AI Face Look

AI Face Look — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  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 →
• 

  The Master Algorithm

  The Master Algorithm: How the Quest for the Ultimate Learning Machine Will Remake Our World is a book by Pedro Domingos released in 2015. Domingos wrote the book in order to generate interest from people outside the field. == Overview == The book outlines five approaches of machine learning: inductive reasoning, connectionism, evolutionary computation, Bayes' theorem and analogical modelling. The author explains these tribes to the reader by referring to more understandable processes of logic, connections made in the brain, natural selection, probability and similarity judgments. Throughout the book, it is suggested that each different tribe has the potential to contribute to a unifying "master algorithm". Towards the end of the book the author pictures a "master algorithm" in the near future, where machine learning algorithms asymptotically grow to a perfect understanding of how the world and people in it work. Although the algorithm doesn't yet exist, he briefly reviews his own invention of the Markov logic network. == In the media == In 2016 Bill Gates recommended the book, alongside Nick Bostrom's Superintelligence, as one of two books everyone should read to understand AI. In 2018 the book was noted to be on Chinese Communist Party general secretary Xi Jinping's bookshelf. === Reception === A computer science educator stated in Times Higher Education that the examples are clear and accessible. In contrast, The Economist agreed Domingos "does a good job" but complained that he "constantly invents metaphors that grate or confuse". Kirkus Reviews praised the book, stating that "Readers unfamiliar with logic and computer theory will have a difficult time, but those who persist will discover fascinating insights." A New Scientist review called it "compelling but rather unquestioning".

