AI Analytics Data

AI Analytics Data — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

Lessac Technologies

Lessac Technologies, Inc. (LTI) is an American firm which develops voice synthesis software, licenses technology and sells synthesized novels as MP3 files. The firm currently has seven patents granted and three more pending for its automated methods of converting digital text into human-sounding speech, more accurately recognizing human speech and outputting the text representing the words and phrases of said speech, along with recognizing the speaker's emotional state. The LTI technology is partly based on the work of the late Arthur Lessac, a Professor of Theater at the State University of New York and the creator of Lessac Kinesensic Training, and LTI has licensed exclusive rights to exploit Arthur Lessac's copyrighted works in the fields of speech synthesis and speech recognition. Based on the view that music is speech and speech is music, Lessac's work and books focused on body and speech energies and how they go together. Arthur Lessac's textual annotation system, which was originally developed to assist actors, singers, and orators in marking up scripts to prepare for performance, is adapted in LTI's speech synthesis system as the basic representation of the speech to be synthesized (Lessemes), in contrast to many other systems which use a phonetic representation. LTI's software has two major components: (1) a linguistic front-end that converts plain text to a sequence of prosodic and phonosensory graphic symbols (Lessemes) based on Arthur Lessac's annotation system, which specify the speech units to be synthesized; (2) a signal-processing back-end that takes the Lessemes as acoustic data and produces human-sounding synthesized speech as output, using unit selection and concatenation. LTI's text-to-speech system came in second in the world-wide Blizzard Challenge 2011 and 2012. The first-place team in 2011 also employed LTI's "front-end" technology, but with its own back-end. The Blizzard Challenge, conducted by the Language Technologies Institute of Carnegie Mellon University, was devised as a way to evaluate speech synthesis techniques by having different research groups build voices from the same voice-actor recordings, and comparing the results through listening tests. LTI was founded in 2000 by H. Donald Wilson (chairman), a lawyer, LexisNexis entrepreneur and business associate of Arthur Lessac; and Gary A. Marple (chief inventor), after Marple suggested that Arthur Lessac's kinesensic voice training might be applicable to computational linguistics. After Wilson's death in 2006, his nephew John Reichenbach became the firm's CEO.
Read more →
TD-Gammon

TD-Gammon is a computer backgammon program developed in the 1990s by Gerald Tesauro at IBM's Thomas J. Watson Research Center. Its name comes from the fact that it is an artificial neural net trained by a form of temporal-difference learning, specifically TD-Lambda. It explored strategies that humans had not pursued and led to advances in the theory of correct backgammon play. In 1993, TD-Gammon (version 2.1) was trained with 1.5 million games of self-play, and achieved a level of play just slightly below that of the top human backgammon players of the time. In 1998, during a 100-game series, it was defeated by the world champion by a mere margin of 8 points. Its unconventional assessment of some opening strategies had been accepted and adopted by expert players. TD-gammon is commonly cited as an early success of reinforcement learning and neural networks, and was cited in, for example, papers for deep Q-learning and AlphaGo. == Algorithm for play and learning == During play, TD-Gammon examines on each turn all possible legal moves and all their possible responses (lookahead search), feeds each resulting board position into its evaluation function, and chooses the move that leads to the board position that got the highest score. In this respect, TD-Gammon is no different than almost any other computer board-game program. TD-Gammon's innovation was in how it learned its evaluation function. TD-Gammon's learning algorithm consists of updating the weights in its neural net after each turn to reduce the difference between its evaluation of previous turns' board positions and its evaluation of the present turn's board position—hence "temporal-difference learning". The score of any board position is a set of four numbers reflecting the program's estimate of the likelihood of each possible game result: White wins normally, Black wins normally, White wins a gammon, Black wins a gammon. For the final board position of the game, the algorithm compares with the actual result of the game rather than its own evaluation of the board position. The core of TD-gammon is a neural network with 3 layers. The input layer has two types of neurons. One type codes for the board position. They are non-negative integers ranging from 0 to 15, indicating the number of White or Black checkers at each board location. There are 99 input neurons for each, totaling 198 neurons. Another type codes for hand-crafted features previously used in Neurogammon. These features encoded standard concepts used by human experts, such as "advanced anchor," "blockade strength," "home board strength" and the probability of a "blot" (single checker) being hit. The hidden layer contains hidden neurons. Later versions had more of these. The output layer contains 4 neurons, representing the network's estimate of the probability ("equity") that the current board would lead to. The 4 neurons code for: White normal win, White gammon win, Black normal win, Black gammon win. Backgammon win is so rare that Tesauro opted to not represent it. After each turn, the learning algorithm updates each weight in the neural net according to the following rule: w t + 1 − w t = α ( Y t + 1 − Y t ) ∑ k = 1 t λ t − k ∇ w Y k {\displaystyle w_{t+1}-w_{t}=\alpha (Y_{t+1}-Y_{t})\sum _{k=1}^{t}\lambda ^{t-k}\nabla _{w}Y_{k}} where: It was found that picking small λ {\displaystyle \lambda } offered performance roughly equally good, and large λ {\displaystyle \lambda } degraded performance. Because of this, after 1992, TD-Gammon was trained with λ = 0 {\displaystyle \lambda =0} , degenerating into standard TD-learning. This saved compute by a factor of 2. == Development history == Version 1.0 used simple 1-ply search: every next move is scored by the neural net, and the highest-scoring move is selected. Versions 2.0 and 2.1 used 2-ply search: Make a 1-ply analysis to remove unlikely moves ("forward pruning"). Make a 2-play minimax analysis for only the likely moves. Pick the best move, probability-weighted by each of the opponent's 21 possible dice rolls (weighting non-doubles twice as much as doubles). Versions 3.0 and 3.1 used 3-ply search, using 21 2 = 441 {\displaystyle 21^{2}=441} possible dice rolls instead of 21. The last version, 3.1, was trained specifically for an exhibition match against Malcolm Davis at the 1998 AAAI Hall of Champions. It lost at -8 points, mainly due to one blunder, where TD-Gammon opted to double and got gammoned at -32 points. == Experiments and stages of training == Unlike previous neural-net backgammon programs such as Neurogammon (also written by Tesauro), where an expert trained the program by supplying the "correct" evaluation of each position, TD-Gammon was at first programmed "knowledge-free". In early experimentation, using only a raw board encoding with no human-designed features, TD-Gammon reached a level of play comparable to Neurogammon: that of an intermediate-level human backgammon player. Even though TD-Gammon discovered insightful features on its own, Tesauro wondered if its play could be improved by using hand-designed features like Neurogammon's. Indeed, the self-training TD-Gammon with expert-designed features soon surpassed all previous computer backgammon programs. It stopped improving after about 1,500,000 games (self-play) using a three-layered neural network, with 198 input units encoding expert-designed features, 80 hidden units, and one output unit representing predicted probability of winning. == Advances in backgammon theory == TD-Gammon's exclusive training through self-play (rather than imitation learning) enabled it to explore strategies that humans previously had not considered or had ruled out erroneously. Its success with unorthodox strategies had a significant impact on the backgammon community. Late 1991, Bill Robertie, Paul Magriel, and Malcolm Davis, were invited to play against TD-Gammon (version 1.0). A total of 51 games were played, with TD-Gammon losing at -0.25 ppg. Robertie found TD-Gammon to be at the level of a competent advanced player, and better than any previous backgammon program. Robertie subsequently wrote about the use of TD-Gammon for backgammon study. For example, on the opening play, the conventional wisdom was that given a roll of 2-1, 4-1, or 5-1, White should move a single checker from point 6 to point 5. Known as "slotting", this technique trades the risk of a hit for the opportunity to develop an aggressive position. TD-Gammon found that the more conservative play of splitting 24-23 was superior. Tournament players began experimenting with TD-Gammon's move, and found success. Within a few years, slotting had disappeared from tournament play, replaced by splitting, though in 2006 it made a reappearance for 2-1. Backgammon expert Kit Woolsey found that TD-Gammon's positional judgement, especially its weighing of risk against safety, was superior to his own or any human's. TD-Gammon's excellent positional play was undercut by occasional poor endgame play. The endgame requires a more analytical approach, sometimes with extensive lookahead. TD-Gammon's limitation to two-ply lookahead put a ceiling on what it could achieve in this part of the game. TD-Gammon's strengths and weaknesses were the opposite of symbolic artificial intelligence programs and most computer software in general: it was good at matters that require an intuitive "feel" but bad at systematic analysis. It is also poor at doubling strategies. This is likely due to the fact that the neural network is trained without the doubling cube, with the doubling added by feeding the neural network's cubeless equity estimates into theoretically-based heuristic formulae. This was particularly the case in the 1998 exhibition match, where it played 100 games against Malcolm Davis. A single doubling blunder lost the match. TD-gammon was never commercialized or released to the public in some other form, but it inspired commercial backgammon programs based on neural networks, such as JellyFish (1994) and Snowie (1998).
Read more →
Interim Measures for the Management of Anthropomorphic AI Interactive Services

