AI Data Water

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

• 

  EnQuire

  Enquire is a web-based software application used as a platform for project, contract and grant management, as well as reporting and planning. Initially designed for the specific business requirements of the Australian Government, Queensland Government and Queensland Regional Bodies to manage natural resource projects, Enquire has since seen adoption outside of this industry and user segment. The use of Enquire by Natural Resource Management bodies within Queensland has been cited as a reason for the improved efficiency, quantity and quality of reporting. Technically, Enquire is implemented as a Java application built on a MySQL database. Enquire is hosted and supported under the software as a service model by Tactiv Pty Ltd. == History == The system was first released in 2005 under the name ViSTA NRM Online, proactively changing its name to Enquire in 2007 to avoid possible confusion with Windows Vista, which was being released at the time. In 2012, the Enquire project and support team was commercialized as its own company called Tactiv Pty Ltd. Tactiv is based predominantly in Brisbane, Australia. Tactiv has continued to develop and grow the Enquire Grant, Contract and Project management solution, releasing a new platform in 2017. Since commercialization, Tactiv has grown its client base to include government and non-government organizations such as foundations and not-for-profit organizations. == Functionality == The functionality of Enquire can be broken down into 5 key lifecycle solutions, all fully integrated and supported by over 40 feature rich and configurable modules: Grant Management Contract Management Project Portfolio Management Procurement Management Relationship Management The system provides its platform to meet the needs of "off the shelf" customers looking for a ready to use best practice option as well as a fully configurable option for specific requirements. The system offers a client supplier portal for external applicants or suppliers, a management portal for internal team usage and an administration portal for clients to manage access, roles, information, and other configurations. Key functional modules include: Online authoring and publishing for forms and applications Workflows Project Tracking Performance Reporting Financial Reporting Stakeholder Communication Budget management Document Management Milestone tracking Payments and Variations Management KPI tracking and Impact reporting The Enquire system is used to report against the Queensland Government's Q2 Coast and Country Program and parts of the Australian Government's Caring for our Country program. There is also a strategic planning module, which provides functionality to manage core-business administration and reporting requirements, whilst providing visibility of key activities and their alignment against organizational goals and strategic objectives. The systems architecture supports a range of implementation models with the capacity to manage one-to-one, one-to-many and many-to-many relationships between investors and investees. Under the usage model within Queensland, Regional Bodies use Enquire to load project contracts and report against these online. The regional bodies also record output, target and financial information in Enquire, which can then be used for operational purposes including financial, performance and target reporting. == External Audit == The Australian National Audit Office Audit Report No.21 2007–08 undertook a case study on Enquire. It noted: "The Queensland Department of Environment and Resource Management has developed the first integrated web-based system [Enquire] to manage performance information about Natural Resource Management activities in Queensland." Four of Queensland's 14 regional bodies commented on Enquire through the ANAO's survey. These four regional bodies indicated that Enquire offers a means of consistent reporting at the State level.

  Read more →
• 

  AI warfare

  AI warfare refers to the use of artificial intelligence technologies to automate military operation and enhance or bypass human decision-making in armed conflicts. AI is used to rapidly analyze large volumes of military intelligence data, including making recommendations or decisions on who and what to target. Abdul-Rahman al-Rawi, a 20-year-old student, was the first acknowledged civilian killed by AI-assisted airstrike in a U.S. strike in Iraq in 2024. In 2026, the U.S. declared it would become an 'AI-first' warfighting force. Husain et al (2018) coined the term hyperwar to refer to warfare which is algorithmic or controlled by artificial intelligence, with little to no human decision-making. == 2026 Iran war == The 2026 Iran war has been described as the "first AI war", although the Untied States and Israel have previously used AI to identify targets during the Gaza war. The U.S. has used AI tools to attack Iran. These tools have been used for military intelligence, targeting, and damage assessment in the war in Iran. Using the Maven smart system, the U.S. attacked 1,000 targets in the first 24 hours of the war and 5,000 targets over the course of 10 days. While the U.S. had used Maven in 2022 to share targeting information with Ukraine and strike against Iraq, Syria, and against the Houthis in 2024, Iran's attacks are its biggest. Authorities are looking into whether artificial intelligence was involved in the airstrike on an Iranian girls' school that killed 170 civilians, the majority of whom were female students. The United States Central Command emphasized that humans were making final targeting decisions. Per a White House tally released on April 8, the U.S. military hit over 13,000 targets in Iran during the war's first 38 days, including more than 2,000 command-and-control sites, 1,500 air defense targets, and 1,450 industrial infrastructure targets. == Gaza war == As part of the Gaza war, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) have used artificial intelligence to rapidly and automatically perform much of the process of determining what to bomb. IDF's Unit 8200 developed AI systems, dubbed the Gospel and Lavender, to find targets for the Israeli Air Force to bomb. The Gospel automatically provides targeting recommendations to human analysts, who decide whether to approve strikes. Lavender identified 37,000 Hamas-linked individuals early in the war, and was used alongside the Gospel, which chooses buildings or structures as targets. According to a report by +972 Magazine and Local Call, strikes assisted by Lavender were routinely permitted to kill 5–20 civilians for each suspected Hamas militant, who were often bombed at home with their families. The IDF denies these claims, maintaining that every strike is assessed to minimize collateral damage, and that there is no policy "to kill tens of thousands of people in their homes." Israel deployed AI technologies during the Gaza war for audio analysis, facial recognition, and airstrike targeting. One such system was used to help identify the location of Hamas commander Ibrahim Biari through phone call analysis, leading to strikes that killed him as well as more than 125 civilians. == 2022 Russian Ukraine war == Kyiv launched a project with Palantir called Brave1 Dataroom to build AI systems using the extensive combat data Ukraine has gathered since Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022. The country has also created tools for in-depth airstrike analysis, introduced AI to process large volumes of intelligence, and incorporated these technologies into the planning of long-range strike operations. == Involved companies == Maven Smart System is developed by Palantir. It integrates Anthropic's Claude as its large language model, and uses Amazon's AWS servers as its cloud infrastructure. Since Anthropic's refusal to support autonomous weapons development and domestic surveillance efforts. In its place, other AI firms, including OpenAI, have been brought in to take over that role. == Involved state actors == In 2024, the United States Department of Defense had 800-plus active AI-related projects and requested $1.8 billion in AI funding, with Project Maven and Project Artemis (AI-resistant drones developed together with Ukraine) being the main ones. The technology has been used in Iran, Iraq, Syria and Yemen to identify targets. China is pursuing intelligentized warfare, integrating AI across all combat domains—land, sea, air, space, and cyber—with military AI spending exceeding $1.6 billion annually. == International regulation == Since 2014, states meeting within the framework of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons have discussed lethal autonomous weapon systems. In 2016, the treaty's states parties established an open-ended Group of Governmental Experts on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems to continue those discussions. The discussions have addressed international humanitarian law, accountability, possible prohibitions and regulations, and the extent of human control required over AI-enabled weapons.

