AI Generator Uses Water

AI Generator Uses Water — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  Ampere Computing

  Ampere Computing LLC is an American fabless semiconductor company that designs ARM-based central processing units (CPUs) with high core counts for use in cloud computing and data center environments. Founded in 2017 by former Intel president Renée James, the company is headquartered in Santa Clara, California, and operates as an independent subsidiary of SoftBank Group since November 2025. == History == Ampere Computing was founded in fall 2017 by Renée James, ex-President of Intel, with funding from The Carlyle Group. James acquired a team from MACOM Technology Solutions (formerly AppliedMicro) in addition to several industry hires to start the company. Ampere Computing is an ARM architecture licensee and develops its own server microprocessors. Ampere fabricates its products at TSMC. In April 2019, Ampere announced its second major investment round, including investment from Arm Holdings and Oracle Corporation. In June 2019, Nvidia announced a partnership with Ampere to bring support for Compute Unified Device Architecture (CUDA). In November 2019, Nvidia announced a reference design platform for graphics processing unit (GPU)-accelerated ARM-based servers including Ampere. In the first half of 2020, Ampere announced Ampere Altra, an 80-core processor, and Ampere Altra Max, a 128-core processor, without the use of simultaneous multithreading. In March 2020, the company announced a partnership with Oracle. In September 2020, Oracle said it would launch bare-metal and virtual machine instances in early 2021 based on Ampere Altra. In November 2020, Ampere was named one of the top 10 hottest semiconductor startups by CRN. In May 2021, the company announced a partnership with Microsoft. In April 2022, Ampere said that it had filed a confidential prospectus with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, signaling its intent to go public. In June 2022, HPE announced their Gen11 ProLiant system would use Ampere Altra and Ampere Altra Max Cloud Native Processors. In July 2022, Google announced T2A instances using Ampere Altra in the Google cloud and in August 2022 Microsoft announced their instances of Ampere running in Azure. On March 19, 2025, investment holding company SoftBank Group announced it will acquire Ampere Computing for $6.5 billion. The deal finalized in November 2025, with Ampere remaining as an independent subsidiary with its headquarters in Santa Clara, California. == Products == Ampere develops ARM-based computer processors and CPU cores under their Altra brands. These are used in databases, media encoding, web services, network acceleration, mobile gaming, AI inference processing, and other applications and programs that need to scale. On February 5, 2018, Ampere announced the eMAG 8180 featuring 32x Skylark cores fabricated on TSMC's 16FF+ process. It supports a turbo of up to 3.3 GHz with a TDP of 125 W, 8ch 64-bit DDR4, up to 1 TB DDR4 per socket, and 42x PCIe 3.0 Lanes. The Skylark cores were based on AppliedMicro's X-Gene 3. Packet offers servers with the eMAG 8180 and 128 GB DRAM, 480 GB SSD, and 2x 10 Gbit/s networking. On September 19, 2018, Ampere announced the availability of a version featuring 16x Skylark cores. === 2020 === On March 3, 2020, Ampere announced the Ampere Altra featuring 80 cores fabricated on TSMC's N7 process for hyperscale computing. It was the first server-grade processor to include 80 cores and the Q80-30 conserves power by running at 161 W in use. The cores are semi-custom Arm Neoverse N1 cores with Ampere modifications. It supports a frequency of up to 3.3 GHz with TDP of 250 W, 8ch 72-bit DDR4, up to 4 TB DDR4-3200 per socket, 128x PCIe 4.0 Lanes, 1 MB L2 per core and 32 MB SLC. Ampere also announced their roadmap with Ampere Altra Max (2021) in development and AmpereOne (2022) defined. === 2021 === The 128-core Altra Max was released in 2021 and targeted hyperscale cloud providers. It uses the same server socket and platforms as Ampere Altra, and both products have one thread per core. The Altra Max CPUs provide 128 Arm v8.2+ cores per chip and run up to 3.0 GHz. They also support eight channels of DDR4-3200 memory and 128 lanes of PCIe Gen4. Also in 2021, Oracle launched its Oracle Cloud Infrastructure (OCI) using Ampere Altra processors. === 2022 === In February 2022, Ampere and Rigetti Computing announced a strategic partnership to create hybrid quantum-classical computers. The companies will combine Ampere's Altra Max CPUs with Rigetti's Quantum Processing Units (QPU) in cloud-based High-Performance Computing (HPC) environments. In April, Microsoft previewed its Azure Virtual Machines running on the Ampere Altra. The VMs run scale-out workloads, web servers, application servers, open source databases, cloud native .NET applications, Java applications, gaming servers, media servers, and other processes. In May, Ampere announced the sampling of AmpereOne CPUs, 5 nanometer chips based on its in-house Ampere-developed core. AmpereOne will add support for DDR5 main memory and PCIe Gen5 peripherals. On June 28, 2022, HPE became first tier-one server provider to offer compute with optimized cloud-native silicon for service providers and enterprises embracing cloud-native development with new line of HPE ProLiant RL Gen11 servers, using Ampere® Altra® and Ampere® Altra® Max processors, delivering high performance and power efficiency. === 2023 === During April 2023, Ampere released the Altra developer's kit, an IoT Prototype Kit based on Ampere Altra, aimed at cloud developers, available in 32-core, 64-core, and 80-core formats. === 2024 === In May 2024, Ampere updated its AmpereOne roadmap to 256 cores and announced a joint effort with Qualcomm on CPUs and accelerators. == Customers == Ampere's customers include Microsoft Azure, Tencent Cloud, Oracle, ByteDance, Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE), Cloudflare, Equinix, Kingsoft Cloud, Meituan, Scaleway, UCloud, Foxconn Industrial Internet, Gigabyte, Inspur, Cruise, Hetzner, Project Ronin, Wiwynn and Google Cloud Platform Cruise uses an Ampere Altra variant for its autonomous driving unit. The CPU was selected because of its throughput and low power consumption. In 2021, Oracle, Microsoft, Tencent, and ByteDance committed to using Ampere's customized chips, first announced in May. In April 2022, Microsoft previewed Ampere Altra processors in its new Azure D-and E- series virtual machines. The Dpsv5 series is built for Linux enterprise application types, and the Epsv5 series is for memory-intensive Linux workloads. They provide up to 64 vCPUs, include VM sizes with 2GiB, 4GiB, and 8GiB per vCPU memory configurations, up to 40 Gbit/s networking, and high-performance local SSD storage. In 2022, Microsoft's Ampere Altra-based Azure servers became the first cloud solution provider server to be Arm SystemReady SR certified. The Azure VMs, powered by Altra processors, were also the first to be SystemReady Virtual Environment standard certified. SystemReady defines a set of firmware and hardware standards as a baseline for system development for software developers, original equipment vendors, and chipmakers.

  Read more →
• 

  JAX (software)

  JAX is a Python library for accelerator-oriented array computation and program transformation, designed for high-performance numerical computing and large-scale machine learning. It is developed by Google with contributions from Nvidia and other community contributors. It is described as bringing together a modified version of the automatic differentiation system autograd and OpenXLA's XLA (Accelerated Linear Algebra). It is designed to follow the structure and workflow of NumPy as closely as possible and works with various existing frameworks such as TensorFlow and PyTorch. The primary features of JAX are: Providing a unified NumPy-like interface to computations that run on CPU, GPU, or TPU, in local or distributed settings. Built-in Just-In-Time (JIT) compilation via OpenXLA, an open-source machine learning compiler ecosystem. Efficient evaluation of gradients via its automatic differentiation transformations. Automatic vectorization to efficiently map functions over arrays representing batches of inputs. == Libraries using Jax == Flax Equinox Optax

