VITAL (Validating Investment Tool for Advancing Life Sciences) was a Board Management Software machine learning proprietary software developed by Aging Analytics, a company registered in Bristol (England) and dissolved in 2017. Andrew Garazha (the firm's Senior Analyst) declared that the project aimed "through iterative releases and updates to create a piece of software capable of making autonomous investment decisions." According to Nick Dyer-Witheford, VITAL 1.0 was a "basic algorithm". On 13 May 2014, Deep Knowledge Ventures, a Hong Kong venture capital firm, claimed to have appointed VITAL to its board of directors in order to prove that artificial intelligence could be an instrument for investment decision-making. The announcement received great press coverage despite the fact commentators consider this a publicity stunt. Fortune reported in 2019 that VITAL is no longer used. == Criticism == Academics and journalists viewed VITAL's board appointment with skepticism. University of Sheffield computer science professor Noel Sharkey called it "a publicity hype". Michael Osborne, a University of Oxford associate professor in machine learning, found it is "a gimmick to call that an actual board member". Simon Sharwood of The Register, wrote there is "a strong whiff of stunt and/or promotion about this". In a 2019 speech, the Chief Scientist of Australia, Alan Finkel, commented, "At the time, most of us probably dismissed Vital as a PR exercise. I admit, I used her story three years ago to get a laugh in one of my speeches." Florian Möslein, a law professor at the University of Marburg, wrote in 2018 that "Vital has widely been acknowledged as the 'world's first artificial intelligence company director'". Vice journalist Jason Koebler suggested that the software did not have any article intelligence capabilities and concluded "VITAL can’t talk, and it can’t hear, and it can’t be a real, functional executive of a company." Sharwood of The Register noted that because VITAL was not a natural person, it could not be a board member under Hong Kong's corporate governance laws. However, in a 2017 interview to The Nikkei, Dmitry Kaminskiy, managing partner of Deep Knowledge Ventures, stated that VITAL had observer status on the board and no voting rights. University of Sheffield computer science professor Noel Sharkey said of VITAL, "On first sight, it looks like a futuristic idea but on reflection it is really a little bit of publicity hype." Vice journalist Jason Koebler said "this is a gimmick" and said "There is literally nothing to suggest that VITAL has any sort of capabilities beyond any other proprietary analysis software". Michael Osborne, a University of Oxford associate professor in machine learning, found VITAL's appointment to be noncredible, saying it is "a bit of a gimmick to call that an actual board member". Osborne said that a core duty of board members to converse with each other, which the algorithm is incapable of doing, so its more likely functionality is to serve as a springboard for conversation among other board members. In a 2019 speech, the Chief Scientist of Australia, Alan Finkel, commented, "At the time, most of us probably dismissed Vital as a PR exercise. I admit, I used her story three years ago to get a laugh in one of my speeches." == Machine intelligence as board member == VITAL was created by a group of programmers employed by Aging Analytics According to Andrew Garazh, Aging Analytics Senior Analyst, VITAL was not a machine learning algorithm as the necessary datasets on investment rounds, intellectual property and clinical trial outcomes are generally not disclosed. Rather, VITAL used fuzzy logic based on 50 parameters to assess risk factors. Aging Analytics licensed the software to Deep Knowledge Ventures. It was used to help the human board members of Deep Knowledge Venture make investment decisions in biotechnology companies. For instance, it supported investments in Insilico Medicine, which creates ways for computers to help find drugs in research into aging. VITAL also supported investing in Pathway Pharmaceuticals, which uses the OncoFinder algorithm to choose and appraise cancer treatments. According to Dmitry Kaminskiy, managing partner of Deep Knowledge Ventures, the motivation for using VITAL was the large number of failed investments in the biotechnology sector and the desire to avoid investing in companies likely to fail. == Ethical and legal implications == Scholars addressed questions around the safety, privacy, accountability transparency and bias in algorithms. Writing in the philosophical journal Multitudes, the academic Ariel Kyrou raised questions about the consequences of a mistake made by an algorithm recommending a dangerous investment. He raised the hypothetical where VITAL was able to persuade the board to invest in a startup that had the facade of doing research into treatment for age-associated ills, but in actuality was run by terrorists who were raising funds. Kyrou raised a series of questions about who society would fault for VITAL's mistake. As the owner of VITAL, should Deep Knowledge Ventures be held accountable, or rather should the companies that supplied data to VITAL or the people who created VITAL be held liable? Simon Sharwood of The Register wrote that because the appointment of a software program to the board directors is not legally feasible in Hong Kong, there is "a strong whiff of stunt and/or promotion about this". Quoting a Thomson Reuters website describing Hong Kong legislation related to