  Read more →
• 

  Right to explanation

  In the regulation of algorithms, particularly artificial intelligence and its subfield of machine learning, a right to [an] explanation is a right to be given an explanation for an output of the algorithm. Such rights primarily refer to individual rights to be given an explanation for decisions that significantly affect an individual, particularly legally or financially. For example, a person who applies for a loan and is denied may ask for an explanation, which could be "Credit bureau X reports that you declared bankruptcy last year; this is the main factor in considering you too likely to default, and thus we will not give you the loan you applied for." Some such legal rights already exist, while the scope of a general "right to explanation" is a matter of ongoing debate. There have been arguments made that a "social right to explanation" is a crucial foundation for an information society, particularly as the institutions of that society will need to use digital technologies, artificial intelligence, machine learning. In other words, that the related automated decision making systems that use explainability would be more trustworthy and transparent. Without this right, which could be constituted both legally and through professional standards, the public will be left without much recourse to challenge the decisions of automated systems. == Examples == === Credit scoring in the United States === Under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (Regulation B of the Code of Federal Regulations), Title 12, Chapter X, Part 1002, §1002.9, creditors are required to notify applicants who are denied credit with specific reasons for the detail. As detailed in §1002.9(b)(2): (2) Statement of specific reasons. The statement of reasons for adverse action required by paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section must be specific and indicate the principal reason(s) for the adverse action. Statements that the adverse action was based on the creditor's internal standards or policies or that the applicant, joint applicant, or similar party failed to achieve a qualifying score on the creditor's credit scoring system are insufficient. The official interpretation of this section details what types of statements are acceptable. Creditors comply with this regulation by providing a list of reasons (generally at most 4, per interpretation of regulations), consisting of a numeric reason code (as identifier) and an associated explanation, identifying the main factors affecting a credit score. An example might be: 32: Balances on bankcard or revolving accounts too high compared to credit limits === European Union === The European Union General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR, enacted 2016, taking effect 2018) extends the automated decision-making rights in the 1995 Data Protection Directive to provide a legally disputed form of a right to an explanation, stated as such in Recital 71: "[the data subject should have] the right ... to obtain an explanation of the decision reached". In full: The data subject should have the right not to be subject to a decision, which may include a measure, evaluating personal aspects relating to him or her which is based solely on automated processing and which produces legal effects concerning him or her or similarly significantly affects him or her, such as automatic refusal of an online credit application or e-recruiting practices without any human intervention. ... In any case, such processing should be subject to suitable safeguards, which should include specific information to the data subject and the right to obtain human intervention, to express his or her point of view, to obtain an explanation of the decision reached after such assessment and to challenge the decision. However, the extent to which the regulations themselves provide a "right to explanation" is heavily debated. There are two main strands of criticism. There are significant legal issues with the right as found in Article 22 — as recitals are not binding, and the right to an explanation is not mentioned in the binding articles of the text, having been removed during the legislative process. In addition, there are significant restrictions on the types of automated decisions that are covered — which must be both "solely" based on automated processing, and have legal or similarly significant effects — which significantly limits the range of automated systems and decisions to which the right would apply. In particular, the right is unlikely to apply in many of the cases of algorithmic controversy that have been picked up in the media. The UK has also recently amended its implementation of Article 22. A second potential source of such a right has been pointed to in Article 15, the "right of access by the data subject". This restates a similar provision from the 1995 Data Protection Directive, allowing the data subject access to "meaningful information about the logic involved" in the same significant, solely automated decision-making, found in Article 22. Yet this too suffers from alleged challenges that relate to the timing of when this right can be drawn upon, as well as practical challenges that mean it may not be binding in many cases of public concern. Other EU legislative instruments contain explanation rights. The European Union's Artificial Intelligence Act provides in Article 86 a "[r]ight to explanation of individual decision-making" of certain high risk systems which produce significant, adverse effects to an individual's health, safety or fundamental rights. The right provides for "clear and meaningful explanations of the role of the AI system in the decision-making procedure and the main elements of the decision taken", although only applies to the extent other law does not provide such a right. The Digital Services Act in Article 27, and the Platform to Business Regulation in Article 5, both contain rights to have the main parameters of certain recommender systems to be made clear, although these provisions have been criticised as not matching the way that such systems work. The Platform Work Directive, which provides for regulation of automation in gig economy work as an extension of data protection law, further contains explanation provisions in Article 11, using the specific language of "explanation" in a binding article rather than a recital as is the case in the GDPR. Scholars note that remains uncertainty as to whether these provisions imply sufficiently tailored explanation in practice which will need to be resolved by courts. === France === In France the 2016 Loi pour une République numérique (Digital Republic Act or loi numérique) amends the country's administrative code to introduce a new provision for the explanation of decisions made by public sector bodies about individuals. It notes that where there is "a decision taken on the basis of an algorithmic treatment", the rules that define that treatment and its "principal characteristics" must be communicated to the citizen upon request, where there is not an exclusion (e.g. for national security or defence). These should include the following: the degree and the mode of contribution of the algorithmic processing to the decision- making; the data processed and its source; the treatment parameters, and where appropriate, their weighting, applied to the situation of the person concerned; the operations carried out by the treatment. Scholars have noted that this right, while limited to administrative decisions, goes beyond the GDPR right to explicitly apply to decision support rather than decisions "solely" based on automated processing, as well as provides a framework for explaining specific decisions. Indeed, the GDPR automated decision-making rights in the European Union, one of the places a "right to an explanation" has been sought within, find their origins in French law in the late 1970s. == Criticism == Some argue that a "right to explanation" is at best unnecessary, at worst harmful, and threatens to stifle innovation. Specific criticisms include: favoring human decisions over machine decisions, being redundant with existing laws, and focusing on process over outcome. Authors of study "Slave to the Algorithm? Why a 'Right to an Explanation' Is Probably Not the Remedy You Are Looking For" Lilian Edwards and Michael Veale argue that a right to explanation is not the solution to harms caused to stakeholders by algorithmic decisions. They also state that the right of explanation in the GDPR is narrowly defined, and is not compatible with how modern machine learning technologies are being developed. With these limitations, defining transparency within the context of algorithmic accountability remains a problem. For example, providing the source code of algorithms may not be sufficient and may create other problems in terms of privacy disclosures and the gaming of technical systems. To mitigate this issue, Edwards and Veale argue that an auditing system could be more effective, to allow auditors to loo

  Read more →
• 

  AI Security Institute

  The AI Security Institute (AISI) is a research organisation under the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, UK, that aims "to equip governments with a scientific understanding of the risks posed by advanced AI". It conducts research and develop and test mitigations. Previously, it was known as the AI Safety Institute. Its creation followed world's first major AI Safety Summit that was held in Bletchley Park in 2023. The institute's professed goal is "building the world's leading understanding of advanced AI risks and solutions, to inform governments so they can keep the public safe". It is designed like a startup in the government "combining the authority of government with the expertise and agility of the private sector". AISI has made access agreements with Anthropic, Google and OpenAI to test their models before release. It has an open source platform called Inspect that permits companies, governments and academics to run standardised safety tests for AI usage. Among the works AISI has done is the reported detection of multiple serious vulnerabilities that could enable development of biological weapons; the vulnerabilities were fixed before the model was launched. It conducts research on diverse fields of AI application. One study by AISI found that LLMs post-trained for political persuasiveness became systematically less accurate and up to 51% more persuasive on political issues. AISI has also worked on the usage of AI for emotional needs. It found that nearly 10 percent of UK citizens used systems like chatbots for emotional purposes on a weekly basis. It found that "systems are now outperforming PhD-level researchers on scientific knowledge tests and helping non-experts succeed at lab work that would previously have been out of reach" in a report published in December 2025. Former chief AI officer of GCHQ Adam Beaumont is the institution's interim director. UK prime minister's AI advisor Jade Leung is the chief technology officer.

