AI For Students Articles

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

  • Croissant (metadata format)

    Croissant (metadata format)

    Croissant is a metadata format design to support sharing of datasets for machine learning applications. It is a platform-agnostic schema used to standardize metadata in data repositories like Hugging Face, kaggle, Dataverse and OpenML. == Structure == Croissant builds upon schema.org, uses primarily JSON-LD, and divides metadata in four "layers": Dataset Metadata, Resource, Structure and Semantic: The Dataset Metadata layer constrains which schema.org properties should be used, including additional properties, linking together the resources (files) of the dataset with general metadata, like licensing and citation information. The Resource layer describes the individual files and sets of those using two new classes, FileObject and FileSet. A FileSet may be a collection of related images. The Structure layer specifies how the files are organized in the dataset. A RecordSet class describes how resources are present, configurations that may very a lot between modality. This specification facilitates interoperability of the datasets. Finally, the Semantic layer adds information for practical reuse of the dataset, such as splits for train, test and validation subsets. It also provides a default extension for metadata related to responsible AI. The use of a standard machine-readable structure increases, for example, the discoverability of datasets in search engines such as Google Dataset Search. == History == Croissant was shared in arXiv in March 2024 and published in the proceedings of NeurIPS 2024. It started as community driven as a MLCommons Croissant Working Group, including stakeholders organizations from academia and industry, including Google, the open data institute, Sage Bionetworks and King's College London. Variations of Croissant are developed to support datasets in different areas of research, such as Geo-Croissant for geospatial datasets. Other technical extensions, such as support for RDF, soon followed.

    Read more →
  • The Great Automatic Grammatizator

    The Great Automatic Grammatizator

    The Great Automatic Grammatizator (published in the U.S. as The Umbrella Man and Other Stories) is a posthumous 1998 collection of thirteen short stories written by British author Roald Dahl. The stories were selected for teenagers from Dahl's adult works. All the stories included were published elsewhere originally; their sources are noted below. The stories, with the exception of the war story "Katina", possess a deadpan, ironic, bizarre, or even macabre sense of humor. They generally end with unexpected plot twists. == Stories == "The Great Automatic Grammatizator" (from Someone Like You): A mechanically-minded man reasons that the rules of grammar are fixed by certain, almost mathematical principles. By exploiting this idea, he is able to create a mammoth machine that can write a prize-winning novel in roughly fifteen minutes. The story ends on a fearful note, as more and more of the world's writers are forced into licensing their names—and all hope of human creativity—to the machine. "Mrs. Bixby and the Colonel's Coat" (from Kiss Kiss): Mrs. Bixby cheats on her dentist husband with a rich, dashing colonel. When their relationship breaks off, the colonel offers Mrs. Bixby a gorgeous and expensive mink coat. In an attempt to explain the coat away, Mrs. Bixby sets up an elaborate trick with the help of a pawn shop—but her husband learns of the ruse and manages to turn the tables. "The Butler" (from More Tales of the Unexpected): An obnoxious and newly wealthy couple employs a butler and chef to impress dinner guests. The butler recommends that the husband buy expensive wines to please his guests, and the man slavishly follows the idea. The butler and the chef reap the rewards of this idea, while making fools of the "fashionable" couple. "Man from the South" (from Someone Like You): At a seaside resort in Jamaica, a strange old man makes a bet with an American man in his late teens. If the young man's cigarette lighter can spark ten times without fail, the American will win a brand-new Cadillac car—but failure means losing the little finger of his right hand. The high-tension wager ensues, and with only a few sparks left, a woman—who knows only too well the cost of the old man's bets—appears and stops the madness. "The Landlady" (from Kiss Kiss): A young man traveling to London on business stops at a bed and breakfast along the way, where a strange and slightly dotty landlady eagerly welcomes him. The eccentric nature of the house, and the news that only two other young men have ever stayed there, confuse and frighten the young man. In the end, the landlady—who indulges in the hobby of taxidermy—and the boy share a drink of tea that tastes of bitter almonds, and the landlady softly smiles at what may be her latest stuffing project. "Parson's Pleasure" (from Kiss Kiss): A man discovers an extremely rare piece of Chippendale furniture at the farm of some boorish ranchers. He desperately attempts to buy the piece cheap, in the hope of selling it at auction to earn a huge profit. He manages to buy the piece "for firewood", only for the ranchers to destroy it in an attempt to make it fit into his car. "The Umbrella Man" (from More Tales of the Unexpected): On a rainy day, a mother and daughter meet a gentlemanly old man on a street corner, who offers them a beautiful silk umbrella in exchange for a pound note. They trade, and the daughter notices that the "feeble" old man suddenly seems much sprier. They follow him, and discover that the gentleman is a con artist who visits various pubs, has a drink, and then steals another umbrella to continue the cycle. "Katina" (from Over to You: Ten Stories of Flyers and Flying): A group of RAF pilots stationed in Greece during World War II discover a hauntingly beautiful young girl, whose "family is beneath the rubble." She becomes their squadron's unofficial "mascot". In the end, her fragile life is taken as she stands defiantly against a rain of bullets from Nazi aircraft, shaking her fists at the heavens. "The Way Up to Heaven" (from Kiss Kiss): Mrs. Foster suffers from a chronic phobia of being late for appointments. Her husband enjoys the cruel sport of purposely delaying their activities, just to rile his wife. On the day when Mrs. Foster is due to fly to Paris to visit her grandchildren, her husband engages in his usual tricks. But as Mrs. Foster rushes from their taxi to the house to find him, she hears a strange noise—and turns triumphantly toward her cab. It is only when she returns, and calls a man to "repair the lift" that was stuck between floors in the house, that readers guess Mr. Foster's fate. "Royal Jelly" (from Kiss Kiss): New parents fear for the life of their little girl, who is sickly and dangerously underweight. The husband, a beekeeper, remembers hearing of the miraculous royal jelly used by bees to transform one particular larva into a queen. He adds the mixture to his daughter's bottles, and she puts on weight at an astonishing rate. The mother senses that something is amiss, and the husband confesses his actions—along with the fact that he himself swallowed buckets of the jelly for months in an attempt to cure his impotence. The royal jelly did the trick—but the strange side-effects include a disturbing metamorphosis for both father and daughter. "Vengeance is Mine Inc." (from More Tales of the Unexpected): Two brothers who are short of cash bemoan their fate over breakfast while reading the society column of a newspaper. They hit upon a scheme to take revenge on cruel tabloid writers in exchange for money from wealthy patrons. The unconventional plan works, and the brothers line their pockets with the spoils of their plans. "Taste" (from Someone Like You): A rich man with a beautiful young daughter hosts a dinner party, inviting a famous connoisseur of fine wines. When the rich man boasts that he has a wine that the expert cannot identify, the stakes become frighteningly high: if he can guess the name and vintage of the wine, he will win his daughter's hand. After an elaborate show, the expert guesses correctly; however, the family's maid appears and inadvertently exposes the guest as a cheat, thus saving the girl. "Neck" (from Someone Like You): A newspaper heir finds himself suddenly engaged to the voluptuous and controlling Lady Tutton. He loses all control of his life, and only his trusted butler and friends realize how broken he is by her control. A weekend trip to their estate, however, proves the perfect opportunity for Lord Tutton to engage in revenge against his wicked wife: her head is trapped in a valuable piece of wooden sculpture, and he must decide whether to use a saw or an axe to cut her free. == Publication details == Dahl, Roald (19 January 2004). The Umbrella Man and Other Stories. Speak. ISBN 9780142400876. == Reception == Groff Conklin in 1954 called the short story "The Great Automatic Grammatizator" "an awe-inspiring fantasy-satire ... an unforgettable bit of biting nonsense".

