Isabelle Guyon (French pronunciation: [izabɛl ɡɥijɔ̃]; born August 15, 1961) is a French-born researcher in machine learning known for her work on support-vector machines, artificial neural networks and bioinformatics. She is a Chair Professor at the University of Paris-Saclay. Guyon serves as the Director of Research at Google DeepMind since October 2022. She is considered to be a pioneer in the field, with her contribution to the support-vector machines with Vladimir Vapnik and Bernhard Boser. == Biography == After graduating from the French engineering school ESPCI Paris in 1985, she joined the group of Gerard Dreyfus at the Université Pierre-et-Marie-Curie to do a PhD on neural networks architectures and training. Guyon defended her thesis in 1988 and was hired the year after at AT&T Bell Laboratories, first as a post-doc, then as a group leader. She worked at Bell Labs for six years, where she explored several research areas, from neural networks to pattern recognition and computational learning theory, with application to handwriting recognition. She collaborated with Yann LeCun, Léon Bottou, Vladimir Vapnik, Corinna Cortes, Yoshua Bengio, Patrice Simard, and met her future husband, Bernhard Boser. In 1996, Guyon left Bell Labs and raised her children at Berkeley, California. In Berkeley, she created her own machine learning consulting company, Clopinet. She became interested in medical applications, and used her previous work to classify the genes responsible for different types of cancers. Since 2003, Guyon has organized many challenges in data science, in order to stimulate research in this field. She founded ChaLearn in 2011, a non-profit organization aimed at creating machine learning challenges open to everyone. She was Program Chair of NeurIPS 2016 and became General Chair of NeurIPS in 2017. She is also Action Editor for the Journal of Machine Learning Research and Series Editor for Series: Challenges in Machine Learning. She is a member of the European Laboratory for Learning and Intelligent Systems. In 2016, Guyon came back to France to take the Chair Professorship in Big data between the University of Paris-Saclay and INRIA. She works in TAU (TAckling the Underspecified), a research collaboration of the Laboratoire de recherche en informatique. Together with Bernhard Schölkopf and Vladimir Vapnik, she received in 2020 the BBVA Foundation Frontiers of Knowledge Awards for her work in machine learning. == Scientific work == Guyon has worked in many subfields of machine learning, including neural networks, support-vector machines, feature selection and applications of machine learning to biology. === Support-vector machines === Among her most notable contributions, Guyon co-invented support-vector machines (SVM) in 1992, with Bernhard Boser and Vladimir Vapnik. SVM is a supervised machine learning algorithm, comparable to neural networks or decision trees, which has quickly become a classical technique in machine learning. SVMs have especially contributed to the popularization of kernel methods. === Neural networks === During her years at Bell Labs, Guyon took part of numerous projects involving neural networks. In particular, she wrote some of the first papers on the use of neural network for handwriting recognition using the MNIST database. She is also a co-inventor of the siamese neural networks, a neural network architecture used to learn similarities, with applications to signature, face or object recognition. === Machine learning for biology === Guyon is the author of many publications at the intersection of biology (cancer research and genomics) and artificial intelligence. She has notably introduced the use of support-vector machines to detect cancer using genes. === Machine learning challenges === Through her non-profit organization ChaLearn, Guyon has organized and directed challenges open to everyone in order to solve open problems in machine learning, including computer vision, neurosciences, particle physics, feature selection, causality and automated machine learning. Most of the challenges organized by ChaLearn have resulted in publications. Among the most cited ones are: Guyon et al., Result analysis of the NIPS 2003 feature selection challenge, Advances in neural information processing systems, 2005, link Escalera et al., ChaLearn Looking at People Challenge 2014: Dataset and