Artificial intelligence can be used to automate aspects of the job recruitment process. Advances in artificial intelligence, such as the advent of machine learning and the growth of big data, enable AI to be utilized to recruit, screen, and predict the success of applicants. Proponents of artificial intelligence in hiring claim it reduces bias, assists with finding qualified candidates, and frees up human resource workers' time for other tasks, while opponents worry that AI perpetuates inequalities in the workplace and will eliminate jobs. Despite the potential benefits, the ethical implications of AI in hiring remain a subject of debate, with concerns about algorithmic transparency, accountability, and the need for ongoing oversight to ensure fair and unbiased decision-making throughout the recruitment process. == Background == It is common for companies to use AI to automate aspects of their hiring process, especially the hospitality, finance, and tech industries. == Uses == === Screeners === Screeners are tests that allow companies to sift through a large applicant pool and extract applicants that have desirable features. What factors are used to screen applicants is a concern to ethicists and civil rights activists. A screener that favors people who have similar characteristics to those already employed at a company may perpetuate inequalities. For example, if a company that is predominantly white and male uses its employees' data to train its screener it may accidentally create a screening process that favors white, male applicants. The automation of screeners also has the potential to reduce biases. Biases against applicants with African American sounding names have been shown in multiple studies. An AI screener has the potential to limit human bias and error in the hiring process, allowing more minority applicants to be successful. === Recruitment === Recruitment involves the identification of potential applicants and the marketing of positions. AI is commonly utilized in the recruitment process because it can help boost the number of qualified applicants for positions. Companies are able to use AI to target their marketing to applicants who are likely to be good fits for a position. This often involves the use of social media sites advertising tools, which rely on AI. Facebook allows advertisers to target ads based on demographics, location, interests, behavior, and connections. Facebook also allows companies to target a "look-a-like" audience, that is the company supplies Facebook with a data set, typically the company's current employees, and Facebook will target the ad to profiles that are similar to the profiles in the data set. Additionally, job sites like Indeed, Glassdoor, and ZipRecruiter target job listings to applicants that have certain characteristics employers are looking for. Targeted advertising has many advantages for companies trying to recruit such being a more efficient use of resources, reaching a desired audience, and boosting qualified applicants. This has helped make it a mainstay in modern hiring. Who receives a targeted ad can be controversial. In hiring, the implications of targeted ads have to do with who is able to find out about and then apply to a position. Most targeted ad algorithms are proprietary information. Some platforms, like Facebook and Google, allow users to see why they were shown a specific ad, but users who do not receive the ad likely never know of its existence and also have no way of knowing why they were not shown the ad. === Interviews === Chatbots were one of the first applications of AI and are commonly used in the hiring process. Interviewees interact with chatbots to answer interview questions, and an analysis of their responses can be generated by AI. HireVue has created technology that analyzes interviewees' responses and gestures during recorded video interviews. Over 12 million interviewees have been screened by the more than 700 companies that utilize the service. == Controversies == Artificial intelligence in hiring confers many benefits, but it also has some challenges that have concerned experts. AI is only as good as the data it is using. Biases can inadvertently be baked into the data used in AI. Often companies will use data from their employees to decide what people to recruit or hire. This can perpetuate bias and lead to more homogenous workforces. Facebook Ads was an example of a platform that created such controversy for allowing business owners to specify what type of employee they are looking for. For example, job advertisements for nursing and teach could be set such that only women of a specific age group would see the advertisements. Facebook Ads has since then removed this function from its platform, citing the potential problems with the function in perpetuating biases and stereotypes against minorities. The growing use of Artificial Intelligence-enabled hiring systems has become an important component of modern talent hiring, particularly through social networks such as LinkedIn and Facebook. However, data overflow embedded in the hiring systems, based on Natural Language Processing (NLP) methods, may result in unconscious gender bias. Utilizing data driven methods may mitigate some bias generated from these systems It can also be hard to quantify what makes a good employee. This poses a challenge for training AI to predict which employees will be best. Commonly used metrics like performance reviews can be subjective and have been shown to favor white employees over black employees and men over women. Another challenge is the limited amount of available data. Employers only collect certain details about candidates during the initial stages of the hiring process. This requires AI to make determinations about candidates with very limited information