The Brooklyn Bridge from White Crane Systems was a data transfer enabler. Although it came with some hardware, it was the software which was the basis of the product. It also could transform the data's format. == Overview == The New York Times described its category as being among "communications packages used to transfer files." In an era of 300 baud, Brooklyn Bridge operated at "115,200 baud" so that a transfer which "at 300 baud took 4 minutes and 36 seconds" only needed 5 seconds. Unlike some communications packages, this one retains the original version-date, so as not to alarm people when they seem to have what looks like an update, when it's not. == Description == Once the software is installed, users comfortable with typing the word "COPY" can do so as readily as they sneakernet. An earlier review described it as "less cumbersome than conventional communications software" The use of neither specialized hardware nor specialized software is ideal in an era when this can be done using online or other "outside" services.
Anomaly detection
In data analysis, anomaly detection (also referred to as outlier detection and sometimes as novelty detection) is generally understood to be the identification of rare items, events or observations which deviate significantly from the majority of the data and do not conform to a well defined notion of normal behavior. Such examples may arouse suspicions of being generated by a different mechanism, or appear inconsistent with the remainder of that set of data. Anomaly detection finds application in many domains including cybersecurity, medicine, machine vision, statistics, neuroscience, law enforcement and financial fraud to name only a few. Anomalies were initially searched for clear rejection or omission from the data to aid statistical analysis, for example to compute the mean or standard deviation. They were also removed to better predictions from models such as linear regression, and more recently their removal aids the performance of machine learning algorithms. However, in many applications anomalies themselves are of interest and are the observations most desirous in the entire data set, which need to be identified and separated from noise or irrelevant outliers. Three broad categories of anomaly detection techniques exist. Supervised anomaly detection techniques require a data set that has been labeled as "normal" and "abnormal" and involves training a classifier. However, this approach is rarely used in anomaly detection due to the general unavailability of labelled data and the inherent unbalanced nature of the classes. Semi-supervised anomaly detection techniques assume that some portion of the data is labelled. This may be any combination of the normal or anomalous data, but more often than not, the techniques construct a model representing normal behavior from a given normal training data set, and then test the likelihood of a test instance to be generated by the model. Unsupervised anomaly detection techniques assume the data is unlabelled and are by far the most commonly used due to their wider and relevant application. == Definition == Many attempts have been made in the statistical and computer science communities to define an anomaly. The most prevalent ones include the following, and can be categorised into three groups: those that are ambiguous, those that are specific to a method with pre-defined thresholds usually chosen empirically, and those that are formally defined: === Ill defined === An outlier is an observation which deviates so much from the other observations as to arouse suspicions that it was generated by a different mechanism. Anomalies are instances or collections of data that occur very rarely in the data set and whose features differ significantly from most of the data. An outlier is an observation (or subset of observations) which appears to be inconsistent with the remainder of that set of data. An anomaly is a point or collection of points that is relatively distant from other points in multi-dimensional space of features. Anomalies are patterns in data that do not conform to a well-defined notion of normal behaviour. === Specific === Let T be observations from a univariate Gaussian distribution and O a point from T. Then the z-score for O is greater than a pre-selected threshold if and only if O is an outlier. == History == === Intrusion detection === The concept of intrusion detection, a critical component of anomaly detection, has evolved significantly over time. Initially, it was a manual process where system administrators would monitor for unusual activities, such as a vacationing user's account being accessed or unexpected printer activity. This approach was not scalable and was soon superseded by the analysis of audit logs and system logs for signs of malicious behavior. By the late 1970s and early 1980s, the analysis of these logs was primarily used retrospectively to investigate incidents, as the volume of data made it impractical for real-time monitoring. The affordability of digital storage eventually led to audit logs being analyzed online, with specialized programs being developed to sift through the data. These programs, however, were typically run during off-peak hours due to their computational intensity. The 1990s brought the advent of real-time intrusion detection systems capable of analyzing audit data as it was generated, allowing for immediate detection of and response to attacks. This marked a significant shift towards proactive intrusion detection. As the field has continued to develop, the focus has shifted to creating solutions that can be efficiently implemented across large and complex network environments, adapting to the ever-growing variety of security threats and the dynamic nature of modern computing infrastructures. == Applications == Anomaly detection is applicable in a very large number and variety of domains, and is an important subarea of unsupervised machine learning. As such it has applications in cyber-security, intrusion detection, fraud detection, fault detection, system health monitoring, event detection in sensor networks, detecting ecosystem disturbances, defect detection in images using machine vision, medical diagnosis and law enforcement. === Intrusion detection === Anomaly detection was proposed for intrusion detection systems (IDS) by Dorothy Denning in 1986. Anomaly detection for IDS is normally accomplished with thresholds and statistics, but can also be done with soft computing, and inductive learning. Types of features proposed by 1999 included profiles of users, workstations, networks, remote hosts, groups of users, and programs based on frequencies, means, variances, covariances, and standard deviations. The counterpart of anomaly detection in intrusion detection is misuse