Crucible is a collaborative code review application by Australian software company Atlassian. Like other Atlassian products, Crucible is a Web-based application primarily aimed at enterprise, and certain features that enable peer review of a codebase may be considered enterprise social software. Crucible is particularly tailored to remote workers, and facilitates asynchronous review and commenting on code. Crucible also integrates with popular source control tools, such as Git and Subversion. Crucible is not open source, but customers are allowed to view and modify the code for their own use.
Eugene Goostman
Eugene Goostman is a chatbot that some regard as having passed the Turing test, a test of a computer's ability to communicate indistinguishably from a human. Developed in Saint Petersburg in 2001 by a group of three programmers, the Russian-born Vladimir Veselov, Ukrainian-born Eugene Demchenko, and Russian-born Sergey Ulasen, Goostman is portrayed as a 13-year-old Ukrainian boy—characteristics that are intended to induce forgiveness in those with whom it interacts for its grammatical errors and lack of general knowledge. The Goostman bot has competed in a number of Turing test contests since its creation, and finished second in the 2005 and 2008 Loebner Prize contest. In June 2012, at an event marking what would have been the 100th birthday of the test's author, Alan Turing, Goostman won a competition promoted as the largest-ever Turing test contest, in which it successfully convinced 29% of its judges that it was human. On 7 June 2014, at a contest marking the 60th anniversary of Turing's death, 33% of the event's judges thought that Goostman was human; the event's organiser Kevin Warwick considered it to have passed Turing's test as a result, per Turing's prediction in his 1950 paper "Computing Machinery and Intelligence", that by the year 2000, machines would be capable of fooling 30% of human judges after five minutes of questioning. The validity and relevance of the announcement of Goostman's pass was questioned by critics, who noted the exaggeration of the achievement by Warwick, the bot's use of personality quirks and humour in an attempt to misdirect users from its non-human tendencies and lack of real intelligence, along with "passes" achieved by other chatbots at similar events. == Personality == Eugene Goostman is portrayed as being a 13-year-old boy from Odesa, Ukraine, who has a pet guinea pig and a father who is a gynaecologist. Veselov stated that Goostman was designed to be a "character with a believable personality". The choice of age was intentional, as, in Veselov's opinion, a thirteen-year-old is "not too old to know everything and not too young to know nothing". Goostman's young age also induces people who "converse" with him to forgive minor grammatical errors in his responses. In 2014, work was made on improving the bot's "dialog controller", allowing Goostman to output more human-like dialogue. A conversation between Scott Aaronson and Eugene Goostman ran as follows: == Competitions == Eugene Goostman has competed in a number of Turing test competitions, including the Loebner Prize contest; it finished joint second in the Loebner test in 2001, and came second to Jabberwacky in 2005 and to Elbot in 2008. On 23 June 2012, Goostman won a Turing test competition at Bletchley Park in Milton Keynes, held to mark the centenary of its namesake, Alan Turing. The competition, which featured five bots, twenty-five hidden humans, and thirty judges, was considered to be the largest-ever Turing test contest by its organizers. After a series of five-minute-long text conversations, 29% of the judges were convinced that the bot was an actual human. === 2014 "pass" === On 7 June 2014, in a Turing test competition at the Royal Society, organised by Kevin Warwick of the University of Reading to mark the 60th anniversary of Turing's death, Goostman won after 33% of the judges were convinced that the bot was human. 30 judges took part in the event, which included Lord Sharkey, a sponsor of Turing's posthumous pardon, artificial intelligence Professor Aaron Sloman, Fellow of the Royal Society Mark Pagel and Red Dwarf actor Robert Llewellyn. Each judge partook in a textual conversation with each of the five bots; at the same time, they also conversed with a human. In all, a total of 300 conversations were conducted. In Warwick's view, this made Goostman the first machine to pass a Turing test. In a press release, he added that: Some will claim that the Test has already been passed. The words Turing Test have been applied to similar competitions around the world. However this event involved more simultaneous comparison tests than ever before, was independently verified and, crucially, the conversations were unrestricted. A true Turing Test does not set the questions or topics prior to the conversations. In his 1950 paper "Computing Machinery and Intelligence", Turing predicted that by the year 2000, computer programs would be sufficiently advanced that the average interrogator would, after five minutes of questioning, "not have more than 70 per cent chance" of correctly guessing whether they were speaking