Linear belief functions are an extension of the Dempster–Shafer theory of belief functions to the case when variables of interest are continuous. Examples of such variables include financial asset prices, portfolio performance, and other antecedent and consequent variables. The theory was originally proposed by Arthur P. Dempster in the context of Kalman Filters and later was elaborated, refined, and applied to knowledge representation in artificial intelligence and decision making in finance and accounting by Liping Liu. == Concept == A linear belief function intends to represent our belief regarding the location of the true value as follows: We are certain that the truth is on a so-called certainty hyperplane but we do not know its exact location; along some dimensions of the certainty hyperplane, we believe the true value could be anywhere from –∞ to +∞ and the probability of being at a particular location is described by a normal distribution; along other dimensions, our knowledge is vacuous, i.e., the true value is somewhere from –∞ to +∞ but the associated probability is unknown. A belief function in general is defined by a mass function over a class of focal elements, which may have nonempty intersections. A linear belief function is a special type of belief function in the sense that its focal elements are exclusive, parallel sub-hyperplanes over the certainty hyperplane and its mass function is a normal distribution across the sub-hyperplanes. Based on the above geometrical description, Shafer and Liu propose two mathematical representations of a LBF: a wide-sense inner product and a linear functional in the variable space, and as their duals over a hyperplane in the sample space. Monney proposes still another structure called Gaussian hints. Although these representations are mathematically neat, they tend to be unsuitable for knowledge representation in expert systems. == Knowledge representation == A linear belief function can represent both logical and probabilistic knowledge for three types of variables: deterministic such as an observable or controllable, random whose distribution is normal, and vacuous on which no knowledge bears. Logical knowledge is represented by linear equations, or geometrically, a certainty hyperplane. Probabilistic knowledge is represented by a normal distribution across all parallel focal elements. In general, assume X is a vector of multiple normal variables with mean μ and covariance Σ. Then, the multivariate normal distribution can be equivalently represented as a moment matrix: M ( X ) = ( μ Σ ) . {\displaystyle M(X)=\left({\begin{array}{{20}c}\mu \\\Sigma \end{array}}\right).} If the distribution is non-degenerate, i.e., Σ has a full rank and its inverse exists, the moment matrix can be fully swept: M ( X → ) = ( μ Σ − 1 − Σ − 1 ) {\displaystyle M({\vec {X}})=\left({\begin{array}{{20}c}\mu \Sigma ^{-1}\\-\Sigma ^{-1}\end{array}}\right)} Except for normalization constant, the above equation completely determines the normal density function for X. Therefore, M ( X → ) {\displaystyle M({\vec {X}})} represents the probability distribution of X in the potential form. These two simple matrices allow us to represent three special cases of linear belief functions. First, for an ordinary normal probability distribution M(X) represents it. Second, suppose one makes a direct observation on X and obtains a value μ. In this case, since there is no uncertainty, both variance and covariance vanish, i.e., Σ = 0. Thus, a direct observation can be represented as: M ( X ) = ( μ 0 ) {\displaystyle M(X)=\left({\begin{array}{{20}c}\mu \\0\end{array}}\right)} Third, suppose one is completely ignorant about X. This is a very thorny case in Bayesian statistics since the density function does not exist. By using the fully swept moment matrix, we represent the vacuous linear belief functions as a zero matrix in the swept form follows: M ( X → ) = [ 0 0 ] {\displaystyle M({\vec {X}})=\left[{\begin{array}{{20}c}0\\0\end{array}}\right]} One way to understand the representation is to imagine complete ignorance as the limiting case when the variance of X approaches to ∞, where one can show that Σ−1 = 0 and hence M ( X → ) {\displaystyle M({\vec {X}})} vanishes. However, the above equation is not the same as an improper prior or normal distribution with infinite variance. In fact, it does not correspond to any unique probability distribution. For this reason, a better way is to understand the vacuous linear belief functions as the neutral element for combination (see later). To represent the remaining three special cases, we need the concept of partial sweeping. Unlike a full sweeping, a partial sweeping is a transformation on a subset of variables. Suppose X and Y are