Leabra

Leabra stands for local, error-driven and associative, biologically realistic algorithm. It is a model of learning which is a balance between Hebbian and error-driven learning with other network-derived characteristics. This model is used to mathematically predict outcomes based on inputs and previous learning influences. Leabra is heavily influenced by and contributes to neural network designs and models, including emergent. == Background == It is the default algorithm in emergent (successor of PDP++) when making a new project, and is extensively used in various simulations. Hebbian learning is performed using conditional principal components analysis (CPCA) algorithm with correction factor for sparse expected activity levels. Error-driven learning is performed using GeneRec, which is a generalization of the recirculation algorithm, and approximates Almeida–Pineda recurrent backpropagation. The symmetric, midpoint version of GeneRec is used, which is equivalent to the contrastive Hebbian learning algorithm (CHL). See O'Reilly (1996; Neural Computation) for more details. The activation function is a point-neuron approximation with both discrete spiking and continuous rate-code output. Layer or unit-group level inhibition can be computed directly using a k-winners-take-all (KWTA) function, producing sparse distributed representations. A feedforward and feedback (FFFB) form of inhibition has now replaced the KWTA form of inhibition. FFFB inhibition can be efficiently implemented by using the average excitatory input and activity levels in a given layer. The net input is computed as an average, not a sum, over connections, based on normalized, sigmoidally transformed weight values, which are subject to scaling on a connection-group level to alter relative contributions. Automatic scaling is performed to compensate for differences in expected activity level in the different projections. Documentation about this algorithm can be found in the book "Computational Explorations in Cognitive Neuroscience: Understanding the Mind by Simulating the Brain" published by MIT press. and in the Emergent Documentation Archived 2009-04-16 at the Wayback Machine == Overview of the leabra algorithm == The pseudocode for Leabra is given here, showing exactly how the pieces of the algorithm described in more detail in the subsequent sections fit together. Iterate over minus and plus phases of settling for each event. o At start of settling, for all units: - Initialize all state variables (activation, v_m, etc.). - Apply external patterns (clamp input in minus, input & output in plus). - Compute net input scaling terms (constants, computed here so network can be dynamically altered). - Optimization: compute net input once from all static activations (e.g., hard-clamped external inputs). o During each cycle of settling, for all non-clamped units: - Compute excitatory netinput (g_e(t), aka eta_j or net) -- sender-based optimization by ignoring inactives. - Compute kWTA inhibition for each layer, based on g_i^Q: Sort units into two groups based on g_i^Q: top k and remaining k+1 -> n. If basic, find k and k+1th highest If avg-based, compute avg of 1 -> k & k+1 -> n. Set inhibitory conductance g_i from g^Q_k and g^Q_k+1 - Compute point-neuron activation combining excitatory input and inhibition o After settling, for all units, record final settling activations as either minus or plus phase (y^-_j or y^+_j). After both phases update the weights (based on linear current weight values), for all connections: o Compute error-driven weight changes with CHL with soft weight bounding o Compute Hebbian weight changes with CPCA from plus-phase activations o Compute net weight change as weighted sum of error-driven and Hebbian o Increment the weights according to net weight change. == Implementations == Emergent Archived 2015-10-03 at the Wayback Machine is the original implementation of Leabra; its most recent implementation is written in Go. It was written chiefly by Dr. O'Reilly, but professional software engineers were recently hired to improve the existing codebase. This is the fastest implementation, suitable for constructing large networks. Although emergent has a graphical user interface, it is very complex and has a steep learning curve. If you want to understand the algorithm in detail, it will be easier to read non-optimized code. For this purpose, check out the MATLAB version. There is also an R version available, that can be easily installed via install.packages("leabRa") in R and has a short introduction to how the package is used. The MATLAB and R versions are not suited for constructing very large networks, but they can be installed quickly and (with some programming background) are easy to use. Furthermore, they can also be adapted easily. == Special algorithms == Temporal differences and general dopamine modulation. Temporal differences (TD) is widely used as a model of midbrain dopaminergic firing. Primary value learned value (PVLV). PVLV simulates behavioral and neural data on Pavlovian conditioning and the midbrain dopaminergic neurons that fire in proportion to unexpected rewards (an alternative to TD). Prefrontal cortex basal ganglia working memory (PBWM). PBWM uses PVLV to train prefrontal cortex working memory updating system, based on the biology of the prefrontal cortex and basal ganglia.

