AI App How To Use

AI App How To Use — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

Question answering

Question answering (QA) is a computer science discipline within the fields of information retrieval and natural language processing (NLP) that is concerned with building systems that automatically answer questions that are posed by humans in a natural language. A question-answering implementation, usually a computer program, may construct its answers by querying a structured database of knowledge or information, usually a knowledge base. More commonly, question-answering systems can pull answers from an unstructured collection of natural language documents. Some examples of natural language document collections used for question answering systems include reference texts, compiled newswire reports, Wikipedia pages and other World Wide Web pages. == History == Two early question answering systems were BASEBALL and LUNAR. BASEBALL answered questions about Major League Baseball over a period of one year. LUNAR answered questions about the geological analysis of rocks returned by the Apollo Moon missions. Both question answering systems were very effective in their chosen domains. LUNAR was demonstrated at a lunar science convention in 1971 and it was able to answer 90% of the questions in its domain that were posed by people untrained on the system. Further restricted-domain question answering systems were developed in the following years. The common feature of all these systems is that they had a core database or knowledge system that was hand-written by experts of the chosen domain. The language abilities of BASEBALL and LUNAR used techniques similar to ELIZA and DOCTOR, the first chatterbot programs. SHRDLU was a successful question-answering program developed by Terry Winograd in the late 1960s and early 1970s. It simulated the operation of a robot in a toy world (the "blocks world"), and it offered the possibility of asking the robot questions about the state of the world. The strength of this system was the choice of a very specific domain and a very simple world with rules of physics that were easy to encode in a computer program. In the 1970s, knowledge bases were developed that targeted narrower domains of knowledge. The question answering systems developed to interface with these expert systems produced more repeatable and valid responses to questions within an area of knowledge. These expert systems closely resembled modern question answering systems except in their internal architecture. Expert systems rely heavily on expert-constructed and organized knowledge bases, whereas many modern question answering systems rely on statistical processing of a large, unstructured, natural language text corpus. The 1970s and 1980s saw the development of comprehensive theories in computational linguistics, which led to the development of ambitious projects in text comprehension and question answering. One example was the Unix Consultant (UC), developed by Robert Wilensky at U.C. Berkeley in the late 1980s. The system answered questions pertaining to the Unix operating system. It had a comprehensive, hand-crafted knowledge base of its domain, and it aimed at phrasing the answer to accommodate various types of users. Another project was LILOG, a text-understanding system that operated on the domain of tourism information in a German city. The systems developed in the UC and LILOG projects never went past the stage of simple demonstrations, but they helped the development of theories on computational linguistics and reasoning. Specialized natural-language question answering systems have been developed, such as EAGLi for health and life scientists. Question answering systems have been extended in recent years to encompass additional domains of knowledge For example, systems have been developed to automatically answer temporal and geospatial questions, questions of definition and terminology, biographical questions, multilingual questions, and questions about the content of audio, images, and video. Current question answering research topics include: interactivity—clarification of questions or answers answer reuse or caching semantic parsing answer presentation knowledge representation and semantic entailment social media analysis with question answering systems sentiment analysis utilization of thematic roles Image captioning for visual question answering Embodied question answering In 2011, Watson, a question answering computer system developed by IBM, competed in two exhibition matches of Jeopardy! against Brad Rutter and Ken Jennings, winning by a significant margin. Facebook Research made their DrQA system available under an open source license. This system uses Wikipedia as knowledge source. The open source framework Haystack by deepset combines open-domain question answering with generative question answering and supports the domain adaptation of the underlying language models for industry use cases. Large Language Models (LLMs)[36] like GPT-4[37], Gemini[38] are examples of successful QA systems that are enabling more sophisticated understanding and generation of text. When coupled with Multimodal[39] QA Systems, which can process and understand information from various modalities like text, images, and audio, LLMs significantly improve the capabilities of QA systems. == Types == Question-answering research attempts to develop ways of answering a wide range of question types, including fact, list, definition, how, why, hypothetical, semantically constrained, and cross-lingual questions. Answering questions related to an article in order to evaluate reading comprehension is one of the simpler form of question answering, since a given article is relatively short compared to the domains of other types of question-answering problems. An example of such a question is "What did Albert Einstein win the Nobel Prize for?" after an article about this subject is given to the system. Closed-book question answering is when a system has memorized some facts during training and can answer questions without explicitly being given a context. This is similar to humans taking closed-book exams. Closed-domain question answering deals with questions under a specific domain (for example, medicine or automotive maintenance) and can exploit domain-specific knowledge frequently formalized in ontologies. Alternatively, "closed-domain" might refer to a situation where only a limited type of questions are accepted, such as questions asking for descriptive rather than procedural information. Question answering systems in the context of machine reading applications have also been constructed in the medical domain, for instance related to Alzheimer's disease. Open-domain question answering deals with questions about nearly anything and can only rely on general ontologies and world knowledge. Systems designed for open-domain question answering usually have much more data available from which to extract the answer. An example of an open-domain question is "What did Albert Einstein win the Nobel Prize for?" while no article about this subject is given to the system. Another way to categorize question-answering systems is by the technical approach used. There are a number of different types of QA systems, including: rule-based systems, statistical systems, and hybrid systems. Rule-based systems use a set of rules to determine the correct answer to a question. Statistical systems use statistical methods to find the most likely answer to a question. Hybrid systems use a combination of rule-based and statistical methods. == Architecture == As of 2001, question-answering systems typically included a question classifier module that determined the type of question and the type of answer. Different types of question-answering systems employ different architectures. For example, modern open-domain question answering systems may use a retriever-reader architecture. The retriever is aimed at retrieving relevant documents related to a given question, while the reader is used to infer the answer from the retrieved documents. Systems such as GPT-3, T5, and BART use an end-to-end architecture in which a transformer-based architecture stores large-scale textual data in the underlying parameters. Such models can answer questions without accessing any external knowledge sources. == Methods == Question answering is dependent on a good search corpus; without documents containing the answer, there is little any question answering system can do. Larger collections generally mean better question answering performance, unless the question domain is orthogonal to the collection. Data redundancy in massive collections, such as the web, means that nuggets of information are likely to be phrased in many different ways in differing contexts and documents, leading to two benefits: If the right information appears in many forms, the question answering system needs to perform fewer complex NLP techniques to understand the text. Correct answers can be filtered from false positives because the syst
Read more →
Neocognitron

The neocognitron is a hierarchical, multilayered artificial neural network proposed by Kunihiko Fukushima in 1979. It has been used for Japanese handwritten character recognition and other pattern recognition tasks, and served as the inspiration for convolutional neural networks. Previously in 1969, he published a similar architecture, but with hand-designed kernels inspired by convolutions in mammalian vision. In 1975 he improved it to the Cognitron, and in 1979 he improved it to the neocognitron, which learns all convolutional kernels by unsupervised learning (in his terminology, "self-organized by 'learning without a teacher'"). The neocognitron was inspired by the model proposed by Hubel & Wiesel in 1959. They found two types of cells in the visual primary cortex called simple cell and complex cell, and also proposed a cascading model of these two types of cells for use in pattern recognition tasks. The neocognitron is a natural extension of these cascading models. The neocognitron consists of multiple types of cells, the most important of which are called S-cells and C-cells. The local features are extracted by S-cells, and these features' deformation, such as local shifts, are tolerated by C-cells. Local features in the input are integrated gradually and classified in the higher layers. The idea of local feature integration is found in several other models, such as the Convolutional Neural Network model, the SIFT method, and the HoG method. There are various kinds of neocognitron. For example, some types of neocognitron can detect multiple patterns in the same input by using backward signals to achieve selective attention.
Read more →
Characteristic samples

