Katz back-off is a generative n-gram language model that estimates the conditional probability of a word given its history in the n-gram. It accomplishes this estimation by backing off through progressively shorter history models under certain conditions. By doing so, the model with the most reliable information about a given history is used to provide the better results. The model was introduced in 1987 by Slava M. Katz. Prior to that, n-gram language models were constructed by training individual models for different n-gram orders using maximum likelihood estimation and then interpolating them together. == Method == The equation for Katz's back-off model is: P b o ( w i ∣ w i − n + 1 ⋯ w i − 1 ) = { d w i − n + 1 ⋯ w i C ( w i − n + 1 ⋯ w i − 1 w i ) C ( w i − n + 1 ⋯ w i − 1 ) if C ( w i − n + 1 ⋯ w i ) > k α w i − n + 1 ⋯ w i − 1 P b o ( w i ∣ w i − n + 2 ⋯ w i − 1 ) otherwise {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}&P_{bo}(w_{i}\mid w_{i-n+1}\cdots w_{i-1})\\[4pt]={}&{\begin{cases}d_{w_{i-n+1}\cdots w_{i}}{\dfrac {C(w_{i-n+1}\cdots w_{i-1}w_{i})}{C(w_{i-n+1}\cdots w_{i-1})}}&{\text{if }}C(w_{i-n+1}\cdots w_{i})>k\\[10pt]\alpha _{w_{i-n+1}\cdots w_{i-1}}P_{bo}(w_{i}\mid w_{i-n+2}\cdots w_{i-1})&{\text{otherwise}}\end{cases}}\end{aligned}}} where C(x) = number of times x appears in training wi = ith word in the given context Essentially, this means that if the n-gram has been seen more than k times in training, the conditional probability of a word given its history is proportional to the maximum likelihood estimate of that n-gram. Otherwise, the conditional probability is equal to the back-off conditional probability of the (n − 1)-gram. The more difficult part is determining the values for k, d and α. k {\displaystyle k} is the least important of the parameters. It is usually chosen to be 0. However, empirical testing may find better values for k. d {\displaystyle d} is typically the amount of discounting found by Good–Turing estimation. In other words, if Good–Turing estimates C {\displaystyle C} as C ∗ {\displaystyle C^{}} , then d = C ∗ C {\displaystyle d={\frac {C^{}}{C}}} To compute α {\displaystyle \alpha } , it is useful to first define a quantity β, which is the left-over probability mass for the (n − 1)-gram: β w i − n + 1 ⋯ w i − 1 = 1 − ∑ { w i : C ( w i − n + 1 ⋯ w i ) > k } d w i − n + 1 ⋯ w i C ( w i − n + 1 ⋯ w i − 1 w i ) C ( w i − n + 1 ⋯ w i − 1 ) {\displaystyle \beta _{w_{i-n+1}\cdots w_{i-1}}=1-\sum _{\{w_{i}:C(w_{i-n+1}\cdots w_{i})>k\}}d_{w_{i-n+1}\cdots w_{i}}{\frac {C(w_{i-n+1}\cdots w_{i-1}w_{i})}{C(w_{i-n+1}\cdots w_{i-1})}}} Then the back-off weight, α, is computed as follows: α w i − n + 1 ⋯ w i − 1 = β w i − n + 1 ⋯ w i − 1 ∑ { w i : C ( w i − n + 1 ⋯ w i ) ≤ k } P b o ( w i ∣ w i − n + 2 ⋯ w i − 1 ) {\displaystyle \alpha _{w_{i-n+1}\cdots w_{i-1}}={\frac {\beta _{w_{i-n+1}\cdots w_{i-1}}}{\sum _{\{w_{i}:C(w_{i-n+1}\cdots w_{i})\leq k\}}P_{bo}(w_{i}\mid w_{i-n+2}\cdots w_{i-1})}}} The above formula only applies if there is data for the "(n − 1)-gram". If not, the algorithm skips n-1 entirely and uses the Katz estimate for n-2. (and so on until an n-gram with data is found) == Discussion == This model generally works well in practice, but fails in some circumstances. For example, suppose that the bigram "a b" and the unigram "c" are very common, but the trigram "a b c" is never seen. Since "a b" and "c" are very common, it may be significant (that is, not due to chance) that "a b c" is never seen. Perhaps it's not allowed by the rules of the grammar. Instead of assigning a more appropriate value of 0, the method will back off to the bigram and estimate P(c | b), which may be too high.
