AI Detector Like Turnitin Reddit

AI Detector Like Turnitin Reddit — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  Memory color effect

  The memory color effect is the phenomenon that the canonical hue of a type of object acquired through experience (e.g. the sky, a leaf, or a strawberry) can directly modulate the appearance of the actual colors of objects. Human observers acquire memory colors through their experiences with instances of that type. For example, most human observers know that an apple typically has a reddish hue; this knowledge about the canonical color which is represented in memory constitutes a memory color. As an example of the effect, normal human trichromats, when presented with a gray banana, often perceive the gray banana as being yellow - the banana's memory color. In light of this, subjects typically adjust the color of the banana towards the color blue - the opponent color of yellow - when asked to adjust its surface to gray to cancel the subtle activation of banana's memory color. Subsequent empirical studies have also shown the memory color effect on man-made objects (e.g. smurfs, German mailboxes), the effect being especially pronounced for blue and yellow objects. To explain this, researchers have argued that because natural daylight shifts from short wavelengths of light (i.e., bluish hues) towards light of longer wavelengths (i.e., yellowish-orange hues) during the day, the memory colors for blue and yellow objects are recruited by the visual system to a higher degree to compensate for this fluctuation in illumination, thereby providing a stronger memory color effect. == Form identification == Memory color plays a role when detecting an object. In a study where participants were given objects, such as an apple, with two alternate forms for each, a crooked apple and a circular apple, researchers changed the colors of the alternate forms and asked if they could identify them. Most of the participants answered "unsure," suggesting that we use memory color when identifying an object. The research redefined memory color as a phenomenon when "a form's identity affects the phenomenal hue of that form." == Color effect on memorization == Memory color effect can be derived from the human instinct to memorize objects better. Comparing the effect of recognizing gray-scaled images and colored images, results showed that people were able to recall colored images 5% higher compared to gray-scaled images. An important factor was that higher level of contrast between the object and background color influences memory. In a specific study related to this, participants reported that colors were 5% to 10% easier to recognize compared to black and white. == Color constancy and memory color effect == Color constancy is the phenomenon where a surface to appear to be of the same color under a wide rage of illumination. A study tested two hypotheses with regards to color memory; the photoreceptor hypothesis and the surface reflectance hypothesis. The test color was surround either by various color patches forming a complex pattern or a uniform “grey” field at the same chromaticity as that of the illuminant. The test color was presented on a dark background for the control group. It was observed that complex surround results where in line with the surface-reflectance hypothesis and not the photoreceptor hypothesis, showing that the accuracy and precision of color memory are fundamentals to understanding the phenomenon of color constancy. == Significance to the evolution of trichromacy == While objects that possess canonical hues make up a small percentage of the objects which populate humans’ visual experience, the human visual system evolved in an environment populated with objects that possess canonical hues. This suggests that the memory color effect is related to the emergence of trichromacy because it has been argued that trichromacy evolved to optimize the ability to detect ripe fruits—objects that appear in canonical hues. == In perception research == In perception research, the memory color effect is cited as evidence for the opponent color theory, which states that four basic colors can be paired with its opponent color: red—green, blue—yellow. This explains why participants adjust the ripe banana color to a blueish tone to make its memory color yellow as gray. Researchers have also found empirical evidence that suggests memory color is recruited by the visual system to achieve color constancy. For example, participants had a lower percentage of color constancy when looking at a color incongruent scene, such as a purple banana, compared to a color diagnostical scene, a yellow banana. This suggests that color constancy is influenced by the color of objects that we are familiar with, which the memory color effect takes part.

  Read more →
• 

  Machine learning in video games

  Artificial intelligence and machine learning techniques are used in video games for a wide variety of applications such as non-player character (NPC) control, procedural content generation (PCG) and deep learning-based content generation. Machine learning is a subset of artificial intelligence that uses historical data to build predictive and analytical models. This is in sharp contrast to traditional methods of artificial intelligence such as search trees and expert systems. Information on machine learning techniques in the field of games is mostly known to public through research projects as most gaming companies choose not to publish specific information about their intellectual property. The most publicly known application of machine learning in games is likely the use of deep learning agents that compete with professional human players in complex strategy games. There has been a significant application of machine learning on games such as Atari/ALE, Doom, Minecraft, StarCraft, and car racing. Other games that did not originally exists as video games, such as chess and Go have also been affected by the machine learning. == Overview of relevant machine learning techniques == === Deep learning === Deep learning is a subset of machine learning which focuses heavily on the use of artificial neural networks (ANN) that learn to solve complex tasks. Deep learning uses multiple layers of ANN and other techniques to progressively extract information from an input. Due to this complex layered approach, deep learning models often require powerful machines to train and run on. ==== Convolutional neural networks ==== Convolutional neural networks (CNN) are specialized ANNs that are often used to analyze image data. These types of networks are able to learn translation invariant patterns, which are patterns that are not dependent on location. CNNs are able to learn these patterns in a hierarchy, meaning that earlier convolutional layers will learn smaller local patterns while later layers will learn larger patterns based on the previous patterns. A CNN's ability to learn visual data has made it a commonly used tool for deep learning in games. === Recurrent neural network === Recurrent neural networks are a type of ANN that are designed to process sequences of data in order, one part at a time rather than all at once. An RNN runs over each part of a sequence, using the current part of the sequence along with memory of previous parts of the current sequence to produce an output. These types of ANN are highly effective at tasks such as speech recognition and other problems that depend heavily on temporal order. There are several types of RNNs with different internal configurations; the basic implementation suffers from a lack of long term memory due to the vanishing gradient problem, thus it is rarely used over newer implementations. ==== Long short-term memory ==== A long short-term memory (LSTM) network is a specific implementation of a RNN that is designed to deal with the vanishing gradient problem seen in simple RNNs, which would lead to them gradually "forgetting" about previous parts of an inputted sequence when calculating the output of a current part. LSTMs solve this problem with the addition of an elaborate system that uses an additional input/output to keep track of long term data. LSTMs have achieved very strong results across various fields, and were used by several monumental deep learning agents in games. === Reinforcement learning === Reinforcement learning is the process of training an agent using rewards and/or punishments. The way an agent is rewarded or punished depends heavily on the problem; such as giving an agent a positive reward for winning a game or a negative one for losing. Reinforcement learning is used heavily in the field of machine learning and can be seen in methods such as Q-learning, policy search, Deep Q-networks and others. It has seen strong performance in both the field of games and robotics. === Neuroevolution === Neuroevolution involves the use of both neural networks and evolutionary algorithms. Instead of using gradient descent like most neural networks, neuroevolution models make use of evolutionary algorithms to update neurons in the network. Researchers claim that this process is less likely to get stuck in a local minimum and is potentially faster than state of the art deep learning techniques. == Deep learning agents == Machine learning agents have been used to take the place of a human player rather than function as NPCs, which are deliberately added into video games as part of designed gameplay. Deep learning agents have achieved impressive results when used in competition with both humans and other artificial intelligence agents. === Chess === Chess is a turn-based strategy game that is considered a difficult AI problem due to the computational complexity of its board space. Similar strategy games are often solved with some form of a Minimax Tree Search. These types of AI agents have been known to beat professional human players, such as the historic 1997 Deep Blue versus Garry Kasparov match. Since then, machine learning agents have shown ever greater success than previous AI agents. === Go === Go is another turn-based strategy game which is considered an even more difficult AI problem than chess. The state space of is Go is around 10^170 possible board states compared to the 10^120 board states for Chess. Prior to recent deep learning models, AI Go agents were only able to play at the level of a human amateur. ==== AlphaGo ==== Google's 2015 AlphaGo was the first AI agent to beat a professional Go player. AlphaGo used a deep learning model to train the weights of a Monte Carlo tree search (MCTS). The deep learning model consisted of 2 ANN, a policy network to predict the probabilities of potential moves by opponents, and a value network to predict the win chance of a given state. The deep learning model allows the agent to explore potential game states more efficiently than a vanilla MCTS. The network were initially trained on games of humans players and then were further trained by games against itself. ==== AlphaGo Zero ==== AlphaGo Zero, another implementation of AlphaGo, was able to train entirely by playing against itself. It was able to quickly train up to the capabilities of the previous agent. === StarCraft series === StarCraft and its sequel StarCraft II are real-time strategy (RTS) video games that have become popular environments for AI research. Blizzard and DeepMind have worked together to release a public StarCraft 2 environment for AI research to be done on. Various deep learning methods have been tested on both games, though most agents usually have trouble outperforming the default AI with cheats enabled or skilled players of the game. ==== Alphastar ==== Alphastar was the first AI agent to beat professional StarCraft 2 players without any in-game advantages. The deep learning network of the agent initially received input from a simplified zoomed out version of the gamestate, but was later updated to play using a camera like other human players. The developers have not publicly released the code or architecture of their model, but have listed several state of the art machine learning techniques such as relational deep reinforcement learning, long short-term memory, auto-regressive policy heads, pointer networks, and centralized value baseline. Alphastar was initially trained with supervised learning, it watched replays of many human games in order to learn basic strategies. It then trained against different versions of itself and was improved through reinforcement learning. The final version was hugely successful, but only trained to play on a specific map in a protoss mirror matchup. === Dota 2 === Dota 2 is a multiplayer online battle arena (MOBA) game. Like other complex games, traditional AI agents have not been able to compete on the same level as professional human player. The only widely published information on AI agents attempted on Dota 2 is OpenAI's deep learning Five agent. ==== OpenAI Five ==== OpenAI Five utilized separate long short-term memory networks to learn each hero. It trained using a reinforcement learning technique known as Proximal Policy Learning running on a system containing 256 GPUs and 128,000 CPU cores. Five trained for months, accumulating 180 years of game experience each day, before facing off with professional players. It was eventually able to beat the 2018 Dota 2 esports champion team in a 2019 series of games. === Planetary Annihilation === Planetary Annihilation is a real-time strategy game which focuses on massive scale war. The developers use ANNs in their default AI agent. === Supreme Commander 2 === Supreme Commander 2 is a real-time strategy (RTS) video game. The game uses Multilayer Perceptrons (MLPs) to control a platoon’s reaction to encountered enemy units. Total of four MLPs are used, one for each platoon type: land, naval