corporate governance, Sharwood pointed out that in Hong Kong "the board comprises all of the directors of the company" and "a director must normally be a natural person, except that a private company may have a body corporate as its director if the company is not a member of a listed group." He concluded that since VITAL cannot be considered a "natural person", it is merely a "cosmetic" appointment to the board and that "this software is no more a Board member than Caligula's horse was a senator". Sharwood further argued that corporations frequently purchase directors and officers liability insurance but that it would be practically impossible to get such insurance for VITAL. Sharwood also wrote that were VITAL to be hacked, any misinformation it outputs could be considered "false and misleading communications". In the book Research Handbook on the Law of Artificial Intelligence, Florian Mölein wrote that VITAL could not become a director as defined in Hong Kong's corporate laws, so the other directors just were approaching it as "a member of [the] board with observer status". Lin Shaowei raised concerns in a Journal of East China University of Political Science and Law article about how the software's appearance inspired a complex question about the relationship between corporate law and artificial intelligence. VITAL could be considered either a board director who has voting rights or an observer who does not. Lin said either choice raised questions about whether VITAL is subject to corporate law and who would be held accountable if VITAL recommends a choice that turns out to be damaging to the company. David Theo Goldberg in the Critical Times, a peer reviewed journal in Critical Global Theory, argues that VITAL processed a dataset to predict the most remunerative investment opportunities. Drawing his analysis on an article from Business Insider, Goldberg describes VITAL's decision-making predictiveness based "on surface pattern recognition and the identification of regularities and/or irregularities". In other words, Goldberg asserts that "the normativity of the surface" explains algorithmic knowledge of a "product" like VITAL. In Homo Deus, Yuval Noah Harari mentions VITAL as an example of the future risks that humankind faces. Harari argues that the human mind is being replaced by a world in which algorithms and data make the decisions. Specifically, it is argued that "as algorithms push humans out of the job market," executive boards driven by artificial intelligence are more likely to give priority to algorithms over the humans.
Image formation
The study of image formation encompasses the radiometric and geometric processes by which 2D images of 3D objects are formed. In the case of digital images, the image formation process also includes analog to digital conversion and sampling. == Imaging == The imaging process is a mapping of an object to an image plane. Each point on the image corresponds to a point on the object. An illuminated object will scatter light toward a lens and the lens will collect and focus the light to create the image. The ratio of the height of the image to the height of the object is the magnification. The spatial extent of the image surface and the focal length of the lens determines the field of view of the lens. Image formation of mirror these have a center of curvature and its focal length of the mirror is half of the center of curvature. == Illumination == An object may be illuminated by the light from an emitting source such as the sun, a light bulb or a Light Emitting Diode. The light incident on the object is reflected in a manner dependent on the surface properties of the object. For rough surfaces, the reflected light is scattered in a manner described by the Bi-directional Reflectance Distribution Function (BRDF) of the surface. The BRDF of a surface is the ratio of the exiting power per square meter per steradian (radiance) to the incident power per square meter (irradiance). The BRDF typically varies with angle and may vary with wavelength, but a specific important case is a surface that has constant BRDF. This surface type is referred to as Lambertian and the magnitude of the BRDF is R/π, where R is the reflectivity of the surface. The portion of scattered light that propagates toward the lens is collected by the entrance pupil of the imaging lens over the field of view. == Field of view and imagery == The Field of view of a lens is limited by the size of the image plane and the focal length of the lens. The relationship between a location on the image and a location on the object is y = ftan(θ), where y is the max extent of the image plane, f is the focal length of the lens and θ is the field of view. If y is the max radial size of the image then θ is the field of view of the lens. While the image created by a lens is continuous, it can be modeled as a set of discrete field points, each representing a point on the object. The quality of the image is limited by the aberrations in the lens and the diffraction created by the finite aperture stop. == Pupils and stops == The aperture stop of a lens is a mechanical aperture which limits the light collection for each field point. The entrance pupil is the image of the aperture stop created by the optical elements on the object side of the lens. The light scattered by an object is collected by the entrance pupil and focused onto the image plane via a series of refractive elements. The cone of the focused light at the image plane is set by the size of the entrance pupil and the focal