Shopping for the best AI virtual assistant? An AI virtual assistant is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it keeps getting smarter as the underlying models improve. Pricing, accuracy, and the size of the model behind the tool are the three factors that most affect daily usefulness. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI virtual assistant slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. Below we compare features, pricing, and real output so you can choose with confidence.
Bump (application)
Bump was an iOS and Android mobile app that enabled smartphone users to transfer contact information, photos and files between devices. In 2011, it was #8 on Apple's list of all-time most popular free iPhone apps, and by February 2013 it had been downloaded 125 million times. Its developer, Bump Technologies, shut down the service and discontinued the app on January 31, 2014, after being acquired by Google for Google Photos and Android Camera. == Features == Bump sent contact information, photos and files to another device over the internet. Before activating the transfer, each user confirmed what they want to send to the other user. To initiate a transfer, two people physically bumped their phones together. A screen appeared on both users' smartphone displays, allowing them to confirm what they want to send to each other. When two users bumped their phones, software on the phones send a variety of sensor data to an algorithm running on Bump servers, which included the location of the phone, accelerometer readings, IP address, and other sensor readings. The algorithm figured out which two phones felt the same physical bump and then transfers the information between those phones. Bump did not use Near Field Communication. February 2012 release of Bump 3.0 for iOS, the company streamlined the app to focus on its most frequently used features: contact and photo sharing. Bump 3.0 for Android maintained the features eliminated from the iOS version but moved them behind swipeable layers. In May 2012, a Bump update enabled users to transfer photos from their phone to their computer via a web service. To initiate a transfer, the user goes to the Bump website on their computer and bumps the smartphone on the computer keyboard's space bar. By December 2012, various Bump updates for iOS and Android had added the abilities to share video, audio, and any files. Users swipe to access those features. In February 2013, an update to the Bump iOS and Android apps enabled users to transfer photos, videos, contacts and other files from a computer to a smartphone and vice versa via a web service. To perform the transfer, users went to the Bump website on their computer and bump the smartphone on the computer keyboard's space bar. == History == The underlying idea of a synchronous gesture like bumping two devices for content transfer or pairing them was first conceived by Ken Hinkley of Microsoft Research in 2003. This idea was presented at a user interface and technology conference that same year. The paper proposed the use of accelerometers and a bumping gesture of two devices to enable communication, screen sharing and content transfer between them. Similar to this original concept, the idea for Bump app was conceived by David Lieb, a former employee of Texas Instruments, while he was attending the University of Chicago Booth School of Business for his MBA. While going through the orientation and meeting process of business school, he became frustrated by constantly entering contact information into his iPhone and felt that the process could be improved. His fellow Texas Instruments employees Andy Huibers and Jake Mintz, who was a classmate of Lieb's at the University of Chicago's MBA program, joined Lieb to form Bump Technologies. Bump Technologies launched in 2008 and is located in Mountain View, CA. Early funding for the project was provided by startup incubator Y Combinator, Sequoia Capital and other angel investors. It gained attention at the CTIA international wireless conference, due to its accessibility and novelty factor. In October 2009, Bump received $3.4m in Series A funding followed in January 2011 with a $16m series B financing round led by Andreessen Horowitz. Silicon Valley venture capitalist Marc Andreessen sits on the company's board. The Bump app debuted in the Apple iOS App Store in March 2009 and was “one of the apps that helped to define the iPhone” (Harry McCracken, Technologizer). It soon became the billionth download on Apple's App Store. An Android version launched in November 2009. By the time Bump 3.0 for iOS was released in February 2012, the app had been installed 77 million times, with users sharing more than 2 million photos daily. As of February 2013, there had been 125 million Bump app downloads. == Other apps created by Bump Technologies == Bump Technologies worked with PayPal in March 2010 to create a PayPal iPhone application. The application, which allows two users to automatically activate an Internet transfer of money between their accounts, found widespread adoption. A similar version