    Read more →
  • Course of Action Display and Evaluation Tool

    Course of Action Display and Evaluation Tool

    Course of Action Display and Evaluation Tool (CADET) was a research program, and the eponymous prototype software system, that applied knowledge-based techniques of Artificial Intelligence to the problem of battle planning. CADET was also known as Course of Action Display and Elaboration Tool. It was considered an early example of such systems and was funded by the United States Army and by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). CADET influenced a later DARPA program called RAID which in turn produced a technology adopted by the United States Army and the United States Marine Corps. == History == The development of Course of Action Display and Evaluation Tool (CADET) began in 1996, at the Carnegie Group, Inc., Pittsburgh PA, funded under the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program. The goal of the first phase SBIR project was to produce “...a live storyboard of [Course of Action] COA development, wargaming, animation, and assessment.” In 1997, the United States Army awarded the Carnegie Group Inc. $750K for SBIR Phase II. The intent was to develop “...a war-gaming modeling and analysis Decision Support System (DSS), … CADET will consist of a combination of Knowledge-Based and decision analytic tools and technologies to provide fast nimble COA war-gaming modeling, simulation, and animation under direct control of the commander and staff. ...Phase II will result in an operations prototype (OP) suitable for use and evaluation in field exercises.” In 2000, CADET was integrated and experimentally evaluated within the framework of the Integrated Course of Action Critiquing and Elaboration System (ICCES) experiment, conducted by the Battle Command Battle Laboratory – Leavenworth (BCBL-L) within the program Concept Experimentation Program (CEP) sponsored by TRADOC. In 2000-2002, DARPA applied CADET in the program titled Command Post of the Future (CPoF) as a tool to generate a course of action. Under the umbrella of the CPoF program, CADET was integrated with the FOX GA system to provide a detailed planner, coupled with COA generation capability. In the same period, Battle Command Battle Lab-Huachuca (BCBL-H) performed an integration CADET with the system called All Source Analysis System-Light (ASAS-L); here CADET was intended to generate plans for intelligence assets, and conduct wargames of different COAs, enemy versus friendly. From 1996 through 2002, work on CADET was performed by the Carnegie Group, Inc., and supported by funding from the US Army CECOM (CADET SBIR Phase I, CADET SBIR Phase II and CADET Enhancements); DARPA (Command Post of the Future); and TRADOC BCBL-H. == Operation == CADET was intended to be used by the staff of the United States Army Brigade, within the Military Decision Making Process (MDMP). In particular, CADET helped produce, automatically or semi-automatically, the products generated within the step of MDMP called Course of Action (COA) Development and the following step of MDMP called COA Analysis and Wargaming. CADET software resided on a laptop computer. Using the computer, the staff officers entered the input to CADET, or alternatively this input arrived at CADET from upstream computer systems. The input consisted of: Order of Battle, i.e., the units constituting the friendly brigade and the enemy units participating in the battle, and their various characteristics; primary activities of the Course of Action, where each activity is typically linked to one or more geographic areas or a route, and sometimes to a major unit executing the activity; digital map of the region where the battle was to take place, including the digital description of significant features such as locations of friendly and enemy units, roads, assembly areas, objectives, and axes of attacks. Taking this input, CADET automatically performed the following tasks (not sequentially): Planning and scheduling the low-level tasks necessary for a given COA Allocating tasks to various units and assets constituting the brigade Assigning suitable locations and routes Estimating the battle losses (attrition) of friendly and enemy forces, and consumption of resources (e.g., fuel and ammunition) Predicting enemy actions or reactions. CADET produced the following outputs: Synchronization matrix, directly editable and printable; synchronization matrix is a kind of Gantt chart that shows assignments of activities to units, to locations/routes and to time periods Map overlays in PPT or JPG formats Animation output XML formally-encoded plan Textual Operation Plan (OPLAN) draft E-mail messages with attachments: XML and text versions of OPLAN == Design == The core algorithm is a planning algorithm where CADET uses a knowledge-based approach of the hierarchical-task-network type. Each task class is associated with a model of more detailed subtasks that should be performed in order to accomplish the higher-level task. Algorithms selected (heuristically) a task and then decomposes it into subtasks. Although similar to hierarchical-task-network planning algorithm, CADET’s algorithm includes elements of adversarial reasoning. After adding a subtask, the algorithm uses rules to determine the enemy’s probable actions and reactions as well as friendly counteractions This approximated the action-reaction-counteraction technique of manual wargaming used by the United States Army. When a task involves movements of a unit, the algorithm performs routing, i.e., finds a route for the movement that minimizes the time required for the movement as well as exposure to the enemy attacks. Each added tasks (subtask) normally requires a unit which would execute the task, and a time period when the task would be executed. Therefore, when a certain number of subtasks is added by the planning process, the algorithm also performs the allocation of the newly added subtasks to units and to time periods (i.e., scheduling). allocation and scheduling of tasks relies on both domain-specific and constraint-guided heuristics. A tasks may also require expenditures of fuel and ammunition. If the tasks involves engagement with the enemy, the performing units will experience lossesof personnel and weapon systems (attrition). CADET’s algorithm includes estimates of consumption of different types of consumables, and also attrition. Depending on the degree of attrition and consumption, CADET adds tasks that are needed to refuel or reconstitute the units. The algorithm continually interleaves incremental steps of planning, routing, scheduling, and attrition and consumption estimates. == Evaluation == Two evaluation experiments are described in literature. The first experiment called ICCES took three days. The subjects were Army officers from combat arms branches, with 11 to 23 years of active service, in the ranks of majors and lieutenant colonels, a total of 8. Each officer was given 4 hours of training learning to operate CADET and related computer tools. Officers were divided into two groups and given a tactical scenario. One group (the control group) used the traditional, manual process; the other used the system called ICCES, the automated core of which was CADET. Each group produced three COA sketches and statements and one COA synchronization matrix. Then, the experiment was repeated with another scenario but the control group became the automated group and vice versa. The users were generally satisfied with the quality of the ICCES-generated products. The group using ICCES made only a few changes to the product that was automatically generated, indicating that they agreed with the majority of the plan that ICCES produced. The second experiment was reminiscent of Turing test. The experiment involved one user, nine judges (active-duty officers, mainly colonels and lieutenant colonels), and five scenarios obtained from several US Army exercises. For each scenario, experimenters obtained synchronization matrices that were produced in earlier exercises, typically by a team of four to five officers in three to four hours, spending approximately 16 person-hours in total. Using these scenarios and COAs, the user had CADET generate automatically detailed plans and express them as synchronization matrices. The user, a retired US Army officer, reviewed and slightly edited the matrices. The entire process took less than two minutes of computations by and approximately 20 minutes of review and post-editing, approximately 0.4 person-hour in total per product. The experimenters gave the resulting matrices the same visual style as those produced by humans. The judges, who did not know whether a planning product was a traditional product of humans, or with computerized aids, were asked to grade the products. The result was that the average grades for manual products and CADET-generated products were statistically indistinguishable, even though CADET-generated products required far less time to produce. == Legacy == CADET served as “...an example of how even relatively basic A

    Read more →
  • The Future of Truth (Rosenbaum book)

    The Future of Truth (Rosenbaum book)

    The Future of Truth: How AI Reshapes Reality is a 2026 book by American filmmaker and author Steven Rosenbaum about how artificial intelligence affects the concept of truth. It was published by Matt Holt Books on May 12, 2026, to positive media attention; on May 19, in response to an inquiry from The New York Times, Rosenbaum acknowledged that the book itself contains multiple misattributed or false quotes that were hallucinated by AIs. == Synopsis == == Development == Rosenbaum has said that he developed the book using AI chatbots as research tools, indicating in his notes what information came from AI and sending those claims to a fact-checker affiliated with the publisher. He has said that he did not use AI tools to write the book itself. He has described AI tools as "a delightful writing companion ... strangely creative and crafty and unusual in all these ways", while acknowledging that sometimes "then it betrays you in ways that are just really quite horrible". Journalist and Nobel laureate Maria Ressa wrote the book's foreword. Taylor Lorenz, Michael Wolff, and Nicholas Thompson wrote blurbs promoting it. == Release and reception == The Future of Truth was published by Matt Holt Books, an imprint of BenBella Books, and distributed by Simon & Schuster. The book's release on May 12, 2026, was described by Futurism as "buzzy" and by The New York Times as "to great fanfare". On May 14, an excerpt was published in Wired under the title "Gen Z Is Pioneering a New Understanding of Truth". On May 17, the Times contacted Rosenbaum regarding a number of quotes that appeared to be falsified or misattributed; the following evening he confirmed that they were the result of AI hallucinations:As I disclosed in the book's acknowledgments, I used AI tools ChatGPT and Claude during the research, writing and editing process. That does not excuse these errors, of which I take full responsibility. I am now working with the editors to thoroughly review and quickly correct any affected passages; any future editions will be corrected. The Times documented several of the errors, including a quote from Kara Swisher that Swisher described as making it "sound like I have a stick up my butt" and a quote from Lisa Feldman Barrett that Barrett described as misrepresenting her views on the nature of emotions, social signals, and truth. The book also misattributed a quote by Meredith Broussard from an interview with Marketplace Tech as having been from her book Artificial Unintelligence and hallucinated several words in a quote from Lee McIntyre, although according to McIntyre it did not misrepresent his views. Wired's editors, in an addendum to the excerpt they published, said that all quotes included in it had been verified as part of their fact-checking process. Rosenbaum told the Times that the series of errors "serves as a warning about the risks of AI-assisted research and verification, that is why I wrote the book. These AI errors do not, in fact, diminish the larger questions that the book raises about truth, trust and AI and its impact on society, democracy and editorial." Maggie Harrison Dupré in Futurism expressed skepticism, writing "The risk of AI hallucinations ... is well-known. If you're going to literally write the book on post-AI truth, you should probably put some more elbow grease into fact-checking your AI-assisted research." Kyle Orland in Ars Technica, responding to Rosenbaum's statement that his error "demonstrates the problem more vividly than any abstract argument could", was similarly skeptical, writing that "if we accept this take, every avoidably obvious mess in the world might be a disguised good because it really helps illuminate the huge mistake. And that can't be right; sometimes 'negligence' is just that." Subsequent comments by Rosenbaum placed more blame on the chatbots, which he told The Atlantic "fucked up the book". Rosenbaum told Ars Technica that fact-checking occurred "incredibly effectively, but not a hundred percent"; Orland observed that "it's worth noting that most writers manage to include zero made-up quotes when they write a book". Rosenbaum said that he had "learned a lesson" and would be "much more suspicious" of AI in the future, but would continue to use AI in his research. Orland responded to Rosenbaum's characterization of AI as "magical" by comparing it to the One Ring from The Lord of the Rings, in that it "convinces many of those who use it that they can control its power properly" when many cannot. Orland highlighted the limits of traditional fact-checking regarding AI, given that fact-checkers are used to assuming that direct quotes are copied word-for-word from the source. Rosenbaum told Orland that the future of fact-checking for AI-researched works "probably includes mandatory source tracing for quotations, better provenance tracking, clearer standards around AI-assisted research, and potentially (more irony here) AI tools that audit citations against primary materials". Patrick Redford in Defector criticized Rosenbaum, alongside other artists tricked by AI, for failing to recognize AI as "the enemy". Will Oremus in The Atlantic described Redford's approach of stigmatizing AI writing as "reasonable", noting the presence of low-quality, seemingly AI-generated verbiage in The Future of Truth—a claim denied by Rosenbaum—before saying that the greater issue is finding the line at which AI assistance in writing becomes a problem. Oremus concluded, "The scandal can't just be that [Rosenbaum] used AI while working on his book, because he acknowledged that up front. He got in trouble because he had used AI badly, failing to check its work on a task at which it is famously unreliable."

