AI Content Udemy

AI Content Udemy — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  Inverse consistency

  In image registration, inverse consistency measures the consistency of mappings between images produced by a registration algorithm. The inverse consistency error, introduced by Christiansen and Johnson in 2001, quantifies the distance between the composition of the mappings from each image to the other, produced by the registration procedure, and the identity function, and is used as a regularisation constraint in the loss function of many registration algorithms to enforce consistent mappings. Inverse consistency is necessary for good image registration but it is not sufficient, since a mapping can be perfectly consistent but not register the images at all. == Definition == Image registration is the process of establishing a common coordinate system between two images, and given two images I 1 : Ω 1 → R I 2 : Ω 2 → R {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}I_{1}:\Omega _{1}\to \mathbb {R} \\I_{2}:\Omega _{2}\to \mathbb {R} \end{aligned}}} registering a source image I 1 {\displaystyle I_{1}} to a target image I 2 {\displaystyle I_{2}} consists of determining a transformation f 1 : Ω 2 → Ω 1 {\displaystyle f_{1}:\Omega _{2}\to \Omega _{1}} that maps points from the target space to the source space. An ideal registration algorithm should not be sensitive to which image in the pair is used as source or target, and the registration operator should be antisymmetric such that the mappings f 1 : Ω 2 → Ω 1 f 2 : Ω 1 → Ω 2 {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}f_{1}:\Omega _{2}\to \Omega _{1}\\f_{2}:\Omega _{1}\to \Omega _{2}\end{aligned}}} produced when registering I 1 {\displaystyle I_{1}} to I 2 {\displaystyle I_{2}} and I 2 {\displaystyle I_{2}} to I 1 {\displaystyle I_{1}} respectively should be the inverse of each other, i.e. f 2 = f 1 − 1 {\displaystyle f_{2}=f_{1}^{-1}} and f 1 = f 2 − 1 {\displaystyle f_{1}=f_{2}^{-1}} or, equivalently, f 2 ∘ f 1 = id Ω 2 {\displaystyle f_{2}\circ f_{1}=\operatorname {id} _{\Omega _{2}}} and f 1 ∘ f 2 = id Ω 1 {\displaystyle f_{1}\circ f_{2}=\operatorname {id} _{\Omega _{1}}} , where ∘ {\displaystyle \circ } denotes the function composition operator. Real algorithms are not perfect, and when swapping the role of source and target image in a registration problem the so obtained transformations are not the inverse of each other. Inverse consistency can be enforced by adding to the loss function of the registration a symmetric regularisation term that penalises inconsistent transformations ∫ Ω 2 ‖ f 2 ( f 1 ( x ) ) − x ‖ 2 d x + ∫ Ω 1 ‖ f 1 ( f 2 ( x ) ) − x ‖ 2 d x . {\displaystyle \int _{\Omega _{2}}\left\Vert f_{2}(f_{1}(x))-x\right\Vert ^{2}\mathrm {d} x+\int _{\Omega _{1}}\left\Vert f_{1}(f_{2}(x))-x\right\Vert ^{2}\mathrm {d} x.} Inverse consistency can be used as a quality metric to evaluate image registration results. The inverse consistency error ( I C E {\displaystyle ICE} ) measures the distance between the composition of the two transforms and the identity function, and it can be formulated in terms of both average ( I C E a {\displaystyle ICE_{a}} ) or maximum ( I C E m {\displaystyle ICE_{m}} ) over a region of interest Ω {\displaystyle \Omega } of the image: I C E a = 1 ∫ Ω d x ∫ Ω ‖ f 2 ( f 1 ( x ) ) − x ‖ d x I C E m = max x ∈ Ω ‖ f 2 ( f 1 ( x ) ) − x ‖ . {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}ICE_{a}&={\frac {1}{\int _{\Omega }\mathrm {d} x}}\int _{\Omega }\left\Vert f_{2}(f_{1}(x))-x\right\Vert \mathrm {d} x\\ICE_{m}&=\max _{x\in \Omega }\left\Vert f_{2}(f_{1}(x))-x\right\Vert .\end{aligned}}} While inverse consistency is a necessary property of good registration algorithms, inverse consistency error alone is not a sufficient metric to evaluate the quality of image registration results, since a perfectly consistent mapping, with no other constraint, may be not even close to correctly register a pair of images.

  Read more →
• 

  Linde–Buzo–Gray algorithm

  The Linde–Buzo–Gray algorithm (named after its creators Yoseph Linde, Andrés Buzo and Robert M. Gray, who designed it in 1980) is an iterative vector quantization algorithm to improve a small set of vectors (codebook) to represent a larger set of vectors (training set), such that it will be locally optimal. It combines Lloyd's Algorithm with a splitting technique in which larger codebooks are built from smaller codebooks by splitting each code vector in two. The core idea of the algorithm is that by splitting the codebook such that all code vectors from the previous codebook are present, the new codebook must be as good as the previous one or better. == Description == The Linde–Buzo–Gray algorithm may be implemented as follows: algorithm linde-buzo-gray is input: set of training vectors training, codebook to improve old-codebook output: codebook that is twice the size and better or as good as old-codebook new-codebook ← {} for each old-codevector in old-codebook do insert old-codevector into new-codebook insert old-codevector + 𝜖 into new-codebook where 𝜖 is a small vector return lloyd(new-codebook, training) algorithm lloyd is input: codebook to improve, set of training vectors training output: improved codebook do previous-codebook ← codebook clusters ← divide training into |codebook| clusters, where each cluster contains all vectors in training who are best represented by the corresponding vector in codebook for each cluster cluster in clusters do the corresponding code vector in codebook ← the centroid of all training vectors in cluster while difference in error representing training between codebook and previous-codebook > 𝜖 return codebook