Results, Computer Vision - ECCV 2014 Workshops, Springer International Publishing, 2014, link Guyon et al., A brief Review of the ChaLearn AutoML Challenge, JMLR: Workshop and Conference Proceedings 64:21-30, 2016, link Adam-Bourdario et al., The Higgs boson machine learning challenge, JMLR: Workshop and Conference Proceedings 42:19-55, 2015, link == Private life == She is married to Bernhard Boser, a professor at UC Berkeley. She has twins and one daughter, all three of whom have completed a science degree. Guyon has three citizenships: French by birth, Swiss by marriage and American by naturalization. == Awards and honors == Nomination at the French Academy of technologies (2024) Recipient of the BBVA Foundation Frontiers of Knowledge Awards (2020) American Medical Informatics Association Fellow (2011) == Publications == Bernhard Boser, Isabelle Guyon and Vladmir Vapnik, A training algorithm for optimal margin classifiers, Proceedings of the fifth annual workshop on Computational learning theory, 1992, doi:10.1145/130385.130401 Jane Bromley, Isabelle Guyon, Yann LeCun, Eduard Säckinger and Roopak Shah, Signature verification using a" siamese" time delay neural network, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 1994. Isabelle Guyon and André Elisseeff, An introduction to variable and feature selection, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 2003. Isabelle Guyon, Jason Weston, Stephen Barnhill and Vladimir Vapnik, Gene selection for cancer classification using support vector machines, Machine Learning, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002, doi:10.1023/A:1012487302797
Texture artist
A texture artist is an individual who develops textures for digital media, usually for video games, movies, web sites and television shows or things like 3D posters. These textures can be in the form of 2D or (rarely) 3D art that may be overlaid onto a polygon mesh to create a realistic 3D model. Texture artists often take advantage of web sites for the purposes of marketing their art and self-promotion of their skills with the goal of gaining employment from a professional game studio or to join a team working on a "mod" (modification) of an existing game in hopes of establishing industry or trade credentials.
Kinodynamic planning
In robotics and motion planning, kinodynamic planning is a class of problems for which velocity, acceleration, and force/torque bounds must be satisfied, together with kinematic constraints such as avoiding obstacles. The term was coined by Bruce Donald, Pat Xavier, John Canny, and John Reif. Donald et al. developed the first polynomial-time approximation schemes (PTAS) for the problem. By providing a provably polynomial-time ε-approximation algorithm, they resolved a long-standing open problem in optimal control. Their first paper considered time-optimal control ("fastest path") of a point mass under Newtonian dynamics, amidst polygonal (2D) or polyhedral (3D) obstacles, subject to state bounds on position, velocity, and acceleration. Later they extended the technique to many other cases, for example, to 3D open-chain kinematic robots under full Lagrangian dynamics. == Modern approaches == Since the foundational theoretical work of the 1990s, the field has evolved significantly with new algorithmic approaches that address the computational and practical limitations of early methods. === Sampling-based methods === Many practical heuristic algorithms based on stochastic optimization and iterative sampling have been developed by a wide range of authors to address the kinodynamic planning problem. Popular approaches include extensions of RRT algorithms such as RRT for kinodynamic systems, and sampling-based methods like Model Predictive Path Integral (MPPI) control. These stochastic techniques have been shown to work well in practice and can handle complex, high-dimensional state spaces more efficiently than deterministic methods. However, all motion planning methods are subject to the PSPACE-hardnesss of classical motion planning even without dynamics, which means (assuming the usual structural complexity conjectures) they all can be worst-case exponential-time in the state-space dimension (the number of degrees of freedom). On the other hand, the deterministic methods have provable guarantees of completeness, accuracy, and complexity (for fixed dimension, they