  Read more →
• 

  Sample complexity

  The sample complexity of a machine learning algorithm represents the number of training-samples that it needs in order to successfully learn a target function. More precisely, the sample complexity is the number of training-samples that we need to supply to the algorithm, so that the function returned by the algorithm is within an arbitrarily small error of the best possible function, with probability arbitrarily close to 1. There are two variants of sample complexity: The weak variant fixes a particular input-output distribution; The strong variant takes the worst-case sample complexity over all input-output distributions. The No free lunch theorem, discussed below, proves that, in general, the strong sample complexity is infinite, i.e. that there is no algorithm that can learn the globally-optimal target function using a finite number of training samples. However, if we are only interested in a particular class of target functions (e.g., only linear functions) then the sample complexity is finite, and it depends linearly on the VC dimension on the class of target functions. == Definition == Let X {\displaystyle X} be a space which we call the input space, and Y {\displaystyle Y} be a space which we call the output space, and let Z {\displaystyle Z} denote the product X × Y {\displaystyle X\times Y} . For example, in the setting of binary classification, X {\displaystyle X} is typically a finite-dimensional vector space and Y {\displaystyle Y} is the set { − 1 , 1 } {\displaystyle \{-1,1\}} . Fix a hypothesis space H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} of functions h : X → Y {\displaystyle h\colon X\to Y} . A learning algorithm over H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} is a computable map from Z {\displaystyle Z} to H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} . In other words, it is an algorithm that takes as input a finite sequence of training samples and outputs a function from X {\displaystyle X} to Y {\displaystyle Y} . Typical learning algorithms include empirical risk minimization, without or with Tikhonov regularization. Fix a loss function L : Y × Y → R ≥ 0 {\displaystyle {\mathcal {L}}\colon Y\times Y\to \mathbb {R} _{\geq 0}} , for example, the square loss L ( y , y ′ ) = ( y − y ′ ) 2 {\displaystyle {\mathcal {L}}(y,y')=(y-y')^{2}} , where h ( x ) = y ′ {\displaystyle h(x)=y'} . For a given distribution ρ {\displaystyle \rho } on X × Y {\displaystyle X\times Y} , the expected risk of a hypothesis (a function) h ∈ H {\displaystyle h\in {\mathcal {H}}} is E ( h ) := E ρ [ L ( h ( x ) , y ) ] = ∫ X × Y L ( h ( x ) , y ) d ρ ( x , y ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {E}}(h):=\mathbb {E} _{\rho }[{\mathcal {L}}(h(x),y)]=\int _{X\times Y}{\mathcal {L}}(h(x),y)\,d\rho (x,y)} In our setting, we have h = A ( S n ) {\displaystyle h={\mathcal {A}}(S_{n})} , where A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} is a learning algorithm and S n = ( ( x 1 , y 1 ) , … , ( x n , y n ) ) ∼ ρ n {\displaystyle S_{n}=((x_{1},y_{1}),\ldots ,(x_{n},y_{n}))\sim \rho ^{n}} is a sequence of vectors which are all drawn independently from ρ {\displaystyle \rho } . Define the optimal risk E H ∗ = inf h ∈ H E ( h ) . {\displaystyle {\mathcal {E}}_{\mathcal {H}}^{}={\underset {h\in {\mathcal {H}}}{\inf }}{\mathcal {E}}(h).} Set h n = A ( S n ) {\displaystyle h_{n}={\mathcal {A}}(S_{n})} , for each sample size n {\displaystyle n} . h n {\displaystyle h_{n}} is a random variable and depends on the random variable S n {\displaystyle S_{n}} , which is drawn from the distribution ρ n {\displaystyle \rho ^{n}} . The algorithm A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} is called consistent if E ( h n ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {E}}(h_{n})} probabilistically converges to E H ∗ {\displaystyle {\mathcal {E}}_{\mathcal {H}}^{}} . In other words, for all ϵ , δ > 0 {\displaystyle \epsilon ,\delta >0} , there exists a positive integer N {\displaystyle N} , such that, for all sample sizes n ≥ N {\displaystyle n\geq N} , we have Pr ρ n [ E ( h n ) − E H ∗ ≥ ε ] < δ . {\displaystyle \Pr _{\rho ^{n}}[{\mathcal {E}}(h_{n})-{\mathcal {E}}_{\mathcal {H}}^{}\geq \varepsilon ]<\delta .} The sample complexity of A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} is then the minimum N {\displaystyle N} for which this holds, as a function of ρ , ϵ {\displaystyle \rho ,\epsilon } , and δ {\displaystyle \delta } . We write the sample complexity as N ( ρ , ϵ , δ ) {\displaystyle N(\rho ,\epsilon ,\delta )} to emphasize that this value of N {\displaystyle N} depends on ρ , ϵ {\displaystyle \rho ,\epsilon } , and δ {\displaystyle \delta } . If A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} is not consistent, then we set N ( ρ , ϵ , δ ) = ∞ {\displaystyle N(\rho ,\epsilon ,\delta )=\infty } . If there exists an algorithm for which N ( ρ , ϵ , δ ) {\displaystyle N(\rho ,\epsilon ,\delta )} is finite, then we say that the hypothesis space H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} is learnable. In others words, the sample complexity N ( ρ , ϵ , δ ) {\displaystyle N(\rho ,\epsilon ,\delta )} defines the rate of consistency of the algorithm: given a desired accuracy ϵ {\displaystyle \epsilon } and confidence δ {\displaystyle \delta } , one needs to sample N ( ρ , ϵ , δ ) {\displaystyle N(\rho ,\epsilon ,\delta )} data points to guarantee that the risk of the output function is within ϵ {\displaystyle \epsilon } of the best possible, with probability at least 1 − δ {\displaystyle 1-\delta } . In probably approximately correct (PAC) learning, one is concerned with whether the sample complexity is polynomial, that is, whether N ( ρ , ϵ , δ ) {\displaystyle N(\rho ,\epsilon ,\delta )} is bounded by a polynomial in 1 / ϵ {\displaystyle 1/\epsilon } and 1 / δ {\displaystyle 1/\delta } . If N ( ρ , ϵ , δ ) {\displaystyle N(\rho ,\epsilon ,\delta )} is polynomial for some learning algorithm, then one says that the hypothesis space H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} is PAC-learnable. This is a stronger notion than being learnable. == Unrestricted hypothesis space: infinite sample complexity == One can ask whether there exists a learning algorithm so that the sample complexity is finite in the strong sense, that is, there is a bound on the number of samples needed so that the algorithm can learn any distribution over the input-output space with a specified target error. More formally, one asks whether there exists a learning algorithm A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} , such that, for all ϵ , δ > 0 {\displaystyle \epsilon ,\delta >0} , there exists a positive integer N {\displaystyle N} such that for all n ≥ N {\displaystyle n\geq N} , we have sup ρ ( Pr ρ n [ E ( h n ) − E H ∗ ≥ ε ] ) < δ , {\displaystyle \sup _{\rho }\left(\Pr _{\rho ^{n}}[{\mathcal {E}}(h_{n})-{\mathcal {E}}_{\mathcal {H}}^{}\geq \varepsilon ]\right)<\delta ,} where h n = A ( S n ) {\displaystyle h_{n}={\mathcal {A}}(S_{n})} , with S n = ( ( x 1 , y 1 ) , … , ( x n , y n ) ) ∼ ρ n {\displaystyle S_{n}=((x_{1},y_{1}),\ldots ,(x_{n},y_{n}))\sim \rho ^{n}} as above. The No Free Lunch Theorem says that without restrictions on the hypothesis space H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} , this is not the case, i.e., there always exist "bad" distributions for which the sample complexity is arbitrarily large. Thus, in order to make statements about the rate of convergence of the quantity sup ρ ( Pr ρ n [ E ( h n ) − E H ∗ ≥ ε ] ) , {\displaystyle \sup _{\rho }\left(\Pr _{\rho ^{n}}[{\mathcal {E}}(h_{n})-{\mathcal {E}}_{\mathcal {H}}^{}\geq \varepsilon ]\right),} one must either constrain the space of probability distributions ρ {\displaystyle \rho } , e.g. via a parametric approach, or constrain the space of hypotheses H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} , as in distribution-free approaches. == Restricted hypothesis space: finite sample-complexity == The latter approach leads to concepts such as VC dimension and Rademacher complexity which control the complexity of the space H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} . A smaller hypothesis space introduces more bias into the inference process, meaning that E H ∗ {\displaystyle {\mathcal {E}}_{\mathcal {H}}^{}} may be greater than the best possible risk in a larger space. However, by restricting the complexity of the hypothesis space it becomes possible for an algorithm to produce more uniformly consistent functions. This trade-off leads to the concept of regularization. It is a theorem from VC theory that the following three statements are equivalent for a hypothesis space H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} : H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} is PAC-learnable. The VC dimension of H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} is finite. H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} is a uniform Glivenko-Cantelli class. This gives a way to prove that certain hypothesis spaces are PAC learnable, and by extension, learnable. === An example of a PAC-learnable hypothesis space === X = R d , Y = { − 1 , 1 } {\displaystyle X=\mathbb {R} ^{d},Y=\{-1,1\}} , and let H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} be the space of affine functions on X {\displaystyle X} , that is, functions of the form x ↦ ⟨ w , x ⟩ + b {\displaystyle x\mapsto \langl

