AI Headshot Examples

AI Headshot Examples — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  Absher (application)

  Absher (Arabic: أبشر ‘Absher, roughly meaning "good tidings" or "yes, done") is a smartphone application and web portal which allows citizens and residents of Saudi Arabia to use a variety of governmental services. Amongst several other services with the Absher app, it can be used to apply for jobs and Hajj permits, passport info can be updated, and electronic crimes can be reported. The application provides around 280 services for residents of Saudi Arabia including but not limited to making appointments, renewing passports, residents' cards, IDs, driver's licenses and others, and, controversially, enables Saudi men to track the whereabouts of women they control as part of the country's male guardianship system. The app can be downloaded from the Google Play Store and Apple App Store and is supplied by the Saudi Interior Ministry. According to the Ministry of the Interior, Absher has more than 20 million users. As of February 2019, Absher has been downloaded 4.2 million times from the App Store. Some services provided through Absher can also be accessed through the website absher.sa. In March 2021, Saudi Arabia launched the digital version of the Absher for individuals app through which the users can download a copy of their digital ID. Then, new services were added to the platform such as online birth and death registration services, requesting amendments to academic credentials, correcting names in English and marital status and requesting civil records of children. == Impact on women's rights == The app has been criticized by various human rights activists, human rights organisations and international communities. The US and European countries have also condemned the app and urged the kingdom to end its male guardianship system. Absher gained media attention in 2019 for its functions supporting the Saudi policy of male guardianship following an investigation by Business Insider. The app allows for designated guardians to receive notifications if a woman under their guardianship passes through an airport and subsequently gives them the option to withdraw her right to travel. In a few cases, this system has been circumvented by women who have been able to gain control over its settings and use it to allow themselves to travel. US Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon wrote a letter to the CEO's of Apple and Google, criticizing the app and demanding for its removal immediately. Wyden said "American companies should not enable or facilitate the Saudi government's patriarchy," and called the Saudi system of control over women "abhorrent". According to the EU lawmakers, current rules imposed over the women by the Saudi government make women “second-class citizens”. The lawmakers also asked the EU states to continue to build pressure on Riyadh so as to improve the conditions of women and human rights. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch accused Apple and Google of helping "enforce gender apartheid" by hosting the app. US congresswomen Rep. Katherine Clark and Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney condemned the kingdom's male guardianship system that reflected from the app, calling Absher a "patriarchal weapon" and asking for its removal. In response to the criticism received by Absher, Apple chief executive officer Tim Cook stated in February 2019 that he intended to investigate the situation. Similarly, Google announced that it would also review the application. After a prompt review, Google declined to remove the app from Google Play, citing that it did not violate the agreed upon terms and conditions of the store. Saudi doctor Khawla Al-Kuraya supported this app an editorial in Bloomberg News. Kuraya wrote that Absher helped Saudi women avoid governmental bureaucracy as it allows their male guardians to process their travel permits anywhere and anytime through Absher. Although she believes that the guardianship system needs to be reconsidered, she thinks that Absher is an important step towards facilitating women-guardians related issues in Saudi Arabia. Absher manager Atiyah Al-Anazy announced in 2019 that two million women were using the application in Saudi Arabia to facilitate their transactions. Some female users stated that the application has made their movement and travel-related issues easier. New measures were introduced that year to allow Saudi women above the age of 18 to travel without their male guardians, which ultimately released male authoritative rights on women. A law was subsequently passed allowing women over the age of 21 to receive a passport and travel without prior male permission.

  Read more →
• 

  Perceptual computing

  Perceptual computing is an application of Zadeh's theory of computing with words on the field of assisting people to make subjective judgments. == Perceptual computer == The perceptual computer – Per-C – an instantiation of perceptual computing – has the architecture that is depicted in Fig. 1 [2]–[6]. It consists of three components: encoder, CWW engine and decoder. Perceptions – words – activate the Per-C and are the Per-C output (along with data); so, it is possible for a human to interact with the Per-C using just a vocabulary. A vocabulary is application (context) dependent, and must be large enough so that it lets the end-user interact with the Per-C in a user-friendly manner. The encoder transforms words into fuzzy sets (FSs) and leads to a codebook – words with their associated FS models. The outputs of the encoder activate a Computing With Words (CWW) engine, whose output is one or more other FSs, which are then mapped by the decoder into a recommendation (subjective judgment) with supporting data. The recommendation may be in the form of a word, group of similar words, rank or class. Although many details are needed in order to implement the Per-C's three components – encoder, decoder and CWW engine – and they are covered in [5], it is when the Per-C is applied to specific applications, that the focus on the methodology becomes clear. Stepping back from those details, the methodology of perceptual computing is: Focus on an application (A). Establish a vocabulary (or vocabularies) for A. Collect interval end-point data from a group of subjects (representative of the subjects who will use the Per-C) for all of the words in the vocabulary. Map the collected word data into word-FOUs by using the Interval Approach [1], [5, Ch. 3]. The result of doing this is the codebook (or codebooks) for A, and completes the design of the encoder of the Per-C. Choose an appropriate CWW engine for A. It will map IT2 FSs into one or more IT2 FSs. Examples of CWW engines are: IF-THEN rules [5, Ch. 6] and Linguistic Weighted Averages [6], [5, Ch. 5]. If an existing CWW engine is available for A, then use its available mathematics to compute its output(s). Otherwise, develop such mathematics for the new kind of CWW engine. The new CWW engine should be constrained so that its output(s) resemble the FOUs in the codebook(s) for A. Map the IT2 FS outputs from the CWW engine into a recommendation at the output of the decoder. If the recommendation is a word, rank or class, then use existing mathematics to accomplish this mapping [5, Ch. 4]. Otherwise, develop such mathematics for the new kind of decoder. == Applications of Per-C == To-date a Per-C has been implemented for the following four applications: (1) investment decision-making, (2) social judgment making, (3) distributed decision making, and (4) hierarchical and distributed decision-making. A specific example of the fourth application is the so-called Journal Publication Judgment Advisor [5, Ch. 10] in which for the first time only words are used at every level of the following hierarchical and distributed decision making process: n reviewers have to provide a subjective recommendation about a journal article that has been sent to them by the Associate Editor, who then has to aggregate the independent recommendations into a final recommendation that is sent to the Editor-in-Chief of the journal. Because it is very problematic to ask reviewers to provide numerical scores for paper-evaluation sub-categories (the two major categories are Technical Merit and Presentation), such as importance, content, depth, style, organization, clarity, references, etc., each reviewer will only be asked to provide a linguistic score for each of these categories. They will not be asked for an overall recommendation about the paper because in the past it is quite common for reviewers who provide the same numerical scores for such categories to give very different publishing recommendations. By leaving a specific recommendation to the associate editor such inconsistencies can hope to be eliminated. How words can be aggregated to reflect each reviewer's recommendation as well as the expertise of each reviewer about the paper's subject matter is done using a linguistic weighted average. Although the journal publication judgment advisor uses reviewers and an associate editor, the word “reviewer” could be replaced by judge, expert, low-level manager, commander, referee, etc., and the term “associate editor” could be replaced by control center, command center, higher-level manager, etc. So, this application has potential wide applicability to many other applications. Recently, a new Per-C based Failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) methodology was developed, with its application to edible bird's nest farming, in Borneo, has been reported. In addition, application of Per-C based method to educational assessment, for cooperative learning of students has been reported. In summary, the Per-C (whose development has taken more than a decade) is the first complete implementation of Zadeh's CWW paradigm, as applied to assisting people to make subjective judgments.

