AI App Kisne Banaya

AI App Kisne Banaya — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

Embedding (machine learning)

In machine learning, embedding is a representation learning technique that maps complex, high-dimensional data into a lower-dimensional vector space of numerical vectors. == Technique == It also denotes the resulting representation, where meaningful patterns or relationships are preserved. As a technique, it learns these vectors from data like words, images, or user interactions, differing from manually designed methods such as one-hot encoding. This process reduces complexity and captures key features without needing prior knowledge of the domain. == Similarity == In natural language processing, words or concepts may be represented as feature vectors, where similar concepts are mapped to nearby vectors. The resulting embeddings vary by type, including word embeddings for text (e.g., Word2Vec), image embeddings for visual data, and knowledge graph embeddings for knowledge graphs, each tailored to tasks like NLP, computer vision, or recommendation systems. This dual role enhances model efficiency and accuracy by automating feature extraction and revealing latent similarities across diverse applications. To measure the distance between two embeddings, a similarity measure can be used to find the overall similarity of the concepts represented by the embeddings. If the vectors are normalized to have a magnitude of 1, then the similarity measures are proportional to cos ⁡ ( θ a b ) {\displaystyle \cos \left(\theta _{ab}\right)} . The cosine similarity disregards the magnitude of the vector when determining similarity, so it is less biased towards training data that appears very frequently. The dot product includes the magnitude inherently, so it will tend to value more popular data. Generally, for high-dimensional vector spaces, vectors tend to converge in distance, so Euclidean distance becomes less reliable for large embedding vectors.
Read more →
MultiNet

Multilayered extended semantic networks (MultiNets) are both a knowledge representation paradigm and a language for meaning representation of natural language expressions that has been developed by Prof. Dr. Hermann Helbig on the basis of earlier Semantic Networks. It is used in a question-answering application for German called InSicht. It is also used to create a tutoring application developed by the university of University of Hagen to teach MultiNet to knowledge engineers. MultiNet is claimed to be one of the most comprehensive and thoroughly described knowledge representation systems. It specifies conceptual structures by means of about 140 predefined relations and functions, which are systematically characterized and underpinned by a formal axiomatic apparatus. Apart from their relational connections, the concepts are embedded in a multidimensional space of layered attributes and their values. Another characteristic of MultiNet distinguishing it from simple semantic networks is the possibility to encapsulate whole partial networks and represent the resulting conceptual capsule as a node of higher order, which itself can be an argument of relations and functions. MultiNet has been used in practical NLP applications such as natural language interfaces to the Internet or question answering systems over large semantically annotated corpora with millions of sentences. MultiNet is also a cornerstone of the commercially available search engine SEMPRIA-Search, where it is used for the description of the computational lexicon and the background knowledge, for the syntactic-semantic analysis, for logical answer finding, as well as for the generation of natural language answers. MultiNet is supported by a set of software tools and has been used to build large semantically based computational lexicons. The tools include a semantic interpreter WOCADI, which translates natural language expressions (phrases, sentences, texts) into formal MultiNet expressions, a workbench MWR+ for the knowledge engineer (comprising modules for automatic knowledge acquisition and reasoning), and a workbench LIA+ for the computer lexicographer supporting the creation of large semantically based computational lexica.
Read more →
New Classification Scheme for Chinese Libraries

The New Classification Scheme for Chinese Libraries is a system of library classification developed by Lai Yung-hsiang since 1956. It is modified from "A System of Book Classification for Chinese Libraries" of Liu Guojun, which is based on the Dewey Decimal System. The scheme is developed for Chinese books and commonly used in Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau. == Main classes == 000 Generalities 100 Philosophy 200 Religion 300 Sciences 400 Applied sciences 500 Social sciences 600 History of China and Geography of China 700 World history and Geography 800 Linguistics and Literature 900 Arts == Outline of the classification tables == 000 Generalities 000 Special collections 010 Bibliography; Literacy (Documentation) 020 Library and information science; Archive management 030 Sinology 040 General encyclopedia 050 Serial publications; Periodicals 060 General organization; Museology 070 General collected essays 080 General series 090 Collected Chinese classics 100 Philosophy 100 Philosophy: general 110 Thought; Learning 120 Chinese philosophy 130 Oriental philosophy 140 Western philosophy 150 Logic 160 Metaphysics 170 Psychology 180 Esthetics (Aesthetics) 190 Ethics 200 Religion 200 Religion: general 210 Science of religion 220 Buddhism 230 Taoism 240 Christianity 250 Islam (Mohammedanism) 260 Judaism 270 Other religions 280 Mythology 290 Astrology; Superstition 300 Sciences 300 Sciences: general 310 Mathematics 320 Astronomy 330 Physics 340 Chemistry 350 Earth science; Geology 360 Biological science 370 Botany 380 Zoology 390 Anthropology 400 Applied sciences 400 Applied sciences: general 410 Medical sciences 420 Home economics 430 Agriculture 440 Engineering 450 Mining and metallurgy 460 Chemical engineering 470 Manufacture 480 Commerce: various business 490 Commerce: administration and management 500 Social sciences 500 Social sciences: general 510 Statistics 520 Education 530 Rite and custom 540 Sociology 550 Economy 560 Finance 570 Political science 580 Law; Jurisprudence 590 Military science 600-700 History and geography 600 History and geography: General History and geography of China 610 General history of China 620 Chinese history by period 630 History of Chinese civilization 640 Diplomatic history of China 650 Historical sources 660 Geography of China 670 Local history 680 Topical topography 690 Chinese travels World history and geography 710 World: general history and geography 720 Oceans and seas 730 Asia: history and geography 740 Europe: history and geography 750 America: history and geography 760 Africa: history and geography 770 Oceania: history and geography 780 Biography 790 Antiquities and archaeology 800 Linguistics and literature 800 Linguistics: general 810 Literature: general 820 Chinese literature 830 Chinese literature: general collections 840 Chinese literature: individual works 850 Various Chinese literature 860 Oriental literature 870 Western literature 880 Other countries literatures 890 Journalism 900 Arts 900 Arts: general 910 Music 920 Architecture 930 Sculpture 940 Drawing and painting; Calligraphy 950 Photography; Computer art 960 Decorative arts 970 Arts and Crafts movement 980 Theatre 990 Recreation and leisure
Read more →
Preferential entailment

Preferential entailment is a non-monotonic logic based on selecting only models that are considered the most plausible. The plausibility of models is expressed by an ordering among models called a preference relation, hence the name preference entailment. Formally, given a propositional formula F {\displaystyle F} and an ordering over propositional models ≤ {\displaystyle \leq } , preferential entailment selects only the models of F {\displaystyle F} that are minimal according to ≤ {\displaystyle \leq } . This selection leads to a non-monotonic inference relation: F ⊨ pref G {\displaystyle F\models _{\text{pref}}G} holds if and only if all minimal models of F {\displaystyle F} according to ≤ {\displaystyle \leq } are also models of G {\displaystyle G} . Circumscription can be seen as the particular case of preferential entailment when the ordering is based on containment of the sets of variables assigned to true (in the propositional case) or containment of the extensions of predicates (in the first-order logic case).
Read more →
Structural similarity index measure