was released for Android in August 2010. The Bump capability in PayPal's apps was removed in March 2012. At that time, Bump Technologies released Bump Pay, an iOS app that lets users transfer money via PayPal by physically bumping two smartphones together. The tool was originally created for the Bump team to use when splitting up restaurant bills. The payment feature was not added to the Bump app because the company “wanted to make it as simple as possible so people understand how this works,” Lieb told ABC News. Bump Pay was the first app from the company's Bump Labs initiative. A goal of Bump Labs is to test new app ideas that may not fit within the main Bump app. ING Direct added a feature to its iPhone app in 2011 that lets users transfer money to each other using Bump's technology. The feature was later added to its Android app, now called Capital One 360. In July 2012, Bump Technologies released Flock, an iPhone photo sharing app. An Android version was released in December 2012. Using geolocation data embedded in photos and a user's Facebook connections, Flock finds pictures the user takes while out with friends and family and puts everyone's photos from that event into a single shared album. Users receive a push notification after the event, asking if they want to share their photos with friends who were there in the moment. The app will also scan previous photos in the iPhone camera roll and uncover photos that have yet to be shared. If location services were enabled at the time a photo was taken, Flock allows users to create an album of photos from the past with the friends who were there with them. == Acquisition by Google == On September 16, 2013, Bump Technologies announced that it had been acquired by Google. On December 31, 2013, they broke the news that both Bump and Flock would be discontinued so that the team could focus on new projects at Google. The apps were removed from the App Store and Google Play on January 31, 2014. The company subsequently deleted all user data and shut down their servers, thus rendering existing installations of the apps inoperable.
Cross-entropy method
The cross-entropy (CE) method is a Monte Carlo method for importance sampling and optimization. It is applicable to both combinatorial and continuous problems, with either a static or noisy objective. The method approximates the optimal importance sampling estimator by repeating two phases: Draw a sample from a probability distribution. Minimize the cross-entropy between this distribution and a target distribution to produce a better sample in the next iteration. Reuven Rubinstein developed the method in the context of rare-event simulation, where tiny probabilities must be estimated, for example in network reliability analysis, queueing models, or performance analysis of telecommunication systems. The method has also been applied to the traveling salesman, quadratic assignment, DNA sequence alignment, max-cut and buffer allocation problems. == Estimation via importance sampling == Consider the general problem of estimating the quantity ℓ = E u [ H ( X ) ] = ∫ H ( x ) f ( x ; u ) d x {\displaystyle \ell =\mathbb {E} _{\mathbf {u} }[H(\mathbf {X} )]=\int H(\mathbf {x} )\,f(\mathbf {x} ;\mathbf {u} )\,{\textrm {d}}\mathbf {x} } , where H {\displaystyle H} is some performance function and f ( x ; u ) {\displaystyle f(\mathbf {x} ;\mathbf {u} )} is a member of some parametric family of distributions. Using importance sampling this quantity can be estimated as ℓ ^ = 1 N ∑ i = 1 N H ( X i ) f ( X i ; u ) g ( X i ) {\displaystyle {\hat {\ell }}={\frac {1}{N}}\sum _{i=1}^{N}H(\mathbf {X} _{i}){\frac {f(\mathbf {X} _{i};\mathbf {u} )}{g(\mathbf {X} _{i})}}} , where X 1 , … , X N {\displaystyle \mathbf {X} _{1},\dots ,\mathbf {X} _{N}} is a random sample from g {\displaystyle g\,} . For positive H {\displaystyle H} , the theoretically optimal importance sampling density (PDF) is given by g ∗ ( x ) = H ( x ) f ( x ; u ) / ℓ {\displaystyle g^{}(\mathbf {x} )=H(\mathbf {x} )f(\mathbf {x} ;\mathbf {u} )/\ell } . This, however, depends on the unknown ℓ {\displaystyle \ell } . The CE method aims to approximate the optimal PDF by adaptively selecting members of the parametric family that are closest (in the Kullback–Leibler sense) to the optimal PDF g ∗ {\displaystyle g^{}} . == Generic CE algorithm == Choose initial parameter vector v ( 0 ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {v} ^{(0)}} ; set t = 1. Generate a random sample X 1 , … , X N {\displaystyle \mathbf {X} _{1},\dots ,\mathbf {X} _{N}} from f ( ⋅ ; v ( t − 1 ) ) {\displaystyle f(\cdot ;\mathbf {v} ^{(t-1)})} Solve for v ( t ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {v} ^{(t)}} , where v ( t ) = argmax v 1 N ∑ i = 1 N H ( X i ) f ( X i ; u ) f ( X i ; v ( t − 1 ) ) log f ( X i ; v ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {v} ^{(t)}=\mathop {\textrm {argmax}} _{\mathbf {v} }{\frac {1}{N}}\sum _{i=1}^{N}H(\mathbf {X} _{i}){\frac {f(\mathbf {X} _{i};\mathbf {u} )}{f(\mathbf {X} _{i};\mathbf {v} ^{(t-1)})}}\log f(\mathbf {X} _{i};\mathbf {v} )} If convergence