Inductive logic programming (ILP) is a subfield of symbolic artificial intelligence which uses logic programming as a uniform representation for examples, background knowledge and hypotheses. The term "inductive" here refers to philosophical (i.e. suggesting a theory to explain observed facts) rather than mathematical (i.e. proving a property for all members of a well-ordered set) induction. Given an encoding of the known background knowledge and a set of examples represented as a logical database of facts, an ILP system will derive a hypothesised logic program which entails all the positive and none of the negative examples. Schema: positive examples + negative examples + background knowledge ⇒ hypothesis. Bioinformatics and drug design have been highlighted as a principal application area of inductive logic programming techniques. == History == Building on earlier work on Inductive inference, Gordon Plotkin was the first to formalise induction in a clausal setting around 1970, adopting an approach of generalising from examples. In 1981, Ehud Shapiro introduced several ideas that would shape the field in his new approach of model inference, an algorithm employing refinement and backtracing to search for a complete axiomatisation of given examples. His first implementation was the Model Inference System in 1981: a Prolog program that inductively inferred Horn clause logic programs from positive and negative examples. The term Inductive Logic Programming was first introduced in a paper by Stephen Muggleton in 1990, defined as the intersection of machine learning and logic programming. Muggleton and Wray Buntine introduced predicate invention and inverse resolution in 1988. Several inductive logic programming systems that proved influential appeared in the early 1990s. FOIL, introduced by Ross Quinlan in 1990 was based on upgrading propositional learning algorithms AQ and ID3. Golem, introduced by Muggleton and Feng in 1990, went back to a restricted form of Plotkin's least generalisation algorithm. The Progol system, introduced by Muggleton in 1995, first implemented inverse entailment, and inspired many later systems. Aleph, a descendant of Progol introduced by Ashwin Srinivasan in 2001, is still one of the most widely used systems as of 2022. At around the same time, the first practical applications emerged, particularly in bioinformatics, where by 2000 inductive logic programming had been successfully applied to drug design, carcinogenicity and mutagenicity prediction, and elucidation of the structure and function of proteins. Unlike the focus on automatic programming inherent in the early work, these fields used inductive logic programming techniques from a viewpoint of relational data mining. The success of those initial applications and the lack of progress in recovering larger traditional logic programs shaped the focus of the field. Recently, classical tasks from automated programming have moved back into focus, as the introduction of meta-interpretative learning makes predicate invention and learning recursive programs more feasible. This technique was pioneered with the Metagol system introduced by Muggleton, Dianhuan Lin, Niels Pahlavi and Alireza Tamaddoni-Nezhad in 2014. This allows ILP systems to work with fewer examples, and brought successes in learning string transformation programs, answer set grammars and general algorithms. == Setting == Inductive logic programming has adopted several different learning settings, the most common of which are learning from entailment and learning from interpretations. In both cases, the input is provided in the form of background knowledge B, a logical theory (commonly in the form of clauses used in logic programming), as well as positive and negative examples, denoted E + {\textstyle E^{+}} and E − {\textstyle E^{-}} respectively. The output is given as a hypothesis H, itself a logical theory that typically consists of one or more clauses. The two settings differ in the format of examples presented. === Learning from entailment === As of 2022, learning from entailment is by far the most popular setting for inductive logic programming. In this setting, the positive and negative examples are given as finite sets E + {\textstyle E^{+}} and E − {\textstyle E^{-}} of positive and negated ground literals, respectively. A correct hypothesis H is a set of clauses satisfying the following requirements, where the turnstile symbol ⊨ {\displaystyle \models } stands for logical entailment: Completeness: B ∪ H ⊨ E + Consistency: B ∪ H ∪ E − ⊭ false {\displaystyle {\begin{array}{llll}{\text{Completeness:}}&B\cup H&\models &E^{+}\\{\text{Consistency: }}&B\cup H\cup E^{-}&\not \models &{\textit {false}}\end{array}}} Completeness requires any generated hypothesis H to explain all positive examples E + {\textstyle E^{+}} , and consistency forbids generation of any hypothesis H that is inconsistent with the negative examples E − {\textstyle