  Read more →
• 

  They're Made Out of Meat

  "They're Made Out of Meat" is a short story by American writer Terry Bisson. It was originally published in OMNI. It consists entirely of dialogue between two characters. Bisson's website hosts a theatrical adaptation. A film adaptation won the Grand Prize at the Seattle Science Fiction Museum's 2006 film festival. The story was collected in the 1993 anthology Bears Discover Fire and Other Stories, and has circulated widely on the Internet, which Bisson found "flattering". It has been quoted in cognitive, cosmological, and philosophical scholarship. == Plot == The two characters are intelligent beings capable of traveling faster than light, on a mission to "contact, welcome and log in any and all sentient races or multibeings in this quadrant of the Universe." Bisson's stage directions represent them as "two lights moving like fireflies among the stars" on a projection screen. One of them tells the incredulous other about the recent discovery of carbon-based lifeforms "made up entirely of meat". After conversing briefly about it, they both deem such beings and communication with them too bizarre and agree to "erase the records and forget the whole thing", marking the Solar System "unoccupied". == Film adaptations == === They're Made out of Meat (2005) === In 2005, Stephen O'Regan wrote and directed a live film adaptation starring Tom Noonan and Ben Bailey. The film was made as a final project for the New York Film Academy. The main action takes place inside a diner full of teenagers in Staten Island, New York. The music for the film was scored by Bob Reynolds. === They're Made out of Meat (2010) === Jeff Frumess and Trevor Scott produced a version in 2010. They added the character of a homeless conspiracy theorist with an original score by musician Sam Belkin. The film was shot at Hartsdale station in Westchester County, New York. === Meat (2021) === Masha Maksimova developed a version in Cinemiracle format, a triple split-screen process, as a student project at the Berlin University of Applied Sciences in the communication design course. The dialogue is conducted by two telepathic humanoid aliens and the thoughts are visualised by found-footage collages.