two vectors of normal variables with the joint moment matrix: M ( X , Y ) = [ μ 1 Σ 11 Σ 21 μ 2 Σ 12 Σ 22 ] {\displaystyle M(X,Y)=\left[{\begin{array}{{20}c}{\begin{array}{{20}c}\mu _{1}\\\Sigma _{11}\\\Sigma _{21}\end{array}}&{\begin{array}{{20}c}\mu _{2}\\\Sigma _{12}\\\Sigma _{22}\end{array}}\end{array}}\right]} Then M(X, Y) may be partially swept. For example, we can define the partial sweeping on X as follows: M ( X → , Y ) = [ μ 1 ( Σ 11 ) − 1 − ( Σ 11 ) − 1 Σ 21 ( Σ 11 ) − 1 μ 2 − μ 1 ( Σ 11 ) − 1 Σ 12 ( Σ 11 ) − 1 Σ 12 Σ 22 − Σ 21 ( Σ 11 ) − 1 Σ 12 ] {\displaystyle M({\vec {X}},Y)=\left[{\begin{array}{{20}c}{\begin{array}{{20}c}\mu _{1}(\Sigma _{11})^{-1}\\-(\Sigma _{11})^{-1}\\\Sigma _{21}(\Sigma _{11})^{-1}\end{array}}&{\begin{array}{{20}c}\mu _{2}-\mu _{1}(\Sigma _{11})^{-1}\Sigma _{12}\\(\Sigma _{11})^{-1}\Sigma _{12}\\\Sigma _{22}-\Sigma _{21}(\Sigma _{11})^{-1}\Sigma _{12}\end{array}}\end{array}}\right]} If X is one-dimensional, a partial sweeping replaces the variance of X by its negative inverse and multiplies the inverse with other elements. If X is multidimensional, the operation involves the inverse of the covariance matrix of X and other multiplications. A swept matrix obtained from a partial sweeping on a subset of variables can be equivalently obtained by a sequence of partial sweepings on each individual variable in the subset and the order of the sequence does not matter. Similarly, a fully swept matrix is the result of partial sweepings on all variables. We can make two observations. First, after the partial sweeping on X, the mean vector and covariance matrix of X are respectively μ 1 ( Σ 11 ) − 1 {\displaystyle \mu _{1}(\Sigma _{11})^{-1}} and − ( Σ 11 ) − 1 {\displaystyle -(\Sigma _{11})^{-1}} , which are the same as that of a full sweeping of the marginal moment matrix of X. Thus, the elements corresponding to X in the above partial sweeping equation represent the marginal distribution of X in potential form. Second, according to statistics, μ 2 − μ 1 ( Σ 11 ) − 1 Σ 12 {\displaystyle \mu _{2}-\mu _{1}(\Sigma _{11})^{-1}\Sigma _{12}} is the conditional mean of Y given X = 0; Σ 22 − Σ 21 ( Σ 11 ) − 1 Σ 12 {\displaystyle \Sigma _{22}-\Sigma _{21}(\Sigma _{11})^{-1}\Sigma _{12}} is the conditional covariance matrix of Y given X = 0; and ( Σ 11 ) − 1 Σ 12 {\displaystyle (\Sigma _{11})^{-1}\Sigma _{12}} is the slope of the regression model of Y on X. Therefore, the elements corresponding to Y indices and the intersection of X and Y in M ( X → , Y ) {\displaystyle M({\vec {X}},Y)} represents the conditional distribution of Y given X = 0. These semantics render the partial sweeping operation a useful method for manipulating multivariate normal distributions. They also form the basis of the moment matrix representations for the three remaining important cases of linear belief functions, including proper belief functions, linear equations, and linear regression models. === Proper linear belief functions === For variables X and Y, assume there exists a piece of evidence justifying a normal distribution for variables Y while bearing no opinions for variables X. Also, assume that X and Y are not perfectly linearly related, i.e., their correlation is less than 1. This case involves a mix of an ordinary normal distribution for Y and a vacuous belief function for X. Thus, we represent it using a partially swept matrix as follows: M ( X → , Y ) = [ 0 0 0 μ 2 0 Σ 22 ] {\displaystyle M({\vec {X}},Y)=\left[{\begin{array}{{20}c}{\begin{array}{{20}c}0\\0\\0\end{array}}&{\begin{array}{{20}c}\mu _{2}\\0\\\Sigma _{22}\\\end{array}}\end{array}}\right]} This is how we could understand the representation. Since we are ignorant on X, we use its swept form and set μ 1 ( Σ 11 ) − 1 = 0 {\displaystyle \mu _{1}(\Sigma _{11})^{-1}=0} and − ( Σ 11 ) − 1 = 0 {\displaystyle -(\Sigma _{11})^{-1}=0} . Since the correlation between X and Y is less than 1, the regression coefficient of X on Y approaches to 0 when the variance of X approaches to ∞. Therefore, ( Σ 11 ) − 1 Σ 12 = 0 {\displaystyle (\Sigma _{11})^{-1}\Sigma _{12}=0} . Similarly, one can prove that μ 1 ( Σ 11 ) − 1 Σ 12 = 0 {\displaystyle \mu _{1}(\Sigma _{11})^{-1}\Sigma _{12}=0} and Σ 21 ( Σ 11 ) −
Photometric stereo