is reached then stop; otherwise, increase t by 1 and reiterate from step 2. In several cases, the solution to step 3 can be found analytically. Situations in which this occurs are When f {\displaystyle f\,} belongs to the natural exponential family When f {\displaystyle f\,} is discrete with finite support When H ( X ) = I { x ∈ A } {\displaystyle H(\mathbf {X} )=\mathrm {I} _{\{\mathbf {x} \in A\}}} and f ( X i ; u ) = f ( X i ; v ( t − 1 ) ) {\displaystyle f(\mathbf {X} _{i};\mathbf {u} )=f(\mathbf {X} _{i};\mathbf {v} ^{(t-1)})} , then v ( t ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {v} ^{(t)}} corresponds to the maximum likelihood estimator based on those X k ∈ A {\displaystyle \mathbf {X} _{k}\in A} . == Continuous optimization—example == The same CE algorithm can be used for optimization, rather than estimation. Suppose the problem is to maximize some function S {\displaystyle S} , for example, S ( x ) = e − ( x − 2 ) 2 + 0.8 e − ( x + 2 ) 2 {\displaystyle S(x)={\textrm {e}}^{-(x-2)^{2}}+0.8\,{\textrm {e}}^{-(x+2)^{2}}} . To apply CE, one considers first the associated stochastic problem of estimating P θ ( S ( X ) ≥ γ ) {\displaystyle \mathbb {P} _{\boldsymbol {\theta }}(S(X)\geq \gamma )} for a given level γ {\displaystyle \gamma \,} , and parametric family { f ( ⋅ ; θ ) } {\displaystyle \left\{f(\cdot ;{\boldsymbol {\theta }})\right\}} , for example the 1-dimensional Gaussian distribution, parameterized by its mean μ t {\displaystyle \mu _{t}\,} and variance σ t 2 {\displaystyle \sigma _{t}^{2}} (so θ = ( μ , σ 2 ) {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\theta }}=(\mu ,\sigma ^{2})} here). Hence, for a given γ {\displaystyle \gamma \,} , the goal is to find θ {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\theta }}} so that D K L ( I { S ( x ) ≥ γ } ‖ f θ ) {\displaystyle D_{\mathrm {KL} }({\textrm {I}}_{\{S(x)\geq \gamma \}}\|f_{\boldsymbol {\theta }})} is minimized. This is done by solving the sample version (stochastic counterpart) of the KL divergence minimization problem, as in step 3 above. It turns out that parameters that minimize the stochastic counterpart for this choice of target distribution and parametric family are the sample mean and sample variance corresponding to the elite samples, which are those samples that have objective function value ≥ γ {\displaystyle \geq \gamma } . The worst of the elite samples is then used as the level parameter for the next iteration. This yields the following randomized algorithm that happens to coincide with the so-called Estimation of Multivariate Normal Algorithm (EMNA), an estimation of distribution algorithm. === Pseudocode === // Initialize parameters μ := −6 σ2 := 100 t := 0 maxits := 100 N := 100 Ne := 10 // While maxits not exceeded and not converged while t < maxits and σ2 > ε do // Obtain N samples from current sampling distribution X := SampleGaussian(μ, σ2, N) // Evaluate objective function at sampled points S := exp(−(X − 2) ^ 2) + 0.8 exp(−(X + 2) ^ 2) // Sort X by objective function values in descending order X := sort(X, S) // Update parameters of sampling distribution via elite samples μ := mean(X(1:Ne)) σ2 := var(X(1:Ne)) t := t + 1 // Return mean of final sampling distribution as solution return μ == Related methods == Simulated annealing Genetic algorithms Harmony search Estimation of distribution algorithm Tabu search Natural Evolution Strategy Ant colony optimization algorithms
Superintelligence ban
Superintelligence ban refers to proposed legal, ethical, or policy measures intended to restrict or prohibit the development of artificial superintelligence, AI systems that would surpass human cognitive abilities in nearly all domains. The idea arises from concerns that such systems could become uncontrollable, potentially posing existential threats to humanity or causing severe social and economic disruption. == Background == The concept of limiting or banning superintelligence research has roots in early 21st-century debates on artificial general intelligence (AGI) safety. Thinkers such as Nick Bostrom and Eliezer Yudkowsky warned that self-improving AI could rapidly exceed human oversight. As advanced models like large-scale language models and autonomous agents began demonstrating complex reasoning abilities, policymakers and ethicists increasingly discussed the need for legal constraints on the creation of systems capable of recursive self-improvement. In October 2025, the Future of Life Institute published a statement calling for "a prohibition on the development of superintelligence, not lifted before there is broad scientific consensus that it will be done safely and controllably, and strong public buy-in." This statement was signed by various public personalities, such as Richard Branson and Steve Wozniak, and AI experts, such as Yoshua Bengio and Geoffrey Hinton. == Rationale == Supporters of a superintelligence ban argue that once AI systems surpass human intelligence, traditional containment, alignment, and control methods may fail. They contend that even limited experimentation with such systems could lead