The structural similarity index measure (SSIM) is a method for predicting the perceived quality of digital television and cinematic pictures, as well as other kinds of digital images and videos. It is also used for measuring the similarity between two images. The SSIM index is a full reference metric; in other words, the measurement or prediction of image quality is based on an initial uncompressed or distortion-free image as reference. SSIM is a perception-based model that considers image degradation as perceived change in structural information, while also incorporating important perceptual phenomena, including both luminance masking and contrast masking terms. This distinguishes from other techniques such as mean squared error (MSE) or peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR) that instead estimate absolute errors. Structural information is the idea that the pixels have strong inter-dependencies especially when they are spatially close. These dependencies carry important information about the structure of the objects in the visual scene. Luminance masking is a phenomenon whereby image distortions (in this context) tend to be less visible in bright regions, while contrast masking is a phenomenon whereby distortions become less visible where there is significant activity or "texture" in the image. == History == The predecessor of SSIM was called Universal Quality Index (UQI), or Wang–Bovik index, which was developed by Zhou Wang and Alan Bovik in 2001. This evolved, through their collaboration with Hamid Sheikh and Eero Simoncelli, into the current version of SSIM, which was published in April 2004 in the IEEE Transactions on Image Processing. In addition to defining the SSIM quality index, the paper provides a general context for developing and evaluating perceptual quality measures, including connections to human visual neurobiology and perception, and direct validation of the index against human subject ratings. The basic model was developed in the Laboratory for Image and Video Engineering (LIVE) at The University of Texas at Austin and further developed jointly with the Laboratory for Computational Vision (LCV) at New York University. Further variants of the model have been developed in the Image and Visual Computing Laboratory at University of Waterloo and have been commercially marketed. SSIM subsequently found strong adoption in the image processing community and in the television and social media industries. The 2004 SSIM paper has been cited over 50,000 times according to Google Scholar, making it one of the highest cited papers in the image processing and video engineering fields. It was recognized with the IEEE Signal Processing Society Best Paper Award for 2009. It also received the IEEE Signal Processing Society Sustained Impact Award for 2016, indicative of a paper having an unusually high impact for at least 10 years following its publication. Because of its high adoption by the television industry, the authors of the original SSIM paper were each accorded a Primetime Engineering Emmy Award in 2015 by the Television Academy. == Algorithm == The SSIM index is calculated between two windows of pixel values x {\displaystyle x} and y {\displaystyle y} of common size, from corresponding locations in two images to be compared. These SSIM values can be aggregated across the full images by averaging or other variations. === Special-case formula === In one simple special case, further explained in the next section, the SSIM measure between x {\displaystyle x} and y {\displaystyle y} is: SSIM ( x , y ) = ( 2 μ x μ y + c 1 ) ( 2 σ x y + c 2 ) ( μ x 2 + μ y 2 + c 1 ) ( σ x 2 + σ y 2 + c 2 ) {\displaystyle {\hbox{SSIM}}(x,y)={\frac {(2\mu _{x}\mu _{y}+c_{1})(2\sigma _{xy}+c_{2})}{(\mu _{x}^{2}+\mu _{y}^{2}+c_{1})(\sigma _{x}^{2}+\sigma _{y}^{2}+c_{2})}}} with: μ x {\displaystyle \mu _{x}} the pixel sample mean of x {\displaystyle x} ; μ y {\displaystyle \mu _{y}} the pixel sample mean of y {\displaystyle y} ; σ x 2 {\displaystyle \sigma _{x}^{2}} the sample variance of x {\displaystyle x} ; σ y 2 {\displaystyle \sigma _{y}^{2}} the sample variance of y {\displaystyle y} ; σ x y {\displaystyle \sigma _{xy}} the sample covariance of x {\displaystyle x} and y {\displaystyle y} ; c 1 = ( k 1 L ) 2 {\displaystyle c_{1}=(k_{1}L)^{2}} , c 2 = ( k 2 L ) 2 {\displaystyle c_{2}=(k_{2}L)^{2}} two variables to stabilize the division with weak denominator; L {\displaystyle L} the dynamic range of the pixel-values (typically this is 2 # b i t s p e r p i x e l − 1 {\displaystyle 2^{\#bits\ per\ pixel}-1} ); k 1 = 0.01 {\displaystyle k_{1}=0.01} and k 2 = 0.03 {\displaystyle k_{2}=0.03} by default. === General formula and components === The SSIM formula is based on three comparison measurements between the samples of x {\displaystyle x} and y {\displaystyle y} : luminance ( l {\displaystyle l} ), contrast ( c {\displaystyle c} ), and structure ( s {\displaystyle s} ). The individual comparison functions are: l ( x , y ) = 2 μ x μ y + c 1 μ x 2 + μ y 2 + c 1 {\displaystyle l(x,y)={\frac {2\mu _{x}\mu _{y}+c_{1}}{\mu _{x}^{2}+\mu _{y}^{2}+c_{1}}}} c ( x , y ) = 2 σ x σ y + c 2 σ x 2 + σ y 2 + c 2 {\displaystyle c(x,y)={\frac {2\sigma _{x}\sigma _{y}+c_{2}}{\sigma _{x}^{2}+\sigma _{y}^{2}+c_{2}}}} s ( x , y ) = σ x y + c 3 σ x σ y + c 3 {\displaystyle s(x,y)={\frac {\sigma _{xy}+c_{3}}{\sigma _{x}\sigma _{y}+c_{3}}}} The SSIM for each block is then a weighted combination of those comparative measures: SSIM ( x , y ) = l ( x , y ) α ⋅ c ( x , y ) β ⋅ s ( x , y ) γ {\displaystyle {\text{SSIM}}(x,y)=l(x,y)^{\alpha }\cdot c(x,y)^{\beta }\cdot s(x,y)^{\gamma }} Choosing the third denominator stabilizing constant as: c 3 = c 2 / 2 {\displaystyle c_{3}=c_{2}/2} leads to a simplification when combining the c and s components with equal exponents ( β = γ {\displaystyle \beta =\gamma } ), as the numerator of c is then twice the denominator of s, leading to a cancellation leaving just a 2. Setting the weights (exponents) α , β , γ {\displaystyle \alpha ,\beta ,\gamma } to 1, the formula can then be reduced to the special case shown above. === Mathematical properties === SSIM satisfies the identity of indiscernibles, and symmetry properties, but not the triangle inequality or non-negativity, and thus is not a distance function. However, under certain conditions, SSIM may be converted to a normalized root MSE measure, which is a distance function. The square of such a function is not convex, but is locally convex and quasiconvex, making SSIM a feasible target for optimization. === Application of the formula === In order to evaluate the image quality, this formula is usually applied only on luma, although it may also be applied on color (e.g., RGB) values or chromatic (e.g. YCbCr) values. The resultant SSIM index is a decimal value between -1 and 1, where 1 indicates perfect similarity, 0 indicates no similarity, and -1 indicates perfect anti-correlation. For an image, it is typically calculated using a sliding Gaussian window of size 11×11 or a block window of size 8×8. The window can be displaced pixel-by-pixel on the image to create an SSIM quality map of the image. In the case of video quality assessment, the authors propose to use only a subgroup of the possible windows to reduce the complexity of the calculation. === Variants === ==== Multi-scale SSIM ==== A more advanced form of SSIM, called Multiscale SSIM (MS-SSIM) is conducted over multiple scales through a process of multiple stages of sub-sampling, reminiscent of multiscale processing in the early vision system. It has been shown to perform equally well or better than SSIM on different subjective image and video databases. ==== Multi-component SSIM ==== Three-component SSIM (3-SSIM) is a form of SSIM that takes into account the fact that the human eye can see differences more precisely on textured or edge regions than on smooth regions. The resulting metric is calculated as a weighted average of SSIM for three categories of regions: edges, textures, and smooth regions. The proposed weighting is 0.5 for edges, 0.25 for the textured and smooth regions. The authors mention that a 1/0/0 weighting (ignoring anything but edge distortions) leads to results that are closer to subjective ratings. This suggests that edge regions play a dominant role in image quality perception. The authors of 3-SSIM have also extended the model into four-component SSIM (4-SSIM). The edge types are further subdivided into preserved and changed edges by their distortion status. The proposed weighting is 0.25 for all four components. ==== Structural dissimilarity ==== Structural dissimilarity (DSSIM) may be derived from SSIM, though it does not constitute a distance function as the triangle inequality is not necessarily satisfied. DSSIM ( x , y ) = 1 − SSIM ( x , y ) 2 {\displaystyle {\hbox{DSSIM}}(x,y)={\frac {1-{\hbox{SSIM}}(x,y)}{2}}} ==== Video quality metrics and temporal variants ==== It is worth noting that the original vers
Read more →
Geopolitical ontology

