POP-11 is a reflective, incrementally compiled programming language with many of the features of an interpreted language. It is the core language of the Poplog programming environment developed originally by the University of Sussex, and recently in the School of Computer Science at the University of Birmingham, which hosts the main Poplog website. POP-11 is an evolution of the language POP-2, developed in Edinburgh University, and features an open stack model (like Forth, among others). It is mainly procedural, but supports declarative language constructs, including a pattern matcher, and is mostly used for research and teaching in artificial intelligence, although it has features sufficient for many other classes of problems. It is often used to introduce symbolic programming techniques to programmers of more conventional languages like Pascal, who find POP syntax more familiar than that of Lisp. One of POP-11's features is that it supports first-class functions. POP-11 is the core language of the Poplog system. The availability of the compiler and compiler subroutines at run-time (a requirement for incremental compiling) gives it the ability to support a far wider range of extensions (including run-time extensions, such as adding new data-types) than would be possible using only a macro facility. This made it possible for (optional) incremental compilers to be added for Prolog, Common Lisp and Standard ML, which could be added as required to support either mixed language development or development in the second language without using any POP-11 constructs. This made it possible for Poplog to be used by teachers, researchers, and developers who were interested in only one of the languages. The most successful product developed in POP-11 was the Clementine data mining system, developed by ISL. After SPSS bought ISL, they renamed Clementine to SPSS Modeler and decided to port it to C++ and Java, and eventually succeeded with great effort, and perhaps some loss of the flexibility provided by the use of an AI language. POP-11 was for a time available only as part of an expensive commercial package (Poplog), but since about 1999 it has been freely available as part of the open-source software version of Poplog, including various added packages and teaching libraries. An online version of ELIZA using POP-11 is available at Birmingham. At the University of Sussex, David Young used POP-11 in combination with C and Fortran to develop a suite of teaching and interactive development tools for image processing and vision, and has made them available in the Popvision extension to Poplog. == Simple code examples == Here is an example of a simple POP-11 program: define Double(Source) -> Result; Source2 -> Result; enddefine; Double(123) => That prints out: 246 This one includes some list processing: define RemoveElementsMatching(Element, Source) -> Result; lvars Index; [[% for Index in Source do unless Index = Element or Index matches Element then Index; endunless; endfor; %]] -> Result; enddefine; RemoveElementsMatching("the", [[the cat sat on the mat]]) => ;;; outputs [[cat sat on mat]] RemoveElementsMatching("the", [[the cat] [sat on] the mat]) => ;;; outputs [[the cat] [sat on] mat] RemoveElementsMatching([[= cat]], [[the cat]] is a [[big cat]]) => ;;; outputs [[is a]] Examples using the POP-11 pattern matcher, which makes it relatively easy for students to learn to develop sophisticated list-processing programs without having to treat patterns as tree structures accessed by 'head' and 'tail' functions (CAR and CDR in Lisp), can be found in the online introductory tutorial. The matcher is at the heart of the SimAgent (sim_agent) toolkit. Some of the powerful features of the toolkit, such as linking pattern variables to inline code variables, would have been very difficult to implement without the incremental compiler facilities.
