In information theory, the cross-entropy between two probability distributions p {\displaystyle p} and q {\displaystyle q} , over the same underlying set of events, measures the average number of bits needed to identify an event drawn from the set when the coding scheme used for the set is optimized for an estimated probability distribution q {\displaystyle q} , rather than the true distribution p {\displaystyle p} . == Definition == The cross-entropy of the distribution q {\displaystyle q} relative to a distribution p {\displaystyle p} over a given set is defined as follows: H ( p , q ) = − E p [ log q ] , {\displaystyle H(p,q)=-\operatorname {E} _{p}[\log q],} where E p [ ⋅ ] {\displaystyle \operatorname {E} _{p}[\cdot ]} is the expected value operator with respect to the distribution p {\displaystyle p} . The definition may be formulated using the Kullback–Leibler divergence D K L ( p ∥ q ) {\displaystyle D_{\mathrm {KL} }(p\parallel q)} , divergence of p {\displaystyle p} from q {\displaystyle q} (also known as the relative entropy of p {\displaystyle p} with respect to q {\displaystyle q} ). H ( p , q ) = H ( p ) + D K L ( p ∥ q ) , {\displaystyle H(p,q)=H(p)+D_{\mathrm {KL} }(p\parallel q),} where H ( p ) {\displaystyle H(p)} is the entropy of p {\displaystyle p} . For discrete probability distributions p {\displaystyle p} and q {\displaystyle q} with the same support X {\displaystyle {\mathcal {X}}} , this means The situation for continuous distributions is analogous. We have to assume that p {\displaystyle p} and q {\displaystyle q} are absolutely continuous with respect to some reference measure r {\displaystyle r} (usually r {\displaystyle r} is a Lebesgue measure on a Borel σ-algebra). Let P {\displaystyle P} and Q {\displaystyle Q} be probability density functions of p {\displaystyle p} and q {\displaystyle q} with respect to r {\displaystyle r} . Then − ∫ X P ( x ) log Q ( x ) d x = E p [ − log Q ] , {\displaystyle -\int _{\mathcal {X}}P(x)\,\log Q(x)\,\mathrm {d} x=\operatorname {E} _{p}[-\log Q],} and therefore NB: The notation H ( p , q ) {\displaystyle H(p,q)} is also used for a different concept, the joint entropy of p {\displaystyle p} and q {\displaystyle q} . == Motivation == In information theory, the Kraft–McMillan theorem establishes that any directly decodable coding scheme for coding a message to identify one value x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} out of a set of possibilities { x 1 , … , x n } {\displaystyle \{x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n}\}} can be seen as representing an implicit probability distribution q ( x i ) = ( 1 2 ) ℓ i {\displaystyle q(x_{i})=\left({\frac {1}{2}}\right)^{\ell _{i}}} over { x 1 , … , x n } {\displaystyle \{x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n}\}} , where ℓ i {\displaystyle \ell _{i}} is the length of the code for x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} in bits. Therefore, cross-entropy can be interpreted as the expected message-length per datum when a wrong distribution q {\displaystyle q} is assumed while the data actually follows a distribution p {\displaystyle p} . That is why the expectation is taken over the true probability distribution p {\displaystyle p} and not q . {\displaystyle q.} Indeed the expected message-length under the true distribution p {\displaystyle p} is E p [ ℓ ] = − E p [ ln q ( x ) ln ( 2 ) ] = − E p [ log 2 q ( x ) ] = − ∑ x i p ( x i ) log 2 q ( x i ) = − ∑ x p ( x ) log 2 q ( x ) = H ( p , q ) . {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\operatorname {E} _{p}[\ell ]&=-\operatorname {E} _{p}\left[{\frac {\ln {q(x)}}{\ln(2)}}\right]\\[1ex]&=-\operatorname {E} _{p}\left[\log _{2}{q(x)}\right]\\[1ex]&=-\sum _{x_{i}}p(x_{i})\,\log _{2}q(x_{i})\\[1ex]&=-\sum _{x}p(x)\,\log _{2}q(x)=H(p,q).\end{aligned}}} == Estimation == There are many situations where cross-entropy needs to be measured but the distribution of p {\displaystyle p} is unknown. An example is language modeling, where a model is created based on a training set T {\displaystyle T} , and then its cross-entropy is measured on a test set to assess how accurate the model is in predicting the test data. In this example, p {\displaystyle p} is the true distribution of words in any corpus, and q {\displaystyle q} is the distribution of words as predicted by the model. Since the true distribution is unknown, cross-entropy cannot be directly calculated. In these cases, an estimate of cross-entropy is calculated using the following formula: H ( T , q ) = − ∑ i = 1 N 1 N log 2 q ( x i ) {\displaystyle H(T,q)=-\sum _{i=1}^{N}{\frac {1}{N}}\log _{2}q(x_{i})} where