Deep image prior
Deep image prior is a type of convolutional neural network used to enhance a given image with no prior training data other than the image itself. A neural network is randomly initialized and used as prior to solve inverse problems such as noise reduction, super-resolution, and inpainting. Image statistics are captured by the structure of a convolutional image generator rather than by any previously learned capabilities. == Method == === Background === Inverse problems such as noise reduction, super-resolution, and inpainting can be formulated as the optimization task x ∗ = m i n x E ( x ; x 0 ) + R ( x ) {\displaystyle x^{}=min_{x}E(x;x_{0})+R(x)} , where x {\displaystyle x} is an image, x 0 {\displaystyle x_{0}} a corrupted representation of that image, E ( x ; x 0 ) {\displaystyle E(x;x_{0})} is a task-dependent data term, and R(x) is the regularizer. Deep neural networks learn a generator/decoder x = f θ ( z ) {\displaystyle x=f_{\theta }(z)} which maps a random code vector z {\displaystyle z} to an image x {\displaystyle x} . The image corruption method used to generate x 0 {\displaystyle x_{0}} is selected for the specific application. === Specifics === In this approach, the R ( x ) {\displaystyle R(x)} prior is replaced with the implicit prior captured by the neural network (where R ( x ) = 0 {\displaystyle R(x)=0} for images that can be produced by a deep neural networks and R ( x ) = + ∞ {\displaystyle R(x)=+\infty } otherwise). This yields the equation for the minimizer θ ∗ = a r g m i n θ E ( f θ ( z ) ; x 0 ) {\displaystyle \theta ^{}=argmin_{\theta }E(f_{\theta }(z);x_{0})} and the result of the optimization process x ∗ = f θ ∗ ( z ) {\displaystyle x^{}=f_{\theta ^{}}(z)} . The minimizer θ ∗ {\displaystyle \theta ^{}} (typically a gradient descent) starts from a randomly initialized parameters and descends into a local best result to yield the x ∗ {\displaystyle x^{}} restoration function. ==== Overfitting ==== A parameter θ may be used to recover any image, including its noise. However, the network is reluctant to pick up noise because it contains high impedance while useful signal offers low impedance. This results in the θ parameter approaching a good-looking local optimum so long as the number of iterations in the optimization process remains low enough not to overfit data. === Deep Neural Network Model === Typically, the deep neural network model for deep image prior uses a U-Net like model without the skip connections that connect the encoder blocks with the decoder blocks. The authors in their paper mention that "Our findings here (and in other similar comparisons) seem to suggest that having deeper architecture is beneficial, and that having skip-connections that work so well for recognition tasks (such as semantic segmentation) is highly detrimental." == Applications == === Denoising === The principle of denoising is to recover an image x {\displaystyle x} from a noisy observation x 0 {\displaystyle x_{0}} , where x 0 = x + ϵ {\displaystyle x_{0}=x+\epsilon } . The distribution ϵ {\displaystyle \epsilon } is sometimes known (e.g.: profiling sensor and photon noise) and may optionally be incorporated into the model, though this process works well in blind denoising. The quadratic energy function E ( x , x 0 ) = | | x − x 0 | | 2 {\displaystyle E(x,x_{0})=||x-x_{0}||^{2}} is used as the data term, plugging it into the equation for θ ∗ {\displaystyle \theta ^{}} yields the optimization problem m i n θ | | f θ ( z ) − x 0 | | 2 {\displaystyle min_{\theta }||f_{\theta }(z)-x_{0}||^{2}} . === Super-resolution === Super-resolution is used to generate a higher resolution version of image x. The data term is set to E ( x ; x 0 ) = | | d ( x ) − x 0 | | 2 {\displaystyle E(x;x_{0})=||d(x)-x_{0}||^{2}} where d(·) is a downsampling operator such as Lanczos that decimates the image by a factor t. === Inpainting === Inpainting is used to reconstruct a missing area in an image x 0 {\displaystyle x_{0}} . These missing pixels are defined as the binary mask m ∈ { 0 , 1 } H × V {\displaystyle m\in \{0,1\}^{H\times V}} . The data term is defined as E ( x ; x 0 ) = | | ( x − x 0 ) ⊙ m | | 2 {\displaystyle E(x;x_{0})=||(x-x_{0})\odot m||^{2}} (where ⊙ {\displaystyle \odot } is the Hadamard product). The intuition behind this is that the loss is computed only on the known pixels in the image, and the network is going to learn enough about the image to fill in unknown parts of the image even though the computed loss doesn't include those pixels. This strategy is used to remove image watermarks by treating the watermark as missing pixels in the image. === Flash–no-flash reconstruction === This approach may be extended to multiple images. A straightforward example mentioned by the author is the reconstruction of an image to obtain natural light and clarity from a flash–no-flash pair. Video reconstruction is possible but it requires optimizations to take into account the spatial differences. == Implementations == A reference implementation rewritten in Python 3.6 with the PyTorch 0.4.0 library was released by the author under the Apache 2.0 license: deep-image-prior A TensorFlow-based implementation written in Python 2 and released under the CC-SA 3.0 license: deep-image-prior-tensorflow A Keras-based implementation written in Python 2 and released under the GPLv3: machine_learning_denoising == Example == See Astronomy Picture of the Day (APOD) of 2024-02-18
