AI Code For You

AI Code For You — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

  • Mixed raster content

    Mixed raster content

    Mixed raster content (MRC) is a method for compressing images that contain both binary-compressible text and continuous-tone components, using image segmentation methods to improve the level of compression and the quality of the rendered image. By separating the image into components with different compressibility characteristics, the most efficient and accurate compression algorithm for each component can be applied. MRC-compressed images are typically packaged into a hybrid file format such as DjVu and sometimes PDF. This allows for multiple images, and the instructions to properly render and reassemble them, to be stored within a single file. Some image scanners optionally support MRC when scanning to PDF. A typical manual states that without MRC, the image is generated in a single process, with text and graphics not distinguished. With MRC, separate processes are used for text, graphics, and other elements, producing clearer graphics and sharper text, at the price of slightly slower processing. MRC is recommended to optimise the scanning of documents with harder-to-read text or lower-quality graphics. MRC can also reduce the size of the scanned file, though higher compression using JBIG2 can sometimes lead to character substitution errors in scanned documents. == File format == A form of MRC is defined by international standard bodies as ISO/IEC 16485, or ITU recommendation T.44 (accessible free of charge). It defines a file format with bilevel masks and two data layers in each "stripe" of the image. The mask can be encoded in ITU T.4, JBIG1, or JBIG2, while the images can be JPEG, JBIG1, or run-length encoded color. The format is loosely based on JPEG, with a APP13 segment registered for this purpose. It is not known whether this file format is actually used, as formats like DjVu and PDF have their own ways of defining layers and masks.

    Read more →
  • Vehicle infrastructure integration

    Vehicle infrastructure integration

    The Vehicle Infrastructure Integration (VII), also known as "Connected Roadways" or "vehicle-to-everything" (V2X) technology, is a United States Department of Transportation initiative that aims to improve road safety by developing technology that connects road vehicles with their environment. This development draws on several disciplines, including transport engineering, electrical engineering, automotive engineering, telematics, and computer science. Although VII specifically covers road transport, similar technologies are under development for other modes of transport. For example, airplanes may use ground-based beacons for automated guidance, allowing the autopilot to fly the plane without human intervention. == Goals == The goal of VII is to establish a communication link between vehicles (via On-Board Equipment, or OBE) and roadside infrastructure (via Roadside Equipment, or RSE) to enhance the safety, efficiency, and convenience of transportation systems. Two potential approaches are the widespread deployment of a dedicated short-range communications (DSRC) link on the 5.9GHz band, and cellular communication (C-V2X). Either of these methods would allow vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) and vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I) communication. The initiative has three priorities: Stakeholder evaluation and acceptance of the business model and its deployment schedule, Validation of the technology, with a focus on communications systems, in relation to deployment costs, and Creation of legal structures and policies, especially concerning digital privacy, to improve the system's long-term potential for success. === Safety === Current automotive safety technology relies primarily on vehicle-based radar, lidar, and sonar systems. This technology allows, for instance, a potential reduction in rear-end collisions by monitoring obstacles in front of or behind the vehicle and automatically applying the brakes when necessary. This technology, however, is limited by the sensing range of vehicle-based radar, particularly in angled and left-turn collisions, such as a motorist losing control of the vehicle during an impending head-on collision. The rear-end collisions addressed by current technology are generally less severe than angled, left-turn, or head-on collisions. VII promotes the development of a direct communication link between road vehicles and all other vehicles nearby, allowing for the exchange of information on vehicle speed and orientation or driver awareness and intent. This real-time exchange of information may enable more effective automated emergency maneuvers, such as steering, decelerating, or braking. In addition to nearby vehicle awareness, VII promotes a communication link between vehicles and roadway infrastructure. Such a link may allow for improved real-time traffic information, better queue management, and feedback to vehicles. Existing implementations of VII use vehicle-based sensors that can recognize and respond to roadway markings or signs, automatically adjusting vehicle parameters to follow the recognized instructions. However, this information may also be acquired via roadside beacons or stored in a centralized database accessible to all vehicles. === Efficiency === With a VII system in place, vehicles will be linked together. The headway between vehicles may therefore be reduced so that there is less empty space on the road, increasing the available capacity per lane. More capacity per lane will in turn imply fewer lanes in general, possibly satisfying the community's concerns about the impact of roadway widening. VII will enable precise traffic-signal coordination by tracking vehicle platoons and will benefit from accurate timing by drawing on real-time traffic data covering volume, density, and turning movements. Real-time traffic data can also be used in the design of new roadways or modification of existing systems as the data could be used to provide accurate origin-destination studies and turning-movement counts for uses in transportation forecasting and traffic operations. Such technology would also lead to improvements for transport engineers to address problems whilst reducing the cost of obtaining and compiling data. Tolling is another prospect for VII technology as it could enable roadways to be automatically tolled. Data could be collectively transmitted to road users for in-vehicle display, outlining the lowest cost, shortest distance, and/or fastest route to a destination on the basis of real-time conditions. === Existing applications === To some extent, results along these lines have been achieved in trials performed around the globe, making use of GPS, mobile phone signals, and vehicle registration plates. GPS is becoming standard in many new high-end vehicles and is an option on most new low- and mid-range vehicles. In addition, many users also have mobile phones that transmit trackable signals (and may also be GPS-enabled). Mobile phones can already be traced for purposes of emergency response. GPS and mobile phone tracking, however, do not provide fully reliable data. Furthermore, integrating mobile phones in vehicles may be prohibitively difficult. Data from mobile phones, though useful, might even increase risks to motorists as they tend to look at their phones rather than concentrate on their driving. Automatic registration plate recognition can provide large quantities of data, but continuously tracking a vehicle through a corridor is a difficult task with existing technology. Today's equipment is designed for data acquisition and functions such as enforcement and tolling, not for returning data to vehicles or motorists for response. GPS will nevertheless be one of the key components in VII systems. == Limitations == === Privacy === VII architecture is designed to prevent identification of individual vehicles, with all data exchange between the vehicle and the system occurring anonymously. Exchanges between the vehicles and third parties such as OEMs and toll collectors will occur, but the network traffic will be sent via encrypted tunnels and will therefore not be decipherable by the VII system. Data sharing with law enforcement or Homeland Security was not included in system design as of 2006. === Technical issues === ==== Coordination ==== A major issue facing the deployment of VII is the problem of how to set up the system initially. The costs associated with installing the technology in vehicles and providing communications and power at every intersection are significant. ==== Maintenance ==== Another factor for consideration in regard to the technology's distribution is how to update and maintain the units. Traffic systems are highly dynamic, with new traffic controls implemented every day and roadways constructed or repaired every year. The vehicle-based option could be updated via the internet (preferably wireless) but may subsequently require all users to have access to internet technology. Alternatively, if receivers were placed in all vehicles and the VII system was primarily located along the roadside, information could be stored in a centralized database. This would allow the agency responsible to issue updates at any time. These would then be disseminated to the roadside units for passing motorists. Operationally, this method is currently considered to provide the greatest effectiveness but at a high cost to the authorities. ==== Security ==== Security of the units is another concern, especially in light of the public acceptance issue. Criminals could tamper, remove, or destroy VII units regardless of whether they are installed inside vehicles or along the roadside. Magnets, electric shocks, and malicious software (viruses, hacking, or jamming) could be used to damage VII systems – regardless of whether units are located inside vehicle or along the roadside. == Recent developments == Much of the current research and experimentation is conducted in the United States where coordination is ensured through the Vehicle Infrastructure Integration Consortium; consisting of automobile manufacturers (Ford, General Motors, Daimler Chrysler, Toyota, Nissan, Honda, Volkswagen, BMW), IT suppliers, U.S. Federal and state transportation departments, and professional associations. Trialing is taking place in Michigan and California. The specific applications now being developed under the U.S. initiative are: Warning drivers of unsafe conditions or imminent collisions. Warning drivers if they are about to run off the road or speed around a curve too fast. Informing system operators of real-time congestion, weather conditions and incidents. Providing operators with information on corridor capacity for real-time management, planning and provision of corridor-wide advisories to drivers. In mid-2007, a VII environment covering some 20 square miles (52 km2) near Detroit was used to test 20 prototype VII applications. Several automobile manufacturers are also conducting their own VII research and triali

    Read more →
  • Vague set

    Vague set

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

    Read more →
  • Dreams of Violets

    Dreams of Violets

    Dreams of Violets is a film entirely generated by artificial intelligence, produced and directed by brothers Ash and Pooya Koosha. The film will be screened at the Tribeca Film Festival on 10 June 2026. All images and characters in the film were generated using AI-powered video tools and based on journalistic reports, photographs, and eyewitness accounts. == Plot == The film is a fictionalized dramatization of the events surrounding the massacre of Iranian civilians in January 2026. International organizations estimate the death toll at over 7,000, amidst protests and state violence that unfolded during a communications blackout.