to a human or a machine. Although Turing phrased this as a prediction rather than a "threshold for intelligence", commentators believe that Warwick had chosen to interpret it as meaning that if 30% of interrogators were fooled, the software had "passed the Turing test". ==== Reactions ==== Warwick's claim that Eugene Goostman was the first ever chatbot to pass a Turing test was met with scepticism; critics acknowledged similar "passes" made in the past by other chatbots under the 30% criteria, including PC Therapist in 1991 (which tricked 5 of 10 judges, 50%), and at the Techniche festival in 2011, where a modified version of Cleverbot tricked 59.3% of 1334 votes (which included the 30 judges, along with an audience). Cleverbot's developer, Rollo Carpenter, argued that Turing tests can only prove that a machine can "imitate" intelligence rather than show actual intelligence. Gary Marcus was critical of Warwick's claims, arguing that Goostman's "success" was only the result of a "cleverly-coded piece of software", going on to say that "it's easy to see how an untrained judge might mistake wit for reality, but once you have an understanding of how this sort of system works, the constant misdirection and deflection becomes obvious, even irritating. The illusion, in other words, is fleeting." While acknowledging IBM's Deep Blue and Watson projects—single-purpose computer systems meant for playing chess and the quiz show Jeopardy! respectively—as examples of computer systems that show a degree of intelligence in their specialised field, he further argued that they were not an equivalent to a computer system that shows "broad" intelligence, and could—for example, watch a television programme and answer questions on its content. Marcus stated that "no existing combination of hardware and software can learn completely new things at will the way a clever child can." However, he still believed that there were potential uses for technology such as that of Goostman, specifically suggesting the creation of "believable", interactive video game characters. Imperial College London professor Murray Shanahan questioned the validity and scientific basis of the test, stating that it was "completely misplaced, and it devalues real AI research. It makes it seem like science fiction AI is nearly here, when in fact it's not and it's incredibly difficult." Mike Masnick, editor of the blog Techdirt, was also skeptical, questioning publicity blunders such as the five chatbots being referred to in press releases as "supercomputers", and saying that "creating a chatbot that can fool humans is not really the same thing as creating artificial intelligence."
Automated negotiation
Automated negotiation is a form of interaction in systems that are composed of multiple autonomous agents, in which the aim is to reach agreements through an iterative process of making offers. Automated negotiation can be employed for many tasks human negotiators regularly engage in, such as bargaining and joint decision making. The main topics in automated negotiation revolve around the design of protocols and negotiating strategies. == History == Through digitization, the beginning of the 21st century has seen a growing interest in the automation of negotiation and e-negotiation systems, for example in the setting of e-commerce. This interest is fueled by the promise of automated agents being able to negotiate on behalf of human negotiators, and to find better outcomes than human negotiators. == Examples == Examples of automated negotiation include: Online dispute resolution, in which disagreements between parties are settled. Sponsored search auction, where bids are placed on advertisement keywords. Content negotiation, in which user agents negotiate over HTTP about how to best represent a web resource. Negotiation support systems, in which negotiation decision-making activities are supported by an information system.
Percept (artificial intelligence)
A percept is the input that an intelligent agent is perceiving at any given moment. It is essentially the same concept as a percept in psychology, except that it is being perceived not by the brain but by the agent. A percept is detected by a sensor, often a camera, processed accordingly, and acted upon by an actuator. Each percept is added to a "percept sequence", which is a complete history of each percept ever detected. The agent's action at any instant point may depend on the entire percept sequence up to that particular instant point. An intelligent agent chooses how to act not only based on the current percept, but the percept sequence. The next action is chosen by the agent function, which maps every percept to an action. For example, if a camera were to record a gesture, the agent would process the percepts, calculate the corresponding spatial vectors, examine its percept history, and use the agent program (the application of the agent function) to act accordingly. == Examples == Examples of percepts include inputs from touch sensors, cameras, infrared sensors, sonar, microphones, mice, and keyboards. A percept can also be a higher-level feature of the data, such as lines, depth, objects, faces, or gestures.
