AI For Students Gemini

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

• 

  Dynamic Graphics Project

  The Dynamic Graphics Project (commonly referred to as DGP) is an interdisciplinary research laboratory at the University of Toronto devoted to projects involving computer graphics, computer vision, human computer interaction, and visualization. The lab began as the computer graphics research group of Department of Computer Science Professor Leslie Mezei in 1967. Mezei invited Bill Buxton, a pioneer of human–computer interaction (HCI) to join. In 1972, Ronald Baecker, another HCI pioneer joined, establishing DGP as the first Canadian university group focused on computer graphics and human-computer interaction. According to csrankings.org, the DGP is the top research institution in the world for the combined subfields of computer graphics, HCI, and visualization. Since then, DGP has hosted many well known faculty and students in computer graphics, computer vision and HCI (e.g., Alain Fournier, Bill Reeves, Jos Stam, Demetri Terzopoulos, Marilyn Tremaine). DGP also occasionally hosts artists in residence (e.g., Oscar-winner Chris Landreth). Many past and current researchers at Autodesk (and before that Alias Wavefront) graduated after working at DGP. DGP is located in the St. George campus of University of Toronto in the Bahen Centre for Information Technology. DGP researchers regularly publish at ACM SIGGRAPH, ACM SIGCHI and ICCV. DGP hosts the Toronto User Experience (TUX) Speaker Series and the Sanders Series Lectures. == Notable alumni == Bill Buxton (MS 1978) James McCrae (PhD 2013) Dimitris Metaxas (PhD 1992) Bill Reeves (MS 1976, Ph.D. 1980) Jos Stam (MS 1991, Ph.D. 1995)

  Read more →
• 

  Horovod (machine learning)

  Horovod is a free and open-source distributed deep learning training framework for TensorFlow, Keras, PyTorch and Apache MXNet. It is designed to scale existing single-GPU training scripts to efficiently run on multiple GPUs and computer nodes with minimal code changes, using synchronous data-parallel training based on the ring-allreduce communication pattern. Horovod was initially developed at Uber and released as an open-source project in 2017, and is now hosted by the LF AI & Data Foundation, a project of the Linux Foundation. == History == Horovod was created at Uber as part of the company's internal machine learning platform Michelangelo to simplify scaling TensorFlow models across many GPUs. The first public release of the library, version 0.9.0, was tagged on GitHub in August 2017 under the Apache 2.0 licence. In October 2017, Uber Engineering publicly introduced Horovod as an open-source component of its deep learning toolkit. In February 2018 Alexander Sergeev and Mike Del Balso published a technical paper describing Horovod's design and benchmarking its performance on up to 512 GPUs, showing near-linear scaling for several image-classification models when compared with single-GPU baselines. In December 2018 Uber contributed Horovod to the LF Deep Learning Foundation (later LF AI & Data), making it a Linux Foundation project. Horovod entered incubation under LF AI & Data and graduated as a full foundation project in 2020. Since its initial release the project has expanded beyond TensorFlow to provide APIs for PyTorch, Keras and Apache MXNet, as well as integrations with frameworks such as Apache Spark and Ray, support for elastic training, and tooling for automated performance tuning and profiling. == Design and features == Horovod core principles are based on the MPI concepts size, rank, local rank, allreduce, allgather, broadcast, and alltoall. Horovod implements synchronous data-parallel training, in which each worker process maintains a replica of the model and computes gradients on different mini-batches of data. The gradients are aggregated across workers using the ring-allreduce communication pattern rather than a central parameter server, which reduces communication bottlenecks and can improve scaling on multi-GPU clusters. Communication is built on top of collective-communication libraries such as MPI, NCCL, Gloo and Intel oneCCL, and supports both GPU and CPU training. In the benchmark experiments reported in the original paper, Horovod achieved around 90% scaling efficiency on 512 GPUs for the ResNet-101 and Inception v3 convolutional neural networks, and around 68% scaling efficiency for the VGG-16 model. Horovod can be deployed on-premises or in cloud environments and is distributed as a Python package with optional GPU support via CUDA. The official documentation provides guides for running Horovod with Docker, Kubernetes (including via Kubeflow and the MPI Operator), commercial platforms such as Databricks, and cluster schedulers such as LSF. == Adoption and use cases == Within Uber, Horovod has been used for applications including autonomous driving research, fraud detection and trip forecasting. Major cloud providers have integrated Horovod into their managed machine learning offerings. Amazon Web Services supports distributed training with Horovod in services such as Amazon SageMaker and AWS Deep Learning Containers, while Microsoft Azure documents Horovod-based training workflows for Azure Synapse Analytics. Technical guides from academic and research computing centres, including Purdue University and the NASA Advanced Supercomputing programme, describe Horovod-based workflows for multi-GPU training on supercomputers and clusters. Horovod is also used in conjunction with Apache Spark and dedicated storage systems as part of end-to-end data processing and model-training pipelines. Industry blogs and technical tutorials describe deployments of Horovod on Kubernetes, on-premises clusters and cloud-managed Kubernetes services such as Amazon EKS.

  Read more →
• 

  Planner (programming language)

