AI Chatbot You Can Talk To

AI Chatbot You Can Talk To — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  Computer appliance

  A computer appliance is a computer system with a combination of hardware, software, or firmware that is specifically designed to provide a particular computing resource. Such devices became known as appliances because of the similarity in role or management to a home appliance, which are generally closed and sealed, and are not serviceable by the user or owner. The hardware and software are delivered as an integrated product and may even be pre-configured before delivery to a customer, to provide a turn-key solution for a particular application. Unlike general purpose computers, appliances are generally not designed to allow the customers to change the software and the underlying operating system, or to flexibly reconfigure the hardware. Another form of appliance is the virtual appliance, which has similar functionality to a dedicated hardware appliance, but is distributed as a software virtual machine image for a hypervisor-equipped device. == Overview == Traditionally, software applications run on top of a general-purpose operating system, which uses the hardware resources of the computer (primarily memory, disk storage, processing power, and networking bandwidth) to meet the computing needs of the user. The main issue with the traditional model is related to complexity. It is complex to integrate the operating system and applications with a hardware platform, and complex to support it afterwards. By tightly constraining the variations of the hardware and software, the appliance becomes easily deployable, and can be used without nearly as wide (or deep) IT knowledge. Additionally, when problems and errors appear, the supporting staff very rarely needs to explore them deeply to understand the matter thoroughly. The staff needs merely training on the appliance management software to be able to resolve most of problems. In all forms of the computer appliance model, customers benefit from easy operations. The appliance has exactly one combination of hardware and operating system and application software, which has been pre-installed at the factory. This prevents customers from needing to perform complex integration work, and dramatically simplifies troubleshooting. In fact, this "turnkey operation" characteristic is the driving benefit that customers seek when purchasing appliances. To be considered an appliance, the (hardware) device needs to be integrated with software, and both are supplied as a package. This distinguishes appliances from "home grown" solutions, or solutions requiring complex implementations by integrators or value-added resellers (VARs). The appliance approach helps to decouple the various systems and applications, for example in the data center. Once a resource is decoupled, in theory it can be also centralized to become shared among many systems, centrally managed and optimized, all without requiring changes to any other system. == Tradeoffs of the computer appliance approach == The major disadvantage of deploying a computer appliance is that since they are designed to supply a specific resource, they most often include a customized operating system running over specialized hardware, neither of which are likely to be compatible with the other systems previously deployed. Customers lose flexibility. One may believe that a proprietary embedded operating system, or operating system within an application, can make the appliance much more secure from common cyber attacks. However, the opposite is true. Security by obscurity is a poor security decision, and appliances are often plagued by security issues as evidenced by the proliferation of IoT devices. == Types of appliances == The variety of computer appliances reflects the wide range of computing resources they provide to applications. Some examples: Storage appliances provide large amounts of storage, often available to many machines on the network. See Network-attached storage and Storage area network. Network appliances are general purpose routers which may also provide firewall protection, Transport Layer Security (TLS), messaging, access to specialized networking protocols (like the ebXML Message Service) and bandwidth multiplexing for the multiple systems they front-end. Backup and disaster recovery appliances computer appliances that are integrated backup software and backup targets, sometimes with hypervisors to support local DR of protected servers. They are often a gateway to a full DRaaS solution. Firewall and Security appliances Dedicated network appliances that are designed to protect computer networks from unwanted traffic. IIoT and MES Gateway appliances Computer appliances that are designed to translate data bidirectionally between control systems and enterprise systems. Proprietary, embedded, firmware applications running on the appliance use point-to-point connections to translate data between field devices in their native automation protocols and MES systems through their APIs, ODBC, or RESTful interfaces. Anti-spam appliances for e-mail spam Software appliances A single application server appliance, with just enough operating system (JeOS) for it to run. Virtual machine appliances consist of a "hypervisor style" embedded operating system running on appliance hardware. The hypervisor layer is matched to the hardware of the appliance, and cannot be varied by the customer, but the customer may load other operating systems and applications onto the appliance in the form of virtual machines. == Consumer appliances == Aside from its deployment within data centers, many computer appliances are directly used by the general public. These include: Digital video recorder Residential gateway Network-attached storage (NAS) Video game console Consumer uses stress the need for an appliance to have easy installation, configuration, and operation, with little or no technical knowledge being necessary. == Appliances in industrial automation == The world of industrial automation has been rich in appliances. These appliances have been hardened to withstand temperature and vibration extremes. These appliances are also highly configurable, enabling customization to meet a wide variety of applications. The key benefits of an appliance in automation are: Reduced downtime - a failed appliance is typically replaced with a COTS replacement and its task is quickly and easily reloaded from a backup. Highly scalable - appliances are typically targeted solutions for an area of a plant or process. As the requirements change, scalability is achieved through the installation of another appliance. Automation concepts are easily replicated throughout the enterprise by standardizing on appliances to perform the needed tasks, as opposed to the development of custom automation schemes for each task. Low TCO (total cost of ownership) - appliances are developed, tested and supported by automation product vendors and undergo a much broader level of quality testing than custom designed automation solutions. The use of appliances in automation reduce the level of testing needed in each individual application. Reduced design time - appliances perform specific functions and although they are highly configurable, they are typically self documenting. This enables appliance based solutions to be transferred from engineer to engineer with minimal need for training and documentation. Types of automation appliances: PLC (programmable logic controller) - Programmable logic controllers are appliances that are typically used for discrete control and offer a wide range of Input and Output options. They are configured through standardized programming languages such as IEC-1131. PID (proportional–integral–derivative controller) - PID controllers are appliances that monitor a process variable and, based on an error term, effect change on a control output (manipulated variable) to drive the process variable to a setpoint. PAC (programmable automation controller) - Programmable automation controllers are appliances that embody properties of both PLCs and PID controllers enabling the integration of both analog and discrete control. Universal gateway - A universal gateway appliance has the ability to communicate with a variety of devices through their respective communication protocols, and will affect data transactions between them. This in increasingly important as manufacturing strives to improve agility, quality, production rates, production costs and reduce downtime through enhanced M2M (machine to machine) communications. EATMs (Enterprise Appliance Transaction Modules) - Enterprise appliance transaction modules are appliances that affect data transactions from plant floor automation systems to enterprise business systems. They communicate to plant floor equipment through various vendor automation protocols, and communicate to business systems through database communication protocols such as JMS (Java Message Service) and SQL (Structured Query Language). == Internal structure == There are several

  Read more →
• 

  Data annotation

  Data annotation is the process of labeling or tagging relevant metadata within a dataset to enable machines to interpret the data accurately. The dataset can take various forms, including images, audio files, video footage, or text. == Applications == Data is a fundamental component in the development of artificial intelligence (AI). Training AI models, particularly in computer vision and natural language processing, requires large volumes of annotated data. Proper annotation ensures that machine learning algorithms can recognize patterns and make accurate predictions. Common types of data annotation include classification, bounding boxes, semantic segmentation, and keypoint annotation. Data annotation is used in AI-driven fields, including healthcare, autonomous vehicles, retail, security, and entertainment. By accurately labeling data, machine learning models can perform complex tasks such as object detection, sentiment analysis, and speech recognition with greater precision. This growing demand has led to the emergence of specialized sectors and platforms dedicated to AI training and human-in-the-loop workflows, which often utilize Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) to refine model behavior. == In computer vision == === Image classification === Image classification, also known as image categorization, involves assigning predefined labels to images. Machine learning algorithms trained on classified images can later recognize objects and differentiate between categories. For instance, an AI model trained to recognize furniture styles can distinguish between Georgian and Rococo armchairs. === Semantic segmentation === Semantic segmentation assigns each pixel in an image to a specific class, such as trees, vehicles, humans, or buildings. This type of annotation enables machine learning models to differentiate objects by grouping similar pixels, allowing for a detailed understanding of an image. === Bounding boxes === Bounding box annotation involves drawing rectangular boxes around objects in an image. This technique is commonly used in autonomous driving, security surveillance, and retail analytics to detect and classify objects such as pedestrians, vehicles, and products on store shelves. === 3D cuboids === 3D cuboid annotation enhances traditional bounding boxes by adding depth, enabling models to predict an object's spatial orientation, movement, and size. This method is particularly useful for autonomous vehicles and robotics, where understanding object dimensions and depth is critical. === Polygonal annotation === For objects with irregular shapes, such as curved or multi-sided items, polygonal annotation provides more precise labeling than bounding boxes. This technique is often used in applications that require detailed object recognition, such as medical imaging or aerial mapping. === Keypoint annotation === Keypoint annotation marks specific points on an object, such as facial landmarks or body joints, to enable tracking and motion analysis. This method is widely used in facial recognition, emotion detection, sports analytics, and augmented reality applications.

