AI For Business Isb

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

Army Chief Information Officer/G-6

In September 2020, the Army realigned the previously consolidated CIO/G-6 function into two separate roles, Office of the Chief Information Officer and Deputy Chief of Staff, G-6, that report to the secretary of the Army and chief of staff of the Army, respectively. The realignment came after several months of planning and coordination. Lt. Gen. John Morrison was nominated to the Senate for promotion and assignment as the G-6 and confirmed, assuming that position in August 2020. Subsequently, the Secretary of the Army, Ryan McCarthy appointed Dr. Raj G. Iyer as the first civilian Chief Information Officer, a career Senior Executive Service position in November 2020. == G-6 == Advise chief of staff of the Army and the Chief Information Officer on planning, fielding, and execution of C4IT worldwide Army operations Develop and execute the plan for the Unified Network Implement Army information assurance Supervise C4IT, Signal support, Information security, Force structure and equipping activities in support of warfighting operations Oversee management of the Signal forces == Planned realignment == On June 11, 2020, the Army announced that the two roles of CIO and Deputy Chief of Staff, G-6 (DCS, G-6) would be realigned no later than August 31, 2020, with separate individuals responsible for each position. With the realignment: CIO core functions will be policy, governance, and oversight. Focus areas include: Information Environment, Cybersecurity, Enterprise Architecture, and Data Policy/Oversight/Governance, Enterprise Architecture, Enterprise Cloud Management and IT Spend/Category Management. DCS, G-6 core functions will be planning, strategy, and implementation. Focus areas include: Information Environment/Network, Planning and Integration, Theater Synchronization, Architecture Integration, Enterprise Information Environment (EIE) Mission Area Portfolio Management and Mission Decision Packet Management. In order to support multi-domain operations, the Army will have to connect Enterprise networks and tactical networks. —LTG Morrison, DCS, G-6 DCS G-6 released the Army Unified Network Plan under the Army Digital Transformation Strategy, to help the Army to establish a Multi-Domain Operations capable force by 2028. The Unified Network will enable Army formations, as part of the Joint Force, to operate in highly contested and congested operational environments with the speed and global range to achieve decision dominance and maintain overmatch. The plan shapes, synchronizes, integrates and governs Unified Network efforts and aligns the personnel, organizational structure and capabilities required to enable MDO at all echelons. == Chief signal officers and their successors == Chief signal officers (1860–1964) Maj. Albert J. Myer 1860–1863 Lt. Col. William J. L. Nicodemus 1863–1864 Col. Benjamin F. Fisher 1864–1866 Col. Albert J. Myer 1866–1880 (promoted to brigadier general 16 June 1880) Brig. Gen. William B. Hazen 1880–1887 Brig. Gen. Adolphus W. Greely 1887–1906 Brig. Gen. James Allen 1906–1913 Brig. Gen. George P. Scriven 1913–1917 Brig. Gen. George O. Squier 1917–1923 (promoted to major general 6 October 1917) Maj. Gen. Charles McK. Saltzman 1924–1928 Maj. Gen. George Sabin Gibbs 1928–1931 Maj. Gen. Irving J. Carr 1931–1934 Maj. Gen. James B. Allison 1935–1937 Maj. Gen. Joseph O. Mauborgne 1937–1941 Maj. Gen. Dawson Olmstead 1941–1943 Maj. Gen. Harry C. Ingles 1943–1947 Maj. Gen. Spencer B. Akin 1947–1951 Maj. Gen. George I. Back 1951–1955 Lt. Gen. James D. O’Connell 1955–1959 Maj. Gen. Ralph T. Nelson 1959–1962 Maj. Gen. Earle F. Cook 1962–1963 Maj. Gen. David Parker Gibbs 1963–1964 Chiefs of communications-electronics (1964–1967) Maj. Gen. David Parker Gibbs 1964–1966 Maj. Gen. Walter E. Lotz, Jr. 1966–1967 Assistant chiefs of staff for communications-electronics (1967–1974) Maj. Gen. Walter E. Lotz, Jr. 1967–1968 Maj. Gen. George E. Pickett 1968–1972 Lt. Gen. Thomas Rienzi 1972–1974 Directors of telecommunications and command and control (1974–1978) (a directorate of ODCSOPS) Lt. Gen. Thomas Rienzi 1974–1977 Lt. Gen. Charles R. Myer 1977–1978 Assistant chiefs of staff for automation and communications (1978–1981) Lt. Gen. Charles R. Myer 1978–1979 Maj. Gen. Clay T. Buckingham 1979–1981 Assistant deputy chiefs of staff for operations and plans (command, control, communications, and computers) (1981–1984) Maj. Gen. Clay T. Buckingham 1981–1982 Maj. Gen. James M. Rockwell 1982–1984 Assistant chiefs of staff for information management (1984–1987) Lt. Gen. David K. Doyle 1984–1986 Lt. Gen. Thurman D. Rodgers 1986–1987 Directors of information systems for command, control, communications, and computers Lt. Gen. Thurman D. Rodgers 1987–1988 Lt. Gen. Bruce R. Harris 1988–1990 Lt. Gen. Jerome B. Hilmes 1990–1992 Lt. Gen. Peter A. Kind 1992–1994 Lt. Gen. Otto J. Guenther 1995–1997 Lt. Gen. William H. Campbell Chief Information Officer, Military Deputy to the Army Acquisition Executive, and Director of Information Systems for Command, Control, Communications and Computers Lt. Gen. William H. Campbell 1997–2000
Read more →
Knowledge integration