The Interim Measures for the Management of Anthropomorphic AI Interactive Services (Chinese: 人工智能拟人化互动服务管理暂行办法) is a document proposed by the Cyberspace Administration of China to regulate anthropomorphic artificial intelligence systems. The draft was released on December 27, 2026 for public comment period until January 25, 2026. The proposed document would prohibit AI companies and users of AI services from generating certain types of content deemed harmful to national interests or the social order, and impose various regulatory and safety requirements on providers of AI systems. The proposed regulation is motivated by concerns about the psychological and social effects of AI systems that are perceived as personalities by their users, including addiction, encouragement of self-harm, or generation of illegal content. == Description == === Scope === The regulation would apply to AI systems that are offered to the general public within China. They would not apply to company-internal or research use, or to products that are only available outside of China. For the purpose of the regulation, anthropomorphic Ai systems are defined as those that "simulate human personality traits, modes of thinking, and communication styles, and that engage in emotional interaction with humans through text, images, audio, video, or other means". === Requirements === The regulation would require AI providers to monitor users for signs of harmful use and to take various interventions when indications of harmful use are detected. It would also prohibit AI systems from certain types of behaviors and generation of certain types of content. In some circumstances where a user appears to be at risk of self harm, the system would be required to hand over control to a human operator who would manually intervene. The regulation would also require more rigorous practices for managing the provenance of training data used to develop these systems, and would require explicit opt-in consent from users before their interactions with an AI system were used as training data. Data used to train the regulated systems would be required to reflect core socialist values and traditional Chinese culture.
Read more →
Linagora

Linagora is a French open source software editor, founded in June 2000 by Alexandre Zapolsky and Michel-Marie Maudet. Located in France, as well as in Belgium, Canada, Vietnam, the United States and Tunisia, the company employs around 200 people. In 2023, Linagora created the OpenLLM France community, alongside other French Artificial Intelligence companies and organizations. In 2025, the company launched Lucie, an opensource Large Language Model. == History == Linagora was founded on June 28, 2000. Its name is a contraction of the words "Linux" and "Agora". The company was founded by Alexandre Zapolsky and Michel-Marie Maudet. Soon after, the two entrepreneurs were joined by Alexandre Zapolsky's wife and brother, who took on the roles of commercial director and administrative and financial director of the SME. In 2007, the company was selected by the French National Assembly to provide the software for Linux computers, replacing Microsoft Windows. Linagora then claimed the position of the leading French open source software company by revenue. In 2015, French Prime Minister Manuel Valls allocated €10.7 million from the "Investments for the Future" fund for a research program aimed at developing a new generation of open source software platforms based on Linagora's offerings. In September 2016, Linagora launched the social network "La Cerise" for the newspaper L'Humanité. This app offered a service and tool for readers and citizens mobilizing for causes. It aimed to share engagement through petitions, discussions, agendas, and contacts. In October 2016, the company won two public contracts for supporting open source software in forty-two French ministries and other administrative entities. In May 2019, Linagora organized a fundraising event in the presence of the French Secretary of State for Digital Affairs, Cédric O, to celebrate its 19th anniversary. The funds were intended for: Supporting parents of hospitalized Polynesian children in France. Equipping primary school students with digital devices (tablets or PCs). Establishing a digital academy "OpenHackademy" in French Polynesia to train unemployed youth in digital skills and help them find jobs. In December 2022, Linagora acquired a property known as "Maison Rocher" and later "Maison Chocolat," located on the Île Saint-Germain in Issy-les-Moulineaux. Renamed "Villa Good Tech" by Linagora, this award-winning architectural work by Éric Daniel-Lacombe became the company's new headquarters, aiming to provide a space for associative actors and companies to develop technologies that contribute to a better world. In July 2023, Linagora launched OpenLLM France, a community initially comprising around twenty actors focused on generative AI. The goal was to develop a sovereign and open source large language model. This initiative, led by co-founder and CEO Michel-Marie Maudet, had more than four hundred French members by early 2024. and announced its expansion to the European sphere during Fosdem 2024. In February 2024, the CNRS and Linagora signed a framework agreement to strengthen their research collaboration. In January 2025, Linagora released Lucie, an open source and sovereign AI that faced ridicule due to tests on an unfinished, uncensored version designed for scientific and experimental use. The platform divided opinions between those who saw it as a technological achievement and those who criticized it as "French bashing" compared to American and Chinese AIs. == Acquisitions == The company acquired: In July 2007, the SME AliaSource, based in Ramonville-Saint-Agne and led by its founder, Pierre Baudracco. In 2008, the open source web hosting company Netaktiv, a member of the GIE Gitoyen, announced during the 2008 Solutions Linux trade show. In 2012, the Toulouse-based company EBM Websourcing, the publisher of the open-source software Petals Link, and took over its development. In 2016, the digital agency Neoma Interactive, specializing in UX design and digital communication strategy. == Locations == In 2017, the company's headquarters was located in Issy-les-Moulineaux, with branches in Lyon, Toulouse, Marseille, and internationally in Brussels, San Francisco, Montreal, Vietnam, and Tunisia. In 2005, the company attempted to establish a presence in Nantes. In 2024, the headquarters was moved to Issy-les-Moulineaux. == Activity == === Software === Twake Workplace One of Linagora's flagship products is Twake Workplace, which stands out as a 100% open-source solution compared with those of the GAFAMs. Twake Workplace is available as a complete platform or module by module. It includes : Twake Mail, a powerful modern messaging solution based on the JMAP protocol and the James email server from the Apache Foundation, for which Linagora provides technical management; Twake Chat, an instant communications solution for businesses developed using the Matrix protocol and compatible with the French government's chat solution, Tchap; Twake Drive, an easy-to-use collaborative platform for group work using OnlyOffice. ==== OpenPaaS ==== In 2018, the search engine Qwant announced that its email service Qwantmail would be based on the OpenPaaS product. In 2022, Qwant announced the abandonment of its Qwantmail project due to Linagora's collection of personal email addresses and serious security breaches. The site Next (formerly PC INpact) published an article in January 2020 criticizing the "failures and delays" of the Qwantmail project led by Linagora, which led to the CNIL's intervention regarding Qwant and Linagora. ==== LinTO ==== In 2017, Linagora launched its open source voice assistant project named LinTO. This enterprise voice assistant, described as "GAFAM Free," was presented at CES 2018 in Las Vegas. The LinTO voice framework was developed as part of the eponymous research project funded by Bpifrance (Grands Défis du Numérique instrument). === Services === ==== OSSA (Open Source Software Assurance) ==== One of the company's main activities is OSSA. Through OSSA, Linagora provided support for open source software for 42 ministries and other administrative entities in 2012. == Legal issues == === Dispute with BlueMind === In 2012, a legal dispute arose between BlueMind and Linagora. Linagora accused BlueMind of copyright infringement, unfair competition, and breach of a non-compete clause, leading to several legal actions. Linagora sued BlueMind for copyright infringement and unfair competition in the Bordeaux court, which ruled in Linagora's favor for unfair competition and parasitism but rejected the copyright claim. BlueMind was ordered to pay nearly €170,000 to Linagora. Linagora sued former associates Pierre Baudracco and Pierre Carlier in the Paris Commercial Court for breach of a non-compete clause and violation of a warranty of eviction. The court dismissed Linagora's claims and ordered it to pay €20,000 each to Baudracco and Carlier. Linagora appealed, and the Paris Court of Appeal partially overturned the decision, awarding Linagora €480,000. BlueMind sued Linagora for defamation and public insult in the Toulouse Criminal Court. The court ruled against Linagora, but the decision was overturned by the Court of Cassation in January 2024, and the case was remanded for retrial. === Conviction for wrongful termination and harassment === On June 14, 2017, France 3 reported on a decision by the Versailles Court of Appeal, which ruled that Linagora had wrongfully terminated an employee and subjected them to moral harassment. The court ordered Linagora to pay the employee €22,000 for wrongful termination, €11,000 for notice pay, €6,600 for legal severance pay, €3,200 for conservative suspension, and €3,000 for moral harassment.
Read more →
SAP BTP