Realization (linguistics)

In linguistics, realization is the process by which some kind of surface representation is derived from its underlying representation; that is, the way in which some abstract object of linguistic analysis comes to be produced in actual language. Phonemes are often said to be realized by speech sounds. The different sounds that can realize a particular phoneme are called its allophones. Realization is also a subtask of natural language generation, which involves creating an actual text in a human language (English, French, etc.) from a syntactic representation. There are a number of software packages available for realization, most of which have been developed by academic research groups in NLG. The remainder of this article concerns realization of this kind. == Example == For example, the following Java code causes the simplenlg system [2] to print out the text The women do not smoke.: In this example, the computer program has specified the linguistic constituents of the sentence (verb, subject), and also linguistic features (plural subject, negated), and from this information the realiser has constructed the actual sentence. == Processing == Realisation involves three kinds of processing: Syntactic realisation: Using grammatical knowledge to choose inflections, add function words and also to decide the order of components. For example, in English the subject usually precedes the verb, and the negated form of smoke is do not smoke. Morphological realisation: Computing inflected forms, for example the plural form of woman is women (not womans). Orthographic realisation: Dealing with casing, punctuation, and formatting. For example, capitalising The because it is the first word of the sentence. The above examples are very basic, most realisers are capable of considerably more complex processing. == Systems == A number of realisers have been developed over the past 20 years. These systems differ in terms of complexity and sophistication of their processing, robustness in dealing with unusual cases, and whether they are accessed programmatically via an API or whether they take a textual representation of a syntactic structure as their input. There are also major differences in pragmatic factors such as documentation, support, licensing terms, speed and memory usage, etc. It is not possible to describe all realisers here, but a few of the emerging areas are: Simplenlg [3]: a document realizing engine with an api which intended to be simple to learn and use, focused on limiting scope to only finding the surface area of a document. KPML [4]: this is the oldest realiser, which has been under development under different guises since the 1980s. It comes with grammars for ten different languages. FUF/SURGE [5]: a realiser which was widely used in the 1990s, and is still used in some projects today OpenCCG [6]: an open-source realiser which has a number of nice features, such as the ability to use statistical language models to make realisation decisions.

International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling

The International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling (ICAPS) is a leading international academic conference in automated planning and scheduling held annually for researchers and practitioners in planning and scheduling. ICAPS is supported by the National Science Foundation, the journal Artificial Intelligence, and other supporters. == The IPC and PDDL == ICAPS conducts the International Planning Competition (IPC), a competition scheduled every few years that empirically evaluates state-of-the-art planning systems on a collection of benchmark problems. The Planning Domain Definition Language (PDDL) was developed mainly to make the 1998/2000 International Planning Competition possible, and then evolved with each competition. PDDL is an attempt to standardize Artificial Intelligence (AI) planning languages. PDDL was first developed by Drew McDermott and his colleagues in 1998, inspired by STRIPS, ADL, and other sources. == History == The ICAPS conferences began in 2003 as a merge of two bi-annual conferences, the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence Planning and Scheduling (AIPS) and the European Conference on Planning (ECP). == List of events ==