E^{-}} , both given the background knowledge B. In Muggleton's setting of concept learning, "completeness" is referred to as "sufficiency", and "consistency" as "strong consistency". Two further conditions are added: "Necessity", which postulates that B does not entail E + {\textstyle E^{+}} , does not impose a restriction on H, but forbids any generation of a hypothesis as long as the positive facts are explainable without it. "Weak consistency", which states that no contradiction can be derived from B ∧ H {\textstyle B\land H} , forbids generation of any hypothesis H that contradicts the background knowledge B. Weak consistency is implied by strong consistency; if no negative examples are given, both requirements coincide. Weak consistency is particularly important in the case of noisy data, where completeness and strong consistency cannot be guaranteed. === Learning from interpretations === In learning from interpretations, the positive and negative examples are given as a set of complete or partial Herbrand structures, each of which are themselves a finite set of ground literals. Such a structure e is said to be a model of the set of clauses B ∪ H {\textstyle B\cup H} if for any substitution θ {\textstyle \theta } and any clause h e a d ← b o d y {\textstyle \mathrm {head} \leftarrow \mathrm {body} } in B ∪ H {\textstyle B\cup H} such that b o d y θ ⊆ e {\textstyle \mathrm {body} \theta \subseteq e} , h e a d θ ⊆ e {\displaystyle \mathrm {head} \theta \subseteq e} also holds. The goal is then to output a hypothesis that is complete, meaning every positive example is a model of B ∪ H {\textstyle B\cup H} , and consistent, meaning that no negative example is a model of B ∪ H {\textstyle B\cup H} . == Approaches to ILP == An inductive logic programming system is a program that takes as an input logic theories B , E + , E − {\displaystyle B,E^{+},E^{-}} and outputs a correct hypothesis H with respect to theories B , E + , E − {\displaystyle B,E^{+},E^{-}} . A system is complete if and only if for any input logic theories B , E + , E − {\displaystyle B,E^{+},E^{-}} any correct hypothesis H with respect to these input theories can be found with its hypothesis search procedure. Inductive logic programming systems can be roughly divided into two classes, search-based and meta-interpretative systems. Search-based systems exploit that the space of possible clauses forms a complete lattice under the subsumption relation, where one clause C 1 {\textstyle C_{1}} subsumes another clause C 2 {\textstyle C_{2}} if there is a substitution θ {\textstyle \theta } such that C 1 θ {\textstyle C_{1}\theta } , the result of applying θ {\textstyle \theta } to C 1 {\textstyle C_{1}} , is a subset of C 2 {\textstyle C_{2}} . This lattice can be traversed either bottom-up or top-down. === Bottom-up search === Bottom-up methods to search the subsumption lattice have been investigated since Plotkin's first work on formalising induction in clausal logic in 1970. Techniques used include least general generalisation, based on anti-unification, and inverse resolution, based on inverting the resolution inference rule. ==== Least general generalisation ==== A least general generalisation algorithm takes as input two clauses C 1 {\textstyle C_{1}} and C 2 {\textstyle C_{2}} and outputs the least general generalisation of C 1 {\textstyle C_{1}} and C 2 {\textstyle C_{2}} , that is, a clause C {\textstyle C} that subsumes C 1 {\textstyle C_{1}} and C 2 {\textstyle C_{2}} , and that is subsumed by every other clause that subsumes C 1 {\textstyle C_{1}} and C 2 {\textstyle C_{2}} . The least general generalisation can be computed by first computing all selections from C 1 {\textstyle C_{1}} and C 2 {\textstyle C_{2}} , which are pairs of literals ( L , M ) ∈ ( C 1 × C 2 ) {\displaystyle (L,M)\in (C_{1}\times C_{2})} sharing the same predicate symbol and negated/unnegated status. Then, the least general generalisation is obtained as the disjunction of the least general generalisations of the indi
Coherent extrapolated volition
Coherent extrapolated volition (CEV) is a theoretical framework in the field of AI alignment describing an approach by which an artificial superintelligence (ASI) would act on a benevolent supposition of what humans would want if they were more knowledgeable, more rational, had more time to think, and had matured together as a society, as opposed to humanity's current individual or collective preferences. It was proposed by Eliezer Yudkowsky in 2004 as part of his work on friendly AI. == Concept == CEV proposes that an advanced AI system should derive its goals by extrapolating the idealized volition of humanity. This means aggregating and projecting human preferences into a coherent utility function that reflects what people would desire under ideal epistemic and moral conditions. The aim is to ensure that AI systems are aligned with humanity's true interests, rather than with transient or poorly