AI Chatbots and Assistants

Explore the best AI Chatbots and Assistants — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step how-to guides, curated by Aizhi.

• 

  Self-supervised learning

  Self-supervised learning (SSL) is a paradigm in machine learning where a model is trained on a task using the data itself to generate supervisory signals, rather than relying on externally-provided labels. In the context of neural networks, self-supervised learning aims to leverage inherent structures or relationships within the input data to create meaningful training signals. SSL tasks are designed so that solving them requires capturing essential features or relationships in the data. The input data is typically augmented or transformed in a way that creates pairs of related samples, where one sample serves as the input, and the other is used to formulate the supervisory signal. This augmentation can involve introducing noise, cropping, rotation, or other transformations. Self-supervised learning more closely imitates the way humans learn to classify objects. During SSL, the model learns in two steps. First, the task is solved based on an auxiliary or pretext classification task using pseudo-labels, which help to initialize the model parameters. Next, the actual task is performed with supervised or unsupervised learning. Self-supervised learning has produced promising results in recent years, and has found practical application in fields such as audio processing, and is being used by Facebook and others for speech recognition. == Pseudo-labels == Pseudo-labels are automatically generated labels that a model assigns to unlabeled data based on its own predictions. They are widely used in self-supervised and semi-supervised learning, where ground-truth annotations are limited or unavailable. By treating predicted labels as surrogate ground truth, learning algorithms can make use of large quantities of unlabeled data in the training process. Pseudo-labeling also plays an important role in systems that must adapt to concept drift, where the statistical properties of the data change over time. In these scenarios, the model may detect that an incoming instance deviates from previously learned behavior. The system then generates a classification result for that instance, and this predicted class is used as a pseudo-label for updating or retraining model components that are becoming outdated. This approach enables continuous adaptation in dynamic environments without requiring manual annotation. In many adaptive learning pipelines, pseudo-labels are chosen when the classifier produces sufficiently confident predictions, reducing the risk of propagating errors. These pseudo-labeled instances are then incorporated into training to refresh or evolve the model's understanding of emerging data patterns, particularly when existing components show signs of “aging” due to drift or distributional shifts. This strategy reduces reliance on manual labeling while helping maintain long-term model performance. == Types == === Autoassociative self-supervised learning === Autoassociative self-supervised learning is a specific category of self-supervised learning where a neural network is trained to reproduce or reconstruct its own input data. In other words, the model is tasked with learning a representation of the data that captures its essential features or structure, allowing it to regenerate the original input. The term "autoassociative" comes from the fact that the model is essentially associating the input data with itself. This is often achieved using autoencoders, which are a type of neural network architecture used for representation learning. Autoencoders consist of an encoder network that maps the input data to a lower-dimensional representation (latent space), and a decoder network that reconstructs the input from this representation. The training process involves presenting the model with input data and requiring it to reconstruct the same data as closely as possible. The loss function used during training typically penalizes the difference between the original input and the reconstructed output (e.g. mean squared error). By minimizing this reconstruction error, the autoencoder learns a meaningful representation of the data in its latent space. === Contrastive self-supervised learning === For a binary classification task, training data can be divided into positive examples and negative examples. Positive examples are those that match the target. For example, if training a classifier to identify birds, the positive training data would include images that contain birds. Negative examples would be images that do not. Contrastive self-supervised learning uses both positive and negative examples. The loss function in contrastive learning is used to minimize the distance between positive sample pairs, while maximizing the distance between negative sample pairs. An early example uses a pair of 1-dimensional convolutional neural networks to process a pair of images and maximize their agreement. Contrastive Language-Image Pre-training (CLIP) allows joint pretraining of a text encoder and an image encoder, such that a matching image-text pair have image encoding vector and text encoding vector that span a small angle (having a large cosine similarity). InfoNCE (Noise-Contrastive Estimation) is a method to optimize two models jointly, based on Noise Contrastive Estimation (NCE). Given a set X = { x 1 , … x N } {\displaystyle X=\left\{x_{1},\ldots x_{N}\right\}} of N {\displaystyle N} random samples containing one positive sample from p ( x t + k ∣ c t ) {\displaystyle p\left(x_{t+k}\mid c_{t}\right)} and N − 1 {\displaystyle N-1} negative samples from the 'proposal' distribution p ( x t + k ) {\displaystyle p\left(x_{t+k}\right)} , it minimizes the following loss function: L N = − E X [ log ⁡ f k ( x t + k , c t ) ∑ x j ∈ X f k ( x j , c t ) ] {\displaystyle {\mathcal {L}}_{\mathrm {N} }=-\mathbb {E} _{X}\left[\log {\frac {f_{k}\left(x_{t+k},c_{t}\right)}{\sum _{x_{j}\in X}f_{k}\left(x_{j},c_{t}\right)}}\right]} === Non-contrastive self-supervised learning === Non-contrastive self-supervised learning (NCSSL) uses only positive examples. Counterintuitively, NCSSL converges on a useful local minimum rather than reaching a trivial solution, with zero loss. For the example of binary classification, it would trivially learn to classify each example as positive. Effective NCSSL requires an extra predictor on the online side that does not back-propagate on the target side. === Joint-Embedding and Predictive Architectures === A major class of self-supervised learning moves beyond contrastive pairs, instead maximizing the agreement between views while preventing collapse through statistical constraints. Rooted in Deep Canonical Correlation Analysis (Deep CCA), this approach includes Joint-Embedding Architectures (JEA) like Barlow Twins and VICReg, which enforce covariance constraints to learn invariant representations without negative sampling. Deep Latent Variable Path Modelling (DLVPM) generalizes this to multimodal systems, using path models to enforce correlation and orthogonality across diverse data types. In 2022 Yann LeCun introduced Joint-Embedding Predictive Architectures (JEPA) as a step towards decision making, reasoning, and autonomous human intelligence in machines, including self-improvement through autonomous learning. Founded in representation learning, LeCun included the concept of a “world model” in JEPA which aims to enable machines to replicate human intellect by providing machines with a concept for the world in which they exist. Unlike autoencoders, JEPAs operate entirely in latent space, avoiding pixel-level noise to focus on semantic structure. Rather than just learning invariance, JEPAs learn by predicting masked latent representations from visible context. JEPA has been applied to domains such as image analysis, audio processing, and motion in images and video. == Comparison with other forms of machine learning == SSL belongs to supervised learning methods insofar as the goal is to generate a classified output from the input. At the same time, however, it does not require the explicit use of labeled input-output pairs. Instead, correlations, metadata embedded in the data, or domain knowledge present in the input are implicitly and autonomously extracted from the data. These supervisory signals, extracted from the data, can then be used for training. SSL is similar to unsupervised learning in that it does not require labels in the sample data. Unlike unsupervised learning, however, learning is not done using inherent data structures. Semi-supervised learning combines supervised and unsupervised learning, requiring only a small portion of the learning data be labeled. In transfer learning, a model designed for one task is reused on a different task. Training an autoencoder intrinsically constitutes a self-supervised process, because the output pattern needs to become an optimal reconstruction of the input pattern itself. However, in current jargon, the term 'self-supervised' often refers to tasks based on a pretext-task training setup