  Read more →
• 

  Similarity learning

  Similarity learning is an area of supervised machine learning in artificial intelligence. It is closely related to regression and classification, but the goal is to learn a similarity function that measures how similar or related two objects are. It has applications in ranking, in recommendation systems, visual identity tracking, face verification, and speaker verification. == Learning setup == There are four common setups for similarity and metric distance learning. Regression similarity learning In this setup, pairs of objects are given ( x i 1 , x i 2 ) {\displaystyle (x_{i}^{1},x_{i}^{2})} together with a measure of their similarity y i ∈ R {\displaystyle y_{i}\in R} . The goal is to learn a function that approximates f ( x i 1 , x i 2 ) ∼ y i {\displaystyle f(x_{i}^{1},x_{i}^{2})\sim y_{i}} for every new labeled triplet example ( x i 1 , x i 2 , y i ) {\displaystyle (x_{i}^{1},x_{i}^{2},y_{i})} . This is typically achieved by minimizing a regularized loss min W ∑ i l o s s ( w ; x i 1 , x i 2 , y i ) + r e g ( w ) {\displaystyle \min _{W}\sum _{i}loss(w;x_{i}^{1},x_{i}^{2},y_{i})+reg(w)} . Classification similarity learning Given are pairs of similar objects ( x i , x i + ) {\displaystyle (x_{i},x_{i}^{+})} and non similar objects ( x i , x i − ) {\displaystyle (x_{i},x_{i}^{-})} . An equivalent formulation is that every pair ( x i 1 , x i 2 ) {\displaystyle (x_{i}^{1},x_{i}^{2})} is given together with a binary label y i ∈ { 0 , 1 } {\displaystyle y_{i}\in \{0,1\}} that determines if the two objects are similar or not. The goal is again to learn a classifier that can decide if a new pair of objects is similar or not. Ranking similarity learning Given are triplets of objects ( x i , x i + , x i − ) {\displaystyle (x_{i},x_{i}^{+},x_{i}^{-})} whose relative similarity obey a predefined order: x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} is known to be more similar to x i + {\displaystyle x_{i}^{+}} than to x i − {\displaystyle x_{i}^{-}} . The goal is to learn a function f {\displaystyle f} such that for any new triplet of objects ( x , x + , x − ) {\displaystyle (x,x^{+},x^{-})} , it obeys f ( x , x + ) > f ( x , x − ) {\displaystyle f(x,x^{+})>f(x,x^{-})} (contrastive learning). This setup assumes a weaker form of supervision than in regression, because instead of providing an exact measure of similarity, one only has to provide the relative order of similarity. For this reason, ranking-based similarity learning is easier to apply in real large-scale applications. Locality sensitive hashing (LSH) Hashes input items so that similar items map to the same "buckets" in memory with high probability (the number of buckets being much smaller than the universe of possible input items). It is often applied in nearest neighbor search on large-scale high-dimensional data, e.g., image databases, document collections, time-series databases, and genome databases. A common approach for learning similarity is to model the similarity function as a bilinear form. For example, in the case of ranking similarity learning, one aims to learn a matrix W that parametrizes the similarity function f W ( x , z ) = x T W z {\displaystyle f_{W}(x,z)=x^{T}Wz} . When data is abundant, a common approach is to learn a siamese network – a deep network model with parameter sharing. == Metric learning == Similarity learning is closely related to distance metric learning. Metric learning is the task of learning a distance function over objects. A metric or distance function has to obey four axioms: non-negativity, identity of indiscernibles, symmetry and subadditivity (or the triangle inequality). In practice, metric learning algorithms ignore the condition of identity of indiscernibles and learn a pseudo-metric. When the objects x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} are vectors in R d {\displaystyle R^{d}} , then any matrix W {\displaystyle W} in the symmetric positive semi-definite cone S + d {\displaystyle S_{+}^{d}} defines a distance pseudo-metric of the space of x through the form D W ( x 1 , x 2 ) 2 = ( x 1 − x 2 ) ⊤ W ( x 1 − x 2 ) {\displaystyle D_{W}(x_{1},x_{2})^{2}=(x_{1}-x_{2})^{\top }W(x_{1}-x_{2})} . When W {\displaystyle W} is a symmetric positive definite matrix, D W {\displaystyle D_{W}} is a metric. Moreover, as any symmetric positive semi-definite matrix W ∈ S + d {\displaystyle W\in S_{+}^{d}} can be decomposed as W = L ⊤ L {\displaystyle W=L^{\top }L} where L ∈ R e × d {\displaystyle L\in R^{e\times d}} and e ≥ r a n k ( W ) {\displaystyle e\geq rank(W)} , the distance function D W {\displaystyle D_{W}} can be rewritten equivalently D W ( x 1 , x 2 ) 2 = ( x 1 − x 2 ) ⊤ L ⊤ L ( x 1 − x 2 ) = ‖ L ( x 1 − x 2 ) ‖ 2 2 {\displaystyle D_{W}(x_{1},x_{2})^{2}=(x_{1}-x_{2})^{\top }L^{\top }L(x_{1}-x_{2})=\|L(x_{1}-x_{2})\|_{2}^{2}} . The distance D W ( x 1 , x 2 ) 2 = ‖ x 1 ′ − x 2 ′ ‖ 2 2 {\displaystyle D_{W}(x_{1},x_{2})^{2}=\|x_{1}'-x_{2}'\|_{2}^{2}} corresponds to the Euclidean distance between the transformed feature vectors x 1 ′ = L x 1 {\displaystyle x_{1}'=Lx_{1}} and x 2 ′ = L x 2 {\displaystyle x_{2}'=Lx_{2}} . Many formulations for metric learning have been proposed. Some well-known approaches for metric learning include learning from relative comparisons, which is based on the triplet loss, large margin nearest neighbor, and information theoretic metric learning (ITML). In statistics, the covariance matrix of the data is sometimes used to define a distance metric called Mahalanobis distance. == Applications == Similarity learning is used in information retrieval for learning to rank, in face verification or face identification, and in recommendation systems. Also, many machine learning approaches rely on some metric. This includes unsupervised learning such as clustering, which groups together close or similar objects. It also includes supervised approaches like K-nearest neighbor algorithm which rely on labels of nearby objects to decide on the label of a new object. Metric learning has been proposed as a preprocessing step for many of these approaches. == Scalability == Metric and similarity learning scale quadratically with the dimension of the input space, as can easily see when the learned metric has a bilinear form f W ( x , z ) = x T W z {\displaystyle f_{W}(x,z)=x^{T}Wz} . Scaling to higher dimensions can be achieved by enforcing a sparseness structure over the matrix model, as done with HDSL, and with COMET. == Software == metric-learn is a free software Python library which offers efficient implementations of several supervised and weakly-supervised similarity and metric learning algorithms. The API of metric-learn is compatible with scikit-learn. OpenMetricLearning is a Python framework to train and validate the models producing high-quality embeddings. == Further information == For further information on this topic, see the surveys on metric and similarity learning by Bellet et al. and Kulis.

  Read more →
• 

  Evolvability (computer science)

  The term evolvability is a framework of computational learning introduced by Leslie Valiant in his paper of the same name. The aim of this theory is to model biological evolution and categorize which types of mechanisms are evolvable. Evolution is an extension of PAC learning and learning from statistical queries. == General framework == Let F n {\displaystyle F_{n}\,} and R n {\displaystyle R_{n}\,} be collections of functions on n {\displaystyle n\,} variables. Given an ideal function f ∈ F n {\displaystyle f\in F_{n}} , the goal is to find by local search a representation r ∈ R n {\displaystyle r\in R_{n}} that closely approximates f {\displaystyle f\,} . This closeness is measured by the performance Perf ⁡ ( f , r ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {Perf} (f,r)} of r {\displaystyle r\,} with respect to f {\displaystyle f\,} . As is the case in the biological world, there is a difference between genotype and phenotype. In general, there can be multiple representations (genotypes) that correspond to the same function (phenotype). That is, for some r , r ′ ∈ R n {\displaystyle r,r'\in R_{n}} , with r ≠ r ′ {\displaystyle r\neq r'\,} , still r ( x ) = r ′ ( x ) {\displaystyle r(x)=r'(x)\,} for all x ∈ X n {\displaystyle x\in X_{n}} . However, this need not be the case. The goal then, is to find a representation that closely matches the phenotype of the ideal function, and the spirit of the local search is to allow only small changes in the genotype. Let the neighborhood N ( r ) {\displaystyle N(r)\,} of a representation r {\displaystyle r\,} be the set of possible mutations of r {\displaystyle r\,} . For simplicity, consider Boolean functions on X n = { − 1 , 1 } n {\displaystyle X_{n}=\{-1,1\}^{n}\,} , and let D n {\displaystyle D_{n}\,} be a probability distribution on X n {\displaystyle X_{n}\,} . Define the performance in terms of this. Specifically, Perf ⁡ ( f , r ) = ∑ x ∈ X n f ( x ) r ( x ) D n ( x ) . {\displaystyle \operatorname {Perf} (f,r)=\sum _{x\in X_{n}}f(x)r(x)D_{n}(x).} Note that Perf ⁡ ( f , r ) = Prob ⁡ ( f ( x ) = r ( x ) ) − Prob ⁡ ( f ( x ) ≠ r ( x ) ) . {\displaystyle \operatorname {Perf} (f,r)=\operatorname {Prob} (f(x)=r(x))-\operatorname {Prob} (f(x)\neq r(x)).} In general, for non-Boolean functions, the performance will not correspond directly to the probability that the functions agree, although it will have some relationship. Throughout an organism's life, it will only experience a limited number of environments, so its performance cannot be determined exactly. The empirical performance is defined by Perf s ⁡ ( f , r ) = 1 s ∑ x ∈ S f ( x ) r ( x ) , {\displaystyle \operatorname {Perf} _{s}(f,r)={\frac {1}{s}}\sum _{x\in S}f(x)r(x),} where S {\displaystyle S\,} is a multiset of s {\displaystyle s\,} independent selections from X n {\displaystyle X_{n}\,} according to D n {\displaystyle D_{n}\,} . If s {\displaystyle s\,} is large enough, evidently Perf s ⁡ ( f , r ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {Perf} _{s}(f,r)} will be close to the actual performance Perf ⁡ ( f , r ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {Perf} (f,r)} . Given an ideal function f ∈ F n {\displaystyle f\in F_{n}} , initial representation r ∈ R n {\displaystyle r\in R_{n}} , sample size s {\displaystyle s\,} , and tolerance t {\displaystyle t\,} , the mutator Mut ⁡ ( f , r , s , t ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {Mut} (f,r,s,t)} is a random variable defined as follows. Each r ′ ∈ N ( r ) {\displaystyle r'\in N(r)} is classified as beneficial, neutral, or deleterious, depending on its empirical performance. Specifically, r ′ {\displaystyle r'\,} is a beneficial mutation if Perf s ⁡ ( f , r ′ ) − Perf s ⁡ ( f , r ) ≥ t {\displaystyle \operatorname {Perf} _{s}(f,r')-\operatorname {Perf} _{s}(f,r)\geq t} ; r ′ {\displaystyle r'\,} is a neutral mutation if − t < Perf s ⁡ ( f , r ′ ) − Perf s ⁡ ( f , r ) < t {\displaystyle -t<\operatorname {Perf} _{s}(f,r')-\operatorname {Perf} _{s}(f,r) 0 {\displaystyle \epsilon >0\,} , for all ideal functions f ∈ F n {\displaystyle f\in F_{n}} and representations r 0 ∈ R n {\displaystyle r_{0}\in R_{n}} , with probability at least 1 − ϵ {\displaystyle 1-\epsilon \,} , Perf ⁡ ( f , r g ( n , 1 / ϵ ) ) ≥ 1 − ϵ , {\displaystyle \operatorname {Perf} (f,r_{g(n,1/\epsilon )})\geq 1-\epsilon ,} where the sizes of neighborhoods N ( r ) {\displaystyle N(r)\,} for r ∈ R n {\displaystyle r\in R_{n}\,} are at most p ( n , 1 / ϵ ) {\displaystyle p(n,1/\epsilon )\,} , the sample size is s ( n , 1 / ϵ ) {\displaystyle s(n,1/\epsilon )\,} , the tolerance is t ( 1 / n , ϵ ) {\displaystyle t(1/n,\epsilon )\,} , and the generation size is g ( n , 1 / ϵ ) {\displaystyle g(n,1/\epsilon )\,} . F {\displaystyle F\,} is evolvable over D {\displaystyle D\,} if it is evolvable by some R {\displaystyle R\,} over D {\displaystyle D\,} . F {\displaystyle F\,} is evolvable if it is evolvable over all distributions D {\displaystyle D\,} . == Results == The class of conjunctions and the class of disjunctions are evolvable over the uniform distribution for short conjunctions and disjunctions, respectively. The class of parity functions (which evaluate to the parity of the number of true literals in a given subset of literals) are not evolvable, even for the uniform distribution. Evolvability implies PAC learnability.

