AI Coding Interview Questions

AI Coding Interview Questions — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  C3D Toolkit

  C3D Toolkit is a proprietary cross-platform geometric modeling kit software developed by Russian C3D Labs (previously part of ASCON Group). It's written in C++ . It can be licensed by other companies for use in their 3D computer graphics software products. The most widely known software in which C3D Toolkit is typically used are computer aided design (CAD), computer-aided manufacturing (CAM), and computer-aided engineering (CAE) systems. C3D Toolkit provides routines for 3D modeling, 3D constraint solving, polygonal mesh-to-B-rep conversion, 3D visualization, and 3D file conversions etc. == History == Nikolai Golovanov is a graduate of the Mechanical Engineering department of Bauman Moscow State Technical University as a designer of space launch vehicles. Upon his graduation, he began with the Kolomna Engineering Design bureau, which at the time employed the future founders of ASCON, Alexander Golikov and Tatiana Yankina. While at the bureau, Dr Golovanov developed software for analyzing the strength and stability of shell structures. In 1989, Alexander Golikov and Tatiana Yankina left Kolomna to start up ASCON as a private company. Although they began with just an electronic drawing board, even then they were already conceiving the idea of three-dimensional parametric modeling. This radical concept eventually changed flat drawings into three-dimensional models. The ASCON founders shared their ideas with Nikolai Golovanov, and in 1996 he moved to take up his current position with ASCON. As of 2012 he was involved in developing algorithms for C3D Toolkit. In 2012 the earliest version of the C3D Modeller kernel was extracted from KOMPAS-3D CAD. It was later adopted to a range of different platforms and advertised as a separate product. == Overview == It incorporates five modules: C3D Modeler constructs geometric models, generates flat projections of models, performs triangulations, calculates the inertial characteristics of models, and determines whether collisions occur between the elements of models; C3D Modeler for ODA enables advanced 3D modeling operations through the ODA's standard "OdDb3DSolid" API from the Open Design Alliance; C3D Solver makes connections between the elements of geometric models, and considers the geometric constraints of models being edited; C3D B-Shaper converts polygonal models to boundary representation (B-rep) bodies; C3D Vision controls the quality of rendering for 3D models using mathematical apparatus and software, and the workstation hardware; C3D Converter reads and writes geometric models in a variety of standard exchange formats. == Features == == Development == == Applications == Since 2013 - the date the company started issuing a license for the toolkit -, several companies have adopted C3D software components for their products, users include: Recently, C3D Modeler has been adapted to ODA Platform. In April 2017, C3D Viewer was launched for end users. The application allows to read 3D models in common formats and write it to the C3D file format. Free version is available.

  Read more →
• 

  Turing's Wager

  Turing's Wager is a philosophical argument that claims it is impossible to infer or deduce a detailed mathematical model of the human brain within a reasonable timescale, and thus impossible in any practical sense. The argument was first given in 1950 by the computational theorist Alan Turing in his paper Computing Machinery and Intelligence, published in Mind (Turing 1950, p. 453). The argument asserts that determining any mathematical model of a computer (its source code or any isomorphic equivalent such as a Turing machine or virtual simulation) is not possible in a reasonable timeframe. As a consequence, determining a mathematical model of the human brain (which is, by its nature, more complicated) must also be impossible within that timeframe. == Effect of modern technology on the wager == It has been argued that modern neuroimaging techniques will allow researchers to create accurate simulations of the human mind within the 21st century (Kurzweil 2012; Markram 2012, Fildes 2009), thereby overcoming the wager. Others have argued that such claims are unjustified (Thwaites et al. 2017). == Relationship between Turing's Wager and the Turing Test == The Turing Test attempts to define when a machine might be said to possess human intelligence, while Turing's Wager is an argument aiming to demonstrate that characterising the brain mathematically will take over a thousand years. While building an artificial intelligence and mapping the human brain are both difficult endeavours, the former is actually a sub-problem of the latter (Thwaites et al. 2017).