length of the lens. This is often referred to as the f-stop or f-number of the lens. f/# = f/D where D is the diameter of the entrance pupil. == Pixelation and color vs. monochrome == In typical digital imaging systems, a sensor is placed at the image plane. The light is focused on to the sensor and the continuous image is pixelated. The light incident on each pixel in the sensor will be integrated within the pixel and a proportional electronic signal will be generated. The angular geometric resolution of a pixel is given by atan(p/f), where p is the pitch of the pixel. This is also called the pixel field of view. The sensor may be monochrome or color. In the case of a monochrome sensor, the light incident on each pixel is integrated and the resulting image is a grayscale like picture. For color images, a mosaic color filter is typically placed over the pixels to create a color image. An example is a Bayer filter. The signal incident on each pixel is then digitized to a bit stream. == Image quality == The quality of an image is dependent upon both geometric and physical items. Geometrically, higher density of pixels across an image will give less blocky pixelation and thus a better geometric image quality. Lens aberrations also contribute to the quality of the image. Physically, diffraction due to the aperture stop will limit the resolvable spatial frequencies as a function of f-number. In the frequency domain, Modulation Transfer Function (MTF) is a measure of the quality of the imaging system. The MTF is a measure of the visibility of a sinusoidal variation in irradiance on the image plane as a function of the frequency of the sinusoid. It includes the effects of diffraction, aberrations and pixelation. For the lens, the MTF is the autocorrelation of the pupil function, so it accounts for the finite pupil extent and the lens aberrations. The sensor MTF is the Fourier Transform of the pixel geometry. For a square pixel, MTF(ξ) = sin(πξp)/πξp where p is the pixel width and ξ is the spatial frequency. The MTF of the combination of the lens and detector is the product of the two component MTFs. == Perception == Color images can be perceived via two means. In the case of computer vision the light incident on the sensor comprises the image. In the case of visual perception, the human eye has a color dependent response to light so this must be accounted for. This is important consideration when converting to grayscale. == Image formation in eye == The principal difference between the lens of the eye and an ordinary optical lens is that the former is flexible. The radius of the curvature of the anterior surface of the lens is greater than the radius of its posterior surface. The shape of the lens is controlled by tension in the fibers of the ciliary body. To focus on distant objects, the controlling muscles cause the lens to be relatively flattened. Similarly, these muscles allow the lens to become thicker in order to focus on objects near the eye. The distance between the center of the lens and the retina (focal length) varies from approximately 17 mm to about 14 mm, as the refractive power of the lens increases from its minimum to its maximum. When the eye focuses on an object farther away than about 3 m, the lens exhibits its lowest refractive power. When the eye focuses on a close object, the lens is most strongly refractive.
Automated essay scoring
Automated essay scoring (AES) is the use of specialized computer programs to assign grades to essays written in an educational setting. It is a form of educational assessment and an application of natural language processing. Its objective is to classify a large set of textual entities into a small number of discrete categories, corresponding to the possible grades, for example, the numbers 1 to 6. Therefore, it can be considered a problem of statistical classification. Several factors have contributed to a growing interest in AES. Among them are cost, accountability, standards, and technology. Rising education costs have led to pressure to hold the educational system accountable for results by imposing standards. The advance of information technology promises to measure educational achievement at reduced cost. The use of AES for high-stakes testing in education has generated significant backlash, with opponents pointing to research that computers cannot yet grade writing accurately and arguing that their use for such purposes promotes teaching writing in reductive ways (i.e. teaching to the test). == History == Most historical summaries of AES trace the origins of the field to the work of Ellis Batten Page. In 1966, he argued for the possibility of scoring essays by computer, and in 1968 he published his successful work with a program called Project Essay Grade (PEG). Using the technology of that time, computerized essay scoring would not have been cost-effective, so Page abated his efforts for about two decades. Eventually, Page sold PEG to Measurement Incorporated. By 1990, desktop computers had become so powerful and so widespread that AES was a practical possibility. As early as 1982, a UNIX program called Writer's Workbench was able to offer punctuation, spelling and grammar advice. In collaboration with several companies (notably Educational Testing Service), Page updated PEG and ran some successful trials in the early 1990s. Peter Foltz and Thomas Landauer developed a system using a scoring engine called the Intelligent Essay Assessor (IEA). IEA was first used to score essays in 1997 for their undergraduate