Characteristic samples is a concept in the field of grammatical inference, related to passive learning. In passive learning, an inference algorithm I {\displaystyle I} is given a set of pairs of strings and labels S {\displaystyle S} , and returns a representation R {\displaystyle R} that is consistent with S {\displaystyle S} . Characteristic samples consider the scenario when the goal is not only finding a representation consistent with S {\displaystyle S} , but finding a representation that recognizes a specific target language. A characteristic sample of language L {\displaystyle L} is a set of pairs of the form ( s , l ( s ) ) {\displaystyle (s,l(s))} where: l ( s ) = 1 {\displaystyle l(s)=1} if and only if s ∈ L {\displaystyle s\in L} l ( s ) = − 1 {\displaystyle l(s)=-1} if and only if s ∉ L {\displaystyle s\notin L} Given the characteristic sample S {\displaystyle S} , I {\displaystyle I} 's output on it is a representation R {\displaystyle R} , e.g. an automaton, that recognizes L {\displaystyle L} . == Formal Definition == === The Learning Paradigm associated with Characteristic Samples === There are three entities in the learning paradigm connected to characteristic samples, the adversary, the teacher and the inference algorithm. Given a class of languages C {\displaystyle \mathbb {C} } and a class of representations for the languages R {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} } , the paradigm goes as follows: The adversary A {\displaystyle A} selects a language L ∈ C {\displaystyle L\in \mathbb {C} } and reports it to the teacher The teacher T {\displaystyle T} then computes a set of strings and label them correctly according to L {\displaystyle L} , trying to make sure that the inference algorithm will compute L {\displaystyle L} The adversary can add correctly labeled words to the set in order to confuse the inference algorithm The inference algorithm I {\displaystyle I} gets the sample and computes a representation R ∈ R {\displaystyle R\in \mathbb {R} } consistent with the sample. The goal is that when the inference algorithm receives a characteristic sample for a language L {\displaystyle L} , or a sample that subsumes a characteristic sample for L {\displaystyle L} , it will return a representation that recognizes exactly the language L {\displaystyle L} . === Sample === Sample S {\displaystyle S} is a set of pairs of the form ( s , l ( s ) ) {\displaystyle (s,l(s))} such that l ( s ) ∈ { − 1 , 1 } {\displaystyle l(s)\in \{-1,1\}} ==== Sample consistent with a language ==== We say that a sample S {\displaystyle S} is consistent with language L {\displaystyle L} if for every pair ( s , l ( s ) ) {\displaystyle (s,l(s))} in S {\displaystyle S} : l ( s ) = 1 if and only if s ∈ L {\displaystyle l(s)=1{\text{ if and only if }}s\in L} l ( s ) = − 1 if and only if s ∉ L {\displaystyle l(s)=-1{\text{ if and only if }}s\notin L} === Characteristic sample === Given an inference algorithm I {\displaystyle I} and a language L {\displaystyle L} , a sample S {\displaystyle S} that is consistent with L {\displaystyle L} is called a characteristic sample of L {\displaystyle L} for I {\displaystyle I} if: I {\displaystyle I} 's output on S {\displaystyle S} is a representation R {\displaystyle R} that recognizes L {\displaystyle L} . For every sample D {\displaystyle D} that is consistent with L {\displaystyle L} and also fulfils S ⊆ D {\displaystyle S\subseteq D} , I {\displaystyle I} 's output on D {\displaystyle D} is a representation R {\displaystyle R} that recognizes L {\displaystyle L} . A Class of languages C {\displaystyle \mathbb {C} } is said to have charistaristic samples if every L ∈ C {\displaystyle L\in \mathbb {C} } has a characteristic sample. == Related Theorems == === Theorem === If equivalence is undecidable for a class C {\textstyle \mathbb {C} } over Σ {\textstyle \Sigma } of cardinality bigger than 1, then C {\textstyle \mathbb {C} } doesn't have characteristic samples. ==== Proof ==== Given a class of representations C {\textstyle \mathbb {C} } such that equivalence is undecidable, for every polynomial p ( x ) {\displaystyle p(x)} and every n ∈ N {\displaystyle n\in \mathbb {N} } , there exist two representations r 1 {\displaystyle r_{1}} and r 2 {\displaystyle r_{2}} of sizes bounded by n {\displaystyle n} , that recognize different languages but are inseparable by any string of size bounded by p ( n ) {\displaystyle p(n)} . Assuming this is not the case, we can decide if r 1 {\displaystyle r_{1}} and r 2 {\displaystyle r_{2}} are equivalent by simulating their run on all strings of size smaller than p ( n ) {\displaystyle p(n)} , contradicting the assumption that equivalence is undecidable. === Theorem === If S 1 {\displaystyle S_{1}} is a characteristic sample for L 1 {\displaystyle L_{1}} and is also consistent with L 2 {\displaystyle L_{2}} , then every characteristic sample of L 2 {\displaystyle L_{2}} , is inconsistent with L 1 {\displaystyle L_{1}} . ==== Proof ==== Given a class C {\textstyle \mathbb {C} } that has characteristic samples, let R 1 {\displaystyle R_{1}} and R 2 {\displaystyle R_{2}} be representations that recognize L 1 {\displaystyle L_{1}} and L 2 {\displaystyle L_{2}} respectively. Under the assumption that there is a characteristic sample for L 1 {\displaystyle L_{1}} , S 1 {\displaystyle S_{1}} that is also consistent with L 2 {\displaystyle L_{2}} , we'll assume falsely that there exist a characteristic sample for L 2 {\displaystyle L_{2}} , S 2 {\displaystyle S_{2}} that is consistent with L 1 {\displaystyle L_{1}} . By the definition of characteristic sample, the inference algorithm I {\displaystyle I} must return a representation which recognizes the language if given a sample that subsumes the characteristic sample itself. But for the sample S 1 ∪ S 2 {\displaystyle S_{1}\cup S_{2}} , the answer of the inferring algorithm needs to recognize both L 1 {\displaystyle L_{1}} and L 2 {\displaystyle L_{2}} , in contradiction. === Theorem === If a class is polynomially learnable by example based queries, it is learnable with characteristic samples. == Polynomialy characterizable classes == === Regular languages === The proof that DFA's are learnable using characteristic samples, relies on the fact that every regular language has a finite number of equivalence classes with respect to the right congruence relation, ∼ L {\displaystyle \sim _{L}} (where x ∼ L y {\displaystyle x\sim _{L}y} for x , y ∈ Σ ∗ {\displaystyle x,y\in \Sigma ^{}} if and only if ∀ z ∈ Σ ∗ : x z ∈ L ↔ y z ∈ L {\displaystyle \forall z\in \Sigma ^{}:xz\in L\leftrightarrow yz\in L} ). Note that if x {\displaystyle x} , y {\displaystyle y} are not congruent with respect to ∼ L {\displaystyle \sim _{L}} , there exists a string z {\displaystyle z} such that x z ∈ L {\displaystyle xz\in L} but y z ∉ L {\displaystyle yz\notin L} or vice versa, this string is called a separating suffix. ==== Constructing a characteristic sample ==== The construction of a characteristic sample for a language L {\displaystyle L} by the teacher goes as follows. Firstly, by running a depth first search on a deterministic automaton A {\displaystyle A} recognizing L {\displaystyle L} , starting from its initial state, we get a suffix closed set of words, W {\displaystyle W} , ordered in shortlex order. From the fact above, we know that for every two states in the automaton, there exists a separating suffix that separates between every two strings that the run of A {\displaystyle A} on them ends in the respective states. We refer to the set of separating suffixes as S {\displaystyle S} . The labeled set (sample) of words the teacher gives the adversary is { ( w , l ( w ) ) | w ∈ W ⋅ S ∪ W ⋅ Σ ⋅ S } {\displaystyle \{(w,l(w))|w\in W\cdot S\cup W\cdot \Sigma \cdot S\}} where l ( w ) {\displaystyle l(w)} is the correct label of w {\displaystyle w} (whether it is in L {\displaystyle L} or not). We may assume that ϵ ∈ S {\displaystyle \epsilon \in S} . ==== Constructing a deterministic automata ==== Given the sample from the adversary W {\displaystyle W} , the construction of the automaton by the inference algorithm I {\displaystyle I} starts with defining P = prefix ( W ) {\displaystyle P={\text{prefix}}(W)} and S = suffix ( W ) {\displaystyle S={\text{suffix}}(W)} , which are the set of prefixes and suffixes of W {\displaystyle W} respectively. Now the algorithm constructs a matrix M {\displaystyle M} where the elements of P {\displaystyle P} function as the rows, ordered by the shortlex order, and the elements of S {\displaystyle S} function as the columns, ordered by the shortlex order. Next, the cells in the matrix are filled in the following manner for prefix p i {\displaystyle p_{i}} and suffix s j {\displaystyle s_{j}} : If p i s j ∈ W → M i j = l ( p i s j ) {\displaystyle p_{i}s_{j}\in W\rightarrow M_{ij}=l(p_{i}s_{j})} else, M i j = 0 {\displaystyle M_{ij}=0} Now, we say row i {\displaystyle i} and t {\displaystyle t} are distinguishable if there exi
Read more →
Bioz