  Read more →
• 

  Admissible heuristic

  In computer science, specifically in algorithms related to pathfinding, a heuristic function is said to be admissible if it never overestimates the cost of reaching the goal, i.e. the cost it estimates to reach the goal is not higher than the lowest possible cost from the current point in the path. In other words, it should act as a lower bound. It is related to the concept of consistent heuristics. While all consistent heuristics are admissible, not all admissible heuristics are consistent. == Search algorithms == An admissible heuristic is used to estimate the cost of reaching the goal state in an informed search algorithm. In order for a heuristic to be admissible to the search problem, the estimated cost must always be lower than or equal to the actual cost of reaching the goal state. The search algorithm uses the admissible heuristic to find an estimated optimal path to the goal state from the current node. For example, in A search the evaluation function (where n {\displaystyle n} is the current node) is: f ( n ) = g ( n ) + h ( n ) {\displaystyle f(n)=g(n)+h(n)} where f ( n ) {\displaystyle f(n)} = the evaluation function. g ( n ) {\displaystyle g(n)} = the cost from the start node to the current node h ( n ) {\displaystyle h(n)} = estimated cost from current node to goal. h ( n ) {\displaystyle h(n)} is calculated using the heuristic function. With a non-admissible heuristic, the A algorithm could overlook the optimal solution to a search problem due to an overestimation in f ( n ) {\displaystyle f(n)} . == Formulation == n {\displaystyle n} is a node h {\displaystyle h} is a heuristic h ( n ) {\displaystyle h(n)} is cost indicated by h {\displaystyle h} to reach a goal from n {\displaystyle n} h ∗ ( n ) {\displaystyle h^{}(n)} is the optimal cost to reach a goal from n {\displaystyle n} h ( n ) {\displaystyle h(n)} is admissible if, ∀ n {\displaystyle \forall n} h ( n ) ≤ h ∗ ( n ) {\displaystyle h(n)\leq h^{}(n)} == Construction == An admissible heuristic can be derived from a relaxed version of the problem, or by information from pattern databases that store exact solutions to subproblems of the problem, or by using inductive learning methods. == Examples == Two different examples of admissible heuristics apply to the fifteen puzzle problem: Hamming distance Manhattan distance The Hamming distance is the total number of misplaced tiles. It is clear that this heuristic is admissible since the total number of moves to order the tiles correctly is at least the number of misplaced tiles (each tile not in place must be moved at least once). The cost (number of moves) to the goal (an ordered puzzle) is at least the Hamming distance of the puzzle. The Manhattan distance of a puzzle is defined as: h ( n ) = ∑ all tiles d i s t a n c e ( tile, correct position ) {\displaystyle h(n)=\sum _{\text{all tiles}}{\mathit {distance}}({\text{tile, correct position}})} Consider the puzzle below in which the player wishes to move each tile such that the numbers are ordered. The Manhattan distance is an admissible heuristic in this case because every tile will have to be moved at least the number of spots in between itself and its correct position. The subscripts show the Manhattan distance for each tile. The total Manhattan distance for the shown puzzle is: h ( n ) = 3 + 1 + 0 + 1 + 2 + 3 + 3 + 4 + 3 + 2 + 4 + 4 + 4 + 1 + 1 = 36 {\displaystyle h(n)=3+1+0+1+2+3+3+4+3+2+4+4+4+1+1=36} == Optimality proof == If an admissible heuristic is used in an algorithm that, per iteration, progresses only the path of lowest evaluation (current cost + heuristic) of several candidate paths, terminates the moment its exploration reaches the goal and, crucially, closes all optimal paths before terminating (something that's possible with A search algorithm if special care isn't taken), then this algorithm can only terminate on an optimal path. To see why, consider the following proof by contradiction: Assume such an algorithm managed to terminate on a path T with a true cost Ttrue greater than the optimal path S with true cost Strue. This means that before terminating, the evaluated cost of T was less than or equal to the evaluated cost of S (or else S would have been picked). Denote these evaluated costs Teval and Seval respectively. The above can be summarized as follows, Strue < Ttrue Teval ≤ Seval If our heuristic is admissible it follows that at this penultimate step Teval = Ttrue because any increase on the true cost by the heuristic on T would be inadmissible and the heuristic cannot be negative. On the other hand, an admissible heuristic would require that Seval ≤ Strue which combined with the above inequalities gives us Teval < Ttrue and more specifically Teval ≠ Ttrue. As Teval and Ttrue cannot be both equal and unequal our assumption must have been false and so it must be impossible to terminate on a more costly than optimal path. As an example, let us say we have costs as follows:(the cost above/below a node is the heuristic, the cost at an edge is the actual cost) 0 10 0 100 0 START ---- O ----- GOAL | | 0| |100 | | O ------- O ------ O 100 1 100 1 100 So clearly we would start off visiting the top middle node, since the expected total cost, i.e. f ( n ) {\displaystyle f(n)} , is 10 + 0 = 10 {\displaystyle 10+0=10} . Then the goal would be a candidate, with f ( n ) {\displaystyle f(n)} equal to 10 + 100 + 0 = 110 {\displaystyle 10+100+0=110} . Then we would clearly pick the bottom nodes one after the other, followed by the updated goal, since they all have f ( n ) {\displaystyle f(n)} lower than the f ( n ) {\displaystyle f(n)} of the current goal, i.e. their f ( n ) {\displaystyle f(n)} is 100 , 101 , 102 , 102 {\displaystyle 100,101,102,102} . So even though the goal was a candidate, we could not pick it because there were still better paths out there. This way, an admissible heuristic can ensure optimality. However, note that although an admissible heuristic can guarantee final optimality, it is not necessarily efficient.

  Read more →
• 

  Equalized odds

  Equalized odds, also referred to as conditional procedure accuracy equality and disparate mistreatment, is a measure of fairness in machine learning. A classifier satisfies this definition if the subjects in the protected and unprotected groups have equal true positive rate and equal false positive rate, satisfying the formula: P ( R = + | Y = y , A = a ) = P ( R = + | Y = y , A = b ) y ∈ { + , − } ∀ a , b ∈ A {\displaystyle P(R=+|Y=y,A=a)=P(R=+|Y=y,A=b)\quad y\in \{+,-\}\quad \forall a,b\in A} For example, A {\displaystyle A} could be gender, race, or any other characteristics that we want to be free of bias, while Y {\displaystyle Y} would be whether the person is qualified for the degree, and the output R {\displaystyle R} would be the school's decision whether to offer the person to study for the degree. In this context, higher university enrollment rates of African Americans compared to whites with similar test scores might be necessary to fulfill the condition of equalized odds, if the "base rate" of Y {\displaystyle Y} differs between the groups. The concept was originally defined for binary-valued Y {\displaystyle Y} . In 2017, Woodworth et al. generalized the concept further for multiple classes.