  Read more →
• 

  Proximal gradient methods for learning

  Proximal gradient (forward backward splitting) methods for learning is an area of research in optimization and statistical learning theory which studies algorithms for a general class of convex regularization problems where the regularization penalty may not be differentiable. One such example is ℓ 1 {\displaystyle \ell _{1}} regularization (also known as Lasso) of the form min w ∈ R d 1 n ∑ i = 1 n ( y i − ⟨ w , x i ⟩ ) 2 + λ ‖ w ‖ 1 , where x i ∈ R d and y i ∈ R . {\displaystyle \min _{w\in \mathbb {R} ^{d}}{\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}(y_{i}-\langle w,x_{i}\rangle )^{2}+\lambda \|w\|_{1},\quad {\text{ where }}x_{i}\in \mathbb {R} ^{d}{\text{ and }}y_{i}\in \mathbb {R} .} Proximal gradient methods offer a general framework for solving regularization problems from statistical learning theory with penalties that are tailored to a specific problem application. Such customized penalties can help to induce certain structure in problem solutions, such as sparsity (in the case of lasso) or group structure (in the case of group lasso). == Relevant background == Proximal gradient methods are applicable in a wide variety of scenarios for solving convex optimization problems of the form min x ∈ H F ( x ) + R ( x ) , {\displaystyle \min _{x\in {\mathcal {H}}}F(x)+R(x),} where F {\displaystyle F} is convex and differentiable with Lipschitz continuous gradient, R {\displaystyle R} is a convex, lower semicontinuous function which is possibly nondifferentiable, and H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} is some set, typically a Hilbert space. The usual criterion of x {\displaystyle x} minimizes F ( x ) + R ( x ) {\displaystyle F(x)+R(x)} if and only if ∇ ( F + R ) ( x ) = 0 {\displaystyle \nabla (F+R)(x)=0} in the convex, differentiable setting is now replaced by 0 ∈ ∂ ( F + R ) ( x ) , {\displaystyle 0\in \partial (F+R)(x),} where ∂ φ {\displaystyle \partial \varphi } denotes the subdifferential of a real-valued, convex function φ {\displaystyle \varphi } . Given a convex function φ : H → R {\displaystyle \varphi :{\mathcal {H}}\to \mathbb {R} } an important operator to consider is its proximal operator prox φ : H → H {\displaystyle \operatorname {prox} _{\varphi }:{\mathcal {H}}\to {\mathcal {H}}} defined by prox φ ⁡ ( u ) = arg ⁡ min x ∈ H φ ( x ) + 1 2 ‖ u − x ‖ 2 2 , {\displaystyle \operatorname {prox} _{\varphi }(u)=\operatorname {arg} \min _{x\in {\mathcal {H}}}\varphi (x)+{\frac {1}{2}}\|u-x\|_{2}^{2},} which is well-defined because of the strict convexity of the ℓ 2 {\displaystyle \ell _{2}} norm. The proximal operator can be seen as a generalization of a projection. We see that the proximity operator is important because x ∗ {\displaystyle x^{}} is a minimizer to the problem min x ∈ H F ( x ) + R ( x ) {\displaystyle \min _{x\in {\mathcal {H}}}F(x)+R(x)} if and only if x ∗ = prox γ R ⁡ ( x ∗ − γ ∇ F ( x ∗ ) ) , {\displaystyle x^{}=\operatorname {prox} _{\gamma R}\left(x^{}-\gamma \nabla F(x^{})\right),} where γ > 0 {\displaystyle \gamma >0} is any positive real number. === Moreau decomposition === One important technique related to proximal gradient methods is the Moreau decomposition, which decomposes the identity operator as the sum of two proximity operators. Namely, let φ : X → R {\displaystyle \varphi :{\mathcal {X}}\to \mathbb {R} } be a lower semicontinuous, convex function on a vector space X {\displaystyle {\mathcal {X}}} . We define its Fenchel conjugate φ ∗ : X → R {\displaystyle \varphi ^{}:{\mathcal {X}}\to \mathbb {R} } to be the function φ ∗ ( u ) := sup x ∈ X ⟨ x , u ⟩ − φ ( x ) . {\displaystyle \varphi ^{}(u):=\sup _{x\in {\mathcal {X}}}\langle x,u\rangle -\varphi (x).} The general form of Moreau's decomposition states that for any x ∈ X {\displaystyle x\in {\mathcal {X}}} and any γ > 0 {\displaystyle \gamma >0} that x = prox γ φ ⁡ ( x ) + γ prox φ ∗ / γ ⁡ ( x / γ ) , {\displaystyle x=\operatorname {prox} _{\gamma \varphi }(x)+\gamma \operatorname {prox} _{\varphi ^{}/\gamma }(x/\gamma ),} which for γ = 1 {\displaystyle \gamma =1} implies that x = prox φ ⁡ ( x ) + prox φ ∗ ⁡ ( x ) {\displaystyle x=\operatorname {prox} _{\varphi }(x)+\operatorname {prox} _{\varphi ^{}}(x)} . The Moreau decomposition can be seen to be a generalization of the usual orthogonal decomposition of a vector space, analogous with the fact that proximity operators are generalizations of projections. In certain situations it may be easier to compute the proximity operator for the conjugate φ ∗ {\displaystyle \varphi ^{}} instead of the function φ {\displaystyle \varphi } , and therefore the Moreau decomposition can be applied. This is the case for group lasso. == Lasso regularization == Consider the regularized empirical risk minimization problem with square loss and with the ℓ 1 {\displaystyle \ell _{1}} norm as the regularization penalty: min w ∈ R d 1 n ∑ i = 1 n ( y i − ⟨ w , x i ⟩ ) 2 + λ ‖ w ‖ 1 , {\displaystyle \min _{w\in \mathbb {R} ^{d}}{\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}(y_{i}-\langle w,x_{i}\rangle )^{2}+\lambda \|w\|_{1},} where x i ∈ R d and y i ∈ R . {\displaystyle x_{i}\in \mathbb {R} ^{d}{\text{ and }}y_{i}\in \mathbb {R} .} The ℓ 1 {\displaystyle \ell _{1}} regularization problem is sometimes referred to as lasso (least absolute shrinkage and selection operator). Such ℓ 1 {\displaystyle \ell _{1}} regularization problems are interesting because they induce sparse solutions, that is, solutions w {\displaystyle w} to the minimization problem have relatively few nonzero components. Lasso can be seen to be a convex relaxation of the non-convex problem min w ∈ R d 1 n ∑ i = 1 n ( y i − ⟨ w , x i ⟩ ) 2 + λ ‖ w ‖ 0 , {\displaystyle \min _{w\in \mathbb {R} ^{d}}{\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}(y_{i}-\langle w,x_{i}\rangle )^{2}+\lambda \|w\|_{0},} where ‖ w ‖ 0 {\displaystyle \|w\|_{0}} denotes the ℓ 0 {\displaystyle \ell _{0}} "norm", which is the number of nonzero entries of the vector w {\displaystyle w} . Sparse solutions are of particular interest in learning theory for interpretability of results: a sparse solution can identify a small number of important factors. === Solving for L1 proximity operator === For simplicity we restrict our attention to the problem where λ = 1 {\displaystyle \lambda =1} . To solve the problem min w ∈ R d 1 n ∑ i = 1 n ( y i − ⟨ w , x i ⟩ ) 2 + ‖ w ‖ 1 , {\displaystyle \min _{w\in \mathbb {R} ^{d}}{\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}(y_{i}-\langle w,x_{i}\rangle )^{2}+\|w\|_{1},} we consider our objective function in two parts: a convex, differentiable term F ( w ) = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n ( y i − ⟨ w , x i ⟩ ) 2 {\displaystyle F(w)={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}(y_{i}-\langle w,x_{i}\rangle )^{2}} and a convex function R ( w ) = ‖ w ‖ 1 {\displaystyle R(w)=\|w\|_{1}} . Note that R {\displaystyle R} is not strictly convex. Let us compute the proximity operator for R ( w ) {\displaystyle R(w)} . First we find an alternative characterization of the proximity operator prox R ⁡ ( x ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {prox} _{R}(x)} as follows: u = prox R ⁡ ( x ) ⟺ 0 ∈ ∂ ( R ( u ) + 1 2 ‖ u − x ‖ 2 2 ) ⟺ 0 ∈ ∂ R ( u ) + u − x ⟺ x − u ∈ ∂ R ( u ) . {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}u=\operatorname {prox} _{R}(x)\iff &0\in \partial \left(R(u)+{\frac {1}{2}}\|u-x\|_{2}^{2}\right)\\\iff &0\in \partial R(u)+u-x\\\iff &x-u\in \partial R(u).\end{aligned}}} For R ( w ) = ‖ w ‖ 1 {\displaystyle R(w)=\|w\|_{1}} it is easy to compute ∂ R ( w ) {\displaystyle \partial R(w)} : the i {\displaystyle i} th entry of ∂ R ( w ) {\displaystyle \partial R(w)} is precisely ∂ | w i | = { 1 , w i > 0 − 1 , w i < 0 [ − 1 , 1 ] , w i = 0. {\displaystyle \partial |w_{i}|={\begin{cases}1,&w_{i}>0\\-1,&w_{i}<0\\\left[-1,1\right],&w_{i}=0.\end{cases}}} Using the recharacterization of the proximity operator given above, for the choice of R ( w ) = ‖ w ‖ 1 {\displaystyle R(w)=\|w\|_{1}} and γ > 0 {\displaystyle \gamma >0} we have that prox γ R ⁡ ( x ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {prox} _{\gamma R}(x)} is defined entrywise by ( prox γ R ⁡ ( x ) ) i = { x i − γ , x i > γ 0 , | x i | ≤ γ x i + γ , x i < − γ , {\displaystyle \left(\operatorname {prox} _{\gamma R}(x)\right)_{i}={\begin{cases}x_{i}-\gamma ,&x_{i}>\gamma \\0,&|x_{i}|\leq \gamma \\x_{i}+\gamma ,&x_{i}<-\gamma ,\end{cases}}} which is known as the soft thresholding operator S γ ( x ) = prox γ ‖ ⋅ ‖ 1 ⁡ ( x ) {\displaystyle S_{\gamma }(x)=\operatorname {prox} _{\gamma \|\cdot \|_{1}}(x)} . === Fixed point iterative schemes === To finally solve the lasso problem we consider the fixed point equation shown earlier: x ∗ = prox γ R ⁡ ( x ∗ − γ ∇ F ( x ∗ ) ) . {\displaystyle x^{}=\operatorname {prox} _{\gamma R}\left(x^{}-\gamma \nabla F(x^{})\right).} Given that we have computed the form of the proximity operator explicitly, then we can define a standard fixed point iteration procedure. Namely, fix some initial w 0 ∈ R d {\displaystyle w^{0}\in \mathbb {R} ^{d}} , and for k = 1 , 2 , … {\displaystyle k=1,2,\ldots } define w k + 1 = S γ ( w k − γ ∇ F ( w k ) ) . {\displaystyle w^{k+1}=S_{\gamma }\left(w^{k}-\gamma \nabla F\l