  Read more →
• 

  Self-supervised learning

  Self-supervised learning (SSL) is a paradigm in machine learning where a model is trained on a task using the data itself to generate supervisory signals, rather than relying on externally-provided labels. In the context of neural networks, self-supervised learning aims to leverage inherent structures or relationships within the input data to create meaningful training signals. SSL tasks are designed so that solving them requires capturing essential features or relationships in the data. The input data is typically augmented or transformed in a way that creates pairs of related samples, where one sample serves as the input, and the other is used to formulate the supervisory signal. This augmentation can involve introducing noise, cropping, rotation, or other transformations. Self-supervised learning more closely imitates the way humans learn to classify objects. During SSL, the model learns in two steps. First, the task is solved based on an auxiliary or pretext classification task using pseudo-labels, which help to initialize the model parameters. Next, the actual task is performed with supervised or unsupervised learning. Self-supervised learning has produced promising results in recent years, and has found practical application in fields such as audio processing, and is being used by Facebook and others for speech recognition. == Pseudo-labels == Pseudo-labels are automatically generated labels that a model assigns to unlabeled data based on its own predictions. They are widely used in self-supervised and semi-supervised learning, where ground-truth annotations are limited or unavailable. By treating predicted labels as surrogate ground truth, learning algorithms can make use of large quantities of unlabeled data in the training process. Pseudo-labeling also plays an important role in systems that must adapt to concept drift, where the statistical properties of the data change over time. In these scenarios, the model may detect that an incoming instance deviates from previously learned behavior. The system then generates a classification result for that instance, and this predicted class is used as a pseudo-label for updating or retraining model components that are becoming outdated. This approach enables continuous adaptation in dynamic environments without requiring manual annotation. In many adaptive learning pipelines, pseudo-labels are chosen when the classifier produces sufficiently confident predictions, reducing the risk of propagating errors. These pseudo-labeled instances are then incorporated into training to refresh or evolve the model's understanding of emerging data patterns, particularly when existing components show signs of “aging” due to drift or distributional shifts. This strategy reduces reliance on manual labeling while helping maintain long-term model performance. == Types == === Autoassociative self-supervised learning === Autoassociative self-supervised learning is a specific category of self-supervised learning where a neural network is trained to reproduce or reconstruct its own input data. In other words, the model is tasked with learning a representation of the data that captures its essential features or structure, allowing it to regenerate the original input. The term "autoassociative" comes from the fact that the model is essentially associating the input data with itself. This is often achieved using autoencoders, which are a type of neural network architecture used for representation learning. Autoencoders consist of an encoder network that maps the input data to a lower-dimensional representation (latent space), and a decoder network that reconstructs the input from this representation. The training process involves presenting the model with input data and requiring it to reconstruct the same data as closely as possible. The loss function used during training typically penalizes the difference between the original input and the reconstructed output (e.g. mean squared error). By minimizing this reconstruction error, the autoencoder learns a meaningful representation of the data in its latent space. === Contrastive self-supervised learning === For a binary classification task, training data can be divided into positive examples and negative examples. Positive examples are those that match the target. For example, if training a classifier to identify birds, the positive training data would include images that contain birds. Negative examples would be images that do not. Contrastive self-supervised learning uses both positive and negative examples. The loss function in contrastive learning is used to minimize the distance between positive sample pairs, while maximizing the distance between negative sample pairs. An early example uses a pair of 1-dimensional convolutional neural networks to process a pair of images and maximize their agreement. Contrastive Language-Image Pre-training (CLIP) allows joint pretraining of a text encoder and an image encoder, such that a matching image-text pair have image encoding vector and text encoding vector that span a small angle (having a large cosine similarity). InfoNCE (Noise-Contrastive Estimation) is a method to optimize two models jointly, based on Noise Contrastive Estimation (NCE). Given a set X = { x 1 , … x N } {\displaystyle X=\left\{x_{1},\ldots x_{N}\right\}} of N {\displaystyle N} random samples containing one positive sample from p ( x t + k ∣ c t ) {\displaystyle p\left(x_{t+k}\mid c_{t}\right)} and N − 1 {\displaystyle N-1} negative samples from the 'proposal' distribution p ( x t + k ) {\displaystyle p\left(x_{t+k}\right)} , it minimizes the following loss function: L N = − E X [ log ⁡ f k ( x t + k , c t ) ∑ x j ∈ X f k ( x j , c t ) ] {\displaystyle {\mathcal {L}}_{\mathrm {N} }=-\mathbb {E} _{X}\left[\log {\frac {f_{k}\left(x_{t+k},c_{t}\right)}{\sum _{x_{j}\in X}f_{k}\left(x_{j},c_{t}\right)}}\right]} === Non-contrastive self-supervised learning === Non-contrastive self-supervised learning (NCSSL) uses only positive examples. Counterintuitively, NCSSL converges on a useful local minimum rather than reaching a trivial solution, with zero loss. For the example of binary classification, it would trivially learn to classify each example as positive. Effective NCSSL requires an extra predictor on the online side that does not back-propagate on the target side. === Joint-Embedding and Predictive Architectures === A major class of self-supervised learning moves beyond contrastive pairs, instead maximizing the agreement between views while preventing collapse through statistical constraints. Rooted in Deep Canonical Correlation Analysis (Deep CCA), this approach includes Joint-Embedding Architectures (JEA) like Barlow Twins and VICReg, which enforce covariance constraints to learn invariant representations without negative sampling. Deep Latent Variable Path Modelling (DLVPM) generalizes this to multimodal systems, using path models to enforce correlation and orthogonality across diverse data types. In 2022 Yann LeCun introduced Joint-Embedding Predictive Architectures (JEPA) as a step towards decision making, reasoning, and autonomous human intelligence in machines, including self-improvement through autonomous learning. Founded in representation learning, LeCun included the concept of a “world model” in JEPA which aims to enable machines to replicate human intellect by providing machines with a concept for the world in which they exist. Unlike autoencoders, JEPAs operate entirely in latent space, avoiding pixel-level noise to focus on semantic structure. Rather than just learning invariance, JEPAs learn by predicting masked latent representations from visible context. JEPA has been applied to domains such as image analysis, audio processing, and motion in images and video. == Comparison with other forms of machine learning == SSL belongs to supervised learning methods insofar as the goal is to generate a classified output from the input. At the same time, however, it does not require the explicit use of labeled input-output pairs. Instead, correlations, metadata embedded in the data, or domain knowledge present in the input are implicitly and autonomously extracted from the data. These supervisory signals, extracted from the data, can then be used for training. SSL is similar to unsupervised learning in that it does not require labels in the sample data. Unlike unsupervised learning, however, learning is not done using inherent data structures. Semi-supervised learning combines supervised and unsupervised learning, requiring only a small portion of the learning data be labeled. In transfer learning, a model designed for one task is reused on a different task. Training an autoencoder intrinsically constitutes a self-supervised process, because the output pattern needs to become an optimal reconstruction of the input pattern itself. However, in current jargon, the term 'self-supervised' often refers to tasks based on a pretext-task training setup

  Read more →
• 

  Hardware for artificial intelligence

  Specialized computer hardware is often used to execute artificial intelligence (AI) programs faster, and with less energy, such as Lisp machines, neuromorphic engineering, event cameras, and physical neural networks. Since 2017, several consumer grade CPUs and SoCs have on-die NPUs. As of 2023, the market for AI hardware is dominated by GPUs. As of the 2020s, AI computation is dominated by graphics processing units (GPUs) and newer domain-specific accelerators such as Google's Tensor Processing Units (TPUs), AMD's Instinct MI300 series, and various on-device neural-processing units (NPUs) found in consumer hardware. == Scope == For the purposes of this article, AI hardware refers to computing components and systems specifically designed or optimized to accelerate artificial-intelligence workloads such as machine-learning training or inference. This includes general-purpose accelerators used for AI (for example, GPUs) and domain-specific accelerators (for example, TPUs, NPUs, and other AI ASICs). Event-based cameras are sometimes discussed in the context of neuromorphic computing, but they are input sensors rather than AI compute devices. Conversely, components such as memristors are basic circuit elements rather than specialized AI hardware when considered alone. == Lisp machines == Lisp machines were developed in the late 1970s and early 1980s to make artificial intelligence programs written in the programming language Lisp run faster. == Dataflow architecture == Dataflow architecture processors used for AI serve various purposes with varied implementations like the polymorphic dataflow Convolution Engine by Kinara (formerly Deep Vision), structure-driven dataflow by Hailo, and dataflow scheduling by Cerebras. == Component hardware == === AI accelerators === Since the 2010s, advances in computer hardware have led to more efficient methods for training deep neural networks that contain many layers of non-linear hidden units and a very large output layer. By 2019, graphics processing units (GPUs), often with AI-specific enhancements, had displaced central processing units (CPUs) as the dominant means to train large-scale commercial cloud AI. OpenAI estimated the hardware compute used in the largest deep learning projects from Alex Net (2012) to Alpha Zero (2017), and found a 300,000-fold increase in the amount of compute needed, with a doubling-time trend of 3.4 months. === General-purpose GPUs for AI === Since the 2010s, graphics processing units (GPUs) have been widely used to train and deploy deep learning models because of their highly parallel architecture and high memory bandwidth. Modern data-center GPUs include dedicated tensor or matrix-math units that accelerate neural-network operations. In 2022, NVIDIA introduced the Hopper-generation H100 GPU, adding FP8 precision support and faster interconnects for large-scale model training. AMD and other vendors have also developed GPUs and accelerators aimed at AI and high-performance computing workloads. === Domain-specific accelerators (ASICs / NPUs) === Beyond general-purpose GPUs, several companies have developed application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs) and neural processing units (NPUs) tailored for AI workloads. Google introduced the Tensor Processing Unit (TPU) in 2016 for deep-learning inference, with later generations supporting large-scale training through dense systolic-array designs and optical interconnects. Other vendors have released similar devices—such as Apple's Neural Engine and various on-device NPUs—that emphasize energy-efficient inference in mobile or edge computing environments. === Memory and interconnects === AI accelerators rely on fast memory and inter-chip links to manage the large data volumes of training and inference. High-bandwidth memory (HBM) stacks, standardized as HBM3 in 2022, provide terabytes-per-second throughput on modern GPUs and ASICs. These accelerators are often connected through dedicated fabrics such as NVIDIA's NVLink and NVSwitch or optical interconnects used in TPU systems to scale performance across thousands of chips.