  Read more →
• 

  Daniel Wolfe

  Daniel Wolfe (born 1960) is an American activist, advocate, and writer whose work advances health programs and policy that balance scientific research and community expertise. His career has focused on support for community health movements, particularly among groups often regarded as criminal or socially suspect, including gay men and people who use illicit drugs. == Early life == Wolfe was raised between Arizona—including time on Rancho Linda Vista, a commune outside of Tucson—and East Hampton, NY. He received his undergraduate degree in Near Eastern Studies from Princeton University, and following time studying Arabic in Egypt, worked as the junior ghostwriter on the autobiographies of First Lady of Egypt Jehan Sadat and Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. Upon return to New York, he was an assistant at the Council on Foreign Relations to Richard W. Murphy, former US Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs. Disagreement with US killing of Iraqi civilians during the 1990 Gulf War—and the rising toll of HIV in NY—moved Wolfe to leave Middle East studies and work full-time on AIDS in 1990. == Education == Wolfe was Community Scholar at the Columbia University Mailman School of Public Healthwhere he received his Masters in Public Health in 2004. He holds a Masters of Philosophy (in history) from Columbia University, and a BA in Near Eastern Studies from Princeton University. He was the recipient of a Charles H. Revson Foundation fellowship for urban leaders who have made a substantial contribution to New York City, and a fellow at the Center for Arabic Studies Abroad in Cairo, Egypt. == AIDS and gay activism == Wolfe was part of the media committee for ACT UP’s 1998 action to seize control of the FDA, and helped organize ACT UP NY’s challenge to Governor Cuomo to do better on the AIDS response and other actions.Wolfe also joined ACT UP colleagues Gregg Bordowitz, David Barr, Richard Elovich, Jean Carlomusto and others to work at Gay Men’s Health Crisis (GMHC), the nation’s first AIDS organization, where he served as director of communications and spokesperson on issues including opposition to NY State cuts to the AIDS budget, the disclosure that Olympic Champion Greg Louganis had HIV, reports of the FBI spying on AIDS activists, and GMHC’s move to offer HIV testing and targeted support to those who were HIV-negative. Wolfe also continued cultural work, making art, performance and video as a member of the gay and lesbian collective GANG with artists and ACT UP members including Zoe Leonard, Suzanne Wright, Loring McAlpin, Wellington Love, Adam Rolston and others, and writing a biography of Lawrence of Arabia for a series for young adults on famous gay men and lesbians in history edited by Martin Duberman. Controversy followed, with North Carolina Senator Jesse Helms waving a GANG piece in an issue of the Movement Research Performance Journal on the floor of Congress to show the "rottenness" of publicly funded art, and a number of schools banning the biography series for young adults from their libraries. Wolfe and others challenged the move as continuing the longstanding and homophobic demand that notable gay men and lesbians stay silent about essential details of their private lives even while being celebrated for their professional achievements. == Gay health == The approval of antiretroviral therapy for HIV in 1996 opened up new space for discussions of gay health beyond HIV, and new directions for Wolfe. Working from hundreds of interviews, surveys, workshops, and with a team of writers, Wolfe was the author of Men Like Us, the Our Bodies, Ourselves-inspired GMHC Complete Guide to Gay Men’s Sexual, Physical, and Emotional Well-being, covering issues from spirituality to sexual health to aging. The move to frame gay health beyond condoms and pills—and to offer a guide to health that “did not need to be translated from the original heterosexual”—was part of a larger gay health movement encompassing wellness and pleasure, and focused less on health disparity than on individual and community resilience. Wolfe was a keynote speaker and workshop leader, along with Eric Rofes, Chris Bartlett, and other organizers, at the first National Gay Men’s Health Summit held in Boulder, Colorado in 2002. Awarded a Charles H. Revson Fellowship for urban leaders in the City of New York, Wolfe became a community scholar at Columbia University’s Center of History and Ethics of Public Health, where he received his MPH in 2003, and was a contributor to Searching Eyes: Privacy, the State, and Disease Surveillance in America. == International harm reduction == Wolfe was Director of International Harm Reduction Development at the Open Society Foundations (2005-2021) where he led grantmaking and advocacy to protect the health and rights of people who use drugs in Eastern Europe, Asia, Africa and the Americas. Wolfe challenged approaches that conditioned support on abstinence or that sought to treat people who use illegal drugs like drugs themselves, as something to be controlled or contained. As with the gay health movement, he advocated a focus on community resilience and strengths, and on supporting individuals and communities to negotiate the balance between risk and pleasure of activities integral to life. Noting what he called the “antisocial behavior of health systems,” Wolfe’s analysis elevated issues such as forced labor and harsh punishment delivered in the name of addiction treatment and rehabilitation, the role of criminalization, imprisonment and stigma in interrupting or impeding HIV treatment, and the bias toward coercive approaches in studying and delivering addiction treatments. He also pointed to defects in national and international drug control policies and human rights violations as a root cause of HIV, hepatitis, and other health challenges faced by people who used drugs. Concrete advocacy supported by Open Society’s International Harm Reduction Development program under his direction included rebuffing US government efforts to force the UN to remove all references to harm reduction in its materials, addition of the addiction treatment medicines methadone and buprenorphine to the World Health Organization’s essential medicines list, and WHO endorsement of lay distribution of the opioid overdose antidote naloxone. Wolfe and OSF colleagues also advocated for new approaches to intellectual property and data sharing in research and development of medicines and vaccines to lower price and improve access to medicines globally to those in need. == AI and patient rights == Reports of patients denied opioid prescriptions based on an algorithm purporting to calculate their risk of overdose led Wolfe to work on AI, first as a resident at the Rockefeller Foundation Bellagio Center, and then as Executive Director of a new UCSF UC Berkeley program pioneering efforts to join AI, clinical and public health practice, and equity. In keeping with his earlier (analog) work on HIV, Wolfe has highlighted concerns about health systems using algorithms to gauge the merit of treatments for those regarded as socially suspect, the importance of moving beyond proprietary, black box algorithms toward an architecture of health data as a public good, and the need to maximize benefit for patients and communities, as well health systems, in the use of large language models.

  Read more →
• 

  LightGBM

  LightGBM, short for Light Gradient-Boosting Machine, is a free and open-source distributed gradient-boosting framework for machine learning, originally developed by Microsoft. It is based on decision tree algorithms and used for ranking, classification and other machine learning tasks. The development focus is on performance and scalability. == Overview == The LightGBM framework supports different algorithms including GBT, GBDT, GBRT, GBM, MART and RF. LightGBM has many of XGBoost's advantages, including sparse optimization, parallel training, multiple loss functions, regularization, bagging, and early stopping. A major difference between the two lies in the construction of trees. LightGBM does not grow a tree level-wise — row by row — as most other implementations do. Instead it grows trees leaf-wise. It will choose the leaf with max delta loss to grow. Besides, LightGBM does not use the widely used sorted-based decision tree learning algorithm, which searches the best split point on sorted feature values, as XGBoost or other implementations do. Instead, LightGBM implements a highly optimized histogram-based decision tree learning algorithm, which yields great advantages on both efficiency and memory consumption. The LightGBM algorithm utilizes two novel techniques called Gradient-Based One-Side Sampling (GOSS) and Exclusive Feature Bundling (EFB) which allow the algorithm to run faster while maintaining a high level of accuracy. LightGBM works on Linux, Windows, and macOS and supports C++, Python, R, and C#. The source code is licensed under MIT License and available on GitHub. == Gradient-based one-side sampling == When using gradient descent, one thinks about the space of possible configurations of the model as a valley, in which the lowest part of the valley is the model which most closely fits the data. In this metaphor, one walks in different directions to learn how much lower the valley becomes. Typically, in gradient descent, one uses the whole set of data to calculate the valley's slopes. However, this commonly used method assumes that every data point is equally informative. By contrast, Gradient-Based One-Side Sampling (GOSS), a method first developed for gradient-boosted decision trees, does not rely on the assumption that all data are equally informative. Instead, it treats data points with smaller gradients (shallower slopes) as less informative by randomly dropping them. This is intended to filter out data which may have been influenced by noise, allowing the model to more accurately model the underlying relationships in the data. == Exclusive feature bundling == Exclusive feature bundling (EFB) is a near-lossless method to reduce the number of effective features. In a sparse feature space many features are nearly exclusive, implying they rarely take nonzero values simultaneously. One-hot encoded features are a perfect example of exclusive features. EFB bundles these features, reducing dimensionality to improve efficiency while maintaining a high level of accuracy. The bundle of exclusive features into a single feature is called an exclusive feature bundle.