are polynomial-time not only in the geometric complexity, but also in ( 1 / ε ) {\displaystyle (1/\varepsilon )} , the closeness of the desired approximation), whereas most of the recent heuristic/stochastic methods sacrifice at least one of these criteria. === Mixed-integer optimization approaches === Recent advances in mixed-integer programming have enabled new deterministic approaches to kinodynamic planning. These methods formulate the planning problem as an optimization task that simultaneously determines the spatial path and control sequence while respecting all kinodynamic constraints. By using techniques such as McCormick envelopes to handle bilinear constraints, these approaches can provide globally optimal solutions with mathematical guarantees while achieving significant computational speedups over traditional methods. === Genetic algorithm approaches === Genetic algorithms have also been adapted for kinodynamic planning, particularly for gradient-free optimization in challenging terrain. These methods use evolutionary computation to optimize trajectories over receding horizons, with specialized mutation operators that ensure vehicle controls remain within operational limits. This approach is particularly useful when dealing with non-differentiable cost functions or when gradient information is unavailable or unreliable. === Three-dimensional terrain planning === The foundational theoretical work of the 1990s was extended to higher degrees of freedom, and even to n {\displaystyle n} -link, 3D open-chain kinematic robots under full Lagrangian dynamics. However, many of the subsequent heuristic techniques (typically employing stochastic optimization) were confined to planar environments. More recent kinodynamic planning has extended beyond these planar environments to handle complex 3D terrains represented as simplicial complexes or triangular meshes. This advancement is particularly important for applications such as autonomous vehicle navigation in off-road environments, where elevation changes and terrain geometry significantly impact vehicle dynamics. These methods must account for pitch angles, surface curvature, and the coupling between terrain geometry and vehicle kinodynamic constraints. == Performance and guarantees == The landscape of performance guarantees in kinodynamic planning has evolved considerably. While early heuristic methods could not guarantee optimality, recent mixed-integer approaches have demonstrated the ability to find globally optimal solutions with proven constraint satisfaction. Experimental comparisons have shown that modern optimization-based planners can achieve execution times several orders of magnitude faster than sampling-based methods while maintaining strict adherence to kinodynamic constraints. However, the choice of method often depends on the specific application requirements. Sampling-based methods remain valuable for their ability to quickly find feasible solutions in high-dimensional spaces and their robustness to modeling uncertainties. Optimization-based methods excel when optimality guarantees and constraint compliance are critical, particularly in safety-critical applications. == Applications == Kinodynamic planning finds applications across numerous domains including: Autonomous vehicles: Path planning for cars, trucks, and other ground vehicles that must respect acceleration, steering, and velocity limits Aerial robotics: Trajectory planning for quadrotors and other unmanned aerial vehicles with dynamic constraints Manipulation: Planning for robotic arms where joint velocities, accelerations, and torques are limited Legged locomotion: Footstep and trajectory planning for walking and running robots Space robotics: Planning under thrust and fuel constraints for spacecraft and rovers
Holographic algorithm