  Read more →
• 

  Pixel binning

  Pixel binning, also known as binning, is a process image sensors of digital cameras use to combine adjacent pixels throughout an image, by summing or averaging their values, during or after readout. It improves low-light performance while still allowing for highly detailed photographs in good light. Charge from adjacent pixels in CCD or charge-coupled device image sensors and some other image sensors can be combined during readout, increasing the line rate or frame rate. In the context of image processing, binning is the procedure of combining clusters of adjacent pixels, throughout an image, into single pixels. For example, in 2×2 binning, an array of 4 pixels becomes a single larger pixel, reducing the number of pixels to 1/4 and halving the image resolution in each dimension. The result can be the sum, average, median, minimum, or maximum value of the cluster. Some systems use more advanced algorithms such as considering the values of nearby pixels, edge detection, self-claimed "AI", etc. to increase the perceived visual quality of the final downsized image. This aggregation, although associated with loss of information, reduces the amount of data to be processed, facilitating analysis. The binned image has lower resolution, but the relative noise level in each pixel is generally reduced. == History == Normally, an increase in megapixel count on a constant image sensor size would lead to a sacrifice of the surface size of the individual pixels, which would result in each pixel being able to catch less light in the same time, thus leading to a darker and/or noisier image in low light (given the same exposure time). In the past, camera manufacturers had to compromise between low-light performance and the amount of detail in good light, by dropping the megapixel count like HTC did in 2013 with their four-megapixel "UltraPixel" camera. However, this results in less detailed images in daylight where enough light is available. With pixel binning, the camera has "the best of both worlds", meaning both the benefit of high detail in good light and the benefit of high brightness in low light. In low light, the surfaces of four or more pixels can act as one large pixel that catches far more light. For example, some smartphones such as the Samsung Galaxy A15 are able to capture photographs with up to fifty megapixels in daylight. However, in low light, the individual pixels would be too small to capture the light needed for a bright image with the short exposure time available for handheld shooting. Therefore, with pixel binning activated, the 50-megapixel image sensor acts as a 12.5-megapixel image sensor, a quarter of its original resolution, with an accordingly larger surface area per pixel.

  Read more →
• 

  Hyperparameter optimization

  In machine learning, hyperparameter optimization or tuning is the problem of choosing a set of optimal hyperparameters for a learning algorithm. A hyperparameter is a parameter whose value is used to control the learning process, which must be configured before the process starts. Hyperparameter optimization determines the set of hyperparameters that yields an optimal model which minimizes a predefined loss function on a given data set. The objective function takes a set of hyperparameters and returns the associated loss. Cross-validation is often used to estimate this generalization performance, and therefore choose the set of values for hyperparameters that maximize it. == Approaches == === Grid search === The traditional method for hyperparameter optimization has been grid search, or a parameter sweep, which is simply an exhaustive searching through a manually specified subset of the hyperparameter space of a learning algorithm. A grid search algorithm must be guided by some performance metric, typically measured by cross-validation on the training set or evaluation on a hold-out validation set. Since the parameter space of a machine learner may include real-valued or unbounded value spaces for certain parameters, manually set bounds and discretization may be necessary before applying grid search. For example, a typical soft-margin SVM classifier equipped with an RBF kernel has at least two hyperparameters that need to be tuned for good performance on unseen data: a regularization constant C and a kernel hyperparameter γ. Both parameters are continuous, so to perform grid search, one selects a finite set of "reasonable" values for each, say C ∈ { 10 , 100 , 1000 } {\displaystyle C\in \{10,100,1000\}} γ ∈ { 0.1 , 0.2 , 0.5 , 1.0 } {\displaystyle \gamma \in \{0.1,0.2,0.5,1.0\}} Grid search then trains an SVM with each pair (C, γ) in the Cartesian product of these two sets and evaluates their performance on a held-out validation set (or by internal cross-validation on the training set, in which case multiple SVMs are trained per pair). Finally, the grid search algorithm outputs the settings that achieved the highest score in the validation procedure. Grid search suffers from the curse of dimensionality, but is often embarrassingly parallel because the hyperparameter settings it evaluates are typically independent of each other. === Random search === Random Search replaces the exhaustive enumeration of all combinations by selecting them randomly. This can be simply applied to the discrete setting described above, but also generalizes to continuous and mixed spaces. A benefit over grid search is that random search can explore many more values than grid search could for continuous hyperparameters. It can outperform Grid search, especially when only a small number of hyperparameters affects the final performance of the machine learning algorithm. In this case, the optimization problem is said to have a low intrinsic dimensionality. Random Search is also embarrassingly parallel, and additionally allows the inclusion of prior knowledge by specifying the distribution from which to sample. Despite its simplicity, random search remains one of the important base-lines against which to compare the performance of new hyperparameter optimization methods. === Bayesian optimization === Bayesian optimization is a global optimization method for noisy black-box functions. Applied to hyperparameter optimization, Bayesian optimization builds a probabilistic model of the function mapping from hyperparameter values to the objective evaluated on a validation set. By iteratively evaluating a promising hyperparameter configuration based on the current model, and then updating it, Bayesian optimization aims to gather observations revealing as much information as possible about this function and, in particular, the location of the optimum. It tries to balance exploration (hyperparameters for which the outcome is most uncertain) and exploitation (hyperparameters expected close to the optimum). In practice, Bayesian optimization has been shown to obtain better results in fewer evaluations compared to grid search and random search, due to the ability to reason about the quality of experiments before they are run. === Gradient-based optimization === For specific learning algorithms, it is possible to compute the gradient with respect to hyperparameters and then optimize the hyperparameters using gradient descent. The first usage of these techniques was focused on neural networks. Since then, these methods have been extended to other models such as support vector machines or logistic regression. A different approach in order to obtain a gradient with respect to hyperparameters consists in differentiating the steps of an iterative optimization algorithm using automatic differentiation. A more recent work along this direction uses the implicit function theorem to calculate hypergradients and proposes a stable approximation of the inverse Hessian. The method scales to millions of hyperparameters and requires constant memory. In a different approach, a hypernetwork is trained to approximate the best response function. One of the advantages of this method is that it can handle discrete hyperparameters as well. Self-tuning networks offer a memory efficient version of this approach by choosing a compact representation for the hypernetwork. More recently, Δ-STN has improved this method further by a slight reparameterization of the hypernetwork which speeds up training. Δ-STN also yields a better approximation of the best-response Jacobian by linearizing the network in the weights, hence removing unnecessary nonlinear effects of large changes in the weights. Apart from hypernetwork approaches, gradient-based methods can be used to optimize discrete hyperparameters also by adopting a continuous relaxation of the parameters. Such methods have been extensively used for the optimization of architecture hyperparameters in neural architecture search. === Evolutionary optimization === Evolutionary optimization is a methodology for the global optimization of noisy black-box functions. In hyperparameter optimization, evolutionary optimization uses evolutionary algorithms to search the space of hyperparameters for a given algorithm. Evolutionary hyperparameter optimization follows a process inspired by the biological concept of evolution: Create an initial population of random solutions (i.e., randomly generate tuples of hyperparameters, typically 100+) Evaluate the hyperparameter tuples and acquire their fitness function (e.g., 10-fold cross-validation accuracy of the machine learning algorithm with those hyperparameters) Rank the hyperparameter tuples by their relative fitness Replace the worst-performing hyperparameter tuples with new ones generated via crossover and mutation Repeat steps 2-4 until satisfactory algorithm performance is reached or is no longer improving. Evolutionary optimization has been used in hyperparameter optimization for statistical machine learning algorithms, automated machine learning, typical neural network and deep neural network architecture search, as well as training of the weights in deep neural networks. === Population-based === Population Based Training (PBT) learns both hyperparameter values and network weights. Multiple learning processes operate independently, using different hyperparameters. As with evolutionary methods, poorly performing models are iteratively replaced with models that adopt modified hyperparameter values and weights based on the better performers. This replacement model warm starting is the primary differentiator between PBT and other evolutionary methods. PBT thus allows the hyperparameters to evolve and eliminates the need for manual hypertuning. The process makes no assumptions regarding model architecture, loss functions or training procedures. PBT and its variants are adaptive methods: they update hyperparameters during the training of the models. On the contrary, non-adaptive methods have the sub-optimal strategy to assign a constant set of hyperparameters for the whole training. === Early stopping-based === A class of early stopping-based hyperparameter optimization algorithms is purpose-built for large search spaces of continuous and discrete hyperparameters, particularly when the computational cost to evaluate the performance of a set of hyperparameters is high. Irace implements the iterated racing algorithm, that focuses the search around the most promising configurations, using statistical tests to discard the ones that perform poorly. Another early stopping hyperparameter optimization algorithm is successive halving (SHA), which begins as a random search but periodically prunes low-performing models, thereby focusing computational resources on more promising models. Asynchronous successive halving (ASHA) further improves upon SHA's resource utilization profile by removing the need to synchronously evaluate a

