AI App Q

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

  • Corpus of Linguistic Acceptability

    Corpus of Linguistic Acceptability

    Corpus of Linguistic Acceptability (CoLA) is a dataset the primary purpose of which is to serve as a benchmark for evaluating the ability of artificial neural networks, including large language models, to judge the grammatical correctness of sentences. It consists of 10,657 English sentences from published linguistics literature that were manually labeled either as grammatical or ungrammatical. == Public version == The publicly available version of CoLA contains 9,594 sentences that belong to training and development sets. It excludes 1,063 sentences reserved for a held-out test set.

    Read more →
  • CogX Festival

    CogX Festival

    CogX Festival is a global festival focusing on the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) and emerging technology on industry, government, and society. It takes place annually, usually in September, in London, England. Founded by Charlie Muirhead and Tabitha Goldstaub in 2017, CogX aims to facilitate dialogue and understanding about AI and its implications across various sectors. CogX Festival 2023 was held from September 12 to September 14 across multiple sites in London. == History == The inaugural CogX event took place in 2017, intending to bring together experts from diverse fields to discuss the role and impact of AI and emerging technologies. Since then, it has evolved to include a broader range of topics and attract a diverse audience. In 2018, the first CogX Awards festival was hosted. That year, over 50 awards were shown to 300 guests. In 2021, CogX and Hopin, a video conferencing software, signed an agreement lasting 4 years to make CogX a hybrid conference due to the COVID-19 pandemic. CogX 2021 attracted over 5,000 attendees in-person and over 100,000 virtually. In 2022, they returned to a live event format after two years of hybrid events and controlled physical attendance. They also launched the CogX app, which curated insights from the world's top podcasts. In 2023, after he had delivered the keynote address guest speaker Stephen Fry fell off the stage and subsequently broke his leg, hip, pelvis and a "bunch of ribs". A court filing in 2026 revealed that Fry was seeking £100,000 in damages from CogX Festival Ltd and creative agency Blonstein Events. == Programming == The festival features sessions, discussions, workshops, and exhibitions, encompassing various domains of AI and technology. In recent CogX Festivals, they have featured summits encompassing topics like global leadership and industry transformation.

    Read more →
  • Artificial intelligence in pharmacy

    Artificial intelligence in pharmacy

    Artificial intelligence in pharmacy refers to the application of artificial intelligence (AI) techniques across pharmaceutical research and practice, including drug discovery, drug delivery, safety monitoring, clinical decision support, and pharmacy operations. Machine learning, deep learning, and natural language processing have been applied to tasks ranging from molecular design to patient adherence monitoring, with the aim of reducing development costs, improving accuracy, and personalizing treatment. Adoption has been uneven. Barriers include limited AI training among pharmacists, high infrastructure costs, and the risk of harm from models trained on unrepresentative data. Regulatory frameworks for AI-based pharmaceutical tools remain in active development across most jurisdictions. == Applications == === Drug discovery and development === Drug development is resource-intensive: bringing a single drug to market typically costs around $2.6 billion and takes 12–14 years. Machine learning algorithms have been applied to analyze molecular datasets to identify potential drug candidates, predict drug–target interactions, and optimize formulations. Artificial neural networks and generative adversarial networks have been used in drug discovery tasks including virtual screening, structure-activity relationship modeling, and de novo molecule generation. Peptides designed using AI methods have shown activity against multidrug-resistant bacteria, and transcriptomic data from human cell lines has been used to train deep learning models to classify drugs by therapeutic properties. Results in drug discovery have been mixed. AI models depend on the quality and diversity of their training data; those trained on narrow chemical libraries can fail to generalize to novel molecular scaffolds. The gap between high virtual screening hit rates and success in preclinical or clinical testing remains a persistent challenge, and the translation of computationally predicted candidates into approved drugs has been slower than early projections suggested. === Drug delivery systems === AI methods including neural networks, principal component analysis, and neuro-fuzzy logic have been applied to identifying biological targets for pharmaceuticals and analyzing genetic information relevant to drug design. Computational models can predict how a formulation will behave in biological systems, helping narrow the field before laboratory synthesis begins. Systems have been proposed that monitor patient response and adjust doses in real time based on individual physiology, with potential applications in chronic disease management. Research has also explored AI applications in targeted cancer treatments and oral vaccine delivery, areas where precise control over drug release kinetics is a design priority. === Drug safety === AI has been applied to predicting and detecting adverse drug reactions using techniques including knowledge graphs, logistic regression classifiers, and neural networks. A 2023 study developed a machine learning algorithm using knowledge graph analysis to classify known causes of adverse reactions. Natural language processing and deep learning models including long short-term memory (LSTM) networks have shown better performance than conventional methods for detecting opioid misuse, drawing on both structured data from electronic health records and unstructured sources such as clinical notes. AI-based pharmacovigilance systems can scan large volumes of electronic health records and social media for drug safety signals at a scale not feasible with manual review. Limitations include difficulty distinguishing drug-related adverse events from unrelated conditions in free-text data, and the need for validated benchmarks to measure model performance against existing safety monitoring standards. === Clinical decision support and personalized medicine === Machine learning systems trained on patient datasets can predict individual risk profiles, including potential allergies and drug–drug interactions, reducing the risk of harm in complex polypharmacy cases where the number of possible interactions exceeds what a clinician can readily assess. Personalized dosing models have been developed for drugs with narrow therapeutic windows — including anticoagulants and immunosuppressants — using patient-specific variables such as weight, renal function, and relevant genetic markers. Prospective clinical validation of these systems has lagged behind their technical development. Most published evaluations report performance on retrospective datasets, and the regulatory pathway for AI-based clinical decision support tools in pharmacy varies by jurisdiction. === Pharmacy operations and automation === Robotic and AI-driven systems have been applied to dispensing accuracy and pharmacy logistics. At the UCSF Medical Center, robotic technology produced 350,000 medication doses with no dispensing errors recorded. Robots such as TUG assist with preparing and transporting medications and laboratory samples within hospital settings. AI has also been applied to inventory management, with demand-forecasting systems predicting medicine requirements to reduce shortages and minimize waste from expired stock. In community pharmacy settings, AI tools have been used to flag potential prescription errors and alert pharmacists to drug–drug interactions before dispensing. === Medication adherence === Confirming that patients take prescribed medications as directed is a persistent challenge in healthcare. AI-enabled tools including smart pillboxes, RFID tags, ingestible sensors, and video check-ins have been applied to this problem. Smart pillboxes record when they are opened, providing real-time adherence data that can be reviewed remotely by care teams. Ingestible sensors transmit a signal after dissolution, offering direct confirmation of ingestion rather than proxy measures such as pill count or self-report. == Adoption challenges == === Barriers === Several barriers limit AI adoption in pharmacy practice. Many published evaluations report model performance on retrospective datasets rather than prospective clinical outcomes, making it difficult to assess real-world benefit. Pharmacists have reported limited AI training and knowledge, and research facilities often lack the computational infrastructure required for model development and validation. Models trained on biased or unrepresentative datasets can produce misleading results with direct patient safety consequences. === Regulatory frameworks === Regulatory frameworks for AI-based pharmaceutical tools are in active development. In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued guidance on AI and machine learning-based software as a medical device, addressing requirements for pre-market review and post-market performance monitoring. The European Medicines Agency has published discussion papers on the use of AI across the medicines development lifecycle, with particular attention to transparency in model training and validation. The absence of harmonized international standards creates compliance complexity for developers operating across multiple jurisdictions. === Ethical challenges === AI adoption raises data privacy and security concerns, including the risk of exposing sensitive patient information through data breaches. Algorithmic bias presents a related hazard: a model trained on an unrepresentative patient population may generate unsuitable treatment recommendations for patients not reflected in its training data, with potential for disparate outcomes across demographic groups. The opacity of some machine learning models, particularly deep neural networks, limits clinicians' ability to interpret or contest a recommendation, raising questions of accountability when a model-assisted decision results in patient harm. === Proposed solutions === Responses proposed in the literature include AI-focused education programs for pharmacists, increased public funding for healthcare AI research, encryption and governance frameworks for patient data, and regulatory requirements to prevent the use of biased training datasets. Greater transparency about training data provenance, model architecture, and validation methodology has also been recommended, including disclosure requirements in regulatory submissions. === Future directions === Research groups have called for tighter integration between AI systems and electronic health records to reduce healthcare costs and improve continuity of care across settings. International collaboration through shared AI frameworks and federated learning approaches has been proposed to address data scarcity in underrepresented patient populations and accelerate validation across institutions.

