Babak Hodjat (Persian: بابک حجت; born November 1, 1967) is a British computer scientist, entrepreneur, and writer. He was the co-founder and CEO of Sentient Technologies and now holds the position of Chief Technology Officer AI at Cognizant. He is a specialist in the field of artificial intelligence and machine learning. In 1998 Hodjat co-founded Dejima Inc and served as CEO and CTO, his patented work on artificial intelligence led to the technology used by Apple for their digital assistant Siri. == Biography == === Early life === Babak Hodjat was born on November 1, 1967, in Wimbledon. His father was a retired university professor in entomology who worked at the British Museum. As a child, he did not like insects and would wander off to the nearby science museum, where he would spend long hours in front of a computer they had on display. He attended middle school in the United States. He studied at the Sharif University of Technology from 1986 to 1995, and received his Master of Science degree in software engineering. In 1994, together with another computer department student Hormoz Shahrzad presented their research titled Introducing a dynamic problem solving scheme based on a learning algorithm in artificial life environments at the first IEEE Conference on Computational Intelligence held at Orlando. Hodjat received a PhD in machine intelligence from Kyushu University in 2003 During his time there, he published several works on adaptive agent oriented software architecture and natural language user interfaces. === Career in science and business === Hodjat moved to Silicon Valley, California in 1998 and founded Dejima Inc. (named after the historic Japanese Dejima artificial island). The firm was based on a patented adaptive agent-oriented software engineering platform developed by Hodjat, Christopher Savoie and Makoto Amamiya. Hodjat served as the CTO and as the CEO for 9 months from October 2000. By 2000 the company had offices in San Jose, London and Tokyo. In 2002, the company developed a voice control Natural Interaction Platform (NPI) in collaboration with the Stanford University's research group Archimedes Project. During these years Hodjat continued his research on agent oriented software architecture and natural language user interfaces. In July 2003, Dejima got funding from SRI International within the Cognitive Assistant that Learns and Organizes (CALO) project of DARPA and worked on a Perceptive Assistant that Learns (PAL) initiative. Hodjat was the primary inventor of the firm's agent-oriented technology applied to intelligent interfaces for mobile and enterprise computing – a technology that eventually led to Siri. In April 2004, Dejima was acquired by Sybase iAnywhere. Hodjat served as senior director of engineering at Sybase iAnywhere from 2004 to 2008, where he developed AvantGo Platform, mBusiness Anywhere, and Answers Anywhere. In 2006, he co-founded MobileVerbs Inc., a mobile marketing service company, which was acquired by iLoop Mobile in February 2010. In 2007, he teamed with Antoine Blondeau (former CEO of Dejima) and Adam Cheyer (Dejima's vice president and Chief Architect of the CALO project) to establish Genetic Finance Holding Ltd. (where he began as CTO). In 2014 the firm became Sentient Technologies. Hodjat was joined by his long-time research fellow Hormoz Shahrzad who became principal scientist, while Hodjat held the position of chief scientist. In the following years Hodjat has worked on developing massively distributed computing technology and improving machine-learning technique known as evolutionary algorithms. One area that gained special attention from the press was applying Sentient Technologies algorithms to a stock market trading through specially created Sentient Investment Management hedge fund. Following the management change within Sentient Technologies, Hodjat became the company's CEO in February 2017. He continues his business and educational projects (he was on the jury of IBM Watson AI XPRIZE and the Merit Awards committee for the ISAL Award). == Writing == Hodjat is the author of multiple books such as The Konar and the Apple: Fun, Beauty, and Dread--From Ahwaz to California and the science fiction novel "The Narrator" (January 2022; ISBN 978-1-7354860-1-7)(March 2023; ISBN 978-1-7354860-0-0). == Selected publications == Hodjat, B.; Shahrzad, H. (1994). "Introducing a dynamic problem solving scheme based on a learning algorithm in artificial life environments". IEEE International Joint Conference on neural networks (IJCNN-94). Vol. 4. IEEE International Joint Conference on neural networks. pp. 2333–2338. doi:10.1109/ICNN.1994.374583. ISBN 978-0-7803-1901-1. S2CID 60497133. Hodjat, B.; Savoie, C.J.; Amamiya, M. (2006) [1998]. "An adaptive agent oriented software architecture". PRICAI'98: Topics in Artificial Intelligence. Springer. pp. 33–46. arXiv:cs/9812014. doi:10.1007/BFb0095256. ISBN 978-3-540-49461-4. S2CID 5317786. Hodjat, B.; Amamiya, M. (2000-05-25). "Applying the Adaptive Agent Oriented