N {\displaystyle N} is the size of the test set, and q ( x ) {\displaystyle q(x)} is the probability of event x {\displaystyle x} estimated from the training set. In other words, q ( x i ) {\displaystyle q(x_{i})} is the probability estimate of the model that the i-th word of the text is x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} . The sum is averaged over the N {\displaystyle N} words of the test. This is a Monte Carlo estimate of the true cross-entropy, where the test set is treated as samples from p ( x ) {\displaystyle p(x)} . == Relation to maximum likelihood == The cross entropy arises in classification problems when introducing a logarithm in the guise of the log-likelihood function. This section concerns the estimation of the probabilities of different discrete outcomes. To this end, denote a parametrized family of distributions by q θ {\displaystyle q_{\theta }} , with θ {\displaystyle \theta } subject to the optimization effort. Consider a given finite sequence of N {\displaystyle N} values x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} from a training set, obtained from conditionally independent sampling. The likelihood assigned to any considered parameter θ {\displaystyle \theta } of the model is then given by the product over all probabilities q θ ( X = x i ) {\displaystyle q_{\theta }(X=x_{i})} . Repeated occurrences are possible, leading to equal factors in the product. If the count of occurrences of the value equal to x {\displaystyle x} is denoted by # x {\displaystyle \#x} , then the frequency of that value equals # x / N {\displaystyle \#x/N} . If p ( X = x ) {\displaystyle p(X=x)} is the underlying probability distribution, for large N {\displaystyle N} we expect p ( X = x ) ≈ # x / N {\displaystyle p(X=x)\approx \#x/N} , by the law of large numbers. Writing our likelihood function as the product of observations from the distribution q θ {\displaystyle q_{\theta }} : L ( θ ; x ) = ∏ i q θ ( X = x i ) = ∏ x q θ ( X = x ) # x ≈ ∏ x q θ ( X = x ) N ⋅ p ( X = x ) = exp log [ ∏ x q θ ( X = x ) N ⋅ p ( X = x ) ] = exp ( ∑ x N ⋅ p ( X = x ) log q θ ( X = x ) ) , {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}{\mathcal {L}}(\theta ;{\mathbf {x} })&=\prod _{i}q_{\theta }(X=x_{i})=\prod _{x}q_{\theta }(X=x)^{\#x}\\&\approx \prod _{x}q_{\theta }(X=x)^{N\cdot p(X=x)}=\exp \log \left[\prod _{x}q_{\theta }(X=x)^{N\cdot p(X=x)}\right]\\&=\exp \left(\sum _{x}N\cdot p(X=x)\log q_{\theta }(X=x)^{}\right),\end{aligned}}} where we have used the calculation rules for the logarithm in the final line. Notice how the exponent contains a − H ( p , q θ ) {\displaystyle -H(p,q_{\theta })} term. Taking the logarithm of both sides gives: log L ( θ ; x ) = − N ⋅ H ( p , q θ ) . {\displaystyle \log {\mathcal {L}}(\theta ;{\mathbf {x} })=-N\cdot H(p,q_{\theta }).} Since the logarithm is a monotonically increasing function, the maximizing value of θ {\displaystyle \theta } is unaffected by this final step. Similarly, the maximizing value of θ {\displaystyle \theta } is unaffected by the factor of N {\displaystyle N} . So we observe that the likelihood maximization amounts to minimization of the cross-entropy. == Cross-entropy minimization == Cross-entropy minimization is frequently used in optimization and rare-event probability estimation. When comparing a distribution q {\displaystyle q} against a fixed reference distribution p {\displaystyle p} , cross-entropy and KL divergence are identical up to an additive constant (since p {\displaystyle p} is fixed): According to the Gibbs' inequality, both take on their minimal values when p = q {\displaystyle p=q} , which is 0 {\displaystyle 0} for KL divergence, and H ( p ) {\displaystyle \mathrm {H} (p)} for cross-entropy. In the engineering literature, the principle of minimizing KL divergence (Kullback's "Principle of Minimum Discrimination Information") is often called the Principle of Minimum Cross-Entropy (MCE), or Minxent. However, as discussed in the article Kullback–Leibler divergence, sometimes the distribution q {\displaystyle q} is the fixed prior reference distribution, and the distribution p {\displaystyle p} is optimized to be as close to q {\displaystyle q} as possible, subject to some constraint. In this case the two minimizations are not equivalent. This has led to some ambiguity in the literature, with some authors attempting to resolve the inconsistency by restating cross-entropy to be D K L ( p ∥ q ) {\displaystyle D_{\mathrm {KL} }(p\parallel q)} , rather than H (
Coalition for App Fairness
