AI For Business Escp

AI For Business Escp — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  Amira (software)

  Amira (ah-MEER-ah) is a software platform for visualization, processing, and analysis of 3D and 4D data. It is being actively developed by Thermo Fisher Scientific in collaboration with the Zuse Institute Berlin (ZIB), and commercially distributed by Thermo Fisher Scientific — together with its sister software Avizo. == Overview == Amira is an extendable software system for scientific visualization, data analysis, and presentation of 3D and 4D data. It is used by researchers and engineers in academia and industry. It is a tool for processing, analysis and visualization of data from various modalities; e.g. micro-CT, PET, Ultrasound. It is used in many fields, such as microscopy in biology and materials science, molecular biology, quantum physics, astrophysics, computational fluid dynamics (CFD), finite element modeling (FEM), non-destructive testing (NDT), and many more. One of the key features, besides data visualization, is Amira's set of tools for image segmentation and geometry reconstruction. This allows the user to mark (or segment) structures and regions of interest in 3D image volumes using automatic, semi-automatic, and manual tools. The segmentation can then be used for a variety of subsequent tasks, such as volumetric analysis, density analysis, shape analysis, or the generation of 3D computer models for visualization, numerical simulations, or rapid prototyping or 3D printing. Other key Amira features are multi-planar and volume visualization, image registration, filament tracing, cell separation and analysis, tetrahedral mesh generation, fiber-tracking from diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) data, skeletonization, spatial graph analysis, and stereoscopic rendering of 3D data over multiple displays and immersive virtual reality environments, including CAVEs. As a commercial product Amira requires the purchase of a license or an academic subscription. A time-limited, but full-featured evaluation version is available for download free of charge. == History == === 1993–1998: Research software === Amira's roots go back to 1993 and the Department for Scientific Visualization, headed by Hans-Christian Hege at the Zuse Institute Berlin (ZIB). The ZIB is a research institute for mathematics and informatics. The Scientific Visualization department's mission is to help solve computationally and scientifically challenging tasks in medicine, biology, engineering and materials science. For this purpose, it develops algorithms and software for 2D, 3D, and 4D data visualization and visually supported exploration and analysis. At that time, the young visualization group at the ZIB had experience with the extendable, data flow-oriented visualization environments apE, IRIS Explorer, and Advanced Visualization Studio (AVS), but was not satisfied with these products' interactivity, flexibility, and ease-of-use for non-computer scientists. Therefore, the development of a new software system was started in a research project within a medically oriented, multi-disciplinary collaborative research center. Based on experiences that Tobias Höllerer had gained in late 1993 with the new graphics library IRIS Inventor, it was decided to utilize that library. The development of the medical planning system was performed by Detlev Stalling, who later became the chief software architect of Amira. The new software was called "HyperPlan", highlighting its initial target application – a planning system for hyperthermia cancer treatment. The system was being developed on Silicon Graphics (SGI) computers, which at the time were the standard workstations used for high-end graphics computing. The software was based on libraries such as OpenGL (originally IRIS GL), Open Inventor (originally IRIS Inventor), and the graphical user interface libraries X11, Motif (software), and ViewKit. In 1998, X11/Motif/Viewkit were replaced by the Qt toolkit. The HyperPlan framework served as the base for more and more projects at the ZIB and was used by a growing number of researchers in collaborating institutions. The projects included applications in medical image computing, medical visualization, neurobiology, confocal microscopy, flow visualization, molecular analytics and computational astrophysics. === 1998–today: Commercially supported product === The growing number of users of the system started to exceed the capacities that ZIB could spare for software distribution and support, as ZIB's primary mission was algorithmic research. Therefore, the spin-off company Indeed – Visual Concepts GmbH was founded by Hans-Christian Hege, Detlev Stalling, and Malte Westerhoff. In Feb 1998 the HyperPlan software was given the new, application-neutral name "Amira". This name is not an acronym, but was chosen for being pronounceable in different languages and providing a suitable connotation, namely "to look at" or "to wonder at", from the Latin verb "admirare" (to admire), which reflects a basic situation in data visualization. A major re-design of the software was undertaken by Detlev Stalling and Malte Westerhoff in order to make it a commercially supportable product and to make it available on non-SGI computers as well. In March 1999, the first version of the commercial Amira was exhibited at the CeBIT tradeshow in Hannover, Germany on SGI IRIX and Hewlett-Packard UniX (HP-UX) booths. Versions for Linux and Microsoft Windows followed within the following twelve months. Later Mac OS X support was added. Indeed – Visual Concepts GmbH selected the Bordeaux, France and San Diego, United States based company TGS, Inc. as the worldwide distributor for Amira and completed five major releases (up to version 3.1) in the subsequent four years. In 2003 both Indeed – Visual Concepts GmbH, as well as TGS, Inc. were acquired by Massachusetts-based Mercury Computer Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ:MRCY) and became part of Mercury's newly formed life sciences business unit, later branded Visage Imaging. In 2009, Mercury Computer Systems, Inc. spun off Visage Imaging again and sold it to Melbourne, Australia based Promedicus Ltd (ASX:PME), a leading provider of radiology information systems and medical IT solutions. During this time, Amira continued to be developed in Berlin, Germany and in close collaboration with the ZIB, still headed by the original creators of Amira. TGS, located in Bordeaux, France was sold by Mercury Computer systems to a French investor and renamed to Visualization Sciences Group (VSG). VSG continued the work on a complementary product named Avizo, based on the same source code but customized for material sciences. In August 2012, FEI, to that date the largest OEM reseller of Amira, purchased VSG and the Amira business from Promedicus. This brought the two software sisters Amira and Avizo back into one hand. In August 2013, Visualization Sciences Group (VSG) became a business unit of FEI. In 2016 FEI has been bought by Thermo Fisher Scientific and became part of its Materials & Structural Analysis division in early 2017. Amira and Avizo are still being marketed as two different products; Amira for life sciences and Avizo for materials science, but the development efforts are now joined once again. In the meantime, the number of scientific articles using the Amira / Avizo software, is in the order of 10 thousands. == Amira options == === Microscopy option === Specific readers for microscopy data Image deconvolution Exploration of 3D imagery obtained from virtually any microscope Extraction and editing of filament networks from microscopy images === DICOM reader === Import of clinical and preclinical data in DICOM format === Mesh option === Generation of 3D finite element (FE) meshes from segmented image data Support for many state-of-the-art FE solver formats High-quality visualization of simulation mesh-based results, using scalar, vector, and tensor field display modules === Skeletonization option === Reconstruction and analysis of neural and vascular networks Visualization of skeletonized networks Length and diameter quantification of network segments Ordering of segments in a tree graph Skeletonization of very large image stacks === Molecular option === Advanced tools for the visualization of molecule models Hardware-accelerated volume rendering Powerful molecule editor Specific tools for complex molecular visualization === Developer option === Creation of new custom components for visualizing or data processing Implementation of new file readers or writers C++ programming language Development wizard for getting started quickly === Neuro option === Medical image analysis for DTI and brain perfusion Fiber tracking supporting several stream-line based algorithms Fiber separation into fiber bundles based on user defined source and destination regions Computation of tensor fields, diffusion weighted maps Eigenvalue decomposition of tensor fields Computation of mean transit time, cerebral blood flow, and cerebral blood volume === VR option === Visualization of data on large tiled displays