    Read more →
  • The Machine That Won the War (short story)

    The Machine That Won the War (short story)

    "The Machine That Won the War" is a science fiction short story by American writer Isaac Asimov. The story first appeared in the October 1961 issue of The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction, and was reprinted in the collections Nightfall and Other Stories (1969) and Robot Dreams (1986). It was also printed in a contemporary edition of Reader's Digest, illustrated. It is one of a loosely connected series of such stories concerning a fictional supercomputer called Multivac. == Plot summary == Three influential leaders of the human race meet in the aftermath of a successful war against the Denebians. Discussing how the vast and powerful Multivac computer was a decisive factor in the war, each of the men admits that in fact, he falsified his part of the decision process because he felt that the situation was too complex to follow normal procedures. John Henderson, Multivac's Chief Programmer, admits that he altered the data being fed to Multivac, since the populace could not be trusted to report accurate information in the current situation. Max Jablonski then admits that he altered the data that Multivac produced, since he knew that Multivac was not in good working order due to manpower and spare parts shortage. Finally, Lamar Swift, executive director of the Solar Federation, reveals that he had not trusted the reports produced by Multivac, and had made the final decisions purely on the toss of a coin.

    Read more →
  • Scikit-learn

    Scikit-learn

    scikit-learn (formerly scikits.learn and also known as sklearn) is a free and open-source machine learning library for the Python programming language. It features various classification, regression and clustering algorithms including support-vector machines, random forests, gradient boosting, k-means and DBSCAN, and is designed to interoperate with the Python numerical and scientific libraries NumPy and SciPy. Scikit-learn is a NumFOCUS fiscally sponsored project. == Overview == The scikit-learn project started as scikits.learn, a Google Summer of Code project by French data scientist David Cournapeau. The name of the project derives from its role as a "scientific toolkit for machine learning", originally developed and distributed as a third-party extension to SciPy. The original codebase was later rewritten by other developers. In 2010, contributors Fabian Pedregosa, Gaël Varoquaux, Alexandre Gramfort and Vincent Michel, from the French Institute for Research in Computer Science and Automation in Saclay, France, took leadership of the project and released the first public version of the library on February 1, 2010. In November 2012, scikit-learn as well as scikit-image were described as two of the "well-maintained and popular" scikits libraries. In 2019, it was noted that scikit-learn is one of the most popular machine learning libraries on GitHub. At that time, the project had over 1,400 contributors and the documentation received 42 million visits in 2018. According to a 2022 Kaggle survey of nearly 24,000 respondents from 173 countries, scikit-learn was identified as the most widely used machine learning framework. == Features == Large catalogue of well-established machine learning algorithms and data pre-processing methods (i.e. feature engineering) Utility methods for common data-science tasks, such as splitting data into train and test sets, cross-validation and grid search Consistent way of running machine learning models (estimator.fit() and estimator.predict()), which libraries can implement Declarative way of structuring a data science process (the Pipeline), including data pre-processing and model fitting == Examples == Fitting a random forest classifier: == Implementation == scikit-learn is largely written in Python, and uses NumPy extensively for high-performance linear algebra and array operations. Furthermore, some core algorithms are written in Cython to improve performance. Support vector machines are implemented by a Cython wrapper around LIBSVM; logistic regression and linear support vector machines by a similar wrapper around LIBLINEAR. In such cases, extending these methods with Python may not be possible. scikit-learn integrates well with many other Python libraries, such as Matplotlib and plotly for plotting, NumPy for array vectorization, Pandas dataframes, SciPy, and many more. == History == scikit-learn was initially developed by David Cournapeau as a Google Summer of Code project in 2007. Later that year, Matthieu Brucher joined the project and started to use it as a part of his thesis work. In 2010, INRIA, the French Institute for Research in Computer Science and Automation, got involved and the first public release (v0.1 beta) was published in late January 2010. The project released its first stable version, 1.0.0, on September 24, 2021. The release was the result of over 2,100 merged pull requests, approximately 800 of which were dedicated to improving documentation. Development continues to focus on bug fixes, efficiency and feature expansion. The latest version, 1.8, was released on December 10, 2025. This update introduced native Array API support, enabling the library to perform GPU computations by directly using PyTorch and CuPy arrays. This version also included bug fixes, improvements and new features, such as efficiency improvements to the fit time of linear models. == Applications == Scikit-learn is widely used across industries for a variety of machine learning tasks such as classification, regression, clustering, and model selection. The following are real-world applications of the library: === Finance and Insurance === AXA uses scikit-learn to speed up the compensation process for car accidents and to detect insurance fraud. Zopa, a peer-to-peer lending platform, employs scikit-learn for credit risk modelling, fraud detection, marketing segmentation, and loan pricing. BNP Paribas Cardif uses scikit-learn to improve the dispatching of incoming mail and manage internal model risk governance through pipelines that reduce operational and overfitting risks. J.P. Morgan reports broad usage of scikit-learn across the bank for classification tasks and predictive analytics in financial decision-making. === Retail and E-Commerce === Booking.com uses scikit-learn for hotel and destination recommendation systems, fraudulent reservation detection, and workforce scheduling for customer support agents. HowAboutWe uses it to predict user engagement and preferences on a dating platform. Lovely leverages the library to understand user behaviour and detect fraudulent activity on its platform. Data Publica uses it for customer segmentation based on the success of past partnerships. Otto Group integrates scikit-learn throughout its data science stack, particularly in logistics optimization and product recommendations. === Media, Marketing, and Social Platforms === Spotify applies scikit-learn in its recommendation systems. Betaworks uses the library for both recommendation systems (e.g., for Digg) and dynamic subspace clustering applied to weather forecasting data. PeerIndex used scikit-learn for missing data imputation, tweet classification, and community clustering in social media analytics. Bestofmedia Group employs it for spam detection and ad click prediction. Machinalis utilizes scikit-learn for click-through rate prediction and relational information extraction for content classification and advertising optimization. Change.org applies scikit-learn for targeted email outreach based on user behaviour. === Technology === AWeber uses scikit-learn to extract features from emails and build pipelines for managing large-scale email campaigns. Solido applies it to semiconductor design tasks such as rare-event estimation and worst-case verification using statistical learning. Evernote, Dataiku, and other tech companies employ scikit-learn in prototyping and production workflows due to its consistent API and integration with the Python ecosystem. === Academia === Télécom ParisTech integrates scikit-learn in hands-on coursework and assignments as part of its machine learning curriculum. == Awards == 2019 Inria-French Academy of Sciences-Dassault Systèmes Innovation Prize: Awarded in recognition of scikit-learn's impact as a major free software breakthrough in machine learning and its role in the digital transformation of science and industry. 2022 Open Science Award for Open Source Research Software: Awarded by the French Ministry of Higher Education and Research as part of the second National Plan for Open Science. The project was recognized in the "Community" category for its technical quality, its large international contributor network, and the quality of its documentation.