informed preferences. In poetic terms, our coherent extrapolated volition is our wish if we knew more, thought faster, were more the people we wished we were, had grown up farther together; where the extrapolation converges rather than diverges, where our wishes cohere rather than interfere; extrapolated as we wish that extrapolated, interpreted as we wish that interpreted. == Debate == Yudkowsky and Nick Bostrom note that CEV has several interesting properties. It is designed to be humane and self-correcting, by capturing the source of human values instead of trying to list them. It avoids the difficulty of laying down an explicit, fixed list of rules. It encapsulates moral growth, preventing flawed current moral beliefs from getting locked in. It limits the influence that a small group of programmers can have on what the ASI would value, thus also reducing the incentives to build ASI first. And it keeps humanity in charge of its destiny. CEV also faces significant theoretical and practical challenges. Bostrom notes that CEV has "a number of free parameters that could be specified in various ways, yielding different versions of the proposal." One such parameter is the extrapolation base (whose extrapolated volition is taken into account). For example, whether it should include people with severe dementia, patients in a vegetative state, foetuses, or embryos. He also notes that if CEV's extrapolation base only includes humans, there is a risk that the result would be ungenerous toward other animals and digital minds. One possible solution would be to include a mechanism to expand CEV's extrapolation base. == Variants and alternatives == A proposed theoretical alternative to CEV is to rely on an artificial superintelligence's superior cognitive capabilities to figure out what is morally right, and let it act accordingly. It is also possible to combine both techniques, for instance with the ASI following CEV except when it is morally impermissible. In another review, a philosophical analysis explores CEV through the lens of social trust in autonomous systems. Drawing on Anthony Giddens' concept of "active trust", the author proposes an evolution of CEV into "Coherent, Extrapolated and Clustered Volition" (CECV). This formulation aims to better reflect the moral preferences of diverse cultural groups, thus offering a more pragmatic ethical framework for designing AI systems that earn public trust while accommodating societal diversity.
STIT logic
STIT logic (from seeing to it that) is a family of modal and branching-time logics for reasoning about agency and choice. A typical STIT operator has the form [ i s t i t : φ ] {\displaystyle [i\ {\mathsf {stit}}:\varphi ]} , usually read as "agent i {\displaystyle i} sees to it that φ {\displaystyle \varphi } ", and is interpreted in models where agents choose between alternative possible futures. STIT logics are used in action theory, deontic logic, epistemic logic, and the theory of intelligent agents to formalise notions such as "could have done otherwise", responsibility, joint action, and strategic ability in an indeterministic world. == Etymology == The acronym STIT comes from the English phrase "seeing to it that", introduced in influential work by Nuel Belnap and Michael Perloff on the logical analysis of agentive expressions. In this tradition, "to see to it that φ {\displaystyle \varphi } " is treated as a primitive agency operator, rather than being reduced to ordinary modal necessity. == History == Modern STIT logic arose in the 1980s in the context of branching-time semantics and formal theories of agency. Belnap and Perloff's article "Seeing to it that: A canonical form for agentives" introduced the idea of treating expressions of the form "agent i sees to it that φ" as a primitive modal operator, and analysed such sentences using a branching tree of moments and histories. This approach was further developed in a series of papers on indeterminism and agency and provided the conceptual core for later STIT formalisms. In the 1990s the basic formal systems of STIT logic were worked out. Horty and Belnap's influential paper on the deliberative STIT operator distinguished between a "Chellas" STIT that merely records the result of an agent's present choice and a "deliberative" STIT that requires the agent's choice to make a difference, and connected STIT with issues of action, omission, ability and obligation. Around the same time, Ming Xu proved completeness and decidability results for basic STIT systems, including a single-agent logic with Kripke-style semantics and axiomatizations for multi-agent deliberative STIT, thereby establishing STIT as a well-behaved normal modal framework. This early work was systematised in Belnap, Perloff and Xu's monograph Facing the Future: Agents and Choices in Our Indeterminist World, which presents a general branching-time semantics for individual and group STIT operators, discusses