  Read more →
• 

  General Data Protection Regulation

  The General Data Protection Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2016/679), abbreviated GDPR, is a European Union regulation on information privacy in the European Union (EU) and the European Economic Area (EEA). The GDPR is an important component of EU privacy law and human rights law, in particular Article 8(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. It also governs the transfer of personal data outside the EU and EEA. The GDPR's goals are to enhance individuals' control and rights over their personal information and to simplify the regulations for international business. It supersedes the Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC and, among other things, simplifies the terminology. The European Parliament and Council of the European Union adopted the GDPR on 14 April 2016, to become effective on 25 May 2018. As an EU regulation (instead of a directive), the GDPR has direct legal effect and does not require transposition into national law. However, it also provides flexibility for individual member states to modify (derogate from) some of its provisions. As an example of the Brussels effect, the regulation became a model for many other laws around the world, including in Brazil, Japan, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, Sri Lanka, and Thailand. After leaving the European Union, the United Kingdom enacted its "UK GDPR", identical to the GDPR. The California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), adopted on 28 June 2018, has many similarities with the GDPR. == Contents == The GDPR 2016 has eleven chapters, concerning general provisions, principles, rights of the data subject, duties of data controllers or processors, transfers of personal data to third-party countries, supervisory authorities, cooperation among member states, remedies, liability or penalties for breach of rights, provisions related to specific processing situations, and miscellaneous final provisions. The GDPR also contains 173 recitals purposed to clarify scope and rationale for the regulatory provisions, as well as its legislative intents – Recital 4, for instance, begins by saying that the processing of personal data should be "designed to serve mankind". === General provisions === The regulation applies if the data controller, or processor, or the data subject (person) is based in the EU. The regulation also applies to organisations based outside the EU if they collect or process personal data of individuals located inside the EU. The regulation does not apply to the processing of data by private persons provided that the purpose has no connection to a professional or commercial activity." (Recital 18). According to the European Commission, "Personal data is information that relates to an identified or identifiable individual. If you cannot directly identify an individual from that information, then you need to consider whether the individual is still identifiable. You should take into account the information you are processing together with all the means reasonably likely to be used by either you or any other person to identify that individual." The precise definitions of terms such as "personal data", "processing", "data subject", "controller", and "processor" are stated in Article 4. The regulation does not purport to apply to the processing of personal data for national security activities or law enforcement of the EU; however, industry groups concerned about facing a potential conflict of laws have questioned whether Article 48 could be invoked to seek to prevent a data controller subject to a third country's laws from complying with a legal order from that country's law enforcement, judicial, or national security authorities to disclose to such authorities the personal data of an EU person, regardless of whether the data resides in or out of the EU. Article 48 states that any judgement of a court or tribunal and any decision of an administrative authority of a third country requiring a controller or processor to transfer or disclose personal data may not be recognised or enforceable in any manner unless based on an international agreement, like a mutual legal assistance treaty in force between the requesting third (non-EU) country and the EU or a member state. The data protection reform package also includes a separate Data Protection Directive for the police and criminal justice sector that provides rules on personal data exchanges at State level, Union level, and international levels. A single set of rules applies to all EU member states. Each member state establishes an independent supervisory authority (SA) to hear and investigate complaints, sanction administrative offences, etc. SAs in each member state co-operate with other SAs, providing mutual assistance and organising joint operations. If a business has multiple establishments in the EU, it must have a single SA as its "lead authority", based on the location of its "main establishment" where the main processing activities take place. The lead authority thus acts as a "one-stop shop" to supervise all the processing activities of that business throughout the EU. A European Data Protection Board (EDPB) co-ordinates the SAs. EDPB thus replaces the Article 29 Data Protection Working Party. There are exceptions for data processed in an employment context or in national security that still might be subject to individual country regulations. === Principles and lawful purposes === Article 5 sets out six principles relating to the lawfulness of processing personal data. The first of these specifies that data must be processed lawfully, fairly and in a transparent manner. Article 6 develops this principle by specifying that personal data may not be processed unless there is at least one legal basis for doing so. The other principles refer to "purpose limitation", "data minimisation", "accuracy", "storage limitation", and "integrity and confidentiality". Article 6 states that the lawful purposes are: (a) If the data subject has given consent to the processing of his or her personal data; (b) To fulfill contractual obligations with a data subject, or for tasks at the request of a data subject who is in the process of entering into a contract; (c) To comply with a data controller's legal obligations; (d) To protect the vital interests of a data subject or another individual; (e) To perform a task in the public interest or in official authority; (f) For the legitimate interests of a data controller or a third party, unless these interests are overridden by interests of the data subject or her or his rights according to the Charter of Fundamental Rights (especially in the case of children). If informed consent is used as the lawful basis for processing, consent must have been explicit for data collected and each purpose data is used for. Consent must be a specific, freely given, plainly worded, and unambiguous affirmation given by the data subject; an online form which has consent options structured as an opt-out selected by default is a violation of the GDPR, as the consent is not unambiguously affirmed by the user. In addition, multiple types of processing may not be "bundled" together into a single affirmation prompt, as this is not specific to each use of data, and the individual permissions are not freely given. (Recital 32). Data subjects must be allowed to withdraw this consent at any time, and the process of doing so must not be harder than it was to opt in. A data controller may not refuse service to users who decline consent to processing that is not strictly necessary in order to use the service. Consent for children, defined in the regulation as being less than 16 years old (although with the option for member states to individually make it as low as 13 years old), must be given by the child's parent or custodian, and verifiable. If consent to processing was already provided under the Data Protection Directive, a data controller does not have to re-obtain consent if the processing is documented and obtained in compliance with the GDPR's requirements (Recital 171). === Rights of the data subject === ==== Transparency and modalities ==== Article 12 requires the data controller to provide information to the "data subject in a concise, transparent, intelligible and easily accessible form, using clear and plain language, in particular for any information addressed specifically to a child." ==== Information and access ==== The right of access (Article 15) is a data subject right. It gives people the right to access their personal data and information about how this personal data is being processed. A data controller must provide, upon request, an overview of the categories of data that are being processed as well as a copy of the actual data; furthermore, the data controller has to inform the data subject on details about the processing, such as the purposes of the processing, with whom the data is shared, and how it acquired the data. A data subject must be able to transfer personal data from one electro

  Read more →
• 

  User modeling

  User modeling is the subdivision of human–computer interaction which describes the process of building up and modifying a conceptual understanding of the user. The main goal of user modeling is customization and adaptation of systems to the user's specific needs. The system needs to "say the 'right' thing at the 'right' time in the 'right' way". To do so it needs an internal representation of the user. Another common purpose is modeling specific kinds of users, including modeling of their skills and declarative knowledge, for use in automatic software-tests. User-models can thus serve as a cheaper alternative to user testing but should not replace user testing. == Background == A user model is the collection and categorization of personal data associated with a specific user. A user model is a (data) structure that is used to capture certain characteristics about an individual user, and a user profile is the actual representation in a given user model. The process of obtaining the user profile is called user modeling. Therefore, it is the basis for any adaptive changes to the system's behavior. Which data is included in the model depends on the purpose of the application. It can include personal information such as users' names and ages, their interests, their skills and knowledge, their goals and plans, their preferences and their dislikes or data about their behavior and their interactions with the system. There are different design patterns for user models, though often a mixture of them is used. Static user models Static user models are the most basic kinds of user models. Once the main data is gathered they are normally not changed again, they are static. Shifts in users' preferences are not registered and no learning algorithms are used to alter the model. Dynamic user models Dynamic user models allow a more up to date representation of users. Changes in their interests, their learning progress or interactions with the system are noticed and influence the user models. The models can thus be updated and take the current needs and goals of the users into account. Stereotype based user models Stereotype based user models are based on demographic statistics. Based on the gathered information users are classified into common stereotypes. The system then adapts to this stereotype. The application therefore can make assumptions about a user even though there might be no data about that specific area, because demographic studies have shown that other users in this stereotype have the same characteristics. Thus, stereotype based user models mainly rely on statistics and do not take into account that personal attributes might not match the stereotype. However, they allow predictions about a user even if there is rather little information about him or her. Highly adaptive user models Highly adaptive user models try to represent one particular user and therefore allow a very high adaptivity of the system. In contrast to stereotype based user models they do not rely on demographic statistics but aim to find a specific solution for each user. Although users can take great benefit from this high adaptivity, this kind of model needs to gather a lot of information first. == Data gathering == Information about users can be gathered in several ways. There are three main methods: Asking for specific facts while (first) interacting with the system Mostly this kind of data gathering is linked with the registration process. While registering users are asked for specific facts, their likes and dislikes and their needs. Often the given answers can be altered afterwards. Learning users' preferences by observing and interpreting their interactions with the system In this case users are not asked directly for their personal data and preferences, but this information is derived from their behavior while interacting with the system. The ways they choose to accomplish a tasks, the combination of things they takes interest in, these observations allow inferences about a specific user. The application dynamically learns from observing these interactions. Different machine learning algorithms may be used to accomplish this task. A hybrid approach which asks for explicit feedback and alters the user model by adaptive learning This approach is a mixture of the ones above. Users have to answer specific questions and give explicit feedback. Furthermore, their interactions with the system are observed and the derived information are used to automatically adjust the user models. Though the first method is a good way to quickly collect main data it lacks the ability to automatically adapt to shifts in users' interests. It depends on the users' readiness to give information and it is unlikely that they are going to edit their answers once the registration process is finished. Therefore, there is a high likelihood that the user models are not up to date. However, this first method allows the users to have full control over the collected data about them. It is their decision which information they are willing to provide. This possibility is missing in the second method. Adaptive changes in a system that learns users' preferences and needs only by interpreting their behavior might appear a bit opaque to the users, because they cannot fully understand and reconstruct why the system behaves the way it does. Moreover, the system is forced to collect a certain amount of data before it is able to predict the users' needs with the required accuracy. Therefore, it takes a certain learning time before a user can benefit from adaptive changes. However, afterwards these automatically adjusted user models allow a quite accurate adaptivity of the system. The hybrid approach tries to combine the advantages of both methods. Through collecting data by directly asking its users it gathers a first stock of information which can be used for adaptive changes. By learning from the users' interactions it can adjust the user models and reach more accuracy. Yet, the designer of the system has to decide, which of these information should have which amount of influence and what to do with learned data that contradicts some of the information given by a user. == System adaptation == Once a system has gathered information about a user it can evaluate that data by preset analytical algorithm and then start to adapt to the user's needs. These adaptations may concern every aspect of the system's behavior and depend on the system's purpose. Information and functions can be presented according to the user's interests, knowledge or goals by displaying only relevant features, hiding information the user does not need, making proposals what to do next and so on. One has to distinguish between adaptive and adaptable systems. In an adaptable system the user can manually change the system's appearance, behavior or functionality by actively selecting the corresponding options. Afterwards the system will stick to these choices. In an adaptive system a dynamic adaption to the user is automatically performed by the system itself, based on the built user model. Thus, an adaptive system needs ways to interpret information about the user in order to make these adaptations. One way to accomplish this task is implementing rule-based filtering. In this case a set of IF... THEN... rules is established that covers the knowledge base of the system. The IF-conditions can check for specific user-information and if they match the THEN-branch is performed which is responsible for the adaptive changes. Another approach is based on collaborative filtering. In this case information about a user is compared to that of other users of the same systems. Thus, if characteristics of the current user match those of another, the system can make assumptions about the current user by presuming that he or she is likely to have similar characteristics in areas where the model of the current user is lacking data. Based on these assumption the system then can perform adaptive changes. == Usages == Adaptive hypermedia: In an adaptive hypermedia system the displayed content and the offered hyperlinks are chosen on basis of users' specific characteristics, taking their goals, interests, knowledge and abilities into account. Thus, an adaptive hypermedia system aims to reduce the "lost in hyperspace" syndrome by presenting only relevant information. Adaptive educational hypermedia: Being a subdivision of adaptive hypermedia the main focus of adaptive educational hypermedia lies on education, displaying content and hyperlinks corresponding to the user's knowledge on the field of study. Intelligent tutoring system: Unlike adaptive educational hypermedia systems intelligent tutoring systems are stand-alone systems. Their aim is to help students in a specific field of study. To do so, they build up a user model where they store information about abilities, knowledge and needs of the user. The system can now adapt to this user by presenting approp