    Read more →
  • Content-based image retrieval

    Content-based image retrieval

    Content-based image retrieval, also known as query by image content (QBIC) and content-based visual information retrieval (CBVIR), is the application of computer vision techniques to the image retrieval problem, that is, the problem of searching for digital images in large databases (see this survey for a scientific overview of the CBIR field). Content-based image retrieval is opposed to traditional concept-based approaches (see Concept-based image indexing). "Content-based" means that the search analyzes the contents of the image rather than the metadata such as keywords, tags, or descriptions associated with the image. The term "content" in this context might refer to colors, shapes, textures, or any other information that can be derived from the image itself. CBIR is desirable because searches that rely purely on metadata are dependent on annotation quality and completeness. == Comparison with metadata searching == An image meta search requires humans to have manually annotated images by entering keywords or metadata in a large database, which can be time-consuming and may not capture the keywords desired to describe the image. The evaluation of the effectiveness of keyword image search is subjective and has not been well-defined. In the same regard, CBIR systems have similar challenges in defining success. "Keywords also limit the scope of queries to the set of predetermined criteria." and, "having been set up" are less reliable than using the content itself. == History == The term "content-based image retrieval" seems to have originated in 1992 when it was used by Japanese Electrotechnical Laboratory engineer Toshikazu Kato to describe experiments into automatic retrieval of images from a database, based on the colors and shapes present. Since then, the term has been used to describe the process of retrieving desired images from a large collection on the basis of syntactical image features. The techniques, tools, and algorithms that are used originate from fields such as statistics, pattern recognition, signal processing, and computer vision. === QBIC - Query By Image Content === The earliest commercial CBIR system was developed by IBM and was called QBIC (Query By Image Content). Recent network- and graph-based approaches have presented a simple and attractive alternative to existing methods. While the storing of multiple images as part of a single entity preceded the term BLOB (Binary Large OBject), the ability to fully search by content, rather than by description, had to await IBM's QBIC. === VisualRank === == Technical progress == The interest in CBIR has grown because of the limitations inherent in metadata-based systems, as well as the large range of possible uses for efficient image retrieval. Textual information about images can be easily searched using existing technology, but this requires humans to manually describe each image in the database. This can be impractical for very large databases or for images that are generated automatically, e.g. those from surveillance cameras. It is also possible to miss images that use different synonyms in their descriptions. Systems based on categorizing images in semantic classes like "cat" as a subclass of "animal" can avoid the miscategorization problem, but will require more effort by a user to find images that might be "cats", but are only classified as an "animal". Many standards have been developed to categorize images, but all still face scaling and miscategorization issues. Initial CBIR systems were developed to search databases based on image color, texture, and shape properties. After these systems were developed, the need for user-friendly interfaces became apparent. Therefore, efforts in the CBIR field started to include human-centered design that tried to meet the needs of the user performing the search. This typically means inclusion of: query methods that may allow descriptive semantics, queries that may involve user feedback, systems that may include machine learning, and systems that may understand user satisfaction levels. == Techniques == Many CBIR systems have been developed, but as of 2006, the problem of retrieving images on the basis of their pixel content remains largely unsolved. Different query techniques and implementations of CBIR make use of different types of user queries. === Query By Example === QBE (Query By Example) is a query technique that involves providing the CBIR system with an example image that it will then base its search upon. The underlying search algorithms may vary depending on the application, but result images should all share common elements with the provided example. Options for providing example images to the system include: A preexisting image may be supplied by the user or chosen from a random set. The user draws a rough approximation of the image they are looking for, for example with blobs of color or general shapes. This query technique removes the difficulties that can arise when trying to describe images with words. === Semantic retrieval === Semantic retrieval starts with a user making a request like "find pictures of Abraham Lincoln". This type of open-ended task is very difficult for computers to perform - Lincoln may not always be facing the camera or in the same pose. Many CBIR systems therefore generally make use of lower-level features like texture, color, and shape. These features are either used in combination with interfaces that allow easier input of the criteria or with databases that have already been trained to match features (such as faces, fingerprints, or shape matching). However, in general, image retrieval requires human feedback in order to identify higher-level concepts. === Relevance feedback (human interaction) === Combining CBIR search techniques available with the wide range of potential users and their intent can be a difficult task. An aspect of making CBIR successful relies entirely on the ability to understand the user intent. CBIR systems can make use of relevance feedback, where the user progressively refines the search results by marking images in the results as "relevant", "not relevant", or "neutral" to the search query, then repeating the search with the new information. Examples of this type of interface have been developed. === Iterative/machine learning === Machine learning and application of iterative techniques are becoming more common in CBIR. === Other query methods === Other query methods include browsing for example images, navigating customized/hierarchical categories, querying by image region (rather than the entire image), querying by multiple example images, querying by visual sketch, querying by direct specification of image features, and multimodal queries (e.g. combining touch, voice, etc.) == Content comparison using image distance measures == The most common method for comparing two images in content-based image retrieval (typically an example image and an image from the database) is using an image distance measure. An image distance measure compares the similarity of two images in various dimensions such as color, texture, shape, and others. For example, a distance of 0 signifies an exact match with the query, with respect to the dimensions that were considered. As one may intuitively gather, a value greater than 0 indicates various degrees of similarities between the images. Search results then can be sorted based on their distance to the queried image. Many measures of image distance (Similarity Models) have been developed. === Color === Computing distance measures based on color similarity is achieved by computing a color histogram for each image that identifies the proportion of pixels within an image holding specific values. Examining images based on the colors they contain is one of the most widely used techniques because it can be completed without regard to image size or orientation. However, research has also attempted to segment color proportion by region and by spatial relationship among several color regions. === Texture === Texture measures look for visual patterns in images and how they are spatially defined. Textures are represented by texels which are then placed into a number of sets, depending on how many textures are detected in the image. These sets not only define the texture, but also where in the image the texture is located. Texture is a difficult concept to represent. The identification of specific textures in an image is achieved primarily by modeling texture as a two-dimensional gray level variation. The relative brightness of pairs of pixels is computed such that degree of contrast, regularity, coarseness and directionality may be estimated. The problem is in identifying patterns of co-pixel variation and associating them with particular classes of textures such as silky, or rough. Other methods of classifying textures include: Co-occurrence matrix Laws texture energy Wavelet transform Orthogonal transforms (discrete Chebyshev moments) =