  Read more →
• 

  STIT logic

  STIT logic (from seeing to it that) is a family of modal and branching-time logics for reasoning about agency and choice. A typical STIT operator has the form [ i s t i t : φ ] {\displaystyle [i\ {\mathsf {stit}}:\varphi ]} , usually read as "agent i {\displaystyle i} sees to it that φ {\displaystyle \varphi } ", and is interpreted in models where agents choose between alternative possible futures. STIT logics are used in action theory, deontic logic, epistemic logic, and the theory of intelligent agents to formalise notions such as "could have done otherwise", responsibility, joint action, and strategic ability in an indeterministic world. == Etymology == The acronym STIT comes from the English phrase "seeing to it that", introduced in influential work by Nuel Belnap and Michael Perloff on the logical analysis of agentive expressions. In this tradition, "to see to it that φ {\displaystyle \varphi } " is treated as a primitive agency operator, rather than being reduced to ordinary modal necessity. == History == Modern STIT logic arose in the 1980s in the context of branching-time semantics and formal theories of agency. Belnap and Perloff's article "Seeing to it that: A canonical form for agentives" introduced the idea of treating expressions of the form "agent i sees to it that φ" as a primitive modal operator, and analysed such sentences using a branching tree of moments and histories. This approach was further developed in a series of papers on indeterminism and agency and provided the conceptual core for later STIT formalisms. In the 1990s the basic formal systems of STIT logic were worked out. Horty and Belnap's influential paper on the deliberative STIT operator distinguished between a "Chellas" STIT that merely records the result of an agent's present choice and a "deliberative" STIT that requires the agent's choice to make a difference, and connected STIT with issues of action, omission, ability and obligation. Around the same time, Ming Xu proved completeness and decidability results for basic STIT systems, including a single-agent logic with Kripke-style semantics and axiomatizations for multi-agent deliberative STIT, thereby establishing STIT as a well-behaved normal modal framework. This early work was systematised in Belnap, Perloff and Xu's monograph Facing the Future: Agents and Choices in Our Indeterminist World, which presents a general branching-time semantics for individual and group STIT operators, discusses independence-of-agents conditions and articulates the metaphysical picture of an indeterministic "tree" of moments. At roughly the same time, Horty's book Agency and Deontic Logic developed deontic STIT logics in which obligations are tied to agents' available choices rather than to static states of affairs, and used the resulting systems to analyse "ought implies can", contrary-to-duty obligations and deontic paradoxes. These works helped to position STIT at the intersection of action theory, temporal logic and deontic logic. From the late 1990s and 2000s onward, STIT logics were combined with epistemic, temporal and strategic modalities. Broersen introduced complete STIT logics for knowledge and action and deontic-epistemic STIT systems that distinguish different modes of mens rea, with applications to responsibility and the specification of multi-agent systems. Work on group and coalitional agency investigated axiomatisations and complexity results for group STIT logics, and related STIT-based analyses of agency to coalition logic and alternating-time temporal logic (ATL) by exhibiting formal embeddings between the frameworks. Explicit temporal operators were added to STIT in so-called temporal STIT logics. Lorini proposed a temporal STIT with "next" and "until" operators along histories and showed how it can be applied to normative reasoning about ongoing behaviour and commitments. Ciuni and Lorini compared different semantics for temporal STIT, clarifying the relationships between branching-time, game-based and epistemic approaches, while Boudou and Lorini gave a semantics for temporal STIT based on concurrent game structures, thus strengthening links with standard models of multi-agent interaction used for ATL and strategy logic. In parallel, complexity-theoretic work by Balbiani, Herzig and Troquard and by Schwarzentruber and co-authors investigated the satisfiability and model-checking problems for various STIT fragments, showing for instance that many expressive group STIT logics are undecidable or of high computational complexity. In the 2010s, STIT ideas were combined with justification logic, imagination operators and refined deontic notions. Justification STIT logics, developed by Olkhovikov and others, merge explicit justifications with STIT-style agency so that producing a proof can itself be treated as an action that brings about knowledge, and they come with completeness and decidability results. Olkhovikov and Wansing introduced STIT imagination logics, together with axiomatic systems and tableau calculi, to model acts of voluntary imagining and their role in doxastic control. Other authors have proposed STIT-based logics of responsibility, blameworthiness and intentionality for use in philosophical and AI settings. Xu's survey article "Combinations of STIT with Ought and Know" (2015) reviews many of these developments and emphasises the interplay between deontic and epistemic STIT logics. Current research on STIT focuses on proof theory, automated reasoning and richer expressive resources. Lyon and van Berkel, building on earlier work on labelled calculi for STIT, have developed cut-free sequent systems and proof-search algorithms that yield syntactic decision procedures for a range of deontic and non-deontic multi-agent STIT logics and support applications such as duty checking and compliance checking in autonomous systems. Sawasaki has proposed first-order cstit-based STIT logics that can distinguish de re and de dicto readings of agency statements and has proved strong completeness results for Hilbert systems over finite models, moving the STIT programme beyond the purely propositional level. Further work investigates interpreted-system and computationally grounded semantics for STIT and its extensions in order to model the behaviour of autonomous agents in multi-agent settings, and proposes STIT-based semantics for epistemic notions based on patterns of information disclosure in interactive systems. == Branching-time semantics == STIT logics are usually interpreted over branching-time models. A standard STIT frame consists of: a non-empty set of moments T {\displaystyle T} , partially ordered by < {\displaystyle <} so that ( T , < ) {\displaystyle (T,<)} forms a tree (every pair of moments with a common predecessor has a greatest lower bound); a set of histories, each history being a maximal linearly ordered subset of T {\displaystyle T} ; a non-empty set of agents A g {\displaystyle Ag} ; for each agent i ∈ A g {\displaystyle i\in Ag} and moment m {\displaystyle m} , a choice function c h o i c e i m {\displaystyle {\mathsf {choice}}_{i}^{m}} that partitions the set of histories passing through m {\displaystyle m} into choice cells. The idea is that a moment represents a time at which choices are made, and histories represent complete possible future courses of events. At each moment, each agent's choice corresponds to selecting one of the available cells of histories determined by their choice function. Formulas are evaluated at pairs ( m , h ) {\displaystyle (m,h)} of a moment and a history through that moment (sometimes written m / h {\displaystyle m/h} ). A valuation assigns truth-values to atomic propositions at such indices; Boolean connectives are interpreted pointwise as in Kripke-style modal logic. == Chellas and deliberative STIT operators == Several STIT operators have been distinguished in the literature. A common approach uses two closely related operators, often called Chellas STIT and deliberative STIT. Let H m {\displaystyle H_{m}} be the set of histories passing through a moment m {\displaystyle m} , and write H m {\displaystyle H_{m}} ⟦ φ ⟧ m = { h ∈ H m ∣ M , m / h ⊨ φ } {\displaystyle {\text{⟦}}\varphi {\text{⟧}}_{m}=\{h\in H_{m}\mid M,m/h\models \varphi \}} for the set of histories at m {\displaystyle m} where φ {\displaystyle \varphi } holds. The Chellas STIT operator, often written [ i c s t i t : φ ] {\displaystyle [i\ {\mathsf {cstit}}:\varphi ]} , is given by M , m / h ⊨ [ i c s t i t : φ ] iff c h o i c e i m ( h ) ⊆ ⟦ φ ⟧ m . {\displaystyle M,m/h\models [i\ {\mathsf {cstit}}:\varphi ]\quad {\text{iff}}\quad {\mathsf {choice}}_{i}^{m}(h)\subseteq {\text{⟦}}\varphi {\text{⟧}}_{m}.} Intuitively, agent i {\displaystyle i} sees to it that φ {\displaystyle \varphi } if φ {\displaystyle \varphi } holds at all histories compatible with their present choice. The deliberative STIT operator, [ i d s t i t : φ ] {\displaystyle [i\ {\mathsf {dstit}}:\varphi ]} , adds