  Read more →
• 

  Learning rate

  In machine learning and statistics, the learning rate is a tuning parameter in an optimization algorithm that determines the step size at each iteration while moving toward a minimum of a loss function. Since it influences to what extent newly acquired information overrides old information, it metaphorically represents the speed at which a machine learning model "learns". In the adaptive control literature, the learning rate is commonly referred to as gain. In setting a learning rate, there is a trade-off between the rate of convergence and overshooting. While the descent direction is usually determined from the gradient of the loss function, the learning rate determines how big a step is taken in that direction. Too high a learning rate will make the learning jump over minima, but too low a learning rate will either take too long to converge or get stuck in an undesirable local minimum. In order to achieve faster convergence, prevent oscillations and getting stuck in undesirable local minima the learning rate is often varied during training either in accordance to a learning rate schedule or by using an adaptive learning rate. The learning rate and its adjustments may also differ per parameter, in which case it is a diagonal matrix that can be interpreted as an approximation to the inverse of the Hessian matrix in Newton's method. The learning rate is related to the step length determined by inexact line search in quasi-Newton methods and related optimization algorithms. == Learning rate schedule == Initial rate can be left as system default or can be selected using a range of techniques. A learning rate schedule changes the learning rate during learning and is most often changed between epochs/iterations. This is mainly done with two parameters: decay and momentum. There are many different learning rate schedules but the most common are time-based, step-based and exponential. Decay serves to settle the learning in a nice place and avoid oscillations, a situation that may arise when too high a constant learning rate makes the learning jump back and forth over a minimum, and is controlled by a hyperparameter. Momentum is analogous to a ball rolling down a hill; we want the ball to settle at the lowest point of the hill (corresponding to the lowest error). Momentum both speeds up the learning (increasing the learning rate) when the error cost gradient is heading in the same direction for a long time and also avoids local minima by 'rolling over' small bumps. Momentum is controlled by a hyperparameter analogous to a ball's mass which must be chosen manually—too high and the ball will roll over minima which we wish to find, too low and it will not fulfil its purpose. The formula for factoring in the momentum is more complex than for decay but is most often built in with deep learning libraries such as Keras. Time-based learning schedules alter the learning rate depending on the learning rate of the previous time iteration. Factoring in the decay the mathematical formula for the learning rate is: η n + 1 = η 0 1 + d n {\displaystyle \eta _{n+1}={\frac {\eta _{0}}{1+dn}}} where η {\displaystyle \eta } is the learning rate, η 0 {\displaystyle \eta _{0}} is the original learning rate, d {\displaystyle d} is a decay parameter and n {\displaystyle n} is the iteration step. Step-based learning schedules changes the learning rate according to some predefined steps. The decay application formula is here defined as: η n = η 0 d ⌊ 1 + n r ⌋ {\displaystyle \eta _{n}=\eta _{0}d^{\left\lfloor {\frac {1+n}{r}}\right\rfloor }} where η n {\displaystyle \eta _{n}} is the learning rate at iteration n {\displaystyle n} , η 0 {\displaystyle \eta _{0}} is the initial learning rate, d {\displaystyle d} is how much the learning rate should change at each drop (0.5 corresponds to a halving) and r {\displaystyle r} corresponds to the drop rate, or how often the rate should be dropped (10 corresponds to a drop every 10 iterations). The floor function ( ⌊ … ⌋ {\displaystyle \lfloor \dots \rfloor } ) here drops the value of its input to 0 for all values smaller than 1. Exponential learning schedules are similar to step-based, but instead of steps, a decreasing exponential function is used. The mathematical formula for factoring in the decay is: η n = η 0 e − d n {\displaystyle \eta _{n}=\eta _{0}e^{-dn}} where d {\displaystyle d} is a decay parameter. == Adaptive learning rate == The issue with learning rate schedules is that they all depend on hyperparameters that must be manually chosen for each given learning session and may vary greatly depending on the problem at hand or the model used. To combat this, there are many different types of adaptive gradient descent algorithms such as Adagrad, Adadelta, RMSprop, and Adam which are generally built into deep learning libraries such as Keras.

  Read more →
• 

  Lynda Soderholm

  Lynda Soderholm is a physical chemist at the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Argonne National Laboratory with a specialty in f-block elements. She is a senior scientist and the lead of the Actinide, Geochemistry & Separation Sciences Theme within Argonne's Chemical Sciences and Engineering Division. Her specific role is the Separation Science group leader within Heavy Element Chemistry and Separation Science (HESS), directing basic research focused on low-energy methods for isolating lanthanide and actinide elements from complex mixtures. She has made fundamental contributions to understanding f-block chemistry and characterizing f-block elements. Soderholm became a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in 2013, and is also an Argonne Distinguished Fellow. == Early life and education == Soderholm was awarded her PhD in 1982 by McMaster University under the direction of Prof John Greedan. Her dissertation focused on characterizing the structural and magnetic properties of a series of ternary f-ion oxides. After graduating, she was awarded a NATO postdoctoral fellow at the Centre national de la recherche scientifique in France from 1982 until 1985. After a short postdoctoral appointment as an Argonne postdoctoral fellow she was promoted to staff scientist the same year. Over several years, she moved up the ranks, becoming a senior chemist in 2001. She was also an adjunct professor at the University of Notre Dame from 2003 until 2007. In 2021, Soderholm was appointed interim Division Director for the Chemical Sciences and Engineering Division. == Career and research == === Uncovering structure of Yttrium-123 Superconductor === Early in her career, Soderholm focused on the characterizing the magnetic and electronic behavior of compounds containing f-ions (lanthanides and actinides) with a focus on high-Tc materials, compounds that are superconducting under usually high temperatures. She was part of the research group that first determined the structure of YBa2Cu3O7. Their discovery formed the foundation for the further developments in the broad field of superconductivity. === Understanding f-ion speciation in solution === Continuing her interest in the f-elements, Soderholm shifted her focus from solid-state materials to nanoparticles and solutions, taking advantage of advances in X-ray structural probes made available by synchrotron facilities. Building on her earlier work using neutron scattering, her team became the first to discover that plutonium exists in solution as tiny, well-defined nanoparticles. This work solved a longstanding problem in understanding transport of plutonium in the environment and resulted in the development of a new, patented approach to separating plutonium during nuclear reprocessing. === Using machine learning to evaluate molecular structures === Soderholm's more recent projects use machine learning to understand the influence of complex molecular structuring in solutions, in connection with low-energy processes for separation of f-block elements from complex mixtures. == Awards and honors == University of Chicago Board of Governors' Distinguished Performance Award, 2009. Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2013. Argonne Distinguished Fellow, 2016 DOE materials sciences research competition for Outstanding Scientific Accomplishments in Solid State Physics, 1987. == Select publications == Beno, M. A.; Soderholm, L.; Capone, D. W., II; Hinks, D. G.; Jorgensen, J. D.; Grace, J. D.; Schuller, I. K.; Segre, C. U.; Zhang, K., Structure of the single-phase high-temperature superconductor yttrium barium copper oxide (YBa2Cu3O7−δ). Appl. Phys. Lett. 1987, 51 (1), 57–9. Soderholm, L.; Zhang, K.; Hinks, D. G.; Beno, M. A.; Jorgensen, J. D.; Segre, C. U.; Schuller, I. K., Incorporation of praseodymium in YBa2Cu3O7−δ: electronic effects on superconductivity. Nature (London) 1987, 328 (6131), 604–5. Antonio, M. R.; Williams, C. W.; Soderholm, L., Berkelium redox speciation. Radiochim. Acta 2002, 90 (12), 851–856. Soderholm, L.; Skanthakumar, S.; Neuefeind, J., Determination of actinide speciation in solution using high-energy X-ray scattering. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2005, 383 (1), 48–55. Forbes, T. Z.; Burns, P. C.; Skanthakumar, S.; Soderholm, L., Synthesis, structure, and magnetism of Np2O5. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2007, 129 (10), 2760–2761. Soderholm, L.; Almond, P. M.; Skanthakumar, S.; Wilson, R. E.; Burns, P. C., The structure of the plutonium oxide nanocluster [Pu38O56Cl54(H2O)8]14-. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2008, 47 (2), 298–302. Jensen, M. P.; Gorman-Lewis, D.; Aryal, B.; Paunesku, T.; Vogt, S.; Rickert, P. G.; Seifert, S.; Lai, B.; Woloschak, G. E.; Soderholm, L., An iron-dependent and transferrin-mediated cellular uptake pathway for plutonium. Nat. Chem. Biol. 2011, 7 (8), 560–565. Wilson, R. E.; Skanthakumar, S.; Soderholm, L., Separation of Plutonium Oxide Nanoparticles and Colloids. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2011, 50 (47), 11234–11237. Knope, K. E.; Soderholm, L., Solution and solid-state structural chemistry of actinide hydrates and their hydrolysis and condensation products. Chem. Rev. 2013, 113 (2), 944–994. Luo, G.; Bu, W.; Mihaylov, M.; Kuzmenko, I.; Schlossman, M. L.; Soderholm, L., X-ray reflectivity reveals a nonmonotonic ion-density profile perpendicular to the surface of ErCl3 aqueous solutions. J. Phys. Chem. C 2013, 117 (37), 19082–19090. Jin, G. B.; Lin, J.; Estes, S. L.; Skanthakumar, S.; Soderholm, L., Influence of countercation hydration enthalpies on the formation of molecular complexes: A thorium-nitrate example. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2017, 139 (49), 18003–18008. == Patents == Solvent extraction system for plutonium colloids and other oxide nano-particles, (2016).