independence-of-agents conditions and articulates the metaphysical picture of an indeterministic "tree" of moments. At roughly the same time, Horty's book Agency and Deontic Logic developed deontic STIT logics in which obligations are tied to agents' available choices rather than to static states of affairs, and used the resulting systems to analyse "ought implies can", contrary-to-duty obligations and deontic paradoxes. These works helped to position STIT at the intersection of action theory, temporal logic and deontic logic. From the late 1990s and 2000s onward, STIT logics were combined with epistemic, temporal and strategic modalities. Broersen introduced complete STIT logics for knowledge and action and deontic-epistemic STIT systems that distinguish different modes of mens rea, with applications to responsibility and the specification of multi-agent systems. Work on group and coalitional agency investigated axiomatisations and complexity results for group STIT logics, and related STIT-based analyses of agency to coalition logic and alternating-time temporal logic (ATL) by exhibiting formal embeddings between the frameworks. Explicit temporal operators were added to STIT in so-called temporal STIT logics. Lorini proposed a temporal STIT with "next" and "until" operators along histories and showed how it can be applied to normative reasoning about ongoing behaviour and commitments. Ciuni and Lorini compared different semantics for temporal STIT, clarifying the relationships between branching-time, game-based and epistemic approaches, while Boudou and Lorini gave a semantics for temporal STIT based on concurrent game structures, thus strengthening links with standard models of multi-agent interaction used for ATL and strategy logic. In parallel, complexity-theoretic work by Balbiani, Herzig and Troquard and by Schwarzentruber and co-authors investigated the satisfiability and model-checking problems for various STIT fragments, showing for instance that many expressive group STIT logics are undecidable or of high computational complexity. In the 2010s, STIT ideas were combined with justification logic, imagination operators and refined deontic notions. Justification STIT logics, developed by Olkhovikov and others, merge explicit justifications with STIT-style agency so that producing a proof can itself be treated as an action that brings about knowledge, and they come with completeness and decidability results. Olkhovikov and Wansing introduced STIT imagination logics, together with axiomatic systems and tableau calculi, to model acts of voluntary imagining and their role in doxastic control. Other authors have proposed STIT-based logics of responsibility, blameworthiness and intentionality for use in philosophical and AI settings. Xu's survey article "Combinations of STIT with Ought and Know" (2015) reviews many of these developments and emphasises the interplay between deontic and epistemic STIT logics. Current research on STIT focuses on proof theory, automated reasoning and richer expressive resources. Lyon and van Berkel, building on earlier work on labelled calculi for STIT, have developed cut-free sequent systems and proof-search algorithms that yield syntactic decision procedures for a range of deontic and non-deontic multi-agent STIT logics and support applications such as duty checking and compliance checking in autonomous systems. Sawasaki has proposed first-order cstit-based STIT logics that can distinguish de re and de dicto readings of agency statements and has proved strong completeness results for Hilbert systems over finite models, moving the STIT programme beyond the purely propositional level. Further work investigates interpreted-system and computationally grounded semantics for STIT and its extensions in order to model the behaviour of autonomous agents in multi-agent settings, and proposes STIT-based semantics for epistemic notions based on patterns of information disclosure in interactive systems. == Branching-time semantics == STIT logics are usually interpreted over branching-time models. A standard STIT frame consists of: a non-empty set of moments T {\displaystyle T} , partially ordered by < {\displaystyle <} so that ( T , < ) {\displaystyle (T,<)} forms a tree (every pair of moments with a common predecessor has a greatest lower bound); a set of histories, each history being a maximal linearly ordered subset of T {\displaystyle T} ; a non-empty set of agents A g {\displaystyle Ag} ; for each agent i ∈ A g {\displaystyle i\in Ag} and moment m {\displaystyle m} , a choice function c h o i c e i m {\displaystyle {\mathsf {choice}}_{i}^{m}} that partitions the set of histories passing through m {\displaystyle m} into choice cells. The idea is that a moment represents a time at which choices are made, and histories represent complete possible future courses of events. At each moment, each agent's choice corresponds to selecting one of the available cells of histories