  Read more →
• 

  Gene expression programming

  Gene expression programming (GEP) in computer programming is an evolutionary algorithm that creates computer programs or models. These computer programs are complex tree structures that learn and adapt by changing their sizes, shapes, and composition, much like a living organism. And like living organisms, the computer programs of GEP are also encoded in simple linear chromosomes of fixed length. Thus, GEP is a genotype–phenotype system, benefiting from a simple genome to keep and transmit the genetic information and a complex phenotype to explore the environment and adapt to it. == Background == Evolutionary algorithms use populations of individuals, select individuals according to fitness, and introduce genetic variation using one or more genetic operators. Their use in artificial computational systems dates back to the 1950s where they were used to solve optimization problems (e.g. Box 1957 and Friedman 1959). But it was with the introduction of evolution strategies by Rechenberg in 1965 that evolutionary algorithms gained popularity. A good overview text on evolutionary algorithms is the book "An Introduction to Genetic Algorithms" by Mitchell (1996). Gene expression programming belongs to the family of evolutionary algorithms and is closely related to genetic algorithms and genetic programming. From genetic algorithms it inherited the linear chromosomes of fixed length; and from genetic programming it inherited the expressive parse trees of varied sizes and shapes. In gene expression programming the linear chromosomes work as the genotype and the parse trees as the phenotype, creating a genotype/phenotype system. This genotype/phenotype system is multigenic, thus encoding multiple parse trees in each chromosome. This means that the computer programs created by GEP are composed of multiple parse trees. Because these parse trees are the result of gene expression, in GEP they are called expression trees. Masood Nekoei, et al. utilized this expression programming style in ABC optimization to conduct ABCEP as a method that outperformed other evolutionary algorithms.ABCEP == Encoding: the genotype == The genome of gene expression programming consists of a linear, symbolic string or chromosome of fixed length composed of one or more genes of equal size. These genes, despite their fixed length, code for expression trees of different sizes and shapes. An example of a chromosome with two genes, each of size 9, is the string (position zero indicates the start of each gene): 012345678012345678 L+a-baccdcLabacd where “L” represents the natural logarithm function and “a”, “b”, “c”, and “d” represent the variables and constants used in a problem. == Expression trees: the phenotype == As shown above, the genes of gene expression programming have all the same size. However, these fixed length strings code for expression trees of different sizes. This means that the size of the coding regions varies from gene to gene, allowing for adaptation and evolution to occur smoothly. For example, the mathematical expression: ( a − b ) ( c + d ) {\displaystyle {\sqrt {(a-b)(c+d)}}\,} can also be represented as an expression tree: where "Q” represents the square root function. This kind of expression tree consists of the phenotypic expression of GEP genes, whereas the genes are linear strings encoding these complex structures. For this particular example, the linear string corresponds to: 01234567 Q-+abcd which is the straightforward reading of the expression tree from top to bottom and from left to right. These linear strings are called k-expressions (from Karva notation). Going from k-expressions to expression trees is also very simple. For example, the following k-expression: 01234567890 Qb+baQba is composed of two different terminals (the variables “a” and “b”), two different functions of two arguments (“” and “+”), and a function of one argument (“Q”). Its expression gives: == K-expressions and genes == The k-expressions of gene expression programming correspond to the region of genes that gets expressed. This means that there might be sequences in the genes that are not expressed, which is indeed true for most genes. The reason for these noncoding regions is to provide a buffer of terminals so that all k-expressions encoded in GEP genes correspond always to valid programs or expressions. The genes of gene expression programming are therefore composed of two different domains – a head and a tail – each with different properties and functions. The head is used mainly to encode the functions and variables chosen to solve the problem at hand, whereas the tail, while also used to encode the variables, provides essentially a reservoir of terminals to ensure that all programs are error-free. For GEP genes the length of the tail is given by the formula: t = h ( n max − 1 ) + 1 {\displaystyle t=h(n_{\max }-1)+1} where h is the head's length and nmax is maximum arity. For example, for a gene created using the set of functions F = {Q, +, −, ∗, /} and the set of terminals T = {a, b}, nmax = 2. And if we choose a head length of 15, then t = 15 (2–1) + 1 = 16, which gives a gene length g of 15 + 16 = 31. The randomly generated string below is an example of one such gene: 0123456789012345678901234567890 b+a-aQab+//+b+babbabbbababbaaa It encodes the expression tree: which, in this case, only uses 8 of the 31 elements that constitute the gene. It's not hard to see that, despite their fixed length, each gene has the potential to code for expression trees of different sizes and shapes, with the simplest composed of only one node (when the first element of a gene is a terminal) and the largest composed of as many nodes as there are elements in the gene (when all the elements in the head are functions with maximum arity). It's also not hard to see that it is trivial to implement all kinds of genetic modification (mutation, inversion, insertion, recombination, and so on) with the guarantee that all resulting offspring encode correct, error-free programs. == Multigenic chromosomes == The chromosomes of gene expression programming are usually composed of more than one gene of equal length. Each gene codes for a sub-expression tree (sub-ET) or sub-program. Then the sub-ETs can interact with one another in different ways, forming a more complex program. The figure shows an example of a program composed of three sub-ETs. In the final program the sub-ETs could be linked by addition or some other function, as there are no restrictions to the kind of linking function one might choose. Some examples of more complex linkers include taking the average, the median, the midrange, thresholding their sum to make a binomial classification, applying the sigmoid function to compute a probability, and so on. These linking functions are usually chosen a priori for each problem, but they can also be evolved elegantly and efficiently by the cellular system of gene expression programming. == Cells and code reuse == In gene expression programming, homeotic genes control the interactions of the different sub-ETs or modules of the main program. The expression of such genes results in different main programs or cells, that is, they determine which genes are expressed in each cell and how the sub-ETs of each cell interact with one another. In other words, homeotic genes determine which sub-ETs are called upon and how often in which main program or cell and what kind of connections they establish with one another. === Homeotic genes and the cellular system === Homeotic genes have exactly the same kind of structural organization as normal genes and they are built using an identical process. They also contain a head domain and a tail domain, with the difference that the heads contain now linking functions and a special kind of terminals – genic terminals – that represent the normal genes. The expression of the normal genes results as usual in different sub-ETs, which in the cellular system are called ADFs (automatically defined functions). As for the tails, they contain only genic terminals, that is, derived features generated on the fly by the algorithm. For example, the chromosome in the figure has three normal genes and one homeotic gene and encodes a main program that invokes three different functions a total of four times, linking them in a particular way. From this example it is clear that the cellular system not only allows the unconstrained evolution of linking functions but also code reuse. And it shouldn't be hard to implement recursion in this system. === Multiple main programs and multicellular systems === Multicellular systems are composed of more than one homeotic gene. Each homeotic gene in this system puts together a different combination of sub-expression trees or ADFs, creating multiple cells or main programs. For example, the program shown in the figure was created using a cellular system with two cells and three normal genes. The applications of these multicellular systems are mu

