AI Data Delivery F5

AI Data Delivery F5 — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  Breakup Notifier

  Breakup Notifier was a web application written by product developer and programmer Dan Loewenherz that enabled its registered users to track the relationship status of their Facebook friends. An email notification was sent to the user when one of their Facebook friends changed their relationship status. The app was one of the most viral Facebook app's at the time of its release. It was mentioned in a skit on The Jay Leno Show and news of its popularity was published in Time magazine, The New York Post, CNET, and The Globe and Mail. == Popularity and Facebook controversy == Breakup Notifier gathered 100,000 users in less than 24 hours of its launch and reached a user base of more than 3,000,000 in February 2011. Facebook then blocked the app. Loewenherz later created an app named Crush Notifier, which differs from the original app in that users can check if they have a mutual crush. Breakup Notifier was later unblocked by Facebook and monetized.

  Read more →
• 

  Information gain ratio

  In decision tree learning, information gain ratio is a ratio of information gain to the intrinsic information. It was proposed by Ross Quinlan, to reduce a bias towards multi-valued attributes by taking the number and size of branches into account when choosing an attribute. Information gain is also known as mutual information. == Information gain calculation == Information gain is the reduction in entropy produced from partitioning a set with attributes a {\displaystyle a} and finding the optimal candidate that produces the highest value: IG ( T , a ) = H ( T ) − H ( T | a ) , {\displaystyle {\text{IG}}(T,a)=\mathrm {H} {(T)}-\mathrm {H} {(T|a)},} where T {\displaystyle T} is a random variable and H ( T | a ) {\displaystyle \mathrm {H} {(T|a)}} is the entropy of T {\displaystyle T} given the value of attribute a {\displaystyle a} . The information gain is equal to the total entropy for an attribute if for each of the attribute values a unique classification can be made for the result attribute. In this case the relative entropies subtracted from the total entropy are 0. == Split information calculation == The split information value for a test is defined as follows: SplitInformation ( X ) = − ∑ i = 1 n N ( x i ) N ( x ) ∗ log ⁡ 2 N ( x i ) N ( x ) {\displaystyle {\text{SplitInformation}}(X)=-\sum _{i=1}^{n}{{\frac {\mathrm {N} (x_{i})}{\mathrm {N} (x)}}\log {_{2}}{\frac {\mathrm {N} (x_{i})}{\mathrm {N} (x)}}}} where X {\displaystyle X} is a discrete random variable with possible values x 1 , x 2 , . . . , x i {\displaystyle {x_{1},x_{2},...,x_{i}}} and N ( x i ) {\displaystyle N(x_{i})} being the number of times that x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} occurs divided by the total count of events N ( x ) {\displaystyle N(x)} where x {\displaystyle x} is the set of events. The split information value is a positive number that describes the potential worth of splitting a branch from a node. This in turn is the intrinsic value that the random variable possesses and will be used to remove the bias in the information gain ratio calculation. == Information gain ratio calculation == The information gain ratio is the ratio between the information gain and the split information value: IGR ( T , a ) = IG ( T , a ) / SplitInformation ( T ) {\displaystyle {\text{IGR}}(T,a)={\text{IG}}(T,a)/{\text{SplitInformation}}(T)} IGR ( T , a ) = − ∑ i = 1 n P ( T ) log ⁡ P ( T ) − ( − ∑ i = 1 n P ( T | a ) log ⁡ P ( T | a ) ) − ∑ i = 1 n N ( t i ) N ( t ) ∗ log ⁡ 2 N ( t i ) N ( t ) {\displaystyle {\text{IGR}}(T,a)={\frac {-\sum _{i=1}^{n}{\mathrm {P} (T)\log \mathrm {P} (T)}-(-\sum _{i=1}^{n}{\mathrm {P} (T|a)\log \mathrm {P} (T|a)})}{-\sum _{i=1}^{n}{{\frac {\mathrm {N} (t_{i})}{\mathrm {N} (t)}}\log {_{2}}{\frac {\mathrm {N} (t_{i})}{\mathrm {N} (t)}}}}}} == Example == Using weather data published by Fordham University, the table was created below: Using the table above, one can find the entropy, information gain, split information, and information gain ratio for each variable (outlook, temperature, humidity, and wind). These calculations are shown in the tables below: Using the above tables, one can deduce that Outlook has the highest information gain ratio. Next, one must find the statistics for the sub-groups of the Outlook variable (sunny, overcast, and rainy), for this example one will only build the sunny branch (as shown in the table below): One can find the following statistics for the other variables (temperature, humidity, and wind) to see which have the greatest effect on the sunny element of the outlook variable: Humidity was found to have the highest information gain ratio. One will repeat the same steps as before and find the statistics for the events of the Humidity variable (high and normal): Since the play values are either all "No" or "Yes", the information gain ratio value will be equal to 1. Also, now that one has reached the end of the variable chain with Wind being the last variable left, they can build an entire root to leaf node branch line of a decision tree. Once finished with reaching this leaf node, one would follow the same procedure for the rest of the elements that have yet to be split in the decision tree. This set of data was relatively small, however, if a larger set was used, the advantages of using the information gain ratio as the splitting factor of a decision tree can be seen more. == Advantages == Information gain ratio biases the decision tree against considering attributes with a large number of distinct values. For example, suppose that we are building a decision tree for some data describing a business's customers. Information gain ratio is used to decide which of the attributes are the most relevant. These will be tested near the root of the tree. One of the input attributes might be the customer's telephone number. This attribute has a high information gain, because it uniquely identifies each customer. Due to its high amount of distinct values, this will not be chosen to be tested near the root. == Disadvantages == Although information gain ratio solves the key problem of information gain, it creates another problem. If one is considering an amount of attributes that have a high number of distinct values, these will never be above one that has a lower number of distinct values. == Difference from information gain == Information gain's shortcoming is created by not providing a numerical difference between attributes with high distinct values from those that have less. Example: Suppose that we are building a decision tree for some data describing a business's customers. Information gain is often used to decide which of the attributes are the most relevant, so they can be tested near the root of the tree. One of the input attributes might be the customer's credit card number. This attribute has a high information gain, because it uniquely identifies each customer, but we do not want to include it in the decision tree: deciding how to treat a customer based on their credit card number is unlikely to generalize to customers we haven't seen before. Information gain ratio's strength is that it has a bias towards the attributes with the lower number of distinct values. Below is a table describing the differences of information gain and information gain ratio when put in certain scenarios.