Knowledge integration is the process of synthesizing multiple knowledge models (or representations) into a common model (representation). Compared to information integration, which involves merging information having different schemas and representation models, knowledge integration focuses more on synthesizing the understanding of a given subject from different perspectives. For example, multiple interpretations are possible of a set of student grades, typically each from a certain perspective. An overall, integrated view and understanding of this information can be achieved if these interpretations can be put under a common model, say, a student performance index. The Web-based Inquiry Science Environment (WISE), from the University of California at Berkeley has been developed along the lines of knowledge integration theory. Knowledge integration has also been studied as the process of incorporating new information into a body of existing knowledge with an interdisciplinary approach. This process involves determining how the new information and the existing knowledge interact, how existing knowledge should be modified to accommodate the new information, and how the new information should be modified in light of the existing knowledge. A learning agent that actively investigates the consequences of new information can detect and exploit a variety of learning opportunities; e.g., to resolve knowledge conflicts and to fill knowledge gaps. By exploiting these learning opportunities the learning agent is able to learn beyond the explicit content of the new information. The machine learning program KI, developed by Murray and Porter at the University of Texas at Austin, was created to study the use of automated and semi-automated knowledge integration to assist knowledge engineers constructing a large knowledge base. A possible technique which can be used is semantic matching. More recently, a technique useful to minimize the effort in mapping validation and visualization has been presented which is based on Minimal Mappings. Minimal mappings are high quality mappings such that i) all the other mappings can be computed from them in time linear in the size of the input graphs, and ii) none of them can be dropped without losing property i). The University of Waterloo operates a Bachelor of Knowledge Integration undergraduate degree program as an academic major or minor. The program started in 2008.
Read more →
Model compression

Model compression is a machine learning technique for reducing the size of trained models. Large models can achieve high accuracy, but often at the cost of significant resource requirements. Compression techniques aim to compress models without significant performance reduction. Smaller models require less storage space, and consume less memory and compute during inference. Compressed models enable deployment on resource-constrained devices such as smartphones, embedded systems, edge computing devices, and consumer electronics computers. Efficient inference is also valuable for large corporations that serve large model inference over an API, allowing them to reduce computational costs and improve response times for users. Model compression is not to be confused with knowledge distillation, in which a smaller "student" model is trained to imitate the input-output behavior of a larger "teacher" model (as opposed to using the "teacher"'s trained parameters or the "teacher"'s training targets). == Techniques == Several techniques are employed for model compression. === Pruning === Pruning sparsifies a large model by setting some parameters to exactly zero. This effectively reduces the number of parameters. This allows the use of sparse matrix operations, which are faster than dense matrix operations. Pruning criteria can be based on magnitudes of parameters, the statistical pattern of neural activations, Hessian values, etc. === Quantization === Quantization reduces the numerical precision of weights and activations. For example, instead of storing weights as 32-bit floating-point numbers, they can be represented using 8-bit integers. Low-precision parameters take up less space, and takes less compute to perform arithmetic with. It is also possible to quantize some parameters more aggressively than others, so for example, a less important parameter can have 8-bit precision while another, more important parameter, can have 16-bit precision. Inference with such models requires mixed-precision arithmetic. Quantized models can also be used during training (rather than after training). PyTorch implements automatic mixed-precision (AMP), which performs autocasting, gradient scaling, and loss scaling. === Low-rank factorization === Weight matrices can be approximated by low-rank matrices. Let W {\displaystyle W} be a weight matrix of shape m × n {\displaystyle m\times n} . A low-rank approximation is W ≈ U V T {\displaystyle W\approx UV^{T}} , where U {\displaystyle U} and V {\displaystyle V} are matrices of shapes m × k , n × k {\displaystyle m\times k,n\times k} . When k {\displaystyle k} is small, this both reduces the number of parameters needed to represent W {\displaystyle W} approximately, and accelerates matrix multiplication by W {\displaystyle W} . Low-rank approximations can be found by singular value decomposition (SVD). The choice of rank for each weight matrix is a hyperparameter, and jointly optimized as a mixed discrete-continuous optimization problem. The rank of weight matrices may also be pruned after training, taking into account the effect of activation functions like ReLU on the implicit rank of the weight matrices. == Training == Model compression may be decoupled from training, that is, a model is first trained without regard for how it might be compressed, then it is compressed. However, it may also be combined with training. The "train big, then compress" method trains a large model for a small number of training steps (less than it would be if it were trained to convergence), then heavily compress the model. It is found that at the same compute budget, this method results in a better model than lightly compressed, small models. In Deep Compression, the compression has three steps. First loop (pruning): prune all weights lower than a threshold, then finetune the network, then prune again, etc. Second loop (quantization): cluster weights, then enforce weight sharing among all weights in each cluster, then finetune the network, then cluster again, etc. Third step: Use Huffman coding to losslessly compress the model. The SqueezeNet paper reported that Deep Compression achieved a compression ratio of 35 on AlexNet, and a ratio of ~10 on SqueezeNets.
Read more →
Resisting AI