to irreversible outcomes, including loss of human decision-making power or unintended global harm. Some propose international treaties modeled after the nuclear non-proliferation framework to prevent a competitive AI arms race. Opponents argue that a ban would be difficult to define and enforce, given the lack of a precise threshold distinguishing advanced AGI from superintelligence. They also warn that excessive restriction could slow scientific progress, hinder beneficial automation, and encourage unregulated underground research. == Global discussion == Although no government has enacted an explicit superintelligence ban, the idea has been debated within the European Union, United Nations, and several independent AI safety organizations. The Future of Life Institute, Center for AI Safety, and other organizations have called for international cooperation to manage risks associated with the pursuit of superintelligent systems. In 2024 and 2025, proposals for a temporary moratorium on frontier AI research were circulated among major technology firms and research institutes, reflecting growing public concern over the trajectory of AI capabilities.
Developmental robotics
Developmental robotics (DevRob), sometimes called epigenetic robotics, is a scientific field which aims at studying the developmental mechanisms, architectures and constraints that allow lifelong and open-ended learning of new skills and new knowledge in embodied machines. As in human children, learning is expected to be cumulative and of progressively increasing complexity, and to result from self-exploration of the world in combination with social interaction. The typical methodological approach consists in starting from theories of human and animal development elaborated in fields such as developmental psychology, neuroscience, developmental and evolutionary biology, and linguistics, then to formalize and implement them in robots, sometimes exploring extensions or variants of them. The experimentation of those models in robots allows researchers to confront them with reality, and as a consequence, developmental robotics also provides feedback and novel hypotheses on theories of human and animal development. Developmental robotics is related to but differs from evolutionary robotics (ER). ER uses populations of robots that evolve over time, whereas DevRob is interested in how the organization of a single robot's control system develops through experience, over time. DevRob is also related to work done in the domains of robotics and artificial life. == Background == Can a robot learn like a child? Can it learn a variety of new skills and new knowledge unspecified at design time and in a partially unknown and changing environment? How can it discover its body and its relationships with the physical and social environment? How can its cognitive capacities continuously develop without the intervention of an engineer once it is "out of the factory"? What can it learn through natural social interactions with humans? These are the questions at the center of developmental robotics. Alan Turing, as well as a number of other pioneers of cybernetics, already formulated those questions and the general approach in 1950, but it is only since the end of the 20th century that they began to be investigated systematically. Because the concept of adaptive intelligent machines is central to developmental robotics, it has relationships with fields such as artificial intelligence, machine learning, cognitive robotics or computational neuroscience. Yet, while it may reuse some of the techniques elaborated in these fields, it differs from them from many perspectives. It differs from classical artificial intelligence because it does not assume the capability of advanced symbolic reasoning and focuses on embodied and situated sensorimotor and social skills rather than on abstract symbolic problems. It differs from cognitive robotics because it focuses on the processes that allow the formation of cognitive capabilities rather than these capabilities themselves. It differs from computational neuroscience because it focuses on functional modeling of integrated architectures of development and learning. More generally, developmental robotics is uniquely characterized by the following three features: It targets task-independent architectures and learning mechanisms, i.e. the machine/robot has to be able to learn new tasks that are unknown by the engineer; It emphasizes open-ended development and lifelong learning, i.e. the capacity of an organism to acquire continuously novel skills. This should not be understood as a capacity for learning "anything" or even “everything”, but just that the set of skills that is acquired can be infinitely extended at least in some (not all) directions; The complexity of acquired knowledge and skills shall increase (and the increase be controlled) progressively. Developmental robotics emerged at the crossroads of several research communities including embodied artificial intelligence, enactive and dynamical systems cognitive science, connectionism. Starting from