SAP Business Technology Platform (SAP BTP) is a platform as a service developed by SAP SE that offers a suite of services including database and data management, AI, analytics, application development, automation and integration all running on one unified platform. == Overview == SAP BTP is made up of four components: Application development and automation: to create applications or extend existing applications. Data and analytics: to access and analyze data across SAP and third-party systems using multi-cloud architecture. Integration: to integrate and connect applications and data. Artificial Intelligence (AI): to access large language models (LLMs) to develop AI. == History == SAP BTP was introduced as part of the SAP strategy to unify its portfolio and cloud offerings under a single platform. The platform was evolved from earlier initiatives such as SAP Cloud Platform and now serves as the central hub for cloud, data, analytics, integration and AI technologies. Initially unveiled as "SAP NetWeaver Cloud" belonging to the SAP HANA Cloud portfolio on October 16, 2012 the cloud platform was reintroduced with the new name "SAP HANA Cloud Platform" on May 13, 2013 as the foundation for SAP cloud products, including the SAP BusinessObjects Cloud. Adoption of the SAP HANA Cloud Platform in 2015 stood at over 4000 customers and 500 partners. In 2016, SAP and Apple Inc. partnered to develop mobile applications on iOS using cloud-based software development kits (SDKs) for the SAP Cloud Platform. On February 27, 2017, SAP HANA Cloud Platform was renamed "SAP Cloud Platform" at the Mobile World Congress. On January 18, 2021, the name "SAP Cloud Platform" was retired from the SAP product portfolio to support SAP BTP. As of October 2024, SAP states that SAP BTP is used by more than 27,000 customers and more than 2,800 partners. Recently, SAP Business One has worked on improving the functionalities of BTP to cater for the demands of digital transformation. The platform offers comprehensive services in AI, application development, automation, integration, data management, and analytics.
Read more →
Learning Applied to Ground Vehicles

The Learning Applied to Ground Vehicles (LAGR) program, which ran from 2004 until 2008, had the goal of accelerating progress in autonomous, perception-based, off-road navigation in robotic unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs). LAGR was funded by DARPA, a research agency of the United States Department of Defense. == History and background == While mobile robots had been in existence since the 1960s, (e.g. Shakey), progress in creating robots that could navigate on their own, outdoors, off-road, on irregular, obstacle-rich terrain had been slow. In fact, no clear metrics were in place to measure progress. A baseline understanding of off-road capabilities began to emerge with the DARPA PerceptOR program in which independent research teams fielded robotic vehicles in unrehearsed Government tests that measured average speed and number of required operator interventions over a fixed course over widely spaced waypoints. These tests exposed the extreme challenges of off-road navigation. While the PerceptOR vehicles were equipped with sensors and algorithms that were state-of-the-art for the beginning of the 21st century, the limited range of their perception technology caused them to become trapped in natural cul-de-sacs. Furthermore, their reliance on pre-scripted behaviors did not allow them to adapt to unexpected circumstances. The overall result was that except for essentially open terrain with minimal obstacles, or along dirt roads, the PerceptOR vehicles were unable navigate without numerous, repeated operator intervention. The LAGR program was designed to build on the methodology started in PerceptOR while seeking to overcome the technical challenges exposed by the PerceptOR tests. == LAGR goals == The principal goal of LAGR was to accelerate progress in off navigation of UGVs. Additional, synergistic goals included (1) establishing benchmarking methodology for measuring progress for autonomous robots operating in unstructured environments, (2) advancing machine vision and thus enabling long-range perception, and (3) increasing the number of institutions and individuals who were able to contribute to forefront UGV research. == Structure and rationale of the LAGR program == The LAGR program was designed to focus on developing new science for robot perception and control rather than on new hardware. Thus, it was decided to create a fleet of identical, relatively simple robots that would be supplied to the LAGR researchers, who were members of competitive teams, freeing them to concentrate on algorithm development. The teams were each given two robots of the standard design. They developed new software on these robots, and then sent the code to a government test team that then tested that code on Government robots at various test courses. These courses were located throughout the US and were not previously known to the teams. In this way, the code from all teams could be tested in essentially identical circumstances. After an initial startup period, the code development/test cycle was repeated about once every month. The standard robot was designed and built by the Carnegie Mellon University National Robotics Engineering Center (CMU NREC). The vehicles’ computers were preloaded with a modular “Baseline” perception and navigation system that was essentially the same system that CMU NREC had created for the PerceptOR program and was considered to represent the state-of-the-art at the inception of LAGR. The modular nature of the Baseline system allowed the researchers to replace parts of the Baseline code with their own modules and still have a complete working system without having to create an entire navigation system from scratch. Thus, for example, they were able to compare the performance of their own obstacle detection module with that of the Baseline code, while holding everything else fixed. The Baseline code also served as a fixed reference – in any environment and at any time in the program, teams’ code could be compared to the Baseline code. This rapid cycle gave the Government team and the performer teams quick feedback and allowed the Government team to design test courses that challenged the performers in specific perception tasks and whose difficulty was likely to challenge, but not overwhelm, the performers’ current capabilities. Teams were not required to submit new code for every test, but usually did. Despite this leeway, some teams found the rapid test cycle distracting to their long term progress and would have preferred a longer interval between tests. === Phase II === To advance to Phase II, each team had to modify the Baseline code so that on the final 3 tests of Phase I of the government tests, robots running the team's code averaged at least 10% faster than a vehicle running the original Baseline code. This rather modest “Go/ No Go” metric was chosen to allow teams to choose risky, but promising approaches that might not be fully developed in the first 18 months of the program. All 8 teams achieved this metric, with some scoring more twice the speed of the Baseline on the later tests which was the objective for Phase II. Note that the Phase I Go / No Go metric was such that teams were not in completion with each other for a limited number of slots on Phase II: any number of teams, from eight to zero could make the grade. This strategy by DARPA was to designed to encourage cooperation and even code sharing among the teams. == The LAGR teams == Eight teams were selected as performers in Phase I, the first 18 months of LAGR. The teams were from Applied Perception (Principal Investigator [PI] Mark Ollis), Georgia Tech (PI Tucker Balch), Jet Propulsion Laboratory (PI Larry Matthies), Net-Scale Technologies (PI Urs Muller), NIST (PI James Albus), Stanford University (PI Sebastian Thrun), SRI International (PI Robert Bolles), and University of Pennsylvania (PI Daniel Lee). The Stanford team resigned at the end of Phase I to focus its efforts on the DARPA Grand Challenge; it was replaced by a team from the University of Colorado, Boulder (PI Greg Grudic). Also in Phase II, the NIST team suspended its participation in the competition and instead concentrated on assembling the best software elements from each team into a single system. Roger Bostelman became PI of that effort. == The LAGR vehicle == The LAGR vehicle, which was about the size of a supermarket shopping cart, was designed to be simple to control. (A companion DARPA program, Learning Locomotion, addressed complex motor control.) It was battery powered and had two independently driven wheelchair motors in the front, and two caster wheels in the rear. When the front wheels were rotated in the same direction the robot was driven either forward or reverse. When these wheels were driven in opposite directions, the robot turned. The ~ $30,000 cost of the LAGR vehicle meant that a fleet could be built and distributed to a number of teams expanding on the field of researchers who had traditionally participated in DARPA robotics programs. The vehicle's top speed of about 3 miles/ hour and relatively modest weight of ~100 kg meant that it posed a much reduced safety hazard compared to vehicles used in previous programs in unmanned ground vehicles and thus further reduced the budget required for each team to manage its robot. Nevertheless, the LAGR vehicles were sophisticated machines. Their sensor suite included 2 pairs of stereo cameras, an accelerometer, a bumper sensor, wheel encoders, and a GPS. The vehicle also had three computers that were user-programmable. == Scientific results == A cornerstone of the program was incorporation of learned behaviors in the robots. In addition, the program used passive optical systems to accomplish long-range scene analysis. The difficulty of testing UGV navigation in unstructured, off-road environments made accurate, objective measurement of progress a challenging task. While no absolute measure of performance had been defined in LAGR, the relative comparison of a team's code to that of the Baseline code on a given course demonstrated whether progress was being made in that environment. By the conclusion of the program, testing showed that many of the performers had attained leaps in performance. In particular, average autonomous speeds were increased by factor of 3 and useful visual perception was extended to ranges as far as 100 meters. While LAGR did succeed in extending the useful range of visual perception, this was primarily done by either pixel or patch-based color or texture analysis. Object recognition was not directly addressed. Even though the LAGR vehicle had a WAAS GPS, its position was never determined down to the width of the vehicle, so it was hard for the systems to re-use obstacle maps of areas the robots had previously traversed since the GPS continually drifted. The drift was especially severe if there was a forest canopy. A few teams developed visual odometry algorithms that essentially eliminated this drift.
Read more →
AlphaFold