Bioz is a search engine for life science experimentation. == History == Bioz was founded by Karin Lachmi and Daniel Levitt. Lachmi is a scientist who completed her postdoc in molecular and cellular biology at the Stanford University School of Medicine. During her lab work she found little available data regarding preferable lab tools, reagents and related products for experimentation. There are 50,000 vendors selling 300 million scientific products. She decided to start the company in order to provide researchers with adequate information for that purpose. Co-founder Daniel Levitt is an entrepreneur who sold his company WebAppoint to Microsoft in the year 2000. He also co-founded the company StemRad. At Bioz, Lachmi serves as the Chief Scientific Officer and Levitt serves as the chief executive officer. Bioz claims to have over a million researcher-users from 196 countries. Among the investors are Esther Dyson and the Stanford-StartX Fund. The company's advisory board includes Nobel Laureates in Chemistry Michael Levitt, Roger Kornberg, and Ada Yonath. == Technology == The company uses artificial intelligence, machine learning and natural language processing in order to extract experimentation data from scientific articles, such as the products that researchers used, the companies that supply the products, the protocol conditions that researchers selected, and the types of experiments and techniques. The algorithm ranks products based on how frequently they were used by researchers in their experiments, how recently a product was used, and the impact factor of the journal. The algorithm's output is a Bioz stars score for each product that was mentioned in an article. Bioz is a data-driven platform for product recommendations, which is contrary to platforms such as TripAdvisor and OpenTable that are based on user-generated reviews and ratings. The recommendations and scoring system that the company has developed are meant to assist researchers with the process of developing future medications and finding cures for diseases. They are guided towards products and techniques that were previously used by other researchers when planning and performing experiments. The company's revenue is based on selling SaaS subscriptions to researchers in biopharma companies. They also charge product suppliers for content syndication.
Read more →
Voyages: The Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database

Voyages: The Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database is a database hosted at Rice University that aims to present all documentary material pertaining to the transatlantic slave trade. It is a sister project to African Origins. The database breaks down the kingdoms and countries that engaged in the Atlantic trade. By 2008, the project had gathered data on nearly 35,000 transatlantic slave voyages from 1501 to 1867. For each voyage they sought to establish dates, owners, vessels, captains, African visits, American destinations, numbers of slaves embarked, and numbers landed. They have been able to find much of this material for an estimated 80 percent of the entire transatlantic African slave trade. With corrections for missing voyages, the Project has estimated the entire size of the transatlantic slave trade with more comprehension, precision, and accuracy than before. They reckon that in 366 years, slaving vessels embarked about 12.5 million captives in Africa, and landed 10.7 million in the New World. A horrific discovery is a careful estimate that the Middle Passage took a toll of more than 1.8 million African lives. In this quantitative database, the numbers are enslaved people.
Read more →
Generalized canonical correlation

In statistics, the generalized canonical correlation analysis (gCCA), is a way of making sense of cross-correlation matrices between the sets of random variables when there are more than two sets. While a conventional CCA generalizes principal component analysis (PCA) to two sets of random variables, a gCCA generalizes PCA to more than two sets of random variables. The canonical variables represent those common factors that can be found by a large PCA of all of the transformed random variables after each set underwent its own PCA. == Applications == The Helmert-Wolf blocking (HWB) method of estimating linear regression parameters can find an optimal solution only if all cross-correlations between the data blocks are zero. They can always be made to vanish by introducing a new regression parameter for each common factor. The gCCA method can be used for finding those harmful common factors that create cross-correlation between the blocks. However, no optimal HWB solution exists if the random variables do not contain enough information on all of the new regression parameters.
Read more →
Rectified linear unit