  Read more →
• 

  Human-in-the-loop

  Human-in-the-loop (HITL) is used in multiple contexts. It can be defined as a model requiring human interaction. HITL is associated with modeling and simulation (M&S) in the live, virtual, and constructive taxonomy. HITL, along with the related human-on-the-loop, are also used in relation to lethal autonomous weapons. Further, HITL is used in the context of machine learning.It is also used in conversational AI to manage complex interactions that require human empathy. == Machine learning == In machine learning, HITL is used in the sense of humans aiding the computer in making the correct decisions in building a model. HITL improves machine learning over random sampling by selecting the most critical data needed to refine the model. == Simulation == In simulation, HITL models may conform to human factors requirements as in the case of a mockup. In this type of simulation, a human is always part of the simulation and consequently influences the outcome in such a way that is difficult if not impossible to reproduce exactly. HITL also readily allows for the identification of problems and requirements that may not be easily identified by other means of simulation. HITL is often referred to as an interactive simulation, which is a special kind of physical simulation in which physical simulations include human operators, such as in a flight or a driving simulator. === Benefits === Human-in-the-loop allows the user to change the outcome of an event or process. The immersion effectively contributes to a positive transfer of acquired skills into the real world. This can be demonstrated by trainees utilizing flight simulators in preparation to become pilots. HITL also allows for the acquisition of knowledge regarding how a new process may affect a particular event. Utilizing HITL allows participants to interact with realistic models and attempt to perform as they would in an actual scenario. HITL simulations bring to the surface issues that would not otherwise be apparent until after a new process has been deployed. A real-world example of HITL simulation as an evaluation tool is its usage by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to allow air traffic controllers to test new automation procedures by directing the activities of simulated air traffic while monitoring the effect of the newly implemented procedures. As with most processes, there is always the possibility of human error, which can only be reproduced using HITL simulation. Although much can be done to automate systems, humans typically still need to take the information provided by a system to determine the next course of action based on their judgment and experience. Intelligent systems can only go so far in certain circumstances to automate a process; only humans in the simulation can accurately judge the final design. Tabletop simulation may be useful in the very early stages of project development for the purpose of collecting data to set broad parameters, but the important decisions require human-in-the-loop simulation. HITL reflects scenarios where human input remains essential despite advances in automation. === Within the virtual simulation taxonomy === Virtual simulations inject HITL in a central role by exercising motor control skills (e.g. flying an airplane), decision making skills (e.g. committing fire control resources to action), or communication skills (e.g. as members of a C4I team). === Examples === Flight simulators Driving simulators Marine simulators Video games Supply chain management simulators Digital puppetry === Misconceptions === Although human-in-the-loop simulation can include a computer simulation in the form of a synthetic environment, computer simulation is not necessarily a form of human-in-the-loop simulation, and is often considered as human-out-of-the loop simulation. In this particular case, a computer model’s behavior is modified according to a set of initial parameters. The results of the model differ from the results stemming from a true human-in-the-loop simulation because the results can easily be replicated time and time again, by simply providing identical parameters. == Weapons == === Taxonomy === Three classifications of the degree of human control of autonomous weapon systems were laid out by Bonnie Docherty in a 2012 Human Rights Watch report. human-in-the-loop: a human must instigate the action of the weapon (in other words not fully autonomous) human-on-the-loop: a human may abort an action human-out-of-the-loop: no human action is involved === Positive human action === In discussions of autonomous weapons and nuclear command and control, the phrase positive human action has been used alongside "human-in-the-loop" to emphasize that a human operator must affirmatively authorize the use of force. Descriptions of the United States Navy's Aegis Combat System have used the phrase in characterizing a requirement for affirmative human action to initiate live firing. A survey of autonomous weapons systems described the Aegis "Auto SM" mode as one in which "the system fully develops the engagement process however engagement requires positive human action". The phrase entered United States federal law in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2025, which stipulates that artificial intelligence systems not compromise "the principle of requiring positive human actions in execution of decisions by the President with respect to the employment of nuclear weapons".