AlphaFold is an artificial intelligence (AI) program developed by DeepMind, a subsidiary of Alphabet, which performs predictions of protein structure. It is designed using deep learning techniques. AlphaFold 1 (2018) placed first in the overall rankings of the 13th Critical Assessment of Structure Prediction (CASP) in December 2018. It was particularly successful at predicting the most accurate structures for targets rated as most difficult by the competition organizers, where no existing template structures were available from proteins with partially similar sequences. AlphaFold 2 (2020) repeated this placement in the CASP14 competition in November 2020. It achieved a level of accuracy much higher than any other entry. It scored above 90 on CASP's global distance test (GDT) for approximately two-thirds of the proteins, a test measuring the similarity between a computationally predicted structure and the experimentally determined structure, where 100 represents a complete match. The inclusion of metagenomic data has improved the quality of the prediction of multiple sequence alignments. One of the biggest sources of the training data was the custom-built Big Fantastic Database of 65,983,866 protein families, represented as multiple sequence alignments and Hidden Markov models, covering 2,204,359,010 protein sequences from reference databases, metagenomes, and metatranscriptomes. AlphaFold 2's results at CASP14 were described as "astounding" and "transformational". However, some researchers noted that the accuracy was insufficient for a third of its predictions, and that it did not reveal the underlying mechanism or rules of protein folding for the protein folding problem, which remains unsolved. Despite this, the technical achievement was widely recognized. On 15 July 2021, the AlphaFold 2 paper was published in Nature as an advance access publication alongside open source software and a searchable database of species proteomes. As of November 2025, the paper had been cited nearly 43,000 times. AlphaFold 3 was announced on 8 May 2024. It can predict the structure of complexes created by proteins with DNA, RNA, various ligands, and ions. The new prediction method shows a minimum 50% improvement in accuracy for protein interactions with other molecules compared to existing methods. Demis Hassabis and John Jumper shared one half of the 2024 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, awarded "for protein structure prediction," while the other half went to David Baker "for computational protein design." Hassabis and Jumper had previously won the Breakthrough Prize in Life Sciences and the Albert Lasker Award for Basic Medical Research in 2023 for their leadership of the AlphaFold project. == Background == Proteins consist of chains of amino acids which spontaneously fold to form the three dimensional (3-D) structures of the proteins. The 3-D structure is crucial to understanding the biological function of the protein. Protein structures can be determined experimentally through techniques such as X-ray crystallography, cryo-electron microscopy and nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR), which are all expensive and time-consuming. Such efforts, using the experimental methods, have identified the structures of about 170,000 proteins over the last 60 years, while there are over 200 million known proteins across all life forms. Over the years, researchers have applied numerous computational methods to predict the 3D structures of proteins from their amino acid sequences, accuracy of such methods in best possible scenario is close to experimental techniques (NMR) by the use of homology modeling based on molecular evolution. CASP, which was launched in 1994 to challenge the scientific community to produce their best protein structure predictions, found that GDT scores of only about 40 out of 100 can be achieved for the most difficult proteins by 2016. AlphaFold started competing in the 2018 CASP using an artificial intelligence (AI) deep learning technique. == Algorithm == DeepMind is known to have trained the program on over 170,000 protein structures from the Protein Data Bank, a public repository of protein sequences and structures. The program uses a form of attention network, a deep learning technique that focuses on having the AI identify parts of a larger problem, then piece it together to obtain the overall solution. The overall training was conducted on processing power between 100 and 200 GPUs. === AlphaFold 1 (2018) === AlphaFold 1 (2018) was built on work developed by various teams in the 2010s, work that looked at the large databases of related protein sequences now available from many different organisms (most without known 3D structures), to try to find changes at different residues (peptides) that appeared to be correlated, even though the residues were not consecutive in the main chain. Such correlations suggest that the residues may be close to each other physically, even though not close in the sequence, allowing a contact map to be estimated. Building on recent work prior to 2018, AlphaFold 1 extended this by estimating a probability distribution for the distances between residues, effectively transforming the contact map into a distance map. It also used more advanced learning methods than previously to develop the inference. The code was not made publicly available, except to run on sequences of proteins in the 2018 CASP competition. === AlphaFold 2 (2020) === The 2020 version of the program (AlphaFold 2, 2020) is significantly different from the original version that won CASP 13 in 2018, according to the team at DeepMind. AlphaFold 1 used a number of separately trained modules to produce a guide potential, which was then combined with a physics-based energy potential. AlphaFold 2 replaced this with a system of interconnected sub-networks, forming a single, differentiable, end-to-end model based on pattern recognition. This model was trained in an integrated manner. After the neural network's prediction converges, a final refinement step applies local physical constraints using energy minimization based on the AMBER force field. This step only slightly adjusts the predicted structure. A key part of the 2020 system are two modules, believed to be based on a transformer design, which are used to progressively refine a vector of information for each relationship (or "edge" in graph-theory terminology) between an amino acid residue of the protein and another amino acid residue (these relationships are represented by the array shown in green); and between each amino acid position and each different sequences in the input sequence alignment (these relationships are represented by the array shown in red). Internally these refinement transformations contain layers that have the effect of bringing relevant data together and filtering out irrelevant data (the "attention mechanism") for these relationships, in a context-dependent way, learned from training data. These transformations are iterated, the updated information output by one step becoming the input of the next, with the sharpened residue/residue information feeding into the update of the residue/sequence information, and then the improved residue/sequence information feeding into the update of the residue/residue information. As the iteration progresses, according to one report, the "attention algorithm ... mimics the way a person might assemble a jigsaw puzzle: first connecting pieces in small clumps—in this case clusters of amino acids—and then searching for ways to join the clumps in a larger whole." The output of these iterations then informs the final structure prediction module, which also uses transformers, and is itself then iterated. In an example presented by DeepMind, the structure prediction module achieved a correct topology for the target protein on its first iteration, scored as having a GDT_TS of 78, but with a large number (90%) of stereochemical violations – i.e. unphysical bond angles or lengths. With subsequent iterations the number of stereochemical violations fell. By the third iteration the GDT_TS of the prediction was approaching 90, and by the eighth iteration the number of stereochemical violations was approaching zero. The training data was originally restricted to single peptide chains. However, the October 2021 update, named AlphaFold-Multimer, included protein complexes in its training data. DeepMind stated this update succeeded about 70% of the time at accurately predicting protein-protein interactions. === AlphaFold 3 (2024) === Announced on 8 May 2024, AlphaFold 3 was co-developed by Google DeepMind and Isomorphic Labs, both subsidiaries of Alphabet. AlphaFold 3 is not limited to proteins, as it can also predict the structures of protein complexes with DNA, RNA, post-translational modifications and selected ligands and ions. AlphaFold 3 introduces the "Pairformer," a deep learning architecture inspired by the transformer, which is considered similar to, but si
Read more →
Juergen Pirner