Generative adversarial network

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

Painworth

PainWorth is a justice, legal and insurance services application founded by Canadian entrepreneurs Mike Zouhri, Chris Trudel and Ryan Bencic. The application is a "robot lawyer" that uses artificial intelligence to automate personal injury claims for injury victims. It is currently available in Canada and the United States. PainWorth has been featured by several news outlets, including CTV, Global News, CBC, and has also been featured by the American Bar Association and LexisNexis for its role addressing social issues such as access to justice and other systemic issues in the legal and insurance industry. == Application == PainWorth began as a tool for calculating non-pecuniary damages for injury victims but has since expanded beyond a personal injury calculator to include features that help injury victims and business users with pecuniary damages, economic calculations, prescribed rates and providing informational guides to help navigate settlement negotiation, managing claims records and other issues encountered by self-represented litigants or claims managers. The platform makes use of automation to provide free user-guided calculations, steps and processes to successfully settle an injury claim. The application is supported by Microsoft Azure. == Personal Injury Calculator == PainWorth is the first service to use Artificial Intelligence to interpret case law in order to determine the value of pain and suffering incurred by specific injury types and injury severities. The cited case law is used as evidence and presented in statistical models to determine an accurate valuation compliant with the jurisdiction, regulatory rules and case complexities. == General Damages Calculator == PainWorth also offers a personal injury settlement calculator that assesses general damages based on specific case complexities and jurisdiction. The service takes into account medical complications and recovery in order to calculate the fair valuation. == Injury Settlement Platform == PainWorth insurance settlement platform facilitates a direct and automated way resolution center to settle cases for their assessed value without enduring the hardship of litigation. In 2021, Painworth won the title of World's Best Emerging Insurance Product for the development of this platform. == History == In 2019, Mike Zouhri was struck by a drunk driver which left him seriously injured and resulted in a lawsuit. Frustrated by the slow and expensive process, Zouhri went down to the law library and learned how to manage injury claims. After learning the process, he partnered lawyers and legal advisors to create an app to allow users to quickly settle their own injury claims fairly and accurately. Immediately after its launch, PainWorth quickly became widely used by thousands of users and gained significant media coverage. Global News reported that the bot had successfully helped people with more than $10 million in claims in only a few short months, all free of charge. In July 2020, PainWorth began raising concern over injustices and gender bias in the legal system. in Canadian courts.