The Coalition for App Fairness (CAF) is a coalition comprised by companies, who aim to reach a fairer deal for the inclusion of their apps into the Apple App Store or the Google Play Store. The organization's executive director is Meghan DiMuzio and its headquarters are located in Washington, D.C. == Background == In July 2015, Spotify launched an email campaign to urge its App Store subscribers to cancel their subscriptions and start new ones through its website, bypassing the 30% transaction fee for in-app purchases required for iOS applications by technology company Apple Inc. A later update to the Spotify app on iOS was rejected by Apple, prompting Spotify's general counsel Horacio Gutierrez to write a letter to Apple's then-general counsel Bruce Sewell, stating: "This latest episode raises serious concerns under both U.S. and EU competition law. It continues a troubling pattern of behavior by Apple to exclude and diminish the competitiveness of Spotify on iOS and as a rival to Apple Music, particularly when seen against the backdrop of Apple's previous anticompetitive conduct aimed at Spotify … we cannot stand by as Apple uses the App Store approval process as a weapon to harm competitors." In August 2020, Epic Games updated their Fortnite Battle Royale game app on both Apple's App Store and Google's Google Play to include its own storefront that offered a 20% discount on V-Bucks, the in-game currency, if players bought through there rather than through the app stores' storefront, both which take a 30% revenue cut of the sale. Both Apple and Google removed the Fortnite app within hours, as this alternate storefront violated their terms of use that required all in-app purchases to be made through their storefronts. Epic immediately filed lawsuits against both companies challenging their storefront policies on antitrust principles, arguing that their non-negotiable 30% revenue cut is too high and the restrictions against alternate storefronts anticompetitive. Apple countersued Epic over its behavior, leading to a highly publicized 2021 bench trial. Ultimately, Epic largely lost its lawsuit against Apple, though the court did order Apple to allow developers to point users to alternative payment methods. Conversely, Epic won its antitrust lawsuit against Google in late 2023. == Foundation == On 24 September 2020, Epic Games joined forces with thirteen other prominent companies—including the music streaming platform Spotify, Tinder owner Match Group, the encrypted mail service Proton Mail, and the crypto currency website Blockchain.com—to establish the Coalition for App Fairness. It also includes Basecamp. The coalition criticizes the fact that for now the app stores of both Apple and Google charge their clients a 30% fee on any purchases made over their stores. Apple and Google defended themselves by arguing that the 30% transaction fee is a standard in the industry while the Coalition for App Fairness states that there is no other transaction fee which is even close to the 30%. In October 2020, it was reported that the coalition grew from 13 to 40 members since its foundation and received more than 400 applications for membership. In October 2025, X (formerly Twitter) joined CAF. This was seen as a larger pushback in the industry against Apple and Google, and a step towards hopefully passing the Bipartisan Open App Markets Act. == Aims == The group has broadened their demands for the app stores and now also aim for a better treatment for the apps available in the App Store. They claim that Apple favors its own services before other services available on the market and unjustifiably excludes other apps from their App Store. The group has also been viewing other transaction fees like the 5% fee which is charged by credit card companies, and states that Apple charges up to 600% more and would like the 30% fee, which was only included in 2011 by Apple, adapted to a comparable percentage that charge other providers of payment solutions. Its demands are mainly directed at Apple's strict control over its App Store, but to a lesser extent are also directed towards Google. Google allows apps to be downloaded over an independent web link or also another App Store, such as the Epic Game App Store. The organization emphasizes that no app developer should come into the position in which they are discriminated and are not granted the same rights as to the developers of the owner of the app store. == Reactions == In October 2020, Microsoft presented a new framework concerning the access to its Windows 10 operating system by app stores other than the one offered by Microsoft. The new framework is based on the demands of the Coalition for App Fairness. Microsoft emphasized though, that these principles would not apply to the Xbox. In December 2020, Apple announced that they would be lowering the revenue cut Apple takes for app developers making $1M or less from 30% to 15% if app developers fill out an application for the lowered revenue cut. In March 2021, Google followed suit by also lowering the revenue cut from the Play Store from 30% to 15% for the first million in revenue earned by a developer each year. == Notable members == Members listed are notable companies listed as members the groups website: Blockchain.com Deezer Epic Games European Digital SME Alliance Fanfix Life360 Masimo Nium Proton Mail Spotify TapTap Threema Vipps
