AI Chatbot Miles

AI Chatbot Miles — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

Conversica

Conversica is a US-based cloud software technology company, headquartered in San Mateo, California, that provides two-way AI-driven conversational software and a suite of Intelligent Virtual Assistants for businesses to engage customers via email, chat, and SMS. == History == 2007: The company was founded by Ben Brigham in Bellingham, Washington, originally as AutoFerret.com. The company's initial product was a Customer Relationship Management (CRM) targeted at automotive dealerships. This soon expanded to lead generation, and then lead validation and qualification. The AI Conversica uses currently was made to follow up on and filter out low-quality leads. The focus of the company shifted toward this automated lead engagement technology. 2010: The company started commercially selling AVA, the first Automated Virtual Assistant for sales, and the company name was changed to AVA.ai. Early customers for AVA were automotive dealerships. As the company moved away from generating leads themselves, and providing the CRM themselves, it became necessary to integrate with existing CRM and Marketing Automation platforms, such as DealerSocket, VinSolutions and Salesforce. 2013: The company raised $16m Series A funding, led by Kennet Partners, and named Mark Bradley as CEO. It also moved its headquarters from Bellingham, Washington to Foster City, California. 2014: The company changed its name from AVA.ai to Conversica. 2015: Alex Terry joined Conversica as its CEO. The business expanded to include customers in additional verticals, including technology, education, and financial services. 2016: The company raised $34m Series B funding, led by Providence Strategic Growth. 2017: Conversica expanded its intelligent automation platform and IVAs to support additional communication channels (e-mail and SMS text messaging) and communication languages. Conversica also opened a new technology center in Seattle, Washington to expand its AI and machine learning capabilities. 2018: The company raised $31m Series C funding, led by Providence Strategic Growth. Conversica also acquired Intelligens.ai, providing a regional presence in Latin America with an office in Las Condes, Santiago, Chile. The company launched an AI-powered Admissions Assistant for Higher Education industry. 2019: Conversica was selected by Fast Company magazine as one of the Top 10 Most Innovative AI Companies in the World, and was named Marketo's Technology Partner of the Year. The company officially expanded into the EMEA region with the opening of a London office. As of August 2019, Conversica has over 50 different integrations with third parties. In October Conversica won three awards at the fourth annual Global Annual Achievement Awards for Artificial Intelligence. Also that month, Alex Terry stepped down from his role as CEO and was replaced by Jim Kaskade. 2020: As part of Conversica's response to COVID-19, they optimized the business to become profitable in both 2Q20 and 3Q20, before reinvesting in 4Q20. The company transitioned both international operations in EMEA and LATAM to an indirect model with partners (LeadFabric and Nectia Cloud Solutions respectively), and moved a portion of its US-based employees to near-shore centers in Mexico and Brazil, effectively downsizing the company from 250 to 200. Conversica's reseller partner, Nectia, is a major Latin American affiliate and Chile's number one Salesforce partner, and, as part of the partnership, Nectia devoted capital to a brand new company segment, Predict-IA, dedicated to web-based artificial intelligent solutions. Predict-IA was able to immediately service all LATAM opportunities and clients with Conversica's AI Assistants with end-to-end services (marketing, sales, professional services, customer success, and technical support). Conversica's reseller partner, Leadfabric, has offices in Belgium, Amsterdam, Paris, UK, Taiwan, and Romania. == Technology == Conversica's Revenue Digital Assistants™ are AI assistants who engage with leads, prospects, customers, employees, and other persons of interest (Contacts) in a two-way human-like manner, via email, SMS text, and website chat, in English, French, German, Spanish, Portuguese, and Japanese. The RDAs are built on an Intelligent Automation platform that leverages natural language understanding, natural language processing, natural language generation, deep learning and machine learning. The Assistants are generally deployed alongside sales and marketing, customer success, account management, and higher education admissions teams, as part of an augmented workforce. The Intelligent Automation platform integrates with over 50 external systems, including CRM, Marketing Automation, and other systems of record. A partial list of integration partners includes: Salesforce, Marketo, Oracle, HubSpot, DealerSocket, Reynolds & Reynolds, CDK Global, VinSolutions and many more.
Read more →
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 →
80 Million Tiny Images

80 Million Tiny Images is a dataset intended for training machine-learning systems constructed by Antonio Torralba, Rob Fergus, and William T. Freeman in a collaboration between MIT and New York University. It was published in 2008. The dataset has size 760 GB. It contains 79,302,017 32×32-pixel color images, scaled down from images scraped from the World Wide Web over 8 months. The images are classified into 75,062 classes. Each class is a non-abstract noun in WordNet. Images may appear in more than one class. The dataset was motivated by non-parametric models of neural activations in the visual cortex upon seeing images. The CIFAR-10 dataset uses a subset of the images in this dataset, but with independently generated labels, as the original labels were not reliable. The CIFAR-10 set has 6000 examples of each of 10 classes, and the CIFAR-100 set has 600 examples of each of 100 non-overlapping classes. == Construction == It was first reported in a technical report in April 2007, during the middle of the construction process, when there were only 73 million images. The full dataset was published in 2008. They began with all 75,846 non-abstract nouns in WordNet, and then for each of these nouns, they scraped 7 image search engines: Altavista, Ask.com, Flickr, Cydral, Google, Picsearch, and Webshots. After 8 months of scraping, they obtained 97,245,098 images. Since they did not have enough storage, they downsized the images to 32×32 as they were scraped. After gathering, they removed images with zero variance and intra-word duplicate images, resulting in the final dataset. Out of the 75,846 nouns, only 75,062 classes had any results, so the other nouns did not appear in the final dataset. The number of images per noun follows a Zipf-like distribution, with 1056 images per noun on average. To prevent a few nouns taking up too many images, they put an upper bound of at most 3000 images per noun. == Retirement == The 80 Million Tiny Images dataset was retired from use by its creators in 2020, after a paper by researchers Abeba Birhane and Vinay Prabhu found that some of the labeling of several publicly available image datasets, including 80 Million Tiny Images, contained racist and misogynistic slurs which were causing models trained on them to exhibit racial and sexual bias. The dataset also contained offensive images. Following the release of the paper, the dataset's creators removed the dataset from distribution, and requested that other researchers not use it for further research and to delete their copies of the dataset.
Read more →
Intelligent automation