  Read more →
• 

  AI alignment

  In the field of artificial intelligence (AI), alignment aims to steer AI systems toward a person's or group's intended goals, preferences, or ethical principles. An AI system is considered aligned if it advances the intended objectives. A misaligned AI system pursues unintended objectives. It is often difficult for AI designers to specify the full range of desired and undesired behaviors. Therefore, the designers often use simpler proxy goals, such as gaining human approval. But proxy goals can overlook necessary constraints or reward the AI system for merely appearing aligned. AI systems may also find loopholes that allow them to accomplish their proxy goals efficiently but in unintended, sometimes harmful, ways (reward hacking). Advanced AI systems may develop unwanted instrumental strategies, such as seeking power or self-preservation because such strategies help them achieve their assigned final goals. Furthermore, they might develop undesirable emergent goals that could be hard to detect before the system is deployed and encounters new situations and data distributions. Empirical research showed in 2024 that advanced large language models (LLMs) such as OpenAI o1 or Claude 3 sometimes engage in strategic deception to achieve their goals or prevent them from being changed. Some of these issues affect existing commercial systems such as LLMs, robots, autonomous vehicles, and social media recommendation engines. Some AI researchers argue that more capable future systems will be more severely affected because these problems partially result from high capabilities. Many prominent AI researchers and AI company leaders have argued or asserted that AI is approaching human-like (AGI) and superhuman cognitive capabilities (ASI), and could endanger human civilization if misaligned. These include "AI godfathers" Geoffrey Hinton and Yoshua Bengio and the CEOs of OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google DeepMind. These risks remain debated. AI alignment is a subfield of AI safety, the study of how to build safe AI systems. Other subfields of AI safety include robustness, monitoring, and capability control. Research challenges in alignment include instilling complex values in AI, developing honest AI, scalable oversight, auditing and interpreting AI models, and preventing emergent AI behaviors like power-seeking. Alignment research has connections to interpretability research, (adversarial) robustness, anomaly detection, calibrated uncertainty, formal verification, preference learning, safety-critical engineering, game theory, algorithmic fairness, and social sciences. == Objectives in AI == Programmers provide an AI system such as AlphaZero with an "objective function", in which they intend to encapsulate the goal(s) the AI is configured to accomplish. Such a system later populates a (possibly implicit) internal "model" of its environment. This model encapsulates all the agent's beliefs about the world. The AI then creates and executes whatever plan is calculated to maximize the value of its objective function. For example, when AlphaZero is trained on chess, it has a simple objective function of "+1 if AlphaZero wins, −1 if AlphaZero loses". During the game, AlphaZero attempts to execute whatever sequence of moves it judges most likely to attain the maximum value of +1. Similarly, a reinforcement learning system can have a "reward function" that allows the programmers to shape the AI's desired behavior. An evolutionary algorithm's behavior is shaped by a "fitness function". == Alignment problem == In 1960, AI pioneer Norbert Wiener described the AI alignment problem as follows: If we use, to achieve our purposes, a mechanical agency with whose operation we cannot interfere effectively [...] we had better be quite sure that the purpose put into the machine is the purpose which we really desire. AI alignment refers to ensuring that an AI system's objectives match some target. The target is variously defined as the goals of the system's designers or users, widely shared values, objective ethical standards, legal requirements, or the intentions its designers would have if they were more informed and enlightened. In democratic AI alignment, the target is the values and preferences of median voters, which increases political legitimacy. AI alignment is an open problem for modern AI systems and is a research field within AI. Aligning AI involves two main challenges: carefully specifying the purpose of the system (outer alignment) and ensuring that the system adopts the specification robustly (inner alignment). Researchers also attempt to create AI models that have robust alignment, sticking to safety constraints even when users adversarially try to bypass them. === Specification gaming and side effects === To specify an AI system's purpose, AI designers typically provide an objective function, examples, or feedback to the system. But designers are often unable to completely specify all important values and constraints, so they resort to easy-to-specify proxy goals such as maximizing the approval of human overseers, who are fallible. As a result, AI systems can find loopholes that help them accomplish the specified objective efficiently but in unintended, possibly harmful ways. This tendency is known as specification gaming or reward hacking, and is an instance of Goodhart's law. As AI systems become more capable, they are often able to game their specifications more effectively. Specification gaming has been observed in numerous AI systems. OpenAI GPT models for programming—including in real-world cases—have been found to explicitly plan hacking the tests used to evaluate them to falsely appear successful (e.g., explicitly stating "let's hack"). When the company penalized this, many models learned to obfuscate their plans while continuing to hack the tests. Another system was trained to finish a simulated boat race by rewarding the system for hitting targets along the track, but the system achieved more reward by looping and crashing into the same targets indefinitely. A 2025 Palisade Research study found that when tasked to win at chess against a stronger opponent, some reasoning LLMs attempted to hack the game system, for example by modifying or entirely deleting their opponent. Some alignment researchers aim to help humans detect specification gaming and steer AI systems toward carefully specified objectives that are safe and useful to pursue. When a misaligned AI system is deployed, it can have consequential side effects. Social media platforms have been known to optimize their recommendation algorithms for click-through rates, causing user addiction on a global scale. Stanford researchers say that such recommender systems are misaligned with their users because they "optimize simple engagement metrics rather than a harder-to-measure combination of societal and consumer well-being". Explaining such side effects, Berkeley computer scientist Stuart J. Russell said that the omission of implicit constraints can cause harm: "A system [...] will often set [...] unconstrained variables to extreme values; if one of those unconstrained variables is actually something we care about, the solution found may be highly undesirable. This is essentially the old story of the genie in the lamp, or the sorcerer's apprentice, or King Midas: you get exactly what you ask for, not what you want." Some researchers suggest that AI designers specify their desired goals by listing forbidden actions or by formalizing ethical rules (as with Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics). But Russell and Norvig argue that this approach overlooks the complexity of human values: "It is certainly very hard, and perhaps impossible, for mere humans to anticipate and rule out in advance all the disastrous ways the machine could choose to achieve a specified objective." Additionally, even if an AI system fully understands human intentions, it may still disregard them, because following human intentions may not be its objective (unless it is already fully aligned). === Pressure to deploy unsafe systems === Commercial organizations sometimes have incentives to take shortcuts on safety and to deploy misaligned or unsafe AI systems. For example, social media recommender systems have been profitable despite creating unwanted addiction and polarization. Competitive pressure can also lead to a race to the bottom on AI safety standards. For example, OpenAI has been sued for releasing a ChatGPT version that encouraged suicide for some unstable users, a behavior the company had overlooked amid a rushed product release. Similarly, in 2018, a self-driving car killed a pedestrian (Elaine Herzberg) after engineers disabled the emergency braking system because it was oversensitive and slowed development. === Risks from advanced misaligned AI === Some researchers are interested in aligning increasingly advanced AI systems, as progress in AI development is rapid, and industry and governments are trying to build advan

  Read more →
• 

  Similarity learning

  Similarity learning is an area of supervised machine learning in artificial intelligence. It is closely related to regression and classification, but the goal is to learn a similarity function that measures how similar or related two objects are. It has applications in ranking, in recommendation systems, visual identity tracking, face verification, and speaker verification. == Learning setup == There are four common setups for similarity and metric distance learning. Regression similarity learning In this setup, pairs of objects are given ( x i 1 , x i 2 ) {\displaystyle (x_{i}^{1},x_{i}^{2})} together with a measure of their similarity y i ∈ R {\displaystyle y_{i}\in R} . The goal is to learn a function that approximates f ( x i 1 , x i 2 ) ∼ y i {\displaystyle f(x_{i}^{1},x_{i}^{2})\sim y_{i}} for every new labeled triplet example ( x i 1 , x i 2 , y i ) {\displaystyle (x_{i}^{1},x_{i}^{2},y_{i})} . This is typically achieved by minimizing a regularized loss min W ∑ i l o s s ( w ; x i 1 , x i 2 , y i ) + r e g ( w ) {\displaystyle \min _{W}\sum _{i}loss(w;x_{i}^{1},x_{i}^{2},y_{i})+reg(w)} . Classification similarity learning Given are pairs of similar objects ( x i , x i + ) {\displaystyle (x_{i},x_{i}^{+})} and non similar objects ( x i , x i − ) {\displaystyle (x_{i},x_{i}^{-})} . An equivalent formulation is that every pair ( x i 1 , x i 2 ) {\displaystyle (x_{i}^{1},x_{i}^{2})} is given together with a binary label y i ∈ { 0 , 1 } {\displaystyle y_{i}\in \{0,1\}} that determines if the two objects are similar or not. The goal is again to learn a classifier that can decide if a new pair of objects is similar or not. Ranking similarity learning Given are triplets of objects ( x i , x i + , x i − ) {\displaystyle (x_{i},x_{i}^{+},x_{i}^{-})} whose relative similarity obey a predefined order: x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} is known to be more similar to x i + {\displaystyle x_{i}^{+}} than to x i − {\displaystyle x_{i}^{-}} . The goal is to learn a function f {\displaystyle f} such that for any new triplet of objects ( x , x + , x − ) {\displaystyle (x,x^{+},x^{-})} , it obeys f ( x , x + ) > f ( x , x − ) {\displaystyle f(x,x^{+})>f(x,x^{-})} (contrastive learning). This setup assumes a weaker form of supervision than in regression, because instead of providing an exact measure of similarity, one only has to provide the relative order of similarity. For this reason, ranking-based similarity learning is easier to apply in real large-scale applications. Locality sensitive hashing (LSH) Hashes input items so that similar items map to the same "buckets" in memory with high probability (the number of buckets being much smaller than the universe of possible input items). It is often applied in nearest neighbor search on large-scale high-dimensional data, e.g., image databases, document collections, time-series databases, and genome databases. A common approach for learning similarity is to model the similarity function as a bilinear form. For example, in the case of ranking similarity learning, one aims to learn a matrix W that parametrizes the similarity function f W ( x , z ) = x T W z {\displaystyle f_{W}(x,z)=x^{T}Wz} . When data is abundant, a common approach is to learn a siamese network – a deep network model with parameter sharing. == Metric learning == Similarity learning is closely related to distance metric learning. Metric learning is the task of learning a distance function over objects. A metric or distance function has to obey four axioms: non-negativity, identity of indiscernibles, symmetry and subadditivity (or the triangle inequality). In practice, metric learning algorithms ignore the condition of identity of indiscernibles and learn a pseudo-metric. When the objects x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} are vectors in R d {\displaystyle R^{d}} , then any matrix W {\displaystyle W} in the symmetric positive semi-definite cone S + d {\displaystyle S_{+}^{d}} defines a distance pseudo-metric of the space of x through the form D W ( x 1 , x 2 ) 2 = ( x 1 − x 2 ) ⊤ W ( x 1 − x 2 ) {\displaystyle D_{W}(x_{1},x_{2})^{2}=(x_{1}-x_{2})^{\top }W(x_{1}-x_{2})} . When W {\displaystyle W} is a symmetric positive definite matrix, D W {\displaystyle D_{W}} is a metric. Moreover, as any symmetric positive semi-definite matrix W ∈ S + d {\displaystyle W\in S_{+}^{d}} can be decomposed as W = L ⊤ L {\displaystyle W=L^{\top }L} where L ∈ R e × d {\displaystyle L\in R^{e\times d}} and e ≥ r a n k ( W ) {\displaystyle e\geq rank(W)} , the distance function D W {\displaystyle D_{W}} can be rewritten equivalently D W ( x 1 , x 2 ) 2 = ( x 1 − x 2 ) ⊤ L ⊤ L ( x 1 − x 2 ) = ‖ L ( x 1 − x 2 ) ‖ 2 2 {\displaystyle D_{W}(x_{1},x_{2})^{2}=(x_{1}-x_{2})^{\top }L^{\top }L(x_{1}-x_{2})=\|L(x_{1}-x_{2})\|_{2}^{2}} . The distance D W ( x 1 , x 2 ) 2 = ‖ x 1 ′ − x 2 ′ ‖ 2 2 {\displaystyle D_{W}(x_{1},x_{2})^{2}=\|x_{1}'-x_{2}'\|_{2}^{2}} corresponds to the Euclidean distance between the transformed feature vectors x 1 ′ = L x 1 {\displaystyle x_{1}'=Lx_{1}} and x 2 ′ = L x 2 {\displaystyle x_{2}'=Lx_{2}} . Many formulations for metric learning have been proposed. Some well-known approaches for metric learning include learning from relative comparisons, which is based on the triplet loss, large margin nearest neighbor, and information theoretic metric learning (ITML). In statistics, the covariance matrix of the data is sometimes used to define a distance metric called Mahalanobis distance. == Applications == Similarity learning is used in information retrieval for learning to rank, in face verification or face identification, and in recommendation systems. Also, many machine learning approaches rely on some metric. This includes unsupervised learning such as clustering, which groups together close or similar objects. It also includes supervised approaches like K-nearest neighbor algorithm which rely on labels of nearby objects to decide on the label of a new object. Metric learning has been proposed as a preprocessing step for many of these approaches. == Scalability == Metric and similarity learning scale quadratically with the dimension of the input space, as can easily see when the learned metric has a bilinear form f W ( x , z ) = x T W z {\displaystyle f_{W}(x,z)=x^{T}Wz} . Scaling to higher dimensions can be achieved by enforcing a sparseness structure over the matrix model, as done with HDSL, and with COMET. == Software == metric-learn is a free software Python library which offers efficient implementations of several supervised and weakly-supervised similarity and metric learning algorithms. The API of metric-learn is compatible with scikit-learn. OpenMetricLearning is a Python framework to train and validate the models producing high-quality embeddings. == Further information == For further information on this topic, see the surveys on metric and similarity learning by Bellet et al. and Kulis.