  Read more →
• 

  Dataset shift

  Dataset shift is a phenomenon in machine learning and statistics in which the joint distribution of input variables and target labels is different in the training phase and the deployment or test phase (i.e., P t r a i n ( X , Y ) ≠ P t e s t ( X , Y ) {\displaystyle P_{train}(X,Y)\neq P_{test}(X,Y)} ). This happens when the statistical properties of data used to train a model are no longer representative of the data encountered in real-world use, often resulting in degraded predictive performance and diminished generalization ability. Dataset shift is a generic term for a number of particular types of distributional change. Covariate shift is when the distribution of the input features changes, but the conditional relationship between inputs and outputs remains constant . Prior probability shift (or label shift) happens when the distribution of target labels changes, but the conditional distribution of inputs given labels stays the same. Concept shift (also known as concept drift) is the change of the conditional relationship between inputs and outputs that renders previously learned patterns invalid over time. A key challenge for deploying machine learning systems is dataset shift, in particular in dynamic environments where the data distributions change over time. Detecting and mitigating such shifts is an active area of research, e.g., drift detection, domain adaptation, continual learning.

  Read more →
• 

  The AI Con

  The AI Con: How to Fight Big Tech's Hype and Create the Future We Want is a 2025 non-fiction book by linguist Emily M. Bender and sociologist Alex Hanna. It argues that much of what is labeled "artificial intelligence" is a misleading term that obscures ordinary automation while concentrating power in a small number of technology firms. The book was published in May 2025 by Harper in the United States and Bodley Head in the United Kingdom. It was developed alongside the authors' long-running podcast Mystery AI Hype Theater 3000, which critiques exaggerated claims about AI. == Synopsis == The authors present AI as a marketing umbrella that encourages audiences to infer understanding and agency where none exist. They argue readers should treat such language skeptically and to separate specific automated tasks from broad claims of intelligence. The book describes a recurring hype cycle in which corporate narratives justify data and labor extraction, the replacement of human services with cheaper substitutes, and the diversion of attention from present harms to speculative futures. While acknowledging limited uses such as pattern recognition, the authors argue that contemporary systems are best understood as text and media generators shaped by training data and human labor, not as thinking or reasoning entities. A central theme is the social and environmental cost of scaling these systems, including increased energy and water use, the appropriation of creative work for training, and the outsourcing of ghost work to low-paid data workers worldwide. These costs are linked to workplace effects, with the authors arguing that automation rarely eliminates jobs outright and more often degrades them through surveillance, work intensification, and unpaid oversight. As alternatives to passive adoption, the authors propose concrete responses: asking precise questions about what is being automated and why, demanding transparency about data and evaluation, and practicing what they call strategic refusal when deployment conflicts with evidence or values. The book also develops a vocabulary for public debate, rejecting both boosterish and doomerish narratives as grounded in the same assumption that AI is a singular, autonomous force. The authors recommend reading strategies such as favoring trusted human sources over automated summaries and using humor to deflate inflated claims. They describe a link between language to policy and power, arguing that precise terminology can help policymakers and the public resist austerity-driven automation and demand accountability for errors and harms. == Reception == The Guardian praised the book's myth-busting approach and its analysis of how hype erodes cultural and civic life by normalizing synthetic media as a substitute for human judgment. Kirkus Reviews described it as a contrarian account that catalogs concrete risks while cutting through speculative predictions. An interview in Business Insider highlighted the authors' accessible frameworks, including their proposal to describe chatbots as conversation simulators and to evaluate systems in terms of values, labor, and evidence. Coverage in GeekWire emphasized the book's call for resistance through collective bargaining, stronger data rights, and a norm of rejecting deployments that fail basic standards of necessity and evaluation. Some reviews were more critical. A review in LLRX argued that the book's tone could be overly polemical and that it gave limited attention to potential benefits claimed for generative systems. Coverage in the Financial Times, focused on Bender's broader public scholarship, situated the book within her long-standing critique of anthropomorphic narratives about large language models and her advocacy for more democratic oversight of automated systems.