The FAO geopolitical ontology is an ontology developed by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) to describe, manage and exchange data related to geopolitical entities such as countries, territories, regions and other similar areas. == Definitions and examples == An ontology is a kind of dictionary that describes information in a certain domain using concepts and relationships. It is often implemented using OWL (Web Ontology Language), an XML-based standard language that can be interpreted by computers. A Concept is defined as abstract knowledge. For example, in the geopolitical ontology a non-self-governing territory and a geographical group are concepts. Concepts are explicitly implemented in the ontology with individuals and classes: An individual is defined as an object perceived from the real world. In the geopolitical domain Ethiopia and the least developed countries group are individuals. A class is defined as a set of individuals sharing common properties. In the geopolitical domain, Ethiopia, Republic of Korea and Italy are individuals of the class self-governing territory; and least developed countries is an individual of the class special group. Relationships between concepts are explicitly implemented by: Object properties between individuals of two classes. For example, has member and is in group properties, as shown in Figure 1. Datatype properties between individuals and literals or XML datatypes. For example, the individual Afghanistan has the datatype property CodeISO3 with the value "AFG". Restrictions in classes and/or properties. For example, the property official English name of the class self-governing territory has been restricted to have only one value, this means that a self-governing territory (or country) can only have one internationally recognized official English name. The advantage of describing information in an ontology is that it enables to acquire domain knowledge by defining hierarchical structures of classes, adding individuals, setting object properties and datatype properties, and assigning restrictions. == FAO ontology == The geopolitical ontology provides names in seven languages (Arabic, Chinese, French, English, Spanish, Russian and Italian) and identifiers in various international coding systems (ISO2, ISO3, AGROVOC, FAOSTAT, FAOTERM, GAUL, UN, UNDP and DBPediaID codes) for territories and groups. Moreover, the FAO geopolitical ontology tracks historical changes from 1985 up until today; provides geolocation (geographical coordinates); implements relationships among countries and countries, or countries and groups, including properties such as has border with, is predecessor of, is successor of, is administered by, has members, and is in group; and disseminates country statistics including country area, land area, agricultural area, GDP or population. The FAO geopolitical ontology provides a structured description of data sources. This includes: source name, source identifier, source creator and source's update date. Concepts are described using the Dublin Core vocabulary In summary, the main objectives of the FAO geopolitical ontology are: To provide the most updated geopolitical information (names, codes, relationships, statistics) To track historical changes in geopolitical information To improve information management and facilitate standardized data sharing of geopolitical information To demonstrate the benefits of the geopolitical ontology to improve interoperability of corporate information systems It is possible to download the FAO geopolitical ontology in OWL and RDF formats. Documentation is available in the FAO Country Profiles Geopolitical information web page. == Features of the FAO ontology == The geopolitical ontology contains : Area types: Territories: self-governing, non-self-governing, disputed, other. Groups: organizations, geographic, economic and special groups. Names (official, short and names for lists) in Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Spanish, Russian and Italian. International codes: UN code – M49, ISO 3166 Alpha-2 and Alpha-3, UNDP code, GAUL code, FAOSTAT, AGROVOC FAOTERM and DBPediaID. Coordinates: maximum latitude, minimum latitude, maximum longitude, minimum longitude. Basic country statistics: country area, land area, agricultural area, GDP, population. Currency names and codes. Adjectives of nationality. Relations: Groups membership. Neighbours (land border), administration of non-self-governing. Historic changes: predecessor, successor, valid since, valid until. == Implementation into OWL == The FAO geopolitical ontology is implemented in OWL. It consists of classes, properties, individuals and restrictions. Table 1 shows all classes, gives a brief description and lists some individuals that belong to each class. Note that the current version of the geopolitical ontology does not provide individuals of the class "disputed" territories. Table 2 and Table 3 illustrate datatype properties and object properties. == Geopolitical ontology in Linked Open Data == The FAO Geopolitical ontology is embracing the W3C Linked Open Data (LOD) initiative and released its RDF version of the geopolitical ontology in March 2011. The term 'Linked Open Data' refers to a set of best practices for publishing and connecting structured data on the Web. The key technologies that support Linked Data are URIs, HTTP and RDF. The RDF version of the geopolitical ontology is compliant with all Linked data principles to be included in the Linked Open Data cloud, as explained in the following. == Resolvable http:// URIs == Every resource in the OWL format of the FAO Geopolitical Ontology has a unique URI. Dereferenciation was implemented to allow for three different URIs to be assigned to each resource as follows: URI identifying the non-information resource Information resource with an RDF/XML representation Information resource with an HTML representation In addition the current URIs used for OWL format needed to be kept to allow for backwards compatibility for other systems that are using them. Therefore, the new URIs for the FAO Geopolitical Ontology in LOD were carefully created, using “Cool URIs for Semantic Web” and considering other good practices for URIs, such as DBpedia URIs. == New URIs == The URIs of the geopolitical ontology need to be permanent, consequently all transient information, such as year, version, or format was avoided in the definition of the URIs. The new URIs can be accessed For example, for the resource “Italy” the URIs are the following: http://www.fao.org/countryprofiles/geoinfo/geopolitical/resource/Italy identifies the non-information resource. http://www.fao.org/countryprofiles/geoinfo/geopolitical/data/Italy identifies the resource with an RDF/XML representation. http://www.fao.org/countryprofiles/geoinfo/geopolitical/page/Italy identifies the information resource with an HTML representation. In addition, “owl:sameAs” is used to map the new URIs to the OWL representation. == Dereferencing URIs == When a non-information resource is looked up without any specific representation format, then the server needs to redirect the request to information resource with an HTML representation. For example, to retrieve the resource “Italy”, which is a non-information resource, the server redirects to the HTML page of “Italy”. == At least 1000 triples in the datasets == The total number of triple statements in FAO Geopolitical Ontology is 22,495. At least 50 links to a dataset already in the current LOD Cloud: FAO Geopolitical Ontology has 195 links to DBpedia, which is already part of the LOD Cloud. == Access to the entire dataset == FAO Geopolitical Ontology provides the entire dataset as a RDF dump. The RDF version of the FAO Geopolitical Ontology has been already registered in CKAN and it was requested to add it into the LOD Cloud. == Example of use == The FAO Country Profiles is an information retrieval tool which groups the FAO's vast archive of information on its global activities in agriculture and rural development in one single area and catalogues it exclusively by country. The FAO Country Profiles system provides access to country-based heterogeneous data sources. By using the geopolitical ontology in the system, the following benefits are expected: Enhanced system functionality for content aggregation and synchronization from the multiple source repositories. Improved information access and browsing through comparison of data in neighbor countries and groups. Figure 3 shows a page in the FAO Country Profiles where the geopolitical ontology is described.
Read more →
Chinese room