Resisting AI: An Anti-fascist Approach to Artificial Intelligence is a book on artificial intelligence (AI) by Dan McQuillan, published in 2022 by Bristol University Press. == Content == Resisting AI takes the form of an extended essay, which contrasts optimistic visions about AI's potential by arguing that AI may best be seen as a continuation and reinforcement of bureaucratic forms of discrimination and violence, ultimately fostering authoritarian outcomes. For McQuillan, AI's promise of objective calculability is antithetical to an egalitarian and just society. McQuillan uses the expression "AI violence" to describe how – based on opaque algorithms – various actors can discriminate against categories of people in accessing jobs, loans, medical care, and other benefits. The book suggests that AI has a political resonance with soft eugenic approaches to the valuation of life by modern welfare states, and that AI exhibits eugenic features in its underlying logic, as well as in its technical operations. The parallel is with historical eugenicists achieving saving to the state by sterilizing defectives so the state would not have to care for their offspring. The analysis of McQuillan goes beyond the known critique of AI systems fostering precarious labour markets, addressing "necropolitics", the politics of who is entitled to live, and who to die. Although McQuillan offers a brief history of machine learning at the beginning of the book – with its need for "hidden and undercompensated labour", he is concerned more with the social impacts of AI rather than with its technical aspects. McQuillan sees AI as the continuation of existing bureaucratic systems that already marginalize vulnerable groups – aggravated by the fact that AI systems trained on existing data are likely to reinforce existing discriminations, e.g. in attempting to optimize welfare distribution based on existing data patterns, ultimately creating a system of "self-reinforcing social profiling". In elaborating on the continuation between existing bureaucratic violence and AI, McQuillan connects to Hannah Arendt's concept of the thoughtless bureaucrat in Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil, which now becomes the algorithm that, lacking intent, cannot be accountable, and is thus endowed with an "algorithmic thoughtlessness". McQuillan defends the "fascist" in the title of the work by arguing that while not all AI is fascist, this emerging technology of control may end up being deployed by fascist or authoritarian regimes. For McQuillan, AI can support the diffusion of states of exception, as a technology impossible to properly regulate and a mechanism for multiplying exceptions more widely. An example of a scenario where AI systems of surveillance could bring discrimination to a new high is the initiative to create LGBT-free zones in Poland. Skeptical of ethical regulations to control the technology, McQuillan suggests people's councils and workers' councils, and other forms of citizens' agency to resist AI. A chapter titled "Post-Machine Learning" makes an appeal for resistance via currents of thought from feminist science (standpoint theory), post-normal science (extended peer communities), and new materialism; McQuillan encourages the reader to question the meaning of "objectivity" and calls for the necessity of alternative ways of knowing. Among the virtuous examples of resistance – possibly to be adopted by the AI workers themselves – McQuillan notes the Lucas Plan of the workers of Lucas Aerospace Corporation, in which a workforce declared redundant took control, reorienting the enterprise toward useful products. McQuillan advocates for what he calls decomputing, an opposition to the sweeping application and expansion of artificial intelligence. Similar to degrowth, the approach criticizes AI as an outgrowth of the systemic issues within capitalist systems. McQuillan argues that a different future is possible, in which distance between people is reduced rather than increased through AI intermediaries. The work of McQuillan warns against "watered-down forms of engagement" with AI, such as citizen juries, which superficially look like democratic deliberation but may actually obscure important decisions about AI that are outside the purview of the engagement situation (McQuillan 2022, 128). In an interview about the book, McQuillan describes himself as an "AI abolitionist". == Reception == The book has been praised for how it "masterfully disassembles AI as an epistemological, social, and political paradigm". On the critical side, a review in the academic journal Justice, Power and Resistance took exception to the "nightmarish visions of Big Brother" offered by McQuillan, and argued that while many elements of AI may pose concern, a critique should not be based on a caricature of what AI is, concluding that McQuillan's work is "less of a theory and more of a Manifesto". Another review notes "a disconnect between the technical aspects of AI and the socio-political analysis McQuillan provides." Although the book was published before the ChatGPT and large language model debate heated up, the book has not lost relevance to the AI discussion. It is noted for suggesting a link between beliefs in artificial intelligence and beliefs in a racialised and gendered visions of intelligence overall, whereby a certain type of rational, measurable intelligence is privileged, leading to "historical notions of hierarchies of being". The blog Reboot praised McQuillan for offering a theory of harm of AI (why AI could end up hurting people and society) that does not just encourage tackling in isolation specific predicted problems with AI-centric systems: bias, non-inclusiveness, exploitativeness, environmental destructiveness, opacity, and non-contestability. For educational policies could also look at AI following the reading of McQuillan: In his book Resisting AI, Dan McQuillan argues that "When we're thinking about the actuality of AI, we can't separate the calculations in the code from the social context of its application" .... McQuillan's particular concern is how many contemporary applications of AI are amplifying existing inequalities and injustices as well as deepening social divisions and instabilities. His book makes a powerful case for anticipating these effects and actively resisting them for the good of societies. Videos and podcasts with an interest in AI and emerging technology have discussed the book.
Read more →
Easy8