  Read more →
• 

  ELMo

  ELMo (embeddings from language model) is a word embedding method for representing a sequence of words as a corresponding sequence of vectors. It was created by researchers at the Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence, and University of Washington and first released in February 2018. It is a bidirectional LSTM which takes character-level as inputs and produces word-level embeddings, trained on a corpus of about 30 million sentences and 1 billion words. The architecture of ELMo accomplishes a contextual understanding of tokens. Deep contextualized word representation is useful for many natural language processing tasks, such as coreference resolution and polysemy resolution. ELMo was historically important as a pioneer of self-supervised generative pretraining followed by fine-tuning, where a large model is trained to reproduce a large corpus, then the large model is augmented with additional task-specific weights and fine-tuned on supervised task data. It was an instrumental step in the evolution towards transformer-based language modelling. == Architecture == ELMo is a multilayered bidirectional LSTM on top of a token embedding layer. The output of all LSTMs concatenated together consists of the token embedding. The input text sequence is first mapped by an embedding layer into a sequence of vectors. Then two parts are run in parallel over it. The forward part is a 2-layered LSTM with 4096 units and 512 dimension projections, and a residual connection from the first to second layer. The backward part has the same architecture, but processes the sequence back-to-front. The outputs from all 5 components (embedding layer, two forward LSTM layers, and two backward LSTM layers) are concatenated and multiplied by a linear matrix ("projection matrix") to produce a 512-dimensional representation per input token. ELMo was pretrained on a text corpus of 1 billion words. The forward part is trained by repeatedly predicting the next token, and the backward part is trained by repeatedly predicting the previous token. After the ELMo model is pretrained, its parameters are frozen, except for the projection matrix, which can be fine-tuned to minimize loss on specific language tasks. This is an early example of the pretraining-fine-tune paradigm. The original paper demonstrated this by improving state of the art on six benchmark NLP tasks. === Contextual word representation === The architecture of ELMo accomplishes a contextual understanding of tokens. For example, the first forward LSTM of ELMo would process each input token in the context of all previous tokens, and the first backward LSTM would process each token in the context of all subsequent tokens. The second forward LSTM would then incorporate those to further contextualize each token. Deep contextualized word representation is useful for many natural language processing tasks, such as coreference resolution and polysemy resolution. For example, consider the sentenceShe went to the bank to withdraw money.In order to represent the token "bank", the model must resolve its polysemy in context. The first forward LSTM would process "bank" in the context of "She went to the", which would allow it to represent the word to be a location that the subject is going towards. The first backward LSTM would process "bank" in the context of "to withdraw money", which would allow it to disambiguate the word as referring to a financial institution. The second forward LSTM can then process "bank" using the representation vector provided by the first backward LSTM, thus allowing it to represent it to be a financial institution that the subject is going towards. == Historical context == ELMo is one link in a historical evolution of language modelling. Consider a simple problem of document classification, where we want to assign a label (e.g., "spam", "not spam", "politics", "sports") to a given piece of text. The simplest approach is the "bag of words" approach, where each word in the document is treated independently, and its frequency is used as a feature for classification. This was computationally cheap but ignored the order of words and their context within the sentence. GloVe and Word2Vec built upon this by learning fixed vector representations (embeddings) for words based on their co-occurrence patterns in large text corpora. Like BERT (but unlike "bag of words" such as Word2Vec and GloVe), ELMo word embeddings are context-sensitive, producing different representations for words that share the same spelling. It was trained on a corpus of about 30 million sentences and 1 billion words. Previously, bidirectional LSTM was used for contextualized word representation. ELMo applied the idea to a large scale, achieving state of the art performance. After the 2017 publication of Transformer architecture, the architecture of ELMo was changed from a multilayered bidirectional LSTM to a Transformer encoder, giving rise to BERT. BERT has a similar pretrain-fine-tune workflow, but uses a Transformer with implications for more parallelizable training.

  Read more →
• 

  Anytime algorithm

  In computer science, an anytime algorithm is an algorithm that can return a valid solution to a problem even if it is interrupted before it ends. The algorithm is expected to find better and better solutions the longer it keeps running. Most algorithms run to completion: they provide a single answer after performing some fixed amount of computation. In some cases, however, the user may wish to terminate the algorithm prior to completion. The amount of computation required may be substantial, for example, and computational resources might need to be reallocated. Most algorithms either run to completion or they provide no useful solution information. Anytime algorithms, however, are able to return a partial answer, whose quality depends on the amount of computation they were able to perform. The answer generated by anytime algorithms is an approximation of the correct answer. == Names == An anytime algorithm may be also called an "interruptible algorithm". They are different from contract algorithms, which must declare a time in advance; in an anytime algorithm, a process can just announce that it is terminating. == Goals == The goal of anytime algorithms are to give intelligent systems the ability to make results of better quality in return for turn-around time. They are also supposed to be flexible in time and resources. They are important because artificial intelligence or AI algorithms can take a long time to complete results. This algorithm is designed to complete in a shorter amount of time. Also, these are intended to have a better understanding that the system is dependent and restricted to its agents and how they work cooperatively. An example is the Newton–Raphson iteration applied to finding the square root of a number. Another example that uses anytime algorithms is trajectory problems when you're aiming for a target; the object is moving through space while waiting for the algorithm to finish and even an approximate answer can significantly improve its accuracy if given early. What makes anytime algorithms unique is their ability to return many possible outcomes for any given input. An anytime algorithm uses many well defined quality measures to monitor progress in problem solving and distributed computing resources. It keeps searching for the best possible answer with the amount of time that it is given. It may not run until completion and may improve the answer if it is allowed to run longer. This is often used for large decision set problems. This would generally not provide useful information unless it is allowed to finish. While this may sound similar to dynamic programming, the difference is that it is fine-tuned through random adjustments, rather than sequential. Anytime algorithms are designed so that it can be told to stop at any time and would return the best result it has found so far. This is why it is called an interruptible algorithm. Certain anytime algorithms also maintain the last result, so that if they are given more time, they can continue from where they left off to obtain an even better result. == Decision trees == When the decider has to act, there must be some ambiguity. Also, there must be some idea about how to solve this ambiguity. This idea must be translatable to a state to action diagram. == Performance profile == The performance profile estimates the quality of the results based on the input and the amount of time that is allotted to the algorithm. The better the estimate, the sooner the result would be found. Some systems have a larger database that gives the probability that the output is the expected output. One algorithm can have several performance profiles. Most of the time performance profiles are constructed using mathematical statistics using representative cases. For example, in the traveling salesman problem, the performance profile was generated using a user-defined special program to generate the necessary statistics. In this example, the performance profile is the mapping of time to the expected results. This quality can be measured in several ways: certainty: where probability of correctness determines quality accuracy: where error bound determines quality specificity: where the amount of particulars determine quality == Algorithm prerequisites == Initial behavior: While some algorithms start with immediate guesses, others take a more calculated approach and have a start up period before making any guesses. Growth direction: How the quality of the program's "output" or result, varies as a function of the amount of time ("run time") Growth rate: Amount of increase with each step. Does it change constantly, such as in a bubble sort or does it change unpredictably? End condition: The amount of runtime needed

  Read more →
• 

  Hindsight optimization

  Hindsight optimisation (HOP) is a computer science technique used in artificial intelligence for analysis of actions which have stochastic results. HOP is used in combination with a deterministic planner. By creating sample results for each of the possible actions from the given state (i.e. determinising the actions), and using the deterministic planner to analyse those sample results, HOP allows an estimate of the actual action.