  Read more →
• 

  Reparameterization trick

  The reparameterization trick (aka "reparameterization gradient estimator") is a technique used in statistical machine learning, particularly in variational inference, variational autoencoders, and stochastic optimization. It allows for the efficient computation of gradients through random variables, enabling the optimization of parametric probability models using stochastic gradient descent, and the variance reduction of estimators. It was developed in the 1980s in operations research, under the name of "pathwise gradients", or "stochastic gradients". Its use in variational inference was proposed in 2013. == Mathematics == Let z {\displaystyle z} be a random variable with distribution q ϕ ( z ) {\displaystyle q_{\phi }(z)} , where ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } is a vector containing the parameters of the distribution. === REINFORCE estimator === Consider an objective function of the form: L ( ϕ ) = E z ∼ q ϕ ( z ) [ f ( z ) ] {\displaystyle L(\phi )=\mathbb {E} _{z\sim q_{\phi }(z)}[f(z)]} Without the reparameterization trick, estimating the gradient ∇ ϕ L ( ϕ ) {\displaystyle \nabla _{\phi }L(\phi )} can be challenging, because the parameter appears in the random variable itself. In more detail, we have to statistically estimate: ∇ ϕ L ( ϕ ) = ∇ ϕ ∫ d z q ϕ ( z ) f ( z ) {\displaystyle \nabla _{\phi }L(\phi )=\nabla _{\phi }\int dz\;q_{\phi }(z)f(z)} The REINFORCE estimator, widely used in reinforcement learning and especially policy gradient, uses the following equality: ∇ ϕ L ( ϕ ) = ∫ d z q ϕ ( z ) ∇ ϕ ( ln ⁡ q ϕ ( z ) ) f ( z ) = E z ∼ q ϕ ( z ) [ ∇ ϕ ( ln ⁡ q ϕ ( z ) ) f ( z ) ] {\displaystyle \nabla _{\phi }L(\phi )=\int dz\;q_{\phi }(z)\nabla _{\phi }(\ln q_{\phi }(z))f(z)=\mathbb {E} _{z\sim q_{\phi }(z)}[\nabla _{\phi }(\ln q_{\phi }(z))f(z)]} This allows the gradient to be estimated: ∇ ϕ L ( ϕ ) ≈ 1 N ∑ i = 1 N ∇ ϕ ( ln ⁡ q ϕ ( z i ) ) f ( z i ) {\displaystyle \nabla _{\phi }L(\phi )\approx {\frac {1}{N}}\sum _{i=1}^{N}\nabla _{\phi }(\ln q_{\phi }(z_{i}))f(z_{i})} The REINFORCE estimator has high variance, and many methods were developed to reduce its variance. === Reparameterization estimator === The reparameterization trick expresses z {\displaystyle z} as: z = g ϕ ( ϵ ) , ϵ ∼ p ( ϵ ) {\displaystyle z=g_{\phi }(\epsilon ),\quad \epsilon \sim p(\epsilon )} Here, g ϕ {\displaystyle g_{\phi }} is a deterministic function parameterized by ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } , and ϵ {\displaystyle \epsilon } is a noise variable drawn from a fixed distribution p ( ϵ ) {\displaystyle p(\epsilon )} . This gives: L ( ϕ ) = E ϵ ∼ p ( ϵ ) [ f ( g ϕ ( ϵ ) ) ] {\displaystyle L(\phi )=\mathbb {E} _{\epsilon \sim p(\epsilon )}[f(g_{\phi }(\epsilon ))]} Now, the gradient can be estimated as: ∇ ϕ L ( ϕ ) = E ϵ ∼ p ( ϵ ) [ ∇ ϕ f ( g ϕ ( ϵ ) ) ] ≈ 1 N ∑ i = 1 N ∇ ϕ f ( g ϕ ( ϵ i ) ) {\displaystyle \nabla _{\phi }L(\phi )=\mathbb {E} _{\epsilon \sim p(\epsilon )}[\nabla _{\phi }f(g_{\phi }(\epsilon ))]\approx {\frac {1}{N}}\sum _{i=1}^{N}\nabla _{\phi }f(g_{\phi }(\epsilon _{i}))} == Examples == For some common distributions, the reparameterization trick takes specific forms: Normal distribution: For z ∼ N ( μ , σ 2 ) {\displaystyle z\sim {\mathcal {N}}(\mu ,\sigma ^{2})} , we can use: z = μ + σ ϵ , ϵ ∼ N ( 0 , 1 ) {\displaystyle z=\mu +\sigma \epsilon ,\quad \epsilon \sim {\mathcal {N}}(0,1)} Exponential distribution: For z ∼ Exp ( λ ) {\displaystyle z\sim {\text{Exp}}(\lambda )} , we can use: z = − 1 λ log ⁡ ( ϵ ) , ϵ ∼ Uniform ( 0 , 1 ) {\displaystyle z=-{\frac {1}{\lambda }}\log(\epsilon ),\quad \epsilon \sim {\text{Uniform}}(0,1)} Discrete distribution can be reparameterized by the Gumbel distribution (Gumbel-softmax trick or "concrete distribution") and diffusion models. In general, any distribution that is differentiable with respect to its parameters can be reparameterized by inverting the multivariable CDF function, then apply the implicit method. See for an exposition and application to the Gamma, Beta, Dirichlet, and von Mises distributions. == Applications == === Variational autoencoder === In Variational Autoencoders (VAEs), the VAE objective function, known as the Evidence Lower Bound (ELBO), is given by: ELBO ( ϕ , θ ) = E z ∼ q ϕ ( z | x ) [ log ⁡ p θ ( x | z ) ] − D KL ( q ϕ ( z | x ) | | p ( z ) ) {\displaystyle {\text{ELBO}}(\phi ,\theta )=\mathbb {E} _{z\sim q_{\phi }(z|x)}[\log p_{\theta }(x|z)]-D_{\text{KL}}(q_{\phi }(z|x)||p(z))} where q ϕ ( z | x ) {\displaystyle q_{\phi }(z|x)} is the encoder (recognition model), p θ ( x | z ) {\displaystyle p_{\theta }(x|z)} is the decoder (generative model), and p ( z ) {\displaystyle p(z)} is the prior distribution over latent variables. The gradient of ELBO with respect to θ {\displaystyle \theta } is simply E z ∼ q ϕ ( z | x ) [ ∇ θ log ⁡ p θ ( x | z ) ] ≈ 1 L ∑ l = 1 L ∇ θ log ⁡ p θ ( x | z l ) {\displaystyle \mathbb {E} _{z\sim q_{\phi }(z|x)}[\nabla _{\theta }\log p_{\theta }(x|z)]\approx {\frac {1}{L}}\sum _{l=1}^{L}\nabla _{\theta }\log p_{\theta }(x|z_{l})} but the gradient with respect to ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } requires the trick. Express the sampling operation z ∼ q ϕ ( z | x ) {\displaystyle z\sim q_{\phi }(z|x)} as: z = μ ϕ ( x ) + σ ϕ ( x ) ⊙ ϵ , ϵ ∼ N ( 0 , I ) {\displaystyle z=\mu _{\phi }(x)+\sigma _{\phi }(x)\odot \epsilon ,\quad \epsilon \sim {\mathcal {N}}(0,I)} where μ ϕ ( x ) {\displaystyle \mu _{\phi }(x)} and σ ϕ ( x ) {\displaystyle \sigma _{\phi }(x)} are the outputs of the encoder network, and ⊙ {\displaystyle \odot } denotes element-wise multiplication. Then we have ∇ ϕ ELBO ( ϕ , θ ) = E ϵ ∼ N ( 0 , I ) [ ∇ ϕ log ⁡ p θ ( x | z ) + ∇ ϕ log ⁡ q ϕ ( z | x ) − ∇ ϕ log ⁡ p ( z ) ] {\displaystyle \nabla _{\phi }{\text{ELBO}}(\phi ,\theta )=\mathbb {E} _{\epsilon \sim {\mathcal {N}}(0,I)}[\nabla _{\phi }\log p_{\theta }(x|z)+\nabla _{\phi }\log q_{\phi }(z|x)-\nabla _{\phi }\log p(z)]} where z = μ ϕ ( x ) + σ ϕ ( x ) ⊙ ϵ {\displaystyle z=\mu _{\phi }(x)+\sigma _{\phi }(x)\odot \epsilon } . This allows us to estimate the gradient using Monte Carlo sampling: ∇ ϕ ELBO ( ϕ , θ ) ≈ 1 L ∑ l = 1 L [ ∇ ϕ log ⁡ p θ ( x | z l ) + ∇ ϕ log ⁡ q ϕ ( z l | x ) − ∇ ϕ log ⁡ p ( z l ) ] {\displaystyle \nabla _{\phi }{\text{ELBO}}(\phi ,\theta )\approx {\frac {1}{L}}\sum _{l=1}^{L}[\nabla _{\phi }\log p_{\theta }(x|z_{l})+\nabla _{\phi }\log q_{\phi }(z_{l}|x)-\nabla _{\phi }\log p(z_{l})]} where z l = μ ϕ ( x ) + σ ϕ ( x ) ⊙ ϵ l {\displaystyle z_{l}=\mu _{\phi }(x)+\sigma _{\phi }(x)\odot \epsilon _{l}} and ϵ l ∼ N ( 0 , I ) {\displaystyle \epsilon _{l}\sim {\mathcal {N}}(0,I)} for l = 1 , … , L {\displaystyle l=1,\ldots ,L} . This formulation enables backpropagation through the sampling process, allowing for end-to-end training of the VAE model using stochastic gradient descent or its variants. === Variational inference === More generally, the trick allows using stochastic gradient descent for variational inference. Let the variational objective (ELBO) be of the form: ELBO ( ϕ ) = E z ∼ q ϕ ( z ) [ log ⁡ p ( x , z ) − log ⁡ q ϕ ( z ) ] {\displaystyle {\text{ELBO}}(\phi )=\mathbb {E} _{z\sim q_{\phi }(z)}[\log p(x,z)-\log q_{\phi }(z)]} Using the reparameterization trick, we can estimate the gradient of this objective with respect to ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } : ∇ ϕ ELBO ( ϕ ) ≈ 1 L ∑ l = 1 L ∇ ϕ [ log ⁡ p ( x , g ϕ ( ϵ l ) ) − log ⁡ q ϕ ( g ϕ ( ϵ l ) ) ] , ϵ l ∼ p ( ϵ ) {\displaystyle \nabla _{\phi }{\text{ELBO}}(\phi )\approx {\frac {1}{L}}\sum _{l=1}^{L}\nabla _{\phi }[\log p(x,g_{\phi }(\epsilon _{l}))-\log q_{\phi }(g_{\phi }(\epsilon _{l}))],\quad \epsilon _{l}\sim p(\epsilon )} === Dropout === The reparameterization trick has been applied to reduce the variance in dropout, a regularization technique in neural networks. The original dropout can be reparameterized with Bernoulli distributions: y = ( W ⊙ ϵ ) x , ϵ i j ∼ Bernoulli ( α i j ) {\displaystyle y=(W\odot \epsilon )x,\quad \epsilon _{ij}\sim {\text{Bernoulli}}(\alpha _{ij})} where W {\displaystyle W} is the weight matrix, x {\displaystyle x} is the input, and α i j {\displaystyle \alpha _{ij}} are the (fixed) dropout rates. More generally, other distributions can be used than the Bernoulli distribution, such as the gaussian noise: y i = μ i + σ i ⊙ ϵ i , ϵ i ∼ N ( 0 , I ) {\displaystyle y_{i}=\mu _{i}+\sigma _{i}\odot \epsilon _{i},\quad \epsilon _{i}\sim {\mathcal {N}}(0,I)} where μ i = m i ⊤ x {\displaystyle \mu _{i}=\mathbf {m} _{i}^{\top }x} and σ i 2 = v i ⊤ x 2 {\displaystyle \sigma _{i}^{2}=\mathbf {v} _{i}^{\top }x^{2}} , with m i {\displaystyle \mathbf {m} _{i}} and v i {\displaystyle \mathbf {v} _{i}} being the mean and variance of the i {\displaystyle i} -th output neuron. The reparameterization trick can be applied to all such cases, resulting in the variational dropout method.