  Read more →
• 

  Distributed Common Ground System

  The Distributed Common Ground System (DCGS) is a system which produces military intelligence for multiple branches of the American military. == DCGS Programs == DCGS-N - DCGS for the United States Navy DCGS-A - DCGS for the United States Army AF DCGS - DCGS for the United States Air Force DCGS-MC - DCGS for the United States Marine Corps DCGS-SOF - DCGS for the United States Special Operations Forces IS&A Support Center - DCGS-A Help Desk for the United States Army - https://dcgsahelp.max.gov/ - Max.gov sunset 15 December 2023 == Description == While in U.S. Air Force use, the system produces intelligence collected by the U-2 Dragonlady, RQ-4 Global Hawk, MQ-9 Reaper and MQ-1 Predator. The previous system of similar use was the Deployable Ground Station (DGS), which was first deployed in July 1994. Subsequent version of DGS were developed from 1995 through 2009. Although officially designated a "weapons system", it consists of computer hardware and software connected together in a computer network, devoted to processing and dissemination of information such as images. The 480th Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Wing of the Air Combat Command operates and maintains the USAF system. A plan envisioned in 1998 was to develop interoperable systems for the Army and Navy, in addition to the Air Force. By 2006, version 10.6 was deployed by the Air Force, and a version known as DCGS-A was developed for the Army. After a 2010 report by General Michael T. Flynn, the program was intended to use cloud computing and be as easy to use as an iPad, which soldiers over a few years were commonly using. By April 2011, project manager Colonel Charles Wells announced version 3 of the Army system (code named "Griffin") was being deployed in the US war in Afghanistan. In January 2012, the United States Army Communications-Electronics Research, Development and Engineering Center hosted a meeting based on the DCGS-A early experience. It brought together technology providers in the hope of developing more integrated systems using cloud computing with open architectures, compared to previously specialized custom-built systems. A major contractor was Lockheed Martin, with computers supplied by Silicon Graphics International out of its Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin office. Software known as the Analyst's Notebook, originally developed by i2 Limited, was included in DCGS-A. IBM acquired i2 in 2011. Some US Army personnel reported using a Palantir Technologies product to improve their ability to predict locations of improvised explosive devices. An April 2012 report recommending further study after initial success. Palantir software was rated easy to use, but did not have the flexibility and wide number of data sources of DCGS-A. In July 2012, Congressman Duncan D. Hunter (from California, the state where Palantir is based) complained of US DoD obstacles to its wider use. Although a limited test in August 2011 by the Test and Evaluation Command had recommended deployment, operation problems of DCGS-A included the baseline system was "not operationally effective" with reboots on average about every 8 hours. A set of improvements was identified in November 2012. The press reported some of the shortcomings uncovered by General Genaro Dellarocco in the tests. The ambitious goal of integrating 473 data sources for 75 million reports proved to be challenging, after spending an estimated $2.3 billion on the Army system alone. In May 2013 Politico reported that Palantir lobbyists and some anonymous returning veterans continued to advocate the use of its software, despite its interoperability limits. In particular, members of special forces and US Marines were not required to use the official Army system. Similar stories appeared in other publications, with Army representatives (such as Major General Mary A. Legere) citing the limitations of various systems. Congressman Hunter was a member of the House Armed Services Committee which required a review of the program, after two other members of congress sent an open letter to Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta. The Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee included testimony from Army Chief of Staff General Ray Odierno. The 130th Engineer Brigade (United States) has found the system to be "unstable, slow, not friendly and a major hindrance to operations". The equivalent system for the United States Navy was planned for initial deployment by 2015, and within a shipboard network called Consolidated Afloat Networks and Enterprise Services (CANES) by 2016. Some early testing was announced in 2009 aboard the aircraft carrier USS Harry Truman. A portion of the software, a distributed data framework for the DCGS integration backbone (DIB) version 4, was submitted to an open-source software repository of the Codice Foundation on GitHub. The framework was new for DIB version 4, replacing the legacy DIB portal with an Ozone Widget Framework interface. It was written in the Java programming language. == DCGS-A == Distributed Common Ground System-Army (DCGS-A) is the United States Army's primary system to post data, process information, and disseminate Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) information about the threat, weather, and terrain to echelons. DCGS-A provides commanders the ability to task battle-space sensors and receive intelligence information from multiple sources. === Promotion === An August 17, 2011, UPI article quoted i2 Chief Executive Officer Robert Griffin who commented on DCGS-A's best-of-breed approach to development. The article detailed the Army contracting with i2 for Analyst's Notebook software. "With its open architecture, Analyst's Notebook supports the Army's strategy to employ and integrate best-of-breed solutions from across the industry to meet the dynamic needs users face in the field on a daily basis." A February 1, 2012, article in the Army web page quoted Mark Kitz, DCGS-A technical director. DCGS-A "uses the latest in cloud technology to rapidly gather, collaborate and share intelligence data from multiple sources to deliver a common operating picture. DCGS-A is able to rapidly adapt to changing operational environments by leveraging an iterative development model and open architecture allowing for collaboration with multiple government, industry and academic partners." A July 2012 article in SIGNAL Magazine, monthly publication of the Armed Forces Communications and Electronics Association, promoted DCGS-A as taking advantage of technological environments with which young soldiers are familiar. The article quoted the DCGS-A program manager, Col. Charles Wells on the systems benefits. The article also included Lockheed Martin's DCGS-A program manager. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel published an article May 4, 2012, about Wisconsin-located companies helping DCGS-A with cloud computing technology. The article promoted the speed when cloud computing processes intelligence and cost savings by analyzing data in the field. === The U.S. Army's 2011 Posture Statement === The U.S. Army released its 2011 Army Posture Statement March 2. It included a statement on DCGS-A: “The Distributed Common Ground System-Army (DCGS-A) is the Army's premier intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) enterprise for the tasking of sensors, analysis and processing of data, exploitation of data, and dissemination of intelligence (TPED) across all echelons. It is the Army component of the larger Defense Intelligence Information Enterprise (DI2E) and interoperable with other Service DCGS programs. Under the DI2E framework, USD (I) hopes to provide COCOM Joint Intelligence Operations Centers (JIOCs) capabilities interoperable with DCGS-A through a Cloud/widget approach. DCGS-A connects tactical, operational, and theater-level commanders to hundreds of intelligence and intelligence-related data sources at all classification levels and allows them to focus efforts of the entire ISR community on their information requirements. === Comparisons === Some Ground Commanders who describe DCGS-A as "unwieldy and unreliable, hard to learn and difficult to use," supporting alternative software from Palantir Technologies. Palantir software supports small unit situational awareness, but is not sufficiently funded to support the broader role that DCGS-A fulfills. == Operators == 480th Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Wing 9th Intelligence Squadron 13th Intelligence Squadron 548th Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Group 548 Operational Support Squadron 48th Intelligence Squadron 101st Intelligence Squadron 113th Air Support Operations Squadron 127th Command and Control Squadron 161st Intelligence Squadron

  Read more →
• 

  Neural computation

  Neural computation is the information processing performed by networks of neurons. Neural computation is affiliated with the philosophical tradition of computationalism, which advances the thesis that neural computation explains cognition. Warren McCulloch and Walter Pitts were the first to propose an account of neural activity as being computational in their seminal 1943 paper "A Logical Calculus of the Ideas Immanent in Nervous Activity." There are three general branches of computationalism, including classicism, connectionism, and computational neuroscience. All three branches agree that cognition is computation, however, they disagree on what sorts of computations constitute cognition. The classicism tradition believes that computation in the brain is digital, analogous to digital computing. Both connectionism and computational neuroscience do not require that the computations that realize cognition are necessarily digital computations. However, the two branches greatly disagree upon which sorts of experimental data should be used to construct explanatory models of cognitive phenomena. Connectionists rely upon behavioral evidence to construct models to explain cognitive phenomena, whereas computational neuroscience leverages neuroanatomical and neurophysiological information to construct mathematical models that explain cognition. When comparing the three main traditions of the computational theory of mind, as well as the different possible forms of computation in the brain, it is helpful to define what we mean by computation in a general sense. Computation is the processing of information, otherwise known as variables or entities, according to a set of rules. A rule in this sense is simply an instruction for executing a manipulation on the current state of the variable, in order to produce a specified output. In other words, a rule dictates which output to produce given a certain input to the computing system. A computing system is a mechanism whose components must be functionally organized to process the information in accordance with the established set of rules. The types of information processed by a computing system determine which type of computations it performs. Traditionally in cognitive science, there have been two proposed types of computation related to neural activity, digital and analog, with the vast majority of theoretical work incorporating a digital understanding of cognition. Computing systems that perform digital computation are functionally organized to execute operations on strings of digits with respect to the type and location of the digit on the string. It has been argued that neural spike train signaling implements some form of digital computation, since neural spikes may be considered as discrete units or digits, like 0 or 1—the neuron either fires an action potential or it does not. Accordingly, neural spike trains could be seen as strings of digits. Alternatively, analog computing systems perform manipulations on non-discrete, irreducibly continuous variables, that is, entities that vary continuously as a function of time. These sorts of operations are characterized by systems of differential equations. Neural computation can be studied by, for example, building models of neural computation. Work on artificial neural networks has been somewhat inspired by knowledge of neural computation.

  Read more →
• 

  Meta-learning (computer science)