  Read more →
• 

  Imagen (text-to-image model)

  Imagen is a series of text-to-image models developed by Google DeepMind. They were developed by Google Brain until the company's merger with DeepMind in April 2023. Imagen is primarily used to generate images from text prompts, similar to Stability AI's Stable Diffusion, OpenAI's DALL-E, or Midjourney. The original version of the model was first discussed in a paper from May 2022. The tool produces high-quality images and is available to all users with a Google account through services including Gemini, ImageFX, and Vertex AI. == History == Imagen's original version was first presented in a paper published in May 2022. It featured the ability to generate high-fidelity images from natural language. The second version, Imagen 2 was released in December 2023. The standout feature was text and logo generation. Imagen 3 was released in August 2024. Google claims that the newest version provides better detail and lighting on generated images. On 20 May 2025 at Google I/O 2025 the company released an improved model, Imagen 4. == Technology == Imagen uses two key technologies. The first is the use of transformer-based large language models, notably T5, to understand text and subsequently encode text for image synthesis. The second is the use of cascaded diffusion models providing high-fidelity image generation. Imagen generates image in three stages, starting from a base of 64x64, then upsampled to 256x256 and 1024x1024. Imagen 4 generates image up to 2k. == Capabilities == Imagen can generate photorealistic images from text prompts. It can also create various styles, such as cinematic, 35mm film, illustration, and surreal. Like most text-to-image generative AI models, Imagen has difficulty rendering human fingers, text, ambigrams and other forms of typography. The model can generate images in five aspect ratios, namely 9:16, 3:4, 1:1, 4:3, and 16:9. Imagen can also refine already generated images by editing existing text prompts.

  Read more →
• 

  MeeMix

  MeeMix Ltd is a company specializing in personalizing media-related content recommendations, discovery and advertising for the telecommunication industry, founded in 2006. On January 1, 2008, MeeMix launched meemix.com, a public personalized internet radio serving as an online testbed for the development of music taste-prediction technologies. Subsequently, MeeMix released in 2009 a line of Business-to-business commercial services intended to personalize media recommendations, discovery and advertising. MeeMix hybrid taste-prediction technology relies on integrating machine learning algorithms, digital signal processing, behavior analysis, metadata analysis and collaborative filtering, and is provided via API web service. In August 2009, MeeMix was announced as Innovator Nominee in the GSM Association’s Mobile Innovation Grand Prix worldwide contest. As of 2013, MeeMix no longer features internet radios on meemix.com. On Sep 28, 2014, meemix.com went offline.

  Read more →
• 

  Pommerman Challenge

  The Pommerman Challenge is a multi-agent game to test autonomous artificial intelligence systems. == Game structure == Two-agent team compete against each other on an 11 x 11 board. Each agent can observe only part of the board, and the agents cannot communicate. The goal is to knock down the opponents. Agents place explosives to destroy walls and collect power-ups that appear from those walls, while avoiding death. Game objects can move unpredictably or be moved by an agent. == Play == The game involves real-time decision making. Agents must choose moves in about .1 seconds. == Algorithms == The real-time requirement limits the use of compute-heavy techniques such as Monte Carlo tree search. The branching factor at each move can be as large as 1,296, because all four agents act in each step, choosing among six possibilities. The agents choose by accounting for explosions, which have lifetimes of 10 steps. Explosions derail tree search techniques, as searches with less than 10 levels ignore explosions while deeper searches consider too many choices (given the branching factor). A hybrid approach uses a limited-depth tree search followed by exploring a deterministic/pessimistic scenario. Limiting the depth keeps the search tree small. The deterministic approach can predict far in the future, by omitting branching. "Good" actions are often those that perform well under pessimistic scenarios, particularly if safety is important. Identifying the worst sequence of positions for an object can suggest where to move it. After generating pessimistic scenarios, the agent quantifies the survivability of each move, notionally the number of positions in which the agent can then remain safely (without encountering other agents). == Competitions == 3 competitions were organized with slightly changing rules during 2018–2019. === Online - FFA === This round was a warm-up online event, where each competitor controlled only one agent. Results: 1st: Agent47Agent by Yichen Gong 2nd: aiKiller by Márton Görög === NeurIPS 2018 - Team === The first Pommerman competition with in-person finals. Results: 1st: hakozakijunctions by Toshihiro Takahashi 2nd: eisenach by Márton Görög 3rd: dypm by Takayuki Osogami The 3 best performing solutions used online tree search. === NeurIPS 2019 - Team Radio === The second competition with in-person finals improved communication between teammate agents. Results: 1st: Márton Görög 2nd: Paul Jasek 3rd: Yifan Zhang

  Read more →
• 

  Fuzzy electronics

  Fuzzy electronics is an electronic technology that uses fuzzy logic, instead of the two-state Boolean logic more commonly used in digital electronics. Fuzzy electronics is fuzzy logic implemented on dedicated hardware. This is to be compared with fuzzy logic implemented in software running on a conventional processor. Fuzzy electronics has a wide range of applications, including control systems and artificial intelligence. == History == The first fuzzy electronic circuit was built by Takeshi Yamakawa et al. in 1980 using discrete bipolar transistors. The first industrial fuzzy application was in a cement kiln in Denmark in 1982. The first VLSI fuzzy electronics was by Masaki Togai and Hiroyuki Watanabe in 1984. In 1987, Yamakawa built the first analog fuzzy controller. The first digital fuzzy processors came in 1988 by Togai (Russo, pp. 2–6). In the early 1990s, the first fuzzy logic chips were presented to the public. Two companies which are Omron and NEC have announced the development of dedicated fuzzy electronic hardware in the year 1991. Two years later, the Japanese Omron Cooperation has shown a working fuzzy chip during a technical fair.