Juergen Pirner (born 1956) is the German creator of Jabberwock, a chatterbot that won the 2003 Loebner prize. Pirner created Jabberwock modelling the Jabberwocky from Lewis Carroll's poem of the same name. Initially, Jabberwock would just give rude or fantasy-related answers; but over the years, Pirner has programmed better responses into it. As of 2007 he has taught it 2.7 million responses. Pirner lives in Hamburg, Germany.
Read more →
Micro stuttering

Micro stuttering is a visual artifact in real-time computer graphics in which the time intervals between consecutively displayed frames are uneven, even though the average frame rate reported by benchmarking software appears adequate. Tools such as 3DMark typically compute frame rates over intervals of one second or more, which can conceal momentary drops in the instantaneous frame rate that the viewer perceives as hitching or jerking of on-screen motion. At low frame rates the effect is visible as a stutter in moving images, degrading the experience in interactive applications such as video games. In severe cases a lower but more consistent frame rate can appear smoother than a higher but more erratic one. The term gained prominence in the late 2000s in discussions of multi-GPU rendering (see History), but micro stuttering also affects single-GPU systems. Common causes on modern hardware include real-time shader compilation, asset streaming from storage, VRAM exhaustion, and driver bugs. == Causes == === Shader compilation === A common cause of micro stuttering on modern PCs is real-time shader compilation. Shaders are small programs that instruct the GPU on how to render visual effects such as lighting, shadows, and reflections. On consoles, developers can pre-compile all shaders for the known, fixed hardware. On PCs, the variety of GPU architectures means shaders must often be compiled at run time, either when the game launches or during gameplay itself. When the rendering engine encounters a shader that has not yet been compiled, the CPU must finish the compilation before the GPU can draw the affected object. This causes a spike in frame time that the player perceives as a hitch. The problem has been particularly associated with games built on Unreal Engine 4 running under DirectX 12, because DX12 shifts more shader management responsibility to the application. Several techniques exist to reduce shader compilation stutter. Pipeline State Object (PSO) pre-caching records the shader permutations used at runtime so that they can be compiled in advance on subsequent launches. Asynchronous shader compilation moves the work to background CPU threads to avoid blocking the main rendering thread. Platform-level services such as Steam's shader pre-caching distribute previously compiled shaders to users with matching GPU hardware. The Steam Deck, which contains a single fixed GPU, benefits from pre-compiled shader caches because all units share the same hardware configuration. === Other causes === Micro stuttering on single-GPU systems can have several additional causes. CPU bottlenecks or scheduling interruptions from background tasks can prevent the processor from preparing frames at regular intervals. Asset streaming during gameplay (loading textures, geometry, or audio from storage) can produce hitches sometimes called traversal stutter; the use of solid-state drives and technologies such as DirectStorage has reduced but not eliminated this. VRAM exhaustion forces data to be swapped between video memory and system memory over the PCI Express bus, which is slower. Graphics driver bugs can also introduce stutter; Nvidia released hotfix driver 551.46 in February 2024 to correct intermittent micro stuttering when V-Sync was enabled. == Measurement == Micro stuttering drew attention to the limitations of average frame rate as a performance metric. In 2013, Scott Wasson at The Tech Report published a series of articles advocating frame time analysis, in which the delivery time of every individual frame is recorded and plotted rather than collapsed into a single frames-per-second figure. This approach was adopted by other hardware review publications in the following years. GPU reviews now routinely report 1% low and 0.1% low frame rates alongside the average. The 1% low is the average frame rate of the slowest 1% of frames in a sample; it serves as an indicator of worst-case smoothness. A large gap between the average and the 1% low suggests poor frame pacing. Tools for capturing per-frame timing data include FRAPS, PresentMon, OCAT, CapFrameX, and MSI Afterburner with RivaTuner Statistics Server. == Mitigation == === Frame pacing === Frame pacing is a software technique that regulates the timing of frame delivery to produce even intervals between displayed frames. Game engines, GPU drivers, and platform libraries all implement frame pacing strategies to varying degrees. On mobile platforms, Google provides the Android Frame Pacing library (Swappy) as part of the Android Game Development Kit. In December 2025, the Khronos Group published the VK_EXT_present_timing Vulkan extension, giving developers explicit control over presentation timing in a cross-platform graphics API for the first time. === Variable refresh rate === Variable refresh rate (VRR) display technologies allow a monitor's refresh rate to change to match the GPU's frame output. Implementations include Nvidia G-Sync (2013), AMD FreeSync (2015), and the VESA Adaptive-Sync standard built into DisplayPort 1.2a and later. VRR eliminates the screen tearing that results from a mismatch between frame rate and refresh rate, and avoids the frame-holding behaviour of V-Sync that can itself cause stutter. It is effective at smoothing moderate frame rate fluctuations but cannot compensate for large sudden spikes in frame time such as those caused by shader compilation or heavy asset streaming. VRR support has become standard in gaming monitors, televisions (via HDMI 2.1), and the Xbox Series X/S and PlayStation 5 consoles. === Frame generation === Beginning with DLSS 3 on the GeForce RTX 40 series in 2022, Nvidia introduced AI-based frame generation, which uses dedicated optical flow hardware and a neural network to create new frames between traditionally rendered ones. AMD followed with FSR 3 in 2023, using an algorithmic approach, and the AI-based FSR 4 for the Radeon RX 9000 series in 2025. DLSS 4, released in January 2025 for the GeForce RTX 50 series, can generate up to three frames per rendered frame using a technique called Multi Frame Generation. Frame generation increases the displayed frame rate but introduces its own frame pacing concerns. If the underlying rendered frames are unevenly timed, the interpolated frames can make the unevenness more apparent rather than less. DLSS 4 addresses this with hardware-level flip metering on the GPU's display engine, which controls the timing of frame presentation more precisely than the CPU-based pacing used in DLSS 3. Both vendors pair frame generation with latency-reduction features (Nvidia Reflex and AMD Anti-Lag+) to offset the additional input latency that results from inserting synthetic frames into the pipeline. === Frame rate limiters === Capping the frame rate below the display's maximum refresh rate, using tools such as RivaTuner Statistics Server, in-game limiters, or driver-level settings, is a common way to improve frame pacing. Preventing the GPU from running ahead of the display reduces variability in frame delivery times and can produce a smoother result than an uncapped but more irregular frame rate. == History == === Multi-GPU configurations === Micro stuttering was first widely documented in the late 2000s as a side effect of multi-GPU configurations using Alternate Frame Rendering (AFR), in which consecutive frames are assigned to alternating GPUs. Because each GPU may take a different amount of time to complete its assigned frame — due to varying scene complexity, driver scheduling, or inter-GPU communication overhead — the resulting frame delivery is irregular even when the average frame rate is high. Both Nvidia SLI and AMD CrossFireX were affected, with dual-GPU setups exhibiting the worst frame pacing irregularities. In 2012 benchmarks using Battlefield 3, dual Radeon HD 7970 cards in CrossFire showed 85% variation in frame delivery times compared with 7% for a single card, while dual GeForce GTX 680 cards in SLI showed only 7% variation compared with 5% for a single card. Multi-GPU micro stuttering became a significant factor in the eventual decline and discontinuation of consumer multi-GPU gaming. Nvidia restricted SLI to a handful of enthusiast-class cards from the GeForce 10 series onward, then replaced it with NVLink on the GeForce RTX 20 series, which saw limited gaming adoption. AMD ceased active CrossFire development around 2017. By the mid-2020s, neither vendor's current consumer GPUs support multi-GPU rendering for games. Other factors that contributed to the decline include DirectX 12 placing multi-GPU support in the hands of game developers rather than driver authors, the incompatibility of temporal anti-aliasing and other temporal rendering techniques with AFR, and the increasing size, power draw, and cost of individual GPUs. The third-party utility RadeonPro could reduce CrossFire micro stuttering through dynamic V-Sync and frame pacing adjustments, and AMD later introduced a driver-level frame paci
Read more →
Danilo McGarry