Automated restaurant

An automated restaurant or robotic restaurant is a restaurant that uses robots to do tasks such as delivering food and drink to the tables or cooking the food. Restaurant automation means the use of a restaurant management system to automate some or occasionally all of the major operations of a restaurant establishment. More recently, restaurants are opening that have completely or partially automated their services. These may include: taking orders, preparing food, serving, and billing. A few fully automated restaurants operate without any human intervention whatsoever. Robots are designed to help and sometimes replace human labour (such as waiters and chefs). The automation of restaurants may also allow for the option for greater customization of an order. == History == === Vending machines === In the late 19th and early 20th century a number of restaurants served food solely through vending machines. These restaurants were called automats or, in Japan, shokkenki. Customers ordered their food directly through the machines. === Sushi conveyors === Yoshiaki Shiraishi is a Japanese innovator who is known for the creation of conveyor belt sushi. He had the idea following difficulty staffing his small sushi restaurant and managing the restaurant on his own. He was inspired seeing beer bottles on a conveyor belt in an Asahi brewery. Yoshiaki's restaurants are an early example of restaurant automation; they used a conveyor belt to distribute dishes around the restaurant, eliminating the need for waiters. This example of automation dates back to the Japanese economic miracle; the first of Yoshiaki's conveyor belt sushi restaurants was opened under the name Mawaru Genroku Sushi in 1958, in Osaka. === Partial automation === As of 2011, across Europe, McDonald's had already begun implementing 7,000 touch screen kiosks that could handle cashiering duties. From 2015 to 2020, Zume had an automated pizza parlor. Later companies would try to produce smaller, less ambitious devices, with one robotics company producing a machine that could automate the slowest and most repetitive parts of assembling a pizza, such as spreading pizza sauce or placing slices of pepperoni, while leaving other customizations to employees. In 2020, a restaurant in the Netherlands began trialling the use of a robot to serve guests. In September 2021, Karakuri's 'Semblr' food service robot served personalised lunches for the 4,000 employees of grocery technology solutions provider ocado Group's head offices in Hatfield, UK. 2,700 different combinations of dishes were on offer. Customers could specify in grams what hot and cold items, proteins, sauces and fresh toppings they wanted. In 2021, Columbia University School of Engineering and Applied Science engineers developed a method of cooking 3D printed chicken with software-controlled robotic lasers. The “Digital Food” team exposed raw 3D printed chicken structures to both blue and infrared light. They then assessed the cooking depth, colour development, moisture retention and flavour differences of the laser-cooked 3D printed samples in comparison to stove-cooked meat. In June 2022 a California nonprofit chain of residential communities, Front Porch, experimented with robots in dining rooms at two locations to supplement wait staff by carrying plated food and drink to tables, and removing dishes. 65% of residents found the robots helpful, with 51% saying they let the staff spend more quality time with diners. 51% of staff were "excited" and 58% said they enabled more quality time with diners. The chain has 19 senior living communities (and 35 affordable housing communities), so it has potential to expand robots to more dining rooms. It is shifting to memory care, which may affect plans. == Rationales == === Advantages === Efficiency: Automated restaurants can significantly enhance operational efficiency by minimizing human error and reducing service time. With automated ordering, payment, and food preparation systems, customers can enjoy faster service and reduced waiting times. Cost savings: By reducing the need for human staff, automated restaurants can potentially lower labor costs. This can be particularly beneficial in areas with high labor expenses, as it allows for better resource allocation and cost management. Consistency: Automation ensures consistency in food quality and presentation. With precise portion control and standardized cooking methods, customers can expect the same quality and taste in their meals every time they visit. Enhanced customer experience: Self-service kiosks and automated systems provide customers with control and convenience. They can customize their orders, browse through menu options, and pay seamlessly, creating a more interactive and satisfying dining experience. === Disadvantages === Lack of personal touch: Automated restaurants may lack the personal interaction and warmth that traditional restaurants provide. Some customers prefer the human touch, personalized recommendations, and the social aspect of dining out. Technical issues: Reliance on technology means that technical glitches and malfunctions can occur, resulting in service disruptions or delays. Maintenance and technical support become critical in ensuring smooth operations. Limited menu complexity: The automation process may be better suited for standardized menu items rather than complex or customized dishes. The ability to cater to unique dietary preferences or accommodate special requests may be limited. Employment implications: Automated restaurants may result in job losses for traditional restaurant staff, potentially impacting the local workforce. It is important to consider the social and economic implications of adopting such technology. == Locations == Automated restaurants have been opening in many countries. Examples include: Nala Restaurant in Naperville, Illinois Fritz's Railroad Restaurant in Kansas City, Kansas Výtopna, a Railway Restaurant using model trains: franchise of various restaurants and coffeehouses in the Czech Republic Bagger's Restaurant in Nuremberg, Germany FuA-Men Restaurant, a ramen restaurant located in Nagoya, Japan Fōster Nutrition in Buenos Aires, Argentina Dalu Robot Restaurant in Jinan, China Haohai Robot Restaurant in Harbin, China Robot Kitchen Restaurant in Hong Kong Robo-Chef restaurant in Tehran, Iran, started in 2017, is the first robotic and "waiterless" restaurant of the Middle East. MIT graduates opened Spyce Kitchens in downtown Boston, Massachusetts, in 2018 Foodom, under Country Garden Holdings, opened January 12, 2020, in Guangzhou, China Robot Chacha, the first robot restaurant of India, is planning to open in the capital city of New Delhi. Kura Revolving Sushi Bar, with a number of locations in the United States, uses a tablets at tables for ordering, a conveyor belt to deliver food, and robots to deliver drinks and condiments. Chipotle Mexican Grill is beginning to deploy the Hyphen Makeline, which assembles up to 350 bowls and salads automatically per hour, and Chippy, an automatic tortilla chip fryer made by Miso Robotics. Serious Dumplings in Boca Raton, Florida