determined by their choice function. Formulas are evaluated at pairs ( m , h ) {\displaystyle (m,h)} of a moment and a history through that moment (sometimes written m / h {\displaystyle m/h} ). A valuation assigns truth-values to atomic propositions at such indices; Boolean connectives are interpreted pointwise as in Kripke-style modal logic. == Chellas and deliberative STIT operators == Several STIT operators have been distinguished in the literature. A common approach uses two closely related operators, often called Chellas STIT and deliberative STIT. Let H m {\displaystyle H_{m}} be the set of histories passing through a moment m {\displaystyle m} , and write H m {\displaystyle H_{m}} ⟦ φ ⟧ m = { h ∈ H m ∣ M , m / h ⊨ φ } {\displaystyle {\text{⟦}}\varphi {\text{⟧}}_{m}=\{h\in H_{m}\mid M,m/h\models \varphi \}} for the set of histories at m {\displaystyle m} where φ {\displaystyle \varphi } holds. The Chellas STIT operator, often written [ i c s t i t : φ ] {\displaystyle [i\ {\mathsf {cstit}}:\varphi ]} , is given by M , m / h ⊨ [ i c s t i t : φ ] iff c h o i c e i m ( h ) ⊆ ⟦ φ ⟧ m . {\displaystyle M,m/h\models [i\ {\mathsf {cstit}}:\varphi ]\quad {\text{iff}}\quad {\mathsf {choice}}_{i}^{m}(h)\subseteq {\text{⟦}}\varphi {\text{⟧}}_{m}.} Intuitively, agent i {\displaystyle i} sees to it that φ {\displaystyle \varphi } if φ {\displaystyle \varphi } holds at all histories compatible with their present choice. The deliberative STIT operator, [ i d s t i t : φ ] {\displaystyle [i\ {\mathsf {dstit}}:\varphi ]} , adds
Bag-of-words model
The bag-of-words (BoW) model is a model of text which uses an unordered collection (a "bag") of words. It is used in natural language processing and information retrieval (IR). It disregards word order (and thus most of syntax or grammar) but captures multiplicity. The bag-of-words model is commonly used in methods of document classification where, for example, the (frequency of) occurrence of each word is used as a feature for training a classifier. It has also been used for computer vision. An early reference to "bag of words" in a linguistic context can be found in Zellig Harris's 1954 article on Distributional Structure. == Definition == The following models a text document using bag-of-words. Here are two simple text documents: Based on these two text documents, a list is constructed as follows for each document: Representing each bag-of-words as a JSON object, and attributing to the respective JavaScript variable: Each key is the word, and each value is the number of occurrences of that word in the given text document. The order of elements is free, so, for example {"too":1,"Mary":1,"movies":2,"John":1,"watch":1,"likes":2,"to":1} is also equivalent to BoW1. It is also what we expect from a strict JSON object representation. Note: if another document is like a union of these two, its JavaScript representation will be: So, as we see in the bag algebra, the "union" of two documents in the bags-of-words representation is, formally, the disjoint union, summing the multiplicities of each element. === Word order === The BoW representation of a text removes all word ordering. For example, the BoW representation of "man bites dog" and "dog bites man" are the same, so any algorithm that operates with a BoW representation of text must treat them in the same way. Despite this lack of syntax or grammar, BoW representation is fast and may be sufficient for simple tasks that do not require word order. For instance, for document classification, if the words "stocks" "trade" "investors" appears multiple times, then the text is likely a financial report, even though it would be insufficient to distinguish between Yesterday, investors were rallying, but today, they are retreating.andYesterday, investors were retreating, but today, they are rallying.and so the BoW representation would be insufficient to determine the detailed meaning of the document. == Implementations == Implementations of the bag-of-words model might involve using frequencies of words in a document to represent its contents. The frequencies can be "normalized" by the inverse of document frequency, or tf–idf. Additionally, for the specific purpose of classification, supervised alternatives have been developed to account for the class label of a document. Lastly, binary (presence/absence or 1/0) weighting is used in place of frequencies for some problems (e.g., this option is implemented in the WEKA machine learning software system). == Hashing trick == A common alternative to using dictionaries is the hashing trick, where words are mapped directly to indices with a hash function. When using a hash function, no memory is required to store a dictionary. In practice, hashing simplifies the implementation of bag-of-words models and improves scalability. Collisions can occur when two words are hashed to the same index, but this happens infrequently and may function as a form of regularization.