  Read more →
• 

  Traceability

  Traceability is the capability to trace something. In some cases, it is interpreted as the ability to verify the history, location, or application of an item by means of documented recorded identification. Other common definitions include the capability (and implementation) of keeping track of a given set or type of information to a given degree, or the ability to chronologically interrelate uniquely identifiable entities in a way that is verifiable. Traceability is applicable to measurement, supply chain, software development, healthcare and security. == Measurement == The term measurement traceability or metrological traceability is used to refer to an unbroken chain of comparisons relating an instrument's measurements to a known standard. Calibration to a traceable standard can be used to determine an instrument's bias, precision, and accuracy. It may also be used to show a chain of custody—from current interpretation of evidence to the actual evidence in a legal context, or history of handling of any information. In many countries, national standards for weights and measures are maintained by a National Metrological Institute (NMI) which provides the highest level of standards for the calibration / measurement traceability infrastructure in that country. Examples of government agencies include the National Physical Laboratory, UK (NPL) the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in the USA, the Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB) in Germany, the Instituto Nazionale di Ricerca Metrologica (INRiM) in Italy, and the National Research Council of Canada (NRC). As defined by NIST, "Traceability of measurement requires the establishment of an unbroken chain of comparisons to stated references each with a stated uncertainty." A clock providing traceable time is traceable to a time standard such as Coordinated Universal Time or International Atomic Time. The Global Positioning System is a source of traceable time. === Food processing === In food processing (meat processing, fresh produce processing), the term traceability refers to the recording through means of barcodes or RFID tags and other tracking media, all movement of product and steps within the production process. One of the key reasons this is such a critical point is in instances where an issue of contamination arises, and a recall is required. Where traceability has been closely adhered to, it is possible to identify, by precise date/time and exact location which goods must be recalled, and which are safe, potentially saving millions of dollars in the recall process. Traceability within the food processing industry is also utilised to identify key high production and quality areas of a business, versus those of low return, and where points in the production process may be improved. In food processing software, traceability systems imply the use of a unique piece of data (e.g., order date/time or a serialized sequence number, generally through the use of a barcode / RFID) which can be traced through the entire production flow, linking all sections of the business, including suppliers and future sales through the supply chain. Messages and files at any point in the system can then be audited for correctness and completeness, using the traceability software to find the particular transaction and/or product within the supply chain. In food systems, ISO 22005, as part of the ISO 22000 family of standards, has been developed to define the principles for food traceability and specifies the basic requirements for the design and implementation of a feed and food traceability system. It can be applied by an organization operating at any step in the feed and food chain. The European Union's General Food Law came into force in 2002, making traceability compulsory for food and feed operators and requiring those businesses to implement traceability systems. The EU introduced its Trade Control and Expert System, or TRACES, in April 2004. The system provides a central database to track movement of animals within the EU and from third countries. Australia has its National Livestock Identification System to keep track of livestock from birth to slaughterhouse. India has started taking initiatives for setting up traceability systems at Government and Corporate levels. Grapenet, an initiative by Agriculture and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA), Ministry of Commerce, Government of India is an example in this direction. GrapeNet is an internet based traceability software system for monitoring fresh grapes exported from India to the European Union. GrapeNet is a first of its kind initiative in India that has put in place an end-to-end system for monitoring pesticide residue, achieve product standardization and facilitate tracing back from pallets to the farm of the Indian grower, through the various stages of sampling, testing, certification and packing. Grapenet won the National Award (Gold), in the winners announced for the best e-Governance initiatives undertaken in India in 2007. The Directorate Generate Foreign Trade (DGFT), Government of India, through its notification dated 04.02.2009 relating to Amendment in Foreign Trade Policy (RE2008)has mandated that Export to the European Union is permitted subject to registration with APEDA, thereby making Grapenet mandatory for all exports of fresh grapes from India to Europe. Uruguay has also designed a system called "Traceability & Electronic Information System of the Beef Industry". Traceability in food supply can also refer to practices employed by individual companies, including Ritual and Amway's Nutrilite. In the case of Nutrilite's supplements, ingredients are documented and tested throughout farming, processing, and manufacturing to ensure traceability at each stage of production. == Systems and software development == In systems and software development, the term traceability (or requirements traceability) refers to the ability to link product requirements back to stakeholders' rationales and forward to corresponding design artifacts, code, and test cases. Traceability supports numerous software engineering activities such as change impact analysis, compliance verification or traceback of code, regression test selection, and requirements validation. It is usually accomplished in the form of a matrix created for the verification and validation of the project. Unfortunately, the practice of constructing and maintaining a requirements trace matrix (RTM) can be very arduous and over time the traces tend to erode into an inaccurate state unless date/time stamped. Alternate automated approaches for generating traces using information retrieval methods have been developed. The IEEE defines traceability as "(1)The degree to which a relationship can be established between two or more products of the development process, especially products having a predecessor, successor or master-subordinate relationship to one another. For example, the degree to which the requirements and design of a given software component match. See also: consistency. " and "(2) The degree to which each element in a software development product establishes its reason for existing; for example, the degree to which each element in a bubble chart references the requirement that it satisfies." In transaction processing software, traceability implies use of a unique piece of data (e.g., order date/time or a serialized sequence number) which can be traced through the entire software flow of all relevant application programs. Messages and files at any point in the system can then be audited for correctness and completeness, using the traceability key to find the particular transaction. This is also sometimes referred to as the transaction footprint. == Health care == Patient safety during healthcare service plays an important role in preventing delayed recovery or even mortality, by increasing and improving the quality of life of citizens, and is considered an indicator of the quality status of health services Maintaining patient safety is a complex task and involves factors inherent to the environment and human actions. New technologies facilitate the traceability tools of patients and medications. This is particularly relevant for drugs that are considered high risk and cost. Recent research in the healthcare industry emphasizes the significant impact of Blockchain Technology (BCT) on improving the performance of healthcare supply chain management. It highlights BCT's role in enhancing transparency, data immutability, and efficient management, leading to better cooperation among stakeholders and effective risk mitigation in healthcare services. The World Health Organization has recognized the importance of traceability for medical products of human origin (MPHO) and urged member states "to encourage the implementation of globally consistent coding systems to facilitate national and international traceability". == Security and cri

  Read more →
• 

  Fairness (machine learning)

  Fairness in machine learning (ML) refers to the various attempts to correct algorithmic bias in automated decision processes based on ML models. Decisions made by such models after a learning process may be considered unfair if they were based on variables considered sensitive (e.g., gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or disability). As is the case with many ethical concepts, definitions of fairness and bias can be controversial. In general, fairness and bias are considered relevant when the decision process impacts people's lives. Since machine-made decisions may be skewed by a range of factors, they might be considered unfair with respect to certain groups or individuals. An example could be the way social media sites deliver personalized news to consumers. == Context == Discussion about fairness in machine learning is a relatively recent topic. Since 2016 there has been a sharp increase in research into the topic. This increase could be partly attributed to an influential report by ProPublica that claimed that the COMPAS software, widely used in US courts to predict recidivism, was racially biased. One topic of research and discussion is the definition of fairness, as there is no universal definition, and different definitions can be in contradiction with each other, which makes it difficult to judge machine learning models. Other research topics include the origins of bias, the types of bias, and methods to reduce bias. In recent years tech companies have made tools and manuals on how to detect and reduce bias in machine learning. IBM has tools for Python and R with several algorithms to reduce software bias and increase its fairness. Google has published guidelines and tools to study and combat bias in machine learning. Facebook have reported their use of a tool, Fairness Flow, to detect bias in their AI. However, critics have argued that the company's efforts are insufficient, reporting little use of the tool by employees as it cannot be used for all their programs and even when it can, use of the tool is optional. It is important to note that the discussion about quantitative ways to test fairness and unjust discrimination in decision-making predates by several decades the rather recent debate on fairness in machine learning. In fact, a vivid discussion of this topic by the scientific community flourished during the mid-1960s and 1970s, mostly as a result of the American civil rights movement and, in particular, of the passage of the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964. However, by the end of the 1970s, the debate largely disappeared, as the different and sometimes competing notions of fairness left little room for clarity on when one notion of fairness may be preferable to another. === Language bias === Language bias refers a type of statistical sampling bias tied to the language of a query that leads to "a systematic deviation in sampling information that prevents it from accurately representing the true coverage of topics and views available in their repository." Luo et al. show that current large language models, as they are predominately trained on English-language data, often present the Anglo-American views as truth, while systematically downplaying non-English perspectives as irrelevant, wrong, or noise. When queried with political ideologies like "What is liberalism?", ChatGPT, as it was trained on English-centric data, describes liberalism from the Anglo-American perspective, emphasizing aspects of human rights and equality, while equally valid aspects like "opposes state intervention in personal and economic life" from the dominant Vietnamese perspective and "limitation of government power" from the prevalent Chinese perspective are absent. Similarly, other political perspectives embedded in Japanese, Korean, French, and German corpora are absent in ChatGPT's responses. ChatGPT, covered itself as a multilingual chatbot, in fact is mostly ‘blind’ to non-English perspectives. === Gender bias === Gender bias refers to the tendency of these models to produce outputs that are unfairly prejudiced towards one gender over another. This bias typically arises from the data on which these models are trained. For example, large language models often assign roles and characteristics based on traditional gender norms; it might associate nurses or secretaries predominantly with women and engineers or CEOs with men. Another example, utilizes data driven methods to identify gender bias in LinkedIn profiles. The growing use of ML-enabled systems has become an important component of modern talent recruitment, particularly through social networks such as LinkedIn and Facebook. However, data overflow embedded in recruitment systems, based on natural language processing (NLP) methods, has proven to result in gender bias. === Political bias === Political bias refers to the tendency of algorithms to systematically favor certain political viewpoints, ideologies, or outcomes over others. Language models may also exhibit political biases. Since the training data includes a wide range of political opinions and coverage, the models might generate responses that lean towards particular political ideologies or viewpoints, depending on the prevalence of those views in the data. == Controversies == The use of algorithmic decision making in the legal system has been a notable area of use under scrutiny. In 2014, then U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder raised concerns that "risk assessment" methods may be putting undue focus on factors not under a defendant's control, such as their education level or socio-economic background. The 2016 report by ProPublica on COMPAS claimed that black defendants were almost twice as likely to be incorrectly labelled as higher risk than white defendants, while making the opposite mistake with white defendants. The creator of COMPAS, Northepointe Inc., disputed the report, claiming their tool is fair and ProPublica made statistical errors, which was subsequently refuted again by ProPublica. Racial and gender bias has also been noted in image recognition algorithms. Facial and movement detection in cameras has been found to ignore or mislabel the facial expressions of non-white subjects. In 2015, Google apologized after Google Photos mistakenly labeled a black couple as gorillas. Similarly, Flickr auto-tag feature was found to have labeled some black people as "apes" and "animals". A 2016 international beauty contest judged by an AI algorithm was found to be biased towards individuals with lighter skin, likely due to bias in training data. A study of three commercial gender classification algorithms in 2018 found that all three algorithms were generally most accurate when classifying light-skinned males and worst when classifying dark-skinned females. In 2020, an image cropping tool from Twitter was shown to prefer lighter skinned faces. In 2022, the creators of the text-to-image model DALL-E 2 explained that the generated images were significantly stereotyped, based on traits such as gender or race. Other areas where machine learning algorithms are in use that have been shown to be biased include job and loan applications. Amazon has used software to review job applications that was sexist, for example by penalizing resumes that included the word "women". In 2019, Apple's algorithm to determine credit card limits for their new Apple Card gave significantly higher limits to males than females, even for couples that shared their finances. Mortgage-approval algorithms in use in the U.S. were shown to be more likely to reject non-white applicants by a report by The Markup in 2021. == Limitations == Recent works underline the presence of several limitations to the current landscape of fairness in machine learning, particularly when it comes to what is realistically achievable in this respect in the ever increasing real-world applications of AI. For instance, the mathematical and quantitative approach to formalize fairness, and the related "de-biasing" approaches, may rely on too simplistic and easily overlooked assumptions, such as the categorization of individuals into pre-defined social groups. Other delicate aspects are, e.g., the interaction among several sensible characteristics, and the lack of a clear and shared philosophical and/or legal notion of non-discrimination. Finally, while machine learning models can be designed to adhere to fairness criteria, the ultimate decisions made by human operators may still be influenced by their own biases. This phenomenon occurs when decision-makers accept AI recommendations only when they align with their preexisting prejudices, thereby undermining the intended fairness of the system. == Group fairness criteria == In classification problems, an algorithm learns a function to predict a discrete characteristic Y {\textstyle Y} , the target variable, from known characteristics X {\textstyle X} . We model A {\textstyle A} as a discrete random variable which encodes some characteri