Easy8 is a project management platform. It is an extension to Redmine. == History == Easy8 Group, the company behind Easy8, was established in 2006 by Filip Morávek who serves as the company's CEO and is also a founder of the Mindfulness Foundation. In 2007, the company released an open-source project management software based on Redmine that included modules for project financing. The Easy8 Group has also developed an identical product distributed in Czechia and Hungary. In 2021 Easy8 11 was released with mobile application, Rails 6, Ruby 3.0, Sidekiq B2B CRM features. In 2022 Easy8 was available in 70 countries. In 2023 Easy8 13 was released in collaboration with Scrum certified expert. In March 2026, Easy Redmine and Easy Project rebranded to Easy8. == Overview == Easy8 covers Waterfall and Agile project management individually or simultaneously. It is available in public and private cloud hosting or on-premises server. It's based on open-source technologies such as Redmine. It covers the complete process from planning through implementation to helpdesk support. Easy8 also implements techniques such as risk and resource management, mind maps and Gantt charts. The application includes a CRM module focused on the B2B segment with partner access control and partner network management. Easy8 13 also has integration MediaWiki, the software that runs Wikipedia and GitLab, an AI-powered DevSecOps Platform. Easy8 is used by the Kazakh state administration, Bosch, Zentiva, Innogy, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic, Axa, RTL Radio Berlin, Continental and Ogilvy among others. It features separately installable extensions. In 2017, it was reviewed by iX Special in comparison to GitKraken (previously known as Axosoft) and Agilo for Trac. PCmag while analyzing Redmine highlights that Easy8 enhances the core features of Redmine with a more polished interface and offers proprietary plug-ins for additional functionalities, such as tools for resource management, financial management, and support for agile methodologies. == Easy AI == Easy AI is an artificial intelligence extension integrated into the Easy8 project management suite, offering both cloud-based and on-premises deployment options. Easy AI uses the Llama 3.1 AI model and supports organizational data controls. The system includes assistants for personal, project, and service workflows, supporting tasks such as text summarization, project planning, and helpdesk ticket management. == License == The Easy8 website claims that "Easy8 is an Open Source software", but its source is neither freely downloadable nor is it licensed under an open-source license according to The Open Source Definition, since the Easy8 Group Commercial License does not allow free redistribution (among other restrictions).
Read more →
EfficientNet

EfficientNet is a family of convolutional neural networks (CNNs) for computer vision published by researchers at Google AI in 2019. Its key innovation is compound scaling, which uniformly scales all dimensions of depth, width, and resolution using a single parameter. EfficientNet models have been adopted in various computer vision tasks, including image classification, object detection, and segmentation. == Compound scaling == EfficientNet introduces compound scaling, which, instead of scaling one dimension of the network at a time, such as depth (number of layers), width (number of channels), or resolution (input image size), uses a compound coefficient ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } to scale all three dimensions simultaneously. Specifically, given a baseline network, the depth, width, and resolution are scaled according to the following equations: depth multiplier: d = α ϕ width multiplier: w = β ϕ resolution multiplier: r = γ ϕ {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}{\text{depth multiplier: }}d&=\alpha ^{\phi }\\{\text{width multiplier: }}w&=\beta ^{\phi }\\{\text{resolution multiplier: }}r&=\gamma ^{\phi }\end{aligned}}} subject to α ⋅ β 2 ⋅ γ 2 ≈ 2 {\displaystyle \alpha \cdot \beta ^{2}\cdot \gamma ^{2}\approx 2} and α ≥ 1 , β ≥ 1 , γ ≥ 1 {\displaystyle \alpha \geq 1,\beta \geq 1,\gamma \geq 1} . The α ⋅ β 2 ⋅ γ 2 ≈ 2 {\displaystyle \alpha \cdot \beta ^{2}\cdot \gamma ^{2}\approx 2} condition is such that increasing ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } by a factor of ϕ 0 {\displaystyle \phi _{0}} would increase the total FLOPs of running the network on an image approximately 2 ϕ 0 {\displaystyle 2^{\phi _{0}}} times. The hyperparameters α {\displaystyle \alpha } , β {\displaystyle \beta } , and γ {\displaystyle \gamma } are determined by a small grid search. The original paper suggested 1.2, 1.1, and 1.15, respectively. Architecturally, they optimized the choice of modules by neural architecture search (NAS), and found that the inverted bottleneck convolution (which they called MBConv) used in MobileNet worked well. The EfficientNet family is a stack of MBConv layers, with shapes determined by the compound scaling. The original publication consisted of 8 models, from EfficientNet-B0 to EfficientNet-B7, with increasing model size and accuracy. EfficientNet-B0 is the baseline network, and subsequent models are obtained by scaling the baseline network by increasing ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } . == Variants == EfficientNet has been adapted for fast inference on edge TPUs and centralized TPU or GPU clusters by NAS. EfficientNet V2 was published in June 2021. The architecture was improved by further NAS search with more types of convolutional layers. It also introduced a training method, which progressively increases image size during training, and uses regularization techniques like dropout, RandAugment, and Mixup. The authors claim this approach mitigates accuracy drops often associated with progressive resizing.
Read more →
Decision list

Decision lists are a representation for Boolean functions which can be easily learned from examples. Single term decision lists are more expressive than disjunctions and conjunctions; however, 1-term decision lists are less expressive than the general disjunctive normal form and the conjunctive normal form. The language specified by a k-length decision list includes as a subset the language specified by a k-depth decision tree. Learning decision lists can be used for attribute efficient learning, a type of machine learning. == Definition == A decision list (DL) of length r is of the form: if f1 then output b1 else if f2 then output b2 ... else if fr then output br where fi is the ith formula and bi is the ith boolean for i ∈ { 1... r } {\displaystyle i\in \{1...r\}} . The last if-then-else is the default case, which means formula fr is always equal to true. A k-DL is a decision list where all of formulas have at most k terms. Sometimes "decision list" is used to refer to a 1-DL, where all of the formulas are either a variable or its negation.
Read more →
Evolvability (computer science)