Hierarchical control system
A hierarchical control system (HCS) is a form of control system in which a set of devices and governing software is arranged in a hierarchical tree. When the links in the tree are implemented by a computer network, then that hierarchical control system is also a form of networked control system. == Overview == A human-built system with complex behavior is often organized as a hierarchy. For example, a command hierarchy has among its notable features the organizational chart of superiors, subordinates, and lines of organizational communication. Hierarchical control systems are organized similarly to divide the decision making responsibility. Each element of the hierarchy is a linked node in the tree. Commands, tasks and goals to be achieved flow down the tree from superior nodes to subordinate nodes, whereas sensations and command results flow up the tree from subordinate to superior nodes. Nodes may also exchange messages with their siblings. The two distinguishing features of a hierarchical control system are related to its layers. Each higher layer of the tree operates with a longer interval of planning and execution time than its immediately lower layer. The lower layers have local tasks, goals, and sensations, and their activities are planned and coordinated by higher layers which do not generally override their decisions. The layers form a hybrid intelligent system in which the lowest, reactive layers are sub-symbolic. The higher layers, having relaxed time constraints, are capable of reasoning from an abstract world model and performing planning. A hierarchical task network is a good fit for planning in a hierarchical control system. Besides artificial systems, an animal's control systems are proposed to be organized as a hierarchy. In perceptual control theory, which postulates that an organism's behavior is a means of controlling its perceptions, the organism's control systems are suggested to be organized in a hierarchical pattern as their perceptions are constructed so. == Control system structure == The accompanying diagram is a general hierarchical model which shows functional manufacturing levels using computerised control of an industrial control system. Referring to the diagram; Level 0 contains the field devices such as flow and temperature sensors, and final control elements, such as control valves Level 1 contains the industrialised Input/Output (I/O) modules, and their associated distributed electronic processors. Level 2 contains the supervisory computers, which collate information from processor nodes on the system, and provide the operator control screens. Level 3 is the production control level, which does not directly control the process, but is concerned with monitoring production and monitoring targets Level 4 is the production scheduling level. == Applications == === Manufacturing, robotics and vehicles === Among the robotic paradigms is the hierarchical paradigm in which a robot operates in a top-down fashion, heavy on planning, especially motion planning. Computer-aided production engineering has been a research focus at NIST since the 1980s. Its Automated Manufacturing Research Facility was used to develop a five layer production control model. In the early 1990s DARPA sponsored research to develop distributed (i.e. networked) intelligent control systems for applications such as military command and control systems. NIST built on earlier research to develop its Real-Time Control System (RCS) and Real-time Control System Software which is a generic hierarchical control system that has been used to operate a manufacturing cell, a robot crane, and an automated vehicle. In November 2007, DARPA held the Urban Challenge. The winning entry, Tartan Racing employed a hierarchical control system, with layered mission planning, motion planning, behavior generation, perception, world modelling, and mechatronics. === Artificial intelligence === Subsumption architecture is a methodology for developing artificial intelligence that is heavily associated with behavior based robotics. This architecture is a way of decomposing complicated intelligent behavior into many "simple" behavior modules, which are in turn organized into layers. Each layer implements a particular goal of the software agent (i.e. system as a whole), and higher layers are increasingly more abstract. Each layer's goal subsumes that of the underlying layers, e.g. the decision to move forward by the eat-food layer takes into account the decision of the lowest obstacle-avoidance layer. Behavior need not be planned by a superior layer, rather behaviors may be triggered by sensory inputs and so are only active under circumstances where they might be appropriate. Reinforcement