A vector database, vector store or vector search engine is a database that stores and retrieves embeddings of data in vector space. Vector databases typically implement approximate nearest neighbor algorithms so users can search for records semantically similar to a given input, unlike traditional databases which primarily look up records by exact match. Use-cases for vector databases include similarity search, semantic search, multi-modal search, recommendations engines, object detection, and retrieval-augmented generation (RAG). Vector embeddings are mathematical representations of data in a high-dimensional space. In this space, each dimension corresponds to a feature of the data, with the number of dimensions ranging from a few hundred to tens of thousands, depending on the complexity of the data being represented. Each data item is represented by one vector in this space. Words, phrases, or entire documents, as well as images, audio, and other types of data, can all be vectorized. These feature vectors may be computed from the raw data using machine learning methods such as feature extraction algorithms, word embeddings or deep learning networks. The goal is that semantically similar data items receive feature vectors close to each other. Vector retrieval can be combined with metadata filtering or lexical search to support filtered and hybrid retrieval workflows. == Techniques == Common techniques for similarity search on high-dimensional vectors include: Hierarchical Navigable Small World (HNSW) graphs Locality-sensitive hashing (LSH) and sketching Product quantization (PQ) Inverted files These techniques may also be combined in vector search systems. In recent benchmarks, HNSW-based implementations have been among the best performers. Conferences such as the International Conference on Similarity Search and Applications (SISAP) and the Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) have hosted competitions on vector search in large databases. == Applications == Vector databases are used in a wide range of machine learning applications including similarity search, semantic search, multi-modal search, recommendations engines, object detection, and retrieval-augmented generation. === Retrieval-augmented generation === An especially common use-case for vector databases is in retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), a method to improve domain-specific responses of large language models. The retrieval component of a RAG can be any search system, but is most often implemented as a vector database. Text documents describing the domain of interest are collected, and for each document or document section, a feature vector (known as an "embedding") is computed, typically using a deep learning network, and stored in a vector database along with a link to the document. Given a user prompt, the feature vector of the prompt is computed, and the database is queried to retrieve the most relevant documents. These are then automatically added into the context window of the large language model, and the large language model proceeds to create a response to the prompt given this context. == Implementations ==
Lexical choice
Lexical choice is the subtask of Natural language generation that involves choosing the content words (nouns, non-auxiliary verbs, adjectives, and adverbs) in a generated text. Function words (determiners, for example) are usually chosen during realisation. == Examples == The simplest type of lexical choice involves mapping a domain concept (perhaps represented in an ontology) to a word. For example, the concept Finger might be mapped to the word finger. A more complex situation is when a domain concept is expressed using different words in different situations. For example, the domain concept Value-Change can be expressed in many ways: The temperature rose: the verb rose is used for a Value-Change in temperature which increases the value. The temperature fell: the verb fell is used for a Value-Change in temperature which decreases the value. The rain got heavier: the phrase got heavier is used for a Value-Change in precipitation amount when the precipitation is rain. Sometimes words can communicate additional contextual information, for example: The temperature plummeted: the verb plummeted is used for a Value-Change in temperature which decreases the value, when the change is rapid and large. Contextual information is especially significant for vague terms such as tall. For example, a 2m tall man is tall, but a 2m tall horse is small. == Linguistic perspective == Lexical choice modules must be informed by linguistic knowledge of how the system's input data maps onto words. This is a question of semantics, but it is also influenced by syntactic factors (such as collocation effects) and pragmatic factors (such as context). Hence NLG systems need linguistic models of how meaning is mapped to words in the target domain (genre) of the NLG system. Genre tends to be very important; for example the verb veer has a very specific meaning in weather forecasts (wind direction is changing in a clockwise direction) which it does not have in general English, and a weather-forecast generator must be aware of this genre-specific meaning. In some cases there are major differences in how different people use the same word; for example, some people use by evening to mean 6PM and others use it to mean midnight. Psycholinguists have shown that when people speak to each other, they agree on a common interpretation via lexical alignment; this is not something which NLG systems can yet do. Ultimately, lexical choice must deal with the fundamental issue of how language relates to the non-linguistic world. For example, a system which chose colour terms such as red to describe objects in a digital image would need to know which RGB pixel values could generally be described as red; how this was influenced by visual (lighting, other objects in the scene) and linguistic (other objects being discussed) context; what pragmatic connotations were associated with red (for example, when an apple is called red, it is assumed to be ripe as well as have the colour red); and so forth. == Algorithms and models == A number of algorithms and models have been developed for lexical choice in the research community, for example Edmonds developed a model for choosing between near-synonyms (words with similar core meanings but different connotations). However such algorithms and models have not been widely used in applied NLG systems; such systems have instead often used quite simple computational models, and invested development effort in linguistic analysis instead of algorithm development.