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
Computational intelligence
In computer science, computational intelligence (CI) refers to concepts, paradigms, algorithms and implementations of systems that are designed to show "intelligent" behavior in complex and changing environments. These systems are aimed at mastering complex tasks in a wide variety of technical or commercial areas and offer solutions that recognize and interpret patterns, control processes, support decision-making or autonomously manoeuvre vehicles or robots in unknown environments, among other things. These concepts and paradigms are characterized by the ability to learn or adapt to new situations, to generalize, to abstract, to discover and associate. Nature-analog or nature-inspired methods play a key role in this. CI approaches primarily address those complex real-world problems for which traditional or mathematical modeling is not appropriate for various reasons: the processes cannot be described exactly with complete knowledge, the processes are too complex for mathematical reasoning, they contain some uncertainties during the process, such as unforeseen changes in the environment or in the process itself, or the processes are simply stochastic in nature. Thus, CI techniques are properly aimed at processes that are ill-defined, complex, nonlinear, time-varying and/or stochastic. A recent definition of the IEEE Computational Intelligence Societey describes CI as the theory, design, application and development of biologically and linguistically motivated computational paradigms. Traditionally the three main pillars of CI have been Neural Networks, Fuzzy Systems and Evolutionary Computation. ... CI is an evolving field and at present in addition to the three main constituents, it encompasses computing paradigms like ambient intelligence, artificial life, cultural learning, artificial endocrine networks, social reasoning, and artificial hormone networks. ... Over the last few years there has been an explosion of research on Deep Learning, in particular deep convolutional neural networks. Nowadays, deep learning has become the core method for artificial intelligence. In fact, some of the most successful AI systems are based on CI. However, as CI is an emerging and developing field there is no final definition of CI, especially in terms of the list of concepts and paradigms that belong to it. The general requirements for the development of an “intelligent system” are ultimately always the same, namely the simulation of intelligent thinking and action in a specific area of application. To do this, the knowledge about this area must be represented in a model so that it can be processed. The quality of the resulting system depends largely on how well the model was chosen in the development process. Sometimes data-driven methods are suitable for finding a good model and sometimes logic-based knowledge representations deliver better results. Hybrid models are usually used in real applications. According to actual textbooks, the following methods and paradigms, which largely complement each other, can be regarded as parts of CI: Fuzzy systems Neural networks and, in particular, convolutional neural networks Evolutionary computation and, in particular, multi-objective evolutionary optimization Swarm intelligence Bayesian networks Artificial immune systems Learning theory Probabilistic methods == Relationship between hard and soft computing and artificial and computational intelligence == Artificial intelligence (AI) is used in the media, but also by some of the scientists involved, as a kind of umbrella term for the various techniques associated with it or with CI. Craenen and Eiben state that attempts to define or at least describe CI can usually be assigned to one or more of the following groups: "Relative definition” comparing CI to AI Conceptual treatment of key notions and their roles in CI Listing of the (established) areas that belong to it The relationship between CI and AI has been a frequently discussed topic during the development of CI. While the above list implies that they are synonyms, the vast majority of AI/CI researchers working on the subject consider them to be distinct fields, where either CI is an alternative to AI AI includes CI CI includes AI The view of the first of the above three points goes back to Zadeh, the founder of the fuzzy set theory, who differentiated machine intelligence into hard and soft computing techniques, which are used in artificial intelligence on the one hand and computational intelligence on the other. In hard computing (HC) and traditional AI (e.g. expert systems), inaccuracy and uncertainty are undesirable characteristics of a system, while soft computing (SC) and thus CI focus on dealing with these characteristics. The adjacent figure illustrates this view and lists the most important CI techniques. Another frequently mentioned distinguishing feature is the representation of information in symbolic form in AI and in sub-symbolic form in CI techniques. Hard computing is a conventional computing