  Planner (often seen in publications as "PLANNER" although it is not an acronym) is a programming language designed by Carl Hewitt at MIT, and first published in 1969. First, subsets such as Micro-Planner and Pico-Planner were implemented, and then essentially the whole language was implemented as Popler by Julian Davies at the University of Edinburgh in the POP-2 programming language. Derivations such as QA4, Conniver, QLISP and Ether (see scientific community metaphor) were important tools in artificial intelligence research in the 1970s, which influenced commercial developments such as Knowledge Engineering Environment (KEE) and Automated Reasoning Tool (ART). == Procedural approach versus logical approach == The two major paradigms for constructing semantic software systems were procedural and logical. The procedural paradigm was epitomized by Lisp which featured recursive procedures that operated on list structures. The logical paradigm was epitomized by uniform proof procedure resolution-based derivation (proof) finders. According to the logical paradigm it was “cheating” to incorporate procedural knowledge. == Procedural embedding of knowledge == Planner was invented for the purposes of the procedural embedding of knowledge and was a rejection of the resolution uniform proof procedure paradigm, which Converted everything to clausal form. Converting all information to clausal form is problematic because it hides the underlying structure of the information. Then used resolution to attempt to obtain a proof by contradiction by adding the clausal form of the negation of the theorem to be proved. Using only resolution as the rule of inference is problematical because it hides the underlying structure of proofs. Also, using proof by contradiction is problematical because the axiomatizations of all practical domains of knowledge are inconsistent in practice. Planner was a kind of hybrid between the procedural and logical paradigms because it combined programmability with logical reasoning. Planner featured a procedural interpretation of logical sentences where an implication of the form (P implies Q) can be procedurally interpreted in the following ways using pattern-directed invocation: Forward chaining (antecedently): If assert P, assert Q If assert not Q, assert not P Backward chaining (consequently) If goal Q, goal P If goal not P, goal not Q In this respect, the development of Planner was influenced by natural deductive logical systems (especially the one by Frederic Fitch [1952]). == Micro-planner implementation == A subset called Micro-Planner was implemented by Gerry Sussman, Eugene Charniak and Terry Winograd and was used in Winograd's natural-language understanding program SHRDLU, Eugene Charniak's story understanding work, Thorne McCarty's work on legal reasoning, and some other projects. This generated a great deal of excitement in the field of AI. It also generated controversy because it proposed an alternative to the logic approach that had been one of the mainstay paradigms for AI. At SRI International, Jeff Rulifson, Jan Derksen, and Richard Waldinger developed QA4 which built on the constructs in Planner and introduced a context mechanism to provide modularity for expressions in the database. Earl Sacerdoti and Rene Reboh developed QLISP, an extension of QA4 embedded in INTERLISP, providing Planner-like reasoning embedded in a procedural language and developed in its rich programming environment. QLISP was used by Richard Waldinger and Karl Levitt for program verification, by Earl Sacerdoti for planning and execution monitoring, by Jean-Claude Latombe for computer-aided design, by Nachum Dershowitz for program synthesis, by Richard Fikes for deductive retrieval, and by Steven Coles for an early expert system that guided use of an econometric model. Computers were expensive. They had only a single slow processor and their memories were very small by comparison with today. So Planner adopted some efficiency expedients including the following: Backtracking was adopted to economize on the use of time and storage by working on and storing only one possibility at a time in exploring alternatives. A unique name assumption was adopted to save space and time by assuming that different names referred to different objects. For example, names like Peking (previous PRC capital name) and Beijing (current PRC capital transliteration) were assumed to refer to different objects. A closed-world assumption could be implemented by conditionally testing whether an attempt to prove a goal exhaustively failed. Later this capability was given the misleading name "negation as failure" because for a goal G it was possible to say: "if attempting to achieve G exhaustively fails then assert (Not G)." == The genesis of Prolog == Gerry Sussman, Eugene Charniak, Seymour Papert and Terry Winograd visited the University of Edinburgh in 1971, spreading the news about Micro-Planner and SHRDLU and casting doubt on the resolution uniform proof procedure approach that had been the mainstay of the Edinburgh Logicists. At the University of Edinburgh, Bruce Anderson implemented a subset of Micro-Planner called PICO-PLANNER, and Julian Davies (1973) implemented essentially all of Planner. According to Donald MacKenzie, Pat Hayes recalled the impact of a visit from Papert to Edinburgh, which had become the "heart of artificial intelligence's Logicland," according to Papert's MIT colleague, Carl Hewitt. Papert eloquently voiced his critique of the resolution approach dominant at Edinburgh "…and at least one person upped sticks and left because of Papert." The above developments generated tension among the Logicists at Edinburgh. These tensions were exacerbated when the UK Science Research Council commissioned Sir James Lighthill to write a report on the AI research situation in the UK. The resulting report [Lighthill 1973; McCarthy 1973] was highly critical although SHRDLU was favorably mentioned. Pat Hayes visited Stanford where he learned about Planner. When he returned to Edinburgh, he tried to influence his friend Bob Kowalski to take Planner into account in their joint work on automated theorem proving. "Resolution theorem-proving was demoted from a hot topic to a relic of the misguided past. Bob Kowalski doggedly stuck to his faith in the potential of resolution theorem proving. He carefully studied Planner.”. Kowalski [1988] states "I can recall trying to convince Hewitt that Planner was similar to SL-resolution." But Planner was invented for the purposes of the procedural embedding of knowledge and was a rejection of the resolution uniform proof procedure paradigm. Colmerauer and Roussel recalled their reaction to learning about Planner in the following way: "While attending an IJCAI convention in September ‘71 with Jean Trudel, we met Robert Kowalski again and heard a lecture by Terry Winograd on natural language processing. The fact that he did not use a unified formalism left us puzzled. It was at this time that we learned of the existence of Carl Hewitt’s programming language, Planner. The lack of formalization of this language, our ignorance of Lisp and, above all, the fact that we were absolutely devoted to logic meant that this work had little influence on our later research." In the fall of 1972, Philippe Roussel implemented a language called Prolog (an abbreviation for PROgrammation en LOGique – French for "programming in logic"). Prolog programs are generically of the following form (which is a special case of the backward-chaining in Planner): When goal Q, goal P1 and ... and goal Pn Prolog duplicated the following aspects of Micro-Planner: Pattern directed invocation of procedures from goals (i.e. backward chaining) An indexed data base of pattern-directed procedures and ground sentences. Giving up on the completeness paradigm that had characterized previous work on theorem proving and replacing it with the programming language procedural embedding of knowledge paradigm. Prolog also duplicated the following capabilities of Micro-Planner which were pragmatically useful for the computers of the era because they saved space and time: Backtracking control structure Unique Name Assumption by which different names are assumed to refer to distinct entities, e.g., Peking and Beijing are assumed to be different. Reification of Failure. The way that Planner established that something was provable was to successfully attempt it as a goal and the way that it establish that something was unprovable was to attempt it as a goal and explicitly fail. Of course the other possibility is that the attempt to prove the goal runs forever and never returns any value. Planner also had a (not expression) construct which succeeded if expression failed, which gave rise to the “Negation as Failure” terminology in Planner. Use of the Unique Name Assumption and Negation as Failure became more questionable when attention turned to Open Systems. The following capabiliti

  Read more →
• 

  Predictive Model Markup Language

  The Predictive Model Markup Language (PMML) is an XML-based predictive model interchange format conceived by Robert Lee Grossman, then the director of the National Center for Data Mining at the University of Illinois at Chicago. PMML provides a way for analytic applications to describe and exchange predictive models produced by data mining and machine learning algorithms. It supports common models such as logistic regression and other feedforward neural networks. Version 0.9 was published in 1998. Subsequent versions have been developed by the Data Mining Group. Since PMML is an XML-based standard, the specification comes in the form of an XML schema. PMML itself is a mature standard with over 30 organizations having announced products supporting PMML. == PMML components == A PMML file can be described by the following components: Header: contains general information about the PMML document, such as copyright information for the model, its description, and information about the application used to generate the model such as name and version. It also contains an attribute for a timestamp which can be used to specify the date of model creation. Data Dictionary: contains definitions for all the possible fields used by the model. It is here that a field is defined as continuous, categorical, or ordinal (attribute optype). Depending on this definition, the appropriate value ranges are then defined as well as the data type (such as, string or double). Data Transformations: transformations allow for the mapping of user data into a more desirable form to be used by the mining model. PMML defines several kinds of simple data transformations. Normalization: map values to numbers, the input can be continuous or discrete. Discretization: map continuous values to discrete values. Value mapping: map discrete values to discrete values. Functions (custom and built-in): derive a value by applying a function to one or more parameters. Aggregation: used to summarize or collect groups of values. Model: contains the definition of the data mining model. E.g., A multi-layered feedforward neural network is represented in PMML by a "NeuralNetwork" element which contains attributes such as: Model Name (attribute modelName) Function Name (attribute functionName) Algorithm Name (attribute algorithmName) Activation Function (attribute activationFunction) Number of Layers (attribute numberOfLayers) This information is then followed by three kinds of neural layers which specify the architecture of the neural network model being represented in the PMML document. These attributes are NeuralInputs, NeuralLayer, and NeuralOutputs. Besides neural networks, PMML allows for the representation of many other types of models including support vector machines, association rules, Naive Bayes classifier, clustering models, text models, decision trees, and different regression models. Mining Schema: a list of all fields used in the model. This can be a subset of the fields as defined in the data dictionary. It contains specific information about each field, such as: Name (attribute name): must refer to a field in the data dictionary Usage type (attribute usageType): defines the way a field is to be used in the model. Typical values are: active, predicted, and supplementary. Predicted fields are those whose values are predicted by the model. Outlier Treatment (attribute outliers): defines the outlier treatment to be use. In PMML, outliers can be treated as missing values, as extreme values (based on the definition of high and low values for a particular field), or as is. Missing Value Replacement Policy (attribute missingValueReplacement): if this attribute is specified then a missing value is automatically replaced by the given values. Missing Value Treatment (attribute missingValueTreatment): indicates how the missing value replacement was derived (e.g. as value, mean or median). Targets: allows for post-processing of the predicted value in the format of scaling if the output of the model is continuous. Targets can also be used for classification tasks. In this case, the attribute priorProbability specifies a default probability for the corresponding target category. It is used if the prediction logic itself did not produce a result. This can happen, e.g., if an input value is missing and there is no other method for treating missing values. Output: this element can be used to name all the desired output fields expected from the model. These are features of the predicted field and so are typically the predicted value itself, the probability, cluster affinity (for clustering models), standard error, etc. The latest release of PMML, PMML 4.1, extended Output to allow for generic post-processing of model outputs. In PMML 4.1, all the built-in and custom functions that were originally available only for pre-processing became available for post-processing too. == PMML 4.0, 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 == PMML 4.0 was released on June 16, 2009. Examples of new features included: Improved Pre-Processing Capabilities: Additions to built-in functions include a range of Boolean operations and an If-Then-Else function. Time Series Models: New exponential Smoothing models; also place holders for ARIMA, Seasonal Trend Decomposition, and Spectral density estimation, which are to be supported in the near future. Model Explanation: Saving of evaluation and model performance measures to the PMML file itself. Multiple Models: Capabilities for model composition, ensembles, and segmentation (e.g., combining of regression and decision trees). Extensions of Existing Elements: Addition of multi-class classification for Support Vector Machines, improved representation for Association Rules, and the addition of Cox Regression Models. PMML 4.1 was released on December 31, 2011. New features included: New model elements for representing Scorecards, k-Nearest Neighbors (KNN) and Baseline Models. Simplification of multiple models. In PMML 4.1, the same element is used to represent model segmentation, ensemble, and chaining. Overall definition of field scope and field names. A new attribute that identifies for each model element if the model is ready or not for production deployment. Enhanced post-processing capabilities (via the Output element). PMML 4.2 was released on February 28, 2014. New features include: Transformations: New elements for implementing text mining New built-in functions for implementing regular expressions: matches, concat, and replace Simplified outputs for post-processing Enhancements to Scorecard and Naive Bayes model elements PMML 4.3 was released on August 23, 2016. New features include: New Model Types: Gaussian Process Bayesian Network New built-in functions Usage clarifications Documentation improvements Version 4.4 was released in November 2019. == Release history == == Data Mining Group == The Data Mining Group is a consortium managed by the Center for Computational Science Research, Inc., a nonprofit founded in 2008. The Data Mining Group also developed a standard called Portable Format for Analytics, or PFA, which is complementary to PMML.