  Read more →
• 

  Herbrand Award

  The Herbrand Award for Distinguished Contributions to Automated Reasoning is an award given by the Conference on Automated Deduction (CADE), Inc., (although it predates the formal incorporation of CADE) to honour persons or groups for important contributions to the field of automated deduction. The award is named after the French scientist Jacques Herbrand and given at most once per CADE or International Joint Conference on Automated Reasoning (IJCAR). It comes with a prize of US$1,000. Anyone can be nominated, the award is awarded after a vote among CADE trustees and former recipients, usually with input from the CADE/IJCAR programme committee. == Recipients == Past award recipients are: === 1990s === Larry Wos (1992) Woody Bledsoe (1994) John Alan Robinson (1996) Wu Wenjun (1997) Gérard Huet (1998) Robert S. Boyer and J Strother Moore (1999) === 2000s === William W. McCune (2000) Donald W. Loveland (2001) Mark E. Stickel (2002). Peter B. Andrews (2003) Harald Ganzinger (2004) Martin Davis (2005) Wolfgang Bibel (2006) Alan Bundy (2007) Edmund M. Clarke (2008) Deepak Kapur (2009) === 2010s === David Plaisted (2010) Nachum Dershowitz (2011) Melvin Fitting (2012) C. Greg Nelson (2013) Robert L. Constable (2014) Andrei Voronkov (2015) Zohar Manna and Richard Waldinger (2016) Lawrence C. Paulson (2017) Bruno Buchberger (2018) Nikolaj Bjørner and Leonardo de Moura (2019) === 2020s === Franz Baader (2020) Tobias Nipkow (2021) Natarajan Shankar (2022) Moshe Vardi (2023) Armin Biere (2024) Aart Middeldorp (2025)

  Read more →
• 

  Subpixel rendering

  Subpixel rendering is a method used to increase the effective resolution of a color display device. It utilizes the composition of each pixel, which consists of three subpixels of which are red, green, and blue that can each be individually addressable on the display matrix. Subpixel rendering is primarily used for text rendering on standard DPI displays. Despite the inherent color anomalies, it can also be used to render general graphics. == History == The origin of subpixel rendering as used today remains controversial. Apple Inc., IBM, and Microsoft patented various implementations that differed in technical details owing to the different purposes for which their technologies were intended. Microsoft held several patents in the United States for subpixel rendering technology used in text rendering on RGB Stripe layouts. The patents 6,219,025; 6,239,783; 6,307,566; 6,225,973; 6,243,070; 6,393,145; 6,421,054; 6,282,327; and 6,624,828 were filed between October 7, 1998, and October 7, 1999, and expired on July 30, 2019. Analysis of the patent by FreeType indicates that the patent does not cover the idea of subpixel rendering, but rather the actual filter used as a last step to balance the color. Microsoft's patent describes the smallest possible filter that distributes each subpixel value equally among the R, G, and B pixels. Any other filter will either be blurrier or will introduce color artifacts. Apple was able to use it in Mac OS X due to a patent cross-licensing agreement. == Characteristics == A single pixel on a color display is made of several subpixels, typically three arranged left-to-right as red, green, and blue (RGB). The components are readily visible with a small magnifying glass, such as a loupe. These pixel components appear as a single color to the human eye because of blurring by optics and spatial integration by nerve cells in the eye. However, the eye is much more sensitive to the location. Therefore, turning on the G and B of one pixel and the R of the next pixel to the right will produce a white dot, but it will appear to be 1/3 of a pixel to the right of the white dot that would be seen from the RGB of only the first pixel. Subpixel rendering leverages this to provide three times the horizontal resolution of the rendered image. However, it has to blur this image to produce the correct color by ensuring the same amount of red, green, and blue are turned on as when no subpixel rendering is being done. Subpixel rendering does not necessitate the use of antialiasing. It gives a smoother result regardless of whether antialiasing is used or not since it artificially increases the resolution. However, it introduces color aliasing since subpixels are colored. Subsequent filtering applied to remove the color artifacts is a form of antialiasing, although its purpose is not smoothing jagged shapes as in conventional antialiasing. Subpixel rendering requires the software to know the layout of the subpixels. The most common reason it is wrong is monitors that can be rotated 90 (or 180) degrees, though monitors are manufactured with other arrangements of the subpixels, such as BGR or in triangles, or with 4 colors like RGBW squares. On any such display the result of incorrect subpixel rendering will be worse than if no subpixel rendering was done at all (it will not produce color artifacts, but it will produce noisy edges). == Implementations == === Apple II === Steve Gibson has claimed that the Apple II, introduced in 1977, supports an early form of subpixel rendering in its high-resolution (280×192) graphics mode. The Wozniak patent only used 2 "sub-pixels". The bytes that comprise the Apple II high-resolution screen buffer contain seven visible bits (each corresponding directly to a pixel) and a flag bit used to select between purple/green or blue/orange color sets. Each pixel, since it is represented by a single bit, is either on or off; there are no bits within the pixel itself for specifying color or brightness. Color is instead created as an artifact of the NTSC color encoding scheme, determined by horizontal position: pixels with even horizontal coordinates are always purple (or blue, if the flag bit is set), and odd pixels are always green (or orange). Two lit pixels next to each other are always white, regardless of whether the pair is even/odd or odd/even, and irrespective of the value of the flag bit. This is an approximation, but it is what most programmers of the time would have in mind while working with the Apple's high-resolution mode. Gibson's example claims that because two adjacent bits form a white block, there are, in fact, two bits per pixel: one that activates the pixel's purple left half and the other that activates its green right half. If the programmer instead activates the green right half of a pixel and the purple left half of the next pixel, the result is a white block 1/2 pixel to the right, which is indeed an instance of subpixel rendering. However, it is not clear whether any programmers of the Apple II have considered the pairs of bits as pixels—instead calling each bit a pixel. The flag bit in each byte affects color by shifting pixels half a pixel-width to the right. This half-pixel shift was exploited by some graphics software, such as HRCG (High-Resolution Character Generator), an Apple utility that displayed text using the high-resolution graphics mode, to smooth diagonals. === ClearType === Microsoft announced its subpixel rendering technology, called ClearType, at COMDEX in 1998. Microsoft published a paper in May 2000, Displaced Filtering for Patterned Displays, describing the filtering behind ClearType. It was then made available in Windows XP. Still, it was not activated by default until Windows Vista, while Windows XP OEMs could and did change the default setting. === FreeType === FreeType, the library used by most current software on the X Window System, contains two open source implementations. The original implementation uses the ClearType antialiasing filters and carries the following notice: "The colour filtering algorithm of Microsoft's ClearType technology for subpixel rendering is covered by patents; for this reason, the corresponding code in FreeType is disabled by default. Note that subpixel rendering per se is prior art; using a different colour filter thus easily circumvents Microsoft's patent claims." FreeType offers a variety of color filters. Since version 2.6.2, the default filter is light, a filter that is both normalized (value sums up to 1) and color-balanced (eliminate color fringes at the cost of resolution). Since version 2.8.1, a second implementation exists, called Harmony, that "offers high quality LCD-optimized output without resorting to ClearType techniques of resolution tripling and filtering". This is the method enabled by default. When using this method, "each color channel is generated separately after shifting the glyph outline, capitalizing on the fact that the color grids on LCD panels are shifted by a third of a pixel. This output is indistinguishable from ClearType with a light 3-tap filter." Since the Harmony method does not require additional filtering, it is not covered by the ClearType patents. === CoolType === Adobe created their own subpixel renderer called CoolType, allowing them to display documents the same way across various operating systems: Windows, MacOS, Linux etc. When it was launched around the year 2001, CoolType supported a wider range of fonts than Microsoft's ClearType, which at the time was limited to TrueType fonts. In contrast, Adobe's CoolType also supported PostScript fonts (and their OpenType equivalents). === macOS === Mac OS X (later OS X, now macOS) also used subpixel rendering, as part of Quartz 2D. However, it was removed after the introduction of Retina displays. Unlike Microsoft's implementation, which favors a tight fit to the grid (font hinting) to maximize legibility, Apple's implementation prioritizes the shape of the glyphs as set out by their designer.