the essential idea that learning and development happen as the self-organized result of the dynamical interactions among brains, bodies and their physical and social environment, and trying to understand how this self-organization can be harnessed to provide task-independent lifelong learning of skills of increasing complexity, developmental robotics strongly interacts with fields such as developmental psychology, developmental and cognitive neuroscience, developmental biology (embryology), evolutionary biology, and cognitive linguistics. As many of the theories coming from these sciences are verbal and/or descriptive, this implies a crucial formalization and computational modeling activity in developmental robotics. These computational models are then not only used as ways to explore how to build more versatile and adaptive machines but also as a way to evaluate their coherence and possibly explore alternative explanations for understanding biological development. == Research directions == === Skill domains === Due to the general approach and methodology, developmental robotics projects typically focus on having robots develop the same types of skills as human infants. A first category that is important being investigated is the acquisition of sensorimotor skills. These include the discovery of one's own body, including its structure and dynamics such as hand-eye coordination, locomotion, and interaction with objects as well as tool use, with a particular focus on the discovery and learning of affordances. A second category of skills targeted by developmental robots are social and linguistic skills: the acquisition of simple social behavioural games such as turn-taking, coordinated interaction, lexicons, syntax and grammar, and the grounding of these linguistic skills into sensorimotor skills (sometimes referred as symbol grounding). In parallel, the acquisition of associated cognitive skills are being investigated such as the emergence of the self/non-self distinction, the development of attentional capabilities, of categorization systems and higher-level representations of affordances or social constructs, of the emergence of values, empathy, or theories of mind. === Mechanisms and constraints === The sensorimotor and social spaces in which humans and robot live are so large and complex that only a small part of potentially learnable skills can actually be explored and learnt within a life-time. Thus, mechanisms and constraints are necessary to guide developmental organisms in their development and control of the growth of complexity. There are several important families of these guiding mechanisms and constraints which are studied in developmental robotics, all inspired by human development: Motivational systems, generating internal reward signals that drive exploration and learning, which can be of two main types: extrinsic motivations push robots/organisms to maintain basic specific internal properties such as food and water level, physical integrity, or light (e.g. in phototropic systems); intrinsic motivations push robot to search for novelty, challenge, compression or learning progress per se, thus generating what is sometimes called curiosity-driven learning and exploration, or alternatively active learning and exploration; Social guidance: as humans learn a lot by interacting with their peers, developmental robotics investigates mechanisms that can allow robots to participate to human-like social interaction. By perceiving and interpreting social cues, this may allow robots both to learn from humans (through diverse means such as imitation, emulation, stimulus enhancement, demonstration, etc. ...) and to trigger natural human pedagogy. Thus, social acceptance of developmental robots is also investigated; Statistical inference biases and cumulative knowledge/skill reuse: biases characterizing both representations/encodings and inference mechanisms can typically allow considerable improvement of the efficiency of learning and are thus studied. Related to this, mechanisms allowing to infer new knowledge and acquire new skills by reusing previously learnt structures is also an essential field of study; The properties of embodiment, including geometry, materials, or innate motor primitives/synergies often encoded as dynamical systems, can considerably simplify the acquisition of sensorimotor or social skills, and is sometimes referred as morphological computation. The interaction of these constraints with other constraints is an important axis of investigation; Maturational constraints: In human infants, both the body and the neural system grow progressively, rather than being full-fledged already at birth. This implies, for example, that new degrees of freedom, as well as increases of the volume and resolution of available sensorimotor signals, may appear as learning and development unfold. Transposing these mechanisms in developmental robots, and understanding how it may hinder or on the contrary ease the acquisition of novel complex skills is a central questi
Direct Graphics Access