  Read more →
• 

  Variable data publishing

  Variable-data publishing (VDP) (also known as database publishing) is a term referring to the output of a variable composition system. While these systems can produce both electronically viewable and hard-copy (print) output, the "variable-data publishing" term today often distinguishes output destined for electronic viewing, rather than that which is destined for hard-copy print (e.g. variable data printing). Essentially the same techniques are employed to perform variable-data publishing, as those utilized with variable data printing. The difference is in the interpretation for output. While variable-data printing may be interpreted to produce various print streams or page-description files (e.g. AFP/IPDS, PostScript, PCL), variable-data publishing produces electronically viewable files, most commonly seen in the forms of PDF, HTML, or XML. Variable-data composition involves the use of data to conditionally: exhibit text (static blocks and/or variable content) exhibit images select fonts select colors format page layouts & flows Variable-data may be as simple as an address block or salutation. However, it can be any or all of the document's textual content—including words, sentences, paragraphs, pages, or the entire document. In other words, it can make up as little or as much of the document as the composer desires. Variable data may also be used to exhibit various images, such as logos, products, or membership photos. Further, variable-data can be used to build rule-based design schemes, including fonts, colors, and page formats. The possibilities are vast. The variable-data tools available today, make it possible to perform variable-data composition at nearly every stage of document production. However, the level of control that can be achieved varies, based upon how far into the document production process a variable-data tool is deployed. For example, if variable-data insertion occurs just prior to output...it's not likely that the text flow or layout can be altered with nearly as much control as would be available at the time of initial document composition. Many organizations will produce multiple forms of output (aka: multi-channel output), for the same document. This ensures that the published content is available to recipients via any form of access method they might require. When multi-channel output is utilized, integrity between those output channels often becomes important. Variable-data publishing may be performed on everything from a personal computer to a mainframe system. However, the speed and practical output volumes which can be achieved are directly affected by the computer power utilized. == Origin of the concept == The term variable-data publishing was likely an offshoot of the term "variable-data printing", first introduced to the printing industry by Frank Romano, Professor Emeritus, School of Print Media, at the College of Imaging Arts and Sciences at Rochester Institute of Technology. However, the concept of merging static document elements and variable document elements predates the term and has seen various implementations ranging from simple desktop 'mail merge', to complex mainframe applications in the financial and banking industry. In the past, the term VDP has been most closely associated with digital printing machines. However, in the past 3 years the application of this technology has spread to web pages, emails, and mobile messaging.

  Read more →
• 

  Transaction logic

  Transaction Logic is an extension of predicate logic that accounts in a clean and declarative way for the phenomenon of state changes in logic programs and databases. This extension adds connectives specifically designed for combining simple actions into complex transactions and for providing control over their execution. The logic has a natural model theory and a sound and complete proof theory. Transaction Logic has a Horn clause subset, which has a procedural as well as a declarative semantics. The important features of the logic include hypothetical and committed updates, dynamic constraints on transaction execution, non-determinism, and bulk updates. In this way, Transaction Logic is able to declaratively capture a number of non-logical phenomena, including procedural knowledge in artificial intelligence, active databases, and methods with side effects in object databases. Transaction Logic was originally proposed in 1993 by Anthony Bonner and Michael Kifer and later described in more detail in An Overview of Transaction Logic and Logic Programming for Database Transactions. The most comprehensive description appears in Bonner & Kifer's technical report from 1995. In later years, Transaction Logic was extended in various ways, including concurrency, defeasible reasoning, partially defined actions, and other features. In 2013, the original paper on Transaction Logic has won the 20-year Test of Time Award of the Association for Logic Programming as the most influential paper from the proceedings of ICLP 1993 conference in the preceding 20 years. == Examples == === Graph coloring === Here tinsert denotes the elementary update operation of transactional insert. The connective ⊗ is called serial conjunction. === Pyramid stacking === The elementary update tdelete represents the transactional delete operation. === Hypothetical execution === Here <> is the modal operator of possibility: If both action1 and action2 are possible, execute action1. Otherwise, if only action2 is possible, then execute it. === Dining philosophers === Here | is the logical connective of parallel conjunction of Concurrent Transaction Logic. == Implementations == A number of implementations of Transaction Logic exist: The original implementation. An implementation of Concurrent Transaction Logic. Transaction Logic enhanced with tabling. An implementation of Transaction Logic has also been incorporated as part of the Flora-2 knowledge representation and reasoning system. All these implementations are open source.