detection. === Fintech fraud detection === Anomaly detection is vital in fintech for fraud prevention. === Preprocessing === Preprocessing data to remove anomalies can be an important step in data analysis, and is done for a number of reasons. Statistics such as the mean and standard deviation are more accurate after the removal of anomalies, and the visualisation of data can also be improved. In supervised learning, removing the anomalous data from the dataset often results in a statistically significant increase in accuracy. === Video surveillance === Anomaly detection has become increasingly vital in video surveillance to enhance security and safety. With the advent of deep learning technologies, methods using Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) and Simple Recurrent Units (SRUs) have shown significant promise in identifying unusual activities or behaviors in video data. These models can process and analyze extensive video feeds in real-time, recognizing patterns that deviate from the norm, which may indicate potential security threats or safety violations. An important aspect for video surveillance is the development of scalable real-time frameworks. Such pipelines are required for processing multiple video streams with low computational resources. === IT infrastructure === In IT infrastructure management, anomaly detection is crucial for ensuring the smooth operation and reliability of services. These are complex systems, composed of many interactive elements and large data quantities, requiring methods to process and reduce this data into a human and machine interpretable format. Techniques like the IT Infrastructure Library (ITIL) and monitoring frameworks are employed to track and manage system performance and user experience. Detected anomalies can help identify and pre-empt potential performance degradations or system failures, thus maintaining productivity and business process effectiveness. === IoT systems === Anomaly detection is critical for the security and efficiency of Internet of Things (IoT) systems. It helps in identifying system failures and security breaches in complex networks of IoT devices. The methods must manage real-time data, diverse device types, and scale effectively. Garg et al. have introduced a multi-stage anomaly detection framework that improves upon traditional methods by incorporating spatial clustering, density-based clustering, and locality-sensitive hashing. This tailored approach is designed to better handle the vast and varied nature of IoT data, thereby enhancing security and operational reliability in smart infrastructure and industrial IoT systems. === Petroleum industry === Anomaly detection is crucial in the petroleum industry for monitoring critical machinery. A 2015 paper proposed a novel segmentation algorithm using support vector machines to analyze sensor data for real-time anomaly detection. === Oil and gas pipeline monitoring === In the oil and gas sector, anomaly detection is not just crucial for maintenance and safety, but also for environmental protection. Aljameel et al. propose an advanced machine learning-based model for detecting minor leaks in oil and gas pipelines, a task traditional methods may miss.
Algorithm selection
Algorithm selection (sometimes also called per-instance algorithm selection or offline algorithm selection) is a meta-algorithmic technique to choose an algorithm from a portfolio on an instance-by-instance basis. It is motivated by the observation that on many practical problems, different algorithms have different performance characteristics. That is, while one algorithm performs well in some scenarios, it performs poorly in others and vice versa for another algorithm. If we can identify when to use which algorithm, we can optimize for each scenario and improve overall performance. This is what algorithm selection aims to do. The only prerequisite for applying algorithm selection techniques is that there exists (or that there can be constructed) a set of complementary algorithms. == Definition == Given a portfolio P {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}} of algorithms A ∈ P {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}\in {\mathcal {P}}} , a set of instances i ∈ I {\displaystyle i\in {\mathcal {I}}} and a cost metric m : P × I → R {\displaystyle m:{\mathcal {P}}\times {\mathcal {I}}\to \mathbb {R} } , the algorithm selection problem consists of finding a mapping s : I → P {\displaystyle s:{\mathcal {I}}\to {\mathcal {P}}} from instances I {\displaystyle {\mathcal {I}}} to algorithms P {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}} such that the cost ∑ i ∈ I m ( s ( i ) , i ) {\displaystyle \sum _{i\in {\mathcal {I}}}m(s(i),i)} across all instances is optimized. == Examples == === Boolean satisfiability problem (and other hard combinatorial problems) === A well-known application of algorithm selection is the Boolean satisfiability problem. Here, the portfolio of algorithms is a set of (complementary) SAT solvers, the instances are Boolean formulas, the cost metric is for example average runtime or number of unsolved instances. So, the goal is to select a well-performing SAT solver for each individual instance. In the same way, algorithm selection can be applied to many other N P {\displaystyle {\mathcal {NP}}} -hard problems (such as mixed integer programming, CSP, AI planning, TSP, MAXSAT, QBF and answer set programming). Competition-winning systems in SAT are SATzilla, 3S and CSHC === Machine learning === In machine learning, algorithm selection is better known as meta-learning. The portfolio of algorithms consists of machine learning algorithms (e.g., Random Forest, SVM, DNN), the instances are data sets and the cost metric is for example the error rate. So, the goal is to predict which machine learning algorithm will have a small error on each data set. == Instance features == The algorithm selection problem is mainly solved with machine learning techniques. By representing the problem instances by numerical features f {\displaystyle f} , algorithm selection can be seen as a multi-class classification problem by learning a mapping f i ↦ A {\displaystyle f_{i}\mapsto {\mathcal {A}}} for a given instance i {\displaystyle i} . Instance features are numerical representations of instances. For example, we can count the number of variables, clauses, average clause length for Boolean formulas, or number of samples, features, class balance for ML data sets to get an impression about their characteristics. === Static vs. probing features === We distinguish between two kinds of features: Static features are in most cases some counts and statistics (e.g., clauses-to-variables ratio in SAT). These features ranges from very cheap features (e.g. number of variables) to very complex features (e.g., statistics about variable-clause graphs). Probing features (sometimes also called landmarking features) are computed by running some analysis of algorithm behavior on an instance (e.g., accuracy of a cheap decision tree algorithm on an ML data set, or running for a short time a stochastic local search solver on a Boolean formula). These feature often cost more than simple static features. === Feature costs === Depending on the used performance metric m {\displaystyle m} , feature computation can be associated with costs. For example, if we use running time as performance metric, we include the time to compute our instance features into the performance of an algorithm selection system. SAT solving is a concrete example, where such feature costs cannot be neglected, since instance features for CNF formulas can be either very cheap (e.g., to get the number of variables can be done in constant time for CNFs in the DIMACs format) or very expensive (e.g., graph features which can cost tens or hundreds of seconds). It is important to take the overhead of feature computation into account in practice in such scenarios; otherwise a misleading impression of the performance of the algorithm selection approach is created. For example, if the decision which algorithm to choose can be made with perfect accuracy, but the features are the running time of the portfolio algorithms, there is no benefit to the portfolio approach. This would not be obvious if feature costs were omitted. == Approaches == === Regression approach === One of the first successful algorithm selection approaches predicted the performance of each algorithm m ^ A : I → R {\displaystyle {\hat {m}}_{\mathcal {A}}:{\mathcal {I}}\to \mathbb {R} } and selected the algorithm with the best predicted performance a r g min A ∈ P m ^ A ( i ) {\displaystyle arg\min _{{\mathcal {A}}\in {\mathcal {P}}}{\hat {m}}_{\mathcal {A}}(i)} for an instance i {\displaystyle i} . === Clustering approach === A common assumption is that the given set of instances I {\displaystyle {\mathcal {I}}} can be clustered into homogeneous subsets and for each of these subsets, there is one well-performing algorithm for all instances in there. So, the training consists of identifying the homogeneous clusters via an unsupervised clustering approach and associating an algorithm with each cluster. A new instance is assigned to a cluster and the associated algorithm selected. A more modern approach is cost-sensitive hierarchical clustering using supervised learning to identify the homogeneous instance subsets. === Pairwise cost-sensitive classification approach === A common approach for multi-class classification is to learn pairwise models between every pair of classes (here algorithms) and choose the class that was predicted most often by the pairwise models. We can weight the instances of the pairwise prediction problem by the performance difference between the two algorithms. This is motivated by the fact that we care most about getting predictions with large differences correct, but the penalty for an incorrect prediction is small if there is almost no performance difference. Therefore, each instance i {\displaystyle i} for training a classification model A 1 {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}_{1}} vs A 2 {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}_{2}} is associated with a cost | m ( A 1 , i ) − m ( A 2 , i ) | {\displaystyle |m({\mathcal {A}}_{1},i)-m({\mathcal {A}}_{2},i)|} . == Requirements == The algorithm selection problem can be effectively applied under the following assumptions: The portfolio P {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}} of algorithms is complementary with respect to the instance set I {\displaystyle {\mathcal {I}}} , i.e., there is no single algorithm A ∈ P {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}\in {\mathcal {P}}} that dominates the performance of all other algorithms over I {\displaystyle {\mathcal {I}}} (see figures to the right for examples on complementary analysis). In some application, the computation of instance features is associated with a cost. For example, if the cost metric is running time, we have also to consider the time to compute the instance features. In such cases, the cost to compute features should not be larger than the performance gain through algorithm selection. == Application domains == Algorithm selection is not limited to single domains but can be applied to any kind of algorithm if the above requirements are satisfied. Application domains include: hard combinatorial problems: SAT, Mixed Integer Programming, CSP, AI Planning, TSP, MAXSAT, QBF and Answer Set Programming combinatorial auctions in machine learning, the problem is known as meta-learning software design black-box optimization multi-agent systems numerical optimization linear algebra, differential equations evolutionary algorithms vehicle routing problem power systems For an extensive list of literature about algorithm selection, we refer to a literature overview. == Variants of algorithm selection == === Online selection === Online algorithm selection refers to switching between different algorithms during the solving process. This is useful as a hyper-heuristic. In contrast, offline algorithm selection selects an algorithm for a given instance only once and before the solving process. === Computation of schedules === An extension of algorithm selection is the per-instance algorithm scheduling problem, in which we do not select only one solver, but we select a time budget for each algorithm
Environmental impact of AI
The environmental impact of the design, training, deployment and use of artificial intelligence includes the greenhouse gas emissions from generating electricity for data centres and computing hardware, operational and upstream water use, and material impacts from hardware manufacturing, mining and electronic waste. Estimating AI's environmental effects can be difficult because results depend on how impacts are measured, including whether accounting includes only model computation or also data-centre overhead, idle capacity, hardware manufacture, and local electricity supply. As these issues have received greater attention, governments and regulators have increasingly considered data-centre reporting requirements, energy-efficiency standards, and broader transparency measures for AI-related resource use. == Carbon footprint and energy use == AI-related energy use arises at multiple stages, including model training, fine-tuning, inference, storage, networking, and supporting infrastructure such as cooling and power conversion. === Individual level === Published estimates of energy use per AI request vary widely across models, tasks and measurement methods. A benchmark study presented at