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

In image processing, normalization is a process that changes the range of pixel intensity values, a kind of intensity mapping. Applications include photographs with poor contrast due to glare, for example. A typical case is contrast stretching. In more general fields of data processing, such as digital signal processing, it is referred to as dynamic range expansion. The purpose of dynamic range expansion in the various applications is usually to bring the image, or other type of signal, into a range that is more familiar or normal to the senses, hence the term normalization. Often, the motivation is to achieve consistency in dynamic range for a set of data, signals, or images to avoid mental distraction or fatigue. For example, a newspaper will strive to make all of the images in an issue share a similar range of grayscale. Auto-normalization in image processing software typically normalizes to the full dynamic range of the number system specified in the image file format. == Definition == Normalization transforms an n-dimensional grayscale image I : { X ⊆ R n } → { Min , . . , Max } {\displaystyle I:\{\mathbb {X} \subseteq \mathbb {R} ^{n}\}\rightarrow \{{\text{Min}},..,{\text{Max}}\}} with intensity values in the range ( Min , Max ) {\displaystyle ({\text{Min}},{\text{Max}})} , into a new image I N : { X ⊆ R n } → { newMin , . . , newMax } {\displaystyle I_{N}:\{\mathbb {X} \subseteq \mathbb {R} ^{n}\}\rightarrow \{{\text{newMin}},..,{\text{newMax}}\}} with intensity values in the range ( newMin , newMax ) {\displaystyle ({\text{newMin}},{\text{newMax}})} . The linear normalization of a grayscale digital image is performed according to the formula I N = ( I − Min ) newMax − newMin Max − Min + newMin {\displaystyle I_{N}=(I-{\text{Min}}){\frac {{\text{newMax}}-{\text{newMin}}}{{\text{Max}}-{\text{Min}}}}+{\text{newMin}}} For example, if the intensity range of the image is 50 to 180 and the desired range is 0 to 255 the process entails subtracting 50 from each of pixel intensity, making the range 0 to 130. Then each pixel intensity is multiplied by 255/130, making the range 0 to 255. Normalization might also be non-linear, as the relationship between I {\displaystyle I} and I N {\displaystyle I_{N}} may not be linear. An example of non-linear normalization is when the normalization follows a sigmoid function, in which case the normalized image is computed according to the formula I N = ( newMax − newMin ) 1 1 + e − I − β α + newMin {\displaystyle I_{N}=({\text{newMax}}-{\text{newMin}}){\frac {1}{1+e^{-{\frac {I-\beta }{\alpha }}}}}+{\text{newMin}}} Where α {\displaystyle \alpha } defines the width of the input intensity range, and β {\displaystyle \beta } defines the intensity around which the range is centered. Gamma correction (log/inverse log) is also a common transformation function. === Colorspace === Intensity operations generally operate on a colorspace that maps to the human perception of lightness without intentionally changing the other properties. This can be done, for example, by operating on the L component of the CIELAB color space, or approximately by operating on the Y component of YCbCr. It is also possible to operate on each of the RGB color channels, though the result will not always make sense. == Contrast stretching == This is the most significant and essential technique of spatial-based image enhancement. The basic intent of this contrast enhancement technique is to adjust the local contrast in the image so as to bring out the clear regions or objects in the image. Low-contrast images often result from poor or non-uniform lighting conditions, a limited dynamic range of the imaging sensor, or improper settings of the lens aperture. This operation tries to change the intensity of the pixel in the image, particularly in the input image, to obtain an enhanced image. It is based on the number of techniques, namely local, global, dark and bright levels of contrast. The contrast enhancement is considered as the amount of color or gray differentiation that lies among the different features in an image. The contrast enhancement improves the quality of image by increasing the luminance difference between the foreground and background. A contrast stretching transformation can be achieved by: Stretching the dark range of input values into a wider range of output values: This involves increasing the brightness of the darker areas in the image to enhance details and improve visibility. Shifting the mid-range of input values: This involves adjusting the brightness levels of the mid-tones in the image to improve overall contrast and clarity. Compressing the bright range of input values: This process involves reducing the brightness of the brighter areas in the image to prevent overexposure resulting in a more balanced and visually appealing image. It can be described as the following piecewise funciton: I N = { s 1 r 1 I if I < r 1 s 2 − s 1 r 1 − r 2 ( I − r 1 ) if r 1 ≤ I ≤ r 2 1 − s 2 1 − r 2 ( I − r 2 ) if I > r 2 {\displaystyle I_{N}={\begin{cases}{\frac {s_{1}}{r_{1}}}I&{\text{if }}Ir_{2}\end{cases}}} Where: ( r 1 , s 1 ) {\displaystyle (r_{1},s_{1})} defines the transition point between the "dark" range to the "main" range. ( r 2 , s 2 ) {\displaystyle (r_{2},s_{2})} defines the transition point between the "main" range to the "bright" range. A typical linear stretch is obtained when ( r 1 , s 1 ) = ( r min , 0 ) {\displaystyle (r_{1},s_{1})=(r_{\text{min}},0)} and ( r 2 , s 2 ) = ( r max , 1 ) {\displaystyle (r_{2},s_{2})=(r_{\text{max}},1)} , where r min {\displaystyle r_{\text{min}}} and r max {\displaystyle r_{\text{max}}} denote the minimum and maximum levels in the source image. === Global contrast stretching === Global Contrast Stretching considers all color palate ranges at once to determine the maximum and minimum values for the entire RGB color image. This approach utilizes the combination of RGB colors to derive a single maximum and minimum value for contrast stretching across the entire image. === Local contrast stretching === Local contrast stretching (LCS) is an image enhancement method that focuses on locally adjusting each pixel's value to improve the visualization of structures within an image, particularly in both the darkest and lightest portions. It operates by utilizing sliding windows, known as kernels, which traverse the image. The central pixel within each kernel is adjusted using the following formula: I p ( x , y ) = 255 × [ I 0 ( x , y ) − m i n ] ( m a x − m i n ) {\displaystyle I_{p}(x,y)=255\times {\frac {[I_{0}(x,y)-min]}{(max-min)}}} Where: Ip(x,y) is the color level for the output pixel (x,y) after the contrast stretching process. I0(x,y) is the color level input for data pixel (x, y). max is the maximum value for color level in the input image within the selected kernel. min is the minimum value for color level in the input image within the selected kernel. A piecewise form (see above) may also be used. LCS can be applied to the three color channels of an image separately.
Read more →
Relational data mining