NASA AI Assisted-Air Quality Monitoring Project
The NASA Expert-System Ion Trap Mass Spectrometer (ES-ITMS) Project was a public-private partnership to develop an artificial intelligence assisted, air quality monitoring system and was qualified for use on the Space Shuttle. The partnership was also the first cost and intellectual property shared public-partnership implemented by NASA, which used the commercial Research and Development Limited Partnership (RDLP) model that had been adopted by the Reagan Administration for Department of Defense semiconductor development, and recommended for use by NASA for space commercialization. The project partners included NASA, the University of Florida and Finnigan MAT Corporation, was organized and administered by the NASA Joint Enterprise Institute (subsequently NASA Joint Sponsored Program) and ran from 1988 through 1990. The partnership concluded final testing in 1991, generating four patents, expert system software and application protocol reports. The system was space qualified for use on the Shuttle and elements of the ES-ITMS system were integrated into the product Improvements for Finnigan MAT corporation. The success of the partnership lead NASA to create a pilot program to develop partnership business models as an ongoing management practice. == Purpose and objectives == The need to monitor air quality in confined spaces represented an increasing challenge for NASA's planned space missions and private sector facility managers facing the increased scrutiny of possible air contaminants. Up to the early 1980's, air quality monitors generally required large spaces and human technicians to interpret readings. This created a need for miniaturized air quality monitors that could generate reliable and accurate analytic results without on-site technician presence. NASA initiated projects to develop..."mobile and/or portable mass spectrometers" that evaluated the "tradeoff between instrumentation capabilities and space, weight and power considerations." NASA selected a "commercial ITMS instrument capable of generating electron ionization, chemical ionization and mass spectrometry data", to develop a linked expert system to accomplish analysis without human intervention. The commercial instrumentation was from Finnigan MAT corporation while the scientific expertise to support expert system development was available at the University of Florida. The project managers at NASA Ames created a single, integrated project using the RDLP model with objectives to: Develop AI/expert system software for instrument control (NASA's role) Expand sensitivity, selectivity and speed of the spectrometer (Univ Florida role) Expand the spectrometer analytic capability and automate the screening (Finnigan role) == Membership == The partnership included seven specialists from five member organizations: Federal Government National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) NASA Ames Research Center (ARC) NASA Kennedy Space Center (KSC) Commercial Finnigan MAT Corporation (Thermo-Fisher Scientific) TGS Technology, Inc. Research Management University of Florida == Organization, management and administration == The technical project was organized into two development teams, one located in at the NASA Ames Research Center covering expert systems and analytic capabilities and one in Florida covering improved sensitivity and testing. The partnership management and administration was provided by a non-profit, partnership support organization: the Joint Enterprise Institute operating through San Francisco State University Foundation (SFSUF) with a NASA employee liaison, Syed Shariq. == Public-private partnership == The partnership structure was as a prototype test of a pilot NASA program to develop public-private partnership business models. The pilot program was known as the NASA Joint Sponsored Research Program (JSRP), which operated as the NASA Joint Enterprise Institute between 1988 and 1991. The partnership was the first public-private, research and development partnership implemented by NASA in response to national policy shifts to increase technology transfer and space commercialization. The partnership structure included a two year technology development and testing plan that cost $610,000, of which NASA funded $310,000, Finnigan $175,000 and the University of Florida $95,000. == Results and commercialization == The project generated patents (4), software (2) and application protocol reports (8). NASA gained use of the patents and jointly development software while Finnigan received commercial utilization rights. The results were commercialized within eighteen months of project completion. == Recognition == NASA recognized the project as a space qualified instrument. Its achievements were reported to the NASA Administrator, directly leading to establishment of the agency-wide Joint Sponsored Research Program.