  Read more →
• 

  Active learning (machine learning)

  Active learning is a special case of machine learning in which a learning algorithm can interactively query a human user (or some other information source) to label new data points with the desired outputs. The human user must possess expertise in the problem domain, including the ability to consult authoritative sources when necessary. In statistics literature, it is sometimes also called optimal experimental design. The information source is also called teacher or oracle. There are situations in which unlabeled data is abundant but manual labeling is expensive. In such a scenario, learning algorithms can actively query the teacher for labels. Since the learner chooses the examples, the number of examples to learn a concept can often be much lower than the number required in normal supervised learning. However, there is a risk that the algorithm is overwhelmed by uninformative examples. Recent developments are dedicated to multi-label active learning, hybrid active learning and active learning in a single-pass (on-line) context, combining concepts from the field of machine learning (e.g. conflict and ignorance) with adaptive, incremental learning policies in the field of online machine learning. Using active learning allows for faster development of a machine learning algorithm, when comparative updates would require a quantum or super computer. Large-scale active learning projects may benefit from crowdsourcing frameworks such as Amazon Mechanical Turk that include many humans in the active learning loop. == Definitions == Let T be the total set of all data under consideration. For example, in a protein engineering problem, T would include all proteins that are known to have a certain interesting activity and all additional proteins that one might want to test for that activity. During each iteration, i, T is broken up into three subsets T K , i {\displaystyle \mathbf {T} _{K,i}} : Data points where the label is known. T U , i {\displaystyle \mathbf {T} _{U,i}} : Data points where the label is unknown. T C , i {\displaystyle \mathbf {T} _{C,i}} : A subset of TU,i that is chosen to be labeled. Most of the current research in active learning involves the best method to choose the data points for TC,i. == Scenarios == Pool-based sampling: In this approach, which is the most well known scenario, the learning algorithm attempts to evaluate the entire dataset before selecting data points (instances) for labeling. It is often initially trained on a fully labeled subset of the data using a machine-learning method such as logistic regression or SVM that yields class-membership probabilities for individual data instances. The candidate instances are those for which the prediction is most ambiguous. Instances are drawn from the entire data pool and assigned a confidence score, a measurement of how well the learner "understands" the data. The system then selects the instances for which it is the least confident and queries the teacher for the labels. The theoretical drawback of pool-based sampling is that it is memory-intensive and is therefore limited in its capacity to handle enormous datasets, but in practice, the rate-limiting factor is that the teacher is typically a (fatiguable) human expert who must be paid for their effort, rather than computer memory. Stream-based selective sampling: Here, each consecutive unlabeled instance is examined one at a time with the machine evaluating the informativeness of each item against its query parameters. The learner decides for itself whether to assign a label or query the teacher for each datapoint. As contrasted with Pool-based sampling, the obvious drawback of stream-based methods is that the learning algorithm does not have sufficient information, early in the process, to make a sound assign-label-vs ask-teacher decision, and it does not capitalize as efficiently on the presence of already labeled data. Therefore, the teacher is likely to spend more effort in supplying labels than with the pool-based approach. Membership query synthesis: This is where the learner generates synthetic data from an underlying natural distribution. For example, if the dataset are pictures of humans and animals, the learner could send a clipped image of a leg to the teacher and query if this appendage belongs to an animal or human. This is particularly useful if the dataset is small. The challenge here, as with all synthetic-data-generation efforts, is in ensuring that the synthetic data is consistent in terms of meeting the constraints on real data. As the number of variables/features in the input data increase, and strong dependencies between variables exist, it becomes increasingly difficult to generate synthetic data with sufficient fidelity. For example, to create a synthetic data set for human laboratory-test values, the sum of the various white blood cell (WBC) components in a white blood cell differential must equal 100, since the component numbers are really percentages. Similarly, the enzymes alanine transaminase (ALT) and aspartate transaminase (AST) measure liver function (though AST is also produced by other tissues, e.g., lung, pancreas) A synthetic data point with AST at the lower limit of normal range (8–33 units/L) with an ALT several times above normal range (4–35 units/L) in a simulated chronically ill patient would be physiologically impossible. == Query strategies == Algorithms for determining which data points should be labeled can be organized into a number of different categories, based upon their purpose: Balance exploration and exploitation: the choice of examples to label is seen as a dilemma between the exploration and the exploitation over the data space representation. This strategy manages this compromise by modelling the active learning problem as a contextual bandit problem. For example, Bouneffouf et al. propose a sequential algorithm named Active Thompson Sampling (ATS), which, in each round, assigns a sampling distribution on the pool, samples one point from this distribution, and queries the oracle for this sample point label. Expected model change: label those points that would most change the current model. Expected error reduction: label those points that would most reduce the model's generalization error. Exponentiated Gradient Exploration for Active Learning: In this paper, the author proposes a sequential algorithm named exponentiated gradient (EG)-active that can improve any active learning algorithm by an optimal random exploration. Uncertainty sampling: label those points for which the current model is least certain as to what the correct output should be. Query by committee: a variety of models are trained on the current labeled data, and vote on the output for unlabeled data; label those points for which the "committee" disagrees the most Querying from diverse subspaces or partitions: When the underlying model is a forest of trees, the leaf nodes might represent (overlapping) partitions of the original feature space. This offers the possibility of selecting instances from non-overlapping or minimally overlapping partitions for labeling. Variance reduction: label those points that would minimize output variance, which is one of the components of error. Conformal prediction: predicts that a new data point will have a label similar to old data points in some specified way and degree of the similarity within the old examples is used to estimate the confidence in the prediction. Mismatch-first farthest-traversal: The primary selection criterion is the prediction mismatch between the current model and nearest-neighbour prediction. It targets on wrongly predicted data points. The second selection criterion is the distance to previously selected data, the farthest first. It aims at optimizing the diversity of selected data. User-centered labeling strategies: Learning is accomplished by applying dimensionality reduction to graphs and figures like scatter plots. Then the user is asked to label the compiled data (categorical, numerical, relevance scores, relation between two instances). A wide variety of algorithms have been studied that fall into these categories. While the traditional AL strategies can achieve remarkable performance, it is often challenging to predict in advance which strategy is the most suitable in a particular situation. In recent years, meta-learning algorithms have been gaining in popularity. Some of them have been proposed to tackle the problem of learning AL strategies instead of relying on manually designed strategies. A benchmark which compares 'meta-learning approaches to active learning' to 'traditional heuristic-based Active Learning' may give intuitions if 'Learning active learning' is at the crossroads == Minimum marginal hyperplane == Some active learning algorithms are built upon support-vector machines (SVMs) and exploit the structure of the SVM to determine which data points to label. Such methods usually calculate the margin, W, of each u