  Read more →
• 

  Ayoba

  Ayoba is an African communication platform developed in South Africa. It is owned by Progressive Tech Holdings in Mauritius and managed by SIMFY Africa. Launched on May 4, 2019, as of April 2024, it has over 35 million active users. == History == Ayoba was first published on Google Play in February 2019. Its first marketing campaign and brand launch took place in Cameroon on May 4, 2019. In June 2019, the platform introduced its first eight channels. In November 2019, the platform reached one million active users, which increased to two million by June 2020. Subsequently, ayoba expanded its services, including the launch of games for Android in February 2020, Momo (Mobile Money) in Cameroon in May 2020, and MicroApps in May 2020. It also launched music and voice and video calling features in 12 territories in August 2020. The first version of ayoba for iOS was released in September 2020. In December of the same year, games and Messaging 2.0 were launched on the platform. In November 2020, it won Best Mobile Application at the African Digital Awards. In 2021, it won OTT Brand of the Year at the Marketing World Awards in Ghana. In December 2022, it received Top Innovative Technology and Telecom Product of the Year at the National Communications Awards in December 2022. In June 2023 ayoba partnered with BoomPlay and as of April 2024, it had 35 million monthly active users. Ayoba has partnered with Jumia Ghana to offer exclusive deals to users. Ayoba users can get a 10% discount on selected Jumia purchases through the app, with no data charges for MTN users. This partnership aims to make online shopping more affordable and accessible by integrating Jumia's offers into the ayoba app. Ayoba supports over 35 million users across Africa and provides services in 22 languages. To access the deals, users can download the ayoba app from the Google Play Store, iOS Store, or the official website. == Platform features == Chat, Call and Share: ayoba enables instant messaging, voice notes, picture sharing, and file sharing with contacts, even if they do not have the app installed. The app supports voice and video calls on both Android and iOS, as well as group chats, help channel and SMS continuity (non ayoba users receive messages as SMS, their responses appear in the ayoba app). Music: ayoba offers a free music player with daily updates on international and African music. Users can find playlists for different genres. Games: ayoba provides a selection of interactive games, including action, adventure, and children's games available on both Android and iOS. Mobile Money Transfers: In certain territories, ayoba supports mobile money transfers using MTN Mobile Money (MoMo) for transactions within the app. MicroApps: ayoba features individual MicroApps within the platform that offer content and services, including streaming channels, podcasts, and specialized apps. The availability of these apps may vary by country. == Operations == ayoba primarily focuses on the following territories: Nigeria, Cameroon, South Africa, Ghana, Côte d'Ivoire, Uganda, Republic of Congo, Benin, Zambia, Tanzania, Kenya, Senegal, Togo, Guinea Bissau, Guinea Conakry, Sudan, South Sudan, and Liberia. The company operates from its offices in Cape Town and Johannesburg, South Africa. David Gillaranz served as the CEO from 2019 to 2021, and Burak Akinci has been the CEO since 2021.

  Read more →
• 

  Jakub Pachocki

  Jakub Pachocki (born 1991) is a Polish computer scientist and former competitive programmer. He is best known as OpenAI's chief scientist and for his role in overseeing development of GPT-4. == Background == Pachocki was born in 1991 in Gdańsk, Poland. In high school, he was a six-time finalist of the Polish Olympiad in Informatics. In 2009, he qualified for the International Olympiad in Informatics, winning a silver medal. Pachocki obtained his undergraduate degree in Computer Science from the University of Warsaw. He represented his university at the International Collegiate Programming Contest with his team winning a gold medal and coming second place overall in 2012. In the same year he was also the champion of the Google Code Jam. From 2011 to 2012, Pachocki worked at Facebook as a software engineering intern. Pachocki attended graduate school at Carnegie Mellon University, where he obtained his PhD under the supervision of Gary Miller. == Career == After graduation, Pachocki did postdoc work at Harvard University and Simons Institute for the Theory of Computing. === OpenAI === In 2017, Pachocki joined OpenAI. In 2021, he became OpenAI's research director where he led the development of GPT-4 and OpenAI Five. In May 2024, he became chief scientist after his mentor Ilya Sutskever left the company. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman has called Pachocki "easily one of the greatest minds of our generation". == Competitive programming achievements == International Olympiad in Informatics: Silver medal (2009) International Collegiate Programming Contest World Finals: Gold medal (second place overall in 2012) Google Code Jam: Champion (2012), Third place (2011) Facebook Hacker Cup: Second place (2013) TopCoder Open Algorithm: Second place (2012) A more comprehensive list of achievements can be found at the Competitive Programming Hall Of Fame website.