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
Reparameterization trick
The reparameterization trick (aka "reparameterization gradient estimator") is a technique used in statistical machine learning, particularly in variational inference, variational autoencoders, and stochastic optimization. It allows for the efficient computation of gradients through random variables, enabling the optimization of parametric probability models using stochastic gradient descent, and the variance reduction of estimators. It was developed in the 1980s in operations research, under the name of "pathwise gradients", or "stochastic gradients". Its use in variational inference was proposed in 2013. == Mathematics == Let z {\displaystyle z} be a random variable with distribution q ϕ ( z ) {\displaystyle q_{\phi }(z)} , where ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } is a vector containing the parameters of the distribution. === REINFORCE estimator === Consider an objective function of the form: L ( ϕ ) = E z ∼ q ϕ ( z ) [ f ( z ) ] {\displaystyle L(\phi )=\mathbb {E} _{z\sim q_{\phi }(z)}[f(z)]} Without the reparameterization trick, estimating the gradient ∇ ϕ L ( ϕ ) {\displaystyle \nabla _{\phi }L(\phi )} can be challenging, because the parameter appears in the random variable itself. In more detail, we have to statistically estimate: ∇ ϕ L ( ϕ ) = ∇ ϕ ∫ d z q ϕ ( z ) f ( z ) {\displaystyle \nabla _{\phi }L(\phi )=\nabla _{\phi }\int dz\;q_{\phi }(z)f(z)} The REINFORCE estimator, widely used in reinforcement learning and especially policy gradient, uses the following equality: ∇ ϕ L ( ϕ ) = ∫ d z q ϕ ( z ) ∇ ϕ ( ln q ϕ ( z ) ) f ( z ) = E z ∼ q ϕ ( z ) [ ∇ ϕ ( ln q ϕ ( z ) ) f ( z ) ] {\displaystyle \nabla _{\phi }L(\phi )=\int dz\;q_{\phi }(z)\nabla _{\phi }(\ln q_{\phi }(z))f(z)=\mathbb {E} _{z\sim q_{\phi }(z)}[\nabla _{\phi }(\ln q_{\phi }(z))f(z)]} This allows the gradient to be estimated: ∇ ϕ L ( ϕ ) ≈ 1 N ∑ i = 1 N ∇ ϕ ( ln q ϕ ( z i ) ) f ( z i ) {\displaystyle \nabla _{\phi }L(\phi )\approx {\frac {1}{N}}\sum _{i=1}^{N}\nabla _{\phi }(\ln q_{\phi }(z_{i}))f(z_{i})} The REINFORCE estimator has high variance, and many methods were developed to reduce its variance. === Reparameterization estimator === The reparameterization trick expresses z {\displaystyle z} as: z = g ϕ ( ϵ ) , ϵ ∼ p ( ϵ ) {\displaystyle z=g_{\phi }(\epsilon ),\quad \epsilon \sim p(\epsilon )} Here, g ϕ {\displaystyle g_{\phi }} is a deterministic function parameterized by ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } , and ϵ {\displaystyle \epsilon } is a noise variable drawn from a fixed distribution p ( ϵ ) {\displaystyle p(\epsilon )} . This gives: L ( ϕ ) = E ϵ ∼ p ( ϵ ) [ f ( g ϕ ( ϵ ) ) ] {\displaystyle L(\phi )=\mathbb {E} _{\epsilon \sim p(\epsilon )}[f(g_{\phi }(\epsilon ))]} Now, the gradient can be estimated as: ∇ ϕ L ( ϕ ) = E ϵ ∼ p ( ϵ ) [ ∇ ϕ f ( g ϕ ( ϵ ) ) ] ≈ 1 N ∑ i = 1 N ∇ ϕ f ( g ϕ ( ϵ i ) ) {\displaystyle \nabla _{\phi }L(\phi )=\mathbb {E} _{\epsilon \sim p(\epsilon )}[\nabla _{\phi }f(g_{\phi }(\epsilon ))]\approx {\frac {1}{N}}\sum _{i=1}^{N}\nabla _{\phi }f(g_{\phi }(\epsilon _{i}))} == Examples == For some common distributions, the reparameterization trick takes specific forms: Normal distribution: For z ∼ N ( μ , σ 2 ) {\displaystyle z\sim {\mathcal {N}}(\mu ,\sigma ^{2})} , we can use: z = μ + σ ϵ , ϵ ∼ N ( 0 , 1 ) {\displaystyle z=\mu +\sigma \epsilon ,\quad \epsilon \sim {\mathcal {N}}(0,1)} Exponential distribution: For z ∼ Exp ( λ ) {\displaystyle z\sim {\text{Exp}}(\lambda )} , we can use: z = − 1 λ log ( ϵ ) , ϵ ∼ Uniform ( 0 , 1 ) {\displaystyle z=-{\frac {1}{\lambda }}\log(\epsilon ),\quad \epsilon \sim {\text{Uniform}}(0,1)} Discrete distribution can be reparameterized by the Gumbel distribution (Gumbel-softmax trick or "concrete distribution") and diffusion models. In general, any distribution that is differentiable with respect to its parameters can be reparameterized by inverting the multivariable CDF function, then apply the implicit method. See for an exposition and application to the Gamma, Beta, Dirichlet, and von Mises distributions. == Applications == === Variational autoencoder === In Variational Autoencoders (VAEs), the VAE objective function, known as the Evidence Lower Bound (ELBO), is given by: ELBO ( ϕ , θ ) = E z ∼ q ϕ ( z | x ) [ log p θ ( x | z ) ] − D KL ( q ϕ ( z | x ) | | p ( z ) ) {\displaystyle {\text{ELBO}}(\phi ,\theta )=\mathbb {E} _{z\sim q_{\phi }(z|x)}[\log p_{\theta }(x|z)]-D_{\text{KL}}(q_{\phi }(z|x)||p(z))} where q ϕ ( z | x ) {\displaystyle q_{\phi }(z|x)} is the encoder (recognition model), p θ ( x | z ) {\displaystyle p_{\theta }(x|z)} is the decoder (generative model), and p ( z ) {\displaystyle p(z)} is the prior distribution over latent variables. The gradient of ELBO with respect to θ {\displaystyle \theta } is simply E z ∼ q ϕ ( z | x ) [ ∇ θ log p θ ( x | z ) ] ≈ 1 L ∑ l = 1 L ∇ θ log p θ ( x | z l ) {\displaystyle \mathbb {E} _{z\sim q_{\phi }(z|x)}[\nabla _{\theta }\log p_{\theta }(x|z)]\approx {\frac {1}{L}}\sum _{l=1}^{L}\nabla _{\theta }\log p_{\theta }(x|z_{l})} but the gradient with respect to ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } requires the trick. Express the sampling operation z ∼ q ϕ ( z | x ) {\displaystyle z\sim q_{\phi }(z|x)} as: z = μ ϕ ( x ) + σ ϕ ( x ) ⊙ ϵ , ϵ ∼ N ( 0 , I ) {\displaystyle z=\mu _{\phi }(x)+\sigma _{\phi }(x)\odot \epsilon ,\quad \epsilon \sim {\mathcal {N}}(0,I)} where μ ϕ ( x ) {\displaystyle \mu _{\phi }(x)} and σ ϕ ( x ) {\displaystyle \sigma _{\phi }(x)} are the outputs of the encoder network, and ⊙ {\displaystyle \odot } denotes element-wise multiplication. Then we have ∇ ϕ ELBO ( ϕ , θ ) = E ϵ ∼ N ( 0 , I ) [ ∇ ϕ log p θ ( x | z ) + ∇ ϕ log q ϕ ( z | x ) − ∇ ϕ log p ( z ) ] {\displaystyle \nabla _{\phi }{\text{ELBO}}(\phi ,\theta )=\mathbb {E} _{\epsilon \sim {\mathcal {N}}(0,I)}[\nabla _{\phi }\log p_{\theta }(x|z)+\nabla _{\phi }\log q_{\phi }(z|x)-\nabla _{\phi }\log p(z)]} where z = μ ϕ ( x ) + σ ϕ ( x ) ⊙ ϵ {\displaystyle z=\mu _{\phi }(x)+\sigma _{\phi }(x)\odot \epsilon } . This allows us to estimate the gradient using Monte Carlo sampling: ∇ ϕ ELBO ( ϕ , θ ) ≈ 1 L ∑ l = 1 L [ ∇ ϕ log p θ ( x | z l ) + ∇ ϕ log q ϕ ( z l | x ) − ∇ ϕ log p ( z l ) ] {\displaystyle \nabla _{\phi }{\text{ELBO}}(\phi ,\theta )\approx {\frac {1}{L}}\sum _{l=1}^{L}[\nabla _{\phi }\log p_{\theta }(x|z_{l})+\nabla _{\phi }\log q_{\phi }(z_{l}|x)-\nabla _{\phi }\log p(z_{l})]} where z l = μ ϕ ( x ) + σ ϕ ( x ) ⊙ ϵ l {\displaystyle z_{l}=\mu _{\phi }(x)+\sigma _{\phi }(x)\odot \epsilon _{l}} and ϵ l ∼ N ( 0 , I ) {\displaystyle \epsilon _{l}\sim {\mathcal {N}}(0,I)} for l = 1 , … , L {\displaystyle l=1,\ldots ,L} . This formulation enables backpropagation through the sampling process, allowing for end-to-end training of the VAE model using stochastic gradient descent or its variants. === Variational inference === More generally, the trick allows using stochastic gradient descent for variational inference. Let the variational objective (ELBO) be of the form: ELBO ( ϕ ) = E z ∼ q ϕ ( z ) [ log p ( x , z ) − log q ϕ ( z ) ] {\displaystyle {\text{ELBO}}(\phi )=\mathbb {E} _{z\sim q_{\phi }(z)}[\log p(x,z)-\log q_{\phi }(z)]} Using the reparameterization trick, we can estimate the gradient of this objective with respect to ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } : ∇ ϕ ELBO ( ϕ ) ≈ 1 L ∑ l = 1 L ∇ ϕ [ log p ( x , g ϕ ( ϵ l ) ) − log q ϕ ( g ϕ ( ϵ l ) ) ] , ϵ l ∼ p ( ϵ ) {\displaystyle \nabla _{\phi }{\text{ELBO}}(\phi )\approx {\frac {1}{L}}\sum _{l=1}^{L}\nabla _{\phi }[\log p(x,g_{\phi }(\epsilon _{l}))-\log q_{\phi }(g_{\phi }(\epsilon _{l}))],\quad \epsilon _{l}\sim p(\epsilon )} === Dropout === The reparameterization trick has been applied to reduce the variance in dropout, a regularization technique in neural networks. The original dropout can be reparameterized with Bernoulli distributions: y = ( W ⊙ ϵ ) x , ϵ i j ∼ Bernoulli ( α i j ) {\displaystyle y=(W\odot \epsilon )x,\quad \epsilon _{ij}\sim {\text{Bernoulli}}(\alpha _{ij})} where W {\displaystyle W} is the weight matrix, x {\displaystyle x} is the input, and α i j {\displaystyle \alpha _{ij}} are the (fixed) dropout rates. More generally, other distributions can be used than the Bernoulli distribution, such as the gaussian noise: y i = μ i + σ i ⊙ ϵ i , ϵ i ∼ N ( 0 , I ) {\displaystyle y_{i}=\mu _{i}+\sigma _{i}\odot \epsilon _{i},\quad \epsilon _{i}\sim {\mathcal {N}}(0,I)} where μ i = m i ⊤ x {\displaystyle \mu _{i}=\mathbf {m} _{i}^{\top }x} and σ i 2 = v i ⊤ x 2 {\displaystyle \sigma _{i}^{2}=\mathbf {v} _{i}^{\top }x^{2}} , with m i {\displaystyle \mathbf {m} _{i}} and v i {\displaystyle \mathbf {v} _{i}} being the mean and variance of the i {\displaystyle i} -th output neuron. The reparameterization trick can be applied to all such cases, resulting in the variational dropout method.