Relational data mining is the data mining technique for relational databases. Unlike traditional data mining algorithms, which look for patterns in a single table (propositional patterns), relational data mining algorithms look for patterns among multiple tables (relational patterns). For most types of propositional patterns, there are corresponding relational patterns. For example, there are relational classification rules (relational classification), relational regression tree, and relational association rules. There are several approaches to relational data mining: Inductive Logic Programming (ILP) Statistical Relational Learning (SRL) Graph Mining Propositionalization Multi-view learning == Algorithms == Multi-Relation Association Rules: Multi-Relation Association Rules (MRAR) is a new class of association rules which in contrast to primitive, simple and even multi-relational association rules (that are usually extracted from multi-relational databases), each rule item consists of one entity but several relations. These relations indicate indirect relationship between the entities. Consider the following MRAR where the first item consists of three relations live in, nearby and humid: “Those who live in a place which is near by a city with humid climate type and also are younger than 20 -> their health condition is good”. Such association rules are extractable from RDBMS data or semantic web data. == Software == Safarii: a Data Mining environment for analysing large relational databases based on a multi-relational data mining engine. Dataconda: a software, free for research and teaching purposes, that helps mining relational databases without the use of SQL. == Datasets == Relational dataset repository: a collection of publicly available relational datasets.
Read more →
Case-based reasoning