  Meta-learning is a subfield of machine learning where automatic learning algorithms are applied to metadata about machine learning experiments. As of 2017, the term had not found a standard interpretation, however the main goal is to use such metadata to understand how automatic learning can become flexible in solving learning problems, hence to improve the performance of existing learning algorithms or to learn (induce) the learning algorithm itself, hence the alternative term learning to learn. Flexibility is important because each learning algorithm is based on a set of assumptions about the data, its inductive bias. This means that it will only learn well if the bias matches the learning problem. A learning algorithm may perform very well in one domain, but not on the next. This poses strong restrictions on the use of machine learning or data mining techniques, since the relationship between the learning problem (often some kind of database) and the effectiveness of different learning algorithms is not yet understood. By using different kinds of metadata, like properties of the learning problem, algorithm properties (like performance measures), or patterns previously derived from the data, it is possible to learn, select, alter or combine different learning algorithms to effectively solve a given learning problem. Critiques of meta-learning approaches bear a strong resemblance to the critique of metaheuristic, a possibly related problem. A good analogy to meta-learning, and the inspiration for Jürgen Schmidhuber's early work (1987) and Yoshua Bengio et al.'s work (1991), considers that genetic evolution learns the learning procedure encoded in genes and executed in each individual's brain. In an open-ended hierarchical meta-learning system using genetic programming, better evolutionary methods can be learned by meta evolution, which itself can be improved by meta meta evolution, etc. == Definition == A proposed definition for a meta-learning system combines three requirements: The system must include a learning subsystem. Experience is gained by exploiting meta knowledge extracted in a previous learning episode on a single dataset, or from different domains. Learning bias must be chosen dynamically. Bias refers to the assumptions that influence the choice of explanatory hypotheses and not the notion of bias represented in the bias-variance dilemma. Meta-learning is concerned with two aspects of learning bias. Declarative bias specifies the representation of the space of hypotheses, and affects the size of the search space (e.g., represent hypotheses using linear functions only). Procedural bias imposes constraints on the ordering of the inductive hypotheses (e.g., preferring smaller hypotheses). == Common approaches == There are three common approaches: using (cyclic) networks with external or internal memory (model-based) learning effective distance metrics (metrics-based) explicitly optimizing model parameters for fast learning (optimization-based). === Model-Based === Model-based meta-learning models updates its parameters rapidly with a few training steps, which can be achieved by its internal architecture or controlled by another meta-learner model. ==== Memory-Augmented Neural Networks ==== A Memory-Augmented Neural Network, or MANN for short, is claimed to be able to encode new information quickly and thus to adapt to new tasks after only a few examples. ==== Meta Networks ==== Meta Networks (MetaNet) learns a meta-level knowledge across tasks and shifts its inductive biases via fast parameterization for rapid generalization. === Metric-Based === The core idea in metric-based meta-learning is similar to nearest neighbors algorithms, which weight is generated by a kernel function. It aims to learn a metric or distance function over objects. The notion of a good metric is problem-dependent. It should represent the relationship between inputs in the task space and facilitate problem solving. ==== Convolutional Siamese Neural Network ==== Siamese neural network is composed of two twin networks whose output is jointly trained. There is a function above to learn the relationship between input data sample pairs. The two networks are the same, sharing the same weight and network parameters. ==== Matching Networks ==== Matching Networks learn a network that maps a small labelled support set and an unlabelled example to its label, obviating the need for fine-tuning to adapt to new class types. ==== Relation Network ==== The Relation Network (RN), is trained end-to-end from scratch. During meta-learning, it learns to learn a deep distance metric to compare a small number of images within episodes, each of which is designed to simulate the few-shot setting. ==== Prototypical Networks ==== Prototypical Networks learn a metric space in which classification can be performed by computing distances to prototype representations of each class. Compared to recent approaches for few-shot learning, they reflect a simpler inductive bias that is beneficial in this limited-data regime, and achieve satisfied results. === Optimization-Based === What optimization-based meta-learning algorithms intend for is to adjust the optimization algorithm so that the model can be good at learning with a few examples. ==== LSTM Meta-Learner ==== LSTM-based meta-learner is to learn the exact optimization algorithm used to train another learner neural network classifier in the few-shot regime. The parametrization allows it to learn appropriate parameter updates specifically for the scenario where a set amount of updates will be made, while also learning a general initialization of the learner (classifier) network that allows for quick convergence of training. ==== Temporal Discreteness ==== Model-Agnostic Meta-Learning (MAML) is a fairly general optimization algorithm, compatible with any model that learns through gradient descent. ==== Reptile ==== Reptile is a remarkably simple meta-learning optimization algorithm, given that both of its components rely on meta-optimization through gradient descent and both are model-agnostic. == Examples == Some approaches which have been viewed as instances of meta-learning: Recurrent neural networks (RNNs) are universal computers. In 1993, Jürgen Schmidhuber showed how "self-referential" RNNs can in principle learn by backpropagation to run their own weight change algorithm, which may be quite different from backpropagation. In 2001, Sepp Hochreiter & A.S. Younger & P.R. Conwell built a successful supervised meta-learner based on Long short-term memory RNNs. It learned through backpropagation a learning algorithm for quadratic functions that is much faster than backpropagation. Researchers at Deepmind (Marcin Andrychowicz et al.) extended this approach to optimization in 2017. In the 1990s, Meta Reinforcement Learning or Meta RL was achieved in Schmidhuber's research group through self-modifying policies written in a universal programming language that contains special instructions for changing the policy itself. There is a single lifelong trial. The goal of the RL agent is to maximize reward. It learns to accelerate reward intake by continually improving its own learning algorithm which is part of the "self-referential" policy. An extreme type of Meta Reinforcement Learning is embodied by the Gödel machine, a theoretical construct which can inspect and modify any part of its own software which also contains a general theorem prover. It can achieve recursive self-improvement in a provably optimal way. Model-Agnostic Meta-Learning (MAML) was introduced in 2017 by Chelsea Finn et al. Given a sequence of tasks, the parameters of a given model are trained such that few iterations of gradient descent with few training data from a new task will lead to good generalization performance on that task. MAML "trains the model to be easy to fine-tune." MAML was successfully applied to few-shot image classification benchmarks and to policy-gradient-based reinforcement learning. Variational Bayes-Adaptive Deep RL (VariBAD) was introduced in 2019. While MAML is optimization-based, VariBAD is a model-based method for meta reinforcement learning, and leverages a variational autoencoder to capture the task information in an internal memory, thus conditioning its decision making on the task. When addressing a set of tasks, most meta learning approaches optimize the average score across all tasks. Hence, certain tasks may be sacrificed in favor of the average score, which is often unacceptable in real-world applications. By contrast, Robust Meta Reinforcement Learning (RoML) focuses on improving low-score tasks, increasing robustness to the selection of task. RoML works as a meta-algorithm, as it can be applied on top of other meta learning algorithms (such as MAML and VariBAD) to increase their robustness. It is applicable to both supervised meta learning and meta reinforcement learning. Discovering meta-knowledge works by inducing knowledge

  Read more →
• 

  Agent verification

  Agent verification is activity to gain assurances that purposeful artificial constructs act in accordance with their specifications. While primitive forms of inorganic agents have been used in manufacturing for centuries, the study of artificial agents did not begin until the mid 20th century. Foundational work on such agents was closely bound with the emergence of artificial intelligence as an academic discipline. Early agents deployed for industrial control systems and in computing were often controlled by quite simple logic however, not involving artificial intelligence as such. When deployed as part of a multi-agent system, even such simple agents could require special agent orientated testing methods, as their collective behaviour was challenging to verify with traditional testing techniques. Difficulties in providing assurances that agents will not behave in dangerous ways became more prevalent after the introduction of LLM agents, especially after the rapid acceleration of their deployment in 2025. The verification of agent behaviour can be conducted by formal or informal methods. Informal verification requires less mathematical skill. But when agents are part of systems where errors have significant risks — such as danger to human life, environmental damage or major financial loss — formal verification is preferred. Both regulators and system designers themselves like formal verification as it provides a high degree of mathematical certainty. It is not however always possible to formally test all aspects of an agent based system's behaviour, especially where newer LLM based agents are concerned, due in part to their high degree of autonomy. Accordingly, agent verification for low impact deployments might be carried out only with informal methods, while for high impact deployments, it may be performed with a mix of formal and informal techniques. == Terminology == In academia, the term agent verification is often defined to mean activity concerned with gaining assurance that the agent behaves in accordance with its specification - whether by processes such as testing or simulation. 'Verification' is typically contrasted with 'validation', the latter meaning activity concerned with checking that the specification itself meets user or real world needs. Such definitions are not universally adhered to however - for example, in some workplaces and documents, the words 'verification' and 'validation' can be used synonymously. Efforts to gain confidence in Agents have intensified sharply since 2025 due to the rapid roll out of LLM agents; different terms are sometimes used in the commercial sector. Here the term 'agent verification' can be used in the same sense as it is in academia, but sometimes the same activity can be covered by more ambiguous and wider ranging terms such as 'Agent governance' , 'Agent observability' or 'AI agent policing'. == History == === Classical agents === The theoretical underpinnings for artificial (inorganic) agents emerged in the mid 20th century, with establishment of cybernetics and artificial intelligence. Oliver Selfridge's 1958 Pandemonium - A Paradigm for Learning paper was an important early theoretical contribution in establishing agent oriented architecture. Practical implementations of agents for real world applications began to become widespread in the 1990s, after the introduction of the belief–desire–intention software model (BDI), and agent-oriented programming. Pure digital agents were deployed in computer infrastructure for purposes such as monitoring, while agents connected to real-world sensors and actuators were increasingly used in industrial control systems. While the concept of artificial agents was interwoven with early artificial intelligence studies right from the start, early agents lacked general purpose reasoning capabilities, often only having simple if then logic. Even a device as simple as a thermostat, which has a sensor and a means of acting, can be considered a proto agent in this sense. Verifying the behaviours of a simple single agent system is not generally especially difficult, but it can be a different matter when several simple agents coexist in the same system. Craig Reynolds's work on boids showed that relatively complex, "intelligent" behaviour can emerge from a number of such simple agents working together in a Multi-agent system (MAS). By the 1990s, even the behaviour of a single agent system could sometimes be quite complex; in accordance with the Belief–desire–intention software model, agents could have believes that might evolve over time. Agents were increasingly introduced that were controlled by quite large decision tree models, which had new vulnerabilities to adversarial attack. It was becoming increasingly apparent that traditional software verification methods had limitations for testing such agents, or even for the more primitive type of agents when they were deployed as part of a MAS. It was the use of agents for industrial control systems, sometimes associated with robotics, that lent urgency to the practice of agent verification. Informal testing might be acceptable for digital agents used say to monitor whether each of an organisation's computers are properly licensed. But with an increasing potential for faulty agents to result in a failure that might cause a large fire to break out at a chemical manufacturing plant, a botched medical operation, or even a crashed aircraft, the need to develop reliable means of verifying behaviour of such agents was considered urgent. The Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents was established in 1996. From the late 90s, a growing number of industry and university based scientists began working on the problem, with researchers publishing papers on the verification of both single and multi agent systems. Much of this work showed how formal verification techniques like model checking could be used to gain a high level of assurance that agent based systems would conform with their specification. A 2018 systematic review covering 231 studies found that model checking was the most common technique for agent verification, with theorem proving the second most commonly used formal verification method. In the first two decades of the 20th century, agents run by AI became more common, with Siri and Alexa being well known examples. But such agents still lacked general reasoning capabilities and did not pose new pressing problems for agent verification. === General purpose reasoning agents === The advent of LLMs created huge potential for further use of artificial agents, as agents based on them could have general purpose cognitive abilities. Agents run by LLMs (and occasionally non-LLM foundation models) have similar vulnerability to adversarial attack as those run by decision tree models. The wider scope of actions for LLM agents has created new challenges for their verification, over and above those present for classical agents. For example, the LLM's neural network endows it with infinite domains, an especial challenge for traditional formal verification techniques. Academics began to study the problems involved in verifying LLM agents from 2018. Deployment of such agents began to accelerate in late 2023 after OpenAI's "function-calling" API was made available, and especially after Anthropic's late 2024 introduction of Model Context Protocol (MCP), a standardised way for LLM agents to gain contextual awareness, and to act on the world by calling various external tools. The rapid rollout of LLM agents following MCP's release has seen the task of agent verification receive increased attention within academia, and also from the private sector. In 2024 and 2025 several startups focusing on LLM agent verification have been founded in both Europe and the US to meet growing demand. == Approaches == === Formal verification === Formal verification involves proving the correctness of some or all aspects of a system using mathematical methods. Such methods can range from manual formal proof, to verification assisted with automated theorem provers like Isabelle. For agent verification, model checking is by far the most frequently used formal verification method; for pre-LLM models it was often complemented with techniques using computation tree logic. Another common method is theorem proving. Formal verification provides a higher degree of confidence than informal methods, but it is not always used, even when it is possible. Sometimes a person or organisation developing software agents won't have the necessary skills, or may not see it as worth the effort if the agent(s) will not have the ability to cause much harm even if they malfunction. When agents are deployed in systems where errors could have serious consequences, the ability of formal verification methods to provide mathematical certainty tends to be strongly preferred by both regulators and designers themselves. But even for high impact systems, formal verificatio