Software Architecture to the Parsing of Context Sensitive Grammars". IEICE Transactions on Information and Systems. E83-D (5): 1142–1152. ISSN 0916-8532. Retrieved 2017-12-14. Hodjat, Babak; Hodjat, Siamak; Treadgold, Nick; Jonsson, Ing-Marie (2006). "CRUSE: a context reactive natural language mobile interface". Proceedings of the 2nd annual international workshop on Wireless internet. WICON. doi:10.1145/1234161.1234181. ISBN 978-1-59593-510-6. S2CID 2388254. O'Reilly, Una-May; Wagy, Mark; Hodjat, Babak (2013). "Chapter 6: EC-Star: A Massive-Scale, Hub and Spoke, Distributed Genetic Programming System". In Riolo, R.; Vladislavleva, E.; Ritchie, M.; Moore, J.H. (eds.). Genetic Programming Theory and Practice X. Springer-Verlag New York. pp. 73–85. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-6846-2. ISBN 978-1-4614-6845-5. S2CID 39650969. Retrieved 2017-12-14. Hodjat, Babak; Hemberg, Erik; Shahrzad, Hormoz; O'Reilly, Una-May (2014). "Chapter 4: Maintenance of a Long Running Distributed Genetic Programming System for Solving Problems Requiring Big Data". In Riolo, Rick; Moore, Jason H.; Kotanchek, Mark (eds.). Genetic Programming Theory and Practice XI. Springer-Verlag New York. pp. 65–83. doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-0375-7. ISBN 978-1-4939-0374-0. S2CID 28843739. Retrieved 2017-12-14. Shahrzad, Hormoz; Hodjat, Babak; Miikkulainen, Risto (2016). "Estimating the Advantage of Age-Layering in Evolutionary Algorithms". Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference 2016. Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference. pp. 693–699. doi:10.1145/2908812.2908911. ISBN 978-1-4503-4206-3. S2CID 215516530. == Patents == Babak Hodjat holds 21 patents in the fields of agent-oriented programming, natural language decision engines, distributed evolutionary algorithms for asset management and trading and data mining.
Hybrid machine translation
Hybrid machine translation is a method of machine translation that is characterized by the use of multiple machine translation approaches within a single machine translation system. The motivation for developing hybrid machine translation systems stems from the failure of any single technique to achieve a satisfactory level of accuracy. Many hybrid machine translation systems have been successful in improving the accuracy of the translations, and there are several popular machine translation systems which employ hybrid methods. == Approaches == === Multi-engine === This approach to hybrid machine translation involves running multiple machine translation systems in parallel. The final output is generated by combining the output of all the sub-systems. Most commonly, these systems use statistical and rule-based translation subsystems, but other combinations have been explored. For example, researchers at Carnegie Mellon University have had some success combining example-based, transfer-based, knowledge-based and statistical translation sub-systems into one machine translation system. === Statistical rule generation === This approach involves using statistical data to generate lexical and syntactic rules. The input is then processed with these rules as if it were a rule-based translator. This approach attempts to avoid the difficult and time-consuming task of creating a set of comprehensive, fine-grained linguistic rules by extracting those rules from the training corpus. This approach still suffers from many problems of normal statistical machine translation, namely that the accuracy of the translation will depend heavily on the similarity of the input text to the text of the training corpus. As a result, this technique has had the most success in domain-specific applications, and has the same difficulties with domain adaptation as many statistical machine translation systems. === Multi-Pass === This approach involves serially processing the input multiple times. The most common technique used in multi-pass machine translation systems is to pre-process the input with a rule-based machine translation system. The output of the rule-based pre-processor is passed to a statistical machine translation system, which produces the final output. This technique is used to limit the amount of information a statistical system need consider, significantly reducing the processing power required. It also removes the need for the rule-based system to be a complete translation system for the language, significantly reducing the amount of human effort and labor necessary to build the system. === Confidence-Based === This approach differs from the other hybrid approaches in that in most cases only one translation technology is used. A confidence metric is produced for each translated sentence from which a decision can be made whether to try a secondary translation technology or to proceed with the initial translation output. SMT is also used when common error patterns such as multiple repeat words appear in sequence, as is common with NMT when the attention mechanism is confused.