  Read more →
• 

  Radial basis function

  In mathematics a radial basis function (RBF) is a real-valued function φ {\textstyle \varphi } whose value depends only on the distance between the input and some fixed point, either the origin, so that φ ( x ) = φ ^ ( ‖ x ‖ ) {\textstyle \varphi (\mathbf {x} )={\hat {\varphi }}(\left\|\mathbf {x} \right\|)} , or some other fixed point c {\textstyle \mathbf {c} } , called a center, so that φ ( x ) = φ ^ ( ‖ x − c ‖ ) {\textstyle \varphi (\mathbf {x} )={\hat {\varphi }}(\left\|\mathbf {x} -\mathbf {c} \right\|)} . Any function φ {\textstyle \varphi } that satisfies the property φ ( x ) = φ ^ ( ‖ x ‖ ) {\textstyle \varphi (\mathbf {x} )={\hat {\varphi }}(\left\|\mathbf {x} \right\|)} is a radial function. The distance is usually Euclidean distance, although other metrics are sometimes used. They are often used as a collection { φ k } k {\displaystyle \{\varphi _{k}\}_{k}} which forms a basis for some function space of interest, hence the name. Sums of radial basis functions are typically used to approximate given functions. This approximation process can also be interpreted as a simple kind of neural network; this was the context in which they were originally applied to machine learning, in work by David Broomhead and David Lowe in 1988, which stemmed from Michael J. D. Powell's seminal research from 1977. RBFs are also used as a kernel in support vector classification. The technique has proven effective and flexible enough that radial basis functions are now applied in a variety of engineering applications. == Definition == A radial function is a function φ : [ 0 , ∞ ) → R {\textstyle \varphi :[0,\infty )\to \mathbb {R} } . When paired with a norm ‖ ⋅ ‖ : V → [ 0 , ∞ ) {\textstyle \|\cdot \|:V\to [0,\infty )} on a vector space, a function of the form φ c = φ ( ‖ x − c ‖ ) {\textstyle \varphi _{\mathbf {c} }=\varphi (\|\mathbf {x} -\mathbf {c} \|)} is said to be a radial kernel centered at c ∈ V {\textstyle \mathbf {c} \in V} . A radial function and the associated radial kernels are said to be radial basis functions if, for any finite set of nodes { x k } k = 1 n ⊆ V {\displaystyle \{\mathbf {x} _{k}\}_{k=1}^{n}\subseteq V} , all of the following conditions are true: === Examples === Commonly used types of radial basis functions include (writing r = ‖ x − x i ‖ {\textstyle r=\left\|\mathbf {x} -\mathbf {x} _{i}\right\|} and using ε {\textstyle \varepsilon } to indicate a shape parameter that can be used to scale the input of the radial kernel): == Approximation == Radial basis functions are typically used to build up function approximations of the form where the approximating function y ( x ) {\textstyle y(\mathbf {x} )} is represented as a sum of N {\displaystyle N} radial basis functions, each associated with a different center x i {\textstyle \mathbf {x} _{i}} , and weighted by an appropriate coefficient w i . {\textstyle w_{i}.} The weights w i {\textstyle w_{i}} can be estimated using the matrix methods of linear least squares, because the approximating function is linear in the weights w i {\textstyle w_{i}} . Approximation schemes of this kind have been particularly used in time series prediction and control of nonlinear systems exhibiting sufficiently simple chaotic behaviour and 3D reconstruction in computer graphics (for example, hierarchical RBF and Pose Space Deformation). == RBF Network == The sum can also be interpreted as a rather simple single-layer type of artificial neural network called a radial basis function network, with the radial basis functions taking on the role of the activation functions of the network. It can be shown that any continuous function on a compact interval can in principle be interpolated with arbitrary accuracy by a sum of this form, if a sufficiently large number N {\textstyle N} of radial basis functions is used. The approximant y ( x ) {\textstyle y(\mathbf {x} )} is differentiable with respect to the weights w i {\textstyle w_{i}} . The weights could thus be learned using any of the standard iterative methods for neural networks. Using radial basis functions in this manner yields a reasonable interpolation approach provided that the fitting set has been chosen such that it covers the entire range systematically (equidistant data points are ideal). However, without a polynomial term that is orthogonal to the radial basis functions, estimates outside the fitting set tend to perform poorly. == RBFs for PDEs == Radial basis functions are used to approximate functions and so can be used to discretize and numerically solve Partial Differential Equations (PDEs). This was first done in 1990 by E. J. Kansa who developed the first RBF based numerical method. It is called the Kansa method and was used to solve the elliptic Poisson equation and the linear advection-diffusion equation. The function values at points x {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} } in the domain are approximated by the linear combination of RBFs: The derivatives are approximated as such: where N {\displaystyle N} are the number of points in the discretized domain, d {\displaystyle d} the dimension of the domain and λ {\displaystyle \lambda } the scalar coefficients that are unchanged by the differential operator. Different numerical methods based on Radial Basis Functions were developed thereafter. Some methods are the RBF-FD method, the RBF-QR method and the RBF-PUM method.