DARPA Grand Challenge

The DARPA Grand Challenge is a prize competition for American autonomous vehicles, funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the most prominent research organization of the United States Department of Defense. Congress has authorized DARPA to award cash prizes to further DARPA's mission to sponsor revolutionary, high-payoff research that bridges the gap between fundamental discoveries and military use. The initial DARPA Grand Challenge in 2004 was created to spur the development of technologies needed to create the first fully autonomous ground vehicles capable of completing a substantial off-road course within a limited time. The third event, the DARPA Urban Challenge in 2007, extended the initial Challenge to autonomous operation in a mock urban environment. The 2012 DARPA Robotics Challenge, focused on autonomous emergency-maintenance robots, and new Challenges are still being conceived. The DARPA Subterranean Challenge was tasked with building robotic teams to autonomously map, navigate, and search subterranean environments. Such teams could be useful in exploring hazardous areas and in search and rescue. In addition to the challenges in autonomous technology, DARPA has also conducted prize competitions in other areas of technology. == History and background == Fully autonomous vehicles have been an international pursuit for many years, from endeavors in Japan (starting in 1977), Germany (Ernst Dickmanns and VaMP), Italy (the ARGO Project), the European Union (EUREKA Prometheus Project), the United States of America, and other countries. DARPA funded the development of the first fully autonomous robot beginning in 1966 with the Shakey the robot project at Stanford Research Institute, now SRI International. The first autonomous ground vehicle capable of driving on and off roads was developed by DARPA as part of the Strategic Computing Initiative beginning in 1984 leading to demonstrations of autonomous navigation by the Autonomous Land Vehicle and the Navlab. The Grand Challenge was the first long distance competition for driverless cars in the world; other research efforts in the field of driverless cars take a more traditional commercial or academic approach. The U.S. Congress authorized DARPA to offer prize money ($1 million) for the first Grand Challenge to facilitate robotic development, with the ultimate goal of making one-third of ground military forces autonomous by 2015. Following the 2004 event, Dr. Tony Tether, the director of DARPA, announced that the prize money had been increased to $2 million for the next event, which was claimed on October 9, 2005. The first, second and third places in the 2007 Urban Challenge received $2 million, $1 million, and $500,000, respectively. 14 new teams have qualified in year 2015. The competition was open to teams and organizations from around the world, as long as there was at least one U.S. citizen on the roster. Teams have participated from high schools, universities, businesses and other organizations. More than 100 teams registered in the first year, bringing a wide variety of technological skills to the race. In the second year, 195 teams from 36 U.S. states and 4 foreign countries entered the race. == 2004 Grand Challenge == The first competition of the DARPA Grand Challenge was held on March 13, 2004 in the Mojave Desert region of the United States, along a 150-mile (240 km) route that follows along the path of Interstate 15 from just before Barstow, California to just past the California–Nevada border in Primm. None of the robot vehicles finished the route. Carnegie Mellon University's Red Team and car Sandstorm (a converted Humvee) traveled the farthest distance, completing 11.78 km (7.32 mi) of the course before getting hung up on a rock after making a switchback turn. No winner was declared, and the cash prize was not given. Therefore, a second DARPA Grand Challenge event was scheduled for 2005. == 2005 Grand Challenge == The second competition of the DARPA Grand Challenge began at 6:40 am on October 8, 2005. All but one of the 23 finalists in the 2005 race surpassed the 11.78 km (7.32 mi) distance completed by the best vehicle in the 2004 race. Five vehicles successfully completed the 212 km (132 mi) course: Vehicles in the 2005 race passed through three narrow tunnels and negotiated more than 100 sharp left and right turns. The race concluded through Beer Bottle Pass, a winding mountain pass with a sheer drop-off on one side and