In the context of artificial neural networks, the rectifier or ReLU (rectified linear unit) activation function is an activation function defined as the non-negative part of its argument, i.e., the ramp function: ReLU ⁡ ( x ) = x + = max ( 0 , x ) = x + | x | 2 = { x if x > 0 , 0 x ≤ 0 {\displaystyle \operatorname {ReLU} (x)=x^{+}=\max(0,x)={\frac {x+|x|}{2}}={\begin{cases}x&{\text{if }}x>0,\\0&x\leq 0\end{cases}}} where x {\displaystyle x} is the input to a neuron. This is analogous to half-wave rectification in electrical engineering. ReLU is one of the most popular activation functions for artificial neural networks, and finds application in computer vision and speech recognition using deep neural nets and computational neuroscience. == History == The ReLU was first used by Alston Householder in 1941 as a mathematical abstraction of biological neural networks. Kunihiko Fukushima in 1969 used ReLU in the context of visual feature extraction in hierarchical neural networks. In 1998, Gregory Woodbury demonstrated that the rectified linear function could account for a broad range of emergent properties in the visual cortex. His work showed that a single unified model could drive the joint development of refined retinotopic maps, ocular dominance columns, and orientation selectivity. By utilizing the rectifier's "cutoff" property, Woodbury achieved a close quantitative fit to biological data, matching the spatial periodicities and topographic refinement patterns observed in macaque and cat cortical maps. Furthermore, he extended this framework to adult plasticity, accurately replicating the spatial and temporal dynamics of lesion-induced cortical reorganization. This research established that the rectified linear response was a necessary mechanism for the stable self-organisation and maintenance of complex, multi-feature neural maps. In 2000, Hahnloser et al. argued that ReLU approximates the biological relationship between neural firing rates and input current, in addition to enabling recurrent neural network dynamics to stabilise under weaker criteria. Prior to 2010, most activation functions used were the logistic sigmoid (which is inspired by probability theory; see logistic regression) and its more numerically efficient counterpart, the hyperbolic tangent. Around 2010, the use of ReLU became common again. Jarrett et al. (2009) noted that rectification by either absolute or ReLU (which they called "positive part") was critical for object recognition in convolutional neural networks (CNNs), specifically because it allows average pooling without neighboring filter outputs cancelling each other out. They hypothesized that the use of sigmoid or tanh was responsible for poor performance in previous CNNs. Nair and Hinton (2010) made a theoretical argument that the softplus activation function should be used, in that the softplus function numerically approximates the sum of an exponential number of linear models that share parameters. They then proposed ReLU as a good approximation to it. Specifically, they began by considering a single binary neuron in a Boltzmann machine that takes x {\displaystyle x} as input, and produces 1 as output with probability σ ( x ) = 1 1 + e − x {\displaystyle \sigma (x)={\frac {1}{1+e^{-x}}}} . They then considered extending its range of output by making infinitely many copies of it X 1 , X 2 , X 3 , … {\displaystyle X_{1},X_{2},X_{3},\dots } , that all take the same input, offset by an amount 0.5 , 1.5 , 2.5 , … {\displaystyle 0.5,1.5,2.5,\dots } , then their outputs are added together as ∑ i = 1 ∞ X i {\displaystyle \sum _{i=1}^{\infty }X_{i}} . They then demonstrated that ∑ i = 1 ∞ X i {\displaystyle \sum _{i=1}^{\infty }X_{i}} is approximately equal to N ( log ⁡ ( 1 + e x ) , σ ( x ) ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {N}}(\log(1+e^{x}),\sigma (x))} , which is also approximately equal to ReLU ⁡ ( N ( x , σ ( x ) ) ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {ReLU} ({\mathcal {N}}(x,\sigma (x)))} , where N {\displaystyle {\mathcal {N}}} stands for the gaussian distribution. They also argued for another reason for using ReLU: that it allows "intensity equivariance" in image recognition. That is, multiplying input image by a constant k {\displaystyle k} multiplies the output also. In contrast, this is false for other activation functions like sigmoid or tanh. They found that ReLU activation allowed good empirical performance in restricted Boltzmann machines. Glorot et al (2011) argued that ReLU has the following advantages over sigmoid or tanh: ReLU is more similar to biological neurons' responses in their main operating regime. ReLU avoids vanishing gradients. ReLU is cheaper to compute. ReLU creates sparse representation naturally, because many hidden units output exactly zero for a given input. They also found empirically that deep networks trained with ReLU can achieve strong performance without unsupervised pre-training, especially on large, purely supervised tasks. In 2017, the rectified linear function became a central component of the transformer architecture introduced in the Vaswani et al paper "Attention Is All You Need". Within every transformer layer, ReLU is utilized in the position-wise feed-forward networks (FFN), defined by Equation 2 of their paper: FFN ⁡ ( x ) = max ( 0 , x W 1 + b 1 ) W 2 + b 2 {\displaystyle \operatorname {FFN} (x)=\max(0,xW_{1}+b_{1})W_{2}+b_{2}} This equation is foundational to the model's capacity; while the attention mechanism determines the relationships between tokens, the ReLU-based FFN performs the majority of the numerical computation and houses the bulk of the model's parameters. The efficiency and scalability of this rectified framework triggered a global technological revolution, enabling the development of Large Language Models that have had a profound economic impact. The industrial response to this architecture—including the massive expansion of AI-specific hardware and the birth of the generative AI sector—has positioned the Transformer as a cornerstone of 21st-century infrastructure. During the post 2017 period of rapid AI advancement, the rectified linear unit function has been key to achieving increased model performance and scaling due to the fact that it zeros out responses that are immaterial for a given stimuli, preventing them from accumulating in massive scale models. It is the complete silencing of the parts of the model found to be stimuli-irrelevant during learning that allows for scaling. As the stimuli-irrelevant proportion of the model becomes more massive, these highly numerous connections within the model would inevitably accumulate during scaling no matter how small each individual response is. Therefore, the rectified linear unit function, with its absolute zeroing property, enabled the scaling to hundred billion parameter models and beyond. Early Transformer scaling giants like GPT-3 (2020) and Falcon-180B (2023) relied on the rectified linear unit function explicitly, while successors such as GPT-4 (2023) and Llama 3 (2024) utilized smoother variants like GELU or SwiGLU. These variants were used to improve training stability while fundamentally preserving the rectified principle of zeroing low responses. At the centre of modern artificial intelligence ReLU and its variants maintain absolute zero response across the bulk of the model at any one time, while maintaining approximately linear reponses for stimuli-relevant connections enabling high performance on each specific cognitive task. This feature of activation sparsity has been critical for massive scaling and performance gains of AI models right up to the present day. == Advantages == Advantages of ReLU include: Sparse activation: for example, in a randomly initialized network, only about 50% of hidden units are activated (i.e. have a non-zero output). Better gradient propagation: fewer vanishing gradient problems compared to sigmoidal activation functions that saturate in both directions. Efficiency: only requires comparison and addition. Scale-invariant (homogeneous, or "intensity equivariance"): max ( 0 , a x ) = a max ( 0 , x ) for a ≥ 0 {\displaystyle \max(0,ax)=a\max(0,x){\text{ for }}a\geq 0} . == Potential problems == Possible downsides can include: Non-differentiability at zero (however, it is differentiable anywhere else, and the value of the derivative at zero can be chosen to be 0 or 1 arbitrarily). Not zero-centered: ReLU outputs are always non-negative. This can make it harder for the network to learn during backpropagation, because gradient updates tend to push weights in one direction (positive or negative). Batch normalization can help address this. ReLU is unbounded. Redundancy of the parametrization: Because ReLU is scale-invariant, the network computes the exact same function by scaling the weights and biases in front of a ReLU activation by k {\displaystyle k} , and the weights after by 1 / k {\displaystyle 1/k} . Dying ReLU: ReLU neurons can sometimes be pushed into states
Read more →
Frequent pattern discovery

Frequent pattern discovery (or FP discovery, FP mining, or Frequent itemset mining) is part of knowledge discovery in databases, Massive Online Analysis, and data mining; it describes the task of finding the most frequent and relevant patterns in large datasets. The concept was first introduced for mining transaction databases. Frequent patterns are defined as subsets (itemsets, subsequences, or substructures) that appear in a data set with frequency no less than a user-specified or auto-determined threshold. == Techniques == Techniques for FP mining include: market basket analysis cross-marketing catalog design clustering classification recommendation systems For the most part, FP discovery can be done using association rule learning with particular algorithms Eclat, FP-growth and the Apriori algorithm. Other strategies include: Frequent subtree mining Structure mining Sequential pattern mining and respective specific techniques. Implementations exist for various machine learning systems or modules like MLlib for Apache Spark.
Read more →
Reference Software International