Confusion matrix
In machine learning, a confusion matrix, also known as error matrix, is a specific table layout that allows visualization of the performance of an algorithm, typically a supervised learning one. In unsupervised learning it is usually called a matching matrix. The term is used specifically in the problem of statistical classification. Each row of the matrix represents the instances in an actual class while each column represents the instances in a predicted class, or vice versa – both variants are found in the literature. The diagonal of the matrix therefore represents all instances that are correctly predicted. The name stems from the fact that it makes it easy to identify whether the system is confusing two classes (i.e., commonly mislabeling one class as another). The confusion matrix has its origins in human perceptual studies of auditory stimuli. It was adapted for machine learning studies and used by Frank Rosenblatt, among other early researchers, to compare human and machine classifications of visual (and later auditory) stimuli. It is a special kind of contingency table, with two dimensions ("actual" and "predicted"), and identical sets of "classes" in both dimensions (each combination of dimension and class is a variable in the contingency table). == Example == Given a sample of 12 individuals, 8 that have been diagnosed with cancer and 4 that are cancer-free, where individuals with cancer belong to class 1 (positive) and non-cancer individuals belong to class 0 (negative), we can display that data as follows: Assume that we have a classifier that distinguishes between individuals with and without cancer in some way, we can take the 12 individuals and run them through the classifier. The classifier then makes 9 accurate predictions and misses 3: 2 individuals with cancer wrongly predicted as being cancer-free (sample 1 and 2), and 1 person without cancer that is wrongly predicted to have cancer (sample 9). Notice, that if we compare the actual classification set to the predicted classification set, there are 4 different outcomes that could result in any particular column: The actual classification is positive and the predicted classification is positive (1,1). This is called a true positive result because the positive sample was correctly identified by the classifier. The actual classification is positive and the predicted classification is negative (1,0). This is called a false negative result because the positive sample is incorrectly identified by the classifier as being negative. The actual classification is negative and the predicted classification is positive (0,1). This is called a false positive result because the negative sample is incorrectly identified by the classifier as being positive. The actual classification is negative and the predicted classification is negative (0,0). This is called a true negative result because the negative sample gets correctly identified by the classifier. We can then perform the comparison between actual and predicted classifications and add this information to the table, making correct results appear in green so they are more easily identifiable. The template for any binary confusion matrix uses the four kinds of results discussed above (true positives, false negatives, false positives, and true negatives) along with the positive and negative classifications. The four outcomes can be formulated in a 2×2 confusion matrix, as follows: The color convention of the three data tables above were picked to match this confusion matrix, in order to easily differentiate the data. Now, we can simply total up each type of result, substitute into the template, and create a confusion matrix that will concisely summarize the results of testing the classifier: In this confusion matrix, of the 8 samples with cancer, the system judged that 2 were cancer-free, and of the 4 samples without cancer, it predicted that 1 did have cancer. All correct predictions are located in the diagonal of the table (highlighted in green), so it is easy to visually inspect the table for prediction errors, as values outside the diagonal will represent them. By summing up the 2 rows of the confusion matrix, one can also deduce the total number of positive (P) and negative (N) samples in the original dataset, i.e. P = T P + F N {\displaystyle P=TP+FN} and N = F P + T N {\displaystyle N=FP+TN} . == Table of confusion == In predictive analytics, a table of confusion (sometimes also called a confusion matrix) is a table with two rows and two columns that reports the number of true positives, false negatives, false positives, and true negatives. This allows more detailed analysis than simply observing the proportion of correct classifications (accuracy). Accuracy will yield