  Read more →
• 

  Transparency in the software supply chain

  Transparency in the software supply chain is a condition in which participants involved in the development, procurement, operation, auditing, or regulation of software can determine which components, dependencies, build stages, identifiers, and relationships within the supply chain make up the delivered product. The disclosure of information about software components, their interrelationships, origins, and development methods—for the purposes of risk management, vulnerability detection, and compliance—takes place throughout the software lifecycle. Transparency is one of the key security attributes of the software supply chain, as a deeper understanding of the chain enables participants to identify vulnerabilities and mitigate threats. Problems in the software supply chain can cause billions in losses and create operational challenges for government and commercial entities, as demonstrated by incidents involving SolarWinds, Bybit, 3CX, Jaguar Land Rover, GitHub, and NotPetya. Modern software is often assembled from third-party libraries and open-source components. According to research by the Linux Foundation and Synopsys, 96% of the commercial codebases analyzed contained open-source software, and 70–90% of a typical codebase may consist of open-source components. Without transparency, any software component can become a threat. As a result, companies may spend billions of dollars building robust external defenses, but this will not protect against vulnerabilities in legitimate software inside the perimeter. At the same time, supply chain attacks also erode trust between customers and their IT providers, as malicious code is often embedded in official updates with certificates and digital signatures. One of the primary ways to ensure transparency is through a software bill of materials, which documents the components used to create the software and the relationships within the supply chain. == Concept == The software supply chain is the collection of systems, devices, people, artifacts, and processes involved in the creation of the final software product. Attacks on the software supply chain differ from conventional attacks in that they follow a four-stage pattern: compromise, modification, distribution, and subsequent exploitation of the compromised or modified component. A defining feature of a supply chain attack is the introduction or manipulation of a change at an upstream stage, which is subsequently exploited at a downstream stage. Transparency refers to the availability of knowledge about the chain, while validity concerns the integrity of operations and artifacts and the authentication of participants, and separation involves reducing unnecessary trust relationships and the radius of impact through compartmentalization. In this framework, transparency primarily helps during the pre-compromise and detection phases, as a clearer understanding of participants, operations, and artifacts makes it easier to identify weak links before attackers exploit them. Current major attack vectors include dependencies and containers, build infrastructure, and human participants, such as maintainers or developers. == History == Software supply-chain transparency developed from earlier efforts to document software components, long before the term came into widespread use in the cybersecurity field. Early component-documentation formats included SPDX, first published in 2011, and CycloneDX, first published in 2017. Initially, these formats were created to support license compliance, package identification, and tool compatibility. Their development helped shape a broader concept of software supply chain transparency, encompassing component documentation, disclosure practices, risk management, security analysis, and regulatory compliance. In 2018, the U.S. National Telecommunications and Information Administration launched a multistakeholder process on promoting software component transparency. This process helped move work on SBOMs from a specialized technical practice into the realm of policy and procurement to identify components used in software products. The 2020 compromise of the SolarWinds Orion platform made software supply chain security a central issue in government cybersecurity policy. An analysis of the “Sunburst” campaign prepared by the Atlantic Council noted that the vulnerability of the software supply chain had become a realized risk for national-security agencies. In May 2021, U.S. President Joe Biden issued Executive Order 14028, which directed federal agencies to improve cybersecurity and increase transparency in the software supply chain, including requirements related to SBOMs. Reuters reported that the executive order required software developers selling their products to the federal government to provide greater visibility into their software and make security data available. In July 2021, the NTIA published the document “The Minimum Elements for a Software Bill of Materials (SBOM)”, defining the basic data fields and practices for creating SBOMs. Between 2021 and 2025, the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency updated its guidance on “Framing Software Component Transparency”, expanding the set of SBOM attributes, metadata requirements, and operational recommendations for the creation, exchange, and use of SBOMs. Major incidents that occurred following the SolarWinds attack have underscored the importance of transparency in vulnerability management and supply chain security. The Log4Shell vulnerability in the Log4j library, disclosed in December 2021, demonstrated how difficult it can be for organizations to identify a vulnerable component deeply embedded within applications and services. In 2024, an attempt to plant a backdoor in XZ Utils showed how attackers could exploit trust in open-source maintenance processes to introduce malicious code into widely used infrastructure software. By the mid-2020s, software supply chain transparency had become part of international cybersecurity coordination and regulation. On September 3, 2025, Japan's Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry and the National Cybersecurity Office, in collaboration with cybersecurity agencies from 15 countries, released the document “A Shared Vision of Software Bill of Materials (SBOM) for Cybersecurity.” In the European Union, the Cyber Resilience Act required manufacturers of products with digital elements to create, maintain, and retain SBOMs as part of the technical documentation for software placed on the EU market. == Transparency mechanisms == The primary mechanism for ensuring transparency is the software bill of materials (SBOM). An SBOM is a structured list of components, libraries, and tools used to build and distribute a software product, and it records dependencies in a way that helps organizations understand and assess their software supply chains. It can also be described as a formal record of components and their interdependencies, which gives users insight into their actual exposure to risks and threats. Five key areas of SBOM application in software supply chain security have been identified: vulnerability management, ensuring transparency, component evaluation, risk assessment, and ensuring supply chain integrity. In software supply chains, an SBOM documents all components, both open-source and proprietary. Under Executive Order 14028, U.S. federal agencies require software suppliers to provide SBOMs for government-procured software. The list of minimum required SBOM elements defined by NTIA includes three main categories: required data fields for describing each component (name, version, identifiers), automation support (machine-readable format, generation tools), and recommendations for creating SBOMs during development and purchasing. The post-2021 push for SBOMs was intended to provide visibility into the components used within software and to expose parts of an application that would otherwise remain hidden. This information can be used to prioritize patches, manage vulnerabilities, and support compliance work. Transparency also supports software traceability, which is becoming a standard feature of developer platforms. Traceability has become important because organizations are increasingly required to demonstrate how software was created, rather than simply listing its components. Higher levels of assurance require signed, tamper-proof traceability and more isolated, verifiable build environments. A related mechanism is build reproducibility. Reproducible builds are defined as build processes that make the compilation process deterministic, ensuring that the same source code always produces the same binary file. These builds are considered a foundational element for distributed verification, transparency-log maintenance, supply-chain workflow integration, and the creation of keyless signatures based on verifiable logs. Although reproducibility does not replace inventory or attestation, it gives external par

  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 →
• 

  Cross-validation (statistics)

  Cross-validation, sometimes called rotation estimation or out-of-sample testing, is any of various similar model validation techniques for assessing how the results of a statistical analysis will generalize to an independent data set. Cross-validation includes resampling and sample splitting methods that use different portions of the data to test and train a model on different iterations. It is often used in settings where the goal is prediction, and one wants to estimate how accurately a predictive model will perform in practice. It can also be used to assess the quality of a fitted model and the stability of its parameters. In a prediction problem, a model is usually given a dataset of known data on which training is run (training dataset), and a dataset of unknown data (or first seen data) against which the model is tested (called the validation dataset or testing set). The goal of cross-validation is to test the model's ability to predict new data that was not used in estimating it, in order to flag problems like overfitting or selection bias and to give an insight on how the model will generalize to an independent dataset (i.e., an unknown dataset, for instance from a real problem). One round of cross-validation involves partitioning a sample of data into complementary subsets, performing the analysis on one subset (called the training set), and validating the analysis on the other subset (called the validation set or testing set). To reduce variability, in most methods multiple rounds of cross-validation are performed using different partitions, and the validation results are combined (e.g. averaged) over the rounds to give an estimate of the model's predictive performance. In summary, cross-validation combines (averages) measures of fitness in prediction to derive a more accurate estimate of model prediction performance. == Motivation == Assume a model with one or more unknown parameters, and a data set to which the model can be fit (the training data set). The fitting process optimizes the model parameters to make the model fit the training data as well as possible. If an independent sample of validation data is taken from the same population as the training data, it will generally turn out that the model does not fit the validation data as well as it fits the training data. The size of this difference is likely to be large especially when the size of the training data set is small, or when the number of parameters in the model is large. Cross-validation is a way to estimate the size of this effect. === Example: linear regression === In linear regression, there exist real response values y 1 , … , y n {\textstyle y_{1},\ldots ,y_{n}} , and n p-dimensional vector covariates x1, ..., xn. The components of the vector xi are denoted xi1, ..., xip. If least squares is used to fit a function in the form of a hyperplane ŷ = a + βTx to the data (xi, yi) 1 ≤ i ≤ n, then the fit can be assessed using the mean squared error (MSE). The MSE for given estimated parameter values a and β on the training set (xi, yi) 1 ≤ i ≤ n is defined as: MSE = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n ( y i − y ^ i ) 2 = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n ( y i − a − β T x i ) 2 = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n ( y i − a − β 1 x i 1 − ⋯ − β p x i p ) 2 {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}{\text{MSE}}&={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}(y_{i}-{\hat {y}}_{i})^{2}={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}(y_{i}-a-{\boldsymbol {\beta }}^{T}\mathbf {x} _{i})^{2}\\&={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}(y_{i}-a-\beta _{1}x_{i1}-\dots -\beta _{p}x_{ip})^{2}\end{aligned}}} If the model is correctly specified, it can be shown under mild assumptions that the expected value of the MSE for the training set is (n − p − 1)/(n + p + 1) < 1 times the expected value of the MSE for the validation set (the expected value is taken over the distribution of training sets). Thus, a fitted model and computed MSE on the training set will result in an optimistically biased assessment of how well the model will fit an independent data set. This biased estimate is called the in-sample estimate of the fit, whereas the cross-validation estimate is an out-of-sample estimate. Since in linear regression it is possible to directly compute the factor (n − p − 1)/(n + p + 1) by which the training MSE underestimates the validation MSE under the assumption that the model specification is valid, cross-validation can be used for checking whether the model has been overfitted, in which case the MSE in the validation set will substantially exceed its anticipated value. (Cross-validation in the context of linear regression is also useful in that it can be used to select an optimally regularized cost function.) === General case === In most other regression procedures (e.g. logistic regression), there is no simple formula to compute the expected out-of-sample fit. Cross-validation is, thus, a generally applicable way to predict the performance of a model on unavailable data using numerical computation in place of theoretical analysis. == Types == Two types of cross-validation can be distinguished: exhaustive and non-exhaustive cross-validation. === Exhaustive cross-validation === Exhaustive cross-validation methods are cross-validation methods which learn and test on all possible ways to divide the original sample into a training and a validation set. ==== Leave-p-out cross-validation ==== Leave-p-out cross-validation (LpO CV) involves using p observations as the validation set and the remaining observations as the training set. This is repeated on all ways to cut the original sample on a validation set of p observations and a training set. LpO cross-validation require training and validating the model C p n {\displaystyle C_{p}^{n}} times, where n is the number of observations in the original sample, and where C p n {\displaystyle C_{p}^{n}} is the binomial coefficient. For p > 1 and for even moderately large n, LpO CV can become computationally infeasible. For example, with n = 100 and p = 30, C 30 100 ≈ 3 × 10 25 . {\displaystyle C_{30}^{100}\approx 3\times 10^{25}.} A variant of LpO cross-validation with p=2 known as leave-pair-out cross-validation has been recommended as a nearly unbiased method for estimating the area under ROC curve of binary classifiers. ==== Leave-one-out cross-validation ==== Leave-one-out cross-validation (LOOCV) is a particular case of leave-p-out cross-validation with p = 1. The process looks similar to jackknife; however, with cross-validation one computes a statistic on the left-out sample(s), while with jackknifing one computes a statistic from the kept samples only. LOO cross-validation requires less computation time than LpO cross-validation because there are only C 1 n = n {\displaystyle C_{1}^{n}=n} passes rather than C p n {\displaystyle C_{p}^{n}} . However, n {\displaystyle n} passes may still require quite a large computation time, in which case other approaches such as k-fold cross validation may be more appropriate. Pseudo-code algorithm: Input: x, {vector of length N with x-values of incoming points} y, {vector of length N with y-values of the expected result} interpolate( x_in, y_in, x_out ), { returns the estimation for point x_out after the model is trained with x_in-y_in pairs} Output: err, {estimate for the prediction error} Steps: err ← 0 for i ← 1, ..., N do // define the cross-validation subsets x_in ← (x[1], ..., x[i − 1], x[i + 1], ..., x[N]) y_in ← (y[1], ..., y[i − 1], y[i + 1], ..., y[N]) x_out ← x[i] y_out ← interpolate(x_in, y_in, x_out) err ← err + (y[i] − y_out)^2 end for err ← err/N === Non-exhaustive cross-validation === Non-exhaustive cross validation methods do not compute all ways of splitting the original sample. These methods are approximations of leave-p-out cross-validation. ==== k-fold cross-validation ==== In k-fold cross-validation, the original sample is randomly partitioned into k equal sized subsamples, often referred to as "folds". Of the k subsamples, a single subsample is retained as the validation data for testing the model, and the remaining k − 1 subsamples are used as training data. The cross-validation process is then repeated k times, with each of the k subsamples used exactly once as the validation data. The k results can then be averaged to produce a single estimation. The advantage of this method over repeated random sub-sampling (see below) is that all observations are used for both training and validation, and each observation is used for validation exactly once. 10-fold cross-validation is commonly used, but in general k remains an unfixed parameter. For example, setting k = 2 results in 2-fold cross-validation. In 2-fold cross-validation, the dataset is randomly shuffled into two sets d0 and d1, so that both sets are equal size (this is usually implemented by shuffling the data array and then splitting it in two). We then train on d0 and validate on d1, followed by training on d1 and validating on d0. When k = n (the number of observations), k-fold cross-validation is equivalent to leave-one-out cr