Photometric stereo is a technique in computer vision for estimating the surface normals of objects by observing that object under different lighting conditions (photometry). It is based on the fact that the amount of light reflected by a surface is dependent on the orientation of the surface in relation to the light source and the observer. By measuring the amount of light reflected into a camera, the space of possible surface orientations is limited. Given enough light sources from different angles, the surface orientation may be constrained to a single orientation or even overconstrained. The technique was originally introduced by Woodham in 1980. The special case where the data is a single image is known as shape from shading, and was analyzed by B. K. P. Horn in 1989. Photometric stereo has since been generalized to many other situations, including extended light sources and non-Lambertian surface finishes. Current research aims to make the method work in the presence of projected shadows, highlights, and non-uniform lighting. Photometric stereo is widely used in various fields, including archaeology, cultural heritage conservation, and quality control. It is now integrated into widely used open-source software, such as Meshroom. == Basic method == Under Woodham's original assumptions — Lambertian reflectance, known point-like distant light sources, and uniform albedo — the problem can be solved by inverting the linear equation I = L ⋅ n {\displaystyle I=L\cdot n} , where I {\displaystyle I} is a (known) vector of m {\displaystyle m} observed intensities, n {\displaystyle n} is the (unknown) surface normal, and L {\displaystyle L} is a (known) 3 × m {\displaystyle 3\times m} matrix of normalized light directions. This model can easily be extended to surfaces with non-uniform albedo, while keeping the problem linear. Taking an albedo reflectivity of k {\displaystyle k} , the formula for the reflected light intensity becomes I = k ( L ⋅ n ) . {\displaystyle I=k(L\cdot n).} If L {\displaystyle L} is square (there are exactly 3 lights) and non-singular, it can be inverted, giving L − 1 I = k n . {\displaystyle L^{-1}I=kn.} Since the normal vector is known to have length 1, k {\displaystyle k} must be the length of the vector k n {\displaystyle kn} , and n {\displaystyle n} is the normalised direction of that vector. If L {\displaystyle L} is not square (there are more than 3 lights), a generalisation of the inverse can be obtained using the Moore–Penrose pseudoinverse, by simply multiplying both sides with L T {\displaystyle L^{T}} , giving L T I = L T k ( L ⋅ n ) , {\displaystyle L^{T}I=L^{T}k(L\cdot n),} ( L T L ) − 1 L T I = k n , {\displaystyle (L^{T}L)^{-1}L^{T}I=kn,} after which the normal vector and albedo can be solved as described above. == Non-Lambertian surfaces == The classical photometric stereo problem concerns itself only with Lambertian surfaces, with perfectly diffuse reflection. This is unrealistic for many types of materials, especially metals, glass and smooth plastics, and will lead to aberrations in the resulting normal vectors. Many methods have been developed to lift this assumption. In this section, a few of these are listed. === Specular reflections === Historically, in computer graphics, the commonly used model to render surfaces started with Lambertian surfaces and progressed first to include simple specular reflections. Computer vision followed a similar course with photometric stereo. Specular reflections were among the first deviations from the Lambertian model. These are a few adaptations that have been developed. Many techniques ultimately rely on modelling the reflectance function of the surface, that is, how much light is reflected in each direction. This reflectance function has to be invertible. The reflected light intensities towards the camera is measured, and the inverse reflectance function is fit onto the measured intensities, resulting in a unique solution for the normal vector. === General BRDFs and beyond === According to the Bidirectional reflectance distribution function (BRDF) model, a surface may distribute the amount of light it receives in any outward direction. This is the most general known model for opaque surfaces. Some techniques have been developed to model (almost) general BRDFs. In practice, all of these require many light sources to obtain reliable data. These are methods in which surfaces with general BRDFs can be measured. Determine the explicit BRDF prior to scanning. To do this, a different surface is required that has the same or a very similar BRDF, of which the actual geometry (or at least the normal vectors for many points on the surface) is already known. The lights are then individually shone upon the known surface, and the amount of reflection into the camera is measured. Using this information, a look-up table can be created that maps reflected intensities for each light source to a list of possible normal vectors. This puts constraints on the possible normal vectors the surface may have, and reduces the photometric stereo problem to an interpolation between measurements. Typical known surfaces to calibrate the look-up table with are spheres for their wide variety of surface orientations. Restricting the BRDF to be symmetrical. If