    Read more →
  • Case-based reasoning

    Case-based reasoning

    Case-based reasoning (CBR), broadly construed, is the process of solving new problems based on the solutions of similar past problems. In everyday life, an auto mechanic who fixes an engine by recalling another car that exhibited similar symptoms is using case-based reasoning. A lawyer who advocates a particular outcome in a trial based on legal precedents or a judge who creates case law is using case-based reasoning. So, too, an engineer copying working elements of nature (practicing biomimicry) is treating nature as a database of solutions to problems. Case-based reasoning is a prominent type of analogy solution making. It has been argued that case-based reasoning is not only a powerful method for computer reasoning, but also a pervasive behavior in everyday human problem solving; or, more radically, that all reasoning is based on past cases personally experienced. This view is related to prototype theory, which is most deeply explored in cognitive science. == Process == Case-based reasoning has been formalized for purposes of computer reasoning as a four-step process: Retrieve: Given a target problem, retrieve cases relevant to solving it from memory. A case consists of a problem, its solution, and, typically, annotations about how the solution was derived. For example, suppose Fred wants to prepare blueberry pancakes. Being a novice cook, the most relevant experience he can recall is one in which he successfully made plain pancakes. The procedure he followed for making the plain pancakes, together with justifications for decisions made along the way, constitutes Fred's retrieved case. Reuse: Map the solution from the previous case to the target problem. This may involve adapting the solution as needed to fit the new situation. In the pancake example, Fred must adapt his retrieved solution to include the addition of blueberries. Revise: Having mapped the previous solution to the target situation, test the new solution in the real world (or a simulation) and, if necessary, revise. Suppose Fred adapted his pancake solution by adding blueberries to the batter. After mixing, he discovers that the batter has turned blue – an undesired effect. This suggests the following revision: delay the addition of blueberries until after the batter has been ladled into the pan. Retain: After the solution has been successfully adapted to the target problem, store the resulting experience as a new case in memory. Fred, accordingly, records his new-found procedure for making blueberry pancakes, thereby enriching his set of stored experiences, and better preparing him for future pancake-making demands. == Comparison to other methods == At first glance, CBR may seem similar to the rule induction algorithms of machine learning. Like a rule-induction algorithm, CBR starts with a set of cases or training examples; it forms generalizations of these examples, albeit implicit ones, by identifying commonalities between a retrieved case and the target problem. If for instance a procedure for plain pancakes is mapped to blueberry pancakes, a decision is made to use the same basic batter and frying method, thus implicitly generalizing the set of situations under which the batter and frying method can be used. The key difference, however, between the implicit generalization in CBR and the generalization in rule induction lies in when the generalization is made. A rule-induction algorithm draws its generalizations from a set of training examples before the target problem is even known; that is, it performs eager generalization. For instance, if a rule-induction algorithm were given recipes for plain pancakes, Dutch apple pancakes, and banana pancakes as its training examples, it would have to derive, at training time, a set of general rules for making all types of pancakes. It would not be until testing time that it would be given, say, the task of cooking blueberry pancakes. The difficulty for the rule-induction algorithm is in anticipating the different directions in which it should attempt to generalize its training examples. This is in contrast to CBR, which delays (implicit) generalization of its cases until testing time – a strategy of lazy generalization. In the pancake example, CBR has already been given the target problem of cooking blueberry pancakes; thus it can generalize its cases exactly as needed to cover this situation. CBR therefore tends to be a good approach for rich, complex domains in which there are myriad ways to generalize a case. In law, there is often explicit delegation of CBR to courts, recognizing the limits of rule based reasons: limiting delay, limited knowledge of future context, limit of negotiated agreement, etc. While CBR in law and cognitively inspired CBR have long been associated, the former is more clearly an interpolation of rule based reasoning, and judgment, while the latter is more closely tied to recall and process adaptation. The difference is clear in their attitude toward error and appellate review. Another name for case-based reasoning in problem solving is symptomatic strategies. It does require à priori domain knowledge that is gleaned from past experience which established connections between symptoms and causes. This knowledge is referred to as shallow, compiled, evidential, history-based as well as case-based knowledge. This is the strategy most associated with diagnosis by experts. Diagnosis of a problem transpires as a rapid recognition process in which symptoms evoke appropriate situation categories. An expert knows the cause by virtue of having previously encountered similar cases. Case-based reasoning is the most powerful strategy, and that used most commonly. However, the strategy won't work independently with truly novel problems, or where deeper understanding of whatever is taking place is sought. An alternative approach to problem solving is the topographic strategy which falls into the category of deep reasoning. With deep reasoning, in-depth knowledge of a system is used. Topography in this context means a description or an analysis of a structured entity, showing the relations among its elements. Also known as reasoning from first principles, deep reasoning is applied to novel faults when experience-based approaches aren't viable. The topographic strategy is therefore linked to à priori domain knowledge that is developed from a more a fundamental understanding of a system, possibly using first-principles knowledge. Such knowledge is referred to as deep, causal or model-based knowledge. Hoc and Carlier noted that symptomatic approaches may need to be supported by topographic approaches because symptoms can be defined in diverse terms. The converse is also true – shallow reasoning can be used abductively to generate causal hypotheses, and deductively to evaluate those hypotheses, in a topographical search. == Criticism == Critics of CBR argue that it is an approach that accepts anecdotal evidence as its main operating principle. Without statistically relevant data for backing and implicit generalization, there is no guarantee that the generalization is correct. However, all inductive reasoning where data is too scarce for statistical relevance is inherently based on anecdotal evidence. == History == CBR traces its roots to the work of Roger Schank and his students at Yale University in the early 1980s. Schank's model of dynamic memory was the basis for the earliest CBR systems: Janet Kolodner's CYRUS and Michael Lebowitz's IPP. Other schools of CBR and closely allied fields emerged in the 1980s, which directed at topics such as legal reasoning, memory-based reasoning (a way of reasoning from examples on massively parallel machines), and combinations of CBR with other reasoning methods. In the 1990s, interest in CBR grew internationally, as evidenced by the establishment of an International Conference on Case-Based Reasoning in 1995, as well as European, German, British, Italian, and other CBR workshops. CBR technology has resulted in the deployment of a number of successful systems, the earliest being Lockheed's CLAVIER, a system for laying out composite parts to be baked in an industrial convection oven. CBR has been used extensively in applications such as the Compaq SMART system and has found a major application area in the health sciences, as well as in structural safety management. There is recent work that develops CBR within a statistical framework and formalizes case-based inference as a specific type of probabilistic inference. Thus, it becomes possible to produce case-based predictions equipped with a certain level of confidence. One description of the difference between CBR and induction from instances is that statistical inference aims to find what tends to make cases similar while CBR aims to encode what suffices to claim similarly.