Slopaganda
Slopaganda is a portmanteau of "AI slop" and "propaganda", referring to AI-generated content designed to manipulate beliefs, emotions, and political decision-making at scale. The term is credited to Michał Klincewicz, an assistant professor in the Department of Computational Cognitive Science at Tilburg University, in 2025. == Definition == Slopaganda is distinguished from traditional propaganda by three features: scale, scope, and speed. Generative AI makes it possible to produce large volumes of content quickly and at low cost, allows for highly personalised and targeted messaging to specific sub-audiences, and leverages the hyper-connectivity of social networks to accelerate dissemination beyond what conventional media could achieve. Unlike traditional propaganda, which delivers a uniform message to all recipients, slopaganda can be micro-targeted — tailored to individuals based on estimated prior beliefs to reinforce political biases or emotional associations. The authors note that it need not aim at literal deception: much slopaganda is expressive rather than truth-apt, designed to create emotional associations rather than false factual beliefs. == Relation to AI slop == Slopaganda is a subset of AI slop — low-quality, mass-produced AI-generated content — distinguished by intent. Where AI slop may be produced indifferently for commercial or engagement-farming purposes, slopaganda is deployed with a deliberate political or ideological goal. == Notable examples == Examples discussed by the term's originators include Donald Trump's prolific use of AI in Truth Social posts and Iranian Lego-themed music videos. AI-generated videos posted by the White House mixing real military footage with clips from films and video games; and deepfake audio imitating political candidates during the 2024 US presidential campaign have also been given the label slopaganda.
Kernel density estimation
In statistics, kernel density estimation (KDE) is the application of kernel smoothing for probability density estimation, i.e., a non-parametric method to estimate the probability density function of a random variable based on kernels as weights. KDE answers a fundamental data smoothing problem where inferences about the population are made based on a finite data sample. In some fields such as signal processing and econometrics it is also termed the Parzen–Rosenblatt window method, after Emanuel Parzen and Murray Rosenblatt, who are usually credited with independently creating it in its current form. One of the famous applications of kernel density estimation is in estimating the class-conditional marginal densities of data when using a naive Bayes classifier, which can improve its prediction accuracy. == Definition == Let x = ( x 1 , x 2 , x 3 , . . . ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} =\left(x_{1},x_{2},x_{3},...\right)} be independent and identically distributed samples drawn from some univariate distribution with an unknown density f at any given point x. We are interested in estimating the shape of this function f. Its kernel density estimator is f ^ h ( x ) = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n K h ( x − x i ) = 1 n h ∑ i = 1 n K ( x − x i h ) , {\displaystyle {\hat {f}}_{h}(x)={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}K_{h}(x-x_{i})={\frac {1}{nh}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}K{\left({\frac {x-x_{i}}{h}}\right)},} where K is the kernel — a non-negative function — and h > 0 is a smoothing parameter called the bandwidth or simply width. A kernel with subscript h is called the scaled kernel and defined as Kh(x) = 1/h K(x/h). Intuitively one wants to choose h as small as the data will allow; however, there is always a trade-off between the bias of the estimator and its variance. The choice of bandwidth is discussed in more detail below. A range of kernel functions are commonly used: uniform, triangular, biweight, triweight, Epanechnikov (parabolic), normal, and others. The Epanechnikov kernel