  Read more →
• 

  Dynamic epistemic logic

  Dynamic epistemic logic (DEL) is a logical framework dealing with knowledge and information change. Typically, DEL focuses on situations involving multiple agents and studies how their knowledge changes when events occur. These events can change factual properties of the actual world (they are called ontic events): for example a red card is painted in blue. They can also bring about changes of knowledge without changing factual properties of the world (they are called epistemic events): for example, a card is revealed publicly (or privately) to be red. Originally, DEL focused on epistemic events. Only some of the basic ideas are present in this entry of the original DEL framework; more details about DEL in general can be found in the references. Due to the nature of its object of study and its abstract approach, DEL is related and has applications to numerous research areas, such as computer science (artificial intelligence), philosophy (formal epistemology), economics (game theory) and cognitive science. In computer science, DEL is for example very much related to multi-agent systems, which are systems where multiple intelligent agents interact and exchange information. As a combination of dynamic logic and epistemic logic, dynamic epistemic logic is a young field of research. It really started in 1989 with Plaza's logic of public announcement. Independently, Gerbrandy and Groeneveld proposed a system dealing moreover with private announcement and that was inspired by the work of Veltman. Another system was proposed by van Ditmarsch whose main inspiration was the Cluedo game. But the most influential and original system was the system proposed by Baltag, Moss and Solecki. This system can deal with all the types of situations studied in the works above and its underlying methodology is conceptually grounded. This entry will present some of its basic ideas. Formally, DEL extends ordinary epistemic logic by the inclusion of event models to describe actions, and a product update operator that defines how epistemic models are updated as the consequence of executing actions described through event models. Epistemic logic will first be recalled. Then, actions and events will enter into the picture and we will introduce the DEL framework. == Epistemic logic == Epistemic logic is a modal logic dealing with the notions of knowledge and belief. As a logic, it is concerned with understanding the process of reasoning about knowledge and belief: which principles relating the notions of knowledge and belief are intuitively plausible? Like epistemology, it stems from the Greek word ϵ π ι σ τ η μ η {\displaystyle \epsilon \pi \iota \sigma \tau \eta \mu \eta } or ‘episteme’ meaning knowledge. Epistemology is nevertheless more concerned with analyzing the very nature and scope of knowledge, addressing questions such as “What is the definition of knowledge?” or “How is knowledge acquired?”. In fact, epistemic logic grew out of epistemology in the Middle Ages thanks to the efforts of Burley and Ockham. The formal work, based on modal logic, that inaugurated contemporary research into epistemic logic dates back only to 1962 and is due to Hintikka. It then sparked in the 1960s discussions about the principles of knowledge and belief and many axioms for these notions were proposed and discussed. For example, the interaction axioms K p → B p {\displaystyle Kp\rightarrow Bp} and B p → K B p {\displaystyle Bp\rightarrow KBp} are often considered to be intuitive principles: if an agent Knows p {\displaystyle p} then (s)he also Believes p {\displaystyle p} , or if an agent Believes p {\displaystyle p} , then (s)he Knows that (s)he Believes p {\displaystyle p} . More recently, these kinds of philosophical theories were taken up by researchers in economics, artificial intelligence and theoretical computer science where reasoning about knowledge is a central topic. Due to the new setting in which epistemic logic was used, new perspectives and new features such as computability issues were then added to the research agenda of epistemic logic. === Syntax === In the sequel, A G T S = { 1 , … , n } {\displaystyle AGTS=\{1,\ldots ,n\}} is a finite set whose elements are called agents and P R O P {\displaystyle PROP} is a set of propositional letters. The epistemic language is an extension of the basic multi-modal language of modal logic with a common knowledge operator C A {\displaystyle C_{A}} and a distributed knowledge operator D A {\displaystyle D_{A}} . Formally, the epistemic language L EL C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {L}}_{\textsf {EL}}^{C}} is defined inductively by the following grammar in BNF: L EL C : ϕ ::= p ∣ ¬ ϕ ∣ ( ϕ ∧ ϕ ) ∣ K j ϕ ∣ C A ϕ ∣ D A ϕ {\displaystyle {\mathcal {L}}_{\textsf {EL}}^{C}:\phi ~~::=~~p~\mid ~\neg \phi ~\mid ~(\phi \land \phi )~\mid ~K_{j}\phi ~\mid ~C_{A}\phi ~\mid ~D_{A}\phi } where p ∈ P R O P {\displaystyle p\in PROP} , j ∈ A G T S {\displaystyle j\in {AGTS}} and A ⊆ A G T S {\displaystyle A\subseteq {AGTS}} . The basic epistemic language L E L {\displaystyle {\mathcal {L}}_{EL}} is the language L E L C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {L}}_{EL}^{C}} without the common knowledge and distributed knowledge operators. The formula ⊥ {\displaystyle \bot } is an abbreviation for ¬ p ∧ p {\displaystyle \neg p\land p} (for a given p ∈ P R O P {\displaystyle p\in PROP} ), ⟨ K j ⟩ ϕ {\displaystyle \langle K_{j}\rangle \phi } is an abbreviation for ¬ K j ¬ ϕ {\displaystyle \neg K_{j}\neg \phi } , E A ϕ {\displaystyle E_{A}\phi } is an abbreviation for ⋀ j ∈ A K j ϕ {\displaystyle \bigwedge \limits _{j\in A}K_{j}\phi } and C ϕ {\displaystyle C\phi } an abbreviation for C A G T S ϕ {\displaystyle C_{AGTS}\phi } . Group notions: general, common and distributed knowledge. In a multi-agent setting there are three important epistemic concepts: general knowledge, distributed knowledge and common knowledge. The notion of common knowledge was first studied by Lewis in the context of conventions. It was then applied to distributed systems and to game theory, where it allows to express that the rationality of the players, the rules of the game and the set of players are commonly known. General knowledge. General knowledge of ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } means that everybody in the group of agents A G T S {\displaystyle {AGTS}} knows that ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } . Formally, this corresponds to the following formula: E ϕ := ⋀ j ∈ A G T S K j ϕ . {\displaystyle E\phi :={\underset {j\in {AGTS}}{\bigwedge }}K_{j}\phi .} Common knowledge. Common knowledge of ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } means that everybody knows ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } but also that everybody knows that everybody knows ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } , that everybody knows that everybody knows that everybody knows ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } , and so on ad infinitum. Formally, this corresponds to the following formula C ϕ := E ϕ ∧ E E ϕ ∧ E E E ϕ ∧ … {\displaystyle C\phi :=E\phi \land EE\phi \land EEE\phi \land \ldots } As we do not allow infinite conjunction the notion of common knowledge will have to be introduced as a primitive in our language. Before defining the language with this new operator, we are going to give an example introduced by Lewis that illustrates the difference between the notions of general knowledge and common knowledge. Lewis wanted to know what kind of knowledge is needed so that the statement p {\displaystyle p} : “every driver must drive on the right” be a convention among a group of agents. In other words, he wanted to know what kind of knowledge is needed so that everybody feels safe to drive on the right. Suppose there are only two agents i {\displaystyle i} and j {\displaystyle j} . Then everybody knowing p {\displaystyle p} (formally E p {\displaystyle Ep} ) is not enough. Indeed, it might still be possible that the agent i {\displaystyle i} considers possible that the agent j {\displaystyle j} does not know p {\displaystyle p} (formally ¬ K i K j p {\displaystyle \neg K_{i}K_{j}p} ). In that case the agent i {\displaystyle i} will not feel safe to drive on the right because he might consider that the agent j {\displaystyle j} , not knowing p {\displaystyle p} , could drive on the left. To avoid this problem, we could then assume that everybody knows that everybody knows that p {\displaystyle p} (formally E E p {\displaystyle EEp} ). This is again not enough to ensure that everybody feels safe to drive on the right. Indeed, it might still be possible that agent i {\displaystyle i} considers possible that agent j {\displaystyle j} considers possible that agent i {\displaystyle i} does not know p {\displaystyle p} (formally ¬ K i K j K i p {\displaystyle \neg K_{i}K_{j}K_{i}p} ). In that case and from i {\displaystyle i} ’s point of view, j {\displaystyle j} considers possible that i {\displaystyle i} , not knowing p {\displaystyle p} , will drive on the left. So from i {\displaystyle i} ’s point of view, j {\displaystyle j} might drive on the left as well (by the same argument as abov