    Read more →
  • Residuated Boolean algebra

    Residuated Boolean algebra

    In mathematics, a residuated Boolean algebra is a residuated lattice whose lattice structure is that of a Boolean algebra. Examples include Boolean algebras with the monoid taken to be conjunction, the set of all formal languages over a given alphabet Σ {\displaystyle \Sigma } under concatenation, the set of all binary relations on a given set X {\displaystyle X} under relational composition, and more generally the power set of any equivalence relation, again under relational composition. The original application was to relation algebras as a finitely axiomatized generalization of the binary relation example, but there exist interesting examples of residuated Boolean algebras that are not relation algebras, such as the language example. == Definition == A residuated Boolean algebra is an algebraic structure ( L , ∧ , ∨ , ¬ , 0 , 1 , ∙ , I , / , ∖ ) {\displaystyle (L,\wedge ,\vee ,\neg ,0,1,\bullet ,\mathbf {I} ,/,\backslash )} such that An equivalent signature better suited to the relation algebra application is ( L , ∧ , ∨ , ¬ , 0 , 1 , ∙ , I , ▹ , ◃ ) {\displaystyle (L,\wedge ,\vee ,\neg ,0,1,\bullet ,\mathbf {I} ,\triangleright ,\triangleleft )} where the unary operations x ∖ {\displaystyle x\backslash } and x ▹ {\displaystyle x\triangleright } are intertranslatable in the manner of De Morgan's laws via x ∖ y = ¬ ( x ▹ ¬ y ) {\displaystyle x\backslash y=\neg (x\triangleright \neg y)} , x ▹ y = ¬ ( x ∖ ¬ y ) {\displaystyle x\triangleright y=\neg (x\backslash \neg y)} , and dually / y {\displaystyle /y} and ◃ y {\displaystyle \triangleleft y} as x / y = ¬ ( ¬ x ◃ y ) {\displaystyle x/y=\neg (\neg x\triangleleft y)} , x ◃ y = ¬ ( ¬ x / y ) {\displaystyle x\triangleleft y=\neg (\neg x/y)} , with the residuation axioms in the residuated lattice article reorganized accordingly (replacing z {\displaystyle z} by ¬ z {\displaystyle \neg z} ) to read ( x ▹ z ) ∧ y = 0 ⇔ ( x ∙ y ) ∧ z = 0 ⇔ ( z ◃ y ) ∧ x = 0 {\displaystyle (x\triangleright z)\wedge y=0\ \Leftrightarrow \ (x\bullet y)\wedge z=0\ \Leftrightarrow \ (z\triangleleft y)\wedge x=0} This De Morgan dual reformulation is motivated and discussed in more detail in the section below on conjugacy. Since residuated lattices and Boolean algebras are each definable with finitely many equations, so are residuated Boolean algebras, whence they form a finitely axiomatizable variety. == Examples == Any Boolean algebra, with the monoid multiplication ∙ {\displaystyle \bullet } taken to be conjunction and both residuals taken to be material implication x → y {\displaystyle x\to y} . Of the remaining 15 binary Boolean operations that might be considered in place of conjunction for the monoid multiplication, only five meet the monotonicity requirement, namely 0 , 1 , x , y {\displaystyle 0,1,x,y} and x ∨ y {\displaystyle x\vee y} . Setting y = z = 0 {\displaystyle y=z=0} in the residuation axiom y ≤ x ∖ z ⇔ x ∙ y ≤ z {\displaystyle y\leq x\backslash z\ \Leftrightarrow \ x\bullet y\leq z} , we have 0 ≤ x ∖ 0 ⇔ x ∙ 0 ≤ 0 {\displaystyle 0\leq x\backslash 0\ \Leftrightarrow \ x\bullet 0\leq 0} , which is falsified by taking x = 1 {\displaystyle x=1} when x ∙ y = 1 {\displaystyle x\bullet y=1} , x {\displaystyle x} , or x ∨ y {\displaystyle x\vee y} . The dual argument for z / y {\displaystyle z/y} rules out x ∙ y = y {\displaystyle x\bullet y=y} . This just leaves x ∙ y = 0 {\displaystyle x\bullet y=0} (a constant binary operation independent of x {\displaystyle x} and y {\displaystyle y} ), which satisfies almost all the axioms when the residuals are both taken to be the constant operation x / y = x ∖ y = 1 {\displaystyle x/y=x\backslash y=1} . The axiom it fails is x ∙ I = x = I ∙ x {\displaystyle x\bullet \mathbf {I} =x=\mathbf {I} \bullet x} , for want of a suitable value for I {\displaystyle \mathbf {I} } . Hence conjunction is the only binary Boolean operation making the monoid multiplication that of a residuated Boolean algebra. The power set 2 X 2 {\displaystyle 2^{X^{2}}} made a Boolean algebra as usual with ∩ {\displaystyle \cap } , ∪ {\displaystyle \cup } and complement relative to X 2 {\displaystyle X^{2}} , and made a monoid with relational composition. The monoid unit I {\displaystyle \mathbf {I} } is the identity relation { ( x , x ) | x ∈ X } {\displaystyle \{(x,x)|x\in X\}} . The right residual R ∖ S {\displaystyle R\backslash S} is defined by x ( R ∖ S ) y ⇔ ∀ z ∈ X , z R x ⇒ z S y {\displaystyle x(R\backslash S)y\ \Leftrightarrow \ \forall z\in X,zRx\Rightarrow zSy} . Dually the left residual S / R {\displaystyle S/R} is defined by y ( S / R ) x ⇔ ∀ z ∈ X , x R z ⇒ y S z {\displaystyle y(S/R)x\ \Leftrightarrow \ \forall z\in X,xRz\Rightarrow ySz} . The power set 2 Σ ∗ {\displaystyle 2^{\Sigma ^{}}} made a Boolean algebra as for Example 2, but with language concatenation for the monoid. Here the set Σ {\displaystyle \Sigma } is used as an alphabet while Σ ∗ {\displaystyle \Sigma ^{}} denotes the set of all finite (including empty) words over that alphabet. The concatenation L M {\displaystyle LM} of languages L {\displaystyle L} and M {\displaystyle M} consists of all words u v {\displaystyle uv} such that u ∈ L {\displaystyle u\in L} and v ∈ M {\displaystyle v\in M} . The monoid unit is the language { ε } {\displaystyle \{\varepsilon \}} consisting of just the empty word ε {\displaystyle \varepsilon } . The right residual M ∖ L {\displaystyle M\backslash L} consists of all words w {\displaystyle w} over Σ {\displaystyle \Sigma } such that M w ⊆ L {\displaystyle Mw\subseteq L} . The left residual L / M {\displaystyle L/M} is the same with w M {\displaystyle wM} in place of M w {\displaystyle Mw} . == Conjugacy == The De Morgan duals ▹ {\displaystyle \triangleright } and ◃ {\displaystyle \triangleleft } of residuation arise as follows. Among residuated lattices, Boolean algebras are special by virtue of having a complementation operation ¬ {\displaystyle \neg } . This permits an alternative expression of the three inequalities y ≤ x ∖ z ⇔ x ∙ y ≤ z ⇔ x ≤ z / y {\displaystyle y\leq x\backslash z\ \Leftrightarrow \ x\bullet y\leq z\ \Leftrightarrow \ x\leq z/y} in the axiomatization of the two residuals in terms of disjointness, via the equivalence x ≤ y ⇔ x ∧ ¬ y = 0 {\displaystyle x\leq y\ \Leftrightarrow \ x\wedge \neg y=0} . Abbreviating x ∧ y = 0 {\displaystyle x\wedge y=0} to x # y {\displaystyle x\#y} as the expression of their disjointness, and substituting ¬ z {\displaystyle \neg z} for z {\displaystyle z} in the axioms, they become with a little Boolean manipulation ¬ ( x ∖ ¬ z ) # y ⇔ x ∙ y # z ⇔ ¬ ( ¬ z / y ) # x {\displaystyle \neg (x\backslash \neg z)\#y\ \Leftrightarrow \ x\bullet y\#z\ \Leftrightarrow \ \neg (\neg z/y)\#x} Now ¬ ( x ∖ ¬ z ) {\displaystyle \neg (x\backslash \neg z)} is reminiscent of De Morgan duality, suggesting that x ∖ {\displaystyle x\backslash } be thought of as a unary operation f {\displaystyle f} , defined by f ( y ) = x ∖ y {\displaystyle f(y)=x\backslash y} , that has a De Morgan dual ¬ f ( ¬ y ) {\displaystyle \neg f(\neg y)} , analogous to ∀ x ϕ ( x ) = ¬ ∃ x ¬ ϕ ( x ) {\displaystyle \forall x\phi (x)=\neg \exists x\neg \phi (x)} . Denoting this dual operation as x ▹ {\displaystyle x\triangleright } , we define x ▹ z {\displaystyle x\triangleright z} as ¬ x ∖ ¬ z {\displaystyle \neg x\backslash \neg z} . Similarly we define another operation z ◃ y {\displaystyle z\triangleleft y} as ¬ ( ¬ z / y ) {\displaystyle \neg (\neg z/y)} . By analogy with x ∖ {\displaystyle x\backslash } as the residual operation associated with the operation x ∙ {\displaystyle x\bullet } , we refer to x ▹ {\displaystyle x\triangleright } as the conjugate operation, or simply conjugate, of x ∙ {\displaystyle x\bullet } . Likewise ◃ y {\displaystyle \triangleleft y} is the conjugate of ∙ y {\displaystyle \bullet y} . Unlike residuals, conjugacy is an equivalence relation between operations: if f {\displaystyle f} is the conjugate of g {\displaystyle g} then g {\displaystyle g} is also the conjugate of f {\displaystyle f} , i.e. the conjugate of the conjugate of f {\displaystyle f} is f {\displaystyle f} . Another advantage of conjugacy is that it becomes unnecessary to speak of right and left conjugates, that distinction now being inherited from the difference between x ∙ {\displaystyle x\bullet } and ∙ x {\displaystyle \bullet x} , which have as their respective conjugates x ▹ {\displaystyle x\triangleright } and ◃ x {\displaystyle \triangleleft x} . (But this advantage accrues also to residuals when x ∖ {\displaystyle x\backslash } is taken to be the residual operation to x ∙ {\displaystyle x\bullet } .) All this yields (along with the Boolean algebra and monoid axioms) the following equivalent axiomatization of a residuated Boolean algebra. y # x ▹ z ⇔ x ∙ y # z ⇔ x # z ◃ y {\displaystyle y\#x\triangleright z\ \Leftrightarrow \ x\bullet y\#z\ \Leftrightarrow \ x\#z\triangleleft y} With this signature it remains the case that this axiomatization can be expressed as