Danilo McGarry (born 1985) is a British tech executive, writer, and speaker who has led AI initiatives in finance and healthcare. == Early life and education == Danilo McGarry was born in 1985. He received a Bachelor of Science (BSc) with honors in Business Management from the University of Bath. == Career == McGarry began his career in technology and financial services, with positions at companies including Motorola, JPMorgan Chase, and BNP Paribas. He later joined the Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) as an analyst and later became a director, where he led transformation initiatives involving robotic process automation (RPA) in the bank's capital markets operations. McGarry subsequently moved into leadership roles focused on AI. At Citigroup, he served as Head of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning, where he launched an AI-driven robotics and automation initiative. At UnitedHealth Group (UHG), he held a senior role in the company's automation program, which utilized a large fleet of software robots in its healthcare operations. In December 2019, McGarry was appointed Global Head of AI & Automation at Alter Domus, a multinational financial services firm. In this role, he established a new AI and automation department. He left the firm in late 2023 to establish his businesses. In 2025, the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) appointed him as its strategic adviser on artificial intelligence.
Read more →
Johns Hopkins Beast

The Johns Hopkins Beast was a mobile automaton, an early pre-robot, built in the 1960s at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory. The machine had a rudimentary intelligence and the ability to survive on its own. As it wandered through the white halls of the laboratory, it would seek black wall outlets. When it found one it would plug in and recharge. The robot was cybernetic. It did not use a computer. Its control circuitry consisted of dozens of transistors controlling analog voltages. It used photocell optics and sonar to navigate. The 2N404 transistors were used to create NOR logic gates that implemented the Boolean logic to tell it what to do when a specific sensor was activated. The 2N404 transistors were also used to create timing gates to tell it how long to do something. 2N1040 Power transistors were used to control the power to the motion treads, the boom, and the charging mechanism. The original sensors in Mod I were physical touch only. The wall socket was detected by physical switches on the arm that followed the wall. Once detected, two electrical prongs were extended until they entered the wall socket and made the electrical connection to charge the vehicle. The stairway, doors, and pipes on the hall wall were also detected by physical switches and recognized by appropriate logic. The sonar guidance system was developed for Mod I and improved for Mod II. It used two ultrasonic transducers to determine distance, location within the halls, and obstructions in its path. This provided "The Beast" with bat-like guidance. At this point, it could detect obstructions in the hallway, such as people. Once an obstruction was detected, the Beast would slow down and then decide whether to stop or divert around the obstruction. It could also ultrasonically recognize the stairway and doorways to take appropriate action. An optical guidance system was added to Mod II. This provided, among other capabilities, the ability to optically identify the black wall sockets that contrasted with the white wall. The Hopkins Beast Autonomous Robot Mod II link below was written by Dr. Ronald McConnell, at that time a co-op student and one of the designers for Mod II.
Read more →
Leabra