Intelligent automation (IA), or intelligent process automation, is a software term that refers to a combination of artificial intelligence (AI) and robotic process automation (RPA). Companies use intelligent automation to cut costs and streamline tasks by using artificial-intelligence-powered robotic software to mitigate repetitive tasks. As it accumulates data, the system learns in an effort to improve its efficiency. Intelligent automation applications consist of, but are not limited to, pattern analysis, data assembly, and classification. The term is similar to hyperautomation, a concept identified by research group Gartner as being one of the top technology trends of 2020. == Technology == Intelligent automation applies the assembly line concept of breaking tasks into repetitive steps to improve business processes. Rather than having humans perform each step, intelligent automation can replace steps with an intelligent software robot, improving efficiency. Intelligent automation integrates robotic process automation (RPA) with artificial intelligence techniques (such as machine learning, natural-language processing, and computer vision) enabling systems to interpret data, make decisions, and adapt to changing inputs. Modern platforms use a layered architecture combining workflow orchestration, low-code tools, integration middleware, and AI services to coordinate bots and data pipelines across organisational systems. == Applications == Intelligent automation is used to process unstructured content. Common real-world applications include self-driving cars, self-checkouts at grocery stores, smart home assistants, and appliances. Businesses can apply data and machine learning to build predictive analytics that react to consumer behavior changes, or to implement RPA to improve manufacturing floor operations. For example, the technology has also been used to automate the workflow behind distributing COVID-19 vaccines. Data provided by hospital systems’ electronic health records can be processed to identify and educate patients, and schedule vaccinations. Intelligent automation can provide real-time insights on profitability and efficiency. However, in an April 2022 survey by Alchemmy, despite three quarters of businesses acknowledging the importance of Artificial Intelligence to their future development, just a quarter of business leaders (25%) considered Intelligent Automation a “game changer” in understanding current performance. 42% of CTOs see “shortage of talent” as the main obstacle to implementing Intelligent Automation in their business, while 36% of CEOs see ‘upskilling and professional development of existing workforce’ as the most significant adoption barrier. IA is becoming increasingly accessible for firms of all sizes. With this in mind, it is expected to continue to grow rapidly in all industries. This technology has the potential to change the workforce. As it advances, it will be able to perform increasingly complex and difficult tasks. In addition, this may expose certain workforce issues as well as change how tasks are allocated. Tools such as Semrush's AI Visibility Toolkit and Enterprise AIO reflect these developments by analysing how entities are referenced and represented within responses produced by large-language-model-based systems. == Benefits == Streamline processes: Repetitive manual tasks can put a strain on the workforce. However, with AI agents, these tasks can be automated to allow teams to focus on more important matters that require human cognition. Intelligent automation can also be used to mitigate tasks with human error which in turn increases proficiency. This allows the opportunity for firms to scale production without the traditional negative consequences such as reduced quality or increased risk. Customer service improvement: Customer service can be significantly improved, providing the firm with a competitive advantage. IA utilizing chat features allows for instant curated responses to customers. In addition, it can give updates to customers, make appointments, manage calls, and personalize campaigns. Flexibility: Due to the wide range of applications, IA is useful across a variety of fields, technologies, projects and industries. In addition, IA can be integrated with current automated systems in place. This allows for optimized systems unique to each firm to best fit their individual needs. == Capabilities == Cognitive automation: Employs AI techniques to assist humans in decision-making and task completion Natural language processing: Allows computers to automate knowledge work Business process management: Enhances the consistency and agility of corporate operations Process mining: Applies data mining methods to discover, analyze, and improve business processes Intelligent document processing: Utilizes OCR and other advanced technologies to extract data from documents and convert it into structured, usable data Computer vision: Allows computers to extract information from digital images, videos, and other visual inputs Integration automation: Establishes a unified platform with automated workflows that integrate data, applications, and devices.
Read more →
Pill reminder

A pill reminder is any device that reminds users to take medications. Traditional pill reminders are pill containers with electric timers attached, which can be preset for certain times of the day to set off an alarm. More sophisticated pill reminders can also detect when they have been opened, and therefore when the user is away during the time they were supposed to take their medication, they will be reminded of it when they return. This reminder can be in the form of a light, which also helps for deaf or hearing-impaired users. == Mobile app == A newer type of pill reminder is a mobile app that reminds the owner to take the medication. Some of these applications might effectively support adherence to taking medications.
Read more →
Behavior informatics

Behavior informatics (BI) is the informatics of behaviors so as to obtain behavior intelligence and behavior insights. BI is a research method combining science and technology, specifically in the area of engineering. The purpose of BI includes analysis of current behaviors as well as the inference of future possible behaviors. This occurs through pattern recognition. Different from applied behavior analysis from the psychological perspective, BI builds computational theories, systems and tools to qualitatively and quantitatively model, represent, analyze, and manage behaviors of individuals, groups and/or organizations. BI is built on classic study of behavioral science, including behavior modeling, applied behavior analysis, behavior analysis, behavioral economics, and organizational behavior. Typical BI tasks consist of individual and group behavior formation, representation, computational modeling, analysis, learning, simulation, and understanding of behavior impact, utility, non-occurring behaviors, etc. for behavior intervention and management. The Behavior Informatics approach to data utilizes cognitive as well as behavioral data. By combining the data, BI has the potential to effectively illustrate the big picture when it comes to behavioral decisions and patterns. One of the goals of BI is also to be able to study human behavior while eliminating issues like self-report bias. This creates more reliable and valid information for research studies. == Behavior == From an Informatics perspective, a behavior consists of three key elements: actors (behavioral subjects and objects), operations (actions, activities) and interactions (relationships), and their properties. A behavior can be represented as a behavior vector, all behaviors of an actor or an actor group can be represented as behavior sequences and multi-dimensional behavior matrix. The following table explains some of the elements of behavior. Behavior Informatics takes into account behavior when analyzing business patterns and intelligence. The inclusion of behavior in these analyses provides prominent information on social and driving factors of patterns. == Applications == Behavior Informatics is being used in a variety of settings, including but not limited to health care management, telecommunications, marketing, and security. Behavior Informatics provides a manner in which to analyze and organize the many aspects that go into a person's health care needs and decisions. When it comes to business models, behavior informatics may be utilized for a similar role. Organizations implement behavior informatics to enhance business structure and regime, where it helps moderate ideal business decisions and situations.
Read more →
Meta-Labeling