courses. It is now a product from Pearson Educational Technologies and used for scoring within a number of commercial products and state and national exams. IntelliMetric is Vantage Learning's AES engine. Its development began in 1996. It was first used commercially to score essays in 1998. Educational Testing Service offers "e-rater", an automated essay scoring program. It was first used commercially in February 1999. Jill Burstein was the team leader in its development. ETS's Criterion Online Writing Evaluation Service uses the e-rater engine to provide both scores and targeted feedback. Lawrence Rudner has done some work with Bayesian scoring, and developed a system called BETSY (Bayesian Essay Test Scoring sYstem). Some of his results have been published in print or online, but no commercial system incorporates BETSY as yet. Under the leadership of Howard Mitzel and Sue Lottridge, Pacific Metrics developed a constructed response automated scoring engine, CRASE. Currently utilized by several state departments of education and in a U.S. Department of Education-funded Enhanced Assessment Grant, Pacific Metrics’ technology has been used in large-scale formative and summative assessment environments since 2007. Measurement Inc. acquired the rights to PEG in 2002 and has continued to develop it. In 2012, the Hewlett Foundation sponsored a competition on Kaggle called the Automated Student Assessment Prize (ASAP). 201 challenge participants attempted to predict, using AES, the scores that human raters would give to thousands of essays written to eight different prompts. The intent was to demonstrate that AES can be as reliable as human raters, or more so. The competition also hosted a separate demonstration among nine AES vendors on a subset of the ASAP data. Although the investigators reported that the automated essay scoring was as reliable as human scoring, this claim was not substantiated by any statistical tests because some of the vendors required that no such tests be performed as a precondition for their participation. Moreover, the claim that the Hewlett Study demonstrated that AES can be as reliable as human raters has since been strongly contested, including by Randy E. Bennett, the Norman O. Frederiksen Chair in Assessment Innovation at the Educational Testing Service. Some of the major criticisms of the study have been that five of the eight datasets consisted of paragraphs rather than essays, four of the eight data sets were graded by human readers for content only rather than for writing ability, and that rather than measuring human readers and the AES machines against the "true score", the average of the two readers' scores, the study employed an artificial construct, the "resolved score", which in four datasets consisted of the higher of the two human scores if there was a disagreement. This last practice, in particular, gave the machines an unfair advantage by allowing them to round up for these datasets. In 1966, Page hypothesized that, in the future, the computer-based judge will be better correlated with each human judge than the other human judges are. Despite criticizing the applicability of this approach to essay marking in general, this hypothesis was supported for marking free text answers to short questions, such as those typical of the British GCSE system. Results of supervised learning demonstrate that the automatic systems perform well when marking by different human teachers is in good agreement. Unsupervised clustering of answers showed that excellent papers and weak papers formed well-defined clusters, and the automated marking rule for these clusters worked well, whereas marks given by human teachers for the third cluster ('mixed') can be controversial, and the reliability of any assessment of works from the 'mixed' cluster can often be questioned (both human and computer-based). == Different dimensions of essay quality == According to a recent survey, modern AES systems try to score different dimensions of an essay's quality in order to provide feedback to users. These dimensions include the following items: Grammaticality: following grammar rules Usage: using of prepositions, word usage Mechanics: following rules for spelling, punctuation, capitalization Style: word choice, sentence structure variety Relevance: how relevant of the content to the prompt Organization: how well the essay is structured Development: development of ideas with examples Cohesion: appropriate use of transition phrases Coherence: appropriate transitions between ideas Thesis Clarity: clarity of the thesis Persuasiveness: convincingness of the major argument == Procedure == From the beginning, the basic procedure for AES has been to start with a training set of essays that have been carefully hand-scored. The program evaluates surface features of the text of each essay, such as the total number of words, the number of subordinate clauses, or the ratio of uppercase to lowercase letters—quantities that can be measured without any human insight. It then constructs a mathematical model that relates these quantities to the scores that the essays received. The same model is then applied to calculate scores of new essays. Recently, one such mathematical model was created by Isaac Persing and Vincent Ng. which not only evaluates essays on the above features, but also on their argument strength. It evaluates various features of the essay, such as the agreement level of the author and reasons for the same, adherence to the prompt's topic, locations of argument components (major