  Read more →
• 

  Stress majorization

  Stress majorization is an optimization strategy used in multidimensional scaling (MDS) where, for a set of n {\displaystyle n} m {\displaystyle m} -dimensional data items, a configuration X {\displaystyle X} of n {\displaystyle n} points in r {\displaystyle r} ( ≪ m ) {\displaystyle (\ll m)} -dimensional space is sought that minimizes the so-called stress function σ ( X ) {\displaystyle \sigma (X)} . Usually r {\displaystyle r} is 2 {\displaystyle 2} or 3 {\displaystyle 3} , i.e. the ( n × r ) {\displaystyle (n\times r)} matrix X {\displaystyle X} lists points in 2 − {\displaystyle 2-} or 3 − {\displaystyle 3-} dimensional Euclidean space so that the result may be visualised (i.e. an MDS plot). The function σ {\displaystyle \sigma } is a cost or loss function that measures the squared differences between ideal ( m {\displaystyle m} -dimensional) distances and actual distances in r-dimensional space. It is defined as: σ ( X ) = ∑ i < j ≤ n w i j ( d i j ( X ) − δ i j ) 2 {\displaystyle \sigma (X)=\sum _{i 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 →
• 

  Spiking neural network

  Spiking neural networks (SNNs) are artificial neural networks (ANN) that mimic natural neural networks. These models leverage timing of discrete spikes as the main information carrier. In addition to neuronal and synaptic state, SNNs incorporate the concept of time into their operating model. The idea is that neurons in the SNN do not transmit information at each propagation cycle (as it happens with typical multi-layer perceptron networks), but rather transmit information only when a membrane potential—an intrinsic quality of the neuron related to its membrane electrical charge—reaches a specific value, called the threshold. When the membrane potential reaches the threshold, the neuron fires, and generates a signal that travels to other neurons which, in turn, increase or decrease their potentials in response to this signal. A neuron model that fires at the moment of threshold crossing is also called a spiking neuron model. While spike rates can be considered the analogue of the variable output of a traditional ANN, neurobiology research indicated that high speed processing cannot be performed solely through a rate-based scheme. For example humans can perform an image recognition task requiring no more than 10ms of processing time per neuron through the successive layers (going from the retina to the temporal lobe). This time window is too short for rate-based encoding. The precise spike timings in a small set of spiking neurons also has a higher information coding capacity compared with a rate-based approach. The most prominent spiking neuron model is the leaky integrate-and-fire model. In that model, the momentary activation level (modeled as a differential equation) is normally considered to be the neuron's state, with incoming spikes pushing this value higher or lower, until the state eventually either decays or—if the firing threshold is reached—the neuron fires. After firing, the state variable is reset to a lower value. Various decoding methods exist for interpreting the outgoing spike train as a real-value number, relying on either the frequency of spikes (rate-code), the time-to-first-spike after stimulation, or the interval between spikes. == History == Many multi-layer artificial neural networks are fully connected, receiving input from every neuron in the previous layer and signalling every neuron in the subsequent layer. Although these networks have achieved breakthroughs, they do not match biological networks and do not mimic neurons. The biology-inspired Hodgkin–Huxley model of a spiking neuron was proposed in 1952. This model described how action potentials are initiated and propagated. Communication between neurons, which requires the exchange of chemical neurotransmitters in the synaptic gap, is described in models such as the integrate-and-fire model, FitzHugh–Nagumo model (1961–1962), and Hindmarsh–Rose model (1984). The leaky integrate-and-fire model (or a derivative) is commonly used as it is easier to compute than Hodgkin–Huxley. While the notion of an artificial spiking neural network became popular only in the twenty-first century, studies between 1980 and 1995 supported the concept. The first models of this type of ANN appeared to simulate non-algorithmic intelligent information processing systems. However, the notion of the spiking neural network as a mathematical model was first worked on in the early 1970s. As of 2019 SNNs lagged behind ANNs in accuracy, but the gap is decreasing, and has vanished on some tasks. == Underpinnings == Information in the brain is represented as action potentials (neuron spikes), which may group into spike trains or coordinated waves. A fundamental question of neuroscience is to determine whether neurons communicate by a rate or temporal code. Temporal coding implies that a single spiking neuron can replace hundreds of hidden units on a conventional neural net. SNNs define a neuron's current state as its potential (possibly modeled as a differential equation). An input pulse causes the potential to rise and then gradually decline. Encoding schemes can interpret these pulse sequences as a number, considering pulse frequency and pulse interval. Using the precise time of pulse occurrence, a neural network can consider more information and offer better computing properties. SNNs compute in the continuous domain. Such neurons test for activation only when their potentials reach a certain value. When a neuron is activated, it produces a signal that is passed to connected neurons, accordingly raising or lowering their potentials. The SNN approach produces a continuous output instead of the binary output of traditional ANNs. Pulse trains are not easily interpretable, hence the need for encoding schemes. However, a pulse train representation may be more suited for processing spatiotemporal data (or real-world sensory data classification). SNNs connect neurons only to nearby neurons so that they process input blocks separately (similar to CNN using filters). They consider time by encoding information as pulse trains so as not to lose information. This avoids the complexity of a recurrent neural network (RNN). Impulse neurons are more powerful computational units than traditional artificial neurons. SNNs are theoretically more powerful than so called "second-generation networks" defined as ANNs "based on computational units that apply activation function with a continuous set of possible output values to a weighted sum (or polynomial) of the inputs"; however, SNN training issues and hardware requirements limit their use. Although unsupervised biologically inspired learning methods are available such as Hebbian learning and STDP, no effective supervised training method is suitable for SNNs that can provide better performance than second-generation networks. Spike-based activation of SNNs is not differentiable, thus gradient descent-based backpropagation (BP) is not available. SNNs have much larger computational costs for simulating realistic neural models than traditional ANNs. Pulse-coupled neural networks (PCNN) are often confused with SNNs. A PCNN can be seen as a kind of SNN. Researchers are actively working on various topics. The first concerns differentiability. The expressions for both the forward- and backward-learning methods contain the derivative of the neural activation function which is not differentiable because a neuron's output is either 1 when it spikes, and 0 otherwise. This all-or-nothing behavior disrupts gradients and makes these neurons unsuitable for gradient-based optimization. Approaches to resolving it include: resorting to entirely biologically inspired local learning rules for the hidden units translating conventionally trained "rate-based" NNs to SNNs smoothing the network model to be continuously differentiable defining an SG (Surrogate Gradient) as a continuous relaxation of the real gradients The second concerns the optimization algorithm. Standard BP can be expensive in terms of computation, memory, and communication and may be poorly suited to the hardware that implements it (e.g., a computer, brain, or neuromorphic device). Incorporating additional neuron dynamics such as Spike Frequency Adaptation (SFA) is a notable advance, enhancing efficiency and computational power. These neurons sit between biological complexity and computational complexity. Originating from biological insights, SFA offers significant computational benefits by reducing power usage, especially in cases of repetitive or intense stimuli. This adaptation improves signal/noise clarity and introduces an elementary short-term memory at the neuron level, which in turn, improves accuracy and efficiency. This was mostly achieved using compartmental neuron models. The simpler versions are of neuron models with adaptive thresholds, are an indirect way of achieving SFA. It equips SNNs with improved learning capabilities, even with constrained synaptic plasticity, and elevates computational efficiency. This feature lessens the demand on network layers by decreasing the need for spike processing, thus lowering computational load and memory access time—essential aspects of neural computation. Moreover, SNNs utilizing neurons capable of SFA achieve levels of accuracy that rival those of conventional ANNs, while also requiring fewer neurons for comparable tasks. This efficiency streamlines the computational workflow and conserves space and energy, while maintaining technical integrity. High-performance deep spiking neural networks can operate with 0.3 spikes per neuron. == Applications == SNNs can in principle be applied to the same applications as traditional ANNs. In addition, SNNs can model the central nervous system of biological organisms, such as an insect seeking food without prior knowledge of the environment. Due to their relative realism, they can be used to study biological neural circuits. Starting with a hypothesis about the topology of a biological neuronal circuit and its functi