The Chinese room argument holds that a computer executing a program cannot have a mind, understanding, or consciousness, regardless of how intelligently or human-like the program may make the computer behave. The argument was presented in a 1980 paper by the American philosopher John Searle, entitled "Minds, Brains, and Programs" and published in the journal Behavioral and Brain Sciences. Similar arguments had been made previously by others, including Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Peter Winch, and Anatoly Dneprov. Searle's version has been widely discussed in the years since. The centerpiece of Searle's argument is a thought experiment known as the "Chinese room". The argument is directed against the philosophical positions of functionalism and computationalism, which hold that the mind may be viewed as an information-processing system operating on formal symbols, and that simulation of a given mental state is sufficient for its presence. Specifically, the argument is intended to refute a position Searle calls the strong AI hypothesis: "The appropriately programmed computer with the right inputs and outputs would thereby have a mind in exactly the same sense human beings have minds." Although its proponents originally presented the argument in reaction to statements of artificial intelligence (AI) researchers, it is not an argument against the goals of mainstream AI research because it does not show a limit in the amount of intelligent behavior a machine can display. The argument applies only to digital computers running programs and does not apply to machines in general. While widely discussed, the argument has been subject to significant criticism and remains controversial among philosophers of mind and AI researchers. == Chinese room thought experiment == Suppose that artificial intelligence research has succeeded in programming a computer to behave as if it understands Chinese. The machine accepts Chinese characters as input, carries out each instruction of the program step by step, and then produces Chinese characters as output. The machine does this so perfectly that no one can tell that they are communicating with a machine and not a hidden Chinese speaker. The questions at issue are these: does the machine actually understand the conversation, or is it just simulating the ability to understand the conversation? Does the machine have a mind in exactly the same sense that people do, or is it just acting as if it had a mind? Now suppose that Searle is in a room with an English version of the program, along with sufficient pencils, paper, erasers and filing cabinets. Chinese characters are slipped in under the door, and he follows the program step-by-step, which eventually instructs him to slide other Chinese characters back out under the door. If the computer had passed the Turing test this way, it follows that Searle would do so as well, simply by running the program by hand. Searle can see no essential difference between the roles of the computer and himself in the experiment. Each simply follows a program, step-by-step, producing behavior that makes them appear to understand. However, Searle would not be able to understand the conversation. Therefore, he argues, it follows that the computer would not be able to understand the conversation either. Searle argues that, without "understanding" (or "intentionality"), we cannot describe what the machine is doing as "thinking" and, since it does not think, it does not have a "mind" in the normal sense of the word. Therefore, he concludes that the strong AI hypothesis is false: a computer running a program that simulates a mind would not have a mind in the same sense that human beings have a mind. == History == Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz made a similar argument in 1713 against mechanism, the idea that everything that makes up a human being could, in principle, be explained in mechanical terms—in other words, that a person, including their mind, is merely a very complex machine. Leibniz used the thought experiment of expanding the brain until it was the size of a mill. He found it difficult to imagine that a "mind" capable of "perception" could be constructed using only mechanical processes. British philosopher Peter Winch made the same point in his 1958 book The Idea of a Social Science and its Relation to Philosophy, in which he argues that "a man who understands Chinese is not a man who has a firm grasp of the statistical probabilities for the occurrence of the various words in the Chinese language" (p. 108). Soviet cyberneticist Anatoly Dneprov made an essentially identical argument in 1961, in the form of his short story "The Game". In it, a stadium of people act as switches and memory cells implementing a program to translate a sentence from Portuguese, a language none of them know. The game was organized by a "Professor Zarubin" to answer the question "Can mathematical machines think?" Speaking through Zarubin, Dneprov writes that "the only way to prove that machines can think is to turn yourself into a machine and examine your thinking process", and he concludes, as Searle does, that "even the most perfect simulation of machine thinking is not the thinking process itself." In 1974, Lawrence H. Davis imagined duplicating the brain using telephone lines and offices staffed by people, and in 1978, Ned Block envisioned the entire population of China involved in such a brain simulation. This is known as the China brain thought experiment. Searle's version appeared in his 1980 article "Minds, Brains, and Programs", published in Behavioral and Brain Sciences. It eventually became the journal's "most influential target article", generating an enormous number of commentaries and responses in the ensuing decades, and Searle had continued to defend and refine the argument in multiple papers, popular articles, and books. David Cole writes that "the Chinese Room argument has probably been the most widely discussed philosophical argument in cognitive science to appear in the past 25 years". Most of the discussion consists of attempts to refute it. "The overwhelming majority", notes Behavioral and Brain Sciences editor Stevan Harnad, "still think that the Chinese Room Argument is dead wrong". The sheer volume of the literature that has grown up around it inspired Pat Hayes to comment that the field of cognitive science ought to be redefined as "the ongoing research program of showing Searle's Chinese Room Argument to be false". Searle's argument has become "something of a classic in cognitive science", according to Harnad. Varol Akman agrees, and has described the original paper as "an exemplar of philosophical clarity and purity". == Philosophy == Although the Chinese Room argument was originally presented in reaction to the statements of artificial intelligence researchers, philosophers have come to consider it as an important part of the philosophy of mind. It is a challenge to functionalism and the computational theory of mind, and is related to such questions as the mind–body problem, the problem of other minds, the symbol grounding problem, and the hard problem of consciousness. === Strong AI === Searle identified a philosophical position he calls "strong AI": The appropriately programmed computer with the right inputs and outputs would thereby have a mind in exactly the same sense human beings have minds. The definition depends on the distinction between simulating a mind and actually having one. Searle writes that "according to Strong AI, the correct simulation really is a mind. According to Weak AI, the correct simulation is a model of the mind." The claim is implicit in some of the statements of early AI researchers and analysts. For example, in 1957, the economist and psychologist Herbert A. Simon declared that "there are now in the world machines that think, that learn and create". Simon, together with Allen Newell and Cliff Shaw, after having completed the first program that could do formal reasoning (the Logic Theorist), claimed that they had "solved the venerable mind–body problem, explaining how a system composed of matter can have the properties of mind." John Haugeland wrote that "AI wants only the genuine article: machines with minds, in the full and literal sense. This is not science fiction, but real science, based on a theoretical conception as deep as it is daring: namely, we are, at root, computers ourselves." Searle also ascribes the following claims to advocates of strong AI: AI systems can be used to explain the mind; The study of the brain is irrelevant to the study of the mind; and The Turing test is adequate for establishing the existence of mental states. === Strong AI as computationalism or functionalism === In more recent presentations of the Chinese room argument, Searle has identified "strong AI" as "computer functionalism" (a term he attributes to Daniel Dennett). Functionalism is a position in modern philosophy of mind that holds that we can define menta
Read more →
Harvey (software)