  Read more →
• 

  Learning Applied to Ground Vehicles

  The Learning Applied to Ground Vehicles (LAGR) program, which ran from 2004 until 2008, had the goal of accelerating progress in autonomous, perception-based, off-road navigation in robotic unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs). LAGR was funded by DARPA, a research agency of the United States Department of Defense. == History and background == While mobile robots had been in existence since the 1960s, (e.g. Shakey), progress in creating robots that could navigate on their own, outdoors, off-road, on irregular, obstacle-rich terrain had been slow. In fact, no clear metrics were in place to measure progress. A baseline understanding of off-road capabilities began to emerge with the DARPA PerceptOR program in which independent research teams fielded robotic vehicles in unrehearsed Government tests that measured average speed and number of required operator interventions over a fixed course over widely spaced waypoints. These tests exposed the extreme challenges of off-road navigation. While the PerceptOR vehicles were equipped with sensors and algorithms that were state-of-the-art for the beginning of the 21st century, the limited range of their perception technology caused them to become trapped in natural cul-de-sacs. Furthermore, their reliance on pre-scripted behaviors did not allow them to adapt to unexpected circumstances. The overall result was that except for essentially open terrain with minimal obstacles, or along dirt roads, the PerceptOR vehicles were unable navigate without numerous, repeated operator intervention. The LAGR program was designed to build on the methodology started in PerceptOR while seeking to overcome the technical challenges exposed by the PerceptOR tests. == LAGR goals == The principal goal of LAGR was to accelerate progress in off navigation of UGVs. Additional, synergistic goals included (1) establishing benchmarking methodology for measuring progress for autonomous robots operating in unstructured environments, (2) advancing machine vision and thus enabling long-range perception, and (3) increasing the number of institutions and individuals who were able to contribute to forefront UGV research. == Structure and rationale of the LAGR program == The LAGR program was designed to focus on developing new science for robot perception and control rather than on new hardware. Thus, it was decided to create a fleet of identical, relatively simple robots that would be supplied to the LAGR researchers, who were members of competitive teams, freeing them to concentrate on algorithm development. The teams were each given two robots of the standard design. They developed new software on these robots, and then sent the code to a government test team that then tested that code on Government robots at various test courses. These courses were located throughout the US and were not previously known to the teams. In this way, the code from all teams could be tested in essentially identical circumstances. After an initial startup period, the code development/test cycle was repeated about once every month. The standard robot was designed and built by the Carnegie Mellon University National Robotics Engineering Center (CMU NREC). The vehicles’ computers were preloaded with a modular “Baseline” perception and navigation system that was essentially the same system that CMU NREC had created for the PerceptOR program and was considered to represent the state-of-the-art at the inception of LAGR. The modular nature of the Baseline system allowed the researchers to replace parts of the Baseline code with their own modules and still have a complete working system without having to create an entire navigation system from scratch. Thus, for example, they were able to compare the performance of their own obstacle detection module with that of the Baseline code, while holding everything else fixed. The Baseline code also served as a fixed reference – in any environment and at any time in the program, teams’ code could be compared to the Baseline code. This rapid cycle gave the Government team and the performer teams quick feedback and allowed the Government team to design test courses that challenged the performers in specific perception tasks and whose difficulty was likely to challenge, but not overwhelm, the performers’ current capabilities. Teams were not required to submit new code for every test, but usually did. Despite this leeway, some teams found the rapid test cycle distracting to their long term progress and would have preferred a longer interval between tests. === Phase II === To advance to Phase II, each team had to modify the Baseline code so that on the final 3 tests of Phase I of the government tests, robots running the team's code averaged at least 10% faster than a vehicle running the original Baseline code. This rather modest “Go/ No Go” metric was chosen to allow teams to choose risky, but promising approaches that might not be fully developed in the first 18 months of the program. All 8 teams achieved this metric, with some scoring more twice the speed of the Baseline on the later tests which was the objective for Phase II. Note that the Phase I Go / No Go metric was such that teams were not in completion with each other for a limited number of slots on Phase II: any number of teams, from eight to zero could make the grade. This strategy by DARPA was to designed to encourage cooperation and even code sharing among the teams. == The LAGR teams == Eight teams were selected as performers in Phase I, the first 18 months of LAGR. The teams were from Applied Perception (Principal Investigator [PI] Mark Ollis), Georgia Tech (PI Tucker Balch), Jet Propulsion Laboratory (PI Larry Matthies), Net-Scale Technologies (PI Urs Muller), NIST (PI James Albus), Stanford University (PI Sebastian Thrun), SRI International (PI Robert Bolles), and University of Pennsylvania (PI Daniel Lee). The Stanford team resigned at the end of Phase I to focus its efforts on the DARPA Grand Challenge; it was replaced by a team from the University of Colorado, Boulder (PI Greg Grudic). Also in Phase II, the NIST team suspended its participation in the competition and instead concentrated on assembling the best software elements from each team into a single system. Roger Bostelman became PI of that effort. == The LAGR vehicle == The LAGR vehicle, which was about the size of a supermarket shopping cart, was designed to be simple to control. (A companion DARPA program, Learning Locomotion, addressed complex motor control.) It was battery powered and had two independently driven wheelchair motors in the front, and two caster wheels in the rear. When the front wheels were rotated in the same direction the robot was driven either forward or reverse. When these wheels were driven in opposite directions, the robot turned. The ~ $30,000 cost of the LAGR vehicle meant that a fleet could be built and distributed to a number of teams expanding on the field of researchers who had traditionally participated in DARPA robotics programs. The vehicle's top speed of about 3 miles/ hour and relatively modest weight of ~100 kg meant that it posed a much reduced safety hazard compared to vehicles used in previous programs in unmanned ground vehicles and thus further reduced the budget required for each team to manage its robot. Nevertheless, the LAGR vehicles were sophisticated machines. Their sensor suite included 2 pairs of stereo cameras, an accelerometer, a bumper sensor, wheel encoders, and a GPS. The vehicle also had three computers that were user-programmable. == Scientific results == A cornerstone of the program was incorporation of learned behaviors in the robots. In addition, the program used passive optical systems to accomplish long-range scene analysis. The difficulty of testing UGV navigation in unstructured, off-road environments made accurate, objective measurement of progress a challenging task. While no absolute measure of performance had been defined in LAGR, the relative comparison of a team's code to that of the Baseline code on a given course demonstrated whether progress was being made in that environment. By the conclusion of the program, testing showed that many of the performers had attained leaps in performance. In particular, average autonomous speeds were increased by factor of 3 and useful visual perception was extended to ranges as far as 100 meters. While LAGR did succeed in extending the useful range of visual perception, this was primarily done by either pixel or patch-based color or texture analysis. Object recognition was not directly addressed. Even though the LAGR vehicle had a WAAS GPS, its position was never determined down to the width of the vehicle, so it was hard for the systems to re-use obstacle maps of areas the robots had previously traversed since the GPS continually drifted. The drift was especially severe if there was a forest canopy. A few teams developed visual odometry algorithms that essentially eliminated this drift.