In computer science, a holographic algorithm is an algorithm that uses a holographic reduction. A holographic reduction is a constant-time reduction that maps solution fragments many-to-many such that the sum of the solution fragments remains unchanged. These concepts were introduced by Leslie Valiant, who called them holographic because "their effect can be viewed as that of producing interference patterns among the solution fragments". The algorithms are unrelated to laser holography, except metaphorically. Their power comes from the mutual cancellation of many contributions to a sum, analogous to the interference patterns in a hologram. Holographic algorithms have been used to find polynomial-time solutions to problems without such previously known solutions for special cases of satisfiability, vertex cover, and other graph problems. They have received notable coverage due to speculation that they are relevant to the P versus NP problem and their impact on computational complexity theory. Although some of the general problems are #P-hard problems, the special cases solved are not themselves #P-hard, and thus do not prove FP = #P. Holographic algorithms have some similarities with quantum computation, but are completely classical. == Holant problems == Holographic algorithms exist in the context of Holant problems, which generalize counting constraint satisfaction problems (#CSP). A #CSP instance is a hypergraph G=(V,E) called the constraint graph. Each hyperedge represents a variable and each vertex v {\displaystyle v} is assigned a constraint f v . {\displaystyle f_{v}.} A vertex is connected to an hyperedge if the constraint on the vertex involves the variable on the hyperedge. The counting problem is to compute ∑ σ : E → { 0 , 1 } ∏ v ∈ V f v ( σ | E ( v ) ) , ( 1 ) {\displaystyle \sum _{\sigma :E\to \{0,1\}}\prod _{v\in V}f_{v}(\sigma |_{E(v)}),~~~~~~~~~~(1)} which is a sum over all variable assignments, the product of every constraint, where the inputs to the constraint f v {\displaystyle f_{v}} are the variables on the incident hyperedges of v {\displaystyle v} . A Holant problem is like a #CSP except the input must be a graph, not a hypergraph. Restricting the class of input graphs in this way is indeed a generalization. Given a #CSP instance, replace each hyperedge e of size s with a vertex v of degree s with edges incident to the vertices contained in e. The constraint on v is the equality function of arity s. This identifies all of the variables on the edges incident to v, which is the same effect as the single variable on the hyperedge e. In the context of Holant problems, the expression in (1) is called the Holant after a related exponential sum introduced by Valiant. == Holographic reduction == A standard technique in complexity theory is a many-one reduction, where an instance of one problem is reduced to an instance of another (hopefully simpler) problem. However, holographic reductions between two computational problems preserve the sum of solutions without necessarily preserving correspondences between solutions. For instance, the total number of solutions in both sets can be preserved, even though individual problems do not have matching solutions. The sum can also be weighted, rather than simply counting the number of solutions, using linear basis vectors. === General example === It is convenient to consider holographic reductions on bipartite graphs. A general graph can always be transformed it into a bipartite graph while preserving the Holant value. This is done by replacing each edge in the graph by a path of length 2, which is also known as the 2-stretch of the graph. To keep the same Holant value, each new vertex is assigned the binary equality constraint. Consider a bipartite graph G=(U,V,E) where the constraint assigned to every vertex u ∈ U {\displaystyle u\in U} is f u {\displaystyle f_{u}} and the constraint assigned to every vertex v ∈ V {\displaystyle v\in V} is f v {\displaystyle f_{v}} . Denote this counting problem by Holant ( G , f u , f v ) . {\displaystyle {\text{Holant}}(G,f_{u},f_{v}).} If the vertices in U are viewed as one large vertex of degree |E|, then the constraint of this vertex is the tensor product of f u {\displaystyle f_{u}} with itself |U| times, which is denoted by f u ⊗ | U | . {\displaystyle f_{u}^{\otimes |U|}.} Likewise, if the vertices in V are viewed as one large vertex of degree |E|, then the constraint of this vertex is f v ⊗ | V | . {\displaystyle f_{v}^{\otimes |V|}.} Let the constraint f u {\displaystyle f_{u}} be represented by its weighted truth table as a row vector and the constraint f v {\displaystyle f_{v}} be represented by its weighted truth table as a column vector. Then the Holant of this constraint graph is simply f u ⊗ | U | f v ⊗ | V | . {\displaystyle f_{u}^{\otimes |U|}f_{v}^{\otimes |V|}.