the BRDF is symmetrical, the direction of the light can be restricted to a cone about the direction to the camera. Which cone this is depends on the BRDF itself, the normal vector of the surface, and the measured intensity. Given enough measured intensities and the resulting light directions, these cones can be approximated and therefore the normal vectors of the surface. Some progress has been made towards modelling an even more general surfaces, such as Spatially Varying Bidirectional Distribution Functions (SVBRDF), Bidirectional surface scattering reflectance distribution functions (BSSRDF), and accounting for interreflections. However, such methods are still fairly restrictive in photometric stereo. Better results have been achieved with structured light. == Uncalibrated photometric stereo == Uncalibrated Photometric Stereo is an approach in photometric stereo that aims to reconstruct the 3D shape of an object from images captured under unknown lighting conditions. Unlike classical methods, which often assume controlled or known lighting setups, this approach removes these constraints, making it adaptable to diverse and real-world environments. The advent of deep learning has revolutionized universal PS by replacing handcrafted assumptions with data-driven models. Recent approaches leverage Transformer-based architectures and multi-scale encoder–decoder networks to directly estimate surface normals from input images. Uncalibrated Photometric Stereo is inherently an ill-posed problem, as it attempts to recover 3D shape and lighting conditions simultaneously from images alone. This leads to fundamental ambiguities in the reconstruction process, which manifest as systematic errors in the recovered geometry, including global distortions in the object's overall shape, and misinterpretation of surface orientation, where concave regions may appear convex and vice versa. To address the challenges of uncalibrated photometric stereo, hybrid methods have emerged that combine multi-view stereo and photometric stereo. These approaches leverage the strengths of both techniques, including geometric reliability and resolution.
Normal distributions transform
The normal distributions transform (NDT) is a point cloud registration algorithm introduced by Peter Biber and Wolfgang Straßer in 2003, while working at University of Tübingen. The algorithm registers two point clouds by first associating a piecewise normal distribution to the first point cloud, that gives the probability of sampling a point belonging to the cloud at a given spatial coordinate, and then finding a transform that maps the second point cloud to the first by maximising the likelihood of the second point cloud on such distribution as a function of the transform parameters. Originally introduced for 2D point cloud map matching in simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM) and relative position tracking, the algorithm was extended to 3D point clouds and has wide applications in computer vision and robotics. NDT is very fast and accurate, making it suitable for application to large scale data, but it is also sensitive to initialisation, requiring a sufficiently accurate initial guess, and for this reason it is typically used in a coarse-to-fine alignment strategy. == Formulation == The NDT function associated to a point cloud is constructed by partitioning the space in regular cells. For each cell, it is possible to define the mean q = 1 n ∑ i x i {\displaystyle \textstyle \mathbf {q} ={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i}\mathbf {x_{i}} } and covariance S = 1 n ∑ i ( x i − q ) ( x i − q ) ⊤ {\displaystyle \textstyle \mathbf {S} ={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i}\left(\mathbf {x} _{i}-\mathbf {q} \right)\left(\mathbf {x} _{i}-\mathbf {q} \right)^{\top }} of the n {\displaystyle n} points of the cloud x 1 , … , x n {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} _{1},\dots ,\mathbf {x} _{n}} that fall within the cell. The probability density of sampling a point at a given spatial location x {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} } within the cell is then given by the normal distribution e − 1 2 ( x − q ) ⊤ S − 1 ( x − q ) {\displaystyle e^{-{\frac {1}{2}}\left(\mathbf {x} -\mathbf {q} \right)^{\top }\mathbf {S} ^{-1}\left(\mathbf {x} -\mathbf {q} \right)}} . Two point clouds can be mapped by a Euclidean transformation f {\displaystyle f} with rotation matrix R {\displaystyle \mathbf {R} } and translation vector t {\displaystyle \mathbf {t} } f R , t ( x ) = R x + t {\displaystyle f_{\mathbf {R} ,\mathbf {t} }(\mathbf {x} )=\mathbf {R} \mathbf {x} +\mathbf {t} } that maps from the second cloud to the first, parametrised by the rotation angles