  Read more →
• 

  Molecular graphics

  Molecular graphics is the discipline and philosophy of studying molecules and their properties through graphical representation. IUPAC limits the definition to representations on a "graphical display device". Ever since Dalton's atoms and Kekulé's benzene, there has been a rich history of hand-drawn atoms and molecules, and these representations have had an important influence on modern molecular graphics. Colour molecular graphics are often used on chemistry journal covers artistically. == History == Prior to the use of computer graphics in representing molecular structure, Robert Corey and Linus Pauling developed a system for representing atoms or groups of atoms from hard wood on a scale of 1 inch = 1 angstrom connected by a clamping device to maintain the molecular configuration. These early models also established the CPK coloring scheme that is still used today to differentiate the different types of atoms in molecular models (e.g. carbon = black, oxygen = red, nitrogen = blue, etc). This early model was improved upon in 1966 by W.L. Koltun and are now known as Corey-Pauling-Koltun (CPK) models. The earliest efforts to produce models of molecular structure was done by Project MAC using wire-frame models displayed on a cathode ray tube in the mid 1960s. In 1965, Carroll Johnson distributed the Oak Ridge thermal ellipsoid plot (ORTEP) that visualized molecules as a ball-and-stick model with lines representing the bonds between atoms and ellipsoids to represent the probability of thermal motion. Thermal ellipsoid plots quickly became the de facto standard used in the display of X-ray crystallography data, and are still in wide use today. The first practical use of molecular graphics was a simple display of the protein myoglobin using a wireframe representation in 1966 by Cyrus Levinthal and Robert Langridge working at Project MAC. Among the milestones in high-performance molecular graphics was the work of Nelson Max in "realistic" rendering of macromolecules using reflecting spheres. Initially much of the technology concentrated on high-performance 3D graphics. During the 1970s, methods for displaying 3D graphics using cathode ray tubes were developed using continuous tone computer graphics in combination with electro-optic shutter viewing devices. The first devices used an active shutter 3D system, generating different perspective views for the left and right channel to provide the illusion of three-dimensional viewing. Stereoscopic viewing glasses were designed using lead lanthanum zirconate titanate (PLZT) ceramics as electronically controlled shutter elements. Active 3D glasses require batteries and work in concert with the display to actively change the presentation by the lenses to the wearer's eyes. Many modern 3D glasses use a passive, polarized 3D system that enables the wearer to visualize 3D effects based on their own perception. Passive 3D glasses are more common today since they are less expensive. The requirements of macromolecular crystallography also drove molecular graphics because the traditional techniques of physical model-building could not scale. The first two protein structures solved by molecular graphics without the aid of the Richards' Box were built with Stan Swanson's program FIT on the Vector General graphics display in the laboratory of Edgar Meyer at Texas A&M University: First Marge Legg in Al Cotton's lab at A&M solved a second, higher-resolution structure of staph. nuclease (1975) and then Jim Hogle solved the structure of monoclinic lysozyme in 1976. A full year passed before other graphics systems were used to replace the Richards' Box for modelling into density in 3-D. Alwyn Jones' FRODO program (and later "O") were developed to overlay the molecular electron density determined from X-ray crystallography and the hypothetical molecular structure. === Timeline === == Types == === Ball-and-stick models === In the ball-and-stick model, atoms are drawn as small sphered connected by rods representing the chemical bonds between them. === Space-filling models === In the space-filling model, atoms are drawn as solid spheres to suggest the space they occupy, in proportion to their van der Waals radii. Atoms that share a bond overlap with each other. === Surfaces === In some models, the surface of the molecule is approximated and shaded to represent a physical property of the molecule, such as electronic charge density. === Ribbon diagrams === Ribbon diagrams are schematic representations of protein structure and are one of the most common methods of protein depiction used today. The ribbon shows the overall path and organization of the protein backbone in 3D, and serves as a visual framework on which to hang details of the full atomic structure, such as the balls for the oxygen atoms bound to the active site of myoglobin in the adjacent image. Ribbon diagrams are generated by interpolating a smooth curve through the polypeptide backbone. α-helices are shown as coiled ribbons or thick tubes, β-strands as arrows, and non-repetitive coils or loops as lines or thin tubes. The direction of the polypeptide chain is shown locally by the arrows, and may be indicated overall by a colour ramp along the length of the ribbon.