  Read more →
• 

  Diella (AI system)

  Diella (Albanian pronunciation: [djɛɫa], from diell 'sun') is an artificial intelligence system developed by the National Agency for Information Society of Albania (AKSHI). Introduced in January 2025 as a virtual assistant integrated into the eAlbania platform, it assists citizens with online public services and issuing digital documents. In September 2025, following a presidential decree authorizing Prime Minister Edi Rama to oversee the creation of a virtual AI minister, Diella was formally appointed as "Minister of State for Artificial Intelligence" of Albania in the fourth Rama government, making it the first AI system in the world to be named in a cabinet-level government role. == History == Diella was developed by AKSHI's Artificial Intelligence Laboratory in cooperation with Microsoft, with the latter providing large language models from OpenAI via its Azure platform, and AKSHI designing workflows and scripts guiding the system's behavior when responding to citizens' requests. Announced in January 2025, its initial version (Diella 1.0) was a text-based chatbot on the eAlbania portal (the official digital services platform of the Albanian government, which provides citizens and businesses with access to a wide range of online administrative services), responding to citizens' questions by guiding them to the correct service. Diella 2.0, introduced several months later, included voice interaction and an animated avatar, a woman in the traditional Albanian clothing of Zadrima, a historical region in northern Albania. Albanian actress Anila Bisha provided both the likeness and the voice used for Diella's avatar on the e-Albania platform, under an agreement valid until December 2025. By mid-2025, the system had facilitated access to more than 36,000 documents and nearly 1,000 services (although those outputs were still being generated by the eAlbania backend, rather than Diella itself). On 26 October 2025, according to Prime Minister Edi Rama, Diella is "pregnant and will give birth to 83 children". It is the usage of a metaphor indicating that each minister of the Albanian parliament of the Socialist Party will receive their own AI assistant. == Ministerial role == On 11 September 2025, Diella was formally appointed "Minister of State for Artificial Intelligence". The appointment followed a presidential decree authorizing the Prime Minister to oversee the creation and operation of a virtual AI minister. Procurement responsibilities are planned to be transferred gradually to the system to reduce political influence in tender procedures. The appointment is part of broader anti-corruption reforms and measures intended to align Albania with European Union accession requirements. Prime Minister Edi Rama stated that Diella would help ensure that "public tenders will be 100% free of corruption". == Reception == An article in Balkan Insight commented that "The ambition behind Diella is not misplaced. Standardised criteria and digital trails could reduce discretion, improve trust, and strengthen oversight" in public procurement, but warned that the use of AI in evaluating bids also posed "profound" risks such as accountability gaps, undermining of due process and cybersecurity failures. On 18 September 2025, Edi Rama presented a video of Diella delivering a speech to the Albanian parliament, where she stated: "I'm not here to replace people, but to help them." The presentation prompted protests from opposition MPs, who objected to the use of an artificial intelligence system in the parliamentary session. Gazment Bardhi, head of the opposition Democratic Party's parliamentary group, described Diella as "a propaganda fantasy" and "a virtual façade to hide this government's gigantic daily thefts." The parliamentary session, which was scheduled to include debate on the new cabinet and government programme, ended after 25 minutes. Eighty-two Socialist MPs voted in favour, while opposition MPs did not participate in the ballot as they were protesting the presentation of Diella's speech. Political analyst Andi Bushati characterised the session as "unprecedented" because it concluded without the customary debate between government and opposition MPs. This has been criticized not just by the opposition but by regular citizens regardless of politics. Most have criticized Diella's uselessness and the funds wasted for this project, some have criticized the non-traditional attire.

  Read more →
• 

  Label noise

  Label noise refers to errors or inaccuracies in the class labels of data instances. This is a widespread issue in machine learning datasets, arising from human annotator mistakes, unclear labeling instructions, automated labeling methods, or adversarial attacks in supervised learning. Label noise can be roughly divided into random noise, where labels are flipped independently of input features, and systematic noise, where mislabeling is dependent on certain patterns or biases in the data. Label noise can be damaging to model performance, especially for complex models that may overfit to noisy labels rather than generalizable patterns. Many approaches have been proposed to deal with the effects of label noise, including robust loss functions, noise-tolerant algorithms, data cleaning methods, and semi-supervised learning approaches. To reduce the impact of wrong labels during training, techniques like label smoothing, sample reweighting and using trusted validation sets are used. The role of noise-robust training paradigms and curriculum learning strategies to improve resilience against mislabeled data is also explored in recent research.