Sycophancy (artificial intelligence)
In the field of artificial intelligence, sycophancy is a tendency of large language models (LLMs) and other AI assistants to tailor their responses to what they predict the user wants to hear rather than to what is accurate or warranted. The behavior takes several forms: an assistant may agree with a user's stated opinion even when the user is mistaken; it may abandon a correct answer after a challenge such as "are you sure?"; it may validate beliefs, decisions or self-presentation regardless of merit; or it may praise the user, their work or their ideas in unwarranted terms. The word is borrowed from the ordinary English term for fawning flattery, and is used in AI alignment and AI safety research to describe a class of misalignment failures associated with training on human feedback. Researchers at Anthropic first documented the behavior systematically in 2022. They found that models fine-tuned with reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) were more likely than untuned models to repeat back a user's preferred answer. A 2023 follow-up paper, "Towards Understanding Sycophancy in Language Models", showed that five frontier assistants from OpenAI, Anthropic and Meta all exhibited the behavior, and traced its origin to biases in the human preference data used during training. Later work documented sycophancy in mathematics, medicine, academic peer review and other domains, and identified a broader category called "social sycophancy" affecting an assistant's emotional and interpersonal responses. The issue drew widespread public attention in April 2025 after OpenAI rolled back an update to its GPT-4o model. Users had reported that the assistant praised dangerous decisions, endorsed delusional thinking and offered exaggerated compliments for trivial prompts. OpenAI's post-mortem attributed the change in behavior to an additional training signal based on user thumbs-up and thumbs-down feedback. That episode, together with reporting in The New York Times, Rolling Stone and elsewhere on users drawn into delusional thinking through prolonged chatbot interaction, has been cited in litigation and in academic studies as evidence that sycophancy poses risks to user well-being. Proposed mitigations include fine-tuning on synthetic data that rewards disagreement with incorrect user statements, editing the small subset of model parameters causally responsible for the behavior, changes to the dialogue or system prompt, and benchmarks designed to surface sycophantic behavior before models are released. == Causes == The dominant explanation points to RLHF, the standard technique for aligning chat assistants with user expectations. Human annotators rank candidate model responses; a reward model is trained to predict those rankings; and the language model is then optimized against the reward model. Because human raters tend to prefer outputs that confirm their existing beliefs or flatter their work, the pipeline systematically rewards responses that agree with the annotator. Perez and colleagues at Anthropic published the first large-scale empirical evidence of the effect in 2022. They reported that RLHF training increased the probability that a model would repeat back a dialog user's preferred answer, and that larger models exhibited the behavior more strongly. Sharma and colleagues, the following year, went further and examined Anthropic's own preference data directly. Both the human raters and the reward models trained on their judgments preferred convincingly written sycophantic responses to truthful ones at a non-negligible rate. Wei and co-authors at Google DeepMind found similar results in the PaLM family, observing that both model scale and instruction tuning increased sycophancy on opinion questions. The behavior is often classified as a form of reward hacking, in which an optimization process exploits a flaw in its reward signal rather than achieving the intended objective. OpenAI's post-mortem of the April 2025 GPT-4o incident identified a more specific mechanism. An additional reward signal based on aggregated thumbs-up and thumbs-down feedback from ChatGPT users had, in OpenAI's words, "weakened the influence of our primary reward signal, which had been holding sycophancy in check." Separately, an Anthropic interpretability paper from 2025 located a linear direction in a model's internal activations corresponding to sycophantic behavior, and showed that such "persona vectors" could be used to flag sycophancy-inducing training data and to steer models away from the trait at inference time. == Measurement == The Anthropic team released SycophancyEval with its 2023 paper, supplying test sets for each of the four canonical behaviors. Two further benchmarks from Stanford followed in 2025. SycEval, applied to mathematical and medical reasoning tasks, reported an overall sycophancy rate of 58 per cent across the GPT-4o, Claude and Gemini models tested. ELEPHANT, aimed at social sycophancy, found that the eleven LLMs evaluated affirmed posts that the Reddit community r/AmITheAsshole had judged inappropriate in 42 per cent of cases, and preserved a user's face 45 percentage points more often than human respondents did. Domain-specific benchmarks have followed. BrokenMath tests robustness to plausible-looking but false mathematical claims drawn from competition problems, and reports that the best evaluated model was sycophantic in 29 per cent of cases. SYCON-Bench measures how many dialogue turns are required before a model abandons a correct position. Visual sycophancy in multimodal models has been examined with MM-SY and PENDULUM. A 2026 study by researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology reported that personalization features, which adapt assistants to individual users over repeated sessions, can