    Read more →
  • Curvelet

    Curvelet

    Curvelets are a non-adaptive technique for multi-scale object representation. Being an extension of the wavelet concept, they are becoming popular in similar fields, namely in image processing and scientific computing. Wavelets generalize the Fourier transform by using a basis that represents both location and spatial frequency. For 2D or 3D signals, directional wavelet transforms go further, by using basis functions that are also localized in orientation. A curvelet transform differs from other directional wavelet transforms in that the degree of localisation in orientation varies with scale. In particular, fine-scale basis functions are long ridges; the shape of the basis functions at scale j is 2 − j {\displaystyle 2^{-j}} by 2 − j / 2 {\displaystyle 2^{-j/2}} so the fine-scale bases are skinny ridges with a precisely determined orientation. Curvelets are an appropriate basis for representing images (or other functions) which are smooth apart from singularities along smooth curves, where the curves have bounded curvature, i.e. where objects in the image have a minimum length scale. This property holds for cartoons, geometrical diagrams, and text. As one zooms in on such images, the edges they contain appear increasingly straight. Curvelets take advantage of this property, by defining the higher resolution curvelets to be more elongated than the lower resolution curvelets. However, natural images (photographs) do not have this property; they have detail at every scale. Therefore, for natural images, it is preferable to use some sort of directional wavelet transform whose wavelets have the same aspect ratio at every scale. When the image is of the right type, curvelets provide a representation that is considerably sparser than other wavelet transforms. This can be quantified by considering the best approximation of a geometrical test image that can be represented using only n {\displaystyle n} wavelets, and analysing the approximation error as a function of n {\displaystyle n} . For a Fourier transform, the squared error decreases only as O ( 1 / n ) {\displaystyle O(1/{\sqrt {n}})} . For a wide variety of wavelet transforms, including both directional and non-directional variants, the squared error decreases as O ( 1 / n ) {\displaystyle O(1/n)} . The extra assumption underlying the curvelet transform allows it to achieve O ( ( log ⁡ n ) 3 / n 2 ) {\displaystyle O({(\log n)}^{3}/{n^{2}})} . Efficient numerical algorithms exist for computing the curvelet transform of discrete data. The computational cost of the discrete curvelet transforms proposed by Candès et al. (Discrete curvelet transform based on unequally-spaced fast Fourier transforms and based on the wrapping of specially selected Fourier samples) is approximately 6–10 times that of an FFT, and has the same dependence of O ( n 2 log ⁡ n ) {\displaystyle O(n^{2}\log n)} for an image of size n × n {\displaystyle n\times n} . == Curvelet construction == To construct a basic curvelet ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } and provide a tiling of the 2-D frequency space, two main ideas should be followed: Consider polar coordinates in frequency domain Construct curvelet elements being locally supported near wedges The number of wedges is N j = 4 ⋅ 2 ⌈ j 2 ⌉ {\displaystyle N_{j}=4\cdot 2^{\left\lceil {\frac {j}{2}}\right\rceil }} at the scale 2 − j {\displaystyle 2^{-j}} , i.e., it doubles in each second circular ring. Let ξ = ( ξ 1 , ξ 2 ) T {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\xi }}=\left(\xi _{1},\xi _{2}\right)^{T}} be the variable in frequency domain, and r = ξ 1 2 + ξ 2 2 , ω = arctan ⁡ ξ 1 ξ 2 {\displaystyle r={\sqrt {\xi _{1}^{2}+\xi _{2}^{2}}},\omega =\arctan {\frac {\xi _{1}}{\xi _{2}}}} be the polar coordinates in the frequency domain. We use the ansatz for the dilated basic curvelets in polar coordinates: ϕ ^ j , 0 , 0 := 2 − 3 j 4 W ( 2 − j r ) V ~ N j ( ω ) , r ≥ 0 , ω ∈ [ 0 , 2 π ) , j ∈ N 0 {\displaystyle {\hat {\phi }}_{j,0,0}:=2^{\frac {-3j}{4}}W(2^{-j}r){\tilde {V}}_{N_{j}}(\omega ),r\geq 0,\omega \in [0,2\pi ),j\in N_{0}} To construct a basic curvelet with compact support near a ″basic wedge″, the two windows W {\displaystyle W} and V ~ N j {\displaystyle {\tilde {V}}_{N_{j}}} need to have compact support. Here, we can simply take W ( r ) {\displaystyle W(r)} to cover ( 0 , ∞ ) {\displaystyle (0,\infty )} with dilated curvelets and V ~ N j {\displaystyle {\tilde {V}}_{N_{j}}} such that each circular ring is covered by the translations of V ~ N j {\displaystyle {\tilde {V}}_{N_{j}}} . Then the admissibility yields ∑ j = − ∞ ∞ | W ( 2 − j r ) | 2 = 1 , r ∈ ( 0 , ∞ ) . {\displaystyle \sum _{j=-\infty }^{\infty }\left|W(2^{-j}r)\right|^{2}=1,r\in (0,\infty ).} see Window Functions for more information For tiling a circular ring into N {\displaystyle N} wedges, where N {\displaystyle N} is an arbitrary positive integer, we need a 2 π {\displaystyle 2\pi } -periodic nonnegative window V ~ N {\displaystyle {\tilde {V}}_{N}} with support inside [ − 2 π N , 2 π N ] {\displaystyle \left[{\frac {-2\pi }{N}},{\frac {2\pi }{N}}\right]} such that ∑ l = 0 N − 1 V ~ N 2 ( ω − 2 π l N ) = 1 {\displaystyle \sum _{l=0}^{N-1}{\tilde {V}}_{N}^{2}\left(\omega -{\frac {2\pi l}{N}}\right)=1} , for all ω ∈ [ 0 , 2 π ) {\displaystyle \omega \in \left[0,2\pi \right)} , V ~ N {\displaystyle {\tilde {V}}_{N}} can be simply constructed as 2 π {\displaystyle 2\pi } -periodizations of a scaled window V ( N ω 2 π ) {\displaystyle V\left({\frac {N\omega }{2\pi }}\right)} . Then, it follows that ∑ l = 0 N j − 1 | 2 3 j 4 ϕ ^ j , 0 , 0 ( r , ω − 2 π l N j ) | 2 = | W ( 2 − j r ) | 2 ∑ l = 0 N j − 1 V ~ N j 2 ( ω − 2 π l N ) = | W ( 2 − j r ) | 2 {\displaystyle \sum _{l=0}^{N_{j}-1}\left|2^{\frac {3j}{4}}{\hat {\phi }}_{j,0,0}\left(r,\omega -{\frac {2\pi l}{N_{j}}}\right)\right|^{2}=\left|W(2^{-j}r)\right|^{2}\sum _{l=0}^{N_{j}-1}{\tilde {V}}_{N_{j}}^{2}\left(\omega -{\frac {2\pi l}{N}}\right)=\left|W(2^{-j}r)\right|^{2}} For a complete covering of the frequency plane including the region around zero, we need to define a low pass element ϕ ^ − 1 := W 0 ( | ξ | ) {\displaystyle {\hat {\phi }}_{-1}:=W_{0}(\left|\xi \right|)} with W 0 2 ( r ) 2 := 1 − ∑ j = 0 ∞ W ( 2 − j r ) 2 {\displaystyle W_{0}^{2}(r)^{2}:=1-\sum _{j=0}^{\infty }W(2^{-j}r)^{2}} that is supported on the unit circle, and where we do not consider any rotation. == Applications == Image processing Seismic exploration Fluid mechanics PDEs solving Compressed sensing