learning has been used to acquire behavior in a hierarchical control system in which each node can learn to improve its behavior with experience. James Albus, while at NIST, developed a theory for intelligent system design named the Reference Model Architecture (RMA), which is a hierarchical control system inspired by RCS. Albus defines each node to contain these components. Behavior generation is responsible for executing tasks received from the superior, parent node. It also plans for, and issues tasks to, the subordinate nodes. Sensory perception is responsible for receiving sensations from the subordinate nodes, then grouping, filtering, and otherwise processing them into higher level abstractions that update the local state and which form sensations that are sent to the superior node. Value judgment is responsible for evaluating the updated situation and evaluating alternative plans. World Model is the local state that provides a model for the controlled system, controlled process, or environment at the abstraction level of the subordinate nodes. At its lowest levels, the RMA can be implemented as a subsumption architecture, in which the world model is mapped directly to the controlled process or real world, avoiding the need for a mathematical abstraction, and in which time-constrained reactive planning can be implemented as a finite-state machine. Higher levels of the RMA however, may have sophisticated mathematical world models and behavior implemented by automated planning and scheduling. Planning is required when certain behaviors cannot be triggered by current sensations, but rather by predicted or anticipated sensations, especially those that come about as result of the node's actions.
Moving object detection
Moving object detection is a technique used in computer vision and image processing. Multiple consecutive frames from a video are compared by various methods to determine if any moving object is detected. Moving objects detection has been used for wide range of applications like video surveillance, activity recognition, road condition monitoring, airport safety, monitoring of protection along marine border, etc. == Definition == Moving object detection is to recognize the physical movement of an object in a given place or region. By acting segmentation among moving objects and stationary area or region, the moving objects' motion can be tracked and thus analyzed later. To achieve this, consider a video is a structure built upon single frames, moving object detection is to find the foreground moving target(s), either in each video frame or only when the moving target shows the first appearance in the video. == Traditional methods == Among all the traditional moving object detection methods, we could categorize them into four major approaches: Background subtraction, Frame differencing, Temporal Differencing, and Optical Flow. === Frame differencing === Instead of using traditional approach, to use image subtraction operator by subtracting second and images afterwards, the frame differencing method makes comparisons between two successive frames to detect moving targets. === Temporal differencing === The temporal differencing method identifies the moving object by applying pixel-wise difference method with two or three consecutive frames.
Expectation propagation
Expectation propagation (EP) is a technique in Bayesian machine learning. EP finds approximations to a probability distribution. It uses an iterative approach that uses the factorization structure of the target distribution. It differs from other Bayesian approximation approaches such as variational Bayesian methods. More specifically, suppose we wish to approximate an intractable probability distribution p ( x ) {\displaystyle p(\mathbf {x} )} with a tractable distribution q ( x ) {\displaystyle q(\mathbf {x} )} . Expectation propagation achieves this approximation by minimizing the Kullback–Leibler divergence K L ( p | | q ) {\displaystyle \mathrm {KL} (p||q)} . Variational Bayesian methods minimize K L ( q | | p ) {\displaystyle \mathrm {KL} (q||p)} instead. If q ( x ) {\displaystyle q(\mathbf {x} )} is a Gaussian N ( x | μ , Σ ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {N}}(\mathbf {x} |\mu ,\Sigma )} , then K L ( p | | q ) {\displaystyle \mathrm {KL} (p||q)} is minimized with μ {\displaystyle \mu } and Σ {\displaystyle \Sigma } being equal to the mean of p ( x ) {\displaystyle p(\mathbf {x} )} and the covariance of p ( x ) {\displaystyle p(\mathbf {x} )} , respectively; this is called moment matching. == Applications == Expectation propagation via moment matching plays a vital role in approximation for indicator functions that appear when deriving the message passing equations for TrueSkill.