to go off of. Additionally, many employers do not hire employees frequently and so have limited firm specific data to go off. To combat this, many firms will use algorithms and data from other firms in their industry. AI's reliance on applicant and current employees personal data raises privacy issues. These issues effect both the applicants and current employees, but also may have implications for third parties who are linked through social media to applicants or current employees. For example, a sweep of someone's social media will also show their friends and people they have tagged in photos or posts. == AI and the future of hiring == Artificial intelligence along with other technological advances such as improvements in robotics have placed 47% of jobs at risk of being eliminated in the near future. In 2016 the founder of the World Economic Forum, Klaus Schwab, called AI and related technology the "Fourth Industrial Revolution". According to some scholars, however, the transformative impact of AI on labor has been overstated. The "no-real-change" theory holds that an IT revolution has already occurred, but that the benefits of implementing new technologies does not outweigh the costs associated with adopting them. This theory claims that the result of the IT revolution is thus much less impactful than had originally been forecasted. Other scholars refute this theory claiming that AI has already led to significant job loss for unskilled labor and that it will eliminate middle skill and high skill jobs in the future. This position is based around the idea that AI is not yet a technology of general use and that any potential 4th industrial revolution has not fully occurred. A third theory holds that the effect of AI and other technological advances is too complicated to yet be understood. This theory is centered around the idea that while AI will likely eliminate jobs in the short term it will also likely increase the demand for other jobs. The question then becomes will the new jobs be accessible to people and will they emerge near when jobs are eliminated. == AI use in hiring for candidates == Job seekers now commonly encounter AI-driven tools at multiple stages, including automated resume parsing, video interview analysis, chatbots for frequently asked questions, and real‑time application updates. Some candidates also employ AI career agents, designed to optimize job searches, tailor applications, and interface with hiring teams. A 2025 Australian study found that AI-driven video interviews exhibited transcription error rates of up to 22% for non‑native speakers and those with speech-related disabilities, raising concerns of discrimination. A 2017 study in the Journal of Sociology found persistent gender and racial disparities in AI screening tools, even when fairness interventions are applied. Industry observers describe a growing “AI arms race” in recruitment, where both employers and candidates increasingly rely on automated agents. Employers use recruiting systems to source and filter applicants, while candidates deploy AI agents to prepare and submit applications. == Regulations == The Artifici
Learnable function class
In statistical learning theory, a learnable function class is a set of functions for which an algorithm can be devised to asymptotically minimize the expected risk, uniformly over all probability distributions. The concept of learnable classes are closely related to regularization in machine learning, and provides large sample justifications for certain learning algorithms. == Definition == === Background === Let Ω = X × Y = { ( x , y ) } {\displaystyle \Omega ={\mathcal {X}}\times {\mathcal {Y}}=\{(x,y)\}} be the sample space, where y {\displaystyle y} are the labels and x {\displaystyle x} are the covariates (predictors). F = { f : X ↦ Y } {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}=\{f:{\mathcal {X}}\mapsto {\mathcal {Y}}\}} is a collection of mappings (functions) under consideration to link x {\displaystyle x} to y {\displaystyle y} . L : Y × Y ↦ R {\displaystyle L:{\mathcal {Y}}\times {\mathcal {Y}}\mapsto \mathbb {R} } is a pre-given loss function (usually non-negative). Given a probability distribution P ( x , y ) {\displaystyle P(x,y)} on Ω {\displaystyle \Omega } , define the expected risk I P ( f ) {\displaystyle I_{P}(f)} to be: I P ( f ) = ∫ L ( f ( x ) , y ) d P ( x , y ) {\displaystyle I_{P}(f)=\int L(f(x),y)dP(x,y)} The general goal in statistical learning is to find the function in F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} that minimizes the expected risk. That is, to find solutions to the following problem: f ^ = arg min f ∈ F I P ( f ) {\displaystyle {\hat {f}}=\arg \min _{f\in {\mathcal {F}}}I_{P}(f)} But in practice the distribution P {\displaystyle P} is unknown, and any learning task can only be based on finite samples. Thus we seek instead to find an algorithm that asymptotically minimizes the empirical risk, i.e., to find a sequence of functions { f ^ n } n = 1 ∞ {\displaystyle \{{\hat {f}}_{n}\}_{n=1}^{\infty }} that satisfies lim n → ∞ P ( I P ( f ^ n ) − inf f ∈ F I P ( f ) > ϵ ) = 0 {\displaystyle \lim _{n\rightarrow \infty }\mathbb {P} (I_{P}({\hat {f}}_{n})-\inf _{f\in {\mathcal {F}}}I_{P}(f)>\epsilon )=0} One usual algorithm to find such a sequence is through empirical risk minimization. === Learnable function class === We can make the condition given in the above equation stronger by requiring that the convergence is uniform for all probability distributions. That is: The intuition behind the more strict requirement is as such: the rate at which sequence { f ^ n } {\displaystyle \{{\hat {f}}_{n}\}} converges to the minimizer of the expected risk can be very different for different P ( x , y ) {\displaystyle P(x,y)} . Because in real world the