misleading results if the data set is unbalanced; that is, when the numbers of observations in different classes vary greatly. For example, if there were 95 cancer samples and only 5 non-cancer samples in the data, a particular classifier might classify all the observations as having cancer. The overall accuracy would be 95%, but in more detail the classifier would have a 100% recognition rate (sensitivity) for the cancer class but a 0% recognition rate for the non-cancer class. F1 score is even more unreliable in such cases, and here would yield over 97.4%, whereas informedness removes such bias and yields 0 as the probability of an informed decision for any form of guessing (here always guessing cancer). According to Davide Chicco and Giuseppe Jurman, the most informative metric to evaluate a confusion matrix is the Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC). Other metrics can be included in a confusion matrix, each of them having their significance and use. Some researchers have argued that the confusion matrix, and the metrics derived from it, do not truly reflect a model's knowledge. In particular, the confusion matrix cannot show whether correct predictions were reached through sound reasoning or merely by chance (a problem known in philosophy as epistemic luck). It also does not capture situations where the facts used to make a prediction later change or turn out to be wrong (defeasibility). This means that while the confusion matrix is a useful tool for measuring classification performance, it may give an incomplete picture of a model’s true reliability. == Confusion matrices with more than two categories == Confusion matrix is not limited to binary classification and can be used in multi-class classifiers as well. The confusion matrices discussed above have only two conditions: positive and negative. For example, the table below summarizes communication of a whistled language between two speakers, with zero values omitted for clarity. == Confusion matrices in multi-label and soft-label classification == Confusion matrices are not limited to single-label classification (where only one class is present) or hard-label settings (where classes are either fully present, 1, or absent, 0). They can also be extended to Multi-label classification (where multiple classes can be predicted at once) and soft-label classification (where classes can be partially present). One such extension is the Transport-based Confusion Matrix (TCM), which builds on the theory of optimal transport and the principle of maximum entropy. TCM applies to single-label, multi-label, and soft-label settings. It retains the familiar structure of the standard confusion matrix: a square matrix sized by the number of classes, with diagonal entries indicating correct predictions and off-diagonal entries indicating confusion. In the single-label case, TCM is identical to the standard confusion matrix. TCM follows the same reasoning as the standard confusion matrix: if class A is overestimated (its predicted value is greater than its label value) and class B is underestimated (its predicted value is less than its label value), A is considered confused with B, and the entry (B, A) is increased. If a class is both predicted and present, it is correctly identified, and the diagonal entry (A, A) increases. Optimal transport and maximum entropy are used to determine the extent to which these entries are updated. TCM enables clearer comparison between predictions and labels in complex classification tasks, while maintaining a consistent matrix format across settings.
AIXI
AIXI is a theoretical mathematical formalism for artificial general intelligence. It combines Solomonoff induction with sequential decision theory. AIXI was first proposed by Marcus Hutter in 2000 and several results regarding AIXI are proved in Hutter's 2005 book Universal Artificial Intelligence. AIXI is a reinforcement learning (RL) agent. It maximizes the expected total rewards received from the environment. Intuitively, it simultaneously considers every computable hypothesis (or environment). In each time step, it looks at every possible program and evaluates how many rewards that program generates depending on the next action taken. The promised rewards are then weighted by the subjective belief that this program constitutes the true environment. This belief is computed from the length of the program: longer programs are considered less likely, in line with Occam's razor. AIXI then selects the action that has the highest expected total reward in the weighted sum of all these programs. == Etymology == According to Hutter, the word "AIXI" can have several interpretations. AIXI can stand for AI based on Solomonoff's distribution, denoted by ξ {\displaystyle \xi } (which is the Greek letter xi), or e.g. it can stand for AI "crossed" (X) with induction (I). There are other interpretations. == Definition == AIXI is a reinforcement learning agent that interacts with some stochastic and unknown but computable environment μ {\displaystyle \mu } . The interaction proceeds in time steps, from t = 1 {\displaystyle t=1} to t = m {\displaystyle t=m} , where m ∈ N {\displaystyle m\in \mathbb {N} } is the lifespan of the AIXI agent. At time step t, the agent chooses an action a t ∈ A {\displaystyle a_{t}\in {\mathcal {A}}} (e.g. a limb movement) and executes it in the environment, and the environment responds with a "percept" e t ∈ E = O × R {\displaystyle e_{t}\in {\mathcal {E}}={\mathcal {O}}\times \mathbb {R} } , which consists of an "observation" o t ∈ O {\displaystyle o_{t}\in {\mathcal {O}}} (e.g., a camera image) and a reward r t ∈ R {\displaystyle r_{t}\in \mathbb {R} } , distributed according to the conditional probability μ ( o t r t | a 1 o 1 r 1 . . . a t − 1 o t − 1 r t − 1 a t ) {\displaystyle \mu (o_{t}r_{t}|a_{1}o_{1}r_{1}...a_{t-1}o_{t-1}r_{t-1}a_{t})} , where a 1 o 1 r 1 . . . a t − 1 o t − 1 r t − 1 a t {\displaystyle a_{1}o_{1}r_{1}...a_{t-1}o_{t-1}r_{t-1}a_{t}} is the "history" of actions, observations and rewards. The environment μ {\displaystyle \mu } is thus mathematically represented as a probability distribution over "percepts" (observations and rewards) which depend on the full history, so there is no Markov assumption (as opposed to other RL algorithms). Note again that this probability distribution is unknown to the AIXI agent. Furthermore, note again that μ {\displaystyle \mu } is computable, that is, the observations and rewards received by the agent from the environment μ {\displaystyle \mu } can be computed by some program (which runs on a Turing machine), given the past actions of the AIXI agent. The only goal of the AIXI agent is to maximize ∑ t = 1 m r t {\displaystyle \sum _{t=1}^{m}r_{t}} , that is, the sum of rewards from time step 1 to m. The AIXI agent is associated with a stochastic policy π : ( A × E ) ∗ → A {\displaystyle \pi :({\mathcal {A}}\times {\mathcal {E}})^{}\rightarrow {\mathcal {A}}} , which is the function it uses to choose actions at every time step, where A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} is the space of all possible actions that AIXI can take and E {\displaystyle {\mathcal {E}}} is the space of all possible "percepts" that can be produced by the environment. The environment (or probability distribution) μ {\displaystyle \mu } can also be thought of as a stochastic policy (which is a function): μ : ( A × E ) ∗ × A → E {\displaystyle \mu :({\mathcal {A}}\times {\mathcal {E}})^{}\times {\mathcal {A}}\rightarrow {\mathcal {E}}} , where the ∗ {\displaystyle } is the Kleene star operation. In general, at time step t {\displaystyle t} (which ranges from 1 to m), AIXI, having previously executed actions a 1 … a t − 1 {\displaystyle a_{1}\dots a_{t-1}} (which is often abbreviated in the literature as a < t {\displaystyle a_{ CHAOS (Chess Heuristics and Other Stuff) is a chess playing program that was developed by programmers working at the RCA Systems Programming division in the late 1960s. It played competitively in computer chess competitions in the 1970s and 1980s. It differed from other programs of that era in its look-ahead philosophy, choosing to use chess knowledge to evaluate fewer positions and continuations as opposed to simple evaluations that relied on deep look-ahead to avoid bad moves. == Introduction == CHAOS was originally developed by Ira Ruben, Fred Swartz, Victor Berman, Joe Winograd and William Toikka while working at RCA in Cinnaminson, NJ. Its name is an acronym for 'Chess Heuristics and Other Stuff.' Program development moved to the Computing Center of the University of Michigan when Swartz changed jobs, and Mike Alexander joined the development group. Swartz, Alexander and Berman were continuously group members from that point onward in CHAOS' evolution, as others of the original authors left and new members contributed episodically. Chess Senior Master Jack O'Keefe contributed to CHAOS' development from about 1980 onwards. CHAOS was written in Fortran, except for low-level board representation manipulations written in assembly language or C. Due to this portability, it ran on RCA, Univac and IBM-compatible mainframes in its lifetime. CHAOS heralds from the mainframe computing era when only machines of that capacity were able to play at a high level. Consequently, development and testing could only take place at off-peak times for production use of the machine. In a competition, CHAOS had to run on a dedicated mainframe with a telephone link to the match venue. In