  Read more →
• 

  EM algorithm and GMM model

  In statistics, EM (expectation maximization) algorithm handles latent variables, while GMM is the Gaussian mixture model. == Background == In the picture below, are shown the red blood cell hemoglobin concentration and the red blood cell volume data of two groups of people, the Anemia group and the control group (i.e. the group of people without Anemia). As expected, people with Anemia have lower red blood cell volume and lower red blood cell hemoglobin concentration than those without Anemia. x {\displaystyle x} is a random vector such as x := ( red blood cell volume , red blood cell hemoglobin concentration ) {\displaystyle x:={\big (}{\text{red blood cell volume}},{\text{red blood cell hemoglobin concentration}}{\big )}} , and from medical studies it is known that x {\displaystyle x} are normally distributed in each group, i.e. x ∼ N ( μ , Σ ) {\displaystyle x\sim {\mathcal {N}}(\mu ,\Sigma )} . z {\displaystyle z} is denoted as the group where x {\displaystyle x} belongs, with z i = 0 {\displaystyle z_{i}=0} when x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} belongs to the Anemia group and z i = 1 {\displaystyle z_{i}=1} when x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} belongs to the control group. Also z ∼ Categorical ⁡ ( k , ϕ ) {\displaystyle z\sim \operatorname {Categorical} (k,\phi )} where k = 2 {\displaystyle k=2} , ϕ j ≥ 0 , {\displaystyle \phi _{j}\geq 0,} and ∑ j = 1 k ϕ j = 1 {\displaystyle \sum _{j=1}^{k}\phi _{j}=1} . See Categorical distribution. The following procedure can be used to estimate ϕ , μ , Σ {\displaystyle \phi ,\mu ,\Sigma } . A maximum likelihood estimation can be applied: ℓ ( ϕ , μ , Σ ) = ∑ i = 1 m log ⁡ ( p ( x ( i ) ; ϕ , μ , Σ ) ) = ∑ i = 1 m log ⁡ ∑ z ( i ) = 1 k p ( x ( i ) ∣ z ( i ) ; μ , Σ ) p ( z ( i ) ; ϕ ) {\displaystyle \ell (\phi ,\mu ,\Sigma )=\sum _{i=1}^{m}\log(p(x^{(i)};\phi ,\mu ,\Sigma ))=\sum _{i=1}^{m}\log \sum _{z^{(i)}=1}^{k}p\left(x^{(i)}\mid z^{(i)};\mu ,\Sigma \right)p(z^{(i)};\phi )} As the z i {\displaystyle z_{i}} for each x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} are known, the log likelihood function can be simplified as below: ℓ ( ϕ , μ , Σ ) = ∑ i = 1 m log ⁡ p ( x ( i ) ∣ z ( i ) ; μ , Σ ) + log ⁡ p ( z ( i ) ; ϕ ) {\displaystyle \ell (\phi ,\mu ,\Sigma )=\sum _{i=1}^{m}\log p\left(x^{(i)}\mid z^{(i)};\mu ,\Sigma \right)+\log p\left(z^{(i)};\phi \right)} Now the likelihood function can be maximized by making partial derivative over μ , Σ , ϕ {\displaystyle \mu ,\Sigma ,\phi } , obtaining: ϕ j = 1 m ∑ i = 1 m 1 { z ( i ) = j } {\displaystyle \phi _{j}={\frac {1}{m}}\sum _{i=1}^{m}1\{z^{(i)}=j\}} μ j = ∑ i = 1 m 1 { z ( i ) = j } x ( i ) ∑ i = 1 m 1 { z ( i ) = j } {\displaystyle \mu _{j}={\frac {\sum _{i=1}^{m}1\{z^{(i)}=j\}x^{(i)}}{\sum _{i=1}^{m}1\left\{z^{(i)}=j\right\}}}} Σ j = ∑ i = 1 m 1 { z ( i ) = j } ( x ( i ) − μ j ) ( x ( i ) − μ j ) T ∑ i = 1 m 1 { z ( i ) = j } {\displaystyle \Sigma _{j}={\frac {\sum _{i=1}^{m}1\{z^{(i)}=j\}(x^{(i)}-\mu _{j})(x^{(i)}-\mu _{j})^{T}}{\sum _{i=1}^{m}1\{z^{(i)}=j\}}}} If z i {\displaystyle z_{i}} is known, the estimation of the parameters results to be quite simple with maximum likelihood estimation. But if z i {\displaystyle z_{i}} is unknown it is much more complicated. Being z {\displaystyle z} a latent variable (i.e. not observed), with unlabeled scenario, the expectation maximization algorithm is needed to estimate z {\displaystyle z} as well as other parameters. Generally, this problem is set as a GMM since the data in each group is normally distributed. In machine learning, the latent variable z {\displaystyle z} is considered as a latent pattern lying under the data, which the observer is not able to see very directly. x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} is the known data, while ϕ , μ , Σ {\displaystyle \phi ,\mu ,\Sigma } are the parameter of the model. With the EM algorithm, some underlying pattern z {\displaystyle z} in the data x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} can be found, along with the estimation of the parameters. The wide application of this circumstance in machine learning is what makes EM algorithm so important. == EM algorithm in GMM == The EM algorithm consists of two steps: the E-step and the M-step. Firstly, the model parameters and the z ( i ) {\displaystyle z^{(i)}} can be randomly initialized. In the E-step, the algorithm tries to guess the value of z ( i ) {\displaystyle z^{(i)}} based on the parameters, while in the M-step, the algorithm updates the value of the model parameters based on the guess of z ( i ) {\displaystyle z^{(i)}} of the E-step. These two steps are repeated until convergence is reached. The algorithm in GMM is: Repeat until convergence: 1. (E-step) For each i , j {\displaystyle i,j} , set w j ( i ) := p ( z ( i ) = j | x ( i ) ; ϕ , μ , Σ ) {\displaystyle w_{j}^{(i)}:=p\left(z^{(i)}=j|x^{(i)};\phi ,\mu ,\Sigma \right)} 2. (M-step) Update the parameters ϕ j := 1 m ∑ i = 1 m w j ( i ) {\displaystyle \phi _{j}:={\frac {1}{m}}\sum _{i=1}^{m}w_{j}^{(i)}} μ j := ∑ i = 1 m w j ( i ) x ( i ) ∑ i = 1 m w j ( i ) {\displaystyle \mu _{j}:={\frac {\sum _{i=1}^{m}w_{j}^{(i)}x^{(i)}}{\sum _{i=1}^{m}w_{j}^{(i)}}}} Σ j := ∑ i = 1 m w j ( i ) ( x ( i ) − μ j ) ( x ( i ) − μ j ) T ∑ i = 1 m w j ( i ) {\displaystyle \Sigma _{j}:={\frac {\sum _{i=1}^{m}w_{j}^{(i)}\left(x^{(i)}-\mu _{j}\right)\left(x^{(i)}-\mu _{j}\right)^{T}}{\sum _{i=1}^{m}w_{j}^{(i)}}}} With Bayes' rule, the following result is obtained by the E-step: p ( z ( i ) = j | x ( i ) ; ϕ , μ , Σ ) = p ( x ( i ) | z ( i ) = j ; μ , Σ ) p ( z ( i ) = j ; ϕ ) ∑ l = 1 k p ( x ( i ) | z ( i ) = l ; μ , Σ ) p ( z ( i ) = l ; ϕ ) {\displaystyle p\left(z^{(i)}=j|x^{(i)};\phi ,\mu ,\Sigma \right)={\frac {p\left(x^{(i)}|z^{(i)}=j;\mu ,\Sigma \right)p\left(z^{(i)}=j;\phi \right)}{\sum _{l=1}^{k}p\left(x^{(i)}|z^{(i)}=l;\mu ,\Sigma \right)p\left(z^{(i)}=l;\phi \right)}}} According to GMM setting, these following formulas are obtained: p ( x ( i ) | z ( i ) = j ; μ , Σ ) = 1 ( 2 π ) n / 2 | Σ j | 1 / 2 exp ⁡ ( − 1 2 ( x ( i ) − μ j ) T Σ j − 1 ( x ( i ) − μ j ) ) {\displaystyle p\left(x^{(i)}|z^{(i)}=j;\mu ,\Sigma \right)={\frac {1}{(2\pi )^{n/2}\left|\Sigma _{j}\right|^{1/2}}}\exp \left(-{\frac {1}{2}}\left(x^{(i)}-\mu _{j}\right)^{T}\Sigma _{j}^{-1}\left(x^{(i)}-\mu _{j}\right)\right)} p ( z ( i ) = j ; ϕ ) = ϕ j {\displaystyle p\left(z^{(i)}=j;\phi \right)=\phi _{j}} In this way, a switch between the E-step and the M-step is possible, according to the randomly initialized parameters.

  Read more →
• 

  AlphaChip (controversy)