    Read more →
  • Question (short story)

    Question (short story)

    "Question" is a science fiction short story by American writer Isaac Asimov. The story first appeared in the March 1955 issue of Computers and Automation (thought to be the first computer magazine), and was reprinted in the April 30, 1957, issue of Science World. It is the first of a loosely connected series of stories concerning a fictional supercomputer called Multivac. The story concerns two technicians who are servicing Multivac, and their argument over whether or not the machine is truly intelligent and able to think. Multivac, however, supplies the answer on its own. After the reprint, another author, Robert Sherman Townes, noticed the climax in the last sentence was very similar to one of his own stories, "Problem for Emmy" (Startling Stories, June 1952), and wrote to Asimov about it. After searching in his library, Asimov did find the original story and, although he did not recall having read it, admitted that the endings were pretty similar. He then replied to Townes, apologizing and promising the story would never again be published, and it never was. Asimov mentioned "Question" in an editorial called "Plagiarism" which appeared in the August 1985 issue of Asimov's Science Fiction (although he did not mention Townes' name or the title of either story). "Plagiarism" was reprinted in Asimov's collection Gold (1995).

    Read more →
  • Paranoia (role-playing game)

    Paranoia (role-playing game)

    Paranoia is a dystopian science-fiction tabletop role-playing game originally designed and written by Greg Costikyan, Dan Gelber, and Eric Goldberg, and first published in 1984 by West End Games. Since 2004 the game has been published under license by Mongoose Publishing. The game won the Origins Award for Best Roleplaying Rules of 1984 and was inducted into the Origins Awards Hall of Fame in 2007. Paranoia is notable among tabletop games for being more competitive than co-operative, with players encouraged to betray one another for their own interests, as well as for keeping a light-hearted, tongue in cheek tone despite its dystopian setting. Several editions of the game have been published since the original version, and the franchise has spawned several spin-offs, novels and comic books based on the game. == Premise == The game is set in a dystopian future city controlled by the Computer (also known as "Friend Computer"), and where information (including the game rules) are restricted by color-coded "security clearance". Player characters are initially enforcers of the Computer's authority known as Troubleshooters, and are given missions to seek out and eliminate threats to the Computer's control. They are also part of prohibited underground movements, and have secret objectives including theft from and murder of other player characters. == Tone == Paranoia is a humorous role-playing game set in a dystopian future along the lines of Nineteen Eighty-Four, Brave New World, Logan's Run, and THX 1138; however, the tone of the game is rife with black humor, frequently tongue-in-cheek rather than dark and heavy. Most of the game's humor is derived from the players' (usually futile) attempts to complete their assignment while simultaneously adhering to the Computer's arbitrary, contradictory and often nonsensical security directives. The Paranoia rulebook is unusual in a number of ways; demonstrating any knowledge of the rules is forbidden, and most of the rulebook is written in an easy, conversational tone that often makes fun of the players and their characters, while occasionally taking digs at other notable role-playing games. === Setting === The game's main setting is an immense, futuristic city called Alpha Complex. Alpha Complex is controlled by the Computer, a civil service AI construct (a literal realization of the "Influencing Machine" that some schizophrenics fear). The Computer serves as the game's principal antagonist, and fears a number of threats to its 'perfect' society, such as the Outdoors, mutants, and secret societies (especially Communists). To deal with these threats, the Computer employs Troubleshooters, whose job is to go out, find trouble, and shoot it. Player characters are usually Troubleshooters, although later game supplements have allowed the players to take on other roles, such as High-Programmers of Alpha Complex. The player characters frequently receive mission instructions from the Computer that are incomprehensible, self-contradictory, or obviously fatal if adhered to, and side-missions (such as Mandatory Bonus Duties) that conflict with the main mission. Failing a mission generally results in termination of the player character, but succeeding can just as often result in the same fate, after being rewarded for successfully concluding the mission. They are issued equipment that is uniformly dangerous, faulty, or "experimental" (i.e., almost certainly dangerous and faulty). Additionally, each player character is generally an unregistered mutant and a secret society member (which are both termination offenses in Alpha Complex), and has a hidden agenda separate from the group's goals, often involving stealing from or killing teammates. Thus, missions often turn into a comedy of errors, as everyone on the team seeks to double-cross everyone else while keeping their own secrets. The game's manual encourages suspicion between players, offering several tips on how to make the gameplay as paranoid as possible. Every player's character is assigned six clones, known as a six-pack, which are used to replace the preceding clone upon his or her death. The game lacks a conventional health system; most wounds the player characters can suffer are assumed to be fatal. As a result, Paranoia allows characters to be routinely killed, yet the player can continue instead of leaving the game. This easy spending of clones tends to lead to frequent firefights, gruesome slapstick, and the horrible yet humorous demise of most if not all of the player character's clone family. Additional clones can be purchased if one gains sufficient favour with the Computer. === Security clearances === Paranoia features a security clearance system based on colors of the visible spectrum which heavily restricts what the players can and cannot legally do; everything from corridors to food and equipment have security restrictions. The lowest rating is Infrared, but the lowest playable security clearance is Red; the game usually begins with the characters having just been promoted to Red grade. Interfering with anything which is above that player's clearance carries significant risk. The full order of clearances from lowest to highest is Infrared (visually represented by black), Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Indigo, Violet, and Ultraviolet (visually represented by white). Within the game, Infrared-clearance citizens live dull lives of mindless drudgery and are heavily medicated, while higher clearance characters may be allowed to demote or even summarily execute those of a lower rank and those with Ultraviolet clearance are almost completely unrestricted and have a great deal of access to the Computer; they are the only citizens that may (legally) access and modify the Computer's programming, and thus Ultraviolet citizens are also referred to as "High Programmers". Security clearance is not related to competence but is instead the result of the Computer's often insane and unjustified calculus of trust concerning a citizen. It is suggested that it may in fact be the High Programmers' meddling with The Computer's programming that resulted in its insanity. === Secret societies === In the game, secret societies tend to be based on sketchy and spurious knowledge of historical matters. For example, previous editions included societies such as the "Seal Club" that idolizes the Outdoors but is unsure what plants and animals actually look like. Other societies include the Knights of the Circular Object (based on the Knights of the Round Table), the Trekkies, and the First Church of Christ Computer Programmer. In keeping with the theme of paranoia, many secret societies have spies or double agents in each other's organizations. The first edition also included secret societies such as Programs Groups (the personal agents and spies of the High Programmers at the apex of Alpha Complex society) and Spy For Another Alpha Complex. The actual societies which would be encountered in a game depends on the play style; some societies are more suited for more light-hearted games (Zap-style, or the lighter end of Classic), whereas others represent a more serious threat to Alpha Complex and are therefore more suitable for Straight or the more dark sort of Classic games. == Publication history == Six editions have been published. Three of these were published by West End Games — the first, second, and fifth editions — whereas the later three editions (Paranoia XP, the 25th Anniversary edition and the "Red Clearance" edition) were published by Mongoose Publishing. In addition to these six published editions, it is known that West End Games were working on a third edition — to replace the poorly received fifth edition — in the late 1990s, but their financial issues would prevent this edition from being published, except for being included in one tournament adventure. === First edition === The first edition, was written by Greg Costikyan, Dan Gelber, and Eric Goldberg, and published in 1984 by West End Games. In 1985, this edition of Paranoia won the Origins Award for Best Roleplaying Rules of 1984. This edition, while encouraging dark humour in-game, took a fairly serious dystopian tone; the supplements and adventures released to accompany it emphasised the lighter side, however, establishing the freewheeling mix of slapstick, intra-team backstabbing and satire that is classically associated with a game of Paranoia. === Second edition === The second edition, is credited to Costikyan, Gelber, Goldberg, Ken Rolston, and Paul Murphy, was published in 1987 by West End Games. This edition can be seen as a response to the natural development of the line towards a rules-light, fast and entertaining play style. Here, the humorous possibilities of life in a paranoid dystopia are emphasised, and the rules are simplified. ==== Metaplot and the second edition ==== Many of the supplements released for the second edition fall into a story arc set up by new writers and line editors