Case-based reasoning (CBR), broadly construed, is the process of solving new problems based on the solutions of similar past problems. In everyday life, an auto mechanic who fixes an engine by recalling another car that exhibited similar symptoms is using case-based reasoning. A lawyer who advocates a particular outcome in a trial based on legal precedents or a judge who creates case law is using case-based reasoning. So, too, an engineer copying working elements of nature (practicing biomimicry) is treating nature as a database of solutions to problems. Case-based reasoning is a prominent type of analogy solution making. It has been argued that case-based reasoning is not only a powerful method for computer reasoning, but also a pervasive behavior in everyday human problem solving; or, more radically, that all reasoning is based on past cases personally experienced. This view is related to prototype theory, which is most deeply explored in cognitive science. == Process == Case-based reasoning has been formalized for purposes of computer reasoning as a four-step process: Retrieve: Given a target problem, retrieve cases relevant to solving it from memory. A case consists of a problem, its solution, and, typically, annotations about how the solution was derived. For example, suppose Fred wants to prepare blueberry pancakes. Being a novice cook, the most relevant experience he can recall is one in which he successfully made plain pancakes. The procedure he followed for making the plain pancakes, together with justifications for decisions made along the way, constitutes Fred's retrieved case. Reuse: Map the solution from the previous case to the target problem. This may involve adapting the solution as needed to fit the new situation. In the pancake example, Fred must adapt his retrieved solution to include the addition of blueberries. Revise: Having mapped the previous solution to the target situation, test the new solution in the real world (or a simulation) and, if necessary, revise. Suppose Fred adapted his pancake solution by adding blueberries to the batter. After mixing, he discovers that the batter has turned blue – an undesired effect. This suggests the following revision: delay the addition of blueberries until after the batter has been ladled into the pan. Retain: After the solution has been successfully adapted to the target problem, store the resulting experience as a new case in memory. Fred, accordingly, records his new-found procedure for making blueberry pancakes, thereby enriching his set of stored experiences, and better preparing him for future pancake-making demands. == Comparison to other methods == At first glance, CBR may seem similar to the rule induction algorithms of machine learning. Like a rule-induction algorithm, CBR starts with a set of cases or training examples; it forms generalizations of these examples, albeit implicit ones, by identifying commonalities between a retrieved case and the target problem. If for instance a procedure for plain pancakes is mapped to blueberry pancakes, a decision is made to use the same basic batter and frying method, thus implicitly generalizing the set of situations under which the batter and frying method can be used. The key difference, however, between the implicit generalization in CBR and the generalization in rule induction lies in when the generalization is made. A rule-induction algorithm draws its generalizations from a set of training examples before the target problem is even known; that is, it performs eager generalization. For instance, if a rule-induction algorithm were given recipes for plain pancakes, Dutch apple pancakes, and banana pancakes as its training examples, it would have to derive, at training time, a set of general rules for making all types of pancakes. It would not be until testing time that it would be given, say, the task of cooking blueberry pancakes. The difficulty for the rule-induction algorithm is in anticipating the different directions in which it should attempt to generalize its training examples. This is in contrast to CBR, which delays (implicit) generalization of its cases until testing time – a strategy of lazy generalization. In the pancake example, CBR has already been given the target problem of cooking blueberry pancakes; thus it can generalize its cases exactly as needed to cover this situation. CBR therefore tends to be a good approach for rich, complex domains in which there are myriad ways to generalize a case. In law, there is often explicit delegation of CBR to courts, recognizing the limits of rule based reasons: limiting delay, limited knowledge of future context, limit of negotiated agreement, etc. While CBR in law and cognitively inspired CBR have long been associated, the former is more clearly an interpolation of rule based reasoning, and judgment, while the latter is more closely tied to recall and process adaptation. The difference is clear in their attitude toward error and appellate review. Another name for case-based reasoning in problem solving is symptomatic strategies. It does require à priori domain knowledge that is gleaned from past experience which established connections between symptoms and causes. This knowledge is referred to as shallow, compiled, evidential, history-based as well as case-based knowledge. This is the strategy most associated with diagnosis by experts. Diagnosis of a problem transpires as a rapid recognition process in which symptoms evoke appropriate situation categories. An expert knows the cause by virtue of having previously encountered similar cases. Case-based reasoning is the most powerful strategy, and that used most commonly. However, the strategy won't work independently with truly novel problems, or where deeper understanding of whatever is taking place is sought. An alternative approach to problem solving is the topographic strategy which falls into the category of deep reasoning. With deep reasoning, in-depth knowledge of a system is used. Topography in this context means a description or an analysis of a structured entity, showing the relations among its elements. Also known as reasoning from first principles, deep reasoning is applied to novel faults when experience-based approaches aren't viable. The topographic strategy is therefore linked to à priori domain knowledge that is developed from a more a fundamental understanding of a system, possibly using first-principles knowledge. Such knowledge is referred to as deep, causal or model-based knowledge. Hoc and Carlier noted that symptomatic approaches may need to be supported by topographic approaches because symptoms can be defined in diverse terms. The converse is also true – shallow reasoning can be used abductively to generate causal hypotheses, and deductively to evaluate those hypotheses, in a topographical search. == Criticism == Critics of CBR argue that it is an approach that accepts anecdotal evidence as its main operating principle. Without statistically relevant data for backing and implicit generalization, there is no guarantee that the generalization is correct. However, all inductive reasoning where data is too scarce for statistical relevance is inherently based on anecdotal evidence. == History == CBR traces its roots to the work of Roger Schank and his students at Yale University in the early 1980s. Schank's model of dynamic memory was the basis for the earliest CBR systems: Janet Kolodner's CYRUS and Michael Lebowitz's IPP. Other schools of CBR and closely allied fields emerged in the 1980s, which directed at topics such as legal reasoning, memory-based reasoning (a way of reasoning from examples on massively parallel machines), and combinations of CBR with other reasoning methods. In the 1990s, interest in CBR grew internationally, as evidenced by the establishment of an International Conference on Case-Based Reasoning in 1995, as well as European, German, British, Italian, and other CBR workshops. CBR technology has resulted in the deployment of a number of successful systems, the earliest being Lockheed's CLAVIER, a system for laying out composite parts to be baked in an industrial convection oven. CBR has been used extensively in applications such as the Compaq SMART system and has found a major application area in the health sciences, as well as in structural safety management. There is recent work that develops CBR within a statistical framework and formalizes case-based inference as a specific type of probabilistic inference. Thus, it becomes possible to produce case-based predictions equipped with a certain level of confidence. One description of the difference between CBR and induction from instances is that statistical inference aims to find what tends to make cases similar while CBR aims to encode what suffices to claim similarly.
Read more →
Intelligent database

Until the 1980s, databases were viewed as computer systems that stored record-oriented and business data such as manufacturing inventories, bank records, and sales transactions. A database system was not expected to merge numeric data with text, images, or multimedia information, nor was it expected to automatically notice patterns in the data it stored. In the late 1980s the concept of an intelligent database was put forward as a system that manages information (rather than data) in a way that appears natural to users and which goes beyond simple record keeping. The term was introduced in 1989 by the book Intelligent Databases by Kamran Parsaye, Mark Chignell, Setrag Khoshafian and Harry Wong. The concept postulated three levels of intelligence for such systems: high level tools, the user interface and the database engine. The high level tools manage data quality and automatically discover relevant patterns in the data with a process called data mining. This layer often relies on the use of artificial intelligence techniques. The user interface uses hypermedia in a form that uniformly manages text, images and numeric data. The intelligent database engine supports the other two layers, often merging relational database techniques with object orientation. In the twenty-first century, intelligent databases have now become widespread, e.g. hospital databases can now call up patient histories consisting of charts, text and x-ray images just with a few mouse clicks, and many corporate databases include decision support tools based on sales pattern analysis.
Read more →
Local Economic Assessment Package