  Read more →
• 

  Artificial development

  Artificial development, also known as artificial embryogeny or machine intelligence or computational development, is an area of computer science and engineering concerned with computational models motivated by genotype–phenotype mappings in biological systems. Artificial development is often considered a sub-field of evolutionary computation, although the principles of artificial development have also been used within stand-alone computational models. Within evolutionary computation, the need for artificial development techniques was motivated by the perceived lack of scalability and evolvability of direct solution encodings (Tufte, 2008). Artificial development entails indirect solution encoding. Rather than describing a solution directly, an indirect encoding describes (either explicitly or implicitly) the process by which a solution is constructed. Often, but not always, these indirect encodings are based upon biological principles of development such as morphogen gradients, cell division and cellular differentiation (e.g. Doursat 2008), gene regulatory networks (e.g. Guo et al., 2009), degeneracy (Whitacre et al., 2010), grammatical evolution (de Salabert et al., 2006), or analogous computational processes such as re-writing, iteration, and time. The influences of interaction with the environment, spatiality and physical constraints on differentiated multi-cellular development have been investigated more recently (e.g. Knabe et al. 2008). Artificial development approaches have been applied to a number of computational and design problems, including electronic circuit design (Miller and Banzhaf 2003), robotic controllers (e.g. Taylor 2004), and the design of physical structures (e.g. Hornby 2004).

  Read more →
• 

  Aleph (ILP)

  Aleph (A Learning Engine for Proposing Hypotheses) is an inductive logic programming system introduced by Ashwin Srinivasan in 2001. As of 2022 it is still one of the most widely used inductive logic programming systems. It is based on the earlier system Progol. == Learning task == The input to Aleph is background knowledge, specified as a logic program, a language bias in the form of mode declarations, as well as positive and negative examples specified as ground facts. As output it returns a logic program which, together with the background knowledge, entails all of the positive examples and none of the negative examples. == Basic algorithm == Starting with an empty hypothesis, Aleph proceeds as follows: It chooses a positive example to generalise; if none are left, it aborts and outputs the current hypothesis. Then it constructs the bottom clause, that is, the most specific clause that is allowed by the mode declarations and covers the example. It then searches for a generalisation of the bottom clause that scores better on the chosen metric. It then adds the new clause to the hypothesis program and removes all examples that are covered by the new clause. == Search algorithm == Aleph searches for clauses in a top-down manner, using the bottom clause constructed in the preceding step to bound the search from below. It searches the refinement graph in a breadth-first manner, with tunable parameters to bound the maximal clause size and proof depth. It scores each clause using one of 13 different evaluation metrics, as chosen in advance by the user.

  Read more →
• 

  FloodAlerts

  FloodAlerts is a software application, developed by software specialists Shoothill, which takes real-time flooding information, and displays the data on an interactive Bing map, updating and warning its users when they, their premises or the routes they need to travel could be at risk of flooding. == History == FloodAlerts was launched in 2012, originally as the world's first Facebook flood warning app. == Operation == FloodAlerts is made available free of charge to individuals. Users are able to set up their own monitored locations and receive alerts via the application or their Facebook wall if the locations they are monitoring are at imminent risk of flooding. Hosted in the Cloud, using the Microsoft Windows Azure platform, the FloodAlerts application processes the data received from the Environment Agency, automatically creates the required map tiles, pins and alerts and displays them on an interactive Bing map, updating the content every 15 minutes. Users are able to see the latest information on the map without having to refresh their browser. FloodAlerts can also be provided as a customised risk management solution to businesses that require infrastructure or asset safety monitoring in areas where water levels are rising or receding. == Awards and recognition == FloodAlerts has received The Guardian and Virgin Media Business's 2012 Innovation Nation Awards and was shortlisted as a finalist for a further two national awards: the UK IT Industry Awards for Innovation and Entrepreneurship and The Institution of Engineering and Technology Innovation Awards for Information Technology. == In the press == The FloodAlerts application was reviewed on the BBC website. It was also reviewed on BBC Click.