is optimal in a mean square error sense, though the loss of efficiency is small for the kernels listed previously. Due to its convenient mathematical properties, the normal kernel is often used, which means K(x) = ϕ(x), where ϕ is the standard normal density function. The kernel density estimator then becomes f ^ h ( x ) = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n 1 h 2 π exp ( − ( x − x i ) 2 2 h 2 ) , {\displaystyle {\hat {f}}_{h}(x)={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}{\frac {1}{h{\sqrt {2\pi }}}}\exp \left({\frac {-(x-x_{i})^{2}}{2h^{2}}}\right),} where h {\displaystyle h} is the standard deviation of the sample x {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} } . The construction of a kernel density estimate finds interpretations in fields outside of density estimation. For example, in thermodynamics, this is equivalent to the amount of heat generated when heat kernels (the fundamental solution to the heat equation) are placed at each data point locations xi. Similar methods are used to construct discrete Laplace operators on point clouds for manifold learning (e.g. diffusion map). == Example == Kernel density estimates are closely related to histograms, but can be endowed with properties such as smoothness or continuity by using a suitable kernel. The diagram below based on these 6 data points illustrates this relationship: For the histogram, first, the horizontal axis is divided into sub-intervals or bins which cover the range of the data: In this case, six bins each of width 2. Whenever a data point falls inside this interval, a box of height 1/12 is placed there. If more than one data point falls inside the same bin, the boxes are stacked on top of each other. For the kernel density estimate, normal kernels with a standard deviation of 1.5 (indicated by the red dashed lines) are placed on each of the data points xi. The kernels are summed to make the kernel density estimate (solid blue curve). The smoothness of the kernel density estimate (compared to the discreteness of the histogram) illustrates how kernel density estimates converge faster to the true underlying density for continuous random variables. == Bandwidth selection == The bandwidth of the kernel is a free parameter which exhibits a strong influence on the resulting estimate. To illustrate its effect, we take a simulated random sample from the standard normal distribution (plotted at the blue spikes in the rug plot on the horizontal axis). The grey curve is the true density (a normal density with mean 0 and variance 1). In comparison, the red curve is undersmoothed since it contains too many spurious data artifacts arising from using a bandwidth h = 0.05, which is too small. The green curve is oversmoothed since using the bandwidth h = 2 obscures much of the underlying structure. The black curve with a bandwidth of h = 0.337 is considered to be optimally smoothed since its density estimate is close to the true density. An extreme situation is encountered in the limit h → 0 {\displaystyle h\to 0} (no smoothing), where the estimate is a sum of n delta functions centered at the coordinates of analyzed samples. In the other extreme limit h → ∞ {\displaystyle h\to \infty } the estimate retains the shape of the used kernel, centered on the mean of the samples (completely smooth). The most common optimality criterion used to select this parameter is the expected L2 risk function, also termed the mean integrated squared error: MISE ( h ) = E [ ∫ ( f ^ h ( x ) − f ( x ) ) 2 d x ] {\displaystyle \operatorname {MISE} (h)=\operatorname {E} \!\left[\int \!{\left({\hat {f}}\!_{h}(x)-f(x)\right)}^{2}dx\right]} Under weak assumptions on f and K, (f is the, generally unknown, real density function), MISE ( h ) = AMISE ( h ) + o ( ( n h ) − 1 + h 4 ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {MISE} (h)=\operatorname {AMISE} (h)+{\mathcal {o}}{\left((nh)^{-1}+h^{4}\right)}} where o is the little o notation, and n the sample size (as above). The AMISE is the asymptotic MISE, i. e. the two leading terms, AMISE ( h ) = R ( K ) n h + 1 4 m 2 ( K ) 2 h 4 R ( f ″ ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {AMISE} (h)={\frac {R(K)}{nh}}+{\frac {1}{4}}m_{2}(K)^{2}h^{4}R(f'')} where R ( g ) = ∫ g ( x ) 2 d x {\textstyle R(g)=\int g(x)^{2}\,dx} for a function g, m 2 ( K ) = ∫ x 2 K ( x ) d x {\textstyle m_{2}(K)=\int x^{2}K(x)\,dx} and f ″ {\displaystyle f''} is the second derivative of f {\displaystyle f} and K {\displaystyle K} is the kernel. The minimum of this AMISE is the solution to this differential equation ∂ ∂ h AMISE ( h ) = − R ( K ) n h 2 + m 2 ( K ) 2 h 3 R ( f ″ ) = 0 {\displaystyle {\frac {\partial }{\partial h}}\operatorname {AMISE} (h)=-{\frac {R(K)}{nh^{2}}}+m_{2}(K)^{2}h^{3}R(f'')=0} or h AMISE = R ( K ) 1 / 5 m 2 ( K ) 2 / 5 R ( f ″ ) 1 / 5 n − 1 / 5 = C n − 1 / 5 {\displaystyle h_{\operatorname {AMISE} }={\frac {R(K)^{1/5}}{m_{2}(K)^{2/5}R(f'')^{1/5}}}n^{-1/5}=Cn^{-1/5}} Neither the AMISE nor the hAMISE formulas can be used directly since they involve the unknown density function f {\displaystyle f} or its second derivative f ″ {\displaystyle f''} . To overcome that difficulty, a variety of automatic, data-based methods have been developed to select the bandwidth. Several review studies have been undertaken to compare their efficacies, with the general consensus that the plug-in selectors and cross validation selectors are the most useful over a wide range of data sets. Substituting any bandwidth h which has the same asymptotic order n−1/5 as hAMISE into the AMISE gives that AMISE(h) = O(n−4/5), where O is the big O notation. It can be shown that, under weak assumptions, there cannot exist a non-parametric estimator that converges at a faster rate than the kernel estimator. Note that the n−4/5 rate is slower than the typical n−1 convergence rate of parametric methods. If the bandwidth is not held fixed, but is varied depending upon the location of either the estimate (balloon estimator) or the samples (pointwise estimator), this produces a particularly powerful method termed adaptive or variable bandwidth kernel density estimation. Bandwidth selection for kernel density estimation of heavy-tailed distributions is relatively difficult. === A rule-of-thumb bandwidth estimator === If Gaussian basis functions are used to approximate univariate data, and the underlying density being estimated is Gaussian, the optimal choice for h (that is, the bandwidth that minimises the mean integrated squared error) is: h = ( 4 σ ^ 5 3 n ) 1 / 5 ≈ 1.06 σ ^ n − 1 / 5 , {\displaystyle h={\left({\frac {4{\hat {\sigma }}^{5}}{3n}}\right)}^{1/5}\approx 1.06\,{\hat {\sigma }}\,n^{-1/5},} An h {\displaystyle h} value is considered more robust when it improves the fit for long-tailed and skewed distributions or for bimodal mixture distributions. This is often done empirically by replacing the standard deviation σ ^ {\displaystyle {\hat {\sigma }}} by the parameter A {\displaystyle A} below: A = min ( σ ^ , I Q R 1.34 ) {\displaystyle A=\min \left({\hat {\sigma }},{\frac {\mathrm {IQR} }{1.34}}\right)} where IQR is the
Exploration–exploitation dilemma
The exploration–exploitation dilemma, also known as the explore–exploit tradeoff, is a fundamental concept in decision-making that arises in many domains. It is depicted as the balancing act between two opposing strategies. Exploitation involves choosing the best option based on current knowledge of the system (which may be incomplete or misleading), while exploration involves trying out new options that may lead to better outcomes in the future at the expense of an exploitation opportunity. Finding the optimal balance between these two strategies is a crucial challenge in many decision-making problems whose goal is to maximize long-term benefits. == Application in machine learning == In the context of machine learning, the exploration–exploitation tradeoff is fundamental in reinforcement learning (RL), a type of machine learning that involves training agents to make decisions based on feedback from the environment. Crucially, this feedback may be incomplete or delayed. The agent must decide whether to exploit the current best-known policy or explore new policies to improve its performance. === Multi-armed bandit methods === The multi-armed bandit (MAB) problem was a classic example of the tradeoff, and many methods were developed for it, such as epsilon-greedy, Thompson sampling, and the upper confidence bound (UCB). See the page on MAB for details. In more complex RL situations than the MAB problem, the agent can treat each choice as a MAB, where the payoff is the expected future reward. For example, if the agent performs an epsilon-greedy method, then the agent will often "pull the best lever" by picking the action that had the best predicted expected reward (exploit). However, it would pick a random action with probability epsilon (explore). Monte Carlo tree search, for example, uses a variant of the UCB method. === Exploration problems === There are some problems that make exploration difficult. Sparse reward. If rewards occur only once a long while, then the agent might not persist in exploring. Furthermore, if the space of actions is large, then the sparse reward would mean the agent would not be guided by the reward