and translation components. The algorithm registers the two point clouds by optimising the parameters of the transformation that maps the second cloud to the first, with respect to a loss function based on the NDT of the first point cloud, solving the following problem arg min R , t { − ∑ i NDT ( f R , t ( x i ) ) } {\displaystyle \arg \min _{\mathbf {R} ,\mathbf {t} }\left\{-\sum _{i}\operatorname {NDT} \left(f_{\mathbf {R} ,\mathbf {t} }\left(\mathbf {x_{i}} \right)\right)\right\}} where the loss function represents the negated likelihood, obtained by applying the transformation to all points in the second cloud and summing the value of the NDT at each transformed point f R , t ( x ) {\displaystyle f_{\mathbf {R} ,\mathbf {t} }(\mathbf {x} )} . The loss is piecewise continuous and differentiable, and can be optimised with gradient-based methods (in the original formulation, the authors use Newton's method). In order to reduce the effect of cell discretisation, a technique consists of partitioning the space into multiple overlapping grids, shifted by half cell size along the spatial directions, and computing the likelihood at a given location as the sum of the NDTs induced by each grid.
Content determination
Content determination is the subtask of natural language generation (NLG) that involves deciding on the information to be communicated in a generated text. It is closely related to the task of document structuring. == Example == Consider an NLG system which summarises information about sick babies. Suppose this system has four pieces of information it can communicate The baby is being given morphine via an IV drop The baby's heart rate shows bradycardia's (temporary drops) The baby's temperature is normal The baby is crying Which of these bits of information should be included in the generated texts? == Issues == There are three general issues which almost always impact the content determination task, and can be illustrated with the above example. Perhaps the most fundamental issue is the communicative goal of the text, i.e. its purpose and reader. In the above example, for instance, a doctor who wants to make a decision about medical treatment would probably be most interested in the heart rate bradycardias, while a parent who wanted to know how her child was doing would probably be more interested in the fact that the baby was being given morphine and was crying. The second issue is the size and level of detail of the generated text. For instance, a short summary which was sent to a doctor as a 160 character SMS text message might only mention the heart rate bradycardias, while a longer summary which was printed out as a multipage document might also mention the fact that the baby is on a morphine IV. The final issue is how unusual and unexpected the information is. For example, neither doctors nor parents would place a high priority on being told that the baby's temperature was normal, if they expected this to be the case. Regardless, content determination is very important to users, indeed in many cases the quality of content determination is the most important factor (from the user's perspective) in determining the overall quality of the generated text. == Techniques == There are three basic approaches to document structuring: schemas (content templates), statistical approaches, and explicit reasoning. Schemas are templates which explicitly specify the content of a generated text (as well as document structuring information). Typically, they are constructed by manually analysing a corpus of human-written texts in the target genre, and extracting a content template from these texts. Schemas work well in practice in domains where content is somewhat standardised, but work less well in domains where content is more fluid (such as the medical example above). Statistical techniques use statistical corpus analysis techniques to automatically determine the content of the generated texts. Such work is in its infancy, and has mostly been applied to contexts where the communicative goal, reader, size, and level of detail are fixed. For example, generation of newswire summaries of sporting events. Explicit reasoning approaches have probably attracted the most attention from researchers. The basic idea is to use AI reasoning techniques (such as knowledge-based rules, planning, pattern detection, case-based reasoning, etc.) to examine the information available to be communicated (including how unusual/unexpected it is), the communicative goal and reader, and the characteristics of the generated text (including target size), and decide on the optimal content for the generated text. A very wide range of techniques has been explored, but there is no consensus as to which is most effective.