  Read more →
• 

  MLOps

  MLOps or ML Ops is a paradigm that aims to deploy and maintain machine learning models in production reliably and efficiently. It bridges the gap between machine learning development and production operations, ensuring that models are robust, scalable, and aligned with business goals. The word is a compound of "machine learning" and the continuous delivery practice (CI/CD) of DevOps in the software field. Machine learning models are tested and developed in isolated experimental systems. When an algorithm is ready to be launched, MLOps is practiced between data scientists, DevOps, and machine learning engineers to transition the algorithm to production systems. Similar to DevOps or DataOps approaches, MLOps seeks to increase automation and improve the quality of production models, while also focusing on business and regulatory requirements. While MLOps started as a set of best practices, it is slowly evolving into an independent approach to ML lifecycle management. MLOps applies to the entire lifecycle - from integrating with model generation (software development lifecycle, continuous integration/continuous delivery), orchestration, and deployment, to health, diagnostics, governance, and business metrics. == Definition == MLOps is a paradigm, including aspects like best practices, sets of concepts, as well as a development culture when it comes to the end-to-end conceptualization, implementation, monitoring, deployment, and scalability of machine learning products. Most of all, it is an engineering practice that leverages three contributing disciplines: machine learning, software engineering (especially DevOps), and data engineering. MLOps is aimed at productionizing machine learning systems by bridging the gap between development (Dev) and operations (Ops). Essentially, MLOps aims to facilitate the creation of machine learning products by leveraging these principles: CI/CD automation, workflow orchestration, reproducibility; versioning of data, model, and code; collaboration; continuous ML training and evaluation; ML metadata tracking and logging; continuous monitoring; and feedback loops. == History == Interest in operationalizing machine learning systems began to grow in the mid-2010s as ML projects started moving from experimentation to production use. The challenges associated with sustaining such systems were highlighted in a 2015 paper. The predicted growth in machine learning included an estimated doubling of ML pilots and implementations from 2017 to 2018, and again from 2018 to 2020. Reports show a majority (up to 88%) of corporate machine learning initiatives are struggling to move beyond test stages. However, those organizations that actually put machine learning into production saw a 3–15% profit margin increases. The MLOps market size was USD 2,191.8 Million in 2024, and is projected to be USD 16,613.4 Million in 2030. == Architecture == Machine Learning systems can be categorized in eight different categories: data collection, data processing, feature engineering, data labeling, model design, model training and optimization, endpoint deployment, and endpoint monitoring. Each step in the machine learning lifecycle is built in its own system, but requires interconnection. These are the minimum systems that enterprises need to scale machine learning within their organization. == Goals == There are a number of goals enterprises want to achieve through MLOps systems successfully implementing ML across the enterprise, including: Deployment and automation Reproducibility of models and predictions Diagnostics Governance and regulatory compliance Scalability Collaboration Business uses Monitoring and management A standard practice, such as MLOps, takes into account each of the aforementioned areas, which can help enterprises optimize workflows and avoid issues during implementation. Vendors such as Adaptive ML deliver commercial reinforcement learning operations (RLOps) and MLOps-infrastructure, targeting organizations deploying large language models in production. A common architecture of an MLOps system would include data science platforms where models are constructed and the analytical engines where computations are performed, with the MLOps tool orchestrating the movement of machine learning models, data and outcomes between the systems.

  Read more →
• 

  Autognostics

  Autognostics is a new paradigm that describes the capacity for computer networks to be self-aware. It is considered one of the major components of Autonomic Networking. == Introduction == One of the most important characteristics of today's Internet that has contributed to its success is its basic design principle: a simple and transparent core with intelligence at the edges (the so-called "end-to-end principle"). Based on this principle, the network carries data without knowing the characteristics of that data (e.g., voice, video, etc.) - only the end-points have application-specific knowledge. If something goes wrong with the data, only the edge may be able to recognize that since it knows about the application and what the expected behavior is. The core has no information about what should happen with that data - it only forwards packets. Although an effective and beneficial attribute, this design principle has also led to many of today's problems, limitations, and frustrations. Currently, it is almost impossible for most end-users to know why certain network-based applications do not work well and what they need to do to make it better. Also, network operators who interact with the core in low-level terms such as router configuration have problems expressing their high-level goals into low-level actions. In high-level terms, this may be summarized as a weak coupling between the network and application layers of the overall system. As a consequence of the Internet end-to-end principle, the network performance experienced by a particular application is difficult to attribute based on the behavior of the individual elements. At any given moment, the measure of performance between any two points is typically unknown and applications must operate blindly. As a further consequence, changes to the configuration of given element, or changes in the end-to-end path, cannot easily be validated. Optimization and provisioning cannot then be automated except against only the simplest design specifications. There is an increasing interest in Autonomic Networking research, and a strong conviction that an evolution from the current networking status quo is necessary. Although to date there have not been any practical implementations demonstrating the benefits of an effective autonomic networking paradigm, there seems to be a consensus as to the characteristics which such implementations would need to demonstrate. These specifically include continuous monitoring, identifying, diagnosing and fixing problems based on high-level policies and objectives. Autognostics, as a major part of the autonomic networking concept, intends to bring networks to a new level of awareness and eliminate the lack of visibility which currently exists in today's networks. == Definition == Autognostics is a new paradigm that describes the capacity for computer networks to be self-aware, in part and as a whole, and dynamically adapt to the applications running on them by autonomously monitoring, identifying, diagnosing, resolving issues, subsequently verifying that any remediation was successful, and reporting the impact with respect to the application's use (i.e., providing visibility into the changes to networks and their effects). Although similar to the concept of network awareness, i.e., the capability of network devices and applications to be aware of network characteristics (see References section below), it is noteworthy that autognostics takes that concept one step further. The main difference is the auto part of autognostics, which entails that network devices are self-aware of network characteristics, and have the capability to adapt themselves as a result of continuous monitoring and diagnostics. == Path to autognostics == Autognostics, or in other words deep self-knowledge, can be best described as the ability of a network to know itself and the applications that run on it. This knowledge is used to autonomously adapt to dynamic network and application conditions such as utilization, capacity, quality of service/application/user experience, etc. In order to achieve autognosis, networks need a means to: Continuously monitor/test the network for application-specific performance Analyze the monitoring/test data to detect problems (e.g., performance degradation) Diagnose, identify and localize sources of degradation Automatically take actions to resolve problems via remediation/provisioning Verify the problems have been resolved (potentially rolling back changes if ineffective) Subsequently, continue to monitor/test for performance

  Read more →
• 

  Layers (digital image editing)