to find a good direction for deeper exploration. A standard example is Montezuma's Revenge. Deceptive reward. If some early actions give immediate small reward, but other actions give later large reward, then the agent might be lured away from exploring the other actions. Noisy TV problem. If certain observations are irreducibly noisy (such as a television showing random images), then the agent might be trapped exploring those observations (watching the television). === Exploration reward === This section based on. The exploration reward (also called exploration bonus) methods convert the exploration-exploitation dilemma into a balance of exploitations. That is, instead of trying to get the agent to balance exploration and exploitation, exploration is simply treated as another form of exploitation, and the agent simply attempts to maximize the sum of rewards from exploration and exploitation. The exploration reward can be treated as a form of intrinsic reward. We write these as r t i , r t e {\displaystyle r_{t}^{i},r_{t}^{e}} , meaning the intrinsic and extrinsic rewards at time step t {\displaystyle t} . However, exploration reward is different from exploitation in two regards: The reward of exploitation is not freely chosen, but given by the environment, but the reward of exploration may be picked freely. Indeed, there are many different ways to design r t i {\displaystyle r_{t}^{i}} described below. The reward of exploitation is usually stationary (i.e. the same action in the same state gives the same reward), but the reward of exploration is non-stationary (i.e. the same action in the same state should give less and less reward). Count-based exploration uses N n ( s ) {\displaystyle N_{n}(s)} , the number of visits to a state s {\displaystyle s} during the time-steps 1 : n {\displaystyle 1:n} , to calculate the exploration reward. This is only possible in small and discrete state space. Density-based exploration extends count-based exploration by using a density model ρ n ( s ) {\displaystyle \rho _{n}(s)} . The idea is that, if a state has been visited, then nearby states are also partly-visited. In maximum entropy exploration, the entropy of the agent's policy π {\displaystyle \pi } is included as a term in the intrinsic reward. That is, r t i = − ∑ a π ( a | s t ) ln π ( a | s t ) + ⋯ {\displaystyle r_{t}^{i}=-\sum _{a}\pi (a|s_{t})\ln \pi (a|s_{t})+\cdots } . === Prediction-based === This section based on. The forward dynamics model is a function for predicting the next state based on the current state and the current action: f : ( s t , a t ) ↦ s t + 1 {\displaystyle f:(s_{t},a_{t})\mapsto s_{t+1}} . The forward dynamics model is trained as the agent plays. The model becomes better at predicting state transition for state-action pairs that had been done many times. A forward dynamics model can define an exploration reward by r t i = ‖ f ( s t , a t ) − s t + 1 ‖ 2 2 {\displaystyle r_{t}^{i}=\|f(s_{t},a_{t})-s_{t+1}\|_{2}^{2}} . That is, the reward is the squared-error of the prediction compared to reality. This rewards the agent to perform state-action pairs that had not been done many times. This is however susceptible to the noisy TV problem. Dynamics model can be run in latent space. That is, r t i = ‖ f ( s t , a t ) − ϕ ( s t + 1 ) ‖ 2 2 {\displaystyle r_{t}^{i}=\|f(s_{t},a_{t})-\phi (s_{t+1})\|_{2}^{2}} for some featurizer ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } . The featurizer can be the identity function (i.e. ϕ ( x ) = x {\displaystyle \phi (x)=x} ), randomly generated, the encoder-half of a variational autoencoder, etc. A good featurizer improves forward dynamics exploration. The Intrinsic Curiosity Module (ICM) method trains simultaneously a forward dynamics model and a featurizer. The featurizer is trained by an inverse dynamics model, which is a function for predicting the current action based on the features of the current and the next state: g : ( ϕ ( s t ) , ϕ ( s t + 1 ) ) ↦ a t {\displaystyle g:(\phi (s_{t}),\phi (s_{t+1}))\mapsto a_{t}} . By optimizing the inverse dynamics, both the inverse dynamics model and the featurizer are improved. Then, the improved featurizer improves the forward dynamics model, which improves the exploration of the agent. Random Network Distillation (RND) method attempts to solve this problem by teacher–student distillation. Instead of a forward dynamics model, it has two models f , f ′ {\displaystyle f,f'} . The f ′ {\displaystyle f'} teacher model is fixed, and the f {\displaystyle f} student model is trained to minimize ‖ f ( s ) − f ′ ( s ) ‖ 2 2 {\displaystyle \|f(s)-f'(s)\|_{2}^{2}} on states s {\displaystyle