claim, claim, premise), errors in the arguments, cohesion in the arguments among various other features. In contrast to the other models mentioned above, this model is closer in duplicating human insight while grading essays. Due to the growing popularity of deep neural networks, deep learning approaches have been adopted for automated essay scoring, generally obtaining superior results, often surpassing inter-human agreement levels. The various AES programs differ in what specific surface features they measure, how many essays are required in the training set, and most significantly in the mathematical modeling technique. Early attempts used linear regression. Modern systems may use linear regression or other machine learning techniques often in combination with other statistical techniques such as latent semantic analysis and Bayesian inference. The automated essay scoring task has also been studied in the cross-domain setting using machine learning models, where the models are trained on essays written for one prompt (topic) and tested on essays written for another prompt. Successful approaches in the cross-domain scenario are based on deep neural networks or models that combine deep and shallow features. == Criteria for success == Any method of a
Bottlenose (company)
Bottlenose.com, also known as Bottlenose, is an enterprise trend intelligence company that analyzes big data and business data to detect trends for brands. It helps Fortune 500 enterprises discover, and track emerging trends that affect their brands. The company uses natural language processing, sentiment analysis, statistical algorithms, data mining, and machine learning heuristics to determine trends, and has a search engine that gathers information from social networks. KPMG Capital has invested a "substantial amount" in the company. Bottlenose processed 72 billion messages per day, in real-time, from across social and broadcast media, as of December 2014. == History == The company is based in Los Angeles, CA. Bottlenose is a real-time trend intelligence tool that measures social media campaigns and trends. The company also provides a free version of its Sonar tool that shows real-time trends across social media. In October 2012, the company received $1 million of funding from ff Venture Capital and Prosper Capital. By 2014, the company raised about $7 million in funding. In December 2014, KPMG Capital announced further investment in the company. In February 2015, the company confirmed it had raised $13.4 million in Series B funding led by KPMG Capital. Bottlenose partnered with the nonprofit No Labels during the 2014 State of the Union Address to analyze Twitter conversations for bipartisanship. The company also partnered with media monitoring company Critical Mention to analyze broadcast analytics. The Bottlenose Nerve Center integrated with the Critical Mention API to analyze real-time trends in television and radio broadcasts. In June 2014, Bottlenose updated its trend detection product to Nerve Center 2.0. It creates a newsfeed to show changes in trends and sends alerts when trends occur. It also has "emotion detection," which will display the emotions associated with specific comments on trending topics. In 2016, Bottlenose released its Nerve Center 3.0 platform, which was designed to automate the work of data scientists and lower the cost of artificial intelligence for businesses.
Bottlenose (company)
Bottlenose.com, also known as Bottlenose, is an enterprise trend intelligence company that analyzes big data and business data to detect trends for brands. It helps Fortune 500 enterprises discover, and track emerging trends that affect their brands. The company uses natural language processing, sentiment analysis, statistical algorithms, data mining, and machine learning heuristics to determine trends, and has a search engine that gathers information from social networks. KPMG Capital has invested a "substantial amount" in the company. Bottlenose processed 72 billion messages per day, in real-time, from across social and broadcast media, as of December 2014. == History == The company is based in Los Angeles, CA. Bottlenose is a real-time trend intelligence tool that measures social media campaigns and trends. The company also provides a free version of its Sonar tool that shows real-time trends across social media. In October 2012, the company received $1 million of funding from ff Venture Capital and Prosper Capital. By 2014, the company raised about $7 million in funding. In December 2014, KPMG Capital announced further investment in the company. In February 2015, the company confirmed it had raised $13.4 million in Series B funding led by KPMG Capital. Bottlenose partnered with the nonprofit No Labels during the 2014 State of the Union Address to analyze Twitter conversations for bipartisanship. The company also partnered with media monitoring company Critical Mention to analyze broadcast analytics. The Bottlenose Nerve Center integrated with the Critical Mention API to analyze real-time trends in television and radio broadcasts. In June 2014, Bottlenose updated its trend detection product to Nerve Center 2.0. It creates a newsfeed to show changes in trends and sends alerts when trends occur. It also has "emotion detection," which will display the emotions associated with specific comments on trending topics. In 2016, Bottlenose released its Nerve Center 3.0 platform, which was designed to automate the work of data scientists and lower the cost of artificial intelligence for businesses.