  Read more →
• 

  Situated

  In artificial intelligence and cognitive science, the term situated refers to an agent which is embedded in an environment. The term situated is commonly used to refer to robots, but some researchers argue that software agents can also be situated if: they exist in a dynamic (rapidly changing) environment, which they can manipulate or change through their actions, and which they can sense or perceive. Examples might include web-based agents, which can alter data or trigger processes (such as purchases) over the internet, or virtual-reality bots which inhabit and change virtual worlds, such as Second Life. Being situated is generally considered to be part of being embodied, but it is useful to consider each perspective individually. The situated perspective emphasizes that intelligent behaviour derives from the environment and the agent's interactions with it. The nature of these interactions are defined by an agent's embodiment.

  Read more →
• 

  Logogen model

  The logogen model of 1969 is a model of speech recognition that uses units called "logogens" to explain how humans comprehend spoken or written words. Logogens are a vast number of specialized recognition units, each able to recognize one specific word. This model provides for the effects of context on word recognition. == Overview == The word logogen can be traced back to the Greek-language word logos, which means "word", and genus, which means "birth". British scientist John Morton's logogen model was designed to explain word recognition using a new type of unit known as a logogen. A critical element of this theory is the involvement of lexicons, or specialized aspects of memory that include semantic and phonemic information about each item that is contained in memory. A given lexicon consists of many smaller, abstract items known as logogens. Logogens contain a variety of properties about given word such as their appearance, sound, and meaning. Logogens do not store words within themselves, but rather they store information that is specifically necessary for retrieval of whatever word is being searched for. A given logogen will become activated by psychological stimuli or contextual information (words) that is consistent with the properties of that specific logogen and when the logogen's activation level rises to or above its threshold level, the pronunciation of the given word is sent to the output system. Certain stimuli can affect the activation levels of more than one word at a time, usually involving words that are similar to one another. When this occurs, whichever of the words' activation levels reaches the threshold level, it is that word that is then sent to the output system with the subject remaining unaware of any partially excited logogens. This assumption was made by Marslen-Wilson and Welch (1978), who added to the model some assumptions of their own in order to account for their experimental results. They also assumed that the analysis of phonetic input can only become available to other parts of the system by process of how the input affects the logogen system. Finally, Marslen-Wilson and Welch assume that the first syllable of a given word will increase the activation level of a given logogen more than those of the latter syllables, which supported the data found at the time. == Analysis == The logogen model can be used to help linguists explain particular occurrences in the human language. The most-helpful application of the model is to show how one accesses words and their meanings in the lexicon. The word-frequency effect is best explained by the logogen model in that words (or logogens) that have a higher frequency (or are more common) have a lower threshold. This means that they require less perceptual power in the brain to be recognized and decoded from the lexicon and are recognized faster than those words that are less common. Also, with high-frequency words, the recovery from lowering the item's threshold is less fulfilled compared to low-frequency words so less sensory information is needed for that particular item's recognition. There are ways to lower thresholds, such as repetition and semantic priming. Also, each time a word is encountered through these methods, the threshold for that word is temporarily lowered partially because of its recovering ability. This model also conveys that specific concrete words are recalled better because they use images and logogens, whereas abstract words are not as easily recalled well because they only use logogens, hence showing the difference in thresholds between these two types of words. At the time of its conception, Morton's logogen model was one of the most influential models in springing up other parallel word access models and served as the essential basis for these subsequent models. Morton's model also strongly influenced other contemporary theories on lexical access. However, despite the advantages that the logogen theory presents, it also displays some negative facets. First and foremost, the logogen model does not explain all occurrences in language, such as the introduction of new words or non-words into a person's lexicon. Also, because of the distinctive model application, it may vary in its effectiveness in different languages. == Criticisms == While this model does a reasonable job of understanding the underlying semantics of many aspects in psycholinguistics, there are some flaws that have been pointed out in the logogen model. It has been argued that the prior stimulus patterns that have been seen in the logogen theory are not centrally localized in the logogen itself but are actually distributed throughout the different pathways over which the stimulus is being processed. What this directs at is that the notion and proliferation of logogens was due to modality. In essence, the logogen is unnecessary in the idea of attaining the title of being a recognition unit because of the variety of pathways that it is open to, not just logogens. Another criticism has been that this model essentially ignores larger and more critical structures in language and phonetics such as the different syntactic rules or grammatical construction that innately exists in language. Since this model overtly limits itself to the scope of lexical access then this model is seen as biased and misunderstood. To many psychologists, the logogen model does not meet the functional or representational adequacy that a theory should include to sufficiently comprehend language. Also, another criticism is that the logogen theory was supposed to predict that stimulus degradation should affect priming and word frequency in humans. However, many psychologists have conducted studies and researched the model to show that only priming and not word frequency is interacted with stimulus degradation. Priming is supposed to deteriorate a stimulus because it postulates that the semantic characteristics of previously known words are fed back into the detector of a person which in turn raises the threshold of related items. In word frequency, stimulus degradation is supposed to occur because it postulates that familiar words have lower thresholds than their low-frequency counterparts. However, in studies, priming is the only structure that does show observable and notable stimulus decadence. Even though the logogen theory has many unfilled holes, Morton was a revolutionary of his field whose speculation and research has opened up a remarkable era of psycholinguistics. == Other models to consider == cohort model – This model was proposed by Marslen-Wilson and was designed specifically to account for auditory word recognition. It works by breaking the word down and states that when a word is heard all words that begin with the first sound of the target word are activated. This set of words is considered the cohort. Once the first cohort has been activated, the other information, or sounds in the word narrow down the choices. The person recognizes the word when you are left with a single choice; this is considered the "recognition point". checking model – This model was developed by Norris in 1986. In this particular model, he took the approach that any word that partially matches the input is analyzed and checked to see if it fits with the context of the situation. interactive-activation model – This model is considered a connectionist model. Proposed by McClelland and Rumelhart in the 1981 to 1982 period, it is based around nodes, which are visual features, and positions of letters within a given word. They also act as word detectors which have inhibitory and excitatory connections between them. This model starts with first letter and suggests that all the words with that first letter are activated at first and then going through the word one can determine what the word is they are looking at. The main principle is that mental phenomena can be described by interconnected networks of simple units. verification model – The model was developed by Curtis Becker in 1970. The main idea is that a small number of candidates that are activated in parallel are subject to a serial-verification process. This model starts the word-recognition process with a basic representation of the stimulus. Then, sensory trace, consisting of line features is used to activate word detectors. When an acceptable number of detectors are activated these are used to generate a search set. These items are drawn from the lexicon on the basis of similarity to the sensory trace, which help with the identity of the stimulus. Then, in a serial process the candidates are compared to the representation of the sensory-trace input. == Related concepts == word frequency – This is the belief that the speed and accuracy with which a word is recognized is related to how frequently the word occurs in our language. Each logogen has a threshold (for identification) and words with higher frequencies have lower thresholds. Words with higher freq