Meta-labeling, also known as corrective AI, is a machine learning (ML) technique utilized in quantitative finance to enhance the performance of investment and trading strategies, developed in 2017 by Marcos López de Prado at Guggenheim Partners and Cornell University. The core idea is to separate the decision of trade direction (side) from the decision of trade sizing, addressing the inefficiencies of simultaneously learning both side and size predictions. The side decision involves forecasting market movements (long, short, neutral), while the size decision focuses on risk management and profitability. It serves as a secondary decision-making layer that evaluates the signals generated by a primary predictive model. By assessing the confidence and likely profitability of those signals, meta-labeling allows investors and algorithms to dynamically size positions and suppress false positives. == Motivation == Meta-labeling is designed to improve precision without sacrificing recall. As noted by López de Prado, attempting to model both the direction and the magnitude of a trade using a single algorithm can result in poor generalization. By separating these tasks, meta-labeling enables greater flexibility and robustness: Enhances control over capital allocation. Reduces overfitting by limiting model complexity. Allows the use of interpretability tools and tailored thresholds to manage risk. Enables dynamic trade suppression in unfavorable regimes. == Applications == Meta-labeling has been applied in a variety of financial ML contexts, including: Algorithmic trading: Filtering and sizing trades to reduce false positives. Portfolio optimization: Scaling exposure across multiple signals with differing confidence levels. Risk management: Dynamically disabling strategies in adverse market conditions. Model validation: Interpreting when and why a model may be underperforming due to regime shifts. == General architecture == Meta-labeling decouples two core components of systematic trading strategies: directional prediction and position sizing. The process involves training a primary model to generate trade signals (e.g., buy, sell, or hold) and then training a secondary model to determine whether each signal is likely to lead to a profitable trade. The second model outputs a probability that is interpreted as the confidence in the forecast, which can be used to adjust the position size or to filter out unreliable trades. Meta-labeling is typically implemented as a three-stage process: Primary model (M1): Predicts the direction or label of a financial outcome using features such as market prices, returns, or volatility indicators. A typical output is directional, e.g., Y ∈ {−1,0,1}, representing short, neutral, or long positions. Secondary model (M2): A binary classifier trained to predict whether the primary model's prediction will be profitable. The target variable is a binary meta-label F ∈ { 0 , 1 } {\displaystyle F\in \{0,1\}} . Inputs can include features used in the primary model, performance diagnostics, or market regime data. Position sizing algorithm (M3): Translates the output probability of the secondary model into a position size. Higher confidence scores result in larger allocations, while lower confidence leads to reduced or zero exposure. === Stage 1: Forecasting side === Primary model architecture Figure 1 Figure 1 presents the architecture of a primary model. It focuses on forecasting the side of the trade. Following the example, this model (M1) takes in input data – such as open-high-low-close data and determines the side of the position to take: a negative number is a short position, and positive number is a long position, the range is set between −1 and 1 (the closer it is to −1 or 1, the stronger the models conviction is). When training the model, the labels are −1 and 1, based on the direction of forward returns for some predefined investment horizon. The researcher may decide to apply a recall check (τ: "Tau") by setting a minimum threshold that the initial output needs to be to qualify of a short or long position (if the threshold is not met, no side forecast is predicted, leading to closing of any open positions), this leads to the primary model output which is one of three possible side forecasts: −1, 0, or 1. The primary model also generates evaluation data which can be used by the secondary model, to improve performance of size forecasts. Some examples of evaluation data include rolling accuracy, F1, recall, precision, and AUC scores. === Stage 2: Filtering out false positives === General meta-labeling architecture Figure 2 Next comes the phase of filtering out false positives, by applying a secondary machine learning model (M2), which is a binary classifier trained to determine if the trade will be profitable or not. The model takes as input four general groupings of data: General input data which is predictive of a false positive. For example the last 30 days rolling volatility of the underlying asset. Evaluation data. Market state and regime data, one may find that macro economic data or clustering the market into regimes may help as specific trading strategies are known to perform better in particular regimes. Example: momentum based strategies perform best in periods with low volatility and strong directional moves. Primary models initial input which is a value between −1 and 1. This highlights the strength of the primary models conviction. The output of the model is a value between −1 and 1 (if using a Tanh function) which will indicate the strength of the conviction that a short or long position is profitable, or it could simply be between 0 and 1 (using a sigmoid function) if one only wanted to know if it made money or not. This output allows filtering out trades that are likely to lead to losses. One could stop at this point or use the outputs of the secondary model as inputs to a position sizing algorithm (M3) which could further enhance strategy performance metrics by translating the output probability of the secondary model into a position size. Higher confidence scores result in larger allocations, while lower confidence leads to reduced or zero exposure. === Stage 3: Optimizing position sizes === ==== Position sizing methods (M3) ==== Various algorithms have been proposed for transforming predicted probabilities into trade sizes: All-or-nothing: Allocate 100% of capital if the probability exceeds a predefined threshold (e.g., 0.5); otherwise, do not trade. Model confidence: Use the probability score directly as the fraction of capital allocated. Linear scaling: Rescale the model's probabilities using min-max normalization based on the training data. Normal CDF (NCDF): Use a normal cumulative distribution function applied to a z-statistic derived from the predicted probability. Empirical CDF (ECDF): Rank probabilities based on their percentile in the training data to ensure relative allocation. Sigmoid Optimal Position Sizing (SOPS): Applies a smooth non-linear sigmoid transformation optimized to maximize risk-adjusted returns (Sharpe ratio). ==== Model calibration ==== Each machine learning algorithm used in meta-labeling tends to produce outputs with different characteristic distributions; for example, some are approximately normally distributed, whereas others exhibit a pronounced U-shape, concentrating probabilities near the extremes. Due to these varying distributions, simply summing the outputs of different models can inadvertently lead to uneven weighting of signals, biasing trade decisions. To address this, model calibration techniques are essential to adjust the predicted probabilities towards frequentist probabilities, ensuring that model outputs reflect true likelihoods more accurately. Two common calibration techniques are: Platt scaling (Sigmoid scaling): Suitable for correcting S-shaped calibration plots typically produced by models such as support vector machines (SVMs). Isotonic regression: Fits a non-decreasing step function to probabilities and is effective particularly with larger datasets, though it can sometimes lead to overfitting. Transforming predictions to frequentist probabilities is crucial as it provides probabilistic outputs that are directly interpretable as the actual likelihood of an event occurring. Such calibration significantly enhances the effectiveness of fixed position sizing methods, reducing maximum drawdowns and increasing risk-adjusted returns. However, calibration has less impact on position sizing methods that directly estimate parameters from the training data, such as ECDF and SOPS, suggesting that calibration is a critical step mainly for fixed methods that rely heavily on raw model outputs. =
Read more →
Statistical learning theory