  Read more →
• 

  NSynth

  NSynth (a portmanteau of "Neural Synthesis") is a WaveNet-based autoencoder for synthesizing audio, outlined in a paper in April 2017. == Overview == The model generates sounds through a neural network based synthesis, employing a WaveNet-style autoencoder to learn its own temporal embeddings from four different sounds. Google then released an open source hardware interface for the algorithm called NSynth Super, used by notable musicians such as Grimes and YACHT to generate experimental music using artificial intelligence. The research and development of the algorithm was part of a collaboration between Google Brain, Magenta and DeepMind. == Technology == === Dataset === The NSynth dataset is composed of 305,979 one-shot instrumental notes featuring a unique pitch, timbre, and envelope, sampled from 1,006 instruments from commercial sample libraries. For each instrument the dataset contains four-second 16 kHz audio snippets by ranging over every pitch of a standard MIDI piano, as well as five different velocities. The dataset is made available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license. === Machine learning model === A spectral autoencoder model and a WaveNet autoencoder model are publicly available on GitHub. The baseline model uses a spectrogram with fft_size 1024 and hop_size 256, MSE loss on the magnitudes, and the Griffin-Lim algorithm for reconstruction. The WaveNet model trains on mu-law encoded waveform chunks of size 6144. It learns embeddings with 16 dimensions that are downsampled by 512 in time. == NSynth Super == In 2018 Google released a hardware interface for the NSynth algorithm, called NSynth Super, designed to provide an accessible physical interface to the algorithm for musicians to use in their artistic production. Design files, source code and internal components are released under an open source Apache License 2.0, enabling hobbyists and musicians to freely build and use the instrument. At the core of the NSynth Super there is a Raspberry Pi, extended with a custom printed circuit board to accommodate the interface elements. == Influence == Despite not being publicly available as a commercial product, NSynth Super has been used by notable artists, including Grimes and YACHT. Grimes reported using the instrument in her 2020 studio album Miss Anthropocene. YACHT announced an extensive use of NSynth Super in their album Chain Tripping. Claire L. Evans compared the potential influence of the instrument to the Roland TR-808. The NSynth Super design was honored with a D&AD Yellow Pencil award in 2018.

  Read more →
• 

  IDistance

  In pattern recognition, iDistance is an indexing and query processing technique for k-nearest neighbor queries on point data in multi-dimensional metric spaces. The kNN query is one of the hardest problems on multi-dimensional data, especially when the dimensionality of the data is high. iDistance is designed to process kNN queries in high-dimensional spaces efficiently and performs extremely well for skewed data distributions, which usually occur in real-life data sets. iDistance employs a two-phase search strategy involving an initial filtering of candidate regions and a subsequent refinement of results, an approach aligned with the Filter and Refine Principle (FRP). This means that the index first prunes the search space to eliminate unlikely candidates, then verifies the true nearest neighbors in a refinement step, following the general FRP paradigm used in database search algorithms. The iDistance index can also be augmented with machine learning models to learn data distributions for improved searching and storage of multi-dimensional data. == Indexing == Building the iDistance index has two steps: A number of reference points in the data space are chosen. There are various ways of choosing reference points. Using cluster centers as reference points is the most efficient way. The data points are partitioned into Voronoi cells based on well-chosen reference points. The distance between a data point and its closest reference point is calculated. This distance plus a scaling value is called the point's iDistance. By this means, points in a multi-dimensional space are mapped to one-dimensional values, and then a B+-tree can be adopted to index the points using the iDistance as the key. The figure on the right shows an example where three reference points (O1, O2, O3) are chosen. The data points are then mapped to a one-dimensional space and indexed in a B+-tree. Various extensions have been proposed to make the selection of reference points for effective query performance, including employing machine learning to learn the identification of reference points. == Query processing == To process a kNN query, the query is mapped to a number of one-dimensional range queries, which can be processed efficiently on a B+-tree. In the above figure, the query Q is mapped to a value in the B+-tree while the kNN search ``sphere" is mapped to a range in the B+-tree. The search sphere expands gradually until the k NNs are found. This corresponds to gradually expanding range searches in the B+-tree. The iDistance technique can be viewed as a way of accelerating the sequential scan. Instead of scanning records from the beginning to the end of the data file, the iDistance starts the scan from spots where the nearest neighbors can be obtained early with a very high probability. == Applications == The iDistance has been used in many applications including Image retrieval Video indexing Similarity search in P2P systems Mobile computing Recommender system == Historical background == The iDistance was first proposed by Cui Yu, Beng Chin Ooi, Kian-Lee Tan and H. V. Jagadish in 2001. Later, together with Rui Zhang, they improved the technique and performed a more comprehensive study on it in 2005.

  Read more →
• 

  LogitBoost

  In machine learning and computational learning theory, LogitBoost is a boosting algorithm formulated by Jerome Friedman, Trevor Hastie, and Robert Tibshirani. The original paper casts the AdaBoost algorithm into a statistical framework. Specifically, if one considers AdaBoost as a generalized additive model and then applies the cost function of logistic regression, one can derive the LogitBoost algorithm. == Minimizing the LogitBoost cost function == LogitBoost can be seen as a convex optimization. Specifically, given that we seek an additive model of the form f = ∑ t α t h t {\displaystyle f=\sum _{t}\alpha _{t}h_{t}} the LogitBoost algorithm minimizes the logistic loss: ∑ i log ⁡ ( 1 + e − y i f ( x i ) ) {\displaystyle \sum _{i}\log \left(1+e^{-y_{i}f(x_{i})}\right)}