Reference Software International, Inc. (RSI), was an American software developer active from 1985 to 1993 and based in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and San Francisco, California. The company released several productivity and reference software packages, including the Grammatik grammar checker, for MS-DOS. The company was acquired by WordPerfect Corporation in 1993. == History == === Background (1980–1985) === Reference Software International, Inc., was founded by Donald "Don" Emery and Bruce Wampler in 1985 in San Francisco, California. Both Wampler and Emery were college professors when they founded RSI: Wampler at the University of New Mexico as a professor of computer science and Emery a professor of marketing at San Francisco State University. After graduating from the University of Utah in around 1978, Wampler founded his first software company, Aspen Software, in Tijeras, New Mexico, in 1979. Wampler founded Aspen to develop an early spell checker software package, called Proofreader, for the TRS-80, licensing Random House's Webster's Unabridged Dictionary for the package's lexicon. In 1980, he began development on a grammar checker inspired by Writer's Workbench, a pioneering grammar checker for Unix systems. Wampler used Writer's Workbench heavily during the writer of his doctoral dissertation but disliked having to jump between the Apple II on which he composed the dissertation and the mainframe on which Writer's Workbench ran, and so wanted to develop a version of the latter for microcomputers. Wampler's work came to fruition as Grammatik in 1981, eventually ported to several other microcomputer platforms in the early 1980s. In 1983, by which point the company had 12 employees and sold a combined 80,000 units of Grammatik and Proofreader, Wampler sold Aspen to Dictronics, a software company best known for developing the Electronic Thesaurus, an early thesaurus program for microcomputers. Dictronics was in turn purchased by Wang Laboratories; according to Wampler, "Wang bought [Aspen] and sat on it. They did nothing with it". Wampler moved on to teach for the University of New Mexico, but, frustrated by Wang's inaction, got the urge to resurrect his work. In 1985, he was able to license back Grammatik and Proofreader from a small California-based software firm that had grandfathered rights to a forked version of both. In the same year, he met Emery, who, impressed by Wampler's, founded Reference Software International to market his software. RSI's research and development headquarters were based in Albuquerque, while the company's sales and marketing department was based in Walnut Creek, California. === Success (1985–1992) === In August 1985, RSI released their first product: the Random House Reference Set, a new version of Proofreader for the IBM Personal Computer and compatibles, revised to be a terminate-and-stay-resident program that ran atop other word processors such as WordStar or WordPerfect. At the time, Reference Set was the only such program on the market that functioned like this. RSI netted $114,000 from sales of Reference Set by the end of 1985. In June 1986, they released version 2.0 of Grammatik as Grammatik II for the PC. The latter was a breakout hit for RSI, receiving praise in the press (including technology journals such as PC Magazine) and RSI selling 1,000 units a month. In spring 1987, they released Reference Set II, which allowed users to import their own words into the built-in dictionary and added a thesaurus of 300,000 words. In November 1987, they released version 3.0 of Reference Set, which comprised two new field-specific dictionaries for the medical and legal professions. As well as the general Random House dictionary and thesaurus, it included Stedman's Medical Dictionary and Black's Law Dictionary. Emery consulted Paul Brest and Bob Jackson—professors of law at Stanford Law School and San Francisco State respectively—for the curation of the law dictionary; and Burton Grebin—at the time the executive director of Mount Saint Mary's Hospital—for the curation of the medical dictionary. In fall 1988, the company released Grammatik III, a total rewrite that made use of artificial intelligence to more accurately judge the grammar of sentences by breaking them down into a syntactic hierarchy. Grammatik III received universal acclaim, with Gloria Morris of InfoWorld calling it the apparent leader in the grammar checking field and Sandra Anderson of Mac Home Journal calling it "hands down ... the best of the industry" six years after its release. By 1989, the product had competitors in Correct Grammar by Lifetree Software and RightWriter by Rightsoft, Inc. By 1990, RSI achieved annual sales of $9.7 million. In the same year they released Grammatik IV, which was the first to offer direct integration with WordPerfect on both MS-DOS and Windows. In March 1992—by which point RSI had sold 1.5 million copies of Grammatik across all versions—the company released version 5 of the program, another rewrite that updated the lexicon further and added new functions such as word redundancy detection. Around the same time, the company introduced Easy Proof, a pared-down version of Grammatik intended for novice writers, students, and family computers. In 1991, the company was engaged in a trademark dispute with Systems Compatibility Corporation (SCC) of Chicago, Illinois, over the rights to the Software Toolkit title. Both companies had published software bundles bearing the name in the turn of the 1990s; SCC had published theirs first in 1988 and registered the trademark with the USPTO. SCC was granted a restraining order against RSI in January 1991. The following month, RSI agreed to rename their product, preventing a protracted legal battle. === Decline and acquisition (1992–1993) === By early 1992, RSI achieved annual sales of more than $13 million, employed 120 people, and had opened international offices in London, Belgium, and Antwerp to sell foreign versions of Reference Set and Grammatik. The company reached peak employment in the middle of 1992, with 140 employees. However, RSI's launch of six disparate titles in the year proved problematic for the company when they failed to sell as well as they had projected, and the company laid off employees by the dozens. By December 1992, only 71 employees were left, 32 from their San Francisco office. On the last day of 1992, RSI received an acquisition offer from WordPerfect Corporation, makers of the namesake word processor based in Orem, Utah. The deal was inked in January 1993, RSI's stakeholders receiving $19 million. The company's remaining employees were absorbed into WordPerfect in Orem. WordPerfect continued selling Grammatik as a standalone product for several years.
Read more →
Ordination (statistics)

Ordination or gradient analysis, in multivariate analysis, is a method complementary to data clustering, and used mainly in exploratory data analysis (rather than in hypothesis testing). In contrast to cluster analysis, ordination orders quantities in a (usually lower-dimensional) latent space. In the ordination space, quantities that are near each other share attributes (i.e., are similar to some degree), and dissimilar objects are farther from each other. Such relationships between the objects, on each of several axes or latent variables, are then characterized numerically and/or graphically in a biplot. The first ordination method, principal components analysis, was suggested by Karl Pearson in 1901. == Methods == Ordination methods can broadly be categorized in eigenvector-, algorithm-, or model-based methods. Many classical ordination techniques, including principal components analysis, correspondence analysis (CA) and its derivatives (detrended correspondence analysis, canonical correspondence analysis, and redundancy analysis, belong to the first group). The second group includes some distance-based methods such as non-metric multidimensional scaling, and machine learning methods such as T-distributed stochastic neighbor embedding and nonlinear dimensionality reduction. The third group includes model-based ordination methods, which can be considered as multivariate extensions of Generalized Linear Models. Model-based ordination methods are more flexible in their application than classical ordination methods, so that it is for example possible to include random-effects. Unlike in the aforementioned two groups, there is no (implicit or explicit) distance measure in the ordination. Instead, a distribution needs to be specified for the responses as is typical for statistical models. These and other assumptions, such as the assumed mean-variance relationship, can be validated with the use of residual diagnostics, unlike in other ordination methods. == Applications == Ordination can be used on the analysis of any set of multivariate objects. It is frequently used in several environmental or ecological sciences, particularly plant community ecology. It is also used in genetics and systems biology for microarray data analysis and in psychometrics.
Read more →
Quantum neural network