true distribution P {\displaystyle P} is always unknown, we would want to select a sequence that performs well under all cases. However, by the no free lunch theorem, such a sequence that satisfies (1) does not exist if F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} is too complex. This means we need to be careful and not allow too "many" functions in F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} if we want (1) to be a meaningful requirement. Specifically, function classes that ensure the existence of a sequence { f ^ n } {\displaystyle \{{\hat {f}}_{n}\}} that satisfies (1) are known as learnable classes. It is worth noting that at least for supervised classification and regression problems, if a function class is learnable, then the empirical risk minimization automatically satisfies (1). Thus in these settings not only do we know that the problem posed by (1) is solvable, we also immediately have an algorithm that gives the solution. == Interpretations == If the true relationship between y {\displaystyle y} and x {\displaystyle x} is y ∼ f ∗ ( x ) {\displaystyle y\sim f^{}(x)} , then by selecting the appropriate loss function, f ∗ {\displaystyle f^{}} can always be expressed as the minimizer of the expected loss across all possible functions. That is, f ∗ = arg min f ∈ F ∗ I P ( f ) {\displaystyle f^{}=\arg \min _{f\in {\mathcal {F}}^{}}I_{P}(f)} Here we let F ∗ {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}^{}} be the collection of all possible functions mapping X {\displaystyle {\mathcal {X}}} onto Y {\displaystyle {\mathcal {Y}}} . f ∗ {\displaystyle f^{}} can be interpreted as the actual data generating mechanism. However, the no free lunch theorem tells us that in practice, with finite samples we cannot hope to search for the expected risk minimizer over F ∗ {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}^{}} . Thus we often consider a subset of F ∗ {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}^{}} , F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} , to carry out searches on. By doing so, we risk that f ∗ {\displaystyle f^{}} might not be an element of F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} . This tradeoff can be mathematically expressed as In the above decomposition, part ( b ) {\displaystyle (b)} does not depend on the data and is non-stochastic. It describes how far away our assumptions ( F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} ) are from the truth ( F ∗ {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}^{}} ). ( b ) {\displaystyle (b)} will be strictly greater than 0 if we make assumptions that are too strong ( F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} too small). On the other hand, failing to put enough restrictions on F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} will cause it to be not learnable, and part ( a ) {\displaystyle (a)} will not stochastically converge to 0. This is the well-known overfitting problem in statistics and machine learning literature. == Example: Tikhonov regularization == A good example where learnable classes are used is the so-called Tikhonov regularization in reproducing kernel Hilbert space (RKHS). Specifically, let F ∗ {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F^{}}}} be an RKHS, and | | ⋅ | | 2 {\displaystyle ||\cdot ||_{2}} be the norm on F ∗ {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F^{}}}} given by its inner product. It is shown in that F = { f : | | f | | 2 ≤ γ } {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}=\{f:||f||_{2}\leq \gamma \}} is a learnable class for any finite, positive γ {\displaystyle \gamma } . The empirical minimization algorithm to the dual form of this problem is arg min f ∈ F ∗ { ∑ i = 1 n L ( f ( x i ) , y i ) + λ | | f | | 2 } {\displaystyle \arg \min _{f\in {\mathcal {F}}^{}}\left\{\sum _{i=1}^{n}L(f(x_{i}),y_{i})+\lambda ||f||_{2}\right\}} This was first introduced by Tikhonov to solve ill-posed problems. Many statistical learning algorithms can be expressed in such a form (for example, the well-known ridge regression). The tradeoff between ( a ) {\displaystyle (a)} and ( b ) {\displaystyle (b)} in (2) is geometrically more intuitive with Tikhonov regularization in RKHS. We can consider a sequence of { F γ } {\displaystyle \{{\mathcal {F}}_{\gamma }\}} , which are essentially balls in F ∗ {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F^{}}}} with centers at 0. As γ {\displaystyle \gamma } gets larger, F γ {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}_{\gamma }} gets closer to the entire space, and ( b ) {\displaystyle (b)} is likely to become smaller. However we will also suffer smaller convergence rates in ( a ) {\displaystyle (a)} . The way to choose an optimal γ {\displaystyle \gamma } in finite sample settings is usually through cross-validation. == Relationship to empirical process theory == Part ( a ) {\displaystyle (a)} in (2) is closely linked to empirical process theory in statistics, where the empirical risk { ∑ i = 1 n L ( y i , f ( x i ) ) , f ∈ F } {\displaystyle \{\sum _{i=1}^{n}L(y_{i},f(x_{i})),f\in {\mathcal {F}}\}} are known as empirical processes. In this field, the function class F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} that satisfies the stochastic convergence are known as uniform Glivenko–Cantelli classes. It has been shown that under certain regularity conditions, learnable classes and uniformly Glivenko-Cantelli classes are equivalent. Interplay between ( a ) {\displaystyle (a)} and ( b ) {\displaystyle (b)} in statistics literature is often known as the bias-variance tradeoff. However, note that in the authors gave an example of stochastic convex optimization for General Setting of Learning where learnability is not equivalent with uniform convergence.