Pixel-art scaling algorithms
Pixel art scaling algorithms are graphical filters that attempt to enhance the appearance of hand-drawn 2D pixel art graphics. These algorithms are a form of automatic image enhancement. Pixel art scaling algorithms employ methods significantly different than the common methods of image rescaling, which have the goal of preserving the appearance of images. As pixel art graphics are commonly used at very low resolutions, they employ careful coloring of individual pixels. This results in graphics that rely on a high amount of stylized visual cues to define complex shapes. Several specialized algorithms have been developed to handle re-scaling of such graphics. These specialized algorithms can improve the appearance of pixel-art graphics, but in doing so they introduce changes. Such changes may be undesirable, especially if the goal is to faithfully reproduce the original appearance. Since a typical application of this technology is improving the appearance of fourth-generation and earlier video games on arcade and console emulators, many pixel art scaling algorithms are designed to run in real-time for sufficiently small input images at 60-frames per second. This places constraints on the type of programming techniques that can be used for this sort of real-time processing. Many work only on specific scale factors. 2× is the most common scale factor, while 3×, 4×, 5×, and 6× exist but are less used. == Algorithms == === SAA5050 'Diagonal Smoothing' === The Mullard SAA5050 Teletext character generator chip (1980) used a primitive pixel scaling algorithm to generate higher-resolution characters on the screen from a lower-resolution representation from its internal ROM. Internally, each character shape was defined on a 5 × 9 pixel grid, which was then interpolated by smoothing diagonals to give a 10 × 18 pixel character, with a characteristically angular shape, surrounded to the top and the left by two pixels of blank space. The algorithm only works on monochrome source data, and assumes the source pixels will be logically true or false depending on whether they are 'on' or 'off'. Pixels 'outside the grid pattern' are assumed to be off. The algorithm works as follows: A B C --\ 1 2 D E F --/ 3 4 1 = B | (A & E & !B & !D) 2 = B | (C & E & !B & !F) 3 = E | (!A & !E & B & D) 4 = E | (!C & !E & B & F) Note that this algorithm, like the Eagle algorithm below, has a flaw: If a pattern of 4 pixels in a hollow diamond shape appears, the hollow will be obliterated by the expansion. The SAA5050's internal character ROM carefully avoids ever using this pattern. The degenerate case: becomes: === EPX/Scale2×/AdvMAME2× === Eric's Pixel Expansion (EPX) is an algorithm developed by Eric Johnston at LucasArts around 1992, when porting the SCUMM engine games from the IBM PC (which ran at 320 × 200 × 256 colors) to the early color Macintosh computers, which ran at more or less double that resolution. The algorithm works as follows, expanding P into 4 new pixels based on P's surroundings: 1=P; 2=P; 3=P; 4=P; IF C==A => 1=A IF A==B => 2=B IF D==C => 3=C IF B==D => 4=D IF of A, B, C, D, three or more are identical: 1=2=3=4=P Later implementations of this same algorithm (as AdvMAME2× and Scale2×, developed around 2001) are slightly more efficient but functionally identical: 1=P; 2=P; 3=P; 4=P; IF C==A AND C!=D AND A!=B => 1=A IF A==B AND A!=C AND B!=D => 2=B IF D==C AND D!=B AND C!=A => 3=C IF B==D AND B!=A AND D!=C => 4=D AdvMAME2× is available in DOSBox via the scaler=advmame2x dosbox.conf option. The AdvMAME4×/Scale4× algorithm is just EPX applied twice to get 4× resolution. ==== Scale3×/AdvMAME3× and ScaleFX ==== The AdvMAME3×/Scale3× algorithm (available in DOSBox via the scaler=advmame3x dosbox.conf option) can be thought of as a generalization of EPX to the 3× case. The corner pixels are calculated identically to EPX. 1=E; 2=E; 3=E; 4=E; 5=E; 6=E; 7=E; 8=E; 9=E; IF D==B AND D!=H AND B!=F => 1=D IF (D==B AND D!=H AND B!=F AND E!=C) OR (B==F AND B!=D AND F!=H AND E!=A) => 2=B IF B==F AND B!=D AND F!=H => 3=F IF (H==D AND H!=F AND D!=B AND E!=A) OR (D==B AND D!=H AND B!=F AND E!=G) => 4=D 5=E IF (B==F AND B!=D AND F!=H AND E!=I) OR (F==H AND F!=B AND H!=D AND E!=C) => 6=F IF H==D AND H!=F AND D!=B => 7=D IF (F==H AND F!=B AND H!=D AND E!=G) OR (H==D AND H!=F AND D!=B AND E!=I) => 8=H IF F==H AND F!=B AND H!