Statistical learning theory is a framework for machine learning drawing from the fields of statistics and functional analysis. Statistical learning theory deals with the statistical inference problem of finding a predictive function based on data. Statistical learning theory has led to successful applications in fields such as computer vision, speech recognition, and bioinformatics. == Introduction == The goals of learning are understanding and prediction. Learning falls into many categories, including supervised learning, unsupervised learning, online learning, and reinforcement learning. From the perspective of statistical learning theory, supervised learning is best understood. Supervised learning involves learning from a training set of data. Every point in the training is an input–output pair, where the input maps to an output. The learning problem consists of inferring the function that maps between the input and the output, such that the learned function can be used to predict the output from future input. Depending on the type of output, supervised learning problems are either problems of regression or problems of classification. If the output takes a continuous range of values, it is a regression problem. Using Ohm's law as an example, a regression could be performed with voltage as input and current as an output. The regression would find the functional relationship between voltage and current to be R {\displaystyle R} , such that V = I R {\displaystyle V=IR} Classification problems are those for which the output will be an element from a discrete set of labels. Classification is very common for machine learning applications. In facial recognition, for instance, a picture of a person's face would be the input, and the output label would be that person's name. The input would be represented by a large multidimensional vector whose elements represent pixels in the picture. After learning a function based on the training set data, that function is validated on a test set of data, data that did not appear in the training set. == Formal description == Take X {\displaystyle X} to be the vector space of all possible inputs, and Y {\displaystyle Y} to be the vector space of all possible outputs. Statistical learning theory takes the perspective that there is some unknown probability distribution over the product space Z = X × Y {\displaystyle Z=X\times Y} , i.e. there exists some unknown p ( z ) = p ( x , y ) {\displaystyle p(z)=p(\mathbf {x} ,y)} . The training set is made up of n {\displaystyle n} samples from this probability distribution, and is notated S = { ( x 1 , y 1 ) , … , ( x n , y n ) } = { z 1 , … , z n } {\displaystyle S=\{(\mathbf {x} _{1},y_{1}),\dots ,(\mathbf {x} _{n},y_{n})\}=\{\mathbf {z} _{1},\dots ,\mathbf {z} _{n}\}} Every x i {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} _{i}} is an input vector from the training data, and y i {\displaystyle y_{i}} is the output that corresponds to it. In this formalism, the inference problem consists of finding a function f : X → Y {\displaystyle f:X\to Y} such that f ( x ) ∼ y {\displaystyle f(\mathbf {x} )\sim y} . Let H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} be a space of functions f : X → Y {\displaystyle f:X\to Y} called the hypothesis space. The hypothesis space is the space of functions the algorithm will search through. Let V ( f ( x ) , y ) {\displaystyle V(f(\mathbf {x} ),y)} be the loss function, a metric for the difference between the predicted value f ( x ) {\displaystyle f(\mathbf {x} )} and the actual value y {\displaystyle y} . The expected risk is defined to be I [ f ] = ∫ X × Y V ( f ( x ) , y ) p ( x , y ) d x d y {\displaystyle I[f]=\int _{X\times Y}V(f(\mathbf {x} ),y)\,p(\mathbf {x} ,y)\,d\mathbf {x} \,dy} The target function, the best possible function f {\displaystyle f} that can be chosen, is given by the f {\displaystyle f} that satisfies f = argmin h ∈ H ⁡ I [ h ] {\displaystyle f=\mathop {\operatorname {argmin} } _{h\in {\mathcal {H}}}I[h]} Because the probability distribution p ( x , y ) {\displaystyle p(\mathbf {x} ,y)} is unknown, a proxy measure for the expected risk must be used. This measure is based on the training set, a sample from this unknown probability distribution. It is called the empirical risk I S [ f ] = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n V ( f ( x i ) , y i ) {\displaystyle I_{S}[f]={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}V(f(\mathbf {x} _{i}),y_{i})} A learning algorithm that chooses the function f S {\displaystyle f_{S}} that minimizes the empirical risk is called empirical risk minimization. == Loss functions == The choice of loss function is a determining factor on the function f S {\displaystyle f_{S}} that will be chosen by the learning algorithm. The loss function also affects the convergence rate for an algorithm. It is important for the loss function to be convex. Different loss functions are used depending on whether the problem is one of regression or one of classification. === Regression === The most common loss function for regression is the square loss function (also known as the L2-norm). This familiar loss function is used in Ordinary Least Squares regression. The form is: V ( f ( x ) , y ) = ( y − f ( x ) ) 2 {\displaystyle V(f(\mathbf {x} ),y)=(y-f(\mathbf {x} ))^{2}} The absolute value loss (also known as the L1-norm) is also sometimes used: V ( f ( x ) , y ) = | y − f ( x ) | {\displaystyle V(f(\mathbf {x} ),y)=|y-f(\mathbf {x} )|} === Classification === In some sense the 0-1 indicator function is the most natural loss function for classification. It takes the value 0 if the predicted output is the same as the actual output, and it takes the value 1 if the predicted output is different from the actual output. For binary classification with Y = { − 1 , 1 } {\displaystyle Y=\{-1,1\}} , this is: V ( f ( x ) , y ) = θ ( − y f ( x ) ) {\displaystyle V(f(\mathbf {x} ),y)=\theta (-yf(\mathbf {x} ))} where θ {\displaystyle \theta } is the Heaviside step function. == Regularization == In machine learning problems, a major problem that arises is that of overfitting. Because learning is a prediction problem, the goal is not to find a function that most closely fits the (previously observed) data, but to find one that will most accurately predict output from future input. Empirical risk minimization runs this risk of overfitting: finding a function that matches the data exactly but does not predict future output well. Overfitting is symptomatic of unstable solutions; a small perturbation in the training set data would cause a large variation in the learned function. It can be shown that if the stability for the solution can be guaranteed, generalization and consistency are guaranteed as well. Regularization can solve the overfitting problem and give the problem stability. Regularization can be accomplished by restricting the hypothesis space H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} . A common example would be restricting H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} to linear functions: this can be seen as a reduction to the standard problem of linear regression. H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} could also be restricted to polynomial of degree p {\displaystyle p} , exponentials, or bounded functions on L1. Restriction of the hypothesis space avoids overfitting because the form of the potential functions are limited, and so does not allow for the choice of a function that gives empirical risk arbitrarily close to zero. One example of regularization is Tikhonov regularization. This consists of minimizing 1 n ∑ i = 1 n V ( f ( x i ) , y i ) + γ ‖ f ‖ H 2 {\displaystyle {\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}V(f(\mathbf {x} _{i}),y_{i})+\gamma \left\|f\right\|_{\mathcal {H}}^{2}} where γ {\displaystyle \gamma } is a fixed and positive parameter, the regularization parameter. Tikhonov regularization ensures existence, uniqueness, and stability of the solution. == Bounding empirical risk == Consider a binary classifier f : X → { 0 , 1 } {\displaystyle f:{\mathcal {X}}\to \{0,1\}} . We can apply Hoeffding's inequality to bound the probability that the empirical risk deviates from the true risk to be a Sub-Gaussian distribution. P ( | R ^ ( f ) − R ( f ) | ≥ ϵ ) ≤ 2 e − 2 n ϵ 2 {\displaystyle \mathbb {P} (|{\hat {R}}(f)-R(f)|\geq \epsilon )\leq 2e^{-2n\epsilon ^{2}}} But generally, when we do empirical risk minimization, we are not given a classifier; we must choose it. Therefore, a more useful result is to bound the probability of the supremum of the difference over the whole class. P ( sup f ∈ F | R ^ ( f ) − R ( f ) | ≥ ϵ ) ≤ 2 S ( F , n ) e − n ϵ 2 / 8 ≈ n d e − n ϵ 2 / 8 {\displaystyle \mathbb {P} {\bigg (}\sup _{f\in {\mathcal {F}}}|{\hat {R}}(f)-R(f)|\geq \epsilon {\bigg )}\leq 2S({\mathcal {F}},n)e^{-n\epsilon ^{2}/8}\approx n^{d}e^{-n\epsilon ^{2}/8}} where S ( F , n ) {\displaystyle S({\mathcal {F}},n)} is the shattering number and n {\displaystyle n} is the number of samples in your dataset. The exponential term comes from Hoeffding but there is an extra cost of taking the supremum over the whole cla
Read more →
Video browsing