Universal portfolio algorithm
The universal portfolio algorithm is a portfolio selection algorithm from the field of machine learning and information theory. The algorithm learns adaptively from historical data and maximizes log-optimal growth rate in the long run, per the Kelly criterion. It was introduced by the late Stanford University information theorist Thomas M. Cover. The algorithm rebalances the portfolio at the beginning of each trading period. At the beginning of the first trading period it starts with a naive diversification. In the following trading periods the portfolio composition depends on the historical total return of all possible constant-rebalanced portfolios. The universal portfolio algorithm is the predecessor of the various online portfolio selection methodologies.
Adversarial stylometry
Adversarial stylometry is the practice of altering writing style to reduce the potential for stylometry to discover the author's identity or their characteristics. This task is also known as authorship obfuscation or authorship anonymisation. Stylometry poses a significant privacy challenge in its ability to unmask anonymous authors or to link pseudonyms to an author's other identities, which, for example, creates difficulties for whistleblowers, activists, and hoaxers and fraudsters. The privacy risk is expected to grow as machine learning techniques and text corpora develop. All adversarial stylometry shares the core idea of faithfully paraphrasing the source text so that the meaning is unchanged but the stylistic signals are obscured. Such a faithful paraphrase is an adversarial example for a stylometric classifier. Several broad approaches to this exist, with some overlap: imitation, substituting the author's own style for another's; translation, applying machine translation with the hope that this eliminates characteristic style in the source text; and obfuscation, deliberately modifying a text's style to make it not resemble the author's own. Manually obscuring style is possible, but laborious; in some circumstances, it is preferable or necessary. Automated tooling, either semi- or fully-automatic, could assist an author. How best to perform the task and the design of such tools is an open research question. While some approaches have been shown to be able to defeat particular stylometric analyses, particularly those that do not account for the potential of adversariality, establishing safety in the face of unknown analyses is an issue. Ensuring the faithfulness of the paraphrase is a critical challenge for automated tools. It is uncertain if the practice of adversarial stylometry is detectable in itself. Some studies have found that particular methods produced signals in the output text, but a stylometrist who is uncertain of what methods may have been used may not be able to reliably detect them. == History == Rao & Rohatgi (2000), an early work in adversarial stylometry, identified machine translation as a possibility, but noted that the quality of translators available at the time presented severe challenges. Kacmarcik & Gamon (2006) is another early work. Brennan, Afroz & Greenstadt (2012) performed the first evaluation of adversarial stylometric methods on actual texts. Brennan & Greenstadt (2009) introduced the first corpus of adversarially authored texts specifically for evaluating stylometric methods; other corpora include the International Imitation Hemingway Competition, the Faux Faulkner contest, and the hoax blog A Gay Girl in Damascus. == Motivations == Rao & Rohatgi (2000) suggest that short, unattributed documents (i.e., anonymous posts) are not at risk of stylometric identification, but pseudonymous authors who have not practiced adversarial stylometry in producing corpuses of thousands of words may be vulnerable. Narayanan et al. (2012) attempted large-scale deanonymisation of 100,000 blog authors with mixed results: the identifications were significantly better than chance, but only accurately matched the blog and author a fifth of the time; identification improved with the number of posts written by the author in the corpus. Even if an author is not identified, some of their characteristics may still be deduced stylometrically, or stylometry may narrow the anonymity set of potential authors sufficiently for other information to complete the identification. Detecting author characteristics (e.g., gender or age) is often simpler than identifying an author from a large, possibly open, set of candidates. Modern machine learning techniques offer powerful tools for identification; further development of corpora and computational stylometric techniques are likely to raise further privacy issues. Gröndahl & Asokan (2020a) say that the general validity of the hypothesis underlying stylometry—that authors have invariant, content-independent 'style fingerprints'—is uncertain, but "the deanonymisation attack is a real privacy concern". Those interested in practicing adversarial stylometry and stylistic deception include whistleblowers avoiding