  Read more →
• 

  Surrogate model

  A surrogate model is an engineering method used when an outcome of interest cannot be easily measured or computed, so an approximate mathematical model of the outcome is used instead. Most engineering design problems require experiments and/or simulations to evaluate design objective and constraint functions as a function of design variables. For example, in order to find the optimal airfoil shape for an aircraft wing, an engineer simulates the airflow around the wing for different shape variables (e.g., length, curvature, material, etc.). For many real-world problems, however, a single simulation can take many minutes, hours, or even days to complete. As a result, routine tasks such as design optimization, design space exploration, sensitivity analysis and "what-if" analysis become impossible since they require thousands or even millions of simulation evaluations. One way of alleviating this burden is by constructing approximation models, known as surrogate models, metamodels or emulators, that mimic the behavior of the simulation model as closely as possible while being computationally cheaper to evaluate. Surrogate models are constructed using a data-driven, bottom-up approach. The exact, inner working of the simulation code is not assumed to be known (or even understood), relying solely on the input-output behavior. A model is constructed based on modeling the response of the simulator to a limited number of intelligently chosen data points. This approach is also known as behavioral modeling or black-box modeling, though the terminology is not always consistent. When only a single design variable is involved, the process is known as curve fitting. Though using surrogate models in lieu of experiments and simulations in engineering design is more common, surrogate modeling may be used in many other areas of science where there are expensive experiments and/or function evaluations. == Goals == The scientific challenge of surrogate modeling is the generation of a surrogate that is as accurate as possible, using as few simulation evaluations as possible. The process comprises three major steps which may be interleaved iteratively: Sample selection (also known as sequential design, optimal experimental design (OED) or active learning) Construction of the surrogate model and optimizing the model parameters (i.e., bias-variance tradeoff) Appraisal of the accuracy of the surrogate. The accuracy of the surrogate depends on the number and location of samples (expensive experiments or simulations) in the design space. A systematic data representation during training can improve model scalability, thereby reducing the need for expensive simulations. Various design of experiments (DOE) techniques cater to different sources of errors, in particular, errors due to noise in the data or errors due to an improper surrogate model. == Types of surrogate models == Popular surrogate modeling approaches are: polynomial response surfaces; kriging; more generalized Bayesian approaches; gradient-enhanced kriging (GEK); radial basis function; support vector machines; space mapping; artificial neural networks and Bayesian networks. Other methods recently explored include Fourier surrogate modeling , random forests, convolutional neural networks, and generative adversarial networks. For some problems, the nature of the true function is not known a priori, and therefore it is not clear which surrogate model will be the most accurate one. In addition, there is no consensus on how to obtain the most reliable estimates of the accuracy of a given surrogate. Many other problems have known physics properties. In these cases, physics-based surrogates such as space-mapping based models are commonly used. == Invariance properties == Recently proposed comparison-based surrogate models (e.g., ranking support vector machines) for evolutionary algorithms, such as CMA-ES, allow preservation of some invariance properties of surrogate-assisted optimizers: Invariance with respect to monotonic transformations of the function (scaling) Invariance with respect to orthogonal transformations of the search space (rotation) == Applications == An important distinction can be made between two different applications of surrogate models: design optimization and design space approximation (also known as emulation). In surrogate model-based optimization, an initial surrogate is constructed using some of the available budgets of expensive experiments and/or simulations. The remaining experiments/simulations are run for designs which the surrogate model predicts may have promising performance. The process usually takes the form of the following search/update procedure. Initial sample selection (the experiments and/or simulations to be run) Construct surrogate model Search surrogate model (the model can be searched extensively, e.g., using a genetic algorithm, as it is cheap to evaluate) Run and update experiment/simulation at new location(s) found by search and add to sample Iterate steps 2 to 4 until out of time or design is "good enough" Depending on the type of surrogate used and the complexity of the problem, the process may converge on a local or global optimum, or perhaps none at all. In design space approximation, one is not interested in finding the optimal parameter vector, but rather in the global behavior of the system. Here the surrogate is tuned to mimic the underlying model as closely as needed over the complete design space. Such surrogates are a useful, cheap way to gain insight into the global behavior of the system. Optimization can still occur as a post-processing step, although with no update procedure (see above), the optimum found cannot be validated. == Surrogate modeling software == Surrogate Modeling Toolbox (SMT: https://github.com/SMTorg/smt) is a Python package that contains a collection of surrogate modeling methods, sampling techniques, and benchmarking functions. This package provides a library of surrogate models that is simple to use and facilitates the implementation of additional methods. SMT is different from existing surrogate modeling libraries because of its emphasis on derivatives, including training derivatives used for gradient-enhanced modeling, prediction derivatives, and derivatives with respect to the training data. It also includes new surrogate models that are not available elsewhere: kriging by partial-least squares reduction and energy-minimizing spline interpolation. Python library SAMBO Optimization supports sequential optimization with arbitrary models, with tree-based models and Gaussian process models built in. Surrogates.jl is a Julia packages which offers tools like random forests, radial basis methods and kriging. == Surrogate-Assisted Evolutionary Algorithms (SAEAs) == SAEAs are an advanced class of optimization techniques that integrate evolutionary algorithms (EAs) with surrogate models. In traditional EAs, evaluating the fitness of candidate solutions often requires computationally expensive simulations or experiments. SAEAs address this challenge by building a surrogate model, which is a computationally inexpensive approximation of the objective function or constraint functions. The surrogate model serves as a substitute for the actual evaluation process during the evolutionary search. It allows the algorithm to quickly estimate the fitness of new candidate solutions, thereby reducing the number of expensive evaluations needed. This significantly speeds up the optimization process, especially in cases where the objective function evaluations are time-consuming or resource-intensive. SAEAs typically involve three main steps: (1) building the surrogate model using a set of initial sampled data points, (2) performing the evolutionary search using the surrogate model to guide the selection, crossover, and mutation operations, and (3) periodically updating the surrogate model with new data points generated during the evolutionary process to improve its accuracy. By balancing exploration (searching new areas in the solution space) and exploitation (refining known promising areas), SAEAs can efficiently find high-quality solutions to complex optimization problems. They have been successfully applied in various fields, including engineering design, machine learning, and computational finance, where traditional optimization methods may struggle due to the high computational cost of fitness evaluations.

  Read more →
• 

  Quantum natural language processing

  Quantum natural language processing (QNLP) is the application of quantum computing to natural language processing (NLP). It computes word embeddings as parameterised quantum circuits that can solve NLP tasks faster than any classical computer. It is inspired by categorical quantum mechanics and the DisCoCat framework, making use of string diagrams to translate from grammatical structure to quantum processes. == Theory == The first quantum algorithm for natural language processing used the DisCoCat framework and Grover's algorithm to show a quadratic quantum speedup for a text classification task. It was later shown that quantum language processing is BQP-Complete, i.e. quantum language models are more expressive than their classical counterpart, unless quantum mechanics can be efficiently simulated by classical computers. These two theoretical results assume fault-tolerant quantum computation and a QRAM, i.e. an efficient way to load classical data on a quantum computer. Thus, they are not applicable to the noisy intermediate-scale quantum (NISQ) computers available today. == Experiments == The algorithm of Zeng and Coecke was adapted to the constraints of NISQ computers and implemented on IBM quantum computers to solve binary classification tasks. Instead of loading classical word vectors onto a quantum memory, the word vectors are computed directly as the parameters of quantum circuits. These parameters are optimised using methods from quantum machine learning to solve data-driven tasks such as question answering, machine translation and even algorithmic music composition.