Video browsing, also known as exploratory video search, is the interactive process of skimming through video content in order to satisfy some information need or to interactively check if the video content is relevant. While originally proposed to help users inspecting a single video through visual thumbnails, modern video browsing tools enable users to quickly find desired information in a video archive by iterative human–computer interaction through an exploratory search approach. Many of these tools presume a smart user that wants features to interactively inspect video content, as well as automatic content filtering features. For that purpose, several video interaction features are usually provided, such as sophisticated navigation in video or search by a content-based query. Video browsing tools often build on lower-level video content analysis, such as shot transition detection, keyframe extraction, semantic concept detection, and create a structured content overview of the video file or video archive. Furthermore, they usually provide sophisticated navigation features, such as advanced timelines, visual seeker bars or a list of selected thumbnails, as well as means for content querying. Examples of content queries are shot filtering through visual concepts (e.g., only shots showing cars), through some specific characteristics (e.g., color or motion filtering), through user-provided sketches (e.g., a visually drawn sketch), or through content-based similarity search. == History == Video browsing was originally proposed by Iranian engineer Farshid Arman, Taiwanese computer scientist Arding Hsu, and computer scientist Ming-Yee Chiu, while working at Siemens, and it was presented at the ACM International Conference in August 1993. They described a shot detection algorithm for compressed video that was originally encoded with discrete cosine transform (DCT) video coding standards such as JPEG, MPEG and H.26x. The basic idea was that, since the DCT coefficients are mathematically related to the spatial domain and represent the content of each frame, they can be used to detect the differences between video frames. In the algorithm, a subset of blocks in a frame and a subset of DCT coefficients for each block are used as motion vector representation for the frame. By operating on compressed DCT representations, the algorithm significantly reduces the computational requirements for decompression and enables effective video browsing. The algorithm represents separate shots of a video sequence by an r-frame, a thumbnail of the shot framed by a motion tracking region. A variation of this concept was later adopted for QBIC video content mosaics, where each r-frame is a salient still from the shot it represents. === Video Notebook === Modern video browsing solutions include Video Notebook, a Menlo Park startup founded in 2021 by Mike Lanza, which uses computer vision to extract slides and optical character recognition and speech recognition to facilitate video search. The software can be either used on the client side (using a browser extension), where the slides and text are extracted while the video is watched (e.g. on a video platform like YouTube or Udemy), or on the server side. Processed videos, which can be viewed in the Video Notebook web app, feature a video browsing user interface with extracted timestamped slides, a search bar for querying the video (or a collection of videos), and text chapters. Video Notebook customers include organisations like Ernst & Young. === Video Browser Showdown === The Video Browser Showdown (VBS) is an annual live evaluation competition for exploratory video search tools, where international researchers use video browsing tools to solve ad-hoc video search tasks on a moderately large data set as fast as possible. The main goal of the VBS, which started in 2012 at the International Conference on MultiMedia Modeling (MMM), is to advance the performance of video browsing tools. Since 2016, the VBS also collaborates with TRECVID. The aim of the VBS is to evaluate video browsing tools for efficiency at known-item search (KIS) tasks with a well-defined data set in direct comparison to other tools.
Read more →
Argumentation framework

In artificial intelligence and related fields, an argumentation framework is a way to deal with contentious information and draw conclusions from it using formalized arguments. In an abstract argumentation framework, entry-level information is a set of abstract arguments that, for instance, represent data or a proposition. Conflicts between arguments are represented by a binary relation on the set of arguments. In concrete terms, an argumentation framework is represented with a directed graph such that the nodes are the arguments, and the arrows represent the attack relation. There exist some extensions of the Dung's framework, like the logic-based argumentation frameworks or the value-based argumentation frameworks. == Abstract argumentation frameworks == === Formal framework === Abstract argumentation frameworks, also called argumentation frameworks à la Dung, are defined formally as a pair: A set of abstract elements called arguments, denoted A {\displaystyle A} A binary relation on A {\displaystyle A} , called attack relation, denoted R {\displaystyle R} For instance, the argumentation system S = ⟨ A , R ⟩ {\displaystyle S=\langle A,R\rangle } with A = { a , b , c , d } {\displaystyle A=\{a,b,c,d\}} and R = { ( a , b ) , ( b , c ) , ( d , c ) } {\displaystyle R=\{(a,b),(b,c),(d,c)\}} contains four arguments ( a , b , c {\displaystyle a,b,c} and d {\displaystyle d} ) and three attacks ( a {\displaystyle a} attacks b {\displaystyle b} , b {\displaystyle b} attacks c {\displaystyle c} and d {\displaystyle d} attacks c {\displaystyle c} ). Dung defines some notions : an argument a ∈ A {\displaystyle a\in A} is acceptable with respect to E ⊆ A {\displaystyle E\subseteq A} if and only if E {\displaystyle E} defends a {\displaystyle a} , that is ∀ b ∈ A {\displaystyle \forall b\in A} such that ( b , a ) ∈ R , ∃ c ∈ E {\displaystyle (b,a)\in R,\exists c\in E} such that ( c , b ) ∈ R {\displaystyle (c,b)\in R} , a set of arguments E {\displaystyle E} is conflict-free if there is no attack between its arguments, formally : ∀ a , b ∈ E , ( a , b ) ∉ R {\displaystyle \forall a,b\in E,(a,b)\not \in R} , a set of arguments E {\displaystyle E} is admissible if and only if it is conflict-free and all its arguments are acceptable with respect to E {\displaystyle E} . === Different semantics of acceptance === ==== Extensions ==== To decide if an argument can be accepted or not, or if several arguments can be accepted together, Dung defines several semantics of acceptance that allows, given an argumentation system, sets of arguments (called extensions) to be computed. For instance, given S = ⟨ A , R ⟩ {\displaystyle S=\langle A,R\rangle } , E {\displaystyle E} is a complete extension of S {\displaystyle S} only if it is an admissible set and every acceptable argument with respect to E {\displaystyle E} belongs to E {\displaystyle E} , E {\displaystyle E} is a preferred extension of S {\displaystyle S} only if it is a maximal element (with respect to the set-theoretical inclusion) among the admissible sets with respect to S {\displaystyle S} , E {\displaystyle E} is a stable extension of S {\displaystyle S} only if it is a conflict-free set that attacks every argument that does not belong in E {\displaystyle E} (formally, ∀ a ∈ A ∖ E , ∃ b ∈ E {\displaystyle \forall a\in A\backslash E,\exists b\in E} such that ( b , a ) ∈ R {\displaystyle (b,a)\in R} , E {\displaystyle E} is the (unique) grounded extension of S {\displaystyle S} only if it is the smallest element (with respect to set inclusion) among the complete extensions of S {\displaystyle S} . There exists some inclusions between the sets of extensions built with these semantics : Every stable extension is preferred, Every preferred extension is complete, The grounded extension is complete, If the system is well-founded (there exists no infinite sequence a 0 , a 1 , … , a n , … {\displaystyle a_{0},a_{1},\dots ,a_{n},\dots } such that ∀ i > 0 , ( a i + 1 , a i ) ∈ R {\displaystyle \forall i>0,(a_{i+1},a_{i})\in R} ), all these semantics coincide—only one extension is grounded, stable, preferred, and complete. Some other semantics have been defined. One introduce the notation E x t σ ( S ) {\displaystyle Ext_{\sigma }(S)} to note the set of σ {\displaystyle \sigma } -extensions of the system S {\displaystyle S} . In the case of the system S {\displaystyle S} in the figure above, E x t σ ( S ) = { { a , d } } {\displaystyle Ext_{\sigma }(S)=\{\{a,d\}\}} for every Dung's semantic—the system is well-founded. That explains why the semantics coincide, and the accepted arguments are: a {\displaystyle a} and d {\displaystyle d} . ==== Labellings ==== Labellings are a more expressive way than extensions to express the acceptance of the arguments. Concretely, a labelling is a mapping that associates every argument with a label in (the argument is accepted), out (the argument is rejected), or undec (the argument is undefined—not accepted or refused). One can also note a labelling as a set of pairs ( a r g u m e n t , l a b e l ) {\displaystyle ({\mathit {argument}},{\mathit {label}})} . Such a mapping does not make sense without additional constraint. The notion of reinstatement labelling guarantees the sense of the mapping. L {\displaystyle L} is a reinstatement labelling on the system S = ⟨ A , R ⟩ {\displaystyle S=\langle A,R\rangle } if and only if : ∀ a ∈ A , L ( a ) = i n {\displaystyle \forall a\in A,L(a)={\mathit {in}}} if and only if ∀ b ∈ A {\displaystyle \forall b\in A} such that ( b , a ) ∈ R , L ( b ) = o u t {\displaystyle (b,a)\in R,L(b)={\mathit {out}}} ∀ a ∈ A , L ( a ) = o u t {\displaystyle \forall a\in A,L(a)={\mathit {out}}} if and only if ∃ b ∈ A {\displaystyle \exists b\in A} such that ( b , a ) ∈ R {\displaystyle (b,a)\in R} and L ( b ) = i n {\displaystyle L(b)={\mathit {in}}} ∀ a ∈ A , L ( a ) = u n d e c {\displaystyle \forall a\in A,L(a)={\mathit {undec}}} if and only if L ( a ) ≠ i n {\displaystyle L(a)\neq {\mathit {in}}} and L ( a ) ≠ o u t {\displaystyle L(a)\neq {\mathit {out}}} One can convert every extension into a reinstatement labelling: the arguments of the extension are in, those attacked by an argument of the extension are out, and the others are undec. Conversely, one can build an extension from a reinstatement labelling just by keeping the arguments in. Indeed, Caminada proved that the reinstatement labellings and the complete extensions can be mapped in a bijective way. Moreover, the other Datung's semantics can be associated to some particular sets of reinstatement labellings. Reinstatement labellings distinguish arguments not accepted because they are attacked by accepted arguments from undefined arguments—that is, those that are not defended cannot defend themselves. An argument is undec if it is attacked by at least another undec. If it is attacked only by arguments out, it must be in, and if it is attacked some argument in, then it is out. The unique reinstatement labelling that corresponds to the system S {\displaystyle S} above is L = { ( a , i n ) , ( b , o u t ) , ( c , o u t ) , ( d , i n ) } {\displaystyle L=\{(a,{\mathit {in}}),(b,{\mathit {out}}),(c,{\mathit {out}}),(d,{\mathit {in}})\}} . === Inference from an argumentation system === In the general case when several extensions are computed for a given semantic σ {\displaystyle \sigma } , the agent that reasons from the system can use several mechanisms to infer information: Credulous inference: the agent accepts an argument if it belongs to at least one of the σ {\displaystyle \sigma } -extensions—in which case, the agent risks accepting some arguments that are not acceptable together ( a {\displaystyle a} attacks b {\displaystyle b} , and a {\displaystyle a} and b {\displaystyle b} each belongs to an extension) Skeptical inference: the agent accepts an argument only if it belongs to every σ {\displaystyle \sigma } -extension. In this case, the agent risks deducing too little information (if the intersection of the extensions is empty or has a very small cardinal). For these two methods to infer information, one can identify the set of accepted arguments, respectively C r σ ( S ) {\displaystyle Cr_{\sigma }(S)} the set of the arguments credulously accepted under the semantic σ {\displaystyle \sigma } , and S c σ ( S ) {\displaystyle Sc_{\sigma }(S)} the set of arguments accepted skeptically under the semantic σ {\displaystyle \sigma } (the σ {\displaystyle \sigma } can be missed if there is no possible ambiguity about the semantic). Of course, when there is only one extension (for instance, when the system is well-founded), this problem is very simple: the agent accepts arguments of the unique extension and rejects others. The same reasoning can be done with labellings that correspond to the chosen semantic : an argument can be accepted if it is in for each labelling and refused if it is out for each labelling, the others being in an undecided state (the status of the arguments can remind the
Read more →
World model (artificial intelligence)