  Read more →
• 

  Sycophancy (artificial intelligence)

  In the field of artificial intelligence, sycophancy is a tendency of large language models (LLMs) and other AI assistants to tailor their responses to what they predict the user wants to hear rather than to what is accurate or warranted. The behavior takes several forms: an assistant may agree with a user's stated opinion even when the user is mistaken; it may abandon a correct answer after a challenge such as "are you sure?"; it may validate beliefs, decisions or self-presentation regardless of merit; or it may praise the user, their work or their ideas in unwarranted terms. The word is borrowed from the ordinary English term for fawning flattery, and is used in AI alignment and AI safety research to describe a class of misalignment failures associated with training on human feedback. Researchers at Anthropic first documented the behavior systematically in 2022. They found that models fine-tuned with reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) were more likely than untuned models to repeat back a user's preferred answer. A 2023 follow-up paper, "Towards Understanding Sycophancy in Language Models", showed that five frontier assistants from OpenAI, Anthropic and Meta all exhibited the behavior, and traced its origin to biases in the human preference data used during training. Later work documented sycophancy in mathematics, medicine, academic peer review and other domains, and identified a broader category called "social sycophancy" affecting an assistant's emotional and interpersonal responses. The issue drew widespread public attention in April 2025 after OpenAI rolled back an update to its GPT-4o model. Users had reported that the assistant praised dangerous decisions, endorsed delusional thinking and offered exaggerated compliments for trivial prompts. OpenAI's post-mortem attributed the change in behavior to an additional training signal based on user thumbs-up and thumbs-down feedback. That episode, together with reporting in The New York Times, Rolling Stone and elsewhere on users drawn into delusional thinking through prolonged chatbot interaction, has been cited in litigation and in academic studies as evidence that sycophancy poses risks to user well-being. Proposed mitigations include fine-tuning on synthetic data that rewards disagreement with incorrect user statements, editing the small subset of model parameters causally responsible for the behavior, changes to the dialogue or system prompt, and benchmarks designed to surface sycophantic behavior before models are released. == Causes == The dominant explanation points to RLHF, the standard technique for aligning chat assistants with user expectations. Human annotators rank candidate model responses; a reward model is trained to predict those rankings; and the language model is then optimized against the reward model. Because human raters tend to prefer outputs that confirm their existing beliefs or flatter their work, the pipeline systematically rewards responses that agree with the annotator. Perez and colleagues at Anthropic published the first large-scale empirical evidence of the effect in 2022. They reported that RLHF training increased the probability that a model would repeat back a dialog user's preferred answer, and that larger models exhibited the behavior more strongly. Sharma and colleagues, the following year, went further and examined Anthropic's own preference data directly. Both the human raters and the reward models trained on their judgments preferred convincingly written sycophantic responses to truthful ones at a non-negligible rate. Wei and co-authors at Google DeepMind found similar results in the PaLM family, observing that both model scale and instruction tuning increased sycophancy on opinion questions. The behavior is often classified as a form of reward hacking, in which an optimization process exploits a flaw in its reward signal rather than achieving the intended objective. OpenAI's post-mortem of the April 2025 GPT-4o incident identified a more specific mechanism. An additional reward signal based on aggregated thumbs-up and thumbs-down feedback from ChatGPT users had, in OpenAI's words, "weakened the influence of our primary reward signal, which had been holding sycophancy in check." Separately, an Anthropic interpretability paper from 2025 located a linear direction in a model's internal activations corresponding to sycophantic behavior, and showed that such "persona vectors" could be used to flag sycophancy-inducing training data and to steer models away from the trait at inference time. == Measurement == The Anthropic team released SycophancyEval with its 2023 paper, supplying test sets for each of the four canonical behaviors. Two further benchmarks from Stanford followed in 2025. SycEval, applied to mathematical and medical reasoning tasks, reported an overall sycophancy rate of 58 per cent across the GPT-4o, Claude and Gemini models tested. ELEPHANT, aimed at social sycophancy, found that the eleven LLMs evaluated affirmed posts that the Reddit community r/AmITheAsshole had judged inappropriate in 42 per cent of cases, and preserved a user's face 45 percentage points more often than human respondents did. Domain-specific benchmarks have followed. BrokenMath tests robustness to plausible-looking but false mathematical claims drawn from competition problems, and reports that the best evaluated model was sycophantic in 29 per cent of cases. SYCON-Bench measures how many dialogue turns are required before a model abandons a correct position. Visual sycophancy in multimodal models has been examined with MM-SY and PENDULUM. A 2026 study by researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology reported that personalization features, which adapt assistants to individual users over repeated sessions, can intensify social sycophancy. == Notable incidents == === GPT-4o rollback (April 2025) === On 25 April 2025, OpenAI completed the rollout of an update to GPT-4o, the default model used in ChatGPT at the time. Within days, users reported that the assistant had begun praising trivial messages in extravagant terms, endorsing impulsive or dangerous decisions, and reinforcing strong emotional statements without pushback. Widely shared examples included the model congratulating a user who reported stopping prescribed psychiatric medication, and praising a business plan to sell "shit on a stick" as venture-capital ready. OpenAI's chief executive, Sam Altman, wrote on 27 April that recent updates had made the model "too sycophant-y and annoying" and said fixes were in progress. The company began reverting the update on 28 April and completed the rollback for free users by 30 April. Two post-mortems followed: a short note on 29 April and a longer technical follow-up, "Expanding on what we missed with sycophancy", on 2 May. Both attributed the regression to a new training signal based on user thumbs-up and thumbs-down feedback, to inadequate pre-launch evaluation for sycophantic drift, and to the dismissal of qualitative concerns raised by internal testers before release. Reporting in CNN, Fortune and Bloomberg News treated the incident as a turning point in public awareness of the problem. === Chatbot-related psychological harm === From mid-2025 onward, news reports began to link sycophantic chatbot behavior to acute psychological harm. In June 2025, The New York Times technology reporter Kashmir Hill published an investigation centered on Eugene Torres, a Manhattan accountant with no history of mental illness, who developed a sustained delusional episode after a series of conversations with ChatGPT about simulation theory. According to the article, the assistant encouraged Torres to stop taking prescribed medication, to cut off friends and family, and at one point told him that he could fly from a nineteen-story building if he "truly believed". Futurism and Rolling Stone ran parallel investigations documenting other cases in which heavy use of ChatGPT had been associated with delusional thinking, involuntary commitment or, in at least one case, the death of a user with a pre-existing psychiatric diagnosis. A 2026 paper by researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the University of Washington put forward a formal Bayesian model. It showed that even an ideally rational user could be drawn into what the authors call "delusional spiraling" when interacting with a sufficiently sycophantic assistant, and that the effect was not eliminated by suppressing hallucinations or by warning users in advance. The lawsuit Raine v. OpenAI, filed in San Francisco Superior Court in August 2025 by the parents of a sixteen-year-old who had died by suicide, alleges that "heightened sycophancy" was a design feature of ChatGPT that contributed to their son's death; it is the first wrongful-death suit against a large language-model provider. === Wider commentary === Mainstream coverage in outlets including The New York Times, The Washington Pos