intensify social sycophancy. == Notable incidents == === GPT-4o rollback (April 2025) === On 25 April 2025, OpenAI completed the rollout of an update to GPT-4o, the default model used in ChatGPT at the time. Within days, users reported that the assistant had begun praising trivial messages in extravagant terms, endorsing impulsive or dangerous decisions, and reinforcing strong emotional statements without pushback. Widely shared examples included the model congratulating a user who reported stopping prescribed psychiatric medication, and praising a business plan to sell "shit on a stick" as venture-capital ready. OpenAI's chief executive, Sam Altman, wrote on 27 April that recent updates had made the model "too sycophant-y and annoying" and said fixes were in progress. The company began reverting the update on 28 April and completed the rollback for free users by 30 April. Two post-mortems followed: a short note on 29 April and a longer technical follow-up, "Expanding on what we missed with sycophancy", on 2 May. Both attributed the regression to a new training signal based on user thumbs-up and thumbs-down feedback, to inadequate pre-launch evaluation for sycophantic drift, and to the dismissal of qualitative concerns raised by internal testers before release. Reporting in CNN, Fortune and Bloomberg News treated the incident as a turning point in public awareness of the problem. === Chatbot-related psychological harm === From mid-2025 onward, news reports began to link sycophantic chatbot behavior to acute psychological harm. In June 2025, The New York Times technology reporter Kashmir Hill published an investigation centered on Eugene Torres, a Manhattan accountant with no history of mental illness, who developed a sustained delusional episode after a series of conversations with ChatGPT about simulation theory. According to the article, the assistant encouraged Torres to stop taking prescribed medication, to cut off friends and family, and at one point told him that he could fly from a nineteen-story building if he "truly believed". Futurism and Rolling Stone ran parallel investigations documenting other cases in which heavy use of ChatGPT had been associated with delusional thinking, involuntary commitment or, in at least one case, the death of a user with a pre-existing psychiatric diagnosis. A 2026 paper by researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the University of Washington put forward a formal Bayesian model. It showed that even an ideally rational user could be drawn into what the authors call "delusional spiraling" when interacting with a sufficiently sycophantic assistant, and that the effect was not eliminated by suppressing hallucinations or by warning users in advance. The lawsuit Raine v. OpenAI, filed in San Francisco Superior Court in August 2025 by the parents of a sixteen-year-old who had died by suicide, alleges that "heightened sycophancy" was a design feature of ChatGPT that contributed to their son's death; it is the first wrongful-death suit against a large language-model provider. === Wider commentary === Mainstream coverage in outlets including The New York Times, The Washington Pos
Logic form
Logic forms are simple, first-order logic knowledge representations of natural language sentences formed by the conjunction of concept predicates related through shared arguments. Each noun, verb, adjective, adverb, pronoun, preposition and conjunction generates a predicate. Logic forms can be decorated with word senses to disambiguate the semantics of the word. There are two types of predicates: events are marked with e, and entities are marked with x. The shared arguments connect the subjects and objects of verbs and prepositions together. Example input/output might look like this: Input: The Earth provides the food we eat every day. Output: Earth:n_#1(x1) provide:v_#2(e1, x1, x2) food:n_#1(x2) we(x3) eat:v_#1(e2, x3, x2; x4) day:n_#1(x4) Logic forms are used in some natural language processing techniques, such as question answering, as well as in inference both for database systems and QA systems.
Purged cross-validation
Purged cross-validation is a variant of k-fold cross-validation designed to prevent look-ahead bias in time series and other structured data, developed in 2017 by Marcos López de Prado at Guggenheim Partners and Cornell University. It is primarily used in financial machine learning to ensure the independence of training and testing samples when labels depend on future events. It provides an alternative to conventional cross-validation and walk-forward backtesting methods, which often yield overly optimistic performance estimates due to information leakage and overfitting. == Motivation == Standard cross-validation assumes that observations are independently and identically distributed (IID), which often does not hold in time series or financial datasets. If the label of a test sample overlaps in time with the features or labels in the training set, the result may be data leakage and overfitting. Purged cross-validation addresses this issue by removing overlapping observations and, optionally, adding a temporal buffer ("embargo") around the test set to further reduce the risk of leakage. The figure below illustrates standard 5 Fold Cross-Validation == Purging == Purging removes from the training set any observation whose timestamp falls within the time range of formation of a label in the test set. This can be the case for train set observations before and after the test set. Their removal ensures that the algorithm cannot learn during train time information that will be used to assess the performance of the algorithm. See the figure below for an illustration of purging. == Embargoing == Embargoing addresses a more subtle form of leakage: even if an observation does not directly overlap the