its later years, CHAOS ran on computers on the machine assembly floor of Amdahl Corporation on MTS. == Background == === Chess and artificial intelligence === Mathematicians Claude Shannon and Alan Turing, working separately, were the first to view playing chess as a challenge to machines. Working for AT&T / Bell Labs with its access to telephone switching equipment, Shannon built a relay-based machine that learned how to work its way through a two-dimensional, 5x5 cell maze in 1949. Shannon viewed this as an analogue of the way that organisms learn things about their natural environment. There is a random element to searching it, a memory element to benefit from the search outcome, and a reward element that reinforces learning when the global outcome is favorable to the organism. Soon afterward, Shannon wrote a mathematical analysis of the game of chess, published in 1950. Like with the maze, he broke down game play into the necessary elements for reinforcement learning. Associated with each board configuration a move will be made from, there is a numerical score. To decide what move to make, a player wants to maximize their own position's score after the move and to minimize their opponent's score (a minimax view). Since there are about 32 possible moves at each of the early stages of the game, and about 40 moves and responses in each game, then there are about 32 80 {\displaystyle 32^{80}} or about 10 120 {\displaystyle 10^{120}} possible games - an impossibly large set to evaluate completely. Therefore, there must be a way to limit the number of moves to look ahead for to find the best one. Reducing the game to these few key elements provided a way to think about human intelligence in general. Shannon became part of a wider group using computing machines to mimic aspects of human intelligence that grew into the general idea of artificial intelligence. (Other members of this group were John McCarthy, Herbert Simon, Allen Newell, Alan Kotok, Alex Bernstein and Richard Greenblatt.) The paradigm that evolved was that there was a quantification of the position on the board into a score, an evaluation method to find favorable outcomes (minimax, later alpha-beta pruning), and a strategy to manage the combinatorial explosion of the look-ahead possibilities. By the early 1960s, there were computer programs that played chess at a rudimentary level. They used very simple evaluation functions for each position and tried to search as far forward as was practical given the time constraints and available compute power. Naturally, programmers optimized their code to use the available computing resources. This led to a major philosophical divide among chess programs: those that tried to evaluate as many positions as possible, and those that tried to evaluate the most promising move sequences as deeply as possible. CHAOS was firmly in the camp believing only the most promising moves should be evaluated in depth. Said Swartz, "The 'brute force people' ... look at every (possible move) no matter what garbage it is. Most moves are just terrible, terrible moves, and most computing time is being spent on pure garbage." The program spent more time evaluating each board position in the expectation that it would find the most promising lines of play to explore in depth. In 1983, the then-fastest chess program (Belle) evaluated 110,000 positions per second, and typical programs 1000–50,000 per second, whereas CHAOS evaluated about 50-100 per second. === Machine learning and strategies to manage search === From about 1949 onward, Arthur Samuel began work for IBM on machine learning, culminating in a checkers-playing program in 1952 and publications on the topic. Concurrently, Christopher Strachey created Checkers, a program to play the board game of checkers in 1951, but it had no capacity to learn from its play. Checkers was chosen by both authors because it was simpler than chess yet contained the basic characteristics of an intellectual activity, and, in Samuel's view, was a test-bed in which heuristic procedures and learning processes could be evaluated quickly. Checker playing programs introduced the notion of the game tree and evaluating play to various depths to choose the best move. The complexity of chess, however, promoted it to the status of an analogue for human intelligence, and it attracted computer scientists' attention, who referred to it as research into artificial intelligence (AI). Like checkers, it required a numerical assessment of each arrangement of chess pieces on a board. It also required looking ahead to future moves to decide how to play the present position. Due to the enormous number of possible moves, there had to be a way to confine the look-ahead search to the most promising lines of