    Read more →
  • Rumelhart Prize

    Rumelhart Prize

    The David E. Rumelhart Prize for Contributions to the Theoretical Foundations of Human Cognition was founded in 2001 in honor of the cognitive scientist David Rumelhart to introduce the equivalent of a Nobel Prize for cognitive science. It is awarded annually to "an individual or collaborative team making a significant contemporary contribution to the theoretical foundations of human cognition". The annual award is presented at the Cognitive Science Society meeting, where the recipient gives a lecture and receives a check for $100,000. At the conclusion of the ceremony, the next year's award winner is announced. The award is funded by the Robert J. Glushko and Pamela Samuelson Foundation. The Rumelhart Prize committee is independent of the Cognitive Science Society. However, the society provides a large and interested audience for the awards. == Selection Committee == As of 2022, the selection committee for the prize consisted of: Richard Cooper (chair) Dedre Gentner Robert J. Glushko Tania Lombrozo Steven T. Piantadosi Jesse Snedeker == Recipients ==

    Read more →
  • Conceptual dependency theory

    Conceptual dependency theory

    Conceptual dependency theory is a model of natural language understanding used in artificial intelligence systems. Roger Schank at Stanford University introduced the model in 1969, in the early days of artificial intelligence. This model was extensively used by Schank's students at Yale University such as Robert Wilensky, Wendy Lehnert, and Janet Kolodner. Schank developed the model to represent knowledge for natural language input into computers. Partly influenced by the work of Sydney Lamb, his goal was to make the meaning independent of the words used in the input, i.e. two sentences identical in meaning would have a single representation. The system was also intended to draw logical inferences. The model uses the following basic representational tokens: real world objects, each with some attributes. real world actions, each with attributes times locations A set of conceptual transitions then act on this representation, e.g. an ATRANS is used to represent a transfer such as "give" or "take" while a PTRANS is used to act on locations such as "move" or "go". An MTRANS represents mental acts such as "tell", etc. A sentence such as "John gave a book to Mary" is then represented as the action of an ATRANS on two real world objects, John and Mary.

    Read more →
  • GamePigeon

    GamePigeon

    GamePigeon is a mobile app for iOS devices, developed by Vitalii Zlotskii and released on September 13, 2016. The game takes advantage of the iOS 10 update, which expanded how users could interact with Apple's Messages app. GamePigeon is only available through the Messages app, which allows players to start and respond to different party games in conversations. == Release == The app was first released on September 13, 2016, coinciding with the launch of iOS 10. The app was released for free, although it includes in-app purchases to unlock additional items, such as cosmetic skins, avatar items, new game modes, and an option to remove ads. == Games in the app == The following is a list of games that users can play within GamePigeon: Sources: Poker was one of the games included in GamePigeon at launch, although it has since been removed and is no longer listed on the game's App Store description. == Reception == GamePigeon has enjoyed commercial success, with VentureBeat noting that GamePigeon was ranked number-one in the "Top Free" category of the iMessage App Store, six months after its release. Critically, GamePigeon has been generally well received, being highlighted by online media publications early on shortly after the iOS 10 launch. It has since been included on many "best iMessage apps" lists. Based on over 162,000 ratings, the game holds a 4.0 out of 5 rating on the App Store. Julian Chokkattu of Digital Trends wrote "GamePigeon should be like the pre-installed versions of Solitaire and Minesweeper that used to come with older iterations of Windows." On its launch day, Boy Genius Report included it on a list of "10 of the best iMessage apps, games and stickers for iOS 10 on launch day." The Daily Dot wrote, "GamePigeon is easily the best current gaming option within iMessages." 8-ball and cup pong have been particularly well received by media outlets. The Daily Dot had specific praise for the app's billiards game: "8-Ball controls shockingly smoothly with your fingers, and there’s nothing quite like destroying a dear friend in poker." During his 2020 U.S. presidential campaign, Cory Booker was cited as playing the game with his family. In 2017, CNBC cited one teenager who expressed that GamePigeon was one of just a few reasons that those in her age range use the iMessage app. The game has received particular positive reception for allowing introverted individuals to exercise a form social activity; similarly, the game was highlighted as a way to maintain social distancing guidelines during the COVID-19 pandemic. As an April Fools' Day joke in 2020, The Chronicle, a Duke University newspaper, published that Duke's athletic program adopted GamePigeon's Cup Pong as an official varsity sport.