  Read more →
• 

  Reference Software International

  Reference Software International, Inc. (RSI), was an American software developer active from 1985 to 1993 and based in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and San Francisco, California. The company released several productivity and reference software packages, including the Grammatik grammar checker, for MS-DOS. The company was acquired by WordPerfect Corporation in 1993. == History == === Background (1980–1985) === Reference Software International, Inc., was founded by Donald "Don" Emery and Bruce Wampler in 1985 in San Francisco, California. Both Wampler and Emery were college professors when they founded RSI: Wampler at the University of New Mexico as a professor of computer science and Emery a professor of marketing at San Francisco State University. After graduating from the University of Utah in around 1978, Wampler founded his first software company, Aspen Software, in Tijeras, New Mexico, in 1979. Wampler founded Aspen to develop an early spell checker software package, called Proofreader, for the TRS-80, licensing Random House's Webster's Unabridged Dictionary for the package's lexicon. In 1980, he began development on a grammar checker inspired by Writer's Workbench, a pioneering grammar checker for Unix systems. Wampler used Writer's Workbench heavily during the writer of his doctoral dissertation but disliked having to jump between the Apple II on which he composed the dissertation and the mainframe on which Writer's Workbench ran, and so wanted to develop a version of the latter for microcomputers. Wampler's work came to fruition as Grammatik in 1981, eventually ported to several other microcomputer platforms in the early 1980s. In 1983, by which point the company had 12 employees and sold a combined 80,000 units of Grammatik and Proofreader, Wampler sold Aspen to Dictronics, a software company best known for developing the Electronic Thesaurus, an early thesaurus program for microcomputers. Dictronics was in turn purchased by Wang Laboratories; according to Wampler, "Wang bought [Aspen] and sat on it. They did nothing with it". Wampler moved on to teach for the University of New Mexico, but, frustrated by Wang's inaction, got the urge to resurrect his work. In 1985, he was able to license back Grammatik and Proofreader from a small California-based software firm that had grandfathered rights to a forked version of both. In the same year, he met Emery, who, impressed by Wampler's, founded Reference Software International to market his software. RSI's research and development headquarters were based in Albuquerque, while the company's sales and marketing department was based in Walnut Creek, California. === Success (1985–1992) === In August 1985, RSI released their first product: the Random House Reference Set, a new version of Proofreader for the IBM Personal Computer and compatibles, revised to be a terminate-and-stay-resident program that ran atop other word processors such as WordStar or WordPerfect. At the time, Reference Set was the only such program on the market that functioned like this. RSI netted $114,000 from sales of Reference Set by the end of 1985. In June 1986, they released version 2.0 of Grammatik as Grammatik II for the PC. The latter was a breakout hit for RSI, receiving praise in the press (including technology journals such as PC Magazine) and RSI selling 1,000 units a month. In spring 1987, they released Reference Set II, which allowed users to import their own words into the built-in dictionary and added a thesaurus of 300,000 words. In November 1987, they released version 3.0 of Reference Set, which comprised two new field-specific dictionaries for the medical and legal professions. As well as the general Random House dictionary and thesaurus, it included Stedman's Medical Dictionary and Black's Law Dictionary. Emery consulted Paul Brest and Bob Jackson—professors of law at Stanford Law School and San Francisco State respectively—for the curation of the law dictionary; and Burton Grebin—at the time the executive director of Mount Saint Mary's Hospital—for the curation of the medical dictionary. In fall 1988, the company released Grammatik III, a total rewrite that made use of artificial intelligence to more accurately judge the grammar of sentences by breaking them down into a syntactic hierarchy. Grammatik III received universal acclaim, with Gloria Morris of InfoWorld calling it the apparent leader in the grammar checking field and Sandra Anderson of Mac Home Journal calling it "hands down ... the best of the industry" six years after its release. By 1989, the product had competitors in Correct Grammar by Lifetree Software and RightWriter by Rightsoft, Inc. By 1990, RSI achieved annual sales of $9.7 million. In the same year they released Grammatik IV, which was the first to offer direct integration with WordPerfect on both MS-DOS and Windows. In March 1992—by which point RSI had sold 1.5 million copies of Grammatik across all versions—the company released version 5 of the program, another rewrite that updated the lexicon further and added new functions such as word redundancy detection. Around the same time, the company introduced Easy Proof, a pared-down version of Grammatik intended for novice writers, students, and family computers. In 1991, the company was engaged in a trademark dispute with Systems Compatibility Corporation (SCC) of Chicago, Illinois, over the rights to the Software Toolkit title. Both companies had published software bundles bearing the name in the turn of the 1990s; SCC had published theirs first in 1988 and registered the trademark with the USPTO. SCC was granted a restraining order against RSI in January 1991. The following month, RSI agreed to rename their product, preventing a protracted legal battle. === Decline and acquisition (1992–1993) === By early 1992, RSI achieved annual sales of more than $13 million, employed 120 people, and had opened international offices in London, Belgium, and Antwerp to sell foreign versions of Reference Set and Grammatik. The company reached peak employment in the middle of 1992, with 140 employees. However, RSI's launch of six disparate titles in the year proved problematic for the company when they failed to sell as well as they had projected, and the company laid off employees by the dozens. By December 1992, only 71 employees were left, 32 from their San Francisco office. On the last day of 1992, RSI received an acquisition offer from WordPerfect Corporation, makers of the namesake word processor based in Orem, Utah. The deal was inked in January 1993, RSI's stakeholders receiving $19 million. The company's remaining employees were absorbed into WordPerfect in Orem. WordPerfect continued selling Grammatik as a standalone product for several years.