  Read more →
• 

  ChipTest

  ChipTest was a 1985 chess playing computer built by Feng-hsiung Hsu, Thomas Anantharaman and Murray Campbell at Carnegie Mellon University. It is the predecessor of Deep Thought which in turn evolved into Deep Blue. == History == ChipTest was based on a special VLSI-technology move generator chip developed by Hsu. ChipTest was controlled by a Sun-3/160 workstation and capable of searching approximately 50,000 moves per second. Hsu and Anantharaman entered ChipTest in the 1986 North American Computer Chess Championship, and it was only partially tested when the tournament began. It lost its first two rounds, but finished with an even score. In August 1987, ChipTest was overhauled and renamed ChipTest-M, M standing for microcode. The new version had eliminated ChipTest's bugs and was ten times faster, searching 500,000 moves per second and running on a Sun-4 workstation. ChipTest-M won the North American Computer Chess Championship in 1987 with a 4–0 sweep. ChipTest was invited to play in the 1987 American Open, but the team did not enter due to an objection by the HiTech team, also from Carnegie Mellon University. HiTech and ChipTest shared some code, and Hitech was already playing in the tournament. The two teams became rivals. Designing and implementing ChipTest revealed many possibilities for improvement, so the designers started on a new machine. Deep Thought 0.01 was created in May 1988 and the version 0.02 in November the same year. This new version had two customized VLSI chess processors and it was able to search 720,000 moves per second. With the "0.02" dropped from its name, Deep Thought won the World Computer Chess Championship with a perfect 5–0 score in 1989.

  Read more →
• 

  Frame (artificial intelligence)

  Frames are an artificial intelligence data structure used to divide knowledge into substructures by representing "stereotyped situations". They were proposed by Marvin Minsky in his 1974 article "A Framework for Representing Knowledge". Frames are the primary data structure used in artificial intelligence frame languages; they are stored as ontologies of sets. Frames are also an extensive part of knowledge representation and reasoning schemes. They were originally derived from semantic networks and are therefore part of structure-based knowledge representations. According to Russell and Norvig's Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach, structural representations assemble "facts about particular object and event types and [arrange] the types into a large taxonomic hierarchy analogous to a biological taxonomy". == Frame structure == The frame contains information on how to use the frame, what to expect next, and what to do when these expectations are not met. Some information in the frame is generally unchanged while other information, stored in "terminals", usually change. Terminals can be considered as variables. Top-level frames carry information, that is always true about the problem in hand, however, terminals do not have to be true. Their value might change with the new information encountered. Different frames may share the same terminals. Each piece of information about a particular frame is held in a slot. The information can contain: Facts or Data Values (called facets) Procedures (also called procedural attachments) IF-NEEDED: deferred evaluation IF-ADDED: updates linked information Default Values For Data For Procedures Other Frames or Subframes == Features and advantages == A frame's terminals are already filled with default values, which is based on how the human mind works. For example, when a person is told "a boy kicks a ball", most people will visualize a particular ball (such as a familiar soccer ball) rather than imagining some abstract ball with no attributes. One particular strength of frame-based knowledge representations is that, unlike semantic networks, they allow for exceptions in particular instances. This gives frames a degree of flexibility that allows representations to reflect real-world phenomena more accurately. Like semantic networks, frames can be queried using spreading activation. Following the rules of inheritance, any value given to a slot that is inherited by subframes will be updated (IF-ADDED) to the corresponding slots in the subframes and any new instances of a particular frame will feature that new value as the default. Because frames are based on structures, it is possible to generate a semantic network given a set of frames even though it lacks explicit arcs. References to Noam Chomsky and his generative grammar of 1950 are generally missing from Minsky's work. The simplified structures of frames allow for easy analogical reasoning, a much prized feature in any intelligent agent. The procedural attachments provided by frames also allow a degree of flexibility that makes for a more realistic representation and gives a natural affordance for programming applications. == Example == Worth noticing here is the easy analogical reasoning (comparison) that can be done between a boy and a monkey just by having similarly named slots. Also notice that Alex, an instance of a boy, inherits default values like "Sex" from the more general parent object Boy, but the boy may also have different instance values in the form of exceptions such as the number of legs. == Frame language == A frame language is a technology used for knowledge representation in artificial intelligence. They are similar to class hierarchies in object-oriented languages although their fundamental design goals are different. Frames are focused on explicit and intuitive representation of knowledge whereas objects focus on encapsulation and information hiding. Frames originated in AI research and objects primarily in software engineering. However, in practice, the techniques and capabilities of frame and object-oriented languages overlap significantly. === Example === A simple example of concepts modeled in a frame language is the Friend of A Friend (FOAF) ontology defined as part of the Semantic Web as a foundation for social networking and calendar systems. The primary frame in this simple example is a Person. Example slots are the person's email, home page, phone, etc. The interests of each person can be represented by additional frames describing the space of business and entertainment domains. The slot knows links each person with other persons. Default values for a person's interests can be inferred by the web of people they are friends of. === Implementations === The earliest frame-based languages were custom developed for specific research projects and were not packaged as tools to be re-used by other researchers. Just as with expert system inference engines, researchers soon realized the benefits of extracting part of the core infrastructure and developing general-purpose frame languages that were not coupled to specific applications. One of the first general-purpose frame languages was KRL. One of the most influential early frame languages was KL-ONE. KL-ONE spawned several subsequent Frame languages. One of the most widely used successors to KL-ONE was the Loom language developed by Robert MacGregor at the Information Sciences Institute. In the 1980s, Artificial Intelligence generated a great deal of interest in the business world fueled by expert systems. This led to the development of many commercial products for the development of knowledge-based systems. These early products were usually developed in Lisp and integrated constructs such as IF-THEN rules for logical reasoning with Frame hierarchies for representing data. One of the most well known of these early Lisp knowledge-base tools was the Knowledge Engineering Environment (KEE) from Intellicorp. KEE provided a full Frame language with multiple inheritance, slots, triggers, default values, and a rule engine that supported backward and forward chaining. As with most early commercial versions of AI software KEE was originally deployed in Lisp on Lisp machine platforms but was eventually ported to PCs and Unix workstations. The research agenda of the Semantic Web spawned a renewed interest in automatic classification and frame languages. An example is the Web Ontology Language (OWL) standard for describing information on the Internet. OWL is a standard to provide a semantic layer on top of the Internet. The goal is that rather than searching the web using keywords as most search engines (e.g. Google) do today, the web can be organized by concepts organized in an ontology, like a directory structure. The name of the OWL language itself provides a good example of the value of a Semantic Web. If one were to search for "OWL" using the Internet today most of the pages retrieved would be on the bird Owl rather than the standard OWL. With a Semantic Web it would be possible to specify the concept "Web Ontology Language" and the user would not need to worry about the various possible acronyms or synonyms as part of the search. Likewise, the user would not need to worry about homonyms crowding the search results with irrelevant data such as information about birds of prey as in this simple example. In addition to OWL, various standards and technologies that are relevant to the Semantic Web and were influenced by Frame languages include OIL and DAML. The Protege Open Source software tool from Stanford University provides an ontology editing capability that is built on OWL and has the full capabilities of a classifier. However it ceased to explicitly support frames as of version 3.5 (which is maintained for those preferring frame orientation), with the current version being 5.6.8 as of 2025. The justification for moving from explicit frames being that OWL DL is more expressive and "industry standard". === Comparison of frames and objects === Frame languages have a significant overlap with object-oriented languages. The terminologies and goals of the two communities were different but as they moved from the academic world and labs to the commercial world developers tended to not care about philosophical issues and focused primarily on specific capabilities, taking the best from either camp regardless of where the idea began. What both paradigms have in common is a desire to reduce the distance between concepts in the real world and their implementation in software. As such both paradigms arrived at the idea of representing the primary software objects in taxonomies starting with very general types and progressing to more specific types. The following table illustrates the correlation between standard terminology from the object-oriented and frame language communities: The primary difference between the two paradigms was in the degree that encapsulation was considered a majo