  Read more →
• 

  MLOps

  MLOps or ML Ops is a paradigm that aims to deploy and maintain machine learning models in production reliably and efficiently. It bridges the gap between machine learning development and production operations, ensuring that models are robust, scalable, and aligned with business goals. The word is a compound of "machine learning" and the continuous delivery practice (CI/CD) of DevOps in the software field. Machine learning models are tested and developed in isolated experimental systems. When an algorithm is ready to be launched, MLOps is practiced between data scientists, DevOps, and machine learning engineers to transition the algorithm to production systems. Similar to DevOps or DataOps approaches, MLOps seeks to increase automation and improve the quality of production models, while also focusing on business and regulatory requirements. While MLOps started as a set of best practices, it is slowly evolving into an independent approach to ML lifecycle management. MLOps applies to the entire lifecycle - from integrating with model generation (software development lifecycle, continuous integration/continuous delivery), orchestration, and deployment, to health, diagnostics, governance, and business metrics. == Definition == MLOps is a paradigm, including aspects like best practices, sets of concepts, as well as a development culture when it comes to the end-to-end conceptualization, implementation, monitoring, deployment, and scalability of machine learning products. Most of all, it is an engineering practice that leverages three contributing disciplines: machine learning, software engineering (especially DevOps), and data engineering. MLOps is aimed at productionizing machine learning systems by bridging the gap between development (Dev) and operations (Ops). Essentially, MLOps aims to facilitate the creation of machine learning products by leveraging these principles: CI/CD automation, workflow orchestration, reproducibility; versioning of data, model, and code; collaboration; continuous ML training and evaluation; ML metadata tracking and logging; continuous monitoring; and feedback loops. == History == Interest in operationalizing machine learning systems began to grow in the mid-2010s as ML projects started moving from experimentation to production use. The challenges associated with sustaining such systems were highlighted in a 2015 paper. The predicted growth in machine learning included an estimated doubling of ML pilots and implementations from 2017 to 2018, and again from 2018 to 2020. Reports show a majority (up to 88%) of corporate machine learning initiatives are struggling to move beyond test stages. However, those organizations that actually put machine learning into production saw a 3–15% profit margin increases. The MLOps market size was USD 2,191.8 Million in 2024, and is projected to be USD 16,613.4 Million in 2030. == Architecture == Machine Learning systems can be categorized in eight different categories: data collection, data processing, feature engineering, data labeling, model design, model training and optimization, endpoint deployment, and endpoint monitoring. Each step in the machine learning lifecycle is built in its own system, but requires interconnection. These are the minimum systems that enterprises need to scale machine learning within their organization. == Goals == There are a number of goals enterprises want to achieve through MLOps systems successfully implementing ML across the enterprise, including: Deployment and automation Reproducibility of models and predictions Diagnostics Governance and regulatory compliance Scalability Collaboration Business uses Monitoring and management A standard practice, such as MLOps, takes into account each of the aforementioned areas, which can help enterprises optimize workflows and avoid issues during implementation. Vendors such as Adaptive ML deliver commercial reinforcement learning operations (RLOps) and MLOps-infrastructure, targeting organizations deploying large language models in production. A common architecture of an MLOps system would include data science platforms where models are constructed and the analytical engines where computations are performed, with the MLOps tool orchestrating the movement of machine learning models, data and outcomes between the systems.

  Read more →
• 

  Machine unlearning

  Machine unlearning is a branch of machine learning focused on removing specific undesired element, such as private data, wrong or manipulated training data, outdated information, copyrighted material, harmful content, dangerous abilities, or misinformation, without needing to rebuild models from the ground up. Large language models, like the ones powering ChatGPT, may be asked not just to remove specific elements but also to unlearn a "concept," "fact," or "knowledge," which aren't easily linked to specific examples. New terms such as "model editing," "concept editing," and "knowledge unlearning" have emerged to describe this process. == History == Early research efforts were largely motivated by Article 17 of the GDPR, the European Union's privacy regulation commonly known as the "right to be forgotten" (RTBF), introduced in 2014. The GDPR did not anticipate that the development of large language models would make data erasure a complex task. This issue has since led to research on "machine unlearning," with a growing focus on removing copyrighted material, harmful content, dangerous capabilities, and misinformation. Just as early experiences in humans shape later ones, some concepts are more fundamental and harder to unlearn. A piece of knowledge may be so deeply embedded in the model's knowledge graph that unlearning it could cause internal contradictions, requiring adjustments to other parts of the graph to resolve them. Researchers have now also started studying unlearning in the context of removing incorrect or adversarially manipulated training data such as systematically biased labels or poisoning attacks. == Motivations == At present, machine unlearning is motivated by a growing range of concerns that extend well beyond the field's original focus on data privacy. A widely used taxonomy in the literature distinguishes two high-level categories of motivation. Access revocation covers cases where a data subject or rights holder requests the removal of data they own or control. This is most commonly associated with RTBF established by the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and analogous legislation such as the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). These regulations grant individuals the legal right to request erasure of their personal data from any system that has processed it, including models that were trained on it. Access revocation also encompasses the removal of copyrighted or pay-walled content that was incorporated into training corpora without the necessary licenses, a concern that has become prominent with the widespread use of largely web-scraped pre-training datasets. Model correction covers cases where the model exhibits undesirable behavior arising from the training data, regardless of any individual's request. This includes: Removal of toxic, biased, or unsafe outputs introduced by harmful content in the training set Correction of stale or factually incorrect associations, such as outdated knowledge encoded in a deployed model Removal of dangerous capabilities, such as detailed knowledge of the synthesis of chemical or biological agents Correction of the influence of data poisoning or adversarial attacks that have corrupted model behavior This second category has been formalized as corrective machine unlearning, which frames unlearning as a post-training mechanism for repairing the effects of bad or harmful training data. It is closely related to the AI safety literature, where data filtering alone has been found insufficient to prevent hazardous knowledge from being encoded in model weights, motivating unlearning as a complementary risk mitigation strategy. A further distinction has been drawn in the literature between removal {eliminating the influence of specific training data on model parameters) and suppression (preventing the model from generating specific outputs regardless of how that knowledge is encoded). These two goals are not equivalent: removing training data does not guarantee meaningful output suppression, and suppressing outputs does not constitute removal of the underlying training data's influence. == SISA Training == SISA is a training strategy consisting of four mechanisms designed to make machine unlearning more efficient by structuring how models are trained and updated. Its goal is to allow a system to remove the influence of specific data points without retraining an entire model from scratch. By reorganizing training data and workflows, SISA reduces the computational burden of unlearning requests. Sharding divides the training dataset into multiple disjoint subsets, or shards. Each shard is used to train a separate model instance. This ensures that a single data point affects only one shard, so unlearning it requires updating only the corresponding shard rather than the full model. Isolation refers to training each shard independently, with nothing shared across shards during the training process. This separation prevents cross-contamination between shards, ensuring that forgetting data in one shard does not require adjustments to any others. Slicing breaks the data within each shard into sequential slices and stores model states after each slice is trained on. When an unlearning request targets a piece of data, the system can roll back to the checkpoint before the point was seen and retrain only from that slice forward. This reduces retraining time even within a shard. Aggregation occurs at inference, when the model is queried. It combines the outputs of each shard to determine the output of the overall model. This is often through majority voting or averaging. This allows SISA-trained systems to behave like a single model despite being composed of multiple shard-level models. Together, these mechanisms enable machine learning systems to forget specific data points with far lower computational cost than full retraining. The trade-off is that sharding and slicing can lead to reduced model accuracy, worse generalization, and increased storage requirements for the intermediate checkpoints. This can be tolerable based on the needs of the individual or organization to comply with "right to be forgotten" or efficiently recover from backdoor attacks. == Algorithms == Machine unlearning algorithms are broadly categorized into exact and approximate methods, reflecting a fundamental trade-off between formal guarantees and computational tractability. === Exact Unlearning === Exact unlearning methods produce a model that is statistically indistinguishable from one retrained from scratch on the dataset with the forget data removed. The canonical framework for exact unlearning is SISA Training (Sharded, Isolated, Sliced, and Aggregated), introduced by Bourtoule et al. (2021). SISA partitions the training dataset into disjoint shards and trains a separate sub-model on each. At inference time, predictions are aggregated across sub-models. When an unlearning request is received, only the sub-model corresponding to the shard containing the target data requires retraining, reducing computational overhead proportionally to the number of shards. Exact methods provide the strongest guarantees but become prohibitively expensive for large pre-trained neural networks and are generally limited to settings where training can be structured in advance. === Approximate Unlearning === Approximate unlearning methods seek to produce a model whose behavior is sufficiently close to an exactly unlearned model without the cost of full retraining. These methods dominate practical applications. Common approaches include: Gradient Ascent: The model is fine-tuned by maximizing the loss on the forget set, directly degrading its performance on targeted data. This is the most direct approach but risks destabilizing performance on retained data. Random Labelling: The model is fine-tuned on the forget set using randomly shuffled labels, confusing its associations with the targeted data while producing a less aggressive weight shift than pure gradient ascent. Gradient Difference: Combines gradient ascent on the forget set with simultaneous gradient descent on the retain set, using the retain objective as a regularizer to preserve general model utility. KL Divergence Regularization: Minimizes the KL divergence between the outputs of the unlearned model and the original model on the retain set, anchoring behavior on data the model should remember. Weight Pruning and Fine-tuning: Parameters with the smallest L1-norm are pruned — targeting weights most weakly associated with general knowledge and potentially most associated with the forget set — followed by fine-tuning on the retain set to restore utility. Layer Reset and Fine-tuning: The first or last k layers are re-initialized to random weights and the model is subsequently fine-tuned on the retain set. This is a coarse but computationally simple approach. Selective Synaptic Dampening: Uses influence functions to estimate the effect of individual trainin

  Read more →
• 

  Buckeye Corpus

  The Buckeye Corpus of conversational speech is a speech corpus created by a team of linguists and psychologists at Ohio State University led by Prof. Mark Pitt. It contains high-quality recordings from 40 speakers in Columbus, Ohio conversing freely with an interviewer. The interviewer's voice is heard only faintly in the background of these recordings. The sessions were conducted as Sociolinguistics interviews, and are essentially monologues. The speech has been orthographically transcribed and phonetically labeled. The audio and text files, together with time-aligned phonetic labels, are stored in a format for use with speech analysis software (Xwaves and Wavesurfer). Software for searching the transcription files is also available at the project web site. The corpus is available to researchers in academia and industry. The project was funded by the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders and the Office of Research at Ohio State University.