Quantum neural networks are computational neural network models which are based on the principles of quantum mechanics. The first ideas on quantum neural computation were published independently in 1995 by Subhash Kak and Ron Chrisley, engaging with the theory of quantum mind, which posits that quantum effects play a role in cognitive function. However, typical research in quantum neural networks involves combining classical artificial neural network models (which are widely used in machine learning for the important task of pattern recognition) with the advantages of quantum information in order to develop more efficient algorithms. One important motivation for these investigations is the difficulty to train classical neural networks, especially in big data applications. The hope is that features of quantum computing such as quantum parallelism or the effects of interference and entanglement can be used as resources. Since the technological implementation of a quantum computer is still in a premature stage, such quantum neural network models are mostly theoretical proposals that await their full implementation in physical experiments. Most Quantum neural networks are developed as feed-forward networks. Similar to their classical counterparts, this structure intakes input from one layer of qubits, and passes that input onto another layer of qubits. This layer of qubits evaluates this information and passes on the output to the next layer. Eventually the path leads to the final layer of qubits. The layers do not have to be of the same width, meaning they don't have to have the same number of qubits as the layer before or after it. This structure is trained on which path to take similar to classical artificial neural networks. This is discussed in a lower section. Quantum neural networks refer to three different categories: Quantum computer with classical data, classical computer with quantum data, and quantum computer with quantum data. == Examples == Quantum neural network research is still in its infancy, and a conglomeration of proposals and ideas of varying scope and mathematical rigor have been put forward. Most of them are based on the idea of replacing classical binary or McCulloch-Pitts neurons with a qubit (which can be called a "quron"), resulting in neural units that can be in a superposition of the state 'firing' and 'resting'. === Quantum perceptrons === A lot of proposals attempt to find a quantum equivalent for the perceptron unit from which neural nets are constructed. A problem is that nonlinear activation functions do not immediately correspond to the mathematical structure of quantum theory, since a quantum evolution is described by linear operations and leads to probabilistic observation. Ideas to imitate the perceptron activation function with a quantum mechanical formalism reach from special measurements to postulating non-linear quantum operators (a mathematical framework that is disputed). A direct implementation of the activation function using the circuit-based model of quantum computation has recently been proposed by Schuld, Sinayskiy and Petruccione based on the quantum phase estimation algorithm. === Quantum networks === At a larger scale, researchers have attempted to generalize neural networks to the quantum setting. One way of constructing a quantum neuron is to first generalise classical neurons and then generalising them further to make unitary gates. Interactions between neurons can be controlled quantumly, with unitary gates, or classically, via measurement of the network states. This high-level theoretical technique can be applied broadly, by taking different types of networks and different implementations of quantum neurons, such as photonically implemented neurons and quantum reservoir processor (quantum version of reservoir computing). Most learning algorithms follow the classical model of training an artificial neural network to learn the input-output function of a given training set and use classical feedback loops to update parameters of the quantum system until they converge to an optimal configuration. Learning as a parameter optimisation problem has also been approached by adiabatic models of quantum computing. Quantum neural networks can be applied to algorithmic design: given qubits with tunable mutual interactions, one can attempt to learn interactions following the classical backpropagation rule from a training set of desired input-output relations, taken to be the desired output algorithm's behavior. The quantum network thus 'learns' an algorithm. === Quantum associative memory === The first quantum associative memory algorithm was introduced by Dan Ventura and Tony Martinez in 1999. The authors do not attempt to translate the structure of artificial neural network models into quantum theory, but propose an algorithm for a circuit-based quantum computer that simulates associative memory. The memory states (in Hopfield neural networks saved in the weights of the neural connections) are written into a superposition, and a Grover-like quantum search algorithm retrieves the memory state closest to a given input. As such, this is not a fully content-addressable memory, since only incomplete patterns can be retrieved. The first truly content-addressable quantum memory, which can retrieve patterns also from corrupted inputs, was proposed by Carlo A. Trugenberger. Both memories can store an exponential (in terms of n qubits) number of patterns but can be used only once due to the no-cloning theorem and their destruction upon measurement. Trugenberger, however, has shown that his probabilistic model of quantum associative memory can be efficiently implemented and re-used multiples times for any polynomial number of stored patterns, a large advantage with respect to classical associative memories. === Classical neural networks inspired by quantum theory === A substantial amount of interest has been given to a "quantum-inspired" model that uses ideas from quantum theory to implement a neural network based on fuzzy logic. == Training == Quantum Neural Networks can be theoretically trained similarly to training classical/artificial neural networks. A key difference lies in communication between the layers of a neural networks. For classical neural networks, at the end of a given operation, the current perceptron copies its output to the next layer of perceptron(s) in the network. However, in a quantum neural network, where each perceptron is a qubit, this would violate the no-cloning theorem. A proposed generalized solution to this is to replace the classical fan-out method with an arbitrary unitary that spreads out, but does not copy, the output of one qubit to the next layer of qubits. Using this fan-out Unitary ( U f {\displaystyle U_{f}} ) with a dummy state qubit in a known state (Ex. | 0 ⟩ {\displaystyle |0\rangle } in the computational basis), also known as an Ancilla bit, the information from the qubit can be transferred to the next layer of qubits. This process adheres to the quantum operation requirement of reversibility. Using this quantum feed-forward network, deep neural networks can be executed and trained efficiently. A deep neural network is essentially a network with many hidden-layers, as seen in the sample model neural network above. Since the Quantum neural network being discussed uses fan-out Unitary operators, and each operator only acts on its respective input, only two layers are used at any given time. In other words, no Unitary operator is acting on the entire network at any given time, meaning the number of qubits required for a given step depends on the number of inputs in a given layer. Since Quantum Computers are notorious for their ability to run multiple iterations in a short period of time, the efficiency of a quantum neural network is solely dependent on the number of qubits in any given layer, and not on the depth of the network. === Cost functions === To determine the effectiveness of a neural network, a cost function is used, which essentially measures the proximity of the network's output to the expected or desired output. In a Classical Neural Network, the weights ( w {\displaystyle w} ) and biases ( b {\displaystyle b} ) at each step determine the outcome of the cost function C ( w , b ) {\displaystyle C(w,b)} . When training a Classical Neural network, the weights and biases are adjusted after each iteration, and given equation 1 below, where y ( x ) {\displaystyle y(x)} is the desired output and a out ( x ) {\displaystyle a^{\text{out}}(x)} is the actual output, the cost function is optimized when C ( w , b ) {\displaystyle C(w,b)} = 0. For a quantum neural network, the cost function is determined by measuring the fidelity of the outcome state ( ρ out {\displaystyle \rho ^{\text{out}}} ) with the desired outcome state ( ϕ out {\displaystyle \phi ^{\text{out}}} ), seen in Equation 2 below. In this case, the Unitary operators are adjusted after each it
Read more →
Concept class

In computational learning theory in mathematics, a concept over a domain X is a total Boolean function over X. A concept class is a class of concepts. Concept classes are a subject of computational learning theory. Concept class terminology frequently appears in model theory associated with probably approximately correct (PAC) learning. In this setting, if one takes a set Y as a set of (classifier output) labels, and X is a set of examples, the map c : X → Y {\displaystyle c:X\to Y} , i.e. from examples to classifier labels (where Y = { 0 , 1 } {\displaystyle Y=\{0,1\}} and where c is a subset of X), c is then said to be a concept. A concept class C {\displaystyle C} is then a collection of such concepts. Given a class of concepts C, a subclass D is reachable if there exists a sample s such that D contains exactly those concepts in C that are extensions to s. Not every subclass is reachable. == Background == A sample s {\displaystyle s} is a partial function from X {\displaystyle X} to { 0 , 1 } {\displaystyle \{0,1\}} . Identifying a concept with its characteristic function mapping X {\displaystyle X} to { 0 , 1 } {\displaystyle \{0,1\}} , it is a special case of a sample. Two samples are consistent if they agree on the intersection of their domains. A sample s ′ {\displaystyle s'} extends another sample s {\displaystyle s} if the two are consistent and the domain of s {\displaystyle s} is contained in the domain of s ′ {\displaystyle s'} . == Examples == Suppose that C = S + ( X ) {\displaystyle C=S^{+}(X)} . Then: the subclass { { x } } {\displaystyle \{\{x\}\}} is reachable with the sample s = { ( x , 1 ) } {\displaystyle s=\{(x,1)\}} ; the subclass S + ( Y ) {\displaystyle S^{+}(Y)} for Y ⊆ X {\displaystyle Y\subseteq X} are reachable with a sample that maps the elements of X − Y {\displaystyle X-Y} to zero; the subclass S ( X ) {\displaystyle S(X)} , which consists of the singleton sets, is not reachable. == Applications == Let C {\displaystyle C} be some concept class. For any concept c ∈ C {\displaystyle c\in C} , we call this concept 1 / d {\displaystyle 1/d} -good for a positive integer d {\displaystyle d} if, for all x ∈ X {\displaystyle x\in X} , at least 1 / d {\displaystyle 1/d} of the concepts in C {\displaystyle C} agree with c {\displaystyle c} on the classification of x {\displaystyle x} . The fingerprint dimension F D ( C ) {\displaystyle FD(C)} of the entire concept class C {\displaystyle C} is the least positive integer d {\displaystyle d} such that every reachable subclass C ′ ⊆ C {\displaystyle C'\subseteq C} contains a concept that is 1 / d {\displaystyle 1/d} -good for it. This quantity can be used to bound the minimum number of equivalence queries needed to learn a class of concepts according to the following inequality: F D ( C ) − 1 ≤ # E Q ( C ) ≤ ⌈ F D ( C ) ln ⁡ ( | C | ) ⌉ {\textstyle FD(C)-1\leq \#EQ(C)\leq \lceil FD(C)\ln(|C|)\rceil } .
Read more →
Quantum robotics