Direct Graphics Access is a plug-in for the X display servers that allows client programs direct access to the frame buffer. Graphics hardware communicates via a chunk of memory called a frame buffer. This is an array of values that represent pixel color values on the screen. Writing the appropriate values into the frame buffer therefore allows a program to paint areas of the screen. However, as with any shared resource, problems occur when multiple programs attempt to access the same resource, as they tend to write over each other's work. In the X Window System, this is solved by having a central display server that mediates between programs that want to draw on the screen. The display server also used to perform a lot of the drawing work, allowing programs to say Draw me a circle of this radius filled with this pattern or draw this text in this font. The X server does all this work, freeing programmers from having to write their own drawing code. Another advantage of the X architecture is that it works over a network, allowing programs on one machine to display output on the screen of another. Direct Graphics Access allows direct access to the frame buffer and the X-server hands over control of the frame buffer to the client program and waits for the client to hand it back. This means that the client program has control of the whole screen, and so it is mostly used for full-screen video/games.
Case-based reasoning
Case-based reasoning (CBR), broadly construed, is the process of solving new problems based on the solutions of similar past problems. In everyday life, an auto mechanic who fixes an engine by recalling another car that exhibited similar symptoms is using case-based reasoning. A lawyer who advocates a particular outcome in a trial based on legal precedents or a judge who creates case law is using case-based reasoning. So, too, an engineer copying working elements of nature (practicing biomimicry) is treating nature as a database of solutions to problems. Case-based reasoning is a prominent type of analogy solution making. It has been argued that case-based reasoning is not only a powerful method for computer reasoning, but also a pervasive behavior in everyday human problem solving; or, more radically, that all reasoning is based on past cases personally experienced. This view is related to prototype theory, which is most deeply explored in cognitive science. == Process == Case-based reasoning has been formalized for purposes of computer reasoning as a four-step process: Retrieve: Given a target problem, retrieve cases relevant to solving it from memory. A case consists of a problem, its solution, and, typically, annotations about how the solution was derived. For example, suppose Fred wants to prepare blueberry pancakes. Being a novice cook, the most relevant experience he can recall is one in which he successfully made plain pancakes. The procedure he followed for making the plain pancakes, together with justifications for decisions made along the way, constitutes Fred's retrieved case. Reuse: Map the solution from the previous case to the target problem. This may involve adapting the solution as needed to fit the new situation. In the pancake example, Fred must adapt his retrieved solution to include the addition of blueberries. Revise: Having mapped the previous solution to the target situation, test the new solution in the real world (or a simulation) and, if necessary, revise. Suppose Fred adapted his pancake solution by adding blueberries to the batter. After mixing, he discovers that the batter has turned blue – an undesired effect. This suggests the following revision: delay the addition of blueberries until after the batter has been ladled into the pan. Retain: After the solution has been successfully adapted to the target problem, store the resulting experience as a new case in memory. Fred, accordingly, records his new-found procedure for making blueberry pancakes, thereby enriching his set of stored experiences, and better preparing him for future pancake-making demands. == Comparison to other methods == At first glance, CBR may seem similar to the rule induction algorithms of machine learning. Like a rule-induction algorithm, CBR starts with a set of cases or training examples; it forms generalizations of these examples, albeit implicit ones, by identifying commonalities between a retrieved case and the target problem. If for instance a procedure for plain pancakes is mapped to blueberry pancakes, a decision is made to use the same basic batter and frying method, thus implicitly generalizing the set of situations under which the batter and frying method can be used. The key difference, however, between the implicit generalization in CBR and the generalization in rule induction lies in when the generalization is made. A rule-induction algorithm draws its generalizations from a set of training examples before the target problem is even known; that is, it performs eager generalization. For instance, if a rule-induction algorithm were given recipes for plain pancakes, Dutch apple pancakes, and banana pancakes as its training examples, it would