  Layers are used in digital image editing to separate different elements of an image. A layer can be compared to a transparency on which imaging effects or images are applied and placed over or under an image. Today they are an integral feature of image editors. In the early days of computing, memory was at a premium and the idea of using multi-layered images was considered infeasible in personal computer applications as the tradeoffs were image size and color depth. As the price of memory fell it became feasible to apply the concept of layering to raster images. The first software known to apply the concept of layers was LALF, which was released in 1989 for the NEC PC-9801. LALF's terminology for layers is "cells", after the concept of drawing animation frames over-top of a stencil. Layers were introduced in Western markets by Fauve Matisse (later Macromedia xRes), and then available in Adobe Photoshop 3.0, in 1994, which lead to widespread adoption. In vector image editors that support animation, layers are used to further enable manipulation along a common timeline for the animation; in SVG images, the equivalent to layers are "groups". == Layer types == There are different kinds of layers, and not all of them exist in all programs. They represent a part of a picture, either as pixels or as modification instructions. They are stacked on top of each other, and depending on the order, determine the appearance of the final picture. In graphics software, layers are the different levels at which one can place an object or image file. In the program, layers can be stacked, merged, or defined when creating a digital image. Layers can be partially obscured allowing portions of images within a layer to be hidden or shown in a translucent manner within another image. Layers can also be used to combine two or more images into a single digital image. For the purpose of editing, working with layers allows for applying changes to just one specific layer. == Layer (basic) == The standard layer available to most programs consists of a rectangular, semitransparent picture which may be superimposed over other layers. Some programs require that layers cover the same area as the final canvas, but others offer layers of multiple sizes. Each layer may bear individual settings, such as opacity, blending modes, dynamic filters, and potentially hundreds of other properties. == Layer mask == A layer mask is linked to a layer and hides part of the layer from the picture. What is painted black on the layer mask will not be visible in the final picture. What is grey will be more or less transparent depending on the shade of grey. As the layer mask can be both edited and moved around independently of both the background layer and the layer it applies to, it gives the user the ability to test a lot of different combinations of overlay. == Adjustment layer == An adjustment layer typically applies a common effect like brightness or saturation to other layers. However, as the effect is stored in a separate layer, it is easy to try it out and switch between different alternatives, without changing the original layer. In addition, an adjustment layer can easily be edited, just like a layer mask, so an effect can be applied to just part of the image.

  Read more →
• 

  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

  Read more →
• 

  Symbolic artificial intelligence

  In artificial intelligence, symbolic artificial intelligence (also known as classical artificial intelligence or logic-based artificial intelligence) is the term for the collection of all methods in artificial intelligence research that are based on high-level symbolic (human-readable) representations of problems, logic, and search. Symbolic AI used tools such as logic programming, production rules, semantic nets and frames, and it developed applications such as knowledge-based systems (in particular, expert systems), symbolic mathematics, automated theorem provers, ontologies, the semantic web, and automated planning and scheduling systems. The Symbolic AI paradigm led to important ideas in search, symbolic programming languages, agents, multi-agent systems, the semantic web, and the strengths and limitations of formal knowledge and reasoning systems. Symbolic AI was the dominant paradigm of AI research from the mid-1950s until the mid-1990s. Researchers in the 1960s and the 1970s were convinced that symbolic approaches would eventually succeed in creating a machine with artificial general intelligence and considered this the ultimate goal of their field. An early boom, with early successes such as the Logic Theorist and Samuel's Checkers Playing Program, led to unrealistic expectations and promises and was followed by the first AI Winter as funding dried up. A second boom (1969–1986) occurred with the rise of expert systems, their promise of capturing corporate expertise, and an enthusiastic corporate embrace. That boom, and some early successes, e.g., with XCON at DEC, was followed again by later disappointment. Problems with difficulties in knowledge acquisition, maintaining large knowledge bases, and brittleness in handling out-of-domain problems arose. Another, second, AI Winter (1988–2011) followed. Subsequently, AI researchers focused on addressing underlying problems in handling uncertainty and in knowledge acquisition. Uncertainty was addressed with formal methods such as hidden Markov models, Bayesian reasoning, and statistical relational learning. Symbolic machine learning addressed the knowledge acquisition problem with contributions including Version Space, Valiant's PAC learning, Quinlan's ID3 decision-tree learning, case-based learning, and inductive logic programming to learn relations. Neural networks, a subsymbolic approach, had been pursued from early days and reemerged strongly in 2012. Early examples are Rosenblatt's perceptron learning work, the backpropagation work of Rumelhart, Hinton and Williams, and work in convolutional neural networks by LeCun et al. in 1989. However, neural networks were not viewed as successful until about 2012: "Until Big Data became commonplace, the general consensus in the Al community was that the so-called neural-network approach was hopeless. Systems just didn't work that well, compared to other methods. ... A revolution came in 2012, when a number of people, including a team of researchers working with Hinton, worked out a way to use the power of GPUs to enormously increase the power of neural networks." Over the next several years, deep learning had spectacular success in handling vision, speech recognition, speech synthesis, image generation, and machine translation, though symbolic approaches continue to be useful in a few domains such as computer algebra systems and proof assistants. == History == A short history of symbolic AI to the present day follows below. Time periods and titles are drawn from Henry Kautz's 2020 AAAI Robert S. Engelmore Memorial Lecture and the longer Wikipedia article on the History of AI, with dates and titles differing slightly for increased clarity. === The first AI summer: irrational exuberance, 1948–1966 === Success at early attempts in AI occurred in three main areas: artificial neural networks, knowledge representation, and heuristic search, contributing to high expectations. This section summarizes Kautz's reprise of early AI history. ==== Approaches inspired by human or animal cognition or behavior ==== Cybernetic approaches attempted to replicate the feedback loops between animals and their environments. A robotic turtle, with sensors, motors for driving and steering, and seven vacuum tubes for control, based on a preprogrammed neural net, was built as early as 1948. This work can be seen as an early precursor to later work in neural networks, reinforcement learning, and situated robotics. An important early symbolic AI program was the Logic theorist, written by Allen Newell, Herbert Simon and Cliff Shaw in 1955–56, as it was able to prove 38 elementary theorems from Whitehead and Russell's Principia Mathematica. Newell, Simon, and Shaw later generalized this work to create a domain-independent problem solver, GPS (General Problem Solver). GPS solved problems represented with formal operators via state-space search using means-ends analysis. During the 1960s, symbolic approaches achieved great success at simulating intelligent behavior in structured environments such as game-playing, symbolic mathematics, and theorem-proving. AI research was concentrated in four institutions in the 1960s: Carnegie Mellon University, Stanford, MIT and (later) University of Edinburgh. Each one developed its own style of research. Earlier approaches based on cybernetics or artificial neural networks were abandoned or pushed into the background. Herbert Simon and Allen Newell studied human problem-solving skills and attempted to formalize them, and their work laid the foundations of the field of artificial intelligence, as well as cognitive science, operations research and management science. Their research team used the results of psychological experiments to develop programs that simulated the techniques that people used to solve problems. This tradition, centered at Carnegie Mellon University would eventually culminate in the development of the Soar architecture in the middle 1980s. ==== Heuristic search ==== In addition to the highly specialized domain-specific kinds of knowledge that we will see later used in expert systems, early symbolic AI researchers discovered another more general application of knowledge. These were called heuristics, rules of thumb that guide a search in promising directions: "How can non-enumerative search be practical when the underlying problem is exponentially hard? The approach advocated by Simon and Newell is to employ heuristics: fast algorithms that may fail on some inputs or output suboptimal solutions." Another important advance was to find a way to apply these heuristics that guarantees a solution will be found, if there is one, not withstanding the occasional fallibility of heuristics: "The A algorithm provided a general frame for complete and optimal heuristically guided search. A is used as a subroutine within practically every AI algorithm today but is still no magic bullet; its guarantee of completeness is bought at the cost of worst-case exponential time. ==== Early work on knowledge representation and reasoning ==== Early work covered both applications of formal reasoning emphasizing first-order logic, along with attempts to handle common-sense reasoning in a less formal manner. ===== Modeling formal reasoning with logic: the "neats" ===== Unlike Simon and Newell, John McCarthy felt that machines did not need to simulate the exact mechanisms of human thought, but could instead try to find the essence of abstract reasoning and problem-solving with logic, regardless of whether people used the same algorithms. His laboratory at Stanford (SAIL) focused on using formal logic to solve a wide variety of problems, including knowledge representation, planning and learning. Logic was also the focus of the work at the University of Edinburgh and elsewhere in Europe which led to the development of the programming language Prolog and the science of logic programming. ===== Modeling implicit common-sense knowledge with frames and scripts: the "scruffies" ===== Researchers at MIT (such as Marvin Minsky and Seymour Papert) found that solving difficult problems in vision and natural language processing required ad hoc solutions—they argued that no simple and general principle (like logic) would capture all the aspects of intelligent behavior. Roger Schank described their "anti-logic" approaches as "scruffy" (as opposed to the "neat" paradigms at CMU and Stanford). Commonsense knowledge bases (such as Doug Lenat's Cyc) are an example of "scruffy" AI, since they must be built by hand, one complicated concept at a time. === The first AI winter: crushed dreams, 1967–1977 === The first AI winter was a shock: During the first AI summer, many people thought that machine intelligence could be achieved in just a few years. The Defense Advance Research Projects Agency (DARPA) launched programs to support AI research to use AI to solve problems of national security; in particular, to automate the translation of Russian to English for inte