Harvey is a generative artificial intelligence (AI) product developed by the Counsel AI Corporation for the legal industry. The product has been described as a provider of customised large language models (LLMs) for law firms and in-house legal teams. It is named after the lead character of the legal drama Suits, Harvey Specter. == History == Harvey was founded in the summer of 2022 by Winston Weinberg, who was a securities and antitrust litigator at O'Melveny & Myers, and Gabriel Pereyra, who was a research scientist at Google DeepMind and Meta. Pereyra and Weinberg were roommates in Los Angeles. Pereyra was brainstorming startup ideas with his research colleagues. He showed Weinberg OpenAI's GPT-3 text-generating system, and Weinberg realized that it could be used to improve legal workflows. They developed an early chain-of-thought prompt based on GPT-3, focused on California tenant law. They ran the model on 100 legal questions from a public forum and hired three attorneys to evaluate the answers and determine whether they could be sent to clients unchanged. Out of those 100 questions, 86 were approved. After that, Pereyra and Weinberg contacted Sam Altman and Jason Kwon, General Counsel at OpenAI, about their results. Shortly after, on July 4, 2022, they met with OpenAI's C-suite, and OpenAI became their seed investor. OpenAI also gave Pereyra and Weinberg early access to GPT-4. Gordon Moodie, a corporate partner at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, also joined Harvey in July 2023 as the company's chief product officer. In March 2024, Harvey had 82 employees and stated that it intended to double that figure by the end of 2024. The company has reportedly hired a large number of lawyers, including from White & Case, Latham & Watkins, Skadden, Gunderson Dettmer, Katten Muchin Rosenman, and Paul Weiss. Harvey CEO Weinberg explained that many members of the company's sales team were formerly attorneys at 'Big Law', i.e. large US law firms, and that the sales team's experience was useful in convincing attorneys to trial the company's software. The integration of former 'Big Law' attorneys into product and sales teams has been attributed as a major factor in Harvey's success. In February 2026, Harvey announced its first brand partnership with actor Gabriel Macht, who portrayed the character Harvey Specter in Suits, to launch the company's Instagram page. In May 2026, it was announced the company is sponsoring the Golden State Valkyries and the New York Liberty. == Funding == In November 2022, it was reported that Harvey raised US$5 million in funding led by the OpenAI Startup Fund, together with other investors such as Jeff Dean, the head of Google AI, Elad Gil, the founder of Mixer Labs, Sarah Guo, the founder of Conviction, and other angel investors. Harvey raised another $23 million in April 2023 in a funding round led by Sequoia Capital. Harvey announced in December 2023 that it had raised $80 million in a Series B funding round led by Elad Gil and Kleiner Perkins which valued the company at $715 million. Other investors in the round included Sequoia Capital and the OpenAI Startup Fund. In July 2024, Harvey announced that it had raised $100 million in a Series C funding round that valued the company at $1.5 billion. The round was led by venture capital firm GV, and other participants included OpenAI, Kleiner Perkins, Sequoia Capital, Elad Gil, and SV Angel. In February 2025, Harvey announced it had raised $300 million in a Series D funding round that valued the company at $3 billion. Just months later, in June 2025, Harvey closed a $300 million Series E co-led by Kleiner Perkins and Coatue, again with participation from Conviction, Elad Gil, OpenAI, and Sequoia, boosting its valuation to about $5 billion and supporting international growth and expanded legal product offerings. In December 2025, Harvey secured a $160 million Series F round led by Andreessen Horowitz, with continued participation from investors including EQT, WndrCo, Sequoia, Kleiner Perkins, Conviction, and Elad Gil, valuing the legal AI company at roughly $8 billion. In March 2026, Harvey raised $200 million at a valuation of $11 billion, in a round co-led by GIC and Sequoia Capital. == Features == In May 2024, Harvey launched its products on Microsoft Azure and stated that it would offer a Harvey on Azure version of its product going forward. It was also reported that Harvey would begin offering general commercial access to some of its products, such as its case law models, as well as product bundles that included its AI assistant, specialised models, and its Vault feature for running prompts on large document collections. == Applications == Various law firms around the world are customers of Harvey. US law firm Paul Weiss began testing Harvey within the firm in January 2023, and became a client of the company later that year. Gina Lynch, the firm's chief knowledge and innovation officer, explained that the firm was not using hard metrics, such as time saved, to assess productivity gains because the time and effort needed to carefully review the output made efficiency gains difficult to measure. In February 2023, the UK law firm, Allen & Overy (now A&O Shearman), announced that it had been trialing Harvey since November 2022 within its Markets Innovation Group. This was reported to be the first known use of a generative AI product within the UK magic circle law firms. According to Allen & Overy, during the trial, 3,500 lawyers had used Harvey for around 40,000 queries in the course of their day to day work. The firm's press release stated that "Whilst the output needs careful review by an A&O lawyer, Harvey can help generate insights, recommendations and predictions based on large volumes of data". David Wakeling, head of the Markets Innovation Group, also cautioned that "You must validate everything coming out of the system. You have to check everything". The Irish law firm, A&L Goodbody, announced in February 2024 that it would be working with Harvey to enhance its services in relation to document analysis, due diligence, litigation, and regulatory compliance. In June 2024, UK law firm Ashurst announced that it would partner with Harvey and roll out its services to its branches worldwide. In September 2024, PwC announced that it would be adopting Harvey to empower its lawyers in Singapore. Singapore law firm WongPartnership also announced that month that it had become the first Southeast Asian law firm to test Harvey's generative AI solutions.
Read more →
Amaryllo