  Read more →
• 

  Liang Wenfeng

  Liang Wenfeng (Chinese: 梁文锋; pinyin: Liáng Wénfēng; born 1985) is a Chinese entrepreneur and businessman who is the co-founder of the quantitative hedge fund High-Flyer, as well as the founder and CEO of its artificial intelligence company DeepSeek. Liang attended Zhejiang University, and began his career by applying machine learning methods to quantitative finance. Through High-Flyer, he built large-scale computing infrastructure that was later used to support artificial intelligence research, leading to the creation of DeepSeek in 2023. DeepSeek gained international attention following the release of DeepSeek-R1, which analysts described as demonstrating high-level performance with comparatively limited compute resources. In 2025, Liang was named to Time magazine's list of 100 Most Influential People in AI and Fortune's list of the Most Powerful People in Business. == Early life == Liang was born in 1985 in the village of Mililing (米历岭村), Qinba town (覃巴镇), Wuchuan city (吴川市), Guangdong. His parents were both primary school teachers. Liang was routinely praised by both locals and teachers alike. Even since middle school, Liang was recalled for being well-known for reading comic books, while also being very proficient in mathematics. == Education == After elementary school, Liang attended Wuchuan No. 1 Middle School. There, he quickly excelled in class and ranked highly amongst his peers. He taught himself high school and university-level mathematics courses. Liang then attended Wuchaun No. 1 High School. In these years, he developed hobbies of mathematical modeling and conducting research projects. Compared to his peers, he was always ranked highly. For every mathematics exam, he always ranked within the top three. He was also the top scorer in the Zhanjiang region of Guangdong for the college entrance exam. Thus, in 2002, Liang left high school early to further pursue his education at the university level at the young age of 17. Attending Zhejiang University at the age of 17, Liang earned a Bachelor of Engineering in Electronic Information Engineering in 2007 and his Master of Engineering in Information & Communication Engineering in 2010. His master's dissertation was titled "Study on Object Tracking Algorithm Based on Low-Cost PTZ camera" (基于低成本PTZ摄像机的目标跟踪算法研究). In his college years, DJI founder Wang Tao asked Liang to join as a co-founder. Liang declined the invitation to pursue artificial intelligence methodologies in financial markets. While he states that those around him had entrepreneurial mindsets, he himself valued academics. == Career == === Early career (2008–2016) === During the 2008 financial crisis, Liang formed a team with his classmates to accumulate data related to financial markets. He also led the team to explore quantitative trading using machine learning and other technologies. After his graduation, Liang moved to a cheap flat in Chengdu, Sichuan, where he experimented with ways to apply AI to various fields. These ventures failed, until he tried applying AI to finance. In 2013, Liang attempted to integrate artificial intelligence with quantitative trading and founded Hangzhou Yakebi Investment Management Co Ltd with Xu Jin, an alumnus of Zhejiang University. In 2015, they co-founded Hangzhou Huanfang Technology Co Ltd, which is today's Zhejiang Jiuzhang Asset Management Co Ltd. === High-Flyer (2016–2023) === In February 2016, Liang and two other engineering classmates co-founded Ningbo High-Flyer Quantitative Investment Management Partnership (Limited Partnership). The team relied on mathematics and AI to make investments. Much of the early startup culture was described by former employees to be "geeky" and "quirky," often seen as contrary to the existing culture in large Chinese tech companies. In 2019, Liang founded High-Flyer AI which was dedicated to research on AI algorithms and its basic applications. By this time, High-Flyer had over 10 billion yuan in assets under management. On 30 August 2019, Liang Wenfeng delivered a keynote speech entitled "The Future of Quantitative Investment in China from a Programmer's Perspective" at the Private Equity Golden Bull Award ceremony held by China Securities Journal, and sparked heated discussions. Liang stated that the criterion for determining what is quantitative or non-quantitative is whether the investment decision is made by quantitative methods or by people. Quantitative funds do not have portfolio managers making the decisions and instead are just servers. He also stated High-Flyer's mission is to improve the effectiveness of China's secondary market. In February 2021, Gregory Zuckerman's book The Man Who Solved the Market: How Jim Simons Launched the Quant Revolution was published. Liang wrote the preface for the Chinese edition of the book where he stated that whenever he encountered difficulties at work, he would think of Simons' words "There must be a way to model prices". In January 2025, Zuckerman wrote in The Wall Street Journal where he acknowledged this fact and stated he has been trying to get in touch with Liang but much like Simons, Liang is very secretive and difficult to contact. During 2021, Liang started buying thousands of Nvidia GPUs for his AI side project while running High-Flyer. Liang wanted to build something and it will be a game changer which his business partners thought was only possible from giants such as ByteDance and Alibaba Group. === DeepSeek (since 2023) === ==== DeepSeek begins ==== In May 2023, Liang announced High-Flyer would pursue the development of artificial general intelligence and launched DeepSeek. During that month in an interview with 36Kr, Liang stated that High-Flyer had acquired 10,000 Nvidia A100 GPUs before the US government imposed AI chip restrictions on China. That laid the foundation for DeepSeek to operate as an LLM developer. Liang also stated DeepSeek gets funding from High-Flyer. This was because when DeepSeek was founded, venture capital firms were reluctant in providing funding as it was unlikely that it would be able to generate an exit in a short period of time. Liang only personally holds 1% of the company, with 99% of the company being held by Ningbo High-Flyer Quantitative Investment Management Partnership (Limited Partnership). With DeepSeek's funding model, it lacks commercial pressure and rigid key performance indicators, enabling the company to deviate from previously established model architectures. ==== Early development ==== In July 2024, Liang was interviewed again by 36Kr. He stated that when DeepSeek-V2 was released and triggered an AI price war in China, it came as a huge surprise as the team did not expect pricing to be so sensitive. Liang's aggressive pricing of the language model forced domestic tech giants including Alibaba and Baidu to cut their own rates by over 95%. He also stated that as China's economy develops, it should gradually become a contributor instead of freeriding. What is lacking in China's innovation is not capital but a lack of confidence and knowledge on organizing talent into it. DeepSeek has not hired anyone particularly special and employees tend to be locally educated. When it comes to disruptive technologies, closed source approaches can only temporarily delay others in catching up. As the goal was long-term, DeepSeek sought employees who had ability and passion rather than experience. To retain a high talent density relative to larger firms like Bytedance or Baidu, DeepSeek aimed to maintain a low-hierarchy corporate culture, with members working in project-based groups, as well as competitive compensation. Liang emphasized his vision for DeepSeek employees to bring their "unique experience and ideas" instead of needing to be explicitly directed, with an overall bottom-up approach to division of labor. Liang noted that a significant outcome of this approach was the multi-head latent attention training architecture, which was attributed directly to a young DeepSeek researcher's personal interest. This advancement played a core role in reducing the cost of training the DeepSeek-V3 model, released in December 2024. ==== Release of DeepSeek-R1 ==== Also on 20 January 2025, DeepSeek, the company Liang founded and served as the CEO, released DeepSeek-R1, a 671-billion-parameter open-source reasoning AI model, alongside the publication of a detailed technical paper explaining its architecture and training methodology. The model was built using just 2,048 Nvidia H800 GPUs at a cost of $5.6 million, showcasing a resource-efficient approach that contrasted sharply with the billion-dollar budgets of Western competitors. The development of DeepSeek-R1 occurred amidst U.S. sanctions where Trump limited sales of Nvidia chips to China. By 27 January, DeepSeek surpassed ChatGPT to become the #1 free app on the United States iOS App Store. U.S. stocks plummeted, as more than $1 trillion was erased in market capitalization amid panic over DeepSeek. Technology journ

  Read more →
• 

  Learning vector quantization

  In computer science, learning vector quantization (LVQ) is a prototype-based supervised classification algorithm. LVQ is the supervised counterpart of vector quantization systems. LVQ can be understood as a special case of an artificial neural network, more precisely, it applies a winner-take-all Hebbian learning-based approach. It is a precursor to self-organizing maps (SOM) and related to neural gas and the k-nearest neighbor algorithm (k-NN). LVQ was invented by Teuvo Kohonen. == Definition == An LVQ system is represented by prototypes W = ( w ( i ) , . . . , w ( n ) ) {\displaystyle W=(w(i),...,w(n))} which are defined in the feature space of observed data. In winner-take-all training algorithms one determines, for each data point, the prototype which is closest to the input according to a given distance measure. The position of this so-called winner prototype is then adapted, i.e. the winner is moved closer if it correctly classifies the data point or moved away if it classifies the data point incorrectly. An advantage of LVQ is that it creates prototypes that are easy to interpret for experts in the respective application domain. LVQ systems can be applied to multi-class classification problems in a natural way. A key issue in LVQ is the choice of an appropriate measure of distance or similarity for training and classification. Recently, techniques have been developed which adapt a parameterized distance measure in the course of training the system, see e.g. (Schneider, Biehl, and Hammer, 2009) and references therein. LVQ can be a valuable aid in classifying text documents. == Algorithm == The algorithms are presented as in. Set up: Let the data be denoted by x i ∈ R D {\displaystyle x_{i}\in \mathbb {R} ^{D}} , and their corresponding labels by y i ∈ { 1 , 2 , … , C } {\displaystyle y_{i}\in \{1,2,\dots ,C\}} . The complete dataset is { ( x i , y i ) } i = 1 N {\displaystyle \{(x_{i},y_{i})\}_{i=1}^{N}} . The set of code vectors is w j ∈ R D {\displaystyle w_{j}\in \mathbb {R} ^{D}} . The learning rate at iteration step t {\displaystyle t} is denoted by α t {\displaystyle \alpha _{t}} . The hyperparameters w {\displaystyle w} and ϵ {\displaystyle \epsilon } are used by LVQ2 and LVQ3. The original paper suggests ϵ ∈ [ 0.1 , 0.5 ] {\displaystyle \epsilon \in [0.1,0.5]} and w ∈ [ 0.2 , 0.3 ] {\displaystyle w\in [0.2,0.3]} . === LVQ1 === Initialize several code vectors per label. Iterate until convergence criteria is reached. Sample a datum x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} , and find out the code vector w j {\displaystyle w_{j}} , such that x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} falls within the Voronoi cell of w j {\displaystyle w_{j}} . If its label y i {\displaystyle y_{i}} is the same as that of w j {\displaystyle w_{j}} , then w j ← w j + α t ( x i − w j ) {\displaystyle w_{j}\leftarrow w_{j}+\alpha _{t}(x_{i}-w_{j})} , otherwise, w j ← w j − α t ( x i − w j ) {\displaystyle w_{j}\leftarrow w_{j}-\alpha _{t}(x_{i}-w_{j})} . === LVQ2 === LVQ2 is the same as LVQ3, but with this sentence removed: "If w j {\displaystyle w_{j}} and w k {\displaystyle w_{k}} and x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} have the same class, then w j ← w j − α t ( x i − w j ) {\displaystyle w_{j}\leftarrow w_{j}-\alpha _{t}(x_{i}-w_{j})} and w k ← w k + α t ( x i − w k ) {\displaystyle w_{k}\leftarrow w_{k}+\alpha _{t}(x_{i}-w_{k})} .". If w j {\displaystyle w_{j}} and w k {\displaystyle w_{k}} and x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} have the same class, then nothing happens. === LVQ3 === Initialize several code vectors per label. Iterate until convergence criteria is reached. Sample a datum x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} , and find out two code vectors w j , w k {\displaystyle w_{j},w_{k}} closest to it. Let d j := ‖ x i − w j ‖ , d k := ‖ x i − w k ‖ {\displaystyle d_{j}:=\|x_{i}-w_{j}\|,d_{k}:=\|x_{i}-w_{k}\|} . If min ( d j d k , d k d j ) > s {\displaystyle \min \left({\frac {d_{j}}{d_{k}}},{\frac {d_{k}}{d_{j}}}\right)>s} , where s = 1 − w 1 + w {\displaystyle s={\frac {1-w}{1+w}}} , then If w j {\displaystyle w_{j}} and x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} have the same class, and w k {\displaystyle w_{k}} and x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} have different classes, then w j ← w j + α t ( x i − w j ) {\displaystyle w_{j}\leftarrow w_{j}+\alpha _{t}(x_{i}-w_{j})} and w k ← w k − α t ( x i − w k ) {\displaystyle w_{k}\leftarrow w_{k}-\alpha _{t}(x_{i}-w_{k})} . If w k {\displaystyle w_{k}} and x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} have the same class, and w j {\displaystyle w_{j}} and x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} have different classes, then w j ← w j − α t ( x i − w j ) {\displaystyle w_{j}\leftarrow w_{j}-\alpha _{t}(x_{i}-w_{j})} and w k ← w k + α t ( x i − w k ) {\displaystyle w_{k}\leftarrow w_{k}+\alpha _{t}(x_{i}-w_{k})} . If w j {\displaystyle w_{j}} and w k {\displaystyle w_{k}} and x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} have the same class, then w j ← w j − ϵ α t ( x i − w j ) {\displaystyle w_{j}\leftarrow w_{j}-\epsilon \alpha _{t}(x_{i}-w_{j})} and w k ← w k + ϵ α t ( x i − w k ) {\displaystyle w_{k}\leftarrow w_{k}+\epsilon \alpha _{t}(x_{i}-w_{k})} . If w k {\displaystyle w_{k}} and x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} have different classes, and w j {\displaystyle w_{j}} and x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} have different classes, then the original paper simply does not explain what happens in this case, but presumably nothing happens in this case. Otherwise, skip. Note that condition min ( d j d k , d k d j ) > s {\displaystyle \min \left({\frac {d_{j}}{d_{k}}},{\frac {d_{k}}{d_{j}}}\right)>s} , where s = 1 − w 1 + w {\displaystyle s={\frac {1-w}{1+w}}} , precisely means that the point x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} falls between two Apollonian spheres.