  Read more →
• 

  Anna Becker

  Anna Becker is an Israeli researcher known in the field of artificial intelligence and computer science within the financial field. == Early life and education == Becker was born in Russia and immigrated to Israel at 16 after graduating from a school in Moscow. At 17, she began her studies at Technion – Israel Institute of Technology. During her master's degree in computer science, she taught first-year students of the same course, and at 27, Becker completed her PhD in Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence. == Career == While pursuing her PhD, Becker resolved an NP-complete approximation algorithm that had been unresolved for over twenty years. This made her a recognized scholar in the field. After completing her PhD, she developed an approximation technique by a factor of two. This technique is widely used today in operating systems, database systems, and VLSI chip designs. She then founded and sold Strategy Runner, a fintech software. After this, she founded EndoTech, an algorithmic trading platform based on artificial intelligence and machine learning. EndoTech's trading strategies have been operating in live cryptocurrency markets since 2017. The platform's BTC Alpha strategy has reported an average annual return of 163% on fixed capital over eight years of live operation, with a maximum drawdown of 14% and a trade accuracy rate of approximately 83%. In 2026, EndoTech entered a partnership with Bit1 Exchange to make its BTC Alpha and ETH Alpha copy trading strategies accessible to retail investors with no minimum deposit requirement, through a full-custody model in which user funds remain in their own exchange wallets at all times.As of 2023, Becker is working on Fianchetto Fund, an AI-based investing analysis platform. Becker has also co-authored a book on Bayesian networks, which has been published widely in the field of computer science and artificial intelligence.

  Read more →
• 

  Proximal gradient methods for learning

  Proximal gradient (forward backward splitting) methods for learning is an area of research in optimization and statistical learning theory which studies algorithms for a general class of convex regularization problems where the regularization penalty may not be differentiable. One such example is ℓ 1 {\displaystyle \ell _{1}} regularization (also known as Lasso) of the form min w ∈ R d 1 n ∑ i = 1 n ( y i − ⟨ w , x i ⟩ ) 2 + λ ‖ w ‖ 1 , where x i ∈ R d and y i ∈ R . {\displaystyle \min _{w\in \mathbb {R} ^{d}}{\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}(y_{i}-\langle w,x_{i}\rangle )^{2}+\lambda \|w\|_{1},\quad {\text{ where }}x_{i}\in \mathbb {R} ^{d}{\text{ and }}y_{i}\in \mathbb {R} .} Proximal gradient methods offer a general framework for solving regularization problems from statistical learning theory with penalties that are tailored to a specific problem application. Such customized penalties can help to induce certain structure in problem solutions, such as sparsity (in the case of lasso) or group structure (in the case of group lasso). == Relevant background == Proximal gradient methods are applicable in a wide variety of scenarios for solving convex optimization problems of the form min x ∈ H F ( x ) + R ( x ) , {\displaystyle \min _{x\in {\mathcal {H}}}F(x)+R(x),} where F {\displaystyle F} is convex and differentiable with Lipschitz continuous gradient, R {\displaystyle R} is a convex, lower semicontinuous function which is possibly nondifferentiable, and H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} is some set, typically a Hilbert space. The usual criterion of x {\displaystyle x} minimizes F ( x ) + R ( x ) {\displaystyle F(x)+R(x)} if and only if ∇ ( F + R ) ( x ) = 0 {\displaystyle \nabla (F+R)(x)=0} in the convex, differentiable setting is now replaced by 0 ∈ ∂ ( F + R ) ( x ) , {\displaystyle 0\in \partial (F+R)(x),} where ∂ φ {\displaystyle \partial \varphi } denotes the subdifferential of a real-valued, convex function φ {\displaystyle \varphi } . Given a convex function φ : H → R {\displaystyle \varphi :{\mathcal {H}}\to \mathbb {R} } an important operator to consider is its proximal operator prox φ : H → H {\displaystyle \operatorname {prox} _{\varphi }:{\mathcal {H}}\to {\mathcal {H}}} defined by prox φ ⁡ ( u ) = arg ⁡ min x ∈ H φ ( x ) + 1 2 ‖ u − x ‖ 2 2 , {\displaystyle \operatorname {prox} _{\varphi }(u)=\operatorname {arg} \min _{x\in {\mathcal {H}}}\varphi (x)+{\frac {1}{2}}\|u-x\|_{2}^{2},} which is well-defined because of the strict convexity of the ℓ 2 {\displaystyle \ell _{2}} norm. The proximal operator can be seen as a generalization of a projection. We see that the proximity operator is important because x ∗ {\displaystyle x^{}} is a minimizer to the problem min x ∈ H F ( x ) + R ( x ) {\displaystyle \min _{x\in {\mathcal {H}}}F(x)+R(x)} if and only if x ∗ = prox γ R ⁡ ( x ∗ − γ ∇ F ( x ∗ ) ) , {\displaystyle x^{}=\operatorname {prox} _{\gamma R}\left(x^{}-\gamma \nabla F(x^{})\right),} where γ > 0 {\displaystyle \gamma >0} is any positive real number. === Moreau decomposition === One important technique related to proximal gradient methods is the Moreau decomposition, which decomposes the identity operator as the sum of two proximity operators. Namely, let φ : X → R {\displaystyle \varphi :{\mathcal {X}}\to \mathbb {R} } be a lower semicontinuous, convex function on a vector space X {\displaystyle {\mathcal {X}}} . We define its Fenchel conjugate φ ∗ : X → R {\displaystyle \varphi ^{}:{\mathcal {X}}\to \mathbb {R} } to be the function φ ∗ ( u ) := sup x ∈ X ⟨ x , u ⟩ − φ ( x ) . {\displaystyle \varphi ^{}(u):=\sup _{x\in {\mathcal {X}}}\langle x,u\rangle -\varphi (x).