  Read more →
• 

  Argument Interchange Format

  The Argument Interchange Format (AIF) is an international effort to develop a representational mechanism for exchanging argument resources between research groups, tools, and domains using a semantically rich language. AIF traces its history back to a 2005 colloquium in Budapest. The result of the work in Budapest was first published as a draft description in 2006. Building on this foundation, further work then used the AIF to build foundations for the Argument Web. AIF-RDF is the extended ontology represented in the Resource Description Framework Schema (RDFS) semantic language. The Argument Interchange Format introduces a small set of ontological concepts that aim to capture a common understanding of argument -- one that works in multiple domains (both domains of argumentation and also domains of academic research), so that data can be shared and re-used across different projects in different areas. These ontological concepts are: Information (I-nodes) Applications of Rules of Inference (RA-nodes) Applications of Rules of Conflict (CA-nodes) Applications of Rules of Preference (PA-nodes) extended by: Schematic Forms (F-nodes) that are instantiated by RA, CA and PA nodes The AIF has reifications in a variety of development environments and implementation languages including MySQL database schema RDF Prolog JSON as well as translations to visual languages such as DOT and SVG. AIF data can be accessed online at AIFdb.

  Read more →
• 

  Netflix Prize

  The Netflix Prize was an open competition for the best collaborative filtering algorithm to predict user ratings for films, based on previous ratings without any other information about the users or films, i.e. without the users being identified except by numbers assigned for the contest. The competition was held by Netflix, a video streaming service, and was open to anyone who was neither connected with Netflix (current and former employees, agents, close relatives of Netflix employees, etc.) nor a resident of certain blocked countries (such as Cuba or North Korea). On September 21, 2009, the grand prize of US$1,000,000 was given to the BellKor's Pragmatic Chaos team which bested Netflix's own algorithm for predicting ratings by 10.06%. == Problem and data sets == Netflix provided a training data set of 100,480,507 ratings that 480,189 users gave to 17,770 movies. Each training rating is a quadruplet of the form . The user and movie fields are integer IDs, while grades are from 1 to 5 (integer) stars. The qualifying data set contains over 2,817,131 triplets of the form , with grades known only to the jury. A participating team's algorithm must predict grades on the entire qualifying set, but they are informed of the score for only half of the data: a quiz set of 1,408,342 ratings. The other half is the test set of 1,408,789, and performance on this is used by the jury to determine potential prize winners. Only the judges know which ratings are in the quiz set, and which are in the test set—this arrangement is intended to make it difficult to hill climb on the test set. Submitted predictions are scored against the true grades in the form of root mean squared error (RMSE), and the goal is to reduce this error as much as possible. Note that, while the actual grades are integers in the range 1 to 5, submitted predictions need not be. Netflix also identified a probe subset of 1,408,395 ratings within the training data set. The probe, quiz, and test data sets were chosen to have similar statistical properties. In summary, the data used in the Netflix Prize looks as follows: Training set (99,072,112 ratings not including the probe set; 100,480,507 including the probe set) Probe set (1,408,395 ratings) Qualifying set (2,817,131 ratings) consisting of: Test set (1,408,789 ratings), used to determine winners Quiz set (1,408,342 ratings), used to calculate leaderboard scores For each movie, the title and year of release are provided in a separate dataset. No information at all is provided about users. In order to protect the privacy of the customers, "some of the rating data for some customers in the training and qualifying sets have been deliberately perturbed in one or more of the following ways: deleting ratings; inserting alternative ratings and dates; and modifying rating dates." The training set is constructed such that the average user rated over 200 movies, and the average movie was rated by over 5000 users. But there is wide variance in the data—some movies in the training set have as few as 3 ratings, while one user rated over 17,000 movies. There was some controversy as to the choice of RMSE as the defining metric. It has been claimed that even as small an improvement as 1% RMSE results in a significant difference in the ranking of the "top-10" most recommended movies for a user. == Prizes == Prizes were based on improvement over Netflix's own algorithm, called Cinematch, or the previous year's score if a team has made improvement beyond a certain threshold. A trivial algorithm that predicts for each movie in the quiz set its average grade from the training data produces an RMSE of 1.0540. Cinematch uses "straightforward statistical linear