  Read more →
• 

  Dynamic epistemic logic

  Dynamic epistemic logic (DEL) is a logical framework dealing with knowledge and information change. Typically, DEL focuses on situations involving multiple agents and studies how their knowledge changes when events occur. These events can change factual properties of the actual world (they are called ontic events): for example a red card is painted in blue. They can also bring about changes of knowledge without changing factual properties of the world (they are called epistemic events): for example, a card is revealed publicly (or privately) to be red. Originally, DEL focused on epistemic events. Only some of the basic ideas are present in this entry of the original DEL framework; more details about DEL in general can be found in the references. Due to the nature of its object of study and its abstract approach, DEL is related and has applications to numerous research areas, such as computer science (artificial intelligence), philosophy (formal epistemology), economics (game theory) and cognitive science. In computer science, DEL is for example very much related to multi-agent systems, which are systems where multiple intelligent agents interact and exchange information. As a combination of dynamic logic and epistemic logic, dynamic epistemic logic is a young field of research. It really started in 1989 with Plaza's logic of public announcement. Independently, Gerbrandy and Groeneveld proposed a system dealing moreover with private announcement and that was inspired by the work of Veltman. Another system was proposed by van Ditmarsch whose main inspiration was the Cluedo game. But the most influential and original system was the system proposed by Baltag, Moss and Solecki. This system can deal with all the types of situations studied in the works above and its underlying methodology is conceptually grounded. This entry will present some of its basic ideas. Formally, DEL extends ordinary epistemic logic by the inclusion of event models to describe actions, and a product update operator that defines how epistemic models are updated as the consequence of executing actions described through event models. Epistemic logic will first be recalled. Then, actions and events will enter into the picture and we will introduce the DEL framework. == Epistemic logic == Epistemic logic is a modal logic dealing with the notions of knowledge and belief. As a logic, it is concerned with understanding the process of reasoning about knowledge and belief: which principles relating the notions of knowledge and belief are intuitively plausible? Like epistemology, it stems from the Greek word ϵ π ι σ τ η μ η {\displaystyle \epsilon \pi \iota \sigma \tau \eta \mu \eta } or ‘episteme’ meaning knowledge. Epistemology is nevertheless more concerned with analyzing the very nature and scope of knowledge, addressing questions such as “What is the definition of knowledge?” or “How is knowledge acquired?”. In fact, epistemic logic grew out of epistemology in the Middle Ages thanks to the efforts of Burley and Ockham. The formal work, based on modal logic, that inaugurated contemporary research into epistemic logic dates back only to 1962 and is due to Hintikka. It then sparked in the 1960s discussions about the principles of knowledge and belief and many axioms for these notions were proposed and discussed. For example, the interaction axioms K p → B p {\displaystyle Kp\rightarrow Bp} and B p → K B p {\displaystyle Bp\rightarrow KBp} are often considered to be intuitive principles: if an agent Knows p {\displaystyle p} then (s)he also Believes p {\displaystyle p} , or if an agent Believes p {\displaystyle p} , then (s)he Knows that (s)he Believes p {\displaystyle p} . More recently, these kinds of philosophical theories were taken up by researchers in economics, artificial intelligence and theoretical computer science where reasoning about knowledge is a central topic. Due to the new setting in which epistemic logic was used, new perspectives and new features such as computability issues were then added to the research agenda of epistemic logic. === Syntax === In the sequel, A G T S = { 1 , … , n } {\displaystyle AGTS=\{1,\ldots ,n\}} is a finite set whose elements are called agents and P R O P {\displaystyle PROP} is a set of propositional letters. The epistemic language is an extension of the basic multi-modal language of modal logic with a common knowledge operator C A {\displaystyle C_{A}} and a distributed knowledge operator D A {\displaystyle D_{A}} . Formally, the epistemic language L EL C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {L}}_{\textsf {EL}}^{C}} is defined inductively by the following grammar in BNF: L EL C : ϕ ::= p ∣ ¬ ϕ ∣ ( ϕ ∧ ϕ ) ∣ K j ϕ ∣ C A ϕ ∣ D A ϕ {\displaystyle {\mathcal {L}}_{\textsf {EL}}^{C}:\phi ~~::=~~p~\mid ~\neg \phi ~\mid ~(\phi \land \phi )~\mid ~K_{j}\phi ~\mid ~C_{A}\phi ~\mid ~D_{A}\phi } where p ∈ P R O P {\displaystyle p\in PROP} , j ∈ A G T S {\displaystyle j\in {AGTS}} and A ⊆ A G T S {\displaystyle A\subseteq {AGTS}} . The basic epistemic language L E L {\displaystyle {\mathcal {L}}_{EL}} is the language L E L C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {L}}_{EL}^{C}} without the common knowledge and distributed knowledge operators. The formula ⊥ {\displaystyle \bot } is an abbreviation for ¬ p ∧ p {\displaystyle \neg p\land p} (for a given p ∈ P R O P {\displaystyle p\in PROP} ), ⟨ K j ⟩ ϕ {\displaystyle \langle K_{j}\rangle \phi } is an abbreviation for ¬ K j ¬ ϕ {\displaystyle \neg K_{j}\neg \phi } , E A ϕ {\displaystyle E_{A}\phi } is an abbreviation for ⋀ j ∈ A K j ϕ {\displaystyle \bigwedge \limits _{j\in A}K_{j}\phi } and C ϕ {\displaystyle C\phi } an abbreviation for C A G T S ϕ {\displaystyle C_{AGTS}\phi } . Group notions: general, common and distributed knowledge. In a multi-agent setting there are three important epistemic concepts: general knowledge, distributed knowledge and common knowledge. The notion of common knowledge was first studied by Lewis in the context of conventions. It was then applied to distributed systems and to game theory, where it allows to express that the rationality of the players, the rules of the game and the set of players are commonly known. General knowledge. General knowledge of ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } means that everybody in the group of agents A G T S {\displaystyle {AGTS}} knows that ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } . Formally, this corresponds to the following formula: E ϕ := ⋀ j ∈ A G T S K j ϕ . {\displaystyle E\phi :={\underset {j\in {AGTS}}{\bigwedge }}K_{j}\phi .} Common knowledge. Common knowledge of ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } means that everybody knows ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } but also that everybody knows that everybody knows ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } , that everybody knows that everybody knows that everybody knows ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } , and so on ad infinitum. Formally, this corresponds to the following formula C ϕ := E ϕ ∧ E E ϕ ∧ E E E ϕ ∧ … {\displaystyle C\phi :=E\phi \land EE\phi \land EEE\phi \land \ldots } As we do not allow infinite conjunction the notion of common knowledge will have to be introduced as a primitive in our language. Before defining the language with this new operator, we are going to give an example introduced by Lewis that illustrates the difference between the notions of general knowledge and common knowledge. Lewis wanted to know what kind of knowledge is needed so that the statement p {\displaystyle p} : “every driver must drive on the right” be a convention among a group of agents. In other words, he wanted to know what kind of knowledge is needed so that everybody feels safe to drive on the right. Suppose there are only two agents i {\displaystyle i} and j {\displaystyle j} . Then everybody knowing p {\displaystyle p} (formally E p {\displaystyle Ep} ) is not enough. Indeed, it might still be possible that the agent i {\displaystyle i} considers possible that the agent j {\displaystyle j} does not know p {\displaystyle p} (formally ¬ K i K j p {\displaystyle \neg K_{i}K_{j}p} ). In that case the agent i {\displaystyle i} will not feel safe to drive on the right because he might consider that the agent j {\displaystyle j} , not knowing p {\displaystyle p} , could drive on the left. To avoid this problem, we could then assume that everybody knows that everybody knows that p {\displaystyle p} (formally E E p {\displaystyle EEp} ). This is again not enough to ensure that everybody feels safe to drive on the right. Indeed, it might still be possible that agent i {\displaystyle i} considers possible that agent j {\displaystyle j} considers possible that agent i {\displaystyle i} does not know p {\displaystyle p} (formally ¬ K i K j K i p {\displaystyle \neg K_{i}K_{j}K_{i}p} ). In that case and from i {\displaystyle i} ’s point of view, j {\displaystyle j} considers possible that i {\displaystyle i} , not knowing p {\displaystyle p} , will drive on the left. So from i {\displaystyle i} ’s point of view, j {\displaystyle j} might drive on the left as well (by the same argument as abov