  Read more →
• 

  Plinian Core

  Plinian Core is a set of vocabulary terms that can be used to describe different aspects of biological species information. Under "biological species Information" all kinds of properties or traits related to taxa—biological and non-biological—are included. Thus, for instance, terms pertaining descriptions, legal aspects, conservation, management, demographics, nomenclature, or related resources are incorporated. == Description == The Plinian Core is aimed to facilitate the exchange of information about the species and upper taxa. What is in scope? Species level catalogs of any kind of biological objects or data. Terminology associated with biological collection data. Striving for compatibility with other biodiversity-related standards. Facilitating the addition of components and attributes of biological data. What is not in scope? Data interchange protocols. Non-biodiversity-related data. Occurrence level data. This standard is named after Pliny the Elder, a very influential figure in the study of the biological species. Plinian Core design requirements includes: ease of use, to be self-contained, able to support data integration from multiple databases, and ability to handle different levels of granularity. Core terms can be grouped in its current version as follows: Metadata Base Elements Record Metadata Nomenclature and Classification Taxonomic description Natural history Invasive species Habitat and Distribution Demography and Threats Uses, Management and Conservation associatedParty, MeasurementOrFact, References, AncillaryData == Background == Plinian Core started as a collaborative project between Instituto Nacional de Biodiversidad and GBIF Spain in 2005. A series of iterations in which elements were defined and implanted in different projects resulted in a "Plinian Core Flat" [deprecated]. As a result, a new development was impulse to overcome them in 2012. New formal requirements, additional input and a will to better support the standard and its documentation, as well as to align it with the processes of TDWG, the world reference body for biodiversity information standards. A new version, Plinian Core v3.x.x was defined. This provides more flexibility to fully represent the information of a species in a variety of scenarios. New elements to deal with aspects such as IPR, related resources, referenced, etc. were introduced, and elements already included were better-defined and documented. Partner for the development of Plinian Core in this new phase incorporated the University of Granada (UG, Spain), the Alexander von Humboldt Institute (IAvH, Colombia), the National Commission for the Knowledge and Use of Biodiversity (Conabio, Mexico) and the University of São Paulo (USP, Brazil). A "Plinian Core Task Group" within TDWG "Interest Group on species Information" was constituted and currently working on its development. == Levels of the standard == Plinian Core is presented in to levels: the abstract model and the application profiles. The abstract model (AM), comprising the abstract model schema(xsd) and the terms' URIs, is the normative part. It is all comprehensive, and allows for different levels of granularity in describing species properties. The AM should be taken as a "menu" from which to choose terms and level of detail needed in any specific project. The subsets of the abstract model intended to be implemented in specific projects are the "application profiles" (APs). Besides containing part of the elements of the AM, APs can impose additional specifications on the included elements, such as controlled vocabularies. Some examples of APs in use follow: Application profile CONABIO Application profile INBIO Application profile GBIF.ES Application profile Banco de Datos de la Naturaleza.Spain Application profile SIB-COLOMBIA == Relation to other standards == Plinian incorporates a number of elements already defined by other standards. The following table summarizes these standards and the elements used in Plinian Core:

  Read more →
• 

  Globetrooper

  Globetrooper is a free travel app known for assisting travelers in finding partners for group trips and world adventures. Globetrooper offers a free social travel platform that helps people find travel partners. == History == Globetrooper was developed and released in 2010 by a couple; Todd Sullivan and Lauren McLeod who are two travel-minded individuals that wanted to make it easier for travelers to plan a journey and see the world. With their backgrounds in business, software & design, and a love for travel, both left the corporate world and launched Globetrooper on Lauren’s birthday 28 March 2010. Globetrooper was first launched as an information portal with a view to making it more social, but after some months, the content quickly grew and changed to the ‘travel partner’ concept.