Attempto Controlled English
Attempto Controlled English (ACE) is a controlled natural language, i.e. a subset of standard English with a restricted syntax and restricted semantics described by a small set of construction and interpretation rules. It has been under development at the University of Zurich since 1995. In 2013, ACE version 6.7 was announced. ACE can serve as knowledge representation, specification, and query language, and is intended for professionals who want to use formal notations and formal methods, but may not be familiar with them. Though ACE appears perfectly natural—it can be read and understood by any speaker of English—it is in fact a formal language. ACE and its related tools have been used in the fields of software specifications, theorem proving, proof assistants, text summaries, ontologies, rules, querying, medical documentation and planning. Here are some simple examples: Every woman is a human. A woman is a human. A man tries-on a new tie. If the tie pleases his wife then the man buys it. ACE construction rules require that each noun be introduced by a determiner (a, every, no, some, at least 5, ...). Regarding the list of examples above, ACE interpretation rules decide that (1) is interpreted as universally quantified, while (2) is interpreted as existentially quantified. Sentences like "Women are human" do not follow ACE syntax and are consequently not valid. Interpretation rules resolve the anaphoric references in (3): the tie and it of the second sentence refer to a new tie of the first sentence, while his and the man of the second sentence refer to a man of the first sentence. Thus an ACE text is a coherent entity of anaphorically linked sentences. The Attempto Parsing Engine (APE) translates ACE texts unambiguously into discourse representation structures (DRS) that use a variant of the language of first-order logic. A DRS can be further translated into other formal languages, for instance AceRules with various semantics, OWL, and SWRL. Translating an ACE text into (a fragment of) first-order logic allows users to reason about the text, for instance to verify, to validate, and to query it. == Overview == As an overview of the current version 6.6 of ACE this section: Briefly describes the vocabulary Gives an account of the syntax Summarises the handling of ambiguity Explains the processing of anaphoric references. === Vocabulary === The vocabulary of ACE comprises: Predefined function words (e.g. determiners, conjunctions) Predefined phrases (e.g. "it is false that ...", "it is possible that ...") Content words (e.g. nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs). === Grammar === The grammar of ACE defines and constrains the form and the meaning of ACE sentences and texts. ACE's grammar is expressed as a set of construction rules. The meaning of sentences is described as a small set of interpretation rules. A Troubleshooting Guide describes how to use ACE and how to avoid pitfalls. ==== ACE texts ==== An ACE text is a sequence of declarative sentences that can be anaphorically interrelated. Furthermore, ACE supports questions and commands. ==== Simple sentences ==== A simple sentence asserts that something is the case—a fact, an event, a state. The temperature is −2 °C. A customer inserts 2 cards. A card and a code are valid. Simple ACE sentences have the following general structure: subject + verb + complements + adjuncts Every sentence has a subject and a verb. Complements (direct and indirect objects) are necessary for transitive verbs (insert something) and ditransitive verbs (give something to somebody), whereas adjuncts (adverbs, prepositional phrases) are optional. All elements of a simple sentence can be elaborated upon to describe the situation in more detail. To further specify the nouns customer and card, we could add adjectives: A trusted customer inserts two valid cards. possessive nouns and of-prepositional phrases: John's customer inserts a card of Mary. or variables as appositions: John inserts a card A. Other modifications of nouns are possible through relative sentences: A customer who is trusted inserts a card that he owns. which are described below since they make a sentence composite. We can also detail the insertion event, e.g. by adding an adverb: A customer inserts some cards manually. or, equivalently: A customer manually inserts some cards. or, by adding prepositional phrases: A customer inserts some cards into a slot. We can combine all of these elaborations to arrive at: John's customer who is trusted inserts a valid card of Mary manually into a slot A. ==== Composite sentences ==== Composite sentences are recursively built from simpler sentences through coordination, subordination, quantification, and negation. Note that ACE composite sentences overlap with what linguists call compound sentences and complex sentences. ===== Coordination ===== Coordination by and is possible between sentences and between phrases of the same syntactic type. A customer inserts a card and the machine checks the code. There is a customer who inserts a card and who enters a code. A customer inserts a card and enters a code. An old and trusted customer enters a card and a code. Note that the coordination of the noun phrases a card and a code represents a plural object. Coordination by or is possible between sentences, verb phrases, and relative clauses. A customer inserts a card or the machine checks the code. A customer inserts a card or enters a code. A customer owns a card that is invalid or that is damaged. Coordination by and and or is governed by the standard binding order of logic, i.e. and binds stronger than or. Commas can be used to override the standard binding order. Thus the sentence: A customer inserts a VisaCard or inserts a MasterCard, and inserts a code. means that the customer inserts a VisaCard and a code, or alternatively a MasterCard and a code. ===== Subordination ===== There are four constructs of subordination: relative sentences, if-then