  Read more →
• 

  Business rule management system

  A BRMS or business rule management system is a software system used to define, deploy, execute, monitor and maintain the variety and complexity of decision logic that is used by operational systems within an organization or enterprise. This logic, also referred to as business rules, includes policies, requirements, and conditional statements that are used to determine the tactical actions that take place in applications and systems. == Overview == A BRMS includes, at minimum: A repository, allowing decision logic to be externalized from core application code Tools, allowing both technical developers and business experts to define and manage decision logic A runtime environment, allowing applications to invoke decision logic managed within the BRMS and execute it using a business rules engine The top benefits of a BRMS include: Reduced or removed reliance on IT departments for changes in live systems. Although, QA and Rules testing would still be needed in any enterprise system. Increased control over implemented decision logic for compliance and better business management including audit logs, impact simulation and edit controls. The ability to express decision logic with increased precision, using a business vocabulary syntax and graphical rule representations (decision tables, decision models, trees, scorecards and flows) Improved efficiency of processes through increased decision automation. Some disadvantages of the BRMS include: Extensive subject matter expertise can be required for vendor specific products. In addition to appropriate design practices (such as Decision Modeling), technical developers must know how to write rules and integrate software with existing systems Poor rule harvesting approaches can lead to long development cycles, though this can be mitigated with modern approaches like the Decision Model and Notation (DMN) standard. Integration with existing systems is still required and a BRMS may add additional security constraints. Reduced IT department reliance may never be a reality due to continued introduction to new business rule considerations or object model perturbations The coupling of a BRMS vendor application to the business application may be too tight to replace with another BRMS vendor application. This can lead to cost to benefits issues. The emergence of the DMN standard has mitigated this to some degree. Most BRMS vendors have evolved from rule engine vendors to provide business-usable software development lifecycle solutions, based on declarative definitions of business rules executed in their own rule engine. BRMSs are increasingly evolving into broader digital decisioning platforms that also incorporate decision intelligence and machine learning capabilities. However, some vendors come from a different approach (for example, they map decision trees or graphs to executable code). Rules in the repository are generally mapped to decision services that are naturally fully compliant with the latest SOA, Web Services, or other software architecture trends. == Related software approaches == In a BRMS, a representation of business rules maps to a software system for execution. A BRMS therefore relates to model-driven engineering, such as the model-driven architecture (MDA) of the Object Management Group (OMG). It is no coincidence that many of the related standards come under the OMG banner. A BRMS is a critical component for Enterprise Decision Management as it allows for the transparent and agile management of the decision-making logic required in systems developed using this approach. == Associated standards == The OMG Decision Model and Notation standard is designed to standardize elements of business rules development, specially decision table representations. There is also a standard for a Java Runtime API for rule engines JSR-94. OMG Business Motivation Model (BMM): A model of how strategies, processes, rules, etc. fit together for business modeling OMG SBVR: Targets business constraints as opposed to automating business behavior OMG Production Rule Representation (PRR): Represents rules for production rule systems that make up most BRMS' execution targets OMG Decision Model and Notation (DMN): Represents models of decisions, which are typically managed by a BRMS RuleML provides a family of rule mark-up languages that could be used in a BRMS and with W3C RIF it provides a family of related rule languages for rule interchange in the W3C Semantic Web stack Many standards, such as domain-specific languages, define their own representation of rules, requiring translations to generic rule engines or their own custom engines. Other domains, such as PMML, also define rules.

  Read more →
• 

  Plinian Core

  Plinian Core is a set of vocabulary terms that can be used to describe different aspects of biological species information. Under "biological species Information" all kinds of properties or traits related to taxa—biological and non-biological—are included. Thus, for instance, terms pertaining descriptions, legal aspects, conservation, management, demographics, nomenclature, or related resources are incorporated. == Description == The Plinian Core is aimed to facilitate the exchange of information about the species and upper taxa. What is in scope? Species level catalogs of any kind of biological objects or data. Terminology associated with biological collection data. Striving for compatibility with other biodiversity-related standards. Facilitating the addition of components and attributes of biological data. What is not in scope? Data interchange protocols. Non-biodiversity-related data. Occurrence level data. This standard is named after Pliny the Elder, a very influential figure in the study of the biological species. Plinian Core design requirements includes: ease of use, to be self-contained, able to support data integration from multiple databases, and ability to handle different levels of granularity. Core terms can be grouped in its current version as follows: Metadata Base Elements Record Metadata Nomenclature and Classification Taxonomic description Natural history Invasive species Habitat and Distribution Demography and Threats Uses, Management and Conservation associatedParty, MeasurementOrFact, References, AncillaryData == Background == Plinian Core started as a collaborative project between Instituto Nacional de Biodiversidad and GBIF Spain in 2005. A series of iterations in which elements were defined and implanted in different projects resulted in a "Plinian Core Flat" [deprecated]. As a result, a new development was impulse to overcome them in 2012. New formal requirements, additional input and a will to better support the standard and its documentation, as well as to align it with the processes of TDWG, the world reference body for biodiversity information standards. A new version, Plinian Core v3.x.x was defined. This provides more flexibility to fully represent the information of a species in a variety of scenarios. New elements to deal with aspects such as IPR, related resources, referenced, etc. were introduced, and elements already included were better-defined and documented. Partner for the development of Plinian Core in this new phase incorporated the University of Granada (UG, Spain), the Alexander von Humboldt Institute (IAvH, Colombia), the National Commission for the Knowledge and Use of Biodiversity (Conabio, Mexico) and the University of São Paulo (USP, Brazil). A "Plinian Core Task Group" within TDWG "Interest Group on species Information" was constituted and currently working on its development. == Levels of the standard == Plinian Core is presented in to levels: the abstract model and the application profiles. The abstract model (AM), comprising the abstract model schema(xsd) and the terms' URIs, is the normative part. It is all comprehensive, and allows for different levels of granularity in describing species properties. The AM should be taken as a "menu" from which to choose terms and level of detail needed in any specific project. The subsets of the abstract model intended to be implemented in specific projects are the "application profiles" (APs). Besides containing part of the elements of the AM, APs can impose additional specifications on the included elements, such as controlled vocabularies. Some examples of APs in use follow: Application profile CONABIO Application profile INBIO Application profile GBIF.ES Application profile Banco de Datos de la Naturaleza.Spain Application profile SIB-COLOMBIA == Relation to other standards == Plinian incorporates a number of elements already defined by other standards. The following table summarizes these standards and the elements used in Plinian Core:

  Read more →
• 

  Existential risk from artificial intelligence

  Existential risk from artificial intelligence, or AI x-risk, refers to the idea that substantial progress in artificial general intelligence (AGI) and artificial superintelligence (ASI) could lead to human extinction or an irreversible global catastrophe. One argument for the validity of this concern and the importance of this risk references how human beings dominate other species because the human brain possesses distinctive capabilities other animals lack. If AI were to surpass human intelligence and become superintelligent, it might become uncontrollable. Just as the fate of the mountain gorilla depends on human goodwill, the fate of humanity could depend on the actions of a future machine superintelligence. Experts disagree on whether artificial general intelligence (AGI) can achieve the capabilities needed for human extinction. Debates center on AGI's technical feasibility, the speed of self-improvement, and the effectiveness of alignment strategies. Concerns about superintelligence have been voiced by researchers including Geoffrey Hinton, Yoshua Bengio, Demis Hassabis, and Alan Turing, and AI company CEOs such as Dario Amodei (Anthropic), Sam Altman (OpenAI), and Elon Musk (xAI). In 2022, a survey of AI researchers with a 17% response rate found that the majority believed there is a 10 percent or greater chance that human inability to control AI will cause an existential catastrophe. In 2023, hundreds of AI experts and other notable figures signed a statement declaring, "Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war". Following increased concern over AI risks, government leaders such as United Kingdom prime minister Rishi Sunak and United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres called for an increased focus on global AI regulation. In 2025, hundreds of public figures including AI experts, five Nobel Prize laureates, and former senior US national security officials such as Michael Mullen and Susan Rice signed a statement calling for a ban on the development of superintelligence. Two sources of concern stem from the problems of AI control and alignment. Controlling a superintelligent machine or instilling it with human-compatible values may be difficult. Many researchers believe that a superintelligent machine would likely resist attempts to disable it or change its goals as that would prevent it from accomplishing its present goals. It would be extremely challenging to align a superintelligence with the full breadth of significant human values and constraints. In contrast, skeptics such as computer scientist Yann LeCun argue that superintelligent machines will have no desire for self-preservation. A June 2025 study showed that in some circumstances, models may break laws and disobey direct commands to prevent shutdown or replacement, even at the cost of human lives. Researchers warn that an "intelligence explosion"—a rapid, recursive cycle of AI self-improvement—could outpace human oversight and infrastructure, leaving no opportunity to implement safety measures. In this scenario, an AI more intelligent than its creators would recursively improve itself at an exponentially increasing rate, too quickly for its handlers or society at large to control. Empirically, examples like AlphaZero, which taught itself to play Go and quickly surpassed human ability, show that domain-specific AI systems can sometimes progress from subhuman to superhuman ability very quickly, although such machine learning systems do not recursively improve their fundamental architecture. == History == One of the earliest authors to express serious concern that highly advanced machines might pose existential risks to humanity was the novelist Samuel Butler, who wrote in his 1863 essay Darwin among the Machines: The upshot is simply a question of time, but that the time will come when the machines will hold the real supremacy over the world and its inhabitants is what no person of a truly philosophic mind can for a moment question. In 1951, foundational computer scientist Alan Turing wrote the article "Intelligent Machinery, A Heretical Theory", in which he proposed that artificial general intelligences would likely "take control" of the world as they became more intelligent than human beings: Let us now assume, for the sake of argument, that [intelligent] machines are a genuine possibility, and look at the consequences of constructing them... There would be no question of the machines dying, and they would be able to converse with each other to sharpen their wits. At some stage therefore we should have to expect the machines to take control, in the way that is mentioned in Samuel Butler's Erewhon. In 1965, I. J. Good originated the concept now known as an "intelligence explosion" and said the risks were underappreciated: Let an ultraintelligent machine be defined as a machine that can far surpass all the intellectual activities of any man however clever. Since the design of machines is one of these intellectual activities, an ultraintelligent machine could design even better machines; there would then unquestionably be an 'intelligence explosion', and the intelligence of man would be left far behind. Thus the first ultraintelligent machine is the last invention that man need ever make, provided that the machine is docile enough to tell us how to keep it under control. It is curious that this point is made so seldom outside of science fiction. It is sometimes worthwhile to take science fiction seriously. Scholars such as Marvin Minsky and I. J. Good himself occasionally expressed concern that a superintelligence could seize control, but issued no call to action. In 2000, computer scientist and Sun co-founder Bill Joy penned an influential essay, "Why The Future Doesn't Need Us", identifying superintelligent robots as a high-tech danger to human survival, alongside nanotechnology and engineered bioplagues. Nick Bostrom published Superintelligence in 2014, which presented his arguments that superintelligence poses an existential threat. By 2015, public figures such as physicists Stephen Hawking and Nobel laureate Frank Wilczek, computer scientists Stuart J. Russell and Roman Yampolskiy, and entrepreneurs Elon Musk and Bill Gates were expressing concern about the risks of superintelligence. Also in 2015, the Open Letter on Artificial Intelligence highlighted the "great potential of AI" and encouraged more research on how to make it robust and beneficial. In April 2016, the journal Nature warned: "Machines and robots that outperform humans across the board could self-improve beyond our control—and their interests might not align with ours". In 2020, Brian Christian published The Alignment Problem, which details the history of progress on AI alignment up to that time. In March 2023, key figures in AI, such as Musk, signed a letter from the Future of Life Institute calling a halt to advanced AI training until it could be properly regulated. In May 2023, the Center for AI Safety released a statement signed by numerous experts in AI safety and the AI existential risk that read: Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war. A 2025 open letter by the Future of Life Institute, whose signers include five Nobel Prize laureates, reads: We call for a prohibition on the development of superintelligence, not lifted before there is broad scientific consensus that it will be done safely and controllably, and strong public buy-in. == Potential AI capabilities == === General Intelligence === Artificial general intelligence (AGI) is typically defined as a system that performs at least as well as humans in most or all intellectual tasks. A 2022 survey of AI researchers found that 90% of respondents expected AGI would be achieved in the next 100 years, and half expected the same by 2061. In May 2023, some researchers dismissed existential risks from AGI as "science fiction" based on their high confidence that AGI would not be created anytime soon. But in August 2023, a survey of 2,778 AI researchers found that most believed that AGI would be achieved by 2040. Breakthroughs in large language models (LLMs) have led some researchers to reassess their expectations. Notably, Geoffrey Hinton said in 2023 that he recently changed his estimate from "20 to 50 years before we have general purpose A.I." to "20 years or less". === Superintelligence === In contrast with AGI, Bostrom defines a superintelligence as "any intellect that greatly exceeds the cognitive performance of humans in virtually all domains of interest", including scientific creativity, strategic planning, and social skills. He argues that a superintelligence can outmaneuver humans anytime its goals conflict with humans'. It may choose to hide its true intent until humanity cannot stop it. Bostrom writes that in order to be safe for