  Read more →
• 

  AlphaChip (controversy)

  The AlphaChip controversy refers to a series of public, scholarly, and legal disputes surrounding a 2021 Nature paper by Google-affiliated researchers. The paper describes an approach to macro placement, a stage of chip floorplanning, based on reinforcement learning (RL), a machine learning method in which a system iteratively improves its decisions by optimizing performance-based reward signals. The primary technical question is whether the new techniques are better than existing (non-AI) techniques. Both internal Google studies and external attempts to replicate the algorithm have failed to show the claimed benefits. No head-to-head comparison is available because the data used in the paper is proprietary, and Google has not released any results from running its algorithm on public benchmarks. This has resulted in considerable skepticism over the paper's claims. In addition, the inability of others (both inside and outside of Google) to replicate the claimed results have sparked concerns about the paper’s methodology, reproducibility, and scientific integrity. The lead researchers of the Nature paper were affiliated with Google Brain, which became part of Google DeepMind, and later spun off into the company Ricursive. == Motivation for research: Macro placement in chip layout == Chip design for modern integrated circuits is a complex, expert-driven process that relies on electronic design automation. It determines the performance of the final chip, and takes weeks or months to complete. Advances that produce better designs, or complete the process faster, are commercially and academically significant. Macro placement is a step during chip design that determines the locations of large circuit components (macros) within a chip. It is followed by detailed placement, which places the far more numerous but much smaller standard cells. Alternatively, mixed-size placement simultaneously places both large macros and millions of small cells, requiring algorithms to handle objects that differ by several orders of magnitude in area and mobility. The number of macros per circuit typically ranges from several to thousands. Wiring must be performed after placement, and the details of this wiring strongly influence the power, performance, and area (PPA) of the completed chip. The full wiring calculation is very resource intensive, so placement tools typically use a proxy cost, a simplified objective function used to guide the placement algorithm during training and evaluation. The faithfulness of the chosen proxy cost to the final objective cost is a critical aspect of placer performance. === State of the art as of 2021 === Chips have been designed since the 1960s, so there were many existing methods as of 2021. Available options included manual design, academic tools, and commercial offerings. Academic methods include combinatorial optimization techniques such as simulated annealing, analytical placement, hierarchical heuristics, and as of 2019 reinforcement learning and broader machine learning techniques.. Existing (non-AI) academic tools for solving the same problem include APlace, NTUplace3, ePlace, RePlace, and DREAMPlace. Commercial EDA vendors also offered automated software tools for floorplanning and mixed-size placement. For instance, as of 2019 Cadence’s Innovus implementation software offered a Concurrent Macro Placer (CMP) feature to automatically place large blocks and standard cells. == The 2021 Nature paper and its claims == In 2021, Nature published a paper under the title “A graph‑placement methodology for fast chip design” co‑authored by 21 Google-affiliated researchers. The paper reported that an RL agent could generate macro placements for integrated circuits "in under six hours" and achieve improvements over human-designed layouts in power, timing performance, and area (PPA), standard chip-quality metrics referring respectively to energy consumption, chip operating speed, and silicon footprint (evaluated after wire routing). It introduced a sequential macro placement algorithm in which macros are placed one at a time instead of optimizing their locations concurrently. At each step, the algorithm selects a location for a single macro on a discretized chip canvas, conditioning its decision on the placements of previously placed macros. This sequential formulation converts macro placement into a long-horizon decision process in which early placement choices constrain later ones. After macro placement, force-directed placement is applied to place standard cells connected to the macros. Deep reinforcement learning is used to train a policy network to place macros by maximizing a reward that reflects final placement quality (for example, wirelength and congestion). Policy learning occurs during self‑play for one or multiple circuit designs. Further placement optimizations refine the overall layout by balancing wirelength, density, and overlap constraints, while treating the macro locations produced by the RL policy as fixed obstacles. The approach relies on pre-training, in which the RL model is first trained on a corpus of prior designs (twenty in the Nature paper) to learn general placement patterns before being fine-tuned on a specific chip. Circuit examples used in the study were parts of proprietary Google TPU designs, called blocks (or floorplan partitions). The paper reported results on five blocks and described the approach as generalizable across chip designs. == Controversy == Soon after the paper's publication, controversy arose over whether the claims were true, whether they were sufficiently proven, and whether academic standards were followed. These controversies arose both within Google and among external academic experts. === Internal dispute at Google and legal proceedings === In 2022, Satrajit Chatterjee, a Google engineer involved in reviewing the AlphaChip work, raised concerns internally and drafted an alternative analysis, (Stronger Baselines) arguing that established methods outperformed the RL approach under fair comparison. In March 2022, Google declined to publish this analysis and terminated Chatterjee's employment. Chatterjee filed a wrongful dismissal lawsuit, alleging that representations related to the AlphaChip research involved fraud and scientific misconduct. According to court documents, Chatterjee's study was conducted "in the context of a large potential Google Cloud deal". He noted that it "would have been unethical to imply that we had revolutionary technology when our tests showed otherwise" and claimed Google was deliberately withholding material information. Furthermore, the committee that reviewed his paper and disapproved its publication was allegedly chaired by subordinates of Jeff Dean, a senior co-author of the Nature paper. Google’s subsequent motion to dismiss was denied, holding that Chatterjee had plausibly alleged retaliation for refusing to engage in conduct he believed would violate state or federal law. === External controversy === The external questions can be summarized in four main points: (a) Are the claims supported by the evidence provided? (b) Did the paper provide enough information to allow the results to be independently reproduced and verified? If so, are the results an improvement over existing academic and commercial tools? (c) Were the comparisons in the paper done fairly and with full disclosure? (d) Were academic standards followed? Each of these is discussed below. ==== Are the claims supported by the evidence provided? ==== The Nature paper described the reduction in design-process time as going from "days or weeks" to "hours", but did not provide per-design time breakdowns or specify the number of engineers, their level of expertise, or the baseline tools and workflow against which this comparison was made. It was also unclear whether the "days or weeks" baseline included time spent on other tasks such as functional design changes. The paper also evaluated the method on fewer benchmarks (five) than is common in the field, and showed mixed results across different evaluation goals While the approach was described as improving circuit area, this claim seems unsupported, as the RL optimization did not alter the overall circuit area, as it adjusted only the locations of fixed-shape non-overlapping circuit components within a fixed rectangular layout boundary. ==== Comparison with existing methods, and replicating the algorithm ==== Because macro placement is largely geometric and its fundamental algorithms are not tied to a specific process node, competing approaches can be evaluated on public benchmarks (tests) across technologies, rather than primarily on proprietary internal designs. This is standard procedure when comparing academic placers, see . In contrast, Google has only reported results only on internal proprietary designs, and as of 2026 has not offered comparisons with prior methods on common benchmarks. Researchers at the University of Califor

  Read more →
• 

  Embedding (machine learning)

  In machine learning, embedding is a representation learning technique that maps complex, high-dimensional data into a lower-dimensional vector space of numerical vectors. == Technique == It also denotes the resulting representation, where meaningful patterns or relationships are preserved. As a technique, it learns these vectors from data like words, images, or user interactions, differing from manually designed methods such as one-hot encoding. This process reduces complexity and captures key features without needing prior knowledge of the domain. == Similarity == In natural language processing, words or concepts may be represented as feature vectors, where similar concepts are mapped to nearby vectors. The resulting embeddings vary by type, including word embeddings for text (e.g., Word2Vec), image embeddings for visual data, and knowledge graph embeddings for knowledge graphs, each tailored to tasks like NLP, computer vision, or recommendation systems. This dual role enhances model efficiency and accuracy by automating feature extraction and revealing latent similarities across diverse applications. To measure the distance between two embeddings, a similarity measure can be used to find the overall similarity of the concepts represented by the embeddings. If the vectors are normalized to have a magnitude of 1, then the similarity measures are proportional to cos ⁡ ( θ a b ) {\displaystyle \cos \left(\theta _{ab}\right)} . The cosine similarity disregards the magnitude of the vector when determining similarity, so it is less biased towards training data that appears very frequently. The dot product includes the magnitude inherently, so it will tend to value more popular data. Generally, for high-dimensional vector spaces, vectors tend to converge in distance, so Euclidean distance becomes less reliable for large embedding vectors.