    Read more →
  • Removal of Sam Altman from OpenAI

    Removal of Sam Altman from OpenAI

    On November 17, 2023, OpenAI's board of directors ousted co-founder and chief executive Sam Altman. In an official post on the company's website, it was stated that "the board no longer has confidence in his ability to continue leading OpenAI". The removal was predicated by employee concerns about his handling of artificial intelligence safety, and allegations of abusive behavior. Altman was reinstated on November 22 after pressure from employees and investors. The removal and subsequent reinstatement caused widespread reactions, including impacts felt in the financial markets and technology sector. Microsoft, a partner of OpenAI, received little notice of the removal and experienced a drop in the share price of its stock. The removal also promoted interest in investigations from regulatory agencies. == Background == === OpenAI === OpenAI is an artificial intelligence firm founded in December 2015 as a non-profit entity. The for-profit division of the organization released ChatGPT in November 2022, contributing to a resurgence in generative artificial intelligence funding. The board of directors of the controlling non-profit formerly comprised chief scientist Ilya Sutskever, as well as Adam D'Angelo, chief executive of Quora, entrepreneur Tasha McCauley, and Helen Toner, strategy director for the Center for Security and Emerging Technology. As of October 2023, the company is valued at US$80 billion and was set to bring in US$1 billion in revenue. Altman has described OpenAI's relationship with Microsoft as the "best bromance in tech". OpenAI is uniquely structured, an intentional decision to avoid investor control. A board of directors controls the non-profit OpenAI, Inc. The non-profit owns and controls a for-profit company itself controlling a capped-profit company, OpenAI Global, LLC and a holding company owned by employees and other investors. The holding company is the majority owner of OpenAI Global, LLC.; Microsoft owns a minority stake in the capped-profit company. OpenAI's bylaws, enacted in January 2016, allow a majority of its board of directors to remove any director without prior warning or a formal meeting with written consent. === Sam Altman === Sam Altman is a co-founder of OpenAI and its former chief executive; Altman took over the company following co-chair Elon Musk's resignation in 2018. Under Altman, OpenAI has shifted to becoming a for-profit entity. Altman is credited with convincing Microsoft chief executive Satya Nadella with investing US$10 billion in cash and computing credits into OpenAI and leading several tender offer transactions that tripled the company's valuation. Altman testified before the United States Congress speaking critically of artificial intelligence and appeared at the 2023 AI Safety Summit. In the days leading up to his removal, Altman made several public appearances, announcing the GPT-4 Turbo platform at OpenAI's DevDay conference, attending APEC United States 2023, and speaking at an event related to Burning Man. == Events leading up to the removal == The resignation of LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman, venture capitalist Shivon Zilis, and former Republican representative Will Hurd from the board allowed the remaining members to remove Altman. According to Kara Swisher and The Wall Street Journal, Sutskever was instrumental in Altman's removal. Disagreements over the safety of artificial intelligence divided employees prior to Altman's removal. The release of ChatGPT created divisions with OpenAI as a for-profit company without considerations for the safety of artificial intelligence and a non-profit cautious of artificial intelligence's capabilities; in a staff email sent in 2019 and obtained by The Atlantic, Altman referred to these divisions as "tribes". Prior to his removal, Altman was seeking billions from Middle Eastern sovereign wealth funds to develop an artificial intelligence chip to compete with Nvidia and courted SoftBank chairman Masayoshi Son to develop artificial intelligence hardware with former Apple designer Jony Ive. Sutskever and his allies opposed these efforts, viewing them as unjustly using the OpenAI name. Altman reduced Sutskever's role in October 2023, furthering divisions; Sutskever successfully appealed to several members of the board. Swisher and The Verge reporter Alex Heath stated that opposition to Altman's profit-driven strategy culminated in the DevDay conference in which Altman announced custom ChatGPT instances. According to Axios, the removal was driven by growing discontent and distrust with Altman. On November 22, 2023, reports emerged suggesting that Sam Altman's dismissal from OpenAI might be linked to his alleged mishandling of a significant breakthrough in the organization's secretive project codenamed Q. According to sources within OpenAI, Q is aimed at developing AI capabilities in logical and mathematical reasoning, and reportedly involves performing math on the level of grade-school students. Concerns about Altman's response to this development, specifically regarding the potential safety implications of the discovery, were reportedly raised to the company's board shortly before his firing. A report from The Washington Post in December stated that OpenAI's board of directors were concerned over Altman's allegedly abusive behavior; the complaints were purportedly a major factor in his removal. The Post previously reported that Altman's alleged pattern of deception and subversiveness that ostensibly resulted in his removal from Y Combinator ultimately resulted in the board's decision to remove him. In April 2026, an investigative report from The New Yorker found that Sutskever and others, in response to the board's request, had compiled an approximately 70-page-long annotated dossier consisting of internal communications, documents, and photos. The dossier claimed that Altman "exhibits a consistent pattern of [...] Lying", and that Altman misrepresented information to the company's senior management and board, particularly regarding safety issues. == Removal == On November 17, 2023, at approximately noon PST, OpenAI's board of directors ousted Altman effective immediately following a "deliberative review process". The board concluded that Altman was not "consistently candid in his communications". Altman was informed of his removal five to ten minutes before it occurred on a Google Meet while watching the Las Vegas Grand Prix. Within thirty minutes, Sutskever invited OpenAI chairman and president Greg Brockman to a Google Meet to inform him of Altman's removal. According to an internal memo obtained by Axios, the removal was not due to "malfeasance", and OpenAI chief executive Emmett Shear denied accusations that the removal was due to disagreements. The board publicly announced Altman's removal thirty minutes later. Chief Technology Officer Mira Murati was immediately appointed to interim chief executive officer. Hours after Altman's removal, Brockman resigned as chairman, joined by director of research Jakub Pachocki and researchers Aleksander Mądry and Szymon Sidor. During an all-hands meeting, Sutskever defended the ouster and denied accusations of a hostile takeover. An OpenAI representative requested former board member Will Hurd's presence. == Reinstatement == According to The New Yorker, Altman retreated to his San Francisco home and enlisted the help of communications consultant Chris Lehane and Airbnb chief executive Brian Chesky, as well as former staff and a legal team, to plan his reinstatement. Lehane encouraged Altman to engage on social media, while Chesky sent a journalist negative information about the board. Altman told interim CEO Murati that his team was conducting opposition research on her and the individuals responsible for his removal; Altman later stated he did not remember saying this. Altman insisted multiple times that all board members who supported his removal should resign. Tiger Global Management and Sequoia Capital had attempted to reinstate Altman, according to The Information; Bloomberg News reported that Microsoft and Thrive Capital were seeking Altman's reinstatement. On November 18, The Verge reported that OpenAI's board of directors discussed reinstating Altman. The board agreed in principle to resign and to allow Altman to return, but missed the deadline. According to The Verge, Altman was ambivalent about returning and would seek significant changes to the company, including replacing the board. A list of directors had been prepared by investors in the event that the board steps down, and purportedly included former Salesforce executive Bret Taylor. According to chief strategy officer Jason Kwon, OpenAI was optimistic it could return Altman, Brockman, and other employees. On November 19, Altman and Brockman appeared at OpenAI's headquarters to negotiate, mediated by Nadella. According to Bloomberg News, Murati, Kwon, and chief operating officer Brad Lightcap were pushing for a new board of direc

    Read more →
  • Semantic Scholar

    Semantic Scholar

    Semantic Scholar is a research tool for scientific literature. It is developed at the Allen Institute for AI and was publicly released in November 2015. Semantic Scholar uses modern techniques in natural language processing to support the research process, for example by providing automatically generated summaries of scholarly papers. The Semantic Scholar team is actively researching the use of artificial intelligence in natural language processing, machine learning, human–computer interaction, and information retrieval. Semantic Scholar began as a database for the topics of computer science, geoscience, and neuroscience. In 2017, the system began including biomedical literature in its corpus. As of September 2022, it includes over 200 million publications from all fields of science. == Technology == Semantic Scholar provides a one-sentence summary of scientific literature. One of its aims was to address the challenge of reading numerous titles and lengthy abstracts on mobile devices. It also seeks to ensure that the three million scientific papers published yearly reach readers, since it is estimated that only half of this literature is ever read. Artificial intelligence is used to capture the essence of a paper, generating it through an "abstractive" technique. The project uses a combination of machine learning, natural language processing, and machine vision to add a layer of semantic analysis to the traditional methods of citation analysis, and to extract relevant figures, tables, entities, and venues from papers. Another key AI-powered feature is Research Feeds, an adaptive research recommender that uses AI to quickly learn what papers users care about reading and recommends the latest research to help scholars stay up to date. It uses a paper embedding model trained using contrastive learning to find papers similar to those in each Library folder. Semantic Scholar also offers Semantic Reader, an augmented reader with the potential to revolutionize scientific reading by making it more accessible and richly contextual. Semantic Reader provides in-line citation cards that allow users to see citations with TLDR (short for Too Long, Didn't Read) automatically generated short summaries as they read and skimming highlights that capture key points of a paper so users can digest faster. In contrast with Google Scholar and PubMed, Semantic Scholar is designed to highlight the most important and influential elements of a paper. The AI technology is designed to identify hidden connections and links between research topics. Like the previously cited search engines, Semantic Scholar also exploits graph structures, which include the Microsoft Academic Knowledge Graph, Springer Nature's SciGraph, and the Semantic Scholar Corpus (originally a 45 million papers corpus in computer science, neuroscience and biomedicine). == Article identifier == Each paper hosted by Semantic Scholar is assigned a unique identifier called the Semantic Scholar Corpus ID (abbreviated S2CID). The following entry is an example: Liu, Ying; Gayle, Albert A; Wilder-Smith, Annelies; Rocklöv, Joacim (March 2020). "The reproductive number of COVID-19 is higher compared to SARS coronavirus". Journal of Travel Medicine. 27 (2). doi:10.1093/jtm/taaa021. PMID 32052846. S2CID 211099356. == Indexing == Semantic Scholar is free to use and unlike similar search engines (e.g., Google Scholar) does not search for material that is behind a paywall. One study compared the index scope of Semantic Scholar to Google Scholar, and found that for the papers cited by secondary studies in computer science, the two indices had comparable coverage, each only missing a handful of the papers. == Number of users and publications == As of January 2018, following a 2017 project that added biomedical papers and topic summaries, the Semantic Scholar corpus included more than 40 million papers from computer science and biomedicine. In March 2018, Doug Raymond, who developed machine learning initiatives for the Amazon Alexa platform, was hired to lead the Semantic Scholar project. As of August 2019, the number of included papers metadata (not the actual PDFs) had grown to more than 173 million after the addition of the Microsoft Academic Graph records. In 2020, a partnership between Semantic Scholar and the University of Chicago Press Journals made all articles published under the University of Chicago Press available in the Semantic Scholar corpus. At the end of 2020, Semantic Scholar had indexed 190 million papers. In 2020, Semantic Scholar reached seven million users per month.