Amaryllo Inc. is a multinational company founded in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, and now headquartered in the United States. It operates as a cloud service platform, providing cloud storage and cloud computing solutions to enterprises and brand companies. Amaryllo began with Skype IP camera development, pioneering biometric robotic technologies, encrypted P2P network, and secure cloud storage. Amaryllo was founded by Band of Angels member, Marcus Yang to develop patents for a new type of robotic cameras that is claimed to "talk, hear, sense, recognize human faces, and track intruders". It also claims to have made the world's first security robot based on the WebRTC protocol, Icam PRO FHD, and won the 2015 CES Best of Innovation Award under Embedded Technology category. Its home security robots claim to employ 256-bit encryption and run on the WebRTC protocol. Amaryllo products are sold in over 100 Countries across 6 Continents. == History == Amaryllo revealed its first smart home security products at Internationale Funkausstellung Berlin (IFA) 2013 with a Skype-enabled IP camera called iCam HD. Amaryllo announced its second Skype-certified smart home product, iBabi HD, at CES 2014. The company was chosen as a "Cool Vendor" by Gartner in Connected Home 2014. Amaryllo introduced WebRTC-based smart home products after Microsoft terminated embedded Skype services in mid 2014. Since then, Amaryllo has been developing camera robots with auto-tracking and facial recognition technologies. Its camera robots, ATOM AR3 and ATOM AR3S, were introduced in late 2016. It focuses on wired and wireless technology based on AI services. == Cloud Service Platform == Amaryllo offers prepaid cloud storage through digital codes and gift cards, distributed via InComm Payments, Blackhawk Network, and other partners. It provides high-performance cloud computing service through Rescale partnership. Amaryllo provides free cameras under an annual cloud storage subscription on its website. == Global Supercomputing Network (GSN) == The Global Supercomputing Network (GSN) is a distributed high-performance computing (HPC) platform developed by Amaryllo. The network is designed to provide scalable Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) by connecting a global array of data centers to offer GPU computing resources for specialized industrial and scientific applications. === Architecture and Technology === GSN operates as a decentralized distributed network of servers rather than a single centralized supercomputer. The platform integrates an artificial intelligence assistant named Genie, also developed by Amaryllo. Genie's primary function is to manage computing allocation, helping users identify and connect to available resources across the network’s various nodes based on the specific requirements of their tasks. === Services === The network primarily focuses on the rental of GPU processing resources, catering to fields that require massive parallel processing capabilities, including: Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning: Training large language models (LLMs) and neural networks. Scientific Simulations: Executing complex calculations in physics, chemistry, and bioinformatics. Data Analytics: Processing large-scale datasets. By utilizing a rental model, GSN allows organizations to access high-end hardware without the capital expenditure associated with purchasing and maintaining physical server infrastructure. === Infrastructure and Partnerships === The network’s physical footprint is expanded through strategic partnerships with data center operators. GSN collaborates with MettaDC and Cyber DC to provide colocation services. These partnerships facilitate the deployment of Nvidia server clusters within secure, Tier-rated facilities, ensuring high availability and connectivity for GSN users. == Official Brand Licensee of HP == Amaryllo Inc. is an official licensee of HP Inc., managing both B2B and B2C cloud services under the HP brand. Through this partnership, Amaryllo offers a range of secure and scalable cloud solutions, including HP Cloud, which provides subscription and one-time payment storage for reliable data backup and storage for individuals, families, and businesses. HP Cloud employs cloud computing technologies to create smart albums for users.
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 →
Darkforest