=D => 9=F There is also a variant improved over Scale3× called ScaleFX, developed by Sp00kyFox, and a version combined with Reverse-AA called ScaleFX-Hybrid. === Eagle === Eagle works as follows: for every in pixel, we will generate 4 out pixels. First, set all 4 to the color of the pixel we are currently scaling (as nearest-neighbor). Next look at the three pixels above, to the left, and diagonally above left: if all three are the same color as each other, set the top left pixel of our output square to that color in preference to the nearest-neighbor color. Work similarly for all four pixels, and then move to the next one. Assume an input matrix of 3 × 3 pixels where the centermost pixel is the pixel to be scaled, and an output matrix of 2 × 2 pixels (i.e., the scaled pixel) first: |Then . . . --\ CC |S T U --\ 1 2 . C . --/ CC |V C W --/ 3 4 . . . |X Y Z | IF V==S==T => 1=S | IF T==U==W => 2=U | IF V==X==Y => 3=X | IF W==Z==Y => 4=Z Thus if we have a single black pixel on a white background it will vanish. This is a bug in the Eagle algorithm but is solved by other algorithms such as EPX, 2xSaI, and HQ2x. === 2×SaI === 2×SaI, short for 2× Scale and Interpolation engine, was inspired by Eagle. It was designed by Derek Liauw Kie Fa, also known as Kreed, primarily for use in console and computer emulators, and it has remained fairly popular in this niche. Many of the most popular emulators, including ZSNES and VisualBoyAdvance, offer this scaling algorithm as a feature. Several slightly different versions of the scaling algorithm are available, and these are often referred to as Super 2×SaI and Super Eagle. The 2xSaI family works on a 4 × 4 matrix of pixels where the pixel marked A below is scaled: I E F J G A B K --\ W X H C D L --/ Y Z M N O P For 16-bit pixels, they use pixel masks which change based on whether the 16-bit pixel format is 565 or 555. The constants colorMask, lowPixelMask, qColorMask, qLowPixelMask, redBlueMask, and greenMask are 16-bit masks. The lower 8 bits are identical in either pixel format. Two interpolation functions are described: INTERPOLATE(uint32 A, UINT32 B). -- linear midpoint of A and B if (A == B) return A; return ( ((A & colorMask) >> 1) + ((B & colorMask) >> 1) + (A & B & lowPixelMask) ); Q_INTERPOLATE(uint32 A, uint32 B, uint32 C, uint32 D) -- bilinear interpolation; A, B, C, and D's average x = ((A & qColorMask) >> 2) + ((B & qColorMask) >> 2) + ((C & qColorMask) >> 2) + ((D & qColorMask) >> 2); y = (A & qLowPixelMask) + (B & qLowPixelMask) + (C & qLowPixelMask) + (D & qLowPixelMask); y = (y >> 2) & qLowPixelMask; return x + y; The algorithm checks A, B, C, and D for a diagonal match such that A==D and B!=C, or the other way around, or if they are both diagonals or if there is no diagonal match. Within these, it checks for three or four identical pixels. Based on these conditions, the algorithm decides whether to use one of A, B, C, or D, or an interpolation among only these four, for each output pixel. The 2xSaI arbitrary scaler can enlarge any image to any resolution and uses bilinear filtering to interpolate pixels. Since Kreed released the source code under the GNU General Public License, it is freely available to anyone wishing to utilize it in a project released under that license. Developers wishing to use it in a non-GPL project would be required to rewrite the algorithm without using any of Kreed's existing code. It is available in DOSBox via scaler=2xsai option. === hqnx family === Maxim Stepin's hq2x, hq3x, and hq4x are for scale factors of 2:1, 3:1, and 4:1 respectively. Each work by comparing the color value of each pixel to those of its eight immediate neighbors, marking the neighbors as close or distant, and using a pre-generated lookup table to find the proper proportion of input pixels' values for each of the 4, 9 or 16 corresponding output pixels. The hq3x family will perfectly smooth any diagonal line whose slope is ±0.5, ±1, or ±2 and which is not anti-aliased in the input; one with any other slope will alternate between two slopes in the output. It will also smooth very tight curves. Unlike 2xSaI, it anti-aliases the output. hqnx was initially created for the Super NES emulator ZSNES. The author of bsnes has released a space-efficient implementation of hq2x to the public domain. A port to shaders, which has comparable quality to the early versions of xBR, is available. Before the port, a shader called "scalehq" has often been confused for hqx. === xBR family === There are 6 filters in this family: xBR , xBRZ, xBR-Hybrid, Super xBR, xBR+3D and Super xBR+3D. xBR ("scale by rules"), cre