a rock face on the other. Although the 2004 course required more elevation gain and some very sharp switchbacks (Daggett Ridge) were required near the beginning of the route, the course had far fewer curves and generally wider roads than the 2005 course. The natural rivalry between the teams from Stanford and Carnegie Mellon (Sebastian Thrun, head of the Stanford team was previously a faculty member at Carnegie Mellon and colleague of Red Whittaker, head of the CMU team) was played out during the race. Mechanical problems plagued H1ghlander before it was passed by Stanley. Gray Team's entry was a miracle in itself, as the team from the suburbs of New Orleans was caught in Hurricane Katrina a few short weeks before the race. The fifth finisher, Terramax, a 30,000 pound entry from Oshkosh Truck, finished on the second day. The huge truck spent the night idling on the course, but was particularly nimble in carefully picking its way down the narrow roads of Beer Bottle Pass. == 2007 Urban Challenge == The third competition of the DARPA Grand Challenge, known as the "Urban Challenge", took place on November 3, 2007 at the site of the now-closed George Air Force Base (currently used as Southern California Logistics Airport), in Victorville, California (Google map). The course involved a 96 km (60 mi) urban area course, to be completed in less than 6 hours. Rules included obeying all traffic regulations while negotiating with other traffic and obstacles and merging into traffic. Unlike previous challenges, the 2007 Urban Challenge organizers divided competitors into two "tracks", A and B. All Track A and Track B teams were part of the same competition circuit, but the teams chosen for the Track A program received US $1 million in funding. These 11 teams largely represented major universities and large corporate interests such as CMU teaming with GM as Tartan Racing, Stanford teaming with Volkswagen, Virginia Tech teaming with TORC Robotics as VictorTango, Oshkosh Truck, Honeywell, Raytheon, Caltech, Autonomous Solutions, Cornell University, and MIT. One of the few independent entries in Track A was the Golem Group. DARPA has not publicly explained the rationale behind the selection of Track A teams. Teams were given maps sparsely charting the waypoints that defined the competition courses. At least one team, Tartan Racing, enhanced the maps through the insertion of additional extrapolated waypoints for improved navigation. A debriefing paper published by Team Jefferson illustrates graphically the contrast between the course map it was given by DARPA and the course map used by Tartan Racing. Tartan Racing claimed the $2 million prize with their vehicle "Boss", a Chevy Tahoe. The second-place finisher earning the $1 million prize was the Stanford Racing Team with their entry "Junior", a 2006 Volkswagen Passat. Coming in third place was team VictorTango, winning the $500,000 prize with their 2005 Ford Escape hybrid, "Odin". MIT placed 4th, with Cornell University and University of Pennsylvania/Lehigh University also completing the course. The six teams that successfully finished the entire course: While the 2004 and 2005 events were more physically challenging for the vehicles, the robots operated in isolation and only encountered other vehicles on the course when attempting to pass. The Urban Challenge required designers to build vehicles able to obey all traffic laws while they detect and avoid other robots on the course. This is a particular challenge for vehicle software, as vehicles must make "intelligent" decisions in real time based on the actions of other vehicles. Other than previous autonomous vehicle efforts that focused on structured situations such as highway driving with little interaction between the vehicles, this competition operated in a more cluttered urban environment and required the cars to perform sophisticated interactions with each other, such as maintaining precedence at a 4-way stop intersection. == 2012 Robotics Challenge == The DARPA Robotics Challenge is an ongoing competition focusing on humanoid robotics. The primary goal of the program is to develop ground robotic capabilities to execute complex tasks in dangerous, degraded, human-engineered environments. It launched in October 2012, and hosted the Virtual Robotics Competition in June 2013. Two more competitions are planned: the DRC Trials in December 2013, and the DRC Finals in December 2014. Unlike prior Challenges, the construction of the "vehicles" w