A world model in artificial intelligence is a machine learning system that builds an internal representation of an environment. The model predicts how that environment changes over time in response to actions. Researchers design world models to help agents plan, reason, and act without constant real-world trial and error. World models differ from systems that merely classify or generate outputs. They simulate dynamics such as physics, object interactions, and causality. Early ideas date to the 1990s. Modern versions power robots, autonomous driving, and interactive video generation. == History == Jürgen Schmidhuber introduced the term world model in machine learning in 1990. He proposed recurrent neural networks that predict future states from observations and use those predictions to train agents. David Ha and Schmidhuber revived the concept in a 2018 paper. Their agents learned to drive virtual cars and play video games inside self-generated simulations. Yann LeCun advanced the idea in a 2022 position paper titled "A Path Towards Autonomous Machine Intelligence". He argued that intelligence requires predictive models of the world rather than pure pattern matching. LeCun proposed the joint embedding predictive architecture (JEPA) as a practical foundation. LeCun and collaborators developed several JEPA variants. V-JEPA 2 reached state-of-the-art performance on video understanding and physical reasoning at the time. It supports zero-shot robot control in unfamiliar environments. Introduced in March 2026, LeWorldModel trains stably end-to-end from raw pixels and uses two loss terms and avoids hand-crafted heuristics. LeCun founded Advanced Machine Intelligence Labs in 2026 to further develop world models. Google DeepMind introduced Genie in 2024. The model learned interactive environments from unlabeled internet videos. Genie 2 followed in late 2024 and added three-dimensional generation. The Genie series set benchmarks for general-purpose simulation. Genie 3 was introduced in August 2025. It produces photorealistic, real-time interactive worlds from text prompts which are displayed at 24 frames per second and explored in real time with text or image prompts. The model supports persistent three-dimensional worlds and real-time interaction. Waymo adopted Genie 3 in February 2026 and used it to create a specialized world model for autonomous driving simulation, called the Waymo World Model. It produces synchronized camera and lidar outputs and creates edge cases that real robotaxis rarely encounter. The edge cases were reported to be unusual by PCMag. General Intuition announced a $133.7 million seed round. World Labs raised $1 billion. AMI raised $1.03 billion. In April 2026, Alibaba announced Happy Oyster, its world model designed for real-time and “flowy” world model. It includes a directing mode for world building based on text and image prompts and a wandering mode for exploring the resulting world. It can generate 3-minute in-world video clips. Also in April, World Labs, co-founded by Li Fei Fei, unveiled Spark 2.0, an open-source 3D Gaussian splatting rendering engine that targets smartphone-class devices. In June 2026, Nvidia released Cosmos 3, a family of open-weight models. It combines previously independent physical reasoning, world simulation, and action generation. Cosmos 3 integrates can process and generate text, image, video, audio, and action sequences. The model employs a Mixture-of-Transformers" (MoT) approach. An autoregressive (AR) transformer handles reasoning and next-token prediction, while a diffusion transformer (DT) does multimodal generation. Encoders (ViT for vision, VAE for visual/audio, and domain-specific for actions) and generate a shared representation space using 3D multi-dimensional rotary position embedding (mRoPE) for spatial and temporal information. The family includes Cosmos3-Nano (16B parameters) for workstations; Cosmos3-Super (64B parameters) for research. == Architecture == World models process raw sensory data such as video frames or lidar scans. They compress this input into compact latent representations. The system then predicts future representations rather than pixel-by-pixel reconstructions. Many modern world models use joint embedding predictive architecture (JEPA). An encoder turns observations into embeddings. A predictor estimates one or a suite of embeddings from the current one and an action. In some cases a critic chooses one embedding as the best result. A regularizer keeps embeddings well-behaved. The model trains by minimizing prediction error in embedding space. This approach avoids the high cost of generating every detail. Some architectures add explicit components. A fast reactive path handles immediate responses. A slower deliberative path performs longer-horizon planning. Video prediction accuracy or robot success rates are key metrics, but do not always predict real-world performance. Generative world models such as Genie 3 combine these with a simulator. They accept text prompts or layouts and output consistent video, lidar, or three-dimensional scenes. World models often train with self-supervised learning. They use large unlabeled datasets of video or robot interactions. Self-supervised learning can speed learning. Reinforcement learning can fine-tune a model for specific tasks. == Applications == World models support robot learning. Agents train inside simulations and transfer skills to the physical world. This reduces the need for dangerous or expensive real-world trials. Autonomous vehicles use world models to test rare events. Waymo's system simulates tornadoes or unusual pedestrian behavior. Companies train planners without putting vehicles on public roads. Interactive entertainment benefits from world models. Genie 3 lets users generate playable environments from simple descriptions. Game studios prototype levels faster. Scientific simulation gains from these models. Researchers model physical systems or biological processes at scale. Planners in logistics or urban design test strategies inside accurate digital twins. == Comparison with large language models == Both world models and large language models (LLMs) use inferencing on their inputs to make predictions. LLMs operate on textual inputs. They predict the next token in text sequences. They excel at language-oriented tasks such as translation or summarization. However, they lack understanding of physics. World models operate on sensor inputs such as pixels. They predict state changes in that data in latent space. This design supports planning and causal reasoning. LLMs generate fluent text but often fail at consistent physical predictions. Their architecture employs transformers with refinements such as mixture of experts. World models divide an inferencing task into work performed by encoders, predictors, simulators, and other pieces. They typically handle multimodal inputs such as video, lidar, radar, and audio, guided by textual prompting. LLMs power chatbots and code assistants. World models drive embodied agents that act in dynamic environments, such as autonomous driving. The two may be combined in hybrid systems. For example, a LLM handles instructions, while a world model manages low-level control. World model proponents such as LeCun claim that because LLMs are trained only on text, they have no ability to predict anything beyond text, such as real-world events. == Benchmarks == World model benchmarks test physical understanding, long-term consistency, planning, and generalization from sensor data. Meta introduced three benchmarks for V-JEPA 2. IntPhys 2 measures a model's ability to detect physics violations. It presents pairs of videos that diverge when one breaks physical rules. Humans score near 100% accuracy. V-JEPA 2 achieves little better than random chance on many conditions. Minimal Video Pairs (MVPBench) tests physical understanding through multiple-choice questions based on short video clips. It probes object interactions and causality. Something-Something tests action recognition. Epic-Kitchens-100 tests human action anticipation. DeepMind benchmark: Interactive evaluation measures consistency over minutes of interaction, memory of off-screen objects, and response to user actions or text prompts. Waymo benchmark: Output generation quality: Metrics include realism, controllability (via text prompts), and usefulness for training planners in simulated worlds. However, pixel reconstruction error rate with episodic rewards often fails. Other: Epic-Kitchens-100 (often measured with Recall@5) Ego4D 50 Salads, Breakfast, etc. Potential benchmarks: Zero-shot transfer to robots Long-horizon planning Implausible prediction rate
Read more →
Spreading activation