    Read more →
  • Right to explanation

    Right to explanation

    In the regulation of algorithms, particularly artificial intelligence and its subfield of machine learning, a right to [an] explanation is a right to be given an explanation for an output of the algorithm. Such rights primarily refer to individual rights to be given an explanation for decisions that significantly affect an individual, particularly legally or financially. For example, a person who applies for a loan and is denied may ask for an explanation, which could be "Credit bureau X reports that you declared bankruptcy last year; this is the main factor in considering you too likely to default, and thus we will not give you the loan you applied for." Some such legal rights already exist, while the scope of a general "right to explanation" is a matter of ongoing debate. There have been arguments made that a "social right to explanation" is a crucial foundation for an information society, particularly as the institutions of that society will need to use digital technologies, artificial intelligence, machine learning. In other words, that the related automated decision making systems that use explainability would be more trustworthy and transparent. Without this right, which could be constituted both legally and through professional standards, the public will be left without much recourse to challenge the decisions of automated systems. == Examples == === Credit scoring in the United States === Under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (Regulation B of the Code of Federal Regulations), Title 12, Chapter X, Part 1002, §1002.9, creditors are required to notify applicants who are denied credit with specific reasons for the detail. As detailed in §1002.9(b)(2): (2) Statement of specific reasons. The statement of reasons for adverse action required by paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section must be specific and indicate the principal reason(s) for the adverse action. Statements that the adverse action was based on the creditor's internal standards or policies or that the applicant, joint applicant, or similar party failed to achieve a qualifying score on the creditor's credit scoring system are insufficient. The official interpretation of this section details what types of statements are acceptable. Creditors comply with this regulation by providing a list of reasons (generally at most 4, per interpretation of regulations), consisting of a numeric reason code (as identifier) and an associated explanation, identifying the main factors affecting a credit score. An example might be: 32: Balances on bankcard or revolving accounts too high compared to credit limits === European Union === The European Union General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR, enacted 2016, taking effect 2018) extends the automated decision-making rights in the 1995 Data Protection Directive to provide a legally disputed form of a right to an explanation, stated as such in Recital 71: "[the data subject should have] the right ... to obtain an explanation of the decision reached". In full: The data subject should have the right not to be subject to a decision, which may include a measure, evaluating personal aspects relating to him or her which is based solely on automated processing and which produces legal effects concerning him or her or similarly significantly affects him or her, such as automatic refusal of an online credit application or e-recruiting practices without any human intervention. ... In any case, such processing should be subject to suitable safeguards, which should include specific information to the data subject and the right to obtain human intervention, to express his or her point of view, to obtain an explanation of the decision reached after such assessment and to challenge the decision. However, the extent to which the regulations themselves provide a "right to explanation" is heavily debated. There are two main strands of criticism. There are significant legal issues with the right as found in Article 22 — as recitals are not binding, and the right to an explanation is not mentioned in the binding articles of the text, having been removed during the legislative process. In addition, there are significant restrictions on the types of automated decisions that are covered — which must be both "solely" based on automated processing, and have legal or similarly significant effects — which significantly limits the range of automated systems and decisions to which the right would apply. In particular, the right is unlikely to apply in many of the cases of algorithmic controversy that have been picked up in the media. The UK has also recently amended its implementation of Article 22. A second potential source of such a right has been pointed to in Article 15, the "right of access by the data subject". This restates a similar provision from the 1995 Data Protection Directive, allowing the data subject access to "meaningful information about the logic involved" in the same significant, solely automated decision-making, found in Article 22. Yet this too suffers from alleged challenges that relate to the timing of when this right can be drawn upon, as well as practical challenges that mean it may not be binding in many cases of public concern. Other EU legislative instruments contain explanation rights. The European Union's Artificial Intelligence Act provides in Article 86 a "[r]ight to explanation of individual decision-making" of certain high risk systems which produce significant, adverse effects to an individual's health, safety or fundamental rights. The right provides for "clear and meaningful explanations of the role of the AI system in the decision-making procedure and the main elements of the decision taken", although only applies to the extent other law does not provide such a right. The Digital Services Act in Article 27, and the Platform to Business Regulation in Article 5, both contain rights to have the main parameters of certain recommender systems to be made clear, although these provisions have been criticised as not matching the way that such systems work. The Platform Work Directive, which provides for regulation of automation in gig economy work as an extension of data protection law, further contains explanation provisions in Article 11, using the specific language of "explanation" in a binding article rather than a recital as is the case in the GDPR. Scholars note that remains uncertainty as to whether these provisions imply sufficiently tailored explanation in practice which will need to be resolved by courts. === France === In France the 2016 Loi pour une République numérique (Digital Republic Act or loi numérique) amends the country's administrative code to introduce a new provision for the explanation of decisions made by public sector bodies about individuals. It notes that where there is "a decision taken on the basis of an algorithmic treatment", the rules that define that treatment and its "principal characteristics" must be communicated to the citizen upon request, where there is not an exclusion (e.g. for national security or defence). These should include the following: the degree and the mode of contribution of the algorithmic processing to the decision- making; the data processed and its source; the treatment parameters, and where appropriate, their weighting, applied to the situation of the person concerned; the operations carried out by the treatment. Scholars have noted that this right, while limited to administrative decisions, goes beyond the GDPR right to explicitly apply to decision support rather than decisions "solely" based on automated processing, as well as provides a framework for explaining specific decisions. Indeed, the GDPR automated decision-making rights in the European Union, one of the places a "right to an explanation" has been sought within, find their origins in French law in the late 1970s. == Criticism == Some argue that a "right to explanation" is at best unnecessary, at worst harmful, and threatens to stifle innovation. Specific criticisms include: favoring human decisions over machine decisions, being redundant with existing laws, and focusing on process over outcome. Authors of study "Slave to the Algorithm? Why a 'Right to an Explanation' Is Probably Not the Remedy You Are Looking For" Lilian Edwards and Michael Veale argue that a right to explanation is not the solution to harms caused to stakeholders by algorithmic decisions. They also state that the right of explanation in the GDPR is narrowly defined, and is not compatible with how modern machine learning technologies are being developed. With these limitations, defining transparency within the context of algorithmic accountability remains a problem. For example, providing the source code of algorithms may not be sufficient and may create other problems in terms of privacy disclosures and the gaming of technical systems. To mitigate this issue, Edwards and Veale argue that an auditing system could be more effective, to allow auditors to loo