sentences, modality, and sentence subordination. Relative sentences starting with who, which, and that allow to add detail to nouns: A customer who is trusted inserts a card that he owns. With the help of if-then sentences we can specify conditional or hypothetical situations: If a card is valid then a customer inserts it. Note the anaphoric reference via the pronoun it in the then-part to the noun phrase a card in the if-part. Modality allows us to express possibility and necessity: A trusted customer can/must insert a card. It is possible/necessary that a trusted customer inserts a card. Sentence subordination comes in various forms: It is true/false that a customer inserts a card. It is not provable that a customer inserts a card. A clerk believes that a customer inserts a card. ===== Quantification ===== Quantification allows us to speak about all objects of a certain class (universal quantification), or to denote explicitly the existence of at least one object of this class (existential quantification). The textual occurrence of a universal or existential quantifier opens its scope that extends to the end of the sentence, or in coordinations to the end of the respective coordinated sentence. To express that all involved customers insert cards we can write Every customer inserts a card. This sentence means that each customer inserts a card that may, or may not, be the same as the one inserted by another customer. To specify that all customers insert the same card—however unrealistic that situation seems—we can write: A card is inserted by every customer. or, equivalently: There is a card that every customer inserts. To state that every card is inserted by a customer we write: Every card is inserted by a customer. or, somewhat indirectly: For every card there is a customer who inserts it. ===== Negation ===== Negation allows us to express that something is not the case: A customer does not insert a card. A card is not valid. To negate something for all objects of a certain class one uses no: No customer inserts more than 2 cards. or, there is no: There is no customer who inserts a card. To negate a complete statement one uses sentence negation: It is false that a customer inserts a card. These forms of negation are logical negations, i.e. they state that something is provably not the case. Negation as failure states that a state of affairs cannot be proved, i.e. there is no information whether the state of affairs is the case or not. It is not provable that a customer inserts a card. ==== Queries ==== ACE supports two forms of queries: yes/no-queries and wh-queries. Yes/no-queries ask for the existence or non-existence of a specified situation. If we specified: A customer inserts a card. then we can ask: Does a customer insert a card? to get a positive answer. Note that interrogative sentences always end with a question mark. With the help of wh-queries, i.e. queries with query words, we can interrogate a text for details of the specified situation. If we specified: A
Attempto Controlled English
Attempto Controlled English (ACE) is a controlled natural language, i.e. a subset of standard English with a restricted syntax and restricted semantics described by a small set of construction and interpretation rules. It has been under development at the University of Zurich since 1995. In 2013, ACE version 6.7 was announced. ACE can serve as knowledge representation, specification, and query language, and is intended for professionals who want to use formal notations and formal methods, but may not be familiar with them. Though ACE appears perfectly natural—it can be read and understood by any speaker of English—it is in fact a formal language. ACE and its related tools have been used in the fields of software specifications, theorem proving, proof assistants, text summaries, ontologies, rules, querying, medical documentation and planning. Here are some simple examples: Every woman is a human. A woman is a human. A man tries-on a new tie. If the tie pleases his wife then the man buys it. ACE construction rules require that each noun be introduced by a determiner (a, every, no, some, at least 5, ...). Regarding the list of examples above, ACE interpretation rules decide that (1) is interpreted as universally quantified, while (2) is interpreted as existentially quantified. Sentences like "Women are human" do not follow ACE syntax and are consequently not valid. Interpretation rules resolve the anaphoric references in (3): the tie and it of the second sentence refer to a new tie of the first sentence, while his and the man of the second sentence refer to a man of the first sentence. Thus an ACE text is a coherent entity of anaphorically linked sentences. The Attempto Parsing Engine (APE) translates ACE texts unambiguously into discourse representation structures (DRS) that use a variant of the language of first-order logic. A DRS can be further translated into other formal languages, for instance AceRules with various semantics, OWL, and SWRL. Translating an ACE text into (a fragment of) first-order logic allows users to reason about the text, for instance to verify, to validate, and to query it. == Overview == As an overview of the current version 6.6 of ACE this section: Briefly describes the vocabulary Gives an account of the syntax Summarises the handling of ambiguity Explains the processing of anaphoric references. === Vocabulary === The vocabulary of ACE comprises: Predefined function words (e.g. determiners, conjunctions) Predefined phrases (e.g. "it is false that ...", "it is possible that ...") Content words (e.g. nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs). === Grammar === The grammar of ACE defines and constrains the form and the meaning of ACE sentences and texts. ACE's grammar is expressed as a set of construction rules. The meaning of sentences is described as a small set of interpretation rules. A Troubleshooting Guide describes how to use ACE and how to avoid pitfalls. ==== ACE texts ==== An ACE text is a