Darkforest is a computer go program developed by Meta Platforms, based on deep learning techniques using a convolutional neural network. Its updated version Darkfores2 combines the techniques of its predecessor with Monte Carlo tree search. The MCTS effectively takes tree search methods commonly seen in computer chess programs and randomizes them. With the update, the system is known as Darkfmcts3. Darkforest is of similar strength to programs like CrazyStone and Zen. It has been tested against a professional human player at the 2016 UEC cup. Google's AlphaGo program won against a professional player in October 2015 using a similar combination of techniques. Darkforest is named after Liu Cixin's science fiction novel The Dark Forest. == Background == Competing with top human players in the ancient game of Go has been a long-term goal of artificial intelligence. Go's high branching factor makes traditional search techniques ineffective, even on cutting-edge hardware, and Go's evaluation function could change drastically with one stone change. However, by using a Deep Convolutional Neural Network designed for long-term predictions, Darkforest has been able to substantially improve the win rate for bots over more traditional Monte Carlo Tree Search based approaches. === Matches === Against human players, Darkfores2 achieves a stable 3d ranking on KGS Go Server, which roughly corresponds to an advanced amateur human player. However, after adding Monte Carlo Tree Search to Darkfores2 to create a much stronger player named darkfmcts3, it can achieve a 5d ranking on the KGS Go Server. ==== Against other AI ==== darkfmcts3 is on par with state-of-the-art Go AIs such as Zen, DolBaram and Crazy Stone, but lags behind AlphaGo. It won 3rd place in January 2016 KGS Bot Tournament against other Go AIs. === News coverage === After Google's AlphaGo won against Fan Hui in 2015, Facebook made its AI's hardware designs public, alongside releasing the code behind DarkForest as open-source, in addition to heavy recruiting to strengthen its team of AI engineers. == Style of play == Darkforest uses a neural network to sort through the 10100 board positions, and find the most powerful next move. However, neural networks alone cannot match the level of good amateur players or the best search-based Go engines, and so Darkfores2 combines the neural network approach with a search-based machine. A database of 250,000 real Go games were used in the development of Darkforest, with 220,000 used as a training set and the rest used to test the neural network's ability to predict the next moves played in the real games. This allows Darkforest to accurately evaluate the global state of the board, but local tactics were still poor. Search-based engines have poor global evaluation, but are good at local tactics. Combining these two approaches is difficult because search-based engines work much faster than neural networks, a problem which was solved in Darkfores2 by running the processes in parallel with frequent communication between the two. === Conventional strategies === Go is generally played by analyzing the position of the stones on the board. Various advanced players have described it as playing in some part subconsciously. Unlike chess and checkers, where AI players can simply look further forward at moves than human players, but with each round of Go having on average 250 possible moves, that approach is ineffective. Instead, neural networks copy human play by training the AI systems on images of successful moves, the AI can effectively learn how to interpret how the board looks, as many grandmasters do. In November 2015, Facebook demonstrated the combination of MCTS with neural networks, which played with a style that "felt human". === Flaws === It has been noted that Darkforest still has flaws in its playstyle. The bot sometimes plays tenuki ("move elsewhere") pointlessly when local powerful moves are required. When the bot is losing, it shows the typical behavior of MCTS, it plays bad moves and loses more. The Facebook AI team has acknowledged these as areas of future improvement. == Program architecture == The family of Darkforest computer go programs is based on convolution neural networks. The most recent advances in Darkfmcts3 combined convolutional neural networks with more traditional Monte Carlo tree search. Darkfmcts3 is the most advanced version of Darkforest, which combines Facebook's most advanced convolutional neural network architecture from Darkfores2 with a Monte Carlo tree search. Darkfmcts3 relies on a convolution neural networks that predicts the next k moves based on the current state of play. It treats the board as a 19x19 image with multiple channels. Each channel represents a different aspect of board information based upon the specific style of play. For standard and extended play, there are 21 and 25 different channels, respectively. In standard play, each players liberties are represented as six binary channels or planes. The respective plane is true if the player one, two, or three or more liberties available. Ko (i.e. illegal moves) is represented as one binary plane. Stone placement for each opponent and empty board positions are represented as three binary planes, and the duration since a stone has been placed is represented as real numbers on two planes, one for each player. Lastly, the opponents rank is represented by nine binary planes, where if all are true, the player is a 9d level, if 8 are true, an 8d level, and so forth. Extended play additionally considers the border (binary plane that is true at the border), position mask (represented as distance from the board center, i.e. x ( − 0.5 ∗ d i s t a n c e 2 ) {\displaystyle x^{(-0.5distance^{2})}} , where x {\displaystyle x} is a real number at a position), and each player's territory (binary, based on which player a location is closer to). Darkfmct3 uses a 12-layer full convolutional network with a width of 384 nodes without weight sharing or pooling. Each convolutional layer is followed by a rectified linear unit, a popular activation function for deep neural networks. A key innovation of Darkfmct3 compared to previous approaches is that it uses only one softmax function to predict the next move, which enables the approach to reduce the overall number of parameters. Darkfmct3 was trained against 300 random selected games from an empirical dataset representing different game stages. The learning rate was determined by vanilla stochastic gradient descent. Darkfmct3 synchronously couples a convolutional neural network with a Monte Carlo tree search. Since the convolutional neural network is computationally taxing, the Monte Carlo tree search focuses computation on the more likely game play trajectories. By running the neural network synchronously with the Monte Carlo tree search, it is possible to guarantee that each node is expanded by the moves predicted by the neural network. == Comparison with other systems == Darkfores2 beats Darkforest, its neural network-only predecessor, around 90% of the time, and Pachi, one of the best search-based engines, around 95% of the time. On the Kyu rating system, Darkforest holds a 1-2d level. Darkfores2 achieves a stable 3d level on KGS Go Server as a ranked bot. With the added Monte Carlo tree search, Darkfmcts3 with 5,000 rollouts beats Pachi with 10k rollouts in all 250 games; with 75k rollouts it achieves a stable 5d level in KGS server, on par with state-of-the-art Go AIs (e.g., Zen, DolBaram, CrazyStone); with 110k rollouts, it won the 3rd place in January KGS Go Tournament.
Read more →
Hive (artificial intelligence company)

Hive is an American artificial intelligence company offering machine learning models via APIs to enterprise customers. Hive uses around 700,000 gig workers to train data for its models through its Hive Work app. One of Hive's major offerings is to provide automated content moderation services. == Products == Hive is reported to have been engaged to provide content moderation services to social news aggregator Reddit, Giphy, BeReal, Donald Trump-affiliated social network Truth Social, and on online chat website Chatroulette. Parler, after its shutdown by content service providers in early 2021 due to a lack of content moderation, integrated with Hive and was allowed back in the App Store. Hive's content moderation models have been leveraged widely in the livestreaming industry, where the cost of human moderation is high. Hive's models have also been used in events such as the Super Bowl and March Madness, and its contextual advertising models used by NBC Universal and Vevo. Hive provides APIs to detect deepfakes and AI-generated artwork. In early 2023, Hive released a free demo text classifier intended to detect AI-generated text. Mark Hachman at PC World rated Hive's classifier favorably and found it more reliable than OpenAI's AI text classifier. == History == Hive was founded by Kevin Guo and Dmitriy Karpman, and in April 2021, announced $85M in new capital at a valuation of $2 billion.
Read more →
Psychology in cybersecurity

The psychology of cybersecurity (often intersecting with usable security and cyberpsychology) is an interdisciplinary field studying how human behavior, cognitive biases, and social dynamics influence information security. While traditional cybersecurity focuses on hardware and software vulnerabilities, this discipline addresses the "human factor," which is exploited in cyberattacks. Psychology in cybersecurity draws from cognitive psychology and human–computer interaction. == History and evolution == The challenge of human behavior in computing was noted as early as the 1960s with multi-user mainframes like the Compatible Time-Sharing System (CTSS). In 1966, a software error on CTSS caused the system's master password file to be displayed to every user upon login—one of the earliest documented security incidents attributable to a combination of system design and human factors. These behaviors gained broader significance in the 1990s as the Internet became widely accessible. High-profile incidents involving figures like Kevin Mitnick demonstrated how human trust could be exploited through social engineering such as pretexting over the phone. == Cognitive and behavioral factors == Much of the psychology of cybersecurity focuses on decision-making under stress or uncertainty. Researchers apply frameworks like dual process theory to explain why humans fall for phishing or business email compromise. Threat actors design malicious communications to trigger fast, emotional "System 1" thinking—using urgency, authority, or panic, which prompts users to click a link or wire funds before their analytical "System 2" can assess the situation's legitimacy. Industry research has consistently documented the effectiveness of these techniques at scale, pointing to several recurring psychological phenomena that influence daily security practices: Cognitive biases: The optimism bias leads users to believe they are unlikely to be targeted by cybercriminals, resulting in lax password practices or delayed software updates. The availability heuristic causes individuals to focus on highly publicized, sophisticated threats while ignoring common, statistically probable risks like credential reuse. Social influence: Attackers leverage established principles of persuasion, such as those categorized by Robert Cialdini. Impersonating a CEO leverages the psychological trigger of authority, while fake tech support scams use reciprocity (offering to fix a problem before asking for network credentials). == Neurological and pre-cognitive factors == Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies show that neural activation in visual and attentional regions decreases with repeated exposure to the same stimulus, a phenomenon termed repetition suppression. Experiments have confirmed this effect in the context of security warnings: static warning designs produce declines in user attention and adherence. Information processing research on phishing indicates that affective cues, such as artificial urgency or fear, increase cognitive load and elicit automatic heuristic processing, reducing the likelihood of analytical evaluation and facilitating compliance with malicious requests. == Security fatigue and organizational dynamics == Aggressive cybersecurity postures can sometimes lead to mental and emotional exhaustion, a phenomenon known as security fatigue. === Alert fatigue === One example is alert fatigue, which most frequently affects both end-users and security operations center analysts. Continuous exposure to browser warnings or antivirus pop-ups, particularly those that are false positives, conditions users to dismiss alerts automatically due to the volume of notifications rather than their repetitive appearance (see § Neurological and pre-cognitive factors). The scale of this problem is significant in enterprise: SOC teams in large organizations receive thousands of alerts daily, and a survey published in ACM Computer Surveys found that analysts spend over 25% of their time handling false positives, meaning that malicious indicators can be buried in the noise. === Password fatigue === Similarly, password fatigue is the feeling experienced by many people who are required to remember an excessive number of passwords as part of their daily routine, such as to log in to a computer at work. Users cope with the memory burden by making predictable, iterative changes to their passwords (such as updating "Password01!" to "Password02!"), which decreases password security.
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 →
Korean Decimal Classification