AIOps
AIOps (Artificial Intelligence for IT Operations) refers to the use of artificial intelligence, machine learning, and big data analytics to automate and enhance data center management. It helps organizations manage complex IT environments by detecting, diagnosing, and resolving issues more efficiently than traditional methods. == History == AIOps was first defined by Gartner in 2016, combining "artificial intelligence" and "IT operations" to describe the application of AI and machine learning to enhance IT operations. This concept was introduced to address the increasing complexity and data volume in IT environments, aiming to automate processes such as event correlation, anomaly detection, and causality determination. == Definition == AIOps refers to multi-layered, complex technology platforms that enhance and automate IT operations by using machine learning and analytics to analyze the large amounts of data collected from various DevOps devices and tools, automatically identifying and responding to issues in real-time. AIOps represents a shift from isolated IT data to aggregated observational data (e.g., job logs and monitoring systems) and interaction data (such as ticketing, events, or incident records) within a big data platform. AIOps applies machine learning and analytics to this data, resulting in continuous visibility that, when combined with automation, can lead to ongoing improvements. AIOps connects three IT disciplines (automation, service management, and performance management) to achieve continuous visibility and improvement. This new approach in modern, accelerated, and hyper-scaled IT environments leverages advances in machine learning and big data to overcome previous limitations. == Components == AIOps includes, but is not limited to, the following processes and techniques: Anomaly Detection Log Analysis Root Cause Analysis Cohort Analysis Event Correlation Predictive Analytics Hardware Failure Prediction Automated Remediation Performance Prediction Incident Management Causality Determination Queue Management Resource Scheduling and Optimization Predictive Capacity Management Resource Allocation Service Quality Monitoring Deployment and Integration Testing System Configuration Auto-diagnosis and Problem Localization Efficient ML Training and Inferencing Using LLMs for Cloud Ops Auto Service Healing Data Center Management Customer Support Security and Privacy in Cloud Operations == Comparison with DevOps == AIOps is increasingly compared with DevOps in terms of impact on operational efficiency. While DevOps focuses on collaboration between development and operations teams to accelerate software delivery, AIOps integrates artificial intelligence to enhance monitoring, automation, and predictive capabilities. Various industry analyses have explored the similarities and differences between the two approaches, including discussions on how organizations can combine them to improve incident management and resource optimization. == Results == AI optimizes IT operations in five ways: First, intelligent monitoring powered by AI helps identify potential issues before they cause outages, improving metrics like Mean Time to Detect (MTTD) by 15-20%. Second, performance data analysis and insights enable quick decision-making by ingesting and analyzing large data sets in real time. Third, AI-driven automated infrastructure optimization efficiently allocates resources and thereby reducing cloud costs. Fourth, enhanced IT service management reduces critical incidents by over 50% through AI-driven end-to-end service management. Lastly, intelligent task automation accelerates problem resolution and automates remedial actions with minimal human intervention. In 2025, Atera Networks was identified as a leader in AIOps by the software review platform G2. == AIOps vs. MLOps == AIOps tools use big data analytics, machine learning algorithms, and predictive analytics to detect anomalies, correlate events, and provide proactive insights. This automation reduces the burden on IT teams, allowing them to focus on strategic tasks rather than routine operational issues. AIOps is widely used by IT operations teams, DevOps, network administrators, and IT service management (ITSM) teams to enhance visibility and enable quicker incident resolution in hybrid cloud environments, data centers, and other IT infrastructures. In contrast to MLOps (Machine Learning Operations), which focuses on the lifecycle management and operational aspects of machine learning models, AIOps focuses on optimizing IT operations using a variety of analytics and AI-driven techniques. While both disciplines rely on AI and data-driven methods, AIOps primarily targets IT operations, whereas MLOps is concerned with the deployment, monitoring, and maintenance of ML models. == Conferences == There are several conferences that are specific to AIOps: AIOps Summit AI Dev Summit IBM Think conference
Pedagogical agent