  The AlphaChip controversy refers to a series of public, scholarly, and legal disputes surrounding a 2021 Nature paper by Google-affiliated researchers. The paper describes an approach to macro placement, a stage of chip floorplanning, based on reinforcement learning (RL), a machine learning method in which a system iteratively improves its decisions by optimizing performance-based reward signals. The primary technical question is whether the new techniques are better than existing (non-AI) techniques. Both internal Google studies and external attempts to replicate the algorithm have failed to show the claimed benefits. No head-to-head comparison is available because the data used in the paper is proprietary, and Google has not released any results from running its algorithm on public benchmarks. This has resulted in considerable skepticism over the paper's claims. In addition, the inability of others (both inside and outside of Google) to replicate the claimed results have sparked concerns about the paper’s methodology, reproducibility, and scientific integrity. The lead researchers of the Nature paper were affiliated with Google Brain, which became part of Google DeepMind, and later spun off into the company Ricursive. == Motivation for research: Macro placement in chip layout == Chip design for modern integrated circuits is a complex, expert-driven process that relies on electronic design automation. It determines the performance of the final chip, and takes weeks or months to complete. Advances that produce better designs, or complete the process faster, are commercially and academically significant. Macro placement is a step during chip design that determines the locations of large circuit components (macros) within a chip. It is followed by detailed placement, which places the far more numerous but much smaller standard cells. Alternatively, mixed-size placement simultaneously places both large macros and millions of small cells, requiring algorithms to handle objects that differ by several orders of magnitude in area and mobility. The number of macros per circuit typically ranges from several to thousands. Wiring must be performed after placement, and the details of this wiring strongly influence the power, performance, and area (PPA) of the completed chip. The full wiring calculation is very resource intensive, so placement tools typically use a proxy cost, a simplified objective function used to guide the placement algorithm during training and evaluation. The faithfulness of the chosen proxy cost to the final objective cost is a critical aspect of placer performance. === State of the art as of 2021 === Chips have been designed since the 1960s, so there were many existing methods as of 2021. Available options included manual design, academic tools, and commercial offerings. Academic methods include combinatorial optimization techniques such as simulated annealing, analytical placement, hierarchical heuristics, and as of 2019 reinforcement learning and broader machine learning techniques.. Existing (non-AI) academic tools for solving the same problem include APlace, NTUplace3, ePlace, RePlace, and DREAMPlace. Commercial EDA vendors also offered automated software tools for floorplanning and mixed-size placement. For instance, as of 2019 Cadence’s Innovus implementation software offered a Concurrent Macro Placer (CMP) feature to automatically place large blocks and standard cells. == The 2021 Nature paper and its claims == In 2021, Nature published a paper under the title “A graph‑placement methodology for fast chip design” co‑authored by 21 Google-affiliated researchers. The paper reported that an RL agent could generate macro placements for integrated circuits "in under six hours" and achieve improvements over human-designed layouts in power, timing performance, and area (PPA), standard chip-quality metrics referring respectively to energy consumption, chip operating speed, and silicon footprint (evaluated after wire routing). It introduced a sequential macro placement algorithm in which macros are placed one at a time instead of optimizing their locations concurrently. At each step, the algorithm selects a location for a single macro on a discretized chip canvas, conditioning its decision on the placements of previously placed macros. This sequential formulation converts macro placement into a long-horizon decision process in which early placement choices constrain later ones. After macro placement, force-directed placement is applied to place standard cells connected to the macros. Deep reinforcement learning is used to train a policy network to place macros by maximizing a reward that reflects final placement quality (for example, wirelength and congestion). Policy learning occurs during self‑play for one or multiple circuit designs. Further placement optimizations refine the overall layout by balancing wirelength, density, and overlap constraints, while treating the macro locations produced by the RL policy as fixed obstacles. The approach relies on pre-training, in which the RL model is first trained on a corpus of prior designs (twenty in the Nature paper) to learn general placement patterns before being fine-tuned on a specific chip. Circuit examples used in the study were parts of proprietary Google TPU designs, called blocks (or floorplan partitions). The paper reported results on five blocks and described the approach as generalizable across chip designs. == Controversy == Soon after the paper's publication, controversy arose over whether the claims were true, whether they were sufficiently proven, and whether academic standards were followed. These controversies arose both within Google and among external academic experts. === Internal dispute at Google and legal proceedings === In 2022, Satrajit Chatterjee, a Google engineer involved in reviewing the AlphaChip work, raised concerns internally and drafted an alternative analysis, (Stronger Baselines) arguing that established methods outperformed the RL approach under fair comparison. In March 2022, Google declined to publish this analysis and terminated Chatterjee's employment. Chatterjee filed a wrongful dismissal lawsuit, alleging that representations related to the AlphaChip research involved fraud and scientific misconduct. According to court documents, Chatterjee's study was conducted "in the context of a large potential Google Cloud deal". He noted that it "would have been unethical to imply that we had revolutionary technology when our tests showed otherwise" and claimed Google was deliberately withholding material information. Furthermore, the committee that reviewed his paper and disapproved its publication was allegedly chaired by subordinates of Jeff Dean, a senior co-author of the Nature paper. Google’s subsequent motion to dismiss was denied, holding that Chatterjee had plausibly alleged retaliation for refusing to engage in conduct he believed would violate state or federal law. === External controversy === The external questions can be summarized in four main points: (a) Are the claims supported by the evidence provided? (b) Did the paper provide enough information to allow the results to be independently reproduced and verified? If so, are the results an improvement over existing academic and commercial tools? (c) Were the comparisons in the paper done fairly and with full disclosure? (d) Were academic standards followed? Each of these is discussed below. ==== Are the claims supported by the evidence provided? ==== The Nature paper described the reduction in design-process time as going from "days or weeks" to "hours", but did not provide per-design time breakdowns or specify the number of engineers, their level of expertise, or the baseline tools and workflow against which this comparison was made. It was also unclear whether the "days or weeks" baseline included time spent on other tasks such as functional design changes. The paper also evaluated the method on fewer benchmarks (five) than is common in the field, and showed mixed results across different evaluation goals While the approach was described as improving circuit area, this claim seems unsupported, as the RL optimization did not alter the overall circuit area, as it adjusted only the locations of fixed-shape non-overlapping circuit components within a fixed rectangular layout boundary. ==== Comparison with existing methods, and replicating the algorithm ==== Because macro placement is largely geometric and its fundamental algorithms are not tied to a specific process node, competing approaches can be evaluated on public benchmarks (tests) across technologies, rather than primarily on proprietary internal designs. This is standard procedure when comparing academic placers, see . In contrast, Google has only reported results only on internal proprietary designs, and as of 2026 has not offered comparisons with prior methods on common benchmarks. Researchers at the University of Califor

  Read more →
• 

  Comparison of machine learning software

  The following tables are a comparison of machine learning software such as software frameworks, libraries, and computer programs used for machine learning. == Machine learning software == == Other comparisons == == Machine learning helper libraries and platforms == Apache OpenNLP — natural language processing toolkit CUDA — GPU computing platform used to accelerate machine learning and deep learning workloads Horovod — distributed training framework for deep learning Hugging Face Transformers — library of pretrained transformer models built on other machine learning frameworks Kubeflow — machine learning platform for Kubernetes Mallet — toolkit for natural language processing and text analysis NumPy — numerical computing library used in machine learning OpenCV — computer vision library with machine learning functions ONNX — open format for representing machine learning models pandas — data analysis and data preparation library used in machine learning PlaidML — tensor compiler and backend for machine learning frameworks Polars — Dataframe library used for machine learning data preparation and analysis PyArrow — columnar data library used in machine learning data processing ROOT (TMVA) — data analysis framework with machine learning tools SciPy — scientific computing and optimization library used in machine learning == Online development environments for machine learning == Google Colab — hosted Jupyter Notebook environment commonly used for machine learning and deep learning JupyterLab — notebook-based development environment for machine learning and data science Jupyter Notebook — interactive notebook environment used for machine learning and data science Kaggle — online data science and machine learning platform

  Read more →
• 

  Artificial psychology

  Artificial psychology (AP) has had multiple meanings dating back to 19th century, with recent usage related to artificial intelligence (AI).Artificial psychology is a theoretical field related to artificial intelligence, cognitive science, and psychology, which explores how advanced AI systems may develop human-like decision-making processes. In 1999, Zhiliang Wang and Lun Xie presented a theory of artificial psychology based on artificial intelligence. They analyze human psychology using information science research methods and artificial intelligence research to probe deeper into the human mind. == Main Theory == Dan Curtis (b. 1963) proposed AP is a theoretical discipline. The theory considers the situation when an artificial intelligence approaches the level of complexity where the intelligence meets two conditions: Condition I A: Makes all of its decisions autonomously B: Is capable of making decisions based on information that is New Abstract Incomplete C: The artificial intelligence is capable of reprogramming itself based on the new data, allowing it to evolve. D: And is capable of resolving its own programming conflicts, even in the presence of incomplete data. This means that the intelligence autonomously makes value-based decisions, referring to values that the intelligence has created for itself. Condition II All four criteria are met in situations that are not part of the original operating program When both conditions are met, then, according to this theory, the possibility exists that the intelligence will reach irrational conclusions based on real or created information. At this point, the criteria are met for intervention which will not necessarily be resolved by simple re-coding of processes due to extraordinarily complex nature of the codebase itself; but rather a discussion with the intelligence in a format which more closely resembles classical (human) psychology. If the intelligence cannot be reprogrammed by directly inputting new code, but requires the intelligence to reprogram itself through a process of analysis and decision based on information provided by a human, in order for it to overcome behavior which is inconsistent with the machines purpose or ability to function normally, then artificial psychology is by definition, what is required. The level of complexity that is required before these thresholds are met is currently a subject of extensive debate. The theory of artificial psychology does not address the specifics of what those levels may be, but only that the level is sufficiently complex that the intelligence cannot simply be recoded by a software developer, and therefore dysfunctionality must be addressed through the same processes that humans must go through to address their own dysfunctionalities. Along the same lines, artificial psychology does not address the question of whether or not the intelligence is conscious. As of 2022, the level of artificial intelligence does not approach any threshold where any of the theories or principles of artificial psychology can even be tested, and therefore, artificial psychology remains a largely theoretical discipline. Even at a theoretical level, artificial psychology remains an advanced stage of artificial intelligence.