} Now for any complex 2-by-2 invertible matrix T (the columns of which are the linear basis vectors mentioned above), there is a holographic reduction between Holant ( G , f u , f v ) {\displaystyle {\text{Holant}}(G,f_{u},f_{v})} and Holant ( G , f u T ⊗ ( deg u ) , ( T − 1 ) ⊗ ( deg v ) f v ) . {\displaystyle {\text{Holant}}(G,f_{u}T^{\otimes (\deg u)},(T^{-1})^{\otimes (\deg v)}f_{v}).} To see this, insert the identity matrix T ⊗ | E | ( T − 1 ) ⊗ | E | {\displaystyle T^{\otimes |E|}(T^{-1})^{\otimes |E|}} in between f u ⊗ | U | f v ⊗ | V | {\displaystyle f_{u}^{\otimes |U|}f_{v}^{\otimes |V|}} to get f u ⊗ | U | f v ⊗ | V | {\displaystyle f_{u}^{\otimes |U|}f_{v}^{\otimes |V|}} = f u ⊗ | U | T ⊗ | E | ( T − 1 ) ⊗ | E | f v ⊗ | V | {\displaystyle =f_{u}^{\otimes |U|}T^{\otimes |E|}(T^{-1})^{\otimes |E|}f_{v}^{\otimes |V|}} = ( f u T ⊗ ( deg u ) ) ⊗ | U | ( f v ( T − 1 ) ⊗ ( deg v ) ) ⊗ | V | . {\displaystyle =\left(f_{u}T^{\otimes (\deg u)}\right)^{\otimes |U|}\left(f_{v}(T^{-1})^{\otimes (\deg v)}\right)^{\otimes |V|}.} Thus, Holant ( G , f u , f v ) {\displaystyle {\text{Holant}}(G,f_{u},f_{v})} and Holant ( G , f u T ⊗ ( deg u ) , ( T − 1 ) ⊗ ( deg v ) f v ) {\displaystyle {\text{Holant}}(G,f_{u}T^{\otimes (\deg u)},(T^{-1})^{\otimes (\deg v)}f_{v})} have exactly the same Holant value for every constraint graph. They essentially define the same counting problem. === Specific examples === ==== Vertex covers and independent sets ==== Let G be a graph. There is a 1-to-1 correspondence between the vertex covers of G and the independent sets of G. For any set S of vertices of G, S is a vertex cover in G if and only if the complement of S is an independent set in G. Thus, the number of vertex covers in G is exactly the same as the number of independent sets in G. The equivalence of these two counting problems can also be proved using a holographic reduction. For simplicity, let G be a 3-regular graph. The 2-stretch of G gives a bipartite graph H=(U,V,E), where U corresponds to the edges in G and V corresponds to the vertices in G. The Holant problem that naturally corresponds to counting the number of vertex covers in G is Holant ( H , OR 2 , EQUAL 3 ) . {\displaystyle {\text{Holant}}(H,{\text{OR}}_{2},{\text{EQUAL}}_{3}).} The truth table of OR2 as a row vector is (0,1,1,1). The truth table of EQUAL3 as a column vector is ( 1 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 1 ) T = [ 1 0 ] ⊗ 3 + [ 0 1 ] ⊗ 3 {\displaystyle (1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1)^{T}={\begin{bmatrix}1\\0\end{bmatrix}}^{\otimes 3}+{\begin{bmatrix}0\\1\end{bmatrix}}^{\otimes 3}} . Then under a holographic transformation by [ 0 1 1 0 ] , {\displaystyle {\begin{bmatrix}0&1\\1&0\end{bmatrix}},} OR 2 ⊗ | U | EQUAL 3 ⊗ | V | {\displaystyle {\text{OR}}_{2}^{\otimes |U|}{\text{EQUAL}}_{3}^{\otimes |V|}} = ( 0 , 1 , 1 , 1 ) ⊗ | U | ( [ 1 0 ] ⊗ 3 + [ 0 1 ] ⊗ 3 ) ⊗ | V | {\displaystyle =(0,1,1,1)^{\otimes |U|}\left({\begin{bmatrix}1\\0\end{bmatrix}}^{\otimes 3}+{\begin{bmatrix}0\\1\end{bmatrix}}^{\otimes 3}\right)^{\otimes |V|}} = ( 0 , 1 , 1 , 1 ) ⊗ | U | [ 0 1 1 0 ] ⊗ | E | [ 0 1 1 0 ] ⊗ | E | ( [ 1 0 ] ⊗ 3 + [ 0 1 ] ⊗ 3 ) ⊗ | V | {\displaystyle =(0,1,1,1)^{\otimes |U|}{\begin{bmatrix}0&1\\1&0\end{bmatrix}}^{\otimes |E|}{\begin{bmatrix}0&1\\1&0\end{bmatrix}}^{\otimes |E|}\left({\begin{bmatrix}1\\0\end{bmatrix}}^{\otimes 3}+{\begin{bmatrix}0\\1\end{bmatrix}}^{\otimes 3}\right)^{\otimes |V|}} = ( ( 0 , 1 , 1 , 1 ) [ 0 1 1 0 ] ⊗ 2 ) ⊗ | U | ( ( [ 0 1 1 0 ] [ 1 0 ] ) ⊗ 3 + ( [ 0 1 1 0 ] [ 0 1 ] ) ⊗ 3 ) ⊗ | V | {\displaystyle =\left((0,1,1,1){\begin{bmatrix}0&1\\1&0\end{bmatrix}}^{\otimes 2}\right)^{\otimes |U|}\left(\left({\begin{bmatrix}0&1\\1&0\end{bmatrix}}{\begin{bmatrix}1\\0\end{bmatrix}}\right)^{\otimes 3}+\left({\begin{bmatrix}0&1\\1&0\end{bmatrix}}{\begin{bmatrix}0\\1\end{bmatrix}}\right)^{\otimes 3}\right)^{\otimes |V|}} = ( 1 , 1 , 1 , 0 ) ⊗ | U | ( [ 0 1 ] ⊗ 3 + [ 1 0 ] ⊗ 3 ) ⊗ | V | {\displaystyle =(1,1,1,0)^{\otimes |U|}\left({\begin{bmatrix}0\\1\end{bmatrix}}^{\otimes 3}+{\begin{bmatrix}1\\0\end{bmatrix}}^{\otimes 3}\right)^{\otimes |V|}} = NAND 2 ⊗ | U | EQUAL 3 ⊗ | V | , {\displaystyle ={\text{NAND}}_{2}^{\otim
Semantic translation