A pedagogical agent is a concept borrowed from computer science and artificial intelligence and applied to education, usually as part of an intelligent tutoring system (ITS). It is a simulated human-like interface between the learner and the content, in an educational environment. A pedagogical agent is designed to model the type of interactions between a student and another person. Mabanza and de Wet define it as "a character enacted by a computer that interacts with the user in a socially engaging manner". A pedagogical agent can be assigned different roles in the learning environment, such as tutor or co-learner, depending on the desired purpose of the agent. "A tutor agent plays the role of a teacher, while a co-learner agent plays the role of a learning companion". == History == The history of Pedagogical Agents is closely aligned with the history of computer animation. As computer animation progressed, it was adopted by educators to enhance computerized learning by including a lifelike interface between the program and the learner. The first versions of a pedagogical agent were more cartoon than person, like Microsoft's Clippy which helped users of Microsoft Office load and use the program's features in 1997. However, with developments in computer animation, pedagogical agents can now look lifelike. By 2006 there was a call to develop modular, reusable agents to decrease the time and expertise required to create a pedagogical agent. There was also a call in 2009 to enact agent standards. The standardization and re-usability of pedagogical agents is less of an issue since the decrease in cost and widespread availability of animation tools. Individualized pedagogical agents can be found across disciplines including medicine, math, law, language learning, automotive, and armed forces. They are used in applications directed to every age, from preschool to adult. == Learning theories related to pedagogical agent design == === Distributed cognition theory === Distributed cognition theory is the method in which cognition progresses in the context of collaboration with others. Pedagogical agents can be designed to assist the cognitive transfer to the learner, operating as artifacts or partners with collaborative role in learning. To support the performance of an action by the user, the pedagogical agent can act as a cognitive tool as long as the agent is equipped with the knowledge that the user lacks. The interactions between the user and the pedagogical agent can facilitate a social relationship. The pedagogical agent may fulfill the role of a working partner. === Socio-cultural learning theory === Socio-cultural learning theory is how the user develops when they are involved in learning activities in which there is interaction with other agents. A pedagogical agent can: intervene when the user requests, provide support for tasks that the user cannot address, and potentially extend the learners cognitive reach. Interaction with the pedagogical agent may elicit a variety of emotions from the learner. The learner may become excited, confused, frustrated, and/or discouraged. These emotions affect the learners' motivation. === Extraneous Cognitive Load === Extraneous cognitive load is the extra effort being exerted by an individual's working memory due to the way information is being presented. A pedagogical agent can increase the user's cognitive load by distracting them and becoming the focus of their attention, causing split attention between the instructional material and the agent. Agents can reduce the perceived cognitive load by providing narration and personalization that can also promote a user's interest and motivation. While research on the reduction of cognitive load from pedagogical agents is minimal, more studies have shown that agents do not increase it. == Effectiveness == It has been suggested by researchers that pedagogical agents may take on different roles in the learning environment. Examples of these roles are: supplanting, scaffolding, coaching, testing, or demonstrating or modelling a procedure. A pedagogical agent as a tutor has not been demonstrated to add any benefit to an educational strategy in equivalent lessons with and without a pedagogical agent. According to Richard Mayer, there is some support in research for pedagogical agent increasing learning, but only as a presenter of social cues. A co-learner pedagogical agent is believed to increase the student's self-efficacy. By pointing out important features of instructional content, a pedagogical agent can fulfill the signaling function, which research on multimedia learning has shown to enhance learning. Research has demonstrated that human-human interaction may not be completely replaced by pedagogical agents, but learners may prefer the agents to non-agent multimedia systems. This finding is supported by social agency theory. Much like the varying effectiveness of the pedagogical agent roles in the learning environment, agents that take into account the user's affect have had mixed results. Research has shown pedagogical agents that make use of the users’ affect have been found to increase user knowledge retention, motivation, and perceived self-efficacy. However, with such a broad range of modalities in affective expressions, it is often difficult to utilize them. Additionally, having agents detect a user's affective state with precision remains challenging, as displays of affect are different across individuals. == Design == === Attractiveness === The appearance of a pedagogical agent can be manipulated to meet the learning requirements. The attractiveness of a pedagogical agent can enhance student's learning when the users were the opposite gender of the pedagogical agent. Male students prefer a sexy appearance of a female pedagogical agents and dislike the sexy appearance of male agents. Female students were not attracted by the sexy appearance of either male or female pedagogical agents. === Affective Response === Pedagogical agents have reached a point where they can convey and elicit emotion, but also