Quantum robotics is an interdisciplinary field that investigates the intersection of robotics and quantum mechanics. This field, in particular, explores the applications of quantum phenomena such as quantum entanglement within the realm of robotics. Examples of its applications include quantum communication in multi-agent cooperative robotic scenarios, the use of quantum algorithms in performing robotics tasks, and the integration of quantum devices (e.g., quantum detectors) in robotic systems. == Introduction == The free-space quantum communication between mobile platforms was proposed for reconfigurable quantum key distribution (QKD) applications using unmanned aerial vehicle (UAVs, a.k.a. drones) in 2017. This technology was later advanced in various aspects in mobile drone and vehicle platforms in several configurations such as drone-to-drone, drone-to-moving vehicle, and vehicle-to-vehicle systems. Some research has contributed to low-size, low-weight, and low-power quantum key distribution systems for small-form UAVs, the characterization of a polarization-based receiver for mobile free-space optical QKD, and optical-relayed entanglement distribution using drones as mobile nodes. The topic of free-space quantum communication between mobile platforms, initially developed to meet the need for free-space QKD and entanglement distribution using mobile nodes, was brought into the robotics domain as an emerging interdisciplinary mechatronics topic to investigate the interface between quantum technologies and the robotic systems domain. The main advantage of such integrated technology is the guaranteed security in communication between multi-agent and cooperative autonomous systems. Other advances are anticipated. == Quantum entanglement == According to quantum mechanics, entanglement occurs when more than one particle become connected. If the state of one particle changes then it will instantly change the state of other particles regardless of their distance. Entangled sensors do the same kind of work and achieve strong sensitivity. A group of quantum robots can measure magnetic fields, gravitational fields and other physical properties using entangled sensors with high rate of accuracy. Again the connection of one robot to other is increased (become strong) by quantum entanglement. == Quantum teleportation == Quantum teleportation is the transfer of quantum information (not physical objects). This is used in case of multi robot process. One robot is programmed with a complex quantum update. Then that robot can teleport that complex quantum information (the update) to other robots. This teleportation or communication is very secure because all the work is done in quantum state. == Kinematics == Quantum computing has been proposed as being optimal for calculating inverse kinematics values. == Alice and Bob robots == In the realm of quantum mechanics, the names Alice and Bob are frequently employed to illustrate various phenomena, protocols, and applications. These include their roles in QKD, quantum cryptography, entanglement, and teleportation. The terms "Alice Robot" and "Bob Robot" serve as analogous expressions that merge the concepts of Alice and Bob from quantum mechanics with mechatronic mobile platforms (such as robots, drones, and autonomous vehicles). For example, the Alice Robot functions as a transmitter platform that communicates with the Bob Robot, housing the receiving detectors.
Read more →
Julia (programming language)

Julia is a dynamic general-purpose programming language. As a high-level language, distinctive aspects of Julia's design include a type system with parametric polymorphism, the use of multiple dispatch as a core programming paradigm, just-in-time compilation and a parallel garbage collection implementation. Notably, Julia does not support classes with encapsulated methods but instead relies on the types of all of a function's arguments to determine which method will be called. By default, Julia is run similarly to scripting languages, using its runtime, and allows for interactions, but Julia programs can also be compiled to small binary standalone executables (or to small libraries for e.g. Python), with e.g. the JuliaC.jl compiler. Julia programs can reuse libraries from other languages, and vice versa. Julia has interoperability with C, C++, Fortran, Rust, Python, and R. Additionally, some Julia packages have bindings to be used from Python and R as libraries. Julia is supported by programmer tools like IDEs (see below) and by notebooks like Pluto.jl, Jupyter, and since 2025, Google Colab officially supports Julia natively. Julia is sometimes used in embedded systems (e.g. has been used in a satellite in space on a Raspberry Pi Compute Module 4; 64-bit Pis work best with Julia, and Julia is supported in Raspbian). == History == Work on Julia began in 2009, when Jeff Bezanson, Stefan Karpinski, Viral B. Shah, and Alan Edelman set out to create a free language that was both high-level and fast. On 14 February 2012, the team launched a website with a blog post explaining the language's mission. In an interview with InfoWorld in April 2012, Karpinski said about the name of the language, Julia: "There's no good reason, really. It just seemed like a pretty name." Bezanson said he chose the name on the recommendation of a friend, then years later wrote: Maybe julia stands for "Jeff's uncommon lisp is automated"? Julia's syntax is stable, since version 1.0 in 2018, and Julia has a backward compatibility guarantee for 1.x and also a stability promise for the documented (stable) API, while in the years before in the early development prior to 0.7 the syntax (and semantics) was changed in new versions. All of the (registered package) ecosystem uses the new and improved syntax, and in most cases relies on new APIs that have been added regularly, and in some cases minor additional syntax added in a forward compatible way e.g. in Julia 1.7. In the 10 years since the 2012 launch of pre-1.0 Julia, the community has grown. The Julia package ecosystem has over 11.8 million lines of code (including docs and tests). The JuliaCon academic conference for Julia users and developers has been held annually since 2014 with JuliaCon2020 welcoming over 28,900 unique viewers, and then JuliaCon2021 breaking all previous records (with more than 300 JuliaCon2021 presentations available for free on YouTube, up from 162 the year before), and 43,000 unique viewers during the conference. Three of the Julia co-creators are the recipients of the 2019 James H. Wilkinson Prize for Numerical Software (awarded every four years) "for the creation of Julia, an innovative environment for the creation of high-performance tools that enable the analysis and solution of computational science problems." Also, Alan Edelman, professor of applied mathematics at MIT, has been selected to receive the 2019 IEEE Computer Society Sidney Fernbach Award "for outstanding breakthroughs in high-performance computing, linear algebra, and computational science and for contributions to the Julia programming language." Version 0.3 was released in August 2014. Both Julia 0.7 and version 1.0 were released on 8 August 2018. Julia 1.4 added syntax for generic array indexing to handle e.g. 0-based arrays. The memory model was also changed. Julia 1.5 released in August 2020 added record and replay debugging support, for Mozilla's rr tool. The release changed the behavior in the REPL (to soft scope) to the one used in Jupyter, but keeps full compatible with non-REPL code (that retains hard scope). Julia 1.6 was the largest release since 1.0, and it was the long-term support (LTS) version for the longest time. Since Julia 1.7 development is back to time-based releases, and it was released in November 2021 with e.g. a new default random-number generator and Julia 1.7.3 fixed at least one security issue. Julia 1.8 added options for hiding source code when compiling Julia source code to executables. Julia 1.9 has added the ability to precompile packages to native machine code, done automatically; to improve precompilation of packages a new package PrecompileTools.jl was introduced, for use by package developers. Julia 1.10 was released on 25 December 2023 with new features such as parallel garbage collection. Julia 1.11 was released on 7 October 2024, and with it 1.10.5 became the next long-term support (LTS) version (i.e. those became the only two supported versions), since replaced by 1.10.10 released on 27 June, and 1.6 is no longer an LTS version. Julia 1.11 adds e.g. the new public keyword to signal safe public API (Julia users are advised to use such API, not internals, of Julia or packages, and package authors advised to use the keyword, generally indirectly, e.g. prefixed with the @compat macro, from Compat.jl, to also support older Julia versions, at least the LTS version). Julia 1.12 was released on 7 October 2025 (and 1.12.5 on 9 February 2026), and with it a JuliaC.jl package including the juliac compiler that works with it, for making rather small binary executables (much smaller than was possible before; through the use of new so-called trimming feature). Julia 1.10 LTS is an officially still-supported branch, but the 1.11 branch has also been maintained after 1.12 release, with 1.11.8 released and then 1.11.9 released on 8 February 2026. === JuliaCon === Since 2014, the Julia Community has hosted an annual Julia Conference focused on developers and users. The first JuliaCon took place in Chicago and kickstarted the annual occurrence of the conference. Since 2014, the conference has taken place across a number of locations including MIT and the University of Maryland, Baltimore. The event audience has grown from a few dozen people to over 28,900 unique attendees during JuliaCon 2020, which took place virtually. JuliaCon 2021 also took place virtually with keynote addresses from professors William Kahan, the primary architect of the IEEE 754 floating-point standard (which virtually all CPUs and languages, including Julia, use), Jan Vitek, Xiaoye Sherry Li, and Soumith Chintala, a co-creator of PyTorch. JuliaCon grew to 43,000 unique attendees and more than 300 presentations (still freely accessible, plus for older years). JuliaCon 2022 will also be virtual held between July 27 and July 29, 2022, for the first time in several languages, not just in English. === Sponsors === The Julia language became a NumFOCUS fiscally sponsored project in 2014 in an effort to ensure the project's long-term sustainability. Jeremy Kepner at MIT Lincoln Laboratory was the founding sponsor of the Julia project in its early days. In addition, funds from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, Intel, and agencies such as NSF, DARPA, NIH, NASA, and FAA have been essential to the development of Julia. Mozilla, the maker of Firefox web browser, with its research grants for H1 2019, sponsored "a member of the official Julia team" for the project "Bringing Julia to the Browser", meaning to Firefox and other web browsers. The Julia language is also supported by individual donors on GitHub. === The Julia company === JuliaHub, Inc. was founded in 2015 as Julia Computing, Inc. by Viral B. Shah, Deepak Vinchhi, Alan Edelman, Jeff Bezanson, Stefan Karpinski and Keno Fischer. In June 2017, Julia Computing raised US$4.6 million in seed funding from General Catalyst and Founder Collective, the same month was "granted $910,000 by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation to support open-source Julia development, including $160,000 to promote diversity in the Julia community", and in December 2019 the company got $1.1 million funding from the US government to "develop a neural component machine learning tool to reduce the total energy consumption of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems in buildings". In July 2021, Julia Computing announced they raised a $24 million Series A round led by Dorilton Ventures, which also owns Formula One team Williams Racing, that partnered with Julia Computing. Williams' Commercial Director said: "Investing in companies building best-in-class cloud technology is a strategic focus for Dorilton and Julia's versatile platform, with revolutionary capabilities in simulation and modelling, is hugely relevant to our business. We look forward to embedding Julia Computing in the world's most technologically advanced sport". In June 2023, JuliaHub received (again, now
Read more →
Shattered set