play. From these factors, the notion of minimax score evaluation developed and, later, alpha-beta tree pruning to abandon looking at positions worse than any that have already been examined. === Chess search strategies === The AI community viewed artificial intelligence as comprising two parts: a way to symbolically quantify the knowledge in hand (a chess board position), and a set of heuristics to limit look-ahead to the consequences of a move. The early chess playing programs attempted to look forward as far as possible, perhaps to 3 moves ahead by each player, and to choose the best outcome. This led to the horizon effect, whereby a key move 4 or more moves ahead would be unexamined and therefore missed. Consequently, the programs were quite weak and heuristics to manage the search became important in their development. CHAOS used a selective search strategy with iterative widening. As chess programs evolved, they incorporated books of opening lines of play from historic sources. Nowadays, book moves are catalogued in machine-readable form, but originally programmers had to type them in. CHAOS had an extensive book for its time of around 10,000 moves that O'Keefe helped to develop. A problem with play from an opening book is the behavior of the program when the play leaves the book: the positional advantage may be so subtle that the evaluation scheme may be unable to understand it, leading to very wide and shallow searches to establish a line of play. The horizon effect again plagues move selection after leaving the book. CHAOS mitigated these problems by only using book lines that it could understand, and by relying on cached analyses of continuations out of the book made while the opponent's clock was running. == Game Play History == CHAOS played in twelve ACM computer chess tournaments and four World Computer Chess Championships (WCCC). Its debut was the ACM computer chess tournament in 1973, taking 2nd place. In 1974, it again won 2nd place in the WCCC, defeating the tournament favorite Chess 4.0 but losing to Kaissa. CHAOS was close to winning the 1980 WCCC, but lost to Belle in a playoff. The 1985 ACM computer chess tournament was CHAOS' last competition. One of CHAOS' notable victories was over Chess 4.0 at the 1974 WCCC tournament. Chess 4.0 was unbeaten by any other program up until then. Playing as white, CHAOS made a knight sacrifice (16 Nd4-e6!!) that traded material for open lines of attack and eventually won the game. CHAOS’ authors thought the move was due to a "A Logical Calculus of the Ideas Immanent in Nervous Activity" is a 1943 paper written by Warren Sturgis McCulloch and Walter Pitts, published in the journal The Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics. The paper proposed a mathematical model of the nervous system as a network of simple logical elements, later known as artificial neurons, or McCulloch–Pitts neurons. These neurons receive inputs, perform a weighted sum, and fire an output signal based on a threshold function. By connecting these units in various configurations, McCulloch and Pitts demonstrated that their model could perform all logical functions. It is a seminal work in cognitive science, computational neuroscience, computer science, and artificial intelligence. It was a foundational result in automata theory. John von Neumann cited it as a significant result. == Mathematics == The artificial neuron used in the original paper is slightly different from the modern version. They considered neural networks that operate in discrete steps of time t = 0 , 1 , … {\displaystyle t=0,1,\dots } . The neural network contains a number of neurons. Let the state of a neuron i {\displaystyle i} at time t {\displaystyle t} be N i ( t ) {\displaystyle N_{i}(t)} . The state of a neuron can either be 0 or 1, standing for "not firing" and "firing". Each neuron also has a firing threshold θ {\displaystyle \theta } , such that it fires if the total input exceeds the threshold. Each neuron can connect to any other neuron (including itself) with positive synapses (excitatory) or negative synapses (inhibitory). That is, each neuron can connect to another neuron with a weight w {\displaystyle w} taking an integer value. A peripheral afferent is a neuron with no incoming synapses. We can regard each neural network as a directed graph, with the nodes being the neurons, and the directed edges being the synapses. A neural network has a circle or a circuit if there exists a directed circle in the graph. Let w i j ( t ) {\displaystyle w_{ij}(t)} be the connection weight from neuron j {\displaystyle j} to neuron i {\displaystyle i} at time t {\displaystyle t} , then its next state is N i ( t + 1 ) = H ( ∑ j = 1 n w i j ( t ) N j ( t ) − θ i ( t ) ) , {\displaystyle N_{i}(t+1)=H\left(\sum _{j=1}^{n}w_{ij}(t)N_{j}(t)-\theta _{i}(t)\right),} where H {\displaystyle H} is the Heaviside step function (outputting 1 if the input is greater than or equal to 0, and 0 otherwise). === Symbolic logic === The paper used, as a logical language for describing neural networks, "Language II" from The Logical Syntax of Language by Rudolf Carnap with some notations taken from Principia Mathematica by Alfred North Whitehead and Bertrand Russell. Language II covers substantial parts of classical mathematics, including real analysis and portions of set theory. To describe a neural network with peripheral afferents N 1 , N 2 , … , N p {\displaystyle N_{1},N_{2},\dots ,N_{p}} and non-peripheral afferents N p + 1 , N p + 2 , … , N n {\displaystyle N_{p+1},N_{p+2},\dots ,N_{n}} they considered logical predicate of form P r ( N 1 , N 2 , … , N p , t ) {\displaystyle Pr(N_{1},N_{2},\dots ,N_{p},t)} where P r {\displaystyle Pr} is a first-order logic predicate function (a function that outputs a boolean), N 1 , … , N p {\displaystyle N_{1},\dots ,N_{p}} are predicates that take t {\displaystyle t} as an argument, and t {\displaystyle t} is the only free variable in the predicate. Intuitively speaking, N 1 , … , N p {\displaystyle N_{1},\dots ,N_{p}} specifies the binary input patterns going into the neural network over all time, and P r ( N 1 , N 2 , … , N n , t ) {\displaystyle Pr(N_{1},N_{2},\dots ,N_{n},t)} is a function that takes some binary input patterns, and constructs an output binary pattern P r ( N 1 , N 2 , … , N n , 0 ) , P r ( N 1 , N 2 , … , N n , 1 ) , … {\displaystyle Pr(N_{1},N_{2},\dots ,N_{n},0),Pr(N_{1},N_{2},\dots ,N_{n},1),\dots } . A logical sentence P r ( N 1 , N 2 , … , N n , t ) {\displaystyle Pr(N_{1},N_{2},\dots ,N_{n},t)} is realized by a neural network iff there exists a time-delay T ≥ 0 {\displaystyle T\geq 0} , a neuron i {\displaystyle i} in the network, and an initial state for the non-peripheral neurons N p + 1 ( 0 ) , … , N n ( 0 ) {\displaystyle N_{p+1}(0),\dots ,N_{n}(0)} , such that for any time t {\displaystyle t} , the truth-value of the logical sentence is equal to the state of the neuron i {\displaystyle i} at time t + T {\displaystyle t+T} . That is, ∀ t = 0 , 1 , 2 , … , P r ( N 1 , N 2 , … , N p , t ) = N i ( t + T ) {\displaystyle \forall t=0,1,2,\dots ,\quad Pr(N_{1},N_{2},\dots ,N_{p},t)=N_{i}(t+T)} === Equivalence === In the paper, they considered some alternative definitions of artificial neural networks, and have shown them to be equivalent, that is, neural networks under one definition realizes precisely the same logical sentences as neural networks under another definition. They considered three forms of inhibition: relative inhibition, absolute inhibition, and extinction. The definition above is relative inhibition. By "absolute inhibition" they meant that if any negative synapse fires, then the neuron will not fire. By "extinction" they meant that if at time t {\displaystyle t} , any inhibitory synapse fires on a neuron i {\displaystyle i} , then θ i ( t + j ) = θ i ( 0 ) + b j {\displaystyle \theta _{i}(t+j)=\theta _{i}(0)+b_{j}} for j = 1 , 2 , 3 , … {\displaystyle j=1,2,3,\dots } , until the next time an inhibitory synapse fires on i {\displaystyle i} . It is required that b j = 0 {\displaystyle b_{j}=0} for all large j {\displaystyle j} . Theorem 4 and 5 state that these are equivalent. They considered three forms of excitation: spatial summation, temporal summation, and facilitation. The definition above is spatial summation (which they pictured as having multiple synapses placed close together, so that the effect of their firing sums up). By "temporal summation" they meant that the total incoming signal is ∑ τ = 0 T ∑ j = 1 n w i j ( t ) N j ( t − τ ) {\displaystyle \sum _{\tau =0}^{T}\sum _{j=1}^{n}w_{ij}(t)N_{j}(t-\tau )} for some T ≥ 1 {\displaystyle T\geq 1} . By "facilitation" they meant the same as extinction, except that b j ≤ 0 {\displaystyle b_{j}\leq 0} . Theorem 6 states that these are equivalent. They considered neural networks that do not change, and those that change by Hebbian learning. That is, they assume that at t = 0 {\displaystyle t=0} , some excitatory synaptic connections are not active. If at any t {\displaystyle t} , both N i ( t ) = 1 , N j ( t ) = 1 {\displaystyle N_{i}(t)=1,N_{j}(t)=1} , then any latent excitatory synapse between i , j {\displaystyle i,j} becomes active. Theorem 7 states that these are equivalent. === Logical expressivity === They considered "temporal propositional expressions" (TPE), which are propositional formulas with one free variable t {\displaystyle t} . For example, N 1 ( t ) ∨ N 2 ( t ) ∧ ¬ N 3 ( t ) {\displaystyle N_{1}(t)\vee N_{2}(t)\wedge \neg N_{3}(t)} is such an expression. Theorem 