochastic logic programs and Bayesian logic programming). == Application areas == The first workshop on Approaches and Applications of Inductive Programming (AAIP) Archived 2016-03-03 at the Wayback Machine held in conjunction with ICML 2005 identified all applications where "learning of programs or recursive rules are called for, [...] first in the domain of software engineering where structural learning, software assistants and software agents can help to relieve programmers from routine tasks, give programming support for end users, or support of novice programmers and programming tutor systems. Further areas of application are language learning, learning recursive control rules for AI-planning, learning recursive concepts in web-mining or for data-format transformations". Since then, these and many other areas have shown to be successful application niches for inductive programming, such as end-user programming, the related areas of programming by example and programming by demonstration, and intelligent tutoring systems. Other areas where inductive inference has been recently applied are knowledge acquisition, artificial general intelligence, reinforcement learning and theory evaluation, and cognitive science in general. There may also be prospective applications in intelligent agents, games, robotics, personalisation, ambient intelligence and human interfaces.
Interacting particle system
In probability theory, an interacting particle system (IPS) is a stochastic process ( X ( t ) ) t ∈ R + {\displaystyle (X(t))_{t\in \mathbb {R} ^{+}}} on some configuration space Ω = S G {\displaystyle \Omega =S^{G}} given by a site space, a countably-infinite-order graph G {\displaystyle G} and a local state space, a compact metric space S {\displaystyle S} . More precisely IPS are continuous-time Markov jump processes describing the collective behavior of stochastically interacting components. IPS are the continuous-time analogue of stochastic cellular automata. Among the main examples are the voter model, the contact process, the asymmetric simple exclusion process (ASEP), the Glauber dynamics and in particular the stochastic Ising model. IPS are usually defined via their Markov generator giving rise to a unique Markov process using Markov semigroups and the Hille-Yosida theorem. The generator again is given via so-called transition rates c Λ ( η , ξ ) > 0 {\displaystyle c_{\Lambda }(\eta ,\xi )>0} where Λ ⊂ G {\displaystyle \Lambda \subset G} is a finite set of sites and η , ξ ∈ Ω {\displaystyle \eta ,\xi \in \Omega } with η i = ξ i {\displaystyle \eta _{i}=\xi _{i}} for all i ∉ Λ {\displaystyle i\notin \Lambda } . The rates describe exponential waiting times of the process to jump from configuration η {\displaystyle \eta } into configuration ξ {\displaystyle \xi } . More generally the transition rates are given in form of a finite measure c Λ ( η , d ξ ) {\displaystyle c_{\Lambda }(\eta ,d\xi )} on S Λ {\displaystyle S^{\Lambda }} . The generator L {\displaystyle L} of an IPS has the following form. First, the domain of L {\displaystyle L} is a subset of the space of "observables", that is, the set of real valued continuous functions on the configuration space Ω {\displaystyle \Omega } . Then for any observable f {\displaystyle f} in the domain of L {\displaystyle L} , one has L f ( η ) = ∑ Λ ∫ ξ : ξ Λ c = η Λ c c Λ ( η , d ξ ) [ f ( ξ ) − f ( η ) ] {\displaystyle Lf(\eta )=\sum _{\Lambda }\int _{\xi :\xi _{\Lambda ^{c}}=\eta _{\Lambda ^{c}}}c_{\Lambda }(\eta ,d\xi )[f(\xi )-f(\eta )]} . For example, for the stochastic Ising model we have G = Z d {\displaystyle G=\mathbb {Z} ^{d}} , S = { − 1 , + 1 } {\displaystyle S=\{-1,+1\}} , c Λ = 0 {\displaystyle c_{\Lambda }=0} if Λ ≠ { i } {\displaystyle \Lambda \neq \{i\}} for some i ∈ G {\displaystyle i\in G} and c i ( η , η i ) = exp [ − β ∑ j : | j − i | = 1 η i η j ] {\displaystyle c_{i}(\eta ,\eta ^{i})=\exp[-\beta \sum _{j:|j-i|=1}\eta _{i}\eta _{j}]} where η i {\displaystyle \eta ^{i}} is the configuration equal to η {\displaystyle \eta } except it is flipped at site i {\displaystyle i} . β {\displaystyle \beta } is a new parameter modeling the inverse temperature. == The Voter model == The voter model (usually in continuous time, but there are discrete versions as well) is a process similar to the contact process. In this process η ( x ) {\displaystyle \eta (x)} is taken to represent a voter's attitude on a particular topic. Voters reconsider their opinions at times distributed according to independent exponential random variables (this gives a Poisson process locally – note that there are in general infinitely many voters so no global Poisson process can be used). At times of reconsideration, a voter chooses one neighbor uniformly from amongst all neighbors and takes that neighbor's opinion. One can generalize the process by allowing the picking of neighbors to be something other than uniform. === Discrete time process === In the discrete time voter model in one dimension, ξ t ( x ) : Z → { 0 , 1 } {\displaystyle \xi _{t}(x):\mathbb {Z} \to \{0,1\}} represents the state of particle x {\displaystyle x} at time t {\displaystyle t} . Informally each individual is arranged on a line and can "see" other individuals that are within a radius, r {\displaystyle r} . If more than a certain proportion, θ {\displaystyle \theta } of these people disagree then the individual changes her attitude, otherwise she keeps it the same. Durrett and Steif (1993) and Steif (1994) show that for large radii there is a critical value θ c {\displaystyle \theta _{c}} such that if θ > θ c {\displaystyle \theta >\theta _{c}} most individuals never change, and for θ ∈ ( 1 / 2 , θ c ) {\displaystyle \theta \in (1/2,\theta _{c})} in the limit most sites agree. (Both of these results assume the probability of ξ 0 ( x ) = 1 {\displaystyle \xi _{0}(x)=1} is one half.) This process has a natural generalization to more dimensions, some results for this are discussed in Durrett and Steif (1993). === Continuous time process === The continuous time process is similar in that it imagines each individual has a belief at a time and changes it based on the attitudes of its neighbors. The process is described informally by Liggett (1985, 226), "Periodically (i.e., at independent exponential times), an individual reassesses his view in a rather simple way: he chooses a 'friend' at random with certain probabilities and adopts his position." A model was constructed with this interpretation by Holley and Liggett (1975). This process is equivalent to a process first suggested by Clifford and Sudbury (1973) where animals are in conflict over territory and are equally matched. A site is selected to be invaded by a neighbor at a given time.