A class of sets is said to shatter another set if it is possible to "pick out" any element of that set using intersection. The concept of shattered sets plays an important role in Vapnik–Chervonenkis theory, also known as VC-theory. Shattering and VC-theory are used in the study of empirical processes as well as in statistical computational learning theory. == Definition == Suppose A is a set and C is a class of sets. The class C shatters the set A if for each subset a of A, there is some element c of C such that a = c ∩ A . {\displaystyle a=c\cap A.} Equivalently, C shatters A when their intersection is equal to A's power set: P(A) = { c ∩ A | c ∈ C }. We employ the letter C to refer to a "class" or "collection" of sets, as in a Vapnik–Chervonenkis class (VC-class). The set A is often assumed to be finite because, in empirical processes, we are interested in the shattering of finite sets of data points. == Example == We will show that the class of all discs in the plane (two-dimensional space) does not shatter every set of four points on the unit circle, yet the class of all convex sets in the plane does shatter every finite set of points on the unit circle. Let A be a set of four points on the unit circle and let C be the class of all discs. To test where C shatters A, we attempt to draw a disc around every subset of points in A. First, we draw a disc around the subsets of each isolated point. Next, we try to draw a disc around every subset of point pairs. This turns out to be doable for adjacent points, but impossible for points on opposite sides of the circle. Any attempt to include those points on the opposite side will necessarily include other points not in that pair. Hence, any pair of opposite points cannot be isolated out of A using intersections with class C and so C does not shatter A. As visualized below: Because there is some subset which can not be isolated by any disc in C, we conclude then that A is not shattered by C. And, with a bit of thought, we can prove that no set of four points is shattered by this C. However, if we redefine C to be the class of all elliptical discs, we find that we can still isolate all the subsets from above, as well as the points that were formerly problematic. Thus, this specific set of 4 points is shattered by the class of elliptical discs. Visualized below: With a bit of thought, we could generalize that any set of finite points on a unit circle could be shattered by the class of all convex sets (visualize connecting the dots). == Shatter coefficient == To quantify the richness of a collection C of sets, we use the concept of shattering coefficients (also known as the growth function). For a collection C of sets s ⊂ Ω {\displaystyle s\subset \Omega } , Ω {\displaystyle \Omega } being any space, often a sample space, we define the nth shattering coefficient of C as S C ( n ) = max ∀ x 1 , x 2 , … , x n ∈ Ω card ⁡ { { x 1 , x 2 , … , x n } ∩ s , s ∈ C } {\displaystyle S_{C}(n)=\max _{\forall x_{1},x_{2},\dots ,x_{n}\in \Omega }\operatorname {card} \{\,\{\,x_{1},x_{2},\dots ,x_{n}\}\cap s,s\in C\}} where card {\displaystyle \operatorname {card} } denotes the cardinality of the set and x 1 , x 2 , … , x n ∈ Ω {\displaystyle x_{1},x_{2},\dots ,x_{n}\in \Omega } is any set of n points,. S C ( n ) {\displaystyle S_{C}(n)} is the largest number of subsets of any set A of n points that can be formed by intersecting A with the sets in collection C. For example, if set A contains 3 points, its power set, P ( A ) {\displaystyle P(A)} , contains 2 3 = 8 {\displaystyle 2^{3}=8} elements. If C shatters A, its shattering coefficient(3) would be 8 and S C ( 2 ) {\displaystyle S_{C}(2)} would be 2 2 = 4 {\displaystyle 2^{2}=4} . However, if one of those sets in P ( A ) {\displaystyle P(A)} cannot be obtained through intersections in c, then S C ( 3 ) {\displaystyle S_{C}(3)} would only be 7. If none of those sets can be obtained, S C ( 3 ) {\displaystyle S_{C}(3)} would be 0. Additionally, if S C ( 2 ) = 3 {\displaystyle S_{C}(2)=3} , for example, then there is an element in the set of all 2-point sets from A that cannot be obtained from intersections with C. It follows from this that S C ( 3 ) {\displaystyle S_{C}(3)} would also be less than 8 (i.e. C would not shatter A) because we have already located a "missing" set in the smaller power set of 2-point sets. This example illustrates some properties of S C ( n ) {\displaystyle S_{C}(n)} : S C ( n ) ≤ 2 n {\displaystyle S_{C}(n)\leq 2^{n}} for all n because { s ∩ A | s ∈ C } ⊆ P ( A ) {\displaystyle \{s\cap A|s\in C\}\subseteq P(A)} for any A ⊆ Ω {\displaystyle A\subseteq \Omega } . If S C ( n ) = 2 n {\displaystyle S_{C}(n)=2^{n}} , that means there is a set of cardinality n, which can be shattered by C. If S C ( N ) < 2 N {\displaystyle S_{C}(N)<2^{N}} for some N > 1 {\displaystyle N>1} then S C ( n ) < 2 n {\displaystyle S_{C}(n)<2^{n}} for all n ≥ N {\displaystyle n\geq N} . The third property means that if C cannot shatter any set of cardinality N then it can not shatter sets of larger cardinalities. == Vapnik–Chervonenkis class == If A cannot be shattered by C, there will be a smallest value of n that makes the shatter coefficient(n) less than 2 n {\displaystyle 2^{n}} because as n gets larger, there are more sets that could be missed. Alternatively, there is also a largest value of n for which the S C ( n ) {\displaystyle S_{C}(n)} is still 2 n {\displaystyle 2^{n}} , because as n gets smaller, there are fewer sets that could be omitted. The extreme of this is S C ( 0 ) {\displaystyle S_{C}(0)} (the shattering coefficient of the empty set), which must always be 2 0 = 1 {\displaystyle 2^{0}=1} . These statements lends themselves to defining the VC dimension of a class C as: V C ( C ) = min n { n : S C ( n ) < 2 n } {\displaystyle VC(C)={\underset {n}{\min }}\{n:S_{C}(n)<2^{n}\}\,} or, alternatively, as V C 0 ( C ) = max n { n : S C ( n ) = 2 n } . {\displaystyle VC_{0}(C)={\underset {n}{\max }}\{n:S_{C}(n)=2^{n}\}.\,} Note that V C ( C ) = V C 0 ( C ) + 1. {\displaystyle VC(C)=VC_{0}(C)+1.} . The VC dimension is usually defined as V C 0 {\displaystyle VC_{0}} , the largest cardinality of points chosen that will still shatter A (i.e. n such that S C ( n ) = 2 n {\displaystyle S_{C}(n)=2^{n}} ). Altneratively, if for any n there is a set of cardinality n which can be shattered by C, then S C ( n ) = 2 n {\displaystyle S_{C}(n)=2^{n}} for all n and the VC dimension of this class C is infinite. A class with finite VC dimension is called a Vapnik–Chervonenkis class or VC class. A class C is uniformly Glivenko–Cantelli if and only if it is a VC class.
Read more →