AIXI
AIXI is a theoretical mathematical formalism for artificial general intelligence. It combines Solomonoff induction with sequential decision theory. AIXI was first proposed by Marcus Hutter in 2000 and several results regarding AIXI are proved in Hutter's 2005 book Universal Artificial Intelligence. AIXI is a reinforcement learning (RL) agent. It maximizes the expected total rewards received from the environment. Intuitively, it simultaneously considers every computable hypothesis (or environment). In each time step, it looks at every possible program and evaluates how many rewards that program generates depending on the next action taken. The promised rewards are then weighted by the subjective belief that this program constitutes the true environment. This belief is computed from the length of the program: longer programs are considered less likely, in line with Occam's razor. AIXI then selects the action that has the highest expected total reward in the weighted sum of all these programs. == Etymology == According to Hutter, the word "AIXI" can have several interpretations. AIXI can stand for AI based on Solomonoff's distribution, denoted by ξ {\displaystyle \xi } (which is the Greek letter xi), or e.g. it can stand for AI "crossed" (X) with induction (I). There are other interpretations. == Definition == AIXI is a reinforcement learning agent that interacts with some stochastic and unknown but computable environment μ {\displaystyle \mu } . The interaction proceeds in time steps, from t = 1 {\displaystyle t=1} to t = m {\displaystyle t=m} , where m ∈ N {\displaystyle m\in \mathbb {N} } is the lifespan of the AIXI agent. At time step t, the agent chooses an action a t ∈ A {\displaystyle a_{t}\in {\mathcal {A}}} (e.g. a limb movement) and executes it in the environment, and the environment responds with a "percept" e t ∈ E = O × R {\displaystyle e_{t}\in {\mathcal {E}}={\mathcal {O}}\times \mathbb {R} } , which consists of an "observation" o t ∈ O {\displaystyle o_{t}\in {\mathcal {O}}} (e.g., a camera image) and a reward r t ∈ R {\displaystyle r_{t}\in \mathbb {R} } , distributed according to the conditional probability μ ( o t r t | a 1 o 1 r 1 . . . a t − 1 o t − 1 r t − 1 a t ) {\displaystyle \mu (o_{t}r_{t}|a_{1}o_{1}r_{1}...a_{t-1}o_{t-1}r_{t-1}a_{t})} , where a 1 o 1 r 1 . . . a t − 1 o t − 1 r t − 1 a t {\displaystyle a_{1}o_{1}r_{1}...a_{t-1}o_{t-1}r_{t-1}a_{t}} is the "history" of actions, observations and rewards. The environment μ {\displaystyle \mu } is thus mathematically represented as a probability distribution over "percepts" (observations and rewards) which depend on the full history, so there is no Markov assumption (as opposed to other RL algorithms). Note again that this probability distribution is unknown to the AIXI agent. Furthermore, note again that μ {\displaystyle \mu } is computable, that is, the observations and rewards received by the agent from the environment μ {\displaystyle \mu } can be computed by some program (which runs on a Turing machine), given the past actions of the AIXI agent. The only goal of the AIXI agent is to maximize ∑ t = 1 m r t {\displaystyle \sum _{t=1}^{m}r_{t}} , that is, the sum of rewards from time step 1 to m. The AIXI agent is associated with a stochastic policy π : ( A × E ) ∗ → A {\displaystyle \pi :({\mathcal {A}}\times {\mathcal {E}})^{}\rightarrow {\mathcal {A}}} , which is the function it uses to choose actions at every time step, where A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} is the space of all possible actions that AIXI can take and E {\displaystyle {\mathcal {E}}} is the space of all possible "percepts" that can be produced by the environment. The environment (or probability distribution) μ {\displaystyle \mu } can also be thought of as a stochastic policy (which is a function): μ : ( A × E ) ∗ × A → E {\displaystyle \mu :({\mathcal {A}}\times {\mathcal {E}})^{}\times {\mathcal {A}}\rightarrow {\mathcal {E}}} , where the ∗ {\displaystyle } is the Kleene star operation. In general, at time step t {\displaystyle t} (which ranges from 1 to m), AIXI, having previously executed actions a 1 … a t − 1 {\displaystyle a_{1}\dots a_{t-1}} (which is often abbreviated in the literature as a < t {\displaystyle a_{