the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency found substantial differences between task types, with lower energy use for some text tasks and much higher energy use for image generation in the study's test conditions. In that benchmark, simple classification tasks consumed about 0.002–0.007 Wh per prompt on average (about 9% of a smartphone charge for 1,000 prompts), while text generation and text summarisation each used about 0.05 Wh per prompt; image generation averaged 2.91 Wh per prompt, and the least efficient image model in the study used 11.49 Wh per image (roughly equivalent to half a smartphone charge). First-party measurements in production environments have also been published. A 2025 Google study on Gemini assistant serving reported median per-prompt energy, emissions, and water-use estimates under the authors' accounting framework, while noting that different system boundaries can produce substantially different results. The study reported a median text-prompt estimate of about 0.24 Wh, which is roughly as much energy as watching nine seconds of television. The study also stated that software and infrastructure improvements reduced energy use by a factor of 33 and carbon emissions by a factor of 44 for a typical prompt over one year within the authors' framework. Researchers at the University of Michigan measured the energy consumption of various Meta Llama 3.1 models released in 2024 and found that smaller language models (8 billion parameters) use about 114 joules (0.03167 Wh) per response, while larger models (405 billion parameters) require up to 6,700 joules (1.861 Wh) per response. This corresponds to the energy needed to run a microwave oven for roughly one-tenth of a second and eight seconds, respectively. Comparisons between AI systems and human labour for specific tasks have produced mixed results and remain sensitive to assumptions about output quality, workload and system boundaries. A 2024 study in Scientific Reports reported 130 to 2900 times lower estimated carbon emissions for selected AI systems than for human writers and illustrators under its assumptions. A later Scientific Reports paper reported a counterexample for programming tasks under its assumptions, finding 5 to 19 times higher estimated emissions for the evaluated AI system than for human programmers on the benchmark used in that study. === System level === ==== Energy use and efficiency ==== AI electricity intensity depends not only on model architecture but also on hardware and facility efficiency. Data-centre operators commonly report Power usage effectiveness (PUE), which measures the ratio of total facility energy to IT equipment energy; a lower PUE indicates less overhead energy for cooling and other supporting infrastructure. Operators may also publish metrics and case studies on hardware efficiency, cooling systems and power sourcing. In its 2024 environmental report, Google stated that its 2023 total greenhouse gas emissions increased 13% year over year, primarily because of increased data-centre energy consumption and supply-chain emissions, while also reporting lower PUE than industry averages for its own facilities. The International Energy Agency has also reported that data centres remain a relatively small share of global electricity use overall, but that their local effects can be much more pronounced because demand is geographically concentrated. ==== Carbon footprint ==== At system level, AI contributes to rising electricity demand in data centres and related infrastructure. The International Energy Agency estimated that data centres used about 415 TWh of electricity in 2024, or around 1.5% of global electricity consumption, and projected that data-centre electricity use could rise to about 945 TWh by 2030, with AI identified as the main driver of that growth alongside other digital services. The carbon footprint of AI systems depends strongly on electricity sources, hardware efficiency, utilisation rates, and what stages are included in the accounting. Training large models can require substantial electricity, while total lifecycle impacts also depend on deployment scale and the amount of inference performed after training. Early analyses of frontier-model development reported rapid historical growth in training compute for selected systems, although later trends have depended on changes in model design, hardware and efficiency gains. Accounting methods that include upstream or embodied impacts, such as hardware manufacture and facilities construction, can materially affect estimates of AI-related emissions. === Decisions and strategies by individual companies === Large technology companies have reported that the expansion of AI and cloud infrastructure affects their sustainability targets, electricity demand, and resource use. Google, for example, attributed part of its emissions growth in 2023 to increased data-centre energy consumption and supply-chain emissions in its 2024 environmental report. Cloud and AI companies have also announced measures intended to reduce environmental impacts, including investment in more efficient hardware, low-carbon electricity procurement, alternative cooling systems, and water stewardship programmes. The extent, comparability, and third-party verification of such disclosures vary between firms and jurisdictions. == Water usage == Data centres can use water directly for cooling and indirectly through the water used in electricity generation, depending on the local energy mix. Public reporting on data-centre water use has often been inconsistent, making comparisons between operators and regions difficult. To standardise operational reporting, The Green Grid proposed the metric water usage effectiveness (WUE), defined as annual site water use divided by IT equipment energy use. WUE does not by itself measure local water stress, source sustainability, or all upstream water impacts. Studies of AI water use also distinguish between water withdrawal and water consumption. Research on AI-specific water use has argued that the water footprint of AI systems can be difficult to observe and may vary substantially by location, cooling design, and electricity source. A 2025 Communications of the ACM article summarised methods for estimating AI water footprints and emphasised the distinction between water withdrawal and water consumption. Li and colleagues estimated that global AI water withdrawal could reach 4.2–6.6 billion cubic metres in 2027 under the scenarios examined in their article. Using GPT-3, released by OpenAI in 2020, as an example, they estimated that training the model in Microsoft's U.S. data centres could consume about 700,000 litres of onsite water and about 5.4 million litres in total when offsite electricity-related water use was included; they also estimated that 10–50 medium-length GPT-3 responses could consume about 500 mL of water, depending on when and where the model was deployed. Published prompt-level estimates have also varied by system and accounting framework: the 2025 Google study on Gemini assistant serving reported a median text-prompt estimate of about 0.26 mL under its framework. Location can materially affect the significance of data-centre water use. Research on U.S. data centres found that one-fifth of servers' direct water footprint came from moderately to highly water-stressed watersheds, while nearly half of servers were fully or partially powered by plants located in water-stressed regions. A 2025 Reuters report, citing data from Verisk Maplecroft and NatureFinance, said that an average mid-sized data centre uses about 1.4 million litres of water per day for cooling and that Phoenix would experience a 32% increase in annual water stress if currently pl