  Read more →
• 

  Computational theory of mind

  In philosophy of mind, the computational theory of mind (CTM), also known as computationalism, is a family of views that hold that the human mind is an information processing system and that cognition and consciousness together are a form of computation. It is closely related to functionalism, a broader theory that defines mental states by what they do rather than what they are made of. == History == Warren McCulloch and Walter Pitts (1943) were the first to suggest that neural activity is computational. They argued that neural computations explain cognition. A version of the theory was put forward by Peter Putnam and Robert W. Fuller in 1964. The theory was proposed in its modern form by Hilary Putnam in 1960 and 1961, aided by his then PhD student, philosopher and cognitive scientist Jerry Fodor, who continued the research as a post-doc in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. It was later criticized by Putnam himself, John Searle, and others. == Classical computational theory of mind == The CTM holds that the human mind is a computational system that is realized (i.e., physically implemented) by neural activity in the brain. The theory can be elaborated in many ways and varies largely based on how the term computation is understood. In classical computational theory of mind (CCTM), computation is modeled in terms of Turing machines which manipulate symbols according to a rule, in combination with the internal state of the machine. A Turing machine is an abstract machine with unlimited time and storage. CCTM does not pretend that the mind looks like a Turing machine, but instead uses Turing machines as a formalism. Alan Turing argued that any symbolic algorithm executed by a human brain can in theory be replicated on a Turing machine. The critical aspect of such a computational model is that it allows to abstract away from particular physical details of the machine that is implementing the computation. For example, the appropriate computation could be implemented either by silicon chips or biological neural networks, so long as there is a series of outputs based on manipulations of inputs and internal states, performed according to a rule. Computational theories of mind are often said to require mental representation because 'input' into a computation comes in the form of symbols or representations of other objects. A computer cannot compute an actual object but must interpret and represent the object in some form and then compute the representation. Unlike CTM, the representational theory of mind shifts the focus to the symbols being manipulated. This approach better accounts for systematicity and productivity. In Fodor's view, the mind is a computational system that processes the language of thought. == Variants == Connectionist computationalism models the mind as a neural network. Steven Pinker and Alan Prince distinguish two types of connectionists: eliminative and implementationist. Eliminative connectionists generally reject classical CTMs and the idea of a structured, symbolic mind, whereas implementationists view neural networks and Turing machines as two potentially complementary levels of analysis. It is indeed possible in theory to implement a neural network in a Turing machine, or a Turing machine in a neural network. Building from the tradition of McCulloch and Pitts, the computational theory of cognition (CTC) states that neural computations explain cognition. The computational theory of mind asserts that not only cognition, but also phenomenal consciousness or qualia, are computational. That is to say, CTM entails CTC. While phenomenal consciousness could fulfill some other functional role, computational theory of cognition leaves open the possibility that some aspects of the mind could be non-computational. CTC, therefore, provides an important explanatory framework for understanding neural networks, while avoiding counter-arguments that center around phenomenal consciousness. == "Computer metaphor" == Computational theory of mind is not the same as the computer metaphor, comparing the mind to a modern-day digital computer. While the computer metaphor draws an analogy between the mind as software and the brain as hardware, CTM is the claim that the mind is literally a computational system. "Computational system" is not intended to mean a modern-day electronic computer. == Pancomputationalism == CTM raises a question that remains a subject of debate: what does it take for a physical system (such as a mind, or an artificial computer) to perform computations? A very straightforward account is based on a simple mapping between abstract mathematical computations and physical systems: a system performs computation C if and only if there is a mapping between a sequence of states individuated by C and a sequence of states individuated by a physical description of the system. Putnam (1988) and Searle (1992) argue that this simple mapping account (SMA) trivializes the empirical import of computational descriptions. As Putnam put it, "everything is a Probabilistic Automaton under some Description". Even rocks, walls, and buckets of water—contrary to appearances—are computing systems. Gualtiero Piccinini identifies different versions of pancomputationalism. Searle wrote:the wall behind my back is right now implementing the WordStar program, because there is some pattern of molecule movements that is isomorphic with the formal structure of WordStar. But if the wall is implementing WordStar, if it is a big enough wall it is implementing any program, including any program implemented in the brain.In response to the trivialization criticism, and to restrict SMA, philosophers of mind have offered different accounts of computational systems. These typically include causal account, semantic account, syntactic account, and mechanistic account. Instead of a semantic restriction, the syntactic account imposes a syntactic restriction. The mechanistic account was first introduced by Gualtiero Piccinini in 2007. == Criticism == A range of arguments have been proposed against physicalist conceptions used in computational theories of mind. An early, though indirect, criticism of the computational theory of mind comes from philosopher John Searle. In his thought experiment known as the Chinese room, Searle attempts to refute the claims that artificially intelligent agents can be said to have intentionality and understanding and that these systems, because they can be said to be minds themselves, are sufficient for the study of the human mind. Searle asks us to imagine that there is a man in a room with no way of communicating with anyone or anything outside of the room except for a piece of paper with symbols written on it that is passed under the door. With the paper, the man is to use a series of provided rule books to return paper containing different symbols. Unknown to the man in the room, these symbols are of a Chinese language, and this process generates a conversation that a Chinese speaker outside of the room can actually understand. Searle contends that the man in the room does not understand the Chinese conversation. This was originally written as a repudiation of the idea that computers work like minds. Objections like Searle's might be called insufficiency objections. They claim that computational theories of mind fail because computation is insufficient to account for some capacity of the mind. Arguments from qualia, such as Frank Jackson's knowledge argument, can be understood as objections to computational theories of mind in this way—though they take aim at physicalist conceptions of the mind in general, and not computational theories specifically. Objections have also been put forth that are directly tailored for computational theories of mind. Jerry Fodor himself argues that the mind is still a very long way from having been explained by the computational theory of mind. The main reason for this shortcoming is that most cognition is abductive and global, hence sensitive to all possibly relevant background beliefs to (dis)confirm a belief. This creates, among other problems, the frame problem for the computational theory, because the relevance of a belief is not one of its local, syntactic properties but context-dependent. Putnam himself (see in particular Representation and Reality and the first part of Renewing Philosophy) became a prominent critic of computationalism for a variety of reasons, including ones related to Searle's Chinese room arguments, questions of world-word reference relations, and thoughts about the mind-body problem. Regarding functionalism in particular, Putnam has claimed along lines similar to, but more general than Searle's arguments, that the question of whether the human mind can implement computational states is not relevant to the question of the nature of mind, because "every ordinary open system realizes every abstract finite automaton." Computationalists have responded by aiming to develop criteri