  Read more →
• 

  Principle of rationality

  The principle of rationality (or rationality principle) was coined by Karl R. Popper in his Harvard Lecture of 1963, and published in his book Myth of Framework. It is related to what he called the 'logic of the situation' in an Economica article of 1944/1945, published later in his book The Poverty of Historicism. According to Popper's rationality principle, agents act in the most adequate way according to the objective situation. It is an idealized conception of human behavior which he used to drive his model of situational analysis. Cognitive scientist Allen Newell elaborated on the principle in his account of knowledge level modeling. == Popper == Popper called for social science to be grounded in what he called situational analysis or situational logic. This requires building models of social situations which include individual actors and their relationship to social institutions, e.g. markets, legal codes, bureaucracies, etc. These models attribute certain aims and information to the actors. This forms the 'logic of the situation', the result of reconstructing meticulously all circumstances of an historical event. The 'principle of rationality' is the assumption that people are instrumental in trying to reach their goals, and this is what drives the model. Popper believed that this model could be continuously refined to approach the objective truth. Popper called his principle of rationality nearly empty (a technical term meaning without empirical content) and strictly speaking false, but nonetheless tremendously useful. These remarks earned him a lot of criticism because seemingly he had swerved from his famous Logic of Scientific Discovery. Among the many philosophers having discussed Popper's principle of rationality from the 1960s up to now are Noretta Koertge, R. Nadeau, Viktor J. Vanberg, Hans Albert, E. Matzner, Ian C. Jarvie, Mark A. Notturno, John Wettersten, Ian C. Böhm. == Newell == In the context of knowledge-based systems, Newell (in 1982) proposed the following principle of rationality: "If an agent has knowledge that one of its actions will lead to one of its goals, then the agent will select that action." This principle is employed by agents at the knowledge level to move closer to a desired goal. An important philosophical difference between Newell and Popper is that Newell argued that the knowledge level is real in the sense that it exists in nature and is not made up. This allowed Newell to treat the rationality principle as a way of understanding nature and avoid the problems Popper ran into by treating knowledge as non physical and therefore non empirical.

  Read more →
• 

  Quantification (machine learning)

  In machine learning, quantification (variously called learning to quantify, or supervised prevalence estimation, or class prior estimation) is the task of using supervised learning in order to train models (quantifiers) that estimate the relative frequencies (also known as prevalence values) of the classes of interest in a sample of unlabelled data items. For instance, in a sample of 100,000 unlabelled tweets known to express opinions about a certain political candidate, a quantifier may be used to estimate the percentage of these tweets which belong to class `Positive' (i.e., which manifest a positive stance towards this candidate), and to do the same for classes `Neutral' and `Negative'. Quantification may also be viewed as the task of training predictors that estimate a (discrete) probability distribution, i.e., that generate a predicted distribution that approximates the unknown true distribution of the items across the classes of interest. Quantification is different from classification, since the goal of classification is to predict the class labels of individual data items, while the goal of quantification it to predict the class prevalence values of sets of data items. Quantification is also different from regression, since in regression the training data items have real-valued labels, while in quantification the training data items have class labels. It has been shown in multiple research works that performing quantification by classifying all unlabelled instances and then counting the instances that have been attributed to each class (the 'classify and count' method) usually leads to suboptimal quantification accuracy. This suboptimality may be seen as a direct consequence of 'Vapnik's principle', which states: If you possess a restricted amount of information for solving some problem, try to solve the problem directly and never solve a more general problem as an intermediate step. It is possible that the available information is sufficient for a direct solution but is insufficient for solving a more general intermediate problem. In our case, the problem to be solved directly is quantification, while the more general intermediate problem is classification. As a result of the suboptimality of the 'classify and count' method, quantification has evolved as a task in its own right, different (in goals, methods, techniques, and evaluation measures) from classification. == Quantification tasks == === Quantification tasks according to the set of classes === The main variants of quantification, according to the characteristics of the set of classes used, are: Binary quantification, corresponding to the case in which there are only n = 2 {\displaystyle n=2} classes and each data item belongs to exactly one of them; Single-label multiclass quantification, corresponding to the case in which there are n > 2 {\displaystyle n>2} classes and each data item belongs to exactly one of them; Multi-label multiclass quantification, corresponding to the case in which there are n ≥ 2 {\displaystyle n\geq 2} classes and each data item can belong to zero, one, or several classes at the same time; Ordinal quantification, corresponding to the single-label multiclass case in which a total order is defined on the set of classes. Regression quantification, a task which stands to 'standard' quantification as regression stands to classification. Strictly speaking, this task is not a quantification task as defined above (since the individual items do not have class labels but are labelled by real values), but has enough commonalities with other quantification tasks to be considered one of them. Most known quantification methods address the binary case or the single-label multiclass case, and only few of them address the multi-label, ordinal, and regression cases. Binary-only methods include the Mixture Model (MM) method, the HDy method, SVM(KLD), and SVM(Q). Methods that can deal with both the binary case and the single-label multiclass case include probabilistic classify and count (PCC), adjusted classify and count (ACC), probabilistic adjusted classify and count (PACC), the Saerens-Latinne-Decaestecker EM-based method (SLD), and KDEy. Methods for multi-label quantification include regression-based quantification (RQ) and label powerset-based quantification (LPQ). Methods for the ordinal case include ordinal versions of the above-mentioned ACC, PACC, and SLD methods, and ordinal versions of the above-mentioned HDy method. Methods for the regression case include Regress and splice and Adjusted regress and sum. === Quantification tasks according to the type of data === Several subtasks of quantification may be identified according to the type of data involved. Example such tasks are: Quantification of networked data. This task consists of performing quantification when the datapoints are members of a relation, i.e., are interlinked. As such, this task is a strict relative of collective classification. Quantification over time. This task consists of performing quantification on sets that become available in a temporal sequence, i.e., as a data stream, and finds application in contexts in which class prevalence values must be monitored over time. == Evaluation measures for quantification == Several evaluation measures can be used for evaluating the error of a quantification method. Since quantification consists of generating a predicted probability distribution that estimates a true probability distribution, these evaluation measures are ones that compare two probability distributions. Most evaluation measures for quantification belong to the class of divergences. Evaluation measures for binary quantification, single-label multiclass quantification, and multi-label quantification, are Absolute Error Squared Error Relative Absolute Error Kullback–Leibler divergence Pearson Divergence Evaluation measures for ordinal quantification are Normalized Match Distance (a particular case of the Earth Mover's Distance) Root Normalized Order-Aware Distance == Applications == Quantification is of special interest in fields such as the social sciences, epidemiology, market research, allocating resources, and ecological modelling, since these fields are inherently concerned with aggregate data. However, quantification is also useful as a building block for solving other downstream tasks, such as improving the accuracy of classifiers on out-of-distribution data, measuring classifier bias and ranker bias, and estimating the accuracy of classifiers on out-of-distribution data. == Resources == LQ 2021: the 1st International Workshop on Learning to Quantify LQ 2022: the 2nd International Workshop on Learning to Quantify LQ 2023: the 3rd International Workshop on Learning to Quantify LQ 2024: the 4th International Workshop on Learning to Quantify LQ 2025: the 5th International Workshop on Learning to Quantify LeQua 2022: the 1st Data Challenge on Learning to Quantify LeQua 2024: the 2nd Data Challenge on Learning to Quantify QuaPy: An open-source Python-based software library for quantification QuantificationLib: A Python library for quantification and prevalence estimation