} The general form of Moreau's decomposition states that for any x ∈ X {\displaystyle x\in {\mathcal {X}}} and any γ > 0 {\displaystyle \gamma >0} that x = prox γ φ ⁡ ( x ) + γ prox φ ∗ / γ ⁡ ( x / γ ) , {\displaystyle x=\operatorname {prox} _{\gamma \varphi }(x)+\gamma \operatorname {prox} _{\varphi ^{}/\gamma }(x/\gamma ),} which for γ = 1 {\displaystyle \gamma =1} implies that x = prox φ ⁡ ( x ) + prox φ ∗ ⁡ ( x ) {\displaystyle x=\operatorname {prox} _{\varphi }(x)+\operatorname {prox} _{\varphi ^{}}(x)} . The Moreau decomposition can be seen to be a generalization of the usual orthogonal decomposition of a vector space, analogous with the fact that proximity operators are generalizations of projections. In certain situations it may be easier to compute the proximity operator for the conjugate φ ∗ {\displaystyle \varphi ^{}} instead of the function φ {\displaystyle \varphi } , and therefore the Moreau decomposition can be applied. This is the case for group lasso. == Lasso regularization == Consider the regularized empirical risk minimization problem with square loss and with the ℓ 1 {\displaystyle \ell _{1}} norm as the regularization penalty: min w ∈ R d 1 n ∑ i = 1 n ( y i − ⟨ w , x i ⟩ ) 2 + λ ‖ w ‖ 1 , {\displaystyle \min _{w\in \mathbb {R} ^{d}}{\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}(y_{i}-\langle w,x_{i}\rangle )^{2}+\lambda \|w\|_{1},} where x i ∈ R d and y i ∈ R . {\displaystyle x_{i}\in \mathbb {R} ^{d}{\text{ and }}y_{i}\in \mathbb {R} .} The ℓ 1 {\displaystyle \ell _{1}} regularization problem is sometimes referred to as lasso (least absolute shrinkage and selection operator). Such ℓ 1 {\displaystyle \ell _{1}} regularization problems are interesting because they induce sparse solutions, that is, solutions w {\displaystyle w} to the minimization problem have relatively few nonzero components. Lasso can be seen to be a convex relaxation of the non-convex problem min w ∈ R d 1 n ∑ i = 1 n ( y i − ⟨ w , x i ⟩ ) 2 + λ ‖ w ‖ 0 , {\displaystyle \min _{w\in \mathbb {R} ^{d}}{\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}(y_{i}-\langle w,x_{i}\rangle )^{2}+\lambda \|w\|_{0},} where ‖ w ‖ 0 {\displaystyle \|w\|_{0}} denotes the ℓ 0 {\displaystyle \ell _{0}} "norm", which is the number of nonzero entries of the vector w {\displaystyle w} . Sparse solutions are of particular interest in learning theory for interpretability of results: a sparse solution can identify a small number of important factors. === Solving for L1 proximity operator === For simplicity we restrict our attention to the problem where λ = 1 {\displaystyle \lambda =1} . To solve the problem min w ∈ R d 1 n ∑ i = 1 n ( y i − ⟨ w , x i ⟩ ) 2 + ‖ w ‖ 1 , {\displaystyle \min _{w\in \mathbb {R} ^{d}}{\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}(y_{i}-\langle w,x_{i}\rangle )^{2}+\|w\|_{1},} we consider our objective function in two parts: a convex, differentiable term F ( w ) = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n ( y i − ⟨ w , x i ⟩ ) 2 {\displaystyle F(w)={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}(y_{i}-\langle w,x_{i}\rangle )^{2}} and a convex function R ( w ) = ‖ w ‖ 1 {\displaystyle R(w)=\|w\|_{1}} . Note that R {\displaystyle R} is not strictly convex. Let us compute the proximity operator for R ( w ) {\displaystyle R(w)} . First we find an alternative characterization of the proximity operator prox R ⁡ ( x ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {prox} _{R}(x)} as follows: u = prox R ⁡ ( x ) ⟺ 0 ∈ ∂ ( R ( u ) + 1 2 ‖ u − x ‖ 2 2 ) ⟺ 0 ∈ ∂ R ( u ) + u − x ⟺ x − u ∈ ∂ R ( u ) . {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}u=\operatorname {prox} _{R}(x)\iff &0\in \partial \left(R(u)+{\frac {1}{2}}\|u-x\|_{2}^{2}\right)\\\iff &0\in \partial R(u)+u-x\\\iff &x-u\in \partial R(u).\end{aligned}}} For R ( w ) = ‖ w ‖ 1 {\displaystyle R(w)=\|w\|_{1}} it is easy to compute ∂ R ( w ) {\displaystyle \partial R(w)} : the i {\displaystyle i} th entry of ∂ R ( w ) {\displaystyle \partial R(w)} is precisely ∂ | w i | = { 1 , w i > 0 − 1 , w i < 0 [ − 1 , 1 ] , w i = 0. {\displaystyle \partial |w_{i}|={\begin{cases}1,&w_{i}>0\\-1,&w_{i}<0\\\left[-1,1\right],&w_{i}=0.\end{cases}}} Using the recharacterization of the proximity operator given above, for the choice of R ( w ) = ‖ w ‖ 1 {\displaystyle R(w)=\|w\|_{1}} and γ > 0 {\displaystyle \gamma >0} we have that prox γ R ⁡ ( x ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {prox} _{\gamma R}(x)} is defined entrywise by ( prox γ R ⁡ ( x ) ) i = { x i − γ , x i > γ 0 , | x i | ≤ γ x i + γ , x i < − γ , {\displaystyle \left(\operatorname {prox} _{\gamma R}(x)\right)_{i}={\begin{cases}x_{i}-\gamma ,&x_{i}>\gamma \\0,&|x_{i}|\leq \gamma \\x_{i}+\gamma ,&x_{i}<-\gamma ,\end{cases}}} which is known as the soft thresholding operator S γ ( x ) = prox γ ‖ ⋅ ‖ 1 ⁡ ( x ) {\displaystyle S_{\gamma }(x)=\operatorname {prox} _{\gamma \|\cdot \|_{1}}(x)} . === Fixed point iterative schemes === To finally solve the lasso problem we consider the fixed point equation shown earlier: x ∗ = prox γ R ⁡ ( x ∗ − γ ∇ F ( x ∗ ) ) . {\displaystyle x^{}=\operatorname {prox} _{\gamma R}\left(x^{}-\gamma \nabla F(x^{})\right).} Given that we have computed the form of the proximity operator explicitly, then we can define a standard fixed point iteration procedure. Namely, fix some initial w 0 ∈ R d {\displaystyle w^{0}\in \mathbb {R} ^{d}} , and for k = 1 , 2 , … {\displaystyle k=1,2,\ldots } define w k + 1 = S γ ( w k − γ ∇ F ( w k ) ) . {\displaystyle w^{k+1}=S_{\gamma }\left(w^{k}-\gamma \nabla F\l