Semantic translation is the process of using semantic information to aid in the translation of data in one representation or data model to another representation or data model. Semantic translation takes advantage of semantics that associate meaning with individual data elements in one dictionary to create an equivalent meaning in a second system. An example of semantic translation is the conversion of XML data from one data model to a second data model using formal ontologies for each system such as the Web Ontology Language (OWL). This is frequently required by intelligent agents that wish to perform searches on remote computer systems that use different data models to store their data elements. The process of allowing a single user to search multiple systems with a single search request is also known as federated search. Semantic translation should be differentiated from data mapping tools that do simple one-to-one translation of data from one system to another without actually associating meaning with each data element. Semantic translation requires that data elements in the source and destination systems have "semantic mappings" to a central registry or registries of data elements. The simplest mapping is of course where there is equivalence. There are three types of Semantic equivalence: Class Equivalence - indicating that class or "concepts" are equivalent. For example: "Person" is the same as "Individual" Property Equivalence - indicating that two properties are equivalent. For example: "PersonGivenName" is the same as "FirstName" Instance Equivalence - indicating that two individual instances of objects are equivalent. For example: "Dan Smith" is the same person as "Daniel Smith" Semantic translation is very difficult if the terms in a particular data model do not have direct one-to-one mappings to data elements in a foreign data model. In that situation, an alternative approach must be used to find mappings from the original data to the foreign data elements. This problem can be alleviated by centralized metadata registries that use the ISO-11179 standards such as the National Information Exchange Model (NIEM).
Progress in artificial intelligence
Progress in artificial intelligence (AI) refers to the advances, milestones, and breakthroughs that have been achieved in the field of artificial intelligence over time. AI is a branch of computer science that aims to create machines and systems capable of performing tasks that typically require human intelligence. AI applications have been used in a wide range of fields including medical diagnosis, finance, robotics, law, video games, agriculture, and scientific discovery. The society as a whole is looking for artificial intelligence to be on a key factor in the upcming years because of its potential. However, many AI applications are not perceived as AI: "A lot of cutting-edge AI has filtered into general applications, often without being called AI because once something becomes useful enough and common enough it's not labeled AI anymore." "Many thousands of AI applications are deeply embedded in the infrastructure of every industry." In the late 1990s and early 2000s, AI technology became widely used as elements of larger systems, but the field was rarely credited for these successes at the time. Kaplan and Haenlein structure artificial intelligence along three evolutionary stages: Artificial narrow intelligence – AI capable only of specific tasks; Artificial general intelligence – AI with ability in several areas, and able to autonomously solve problems they were never even designed for; Artificial superintelligence – AI capable of general tasks, including scientific creativity, social skills, and general wisdom. To allow comparison with human performance, artificial intelligence can be evaluated on constrained and well-defined problems. Such tests have been termed subject-matter expert Turing tests. Also, smaller problems provide more achievable goals and there are an ever-increasing number of positive results. In 2023, humans still substantially outperformed both GPT-4 and other models tested on the ConceptARC benchmark. Those models scored 60% on most, and 77% on one category, while humans scored 91% on all and 97% on one category. However, later research in 2025 showed that human-generated output grids were only accurate 73% of the time, while AI models available that year managed to score above 77%. == History == Increasing, promoting or constraining AI progress has often be done via controlling or increasing the amount of compute. == Current performance in specific areas == There are many useful