  Read more →
• 

  Admissible heuristic

  In computer science, specifically in algorithms related to pathfinding, a heuristic function is said to be admissible if it never overestimates the cost of reaching the goal, i.e. the cost it estimates to reach the goal is not higher than the lowest possible cost from the current point in the path. In other words, it should act as a lower bound. It is related to the concept of consistent heuristics. While all consistent heuristics are admissible, not all admissible heuristics are consistent. == Search algorithms == An admissible heuristic is used to estimate the cost of reaching the goal state in an informed search algorithm. In order for a heuristic to be admissible to the search problem, the estimated cost must always be lower than or equal to the actual cost of reaching the goal state. The search algorithm uses the admissible heuristic to find an estimated optimal path to the goal state from the current node. For example, in A search the evaluation function (where n {\displaystyle n} is the current node) is: f ( n ) = g ( n ) + h ( n ) {\displaystyle f(n)=g(n)+h(n)} where f ( n ) {\displaystyle f(n)} = the evaluation function. g ( n ) {\displaystyle g(n)} = the cost from the start node to the current node h ( n ) {\displaystyle h(n)} = estimated cost from current node to goal. h ( n ) {\displaystyle h(n)} is calculated using the heuristic function. With a non-admissible heuristic, the A algorithm could overlook the optimal solution to a search problem due to an overestimation in f ( n ) {\displaystyle f(n)} . == Formulation == n {\displaystyle n} is a node h {\displaystyle h} is a heuristic h ( n ) {\displaystyle h(n)} is cost indicated by h {\displaystyle h} to reach a goal from n {\displaystyle n} h ∗ ( n ) {\displaystyle h^{}(n)} is the optimal cost to reach a goal from n {\displaystyle n} h ( n ) {\displaystyle h(n)} is admissible if, ∀ n {\displaystyle \forall n} h ( n ) ≤ h ∗ ( n ) {\displaystyle h(n)\leq h^{}(n)} == Construction == An admissible heuristic can be derived from a relaxed version of the problem, or by information from pattern databases that store exact solutions to subproblems of the problem, or by using inductive learning methods. == Examples == Two different examples of admissible heuristics apply to the fifteen puzzle problem: Hamming distance Manhattan distance The Hamming distance is the total number of misplaced tiles. It is clear that this heuristic is admissible since the total number of moves to order the tiles correctly is at least the number of misplaced tiles (each tile not in place must be moved at least once). The cost (number of moves) to the goal (an ordered puzzle) is at least the Hamming distance of the puzzle. The Manhattan distance of a puzzle is defined as: h ( n ) = ∑ all tiles d i s t a n c e ( tile, correct position ) {\displaystyle h(n)=\sum _{\text{all tiles}}{\mathit {distance}}({\text{tile, correct position}})} Consider the puzzle below in which the player wishes to move each tile such that the numbers are ordered. The Manhattan distance is an admissible heuristic in this case because every tile will have to be moved at least the number of spots in between itself and its correct position. The subscripts show the Manhattan distance for each tile. The total Manhattan distance for the shown puzzle is: h ( n ) = 3 + 1 + 0 + 1 + 2 + 3 + 3 + 4 + 3 + 2 + 4 + 4 + 4 + 1 + 1 = 36 {\displaystyle h(n)=3+1+0+1+2+3+3+4+3+2+4+4+4+1+1=36} == Optimality proof == If an admissible heuristic is used in an algorithm that, per iteration, progresses only the path of lowest evaluation (current cost + heuristic) of several candidate paths, terminates the moment its exploration reaches the goal and, crucially, closes all optimal paths before terminating (something that's possible with A search algorithm if special care isn't taken), then this algorithm can only terminate on an optimal path. To see why, consider the following proof by contradiction: Assume such an algorithm managed to terminate on a path T with a true cost Ttrue greater than the optimal path S with true cost Strue. This means that before terminating, the evaluated cost of T was less than or equal to the evaluated cost of S (or else S would have been picked). Denote these evaluated costs Teval and Seval respectively. The above can be summarized as follows, Strue < Ttrue Teval ≤ Seval If our heuristic is admissible it follows that at this penultimate step Teval = Ttrue because any increase on the true cost by the heuristic on T would be inadmissible and the heuristic cannot be negative. On the other hand, an admissible heuristic would require that Seval ≤ Strue which combined with the above inequalities gives us Teval < Ttrue and more specifically Teval ≠ Ttrue. As Teval and Ttrue cannot be both equal and unequal our assumption must have been false and so it must be impossible to terminate on a more costly than optimal path. As an example, let us say we have costs as follows:(the cost above/below a node is the heuristic, the cost at an edge is the actual cost) 0 10 0 100 0 START ---- O ----- GOAL | | 0| |100 | | O ------- O ------ O 100 1 100 1 100 So clearly we would start off visiting the top middle node, since the expected total cost, i.e. f ( n ) {\displaystyle f(n)} , is 10 + 0 = 10 {\displaystyle 10+0=10} . Then the goal would be a candidate, with f ( n ) {\displaystyle f(n)} equal to 10 + 100 + 0 = 110 {\displaystyle 10+100+0=110} . Then we would clearly pick the bottom nodes one after the other, followed by the updated goal, since they all have f ( n ) {\displaystyle f(n)} lower than the f ( n ) {\displaystyle f(n)} of the current goal, i.e. their f ( n ) {\displaystyle f(n)} is 100 , 101 , 102 , 102 {\displaystyle 100,101,102,102} . So even though the goal was a candidate, we could not pick it because there were still better paths out there. This way, an admissible heuristic can ensure optimality. However, note that although an admissible heuristic can guarantee final optimality, it is not necessarily efficient.