Spreading activation is a method for searching associative networks, biological and artificial neural networks, or semantic networks. The search process is initiated by labeling a set of source nodes (e.g. concepts in a semantic network) with weights or "activation" and then iteratively propagating or "spreading" that activation out to other nodes linked to the source nodes. Most often these "weights" are real values that decay as activation propagates through the network. When the weights are discrete this process is often referred to as marker passing. Activation may originate from alternate paths, identified by distinct markers, and terminate when two alternate paths reach the same node. However brain studies show that several different brain areas play an important role in semantic processing. Spreading activation in semantic networks as a model were invented in cognitive psychology to model the fan out effect. Spreading activation can also be applied in information retrieval, by means of a network of nodes representing documents and terms contained in those documents. == Cognitive psychology == As it relates to cognitive psychology, spreading activation is the theory of how the brain iterates through a network of associated ideas to retrieve specific information. The spreading activation theory presents the array of concepts within our memory as cognitive units, each consisting of a node and its associated elements or characteristics, all connected together by edges. A spreading activation network can be represented schematically, in a sort of web diagram with shorter lines between two nodes meaning the ideas are more closely related and will typically be associated more quickly to the original concept. In memory psychology, the spreading activation model holds that people organize their knowledge of the world based on their personal experiences, which in turn form the network of ideas that is the person's knowledge of the world. When a word (the target) is preceded by an associated word (the prime) in word recognition tasks, participants seem to perform better in the amount of time that it takes them to respond. For instance, subjects respond faster to the word "doctor" when it is preceded by "nurse" than when it is preceded by an unrelated word like "carrot". This semantic priming effect with words that are close in meaning within the cognitive network has been seen in a wide range of tasks given by experimenters, ranging from sentence verification to lexical decision and naming. As another example, if the original concept is "red" and the concept "vehicles" is primed, they are much more likely to say "fire engine" instead of something unrelated to vehicles, such as "cherries". If instead "fruits" was primed, they would likely name "cherries" and continue on from there. The activation of pathways in the network has everything to do with how closely linked two concepts are by meaning, as well as how a subject is primed. == Algorithm == A directed graph is populated by Nodes[ 1...N ] each having an associated activation value A [ i ] which is a real number in the range [0.0 ... 1.0]. A Link[ i, j ] connects source node[ i ] with target node[ j ]. Each edge has an associated weight W [ i, j ] usually a real number in the range [0.0 ... 1.0]. Parameters: Firing threshold F, a real number in the range [0.0 ... 1.0] Decay factor D, a real number in the range [0.0 ... 1.0] Steps: Initialize the graph setting all activation values A [ i ] to zero. Set one or more origin nodes to an initial activation value greater than the firing threshold F. A typical initial value is 1.0. For each unfired node [ i ] in the graph having an activation value A [ i ] greater than the node firing threshold F: For each Link [ i, j ] connecting the source node [ i ] with target node [ j ], adjust A [ j ] = A [ j ] + (A [ i ] W [ i, j ] D) where D is the decay factor. If a target node receives an adjustment to its activation value so that it would exceed 1.0, then set its new activation value to 1.0. Likewise maintain 0.0 as a lower bound on the target node's activation value should it receive an adjustment to below 0.0. Once a node has fired it may not fire again, although variations of the basic algorithm permit repeated firings and loops through the graph. Nodes receiving a new activation value that exceeds the firing threshold F are marked for firing on the next spreading activation cycle. If activation originates from more than one node, a variation of the algorithm permits marker passing to distinguish the paths by which activation is spread over the graph The procedure terminates when either there are no more nodes to fire or in the case of marker passing from multiple origins, when a node is reached from more than one path. Variations of the algorithm that permit repeated node firings and activation loops in the graph, terminate after a steady activation state, with respect to some delta, is reached, or when a maximum number of iterations is exceeded. == Examples ==
Read more →
Catalog server