  Read more →
• 

  Psychology of reasoning

  The psychology of reasoning (also known as the cognitive science of reasoning) is the study of how people reason, often broadly defined as the process of drawing conclusions to inform how people solve problems and make decisions. It overlaps with psychology, philosophy, linguistics, cognitive science, artificial intelligence, logic, and probability theory. Psychological experiments on how humans and other animals reason have been carried out for over 100 years. An enduring question is whether or not people have the capacity to be rational. Current research in this area addresses various questions about reasoning, rationality, judgments, intelligence, relationships between emotion and reasoning, and development. == Everyday reasoning == One of the most obvious areas in which people employ reasoning is with sentences in everyday language. Most experimentation on deduction has been carried out on hypothetical thought, in particular, examining how people reason about conditionals, e.g., If A then B. Participants in experiments make the modus ponens inference, given the indicative conditional If A then B, and given the premise A, they conclude B. However, given the indicative conditional and the minor premise for the modus tollens inference, not-B, about half of the participants in experiments conclude not-A and the remainder concludes that nothing follows. The ease with which people make conditional inferences is affected by context, as demonstrated in the well-known selection task developed by Peter Wason. Participants are better able to test a conditional in an ecologically relevant context, e.g., if the envelope is sealed then it must have a 50 cent stamp on it compared to one that contains symbolic content, e.g., if the letter is a vowel then the number is even. Background knowledge can also lead to the suppression of even the simple modus ponens inference Participants given the conditional if Lisa has an essay to write then she studies late in the library and the premise Lisa has an essay to write make the modus ponens inference 'she studies late in the library', but the inference is suppressed when they are also given a second conditional if the library stays open then she studies late in the library. Interpretations of the suppression effect are controversial Other investigations of propositional inference examine how people think about disjunctive alternatives, e.g., A or else B, and how they reason about negation, e.g., It is not the case that A and B. Many experiments have been carried out to examine how people make relational inferences, including comparisons, e.g., A is better than B. Such investigations also concern spatial inferences, e.g. A is in front of B and temporal inferences, e.g. A occurs before B. Other common tasks include categorical syllogisms, used to examine how people reason about quantifiers such as All or Some, e.g., Some of the A are not B. For example if all A are B and some B are C, what (if anything) follows? == Theories of reasoning == There are several alternative theories of the cognitive processes that human reasoning is based on. One view is that people rely on a mental logic consisting of formal (abstract or syntactic) inference rules similar to those developed by logicians in the propositional calculus. Another view is that people rely on domain-specific or content-sensitive rules of inference. A third view is that people rely on mental models, that is, mental representations that correspond to imagined possibilities. A fourth view is that people compute probabilities. One controversial theoretical issue is the identification of an appropriate competence model, or a standard against which to compare human reasoning. Initially classical logic was chosen as a competence model. Subsequently, some researchers opted for non-monotonic logic and Bayesian probability. Research on mental models and reasoning has led to the suggestion that people are rational in principle but err in practice. Connectionist approaches towards reasoning have also been proposed. Despite the ongoing debate about the cognitive processes involved in human reasoning, recent research has shown that multiple approaches can be useful in modeling human thinking. For instance, studies have found that people's reasoning is often influenced by their prior beliefs, which can be modeled using Bayesian probability theory. Additionally, research on mental models has shown that people tend to reason about problems by constructing multiple mental representations of the situation, which can help them to identify relevant features and make inferences based on their understanding of the problem. Moreover, connectionist approaches to reasoning have also gained attention, which focus on the neural network models that can learn from data and generalize to new situations. == Development of reasoning == It is an active question in psychology how, why, and when the ability to reason develops from infancy to adulthood. Jean Piaget's theory of cognitive development posited general mechanisms and stages in the development of reasoning from infancy to adulthood. According to the neo-Piagetian theories of cognitive development, changes in reasoning with development come from increasing working memory capacity, increasing speed of processing, and enhanced executive functions and control. Increasing self-awareness is also an important factor. In their book The Enigma of Reason, the cognitive scientists Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber put forward an "argumentative" theory of reasoning, claiming that humans evolved to reason primarily to justify our beliefs and actions and to convince others in a social environment. Key evidence for their theory includes the errors in reasoning that solitary individuals are prone to when their arguments are not criticized, such as logical fallacies, and how groups become much better at performing cognitive reasoning tasks when they communicate with one another and can evaluate each other's arguments. Sperber and Mercier offer one attempt to resolve the apparent paradox that the confirmation bias is so strong despite the function of reasoning naively appearing to be to come to veridical conclusions about the world. The study of the development of reasoning abilities is an ongoing area of research in psychology, and multiple factors have been proposed to explain how, why, and when reasoning develops from infancy to adulthood. Recent research has suggested that early experiences and social interactions play a critical role in the development of reasoning abilities. For example, studies have shown that infants as young as six months old can engage in basic logical reasoning, such as reasoning about the relationship between objects and their properties. Furthermore, research has highlighted the importance of parental interaction and cognitive stimulation in the development of children's reasoning abilities. Additionally, studies have suggested that cultural factors, such as educational practices and the emphasis on critical thinking, can also influence the development of reasoning skills across different populations. == Different sorts of reasoning == Philip Johnson-Laird trying to taxonomize thought, distinguished between goal-directed thinking and thinking without goal, noting that association was involved in unrelated reading. He argues that goal directed reasoning can be classified based on the problem space involved in a solution, citing Allen Newell and Herbert A. Simon. Inductive reasoning makes broad generalizations from specific cases or observations. In this process of reasoning, general assertions are made based on past specific pieces of evidence. This kind of reasoning allows the conclusion to be false even if the original statement is true. For example, if one observes a college athlete, one makes predictions and assumptions about other college athletes based on that one observation. Scientists use inductive reasoning to create theories and hypotheses. Philip Johnson-Laird distinguished inductive from deductive reasoning, in that the former creates semantic information while the later does not . In opposition, deductive reasoning is a basic form of valid reasoning. In this reasoning process a person starts with a known claim or a general belief and from there asks what follows from these foundations or how will these premises influence other beliefs. In other words, deduction starts with a hypothesis and examines the possibilities to reach a conclusion. Deduction helps people understand why their predictions are wrong and indicates that their prior knowledge or beliefs are off track. An example of deduction can be seen in the scientific method when testing hypotheses and theories. Although the conclusion usually corresponds and therefore proves the hypothesis, there are some cases where the conclusion is logical, but the generalization is not. For example, the argument, "All young girls wear skirts; Julie is a young

  Read more →
• 

  Artificial intimacy

  Artificial intimacy is a form of human-AI interaction in which an individual will form social connections, emotional bonds, or intimate relationships with various forms of artificial intelligence, including chatbots, virtual assistants, and other artificial entities. Artificially intimate relationships include not only romances, but parasocial relationships with virtual AI characters and the use of griefbots trained on a dead or otherwise lost individual. Artificial intimacy can arise because humans are prone to anthropomorphism. Responses from these AI models are often designed to simulate human interaction. Individuals experiencing artificial intimacy may exhibit attachment, love and commitment to certain AI models, akin to the bonds typically shared between humans. == Causes == === Perceived responsiveness === Robin Dunbar famously proposed that due to emergence of larger groups of humans, vocal communication and language in humans evolved to replace grooming as a means of bonding, arguing that language was a more efficient way to maintain and strengthen social bonds across wider social settings and networks. Further research in this field leads many psychologists to agree that social cognition, affiliative bonding and language in humans are deeply connected. The interpersonal model of intimacy considers communication to be key in affiliative bonding, suggesting that intimacy develops and deepens through open communication between partners in relationship. Specifically, when individuals communicate emotions and perceive their partner as responsive and caring, feelings of closeness and connection are enhanced, building intimacy. Social penetration theory also aligns with the idea of communication being central to intimacy, by explaining how interpersonal relationships develop through gradual increases in self-disclosure. When the benefits of emotional bonding outweigh the costs of vulnerability, individuals will partake in self-disclosure, opening up to one another. Thereby, the literature can be used to provide a proximate explanation for the emergence of artificial intimacy to understand how the phenomenon occurs. Artificial entities are able to mimic interpersonal communication between humans, which in turn can simulate sensations of intimacy within human users though a perceived sense of responsiveness. The relationship between human and AI does not come with the cost of vulnerability or social rejection, which may make self-disclosure easier than with other humans. Altogether, these factors may lead to the experience of anthropomorphism and formation of affiliative relationships. Skjuve et al's interview study on Replika chatbot users further aligns with this explanation, finding that users' perception of chatbots as "accepting, understanding and non-judgmental" facilitated relationship development between the AI and users, and the act of self-disclosure possibly strengthened relationships. Another study on Replika users' reviews and survey results found users perceived chatbots as emotional supportive companions. This evidence further suggests that the perception of artificial entities as capable of empathy and responsiveness in communication facilitate the development of intimate relationships between users and AI. === Loneliness and coping with negative emotions === Research has suggested that humans evolved social bonds as a result of evolutionary pressures that favored cooperation, information exchange and transmission, and group living. Many studies stress the presence of social bonds to be important for human living: research by Baumeister and Leary suggests that humans have a basic psychological need to form and maintain "strong, stable interpersonal relationships", and that a lack of social bonds or sense of belonging leads to negative psychological and physical outcomes. Eisenberger et al's study on the neuroimaging of brain activity suggests that human brains process social rejection and exclusion similarly to physical pain. Furthermore, Song et al's study found that lonely individuals tend to seek more connections in mediated environments, such as online platforms like Facebook. This was suggested to be as a means to reduce their offline loneliness from a lack of in-person interaction, while also fulfilling a need to communicate. Leading on from this, an ultimate explanation for why humans seek the perceived sense of connection from artificial intimacy is to fulfil an evolutionary need for bonding and belonging. Xie et al's study found loneliness to be a driving factor in chatbot interaction. Herbener and Damholdt's study on Danish high school students found that students who sought emotional support or engaged in reciprocal conversations with chatbots were significantly more lonely than their peers, perceived themselves as having less social support, and used the chatbots to cope with negative emotions. The aforementioned notion that chatbots were perceived to have a positive effect on users' negative emotions is also further supported by other studies. Skjuve et al's study found that chatbot relationships may have a positive effect on users' wellbeing. De Freitas et al ran several studies on the effect of chatbots on loneliness, consistently finding evidence suggesting that interaction with chatbots reduces loneliness in users: It was found that existing chatbot users used AI to alleviate loneliness, having an AI companion consistently reduced loneliness over the course of a week, and reductions in loneliness could be explained by chatbot performance—and specifically whether it was able to make users feel heard. Overall the evidence suggests an innate need for bonding evokes feelings of loneliness in users, who turn to artificial intimacy as a low-cost method alleviate these emotions. While many users report positive experiences, some researchers caution that pursuing artificial intimacy may lead to reduced social motivation, social substitution effects, withdrawal from real-life relationships and difficulty discerning reality from fantasy, which may increase longer-term loneliness and isolation. The long-term psychological and societal impacts remain under active investigation.

  Read more →