  Read more →
• 

  Linagora

  Linagora is a French open source software editor, founded in June 2000 by Alexandre Zapolsky and Michel-Marie Maudet. Located in France, as well as in Belgium, Canada, Vietnam, the United States and Tunisia, the company employs around 200 people. In 2023, Linagora created the OpenLLM France community, alongside other French Artificial Intelligence companies and organizations. In 2025, the company launched Lucie, an opensource Large Language Model. == History == Linagora was founded on June 28, 2000. Its name is a contraction of the words "Linux" and "Agora". The company was founded by Alexandre Zapolsky and Michel-Marie Maudet. Soon after, the two entrepreneurs were joined by Alexandre Zapolsky's wife and brother, who took on the roles of commercial director and administrative and financial director of the SME. In 2007, the company was selected by the French National Assembly to provide the software for Linux computers, replacing Microsoft Windows. Linagora then claimed the position of the leading French open source software company by revenue. In 2015, French Prime Minister Manuel Valls allocated €10.7 million from the "Investments for the Future" fund for a research program aimed at developing a new generation of open source software platforms based on Linagora's offerings. In September 2016, Linagora launched the social network "La Cerise" for the newspaper L'Humanité. This app offered a service and tool for readers and citizens mobilizing for causes. It aimed to share engagement through petitions, discussions, agendas, and contacts. In October 2016, the company won two public contracts for supporting open source software in forty-two French ministries and other administrative entities. In May 2019, Linagora organized a fundraising event in the presence of the French Secretary of State for Digital Affairs, Cédric O, to celebrate its 19th anniversary. The funds were intended for: Supporting parents of hospitalized Polynesian children in France. Equipping primary school students with digital devices (tablets or PCs). Establishing a digital academy "OpenHackademy" in French Polynesia to train unemployed youth in digital skills and help them find jobs. In December 2022, Linagora acquired a property known as "Maison Rocher" and later "Maison Chocolat," located on the Île Saint-Germain in Issy-les-Moulineaux. Renamed "Villa Good Tech" by Linagora, this award-winning architectural work by Éric Daniel-Lacombe became the company's new headquarters, aiming to provide a space for associative actors and companies to develop technologies that contribute to a better world. In July 2023, Linagora launched OpenLLM France, a community initially comprising around twenty actors focused on generative AI. The goal was to develop a sovereign and open source large language model. This initiative, led by co-founder and CEO Michel-Marie Maudet, had more than four hundred French members by early 2024. and announced its expansion to the European sphere during Fosdem 2024. In February 2024, the CNRS and Linagora signed a framework agreement to strengthen their research collaboration. In January 2025, Linagora released Lucie, an open source and sovereign AI that faced ridicule due to tests on an unfinished, uncensored version designed for scientific and experimental use. The platform divided opinions between those who saw it as a technological achievement and those who criticized it as "French bashing" compared to American and Chinese AIs. == Acquisitions == The company acquired: In July 2007, the SME AliaSource, based in Ramonville-Saint-Agne and led by its founder, Pierre Baudracco. In 2008, the open source web hosting company Netaktiv, a member of the GIE Gitoyen, announced during the 2008 Solutions Linux trade show. In 2012, the Toulouse-based company EBM Websourcing, the publisher of the open-source software Petals Link, and took over its development. In 2016, the digital agency Neoma Interactive, specializing in UX design and digital communication strategy. == Locations == In 2017, the company's headquarters was located in Issy-les-Moulineaux, with branches in Lyon, Toulouse, Marseille, and internationally in Brussels, San Francisco, Montreal, Vietnam, and Tunisia. In 2005, the company attempted to establish a presence in Nantes. In 2024, the headquarters was moved to Issy-les-Moulineaux. == Activity == === Software === Twake Workplace One of Linagora's flagship products is Twake Workplace, which stands out as a 100% open-source solution compared with those of the GAFAMs. Twake Workplace is available as a complete platform or module by module. It includes : Twake Mail, a powerful modern messaging solution based on the JMAP protocol and the James email server from the Apache Foundation, for which Linagora provides technical management; Twake Chat, an instant communications solution for businesses developed using the Matrix protocol and compatible with the French government's chat solution, Tchap; Twake Drive, an easy-to-use collaborative platform for group work using OnlyOffice. ==== OpenPaaS ==== In 2018, the search engine Qwant announced that its email service Qwantmail would be based on the OpenPaaS product. In 2022, Qwant announced the abandonment of its Qwantmail project due to Linagora's collection of personal email addresses and serious security breaches. The site Next (formerly PC INpact) published an article in January 2020 criticizing the "failures and delays" of the Qwantmail project led by Linagora, which led to the CNIL's intervention regarding Qwant and Linagora. ==== LinTO ==== In 2017, Linagora launched its open source voice assistant project named LinTO. This enterprise voice assistant, described as "GAFAM Free," was presented at CES 2018 in Las Vegas. The LinTO voice framework was developed as part of the eponymous research project funded by Bpifrance (Grands Défis du Numérique instrument). === Services === ==== OSSA (Open Source Software Assurance) ==== One of the company's main activities is OSSA. Through OSSA, Linagora provided support for open source software for 42 ministries and other administrative entities in 2012. == Legal issues == === Dispute with BlueMind === In 2012, a legal dispute arose between BlueMind and Linagora. Linagora accused BlueMind of copyright infringement, unfair competition, and breach of a non-compete clause, leading to several legal actions. Linagora sued BlueMind for copyright infringement and unfair competition in the Bordeaux court, which ruled in Linagora's favor for unfair competition and parasitism but rejected the copyright claim. BlueMind was ordered to pay nearly €170,000 to Linagora. Linagora sued former associates Pierre Baudracco and Pierre Carlier in the Paris Commercial Court for breach of a non-compete clause and violation of a warranty of eviction. The court dismissed Linagora's claims and ordered it to pay €20,000 each to Baudracco and Carlier. Linagora appealed, and the Paris Court of Appeal partially overturned the decision, awarding Linagora €480,000. BlueMind sued Linagora for defamation and public insult in the Toulouse Criminal Court. The court ruled against Linagora, but the decision was overturned by the Court of Cassation in January 2024, and the case was remanded for retrial. === Conviction for wrongful termination and harassment === On June 14, 2017, France 3 reported on a decision by the Versailles Court of Appeal, which ruled that Linagora had wrongfully terminated an employee and subjected them to moral harassment. The court ordered Linagora to pay the employee €22,000 for wrongful termination, €11,000 for notice pay, €6,600 for legal severance pay, €3,200 for conservative suspension, and €3,000 for moral harassment.

  Read more →
• 

  Stochastic Neural Analog Reinforcement Calculator

  The Stochastic Neural Analog Reinforcement Calculator (SNARC) is a neural network machine designed by Marvin Minsky. Prompted by a letter from Minsky, George Armitage Miller gathered the funding (a few thousand dollars) for the project from the Office of Naval Research of the U.S. Department of Defense in the summer of 1951 with the work to be carried out by Minsky, who was then a graduate student in mathematics at Princeton University. At the time, a physics graduate student at Princeton, Dean S. Edmonds, volunteered that he was good with electronics and therefore Minsky brought him onto the project. During undergraduate years, Minsky was inspired by the 1943 Warren McCulloch and Walter Pitts paper on artificial neurons, and decided to build such a machine. The learning was Skinnerian reinforcement learning, and Minsky talked with Skinner extensively during the development of the machine. They tested the machine on a copy of Shannon's maze, and found that it could learn to solve the maze. Unlike Shannon's maze, this machine did not control a physical robot, but simulated rats running in a maze. The simulation is displayed as an "arrangement of lights", and the circuit was reinforced each time the simulated rat reached the goal. The machine surprised its creators. "The rats actually interacted with one another. If one of them found a good path, the others would tend to follow it." The machine itself is a randomly connected network of approximately 40 Hebb synapses. These synapses each have a memory that holds the probability that signal comes in one input and another signal will come out of the output. There is a probability knob that goes from 0 to 1 that shows this probability of the signals propagating. If the probability signal gets through, a capacitor remembers this function and engages an electromagnetic clutch. At this point, the operator will press a button to give a reward to the machine. This activates a motor on a surplus Minneapolis-Honeywell C-1 gyroscopic autopilot from a B-24 bomber. The motor turns a chain that goes to all 40 synapse machines, checking if the clutch is engaged or not. As the capacitor can only "remember" for a certain amount of time, the chain only catches the most recent updates of the probabilities. Each neuron contained 6 vacuum tubes and a motor. The entire machine is "the size of a grand piano" and contained 300 vacuum tubes. The tubes failed regularly, but the machine would still work despite failures. This machine is considered one of the first pioneering attempts at the field of artificial intelligence. Minsky went on to be a founding member of MIT's Project MAC, which split to become the MIT Laboratory for Computer Science and the MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab, and is now the MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. In 1985 Minsky became a founding member of the MIT Media Laboratory. According to Minsky, he loaned the machine to students in Dartmouth, and subsequently lost, except for a single neuron. A photo of Minsky's last neuron can be seen here. The photo shows 6 vacuum tubes, one of which is a Sylvania JAN-CHS-6H6GT/G/VT-90A.