  Read more →
• 

  NHS COVID-19

  NHS COVID-19 was a voluntary contact tracing app for monitoring the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic in England and Wales, in use from 24 September 2020 until 27 April 2023. It was available for Android and iOS smartphones, and could be used by anyone aged 16 or over. Two versions of the app were created. The first was commissioned by NHSX and developed by the Pivotal division of American software company VMware. A pilot deployment began in May 2020, but on 18 June development of the app was abandoned in favour of a second design using the Apple/Google Exposure Notification system. Scotland and Northern Ireland had separate contact tracing apps. A 2023 study estimated that in its first year of use, the app's contact tracing function prevented an estimated 1 million cases, and 9,600 deaths. == Description == The app allowed users to: See the alert level of their local authority area (in Wales) or information about restrictions (in England); to enable this, the user must enter the first half of their postcode "Check in" at places displaying an NHS QR code poster (no longer required by legislation after 26 January 2022, removed from the app the next month) Be notified when they have been in close contact with someone who has tested positive for the virus Be notified when local health protection teams determine that people with the virus had attended a business or other venue around the same time as the user Check their symptoms, and book a coronavirus test if necessary If asked to self-isolate, receive information and a daily "countdown". At first, "close contact" was defined as being within 2 metres for 15 minutes, or within 4 metres for a longer time. These time durations were reduced from 29 October 2020, to as little as three minutes when the other person is at their most infectious, i.e. soon after they begin showing symptoms. === Implementation === The Android app was coded in Kotlin, and the iOS app in Swift. The backend used Java and is deployed to Amazon Web Services using Terraform. The code of the app and back-end is open-source and available on GitHub. == Context == The app was part of the UK's test and trace programme which was chaired by Dido Harding; from 12 May 2020 Tom Riordan, chief executive of Leeds City Council, led the tracing effort. == First phase and cancellation == === Description === In March 2020, NHSX commissioned a contact tracing app to monitor the spread in the United Kingdom of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the 2020 pandemic, developed by the Pivotal division of American software company VMware. The app used a centralised approach, in contrast to the Google / Apple contact tracing project. NHSX consulted ethicists and GCHQ's National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) about the privacy aspects. The app recorded the make and model of the phone and asked the user for their postcode area. It generated a unique installation identification number and also a daily identification number. It then used Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) to record the daily identification number of other users nearby. If a user was unwell, they could tell the app about symptoms which are characteristic of COVID-19, such as a fever and cough. These details were then passed to a central NHS server. This would assess the information and notify other users that have been in contact, giving them appropriate advice such as physical distancing. The NHS would also arrange for a swab test of the unwell user and the outcome would determine further notifications to contacts: if the test confirmed infection with COVID-19, the contacts would be asked to isolate. By June 2020, £11.8 million had been spent on the app; in 2020–21, £35 million was spent on the app. === Deployment === The first public trial of the app began on the Isle of Wight on 5 May 2020 and by 11 May it had been downloaded 55,000 times. When the first national contact tracing schemes were launched – Test, Trace, Protect in Wales on 13 May, then on 28 May NHS Test and Trace in England, and Test and Protect in Scotland – the app was not ready to be included. Replying to a question at the government's daily briefing on 8 June, Hancock was unable to give a date for rollout of the app in England, saying it would be brought in "when it's right to do so". On 17 June, Lord Bethell, junior minister for Innovation at the Department of Health and Social Care, said "we're seeking to get something going before the winter ... it isn't a priority for us at the moment". On 18 June, Health Secretary Matt Hancock announced development would switch to the Apple/Google system after admitting that Apple's restrictions on usage of Bluetooth prevented the app from working effectively. At the same press briefing Dido Harding, leader of the UK's test and trace programme, said "What we've done in really rigorously testing both our own Covid-19 app and the Google-Apple version is demonstrate that none of them are working sufficiently well enough to be actually reliable to determine whether any of us should self-isolate for two weeks [and] that's true across the world". === Concerns === The first, ultimately rejected, version of the app was subject to privacy concerns, the government backtracking on initial statements that the data collected from the app would not be shared outside the NHS. Matthew Gould, CEO of NHSX, the government department responsible for the app, said the data would be accessible to other organisations, but did not disclose which. Data collected would not necessarily be anonymised and would be held in a centralised repository. Over 150 of the UK's security and privacy experts warned the app's data could be used by 'a bad actor (state, private sector, or hacker)' to spy on citizens. Fears were discussed by the House of Commons' Human Rights Select Committee about plans for the app to record user location data. Parliament's Joint Committee on Human Rights said this version of the app should not be released without proper privacy protections. The second version of the app, released nationwide, addressed these concerns by employing a decentralised framework, the Apple/Google Exposure Notification system. Under this system, users remain pseudonymous: a person diagnosed with COVID-19 does not know which people are informed about an encounter, and contacted persons do not receive any information about the person diagnosed with COVID-19. The functionality of the app was also questioned in late April and early May 2020, as the software's use of Bluetooth required the app to be constantly running, meaning users could not use other apps or lock their device if the app was to function properly. The developers of the app were said to have found a way of working around this restriction. === Related contracts === Faculty – a company linked to Cambridge Analytica – provided research and modelling to NHSX in support of the response to the pandemic. Palantir, also linked to Cambridge Analytica, provided their data management platform. These contracts began in February and March respectively. == Second phase == As outlined on cancellation of the first app on 18 June 2020, the Department of Health and Social Care published on 30 July a brief description of the "next phase" app. Users would be able to scan a QR code at venues they visit, and later be notified if they had visited a place which was the source of a number of infections; the app would also assist with identifying symptoms and ordering a test. By using the Exposure Notification system from Apple and Google, personal data would be decentralised. Zuhlke Engineering Ltd, the UK branch of Swiss-based Zühlke Group, used 70 staff to complete the development of the app in 12 weeks. Zuhlke Engineering was awarded "Development Team of the Year" title at UK IT Industry awards in November 2021 for development of NHS COVID-19 application. === Timeline === Testing of the app by NHS volunteer responders, and selected residents of the Isle of Wight and the London Borough of Newham, began around 13 August. The app was made available to the public (aged 16 or over) in England and Wales on 24 September. An updated app released on 29 October, in part from collaboration with the Alan Turing Institute, improved the accuracy of measurements of the distance between the user's phone and other phones. At the same time, the duration threshold for determining exposure was reduced; this was expected to lead to an increase in the number of users told to self-isolate. An update to the app in April 2021, timed to coincide with easing of restrictions on hospitality businesses, was blocked by Apple and Google. It was intended that users who tested positive would be asked to share their history of visited venues, to assist in warning others, but this would have contravened assurances by Apple and Google that location data from devices would not be shared. === Statistics and effectiveness === The app was downloaded six million times on the first day it was generally availa

  Read more →
• 

  ITU-WHO Focus Group on Artificial Intelligence for Health

  The ITU-WHO Focus Group on Artificial Intelligence for Health (AI for Health) was an inter-agency collaboration from 2018 between the World Health Organization and the ITU, which in 2019 created a benchmarking framework to assess the accuracy of AI in health. The organization convened an international network of experts and stakeholders from fields like research, practice, regulation, ethics, public health, etc, that developed guideline documentation and code. The documents have addressed ethics, assessment/evaluation, handling, and regulation of AI for health solutions, covering specific use cases including AI in ophthalmology, histopathology, dentistry, malaria detection, radiology, symptom checker applications, etc. FG-AI4H has established an ad hoc group concerned with digital technologies for health emergencies, including COVID-19. All documentation is public. The idea for the Focus Group came out of the Health Track of the 2018 AI for Good Global Summit. Administratively, FG-AI4H was created by ITU-T Study Group 16. Under ITU-T's framework, participation in Focus Groups is open to anyone from an ITU Member State. The secretariat is provided by the Telecommunication Standardization Bureau (under Director Chaesub Lee). It was first created at the July 2018 meeting with a lifetime of two years, at the July 2020 meeting, this was extended for another two years, where the focus group also submitted its deliverables to its parent body. It was also presented at the NeurIPS 2020 health workshop. In July 2023 "the work was grandfathered in the Global Initiative on AI for Health (GI-AI4H)". == AI for Health Framework == The outline of the benchmarking framework was published in a 2019 commentary in The Lancet. The output of the Focus Group AI for Health were structured in the AI for Health Framework. Depending on their primary domain being health or ICT, the individual components of the AI for Health Framework were ratified by the corresponding United Nations Specialized Agency, as WHO Guidelines and ITU Recommendations respectively. Standards drawn up by FG-AI4H were titled as: AI4H ethics considerations AI4H regulatory [best practices | considerations] AI4H requirements specification AI software life cycle specification Data specification AI training best practices specification AI4H evaluation considerations AI4H scale-up and adoption AI4H applications and platforms Use cases of the ITU-WHO Focus Group on AI for Health

  Read more →
• 

  Pinakes

  The Pinakes (Ancient Greek: Πίνακες 'tables', plural of πίναξ pinax) is a lost bibliographic work composed by Callimachus (310/305–240 BCE) that is popularly considered to be the first library catalog in the West; its contents were based upon the holdings of the Library of Alexandria during Callimachus's tenure there during the third century BCE. == History == The Library of Alexandria had been founded by Ptolemy I Soter about 306 BCE. The first recorded librarian was Zenodotus of Ephesus. During Zenodotus' tenure, Callimachus, who was never the head librarian, compiled many catalogues/lists, each called Pinakes. His most famous one listed authors and their works; thus he became the first known bibliographer and the scholar who organized the library by authors and subjects about 245 BCE. His work was 120 volumes long. Apollonius of Rhodes was the successor to Zenodotus. Eratosthenes of Cyrene succeeded Apollonius in 235 BCE and compiled his tetagmenos epi teis megaleis bibliothekeis, the 'scheme of the great bookshelves'. In 195 BCE Aristophanes of Byzantium, Eratosthenes' successor, was the librarian and updated the Pinakes, although it is also possible that his work was not a supplement of Callimachus' Pinakes themselves, but an independent polemic against, or commentary upon, their contents. == Description == The collection at the Library of Alexandria contained nearly 500,000 papyrus scrolls, which were grouped together by subject matter and stored in bins. Each bin carried a label with painted tablets hung above the stored papyri. Pinakes was named after these tablets and are a set of index lists. The bins gave bibliographical information for every roll. A typical entry started with a title and also provided the author's name, birthplace, father's name, any teachers trained under, and educational background. It contained a brief biography of the author and a list of the author's publications. The entry had the first line of the work, a summary of its contents, the name of the author, and information about the origin of the roll, as well as any doubts about the genuineness of the ascription. Callimachus' system divided works into six genres of poetry and five sections of prose: rhetoric, law, epic, tragedy, comedy, lyric poetry, history, medicine, mathematics, natural science, and miscellanies. Each category was alphabetized by author. Callimachus composed two other works that were referred as pinakes and were probably somewhat similar in format to the Pinakes (of which they "may or may not be subsections"), but were concerned with individual topics. These are listed by the Suda as: A Chronological Pinax and Description of Didaskaloi from the Beginning and Pinax of the Vocabulary and Treatises of Democritus. == Later bibliographic pinakes == The term pinax was used for bibliographic catalogs beyond Callimachus. For example, Ptolemy-el-Garib's catalog of Aristotle's writings comes to us with the title Pinax (catalog) of Aristotle's writings. == Legacy == The Pinakes proved indispensable to librarians for centuries, and they became a model for organizing knowledge throughout the Mediterranean. Their later influence can be traced to medieval times, even to the Arabic counterpart of the tenth century: Ibn al-Nadim's Al-Fihrist ("Index"). Local variations for cataloging and library classification continued through the late 19th century, when Anthony Panizzi and Melvil Dewey paved the way for more shared and standardized approaches.