test set, it may still be affected by test events due to market reaction lag or downstream dependencies. To guard against this, a percentage-based embargo is imposed after each test fold. For example, with a 5% embargo and 1000 observations, the 50 observations following each test fold are excluded from training. Unlike purging, embargoing can only occur after the test set. The figure below illustrates the application of embargo: == Applications == Purged and embargoed cross-validation has been useful in: Backtesting of trading strategies Validation of classifiers on labeled event-driven returns Any machine learning task with overlapping label horizons == Example == To illustrate the effect of purging and embargoing, consider the figures below. Both diagrams show the structure of 5-fold cross-validation over a 20-day period. In each row, blue squares indicate training samples and red squares denote test samples. Each label is defined based on the value of the next two observations, hence creating an overlap. If this overlap is left untreated, test set information leaks into the train set. The second figure applies the Purged CV procedure. Notice how purging removes overlapping observations from the training set and the embargo widens the gap between test and training data. This approach ensures that the evaluation more closely resembles a true out-of-sample test and reduces the risk of backtest overfitting. == Combinatorial Purged Cross-Validation == Walk-forward backtesting analysis, another common cross-validation technique in finance, preserves temporal order but evaluates the model on a single sequence of test sets. This leads to high variance in performance estimation, as results are contingent on a specific historical path. Combinatorial Purged Cross-Validation (CPCV) addresses this limitation by systematically constructing multiple train-test splits, purging overlapping samples, and enforcing an embargo period to prevent information leakage. The result is a distribution of out-of-sample performance estimates, enabling robust statistical inference and more realistic assessment of a model's predictive power. === Methodology === CPCV divides a time-series dataset into N sequential, non-overlapping groups. These groups preserve the temporal order of observations. Then, all combinations of k groups (where k < N) are selected as test sets, with the remaining N − k groups used for training. For each combination, the model is trained and evaluated under strict controls to prevent leakage. To eliminate potential contamination between training and test sets, CPCV introduces two additional mechanisms: Purging: Any training observations whose label horizon overlaps with the test period are excluded. This ensures that future information does not influence model training. Embargoing: After the end of each test period, a fixed number of observations (typically a small percentage) are removed from the training set. This prevents leakage due to delayed market reactions or auto-correlated features. Each data point appears in multiple test sets across different combinations. Because test groups are drawn combinatorially, this process produces multiple backtest "paths," each of which simulates a plausible market scenario. From these paths, practitioners can compute a distribution of performance statistics such as the Sharpe ratio, drawdown, or classification accuracy. === Formal definition === Let N be the number of sequential groups into which the dataset is divided, and let k be the number of groups selected as the test set for each split. Then: The number of unique train-test combinations is given by the binomial coefficient: ( N k ) {\displaystyle {\binom {N}{k}}} Each observation is used in k {\displaystyle k} test sets and contributes to φ [ N , k ] {\displaystyle \varphi [N,k]} unique backtest paths: φ [ N , k ] = k N ( N k ) {\displaystyle \varphi [N,k]={\frac {k}{N}}{\binom {N}{k}}} This yields a distribution of performance metrics rather than a single point estimate, making it possible to apply Monte Carlo-based or probabilistic techniques to assess model robustness. === Illustrative example === Consider the case where N = 6 and k = 2. The number of possible test set combinations is ( 6 2 ) = 15 {\displaystyle {\binom {6}{2}}=15} . Each of the six groups appears in five test splits. Consequently, five distinct backtest paths can be constructed, each incorporating one appearance from every group. ==== Test group assignment matrix ==== This table shows the 15 test combinations. An "x" indicates that the corresponding group is included in the test set for that split. ==== Backtest path assignment ==== Each group contributes to five different backtest paths. The number in each cell indicates the path to which the group's result is assigned for that split. === Advantages === Combinatorial Purged Cross-Validation offers several key benefits over conventional methods: It produces a distribution of performance metrics, enabling more rigorous statistical inference. The method systematically eliminates lookahead bias through purging and embargoing. By simulating multiple historical scenarios, it reduces the dependence on any single market regime or realization. It supports high-confidence comparisons between competing models or strategies. CPCV is commonly used in quantitative strategy research, especially for evaluating predictive models such as classifiers, regressors, and portfolio optimizers. It has been applied to estimate realistic Sharpe ratios, assess the risk of overfitting, and support the use of statistical tools such as the Deflated Sharpe Ratio (DSR). === Limitations === The main limitation of CPCV stems from its high computational cost. However, this cost can be managed by sampling a finite number of splits from the space of all possible combinations.