    Read more →
  • International Aerial Robotics Competition

    International Aerial Robotics Competition

    The International Aerial Robotics Competition (IARC) is a university-based robotics competition held on the campus of the Georgia Institute of Technology, currently hosted by RoboNation. Since 1991, collegiate teams with the backing of industry and government have fielded autonomous flying robots in an attempt to perform missions requiring robotic behaviors not previously exhibited by a flying machine. The term “aerial robotics” was coined by competition creator Robert Michelson in 1990 to describe a new class of small highly intelligent flying machines. Successive years of competition saw these aerial robots grow from vehicles that could barely maintain themselves in the air, to automatons which are self-stable, self-navigating, and able to interact with their environment. The goal of the competition has been to provide a reason for the state-of-the-art of aerial robotics to move forward. Challenges have been geared towards producing advances. From 1991 through 2009, six missions were proposed. Each involved fully autonomous robotic behavior undemonstrated at the time. In October 2013 a seventh mission was proposed. It was the first to involve interaction between aerial robots and multiple ground robots. In 2016, the competition and its creator were recognized during the Georgia legislative session in the form of a senate resolution as the longest running aerial robotics competition in the world. == History == === First mission === The initial mission to move a metallic disc from one side of an arena to the other was seen by many as almost impossible. The college teams improved their entries over the next two years when the competition saw its first autonomous takeoff, flight, and landing by a team from the Georgia Institute of Technology. In 1995, a team from Stanford University was able to acquire a single disk and move it from one side of the arena to the other in a fully autonomous flight—half. === Second mission === The competition mission was toughened and made less abstract by requiring teams to search for a toxic waste dump, map the location of partially buried randomly oriented toxic waste drums, identify the contents of each drum from the hazard labels on the outside of each drum, and bring a sample back from one of the drums. In 1996, a team from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Boston University, with backing from Draper Labs, created a small fully autonomous flying robot that repeatedly and correctly mapped the location of all five of the toxic waste drums, and correctly identified the contents of two from the air, completing approximately seventy five percent of the mission. The following year, an aerial robot developed by a team from Carnegie Mellon University completed the entire mission. === Third mission === The third mission began in 1998. It was a search and rescue mission requiring fully autonomous robots to take off, fly to a disaster area and search amid fires, broken water mains, clouds of toxic gas, and rubble. The scenario was recreated at the U.S. Department of Energy's Hazardous Material Management and Emergency Response (HAMMER) training facility. Because of the realism of the scenario, animatrons were used instead of human actors to simulate survivors incapable of extracting themselves from the disaster area. An aerial robot from Germany's Technische Universität Berlin was able to detect and avoid all of the obstacles, identify all the dead on the ground and the survivors (distinguishing between the two based on movement), and relay pictures of the survivors along with their locations back to first responders who would attempt a rescue. This mission was completed in 2000. === Fourth mission === The fourth mission was initiated in 2001. It involved three scenarios requiring the same autonomous behavior: a hostage rescue mission where a submarine 3 kilometers off the coast must send an aerial robot to find a coastal city, identify the embassy where hostages are being held, locate valid openings in the embassy building, enter (or send in a sensor probe/subvehicle) and relay pictures of the hostages 3 km to the submarine prior to mounting an amphibious assault on the embassy to free the hostages; the discovery of an ancient mausoleum where a virus had killed the archaeological team, who had radioed that an important and undocumented tapestry was hanging inside, with 15 minutes to send an autonomous aerial robot to find the mausoleum, enter it (or send in a sensor probe/subvehicle) and relay pictures of the tapestry back prior to the destruction of the mausoleum and its contents; and an explosion at a nuclear reactor facility where scientists must send in an aerial robot to find the operating reactor building, enter the building (or send in a sensor probe/subvehicle) and relay pictures of the control panels to determine if a melt-down is imminent. All three missions involved the same elements of ingress, locating, identification, entry, and relaying pictures within 15 minutes. It was conducted at the U.S. Army's Fort Benning Soldier Battle Lab using the McKenna MOUT (Military Operations on Urban Terrain) site. The fourth mission was completed in 2008 with 27 teams who had demonstrated each of the required aerial robotic behaviors, except being able to demonstrate these behaviors in under 15 minutes—a feat considered by the judges to be inevitable given more time, and therefore no longer a significant challenge. Thus the fourth mission was terminated, $80,000 in awards distributed, and the fifth mission established. === Fifth mission === The fifth mission picked up where the fourth mission left off by demonstrating the fully autonomous aerial robotic behaviors necessary to rapidly negotiate the confined internal spaces of a structure once it has been penetrated by an air vehicle. The nuclear reactor complex explosion scenario of the fourth mission was used as the backdrop for the fifth mission. The fifth mission required a fully autonomous aerial vehicle to penetrate the structure and negotiate the more complex interior space containing hallways, small rooms, obstacles, and dead ends in order to search for a designated target without the aid of global-positioning navigational aids, and relay pictures back to a monitoring station some distance from the structure. The First Symposium on Indoor Flight Issues was held in conjunction with this 2009 IARC event. === Sixth mission === The sixth mission began in 2010 as an extension of the fifth mission theme of autonomous indoor flight behavior, however it demanded more advanced behaviors than were possible by any aerial robot extant in 2010. This espionage mission involved covertly stealing a flash drive from a particular room in a building and depositing an identical drive to avoid detection of the theft. The 2010 Symposium on Indoor Flight Issues was held concurrently at the University of Puerto Rico - Mayagüez during the 20th anniversary competition. === Seventh mission === The seventh mission began in 2014 demanding more advanced behaviors than were possible by any aerial robot extant in 2014. A single autonomous aerial robot had to herd up to 10 autonomous ground robot targets across one designated end of a 20m x 20m (65.62 feet x 65.62 feet) arena in under 10 minutes. The arena had neither walls for SLAM mapping nor GPS availability. Techniques such as optical flow or optical odometry were possible solutions to navigation within the arena. Collisions with obstacle ground robots ended the run with no score. The autonomous aerial robots interacted with the ground robots in the following way: if an aerial robot touched the ground robot on top, the ground robot would turn clockwise 45°. If the aerial robot blocked its forward motion by landing in front of it, the ground robot would reverse direction. Ground robots that feely escaped the arena, counted against the aerial robot's overall score, so the autonomous aerial robots had to decide which ground robots were in imminent danger of crossing any boundary except the designated one, and redirect them toward the designated boundary.Zhejiang University was the overall winner of Mission 7, of 52 teams from 12 nations entered as competitors. === Eighth mission === In 2018, the 8th mission was announced. Mission 8 focused on non-electronic human-machine interaction for the first time, with four aerial robots assisting humans to complete tasks that one person could not independently accomplish. The gist of mission 8 involved a swarm of autonomous aerial robots working with a human to achieve a task in the presence of hostile "Sentry aerial robots" which were trying to impede the human. In 2018, the inaugural year of mission 8, the American Venue was held on the campus of the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, Georgia, and the Asia/Pacific Venue was conducted at Beihang University in Beijing China. The following year, Mission 8 was successfully completed in Kunming China at the Yunnan Innovation