  Read more →
• 

  Catastrophic interference

  Catastrophic interference, also known as catastrophic forgetting, is the tendency of an artificial neural network to abruptly and drastically forget previously learned information upon learning new information. Neural networks are an important part of the connectionist approach to cognitive science. The issue of catastrophic interference when modeling human memory with connectionist models was originally brought to the attention of the scientific community by research from McCloskey and Cohen (1989), and Ratcliff (1990). It is a radical manifestation of the 'sensitivity-stability' dilemma or the 'stability-plasticity' dilemma. Specifically, these problems refer to the challenge of making an artificial neural network that is sensitive to, but not disrupted by, new information. Lookup tables and connectionist networks lie on the opposite sides of the stability plasticity spectrum. The former remains completely stable in the presence of new information but lacks the ability to generalize, i.e. infer general principles, from new inputs. On the other hand, connectionist networks like the standard backpropagation network can generalize to unseen inputs, but they are sensitive to new information. Backpropagation models can be analogized to human memory insofar as they have a similar ability to generalize, but these networks often exhibit less stability than human memory. Notably, these backpropagation networks are susceptible to catastrophic interference. This is an issue when modelling human memory, because unlike these networks, humans typically do not show catastrophic forgetting. == Discovery == The term catastrophic interference was originally coined by McCloskey and Cohen (1989) but was also brought to the attention of the scientific community by research from Ratcliff (1990). === The Sequential Learning Problem: McCloskey and Cohen (1989) === McCloskey and Cohen (1989) noted the problem of catastrophic interference during two different experiments with backpropagation neural network modelling. Experiment 1: Learning the ones and twos addition facts In their first experiment they trained a standard backpropagation neural network on a single training set consisting of 17 single-digit ones problems (i.e., 1 + 1 through 9 + 1, and 1 + 2 through 1 + 9) until the network could represent and respond properly to all of them. The error between the actual output and the desired output steadily declined across training sessions, which reflected that the network learned to represent the target outputs better across trials. Next, they trained the network on a single training set consisting of 17 single-digit twos problems (i.e., 2 + 1 through 2 + 9, and 1 + 2 through 9 + 2) until the network could represent, respond properly to all of them. They noted that their procedure was similar to how a child would learn their addition facts. Following each learning trial on the twos facts, the network was tested for its knowledge on both the ones and twos addition facts. Like the ones facts, the twos facts were readily learned by the network. However, McCloskey and Cohen noted the network was no longer able to properly answer the ones addition problems even after one learning trial of the twos addition problems. The output pattern produced in response to the ones facts often resembled an output pattern for an incorrect number more closely than the output pattern for a correct number. This is considered to be a drastic amount of error. Furthermore, the problems 2+1 and 1+2, which were included in both training sets, even showed dramatic disruption during the first learning trials of the twos facts. Experiment 2: Replication of Barnes and Underwood (1959) study In their second connectionist model, McCloskey and Cohen attempted to replicate the study on retroactive interference in humans by Barnes and Underwood (1959). They trained the model on A-B and A-C lists and used a context pattern in the input vector (input pattern), to differentiate between the lists. Specifically the network was trained to respond with the right B response when shown the A stimulus and A-B context pattern and to respond with the correct C response when shown the A stimulus and the A-C context pattern. When the model was trained concurrently on the A-B and A-C items then the network readily learned all of the associations correctly. In sequential training the A-B list was trained first, followed by the A-C list. After each presentation of the A-C list, performance was measured for both the A-B and A-C lists. They found that the amount of training on the A-C list in Barnes and Underwood study that lead to 50% correct responses, lead to nearly 0% correct responses by the backpropagation network. Furthermore, they found that the network tended to show responses that looked like the C response pattern when the network was prompted to give the B response pattern. This indicated that the A-C list apparently had overwritten the A-B list. This could be likened to learning the word dog, followed by learning the word stool and then finding that you think of the word stool when presented with the word dog. McCloskey and Cohen tried to reduce interference through a number of manipulations including changing the number of hidden units, changing the value of the learning rate parameter, overtraining on the A-B list, freezing certain connection weights, changing target values 0 and 1 instead 0.1 and 0.9. However, none of these manipulations satisfactorily reduced the catastrophic interference exhibited by the networks. Overall, McCloskey and Cohen (1989) concluded that: at least some interference will occur whenever new learning alters the weights involved in representing old learning the greater the amount of new learning, the greater the disruption in old knowledge interference was catastrophic in the backpropagation networks when learning was sequential but not concurrent === Constraints Imposed by Learning and Forgetting Functions: Ratcliff (1990) === Ratcliff (1990) used multiple sets of backpropagation models applied to standard recognition memory procedures, in which the items were sequentially learned. After inspecting the recognition performance models he found two major problems: Well-learned information was catastrophically forgotten as new information was learned in both small and large backpropagation networks. Even one learning trial with new information resulted in a significant loss of the old information, paralleling the findings of McCloskey and Cohen (1989). Ratcliff also found that the resulting outputs were often a blend of the previous input and the new input. In larger networks, items learned in groups (e.g. AB then CD) were more resistant to forgetting than were items learned singly (e.g. A then B then C...). However, the forgetting for items learned in groups was still large. Adding new hidden units to the network did not reduce interference. Discrimination between the studied items and previously unseen items decreased as the network learned more. This finding contradicts studies on human memory, which indicated that discrimination increases with learning. Ratcliff attempted to alleviate this problem by adding 'response nodes' that would selectively respond to old and new inputs. However, this method did not work as these response nodes would become active for all inputs. A model which used a context pattern also failed to increase discrimination between new and old items. == Proposed solutions == The main cause of catastrophic interference seems to be overlap in the representations at the hidden layer of distributed neural networks. In a distributed representation, each input tends to create changes in the weights of many of the nodes. Catastrophic forgetting occurs because when many of the weights where "knowledge is stored" are changed, it is unlikely for prior knowledge to be kept intact. During sequential learning, the inputs become mixed, with the new inputs being superimposed on top of the old ones. Another way to conceptualize this is by visualizing learning as a movement through a weight space. This weight space can be likened to a spatial representation of all of the possible combinations of weights that the network could possess. When a network first learns to represent a set of patterns, it finds a point in the weight space that allows it to recognize all of those patterns. However, when the network then learns a new set of patterns, it will move to a place in the weight space for which the only concern is the recognition of the new patterns. To recognize both sets of patterns, the network must find a place in the weight space suitable for recognizing both the new and the old patterns. Below are a number of techniques which have empirical support in successfully reducing catastrophic interference in backpropagation neural networks: === Orthogonality === Many of the early techniques in reducing representational overlap involved making either the input vecto