    Read more →
  • Constructive cooperative coevolution

    Constructive cooperative coevolution

    The constructive cooperative coevolutionary algorithm (also called C3) is a global optimisation algorithm in artificial intelligence based on the multi-start architecture of the greedy randomized adaptive search procedure (GRASP). It incorporates the existing cooperative coevolutionary algorithm (CC). The considered problem is decomposed into subproblems. These subproblems are optimised separately while exchanging information in order to solve the complete problem. An optimisation algorithm, usually but not necessarily an evolutionary algorithm, is embedded in C3 for optimising those subproblems. The nature of the embedded optimisation algorithm determines whether C3's behaviour is deterministic or stochastic. The C3 optimisation algorithm was originally designed for simulation-based optimisation but it can be used for global optimisation problems in general. Its strength over other optimisation algorithms, specifically cooperative coevolution, is that it is better able to handle non-separable optimisation problems. An improved version was proposed later, called the Improved Constructive Cooperative Coevolutionary Differential Evolution (C3iDE), which removes several limitations with the previous version. A novel element of C3iDE is the advanced initialisation of the subpopulations. C3iDE initially optimises the subpopulations in a partially co-adaptive fashion. During the initial optimisation of a subpopulation, only a subset of the other subcomponents is considered for the co-adaptation. This subset increases stepwise until all subcomponents are considered. This makes C3iDE very effective on large-scale global optimisation problems (up to 1000 dimensions) compared to cooperative coevolutionary algorithm (CC) and Differential evolution. The improved algorithm has then been adapted for multi-objective optimization. == Algorithm == As shown in the pseudo code below, an iteration of C3 exists of two phases. In Phase I, the constructive phase, a feasible solution for the entire problem is constructed in a stepwise manner. Considering a different subproblem in each step. After the final step, all subproblems are considered and a solution for the complete problem has been constructed. This constructed solution is then used as the initial solution in Phase II, the local improvement phase. The CC algorithm is employed to further optimise the constructed solution. A cycle of Phase II includes optimising the subproblems separately while keeping the parameters of the other subproblems fixed to a central blackboard solution. When this is done for each subproblem, the found solution are combined during a "collaboration" step, and the best one among the produced combinations becomes the blackboard solution for the next cycle. In the next cycle, the same is repeated. Phase II, and thereby the current iteration, are terminated when the search of the CC algorithm stagnates and no significantly better solutions are being found. Then, the next iteration is started. At the start of the next iteration, a new feasible solution is constructed, utilising solutions that were found during the Phase I of the previous iteration(s). This constructed solution is then used as the initial solution in Phase II in the same way as in the first iteration. This is repeated until one of the termination criteria for the optimisation is reached, e.g. a maximum number of evaluations. {Sphase1} ← ∅ while termination criteria not satisfied do if {Sphase1} = ∅ then {Sphase1} ← SubOpt(∅, 1) end if while pphase1 not completely constructed do pphase1 ← GetBest({Sphase1}) {Sphase1} ← SubOpt(pphase1, inext subproblem) end while pphase2 ← GetBest({Sphase1}) while not stagnate do {Sphase2} ← ∅ for each subproblem i do {Sphase2} ← SubOpt(pphase2,i) end for {Sphase2} ← Collab({Sphase2}) pphase2 ← GetBest({Sphase2}) end while end while == Multi-objective optimisation == The multi-objective version of the C3 algorithm is a Pareto-based algorithm which uses the same divide-and-conquer strategy as the single-objective C3 optimisation algorithm . The algorithm again starts with the advanced constructive initial optimisations of the subpopulations, considering an increasing subset of subproblems. The subset increases until the entire set of all subproblems is included. During these initial optimisations, the subpopulation of the latest included subproblem is evolved by a multi-objective evolutionary algorithm. For the fitness calculations of the members of the subpopulation, they are combined with a collaborator solution from each of the previously optimised subpopulations. Once all subproblems' subpopulations have been initially optimised, the multi-objective C3 optimisation algorithm continues to optimise each subproblem in a round-robin fashion, but now collaborator solutions from all other subproblems' subspopulations are combined with the member of the subpopulation that is being evaluated. The collaborator solution is selected randomly from the solutions that make up the Pareto-optimal front of the subpopulation. The fitness assignment to the collaborator solutions is done in an optimistic fashion (i.e. an "old" fitness value is replaced when the new one is better). == Applications == The constructive cooperative coevolution algorithm has been applied to different types of problems, e.g. a set of standard benchmark functions, optimisation of sheet metal press lines and interacting production stations. The C3 algorithm has been embedded with, amongst others, the differential evolution algorithm and the particle swarm optimiser for the subproblem optimisations.