    Read more →
  • Computational law

    Computational law

    Computational law is the branch of legal informatics concerned with the automation of legal reasoning. What distinguishes Computational Law systems from other instances of legal technology is their autonomy, i.e. the ability to answer legal questions without additional input from human legal experts. While there are many possible applications of Computational Law, the primary focus of work in the field today is compliance management, i.e. the development and deployment of computer systems capable of assessing, facilitating, or enforcing compliance with rules and regulations. Some systems of this sort already exist. TurboTax is a good example. And the potential is particularly significant now due to recent technological advances – including the prevalence of the Internet in human interaction and the proliferation of embedded computer systems (such as smart phones, self-driving cars, and robots). There are also applications that do not involve governmental laws. The regulations can just as well be the terms of contracts (e.g. delivery schedules, insurance covenants, real estate transactions, financial agreements). They can be the policies of corporations (e.g. constraints on travel, expenditure reporting, pricing rules). They can even be the rules of games (embodied in computer game playing systems). == History == Speculation about potential benefits to legal practice through applying methods from computational science and AI research to automate parts of the law date back at least to the middle 1940s. Further, AI and law and computational law do not seem easily separable, as perhaps most of AI research focusing on the law and its automation appears to utilize computational methods. The forms that speculation took are multiple and not all related in ways to readily show closeness to one another. This history will sketch them as they were, attempting to show relationships where they can be found to have existed. By 1949, a minor academic field aiming to incorporate electronic and computational methods to legal problems had been founded by American legal scholars, called jurimetrics. Though broadly said to be concerned with the application of the "methods of science" to the law, these methods were actually of a quite specifically defined scope. Jurimetrics was to be "concerned with such matters as the quantitative analysis of judicial behavior, the application of communication and information theory to legal expression, the use of mathematical logic in law, the retrieval of legal data by electronic and mechanical means, and the formulation of a calculus of legal predictability". These interests led in 1959 to the founding a journal, Modern Uses of Logic in Law, as a forum wherein articles would be published about the applications of techniques such as mathematical logic, engineering, statistics, etc. to the legal study and development. In 1966, this Journal was renamed as Jurimetrics. Today, however, the journal and meaning of jurimetrics seems to have broadened far beyond what would fit under the areas of applications of computers and computational methods to law. Today the journal not only publishes articles on such practices as found in computational law, but has broadened jurimetrical concerns to mean also things like the use of social science in law or the "policy implications [of] and legislative and administrative control of science". Independently in 1958, at the Conference for the Mechanization of Thought held at the National Physical Laboratory in Teddington, Middlesex, UK, the French jurist Lucien Mehl presented a paper both on the benefits of using computational methods for law and on the potential means to use such methods to automate law for a discussion that included AI luminaries like Marvin Minsky. Mehl believed that the law could by automated by two basic distinct, though not wholly separable, types of machine. These were the "documentary or information machine", which would provide the legal researcher quick access to relevant case precedents and legal scholarship, and the "consultation machine", which would be "capable of answering any question put to it over a vast field of law". The latter type of machine would be able to basically do much of a lawyer's job by simply giving the "exact answer to a [legal] problem put to it". By 1970, Mehl's first type of machine, one that would be able to retrieve information, had been accomplished but there seems to have been little consideration of further fruitful intersections between AI and legal research. There were, however, still hopes that computers could model the lawyer's thought processes through computational methods and then apply that capacity to solve legal problems, thus automating and improving legal services via increased efficiency as well as shedding light on the nature of legal reasoning. By the late 1970s, computer science and the affordability of computer technology had progressed enough that the retrieval of "legal data by electronic and mechanical means" had been achieved by machines fitting Mehl's first type and were in common use in American law firms. During this time, research focused on improving the goals of the early 1970s occurred, with programs like Taxman being worked on in order to both bring useful computer technology into the law as practical aids and to help specify the exact nature of legal concepts. Nonetheless, progress on the second type of machine, one that would more fully automate the law, remained relatively inert. Research into machines that could answer questions in the way that Mehl's consultation machine would picked up somewhat in the late 1970s and 1980s. A 1979 convention in Swansea, Wales marked the first international effort solely to focus upon applying artificial intelligence research to legal problems in order to "consider how computers can be used to discover and apply the legal norms embedded within the written sources of the law". Considerable progress on the development of the second type of machine was made in the following decade, with the development of a variety of expert systems. According to Thorne McCarty, "these systems all have the following characteristics: They do backward chaining inference from a specified goal; they ask questions to elicit information from the user; and they produce a suggested answer along with a trace of the supporting legal rules." According to Prakken and Sartor the representation of the British Nationality Act as a logic program, which introduced this approach, was "hugely influential for the development of computational representations of legislation, showing how logic programming enables intuitively appealing representations that can be directly deployed to generate automatic inferences". In 2021, this work received the Inaugural CodeX Prize as "one of the first and best-known works in computational law, and one of the most widely cited papers in the field." In a 1988 review of Anne Gardner's book An Artificial Intelligence Approach to Legal Reasoning (1987), the Harvard academic legal scholar and computer scientist Edwina Rissland wrote that "She plays, in part, the role of pioneer; artificial intelligence ("AI") techniques have not yet been widely applied to perform legal tasks. Therefore, Gardner, and this review, first describe and define the field, then demonstrate a working model in the domain of contract offer and acceptance." Eight years after the Swansea conference had passed, and still AI and law researchers merely trying to delineate the field could be described by their own kind as "pioneer[s]". In the 1990s and early 2000s more progress occurred. Computational research generated insights for law. The First International Conference on AI and the Law occurred in 1987, but it is in the 1990s and 2000s that the biannual conference began to build up steam and to delve more deeply into the issues involved with work intersecting computational methods, AI, and law. Classes began to be taught to undergraduates on the uses of computational methods to automating, understanding, and obeying the law. Further, by 2005, a team largely composed of Stanford computer scientists from the Stanford Logic group had devoted themselves to studying the uses of computational techniques to the law. Computational methods in fact advanced enough that members of the legal profession began in the 2000s to both analyze, predict and worry about the potential future of computational law and a new academic field of computational legal studies seems to be now well established. As insight into what such scholars see in the law's future due in part to computational law, here is quote from a recent conference about the "New Normal" for the legal profession: "Over the last 5 years, in the fallout of the Great Recession, the legal profession has entered the era of the New Normal. Notably, a series of forces related to technological change, globalization, and the pressure to do more with less (in both corpo

    Read more →
  • Physicalization

    Physicalization

    Physicalization of computer hardware (the opposite of virtualization), is a way to place multiple physical machines in a rack unit. It can be a way to reduce hardware costs, since in some cases, server processors cost more per core than energy efficient laptop processors, which may make up for added cost of board level integration. While Moore's law makes increasing integration less expensive, some jobs require much I/O bandwidth, which may be less expensive to provide using many less-integrated processors. Applications and services that are I/O bound are likely to benefit from such physicalized environments. This ensures that each operating system instance is running on a processor that has its own network interface card, host bus and I/O sub-system unlike in the case of a multi-core servers where a single I/O sub-system is shared between all the cores / VMs.