Leabra stands for local, error-driven and associative, biologically realistic algorithm. It is a model of learning which is a balance between Hebbian and error-driven learning with other network-derived characteristics. This model is used to mathematically predict outcomes based on inputs and previous learning influences. Leabra is heavily influenced by and contributes to neural network designs and models, including emergent. == Background == It is the default algorithm in emergent (successor of PDP++) when making a new project, and is extensively used in various simulations. Hebbian learning is performed using conditional principal components analysis (CPCA) algorithm with correction factor for sparse expected activity levels. Error-driven learning is performed using GeneRec, which is a generalization of the recirculation algorithm, and approximates Almeida–Pineda recurrent backpropagation. The symmetric, midpoint version of GeneRec is used, which is equivalent to the contrastive Hebbian learning algorithm (CHL). See O'Reilly (1996; Neural Computation) for more details. The activation function is a point-neuron approximation with both discrete spiking and continuous rate-code output. Layer or unit-group level inhibition can be computed directly using a k-winners-take-all (KWTA) function, producing sparse distributed representations. A feedforward and feedback (FFFB) form of inhibition has now replaced the KWTA form of inhibition. FFFB inhibition can be efficiently implemented by using the average excitatory input and activity levels in a given layer. The net input is computed as an average, not a sum, over connections, based on normalized, sigmoidally transformed weight values, which are subject to scaling on a connection-group level to alter relative contributions. Automatic scaling is performed to compensate for differences in expected activity level in the different projections. Documentation about this algorithm can be found in the book "Computational Explorations in Cognitive Neuroscience: Understanding the Mind by Simulating the Brain" published by MIT press. and in the Emergent Documentation Archived 2009-04-16 at the Wayback Machine == Overview of the leabra algorithm == The pseudocode for Leabra is given here, showing exactly how the pieces of the algorithm described in more detail in the subsequent sections fit together. Iterate over minus and plus phases of settling for each event. o At start of settling, for all units: - Initialize all state variables (activation, v_m, etc.). - Apply external patterns (clamp input in minus, input & output in plus). - Compute net input scaling terms (constants, computed here so network can be dynamically altered). - Optimization: compute net input once from all static activations (e.g., hard-clamped external inputs). o During each cycle of settling, for all non-clamped units: - Compute excitatory netinput (g_e(t), aka eta_j or net) -- sender-based optimization by ignoring inactives. - Compute kWTA inhibition for each layer, based on g_i^Q: Sort units into two groups based on g_i^Q: top k and remaining k+1 -> n. If basic, find k and k+1th highest If avg-based, compute avg of 1 -> k & k+1 -> n. Set inhibitory conductance g_i from g^Q_k and g^Q_k+1 - Compute point-neuron activation combining excitatory input and inhibition o After settling, for all units, record final settling activations as either minus or plus phase (y^-_j or y^+_j). After both phases update the weights (based on linear current weight values), for all connections: o Compute error-driven weight changes with CHL with soft weight bounding o Compute Hebbian weight changes with CPCA from plus-phase activations o Compute net weight change as weighted sum of error-driven and Hebbian o Increment the weights according to net weight change. == Implementations == Emergent Archived 2015-10-03 at the Wayback Machine is the original implementation of Leabra; its most recent implementation is written in Go. It was written chiefly by Dr. O'Reilly, but professional software engineers were recently hired to improve the existing codebase. This is the fastest implementation, suitable for constructing large networks. Although emergent has a graphical user interface, it is very complex and has a steep learning curve. If you want to understand the algorithm in detail, it will be easier to read non-optimized code. For this purpose, check out the MATLAB version. There is also an R version available, that can be easily installed via install.packages("leabRa") in R and has a short introduction to how the package is used. The MATLAB and R versions are not suited for constructing very large networks, but they can be installed quickly and (with some programming background) are easy to use. Furthermore, they can also be adapted easily. == Special algorithms == Temporal differences and general dopamine modulation. Temporal differences (TD) is widely used as a model of midbrain dopaminergic firing. Primary value learned value (PVLV). PVLV simulates behavioral and neural data on Pavlovian conditioning and the midbrain dopaminergic neurons that fire in proportion to unexpected rewards (an alternative to TD). Prefrontal cortex basal ganglia working memory (PBWM). PBWM uses PVLV to train prefrontal cortex working memory updating system, based on the biology of the prefrontal cortex and basal ganglia.
Read more →
Object Data Management Group

The Object Data Management Group (ODMG) was conceived in the summer of 1991 at a breakfast with object database vendors that was organized by Rick Cattell of Sun Microsystems. In 1998, the ODMG changed its name from the Object Database Management Group to reflect the expansion of its efforts to include specifications for both object database and object–relational mapping products. The primary goal of the ODMG was to put forward a set of specifications that allowed a developer to write portable applications for object database and object–relational mapping products. In order to do that, the data schema, programming language bindings, and data manipulation and query languages needed to be portable. Between 1993 and 2001, the ODMG published five revisions to its specification. The last revision was ODMG version 3.0, after which the group disbanded. == Major components of the ODMG 3.0 specification == Object Model. This was based on the Object Management Group's Object Model. The OMG core model was designed to be a common denominator for object request brokers, object database systems, object programming languages, etc. The ODMG designed a profile by adding components to the OMG core object model. Object Specification Languages. The ODMG Object Definition Language (ODL) was used to define the object types that conform to the ODMG Object Model. The ODMG Object Interchange Format (OIF) was used to dump and load the current state to or from a file or set of files. Object Query Language (OQL). The ODMG OQL was a declarative (nonprocedural) language for query and updating. It used SQL as a basis, where possible, though OQL supports more powerful object-oriented capabilities. C++ Language Binding. This defined a C++ binding of the ODMG ODL and a C++ Object Manipulation Language (OML). The C++ ODL was expressed as a library that provides classes and functions to implement the concepts defined in the ODMG Object Model. The C++ OML syntax and semantics are those of standard C++ in the context of the standard class library. The C++ binding also provided a mechanism to invoke OQL. Smalltalk Language Binding. This defined the mapping between the ODMG ODL and Smalltalk, which was based on the OMG Smalltalk binding for the OMG Interface Definition Language (IDL). The Smalltalk binding also provided a mechanism to invoke OQL. Java Language Binding. This defined the binding between the ODMG ODL and the Java programming language as defined by the Java 2 Platform. The Java binding also provided a mechanism to invoke OQL. == Status == ODMG 3.0 was published in book form in 2000.[1] By 2001, most of the major object database and object-relational mapping vendors claimed conformance to the ODMG Java Language Binding. Compliance to the other components of the specification was mixed.[2] In 2001, the ODMG Java Language Binding was submitted to the Java Community Process as a basis for the Java Data Objects specification. The ODMG member companies then decided to concentrate their efforts on the Java Data Objects specification. As a result, the ODMG disbanded in 2001. In 2004, the Object Management Group (OMG) was granted the right to revise the ODMG 3.0 specification as an OMG specification by the copyright holder, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers. In February 2006, the OMG announced the formation of the Object Database Technology Working Group (ODBT WG) and plans to work on the 4th generation of an object database standard. == ODMG Compliant DBMS == Orient ODBMS: http://www.OrienTechnologies.com Objectivity/DB C++, Java and Smalltalk interfaces.
Read more →
Mojo (programming language)

Mojo is an in-development proprietary programming language based on Python available for Linux and macOS. Mojo aims to combine the usability of a high-level programming language, specifically Python, with the performance of a system programming language such as C++, Rust, and Zig. As of October 2025, the Mojo compiler is closed source with an open source standard library. Modular, the company behind Mojo, has stated an intent to open source the Mojo language, committing to open-source Mojo in "fall 2026". Mojo builds on the Multi-Level Intermediate Representation (MLIR) compiler software framework, instead of directly on the lower level LLVM compiler framework like many languages such as Julia, Swift, C++, and Rust. MLIR is a newer compiler framework that allows Mojo to exploit higher level compiler passes unavailable in LLVM alone, and allows Mojo to compile down and target more than only central processing units (CPUs), including producing code that can run on graphics processing units (GPUs), Tensor Processing Units (TPUs), application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs) and other accelerators. It can also often more effectively use certain types of CPU optimizations directly, like single instruction, multiple data (SIMD) with minor intervention by a developer, as occurs in many other languages. According to Jeremy Howard of fast.ai, Mojo can be seen as "syntax sugar for MLIR" and for that reason Mojo is well optimized for applications like artificial intelligence (AI). == Origin and development history == The Mojo programming language was created by Modular Inc, which was founded by Chris Lattner, the original architect of the Swift programming language and LLVM, and Tim Davis, a former Google employee. The intention behind Mojo is to bridge the gap between Python’s ease of use and the fast performance required for cutting-edge AI applications. According to public change logs, Mojo development goes back to 2022. In May 2023, the first publicly testable version was made available online via a hosted playground. By September 2023 Mojo was available for local download for Linux and by October 2023 it was also made available for download on Apple's macOS. In March 2024, Modular open sourced the Mojo standard library and started accepting community contributions under the Apache 2.0 license. == Features == Mojo was created for an easy transition from Python. The language has syntax similar to Python's, with inferred static typing, and allows users to import Python modules. It uses LLVM and MLIR as its compilation backend. The language also intends to add a foreign function interface to call C/C++ and Python code. The language is not source-compatible with Python 3, only providing a subset of its syntax, e.g. missing the global keyword, list and dictionary comprehensions, and support for classes. Further, Mojo also adds features that enable performant low-level programming: fn for creating typed, compiled functions and "struct" for memory-optimized alternatives to classes. Mojo structs support methods, fields, operator overloading, and decorators. The language also provides a borrow checker, an influence from Rust. Mojo def functions use value semantics by default (functions receive a copy of all arguments and any modifications are not visible outside the function), while Python functions use reference semantics (functions receive a reference on their arguments and any modification of a mutable argument inside the function is visible outside). The language is not currently open source, but it is planned to be made open source in the future. Modular has since committed to open-sourcing the Mojo language in "fall 2026". == Programming examples == In Mojo, functions can be declared using both fn (for performant functions) or def (for Python compatibility). Basic arithmetic operations in Mojo with a def function: and with an fn function: The manner in which Mojo employs var and let for mutable and immutable variable declarations respectively mirrors the syntax found in Swift. In Swift, var is used for mutable variables, while let is designated for constants or immutable variables. Variable declaration and usage in Mojo:
Read more →
Cognitive tutor