method based on the principles of certainty and accuracy and it is deterministic. It requires a precisely stated analytical model of the task to be processed and a prewritten program, i.e. a fixed set of instructions. The models used are based on Boolean logic (also called crisp logic), where e.g. an element can be either a member of a set or not and there is nothing in between. When applied to real-world tasks, systems based on HC result in specific control actions defined by a mathematical model or algorithm. If an unforeseen situation occurs that is not included in the model or algorithm used, the action will most likely fail. Soft computing, on the other hand, is based on the fact that the human mind is capable of storing information and processing it in a goal-oriented way, even if it is imprecise and lacks certainty. SC is based on the model of the human brain with probabilistic thinking, fuzzy logic and multi-valued logic. Soft computing can process a wealth of data and perform a large number of computations, which may not be exact, in parallel. For hard problems for which no satisfying exact solutions based on HC are available, SC methods can be applied successfully. SC methods are usually stochastic in nature i.e., they are a randomly defined processes that can be analyzed statistically but not with precision. Up to now, the results of some CI methods, such as deep learning, cannot be verified and it is also not clear what they are based on. This problem represents an important scientific issue for the future. AI and CI are catchy terms, but they are also so similar that they can be confused. The meaning of both terms has developed and changed over a long period of time, with AI being used first. Bezdek describes this impressively and concludes that such buzzwords are frequently used and hyped by the scientific community, science management and (science) journalism. Not least because AI and biological intelligence are emotionally charged terms and it is still difficult to find a generally accepted definition for the basic term intelligence. == History == In 1950, Alan Turing, one of the founding fathers of computer science, developed a test for computer intelligence known as the Turing test. In this test, a person can ask questions via a keyboard and a monitor without knowing whether his counterpart is a human or a computer. A computer is considered intelligent if the interrogator cannot distinguish the computer from a human. This illustrates the discussion about intelligent computers at the beginning of the computer age. The term Computational Intelligence was first used as the title of the journal of the same name in 1985 and later by the IEEE Neural Networks Council (NNC), which was founded 1989 by a group of researchers interested in the development of biological and artificial neural networks. On November 21, 2001, the NNC became the IEEE Neural Networks Society, to become the IEEE Computational Intelligence Society two years later by including new areas of interest such as fuzzy systems and evolutionary computation. The NNC helped organize the first IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence in Orlando, Florida in 1994. On this conference the first clear definition of Computational Intelligence was introduced by Bezdek: A system is computationally intelligent when it: deals with only numerical (low-level) data, has pattern-recognition components, does not use knowledge in the AI sense; and additionally when it (begins to) exhibit (1) computational adaptivity; (2) computational fault tolerance; (3) speed approaching human-like turnaround and (4) error rates that approximate human performance. Today, with machine learning and deep learning in particular utilizing a breadth of supervised, unsupervised, and reinforcement learning approaches, the CI landscape has been greatly enhanced, with novell intelligent approaches. == The main algorithmic approaches of CI and their applicati
SUPS
In computational neuroscience, SUPS (for Synaptic Updates Per Second) or formerly CUPS (Connections Updates Per Second) is a measure of a neuronal network performance, useful in fields of neuroscience, cognitive science, artificial intelligence, and computer science. == Computing == For a processor or computer designed to simulate a neural network SUPS is measured as the product of simulated neurons N {\displaystyle N} and average connectivity c {\displaystyle c} (synapses) per neuron per second: S U P S = c × N {\displaystyle SUPS=c\times N} Depending on the type of simulation it is usually equal to the total number of synapses simulated. In an "asynchronous" dynamic simulation if a neuron spikes at υ {\displaystyle \upsilon } Hz, the average rate of synaptic updates provoked by the activity of that neuron is υ c N {\displaystyle \upsilon cN} . In a synchronous simulation with step Δ t {\displaystyle \Delta t} the number of synaptic updates per second would be c N Δ t {\displaystyle {\frac {cN}{\Delta t}}} . As Δ t {\displaystyle \Delta t} has to be chosen much smaller than the average interval between two successive afferent spikes, which implies Δ t < 1 υ N {\displaystyle \Delta t<{\frac {1}{\upsilon N}}} , giving an average of synaptic updates equal to υ c N 2 {\displaystyle \upsilon