  Read more →
• 

  Schema-agnostic databases

  Schema-agnostic databases or vocabulary-independent databases aim at supporting users to be abstracted from the representation of the data, supporting the automatic semantic matching between queries and databases. Schema-agnosticism is the property of a database of mapping a query issued with the user terminology and structure, automatically mapping it to the dataset vocabulary. The increase in the size and in the semantic heterogeneity of database schemas bring new requirements for users querying and searching structured data. At this scale it can become unfeasible for data consumers to be familiar with the representation of the data in order to query it. At the center of this discussion is the semantic gap between users and databases, which becomes more central as the scale and complexity of the data grows. == Description == The evolution of data environments towards the consumption of data from multiple data sources and the growth in the schema size, complexity, dynamicity and decentralisation (SCoDD) of schemas increases the complexity of contemporary data management. The SCoDD trend emerges as a central data management concern in Big Data scenarios, where users and applications have a demand for more complete data, produced by independent data sources, under different semantic assumptions and contexts of use, which is the typical scenario for Semantic Web Data applications. The evolution of databases in the direction of heterogeneous data environments strongly impacts the usability, semiotics and semantic assumptions behind existing data accessibility methods such as structured queries, keyword-based search and visual query systems. With schema-less databases containing potentially millions of dynamically changing attributes, it becomes unfeasible for some users to become aware of the 'schema' or vocabulary in order to query the database. At this scale, the effort in understanding the schema in order to build a structured query can become prohibitive. == Schema-agnostic queries == Schema-agnostic queries can be defined as query approaches over structured databases which allow users satisfying complex information needs without the understanding of the representation (schema) of the database. Similarly, Tran et al. defines it as "search approaches, which do not require users to know the schema underlying the data". Approaches such as keyword-based search over databases allow users to query databases without employing structured queries. However, as discussed by Tran et al.: "From these points, users however have to do further navigation and exploration to address complex information needs. Unlike keyword search used on the Web, which focuses on simple needs, the keyword search elaborated here is used to obtain more complex results. Instead of a single set of resources, the goal is to compute complex sets of resources and their relations." The development of approaches to support natural language interfaces (NLI) over databases have aimed towards the goal of schema-agnostic queries. Complementarily, some approaches based on keyword search have targeted keyword-based queries which express more complex information needs. Other approaches have explored the construction of structured queries over databases where schema constraints can be relaxed. All these approaches (natural language, keyword-based search and structured queries) have targeted different degrees of sophistication in addressing the problem of supporting a flexible semantic matching between queries and data, which vary from the completely absence of the semantic concern to more principled semantic models. While the demand for schema-agnosticism has been an implicit requirement across semantic search and natural language query systems over structured data, it is not sufficiently individuated as a concept and as a necessary requirement for contemporary database management systems. Recent works have started to define and model the semantic aspects involved on schema-agnostic queries. === Schema-agnostic structured queries === Consist of schema-agnostic queries following the syntax of a structured standard (for example SQL, SPARQL). The syntax and semantics of operators are maintained, while different terminologies are used. ==== Example 1 ==== SELECT ?y { BillClinton hasDaughter ?x . ?x marriedTo ?y . } which maps to the following SPARQL query in the dataset vocabulary: ==== Example 2 ==== which maps to the following SPARQL query in the dataset vocabulary: === Schema-agnostic keyword queries === Consist of schema-agnostic queries using keyword queries. In this case the syntax and semantics of operators are different from the structured query syntax. ==== Example ==== "Bill Clinton daughter married to" "Books by William Goldman with more than 300 pages" == Semantic complexity == As of 2016 the concept of schema-agnostic queries has been developed primarily in academia. Most of schema-agnostic query systems have been investigated in the context of Natural Language Interfaces over databases or over the Semantic Web. These works explore the application of semantic parsing techniques over large, heterogeneous and schema-less databases. More recently, the individuation of the concept of schema-agnostic query systems and databases have appeared more explicitly within the literature. Freitas et al. provide a probabilistic model on the semantic complexity of mapping schema-agnostic queries.

  Read more →
• 

  Wetware (brain)

  Wetware is a term drawn from the computer-related idea of hardware or software, but applied to biological life forms. == Usage == The prefix "wet" is a reference to the water found in living creatures. Wetware is used to describe the elements equivalent to hardware and software found in a person, especially the central nervous system (CNS) and the human mind. The term wetware finds use in works of fiction, in scholarly publications and in popularizations. The "hardware" component of wetware concerns the bioelectric and biochemical properties of the CNS, specifically the brain. If the sequence of impulses traveling across the various neurons are thought of symbolically as software, then the physical neurons would be the hardware. The amalgamated interaction of this software and hardware is manifested through continuously changing physical connections, and chemical and electrical influences that spread across the body. The process by which the mind and brain interact to produce the collection of experiences that we define as self-awareness is in question. == History == Although the exact definition has shifted over time, the term Wetware and its fundamental reference to "the physical mind" has been around at least since the mid-1950s. Mostly used in relatively obscure articles and papers, it was not until the heyday of cyberpunk, however, that the term found broad adoption. Among the first uses of the term in popular culture was the Bruce Sterling novel Schismatrix (1985) and the Michael Swanwick novel Vacuum Flowers (1987). Rudy Rucker references the term in a number of books, including one entitled Wetware (1988): ... all sparks and tastes and tangles, all its stimulus/response patterns – the whole bio-cybernetic software of mind. Rucker did not use the word to simply mean a brain, nor in the human-resources sense of employees. He used wetware to stand for the data found in any biological system, analogous perhaps to the firmware that is found in a ROM chip. In Rucker's sense, a seed, a plant graft, an embryo, or a biological virus are all wetware. DNA, the immune system, and the evolved neural architecture of the brain are further examples of wetware in this sense. Rucker describes his conception in a 1992 compendium The Mondo 2000 User's Guide to the New Edge, which he quotes in a 2007 blog entry. Early cyber-guru Arthur Kroker used the term in his blog. With the term getting traction in trendsetting publications, it became a buzzword in the early 1990s. In 1991, Dutch media theorist Geert Lovink organized the Wetware Convention in Amsterdam, which was supposed to be an antidote to the "out-of-body" experiments conducted in high-tech laboratories, such as experiments in virtual reality. Timothy Leary, in an appendix to Info-Psychology originally written in 1975–76 and published in 1989, used the term wetware, writing that "psychedelic neuro-transmitters were the hot new technology for booting-up the 'wetware' of the brain". Another common reference is: "Wetware has 7 plus or minus 2 temporary registers." The numerical allusion is to a classic 1957 article by George A. Miller, The magical number 7 plus or minus two: some limits in our capacity for processing information, which later gave way to Miller's law.