retribution; journalists and activists; perpetrators of frauds and hoaxes; authors of fake reviews; literary forgers; criminals disguising their identity from investigators; and, generally, anyone with a desire for anonymity or pseudonymity. Authors, or agents acting on behalf of authors, may also attempt to remove stylistic clues to author characteristics (e.g., race or gender) so that knowledge of those characteristics cannot be used for discrimination (e.g., through algorithmic bias). Another possible use for adversarial stylometry is in disguising automatically generated text as human-authored. == Methods == With imitation, the author attempts to mislead stylometry by matching their style to another author's. An incomplete imitation, where some of the true author's unique characteristics appear alongside the imitated author's, can be a detectable signal for the use of adversarial stylometry. Imitation can be performed automatically with style transfer systems, though this typically requires a large corpus in the target style for the system to learn from. Another approach is translation, which employs machine translation of a source text to eliminate characteristic style, often through multiple translators in sequence to produce a round-trip translation. Such chained translation can lead to texts being significantly altered, even to the point of incomprehensibility; improved translation tools reduce this risk. More simply-structured texts can be easier to machine translate without losing the original meaning. Machine translation blurs into direct stylistic imitation or obfuscation achieved through automated style transfer, which can be viewed as a "translation" with the same language as input and output. With low-quality translation tools, an author can be required to manually correct major translation errors while avoiding the hazard of re-introducing stylistic characteristics. Wang, Juola & Riddell (2022) found that gross errors introduced by Google Translate were rare, but more common with several intermediate translations—however, occasional simple or short sentences and misspellings in the source text appeared verbatim in the output, potentially providing an identifying signal. Chain translation can leave characteristic traces of its application in a document, which may allow reconstruction of the intermediate languages used and the number of translation steps performed. Obfuscation involves deliberately changing the style of a text to reduce its similarity to other texts by some metric; this may be performed at the time of writing by conscious modification, or as part of a revision process with feedback from the metric being targeted as an input to decide when the text has been sufficiently obfuscated. In contrast to translation, complex texts can offer more opportunities for effective obfuscation without altering meaning, and likewise genres with more permissible variation allow more obfuscation. However, longer texts are harder to thoroughly obfuscate. Obfuscation can blend into imitation if the author develops a novel target style, distinct from their original style. With respect to masking author characteristics, obfuscation may aim to achieve a union (adding signals for imitated characteristics) or an intersection (removing signals and normalising) of other authors' styles. Avoiding the author's own idiosyncrasies and producing a "normalised" text is a critical obfuscatory step: an author may have a unique tendency to misspell certain words, use particular variants, or to format a document in a characteristic way. Stylometric signals vary in how simply they can be adversarially masked; an author may easily change their vocabulary by conscious choice, but altering the pattern of grammar or the letter frequency in their text may be harder to achieve, though Juola & Vescovi (2011) report that imitation typically succeeds at masking more characteristics than obfuscation. Automated obfuscation may require large amounts of training data written by the author. Concerning automated implementations of adversarial stylometry, two possible implementations are rule-based systems for paraphrasing; and encoder–decoder architectures, where the text passes through an intermediate format that is (intended to be) style-neutral. Another division in automated methods is whether there is feedback from an identification system or not. With such feedback, finding paraphrases for author masking has been characterised as a heuristic search problem, exploring textual variants until the result is stylistically sufficiently far (in the case of obfuscation) or near (in the case of imitation), which then constitutes an adversarial example for that identification system. == Evaluation == How
Visual Turing Test