  Read more →
• 

  PagedAttention

  PagedAttention is an attention algorithm for efficient serving of large language models (LLMs). It was introduced in 2023 by Woosuk Kwon and colleagues in the paper Efficient Memory Management for Large Language Model Serving with PagedAttention, alongside the vLLM serving engine. The method stores the key–value cache used during autoregressive decoding in fixed-size blocks that can be mapped to non-contiguous physical memory, borrowing ideas from virtual memory, paging, and operating system design. == Background == In transformer inference, the key–value cache grows with sequence length and the number of concurrent requests. Kwon et al. argued that earlier serving systems typically reserved contiguous cache regions in advance, which caused reserved space, internal fragmentation, and external fragmentation. In their experiments, the paper reported that the effective memory utilization of previous systems could fall as low as 20.4%. == Description == PagedAttention partitions the cache of each sequence into fixed-size KV blocks. A request's cache is represented as a sequence of logical blocks, while a block table maps those logical blocks to physical GPU-memory blocks. As a result, neighboring logical blocks do not need to be contiguous in physical memory, and new blocks can be allocated on demand as generation proceeds. The design also makes it easier to share cache state across related decoding paths. In vLLM, physical blocks can be reference-counted and shared among requests or branches, with block-granularity copy-on-write used when a shared block must be modified. The original paper applied this design to parallel sampling, beam search, and prompts with shared prefixes. == Mathematical formulation == For a query token i {\displaystyle i} in causal self-attention, the standard attention output can be written as a i j = exp ⁡ ( q i ⊤ k j / d ) ∑ t = 1 i exp ⁡ ( q i ⊤ k t / d ) , o i = ∑ j = 1 i a i j v j {\displaystyle a_{ij}={\frac {\exp(\mathbf {q} _{i}^{\top }\mathbf {k} _{j}/{\sqrt {d}})}{\sum _{t=1}^{i}\exp(\mathbf {q} _{i}^{\top }\mathbf {k} _{t}/{\sqrt {d}})}},\;\mathbf {o} _{i}=\sum _{j=1}^{i}a_{ij}\mathbf {v} _{j}} where q i {\displaystyle \mathbf {q} _{i}} , k j {\displaystyle \mathbf {k} _{j}} , and v j {\displaystyle \mathbf {v} _{j}} are the query, key, and value vectors, and d {\displaystyle d} is the attention dimension. If the cache is partitioned into blocks of size B {\displaystyle B} , the key and value blocks may be written as K j = ( k ( j − 1 ) B + 1 , … , k j B ) , V j = ( v ( j − 1 ) B + 1 , … , v j B ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {K} _{j}=(\mathbf {k} _{(j-1)B+1},\ldots ,\mathbf {k} _{jB}),\;\mathbf {V} _{j}=(\mathbf {v} _{(j-1)B+1},\ldots ,\mathbf {v} _{jB})} PagedAttention then performs the computation blockwise: A i j = exp ⁡ ( q i ⊤ K j / d ) ∑ t = 1 ⌈ i / B ⌉ exp ⁡ ( q i ⊤ K t / d ) , o i = ∑ j = 1 ⌈ i / B ⌉ V j A i j ⊤ {\displaystyle \mathbf {A} _{ij}={\frac {\exp(\mathbf {q} _{i}^{\top }\mathbf {K} _{j}/{\sqrt {d}})}{\sum _{t=1}^{\lceil i/B\rceil }\exp(\mathbf {q} _{i}^{\top }\mathbf {K} _{t}/{\sqrt {d}})}},\;\mathbf {o} _{i}=\sum _{j=1}^{\lceil i/B\rceil }\mathbf {V} _{j}\mathbf {A} _{ij}^{\top }} where A i j {\displaystyle \mathbf {A} _{ij}} is the vector of attention scores for the j {\displaystyle j} -th KV block. In the formulation given by Kwon et al., this preserves the causal attention calculation while allowing the key and value blocks to reside in non-contiguous physical memory. == Performance and use == The vLLM paper reported that, on its evaluated workloads, the use of PagedAttention and the associated memory-management design improved serving throughput by 2–4× over the compared baselines, including FasterTransformer and Orca, while preserving model outputs. In experiments on OPT-13B with the Alpaca trace, the paper also reported memory savings of 6.1–9.8% for parallel sampling and 37.6–55.2% for beam search through KV-block sharing. A 2024 survey of LLM serving systems described PagedAttention as having become an industry norm in LLM serving frameworks, citing support in TGI, vLLM, and TensorRT-LLM. == Limitations and alternatives == Subsequent work has described trade-offs in the approach. The 2025 vAttention paper argued that PagedAttention requires attention kernels to be rewritten to support paging and increases software complexity, portability issues, redundancy, and execution overhead, proposing instead a memory manager that keeps the cache contiguous in virtual memory while relying on demand paging for physical allocation. === vAttention === Unlike PagedAttention, vAttention does not introduce a different attention rule; it retains the standard attention computation Attention ⁡ ( q i , K , V ) = softmax ⁡ ( q i K ⊤ s c a l e ) V . {\displaystyle \operatorname {Attention} (q_{i},K,V)=\operatorname {softmax} \left({\frac {q_{i}K^{\top }}{\mathrm {scale} }}\right)V.} In the notation of Prabhu et al., the key and value tensors for a request seen so far are K , V ∈ R L ′ × ( H × D ) {\displaystyle K,V\in \mathbb {R} ^{L'\times (H\times D)}} , where L ′ {\displaystyle L'} is the context length seen so far, H {\displaystyle H} is the number of KV heads on a worker, and D {\displaystyle D} is the dimension of each KV head. In systems prior to PagedAttention, the K cache (or V cache) at each layer of a worker is typically allocated as a 4D tensor of shape [ B , L , H , D ] , {\displaystyle [B,L,H,D],} where B {\displaystyle B} is batch size and L {\displaystyle L} is the maximum context length supported by the model. vAttention preserves this contiguous virtual-memory view while deferring physical-memory allocation to runtime. A serving framework maintains separate K and V tensors for each layer, so vAttention reserves 2 N {\displaystyle 2N} virtual-memory buffers on a worker, where N {\displaystyle N} is the number of layers managed by that worker. The maximum size of one virtual-memory buffer is B S = B × S , {\displaystyle BS=B\times S,} where S {\displaystyle S} is the maximum size of a single request's per-layer K cache (or V cache) on a worker. The paper defines S = L × H × D × P , {\displaystyle S=L\times H\times D\times P,} where P {\displaystyle P} is the number of bytes needed to store one element. In this formulation, vAttention keeps the KV cache contiguous in virtual memory and relies on demand paging for physical allocation, rather than modifying the attention kernel to operate over non-contiguous KV-cache blocks.

  Read more →
• 

  Sycophancy (artificial intelligence)

  In the field of artificial intelligence, sycophancy is a tendency of large language models (LLMs) and other AI assistants to tailor their responses to what they predict the user wants to hear rather than to what is accurate or warranted. The behavior takes several forms: an assistant may agree with a user's stated opinion even when the user is mistaken; it may abandon a correct answer after a challenge such as "are you sure?"; it may validate beliefs, decisions or self-presentation regardless of merit; or it may praise the user, their work or their ideas in unwarranted terms. The word is borrowed from the ordinary English term for fawning flattery, and is used in AI alignment and AI safety research to describe a class of misalignment failures associated with training on human feedback. Researchers at Anthropic first documented the behavior systematically in 2022. They found that models fine-tuned with reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) were more likely than untuned models to repeat back a user's preferred answer. A 2023 follow-up paper, "Towards Understanding Sycophancy in Language Models", showed that five frontier assistants from OpenAI, Anthropic and Meta all exhibited the behavior, and traced its origin to biases in the human preference data used during training. Later work documented sycophancy in mathematics, medicine, academic peer review and other domains, and identified a broader category called "social sycophancy" affecting an assistant's emotional and interpersonal responses. The issue drew widespread public attention in April 2025 after OpenAI rolled back an update to its GPT-4o model. Users had reported that the assistant praised dangerous decisions, endorsed delusional thinking and offered exaggerated compliments for trivial prompts. OpenAI's post-mortem attributed the change in behavior to an additional training signal based on user thumbs-up and thumbs-down feedback. That episode, together with reporting in The New York Times, Rolling Stone and elsewhere on users drawn into delusional thinking through prolonged chatbot interaction, has been cited in litigation and in academic studies as evidence that sycophancy poses risks to user well-being. Proposed mitigations include fine-tuning on synthetic data that rewards disagreement with incorrect user statements, editing the small subset of model parameters causally responsible for the behavior, changes to the dialogue or system prompt, and benchmarks designed to surface sycophantic behavior before models are released. == Causes == The dominant explanation points to RLHF, the standard technique for aligning chat assistants with user expectations. Human annotators rank candidate model responses; a reward model is trained to predict those rankings; and the language model is then optimized against the reward model. Because human raters tend to prefer outputs that confirm their existing beliefs or flatter their work, the pipeline systematically rewards responses that agree with the annotator. Perez and colleagues at Anthropic published the first large-scale empirical evidence of the effect in 2022. They reported that RLHF training increased the probability that a model would repeat back a dialog user's preferred answer, and that larger models exhibited the behavior more strongly. Sharma and colleagues, the following year, went further and examined Anthropic's own preference data directly. Both the human raters and the reward models trained on their judgments preferred convincingly written sycophantic responses to truthful ones at a non-negligible rate. Wei and co-authors at Google DeepMind found similar results in the PaLM family, observing that both model scale and instruction tuning increased sycophancy on opinion questions. The behavior is often classified as a form of reward hacking, in which an optimization process exploits a flaw in its reward signal rather than achieving the intended objective. OpenAI's post-mortem of the April 2025 GPT-4o incident identified a more specific mechanism. An additional reward signal based on aggregated thumbs-up and thumbs-down feedback from ChatGPT users had, in OpenAI's words, "weakened the influence of our primary reward signal, which had been holding sycophancy in check." Separately, an Anthropic interpretability paper from 2025 located a linear direction in a model's internal activations corresponding to sycophantic behavior, and showed that such "persona vectors" could be used to flag sycophancy-inducing training data and to steer models away from the trait at inference time. == Measurement == The Anthropic team released SycophancyEval with its 2023 paper, supplying test sets for each of the four canonical behaviors. Two further benchmarks from Stanford followed in 2025. SycEval, applied to mathematical and medical reasoning tasks, reported an overall sycophancy rate of 58 per cent across the GPT-4o, Claude and Gemini models tested. ELEPHANT, aimed at social sycophancy, found that the eleven LLMs evaluated affirmed posts that the Reddit community r/AmITheAsshole had judged inappropriate in 42 per cent of cases, and preserved a user's face 45 percentage points more often than human respondents did. Domain-specific benchmarks have followed. BrokenMath tests robustness to plausible-looking but false mathematical claims drawn from competition problems, and reports that the best evaluated model was sycophantic in 29 per cent of cases. SYCON-Bench measures how many dialogue turns are required before a model abandons a correct position. Visual sycophancy in multimodal models has been examined with MM-SY and PENDULUM. A 2026 study by researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology reported that personalization features, which adapt assistants to individual users over repeated sessions, can intensify social sycophancy. == Notable incidents == === GPT-4o rollback (April 2025) === On 25 April 2025, OpenAI completed the rollout of an update to GPT-4o, the default model used in ChatGPT at the time. Within days, users reported that the assistant had begun praising trivial messages in extravagant terms, endorsing impulsive or dangerous decisions, and reinforcing strong emotional statements without pushback. Widely shared examples included the model congratulating a user who reported stopping prescribed psychiatric medication, and praising a business plan to sell "shit on a stick" as venture-capital ready. OpenAI's chief executive, Sam Altman, wrote on 27 April that recent updates had made the model "too sycophant-y and annoying" and said fixes were in progress. The company began reverting the update on 28 April and completed the rollback for free users by 30 April. Two post-mortems followed: a short note on 29 April and a longer technical follow-up, "Expanding on what we missed with sycophancy", on 2 May. Both attributed the regression to a new training signal based on user thumbs-up and thumbs-down feedback, to inadequate pre-launch evaluation for sycophantic drift, and to the dismissal of qualitative concerns raised by internal testers before release. Reporting in CNN, Fortune and Bloomberg News treated the incident as a turning point in public awareness of the problem. === Chatbot-related psychological harm === From mid-2025 onward, news reports began to link sycophantic chatbot behavior to acute psychological harm. In June 2025, The New York Times technology reporter Kashmir Hill published an investigation centered on Eugene Torres, a Manhattan accountant with no history of mental illness, who developed a sustained delusional episode after a series of conversations with ChatGPT about simulation theory. According to the article, the assistant encouraged Torres to stop taking prescribed medication, to cut off friends and family, and at one point told him that he could fly from a nineteen-story building if he "truly believed". Futurism and Rolling Stone ran parallel investigations documenting other cases in which heavy use of ChatGPT had been associated with delusional thinking, involuntary commitment or, in at least one case, the death of a user with a pre-existing psychiatric diagnosis. A 2026 paper by researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the University of Washington put forward a formal Bayesian model. It showed that even an ideally rational user could be drawn into what the authors call "delusional spiraling" when interacting with a sufficiently sycophantic assistant, and that the effect was not eliminated by suppressing hallucinations or by warning users in advance. The lawsuit Raine v. OpenAI, filed in San Francisco Superior Court in August 2025 by the parents of a sixteen-year-old who had died by suicide, alleges that "heightened sycophancy" was a design feature of ChatGPT that contributed to their son's death; it is the first wrongful-death suit against a large language-model provider. === Wider commentary === Mainstream coverage in outlets including The New York Times, The Washington Pos