Language technology
Language technology, often called human language technology (HLT), studies methods of how computer programs or electronic devices can analyze, produce, modify or respond to human texts and speech. Working with language technology often requires broad knowledge not only about linguistics but also about computer science. It consists of natural language processing (NLP) and computational linguistics (CL) on the one hand, many application oriented aspects of these, and more low-level aspects such as encoding and speech technology on the other hand. Note that these elementary aspects are normally not considered to be within the scope of related terms such as natural language processing and (applied) computational linguistics, which are otherwise near-synonyms. As an example, for many of the world's lesser known languages, the foundation of language technology is providing communities with fonts and keyboard setups so their languages can be written on computers or mobile devices. Other tools also are part of modern language technology and include machine translation, speech recognition, text processing and natural language processing. Large scale AI models have recently advanced the field and enhanced the ability of machines to interpret complex human context.
Human–robot collaboration
Human-Robot Collaboration is the study of collaborative processes in human and robot agents work together to achieve shared goals. Many new applications for robots require them to work alongside people as capable members of human-robot teams. These include robots for homes, hospitals, and offices, space exploration and manufacturing. Human-Robot Collaboration (HRC) is an interdisciplinary research area comprising classical robotics, human-computer interaction, artificial intelligence, process design, layout planning, ergonomics, cognitive sciences, and psychology. Industrial applications of human-robot collaboration involve Collaborative Robots, or cobots, that physically interact with humans in a shared workspace to complete tasks such as collaborative manipulation or object handovers. == Collaborative Activity == Collaboration is defined as a special type of coordinated activity, one in which two or more agents work jointly with each other, together performing a task or carrying out the activities needed to satisfy a shared goal. The process typically involves shared plans, shared norms and mutually beneficial interactions. Although collaboration and cooperation are often used interchangeably, collaboration differs from cooperation as it involves a shared goal and joint action where the success of both parties depend on each other. For effective human-robot collaboration, it is imperative that the robot is capable of understanding and interpreting several communication mechanisms similar to the mechanisms involved in human-human interaction. The robot must also communicate its own set of intents and goals to establish and maintain a set of shared beliefs and to coordinate its actions to execute the shared plan. In addition, all team members demonstrate commitment to doing their own part, to the others doing theirs, and to the success of the overall task. == Theories Informing Human-Robot Collaboration == Human-human collaborative activities are studied in depth in order to identify the characteristics that enable humans to successfully work together. These activity models usually aim to understand how people work together in teams, how they form intentions and achieve a joint goal. Theories on collaboration inform human-robot collaboration research to develop efficient and fluent collaborative agents. === Belief Desire Intention Model === The belief-desire-intention (BDI) model is a model of human practical reasoning that was originally developed by Michael Bratman. The approach is used in intelligent agents research to describe and model intelligent agents. The BDI model is characterized by the implementation of an agent's beliefs (the knowledge of the world, state of the world), desires (the objective to accomplish, desired end state) and intentions (the course of actions currently under execution to achieve the desire of the agent) in order to deliberate their decision-making processes. BDI agents are able to deliberate about plans, select plans and execute plans. === Shared Cooperative Activity === Shared Cooperative Activity defines certain prerequisites for an activity to be considered shared and cooperative: mutual responsiveness, commitment to the joint activity and commitment to mutual support. An example case to illustrate these concepts would be a collaborative activity where agents are moving a table out the door, mutual responsiveness ensures that movements of the agents are synchronized; a commitment to the joint activity reassures each team member that the other will not at some point drop his side; and a commitment to mutual support deals with possible breakdowns due to one team member's inability to perform part of the plan. === Joint Intention Theory === Joint Intention Theory proposes that for joint action to emerge, team members must communicate to maintain a set of shared beliefs and to coordinate their actions towards the shared plan. In collaborative work, agents should be able to count on the commitment of other members, therefore each agent should inform the others when they reach the conclusion that a goal is achievable, impossible, or irrelevant. == Approaches to Human-Robot Collaboration == The approaches to human-robot collaboration include human emulation (HE) and human complementary (HC) approaches. Although these approaches have differences, there are research efforts to develop a unified approach stemming from potential convergences such as Collaborative Control. === Human Emulation === The human emulation approach aims to enable computers to act like humans or have human-like abilities in order to collaborate with humans. It focuses on developing formal models of human-human collaboration and applying these models to human-computer collaboration. In this approach, humans are viewed as rational agents who