  Read more →
• 

  Apprenticeship learning

  In artificial intelligence, apprenticeship learning (or learning from demonstration or imitation learning) is the process of learning by observing an expert. It can be viewed as a form of supervised learning, where the training dataset consists of task executions by a demonstration teacher. == Mapping function approach == Mapping methods try to mimic the expert by forming a direct mapping either from states to actions, or from states to reward values. For example, in 2002 researchers used such an approach to teach an AIBO robot basic soccer skills. === Inverse reinforcement learning approach === Inverse reinforcement learning (IRL) is the process of deriving a reward function from observed behavior. While ordinary "reinforcement learning" involves using rewards and punishments to learn behavior, in IRL the direction is reversed, and a robot observes a person's behavior to figure out what goal that behavior seems to be trying to achieve. The IRL problem can be defined as: Given 1) measurements of an agent's behaviour over time, in a variety of circumstances; 2) measurements of the sensory inputs to that agent; 3) a model of the physical environment (including the agent's body): Determine the reward function that the agent is optimizing. IRL researcher Stuart J. Russell proposes that IRL might be used to observe humans and attempt to codify their complex "ethical values", in an effort to create "ethical robots" that might someday know "not to cook your cat" without needing to be explicitly told. The scenario can be modeled as a "cooperative inverse reinforcement learning game", where a "person" player and a "robot" player cooperate to secure the person's implicit goals, despite these goals not being explicitly known by either the person nor the robot. In 2017, OpenAI and DeepMind applied deep learning to the cooperative inverse reinforcement learning in simple domains such as Atari games and straightforward robot tasks such as backflips. The human role was limited to answering queries from the robot as to which of two different actions were preferred. The researchers found evidence that the techniques may be economically scalable to modern systems. Apprenticeship via inverse reinforcement learning (AIRP) was developed by in 2004 Pieter Abbeel, Professor in Berkeley's EECS department, and Andrew Ng, Associate Professor in Stanford University's Computer Science Department. AIRP deals with "Markov decision process where we are not explicitly given a reward function, but where instead we can observe an expert demonstrating the task that we want to learn to perform". AIRP has been used to model reward functions of highly dynamic scenarios where there is no obvious reward function intuitively. Take the task of driving for example, there are many different objectives working simultaneously - such as maintaining safe following distance, a good speed, not changing lanes too often, etc. This task, may seem easy at first glance, but a trivial reward function may not converge to the policy wanted. One domain where AIRP has been used extensively is helicopter control. While simple trajectories can be intuitively derived, complicated tasks like aerobatics for shows has been successful. These include aerobatic maneuvers like - in-place flips, in-place rolls, loops, hurricanes and even auto-rotation landings. This work was developed by Pieter Abbeel, Adam Coates, and Andrew Ng - "Autonomous Helicopter Aerobatics through Apprenticeship Learning" === System model approach === System models try to mimic the expert by modeling world dynamics. == Plan approach == The system learns rules to associate preconditions and postconditions with each action. In one 1994 demonstration, a humanoid learns a generalized plan from only two demonstrations of a repetitive ball collection task. == Example == Learning from demonstration is often explained from a perspective that the working Robot-control-system is available and the human-demonstrator is using it. And indeed, if the software works, the Human operator takes the robot-arm, makes a move with it, and the robot will reproduce the action later. For example, he teaches the robot-arm how to put a cup under a coffeemaker and press the start-button. In the replay phase, the robot is imitating this behavior 1:1. But that is not how the system works internally; it is only what the audience can observe. In reality, Learning from demonstration is much more complex. One of the first works on learning by robot apprentices (anthropomorphic robots learning by imitation) was Adrian Stoica's PhD thesis in 1995. In 1997, robotics expert Stefan Schaal was working on the Sarcos robot-arm. The goal was simple: solve the pendulum swingup task. The robot itself can execute a movement, and as a result, the pendulum is moving. The problem is, that it is unclear what actions will result into which movement. It is an Optimal control-problem which can be described with mathematical formulas but is hard to solve. The idea from Schaal was, not to use a Brute-force solver but record the movements of a human-demonstration. The angle of the pendulum is logged over three seconds at the y-axis. This results into a diagram which produces a pattern. In computer animation, the principle is called spline animation. That means, on the x-axis the time is given, for example 0.5 seconds, 1.0 seconds, 1.5 seconds, while on the y-axis is the variable given. In most cases it's the position of an object. In the inverted pendulum it is the angle. The overall task consists of two parts: recording the angle over time and reproducing the recorded motion. The reproducing step is surprisingly simple. As an input we know, in which time step which angle the pendulum must have. Bringing the system to a state is called “Tracking control” or PID control. That means, we have a trajectory over time, and must find control actions to map the system to this trajectory. Other authors call the principle “steering behavior”, because the aim is to bring a robot to a given line.

  Read more →
• 

  Halite AI Programming Competition

  Halite is an open-source computer programming contest developed by the hedge fund/tech firm Two Sigma in partnership with a team at Cornell Tech. Programmers can see the game environment and learn everything they need to know about the game. Participants are asked to build bots in whichever language they choose to compete on a two-dimensional virtual battle field. == History == Benjamin Spector and Michael Truell created the first Halite competition in 2016, before partnering with Two Sigma later that year. === Halite I === Halite I asked participants to conquer territory on a grid. It launched in November 2016 and ended in February 2017. Halite I attracted about 1,500 players. === Halite II === Halite II was similar to Halite I, but with a space-war theme. It ran from October 2017 until January 2018. The second installment of the competition attracted about 6,000 individual players from more than 100 countries. Among the participants were professors, physicists and NASA engineers, as well as high school and university students. === Halite III === Halite III launched in mid-October 2018. It ran from October 2018 to January 2019, with an ocean themed playing field. Players were asked to collect and manage Halite, an energy resource. By the end of the competition, Halite III included more than 4000 players and 460 organizations. === Halite IV === Halite IV was hosted by Kaggle, and launched in mid-June 2020.