  Read more →
• 

  Autonomic networking

  Autonomic networking follows the concept of Autonomic Computing, an initiative started by IBM in 2001. Its ultimate aim is to create self-managing networks to overcome the rapidly growing complexity of the Internet and other networks and to enable their further growth, far beyond the size of today. == Increasing size and complexity == The ever-growing management complexity of the Internet caused by its rapid growth is seen by some experts as a major problem that limits its usability in the future. What's more, increasingly popular smartphones, PDAs, networked audio and video equipment, and game consoles need to be interconnected. Pervasive Computing not only adds features, but also burdens existing networking infrastructure with more and more tasks that sooner or later will not be manageable by human intervention alone. Another important aspect is the price of manually controlling huge numbers of vitally important devices of current network infrastructures. == Autonomic nervous system == The autonomic nervous system (ANS) is the part of complex biological nervous systems that is not consciously controlled. It regulates bodily functions and the activity of specific organs. As proposed by IBM, future communication systems might be designed in a similar way to the ANS. == Components of autonomic networking == As autonomics conceptually derives from biological entities such as the human autonomic nervous system, each of the areas can be metaphorically related to functional and structural aspects of a living being. In the human body, the autonomic system facilitates and regulates a variety of functions including respiration, blood pressure and circulation, and emotive response. The autonomic nervous system is the interconnecting fabric that supports feedback loops between internal states and various sources by which internal and external conditions are monitored. === Autognostics === Autognostics includes a range of self-discovery, awareness, and analysis capabilities that provide the autonomic system with a view on high-level state. In metaphor, this represents the perceptual sub-systems that gather, analyze, and report on internal and external states and conditions – for example, this might be viewed as the eyes, visual cortex and perceptual organs of the system. Autognostics, or literally "self-knowledge", provides the autonomic system with a basis for response and validation. A rich autognostic capability may include many different "perceptual senses". For example, the human body gathers information via the usual five senses, the so-called sixth sense of proprioception (sense of body position and orientation), and through emotive states that represent the gross wellness of the body. As conditions and states change, they are detected by the sensory monitors and provide the basis for adaptation of related systems. Implicit in such a system are imbedded models of both internal and external environments such that relative value can be assigned to any perceived state - perceived physical threat (e.g. a snake) can result in rapid shallow breathing related to fight-flight response, a phylogenetically effective model of interaction with recognizable threats. In the case of autonomic networking, the state of the network may be defined by inputs from: individual network elements such as switches and network interfaces including specification and configuration historical records and current state traffic flows end-hosts application performance data logical diagrams and design specifications Most of these sources represent relatively raw and unprocessed views that have limited relevance. Post-processing and various forms of analysis must be applied to generate meaningful measurements and assessments against which current state can be derived. The autognostic system interoperates with: configuration management - to control network elements and interfaces policy management - to define performance objectives and constraints autodefense - to identify attacks and accommodate the impact of defensive responses === Configuration management === Configuration management is responsible for the interaction with network elements and interfaces. It includes an accounting capability with historical perspective that provides for the tracking of configurations over time, with respect to various circumstances. In the biological metaphor, these are the hands and, to some degree, the memory of the autonomic system. On a network, remediation and provisioning are applied via configuration setting of specific devices. Implementation affecting access and selective performance with respect to role and relationship are also applied. Almost all the "actions" that are currently taken by human engineers fall under this area. With only a few exceptions, interfaces are set by hand, or by extension of the hand, through automated scripts. Implicit in the configuration process is the maintenance of a dynamic population of devices under management, a historical record of changes and the directives which invoked change. Typical to many accounting functions, configuration management should be capable of operating on devices and then rolling back changes to recover previous configurations. Where change may lead to unrecoverable states, the sub-system should be able to qualify the consequences of changes prior to issuing them. As directives for change must originate from other sub-systems, the shared language for such directives must be abstracted from the details of the devices involved. The configuration management sub-system must be able to translate unambiguously between directives and hard actions or to be able to signal the need for further detail on a directive. An inferential capacity may be appropriate to support sufficient flexibility (i.e. configuration never takes place because there is no unique one-to-one mapping between directive and configuration settings). Where standards are not sufficient, a learning capacity may also be required to acquire new knowledge of devices and their configuration. Configuration management interoperates with all of the other sub-systems including: autognostics - receives direction for and validation of changes policy management - implements policy models through mapping to underlying resources security - applies access and authorization constraints for particular policy targets autodefense - receives direction for changes === Policy management === Policy management includes policy specification, deployment, reasoning over policies, updating and maintaining policies, and enforcement. Policy-based management is required for: constraining different kinds of behavior including security, privacy, resource access, and collaboration configuration management describing business processes and defining performance defining role and relationship, and establishing trust and reputation It provides the models of environment and behavior that represent effective interaction according to specific goals. In the human nervous system metaphor, these models are implicit in the evolutionary "design" of biological entities and specific to the goals of survival and procreation. Definition of what constitutes a policy is necessary to consider what is involved in managing it. A relatively flexible and abstract framework of values, relationships, roles, interactions, resources, and other components of the network environment is required. This sub-system extends far beyond the physical network to the applications in use and the processes and end-users that employ the network to achieve specific goals. It must express the relative values of various resources, outcomes, and processes and include a basis for assessing states and conditions. Unless embodied in some system outside the autonomic network or implicit to the specific policy implementation, the framework must also accommodate the definition of process, objectives and goals. Business process definitions and descriptions are then an integral part of the policy implementation. Further, as policy management represents the ultimate basis for the operation of the autonomic system, it must be able to report on its operation with respect to the details of its implementation. The policy management sub-system interoperates (at least) indirectly with all other sub-systems but primarily interacts with: autognostics - providing the definition of performance and accepting reports on conditions configuration management - providing constraints on device configuration security - providing definitions of roles, access and permissions === Autodefense === Autodefense represents a dynamic and adaptive mechanism that responds to malicious and intentional attacks on the network infrastructure, or use of the network infrastructure to attack IT resources. As defensive measures tend to impede the operation of IT, it is optimally capable of balancing performance objectives with typically over-riding threat management actions. In the

  Read more →
• 

  AirDine

  AirDine was a mobile app within the platform economy where individuals acted as both supplier and customer for a supper club. AirDine discontinued their service after 31 October 2017. == Operations == AirDine was an online marketplace for home dining that connected users that liked to cook with users looking for a dining experience. Users were categorized as "Hosts" and "Guests," both of whom needed to register with AirDine. AirDine acted as a two-sided market for home dining that allowed hosts and guests, and did not act as a restaurant or host any dinners itself. AirDine charged a service fee. Security and safety of the host were not vetted by AirDine and were completely left to users based on published reviews. Profiles included user reviews and shared social connections to build trust among users. AirDine also included a private messaging system.

  Read more →
• 

  Structural risk minimization

  Structural risk minimization (SRM) is an inductive principle of use in machine learning. Commonly in machine learning, a generalized model must be selected from a finite data set, with the consequent problem of overfitting – the model becoming too strongly tailored to the particularities of the training set and generalizing poorly to new data. The SRM principle addresses this problem by balancing the model's complexity against its success at fitting the training data. This principle was first set out in a 1974 book by Vladimir Vapnik and Alexey Chervonenkis and uses the VC dimension. In practical terms, Structural Risk Minimization is implemented by minimizing E t r a i n + β H ( W ) {\displaystyle E_{train}+\beta H(W)} , where E t r a i n {\displaystyle E_{train}} is the train error, the function H ( W ) {\displaystyle H(W)} is called a regularization function, and β {\displaystyle \beta } is a constant. H ( W ) {\displaystyle H(W)} is chosen such that it takes large values on parameters W {\displaystyle W} that belong to high-capacity subsets of the parameter space. Minimizing H ( W ) {\displaystyle H(W)} in effect limits the capacity of the accessible subsets of the parameter space, thereby controlling the trade-off between minimizing the training error and minimizing the expected gap between the training error and test error. The SRM problem can be formulated in terms of data. Given n data points consisting of data x and labels y, the objective J ( θ ) {\displaystyle J(\theta )} is often expressed in the following manner: J ( θ ) = 1 2 n ∑ i = 1 n ( h θ ( x i ) − y i ) 2 + λ 2 ∑ j = 1 d θ j 2 {\displaystyle J(\theta )={\frac {1}{2n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}(h_{\theta }(x^{i})-y^{i})^{2}+{\frac {\lambda }{2}}\sum _{j=1}^{d}\theta _{j}^{2}} The first term is the mean squared error (MSE) term between the value of the learned model, h θ {\displaystyle h_{\theta }} , and the given labels y {\displaystyle y} . This term is the training error, E t r a i n {\displaystyle E_{train}} , that was discussed earlier. The second term, places a prior over the weights, to favor sparsity and penalize larger weights. The trade-off coefficient, λ {\displaystyle \lambda } , is a hyperparameter that places more or less importance on the regularization term. Larger λ {\displaystyle \lambda } encourages sparser weights at the expense of a more optimal MSE, and smaller λ {\displaystyle \lambda } relaxes regularization allowing the model to fit to data. Note that as λ → ∞ {\displaystyle \lambda \to \infty } the weights become zero, and as λ → 0 {\displaystyle \lambda \to 0} , the model typically suffers from overfitting.

  Read more →
• 

  AI browser

  An AI browser is a web browser with integrated artificial intelligence capabilities, such as automatically summarizing web page content or answering questions about it. A more specialized type is an agentic browser, based on the concept of agentic AI, which can take actions – such as navigating webpages or filling out forms – on behalf of the user. Several agentic browsers emerged in 2025, including ChatGPT Atlas (macOS only), Comet, and Dia. As of 2025, this is a recent development in the browser market, including new entrants from OpenAI, Opera and Perplexity. The designation of 'AI browser' also includes established browsers that later added non-agentic AI features, such as Microsoft Edge with the Copilot chatbot, Google Chrome with the Gemini chatbot (for Windows desktop users in the US with their language set to English), and Firefox with multiple chatbot providers (such as ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot, Gemini, and Le Chat). AI browsers have been noted to be susceptible to prompt injection attacks. == Browser extensions and integrations == Rather than creating entirely new browsers, some AI browsing solutions integrate with existing browsers through extensions or companion applications. These tools add agentic capabilities to established browsers without requiring users to switch platforms. Examples include Composite, which functions as a cross-browser agent that works with Chrome, Edge, and other browsers to automate web-based tasks for workers. == Cloud-based implementations == Cloud-based implementations of AI browsers allow users to run automated browsing agents without local installation. These systems operate on remote servers using frameworks such as Puppeteer or Playwright. Examples include Browserbase, Browser-use and AI Browser. The AI typically parses the Document Object Model (DOM) to locate and interact with page elements, and may also analyze browser screenshots to interpret layout and structure. == Criticisms and dangers == AI browsers have been noted to be susceptible to being vulnerable to prompt injection attacks, in which the content of websites can be used to hijack the control of the browser. Multiple organisations have argued against using AI browsers due to this vulnerability. The United Kingdom national cyber security centre and Gartner consider them to be too risky for adoption by most organisations. A study by the CISPA Helmholtz Center and Saarland University concluded that this vulnerability makes them easy targets for malware, fraud, automated defamation, disinformation and biased outputs.