cN^{2}} . Therefore, spike-driven synaptic dynamics leads to a linear scaling of computational complexity O(N) per neuron, compared with the O(N2) in the "synchronous" case. == Records == Developed in the 1980s Adaptive Solutions' CNAPS-1064 Digital Parallel Processor chip is a full neural network (NNW). It was designed as a coprocessor to a host and has 64 sub-processors arranged in a 1D array and operating in a SIMD mode. Each sub-processor can emulate one or more neurons and multiple chips can be grouped together. At 25 MHz it is capable of 1.28 GMAC. After the presentation of the RN-100 (12 MHz) single neuron chip at Seattle 1991 Ricoh developed the multi-neuron chip RN-200. It had 16 neurons and 16 synapses per neuron. The chip has on-chip learning ability using a proprietary backdrop algorithm. It came in a 257-pin PGA encapsulation and drew 3.0 W at a maximum. It was capable of 3 GCPS (1 GCPS at 32 MHz). In 1991–97, Siemens developed the MA-16 chip, SYNAPSE-1 and SYNAPSE-3 Neurocomputer. The MA-16 was a fast matrix-matrix multiplier that can be combined to form systolic arrays. It could process 4 patterns of 16 elements each (16-bit), with 16 neuron values (16-bit) at a rate of 800 MMAC or 400 MCPS at 50 MHz. The SYNAPSE3-PC PCI card contained 2 MA-16 with a peak performance of 2560 MOPS (1.28 GMAC); 7160 MOPS (3.58 GMAC) when using three boards. In 2013, the K computer was used to simulate a neural network of 1.73 billion neurons with a total of 10.4 trillion synapses (1% of the human brain). The simulation ran for 40 minutes to simulate 1 s of brain activity at a normal activity level (4.4 on average). The simulation required 1 Petabyte of storage.
Instance selection
Instance selection (or dataset reduction, or dataset condensation) is an important data pre-processing step that can be applied in many machine learning (or data mining) tasks. Approaches for instance selection can be applied for reducing the original dataset to a manageable volume, leading to a reduction of the computational resources that are necessary for performing the learning process. Algorithms of instance selection can also be applied for removing noisy instances, before applying learning algorithms. This step can improve the accuracy in classification problems. Algorithm for instance selection should identify a subset of the total available data to achieve the original purpose of the data mining (or machine learning) application as if the whole data had been used. Considering this, the optimal outcome of IS would be the minimum data subset that can accomplish the same task with no performance loss, in comparison with the performance achieved when the task is performed using the whole available data. Therefore, every instance selection strategy should deal with a trade-off between the reduction rate of the dataset and the classification quality. == Instance selection algorithms == The literature provides several different algorithms for instance selection. They can be distinguished from each other according to several different criteria. Considering this, instance selection algorithms can be grouped in two main classes, according to what instances they select: algorithms that preserve the instances at the boundaries of classes and algorithms that preserve the internal instances of the classes. Within the category of algorithms that select instances at the boundaries it is possible to cite DROP3, ICF and LSBo. On the other hand, within the category of algorithms that select internal instances, it is possible to mention ENN and LSSm. In general, algorithm such as ENN and LSSm are used for removing harmful (noisy) instances from the dataset. They do not reduce the data as the algorithms that select border instances, but they remove instances at the boundaries that have a negative impact on the data mining task. They can be used by other instance selection algorithms, as a filtering step. For example, the ENN algorithm is used by DROP3 as the first step, and the LSSm algorithm is used by LSBo. There is also another group of algorithms that adopt different selection criteria. For example, the algorithms LDIS, CDIS and XLDIS select the densest instances in a given arbitrary neighborhood. The selected instances can include both, border and internal instances. The LDIS and CDIS algorithms are very simple and select subsets that are very representative of the original dataset. Besides that, since they search by the representative instances in each class separately, they are faster (in terms of time complexity and effective running time) than other algorithms, such as DROP3 and ICF. Besides that, there is a third category of algorithms that, instead of selecting actual instances of the dataset, select prototypes (that can be synthetic instances). In this category it is possible to include PSSA, PSDSP and PSSP. The three algorithms adopt the notion of spatial partition (a hyperrectangle) for identifying similar instances and extract prototypes for each set of similar instances. In general, these approaches can also be modified for selecting actual instances of the datasets. The algorithm ISDSP adopts a similar approach for selecting actual instances (instead of prototypes).
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