The Local Economic Assessment Package (also known as “EDR-LEAP” or “LEAP Model”) is a web-based, interactive database and software tool used by local and regional agencies in the US to improve strategies for economic development. It provides local economic performance measures, and benchmarks for comparison of economic development factors against competing regions. It works by incorporating elements of economic base analysis as well as gap analysis and business cluster analysis to identify needs for improvement and paths for economic growth. The LEAP Model was originally developed for the Appalachian Regional Commission. Its theory and applications are discussed in peer-reviewed journal articles.
Read more →
AIXI

AIXI is a theoretical mathematical formalism for artificial general intelligence. It combines Solomonoff induction with sequential decision theory. AIXI was first proposed by Marcus Hutter in 2000 and several results regarding AIXI are proved in Hutter's 2005 book Universal Artificial Intelligence. AIXI is a reinforcement learning (RL) agent. It maximizes the expected total rewards received from the environment. Intuitively, it simultaneously considers every computable hypothesis (or environment). In each time step, it looks at every possible program and evaluates how many rewards that program generates depending on the next action taken. The promised rewards are then weighted by the subjective belief that this program constitutes the true environment. This belief is computed from the length of the program: longer programs are considered less likely, in line with Occam's razor. AIXI then selects the action that has the highest expected total reward in the weighted sum of all these programs. == Etymology == According to Hutter, the word "AIXI" can have several interpretations. AIXI can stand for AI based on Solomonoff's distribution, denoted by ξ {\displaystyle \xi } (which is the Greek letter xi), or e.g. it can stand for AI "crossed" (X) with induction (I). There are other interpretations. == Definition == AIXI is a reinforcement learning agent that interacts with some stochastic and unknown but computable environment μ {\displaystyle \mu } . The interaction proceeds in time steps, from t = 1 {\displaystyle t=1} to t = m {\displaystyle t=m} , where m ∈ N {\displaystyle m\in \mathbb {N} } is the lifespan of the AIXI agent. At time step t, the agent chooses an action a t ∈ A {\displaystyle a_{t}\in {\mathcal {A}}} (e.g. a limb movement) and executes it in the environment, and the environment responds with a "percept" e t ∈ E = O × R {\displaystyle e_{t}\in {\mathcal {E}}={\mathcal {O}}\times \mathbb {R} } , which consists of an "observation" o t ∈ O {\displaystyle o_{t}\in {\mathcal {O}}} (e.g., a camera image) and a reward r t ∈ R {\displaystyle r_{t}\in \mathbb {R} } , distributed according to the conditional probability μ ( o t r t | a 1 o 1 r 1 . . . a t − 1 o t − 1 r t − 1 a t ) {\displaystyle \mu (o_{t}r_{t}|a_{1}o_{1}r_{1}...a_{t-1}o_{t-1}r_{t-1}a_{t})} , where a 1 o 1 r 1 . . . a t − 1 o t − 1 r t − 1 a t {\displaystyle a_{1}o_{1}r_{1}...a_{t-1}o_{t-1}r_{t-1}a_{t}} is the "history" of actions, observations and rewards. The environment μ {\displaystyle \mu } is thus mathematically represented as a probability distribution over "percepts" (observations and rewards) which depend on the full history, so there is no Markov assumption (as opposed to other RL algorithms). Note again that this probability distribution is unknown to the AIXI agent. Furthermore, note again that μ {\displaystyle \mu } is computable, that is, the observations and rewards received by the agent from the environment μ {\displaystyle \mu } can be computed by some program (which runs on a Turing machine), given the past actions of the AIXI agent. The only goal of the AIXI agent is to maximize ∑ t = 1 m r t {\displaystyle \sum _{t=1}^{m}r_{t}} , that is, the sum of rewards from time step 1 to m. The AIXI agent is associated with a stochastic policy π : ( A × E ) ∗ → A {\displaystyle \pi :({\mathcal {A}}\times {\mathcal {E}})^{}\rightarrow {\mathcal {A}}} , which is the function it uses to choose actions at every time step, where A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} is the space of all possible actions that AIXI can take and E {\displaystyle {\mathcal {E}}} is the space of all possible "percepts" that can be produced by the environment. The environment (or probability distribution) μ {\displaystyle \mu } can also be thought of as a stochastic policy (which is a function): μ : ( A × E ) ∗ × A → E {\displaystyle \mu :({\mathcal {A}}\times {\mathcal {E}})^{}\times {\mathcal {A}}\rightarrow {\mathcal {E}}} , where the ∗ {\displaystyle } is the Kleene star operation. In general, at time step t {\displaystyle t} (which ranges from 1 to m), AIXI, having previously executed actions a 1 … a t − 1 {\displaystyle a_{1}\dots a_{t-1}} (which is often abbreviated in the literature as a < t {\displaystyle a_{ Read more →
Belief–desire–intention model

For popular psychology, the belief–desire–intention (BDI) model of human practical reasoning was developed by Michael Bratman as a way of explaining future-directed intention. BDI is fundamentally reliant on folk psychology (the 'theory theory'), which is the notion that our mental models of the world are theories. It was used as a basis for developing the belief–desire–intention software model. == Applications == BDI was part of the inspiration behind the BDI software architecture, which Bratman was also involved in developing. Here, the notion of intention was seen as a way of limiting time spent on deliberating about what to do, by eliminating choices inconsistent with current intentions. BDI has also aroused some interest in psychology. BDI formed the basis for a computational model of childlike reasoning CRIBB.
Read more →