Neurorobotics
Neurorobotics is the combined study of neuroscience, robotics, and artificial intelligence. It is the science and technology of embodied autonomous neural systems. Neural systems include brain-inspired algorithms (e.g. connectionist networks), computational models of biological neural networks (e.g. artificial spiking neural networks, large-scale simulations of neural microcircuits) and actual biological systems (e.g. in vivo and in vitro neural nets). Such neural systems can be embodied in machines with mechanic or any other forms of physical actuation. This includes robots, prosthetic or wearable systems but also, at smaller scale, micro-machines and, at the larger scales, furniture and infrastructures. Neurorobotics is that branch of neuroscience with robotics, which deals with the study and application of science and technology of embodied autonomous neural systems like brain-inspired algorithms. It is based on the idea that the brain is embodied and the body is embedded in the environment. Therefore, most neurorobots are required to function in the real world, as opposed to a simulated environment. Beyond brain-inspired algorithms for robots neurorobotics may also involve the design of brain-controlled robot systems. == Major classes of models == Neurorobots can be divided into various major classes based on the robot's purpose. Each class is designed to implement a specific mechanism of interest for study. Common types of neurorobots are those used to study motor control, memory, action selection, and perception. === Locomotion and motor control === Neurorobots are often used to study motor feedback and control systems, and have proved their merit in developing controllers for robots. Locomotion is modeled by a number of neurologically inspired theories on the action of motor systems. Locomotion control has been mimicked using models or central pattern generators, clumps of neurons capable of driving repetitive behavior, to make four-legged walking robots. Other groups have expanded the idea of combining rudimentary control systems into a hierarchical set of simple autonomous systems. These systems can formulate complex movements from a combination of these rudimentary subsets. This theory of motor action is based on the organization of cortical columns, which progressively integrate from simple sensory input into a complex afferent signals, or from complex motor programs to simple controls for each muscle fiber in efferent signals, forming a similar hierarchical structure. Another method for motor control uses learned error correction and predictive controls to form a sort of simulated muscle memory. In this model, awkward, random, and error-prone movements are corrected for using error feedback to produce smooth and accurate movements over time. The controller learns to create the correct control signal by predicting the error. Using these ideas, robots have been designed which can learn to produce adaptive arm movements or to avoid obstacles in a course. === Learning and memory systems === Robots designed to test theories of animal memory systems. Many studies examine the memory system of rats, particularly the rat hippocampus, dealing with place cells, which fire for a specific location that has been learned. Systems modeled after the rat hippocampus are generally able to learn mental maps of the environment, including recognizing landmarks and associating behaviors with them, allowing them to predict the upcoming obstacles and landmarks. Another study has produced a robot based on the proposed learning paradigm of barn owls for orientation and localization based on primarily auditory, but also visual stimuli. The hypothesized method involves synaptic plasticity and neuromodulation, a mostly chemical effect in which reward neurotransmitters such as dopamine or serotonin affect the firing sensitivity of a neuron to be sharper. The robot used in the study adequately matched the behavior of barn owls. Furthermore, the close interaction between motor output and auditory feedback proved to be vital in the learning process, supporting active sensing theories that are involved in many of the learning models. Neurorobots in these studies are presented with simple mazes or patterns to learn. Some of the problems presented to the neurorobot include recognition of symbols, colors, or other patterns and execute simple actions based on the pattern. In the case of the barn owl simulation, the robot had to determine its location and direction to navigate in its environment. === Action selection and value systems === Action selection studies deal with negative or positive weighting to an action and its outcome. Neurorobots can and have been used to study simple ethical interactions, such as the classical thought experiment where there are more people than a life raft can hold, and someone must leave the boat to save the rest. However, more neurorobots used in the study of action selection contend with much simpler persuasions such as self-preservation or perpetuation of the population of robots in the study. These neurorobots are modeled after the neuromodulation of synapses to encourage circuits with positive results. In biological systems, neurotransmitters such as dopamine or acetylcholine positively reinforce neural signals that are beneficial. One study of such interaction involved the robot Darwin VII, which used visual, auditory, and a simulated taste input to "eat" conductive metal blocks. The arbitrarily chosen good blocks had a striped pattern on them while the bad blocks had a circular shape on them. The taste sense was simulated by conductivity of the blocks. The robot had positive and negative feedbacks to the taste based on its level of conductivity. The researchers observed the robot to see how it learned its action selection behaviors based on the inputs it had. Other studies have