have to derive, at training time, a set of general rules for making all types of pancakes. It would not be until testing time that it would be given, say, the task of cooking blueberry pancakes. The difficulty for the rule-induction algorithm is in anticipating the different directions in which it should attempt to generalize its training examples. This is in contrast to CBR, which delays (implicit) generalization of its cases until testing time – a strategy of lazy generalization. In the pancake example, CBR has already been given the target problem of cooking blueberry pancakes; thus it can generalize its cases exactly as needed to cover this situation. CBR therefore tends to be a good approach for rich, complex domains in which there are myriad ways to generalize a case. In law, there is often explicit delegation of CBR to courts, recognizing the limits of rule based reasons: limiting delay, limited knowledge of future context, limit of negotiated agreement, etc. While CBR in law and cognitively inspired CBR have long been associated, the former is more clearly an interpolation of rule based reasoning, and judgment, while the latter is more closely tied to recall and process adaptation. The difference is clear in their attitude toward error and appellate review. Another name for case-based reasoning in problem solving is symptomatic strategies. It does require à priori domain knowledge that is gleaned from past experience which established connections between symptoms and causes. This knowledge is referred to as shallow, compiled, evidential, history-based as well as case-based knowledge. This is the strategy most associated with diagnosis by experts. Diagnosis of a problem transpires as a rapid recognition process in which symptoms evoke appropriate situation categories. An expert knows the cause by virtue of having previously encountered similar cases. Case-based reasoning is the most powerful strategy, and that used most commonly. However, the strategy won't work independently with truly novel problems, or where deeper understanding of whatever is taking place is sought. An alternative approach to problem solving is the topographic strategy which falls into the category of deep reasoning. With deep reasoning, in-depth knowledge of a system is used. Topography in this context means a description or an analysis of a structured entity, showing the relations among its elements. Also known as reasoning from first principles, deep reasoning is applied to novel faults when experience-based approaches aren't viable. The topographic strategy is therefore linked to à priori domain knowledge that is developed from a more a fundamental understanding of a system, possibly using first-principles knowledge. Such knowledge is referred to as deep, causal or model-based knowledge. Hoc and Carlier noted that symptomatic approaches may need to be supported by topographic approaches because symptoms can be defined in diverse terms. The converse is also true – shallow reasoning can be used abductively to generate causal hypotheses, and deductively to evaluate those hypotheses, in a topographical search. == Criticism == Critics of CBR argue that it is an approach that accepts anecdotal evidence as its main operating principle. Without statistically relevant data for backing and implicit generalization, there is no guarantee that the generalization is correct. However, all inductive reasoning where data is too scarce for statistical relevance is inherently based on anecdotal evidence. == History == CBR traces its roots to the work of Roger Schank and his students at Yale University in the early 1980s. Schank's model of dynamic memory was the basis for the earliest CBR systems: Janet Kolodner's CYRUS and Michael Lebowitz's IPP. Other schools of CBR and closely allied fields emerged in the 1980s, which directed at topics such as legal reasoning, memory-based reasoning (a way of reasoning from examples on massively parallel machines), and combinations of CBR with other reasoning methods. In the 1990s, interest in CBR grew internationally, as evidenced by the establishment of an International Conference on Case-Based Reasoning in 1995, as well as European, German, British, Italian, and other CBR workshops. CBR technology has resulted in the deployment of a number of successful systems, the earliest being Lockheed's CLAVIER, a system for laying out composite parts to be baked in an industrial convection oven. CBR has been used extensively in applications such as the Compaq SMART system and has found a major application area in the health sciences, as well as in structural safety management. There is recent work that develops CBR within a statistical framework and formalizes case-based inference as a specific type of probabilistic inference. Thus, it becomes possible to produce case-based predictions equipped with a certain level of confidence. One description of the difference between CBR and induction from instances is that statistical inference aims to find what tends to make cases similar while CBR aims to encode what suffices to claim similarly.