reason about and respond to it. These agents are often designed to elicit and respond to affective actions from users through various modalities such as speech, facial expressions, and body gestures. They respond to the affective state of the given user, and make use of these modalities using a wide array of sensors incorporated into the design of the agent. Specifically in education and training applications, pedagogical agents are often designed to increasingly recognize when users or learners exhibit frustration, boredom, confusion, and states of flow. The added recognition in these agents is a step toward making them more emotionally intelligent, comforting and motivating the users as they interact. === Digital Representation === The design of a pedagogical agent often begins with its digital representation, whether it will be 2D or 3D and static or animated. Several studies have developed pedagogical agents that were both static and animated, then evaluated the relative benefits. Similar to other design considerations, the improved learning from static or animated agents remains questionable. One study showed that the appearance of an agent portrayed using a static image can impact a user's recall, based on the visual appearance. Other research found results that suggest static agent images improve learning outcomes. However, several other studies found user's learned more when the pedagogical agent was animated rather than static. Recently a meta-analysis of such research found a negligible improvement in learning via pedagogical agents, suggesting more work needs to be done in the area to support any claims.
Spreading activation
Spreading activation is a method for searching associative networks, biological and artificial neural networks, or semantic networks. The search process is initiated by labeling a set of source nodes (e.g. concepts in a semantic network) with weights or "activation" and then iteratively propagating or "spreading" that activation out to other nodes linked to the source nodes. Most often these "weights" are real values that decay as activation propagates through the network. When the weights are discrete this process is often referred to as marker passing. Activation may originate from alternate paths, identified by distinct markers, and terminate when two alternate paths reach the same node. However brain studies show that several different brain areas play an important role in semantic processing. Spreading activation in semantic networks as a model were invented in cognitive psychology to model the fan out effect. Spreading activation can also be applied in information retrieval, by means of a network of nodes representing documents and terms contained in those documents. == Cognitive psychology == As it relates to cognitive psychology, spreading activation is the theory of how the brain iterates through a network of associated ideas to retrieve specific information. The spreading activation theory presents the array of concepts within our memory as cognitive units, each consisting of a node and its associated elements or characteristics, all connected together by edges. A spreading activation network can be represented schematically, in a sort of web diagram with shorter lines between two nodes meaning the ideas are more closely related and will typically be associated more quickly to the original concept. In memory psychology, the spreading activation model holds that people organize their knowledge of the world based on their personal experiences, which in turn form the network of ideas that is the person's knowledge of the world. When a word (the target) is preceded by an associated word (the prime) in word recognition tasks, participants seem to perform better in the amount of time that it takes them to respond. For instance, subjects respond faster to the word "doctor" when it is preceded by "nurse" than when it is preceded by an unrelated word like "carrot". This semantic priming effect with words that are close in meaning within the cognitive network has been seen in a wide range of tasks given by experimenters, ranging from sentence verification to lexical decision and naming. As another example, if the original concept is "red" and the concept "vehicles" is primed, they are much more likely to say "fire engine" instead of something unrelated to vehicles, such as "cherries". If instead "fruits" was primed, they would likely name "cherries" and continue on from there. The activation of pathways in the network has everything to do with how closely linked two concepts are by meaning, as well as how a subject is primed. == Algorithm == A directed graph is populated by Nodes[ 1...N ] each having an associated activation value A [ i ] which is a real number in the range [0.0 ... 1.0]. A Link[ i, j ] connects source node[ i ] with target node[ j ]. Each edge has an associated weight W [ i, j ] usually a real number in the range [0.0 ... 1.0]. Parameters: Firing threshold F, a real number in the range [0.0 ... 1.0] Decay factor D, a real number in the range [0.0 ... 