The Visual Turing Test is “an operator-assisted device that produces a stochastic sequence of binary questions from a given test image”. The query engine produces a sequence of questions that have unpredictable answers given the history of questions. The test is only about vision and does not require any natural language processing. The job of the human operator is to provide the correct answer to the question or reject it as ambiguous. The query generator produces questions such that they follow a “natural story line”, similar to what humans do when they look at a picture. == History == Research in computer vision dates back to the 1960s when Seymour Papert first attempted to solve the problem. This unsuccessful attempt was referred to as the Summer Vision Project. The reason why it was not successful was because computer vision is more complicated than what people think. The complexity is in alignment with the human visual system. Roughly 50% of the human brain is devoted in processing vision, which indicates that it is a difficult problem. Later there were attempts to solve the problems with models inspired by the human brain. Perceptrons by Frank Rosenblatt, which is a form of the neural networks, was one of the first such approaches. These simple neural networks could not live up to their expectations and had certain limitations due to which they were not considered in future research. Later with the availability of the hardware and some processing power the research shifted to image processing which involves pixel-level operations, like finding edges, de-noising images or applying filters to name a few. There was some great progress in this field but the problem of vision which was to make the machines understand the images was still not being addressed. During this time the neural networks also resurfaced as it was shown that the limitations of the perceptrons can be overcome by Multi-layer perceptrons. Also in the early 1990s convolutional neural networks were born which showed great results on digit recognition but did not scale up well on harder problems. The late 1990s and early 2000s saw the birth of modern computer vision. One of the reasons this happened was due to the availability of key, feature extraction and representation algorithms. Features along with the already present machine learning algorithms were used to detect, localise and segment objects in Images. While all these advancements were being made, the community felt the need to have standardised datasets and evaluation metrics so the performances can be compared. This led to the emergence of challenges like the Pascal VOC challenge and the ImageNet challenge. The availability of standard evaluation metrics and the open challenges gave directions to the research. Better algorithms were introduced for specific tasks like object detection and classification. Visual Turing Test aims to give a new direction to the computer vision research which would lead to the introduction of systems that will be one step closer to understanding images the way humans do. == Current evaluation practices == A large number of datasets have been annotated and generalised to benchmark performances of difference classes of algorithms to assess different vision tasks (e.g., object detection/recognition) on some image domain (e.g., scene images). One of the most famous datasets in computer vision is ImageNet which is used to assess the problem of object level Image classification. ImageNet is one of the largest annotated datasets available and has over one million images. The other important vision task is object detection and localisation which refers to detecting the object instance in the image and providing the bounding box coordinates around the object instance or segmenting the object. The most popular dataset for this task is the Pascal dataset. Similarly there are other datasets for specific tasks like the H3D dataset for human pose detection, Core dataset to evaluate the quality of detected object attributes such as colour, orientation, and activity. Having these standard datasets has helped the vision community to come up with well performing algorithms for all these tasks. The next logical step is to create a larger task encompassing of these smaller subtasks. Having such a task would lead to building systems that would understand images, as understanding images would inherently involve detecting objects, localising them and segmenting them. == Details == The Visual Turing Test (VTT) unlike the Turing test has a query engine system which interrogates a computer vision system in the presence of a human co-ordinator. It is a system that generates a random sequence of binary questions specific to the test image, such that the answer to any question k is unpredictable given the true answers to the previous k − 1 questions (also known as history of questions). The test happens in the presence of a human operator who serves two main purposes: removing the ambiguous questions and providing the correct answers to the unambiguous questions. Given an Image infinite possible binary questions can be asked and a lot of them are bound to be ambiguous. These questions if generated by the query engine are removed by the human moderator and instead the query engine generates another