abilities that can be described as showing some form of intelligence. This gives better insight into the comparative success of artificial intelligence in different areas. AI, like electricity or the steam engine, is a general-purpose technology. There is no consensus on how to characterize which tasks AI tends to excel at. Some versions of Moravec's paradox observe that humans are more likely to outperform machines in areas such as physical dexterity that have been the direct target of natural selection. While projects such as AlphaZero have succeeded in generating their own knowledge from scratch, many other machine learning projects require large training datasets. Researcher Andrew Ng has suggested, as a "highly imperfect rule of thumb", that "almost anything a typical human can do with less than one second of mental thought, we can probably now or in the near future automate using AI." Games provide a high-profile benchmark for assessing rates of progress; many games have a large professional player base and a well-established competitive rating system. AlphaGo brought the era of classical board-game benchmarks to a close when Artificial Intelligence proved their competitive edge over humans in 2016. Deep Mind's AlphaGo AI software program defeated the world's best professional Go Player Lee Sedol. Games of imperfect knowledge provide new challenges to AI in the area of game theory; the most prominent milestone in this area was brought to a close by Libratus' poker victory in 2017. E-sports continue to provide additional benchmarks; Facebook AI, Deepmind, and others have engaged with the popular StarCraft franchise of videogames. Broad classes of outcome for an AI test may be given as: optimal: it is not possible to perform better (note: some of these entries were solved by humans) super-human: performs better than all humans high-human: performs better than most humans par-human: performs similarly to most humans sub-human: performs worse than most humans === Optimal === Tic-tac-toe Connect Four: 1988 Checkers (aka 8x8 draughts): Weakly solved (2007) Rubik's Cube: Mostly solved (2010) Heads-up limit hold'em poker: Statistically optimal in the sense that "a human lifetime of play is not sufficient to establish with statistical significance that the strategy is not an exact solution" (2015) === Super-human === Othello (aka reversi): c. 1997 Scrabble: 2006 Backgammon: c. 1995–2002 Chess: Supercomputer (c. 1997); Personal computer (c. 2006); Mobile phone (c. 2009); Computer defeats human + computer (c. 2017) Jeopardy!: Question answering, although the machine did not use speech recognition (2011) Arimaa: 2015 Shogi: c. 2017 Go: 2017 Heads-up no-limit hold'em poker: 2017 Six-player no-limit hold'em poker: 2019 Gran Turismo Sport: 2022 === High-human === Crosswords: c. 2012 Freeciv: 2016 Dota 2: 2018 Bridge card-playing: According to a 2009 review, "the best programs are attaining expert status as (bridge) card players", excluding bidding. StarCraft II: 2019 Mahjong: 2019 Stratego: 2022 No-Press Diplomacy: 2022 Hanabi: 2022 Natural language processing === Par-human === Optical character recognition for ISO 1073-1:1976 and similar special characters. Classification of images Handwriting recognition Facial recognition Visual question answering SQuAD 2.0 English reading-comprehension benchmark (2019) SuperGLUE English-language understanding benchmark (2020) Some school science exams (2019) Some tasks based on Raven's Progressive Matrices Many Atari 2600 games (2015) === Sub-human === Optical character recognition for printed text (nearing par-human for Latin-script typewritten text) Object recognition Various robotics tasks that may require advances in robot hardware as well as AI, including: Stable bipedal locomotion: Bipedal robots can walk, but are less stable than human walkers (as of 2017) Humanoid soccer Speech recognition: "nearly equal to human performance" (2017) Explainability. Current medical systems can diagnose certain medical conditions well, but cannot explain to users why they made the diagnosis. Many tests of fluid intelligence (2020) Bongard visual cognition problems, such as the Bongard-LOGO benchmark (2020) Visual Commonsense Reasoning (VCR) benchmark (as of 2020) Stock market prediction: Financial data collection and processing using Machine Learning algorithms Angry Birds video game, as of 