  Read more →
• 

  Density-based clustering validation

  Density-Based Clustering Validation (DBCV) is a metric designed to assess the quality of clustering solutions, particularly for density-based clustering algorithms like DBSCAN, Mean shift, and OPTICS. This metric is particularly suited for identifying concave and nested clusters, where traditional metrics such as the Silhouette coefficient, Davies–Bouldin index, or Calinski–Harabasz index often struggle to provide meaningful evaluations. Unlike traditional validation measures, which often rely on compact and well-separated clusters, DBCV index evaluates how well clusters are defined in terms of local density variations and structural coherence. This metric was introduced in 2014 by David Moulavi and colleagues in their work. It utilizes density connectivity principles to quantify clustering structures, making it especially effective at detecting arbitrarily shaped clusters in concave datasets, where traditional metrics may be less reliable. The DBCV index has been employed for clustering analysis in bioinformatics, ecology, techno-economy, and health informatics , as well as in numerous other fields. == Definition == DBCV index evaluates clustering structures by analyzing the relationships between data points within and across clusters. Given a dataset X = x 1 , x 2 , . . . , x n {\displaystyle X={x_{1},x_{2},...,x_{n}}} , a density-based algorithm partitions it into K clusters C 1 , C 2 , . . . , C K {\displaystyle {C_{1},C_{2},...,C_{K}}} . Each point x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} belongs to a specific cluster, denoted as C c l u s t e r ( x i ) {\displaystyle C_{cluster(x_{i})}} A key concept in DBCV index is the notion of density-connected paths. Two points within the same cluster are considered density-connected if there exists a sequence of intermediate points linking them, where each consecutive pair meets a predefined density criterion. The density-based distance between two points is determined by identifying the optimal path that minimizes the maximum local reachability distance along its trajectory. DBCV index extends the Silhouette coefficient by redefining cluster cohesion and separation using density-based distances: Within-cluster density distance measures how closely a point is related to other members of its cluster: a i = 1 | C c l u s t e r ( x i ) | − 1 ∑ x j ∈ C c l u s t e r ( x i ) , y ≠ x d d e n s i t y ( x j , x i ) {\displaystyle a_{i}={\frac {1}{|C_{cluster(x_{i})}|-1}}\sum _{x_{j}\in C_{cluster(x_{i})},y\neq x}d_{density}(x_{j},x_{i})} Nearest-cluster density distance quantifies how far a point is from the closest external cluster: b i = min C ≠ C cluster ( x i ) C ∈ { C 1 , … , C K } ( 1 | C | ∑ x j ∈ C d density ( x i , x j ) ) . {\displaystyle b_{i}=\min _{C\neq C_{{\text{cluster}}(x_{i})} \atop C\in \{C_{1},\dots ,C_{K}\}}\left({\frac {1}{|C|}}\sum _{x_{j}\in C}d_{\text{density}}(x_{i},x_{j})\right).} Using these measures, the DBCV index is computed as: D B C V = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n b i − a i max ( a i , b i ) {\displaystyle DBCV={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}{\frac {b_{i}-a_{i}}{\max(a_{i},b_{i})}}} == Explanation == DBCV index values range between −1 and +1: +1: Strongly cohesive and well-separated clusters. 0: Ambiguous clustering structure. −1: Poorly formed clusters or incorrect assignments. By leveraging density-based distances instead of traditional Euclidean measures, DBCV index provides a more robust evaluation of clustering performance in datasets with irregular or non-spherical distributions.