A cognitive tutor is a particular kind of intelligent tutoring system that utilizes a cognitive model to provide feedback to students as they are working through problems. This feedback will immediately inform students of the correctness, or incorrectness, of their actions in the tutor interface; however, cognitive tutors also have the ability to provide context-sensitive hints and instruction to guide students towards reasonable next steps. == Introduction == The name of Cognitive Tutor now usually refers to a particular type of intelligent tutoring system produced by Carnegie Learning for high school mathematics based on John Anderson's ACT-R theory of human cognition. However, cognitive tutors were originally developed to test ACT-R theory for research purposes since the early 1980s and they are developed also for other areas and subjects such as computer programming and science. Cognitive Tutors can be implemented into classrooms as a part of blended learning that combines textbook and software activities. The Cognitive Tutor programs utilize cognitive model and are based on model tracing and knowledge tracing. Model tracing means that the cognitive tutor checks every action performed by students such as entering a value or clicking a button, while knowledge tracing is used to calculate the required skills students learned by measuring them on a bar chart called Skillometer. Model tracing and knowledge tracing are essentially used to monitor students' learning progress, guide students to correct path to problem solving, and provide feedback. The Institute of Education Sciences published several reports regarding the effectiveness of Carnegie Cognitive Tutor. A 2013 report concluded that Carnegie Learning Curricula and Cognitive Tutor was found to have mixed effects on mathematics achievement for high school students. The report identified 27 studies that investigate the effectiveness of Cognitive Tutor, and the conclusion is based on 6 studies that meet What Works Clearinghouse standards. Among the 6 studies included, 5 of them show intermediate to significant positive effect, while 1 study shows statistically significant negative effect. Another report published by Institute of Education Sciences in 2009 found that Cognitive Tutor Algebra I to have potentially positive effects on math achievement based on only 1 study out of 14 studies that meets What Works Clearinghouse standards. It should be understood that What Works Clearinghouse standards call for relatively large numbers of participants, true random assignments to groups, and for a control group receiving either no treatment or a different treatment. Such experimental conditions are difficult to meet in schools, and thus only a small percentage of studies in education meet the standards of this clearinghouse, even though they may still be of value. == Theoretical foundations == === Four-component architecture === Intelligent tutoring systems (ITS) have a four-component architecture: a domain model, a student model, a tutoring model and an interface component. The domain model contains the rules, concepts, and knowledge related to the domain to be learned. It helps to evaluate students' performance and detect students' errors by setting a standard of domain expertise. The student model, the central component of an ITS, is expected to contain knowledge about the students: their cognitive and affective states, and their progress as they learn. The function of the student model is threefold: to gather data from and about the learner, to represent the learner's knowledge and learning process, and to perform diagnostics of a student's knowledge and select optimal pedagogical strategies. The tutoring model uses the data gained from the domain model and student model to make decisions about tutoring strategies such as whether or not to intervene, or when and how to intervene. Functions of the tutoring model include instruction delivery and content planning. The interface component reflects the decisions made by the tutoring model in different forms such as Socratic dialogs, feedback and hints. Students interact with the tutor through the learning interface, also known as communication. The interface provides domain knowledge elements. === Cognitive model === A cognitive model replicates the domain knowledge and skills comparable to that of a human expert or an advanced student of the domain. A cognitive model enables intelligent tutoring systems to respond to problem-solving situations in a way similar to a human tutor. A tutoring system adopting a cognitive model is called a cognitive tutor. A cognitive model is an expert system that generates a multitude of solutions to the problems presented to students. The cognitive model is used to trace each student's solution through complex alternative solution paths, enabling the tutor to provide step-by-step feedback and advice, and to maintain a targeted model of the student's knowledge based on student performance. === Cognitive Tutors === Cognitive Tutors provide step-by-step guidance as a learner develops a complex problem-solving skill through practice. Typically, cognitive tutors provide such forms of support as: (a) a problem-solving environment that is designed rich and "thinking visible"; (b) step-by-step feedback on student performance; (c) feedback messages specific to errors; (d) context-specific next-step hints at student's request, and (e) individualized problem selection. Cognitive Tutors accomplish two of the principal tasks characteristic of human tutoring: (1) monitors the student's performance and providing context-specific individual instruction, and (2) monitors the student's learning and selects appropriate problem-solving activities. Both cognitive model and two underlying algorithms, model tracing and knowledge tracing, are used to monitor the student's learning. In model tracing, the cognitive tutor uses the cognitive model in complex problems to follow the student's individual path and provide prompt accuracy feedback and context-specific advice. In knowledge tracing, the cognitive tutor uses a Bayesian Knowledge Tracing method of evaluating the student's knowledge and uses this student model to select appropriate problems for each student. === Cognitive architecture === Cognitive tutor development is guided by ACT-R cognitive architecture, which specifies the underlying framework developing the cognitive model or expert component of a cognitive tutor. ACT-R, a member of the ACT family, is the most recent cognitive architecture, devoted primarily to modelling human behavior. ACT-R includes a declarative memory of factual knowledge and a procedural memory of production rules. The architecture functions by matching productions on perceptions and facts, mediated by the real-valued activation levels of objects, and executing them to affect the environment or alter declarative memory. ACT-R has been used to model psychological aspects such as memory, attention, reasoning, problem solving, and language processing. == Application and utilization == The first real world applications of cognitive tutors were in the 1980s and involved a geometry proof tutor used by high school students and a LISP programming tutor used by college students in a mini course in introductory programming course at Carnegie Mellon University. Since then, cognitive tutors have been used in a variety of scenarios, with a few organizations developing their own cognitive tutor programs. These programs have been used with students spanning elementary school through university level, though primarily in the subject areas of Computer Programming, Mathematics, and Science. One of the first organizations to develop a system for use within the school system was the PACT Center at Carnegie Mellon University. Their aim was to "...develop systems that provide individualized assistance to students as they work on challenging real-world problems in complex domains such as computer programming, algebra and geometry". PACT's most successful product was the Cognitive Tutor Algebra course. Originally created in the early 1990s, this course was in use in 75 schools through the U.S. by 1999, and then its spin-off company, Carnegie Learning, now offers tutors to thousands of schools in the U.S. The Carnegie Mellon Cognitive Tutor has been shown to raise students' math test scores in high school and middle-school classrooms, and their Algebra course was designated one of five exemplary curricula for K-12 mathematics educated by the US Department of Education. There were several research projects conducted by the PACT Center to utilize Cognitive tutor for courses in Excel and to develop an intelligent tutoring system for algebra expression writing, called Ms. Lindquist. Further, in 2005, Carnegie Learning released Bridge to Algebra, a product intended for middle schools that was piloted in over 100 schools. Cognitive tutoring software is continuing to be used.
Read more →