1.0] Steps: Initialize the graph setting all activation values A [ i ] to zero. Set one or more origin nodes to an initial activation value greater than the firing threshold F. A typical initial value is 1.0. For each unfired node [ i ] in the graph having an activation value A [ i ] greater than the node firing threshold F: For each Link [ i, j ] connecting the source node [ i ] with target node [ j ], adjust A [ j ] = A [ j ] + (A [ i ] W [ i, j ] D) where D is the decay factor. If a target node receives an adjustment to its activation value so that it would exceed 1.0, then set its new activation value to 1.0. Likewise maintain 0.0 as a lower bound on the target node's activation value should it receive an adjustment to below 0.0. Once a node has fired it may not fire again, although variations of the basic algorithm permit repeated firings and loops through the graph. Nodes receiving a new activation value that exceeds the firing threshold F are marked for firing on the next spreading activation cycle. If activation originates from more than one node, a variation of the algorithm permits marker passing to distinguish the paths by which activation is spread over the graph The procedure terminates when either there are no more nodes to fire or in the case of marker passing from multiple origins, when a node is reached from more than one path. Variations of the algorithm that permit repeated node firings and activation loops in the graph, terminate after a steady activation state, with respect to some delta, is reached, or when a maximum number of iterations is exceeded. == Examples ==
Best AI Coding Assistants in 2026
Curious about the best AI coding assistant? An AI coding assistant is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it combines speed, accuracy, and an interface that just works. Hands-on testing shows real-world results vary, so a short free trial is the smartest way to decide. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI coding assistant slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. Read on for hands-on impressions, pricing tiers, and the standout features that matter.
Description logic
Description logics (DL) are a family of formal knowledge representation languages. Many DLs are more expressive than propositional logic but less expressive than first-order logic. In contrast to the latter, the core reasoning problems for DLs are (usually) decidable, and efficient decision procedures have been designed and implemented for these problems. There are general, spatial, temporal, spatiotemporal, and fuzzy description logics, and each description logic features a different balance between expressive power and reasoning complexity by supporting different sets of mathematical constructors. DLs are used in artificial intelligence to describe and reason about the relevant concepts of an application domain (known as terminological knowledge). It is of particular importance in providing a logical formalism for ontologies and the Semantic Web: the Web Ontology Language (OWL) and its profiles are based on DLs. A major area of application of DLs and OWL is in biomedical informatics, where they assist in the codification of biomedical knowledge. DLs and OWL are also applied in other domains, including defense, climate modeling, and large-scale industrial knowledge graphs. == Introduction == A DL models concepts, roles and individuals, and their relationships. The fundamental modeling concept of a DL is the axiom—a logical statement relating roles and/or concepts. This is a key difference from the frames paradigm where a frame specification declares and completely defines a class. == Nomenclature == === Terminology compared to FOL and OWL === The description logic community uses different terminology than the first-order logic (FOL) community for operationally equivalent notions; some examples are given below. The Web Ontology Language (OWL) uses again a different terminology, also given in the table below. === Naming convention === There are many varieties of description logics and there is an informal naming convention, roughly describing the operators allowed. The expressivity is encoded in the label for a logic starting with one of the following basic logics: Followed by any of the following extensions: ==== Exceptions ==== Some canonical DLs that do not exactly fit this convention are: ==== Examples ==== As an example, A L C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {ALC}}} is a centrally important description logic from which comparisons with other varieties can be made. A L C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {ALC}}} is simply A L {\displaystyle {\mathcal {AL}}} with complement of any concept allowed, not just atomic concepts. A L C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {ALC}}} is used instead of the equivalent A L U E {\displaystyle {\mathcal {ALUE}}} . A further example, the description logic S H I Q {\displaystyle {\mathcal {SHIQ}}} is the logic A L C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {ALC}}} plus extended cardinality restrictions, and transitive and inverse roles. The naming conventions aren't purely systematic so that the logic A L C O I N {\displaystyle {\mathcal {ALCOIN}}} might be referred to as A L C N I O {\displaystyle {\mathcal {ALCNIO}}} and other abbreviations are also made where possible. The Protégé ontology editor supports S H O I N ( D ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {SHOIN}}^{\mathcal {(D)}}} . Three major biomedical informatics terminology bases, SNOMED CT, GALEN, and GO, are expressible in E L {\displaystyle {\mathcal {EL}}} (with additional role properties). OWL 2 provides the expressiveness of S R O I Q ( D ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {SROIQ}}^{\mathcal {(D)}}} , OWL-DL is based on S H O I N ( D ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {SHOIN}}^{\mathcal {(D)}}} , and for OWL-Lite it is