  Read more →
• 

  Neuro-symbolic AI

  Neuro-symbolic AI is a subfield of artificial intelligence that integrates neural methods (e.g., neural networks and deep learning) with symbolic methods (e.g., formal logic, knowledge representation, and automated reasoning). The goal is to combine the strengths of both approaches, resulting in AI systems that can be trained from raw data and demonstrate robustness against outliers or errors in the base data, while preserving explainability, explicit use of expert knowledge, and explicit cognitive reasoning. As argued by Leslie Valiant and others, the effective construction of rich computational cognitive models demands the combination of symbolic reasoning and efficient machine learning. Gary Marcus argued, "We cannot construct rich cognitive models in an adequate, automated way without the triumvirate of hybrid architecture, rich prior knowledge, and sophisticated techniques for reasoning." Further, "To build a robust, knowledge-driven approach to AI we must have the machinery of symbol manipulation in our toolkit. Too much of useful knowledge is abstract to make do without tools that represent and manipulate abstraction, and to date, the only known machinery that can manipulate such abstract knowledge reliably is the apparatus of symbol manipulation." Angelo Dalli, Henry Kautz, Francesca Rossi, and Bart Selman also argued for such a synthesis. Their arguments attempt to address the two kinds of thinking, as discussed in Daniel Kahneman's book Thinking, Fast and Slow. It describes cognition as encompassing two components: System 1 is fast, reflexive, intuitive, and unconscious. System 2 is slower, step-by-step, and explicit. System 1 is used for pattern recognition. System 2 handles planning, deduction, and deliberative thinking. In this view, deep learning best handles the first kind of cognition, while symbolic reasoning best handles the second kind. Both are necessary for the development of a robust and reliable AI system capable of learning, reasoning, and interacting with humans to accept advice and answer questions. Since the 1990s, dual-process models with explicit references to the two contrasting systems have been the focus of research in both the fields of AI and cognitive science by numerous researchers. In 2025, the adoption of neurosymbolic AI, an approach that integrates neural networks with symbolic reasoning, increased in response to the need to address hallucination issues in large language models. For example, Amazon implemented Neurosymbolic AI in its Vulcan warehouse robots and Rufus shopping assistant to enhance accuracy and decision-making. == Approaches == Approaches for integration are diverse. Henry Kautz's taxonomy of neuro-symbolic architectures follows, along with some examples: Symbolic Neural symbolic is the current approach of many neural models in natural language processing, where words or subword tokens are the ultimate input and output of large language models. Examples include BERT, RoBERTa, and GPT-3. Symbolic[Neural] is exemplified by AlphaGo, where symbolic techniques are used to invoke neural techniques. In this case, the symbolic approach is Monte Carlo tree search and the neural techniques learn how to evaluate game positions. Neural | Symbolic uses a neural architecture to interpret perceptual data as symbols and relationships that are reasoned about symbolically. Neural-Concept Learner is an example. Neural: Symbolic → Neural relies on symbolic reasoning to generate or label training data that is subsequently learned by a deep learning model, e.g., to train a neural model for symbolic computation by using a Macsyma-like symbolic mathematics system to create or label examples. NeuralSymbolic uses a neural net that is generated from symbolic rules. An example is the Neural Theorem Prover, which constructs a neural network from an AND-OR proof tree generated from knowledge base rules and terms. Logic Tensor Networks also fall into this category. Neural[Symbolic] according to Kautz, this approach embeds true symbolic reasoning inside a neural network. These are tightly-coupled neural-symbolic systems, in which the logical inference rules are internal to the neural network. This way, the neural network internally computes the inference from the premises and learns to reason based on logical inference systems. Early work on connectionist modal and temporal logics by Garcez, Lamb, and Gabbay is aligned with this approach. These categories are not exhaustive, as they do not consider multi-agent systems. In 2005, Bader and Hitzler presented a more fine-grained categorization that took into account, e.g., whether the use of symbols included logic and, if so, whether the logic was propositional or first-order logic. The 2005 categorization and Kautz's taxonomy above are compared and contrasted in a 2021 article. Sepp Hochreiter argued that Graph Neural Networks "...are the predominant models of neural-symbolic computing" since "[t]hey describe the properties of molecules, simulate social networks, or predict future states in physical and engineering applications with particle-particle interactions." == Artificial general intelligence == Gary Marcus argues that "...hybrid architectures that combine learning and symbol manipulation are necessary for robust intelligence, but not sufficient", and that there are ...four cognitive prerequisites for building robust artificial intelligence: hybrid architectures that combine large-scale learning with the representational and computational powers of symbol manipulation, large-scale knowledge bases—likely leveraging innate frameworks—that incorporate symbolic knowledge along with other forms of knowledge, reasoning mechanisms capable of leveraging those knowledge bases in tractable ways, and rich cognitive models that work together with those mechanisms and knowledge bases. This echoes earlier calls for hybrid models as early as the 1990s. == History == Garcez and Lamb described research in this area as ongoing, at least since the 1990s. During that period, the terms symbolic and sub-symbolic AI were popular. A series of workshops on neuro-symbolic AI has been held annually since 2005 Neuro-Symbolic Artificial Intelligence. In the early 1990s, an initial set of workshops on this topic were organized. == Research == Key research questions remain, such as: What is the best way to integrate neural and symbolic architectures? How should symbolic structures be represented within neural networks and extracted from them? How should common-sense knowledge be learned and reasoned about? How can abstract knowledge that is hard to encode logically be handled? == Implementations == Implementations of neuro-symbolic approaches include: AllegroGraph: an integrated Knowledge Graph based platform for neuro-symbolic application development. Scallop: a language based on Datalog that supports differentiable logical and relational reasoning. Scallop can be integrated in Python and with a PyTorch learning module. Logic Tensor Networks: encode logical formulas as neural networks and simultaneously learn term encodings, term weights, and formula weights. DeepProbLog: combines neural networks with the probabilistic reasoning of ProbLog. Abductive Learning: integrates machine learning and logical reasoning in a balanced-loop via abductive reasoning, enabling them to work together in a mutually beneficial way. SymbolicAI: a compositional differentiable programming library.

  Read more →
• 

  Color

  Color (or colour in Commonwealth English) is the visual perception produced by the activation of the different types of cone cells in the eye caused by light. Though color is not an inherent property of matter, color perception is related to an object's light absorption, emission, reflection and transmission. For most humans, visible wavelengths of light are the ones perceived in the visible light spectrum, with three types of cone cells (trichromacy). Other animals may have a different number of cone cell types or have eyes sensitive to different wavelengths, such as bees that can distinguish ultraviolet, and thus have a different color sensitivity range. Animal perception of color originates from different light wavelength or spectral sensitivity in cone cell types, which is then processed by the brain. Colors have perceived properties such as hue, colorfulness, and lightness. Colors can also be additively mixed (mixing light) or subtractively mixed (mixing pigments). If one color is mixed in the right proportions, because of metamerism, they may look the same as another stimulus with a different reflection or emission spectrum. For convenience, colors can be organized in a color space, which when being abstracted as a mathematical color model can assign each region of color with a corresponding set of numbers. Thus, color spaces are an essential tool for color reproduction in print, photography, computer monitors, and television. Some of the most well-known color models and color spaces are RGB, CMYK, HSL/HSV, CIE Lab, and YCbCr/YUV. Because the perception of color is an important aspect of human life, different colors have been associated with emotions, activity, and nationality. Names of color regions in different cultures can have different, sometimes overlapping areas. In visual arts, color theory is used to govern the use of colors in an aesthetically pleasing and harmonious way. The theory of color includes the color complements; color balance; and classification of primary colors, secondary colors, and tertiary colors. The study of colors in general is called color science. == Physical properties == Electromagnetic radiation is characterized by its wavelength (or frequency) and its intensity. When the wavelength is within the visible spectrum (the range of wavelengths humans can perceive, approximately from 390 nm to 700 nm), it is known as "visible light". Most light sources emit light at many different wavelengths; a source's spectrum is a distribution giving its intensity at each wavelength. Although the spectrum of light arriving at the eye from a given direction determines the color sensation in that direction, there are many more possible spectral combinations than color sensations. In fact, one may formally define a color as a class of spectra that give rise to the same color sensation, although such classes would vary widely among different animal species, and to a lesser extent among individuals within the same species. In each such class, the members are called metamers of the color in question. This effect can be visualized by comparing the light sources' spectral power distributions and the resulting colors. === Spectral colors === The familiar colors of the rainbow in the spectrum—named using the Latin word for appearance or apparition by Isaac Newton in 1671—include all those colors that can be produced by visible light of a single wavelength only, the pure spectral or monochromatic colors. The spectrum above shows approximate wavelengths (in nm) for spectral colors in the visible range. Spectral colors have 100% purity, and are fully saturated. A complex mixture of spectral colors can be used to describe any color, which is the definition of a light power spectrum. The spectral colors form a continuous spectrum, and how it is divided into distinct colors linguistically is a matter of culture and historical contingency. Despite the ubiquitous ROYGBIV mnemonic used to remember the spectral colors in English, the inclusion or exclusion of colors is contentious, with disagreement often focused on indigo and cyan. Even if the subset of color terms is agreed, their wavelength ranges and borders between them may not be. The intensity of a spectral color, relative to the context in which it is viewed, may alter its perception considerably. For example, a low-intensity orange-yellow is brown, and a low-intensity yellow-green is olive green. Additionally, hue shifts towards yellow or blue happen if the intensity of a spectral light is increased; this is called Bezold–Brücke shift. In color models capable of representing spectral colors, such as CIELUV, a spectral color has the maximal saturation. In Helmholtz coordinates, this is described as 100% purity. === Color of objects === The physical color of an object depends on how it absorbs and scatters light. Most objects scatter light to some degree and do not reflect or transmit light specularly like glasses or mirrors. A transparent object allows almost all light to transmit or pass through, thus transparent objects are perceived as colorless. Conversely, an opaque object does not allow light to transmit through and instead absorbs or reflects the light it receives. Like transparent objects, translucent objects allow light to transmit through, but translucent objects are seen colored because they scatter or absorb certain wavelengths of light via internal scattering. The absorbed light is often dissipated as heat. == Color vision == === Development of theories of color vision === Although Aristotle and other ancient scientists had already written on the nature of light and color vision, it was not until Isaac Newton that light was identified as the source of the color sensation. In 1810, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe published his comprehensive Theory of Colors in which he provided a rational description of color experience, which "tells us how it originates, not what it is". In 1801, Thomas Young proposed his trichromatic theory, to explain how a wide spectrum of different wavelengths could be detected by the human eye. It would be unreasonable to suppose that the human eye contained hundreds of different receptors each responding to the presence of a specific wavelength. Instead, he suggested that the human experience of color derives from a complex interaction and mixing from the output three receptors. This theory was later confirmed by James Clerk Maxwell and refined by Hermann von Helmholtz. Maxwell experimentally demonstrated that any color could be matched with a combination of three lights. As Helmholtz puts it, "the principles of Newton's law of mixture were experimentally confirmed by Maxwell in 1856. Young's theory of color sensations, like so much else that this marvelous investigator achieved in advance of his time, remained unnoticed until Maxwell directed attention to it." At the same time as Helmholtz, Ewald Hering developed the opponent process theory of color, noting that color blindness and afterimages typically come in opponent pairs (red-green, blue-orange, yellow-violet, and black-white). Ultimately these two theories were synthesized in 1957 by Hurvich and Jameson, who showed that retinal processing corresponds to the trichromatic theory, while processing at the level of the lateral geniculate nucleus corresponds to the opponent theory. In 1931, the International Commission on Illumination (CIE), an international group of experts, developed a mathematical color model which mapped out the space of observable colors, allowing every individual color able to be specified with a set of three numbers. === Color in the eye === The ability of the human eye to distinguish colors is based upon the varying sensitivity of different cells in the retina to light of different wavelengths. Humans are trichromatic—the retina contains three types of color receptor cells, or cones. One type, relatively distinct from the other two, is most responsive to light that is perceived as blue or blue-violet, with wavelengths around 450 nm; cones of this type are sometimes called short-wavelength cones or S cones (or misleadingly, blue cones). The other two types are closely related genetically and chemically: middle-wavelength cones, M cones, or green cones are most sensitive to light perceived as green, with wavelengths around 540 nm, while the long-wavelength cones, L cones, or red cones, are most sensitive to light that is perceived as greenish yellow, with wavelengths around 570 nm. Light, no matter how complex its composition of wavelengths, is reduced to three color components by the eye. Each cone type adheres to the principle of univariance, which is that each cone's output is determined by the amount of light that falls on it over all wavelengths. For each location in the visual field, the three types of cones yield three signals based on the extent to which each is stimulated. These amounts of stimulation are sometimes called tristimulus values. The response cu