used herds of small robots which feed on batteries strewn about the room, and communicate its findings to other robots. === Sensory perception === Neurorobots have also been used to study sensory perception, particularly vision. These are primarily systems that result from embedding neural models of sensory pathways in automatas. This approach gives exposure to the sensory signals that occur during behavior and also enables a more realistic assessment of the degree of robustness of the neural model. It is well known that changes in the sensory signals produced by motor activity provide useful perceptual cues that are used extensively by organisms. For example, researchers have used the depth information that emerges during replication of human head and eye movements to establish robust representations of the visual scene. == Biological robots == Biological robots are not officially neurorobots in that they are not neurologically inspired AI systems, but actual neuron tissue wired to a robot. This employs the use of cultured neural networks to study brain development or neural interactions. These typically consist of a neural culture raised on a multielectrode array (MEA), which is capable of both recording the neural activity and stimulating the tissue. In some cases, the MEA is connected to a computer which presents a simulated environment to the brain tissue and translates brain activity into actions in the simulation, as well as providing sensory feedback The ability to record neural activity gives researchers a window into a brain, which they can use to learn about a number of the same issues neurorobots are used for. An area of concern with the biological robots is ethics. Many questions are raised about how to treat such experiments. The central question concerns consciousness and whether or not the rat brain experiences it. There are many theories about how to define consciousness. == Implications for neuroscience == Neuroscientists benefit from neurorobotics because it provides a blank slate to test various possible methods of brain function in a controlled and testable environment. While robots are more simplified versions of the systems they emulate, they are more specific, allowing more direct testing of the issue at hand. They also have the benefit of being accessible at all times, while it is more difficult to monitor large portions of a brain while the human or animal is active, especially individual neurons. The development of neuroscience has produced neural treatments. These include pharmaceuticals and neural rehabilitation. Progress is dependent on an intricate understanding of the brain and how exactly it functions. It is difficult to study the brain, especially in humans, due to the danger associated with cranial surgeries. Neurorobots can improved the range of tests and experiments that can be performed in the study of neural processes.
Wispr
Wispr AI is a software company founded in 2021 by Tanay Kothari and Sahaj Garg that develops voice-based interfaces for computers and other devices. The company’s main product, Wispr Flow, is an AI-powered speech-to-text application available on macOS, Windows and iOS. == History == Wispr was founded in 2021 with the goal of building a non-invasive wearable device that would allow users to control smartphones without touch input. The device was intended to translate neurological signals into actions and to enable silent text entry by mouthing words, drawing on techniques similar to brain–computer interfaces. Early funding was directed toward this hardware-focused effort. After around three years of development, Wispr concluded that contemporary AI systems were not sufficient for the requirements of the wearable device. The company shifted its focus to Flow voice dictation software, the software layer originally built for the wearable, and in 2024 released a macOS application based on this platform. == Wispr Flow == Wispr Flow (often referred to as Flow) is a speech-to-text application for macOS, Windows and iOS. It provides real-time dictation and transcription in more than 100 languages and can operate across applications, including email clients, messaging platforms and chatbots. In June 2025 Wispr released an iOS version that functions as a third-party keyboard, allowing voice input in any app. == Technology == Wispr Flow is based on automatic speech recognition (ASR) and other AI models. The system adapts to individual users over time, learning their vocabulary and preferred style with the aim of reducing manual editing. Flow operates through configurable “Flow Sessions”, defined as time windows during which the app has access to the microphone; users can set session timeouts or disable automatic time limits. == Users and Adoption == Wispr initially targeted users such as venture capitalists, entrepreneurs and executives who process large volumes of text and often work in private or flexible environments. The user base later expanded via platforms such as Product Hunt to students, software developers, writers, lawyers and consultants. Flow has also been adopted by users with conditions such as ADHD, dyslexia, paralysis and carpal tunnel syndrome. About 40% of users are in the United States, 30% in Europe and the remaining 30% in other regions. More than 30% of users come from non-technical backgrounds. Flow supports 104 languages, with approximately 40% of dictations in English and 60% in other languages, including Spanish, French, German, Dutch, Hindi and Mandarin. Wispr has reported monthly user growth above 50%, a six-month active-user retention rate of about 80%, a payment rate around 19%, and revenue of approximately US$3.8 million between July 2024 and July 2025. == Development == Wispr has announced plans for an Android application and maintains waiting lists for Android, Linux and web versions of Flow. The company is developing shared-context features for teams so that the software can recognize common terminology within organizations and has stated that it aims to evolve Flow into a broader AI assistant for tasks such as messaging, note-taking and reminders. Wispr has also reported working with unnamed AI hardware partners on interaction layers for future devices. == Funding == In 2025 Wispr raised US$30 million in a Series A funding round led by Menlo Ventures, with participation from NEA, 8VC and several individual investors, including Evan Sharp and Henry Ward. Earlier investors include Neo, MVP Ventures and AIX Ventures. In November of that same year, the company raised a US$25 million Series A extension led by Notable Capital, with participation from Flight Fund, bringing its total funding to US$81 million. Wispr competes with other AI-based dictation and voice-input tools, including Aqua, Talktastic, Superwhisper and Betterdication.