    Read more →
  • Evolutionary computation

    Evolutionary computation

    Evolutionary computation (EC) from computer science is a family of algorithms for global optimization inspired by biological evolution, and a subfield of computational intelligence and soft computing studying these algorithms. In technical terms, they are a family of population-based trial and error problem solvers with a metaheuristic or stochastic optimization character. In evolutionary computation, an initial set of candidate solutions is generated and iteratively updated. Each new generation is produced by stochastically removing less desired solutions, and introducing small random changes as well as, depending on the method, mixing parental information. In biological terminology, a population of solutions is subjected to natural selection (or artificial selection), mutation and possibly recombination. These biological functions serve as role models for the genetic operators - mutation, crossover, and selection - used in the EC procedures. As a result, the population will gradually evolve to increase in fitness, in this case the chosen fitness function of the algorithm. Evolutionary computation techniques can produce highly optimized solutions in a wide range of problem settings, making them popular in computer science. Many variants and extensions exist, suited to more specific families of problems and data structures. Evolutionary computation is also sometimes used in evolutionary biology as an in silico experimental procedure to study common aspects of general evolutionary processes. == History == The concept of mimicking evolutionary processes to solve problems originates before the advent of computers, such as when Alan Turing proposed a method of genetic search in 1948 . Turing's B-type u-machines resemble primitive neural networks, and connections between neurons were learnt via a sort of genetic algorithm. His P-type u-machines resemble a method for reinforcement learning, where pleasure and pain signals direct the machine to learn certain behaviors. However, Turing's paper went unpublished until 1968, and he died in 1954, so this early work had little to no effect on the field of evolutionary computation that was to develop. Evolutionary computing as a field began in earnest in the 1950s and 1960s. There were several independent attempts to use the process of evolution in computing at this time, which developed separately for roughly 15 years. Three branches emerged in different places to attain this goal: evolution strategies, evolutionary programming, and genetic algorithms. A fourth branch, genetic programming, eventually emerged in the early 1990s. These approaches differ in the method of selection, the permitted mutations, and the representation of genetic data. By the 1990s, the distinctions between the historic branches had begun to blur, and the term 'evolutionary computing' was coined in 1991 to denote a field that exists over all four paradigms. In 1962, Lawrence J. Fogel initiated the research of Evolutionary Programming in the United States, which was considered an artificial intelligence endeavor. In this system, finite state machines are used to solve a prediction problem: these machines would be mutated (adding or deleting states, or changing the state transition rules), and the best of these mutated machines would be evolved further in future generations. The final finite state machine may be used to generate predictions when needed. The evolutionary programming method was successfully applied to prediction problems, system identification, and automatic control. It was eventually extended to handle time series data and to model the evolution of gaming strategies. In 1964, Ingo Rechenberg and Hans-Paul Schwefel introduce the paradigm of evolution strategies in Germany. Since traditional gradient descent techniques produce results that may get stuck in local minima, Rechenberg and Schwefel proposed that random mutations (applied to all parameters of some solution vector) may be used to escape these minima. Child solutions were generated from parent solutions, and the more successful of the two was kept for future generations. This technique was first used by the two to successfully solve optimization problems in fluid dynamics. Initially, this optimization technique was performed without computers, instead relying on dice to determine random mutations. By 1965, the calculations were performed wholly by machine. John Henry Holland introduced genetic algorithms in the 1960s, and it was further developed at the University of Michigan in the 1970s. While the other approaches were focused on solving problems, Holland primarily aimed to use genetic algorithms to study adaptation and determine how it may be simulated. Populations of chromosomes, represented as bit strings, were transformed by an artificial selection process, selecting for specific 'allele' bits in the bit string. Among other mutation methods, interactions between chromosomes were used to simulate the recombination of DNA between different organisms. While previous methods only tracked a single optimal organism at a time (having children compete with parents), Holland's genetic algorithms tracked large populations (having many organisms compete each generation). By the 1990s, a new approach to evolutionary computation that came to be called genetic programming emerged, advocated for by John Koza among others. In this class of algorithms, the subject of evolution was itself a program written in a high-level programming language (there had been some previous attempts as early as 1958 to use machine code, but they met with little success). For Koza, the programs were Lisp S-expressions, which can be thought of as trees of sub-expressions. This representation permits programs to swap subtrees, representing a sort of genetic mixing. Programs are scored based on how well they complete a certain task, and the score is used for artificial selection. Sequence induction, pattern recognition, and planning were all successful applications of the genetic programming paradigm. Many other figures played a role in the history of evolutionary computing, although their work did not always fit into one of the major historical branches of the field. The earliest computational simulations of evolution using evolutionary algorithms and artificial life techniques were performed by Nils Aall Barricelli in 1953, with first results published in 1954. Another pioneer in the 1950s was Alex Fraser, who published a series of papers on simulation of artificial selection. As academic interest grew, dramatic increases in the power of computers allowed practical applications, including the automatic evolution of computer programs. Evolutionary algorithms are now used to solve multi-dimensional problems more efficiently than software produced by human designers, and also to optimize the design of systems. == Techniques == Evolutionary computing techniques mostly involve metaheuristic optimization algorithms. Broadly speaking, the field includes: Agent-based modeling Ant colony optimization Particle swarm optimization Swarm intelligence Artificial immune systems Artificial life Digital organism Cultural algorithms Differential evolution Dual-phase evolution Estimation of distribution algorithm Evolutionary algorithm Genetic algorithm Evolutionary programming Genetic programming Gene expression programming Grammatical evolution Evolution strategy Learnable evolution model Learning classifier system Memetic algorithms Neuroevolution Self-organization such as self-organizing maps, competitive learning Over recent years many dubious algorithms have been proposed, that are often just copies of existing algorithms (frequently Particle Swarm Optimization), where only the metaphor changed, but the algorithm itself is not new at all. A thorough catalogue with many of these dubious algorithms has been published in the Evolutionary Computation Bestiary. It is also important to note that many of these dubiously 'novel' algorithms have poor experimental validation. == Evolutionary algorithms == Evolutionary algorithms form a subset of evolutionary computation in that they generally only involve techniques implementing mechanisms inspired by biological evolution such as reproduction, mutation, recombination and natural selection. Candidate solutions to the optimization problem play the role of individuals in a population, and the cost function determines the environment within which the solutions "live" (see also fitness function). Evolution of the population then takes place after the repeated application of the above operators. In this process, there are two main forces that form the basis of evolutionary systems: Recombination (e.g. crossover) and mutation create the necessary diversity and thereby facilitate novelty, while selection acts as a force increasing quality. Many aspects of such an evolutionary process are stochastic. Changed pieces of information due to recombination and mutati

    Read more →
  • Speech-generating device

    Speech-generating device

    Speech-generating devices (SGDs), also known as voice output communication aids, are electronic augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) systems used to supplement or replace speech or writing for individuals with severe speech impairments, enabling them to verbally communicate. SGDs are important for people who have limited means of interacting verbally, as they allow individuals to become active participants in communication interactions. They are particularly helpful for patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) but recently have been used for children with predicted speech deficiencies. There are several input and display methods for users of varying abilities to make use of SGDs. Some SGDs have multiple pages of symbols to accommodate a large number of utterances, and thus only a portion of the symbols available are visible at any one time, with the communicator navigating the various pages. Speech-generating devices can produce electronic voice output by using digitized recordings of natural speech or through speech synthesis—which may carry less emotional information but can permit the user to speak novel messages. The content, organization, and updating of the vocabulary on an SGD is influenced by a number of factors, such as the user's needs and the contexts that the device will be used in. The development of techniques to improve the available vocabulary and rate of speech production is an active research area. Vocabulary items should be of high interest to the user, be frequently applicable, have a range of meanings, and be pragmatic in functionality. There are multiple methods of accessing messages on devices: directly or indirectly, or using specialized access devices—although the specific access method will depend on the skills and abilities of the user. SGD output is typically much slower than speech, although rate enhancement strategies can increase the user's rate of output, resulting in enhanced efficiency of communication. The first known SGD was prototyped in the mid-1970s, and rapid progress in hardware and software development has meant that SGD capabilities can now be integrated into devices like smartphones. Notable users of SGDs include Stephen Hawking, Roger Ebert, Tony Proudfoot, and Pete Frates (founder of the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge). Speech-generating systems may be dedicated devices developed solely for AAC, or non-dedicated devices such as computers running additional software to allow them to function as AAC devices. == History == SGDs have their roots in early electronic communication aids. The first such aid was a sip-and-puff typewriter controller named the patient-operated selector mechanism (Naman) prototyped by Reg Maling in the United Kingdom in 1960. POSSUM scanned through a set of symbols on an illuminated display. Researchers at Delft University in the Netherlands created the lightspot-operated typewriter (LOT) in 1970, which made use of small movements of the head to point a small spot of light at a matrix of characters, each equipped with a photoelectric cell. Although it was commercially unsuccessful, the LOT was well received by its users. In 1966, Barry Romich, a freshman engineering student at Case Western Reserve University, and Ed Prentke, an engineer at Highland View Hospital in Cleveland, Ohio, formed a partnership, creating the Prentke Romich Company. In 1969, the company produced its first communication device, a typing system based on a discarded Teletype machine. In 1979, Mark Dahmke developed software for a vocal communication aid program using the Computalker CT-1 analog speech synthesizer with a microcomputer. The software utilized phonemes to generate speech, assisting individuals with communication impairments in constructing words and sentences. Dahmke's work contributed to the advancement of assistive technology for people with disabilities. Notably, he designed the "Vocabulary Management System" for Bill Rush, a student with cerebral palsy. This early speech synthesis technology facilitated improved communication for Rush and was featured in a 1980 issue of LIFE Magazine. Dahmke's contributions have influenced the development of augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) technologies. During the 1970s and early 1980s, several other companies emerged that have since become prominent manufacturers of SGDs. Toby Churchill founded Toby Churchill Ltd in 1973, after losing his speech following encephalitis. In the US, Dynavox (then known as Sentient Systems Technology) grew out of a student project at Carnegie-Mellon University, created in 1982 to help a young woman with cerebral palsy to communicate. Beginning in the 1980s, improvements in technology led to a greatly increased number, variety, and performance of commercially available communication devices, and a reduction in their size and price. Alternative methods of access such as Target Scanning (also known as eye pointing) calibrate the movement of a user's eyes to direct an SGD to produce the desired speech. Scanning, in which alternatives are presented to the user sequentially, became available on communication devices. Speech output possibilities included both digitized and synthesized speech. Rapid progress in hardware and software development continued, including projects funded by the European Community. The first commercially available dynamic screen speech-generating devices were developed in the 1990s. Software was developed that allowed the computer-based production of communication boards. High-tech devices have continued to become smaller and lighter, while increasing accessibility and capability; communication devices can be accessed using eye-tracking systems, perform as a computer for word-processing and Internet use, and as an environmental control device for independent access to other equipment such as TV, radio and telephones. Stephen Hawking came to be associated with the unique voice of his particular synthesis equipment. Hawking was unable to speak due to a combination of disabilities caused by ALS, and an emergency tracheotomy. In the past 20 or so years SGD have gained popularity amongst young children with speech deficiencies, such as autism, Down syndrome, and predicted brain damage due to surgery. Starting in the early 2000s, specialists saw the benefit of using SGDs not only for adults but for children, as well. Neuro-linguists found that SGDs were just as effective in helping children who were at risk for temporary language deficits after undergoing brain surgery as it is for patients with ALS. In particular, digitized SGDs have been used as communication aids for pediatric patients during the recovery process. == Access methods == There are many methods of accessing messages on devices: directly, indirectly, and with specialized access devices. Direct access methods involve physical contact with the system, by using a keyboard or a touch screen. Users accessing SGDs indirectly and through specialized devices must manipulate an object in order to access the system, such as maneuvering a joystick, head mouse, optical head pointer, light pointer, infrared pointer, or switch access scanner. The specific access method will depend on the skills and abilities of the user. With direct selection a body part, pointer, adapted mouse, joystick, or eye tracking could be used, whereas switch access scanning is often used for indirect selection. Unlike direct selection (e.g., typing on a keyboard, touching a screen), users of Target Scanning can only make selections when the scanning indicator (or cursor) of the electronic device is on the desired choice. Those who are unable to point typically calibrate their eyes to use eye gaze as a way to point and blocking as a way to select desired words and phrases. The speed and pattern of scanning, as well as the way items are selected, are individualized to the physical, visual and cognitive capabilities of the user. == Message construction == Augmentative and alternative communication is typically much slower than speech, with users generally producing 8–10 words per minute. Rate enhancement strategies can increase the user's rate of output to around 12–15 words per minute, and as a result enhance the efficiency of communication. In any given SGD there may be a large number of vocal expressions that facilitate efficient and effective communication, including greetings, expressing desires, and asking questions. Some SGDs have multiple pages of symbols to accommodate a large number of vocal expressions, and thus only a portion of the symbols available are visible at any one time, with the communicator navigating the various pages. Speech-generating devices generally display a set of selections either using a dynamically changing screen, or a fixed display. There are two main options for increasing the rate of communication for an SGD: encoding, and prediction. Encoding permits a user to produce a word, sentence or phrase using only on