1 and 2 together showed that neural nets without circles are equivalent to TPE. For neural nets with loops, they noted that "realizable P r {\displaystyle Pr} may involve reference to past events of an indefinite degree of remoteness". These then encodes for sentences like "There was some x such that x was a ψ" or ( ∃ x ) ( ψ x ) {\displaystyle (\exists x)(\psi x)} . Theorems 8 to 10 showed that neural nets with loops can encode all first-order logic with equality and conversely, any looped neural networks is equivalent to a sentence in first-order logic with equality, thus showing that they are equivalent in logical expressiveness. As a remark, they noted that a neural network, if furnished with a tape, scanners, and write-heads, is equivalent to a Turing machine, and conversely, every Turing machine is equivalent to some such neural network. Thus, these neural networks are equivalent to Turing computability and Church's lambda-definability. == Context == === Previous work === The paper built upon several previous strands of work. In the symbolic logic side, it built on the previous work by Carnap, Whitehead, and Russell. This was contributed by Walter Pitts, who had a strong proficiency with symbolic logic. Pitts provided mathematical and logical rigor to McCulloch’s vague ideas on psychons (atoms of psychological events) and circular causality. In the neuroscience side, it built on previous work by the mathematical biology research group centered around Nicolas Rashevsky, of which McCulloch was a member. The paper was published in the Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics, which was founded by Rashevsky in 1939. During the late 1930s, Rashevsky's research group was producing papers that had difficulty publishing in other journals at the time, so Rashevsky decided to found a new journal exclusively devoted to mathematical biophysics. Also in the Rashevsky's group was Alston Scott Householder, who in 1941 published an abstract model Curious about the best AI chatbot? An AI chatbot 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 chatbot slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. Read on for hands-on impressions, pricing tiers, and the standout features that matter. AI-assisted software development is the use of artificial intelligence (AI) to augment software development. It uses large language models (LLMs), AI agents and other AI technologies to assist software developers. It helps in a range of tasks of the software development life cycle, from code generation to debugging, editing, testing, UI design, understanding the code, and documentation. Agentic coding denotes the use of AI agents for software development. == Technologies == === Source code generation === Large language models trained or fine-tuned on source-code corpora can generate source code from natural-language descriptions, comments, or docstrings. Research on code-generation systems often evaluates generated programs by functional correctness, such as whether the output passes automated test cases, rather than by syntax alone. Such tools can be features or extensions of integrated development environments (IDEs). === Intelligent code completion === AI agents using pre-trained and fine-tuned LLMs can predict and suggest code completions based on context. According to Husein, Aburajouh & Catal in a 2025 literature review in Computer Standards & Interfaces, "LLMs significantly enhance code completion performance across several programming languages and contexts, and their capability to predict relevant code snippets based on context and partial input boosts developer productivity substantially." === Testing, debugging, code review and analysis === AI is used to automatically generate test cases, identify potential bugs and security vulnerabilities, and suggest fixes. AI can also be used to perform static code analysis and suggest potential performance improvements. == Limitations == Both ownership of and responsibility for AI-generated code is disputed. According to a report from the German Federal Office for Information Security, the use of AI coding assistants without careful oversight from experienced developers can introduce both minor and major security vulnerabilities, and any potential gain in productivity should be weighed against the cost of additional quality control and security measures. According to Deloitte, outputs from AI-assisted software development must be validated through a combination of automated testing, static analysis tools and human review, creating a governance layer to improve quality and accountability. == Vibe coding ==CHAOS (chess)
A Logical Calculus of the Ideas Immanent in Nervous Activity
Is an AI Chatbot Worth It in 2026?
AI-assisted software development