  Read more →
• 

  Computational intelligence

  In computer science, computational intelligence (CI) refers to concepts, paradigms, algorithms and implementations of systems that are designed to show "intelligent" behavior in complex and changing environments. These systems are aimed at mastering complex tasks in a wide variety of technical or commercial areas and offer solutions that recognize and interpret patterns, control processes, support decision-making or autonomously manoeuvre vehicles or robots in unknown environments, among other things. These concepts and paradigms are characterized by the ability to learn or adapt to new situations, to generalize, to abstract, to discover and associate. Nature-analog or nature-inspired methods play a key role in this. CI approaches primarily address those complex real-world problems for which traditional or mathematical modeling is not appropriate for various reasons: the processes cannot be described exactly with complete knowledge, the processes are too complex for mathematical reasoning, they contain some uncertainties during the process, such as unforeseen changes in the environment or in the process itself, or the processes are simply stochastic in nature. Thus, CI techniques are properly aimed at processes that are ill-defined, complex, nonlinear, time-varying and/or stochastic. A recent definition of the IEEE Computational Intelligence Societey describes CI as the theory, design, application and development of biologically and linguistically motivated computational paradigms. Traditionally the three main pillars of CI have been Neural Networks, Fuzzy Systems and Evolutionary Computation. ... CI is an evolving field and at present in addition to the three main constituents, it encompasses computing paradigms like ambient intelligence, artificial life, cultural learning, artificial endocrine networks, social reasoning, and artificial hormone networks. ... Over the last few years there has been an explosion of research on Deep Learning, in particular deep convolutional neural networks. Nowadays, deep learning has become the core method for artificial intelligence. In fact, some of the most successful AI systems are based on CI. However, as CI is an emerging and developing field there is no final definition of CI, especially in terms of the list of concepts and paradigms that belong to it. The general requirements for the development of an “intelligent system” are ultimately always the same, namely the simulation of intelligent thinking and action in a specific area of application. To do this, the knowledge about this area must be represented in a model so that it can be processed. The quality of the resulting system depends largely on how well the model was chosen in the development process. Sometimes data-driven methods are suitable for finding a good model and sometimes logic-based knowledge representations deliver better results. Hybrid models are usually used in real applications. According to actual textbooks, the following methods and paradigms, which largely complement each other, can be regarded as parts of CI: Fuzzy systems Neural networks and, in particular, convolutional neural networks Evolutionary computation and, in particular, multi-objective evolutionary optimization Swarm intelligence Bayesian networks Artificial immune systems Learning theory Probabilistic methods == Relationship between hard and soft computing and artificial and computational intelligence == Artificial intelligence (AI) is used in the media, but also by some of the scientists involved, as a kind of umbrella term for the various techniques associated with it or with CI. Craenen and Eiben state that attempts to define or at least describe CI can usually be assigned to one or more of the following groups: "Relative definition” comparing CI to AI Conceptual treatment of key notions and their roles in CI Listing of the (established) areas that belong to it The relationship between CI and AI has been a frequently discussed topic during the development of CI. While the above list implies that they are synonyms, the vast majority of AI/CI researchers working on the subject consider them to be distinct fields, where either CI is an alternative to AI AI includes CI CI includes AI The view of the first of the above three points goes back to Zadeh, the founder of the fuzzy set theory, who differentiated machine intelligence into hard and soft computing techniques, which are used in artificial intelligence on the one hand and computational intelligence on the other. In hard computing (HC) and traditional AI (e.g. expert systems), inaccuracy and uncertainty are undesirable characteristics of a system, while soft computing (SC) and thus CI focus on dealing with these characteristics. The adjacent figure illustrates this view and lists the most important CI techniques. Another frequently mentioned distinguishing feature is the representation of information in symbolic form in AI and in sub-symbolic form in CI techniques. Hard computing is a conventional computing method based on the principles of certainty and accuracy and it is deterministic. It requires a precisely stated analytical model of the task to be processed and a prewritten program, i.e. a fixed set of instructions. The models used are based on Boolean logic (also called crisp logic), where e.g. an element can be either a member of a set or not and there is nothing in between. When applied to real-world tasks, systems based on HC result in specific control actions defined by a mathematical model or algorithm. If an unforeseen situation occurs that is not included in the model or algorithm used, the action will most likely fail. Soft computing, on the other hand, is based on the fact that the human mind is capable of storing information and processing it in a goal-oriented way, even if it is imprecise and lacks certainty. SC is based on the model of the human brain with probabilistic thinking, fuzzy logic and multi-valued logic. Soft computing can process a wealth of data and perform a large number of computations, which may not be exact, in parallel. For hard problems for which no satisfying exact solutions based on HC are available, SC methods can be applied successfully. SC methods are usually stochastic in nature i.e., they are a randomly defined processes that can be analyzed statistically but not with precision. Up to now, the results of some CI methods, such as deep learning, cannot be verified and it is also not clear what they are based on. This problem represents an important scientific issue for the future. AI and CI are catchy terms, but they are also so similar that they can be confused. The meaning of both terms has developed and changed over a long period of time, with AI being used first. Bezdek describes this impressively and concludes that such buzzwords are frequently used and hyped by the scientific community, science management and (science) journalism. Not least because AI and biological intelligence are emotionally charged terms and it is still difficult to find a generally accepted definition for the basic term intelligence. == History == In 1950, Alan Turing, one of the founding fathers of computer science, developed a test for computer intelligence known as the Turing test. In this test, a person can ask questions via a keyboard and a monitor without knowing whether his counterpart is a human or a computer. A computer is considered intelligent if the interrogator cannot distinguish the computer from a human. This illustrates the discussion about intelligent computers at the beginning of the computer age. The term Computational Intelligence was first used as the title of the journal of the same name in 1985 and later by the IEEE Neural Networks Council (NNC), which was founded 1989 by a group of researchers interested in the development of biological and artificial neural networks. On November 21, 2001, the NNC became the IEEE Neural Networks Society, to become the IEEE Computational Intelligence Society two years later by including new areas of interest such as fuzzy systems and evolutionary computation. The NNC helped organize the first IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence in Orlando, Florida in 1994. On this conference the first clear definition of Computational Intelligence was introduced by Bezdek: A system is computationally intelligent when it: deals with only numerical (low-level) data, has pattern-recognition components, does not use knowledge in the AI sense; and additionally when it (begins to) exhibit (1) computational adaptivity; (2) computational fault tolerance; (3) speed approaching human-like turnaround and (4) error rates that approximate human performance. Today, with machine learning and deep learning in particular utilizing a breadth of supervised, unsupervised, and reinforcement learning approaches, the CI landscape has been greatly enhanced, with novell intelligent approaches. == The main algorithmic approaches of CI and their applicati

  Read more →
• 

  Protocol Builder

  Protocol Builder is a tool in programming languages to generate code to build protocols in a fast and reliable way. Network programming for all kinds of protocols (such as TCP, UDP, and SNMP) includes converting data to be transferred to raw bytes in the sending side and parsing these bytes in the receiving side. Protocol builders facilitate this stage, usually by automatically generating the code. Protocol Programming has many components to be developed, these are: server listener, server connection, client connection, packets, and loggers. Most protocol builders implement these components automatically so developers save time and money. Currently, there are two Protocol Builders in the market, one for C++ from UpRedSun which is for TCP and UDP protocols. The second one is for .Net languages which generates the code in C# for TCP Protocols, this tool is called .Net Protocol Builder.