  Read more →
• 

  Random feature

  Random features (RF) are a technique used in machine learning to approximate kernel methods, introduced by Ali Rahimi and Ben Recht in their 2007 paper "Random Features for Large-Scale Kernel Machines", and extended by. RF uses a Monte Carlo approximation to kernel functions by randomly sampled feature maps. It is used for datasets that are too large for traditional kernel methods like support vector machine, kernel ridge regression, and gaussian process. == Mathematics == === Kernel method === Given a feature map ϕ : R d → V {\textstyle \phi :\mathbb {R} ^{d}\to V} , where V {\textstyle V} is a Hilbert space (more specifically, a reproducing kernel Hilbert space), the kernel trick replaces inner products in feature space ⟨ ϕ ( x i ) , ϕ ( x j ) ⟩ V {\displaystyle \langle \phi (x_{i}),\phi (x_{j})\rangle _{V}} by a kernel function k ( x i , x j ) : R d × R d → R {\displaystyle k(x_{i},x_{j}):\mathbb {R} ^{d}\times \mathbb {R} ^{d}\to \mathbb {R} } Kernel methods replaces linear operations in high-dimensional space by operations on the kernel matrix: K X := [ k ( x i , x j ) ] i , j ∈ 1 : N {\displaystyle K_{X}:=[k(x_{i},x_{j})]_{i,j\in 1:N}} where N {\textstyle N} is the number of data points. === Random kernel method === The problem with kernel methods is that the kernel matrix K X {\textstyle K_{X}} has size N × N {\textstyle N\times N} . This becomes computationally infeasible when N {\textstyle N} reaches the order of a million. The random kernel method replaces the kernel function k {\textstyle k} by an inner product in low-dimensional feature space R D {\textstyle \mathbb {R} ^{D}} : k ( x , y ) ≈ ⟨ z ( x ) , z ( y ) ⟩ {\displaystyle k(x,y)\approx \langle z(x),z(y)\rangle } where z {\textstyle z} is a randomly sampled feature map z : R d → R D {\textstyle z:\mathbb {R} ^{d}\to \mathbb {R} ^{D}} . This converts kernel linear regression into linear regression in feature space, kernel SVM into SVM in feature space, etc. Since we have K X ≈ Z X T Z X {\displaystyle K_{X}\approx Z_{X}^{T}Z_{X}} where Z X = [ z ( x 1 ) , … , z ( x N ) ] {\displaystyle Z_{X}=[z(x_{1}),\dots ,z(x_{N})]} , these methods no longer involve matrices of size O ( N 2 ) {\textstyle O(N^{2})} , but only random feature matrices of size O ( D N ) {\textstyle O(DN)} . == Random Fourier feature == === Radial basis function kernel === The radial basis function (RBF) kernel on two samples x i , x j ∈ R d {\displaystyle x_{i},x_{j}\in \mathbb {R} ^{d}} is defined as k ( x i , x j ) = exp ⁡ ( − ‖ x i − x j ‖ 2 2 σ 2 ) {\displaystyle k(x_{i},x_{j})=\exp \left(-{\frac {\|x_{i}-x_{j}\|^{2}}{2\sigma ^{2}}}\right)} where ‖ x i − x j ‖ 2 {\displaystyle \|x_{i}-x_{j}\|^{2}} is the squared Euclidean distance and σ {\displaystyle \sigma } is a free parameter defining the shape of the kernel. It can be approximated by a random Fourier feature map z : R d → R 2 D {\displaystyle z:\mathbb {R} ^{d}\to \mathbb {R} ^{2D}} : z ( x ) := 1 D [ cos ⁡ ⟨ ω 1 , x ⟩ , sin ⁡ ⟨ ω 1 , x ⟩ , … , cos ⁡ ⟨ ω D , x ⟩ , sin ⁡ ⟨ ω D , x ⟩ ] T {\displaystyle z(x):={\frac {1}{\sqrt {D}}}[\cos \langle \omega _{1},x\rangle ,\sin \langle \omega _{1},x\rangle ,\ldots ,\cos \langle \omega _{D},x\rangle ,\sin \langle \omega _{D},x\rangle ]^{T}} where ω 1 , . . . , ω D {\displaystyle \omega _{1},...,\omega _{D}} are IID samples from the multidimensional normal distribution N ( 0 , σ − 2 I ) {\displaystyle N(0,\sigma ^{-2}I)} . Since cos , sin {\displaystyle \cos ,\sin } are bounded, there is a stronger convergence guarantee by Hoeffding's inequality. === Random Fourier features === By Bochner's theorem, the above construction can be generalized to arbitrary positive definite shift-invariant kernel k ( x , y ) = k ( x − y ) {\displaystyle k(x,y)=k(x-y)} . Define its Fourier transform p ( ω ) = 1 2 π ∫ R d e − j ⟨ ω , Δ ⟩ k ( Δ ) d Δ {\displaystyle p(\omega )={\frac {1}{2\pi }}\int _{\mathbb {R} ^{d}}e^{-j\langle \omega ,\Delta \rangle }k(\Delta )d\Delta } then ω 1 , . . . , ω D {\displaystyle \omega _{1},...,\omega _{D}} are sampled IID from the probability distribution with probability density p {\displaystyle p} . This applies for other kernels like the Laplace kernel and the Cauchy kernel. === Neural network interpretation === Given a random Fourier feature map z {\displaystyle z} , training the feature on a dataset by featurized linear regression is equivalent to fitting complex parameters θ 1 , … , θ D ∈ C {\displaystyle \theta _{1},\dots ,\theta _{D}\in \mathbb {C} } such that f θ ( x ) = R e ( ∑ k θ k e i ⟨ ω k , x ⟩ ) {\displaystyle f_{\theta }(x)=\mathrm {Re} \left(\sum _{k}\theta _{k}e^{i\langle \omega _{k},x\rangle }\right)} which is a neural network with a single hidden layer, with activation function t ↦ e i t {\displaystyle t\mapsto e^{it}} , zero bias, and the parameters in the first layer frozen. In the overparameterized case, when 2 D ≥ N {\displaystyle 2D\geq N} , the network linearly interpolates the dataset { ( x i , y i ) } i ∈ 1 : N {\displaystyle \{(x_{i},y_{i})\}_{i\in 1:N}} , and the network parameters is the least-norm solution: θ ^ = arg ⁡ min θ ∈ C D , f θ ( x k ) = y k ∀ k ∈ 1 : N ‖ θ ‖ {\displaystyle {\hat {\theta }}=\arg \min _{\theta \in \mathbb {C} ^{D},f_{\theta }(x_{k})=y_{k}\forall k\in 1:N}\|\theta \|} At the limit of D → ∞ {\displaystyle D\to \infty } , the L2 norm ‖ θ ^ ‖ → ‖ f K ‖ H {\displaystyle \|{\hat {\theta }}\|\to \|f_{K}\|_{H}} where f K {\displaystyle f_{K}} is the interpolating function obtained by the kernel regression with the original kernel, and ‖ ⋅ ‖ H {\displaystyle \|\cdot \|_{H}} is the norm in the reproducing kernel Hilbert space for the kernel. == Other examples == === Random binning features === A random binning features map partitions the input space using randomly shifted grids at randomly chosen resolutions and assigns to an input point a binary bit string that corresponds to the bins in which it falls. The grids are constructed so that the probability that two points x i , x j ∈ R d {\displaystyle x_{i},x_{j}\in \mathbb {R} ^{d}} are assigned to the same bin is proportional to K ( x i , x j ) {\displaystyle K(x_{i},x_{j})} . The inner product between a pair of transformed points is proportional to the number of times the two points are binned together, and is therefore an unbiased estimate of K ( x i , x j ) {\displaystyle K(x_{i},x_{j})} . Since this mapping is not smooth and uses the proximity between input points, Random Binning Features works well for approximating kernels that depend only on the L 1 {\displaystyle L_{1}} distance between datapoints. === Orthogonal random features === Orthogonal random features uses a random orthogonal matrix instead of a random Fourier matrix. == Historical context == In NIPS 2006, deep learning had just become competitive with linear models like PCA and linear SVMs for large datasets, and people speculated about whether it could compete with kernel SVMs. However, there was no way to train kernel SVM on large datasets. The two authors developed the random feature method to train those. It was then found that the O ( 1 / D ) {\displaystyle O(1/D)} variance bound did not match practice: the variance bound predicts that approximation to within 0.01 {\displaystyle 0.01} requires D ∼ 10 4 {\displaystyle D\sim 10^{4}} , but in practice required only ∼ 10 2 {\displaystyle \sim 10^{2}} . Attempting to discover what caused this led to the subsequent two papers.

  Read more →
• 

  IruSoft

  IruSoft (Arabic: آيروسوفت) is an insurance regulatory platform designated for licensing, supervision and inspection of the insurance sector within a country. The platform introduced unique supervision-technology (suptech), insurance-technology (insurtech) and regulatory-technology (regtech) automated modules by which a regulator requires less resources to ensure fairness, transparency and competition and to prevent conflicts of interest in the sector. IruSoft was founded by Abdullah Al-Salloum and owned by the Insurance Regulatory Unit in Kuwait. The Insurance Regulatory Unit optimized processing insurance-sector's customer complaints by issuing Resolution No. (1) of 2022 that introduced IruSoft's complaints public module; an automated resolution center, by which the process of receiving submitted complaints, passing them on to the platforms of licensed insurance companies, tracking matter-related discussions and updates and getting them escalated if unresolved to be discussed by a committee assigned by the unit is integrally automated and analyzed for better key performance indicators.

  Read more →
• 

  Representation collapse

  Representation collapse is a phenomenon in machine learning and representation learning where a model maps different inputs to the same or very similar embeddings, which means it loses important information about how the data is spread out. It is frequently encountered in self-supervised learning, especially within contrastive and non-contrastive frameworks, when training objectives or model architectures do not maintain variance across representations. Collapse results in degenerate solutions characterized by uninformative learned features, significantly impairing downstream task performance. Various techniques have been proposed to mitigate representation collapse, including the use of negative samples, architectural asymmetry, stop-gradient operations, variance regularization, and redundancy reduction objectives, as seen in methods such as SimCLR, BYOL, and VICReg. Comprehending and averting representation collapse is regarded as a fundamental challenge in the advancement of stable and efficient self-supervised learning systems.