A catalog server provides a single point of access that allows users to centrally search for information across a distributed network. In other words, it indexes databases, files and information across large network and allows keywords, Boolean and other searches. If you need to provide a comprehensive searching service for your intranet, extranet or even the Internet, a catalog server is a standard solution.
Read more →
Deadbot

A deadbot, deathbot, or griefbot is a digital avatar, created with artificial intelligence, which resembles a person who is dead. Griefbots employ natural language processing and machine-learning techniques to approximate the style and personality of a deceased person. They may appear as chatbots, voice assistants, or animated avatars, and are often trained on an individual's digital remains. == History == Among the earliest researchers, Muhammad Aurangzeb Ahmad of the University of Washington, developed the Grandpa Bot project, a conversational simulation of his late father designed for his children to interact with. Other efforts include journalist James Vlahos's Dadbot, which evolved into the commercial platform HereAfter AI. Hossein Rahnama's Augmented Eternity research at MIT Media Lab and Toronto Metropolitan University, and game designer Jason Rohrer's "Project December", have enabled users to converse with language-model representations of loved ones. Early commercial projects such as Eternime, founded by Marius Ursache, also popularized the notion of interactive digital immortality. == Cultural and societal impact == Scholars have proposed frameworks and critiques addressing the ethics of these technologies. Tomasz Hollanek and Katarzyna Nowaczyk-Basińska developed a design-ethics taxonomy distinguishing the data donor, data recipient, and interactant. Edina Harbinja and Lilian Edwards formalized the concept of post-mortem privacy, and Carl J. Öhman at the Oxford Internet Institute studied the management of large-scale digital remains. Cultural acceptance varies: while some view them as expressions of remembrance, others regard them as unsettling or ethically problematic. Concerns have been raised about deadbots' potential for creating psychological harm. Griefbots are considered part of the phenomenon of artificial intimacy.
Read more →
Operation Serenata de Amor

Operation Serenata de Amor is an artificial intelligence project designed to analyze public spending in Brazil. The project has been funded by a recurrent financing campaign since September 7, 2016, and came in the wake of major scandals of misappropriation of public funds in Brazil, such as the Mensalão scandal and what was revealed in the Operation Car Wash investigations. The analysis began with data from the National Congress then expanded to other types of budget and instances of government, such as the Federal Senate. The project is built through collaboration on GitHub and using a public group with more than 600 participants on Telegram. The name "Serenata de Amor," which means "serenade of love," was taken from a popular cashew cream bonbon produced by Chocolates Garoto in Brazil. == Modules == Throughout development of the project, new modules have been newly introduced in addition to the main repository: The main repository, serenata-de-amor, serves as the starting point for investigative work. Rosie is the robot programmed to identify public funds expenses with discrepancies, starting with CEAP (Quota for Exercise of Parliamentary Activity); it analyzes each of the reimbursements requested by the deputies and senators, indicating the reasons that lead it to believe they are suspicious. From Rosie was born whistleblower, which tweets under the name of @RosieDaSerenata, distributing the results found on social media. Jarbas (Github repository) is a data visualization tool which shows a complete list of reimbursements made available by the Chamber of Deputies and mined by Rosie. Toolbox is a Python installable package that supports the development of Serenata de Amor and Rosie. == History == Operation Serenata de Amor is an Artificial intelligence project for analysis of public expenditures. It was conceived in March 2016 by data scientist Irio Musskopf, sociologist Eduardo Cuducos and entrepreneur Felipe Cabral. The project was financed collectively in the Catarse platform, where it reached 131% of the collection goal paying 3 months of project development. Ana Schwendler, also a data scientist, Pedro Vilanova "Tonny", data journalist, Bruno Pazzim, software engineer, Filipe Linhares, a frontend engineer, Leandro Devegili, an entrepreneur and André Pinho took the first steps towards constructing the platform, such as collecting and structuring the first datasets. Jessica Temporal, data scientist and Yasodara Córdova "Yaso", researcher, Tatiana Balachova "Russa", UX designer, joined the project after the financing took place. The members created a recurring financing campaign, expanding the analysis of public spending to the Federal Senate. Donors make monthly payments ranging from 5 BRL to 200 BRL to maintain group activities. The monthly amount collected is around 10,000 BRL. == Results == In January 2017, concluding the period financed by the initial campaign, the group carried out an investigation into the suspicious activities found by the data analysis system. 629 complaints were made to the Ombudsman's Office of the Chamber of Deputies, questioning expenses of 216 federal deputies. In addition, the Facebook project page has more than 25,000 followers, and users frequently cite the operation as a benchmark in transparency in the Brazilian government. One of the examples of results obtained by the operation is the case of the Deputy who had to return about 700 BRL to the House after his expenses were analyzed by the platform. The platform was able to analyze more than 3 million notes, raising about 8,000 suspected cases in public spending. The community that supports the work of the team benefits from open source repositories, with licenses open for the collaboration. So much so that the two main data scientists of the project presented it at the CivicTechFest in Taipei, obtaining several mentions even in the international press. The technical leader presented the project in Poland during DevConf2017 in Kraków. It was also presented in the Google News Lab in 2017. It was presented by Yaso, when she was the Director of the initiative, at the MIT Media Lab/Berkman Klein Center Initiative for Artificial Intelligence ethics, and at the Artificial Intelligence and Inclusion Symposium, an initiative of the Global Network of Internet & Society Centers (NoC). It was also presented both by Irio and Yaso at the Digital Harvard Kennedy School, over a lunch seminar, where the transparency of the platform and the main solutions found were discussed, so that the code and data are always available to verify its suitability. This infographic provides information about the first results of Operation Serenata de Amor, a project that analyzes open data on public spending to find discrepancies. The project was presented by Yaso to the House Audit and Control Committee of the Chamber of Deputies in August 2017, and raised the interest of House officials who work with open data. The operation has been a source of inspiration for other civic projects that aim to work with similar goals, demonstrating the broader impact of artificial intelligence also in industry in Brazil. Participation of several team members in events throughout Brazil and abroad can be found on the Internet, such as presentation at OpenDataDay, held at Calango Hackerspace in the Federal District, Campus Party Bahia, Campus Party Brasilia, Friends of Tomorrow, XIII National Meeting of Internal Control, in the event USP Talks Hackfest against corruption in João Pessoa, the latter being also highlighted in the National Press.
Read more →