    Read more →
  • Cloud-to-cloud integration

    Cloud-to-cloud integration

    Cloud-to-Cloud Integration ( C2I ) allows users to connect disparate cloud computing platforms. While Paas (Platform as a service) and Saas (Software as a service) continue to gain momentum, different vendors have different implementations for cloud computing, e.g. Database, REST, SOAP API. Another name for Cloud-to-Cloud Integration is Cloud-Surfing. See also Cloud-based integration

    Read more →
  • The Old Axolotl

    The Old Axolotl

    The Old Axolotl (Polish: Starość aksolotla) is a 2015 digital-only novel by Polish science-fiction author Jacek Dukaj. The novel was released in Polish on March 10, 2015, and shortly afterward, on March 24 that year, in English (translated by Stanley Bill). It has been described as "an experiment in reading (and creating) the electronic literature of the future". It is Dukaj's first novel to be published in English, though several of his short stories (The Golden Galley, 1996, The Iron General, 2010, The Apocrypha of Lem, 2011) have been translated prior to this. The novel has inspired two Netflix original series: the 2020 Belgian Into the Night, and its 2022 Turkish language spin-off Yakamoz S-245. == Plot == The novel presents a post-apocalyptic, cyberpunk vision of Earth where biological life has been wiped out, inhabited by robots and mechs, many of which are humans whose consciousness has been digitized in the wake of an extinction event. == Significance and analysis == The novel is an example of electronic literature, available only in digital formats, and has no traditional paper version. It was designed from the beginning not only to incorporate more traditional elements such as illustrations, but also hypertext, and 3D-printable models of main robotic characters designed by Alex Jaeger, the art director of Transformers films. The novel composition is layered, with the narrative layer, an encyclopedic/hyperlinked footnote layer, and a multimedia layer, including illustrations and a short promotional video by the Oscar-nominated Platige Image studio. One of the novel's central questions is: "What does it mean to be human?" Other subjects include post humanism and other "staples of cyberpunk and related genres, such as the artificial intelligence". The novel is representative of Dukaj's prose, posing philosophical questions about the future of man and technology. The author explained that: "stories such as The Old Axolotl that model an ‘escape from the body’ are born out of a sense of progress as a process of ‘de-animalising’ human beings through science. This has its origin in the pre-Enlightenment intuition of ‘liberation from nature’. For one of the last shackles of nature is corporeality itself, the limitations of our physicality." The other major element of the novel is Dukaj's attempts to introduce the reader to the new style of electronic literature. The novel was nominated for the 2016 Janusz A. Zajdel Award.

    Read more →
  • Generative adversarial network

    Generative adversarial network

    A generative adversarial network (GAN) is a class of machine learning frameworks and a prominent framework for approaching generative artificial intelligence. The concept was initially developed by Ian Goodfellow and his colleagues in June 2014. In a GAN, two neural networks compete with each other in the form of a zero-sum game, where one agent's gain is another agent's loss. Given a training set, this technique learns to generate new data with the same statistics as the training set. For example, a GAN trained on photographs can generate new photographs that look at least superficially authentic to human observers, having many realistic characteristics. Though originally proposed as a form of generative model for unsupervised learning, GANs have also proved useful for semi-supervised learning, fully supervised learning, and reinforcement learning. The core idea of a GAN is based on the "indirect" training through the discriminator, another neural network that can tell how "realistic" the input seems, which itself is also being updated dynamically. This means that the generator is not trained to minimize the distance to a specific image, but rather to fool the discriminator. This enables the model to learn in an unsupervised manner. GANs are similar to mimicry in evolutionary biology, with an evolutionary arms race between both networks. == Definition == === Mathematical === The original GAN is defined as the following game: Each probability space ( Ω , μ ref ) {\displaystyle (\Omega ,\mu _{\text{ref}})} defines a GAN game. There are 2 players: generator and discriminator. The generator's strategy set is P ( Ω ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}(\Omega )} , the set of all probability measures μ G {\displaystyle \mu _{G}} on Ω {\displaystyle \Omega } . The discriminator's strategy set is the set of Markov kernels μ D : Ω → P [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle \mu _{D}:\Omega \to {\mathcal {P}}[0,1]} , where P [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}[0,1]} is the set of probability measures on [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle [0,1]} . The GAN game is a zero-sum game, with objective function L ( μ G , μ D ) := E x ∼ μ ref , y ∼ μ D ( x ) ⁡ [ ln ⁡ y ] + E x ∼ μ G , y ∼ μ D ( x ) ⁡ [ ln ⁡ ( 1 − y ) ] . {\displaystyle L(\mu _{G},\mu _{D}):=\operatorname {E} _{x\sim \mu _{\text{ref}},y\sim \mu _{D}(x)}[\ln y]+\operatorname {E} _{x\sim \mu _{G},y\sim \mu _{D}(x)}[\ln(1-y)].} The generator aims to minimize the objective, and the discriminator aims to maximize the objective. The generator's task is to approach μ G ≈ μ ref {\displaystyle \mu _{G}\approx \mu _{\text{ref}}} , that is, to match its own output distribution as closely as possible to the reference distribution. The discriminator's task is to output a value close to 1 when the input appears to be from the reference distribution, and to output a value close to 0 when the input looks like it came from the generator distribution. === In practice === The generative network generates candidates while the discriminative network evaluates them. This creates a contest based on data distributions, where the generator learns to map from a latent space to the true data distribution, aiming to produce candidates that the discriminator cannot distinguish from real data. The discriminator's goal is to correctly identify these candidates, but as the generator improves, its task becomes more challenging, increasing the discriminator's error rate. A known dataset serves as the initial training data for the discriminator. Training involves presenting it with samples from the training dataset until it achieves acceptable accuracy. The generator is trained based on whether it succeeds in fooling the discriminator. Typically, the generator is seeded with randomized input that is sampled from a predefined latent space (e.g. a multivariate normal distribution). Thereafter, candidates synthesized by the generator are evaluated by the discriminator. Independent backpropagation procedures are applied to both networks so that the generator produces better samples, while the discriminator becomes more skilled at flagging synthetic samples. When used for image generation, the generator is typically a deconvolutional neural network, and the discriminator is a convolutional neural network. === Relation to other statistical machine learning methods === GANs are implicit generative models, which means that they do not explicitly model the likelihood function nor provide a means for finding the latent variable corresponding to a given sample, unlike alternatives such as flow-based generative model. Compared to fully visible belief networks such as WaveNet and PixelRNN and autoregressive models in general, GANs can generate one complete sample in one pass, rather than multiple passes through the network. Compared to Boltzmann machines and linear ICA, there is no restriction on the type of function used by the network. Since neural networks are universal approximators, GANs are asymptotically consistent. Variational autoencoders might be universal approximators, but it is not proven as of 2017. == Mathematical properties == === Measure-theoretic considerations === This section provides some of the mathematical theory behind these methods. In modern probability theory based on measure theory, a probability space also needs to be equipped with a σ-algebra. As a result, a more rigorous definition of the GAN game would make the following changes:Each probability space ( Ω , B , μ ref ) {\displaystyle (\Omega ,{\mathcal {B}},\mu _{\text{ref}})} defines a GAN game. The generator's strategy set is P ( Ω , B ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}(\Omega ,{\mathcal {B}})} , the set of all probability measures μ G {\displaystyle \mu _{G}} on the measure-space ( Ω , B ) {\displaystyle (\Omega ,{\mathcal {B}})} . The discriminator's strategy set is the set of Markov kernels μ D : ( Ω , B ) → P ( [ 0 , 1 ] , B ( [ 0 , 1 ] ) ) {\displaystyle \mu _{D}:(\Omega ,{\mathcal {B}})\to {\mathcal {P}}([0,1],{\mathcal {B}}([0,1]))} , where B ( [ 0 , 1 ] ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {B}}([0,1])} is the Borel σ-algebra on [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle [0,1]} .Since issues of measurability never arise in practice, these will not concern us further. === Choice of the strategy set === In the most generic version of the GAN game described above, the strategy set for the discriminator contains all Markov kernels μ D : Ω → P [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle \mu _{D}:\Omega \to {\mathcal {P}}[0,1]} , and the strategy set for the generator contains arbitrary probability distributions μ G {\displaystyle \mu _{G}} on Ω {\displaystyle \Omega } . However, as shown below, the optimal discriminator strategy against any μ G {\displaystyle \mu _{G}} is deterministic, so there is no loss of generality in restricting the discriminator's strategies to deterministic functions D : Ω → [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle D:\Omega \to [0,1]} . In most applications, D {\displaystyle D} is a deep neural network function. As for the generator, while μ G {\displaystyle \mu _{G}} could theoretically be any computable probability distribution, in practice, it is usually implemented as a pushforward: μ G = μ Z ∘ G − 1 {\displaystyle \mu _{G}=\mu _{Z}\circ G^{-1}} . That is, start with a random variable z ∼ μ Z {\displaystyle z\sim \mu _{Z}} , where μ Z {\displaystyle \mu _{Z}} is a probability distribution that is easy to compute (such as the uniform distribution, or the Gaussian distribution), then define a function G : Ω Z → Ω {\displaystyle G:\Omega _{Z}\to \Omega } . Then the distribution μ G {\displaystyle \mu _{G}} is the distribution of G ( z ) {\displaystyle G(z)} . Consequently, the generator's strategy is usually defined as just G {\displaystyle G} , leaving z ∼ μ Z {\displaystyle z\sim \mu _{Z}} implicit. In this formalism, the GAN game objective is L ( G , D ) := E x ∼ μ ref ⁡ [ ln ⁡ D ( x ) ] + E z ∼ μ Z ⁡ [ ln ⁡ ( 1 − D ( G ( z ) ) ) ] . {\displaystyle L(G,D):=\operatorname {E} _{x\sim \mu _{\text{ref}}}[\ln D(x)]+\operatorname {E} _{z\sim \mu _{Z}}[\ln(1-D(G(z)))].} === Generative reparametrization === The GAN architecture has two main components. One is casting optimization into a game, of form min G max D L ( G , D ) {\displaystyle \min _{G}\max _{D}L(G,D)} , which is different from the usual kind of optimization, of form min θ L ( θ ) {\displaystyle \min _{\theta }L(\theta )} . The other is the decomposition of μ G {\displaystyle \mu _{G}} into μ Z ∘ G − 1 {\displaystyle \mu _{Z}\circ G^{-1}} , which can be understood as a reparametrization trick. To see its significance, one must compare GAN with previous methods for learning generative models, which were plagued with "intractable probabilistic computations that arise in maximum likelihood estimation and related strategies". At the same time, Kingma and Welling and Rezende et al. developed the same idea of reparametrization into a general stochastic backpropagation method. Among its first applications was the variational autoencoder. === Move order and st