  Read more →
• 

  Autognostics

  Autognostics is a new paradigm that describes the capacity for computer networks to be self-aware. It is considered one of the major components of Autonomic Networking. == Introduction == One of the most important characteristics of today's Internet that has contributed to its success is its basic design principle: a simple and transparent core with intelligence at the edges (the so-called "end-to-end principle"). Based on this principle, the network carries data without knowing the characteristics of that data (e.g., voice, video, etc.) - only the end-points have application-specific knowledge. If something goes wrong with the data, only the edge may be able to recognize that since it knows about the application and what the expected behavior is. The core has no information about what should happen with that data - it only forwards packets. Although an effective and beneficial attribute, this design principle has also led to many of today's problems, limitations, and frustrations. Currently, it is almost impossible for most end-users to know why certain network-based applications do not work well and what they need to do to make it better. Also, network operators who interact with the core in low-level terms such as router configuration have problems expressing their high-level goals into low-level actions. In high-level terms, this may be summarized as a weak coupling between the network and application layers of the overall system. As a consequence of the Internet end-to-end principle, the network performance experienced by a particular application is difficult to attribute based on the behavior of the individual elements. At any given moment, the measure of performance between any two points is typically unknown and applications must operate blindly. As a further consequence, changes to the configuration of given element, or changes in the end-to-end path, cannot easily be validated. Optimization and provisioning cannot then be automated except against only the simplest design specifications. There is an increasing interest in Autonomic Networking research, and a strong conviction that an evolution from the current networking status quo is necessary. Although to date there have not been any practical implementations demonstrating the benefits of an effective autonomic networking paradigm, there seems to be a consensus as to the characteristics which such implementations would need to demonstrate. These specifically include continuous monitoring, identifying, diagnosing and fixing problems based on high-level policies and objectives. Autognostics, as a major part of the autonomic networking concept, intends to bring networks to a new level of awareness and eliminate the lack of visibility which currently exists in today's networks. == Definition == Autognostics is a new paradigm that describes the capacity for computer networks to be self-aware, in part and as a whole, and dynamically adapt to the applications running on them by autonomously monitoring, identifying, diagnosing, resolving issues, subsequently verifying that any remediation was successful, and reporting the impact with respect to the application's use (i.e., providing visibility into the changes to networks and their effects). Although similar to the concept of network awareness, i.e., the capability of network devices and applications to be aware of network characteristics (see References section below), it is noteworthy that autognostics takes that concept one step further. The main difference is the auto part of autognostics, which entails that network devices are self-aware of network characteristics, and have the capability to adapt themselves as a result of continuous monitoring and diagnostics. == Path to autognostics == Autognostics, or in other words deep self-knowledge, can be best described as the ability of a network to know itself and the applications that run on it. This knowledge is used to autonomously adapt to dynamic network and application conditions such as utilization, capacity, quality of service/application/user experience, etc. In order to achieve autognosis, networks need a means to: Continuously monitor/test the network for application-specific performance Analyze the monitoring/test data to detect problems (e.g., performance degradation) Diagnose, identify and localize sources of degradation Automatically take actions to resolve problems via remediation/provisioning Verify the problems have been resolved (potentially rolling back changes if ineffective) Subsequently, continue to monitor/test for performance

  Read more →
• 

  Spanish Network of Excellence on Cybersecurity Research

  The Spanish Network of Excellence on Cybersecurity Research (RENIC), is a research initiative to promote cybersecurity interests in Spain. == Members == === Board of Directors (2018) === President: Universidad de Málaga Vice president: CSIC Treasurer: Universidad Politécnica de Madrid Secretary: Universidad de Granada Vocals: Tecnalia, Universidad de La Laguna and Universidad de Modragón === Board of Directors (2016) === President: Universidad Carlos III de Madrid Vice president: Universidad Politécnica de Madrid Treasurer: Universidad de Granada Secretary: Universidad de León Vocals: Gradiant, Tecnalia, Universidad de Málaga === Founding Members === Centro Andaluz de Innovación y Tecnologías de la Información y las Comunicaciones (CITIC). Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC). Centro Tecnolóxico de Telecomunicaciones de Galicia (Gradiant). Instituto Imdea Software. Instituto Nacional de Ciberseguridad (INCIBE). Mondragón Unibertsitatea. Tecnalia. Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Universidad Castilla la Mancha. Universidad de Granada. Universidad de la Laguna. Universidad de León. Universidad de Málaga. Universidad de Murcia. Universidad de Vigo. Universidad Internacional de la Rioja. Universidad Politécnica de Madrid. Universidad Rey Juan Carlos. === Members === Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC). Centro Tecnolóxico de Telecomunicaciones de Galicia (Gradiant). Instituto Imdea Software. Instituto Nacional de Ciberseguridad (INCIBE). Mondragón Unibertsitatea. Tecnalia. Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha. Universidad de Granada. Universidad de la Laguna. Universidad de León. Universidad de Málaga. Universidad de Murcia. Universidad de Vigo. Universidad Politécnica de Madrid. Universidad Rey Juan Carlos. Universitat Oberta de Catalunya. IKERLAN. === Honorary Members === Centre for the Development of Industrial Technology (CDTI). (2017) Instituto Nacional de Ciberseguridad (INCIBE). (2016) == Initiatives and Participations == RENIC is ECSO member, and is also a member of its board of directors. A collaboration agreement between RENIC and the Innovative Business Cluster on Cybersecurity (AEI Cybersecurity) has been signed. RENIC is pleased to sponsor the Cybersecurity Research National Conferences (JNIC) JNIC2017 edition, organized by Universidad Rey Juan Carlos. RENIC is pleased to announce the publication of the online version of the Catalog and knowledge map of cybersecurity research

  Read more →
• 

  Empowerment (artificial intelligence)

  Empowerment in the field of artificial intelligence formalises and quantifies (via information theory) the potential an agent perceives that it has to influence its environment. An agent which follows an empowerment maximising policy, acts to maximise future options (typically up to some limited horizon). Empowerment can be used as a (pseudo) utility function that depends only on information gathered from the local environment to guide action, rather than seeking an externally imposed goal, thus is a form of intrinsic motivation. The empowerment formalism depends on a probabilistic model commonly used in artificial intelligence. An autonomous agent operates in the world by taking in sensory information and acting to change its state, or that of the environment, in a cycle of perceiving and acting known as the perception-action loop. Agent state and actions are modelled by random variables ( S : s ∈ S , A : a ∈ A {\displaystyle S:s\in {\mathcal {S}},A:a\in {\mathcal {A}}} ) and time ( t {\displaystyle t} ). The choice of action depends on the current state, and the future state depends on the choice of action, thus the perception-action loop unrolled in time forms a causal bayesian network. == Definition == Empowerment ( E {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {E}}} ) is defined as the channel capacity ( C {\displaystyle C} ) of the actuation channel of the agent, and is formalised as the maximal possible information flow between the actions of the agent and the effect of those actions some time later. Empowerment can be thought of as the future potential of the agent to affect its environment, as measured by its sensors. E := C ( A t ⟶ S t + 1 ) ≡ max p ( a t ) I ( A t ; S t + 1 ) {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {E}}:=C(A_{t}\longrightarrow S_{t+1})\equiv \max _{p(a_{t})}I(A_{t};S_{t+1})} In a discrete time model, Empowerment can be computed for a given number of cycles into the future, which is referred to in the literature as 'n-step' empowerment. E ( A t n ⟶ S t + n ) = max p ( a t , . . . , a t + n − 1 ) I ( A t , . . . , A t + n − 1 ; S t + n ) {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {E}}(A_{t}^{n}\longrightarrow S_{t+n})=\max _{p(a_{t},...,a_{t+n-1})}I(A_{t},...,A_{t+n-1};S_{t+n})} The unit of empowerment depends on the logarithm base. Base 2 is commonly used in which case the unit is bits. === Contextual Empowerment === In general the choice of action (action distribution) that maximises empowerment varies from state to state. Knowing the empowerment of an agent in a specific state is useful, for example to construct an empowerment maximising policy. State-specific empowerment can be found using the more general formalism for 'contextual empowerment'. C {\displaystyle C} is a random variable describing the context (e.g. state). E ( A t n ⟶ S t + n ∣ C ) = ∑ c ∈ C p ( c ) E ( A t n ⟶ S t + n ∣ C = c ) {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {E}}(A_{t}^{n}\longrightarrow S_{t+n}{\mid }C)=\sum _{c{\in }C}p(c){\mathfrak {E}}(A_{t}^{n}\longrightarrow S_{t+n}{\mid }C=c)} == Application == Empowerment maximisation can be used as a pseudo-utility function to enable agents to exhibit intelligent behaviour without requiring the definition of external goals, for example balancing a pole in a cart-pole balancing scenario where no indication of the task is provided to the agent. Empowerment has been applied in studies of collective behaviour and in continuous domains. As is the case with Bayesian methods in general, computation of empowerment becomes computationally expensive as the number of actions and time horizon extends, but approaches to improve efficiency have led to usage in real-time control. Empowerment has been used for intrinsically motivated reinforcement learning agents playing video games, and in the control of underwater vehicles.