question such that the answer to it is unpredictable given the history of the questions. The aim of the Visual Turing Test is to evaluate the Image understanding of a computer system, and an important part of image understanding is the story line of the image. When humans look at an image, they do not think that there is a car at ‘x’ pixels from the left and ‘y’ pixels from the top, but instead they look at it as a story, for e.g. they might think that there is a car parked on the road, a person is exiting the car and heading towards a building. The most important elements of the story line are the objects and so to extract any story line from an image the first and the most important task is to instantiate the objects in it, and that is what the query engine does. === Query engine === The query engine is the core of the Visual Turing Test and it comprises two main parts : Vocabulary and Questions ==== Vocabulary ==== Vocabulary is a set of words that represent the elements of the images. This vocabulary when used with appropriate grammar leads to a set of questions. The grammar is defined in the next section in a way that it leads to a space of binary questions. The vocabulary V {\displaystyle {\mathcal {V}}} consist of three components: Types of Objects T {\displaystyle {\mathcal {T}}} Type-dependent attributes of objects A ( t ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}(t)} Type-dependent relationships between two objects R ( t , t ′ ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {R}}(t,t')} For Images of urban street scenes the types of objects include people, vehicle and buildings. Attributes refer to the properties of these objects, for e.g. female, child, wearing a hat or carrying something, for people and moving, parked, stopped, one tire visible or two tires visible for vehicles. Relationships between each pair of object classes can be either “ordered” or “unordered”. The unordered relationships may include talking, walking together and the ordered relationships include taller, closer to the camera, occluding, being occluded etc. Additionally all of this vocabulary is used in context of rectangular image regions w \in W which allow for the localisation of objects in the image. An extremely large number of such regions are possible and this complicates the problem, so for this test, regions at specific scales are only used which include 1/16 the size of image, 1/4 the size of image, 1/2 the size of image or larger. ==== Questions ==== The question space is composed of four types of questions: Existence questions: The aim of the existence questions is to find new objects in the image that have not been uniquely identified previously. They are of the form : Qexist = 'Is there an instance of an object of type t with attributes A partially visible in region w that was not previously instantiated?' Uniqueness questions: A uniqueness question tries to uniquely identify an object to instantiate it. Quniq = 'Is there a unique instance of an object of type t with attributes A partially visible in region w that was not previously instantiated?' The uniqueness questions along with the existence questions form the instantiation questions. As mentioned earlier instantiating objects leads to other interesting questions and eventually a story line. Uniqueness questions follow the existence questions and a positive answer to it leads to instantiation of an object. Attribute questions: An attribute question tries to find more about the object once it has been instantiated. Such questions can query about a single attribute, conjunction of two attributes or disjunction of two attributes. Qatt(ot) = {'Does object ot have attribute a?' , 'Does object
Signal transfer function
The signal transfer function (SiTF) is a measure of the signal output versus the signal input of a system such as an infrared system or sensor. There are many general applications of the SiTF. Specifically, in the field of image analysis, it gives a measure of the noise of an imaging system, and thus yields one assessment of its performance. == SiTF evaluation == In evaluating the SiTF curve, the signal input and signal output are measured differentially; meaning, the differential of the input signal and differential of the output signal are calculated and plotted against each other. An operator, using computer software, defines an arbitrary area, with a given set of data points, within the signal and background regions of the output image of the infrared sensor, i.e. of the unit under test (UUT), (see "Half Moon" image below). The average signal and background are calculated by averaging the data of each arbitrarily defined region. A second order polynomial curve is fitted to the data of each line. Then, the polynomial is subtracted from the average signal and background data to yield the new signal and background. The difference of the new signal and background data is taken to yield the net signal. Finally, the net signal is plotted versus the signal input. The signal input of the