    Read more →
  • Ordered weighted averaging

    Ordered weighted averaging

    In applied mathematics, specifically in fuzzy logic, the ordered weighted averaging (OWA) operators provide a parameterized class of mean type aggregation operators. They were introduced by Ronald R. Yager. Many notable mean operators such as the max, arithmetic average, median and min, are members of this class. They have been widely used in computational intelligence because of their ability to model linguistically expressed aggregation instructions. == Definition == An OWA operator of dimension n {\displaystyle \ n} is a mapping F : R n → R {\displaystyle F:\mathbb {R} ^{n}\rightarrow \mathbb {R} } that has an associated collection of weights W = [ w 1 , … , w n ] {\displaystyle \ W=[w_{1},\ldots ,w_{n}]} lying in the unit interval and summing to one and with F ( a 1 , … , a n ) = ∑ j = 1 n w j b j {\displaystyle F(a_{1},\ldots ,a_{n})=\sum _{j=1}^{n}w_{j}b_{j}} where b j {\displaystyle b_{j}} is the jth largest of the a i {\displaystyle a_{i}} . By choosing different W one can implement different aggregation operators. The OWA operator is a non-linear operator as a result of the process of determining the bj. == Notable OWA operators == F ( a 1 , … , a n ) = max ( a 1 , … , a n ) {\displaystyle \ F(a_{1},\ldots ,a_{n})=\max(a_{1},\ldots ,a_{n})} if w 1 = 1 {\displaystyle \ w_{1}=1} and w j = 0 {\displaystyle \ w_{j}=0} for j ≠ 1 {\displaystyle j\neq 1} F ( a 1 , … , a n ) = min ( a 1 , … , a n ) {\displaystyle \ F(a_{1},\ldots ,a_{n})=\min(a_{1},\ldots ,a_{n})} if w n = 1 {\displaystyle \ w_{n}=1} and w j = 0 {\displaystyle \ w_{j}=0} for j ≠ n {\displaystyle j\neq n} F ( a 1 , … , a n ) = a v e r a g e ( a 1 , … , a n ) {\displaystyle \ F(a_{1},\ldots ,a_{n})=\mathrm {average} (a_{1},\ldots ,a_{n})} if w j = 1 n {\displaystyle \ w_{j}={\frac {1}{n}}} for all j ∈ [ 1 , n ] {\displaystyle j\in [1,n]} == Properties == The OWA operator is a mean operator. It is bounded, monotonic, symmetric, and idempotent, as defined below. == Characterizing features == Two features have been used to characterize the OWA operators. The first is the attitudinal character, also called orness. This is defined as A − C ( W ) = 1 n − 1 ∑ j = 1 n ( n − j ) w j . {\displaystyle A-C(W)={\frac {1}{n-1}}\sum _{j=1}^{n}(n-j)w_{j}.} It is known that A − C ( W ) ∈ [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle A-C(W)\in [0,1]} . In addition A − C(max) = 1, A − C(ave) = A − C(med) = 0.5 and A − C(min) = 0. Thus the A − C goes from 1 to 0 as we go from Max to Min aggregation. The attitudinal character characterizes the similarity of aggregation to OR operation(OR is defined as the Max). The second feature is the dispersion. This defined as H ( W ) = − ∑ j = 1 n w j ln ⁡ ( w j ) . {\displaystyle H(W)=-\sum _{j=1}^{n}w_{j}\ln(w_{j}).} An alternative definition is E ( W ) = ∑ j = 1 n w j 2 . {\displaystyle E(W)=\sum _{j=1}^{n}w_{j}^{2}.} The dispersion characterizes how uniformly the arguments are being used. == Type-1 OWA aggregation operators == The above Yager's OWA operators are used to aggregate the crisp values. Can we aggregate fuzzy sets in the OWA mechanism? The Type-1 OWA operators have been proposed for this purpose. So the type-1 OWA operators provides us with a new technique for directly aggregating uncertain information with uncertain weights via OWA mechanism in soft decision making and data mining, where these uncertain objects are modelled by fuzzy sets. The type-1 OWA operator is defined according to the alpha-cuts of fuzzy sets as follows: Given the n linguistic weights { W i } i = 1 n {\displaystyle \left\{{W^{i}}\right\}_{i=1}^{n}} in the form of fuzzy sets defined on the domain of discourse U = [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle U=[0,\;\;1]} , then for each α ∈ [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle \alpha \in [0,\;1]} , an α {\displaystyle \alpha } -level type-1 OWA operator with α {\displaystyle \alpha } -level sets { W α i } i = 1 n {\displaystyle \left\{{W_{\alpha }^{i}}\right\}_{i=1}^{n}} to aggregate the α {\displaystyle \alpha } -cuts of fuzzy sets { A i } i = 1 n {\displaystyle \left\{{A^{i}}\right\}_{i=1}^{n}} is given as Φ α ( A α 1 , … , A α n ) = { ∑ i = 1 n w i a σ ( i ) ∑ i = 1 n w i | w i ∈ W α i , a i ∈ A α i , i = 1 , … , n } {\displaystyle \Phi _{\alpha }\left({A_{\alpha }^{1},\ldots ,A_{\alpha }^{n}}\right)=\left\{{{\frac {\sum \limits _{i=1}^{n}{w_{i}a_{\sigma (i)}}}{\sum \limits _{i=1}^{n}{w_{i}}}}\left|{w_{i}\in W_{\alpha }^{i},\;a_{i}}\right.\in A_{\alpha }^{i},\;i=1,\ldots ,n}\right\}} where W α i = { w | μ W i ( w ) ≥ α } , A α i = { x | μ A i ( x ) ≥ α } {\displaystyle W_{\alpha }^{i}=\{w|\mu _{W_{i}}(w)\geq \alpha \},A_{\alpha }^{i}=\{x|\mu _{A_{i}}(x)\geq \alpha \}} , and σ : { 1 , … , n } → { 1 , … , n } {\displaystyle \sigma :\{\;1,\ldots ,n\;\}\to \{\;1,\ldots ,n\;\}} is a permutation function such that a σ ( i ) ≥ a σ ( i + 1 ) , ∀ i = 1 , … , n − 1 {\displaystyle a_{\sigma (i)}\geq a_{\sigma (i+1)},\;\forall \;i=1,\ldots ,n-1} , i.e., a σ ( i ) {\displaystyle a_{\sigma (i)}} is the i {\displaystyle i} th largest element in the set { a 1 , … , a n } {\displaystyle \left\{{a_{1},\ldots ,a_{n}}\right\}} . The computation of the type-1 OWA output is implemented by computing the left end-points and right end-points of the intervals Φ α ( A α 1 , … , A α n ) {\displaystyle \Phi _{\alpha }\left({A_{\alpha }^{1},\ldots ,A_{\alpha }^{n}}\right)} : Φ α ( A α 1 , … , A α n ) − {\displaystyle \Phi _{\alpha }\left({A_{\alpha }^{1},\ldots ,A_{\alpha }^{n}}\right)_{-}} and Φ α ( A α 1 , … , A α n ) + , {\displaystyle \Phi _{\alpha }\left({A_{\alpha }^{1},\ldots ,A_{\alpha }^{n}}\right)_{+},} where A α i = [ A α − i , A α + i ] , W α i = [ W α − i , W α + i ] {\displaystyle A_{\alpha }^{i}=[A_{\alpha -}^{i},A_{\alpha +}^{i}],W_{\alpha }^{i}=[W_{\alpha -}^{i},W_{\alpha +}^{i}]} . Then membership function of resulting aggregation fuzzy set is: μ G ( x ) = ∨ α : x ∈ Φ α ( A α 1 , ⋯ , A α n ) α ⁡ α {\displaystyle \mu _{G}(x)=\mathop {\vee } _{\alpha :x\in \Phi _{\alpha }\left({A_{\alpha }^{1},\cdots ,A_{\alpha }^{n}}\right)_{\alpha }}\alpha } For the left end-points, we need to solve the following programming problem: Φ α ( A α 1 , ⋯ , A α n ) − = min W α − i ≤ w i ≤ W α + i A α − i ≤ a i ≤ A α + i ∑ i = 1 n w i a σ ( i ) / ∑ i = 1 n w i {\displaystyle \Phi _{\alpha }\left({A_{\alpha }^{1},\cdots ,A_{\alpha }^{n}}\right)_{-}=\min \limits _{\begin{array}{l}W_{\alpha -}^{i}\leq w_{i}\leq W_{\alpha +}^{i}A_{\alpha -}^{i}\leq a_{i}\leq A_{\alpha +}^{i}\end{array}}\sum \limits _{i=1}^{n}{w_{i}a_{\sigma (i)}/\sum \limits _{i=1}^{n}{w_{i}}}} while for the right end-points, we need to solve the following programming problem: Φ α ( A α 1 , ⋯ , A α n ) + = max W α − i ≤ w i ≤ W α + i A α − i ≤ a i ≤ A α + i ∑ i = 1 n w i a σ ( i ) / ∑ i = 1 n w i {\displaystyle \Phi _{\alpha }\left({A_{\alpha }^{1},\cdots ,A_{\alpha }^{n}}\right)_{+}=\max \limits _{\begin{array}{l}W_{\alpha -}^{i}\leq w_{i}\leq W_{\alpha +}^{i}A_{\alpha -}^{i}\leq a_{i}\leq A_{\alpha +}^{i}\end{array}}\sum \limits _{i=1}^{n}{w_{i}a_{\sigma (i)}/\sum \limits _{i=1}^{n}{w_{i}}}} Zhou et al. presented a fast method to solve two programming problem so that the type-1 OWA aggregation operation can be performed efficiently. == OWA for committee voting == Amanatidis, Barrot, Lang, Markakis and Ries present voting rules for multi-issue voting, based on OWA and the Hamming distance. Barrot, Lang and Yokoo study the manipulability of these rules.