2020 Various tasks that are difficult to solve without contextual knowledge, including: Translation Word-sense disambiguation == Proposed tests of artificial intelligence == In his famous Turing test, Alan Turing picked language, the defining feature of human beings, for its basis. The Turing test is now considered too exploitable to be a meaningful benchmark. The Feigenbaum test, proposed by the inventor of expert systems, tests a machine's knowledge and expertise about a specific subject. A paper by Jim Gray of Microsoft in 2003 suggested extending the Turing test to speech understanding, speaking and recognizing objects and behavior. Proposed "universal intelligence" tests aim to compare how well machines, humans, and even non-human animals perform on problem sets that are generic as possible. At an extreme, the test suite can contain every possible problem, weighted by Kolmogorov complexity; however, these problem sets tend to be dominated by impoverished pattern-matching exercises where a tuned AI can easily exceed human performance levels. == Exams == According to OpenAI, in 2023 GPT-4 achieved high scores on several standardized and professional examinations, including around the 90th percentile on the Uniform Bar Exam, the 89th percentile on the mathematics section of the SAT, the 93rd percentile on SAT Reading and Writing, the 54th percentile on the analytical writing section of the GRE, the 88th percentile on GRE quantitative reasoning, and the 99th percentile on GRE verbal reasoning. OpenAI also reported that GPT-4 scored in the 99th to 100th percentile on the 2020 USA Biology Olympiad semifinal exam and earned top scores on several AP exams. Independent researchers found in 2023 that ChatGPT based on GPT-3.5 performed "at or near the passing threshold" on all three parts of the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE), suggesting that large language models could reach passing-level performance on some medical knowledge assessments even without domain-specific fine-tuning. GPT-3.5 was also reported to attain a low but passing grade on examinations for four law school courses at the University of Minnes
Digital artifact
Digital artifact in information science, is any undesired or unintended alteration in data introduced in a digital process by an involved technique and/or technology. Digital artifact can be of any content types including text, audio, video, image, animation or a combination. == Information science == In information science, digital artifacts result from: Hardware malfunction: In computer graphics, visual artifacts may be generated whenever a hardware component such as the processor, memory chip, cabling malfunctions, etc., corrupts data. Examples of malfunctions include physical damage, overheating, insufficient voltage and GPU overclocking. Common types of hardware artifacts are texture corruption and T-vertices in 3D graphics, and pixelization in MPEG compressed video. Software malfunction: Artifacts may be caused by algorithm flaws such as decoding/encoding audio or video, or a poor pseudo-random number generator that would introduce artifacts distinguishable from the desired noise into statistical models. Compression: Controlled amounts of unwanted information may be generated as a result of the use of lossy compression techniques. One example is the artifacts seen in JPEG and MPEG compression algorithms that produce compression artifacts. Quantization: Digital imprecision generated in the process of converting analog information into digital space, is due to the limited granularity of digital numbering space. In computer graphics, quantization is seen as pixelation. Aliasing: As a consequence of sampling or sample-rate conversion, energy from frequencies outside of the signal frequency band of interest are folded across multiples of the Nyquist frequency. This is typically mitigated by using an anti-aliasing filter. Filtering: The process of filtering a signal, such as using an anti-aliasing filter, causes undesired alterations to the signal due to imperfections in the frequency response magnitude and phase, and due to the time domain impulse response. Rolling shutter, the line scanning of an object that is moving too fast for the image sensor to capture a unitary image. Error diffusion: poorly-weighted kernel coefficients result in undesirable visual artifacts.