    Read more →
  • Vague set

    Vague set

    In mathematics, vague sets are an extension of fuzzy sets. In a fuzzy set, each object is assigned a single value in the interval [0,1] reflecting its grade of membership. This single value does not allow a separation of evidence for membership and evidence against membership. Gau et al. proposed the notion of vague sets, where each object is characterized by two different membership functions: a true membership function and a false membership function. This kind of reasoning is also called interval membership, as opposed to point membership in the context of fuzzy sets. == Mathematical definition == A vague set V {\displaystyle V} is characterized by its true membership function t v ( x ) {\displaystyle t_{v}(x)} its false membership function f v ( x ) {\displaystyle f_{v}(x)} with 0 ≤ t v ( x ) + f v ( x ) ≤ 1 {\displaystyle 0\leq t_{v}(x)+f_{v}(x)\leq 1} The grade of membership for x is not a crisp value anymore, but can be located in [ t v ( x ) , 1 − f v ( x ) ] {\displaystyle [t_{v}(x),1-f_{v}(x)]} . This interval can be interpreted as an extension to the fuzzy membership function. The vague set degenerates to a fuzzy set, if 1 − f v ( x ) = t v ( x ) {\displaystyle 1-f_{v}(x)=t_{v}(x)} for all x. The uncertainty of x is the difference between the upper and lower bounds of the membership interval; it can be computed as ( 1 − f v ( x ) ) − t v ( x ) {\displaystyle (1-f_{v}(x))-t_{v}(x)} .

    Read more →
  • The Life and Times of Multivac

    The Life and Times of Multivac

    "The Life and Times of Multivac" is a science fiction short story by American writer Isaac Asimov. The story first appeared in the 5 January 1975 issue of The New York Times Magazine, and was reprinted in the collections The Bicentennial Man and Other Stories and The Best of Creative Computing in 1976. It is one of a loosely connected series of stories concerning a fictional supercomputer called Multivac. "The Life and Times of Multivac" was the first piece of fiction ever commissioned and published by The New York Times. Asimov's original title for the story was "Mathematical Games", but after the story appeared under the new title he decided he liked it. In his commentary on the story in The Bicentennial Man and Other Stories collection, Asimov stated, "More people came up to me over the next few weeks to tell me they had read that story than had ever been the case for any other story I had ever written." == Plot summary == When humanity begins to chafe under Multivac’s benevolent tyranny, one man takes matters into his own hands to destroy the great computer. By appearing to betray his fellow humans, he places himself in a position to permanently destroy Multivac. It is implied that it is not until completion of the act that he and his peers suddenly realize the enormity of their actions and the consequences it will have on humanity.