UUT is within its own spectral response. (e.g. color-correlated temperature, pixel intensity, etc.). The slope of the linear portion of this curve is then found using the method of least squares. == SiTF curve == The net signal is calculated from the average signal and background, as in signal to noise ratio (imaging)#Calculations. The SiTF curve is then given by the signal output data, (net signal data), plotted against the signal input data (see graph of SiTF to the right). All the data points in the linear region of the SiTF curve can be used in the method of least squares to find a linear approximation. Given n {\displaystyle n\,} data points ( x i , y i ) {\displaystyle (x_{i}\,,y_{i}\,)} a best fit line parameterized as y = m x + b {\displaystyle y=mx+b\,} is given by: m = ∑ x i y i n − ∑ x i n ∑ y i n ∑ x i 2 n − ( ∑ x i n ) 2 b = ∑ y i n − m ∑ x i n {\displaystyle m={\frac {{\frac {\sum x_{i}y_{i}}{n}}-{\frac {\sum x_{i}}{n}}{\frac {\sum y_{i}}{n}}}{{\frac {\sum x_{i}^{2}}{n}}-({\frac {\sum x_{i}}{n}})^{2}}}\qquad \qquad b={\frac {\sum y_{i}}{n}}-m{\frac {\sum x_{i}}{n}}}
Deep learning
In machine learning, deep learning (DL) focuses on utilizing multilayered neural networks to perform tasks such as classification, regression, and representation learning. The field takes inspiration from biological neuroscience and revolves around stacking artificial neurons into layers and "training" them to process data. The adjective "deep" refers to the use of multiple layers (ranging from three to several hundred or thousands) in the network. Methods used can be supervised, semi-supervised or unsupervised. Some common deep learning network architectures include fully connected networks, deep belief networks, recurrent neural networks, convolutional neural networks, generative adversarial networks, transformers, and neural radiance fields. These architectures have been applied to fields including computer vision, speech recognition, natural language processing, machine translation, bioinformatics, drug design, medical image analysis, climate science, material inspection and board game programs, where they have produced results comparable to and in some cases surpassing human expert performance. Early forms of neural networks were inspired by information processing and distributed communication nodes in biological systems, particularly the human brain. However, current neural networks do not intend to model the brain function of organisms, and are generally seen as low-quality models for that purpose. == Overview == Most modern deep learning models are based on multi-layered neural networks such as convolutional neural networks and transformers, although they can also include propositional formulas or latent variables organized layer-wise in deep generative models such as the nodes in deep belief networks and deep Boltzmann machines. Fundamentally, deep learning refers to a class of machine learning algorithms in which a hierarchy of layers is used to transform input data into a progressively more abstract and composite representation. For example, in an image recognition model, the raw input may be an image (represented as a tensor of pixels). The first representational layer may attempt to identify basic shapes such as lines and circles, the second layer may compose and encode arrangements of edges, the third layer may encode a nose and eyes, and the fourth layer may recognize that the image contains a face. Importantly, a deep learning process can learn which features to optimally place at which level on its own. Prior to deep learning, machine learning techniques often involved hand-crafted feature engineering to transform the data into a more suitable representation for a classification algorithm to operate on. In the deep learning approach, features are not hand-crafted and the model discovers useful feature representations from the data automatically. This does not eliminate the need for hand-tuning; for example, varying numbers of layers and layer sizes can provide different degrees of abstraction. The word "deep" in "deep learning" refers to the number of layers through which the data is transformed. More precisely, deep learning systems have a substantial credit assignment path (CAP) depth. The CAP is the chain of transformations from input to output. CAPs describe potentially causal connections between input and output. For a feedforward neural network, the depth of the CAPs is that of the network and is the number of hidden layers plus one (as the output layer is also parameterized). For recurrent neural networks, in which a signal may propagate through a layer more than once, the CAP depth is potentially unlimited. No universally agreed-upon threshold of depth divides shallow learning from deep learning, but most researchers agree that deep learning involves CAP depth higher than two. CAP of depth two has been shown to be a universal approximator in the sense that it can emulate any function. Beyond that, more layers do not add to the function approximator