s} . As a state is visited more and more, the student network becomes better at predicting the teacher. Meanwhile, the prediction error is also an exploration reward for the agent, and so the agent learns to perform actions that result in higher prediction error. Thus, we have a student network attempting to minimize the prediction error, while the agent attempting to maximize it, resulting in exploration. The states are normalized by subtracting a running average and dividing a running variance, which is necessary since the teacher model is frozen. The rewards are normalized by dividing with a running variance. Exploration by disagreement trains an ensemble of forward dynamics models, each on a random subset of all ( s t , a t , s t + 1 ) {\displaystyle (s_{t},a_{t},s_{t+1})} tuples. The exploration reward is the variance of the models' predictions. === Noise === For neural network–based agents, the NoisyNet method changes some of its neural network modules by noisy versions. That is, some network parameters are random variables from a probability distribution. The parameters of the distribution are themselves learnable. For example, in a linear layer y = W x + b {\displaystyle y=Wx+b} , both W , b {\displaystyle W,b} are sampled from Gaussian distributions N ( μ W , Σ W ) , N ( μ b , Σ b ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {N}}(\mu _{W},\Sigma _{W}),{\mathcal {N}}(\mu _{b},\Sigma _{b})} at every step, and the parameters μ W , Σ W , μ b , Σ b {\displaystyle \mu _{W},\Sigma _{W},\mu _{b},\Sigma _{b}} are learned via the reparameterization trick.
Paprika (app)
Paprika is an app and website that helps users organize recipes, produce meal plans, and create grocery lists. The app is available for Android, iOS, macOS, and Windows devices. == Overview == The app allows users to import recipes from various sources, including websites and other apps. The app also allows users to automatically generate meal plans, which are also customizable, in order to achieve specific objectives such as weight loss, muscle gain, adherence to various dietary preferences, or personal taste. The app is also capable of generating grocery lists based on the daily or weekly meal plans chosen by the user. All the recipes, menus, and grocery lists of each user are accessible from smartphones, tablets, and computers. The app is part of a broader category of mobile apps focused on meal planning, recipe management, and shopping list automation, which have grown in popularity with the expansion of smartphone usage and digital cooking tools. == History == Paprika Recipe Manager for iPad version 1.0 was initially released in September 2010 by Hindsight LLC. Paprika 2.0 was released for iPhone and iPad in November 2013, and Paprika 3.0 was released for iOS and macOS in November 2017. == Reception == Paprika has been featured in technology and lifestyle publications as a recipe management and meal planning application. Coverage has noted features such as importing recipes from websites, ingredient scaling, and cross-platform synchronization. The app has also appeared in lists of cooking and meal planning tools published by outlets including The Verge and The Kitchn.
Halite AI Programming Competition
Halite is an open-source computer programming contest developed by the hedge fund/tech firm Two Sigma in partnership with a team at Cornell Tech. Programmers can see the game environment and learn everything they need to know about the game. Participants are asked to build bots in whichever language they choose to compete on a two-dimensional virtual battle field. == History == Benjamin Spector and Michael Truell created the first Halite competition in 2016, before partnering with Two Sigma later that year. === Halite I === Halite I asked participants to conquer territory on a grid. It launched in November 2016 and ended in February 2017. Halite I attracted about 1,500 players. === Halite II === Halite II was similar to Halite I, but with a space-war theme. It ran from October 2017 until January 2018. The second installment of the competition attracted about 6,000 individual players from more than 100 countries. Among the participants were professors, physicists and NASA engineers, as well as high school and university students. === Halite III === Halite III launched in mid-October 2018. It ran from October 2018 to January 2019, with an ocean themed playing field. Players were asked to collect and manage Halite, an energy resource. By the end of the competition, Halite III included more than 4000 players and 460 organizations. === Halite IV === Halite IV was hosted by Kaggle, and launched in mid-June 2020.