    Read more →
  • Autonomous things

    Autonomous things

    Autonomous things, abbreviated AuT, or the Internet of autonomous things, abbreviated as IoAT, is an emerging term for the technological developments that are expected to bring computers into the physical environment as autonomous entities without human direction, freely moving and interacting with humans and other objects. Self-navigating drones are the first AuT technology in (limited) deployment. It is expected that the first mass-deployment of AuT technologies will be the autonomous car, generally expected to be available around 2020. Other currently expected AuT technologies include home robotics (e.g., machines that provide care for the elderly, infirm or young), and military robots (air, land or sea autonomous machines with information-collection or target-attack capabilities). AuT technologies share many common traits, which justify the common notation. They are all based on recent breakthroughs in the domains of (deep) machine learning and artificial intelligence. They all require extensive and prompt regulatory developments to specify the requirements from them and to license and manage their deployment (see the further reading below). And they all require unprecedented levels of safety (e.g., automobile safety) and security, to overcome concerns about the potential negative impact of the new technology. As an example, the autonomous car both addresses the main existing safety issues and creates new issues. It is expected to be much safer than existing vehicles, by eliminating the single most dangerous element – the driver. The US's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates 94 percent of US accidents were the result of human error and poor decision-making, including speeding and impaired driving, and the Center for Internet and Society at Stanford Law School claims that "Some ninety percent of motor vehicle crashes are caused at least in part by human error". So while safety standards like the ISO 26262 specify the required safety, there is still a burden on the industry to demonstrate acceptable safety. While car accidents claim every year 35,000 lives in the US, and 1.25 million worldwide, some believe that even "a car that's 10 times as safe, which means 3,500 people die on the roads each year [in the US alone]" would not be accepted by the public. The acceptable level may be closer to the current figures on aviation accidents and incidents, with under a thousand worldwide deaths in most years – three orders of magnitude lower than cars. This underscores the unprecedented nature of the safety requirements that will need to be met for cars, with similar levels of safety expected for other Autonomous Things.

    Read more →
  • European Society for Fuzzy Logic and Technology

    European Society for Fuzzy Logic and Technology

    The European Society for Fuzzy Logic and Technology (EUSFLAT) is a scientific association with the aims to disseminate and promote fuzzy logic and related subjects (sometimes comprised under the collective terms soft computing or computational intelligence) and to provide a platform for exchange between scientists and engineers working in these fields. The society is both open for academic and industrial members. == History == EUSFLAT was founded in 1998 in Spain as the successor of the National Spanish Fuzzy Logic Society, ESTYLF, with the aim to open the society for members from other European countries. Since then, the society managed to attract a large share of members from outside Spain, and even beyond Europe, with the Spanish members still being the largest group inside EUSFLAT. For these historical reasons, the society is officially registered in Spain. == Conferences == Starting with 1999, EUSFLAT has been organizing its biannual conferences in odd years. Previous meetings: Palma de Mallorca, Balearic Islands, Spain, September 22–25, 1999 (jointly with National Spanish conference, ESTYLF) Leicester, United Kingdom, September 5–7, 2001 Zittau, Germany, September 10–12, 2003 Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain, September 7–9, 2005 (jointly with 11th Rencontres Francophones sur la Logique Floue et ses Applications) Ostrava, Czech Republic, September 11–14, 2007 Lisbon, Portugal, July 20–24, 2009 (jointly with 13th World Congress of the International Fuzzy Systems Association) Aix-les-Bains, France, July 18–22, 2011 (jointly with Les Rencontres Francophones sur la Logique Floue et ses Applications) Milan, Italy, September 11–13, 2013 Gijón, Spain, June, 30–3 July 2015 == Publications == EUSFLAT publishes the proceedings of its conferences in an open access manner. Until 2010, Mathware & Soft Computing was the official journal of EUSFLAT. On July 1, 2010, the International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems (Atlantis Press, ISSN 1875-6891 (print) / ISSN 1875-6883 (on-line)) became the official journal of EUSFLAT. EUSFLAT publishes an electronic newsletter with three issues a year. == Presidents == EUSFLAT is led by the President, who is elected for a two-year period, and cannot serve for more than two consecutive periods. Francesc Esteva (1998–2011) Luis Magdalena (2001–2005) Ulrich Bodenhofer (2005–2009) Javier Montero (2009–2013) Gabriella Pasi (2013–present)

    Read more →
  • Fuzzy classification

    Fuzzy classification

    Fuzzy classification is the process of grouping elements into fuzzy sets whose membership functions are defined by the truth value of a fuzzy propositional function. A fuzzy propositional function is analogous to an expression containing one or more variables, such that when values are assigned to these variables, the expression becomes a fuzzy proposition. Accordingly, fuzzy classification is the process of grouping individuals having the same characteristics into a fuzzy set. A fuzzy classification corresponds to a membership function μ C ~ : P F ~ × U → T ~ {\textstyle \mu _{\tilde {C}}:{\tilde {PF}}\times U\to {\tilde {T}}} that indicates the degree to which an individual i ∈ U {\textstyle i\in U} is a member of the fuzzy class C ~ {\textstyle {\tilde {C}}} , given its fuzzy classification predicate Π ~ C ~ ∈ P F ~ {\textstyle {\tilde {\Pi }}_{\tilde {C}}\in {\tilde {PF}}} . Here, T ~ {\textstyle {\tilde {T}}} is the set of fuzzy truth values, i.e., the unit interval [ 0 , 1 ] {\textstyle [0,1]} . The fuzzy classification predicate Π ~ C ~ ( i ) {\textstyle {\tilde {\Pi }}_{\tilde {C}}(i)} corresponds to the fuzzy restriction " i {\textstyle i} is a member of C ~ {\textstyle {\tilde {C}}} ". == Classification == Intuitively, a class is a set that is defined by a certain property, and all objects having that property are elements of that class. The process of classification evaluates for a given set of objects whether they fulfill the classification property, and consequentially are a member of the corresponding class. However, this intuitive concept has some logical subtleties that need clarification. A class logic is a logical system which supports set construction using logical predicates with the class operator { ⋅ | ⋅ } {\textstyle \{\cdot |\cdot \}} . A class C = { i | Π ( i ) } {\displaystyle C=\{i|\Pi (i)\}} is defined as a set C of individuals i satisfying a classification predicate Π which is a propositional function. The domain of the class operator { .| .} is the set of variables V and the set of propositional functions PF, and the range is the powerset of this universe P(U) that is, the set of possible subsets: { ⋅ | ⋅ } : V × P F → P ( U ) {\displaystyle \{\cdot |\cdot \}:V\times PF\rightarrow P(U)} Here is an explanation of the logical elements that constitute this definition: An individual is a real object of reference. A universe of discourse is the set of all possible individuals considered. A variable V :→ R {\textstyle V:\rightarrow R} is a function which maps into a predefined range R without any given function arguments: a zero-place function. A propositional function is "an expression containing one or more undetermined constituents, such that, when values are assigned to these constituents, the expression becomes a proposition". In contrast, classification is the process of grouping individuals having the same characteristics into a set. A classification corresponds to a membership function μ that indicates whether an individual is a member of a class, given its classification predicate Π. μ : P F × U → T {\displaystyle \mu :PF\times U\rightarrow T} The membership function maps from the set of propositional functions PF and the universe of discourse U into the set of truth values T. The membership μ of individual i in Class C is defined by the truth value τ of the classification predicate Π. μ C ( i ) := τ ( Π ( i ) ) {\displaystyle \mu C(i):=\tau (\Pi (i))} In classical logic the truth values are certain. Therefore a classification is crisp, since the truth values are either exactly true or exactly false.

    Read more →