  Read more →
• 

  CHAOS (chess)

  CHAOS (Chess Heuristics and Other Stuff) is a chess playing program that was developed by programmers working at the RCA Systems Programming division in the late 1960s. It played competitively in computer chess competitions in the 1970s and 1980s. It differed from other programs of that era in its look-ahead philosophy, choosing to use chess knowledge to evaluate fewer positions and continuations as opposed to simple evaluations that relied on deep look-ahead to avoid bad moves. == Introduction == CHAOS was originally developed by Ira Ruben, Fred Swartz, Victor Berman, Joe Winograd and William Toikka while working at RCA in Cinnaminson, NJ. Its name is an acronym for 'Chess Heuristics and Other Stuff.' Program development moved to the Computing Center of the University of Michigan when Swartz changed jobs, and Mike Alexander joined the development group. Swartz, Alexander and Berman were continuously group members from that point onward in CHAOS' evolution, as others of the original authors left and new members contributed episodically. Chess Senior Master Jack O'Keefe contributed to CHAOS' development from about 1980 onwards. CHAOS was written in Fortran, except for low-level board representation manipulations written in assembly language or C. Due to this portability, it ran on RCA, Univac and IBM-compatible mainframes in its lifetime. CHAOS heralds from the mainframe computing era when only machines of that capacity were able to play at a high level. Consequently, development and testing could only take place at off-peak times for production use of the machine. In a competition, CHAOS had to run on a dedicated mainframe with a telephone link to the match venue. In its later years, CHAOS ran on computers on the machine assembly floor of Amdahl Corporation on MTS. == Background == === Chess and artificial intelligence === Mathematicians Claude Shannon and Alan Turing, working separately, were the first to view playing chess as a challenge to machines. Working for AT&T / Bell Labs with its access to telephone switching equipment, Shannon built a relay-based machine that learned how to work its way through a two-dimensional, 5x5 cell maze in 1949. Shannon viewed this as an analogue of the way that organisms learn things about their natural environment. There is a random element to searching it, a memory element to benefit from the search outcome, and a reward element that reinforces learning when the global outcome is favorable to the organism. Soon afterward, Shannon wrote a mathematical analysis of the game of chess, published in 1950. Like with the maze, he broke down game play into the necessary elements for reinforcement learning. Associated with each board configuration a move will be made from, there is a numerical score. To decide what move to make, a player wants to maximize their own position's score after the move and to minimize their opponent's score (a minimax view). Since there are about 32 possible moves at each of the early stages of the game, and about 40 moves and responses in each game, then there are about 32 80 {\displaystyle 32^{80}} or about 10 120 {\displaystyle 10^{120}} possible games - an impossibly large set to evaluate completely. Therefore, there must be a way to limit the number of moves to look ahead for to find the best one. Reducing the game to these few key elements provided a way to think about human intelligence in general. Shannon became part of a wider group using computing machines to mimic aspects of human intelligence that grew into the general idea of artificial intelligence. (Other members of this group were John McCarthy, Herbert Simon, Allen Newell, Alan Kotok, Alex Bernstein and Richard Greenblatt.) The paradigm that evolved was that there was a quantification of the position on the board into a score, an evaluation method to find favorable outcomes (minimax, later alpha-beta pruning), and a strategy to manage the combinatorial explosion of the look-ahead possibilities. By the early 1960s, there were computer programs that played chess at a rudimentary level. They used very simple evaluation functions for each position and tried to search as far forward as was practical given the time constraints and available compute power. Naturally, programmers optimized their code to use the available computing resources. This led to a major philosophical divide among chess programs: those that tried to evaluate as many positions as possible, and those that tried to evaluate the most promising move sequences as deeply as possible. CHAOS was firmly in the camp believing only the most promising moves should be evaluated in depth. Said Swartz, "The 'brute force people' ... look at every (possible move) no matter what garbage it is. Most moves are just terrible, terrible moves, and most computing time is being spent on pure garbage." The program spent more time evaluating each board position in the expectation that it would find the most promising lines of play to explore in depth. In 1983, the then-fastest chess program (Belle) evaluated 110,000 positions per second, and typical programs 1000–50,000 per second, whereas CHAOS evaluated about 50-100 per second. === Machine learning and strategies to manage search === From about 1949 onward, Arthur Samuel began work for IBM on machine learning, culminating in a checkers-playing program in 1952 and publications on the topic. Concurrently, Christopher Strachey created Checkers, a program to play the board game of checkers in 1951, but it had no capacity to learn from its play. Checkers was chosen by both authors because it was simpler than chess yet contained the basic characteristics of an intellectual activity, and, in Samuel's view, was a test-bed in which heuristic procedures and learning processes could be evaluated quickly. Checker playing programs introduced the notion of the game tree and evaluating play to various depths to choose the best move. The complexity of chess, however, promoted it to the status of an analogue for human intelligence, and it attracted computer scientists' attention, who referred to it as research into artificial intelligence (AI). Like checkers, it required a numerical assessment of each arrangement of chess pieces on a board. It also required looking ahead to future moves to decide how to play the present position. Due to the enormous number of possible moves, there had to be a way to confine the look-ahead search to the most promising lines of play. From these factors, the notion of minimax score evaluation developed and, later, alpha-beta tree pruning to abandon looking at positions worse than any that have already been examined. === Chess search strategies === The AI community viewed artificial intelligence as comprising two parts: a way to symbolically quantify the knowledge in hand (a chess board position), and a set of heuristics to limit look-ahead to the consequences of a move. The early chess playing programs attempted to look forward as far as possible, perhaps to 3 moves ahead by each player, and to choose the best outcome. This led to the horizon effect, whereby a key move 4 or more moves ahead would be unexamined and therefore missed. Consequently, the programs were quite weak and heuristics to manage the search became important in their development. CHAOS used a selective search strategy with iterative widening. As chess programs evolved, they incorporated books of opening lines of play from historic sources. Nowadays, book moves are catalogued in machine-readable form, but originally programmers had to type them in. CHAOS had an extensive book for its time of around 10,000 moves that O'Keefe helped to develop. A problem with play from an opening book is the behavior of the program when the play leaves the book: the positional advantage may be so subtle that the evaluation scheme may be unable to understand it, leading to very wide and shallow searches to establish a line of play. The horizon effect again plagues move selection after leaving the book. CHAOS mitigated these problems by only using book lines that it could understand, and by relying on cached analyses of continuations out of the book made while the opponent's clock was running. == Game Play History == CHAOS played in twelve ACM computer chess tournaments and four World Computer Chess Championships (WCCC). Its debut was the ACM computer chess tournament in 1973, taking 2nd place. In 1974, it again won 2nd place in the WCCC, defeating the tournament favorite Chess 4.0 but losing to Kaissa. CHAOS was close to winning the 1980 WCCC, but lost to Belle in a playoff. The 1985 ACM computer chess tournament was CHAOS' last competition. One of CHAOS' notable victories was over Chess 4.0 at the 1974 WCCC tournament. Chess 4.0 was unbeaten by any other program up until then. Playing as white, CHAOS made a knight sacrifice (16 Nd4-e6!!) that traded material for open lines of attack and eventually won the game. CHAOS’ authors thought the move was due to a

  Read more →