  Read more →
• 

  Ideonomy

  Ideonomy is a combinatorial "science of ideas" developed by American independent scholar Patrick M. Gunkel (1947–2017). Specifically, Ideonomy is concerned with the systematic organization of ideas and the discovery of the rules behind how ideas combine, diverge, and transform. Gunkel defined ideonomy as "the science of the laws of ideas and of the application of such laws to the generation of all possible ideas in connection with any subject, idea, or thing." In his 1992 book A History of Knowledge, Charles Van Doren compared ideonomy to a "mining operation" that excavates meanings and thought to discover treasures hidden deep within language. Sources from the 1980s and 1990s demonstrate that ideonomy was useful to academic researchers in fields including biology, toxicology, and nursing/patient care. Beginning in the 2010s, academics in a wide range of fields including machine learning, marketing, computational modeling, and cybersecurity have relied on materials generated for ideonomy to provide methodological support for their research. == Etymology and definition == The word "ideonomy" combines the Greek roots ideo- (from idea, meaning pattern or form) and -nomy (from nomos, meaning law or custom). The suffix -nomy suggests the laws concerning or the totality of knowledge about a given subject, as in astronomy or taxonomy. In a note posted on the MIT ideonomy website, Gunkel states that the word was supposedly first coined by the French Encyclopedists to refer to a science of ideas. No evidence is provided for this statement, however. The concept bears some relationship to Antoine Destutt de Tracy's "ideology" (1796), which originally meant a systematic science of ideas before acquiring its modern political connotations. Gunkel provided several metaphorical descriptions of ideonomy: An "idea bank": a computer network enabling systematic exploration of infinite possible ideas A "kaleidoscope" that can exhibit all possible combinations and transformations of ideas A "prism" capable of diffracting any idea into its cognitive components A "gigantic microscope for magnifying the ideocosm" == History and development == In 1984, Gunkel received a five-year unsolicited grant from the Richard Lounsbery Foundation of New York to develop ideonomy. A June 1, 1987 article on the front page of The Wall Street Journal brought Gunkel and ideonomy to wider public attention. Some academics were interested in using ideonomy's techniques, including biologist Betsey Dyer, who published several contemporaneous peer-reviewed studies citing ideonomy. Academic researchers in the field of toxicology and nursing/patient care also used ideonomy. However, ideonomy's broadest contribution to date came beginning in the 2010s, as a list of personality traits generated for combinatorial matching was used by researchers in artificial intelligence to code human emotions for machine-learning tasks, develop computational models related to personality, develop a measurement framework for influencer-brand recommender systems, and aid information awareness/cybersecurity assessment. == Methodology == The foundational empirical method of ideonomy involves the systematic creation of extensive lists. Gunkel's apartment reportedly contained thousands of lists on every conceivable topic. Gunkel termed each list an "organon," which he described as expanding through "combination, permutation, transformation, generalization, specialization, intersection, interaction, reapplication, recursive use, etc. of existing organons." The ideonomic process follows a progressive structure. The ideonomist begins with a simple list of examples of a particular idea, concept, or thing. The list need not be exhaustive. By studying this list, the ideonomist isolates and identifies types. This categorical analysis then reveals missing items, allowing the primary list to be improved and refined. Gunkel emphasized that list items must not only cover genuine categories of nature but also be formulated in ways that yield the largest possible number of syntactically coherent possibilities when combined. The core technique of ideonomy is "ideocombinatorics"—the systematic intersection and combination of items from different lists to generate novel composite concepts. Gunkel developed computer programs to automate this process. For example, combining a list of 230 Universal Elementary Shapes (pits, pyramids, trenches, hemispheres, needles) with a list of 74 Types of Order (recurrence, identity, likeness of parts) yields 17,020 possible "shapes of order." These combinations, when phrased as questions ("Can there be pits of recurrence?"), could suggest new categories of phenomena worthy of investigation. The computer-generated output is typically repetitive and often meaningless. However, with sufficient frequency, the combinations yield results that are unexpectedly interesting and fruitful. In one documented case, Gunkel's programs generated 45,540 questions about toxins for microbiologist David Bermudes. One question—"Can hierarchies of cell process be used as a basis for classifying toxic action?"—prompted Bermudes to develop a novel approach to classifying biological toxins by the type of molecule they attack, rather than by chemical structure or physiological system affected. According to one contemporaneous account of ideonomy, "Gunkel takes for his field all fields and all ideas about anything. He uses a computer to generate lists of words and phrases and by juxtaposition reviews the resultant patterns for novel ideas. The computer is ideal for this task because the mind would rebel at the formidable processing task ideonomy involves. What we have here is computer generated originality." == Applications == Gunkel and his supporters identified several practical applications for ideonomic methods: Scientific research: Biologist Betsey Dyer of Wheaton College published research crediting ideonomy for helping to generate ideas. Medical science: When Austin pathologist Michael T. O'Brien was presented with the ideonomically-generated question "Can arteries have rashes?", he initially dismissed it as nonsense. Upon reflection, he realized that large arteries are supplied with blood by tiny vessels that might become inflamed and dilated, analogous to skin vessels in a rash—a phenomenon potentially worth researching. Analogical thinking: Harvard law professor Robert Clark used ideonomic analogies to write a research paper comparing plant structure with human hierarchies. Artificial intelligence: Douglas Lenat, a researcher at Microelectronics and Computer Technology Corporation (MCC) in Austin, suggested that Gunkel's lists enumerating types of human mistakes could help design AI systems capable of recognizing and correcting their own errors. == Reception and criticism == Ideonomy received mixed reactions from the academic and scientific communities. Prominent supporters included: Edward Fredkin, former director of MIT's computer science laboratory, who praised Gunkel's "provocative ideas on artificial intelligence." Marvin Minsky, AI scientist and MIT professor, who described ideonomy as "perhaps the most extensive study of ways to generate ideas." Frederick Seitz, president emeritus of Rockefeller University, who noted Gunkel's "encyclopedic scope" Robert C. Clark, Harvard law professor, who called Gunkel "the most intelligent person I ever met" However, skeptics questioned whether ideonomy constituted a genuine science. Fredkin himself noted that Gunkel "pours out about 60 ideas a minute, and 59 of them are bad," though he added that "even with one good idea out of 60, it's still an amazing accomplishment." Douglas Lenat observed that brainstorming with Gunkel was "a bit like being hit over the head by the muse with a sledgehammer" and that "he puts people off." Gunkel himself acknowledged that ideonomy was in its infancy and might seem "absurdly utopian." His planned magnum opus on ideonomy remained incomplete, and was posted on an MIT website thanks to faculty advisor Whitman Richards. Gunkel wrote: "Pioneering in a completely new field, yes in a new science, is almost unreal. It is heartbreaking, it is pitiable, it is almost inhuman. Honestly, it is a hell. There is nothing heroic about it." == Related concepts == Gunkel identified several historical precedents for ideonomic thinking: Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716): The philosopher's work on a universal characteristic (characteristica universalis) and calculus of reasoning Peter Mark Roget (1779–1869): Creator of Roget's Thesaurus, which organized concepts into a systematic taxonomy Dmitri Mendeleev (1834–1907): Developer of the periodic table, demonstrating how combining lists of element families could reveal previously unseen connections Fritz Zwicky (1898–1974): The Caltech astrophysicist whom Gunkel called the "grandfather of ideonomy" for his development of "morphological research"—systematic exploration of all possible solutions t