sequence of declarative sentences that can be anaphorically interrelated. Furthermore, ACE supports questions and commands. ==== Simple sentences ==== A simple sentence asserts that something is the case—a fact, an event, a state. The temperature is −2 °C. A customer inserts 2 cards. A card and a code are valid. Simple ACE sentences have the following general structure: subject + verb + complements + adjuncts Every sentence has a subject and a verb. Complements (direct and indirect objects) are necessary for transitive verbs (insert something) and ditransitive verbs (give something to somebody), whereas adjuncts (adverbs, prepositional phrases) are optional. All elements of a simple sentence can be elaborated upon to describe the situation in more detail. To further specify the nouns customer and card, we could add adjectives: A trusted customer inserts two valid cards. possessive nouns and of-prepositional phrases: John's customer inserts a card of Mary. or variables as appositions: John inserts a card A. Other modifications of nouns are possible through relative sentences: A customer who is trusted inserts a card that he owns. which are described below since they make a sentence composite. We can also detail the insertion event, e.g. by adding an adverb: A customer inserts some cards manually. or, equivalently: A customer manually inserts some cards. or, by adding prepositional phrases: A customer inserts some cards into a slot. We can combine all of these elaborations to arrive at: John's customer who is trusted inserts a valid card of Mary manually into a slot A. ==== Composite sentences ==== Composite sentences are recursively built from simpler sentences through coordination, subordination, quantification, and negation. Note that ACE composite sentences overlap with what linguists call compound sentences and complex sentences. ===== Coordination ===== Coordination by and is possible between sentences and between phrases of the same syntactic type. A customer inserts a card and the machine checks the code. There is a customer who inserts a card and who enters a code. A customer inserts a card and enters a code. An old and trusted customer enters a card and a code. Note that the coordination of the noun phrases a card and a code represents a plural object. Coordination by or is possible between sentences, verb phrases, and relative clauses. A customer inserts a card or the machine checks the code. A customer inserts a card or enters a code. A customer owns a card that is invalid or that is damaged. Coordination by and and or is governed by the standard binding order of logic, i.e. and binds stronger than or. Commas can be used to override the standard binding order. Thus the sentence: A customer inserts a VisaCard or inserts a MasterCard, and inserts a code. means that the customer inserts a VisaCard and a code, or alternatively a MasterCard and a code. ===== Subordination ===== There are four constructs of subordination: relative sentences, if-then sentences, modality, and sentence subordination. Relative sentences starting with who, which, and that allow to add detail to nouns: A customer who is trusted inserts a card that he owns. With the help of if-then sentences we can specify conditional or hypothetical situations: If a card is valid then a customer inserts it. Note the anaphoric reference via the pronoun it in the then-part to the noun phrase a card in the if-part. Modality allows us to express possibility and necessity: A trusted customer can/must insert a card. It is possible/necessary that a trusted customer inserts a card. Sentence subordination comes in various forms: It is true/false that a customer inserts a card. It is not provable that a customer inserts a card. A clerk believes that a customer inserts a card. ===== Quantification ===== Quantification allows us to speak about all objects of a certain class (universal quantification), or to denote explicitly the existence of at least one object of this class (existential quantification). The textual occurrence of a universal or existential quantifier opens its scope that extends to the end of the sentence, or in coordinations to the end of the respective coordinated sentence. To express that all involved customers insert cards we can write Every customer inserts a card. This sentence means that each customer inserts a card that may, or may not, be the same as the one inserted by another customer. To specify that all customers insert the same card—however unrealistic that situation seems—we can write: A card is inserted by every customer. or, equivalently: There is a card that every customer inserts. To state that every card is inserted by a customer we write: Every card is inserted by a customer. or, somewhat indirectly: For every card there is a customer who inserts it. ===== Negation ===== Negation allows us to express that something is not the case: A customer does not insert a card. A card is not valid. To negate something for all objects of a certain class one uses no: No customer inserts more than 2 cards. or, there is no: There is no customer who inserts a card. To negate a complete statement one uses sentence negation: It is false that a customer inserts a card. These forms of negation are logical negations, i.e. they state that something is provably not the case. Negation as failure states that a state of affairs cannot be proved, i.e. there is no information whether the state of affairs is the case or not. It is not provable that a customer inserts a card. ==== Queries ==== ACE supports two forms of queries: yes/no-queries and wh-queries. Yes/no-queries ask for the existence or non-existence of a specified situation. If we specified: A customer inserts a card. then we can ask: Does a customer insert a card? to get a positive answer. Note that interrogative sentences always end with a question mark. With the help of wh-queries, i.e. queries with query words, we can interrogate a text for details of the specified situation. If we specified: A