form and execute plans for achieving their goals and infer other people's plans. Agents are required to infer the goals and plans of other agents, and collaborative behavior consists of helping other agents to achieve their goals. === Human Complementary === The human complementary approach seeks to improve human-computer interaction by making the computer a more intelligent partner that complements and collaborates with humans. The premise is that the computer and humans have fundamentally asymmetric abilities. Therefore, researchers invent interaction paradigms that divide responsibility between human users and computer systems by assigning distinct roles that exploit the strengths and overcome the weaknesses of both partners. == Key Aspects == Specialization of Roles: Based on the level of autonomy and intervention, there are several human-robot relationships including master-slave, supervisor–subordinate, partner–partner, teacher–learner and fully autonomous robot. In addition to these roles, homotopy (a weighting function that allows a continuous change between leader and follower behaviors) was introduced as a flexible role distribution. Establishing shared goal(s): Through direct discussion about goals or inference from statements and actions, agents must determine the shared goals they are trying to achieve. Allocation of Responsibility and Coordination: Agents must decide how to achieve their goals, determine what actions will be done by each agent, and how to coordinate the actions of individual agents and integrate their results. Shared context: Agents must be able to track progress toward their goals. They must keep track of what has been achieved and what remains to be done. They must evaluate the effects of actions and determine whether an acceptable solution has been achieved. Communication: Any collaboration requires communication to define goals, negotiate over how to proceed and who will do what, and evaluate progress and results. Adaptation and learning: Collaboration over time require partners to adapt themselves to each other and learn from one's partner both directly or indirectly. Time and space: The time-space taxonomy divides human-robot interaction into four categories based on whether the humans and robots are using computing systems at the same time (synchronous) or different times (asynchronous) and while in the same place (collocated) or in different places (non-collocated). Ergonomics: Human factors and ergonomics are one of the key aspects for a sustainable human-robot collaboration. The robot control system can use biomechanical models and sensors to optimize various ergonomic metrics, such as muscle fatigue.
Cross-language information retrieval
Cross-language information retrieval (CLIR) is a subfield of information retrieval dealing with retrieving information written in a language different from the language of the user's query. The term "cross-language information retrieval" has many synonyms, of which the following are perhaps the most frequent: cross-lingual information retrieval, translingual information retrieval, multilingual information retrieval. The term "multilingual information retrieval" refers more generally both to technology for retrieval of multilingual collections and to technology which has been moved to handle material in one language to another. The term Multilingual Information Retrieval (MLIR) involves the study of systems that accept queries for information in various languages and return objects (text, and other media) of various languages, translated into the user's language. Cross-language information retrieval refers more specifically to the use case where users formulate their information need in one language and the system retrieves relevant documents in another. To do so, most CLIR systems use various translation techniques. CLIR techniques can be classified into different categories based on different translation resources: Dictionary-based CLIR techniques Parallel corpora based CLIR techniques Comparable corpora based CLIR techniques Machine translator based CLIR techniques CLIR systems have improved so much that the most accurate multi-lingual and cross-lingual adhoc information retrieval systems today are nearly as effective as monolingual systems. Other related information access tasks, such as media monitoring, information filtering and routing, sentiment analysis, and information extraction require more sophisticated models and typically more processing and analysis of the information items of interest. Much of that processing needs to be aware of the specifics of the target languages it is deployed in. Mostly, the various mechanisms of variation in human language pose coverage challenges for information retrieval systems: texts in a collection may treat a topic of interest but use terms or expressions which do not match the expression of information need given by the user. This can be true even in a mono-lingual case, but this is especially true in cross-lingual information retrieval, where users may know the target language only to some extent. The benefits of CLIR technology for users with poor to moderate competence in the target language has been found to be greater than for those who are fluent. Specific technologies in place for CLIR services include morphological analysis to handle inflection, decompounding or compound splitting to handle compound terms, and translations mechanisms to translate a query from one language to another. The first workshop on CLIR was held in Zürich during the SIGIR-96 conference. Workshops have been held yearly since 2000 at the meetings of the Cross Language Evaluation Forum (CLEF). Researchers also convene at the annual Text Retrieval Conference (TREC) to discuss their findings regarding different systems and methods of information retrieval, and the conference has served as a point of reference for the CLIR subfield. Early CLIR experiments were conducted at TREC-6, held at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on November 19–21, 1997. Google Search had a cross-language search feature that was removed in 2013.