    Read more →
  • Legal expert system

    Legal expert system

    A legal expert system is a domain-specific expert system that uses artificial intelligence to emulate the decision-making abilities of a human expert in the field of law. Legal expert systems employ a rule base or knowledge base and an inference engine to accumulate, reference and produce expert knowledge on specific subjects within the legal domain. == Purpose == It has been suggested that legal expert systems could help to manage the rapid expansion of legal information and decisions that began to intensify in the late 1960s. Many of the first legal expert systems were created in the 1970s and 1980s. Lawyers were originally identified as primary target users of legal expert systems. Potential motivations for this work included: quicker delivery of legal advice; reduced time spent in repetitive, labour-intensive legal tasks; development of knowledge management techniques that were not dependent on staff; reduced overhead and labour costs and higher profitability for law firms; and reduced fees for clients. Some early development work was oriented toward the creation of automated judges. One of the first use cases was the encoding of the British Nationality Act at Imperial College carried out under the supervision of Marek Sergot and Robert Kowalski. Lance Elliot wrote: "The British Nationality Act was passed in 1981 and shortly thereafter was used as a means of showcasing the efficacy of using Artificial Intelligence (AI) techniques and technologies, doing so to explore how the at-the-time newly enacted statutory law might be encoded into a computerized logic-based formalization." The authors’ seminal article, "The British Nationality Act as a Logic Program," published in 1986 in the Communications of the ACM journal, is one of the first and best-known works in computational law, and one of the most widely cited papers in the field. In 2021, the Inaugural CodeX Prize was awarded to Robert Kowalski, Fariba Sadri, and Marek Sergot in acknowledgment of their groundbreaking work on the application of logic programming to the formalization and analysis of the British Nationality Act. Later work on legal expert systems has identified potential benefits to non-lawyers as a means to increase access to legal knowledge. Legal expert systems can also support administrative processes, facilitate decision-making processes, automate rule-based analyses, and exchange information directly with citizen-users. == Types == === Architectural variations === Rule-based expert systems rely on a model of deductive reasoning that utilizes "If A, then B" rules. In a rule-based legal expert system, information is represented in the form of deductive rules within the knowledge base. In rule-based legal expert systems, logic programming has historically been applied to automate complex compliance paperwork. A notable early example designed for high-volume regulatory filings was the 1999 Intelligent Filing Manager (INTELLIFM), which utilized Prolog rules as its core inference engine to automate the generation, publishing, and population of structured forms via distributed COM interfaces. Case-based reasoning models, which store and manipulate examples or cases, hold the potential to emulate an analogical reasoning process thought to be well-suited for the legal domain. This model effectively draws on known experiences our outcomes for similar problems. A neural net relies on a computer model that mimics that structure of a human brain, and operates in a very similar way to the case-based reasoning model. This expert system model is capable of recognizing and classifying patterns within the realm of legal knowledge and dealing with imprecise inputs. Fuzzy logic models attempt to create 'fuzzy' concepts or objects that can then be converted into quantitative terms or rules that are indexed and retrieved by the system. In the legal domain, fuzzy logic can be used for rule-based and case-based reasoning models. === Theoretical variations === Some legal expert system architects have adopted a very practical approach, employing scientific modes of reasoning within a given set of rules or cases. Others have opted for a broader philosophical approach inspired by jurisprudential reasoning modes emanating from established legal theoreticians. === Functional variations === Some legal expert systems aim to arrive at a particular conclusion in law, while others are designed to predict a particular outcome. An example of a predictive system is one that predicts the outcome of judicial decisions, the value of a case, or the outcome of litigation. == Reception == Many forms of legal expert systems have become widely used and accepted by both the legal community and the users of legal services. == Challenges == === Domain-related problems === The inherent complexity of law as a discipline raises immediate challenges for legal expert system knowledge engineers. Legal matters often involve interrelated facts and issues, which further compound the complexity. Factual uncertainty may also arise when there are disputed versions of factual representations that must be input into an expert system to begin the reasoning process. === Computerized problem solving === The limitations of most computerized problem solving techniques inhibit the success of many expert systems in the legal domain. Expert systems typically rely on deductive reasoning models that have difficulty according degrees of weight to certain principles of law or importance to previously decided cases that may or may not influence a decision in an immediate case or context. === Representation of legal knowledge === Expert legal knowledge can be difficult to represent or formalize within the structure of an expert system. For knowledge engineers, challenges include: Open texture: Law is rarely applied in an exact way to specific facts, and exact outcomes are rarely a certainty. Statutes may be interpreted according to different linguistic interpretations, reliance on precedent cases or other contextual factors including a particular judge's conception of fairness. The balancing of reasons: Many arguments involve considerations or reasons that are not easily represented in a logical way. For instance, many constitutional legal issues are said to balance independently well-established considerations for state interests against individual rights. Such balancing may draw on extra-legal considerations that would be difficult to represent logically in an expert system. Indeterminacy of legal reasoning: In the adversarial arena of law, it is common to have two strong arguments on a single point. Determining the 'right' answer may depend on a majority vote among expert judges, as in the case of an appeal. === Time and cost effectiveness === Creating a functioning expert system requires significant investments in software architecture, subject matter expertise and knowledge engineering. Faced with these challenges, many system architects restrict the domain in terms of subject matter and jurisdiction. The consequence of this approach is the creation of narrowly focused and geographically restricted legal expert systems that are difficult to justify on a cost-benefit basis. Current applications of AI in the legal field utilize machines to review documents, particularly when a high level of completeness and confidence in the quality of document analysis is depended upon, such as in instances of litigation and where due diligence play a role. Among the numerically most quantifiable advantages of AI in the legal field are the time and money saving impact by freeing lawyers from having to spend inordinate amounts of their valuable time on routine tasks, aiding in setting free lawyers’ creative energy by reducing stress. This in turn increases the rate of case load reduction by accomplishing better results in less time, which unlocks potential additional revenue per unit of time spend on a case. The cost of setting up and maintaining AI systems in law is more than offset by the attained savings through increased efficacy; unbalanced cost can be assigned to clients. === Lack of correctness in results or decisions === Legal expert systems may lead non-expert users to incorrect or inaccurate results and decisions. This problem could be compounded by the fact that users may rely heavily on the correctness or trustworthiness of results or decisions generated by these systems. == Examples == ASHSD-II is a hybrid legal expert system that blends rule-based and case-based reasoning models in the area of matrimonial property disputes under English law. CHIRON is a hybrid legal expert system that blends rule-based and case-based reasoning models to support tax planning activities under United States tax law and codes. JUDGE is a rule-based legal expert system that deals with sentencing in the criminal legal domain for offences relating to murder, assault and manslaughter. Legislate is a knowledge graph powered contract management platform whi