  Read more →
• 

  Empirical dynamic modeling

  Empirical dynamic modeling (EDM) is a framework for analysis and prediction of nonlinear dynamical systems. Applications include population dynamics, ecosystem service, medicine, neuroscience, dynamical systems, geophysics, and human-computer interaction. EDM was originally developed by Robert May and George Sugihara. It can be considered a methodology for data modeling, predictive analytics, dynamical system analysis, machine learning and time series analysis. == Description == Mathematical models have tremendous power to describe observations of real-world systems. They are routinely used to test hypothesis, explain mechanisms and predict future outcomes. However, real-world systems are often nonlinear and multidimensional, in some instances rendering explicit equation-based modeling problematic. Empirical models, which infer patterns and associations from the data instead of using hypothesized equations, represent a natural and flexible framework for modeling complex dynamics. Donald DeAngelis and Simeon Yurek illustrated that canonical statistical models are ill-posed when applied to nonlinear dynamical systems. A hallmark of nonlinear dynamics is state-dependence: system states are related to previous states governing transition from one state to another. EDM operates in this space, the multidimensional state-space of system dynamics rather than on one-dimensional observational time series. EDM does not presume relationships among states, for example, a functional dependence, but projects future states from localised, neighboring states. EDM is thus a state-space, nearest-neighbors paradigm where system dynamics are inferred from states derived from observational time series. This provides a model-free representation of the system naturally encompassing nonlinear dynamics. A cornerstone of EDM is recognition that time series observed from a dynamical system can be transformed into higher-dimensional state-spaces by time-delay embedding with Takens's theorem. The state-space models are evaluated based on in-sample fidelity to observations, conventionally with Pearson correlation between predictions and observations. == Methods == Primary EDM algorithms include Simplex projection, Sequential locally weighted global linear maps (S-Map) projection, Multivariate embedding in Simplex or S-Map, Convergent cross mapping (CCM), and Multiview Embeding, described below. Nearest neighbors are found according to: NN ( y , X , k ) = ‖ X N i E − y ‖ ≤ ‖ X N j E − y ‖ if 1 ≤ i ≤ j ≤ k {\displaystyle {\text{NN}}(y,X,k)=\|X_{N_{i}}^{E}-y\|\leq \|X_{N_{j}}^{E}-y\|{\text{ if }}1\leq i\leq j\leq k} === Simplex === Simplex projection is a nearest neighbor projection. It locates the k {\displaystyle k} nearest neighbors to the location in the state-space from which a prediction is desired. To minimize the number of free parameters k {\displaystyle k} is typically set to E + 1 {\displaystyle E+1} defining an E + 1 {\displaystyle E+1} dimensional simplex in the state-space. The prediction is computed as the average of the weighted phase-space simplex projected T p {\displaystyle Tp} points ahead. Each neighbor is weighted proportional to their distance to the projection origin vector in the state-space. Find k {\displaystyle k} nearest neighbor: N k ← NN ( y , X , k ) {\displaystyle N_{k}\gets {\text{NN}}(y,X,k)} Define the distance scale: d ← ‖ X N 1 E − y ‖ {\displaystyle d\gets \|X_{N_{1}}^{E}-y\|} Compute weights: For{ i = 1 , … , k {\displaystyle i=1,\dots ,k} } : w i ← exp ⁡ ( − ‖ X N i E − y ‖ / d ) {\displaystyle w_{i}\gets \exp(-\|X_{N_{i}}^{E}-y\|/d)} Average of state-space simplex: y ^ ← ∑ i = 1 k ( w i X N i + T p ) / ∑ i = 1 k w i {\displaystyle {\hat {y}}\gets \sum _{i=1}^{k}\left(w_{i}X_{N_{i}+T_{p}}\right)/\sum _{i=1}^{k}w_{i}} === S-Map === S-Map extends the state-space prediction in Simplex from an average of the E + 1 {\displaystyle E+1} nearest neighbors to a linear regression fit to all neighbors, but localised with an exponential decay kernel. The exponential localisation function is F ( θ ) = exp ( − θ d / D ) {\displaystyle F(\theta )={\text{exp}}(-\theta d/D)} , where d {\displaystyle d} is the neighbor distance and D {\displaystyle D} the mean distance. In this way, depending on the value of θ {\displaystyle \theta } , neighbors close to the prediction origin point have a higher weight than those further from it, such that a local linear approximation to the nonlinear system is reasonable. This localisation ability allows one to identify an optimal local scale, in-effect quantifying the degree of state dependence, and hence nonlinearity of the system. Another feature of S-Map is that for a properly fit model, the regression coefficients between variables have been shown to approximate the gradient (directional derivative) of variables along the manifold. These Jacobians represent the time-varying interaction strengths between system variables. Find k {\displaystyle k} nearest neighbor: N ← NN ( y , X , k ) {\displaystyle N\gets {\text{NN}}(y,X,k)} Sum of distances: D ← 1 k ∑ i = 1 k ‖ X N i E − y ‖ {\displaystyle D\gets {\frac {1}{k}}\sum _{i=1}^{k}\|X_{N_{i}}^{E}-y\|} Compute weights: For{ i = 1 , … , k {\displaystyle i=1,\dots ,k} } : w i ← exp ⁡ ( − θ ‖ X N i E − y ‖ / D ) {\displaystyle w_{i}\gets \exp(-\theta \|X_{N_{i}}^{E}-y\|/D)} Reweighting matrix: W ← diag ( w i ) {\displaystyle W\gets {\text{diag}}(w_{i})} Design matrix: A ← [ 1 X N 1 X N 1 − 1 … X N 1 − E + 1 1 X N 2 X N 2 − 1 … X N 2 − E + 1 ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ 1 X N k X N k − 1 … X N k − E + 1 ] {\displaystyle A\gets {\begin{bmatrix}1&X_{N_{1}}&X_{N_{1}-1}&\dots &X_{N_{1}-E+1}\\1&X_{N_{2}}&X_{N_{2}-1}&\dots &X_{N_{2}-E+1}\\\vdots &\vdots &\vdots &\ddots &\vdots \\1&X_{N_{k}}&X_{N_{k}-1}&\dots &X_{N_{k}-E+1}\end{bmatrix}}} Weighted design matrix: A ← W A {\displaystyle A\gets WA} Response vector at T p {\displaystyle Tp} : b ← [ X N 1 + T p X N 2 + T p ⋮ X N k + T p ] {\displaystyle b\gets {\begin{bmatrix}X_{N_{1}+T_{p}}\\X_{N_{2}+T_{p}}\\\vdots \\X_{N_{k}+T_{p}}\end{bmatrix}}} Weighted response vector: b ← W b {\displaystyle b\gets Wb} Least squares solution (SVD): c ^ ← argmin c ‖ A c − b ‖ 2 2 {\displaystyle {\hat {c}}\gets {\text{argmin}}_{c}\|Ac-b\|_{2}^{2}} Local linear model c ^ {\displaystyle {\hat {c}}} is prediction: y ^ ← c ^ 0 + ∑ i = 1 E c ^ i y i {\displaystyle {\hat {y}}\gets {\hat {c}}_{0}+\sum _{i=1}^{E}{\hat {c}}_{i}y_{i}} === Multivariate Embedding === Multivariate Embedding recognizes that time-delay embeddings are not the only valid state-space construction. In Simplex and S-Map one can generate a state-space from observational vectors, or time-delay embeddings of a single observational time series, or both. === Convergent Cross Mapping === Convergent cross mapping (CCM) leverages a corollary to the Generalized Takens Theorem that it should be possible to cross predict or cross map between variables observed from the same system. Suppose that in some dynamical system involving variables X {\displaystyle X} and Y {\displaystyle Y} , X {\displaystyle X} causes Y {\displaystyle Y} . Since X {\displaystyle X} and Y {\displaystyle Y} belong to the same dynamical system, their reconstructions (via embeddings) M x {\displaystyle M_{x}} , and M y {\displaystyle M_{y}} , also map to the same system. The causal variable X {\displaystyle X} leaves a signature on the affected variable Y {\displaystyle Y} , and consequently, the reconstructed states based on Y {\displaystyle Y} can be used to cross predict values of X {\displaystyle X} . CCM leverages this property to infer causality by predicting X {\displaystyle X} using the M y {\displaystyle M_{y}} library of points (or vice versa for the other direction of causality), while assessing improvements in cross map predictability as larger and larger random samplings of M y {\displaystyle M_{y}} are used. If the prediction skill of X {\displaystyle X} increases and saturates as the entire M y {\displaystyle M_{y}} is used, this provides evidence that X {\displaystyle X} is casually influencing Y {\displaystyle Y} . === Multiview Embedding === Multiview Embedding is a Dimensionality reduction technique where a large number of state-space time series vectors are combitorially assessed towards maximal model predictability. == Extensions == Extensions to EDM techniques include: Generalized Theorems for Nonlinear State Space Reconstruction Extended Convergent Cross Mapping Dynamic stability S-Map regularization Visual analytics with EDM Convergent Cross Sorting Expert system with EDM hybrid Sliding windows based on the extended convergent cross-mapping Empirical Mode Modeling Accounting for missing data and variable step sizes Accounting for observation noise Hierarchical Bayesian EDM via Gaussian processes Intelligent and Adaptive Control Optimal control via Empirical dynamic programming Multiview distance regularised S-map

  Read more →