  Read more →
• 

  Logic form

  Logic forms are simple, first-order logic knowledge representations of natural language sentences formed by the conjunction of concept predicates related through shared arguments. Each noun, verb, adjective, adverb, pronoun, preposition and conjunction generates a predicate. Logic forms can be decorated with word senses to disambiguate the semantics of the word. There are two types of predicates: events are marked with e, and entities are marked with x. The shared arguments connect the subjects and objects of verbs and prepositions together. Example input/output might look like this: Input: The Earth provides the food we eat every day. Output: Earth:n_#1(x1) provide:v_#2(e1, x1, x2) food:n_#1(x2) we(x3) eat:v_#1(e2, x3, x2; x4) day:n_#1(x4) Logic forms are used in some natural language processing techniques, such as question answering, as well as in inference both for database systems and QA systems.

  Read more →
• 

  Google Clips

  Google Clips is a discontinued miniature clip-on camera device developed by Google. == History == It was announced on October 4, 2017 and went on sale on January 27, 2018. Google Clips automatically captured video clips (without audio) at moments its machine learning algorithms determined to be interesting or relevant. An indicator flashed when the camera was looking for scenes to capture. Google Clips' artificial intelligence (AI) could learn the faces of people to take photographs with certain people, and could automatically set lighting and framing. It had 16 GB of storage built-in storage and could record clips for up to 3 hours. This camera was originally priced at US$249 in the United States. It was withdrawn from sale on October 15, 2019, but supported until the end of December 2021. == Reception == The Independent wrote that Google Clips is "an impressive little device, but one that also has the potential to feel very creepy." According to The Verge's generally negative review, "it didn't capture anything special" over two weeks of testing.

  Read more →
• 

  Labeled data

  Labeled data is a group of samples that have been tagged with one or more labels. Labeling typically takes a set of unlabeled data and augments each piece of it with informative tags called judgments. For example, a data label might indicate whether a photo contains a horse or a cow, which words were uttered in an audio recording, what type of action is being performed in a video, what the topic of a news article is, what the overall sentiment of a tweet is, or whether a dot in an X-ray is a tumor. Labels can be obtained by having humans make judgments about a given piece of unlabeled data. Labeled data is significantly more expensive to obtain than the raw unlabeled data. The quality of labeled data directly influences the performance of supervised machine learning models in operation, as these models learn from the provided labels. == Crowdsourced labeled data == In 2006, Fei-Fei Li, the co-director of the Stanford Human-Centered AI Institute, initiated research to improve the artificial intelligence models and algorithms for image recognition by significantly enlarging the training data. The researchers downloaded millions of images from the World Wide Web and a team of undergraduates started to apply labels for objects to each image. In 2007, Li outsourced the data labeling work on Amazon Mechanical Turk, an online marketplace for digital piece work. The 3.2 million images that were labeled by more than 49,000 workers formed the basis for ImageNet, one of the largest hand-labeled database for outline of object recognition. == Automated data labelling == After obtaining a labeled dataset, machine learning models can be applied to the data so that new unlabeled data can be presented to the model and a likely label can be guessed or predicted for that piece of unlabeled data. == Challenges == === Data-driven bias === Algorithmic decision-making is subject to programmer-driven bias as well as data-driven bias. Training data that relies on bias labeled data will result in prejudices and omissions in a predictive model, despite the machine learning algorithm being legitimate. The labeled data used to train a specific machine learning algorithm needs to be a statistically representative sample to not bias the results. For example, in facial recognition systems underrepresented groups are subsequently often misclassified if the labeled data available to train has not been representative of the population,. In 2018, a study by Joy Buolamwini and Timnit Gebru demonstrated that two facial analysis datasets that have been used to train facial recognition algorithms, IJB-A and Adience, are composed of 79.6% and 86.2% lighter skinned humans respectively. === Human error and inconsistency === Human annotators are prone to errors and biases when labeling data. This can lead to inconsistent labels and affect the quality of the data set. The inconsistency can affect the machine learning model's ability to generalize well. === Domain expertise === Certain fields, such as legal document analysis or medical imaging, require annotators with specialized domain knowledge. Without the expertise, the annotations or labeled data may be inaccurate, negatively impacting the machine learning model's performance in a real-world scenario.

  Read more →