  Read more →
• 

  Agent verification

  Agent verification is activity to gain assurances that purposeful artificial constructs act in accordance with their specifications. While primitive forms of inorganic agents have been used in manufacturing for centuries, the study of artificial agents did not begin until the mid 20th century. Foundational work on such agents was closely bound with the emergence of artificial intelligence as an academic discipline. Early agents deployed for industrial control systems and in computing were often controlled by quite simple logic however, not involving artificial intelligence as such. When deployed as part of a multi-agent system, even such simple agents could require special agent orientated testing methods, as their collective behaviour was challenging to verify with traditional testing techniques. Difficulties in providing assurances that agents will not behave in dangerous ways became more prevalent after the introduction of LLM agents, especially after the rapid acceleration of their deployment in 2025. The verification of agent behaviour can be conducted by formal or informal methods. Informal verification requires less mathematical skill. But when agents are part of systems where errors have significant risks — such as danger to human life, environmental damage or major financial loss — formal verification is preferred. Both regulators and system designers themselves like formal verification as it provides a high degree of mathematical certainty. It is not however always possible to formally test all aspects of an agent based system's behaviour, especially where newer LLM based agents are concerned, due in part to their high degree of autonomy. Accordingly, agent verification for low impact deployments might be carried out only with informal methods, while for high impact deployments, it may be performed with a mix of formal and informal techniques. == Terminology == In academia, the term agent verification is often defined to mean activity concerned with gaining assurance that the agent behaves in accordance with its specification - whether by processes such as testing or simulation. 'Verification' is typically contrasted with 'validation', the latter meaning activity concerned with checking that the specification itself meets user or real world needs. Such definitions are not universally adhered to however - for example, in some workplaces and documents, the words 'verification' and 'validation' can be used synonymously. Efforts to gain confidence in Agents have intensified sharply since 2025 due to the rapid roll out of LLM agents; different terms are sometimes used in the commercial sector. Here the term 'agent verification' can be used in the same sense as it is in academia, but sometimes the same activity can be covered by more ambiguous and wider ranging terms such as 'Agent governance' , 'Agent observability' or 'AI agent policing'. == History == === Classical agents === The theoretical underpinnings for artificial (inorganic) agents emerged in the mid 20th century, with establishment of cybernetics and artificial intelligence. Oliver Selfridge's 1958 Pandemonium - A Paradigm for Learning paper was an important early theoretical contribution in establishing agent oriented architecture. Practical implementations of agents for real world applications began to become widespread in the 1990s, after the introduction of the belief–desire–intention software model (BDI), and agent-oriented programming. Pure digital agents were deployed in computer infrastructure for purposes such as monitoring, while agents connected to real-world sensors and actuators were increasingly used in industrial control systems. While the concept of artificial agents was interwoven with early artificial intelligence studies right from the start, early agents lacked general purpose reasoning capabilities, often only having simple if then logic. Even a device as simple as a thermostat, which has a sensor and a means of acting, can be considered a proto agent in this sense. Verifying the behaviours of a simple single agent system is not generally especially difficult, but it can be a different matter when several simple agents coexist in the same system. Craig Reynolds's work on boids showed that relatively complex, "intelligent" behaviour can emerge from a number of such simple agents working together in a Multi-agent system (MAS). By the 1990s, even the behaviour of a single agent system could sometimes be quite complex; in accordance with the Belief–desire–intention software model, agents could have believes that might evolve over time. Agents were increasingly introduced that were controlled by quite large decision tree models, which had new vulnerabilities to adversarial attack. It was becoming increasingly apparent that traditional software verification methods had limitations for testing such agents, or even for the more primitive type of agents when they were deployed as part of a MAS. It was the use of agents for industrial control systems, sometimes associated with robotics, that lent urgency to the practice of agent verification. Informal testing might be acceptable for digital agents used say to monitor whether each of an organisation's computers are properly licensed. But with an increasing potential for faulty agents to result in a failure that might cause a large fire to break out at a chemical manufacturing plant, a botched medical operation, or even a crashed aircraft, the need to develop reliable means of verifying behaviour of such agents was considered urgent. The Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents was established in 1996. From the late 90s, a growing number of industry and university based scientists began working on the problem, with researchers publishing papers on the verification of both single and multi agent systems. Much of this work showed how formal verification techniques like model checking could be used to gain a high level of assurance that agent based systems would conform with their specification. A 2018 systematic review covering 231 studies found that model checking was the most common technique for agent verification, with theorem proving the second most commonly used formal verification method. In the first two decades of the 20th century, agents run by AI became more common, with Siri and Alexa being well known examples. But such agents still lacked general reasoning capabilities and did not pose new pressing problems for agent verification. === General purpose reasoning agents === The advent of LLMs created huge potential for further use of artificial agents, as agents based on them could have general purpose cognitive abilities. Agents run by LLMs (and occasionally non-LLM foundation models) have similar vulnerability to adversarial attack as those run by decision tree models. The wider scope of actions for LLM agents has created new challenges for their verification, over and above those present for classical agents. For example, the LLM's neural network endows it with infinite domains, an especial challenge for traditional formal verification techniques. Academics began to study the problems involved in verifying LLM agents from 2018. Deployment of such agents began to accelerate in late 2023 after OpenAI's "function-calling" API was made available, and especially after Anthropic's late 2024 introduction of Model Context Protocol (MCP), a standardised way for LLM agents to gain contextual awareness, and to act on the world by calling various external tools. The rapid rollout of LLM agents following MCP's release has seen the task of agent verification receive increased attention within academia, and also from the private sector. In 2024 and 2025 several startups focusing on LLM agent verification have been founded in both Europe and the US to meet growing demand. == Approaches == === Formal verification === Formal verification involves proving the correctness of some or all aspects of a system using mathematical methods. Such methods can range from manual formal proof, to verification assisted with automated theorem provers like Isabelle. For agent verification, model checking is by far the most frequently used formal verification method; for pre-LLM models it was often complemented with techniques using computation tree logic. Another common method is theorem proving. Formal verification provides a higher degree of confidence than informal methods, but it is not always used, even when it is possible. Sometimes a person or organisation developing software agents won't have the necessary skills, or may not see it as worth the effort if the agent(s) will not have the ability to cause much harm even if they malfunction. When agents are deployed in systems where errors could have serious consequences, the ability of formal verification methods to provide mathematical certainty tends to be strongly preferred by both regulators and designers themselves. But even for high impact systems, formal verificatio

  Read more →
• 

  Learning automaton

  A learning automaton is one type of machine learning algorithm studied since 1970s. Learning automata select their current action based on past experiences from the environment. It will fall into the range of reinforcement learning if the environment is stochastic and a Markov decision process (MDP) is used. == History == Research in learning automata can be traced back to the work of Michael Lvovitch Tsetlin in the early 1960s in the Soviet Union. Together with some colleagues, he published a collection of papers on how to use matrices to describe automata functions. Additionally, Tsetlin worked on reasonable and collective automata behaviour, and on automata games. Learning automata were also investigated by researches in the United States in the 1960s. However, the term learning automaton was not used until Narendra and Thathachar introduced it in a survey paper in 1974. == Definition == A learning automaton is an adaptive decision-making unit situated in a random environment that learns the optimal action through repeated interactions with its environment. The actions are chosen according to a specific probability distribution which is updated based on the environment response the automaton obtains by performing a particular action. With respect to the field of reinforcement learning, learning automata are characterized as policy iterators. In contrast to other reinforcement learners, policy iterators directly manipulate the policy π. Another example for policy iterators are evolutionary algorithms. Formally, Narendra and Thathachar define a stochastic automaton to consist of: a set X of possible inputs, a set Φ = { Φ1, ..., Φs } of possible internal states, a set α = { α1, ..., αr } of possible outputs, or actions, with r ≤ s, an initial state probability vector p(0) = ≪ p1(0), ..., ps(0) ≫, a computable function A which after each time step t generates p(t+1) from p(t), the current input, and the current state, and a function G: Φ → α which generates the output at each time step. In their paper, they investigate only stochastic automata with r = s and G being bijective, allowing them to confuse actions and states. The states of such an automaton correspond to the states of a "discrete-state discrete-parameter Markov process". At each time step t=0,1,2,3,..., the automaton reads an input from its environment, updates p(t) to p(t+1) by A, randomly chooses a successor state according to the probabilities p(t+1) and outputs the corresponding action. The automaton's environment, in turn, reads the action and sends the next input to the automaton. Frequently, the input set X = { 0,1 } is used, with 0 and 1 corresponding to a nonpenalty and a penalty response of the environment, respectively; in this case, the automaton should learn to minimize the number of penalty responses, and the feedback loop of automaton and environment is called a "P-model". More generally, a "Q-model" allows an arbitrary finite input set X, and an "S-model" uses the interval [0,1] of real numbers as X. A visualised demo/ Art Work of a single Learning Automaton had been developed by μSystems (microSystems) Research Group at Newcastle University. == Finite action-set learning automata == Finite action-set learning automata (FALA) are a class of learning automata for which the number of possible actions is finite or, in more mathematical terms, for which the size of the action-set is finite.

  Read more →