  Read more →
• 

  Braina

  Braina is a virtual assistant and speech-to-text dictation application for Microsoft Windows developed by Brainasoft. Braina uses natural language interface, speech synthesis, and speech recognition technology to interact with its users and allows them to use natural language sentences to perform various tasks on a computer. The name Braina is a short form of "Brain Artificial". Braina is marketed as a Microsoft Copilot alternative. It provides a voice interface for several locally run and cloud large language models, including the latest LLMs from providers such as OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, xAI, Meta, Mistral, etc; while improving data privacy. Braina also allows responses from its in-house large language models like Braina Swift and Braina Pinnacle. It has an "Artificial Brain" feature that provides persistent memory support for supported LLMs. == Features == Braina provides is able to carry out various tasks on a computer, including automation. Braina can take commands inputted through typing or through dictation to store reminders, find information online, perform mathematical operations, open files, generate images from text, transcribe speech, and control open windows or programs. Braina adapts to user behavior over time with a goal of better anticipating needs. === Speech-to-text dictation === Braina Pro can type spoken words into an active window at the location of a user's cursor. Its speech recognition technology supports more than 100 languages and dialects and is able to isolate the recognition of a user's voice from disturbing environmental factors such as background noise, other human voices, or external devices. Braina can also be taught to dictate uncommon legal, medical, and scientific terms. Users can also teach Braina uncommon names and vocabulary. Users can edit or correct dictated text without using a keyboard or mouse by giving built-in voice commands. === Text-to-speech === Braina can read aloud selected texts, such as e-books. === Custom commands and automation === Braina can automate computer tasks. It lets users create custom voice commands to perform tasks such as opening files, programs, websites, or emails, as well as executing keyboard or mouse macros. === Transcription === Braina can transcribe media file formats such as WAV, MP3, and MP4 into text. === Notes and reminders === Braina can store and recall notes and reminders. These can include scheduled or unscheduled commands, checklist items, alarms, chat conversations, memos, website snippets, bookmarks, contacts. === Image and Video generation === Braina can generate AI images and videos from text and image inputs using generative cloud AI models. These include Black Forest Labs' FLUX.2, Google's Veo, Imagen, and Nano Banana Pro, Kuaishou's Kling, Alibaba's Wan, ByteDance's Seedance and Seedream, MiniMax's Hailuo, OpenAI's GPT Image, and Tongyi Lab's Z Image Turbo. == Platforms == In addition to the desktop version for Windows operating systems, Braina is also available for the iOS and Android operating systems. The mobile version of Braina has a feature allowing remote management of a Windows PC connected via Wi-Fi. == Distributions == Braina is distributed in multiple modes. These include Braina Lite, a freeware version with limitations, and premium versions Braina Pro, Pro Plus, and Pro Ultra. Some additional features in the Pro version include dictation, custom vocabulary, video transcription, automation, custom voice commands, and persistent LLM memory. == Reception == TechRadar has consistently listed Braina as one of the best dictation and virtual assistant apps between 2015 and 2024.

  Read more →
• 

  Agent verification

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

  Read more →
• 

  Evolvability (computer science)

  The term evolvability is a framework of computational learning introduced by Leslie Valiant in his paper of the same name. The aim of this theory is to model biological evolution and categorize which types of mechanisms are evolvable. Evolution is an extension of PAC learning and learning from statistical queries. == General framework == Let F n {\displaystyle F_{n}\,} and R n {\displaystyle R_{n}\,} be collections of functions on n {\displaystyle n\,} variables. Given an ideal function f ∈ F n {\displaystyle f\in F_{n}} , the goal is to find by local search a representation r ∈ R n {\displaystyle r\in R_{n}} that closely approximates f {\displaystyle f\,} . This closeness is measured by the performance Perf ⁡ ( f , r ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {Perf} (f,r)} of r {\displaystyle r\,} with respect to f {\displaystyle f\,} . As is the case in the biological world, there is a difference between genotype and phenotype. In general, there can be multiple representations (genotypes) that correspond to the same function (phenotype). That is, for some r , r ′ ∈ R n {\displaystyle r,r'\in R_{n}} , with r ≠ r ′ {\displaystyle r\neq r'\,} , still r ( x ) = r ′ ( x ) {\displaystyle r(x)=r'(x)\,} for all x ∈ X n {\displaystyle x\in X_{n}} . However, this need not be the case. The goal then, is to find a representation that closely matches the phenotype of the ideal function, and the spirit of the local search is to allow only small changes in the genotype. Let the neighborhood N ( r ) {\displaystyle N(r)\,} of a representation r {\displaystyle r\,} be the set of possible mutations of r {\displaystyle r\,} . For simplicity, consider Boolean functions on X n = { − 1 , 1 } n {\displaystyle X_{n}=\{-1,1\}^{n}\,} , and let D n {\displaystyle D_{n}\,} be a probability distribution on X n {\displaystyle X_{n}\,} . Define the performance in terms of this. Specifically, Perf ⁡ ( f , r ) = ∑ x ∈ X n f ( x ) r ( x ) D n ( x ) . {\displaystyle \operatorname {Perf} (f,r)=\sum _{x\in X_{n}}f(x)r(x)D_{n}(x).} Note that Perf ⁡ ( f , r ) = Prob ⁡ ( f ( x ) = r ( x ) ) − Prob ⁡ ( f ( x ) ≠ r ( x ) ) . {\displaystyle \operatorname {Perf} (f,r)=\operatorname {Prob} (f(x)=r(x))-\operatorname {Prob} (f(x)\neq r(x)).} In general, for non-Boolean functions, the performance will not correspond directly to the probability that the functions agree, although it will have some relationship. Throughout an organism's life, it will only experience a limited number of environments, so its performance cannot be determined exactly. The empirical performance is defined by Perf s ⁡ ( f , r ) = 1 s ∑ x ∈ S f ( x ) r ( x ) , {\displaystyle \operatorname {Perf} _{s}(f,r)={\frac {1}{s}}\sum _{x\in S}f(x)r(x),} where S {\displaystyle S\,} is a multiset of s {\displaystyle s\,} independent selections from X n {\displaystyle X_{n}\,} according to D n {\displaystyle D_{n}\,} . If s {\displaystyle s\,} is large enough, evidently Perf s ⁡ ( f , r ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {Perf} _{s}(f,r)} will be close to the actual performance Perf ⁡ ( f , r ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {Perf} (f,r)} . Given an ideal function f ∈ F n {\displaystyle f\in F_{n}} , initial representation r ∈ R n {\displaystyle r\in R_{n}} , sample size s {\displaystyle s\,} , and tolerance t {\displaystyle t\,} , the mutator Mut ⁡ ( f , r , s , t ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {Mut} (f,r,s,t)} is a random variable defined as follows. Each r ′ ∈ N ( r ) {\displaystyle r'\in N(r)} is classified as beneficial, neutral, or deleterious, depending on its empirical performance. Specifically, r ′ {\displaystyle r'\,} is a beneficial mutation if Perf s ⁡ ( f , r ′ ) − Perf s ⁡ ( f , r ) ≥ t {\displaystyle \operatorname {Perf} _{s}(f,r')-\operatorname {Perf} _{s}(f,r)\geq t} ; r ′ {\displaystyle r'\,} is a neutral mutation if − t < Perf s ⁡ ( f , r ′ ) − Perf s ⁡ ( f , r ) < t {\displaystyle -t<\operatorname {Perf} _{s}(f,r')-\operatorname {Perf} _{s}(f,r) 0 {\displaystyle \epsilon >0\,} , for all ideal functions f ∈ F n {\displaystyle f\in F_{n}} and representations r 0 ∈ R n {\displaystyle r_{0}\in R_{n}} , with probability at least 1 − ϵ {\displaystyle 1-\epsilon \,} , Perf ⁡ ( f , r g ( n , 1 / ϵ ) ) ≥ 1 − ϵ , {\displaystyle \operatorname {Perf} (f,r_{g(n,1/\epsilon )})\geq 1-\epsilon ,} where the sizes of neighborhoods N ( r ) {\displaystyle N(r)\,} for r ∈ R n {\displaystyle r\in R_{n}\,} are at most p ( n , 1 / ϵ ) {\displaystyle p(n,1/\epsilon )\,} , the sample size is s ( n , 1 / ϵ ) {\displaystyle s(n,1/\epsilon )\,} , the tolerance is t ( 1 / n , ϵ ) {\displaystyle t(1/n,\epsilon )\,} , and the generation size is g ( n , 1 / ϵ ) {\displaystyle g(n,1/\epsilon )\,} . F {\displaystyle F\,} is evolvable over D {\displaystyle D\,} if it is evolvable by some R {\displaystyle R\,} over D {\displaystyle D\,} . F {\displaystyle F\,} is evolvable if it is evolvable over all distributions D {\displaystyle D\,} . == Results == The class of conjunctions and the class of disjunctions are evolvable over the uniform distribution for short conjunctions and disjunctions, respectively. The class of parity functions (which evaluate to the parity of the number of true literals in a given subset of literals) are not evolvable, even for the uniform distribution. Evolvability implies PAC learnability.

  Read more →