    Read more →
  • Course of Action Display and Evaluation Tool

    Course of Action Display and Evaluation Tool

    Course of Action Display and Evaluation Tool (CADET) was a research program, and the eponymous prototype software system, that applied knowledge-based techniques of Artificial Intelligence to the problem of battle planning. CADET was also known as Course of Action Display and Elaboration Tool. It was considered an early example of such systems and was funded by the United States Army and by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). CADET influenced a later DARPA program called RAID which in turn produced a technology adopted by the United States Army and the United States Marine Corps. == History == The development of Course of Action Display and Evaluation Tool (CADET) began in 1996, at the Carnegie Group, Inc., Pittsburgh PA, funded under the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program. The goal of the first phase SBIR project was to produce “...a live storyboard of [Course of Action] COA development, wargaming, animation, and assessment.” In 1997, the United States Army awarded the Carnegie Group Inc. $750K for SBIR Phase II. The intent was to develop “...a war-gaming modeling and analysis Decision Support System (DSS), … CADET will consist of a combination of Knowledge-Based and decision analytic tools and technologies to provide fast nimble COA war-gaming modeling, simulation, and animation under direct control of the commander and staff. ...Phase II will result in an operations prototype (OP) suitable for use and evaluation in field exercises.” In 2000, CADET was integrated and experimentally evaluated within the framework of the Integrated Course of Action Critiquing and Elaboration System (ICCES) experiment, conducted by the Battle Command Battle Laboratory – Leavenworth (BCBL-L) within the program Concept Experimentation Program (CEP) sponsored by TRADOC. In 2000-2002, DARPA applied CADET in the program titled Command Post of the Future (CPoF) as a tool to generate a course of action. Under the umbrella of the CPoF program, CADET was integrated with the FOX GA system to provide a detailed planner, coupled with COA generation capability. In the same period, Battle Command Battle Lab-Huachuca (BCBL-H) performed an integration CADET with the system called All Source Analysis System-Light (ASAS-L); here CADET was intended to generate plans for intelligence assets, and conduct wargames of different COAs, enemy versus friendly. From 1996 through 2002, work on CADET was performed by the Carnegie Group, Inc., and supported by funding from the US Army CECOM (CADET SBIR Phase I, CADET SBIR Phase II and CADET Enhancements); DARPA (Command Post of the Future); and TRADOC BCBL-H. == Operation == CADET was intended to be used by the staff of the United States Army Brigade, within the Military Decision Making Process (MDMP). In particular, CADET helped produce, automatically or semi-automatically, the products generated within the step of MDMP called Course of Action (COA) Development and the following step of MDMP called COA Analysis and Wargaming. CADET software resided on a laptop computer. Using the computer, the staff officers entered the input to CADET, or alternatively this input arrived at CADET from upstream computer systems. The input consisted of: Order of Battle, i.e., the units constituting the friendly brigade and the enemy units participating in the battle, and their various characteristics; primary activities of the Course of Action, where each activity is typically linked to one or more geographic areas or a route, and sometimes to a major unit executing the activity; digital map of the region where the battle was to take place, including the digital description of significant features such as locations of friendly and enemy units, roads, assembly areas, objectives, and axes of attacks. Taking this input, CADET automatically performed the following tasks (not sequentially): Planning and scheduling the low-level tasks necessary for a given COA Allocating tasks to various units and assets constituting the brigade Assigning suitable locations and routes Estimating the battle losses (attrition) of friendly and enemy forces, and consumption of resources (e.g., fuel and ammunition) Predicting enemy actions or reactions. CADET produced the following outputs: Synchronization matrix, directly editable and printable; synchronization matrix is a kind of Gantt chart that shows assignments of activities to units, to locations/routes and to time periods Map overlays in PPT or JPG formats Animation output XML formally-encoded plan Textual Operation Plan (OPLAN) draft E-mail messages with attachments: XML and text versions of OPLAN == Design == The core algorithm is a planning algorithm where CADET uses a knowledge-based approach of the hierarchical-task-network type. Each task class is associated with a model of more detailed subtasks that should be performed in order to accomplish the higher-level task. Algorithms selected (heuristically) a task and then decomposes it into subtasks. Although similar to hierarchical-task-network planning algorithm, CADET’s algorithm includes elements of adversarial reasoning. After adding a subtask, the algorithm uses rules to determine the enemy’s probable actions and reactions as well as friendly counteractions This approximated the action-reaction-counteraction technique of manual wargaming used by the United States Army. When a task involves movements of a unit, the algorithm performs routing, i.e., finds a route for the movement that minimizes the time required for the movement as well as exposure to the enemy attacks. Each added tasks (subtask) normally requires a unit which would execute the task, and a time period when the task would be executed. Therefore, when a certain number of subtasks is added by the planning process, the algorithm also performs the allocation of the newly added subtasks to units and to time periods (i.e., scheduling). allocation and scheduling of tasks relies on both domain-specific and constraint-guided heuristics. A tasks may also require expenditures of fuel and ammunition. If the tasks involves engagement with the enemy, the performing units will experience lossesof personnel and weapon systems (attrition). CADET’s algorithm includes estimates of consumption of different types of consumables, and also attrition. Depending on the degree of attrition and consumption, CADET adds tasks that are needed to refuel or reconstitute the units. The algorithm continually interleaves incremental steps of planning, routing, scheduling, and attrition and consumption estimates. == Evaluation == Two evaluation experiments are described in literature. The first experiment called ICCES took three days. The subjects were Army officers from combat arms branches, with 11 to 23 years of active service, in the ranks of majors and lieutenant colonels, a total of 8. Each officer was given 4 hours of training learning to operate CADET and related computer tools. Officers were divided into two groups and given a tactical scenario. One group (the control group) used the traditional, manual process; the other used the system called ICCES, the automated core of which was CADET. Each group produced three COA sketches and statements and one COA synchronization matrix. Then, the experiment was repeated with another scenario but the control group became the automated group and vice versa. The users were generally satisfied with the quality of the ICCES-generated products. The group using ICCES made only a few changes to the product that was automatically generated, indicating that they agreed with the majority of the plan that ICCES produced. The second experiment was reminiscent of Turing test. The experiment involved one user, nine judges (active-duty officers, mainly colonels and lieutenant colonels), and five scenarios obtained from several US Army exercises. For each scenario, experimenters obtained synchronization matrices that were produced in earlier exercises, typically by a team of four to five officers in three to four hours, spending approximately 16 person-hours in total. Using these scenarios and COAs, the user had CADET generate automatically detailed plans and express them as synchronization matrices. The user, a retired US Army officer, reviewed and slightly edited the matrices. The entire process took less than two minutes of computations by and approximately 20 minutes of review and post-editing, approximately 0.4 person-hour in total per product. The experimenters gave the resulting matrices the same visual style as those produced by humans. The judges, who did not know whether a planning product was a traditional product of humans, or with computerized aids, were asked to grade the products. The result was that the average grades for manual products and CADET-generated products were statistically indistinguishable, even though CADET-generated products required far less time to produce. == Legacy == CADET served as “...an example of how even relatively basic A

    Read more →