The Korean Decimal Classification (KDC) is a system of library classification used in South Korea. The structure and main level classes of the KDC are based on the Dewey Decimal Classification. The KDC is maintained and published by the Classification Committee of the Korean Library Association. The first edition of the classification was published in 1964; the most recent edition is the sixth edition published in 2013. Almost all school and public libraries in South Korea use the KDC to organize their collections, as well as the National Library of Korea and some university libraries. == History == Multiple library classification systems had been developed for Korean libraries before the publication of the KDC. These included the Railway Bureau Library Classification(1920), the Korean Decimal Classification edited by Bong-Suk Park(known as KDCP, 1947), the Han-Un Decimal Classification(1954), and the Kuk-Yeon Decimal Classification(1958). After the disappearance of editor Bong-Suk Park in the 1950s, the KDCP system decreased in use. Korean librarians considered adopting the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC), especially after it was implemented at Yonsei University in 1957, but struggled to apply it to East Asian and Korean-focused works in their collections. In February 1963, members of the Korean Library Association's Classification were appointed to create a national classification; they decided to make revisions to the order of the main classes of the DDC, for example bringing together the class Language(700) together with the class for Literature(800). Committee members prepared draft classes and indexes and the first edition of the KDC was published in May 1964. Both the text and the index were written in Korean Hangul characters and Chinese characters. The second edition was published just two years later, in 1966, correcting errors and omissions found in the first edition. The third edition was published in 1980, maintaining the basic framework of the previous editions while expanding significantly. The fourth edition, published in 1996, made considerable changes, including increasing the number of representatives on the Classification Committee. The committee sought feedback from the library community and implemented revisions included in the recently published edition 20 of the DDC and edition 9 of the Nippon Decimal Classification. New policies applied to the fourth edition included principles suggesting the main classes should remain as static as possible, with focus shown to expanding classes devoted to technology and science. Likewise, many subject specialists were consulted for the publication of the fifth edition in 2009. The publication of the 23rd edition of the DDC in 2011 provided opportunity for a new revision of the KDC, and the sixth edition was published in July 2013. Greater numbers of classes provided number building capacity in the sixth edition, allowing for more specificity. == Description == The KDC classifies resources primarily by discipline, though some classes are collocated by subject. There are eight auxiliary mnemonic tables used to expand class numbers. The main classes of the KDC are the same as the main classes of the Dewey Decimal Classification, but four of those main classes are in a different order: Natural sciences (400), Technology and engineering (500), Arts (600), and Language 700. Though the structure is heavily influenced by the DDC, aspects of multiple library classifications have been invoked in the creation of the KDC, including the Library of Congress Classification for the arrangement of the social sciences (300), the Universal Decimal Classification for medical sciences (510), the KDCP for Korean and Oriental subjects, the Nippon Decimal Classification for those of Japan and Oriental subjects. === Classes of the KDC 6th edition === 000 General works 000 General works 010 Books, Bibliography 020 Library & information science 030 General encyclopedias 040 General collected essays 050 General serial publications 060 General societies 070 Newspapers, journalism 080 General collected works 090 Materials of province 100 Philosophy 100 Philosophy 110 Metaphysics 120 Epistemology, etc. 130 Systems of philosophy 140 Chinese classics 150 Oriental philosophy and thought 160 Western philosophy 170 Logic 180 Psychology 190 Ethics, moral philosophy 200 Religion 200 Religion 210 Comparative religion 220 Buddhism 230 Christian religion 240 Taoism 250 Chondoism 260 [Unassigned] 270 Hinduism, Brahmanism 280 Islam, Mohammedianism 290 Other religions 300 Social sciences 300 Social sciences 310 Statistics 320 Economics 330 Sociology and social problems 340 Political sciences 350 Public administration 360 Law 370 Education 380 Customs, Etiquette, Folklore 390 Military science 400 Natural sciences 400 Natural sciences 410 Mathematics 420 Physics 430 Chemistry 440 Astronomy 450 Earth science 460 Mineralogy 470 Life science 480 Botany 490 Zoological science 500 Technology 500 Technology 510 Medical science 520 Agriculture 530 Engineering, technology, etc. 540 Construction and architecture 550 Mechanical engineering 560 Electrical, comm. & electric engineering 570 Chemical engineering 580 Manufactures 590 Human ecology 600 Arts 600 Arts 610 [Unassigned] 620 Sculpture, plastic art 630 Crafts 640 Calligraphy 650 Painting, design 660 Photography 670 Music 680 Stage performance, museum arts 690 Amusements, sports & physical training 700 Language 700 Language 710 Korean language 720 Chinese language 730 Japanese & other Asian languages 740 English 750 German 760 French languages 770 Spanish languages & Portuguese language 780 Italian languages 790 Other languages 800 Literature 800 Literature 810 Korean literature 820 Chinese literature 830 Japanese & other Asian literature 840 English & American literature 850 German literature 860 French literature 870 Spanish & Portuguese literature 880 Italian literature 890 Other literatures 900 History 900 History 910 Asia 920 Europe 930 Africa 940 North America 950 South America 960 Oceania and Polar regions 970 [Unassigned] 980 Geography 990 Biography === Expansion tables === Table 1. Standard subdivisions Table 2. Geographic Areas Table 3. Korean geographic areas Table 4. Korean historical period Table 5. Languages Table 6. Subdivisions of individual languages Table 7. Subdivisions of individual literatures Table 8. Subdivisions of individual religions == Usage == KDC is used by a wide range of libraries within Korea, including by the National Library of Korea and most school and public libraries in the country, along with some university libraries, such as the one at Keimyung University.
Read more →