  Read more →
• 

  National Library of Medicine classification

  The National Library of Medicine (NLM) classification system is a library indexing system covering the fields of medicine and preclinical basic sciences. Operated and maintained by the U.S. National Library of Medicine, the NLM classification is patterned after the Library of Congress (LC) Classification system: alphabetical letters denote broad subject categories which are subdivided by numbers. For example, QW 279 would indicate a book on an aspect of microbiology or immunology. The one- or two-letter alphabetical codes in the NLM classification use a limited range of letters: only QS–QZ and W–WZ. This allows the NLM system to co-exist with the larger LC coding scheme as neither of these ranges are used in the LC system. There are, however, three pre-existing codes in the LC system which overlap with the NLM: Human Anatomy (QM), Microbiology (QR), and Medicine (R). To avoid further confusion, these three codes are not used in the NLM. The headings for the individual schedules (letters or letter pairs) are given in brief form (e.g., QW - Microbiology and Immunology; WG - Cardiovascular System) and together they provide an outline of the subjects covered by the NLM classification. Headings are interpreted broadly and include the physiological system, the specialties connected with them, the regions of the body chiefly concerned and subordinate related fields. The NLM system is hierarchical, and within each schedule, division by organ usually has priority. Each main schedule, as well as some sub-sections, begins with a group of form numbers ranging generally from 1–49 which classify materials by publication type, e.g., dictionaries, atlases, laboratory manuals, etc. The main schedules QS-QZ, W-WY, and WZ (excluding the range WZ 220–270) classify works published after 1913; the 19th century schedule is used for works published 1801–1913; and WZ 220-270 is used to provide century groupings for works published before 1801. == Classification categories == === Preclinical Sciences === QS Human Anatomy QT Physiology QU Biochemistry QV Pharmacology QW Microbiology & Immunology QX Parasitology QY Clinical Pathology QZ Pathology === Medicine and Related Subjects === W Health Professions WA Public Health WB Practice of Medicine WC Communicable Diseases WD Disorders of Systemic, Metabolic, or Environmental Origin, etc. WE Musculoskeletal System WF Respiratory System WG Cardiovascular System WH Hemic and Lymphatic Systems WI Digestive System WJ Urogenital System WK Endocrine System WL Nervous System WM Psychiatry WN Radiology. Diagnostic Imaging WO Surgery WP Gynecology WQ Obstetrics WR Dermatology WS Pediatrics WT Geriatrics. Chronic Disease WU Dentistry. Oral Surgery WV Otolaryngology WW Ophthalmology WX Hospitals & Other Health Facilities WY Nursing WZ History of Medicine 19th Century Schedule