ability of the network. Deep models (CAP > two) are able to extract better features than shallow models and hence, extra layers help in learning the features effectively. Deep learning architectures can be constructed with a greedy layer-by-layer method. Deep learning helps to disentangle these abstractions and pick out which features improve performance. Deep learning algorithms can be applied to unsupervised learning tasks. This is an important benefit because unlabeled data is more abundant than labeled data. Examples of deep structures that can be trained in an unsupervised manner are deep belief networks. The term deep learning was introduced to the machine learning community by Rina Dechter in 1986, and to artificial neural networks by Igor Aizenberg and colleagues in 2000, in the context of Boolean threshold neurons. The etymology of the term is more complicated. == Interpretations == Deep neural networks are generally interpreted in terms of the universal approximation theorem or probabilistic inference. The classic universal approximation theorem concerns the capacity of feedforward neural networks with a single hidden layer of finite size to approximate continuous functions. In 1989, the first proof was published by George Cybenko for sigmoid activation functions and was generalised to feed-forward multi-layer architectures in 1991 by Kurt Hornik. Recent work also showed that universal approximation also holds for non-bounded activation functions such as Kunihiko Fukushima's rectified linear unit. The universal approximation theorem for deep neural networks concerns the capacity of networks with bounded width but the depth is allowed to grow. Lu et al. proved that if the width of a deep neural network with ReLU activation is strictly larger than the input dimension, then the network can approximate any Lebesgue integrable function; if the width is smaller or equal to the input dimension, then a deep neural network is not a universal approximator. The probabilistic interpretation derives from the field of machine learning. It features inference, as well as the optimization concepts of training and testing, related to fitting and generalization, respectively. More specifically, the probabilistic interpretation considers the activation nonlinearity as a cumulative distribution function. The probabilistic interpretation led to the introduction of dropout as regularizer in neural networks. The probabilistic interpretation was introduced by researchers including Hopfield, Widrow and Narendra and popularized in surveys such as the one by Bishop. == History == === Before 1980 === There are two types of artificial neural network (ANN): feedforward neural network (FNN) or multilayer perceptron (MLP) and recurrent neural networks (RNN). RNNs have cycles in their connectivity structure, whereas FNNs do not. In the 1920s, Wilhelm Lenz and Ernst Ising created the Ising model which is essentially a non-learning RNN architecture consisting of neuron-like threshold elements. In 1972, Shun'ichi Amari made this architecture adaptive. His learning RNN was republished by John Hopfield in 1982. Other early recurrent neural networks were published by Kaoru Nakano in 1971. Already in 1948, Alan Turing produced work on "Intelligent Machinery" that was not published in his lifetime, containing "ideas related to artificial evolution and learning RNNs". Frank Rosenblatt (1958) proposed the perceptron, an MLP with 3 layers: an input layer, a hidden layer with randomized weights that did not learn, and an output layer. He later published a 1962 book that also introduced variants and computer experiments, including a version with four-layer perceptrons "with adaptive preterminal networks" where the last two layers have learned weights (here he credits H. D. Block and B. W. Knight). The book cites an earlier network by R. D. Joseph (1960) "functionally equivalent to a variation of" this four-layer system (the book mentions Joseph over 30 times). Should Joseph therefore be considered the originator of proper adaptive multilayer perceptrons with learning hidden units? Unfortunately, the learning algorithm was not a functional one, and fell into oblivion. The first working deep learning algorithm was the Group method of data handling, a method to train arbitrarily deep neural networks, published by Alexey Ivakhnenko and Lapa in 1965. They regarded it as a form of polynomial regression, or a generalization of Rosenblatt's perceptron to handle more complex, nonlinear, and hierarchical relationships. A 1971 paper described a deep network with eight layers trained by this method, which is based on layer by layer training through regression analysis. Superfluous hidden units are pruned using a separate validation set. Since the activation functions of the nodes are Kolmogorov-Gabor polynomials, these were also the first deep networks with multiplicative units or "gates". The first deep learning multilayer perceptron trained by stochastic gradient descent was published in 1967 by Shun'ichi