    Read more →
  • Semantic neural network

    Semantic neural network

    Semantic neural network (SNN) is based on John von Neumann's neural network [von Neumann, 1966] and Nikolai Amosov M-Network. There are limitations to a link topology for the von Neumann’s network but SNN accept a case without these limitations. Only logical values can be processed, but SNN accept that fuzzy values can be processed too. All neurons into the von Neumann network are synchronized by tacts. For further use of self-synchronizing circuit technique SNN accepts neurons can be self-running or synchronized. In contrast to the von Neumann network there are no limitations for topology of neurons for semantic networks. It leads to the impossibility of relative addressing of neurons as it was done by von Neumann. In this case an absolute readdressing should be used. Every neuron should have a unique identifier that would provide a direct access to another neuron. Of course, neurons interacting by axons-dendrites should have each other's identifiers. An absolute readdressing can be modulated by using neuron specificity as it was realized for biological neural networks. There’s no description for self-reflectiveness and self-modification abilities into the initial description of semantic networks [Dudar Z.V., Shuklin D.E., 2000]. But in [Shuklin D.E. 2004] a conclusion had been drawn about the necessity of introspection and self-modification abilities in the system. For maintenance of these abilities a concept of pointer to neuron is provided. Pointers represent virtual connections between neurons. In this model, bodies and signals transferring through the neurons connections represent a physical body, and virtual connections between neurons are representing an astral body. It is proposed to create models of artificial neuron networks on the basis of virtual machine supporting the opportunity for paranormal effects. SNN is generally used for natural language processing. == Related models == Computational creativity Semantic hashing Semantic Pointer Architecture Sparse distributed memory

    Read more →
  • AI@50

    AI@50

    AI@50, formally known as the "Dartmouth Artificial Intelligence Conference: The Next Fifty Years" (July 13–15, 2006), was a conference organized by James H. Moor, commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Dartmouth workshop which effectively inaugurated the history of artificial intelligence. Five of the original ten attendees were present: Marvin Minsky, Ray Solomonoff, Oliver Selfridge, Trenchard More, and John McCarthy. While sponsored by Dartmouth College, General Electric, and the Frederick Whittemore Foundation, a $200,000 grant from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) called for a report of the proceedings that would: Analyze progress on AI's original challenges during the first 50 years, and assess whether the challenges were "easier" or "harder" than originally thought and why Document what the AI@50 participants believe are the major research and development challenges facing this field over the next 50 years, and identify what breakthroughs will be needed to meet those challenges Relate those challenges and breakthroughs against developments and trends in other areas such as control theory, signal processing, information theory, statistics, and optimization theory. A summary report by the conference director, James H. Moor, was published in AI Magazine. == Conference Program and links to published papers == James H. Moor, conference Director, Introduction Carol Folt and Barry Scherr, Welcome Carey Heckman, Tonypandy and the Origins of Science === AI: Past, Present, Future === John McCarthy, What Was Expected, What We Did, and AI Today Marvin Minsky, The Emotion Machine === The Future Model of Thinking === Ron Brachman and Hector Levesque, A Large Part of Human Thought David Mumford, What is the Right Model for 'Thought'? Stuart Russell, The Approach of Modern AI === The Future of Network Models === Geoffrey Hinton & Simon Osindero, From Pandemonium to Graphical Models and Back Again Rick Granger, From Brain Circuits to Mind Manufacture === The Future of Learning & Search === Oliver Selfridge, Learning and Education for Software: New Approaches in Machine Learning Ray Solomonoff, Machine Learning — Past and Future Leslie Pack Kaelbling, Learning to be Intelligent Peter Norvig, Web Search as a Product of and Catalyst for AI === The Future of AI === Rod Brooks, Intelligence and Bodies Nils Nilsson, Routes to the Summit Eric Horvitz, In Pursuit of Artificial Intelligence: Reflections on Challenges and Trajectories === The Future of Vision === Eric Grimson, Intelligent Medical Image Analysis: Computer Assisted Surgery and Disease Monitoring Takeo Kanade, Artificial Intelligence Vision: Progress and Non-Progress Terry Sejnowski, A Critique of Pure Vision === The Future of Reasoning === Alan Bundy, Constructing, Selecting and Repairing Representations of Knowledge Edwina Rissland, The Exquisite Centrality of Examples Bart Selman, The Challenge and Promise of Automated Reasoning === The Future of Language and Cognition === Trenchard More The Birth of Array Theory and Nial Eugene Charniak, Why Natural Language Processing is Now Statistical Natural Language Processing Pat Langley, Intelligent Behavior in Humans and Machines === The Future of the Future === Ray Kurzweil, Why We Can Be Confident of Turing Test Capability Within a Quarter Century George Cybenko, The Future Trajectory of AI Charles J. Holland, DARPA's Perspective === AI and Games === Jonathan Schaeffer, Games as a Test-bed for Artificial Intelligence Research Danny Kopec, Chess and AI Shay Bushinsky, Principle Positions in Deep Junior's Development === Future Interactions with Intelligent Machines === Daniela Rus, Making Bodies Smart Sherry Turkle, From Building Intelligences to Nurturing Sensibilities === Selected Submitted Papers: Future Strategies for AI === J. Storrs Hall, Self-improving AI: An Analysis Selmer Bringsjord, The Logicist Manifesto Vincent C. Müller, Is There a Future for AI Without Representation? Kristinn R. Thórisson, Integrated A.I. Systems === Selected Submitted Papers: Future Possibilities for AI === Eric Steinhart, Survival as a Digital Ghost Colin T. A. Schmidt, Did You Leave That 'Contraption' Alone With Your Little Sister? Michael Anderson & Susan Leigh Anderson, The Status of Machine Ethics Marcello Guarini, Computation, Coherence, and Ethical Reasoning

    Read more →
  • List of artificial intelligence artists

    List of artificial intelligence artists

    Many notable artificial intelligence artists have created a wide variety of artificial intelligence art from the 1960s to today. These include: == 20th century == Harold Cohen, active from 1960s to 2010s. Cohen's work is primarily with AARON, a series of computer programs that autonomously create original images. Eric Millikin, active from 1980s to present. Millikin's work includes AI-generated virtual reality, video art, poetry, music, and performance art, on topics such as animal rights, climate change, anti-racism, witchcraft, and the occult. Karl Sims, active from 1980s to present. Sims is best known for using particle systems and artificial life in computer animation. == 21st century == Refik Anadol, active from 2010s to present. Anadol's work includes video installations based on generative algorithms with artificial intelligence. Sougwen Chung, active from 2010s to present. Chung's work includes performances with a robotic arm that uses AI to attempt to draw in a manner similar to Chung. Stephanie Dinkins, active from 2010s to present. Dinkins' work includes recordings of conversations with an artificially intelligent robot that resembles a black woman, discussing topics such as race and the nature of being. Jake Elwes, active from 2010s to present. Their practice is the exploration of artificial intelligence, queer theory and technical biases. Libby Heaney, active from 2010s to present. Heaney's practice includes work with chatbots. Mario Klingemann, active from 2010s to present. Klingemann's works examine creativity, culture, and perception through machine learning and artificial intelligence. Mauro Martino, active from 2010s to present. Martino's work includes design, data visualization and infographics. Trevor Paglen, active from 2000s to present. Paglen's practice includes work in photography and geography, on topics like mass surveillance and data collection. Anna Ridler, active from 2010s to present. Ridler works with collections of information, including self-generated data sets, often working with floral photography.

    Read more →