Dynamic epistemic logic
Dynamic epistemic logic (DEL) is a logical framework dealing with knowledge and information change. Typically, DEL focuses on situations involving multiple agents and studies how their knowledge changes when events occur. These events can change factual properties of the actual world (they are called ontic events): for example a red card is painted in blue. They can also bring about changes of knowledge without changing factual properties of the world (they are called epistemic events): for example, a card is revealed publicly (or privately) to be red. Originally, DEL focused on epistemic events. Only some of the basic ideas are present in this entry of the original DEL framework; more details about DEL in general can be found in the references. Due to the nature of its object of study and its abstract approach, DEL is related and has applications to numerous research areas, such as computer science (artificial intelligence), philosophy (formal epistemology), economics (game theory) and cognitive science. In computer science, DEL is for example very much related to multi-agent systems, which are systems where multiple intelligent agents interact and exchange information. As a combination of dynamic logic and epistemic logic, dynamic epistemic logic is a young field of research. It really started in 1989 with Plaza's logic of public announcement. Independently, Gerbrandy and Groeneveld proposed a system dealing moreover with private announcement and that was inspired by the work of Veltman. Another system was proposed by van Ditmarsch whose main inspiration was the Cluedo game. But the most influential and original system was the system proposed by Baltag, Moss and Solecki. This system can deal with all the types of situations studied in the works above and its underlying methodology is conceptually grounded. This entry will present some of its basic ideas. Formally, DEL extends ordinary epistemic logic by the inclusion of event models to describe actions, and a product update operator that defines how epistemic models are updated as the consequence of executing actions described through event models. Epistemic logic will first be recalled. Then, actions and events will enter into the picture and we will introduce the DEL framework. == Epistemic logic == Epistemic logic is a modal logic dealing with the notions of knowledge and belief. As a logic, it is concerned with understanding the process of reasoning about knowledge and belief: which principles relating the notions of knowledge and belief are intuitively plausible? Like epistemology, it stems from the Greek word ϵ π ι σ τ η μ η {\displaystyle \epsilon \pi \iota \sigma \tau \eta \mu \eta } or ‘episteme’ meaning knowledge. Epistemology is nevertheless more concerned with analyzing the very nature and scope of knowledge, addressing questions such as “What is the definition of knowledge?” or “How is knowledge acquired?”. In fact, epistemic logic grew out of epistemology in the Middle Ages thanks to the efforts of Burley and Ockham. The formal work, based on modal logic, that inaugurated contemporary research into epistemic logic dates back only to 1962 and is due to Hintikka. It then sparked in the 1960s discussions about the principles of knowledge and belief and many axioms for these notions were proposed and discussed. For example, the interaction axioms K p → B p {\displaystyle Kp\rightarrow Bp} and B p → K B p {\displaystyle Bp\rightarrow KBp} are often considered to be intuitive principles: if an agent Knows p {\displaystyle p} then (s)he also Believes p {\displaystyle p} , or if an agent Believes p {\displaystyle p} , then (s)he Knows that (s)he Believes p {\displaystyle p} . More recently, these kinds of philosophical theories were taken up by researchers in economics, artificial intelligence and theoretical computer science where reasoning about knowledge is a central topic. Due to the new setting in which epistemic logic was used, new perspectives and new features such as computability issues were then added to the research agenda of epistemic logic. === Syntax === In the sequel, A G T S = { 1 , … , n } {\displaystyle AGTS=\{1,\ldots ,n\}} is a finite set whose elements are called agents and P R O P {\displaystyle PROP} is a set of propositional letters. The epistemic language is an extension of the basic multi-modal language of modal logic with a common knowledge operator C A {\displaystyle C_{A}} and a distributed knowledge operator D A {\displaystyle D_{A}} . Formally, the epistemic language L EL C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {L}}_{\textsf {EL}}^{C}} is defined inductively by the following grammar in BNF: L EL C : ϕ ::= p ∣ ¬ ϕ ∣ ( ϕ ∧ ϕ ) ∣ K j ϕ ∣ C A ϕ ∣ D A ϕ {\displaystyle {\mathcal {L}}_{\textsf {EL}}^{C}:\phi ~~::=~~p~\mid ~\neg \phi ~\mid ~(\phi \land \phi )~\mid ~K_{j}\phi ~\mid ~C_{A}\phi ~\mid ~D_{A}\phi } where p ∈ P R O P {\displaystyle p\in PROP} , j ∈ A G T S {\displaystyle j\in {AGTS}} and A ⊆ A G T S {\displaystyle A\subseteq {AGTS}} . The basic epistemic language L E L {\displaystyle {\mathcal {L}}_{EL}} is the language L E L C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {L}}_{EL}^{C}} without the common knowledge and distributed knowledge operators. The formula ⊥ {\displaystyle \bot } is an abbreviation for ¬ p ∧ p {\displaystyle \neg p\land p} (for a given p ∈ P R O P {\displaystyle p\in PROP} ), ⟨ K j ⟩ ϕ {\displaystyle \langle K_{j}\rangle \phi } is an abbreviation for ¬ K j ¬ ϕ {\displaystyle \neg K_{j}\neg \phi } , E A ϕ {\displaystyle E_{A}\phi } is an abbreviation for ⋀ j ∈ A K j ϕ {\displaystyle \bigwedge \limits _{j\in A}K_{j}\phi } and C ϕ {\displaystyle C\phi } an abbreviation for C A G T S ϕ {\displaystyle C_{AGTS}\phi } . Group notions: general, common and distributed knowledge. In a multi-agent setting there are three important epistemic concepts: general knowledge, distributed knowledge and common knowledge. The notion of common knowledge was first studied by Lewis in the context of conventions. It was then applied to distributed systems and to game theory, where it allows to express that the rationality of the players, the rules of the game and the set of players are commonly known. General knowledge. General knowledge of ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } means that everybody in the group of agents A G T S {\displaystyle {AGTS}} knows that ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } . Formally, this corresponds to the following formula: E ϕ := ⋀ j ∈ A G T S K j ϕ . {\displaystyle E\phi :={\underset {j\in {AGTS}}{\bigwedge }}K_{j}\phi .} Common knowledge. Common knowledge of ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } means that everybody knows ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } but also that everybody knows that everybody knows ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } , that everybody knows that everybody knows that everybody knows ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } , and so on ad infinitum. Formally, this corresponds to the following formula C ϕ := E ϕ ∧ E E ϕ ∧ E E E ϕ ∧ … {\displaystyle C\phi :=E\phi \land EE\phi \land EEE\phi \land \ldots } As we do not allow infinite conjunction the notion of common knowledge will have to be introduced as a primitive in our language. Before defining the language with this new operator, we are going to give an example introduced by Lewis that illustrates the difference between the notions of general knowledge and common knowledge. Lewis wanted to know what kind of knowledge is needed so that the statement p {\displaystyle p} : “every driver must drive on the right” be a convention among a group of agents. In other words, he wanted to know what kind of knowledge is needed so that everybody feels safe to drive on the right. Suppose there are only two agents i {\displaystyle i} and j {\displaystyle j} . Then everybody knowing p {\displaystyle p} (formally E p {\displaystyle Ep} ) is not enough. Indeed, it might still be possible that the agent i {\displaystyle i} considers possible that the agent j {\displaystyle j} does not know p {\displaystyle p} (formally ¬ K i K j p {\displaystyle \neg K_{i}K_{j}p} ). In that case the agent i {\displaystyle i} will not feel safe to drive on the right because he might consider that the agent j {\displaystyle j} , not knowing p {\displaystyle p} , could drive on the left. To avoid this problem, we could then assume that everybody knows that everybody knows that p {\displaystyle p} (formally E E p {\displaystyle EEp} ). This is again not enough to ensure that everybody feels safe to drive on the right. Indeed, it might still be possible that agent i {\displaystyle i} considers possible that agent j {\displaystyle j} considers possible that agent i {\displaystyle i} does not know p {\displaystyle p} (formally ¬ K i K j K i p {\displaystyle \neg K_{i}K_{j}K_{i}p} ). In that case and from i {\displaystyle i} ’s point of view, j {\displaystyle j} considers possible that i {\displaystyle i} , not knowing p {\displaystyle p} , will drive on the left. So from i {\displaystyle i} ’s point of view, j {\displaystyle j} might drive on the left as well (by the same argument as abov