S H I F ( D ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {SHIF}}^{\mathcal {(D)}}} . == History == Description logic was given its current name in the 1980s. Previous to this it was called (chronologically): terminological systems, and concept languages. === Knowledge representation === Frames and semantic networks lack formal (logic-based) semantics. DL was first introduced into knowledge representation (KR) systems to overcome this deficiency. The first DL-based KR system was KL-ONE (by Ronald J. Brachman and Schmolze, 1985). During the '80s other DL-based systems using structural subsumption algorithms were developed including KRYPTON (1983), LOOM (1987), BACK (1988), K-REP (1991) and CLASSIC (1991). This approach featured DL with limited expressiveness but relatively efficient (polynomial time) reasoning. In the early '90s, the introduction of a new tableau based algorithm paradigm allowed efficient reasoning on more expressive DL. DL-based systems using these algorithms — such as KRIS (1991) — show acceptable reasoning performance on typical inference problems even though the worst case complexity is no longer polynomial. From the mid '90s, reasoners were created with good practical performance on very expressive DL with high worst case complexity. Examples from this period include FaCT, RACER (2001), CEL (2005), and KAON 2 (2005). DL reasoners, such as FaCT, FaCT++, RACER, DLP and Pellet, implement the method of analytic tableaux. KAON2 is implemented by algorithms which reduce a SHIQ(D) knowledge base to a disjunctive datalog program. === Semantic web === The DARPA Agent Markup Language (DAML) and Ontology Inference Layer (OIL) ontology languages for the Semantic Web can be viewed as syntactic variants of DL. In particular, the formal semantics and reasoning in OIL use the S H I Q {\displaystyle {\mathcal {SHIQ}}} DL. The DAML+OIL DL was developed as a submission to—and formed the starting point of—the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Web Ontology Working Group. In 2004, the Web Ontology Working Group completed its work by issuing the OWL recommendation. The design of OWL is based on the S H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {SH}}} family of DL with OWL DL and OWL Lite based on S H O I N ( D ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {SHOIN}}^{\mathcal {(D)}}} and S H I F ( D ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {SHIF}}^{\mathcal {(D)}}} respectively. The W3C OWL Working Group began work in 2007 on a refinement of - and extension to - OWL. In 2009, this was completed by the issuance of the OWL2 recommendation. OWL2 is based on the description logic S R O I Q ( D ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {SROIQ}}^{\mathcal {(D)}}} . Practical experience demonstrated that OWL DL lacked several key features necessary to model complex domains. == Modeling == === TBox vs Abox === In DL, a distinction is drawn between the so-called TBox (terminological box) and the ABox (assertional box). In general, the TBox contains sentences describing concept hierarchies (i.e., relations between concepts) while the ABox contains ground sentences stating where in the hierarchy, individuals belong (i.e., relations between individuals and concepts). For example, the statement: belongs in the TBox, while the statement: belongs in the ABox. Note that the TBox/ABox distinction is not significant, in the same sense that the two "kinds" of sentences are not treated differently in first-order logic (which subsumes most DL). When translated into first-order logic, a subsumption axiom like (1) is simply a conditional restriction to unary predicates (concepts) with only variables appearing in it. Clearly, a sentence of this form is not privileged or special over sentences in which only constants ("grounded" values) appear like (2). === Motivation for having Tbox and Abox === So why was the distinction introduced? The primary reason is that the separation can be useful when describing and formulating decision-procedures for various DL. For example, a reasoner might process the TBox and ABox separately, in part because certain key inference problems are tied to one but not the other one ('classification' is related to the TBox, 'instance checking' to the ABox). Another example is that the complexity of the TBox can greatly affect the performance of a given decision-procedure for a certain DL, independently of the ABox. Thus, it is useful to have a way to talk about that specific part of the knowledge base. The secondary reason is that the distinction can make sense from the knowledge base modeler's perspective. It is plausible to distinguish between our conception of terms/concepts in the world (class axioms in the TBox) and particular manifestations of those terms/concepts (instance assertions in the ABox). In the above example: when the hierarchy within a company is the same in every branch but the assignment to employees is different in every department (because there are other people working there), it makes sense to reuse the TBox for different branches that do not use the same ABox. There are two features of description logic that are not shared by most other data description formalisms: DL does not make the unique name assumption (UNA) or the closed-world assumption (CWA). Not having UNA means that two concepts with different names may be allowed by some inference to be shown to be equivalent. Not having CWA, or rather having the open world assumption (OWA) means that