  Read more →
• 

  Stochastic parrot

  In machine learning, the term stochastic parrot is a metaphor that frames large language models as systems that statistically mimic text without real understanding. The word "stochastic" – from the ancient Greek "στοχαστικός" (stokhastikos, 'based on guesswork') – is a term from probability theory meaning "randomly determined". The word "parrot" refers to parrots' ability to mimic human speech. The term was introduced in a 2021 paper on AI ethics titled "On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big? 🦜" and authored by Timnit Gebru, Emily M. Bender, Angelina McMillan-Major, and Margaret Mitchell. The paper outlined possible risks associated with large language models (LLMs). In December 2020, it was the subject of a workplace dispute between Gebru (then co-leader of Google's Ethical Artificial Intelligence Team) and Google, which had requested the retraction of the paper. The incident culminated in Gebru's controversial departure from the company. The paper was later presented at the 2021 ACM Conference, and the term "stochastic parrot" has seen widespread use in academic research concerning generative AI and LLMs. The term has been interpreted negatively as an insult towards AI. == Background == Timnit Gebru is an AI ethics researcher, Emily M. Bender is a linguist specializing in computational linguistics, and Margaret Mitchell is a computer scientist specializing in algorithmic bias. Gebru had joined Google in 2018, where she co-led a team on the ethics of artificial intelligence with Mitchell. In late 2020, the paper "On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big? 🦜" was co-written by Gebru and five other researchers, four of whom were Google employees. The paper argues that large language models (LLMs) present significant risks such as environmental and financial costs, inscrutability leading to unknown dangerous biases, and potential for deception as LLMs do not understand the concepts underlying what they learn. The paper states that LLMs are "stitching together sequences of linguistic forms ... observed in its vast training data, according to probabilistic information about how they combine, but without any reference to meaning." Therefore, they are labeled "stochastic parrots". === Dismissal of Gebru by Google === After the paper was submitted for consideration to the 2021 ACM Conference, Google requested that Gebru either retract the paper from the conference or remove the names of Google employees from it. Gebru refused to do so without further discussion, and emailed Google Research vice president Megan Kacholia that if the company could not explain the request for retraction and address other concerns regarding similar projects, she would plan to resign after a transition period, stating that they could "work on a last date". The following day, on December 2, 2020, Gebru received an email saying that Google was "accepting her resignation". Her abrupt firing sparked protests by Google employees and negative publicity for the company. == Usage == The phrase has been used by AI skeptics to signify that LLMs lack understanding of the meaning of their outputs. Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, used the term shortly after the release of ChatGPT in December 2022, tweeting "i am a stochastic parrot, and so r u". The term was nominated as the 2023 AI-related Word of the Year by the American Dialect Society. == Debate == Some LLMs, such as ChatGPT, have become capable of interacting with users in convincingly human-like conversations. The development of these new systems has deepened the discussion of the extent to which LLMs understand or are simply "parroting". According to machine learning researchers Lindholm, Wahlström, Lindsten, and Schön, the term "stochastic parrot" highlights two vital limitations of LLMs: LLMs are limited by the data they are trained on and are simply stochastically repeating contents of datasets. Because they are just making up outputs based on training data, LLMs do not understand if they are saying something incorrect or inappropriate. Lindholm et al. noted that, with poor quality datasets and other limitations, a learning machine might produce results that are "dangerously wrong". === Subjective experience === In the mind of a human being, words and language correspond to things one has experienced. For LLMs, according to proponents of the theory, words correspond only to other words and patterns of usage fed into their training data. Proponents of the idea of stochastic parrots thus conclude that statements about LLMs are due to "the human tendency to attribute meaning to text", and claim this occurs despite the LLMs not actually understanding language. === Fine-tuning === Kelsey Piper argued that the claim that LLMs are stochastic parrots or mere "next-token predictors" focuses on pre-training, ignoring that modern LLMs are also fine-tuned to follow instructions and to prefer accurate answers. === Hallucinations and mistakes === The tendency of LLMs to pass off false information as fact is held as support. Called hallucinations or confabulations, LLMs will occasionally synthesize information that matches some pattern. LLMs may fail to distinguish fact and fiction, which leads to the claim that they can't connect words to a comprehension of the world, as humans do. Furthermore, LLMs may fail to decipher complex or ambiguous grammar cases that rely on understanding the meaning of language. For example: The wet newspaper that fell down off the table is my favorite newspaper. But now that my favorite newspaper fired the editor I might not like reading it anymore. Can I replace 'my favorite newspaper' by 'the wet newspaper that fell down off the table' in the second sentence? GPT-4, an LLM released in March 2023, responded yes, not understanding that the meaning of "newspaper" is different in these two contexts; it is first an object and second an institution. === Benchmarks and experiments === One argument against the hypothesis that LLMs are stochastic parrot is their results on benchmarks for reasoning, common sense and language understanding. In 2023, some LLMs have shown good results on many language understanding tests, such as the Super General Language Understanding Evaluation (SuperGLUE). GPT-4 scored in the >90th-percentile on the Uniform Bar Examination and achieved 93% accuracy on the MATH benchmark of high-school Olympiad problems, results that exceed rote pattern-matching expectations. Such tests, and the smoothness of many LLM responses, help as many as 51% of AI professionals believe they can truly understand language with enough data, according to a 2022 survey. === Expert rebuttals === Some AI researchers dispute the notion that LLMs merely "parrot" their training data. Geoffrey Hinton, a pioneering figure in neural networks, counters that the metaphor misunderstands the prerequisite for accurate language prediction. He argues that "to predict the next word accurately, you have to understand the sentence", a view he presented on 60 Minutes in 2023. From this perspective, understanding is not an alternative to statistical prediction, but rather an emergent property required to perform it effectively at scale. Hinton also uses logical puzzles to demonstrate that LLMs actually understand language. A 2024 Scientific American investigation described a closed Berkeley workshop where state-of-the-art models solved novel tier-4 mathematics problems and produced coherent proofs, indicating reasoning abilities beyond memorization. The GPT-4 Technical Report showed human-level results on professional and academic exams (e.g., the Uniform Bar Exam and USMLE), challenging the "parrot" characterization. Anthropic conducted mechanistic interpretability research on Claude, using attribution graphs to identify circuits. The research showed how the LLM processes information via chains of fuzzy logical inference, and indicated an ability to plan ahead. They found that Claude 3.5 Haiku "employs remarkably general abstractions", forms "internally generated plans for its future outputs" and "works backwards from its longer-term goals". They noted that "The mechanisms of the model can apparently only be faithfully described using an overwhelmingly large causal graph." They also found that the model includes "mechanisms that could underlie a simple form of metacognition", in that it "thinks about" the level of its own knowledge before reaching its answer. === Interpretability === Another line of evidence against the 'stochastic parrot' claim comes from mechanistic interpretability, a research field dedicated to reverse-engineering LLMs to understand their internal workings. Rather than only observing the model's input-output behavior, these techniques probe the model's internal activations, which can be used to determine if they contain structured representations of the world. The goal is to investigate whether LLMs are merely manipulating surface statistics or if t

  Read more →
• 

  HTK (software)

  HTK (Hidden Markov Model Toolkit) is a proprietary software toolkit for handling HMMs. It is mainly intended for speech recognition, but has been used in many other pattern recognition applications that employ HMMs, including speech synthesis, character recognition and DNA sequencing. Originally developed at the Machine Intelligence Laboratory (formerly known as the Speech Vision and Robotics Group) of the Cambridge University Engineering Department (CUED), HTK is now being widely used among researchers who are working on HMMs.

  Read more →
• 

  Drools

  Drools is a business rule management system (BRMS) with a forward and backward chaining inference-based rules engine, more correctly known as a production rule system, using an enhanced implementation of the Rete algorithm. Drools supports the Java Rules Engine API (Java Specification Request 94) standard for its business rule engine and enterprise framework for the construction, maintenance, and enforcement of business policies in an organization, application, or service. == Drools in Apache Kie == Drools, as part of the Kie Community has entered Apache Incubator in January, 2023. == Red Hat Decision Manager == Red Hat Decision Manager (formerly Red Hat JBoss BRMS) is a business rule management system and reasoning engine for business policy and rules development, access, and change management. JBoss Enterprise BRMS is a productized version of Drools with enterprise-level support available. JBoss Rules is also a productized version of Drools, but JBoss Enterprise BRMS is the flagship product. Components of the enterprise version: JBoss Enterprise Web Platform – the software infrastructure, supported to run the BRMS components only JBoss Enterprise Application Platform or JBoss Enterprise SOA Platform – the software infrastructure, supported to run the BRMS components only Business Rules Engine – Drools Expert using the Rete algorithm and the Drools Rule Language (DRL) Business Rules Manager – Drools Guvnor - Guvnor is a centralized repository for Drools Knowledge Bases, with rich web-based GUIs, editors, and tools to aid in the management of large numbers of rules. Business Rules Repository – Drools Guvnor Drools and Guvnor are JBoss Community open source projects. As they are mature, they are brought into the enterprise-ready product JBoss Enterprise BRMS. Components of the JBoss Community version: Drools Guvnor (Business Rules Manager) – a centralized repository for Drools Knowledge Bases Drools Expert (rule engine) – uses the rules to perform reasoning Drools Flow (process/workflow), or jBPM 5 – provides for workflow and business processes Drools Fusion (event processing/temporal reasoning) – provides for complex event processing Drools Planner/OptaPlanner (automated planning) – optimizes automated planning, including NP-hard planning problems == Example == This example illustrates a simple rule to print out information about a holiday in July. It checks a condition on an instance of the Holiday class, and executes Java code if that condition is true. The purpose of dialect "mvel" is to point the getter and setters of the variables of your Plain Old Java Object (POJO) classes. Consider the above example, in which a Holiday class is used and inside the circular brackets (parentheses) "month" is used. So with the help of dialect "mvel" the getter and setters of the variable "month" can be accessed. Dialect "java" is used to help us write our Java code in our rules. There is one restriction or characteristic on this. We cannot use Java code inside the "when" part of the rule but we can use Java code in the "then" part. We can also declare a Reference variable $h1 without the $ symbol. There is no restriction on this. The main purpose of putting the $ symbol before the variable is to mark the difference between variables of POJO classes and Rules.

  Read more →