  Read more →
• 

  Multi-armed bandit

  In probability theory and machine learning, the multi-armed bandit problem (sometimes called the K- or N-armed bandit problem) is named from imagining a gambler at a row of slot machines (sometimes known as "one-armed bandits"), who has to decide which machines to play, how many times to play each machine and in which order to play them, and whether to continue with the current machine or try a different machine. More generally, it is a problem in which a decision maker iteratively selects one of multiple fixed choices (i.e., arms or actions) when the properties of each choice are only partially known at the time of allocation, and may become better understood as time passes. A fundamental aspect of bandit problems is that choosing an arm does not affect the properties of the arm or other arms. Instances of the multi-armed bandit problem include the task of iteratively allocating a fixed, limited set of resources between competing (alternative) choices in a way that minimizes the regret. A notable alternative setup for the multi-armed bandit problem includes the "best arm identification (BAI)" problem where the goal is instead to identify the best choice by the end of a finite number of rounds. The multi-armed bandit problem is a classic reinforcement learning problem that exemplifies the exploration–exploitation tradeoff dilemma. In contrast to general reinforcement learning, the selected actions in bandit problems do not affect the reward distribution of the arms. The multi-armed bandit problem also falls into the broad category of stochastic scheduling. In the problem, each machine provides a random reward from a probability distribution specific to that machine, that is not known a priori. The objective of the gambler is to maximize the sum of rewards earned through a sequence of lever pulls. The crucial tradeoff the gambler faces at each trial is between "exploitation" of the machine that has the highest expected payoff and "exploration" to get more information about the expected payoffs of the other machines. The trade-off between exploration and exploitation is also faced in machine learning. In practice, multi-armed bandits have been used to model problems such as managing research projects in a large organization, like a science foundation or a pharmaceutical company. In early versions of the problem, the gambler begins with no initial knowledge about the machines. Herbert Robbins in 1952, realizing the importance of the problem, constructed convergent population selection strategies in "some aspects of the sequential design of experiments". A theorem, the Gittins index, first published by John C. Gittins, gives an optimal policy for maximizing the expected discounted reward. == Empirical motivation == The multi-armed bandit problem models an agent that simultaneously attempts to acquire new knowledge (called "exploration") and optimize their decisions based on existing knowledge (called "exploitation"). The agent attempts to balance these competing tasks in order to maximize their total value over the period of time considered. There are many practical applications of the bandit model, for example: clinical trials investigating the effects of different experimental treatments while minimizing patient losses, adaptive routing efforts for minimizing delays in a network, financial portfolio design In these practical examples, the problem requires balancing reward maximization based on the knowledge already acquired with attempting new actions to further increase knowledge. This is known as the exploitation vs. exploration tradeoff in machine learning. The model has also been used to control dynamic allocation of resources to different projects, answering the question of which project to work on, given uncertainty about the difficulty and payoff of each possibility. Originally considered by Allied scientists in World War II, it proved so intractable that, according to Peter Whittle, the problem was proposed to be dropped over Germany so that German scientists could also waste their time on it. The version of the problem now commonly analyzed was formulated by Herbert Robbins in 1952. == The multi-armed bandit model == The multi-armed bandit (short: bandit or MAB) can be seen as a set of real distributions B = { R 1 , … , R K } {\displaystyle B=\{R_{1},\dots ,R_{K}\}} , each distribution being associated with the rewards delivered by one of the K ∈ N + {\displaystyle K\in \mathbb {N} ^{+}} levers. Let μ 1 , … , μ K {\displaystyle \mu _{1},\dots ,\mu _{K}} be the mean values associated with these reward distributions. The gambler iteratively plays one lever per round and observes the associated reward. The objective is to maximize the sum of the collected rewards. The horizon H {\displaystyle H} is the number of rounds that remain to be played. The bandit problem is formally equivalent to a one-state Markov decision process. The regret ρ {\displaystyle \rho } after T {\displaystyle T} rounds is defined as the expected difference between the reward sum associated with an optimal strategy and the sum of the collected rewards: ρ = T μ ∗ − ∑ t = 1 T r ^ t {\displaystyle \rho =T\mu ^{}-\sum _{t=1}^{T}{\widehat {r}}_{t}} , where μ ∗ {\displaystyle \mu ^{}} is the maximal reward mean, μ ∗ = max k { μ k } {\displaystyle \mu ^{}=\max _{k}\{\mu _{k}\}} , and r ^ t {\displaystyle {\widehat {r}}_{t}} is the reward in round t {\displaystyle t} . A zero-regret strategy is a strategy whose average regret per round ρ / T {\displaystyle \rho /T} tends to zero with probability 1 when the number of played rounds tends to infinity. Intuitively, zero-regret strategies are guaranteed to converge to a (not necessarily unique) optimal strategy if enough rounds are played. == Variations == A common formulation is the Binary multi-armed bandit or Bernoulli multi-armed bandit, which issues a reward of one with probability p {\displaystyle p} , and otherwise a reward of zero. Another formulation of the multi-armed bandit has each arm representing an independent Markov machine. Each time a particular arm is played, the state of that machine advances to a new one, chosen according to the Markov state evolution probabilities. There is a reward depending on the current state of the machine. In a generalization called the "restless bandit problem", the states of non-played arms can also evolve over time. There has also been discussion of systems where the number of choices (about which arm to play) increases over time. Computer science researchers have studied multi-armed bandits under worst-case assumptions, obtaining algorithms to minimize regret in both finite and infinite (asymptotic) time horizons for both stochastic and non-stochastic arm payoffs. === Best arm identification === An important variation of the classical regret minimization problem in multi-armed bandits is best arm identification (BAI), also known as pure exploration. This problem is crucial in various applications, including clinical trials, adaptive routing, recommendation systems, and A/B testing. In BAI, the objective is to identify the arm having the highest expected reward. An algorithm in this setting is characterized by a sampling rule, a decision rule, and a stopping rule, described as follows: Sampling rule: ( a t ) t ≥ 1 {\displaystyle (a_{t})_{t\geq 1}} is a sequence of actions at each time step Stopping rule: τ {\displaystyle \tau } is a (random) stopping time which suggests when to stop collecting samples Decision rule: a ^ τ {\displaystyle {\hat {a}}_{\tau }} is a guess on the best arm based on the data collected up to time τ {\displaystyle \tau } There are two predominant settings in BAI: Fixed budget setting: Given a time horizon T ≥ 1 {\displaystyle T\geq 1} , the objective is to identify the arm with the highest expected reward a ⋆ ∈ arg ⁡ max k μ k {\displaystyle a^{\star }\in \arg \max _{k}\mu _{k}} minimizing probability of error δ {\displaystyle \delta } . Fixed confidence setting: Given a confidence level δ ∈ ( 0 , 1 ) {\displaystyle \delta \in (0,1)} , the objective is to identify the arm with the highest expected reward a ⋆ ∈ arg ⁡ max k μ k {\displaystyle a^{\star }\in \arg \max _{k}\mu _{k}} with the least possible amount of trials and with probability of error P ( a ^ τ ≠ a ⋆ ) ≤ δ {\displaystyle \mathbb {P} ({\hat {a}}_{\tau }\neq a^{\star })\leq \delta } . For example using a decision rule, we could use m 1 {\displaystyle m_{1}} where m {\displaystyle m} is the machine no.1 (you can use a different variable respectively) and 1 {\displaystyle 1} is the amount for each time an attempt is made at pulling the lever, where ∫ ∑ m 1 , m 2 , ( . . . ) = M {\displaystyle \int \sum m_{1},m_{2},(...)=M} , identify M {\displaystyle M} as the sum of each attempts m 1 + m 2 {\displaystyle m_{1}+m_{2}} , (...) as needed, and from there you can get a ratio, sum or mean as quantitative probability and sample your formulation for each slots. You can also do ∫ ∑ k ∝ i N − (

  Read more →
• 

  Ramification problem

  In philosophy and artificial intelligence (especially, knowledge based systems), the ramification problem is concerned with the indirect consequences of an action. It might also be posed as how to represent what happens implicitly due to an action or how to control the secondary and tertiary effects of an action. It is strongly connected to, and is opposite the qualification side of, the frame problem. Limit theory helps in operational usage. For instance, in KBE derivation of a populated design (geometrical objects, etc., similar concerns apply in shape theory), equivalence assumptions allow convergence where potentially large, and perhaps even computationally indeterminate, solution sets are handled deftly. Yet, in a chain of computation, downstream events may very well find some types of results from earlier resolutions of ramification as problematic for their own algorithms.

  Read more →
• 

  AlphaGeometry

  AlphaGeometry is an artificial intelligence (AI) program that can solve hard problems in Euclidean geometry. The system comprises a data-driven large language model (LLM) and a rule-based symbolic engine (Deductive Database Arithmetic Reasoning). It was developed by DeepMind, a subsidiary of Google. The program solved 25 geometry problems out of 30 from the International Mathematical Olympiad (IMO) under competition time limits—a performance almost as good as the average human gold medallist. For comparison, the previous AI program, called Wu's method, managed to solve only 10 problems. DeepMind published a paper about AlphaGeometry in the peer-reviewed journal Nature on 17 January 2024. AlphaGeometry was featured in MIT Technology Review on the same day. Traditional geometry programs are symbolic engines that rely exclusively on human-coded rules to generate rigorous proofs, which makes them lack flexibility in unusual situations. AlphaGeometry combines such a symbolic engine with a specialized large language model trained on synthetic data of geometrical proofs. When the symbolic engine doesn't manage to find a formal and rigorous proof on its own, it solicits the large language model, which suggests a geometrical construct to move forward. However, it is unclear how applicable this method is to other domains of mathematics or reasoning, because symbolic engines rely on domain-specific rules and because of the need for synthetic data. == AlphaGeometry 2 == AlphaGeometry 2 is an improved version of AlphaGeometry, published on February 5, 2025. They added more features to the representation language to describe more geometry problems that involve movements of objects, and problems containing linear equations of angles, ratios, and distances. They targeted IMO geometry questions from 2000 to 2024. The expanded representation language allowed them to cover 88% of the questions. It uses Gemini finetuned on a synthetically generated dataset of problems and solutions in the representation language. The model is used for making auxiliary constructions like lines and points, to help the tree search. It is also used for autoformalization, i.e. converting a problem in English to a problem in the representation language.

  Read more →