  Read more →
• 

  Neural cryptography

  Neural cryptography is a branch of cryptography dedicated to analyzing the application of stochastic algorithms, especially artificial neural network algorithms, for use in encryption and cryptanalysis. == Definition == Artificial neural networks are well known for their ability to selectively explore the solution space of a given problem. This feature finds a natural niche of application in the field of cryptanalysis. At the same time, neural networks offer a new approach to attack ciphering algorithms based on the principle that any function could be reproduced by a neural network, which is a powerful proven computational tool that can be used to find the inverse-function of any cryptographic algorithm. The ideas of mutual learning, self learning, and stochastic behavior of neural networks and similar algorithms can be used for different aspects of cryptography, like public-key cryptography, solving the key distribution problem using neural network mutual synchronization, hashing or generation of pseudo-random numbers. Another idea is the ability of a neural network to separate space in non-linear pieces using "bias". It gives different probabilities of activating the neural network or not. This is very useful in the case of Cryptanalysis. Two names are used to design the same domain of research: Neuro-Cryptography and Neural Cryptography. The first work that it is known on this topic can be traced back to 1995 in an IT Master Thesis. == Applications == In 1995, Sebastien Dourlens applied neural networks to cryptanalyze DES by allowing the networks to learn how to invert the S-tables of the DES. The bias in DES studied through Differential Cryptanalysis by Adi Shamir is highlighted. The experiment shows about 50% of the key bits can be found, allowing the complete key to be found in a short time. Hardware application with multi micro-controllers have been proposed due to the easy implementation of multilayer neural networks in hardware. One example of a public-key protocol is given by Khalil Shihab . He describes the decryption scheme and the public key creation that are based on a backpropagation neural network. The encryption scheme and the private key creation process are based on Boolean algebra. This technique has the advantage of small time and memory complexities. A disadvantage is the property of backpropagation algorithms: because of huge training sets, the learning phase of a neural network is very long. Therefore, the use of this protocol is only theoretical so far. == Neural key exchange protocol == The most used protocol for key exchange between two parties A and B in the practice is Diffie–Hellman key exchange protocol. Neural key exchange, which is based on the synchronization of two tree parity machines, should be a secure replacement for this method. Synchronizing these two machines is similar to synchronizing two chaotic oscillators in chaos communications. === Tree parity machine === The tree parity machine is a special type of multi-layer feedforward neural network. It consists of one output neuron, K hidden neurons and K×N input neurons. Inputs to the network take three values: x i j ∈ { − 1 , 0 , + 1 } {\displaystyle x_{ij}\in \left\{-1,0,+1\right\}} The weights between input and hidden neurons take the values: w i j ∈ { − L , . . . , 0 , . . . , + L } {\displaystyle w_{ij}\in \left\{-L,...,0,...,+L\right\}} Output value of each hidden neuron is calculated as a sum of all multiplications of input neurons and these weights: σ i = sgn ⁡ ( ∑ j = 1 N w i j x i j ) {\displaystyle \sigma _{i}=\operatorname {sgn}(\sum _{j=1}^{N}w_{ij}x_{ij})} Signum is a simple function, which returns −1,0 or 1: sgn ⁡ ( x ) = { − 1 if x < 0 , 0 if x = 0 , 1 if x > 0. {\displaystyle \operatorname {sgn}(x)={\begin{cases}-1&{\text{if }}x<0,\\0&{\text{if }}x=0,\\1&{\text{if }}x>0.\end{cases}}} If the scalar product is 0, the output of the hidden neuron is mapped to −1 in order to ensure a binary output value. The output of neural network is then computed as the multiplication of all values produced by hidden elements: τ = ∏ i = 1 K σ i {\displaystyle \tau =\prod _{i=1}^{K}\sigma _{i}} Output of the tree parity machine is binary. === Protocol === Each party (A and B) uses its own tree parity machine. Synchronization of the tree parity machines is achieved in these steps Initialize random weight values Execute these steps until the full synchronization is achieved Generate random input vector X Compute the values of the hidden neurons Compute the value of the output neuron Compare the values of both tree parity machines Outputs are the same: one of the suitable learning rules is applied to the weights Outputs are different: go to 2.1 After the full synchronization is achieved (the weights wij of both tree parity machines are same), A and B can use their weights as keys. This method is known as a bidirectional learning. One of the following learning rules can be used for the synchronization: Hebbian learning rule: w i + = g ( w i + σ i x i Θ ( σ i τ ) Θ ( τ A τ B ) ) {\displaystyle w_{i}^{+}=g(w_{i}+\sigma _{i}x_{i}\Theta (\sigma _{i}\tau )\Theta (\tau ^{A}\tau ^{B}))} Anti-Hebbian learning rule: w i + = g ( w i − σ i x i Θ ( σ i τ ) Θ ( τ A τ B ) ) {\displaystyle w_{i}^{+}=g(w_{i}-\sigma _{i}x_{i}\Theta (\sigma _{i}\tau )\Theta (\tau ^{A}\tau ^{B}))} Random walk: w i + = g ( w i + x i Θ ( σ i τ ) Θ ( τ A τ B ) ) {\displaystyle w_{i}^{+}=g(w_{i}+x_{i}\Theta (\sigma _{i}\tau )\Theta (\tau ^{A}\tau ^{B}))} Where: Θ ( a , b ) = 0 {\displaystyle \Theta (a,b)=0} if a ≠ b {\displaystyle a\neq b} otherwise Θ ( a , b ) = 1 {\displaystyle \Theta (a,b)=1} And: g ( x ) {\displaystyle g(x)} is a function that keeps the w i {\displaystyle w_{i}} in the range { − L , − L + 1 , . . . , 0 , . . . , L − 1 , L } {\displaystyle \{-L,-L+1,...,0,...,L-1,L\}} === Attacks and security of this protocol === In every attack it is considered, that the attacker E can eavesdrop messages between the parties A and B, but does not have an opportunity to change them. ==== Brute force ==== To provide a brute force attack, an attacker has to test all possible keys (all possible values of weights wij). By K hidden neurons, K×N input neurons and boundary of weights L, this gives (2L+1)KN possibilities. For example, the configuration K = 3, L = 3 and N = 100 gives us 310253 key possibilities, making the attack impossible with today's computer power. ==== Learning with own tree parity machine ==== One of the basic attacks can be provided by an attacker, who owns the same tree parity machine as the parties A and B. He wants to synchronize his tree parity machine with these two parties. In each step there are three situations possible: Output(A) ≠ Output(B): None of the parties updates its weights. Output(A) = Output(B) = Output(E): All the three parties update weights in their tree parity machines. Output(A) = Output(B) ≠ Output(E): Parties A and B update their tree parity machines, but the attacker can not do that. Because of this situation his learning is slower than the synchronization of parties A and B. It has been proven, that the synchronization of two parties is faster than learning of an attacker. It can be improved by increasing of the synaptic depth L of the neural network. That gives this protocol enough security and an attacker can find out the key only with small probability. ==== Other attacks ==== For conventional cryptographic systems, we can improve the security of the protocol by increasing of the key length. In the case of neural cryptography, we improve it by increasing of the synaptic depth L of the neural networks. Changing this parameter increases the cost of a successful attack exponentially, while the effort for the users grows polynomially. Therefore, breaking the security of neural key exchange belongs to the complexity class NP. Alexander Klimov, Anton Mityaguine, and Adi Shamir say that the original neural synchronization scheme can be broken by at least three different attacks—geometric, probabilistic analysis, and using genetic algorithms. Even though this particular implementation is insecure, the ideas behind chaotic synchronization could potentially lead to a secure implementation. === Permutation parity machine === The permutation parity machine is a binary variant of the tree parity machine. It consists of one input layer, one hidden layer and one output layer. The number of neurons in the output layer depends on the number of hidden units K. Each hidden neuron has N binary input neurons: x i j ∈ { 0 , 1 } {\displaystyle x_{ij}\in \left\{0,1\right\}} The weights between input and hidden neurons are also binary: w i j ∈ { 0 , 1 } {\displaystyle w_{ij}\in \left\{0,1\right\}} Output value of each hidden neuron is calculated as a sum of all exclusive disjunctions (exclusive or) of input neurons and these weights: σ i = θ N ( ∑ j = 1 N w i j ⊕ x i j ) {\displaystyle \sigma _{i}=\theta _{N}(\sum _{j=1}^{N}w_{ij}\oplus x_{ij})} (⊕ means XOR). Th

  Read more →