models with a lot of data conditioning." The performance of Cinematch had plateaued by 2006. Using only the training data, Cinematch scores an RMSE of 0.9514 on the quiz data, roughly a 10% improvement over the trivial algorithm. Cinematch has a similar performance on the test set, 0.9525. In order to win the grand prize of $1,000,000, a participating team had to improve this by another 10%, to achieve 0.8572 on the test set. Such an improvement on the quiz set corresponds to an RMSE of 0.8563. As long as no team won the grand prize, a progress prize of $50,000 was awarded every year for the best result thus far. However, in order to win this prize, an algorithm had to improve the RMSE on the quiz set by at least 1% over the previous progress prize winner (or over Cinematch, the first year). If no submission succeeded, the progress prize was not to be awarded for that year. To win a progress or grand prize a participant had to provide source code and a description of the algorithm to the jury within one week after being contacted by them. Following verification the winner also had to provide a non-exclusive license to Netflix. Netflix would publish only the description, not the source code, of the system. (To keep their algorithm and source code secret, a team could choose not to claim a prize.) The jury also kept their predictions secret from other participants. A team could send as many attempts to predict grades as they wish. Originally submissions were limited to once a week, but the interval was quickly modified to once a day. A team's best submission so far counted as their current submission. Once one of the teams succeeded in improving the RMSE by 10% or more, the jury would issue a last call, giving all teams 30 days to send their submissions. Only then, the team with the best submission was asked for the algorithm description, source code, and non-exclusive license, and, after successful verification; declared a grand prize winner. The contest would last until the grand prize winner was declared. Had no one received the grand prize, it would have lasted for at least five years (until October 2, 2011). After that date, the contest could have been terminated at any time at Netflix's sole discretion. == Progress over the years == The competition began on October 2, 2006. By October 8, a team called WXYZConsulting had already beaten Cinematch's results. By October 15, there were three teams who had beaten Cinematch, one of them by 1.06%, enough to qualify for the annual progress prize. By June 2007 over 20,000 teams had registered for the competition from over 150 countries. 2,000 teams had submitted over 13,000 prediction sets. Over the first year of the competition, a handful of front-runners traded first place. The more prominent ones were: WXYZConsulting, a team of Wei Xu and Yi Zhang. (A front runner during November–December 2006.) ML@UToronto A, a team from the University of Toronto led by Prof. Geoffrey Hinton. (A front runner during parts of October–December 2006.) Gravity, a team of four scientists from the Budapest University of Technology (A front runner during January–May 2007.) BellKor, a group of scientists from AT&T Labs. (A front runner since May 2007.) Dinosaur Planet, a team of three undergraduates from Princeton University. (A front runner on September 3, 2007 for one hour before BellKor snatched back the lead.) The algorithms used by the leading teams were usually an ensemble of singular value decomposition, k-nearest neighbor, neural networks, and so on. On August 12, 2007, many contestants gathered at the KDD Cup and Workshop 2007, held at San Jose, California. During the workshop all four of the top teams on the leaderboard at that time presented their techniques. The team from IBM Research—Yan Liu, Saharon Rosset, Claudia Perlich, and Zhenzhen Kou—won the third place in Task 1 and first place in Task 2. Over the second year of the competition, only three teams reached the leading position: BellKor, a group of scientists from AT&T Labs (front runner during May 2007 – September 2008) BigChaos, a team of Austrian scientists from Commendo Research & Consulting (single team front runner since October 2008) BellKor in BigChaos, a joint team of the two leading single teams (a front runner since September 2008) === 2007 Progress Prize === On September 2, 2007, the competition entered the "last call" period for the 2007 Progress Prize. Over 40,000 teams from 186 countries had entered the contest. They had thirty days to tender submissions for consideration. At the beginning of this period the leading team was BellKor, with an RMSE of 0.8728 (8.26% improvement), followed by Dinosaur Planet (RMSE = 0.8769; 7.83% improvement), and Gravity (RMSE = 0.8785; 7.66% improvement). In the last hour of the last call period, an entry by "KorBell" took first place. This turned out to be an alternate name for Team BellKor. On November 13, 2007, team KorBell (formerly BellKor) was declared the winner of the $50,000 Progress Prize with an RMSE of 0.8712 (8.43% improvement). The team consisted of three researchers from AT&T Labs, Yehuda Koren, Robert Bell, and Chris Volinsky. As required, they published a description of their a

  Read more →