  Read more →
• 

  Weak artificial intelligence

  Weak artificial intelligence (weak AI) is artificial intelligence that implements a limited part of the mind, or, as narrow AI, artificial narrow intelligence (ANI), is focused on one narrow task. Weak AI is contrasted with strong AI, which can be interpreted in various ways: Artificial general intelligence (AGI): a machine with the ability to apply intelligence to any problem, rather than just one specific problem. Artificial superintelligence (ASI): a machine with a vastly superior intelligence to the average human being. Artificial consciousness: a machine that has consciousness, sentience and mind (John Searle uses "strong AI" in this sense). Narrow AI can be classified as being "limited to a single, narrowly defined task. Most modern AI systems would be classified in this category." Artificial general intelligence is conversely the opposite. == Applications and risks == Some examples of narrow AI are AlphaGo, self-driving cars, robot systems used in the medical field, and diagnostic doctors. Narrow AI systems are sometimes dangerous if unreliable. And the behavior that it follows can become inconsistent. It could be difficult for the AI to grasp complex patterns and get to a solution that works reliably in various environments. This "brittleness" can cause it to fail in unpredictable ways. Narrow AI failures can sometimes have significant consequences. It could for example cause disruptions in the electric grid, damage nuclear power plants, cause global economic problems, and misdirect autonomous vehicles. Medicines could be incorrectly sorted and distributed. Also, medical diagnoses can ultimately have serious and sometimes deadly consequences if the AI is faulty or biased. Simple AI programs have already worked their way into society, oftentimes unnoticed by the public. Autocorrection for typing, speech recognition for speech-to-text programs, and vast expansions in the data science fields are examples. Narrow AI has also been the subject of some controversy, including resulting in unfair prison sentences, discrimination against women in the workplace for hiring, resulting in death via autonomous driving, among other cases. Despite being "narrow" AI, recommender systems are efficient at predicting user reactions based on their posts, patterns, or trends. For instance, TikTok's "For You" algorithm can determine a user's interests or preferences in less than an hour. Some other social media AI systems are used to detect bots that may be involved in propaganda or other potentially malicious activities. == Weak AI versus strong AI == John Searle contests the possibility of strong AI (by which he means conscious AI). He further believes that the Turing test (created by Alan Turing and originally called the "imitation game", used to assess whether a machine can converse indistinguishably from a human) is not accurate or appropriate for testing whether an AI is "strong". Scholars such as Antonio Lieto have argued that the current research on both AI and cognitive modelling are perfectly aligned with the weak-AI hypothesis (that should not be confused with the "general" vs "narrow" AI distinction) and that the popular assumption that cognitively inspired AI systems espouse the strong AI hypothesis is ill-posed and problematic since "artificial models of brain and mind can be used to understand mental phenomena without pretending that that they are the real phenomena that they are modelling" (as, on the other hand, implied by the strong AI assumption).

  Read more →
• 

  Purged cross-validation

  Purged cross-validation is a variant of k-fold cross-validation designed to prevent look-ahead bias in time series and other structured data, developed in 2017 by Marcos López de Prado at Guggenheim Partners and Cornell University. It is primarily used in financial machine learning to ensure the independence of training and testing samples when labels depend on future events. It provides an alternative to conventional cross-validation and walk-forward backtesting methods, which often yield overly optimistic performance estimates due to information leakage and overfitting. == Motivation == Standard cross-validation assumes that observations are independently and identically distributed (IID), which often does not hold in time series or financial datasets. If the label of a test sample overlaps in time with the features or labels in the training set, the result may be data leakage and overfitting. Purged cross-validation addresses this issue by removing overlapping observations and, optionally, adding a temporal buffer ("embargo") around the test set to further reduce the risk of leakage. The figure below illustrates standard 5 Fold Cross-Validation == Purging == Purging removes from the training set any observation whose timestamp falls within the time range of formation of a label in the test set. This can be the case for train set observations before and after the test set. Their removal ensures that the algorithm cannot learn during train time information that will be used to assess the performance of the algorithm. See the figure below for an illustration of purging. == Embargoing == Embargoing addresses a more subtle form of leakage: even if an observation does not directly overlap the test set, it may still be affected by test events due to market reaction lag or downstream dependencies. To guard against this, a percentage-based embargo is imposed after each test fold. For example, with a 5% embargo and 1000 observations, the 50 observations following each test fold are excluded from training. Unlike purging, embargoing can only occur after the test set. The figure below illustrates the application of embargo: == Applications == Purged and embargoed cross-validation has been useful in: Backtesting of trading strategies Validation of classifiers on labeled event-driven returns Any machine learning task with overlapping label horizons == Example == To illustrate the effect of purging and embargoing, consider the figures below. Both diagrams show the structure of 5-fold cross-validation over a 20-day period. In each row, blue squares indicate training samples and red squares denote test samples. Each label is defined based on the value of the next two observations, hence creating an overlap. If this overlap is left untreated, test set information leaks into the train set. The second figure applies the Purged CV procedure. Notice how purging removes overlapping observations from the training set and the embargo widens the gap between test and training data. This approach ensures that the evaluation more closely resembles a true out-of-sample test and reduces the risk of backtest overfitting. == Combinatorial Purged Cross-Validation == Walk-forward backtesting analysis, another common cross-validation technique in finance, preserves temporal order but evaluates the model on a single sequence of test sets. This leads to high variance in performance estimation, as results are contingent on a specific historical path. Combinatorial Purged Cross-Validation (CPCV) addresses this limitation by systematically constructing multiple train-test splits, purging overlapping samples, and enforcing an embargo period to prevent information leakage. The result is a distribution of out-of-sample performance estimates, enabling robust statistical inference and more realistic assessment of a model's predictive power. === Methodology === CPCV divides a time-series dataset into N sequential, non-overlapping groups. These groups preserve the temporal order of observations. Then, all combinations of k groups (where k < N) are selected as test sets, with the remaining N − k groups used for training. For each combination, the model is trained and evaluated under strict controls to prevent leakage. To eliminate potential contamination between training and test sets, CPCV introduces two additional mechanisms: Purging: Any training observations whose label horizon overlaps with the test period are excluded. This ensures that future information does not influence model training. Embargoing: After the end of each test period, a fixed number of observations (typically a small percentage) are removed from the training set. This prevents leakage due to delayed market reactions or auto-correlated features. Each data point appears in multiple test sets across different combinations. Because test groups are drawn combinatorially, this process produces multiple backtest "paths," each of which simulates a plausible market scenario. From these paths, practitioners can compute a distribution of performance statistics such as the Sharpe ratio, drawdown, or classification accuracy. === Formal definition === Let N be the number of sequential groups into which the dataset is divided, and let k be the number of groups selected as the test set for each split. Then: The number of unique train-test combinations is given by the binomial coefficient: ( N k ) {\displaystyle {\binom {N}{k}}} Each observation is used in k {\displaystyle k} test sets and contributes to φ [ N , k ] {\displaystyle \varphi [N,k]} unique backtest paths: φ [ N , k ] = k N ( N k ) {\displaystyle \varphi [N,k]={\frac {k}{N}}{\binom {N}{k}}} This yields a distribution of performance metrics rather than a single point estimate, making it possible to apply Monte Carlo-based or probabilistic techniques to assess model robustness. === Illustrative example === Consider the case where N = 6 and k = 2. The number of possible test set combinations is ( 6 2 ) = 15 {\displaystyle {\binom {6}{2}}=15} . Each of the six groups appears in five test splits. Consequently, five distinct backtest paths can be constructed, each incorporating one appearance from every group. ==== Test group assignment matrix ==== This table shows the 15 test combinations. An "x" indicates that the corresponding group is included in the test set for that split. ==== Backtest path assignment ==== Each group contributes to five different backtest paths. The number in each cell indicates the path to which the group's result is assigned for that split. === Advantages === Combinatorial Purged Cross-Validation offers several key benefits over conventional methods: It produces a distribution of performance metrics, enabling more rigorous statistical inference. The method systematically eliminates lookahead bias through purging and embargoing. By simulating multiple historical scenarios, it reduces the dependence on any single market regime or realization. It supports high-confidence comparisons between competing models or strategies. CPCV is commonly used in quantitative strategy research, especially for evaluating predictive models such as classifiers, regressors, and portfolio optimizers. It has been applied to estimate realistic Sharpe ratios, assess the risk of overfitting, and support the use of statistical tools such as the Deflated Sharpe Ratio (DSR). === Limitations === The main limitation of CPCV stems from its high computational cost. However, this cost can be managed by sampling a finite number of splits from the space of all possible combinations.

  Read more →