  Read more →
• 

  Alias Eclipse

  Eclipse was a professional 2D image editing program available on Silicon Graphics and Windows workstations. Designed to manipulate high-resolution images like digitized movie frames and photographs for print, it offered color correction tools, image processing effects, rudimentary paint features, and spline-based drawing and masking. == History == Eclipse was originally developed in the late 1980s by Full Color Computing, an early provider of photo retouch and color prepress software for Silicon Graphics workstations. Alias Research (later Alias Systems Corporation), a developer of professional 3D graphics applications for the SGI platform, purchased the rights to Eclipse in fall 1990. Alias developed Eclipse through the early to mid-1990s, releasing version 2.5 in 1995 with improvements to the speed of color correction, effects, and rendering. Xyvision's Contex Prepress division purchased exclusive rights to Eclipse from Alias in 1996, and released version 3.0 the following year. Eclipse was subsequently sold to German developer Form & Vision GmbH, which continued development and ported it to the Windows platform. In 1999, Form & Vision released a demo of Eclipse 3.1.3 on the SGI platform which was limited to 1600 x 1600 pixel images, then ceased development of Eclipse on the SGI platform. Eclipse was thereafter developed exclusively for the Windows platform, culminating with version 3.1.4 in 2001. In the same year the firm went bankrupt. == Features == Eclipse was designed to work with very large images that could not be manipulated in real time on contemporary computer systems due to memory limitations, and thus allowed the user to make modifications to a lower-resolution copy of the original image in "proxy mode." Brush strokes, color corrections, and other edits were saved in proxy mode, then applied to the full-size image in post processing. This method also allowed for batch processing of a high-resolution image sequence using the edits applied to the original proxy image. Other features included color correction and separation, warping, special effects, text, and shape masking. Wavelet image compression created by LuraTech was added to Eclipse 3.1.4

  Read more →
• 

  Knowledge processing for robots

  KnowRob (Knowledge processing for robots) is a system which combines knowledge representation and reasoning methods to acquire and ground knowledge. This system is the backbone of openEASE. both under developing at the Institute for Artificial Intelligence at the University of Bremen, Germany. == The framework == KnowRob can serve as a common sense framework for the integration of knowledge. This knowledge can be static encyclopedic knowledge, common sense knowledge, task descriptions, environment models, object information, observed actions, etc., which can come from different sources, like manually axiomatized, derived from observations, or imported from the web. KnowRob has been used by different research groups, as the Rice University using the ontological knowledge base in a robotic platform. As well by the Eindhoven University of Technology research group competing in the RoboCup league, in the "at Home" category, with the RoboEarth project. As well, KnowRob is mentioned in the work of some research groups from the Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, Middle East Technical University in their combination of different knowledge bases, Keio University as related work because of the ontology service, University of Texas at Austin as related work as well because of the relation with the work presented, Hanyang University as related work as an OWL based knowledge processing framework. == Representations == To represent the knowledge, KnowRob uses the OWL ontology language and an extended first-order logic knowledge representation with computable predicates. To give the order of subactions, KnowRob includes a pair-wise ordering constrain, which gives a partial ordering. KnowRob adopts the closed-world assumption Prolog, and an open-world assumption by the use of computables. To include reasoning rules into Prolog, KnowRob uses an inference procedure beyond the capabilities of OWL to extract information about tasks executions. In its second version, KnowRob provides a logic interface to the hybrid reasoning kernel as a logic based language. This language presents the hybrid reasoning kernel as if everything were entities retrievable by providing partial descriptions for them. This entities descriptions include objects, their parts, and articulation models, environments composed of objects, software components, actions, and events. === Episodic memories === Episodic memory is related to the experience information, which is organized temporally and spatially, alongside combined with context information. In KnowRob, an episodic memory is understood as a recording that the agent makes of the ongoing activity, which includes very detailed information about the actions, motions, their purposes, effects and the behavior they generate, it also includes the images captured during execution, etc. == Usage == The knowledge is computed by external methods using Prolog queries. In the second version of the KnowRob system, is included a better structure of the packages and documentations. Which includes some extensions from the previous version, as well as a logic based language. For example, a cup description from perception can be represented in this language as: entity(Cup,[an, object, [type, cup], [shape, cylinder], [color, orange]]) As well, a controller could represent the same object as: entity(Cup, [an, object, [type, cup], [proper_physical_parts, [an, object, [type, handle], [grasp−pose, G−pose]]]]) The interface language is comparable to other query languages for symbolic knowledge bases. KnowRob's query language integrates reasoning methods, such as the simulation-based reasoning. == Goals == The goal of the KnowRob framework is to make semantic knowledge available for service robots. It is able to answer queries about missing information in vague instructions for tasks. This is possible with the actions hierarchical representation and information about objects which can be included in certain action.

  Read more →
• 

  Freddy II

  Freddy (1969–1971) and Freddy II (1973–1976) were experimental robots built in the Department of Machine Intelligence and Perception (later Department of Artificial Intelligence, now part of the School of Informatics at the University of Edinburgh). == Technology == Technical innovations involving Freddy were at the forefront of the 70s robotics field. Freddy was one of the earliest robots to integrate vision, manipulation and intelligent systems as well as having versatility in the system and ease in retraining and reprogramming for new tasks. The idea of moving the table instead of the arm simplified the construction. Freddy also used a method of recognising the parts visually by using graph matching on the detected features. The system used an innovative collection of high level procedures for programming the arm movements which could be reused for each new task. == Lighthill controversy == In the mid 1970s there was controversy about the utility of pursuing a general purpose robotics programme in both the USA and the UK. A BBC TV programme in 1973, referred to as the "Lighthill Debate", pitched James Lighthill, who had written a critical report for the science and engineering research funding agencies in the UK, against Donald Michie from the University of Edinburgh and John McCarthy from Stanford University. The Edinburgh Freddy II and Stanford/SRI Shakey robots were used to illustrate the state-of-the-art at the time in intelligent robotics systems. == Freddy I and II == Freddy Mark I (1969–1971) was an experimental prototype, with 3 degrees-of-freedom created by a rotating platform driven by a pair of independent wheels. The other main components were a video camera and bump sensors connected to a computer. The computer moved the platform so that the camera could see and then recognise the objects. Freddy II (1973–1976) was a 5 degrees of freedom manipulator with a large vertical 'hand' that could move up and down, rotate about the vertical axis and rotate objects held in its gripper around one horizontal axis. Two remaining translational degrees of freedom were generated by a work surface that moved beneath the gripper. The gripper was a two finger pinch gripper. A video camera was added as well as later a light stripe generator. The Freddy and Freddy II projects were initiated and overseen by Donald Michie. The mechanical hardware and analogue electronics were designed and built by Stephen Salter (who also pioneered renewable energy from waves (see Salter's Duck)), and the digital electronics and computer interfacing were designed by Harry Barrow and Gregan Crawford. The software was developed by a team led by Rod Burstall, Robin Popplestone and Harry Barrow which used the POP-2 programming language, one of the world's first functional programming languages. The computing hardware was an Elliot 4130 computer with 384KB (128K 24-bit words) RAM and a hard disk linked to a small Honeywell H316 computer with 16KB of RAM which directly performed sensing and control. Freddy was a versatile system which could be trained and reprogrammed to perform a new task in a day or two. The tasks included putting rings on pegs and assembling simple model toys consisting of wooden blocks of different shapes, a boat with a mast and a car with axles and wheels. Information about part locations was obtained using the video camera, and then matched to previously stored models of the parts. It was soon realised in the Freddy project that the 'move here, do this, move there' style of robot behavior programming (actuator or joint level programming) is tedious and also did not allow for the robot to cope with variations in part position, part shape and sensor noise. Consequently, the RAPT robot programming language was developed by Pat Ambler and Robin Popplestone, in which robot behavior was specified at the object level. This meant that robot goals were specified in terms of desired position relationships between the robot, objects and the scene, leaving the details of how to achieve the goals to the underlying software system. Although developed in the 1970s RAPT is still considerably more advanced than most commercial robot programming languages. The team of people who contributed to the project were leaders in the field at the time and included Pat Ambler, Harry Barrow, Ilona Bellos, Chris Brown, Rod Burstall, Gregan Crawford, Jim Howe, Donald Michie, Robin Popplestone, Stephen Salter, Austin Tate and Ken Turner. Also of interest in the project was the use of a structured-light 3D scanner to obtain the 3D shape and position of the parts being manipulated. The Freddy II robot is currently on display at the Royal Museum in Edinburgh, Scotland, with a segment of the assembly video shown in a continuous loop.

  Read more →