Concurrent MetateM is a multi-agent language in which each agent is programmed using a set of (augmented) temporal logic specifications of the behaviour it should exhibit. These specifications are executed directly to generate the behaviour of the agent. As a result, there is no risk of invalidating the logic as with systems where logical specification must first be translated to a lower-level implementation. The root of the MetateM concept is Gabbay's separation theorem; any arbitrary temporal logic formula can be rewritten in a logically equivalent past → future form. Execution proceeds by a process of continually matching rules against a history, and firing those rules when antecedents are satisfied. Any instantiated future-time consequents become commitments which must subsequently be satisfied, iteratively generating a model for the formula made up of the program rules. == Temporal Connectives == The Temporal Connectives of Concurrent MetateM can divided into two categories, as follows: Strict past time connectives: '●' (weak last), '◎' (strong last), '◆' (was), '■' (heretofore), 'S' (since), and 'Z' (zince, or weak since). Present and future time connectives: '◯' (next), '◇' (sometime), '□' (always), 'U' (until), and 'W' (unless). The connectives {◎,●,◆,■,◯,◇,□} are unary; the remainder are binary. === Strict past time connectives === ==== Weak last ==== ●ρ is satisfied now if ρ was true in the previous time. If ●ρ is interpreted at the beginning of time, it is satisfied despite there being no actual previous time. Hence "weak" last. ==== Strong last ==== ◎ρ is satisfied now if ρ was true in the previous time. If ◎ρ is interpreted at the beginning of time, it is not satisfied because there is no actual previous time. Hence "strong" last. ==== Was ==== ◆ρ is satisfied now if ρ was true in any previous moment in time. ==== Heretofore ==== ■ρ is satisfied now if ρ was true in every previous moment in time. ==== Since ==== ρSψ is satisfied now if ψ is true at any previous moment and ρ is true at every moment after that moment. ==== Zince, or weak since ==== ρZψ is satisfied now if (ψ is true at any previous moment and ρ is true at every moment after that moment) OR ψ has not happened in the past. === Present and future time connectives === ==== Next ==== ◯ρ is satisfied now if ρ is true in the next moment in time. ==== Sometime ==== ◇ρ is satisfied now if ρ is true now or in any future moment in time. ==== Always ==== □ρ is satisfied now if ρ is true now and in every future moment in time. ==== Until ==== ρUψ is satisfied now if ψ is true at any future moment and ρ is true at every moment prior. ==== Unless ==== ρWψ is satisfied now if (ψ is true at any future moment and ρ is true at every moment prior) OR ψ does not happen in the future.
The following tables are a comparison of machine learning software such as software frameworks, libraries, and computer programs used for machine learning. == Machine learning software == == Other comparisons == == Machine learning helper libraries and platforms == Apache OpenNLP — natural language processing toolkit CUDA — GPU computing platform used to accelerate machine learning and deep learning workloads Horovod — distributed training framework for deep learning Hugging Face Transformers — library of pretrained transformer models built on other machine learning frameworks Kubeflow — machine learning platform for Kubernetes Mallet — toolkit for natural language processing and text analysis NumPy — numerical computing library used in machine learning OpenCV — computer vision library with machine learning functions ONNX — open format for representing machine learning models pandas — data analysis and data preparation library used in machine learning PlaidML — tensor compiler and backend for machine learning frameworks Polars — Dataframe library used for machine learning data preparation and analysis PyArrow — columnar data library used in machine learning data processing ROOT (TMVA) — data analysis framework with machine learning tools SciPy — scientific computing and optimization library used in machine learning == Online development environments for machine learning == Google Colab — hosted Jupyter Notebook environment commonly used for machine learning and deep learning JupyterLab — notebook-based development environment for machine learning and data science Jupyter Notebook — interactive notebook environment used for machine learning and data science Kaggle — online data science and machine learning platform
AI Mode is a search feature used within Google Search. In March 2025, Google introduced an experimental "AI Mode" within its search platform, enabling users to input complex, multi-part queries and receive comprehensive, AI-generated responses. This feature uses Google's Gemini model, which enhances the system's reasoning capabilities and supports multimodal inputs, including text, images, and voice. Users need to be signed in to be able to use the image generation features. Initially, AI Mode was available to Google One AI Premium subscribers in the United States, who could access it through the Search Labs platform. This phased rollout allowed Google to gather user feedback and refine the feature before a broader release.
Hugging Face, Inc., is an American company based in New York City that develops computation tools for building applications using machine learning. Its transformers library built for natural language processing applications and its platform allow users to share machine learning models and datasets and showcase their work. == History == === Founding === The company was founded in 2016 by French entrepreneurs Clément Delangue, Julien Chaumond, and Thomas Wolf in New York City, originally as a company that developed a chatbot app targeted at teenagers. The company was named after the U+1F917 🤗 HUGGING FACE emoji. After open sourcing the model behind the chatbot, the company pivoted to focus on being a platform for machine learning. === AI boom === On April 28, 2021, the company launched the BigScience Research Workshop in collaboration with several other research groups to release an open large language model. In 2022, the workshop concluded with the announcement of BLOOM, a multilingual large language model with 176 billion parameters. In February 2023, the company announced partnership with Amazon Web Services (AWS) which would allow Hugging Face's products to be available to AWS customers to use them as the building blocks for their custom applications. The company also said the next generation of BLOOM will be run on Trainium, a proprietary machine learning chip created by AWS. In June 2024, the company announced, along with Meta and Scaleway, their launch of a new AI accelerator program for European startups. The initiative aimed to help startups integrate open foundation models into their products, accelerating the EU AI ecosystem. The program, based at STATION F in Paris, ran from September 2024 to February 2025. Selected startups received mentoring, and access to AI models and tools and Scaleway's computing power. On September 23, 2024, to further the International Decade of Indigenous Languages, Hugging Face teamed up with Meta and UNESCO to launch a new online language translator. It was built on Meta's No Language Left Behind open-source AI model, enabling free text translation across 200 languages, including many low-resource languages. In April 2025, Hugging Face announced that they acquired a humanoid robotics startup, Pollen Robotics, based in France and founded by Matthieu Lapeyre and Pierre Rouanet in 2016. In an X tweet, Delangue shared his vision to "make Artificial Intelligence robotics Open Source". === Cyberattacks === In early 2026, hackers hijacked the Hugging Face platform to launch Android-targeted attacks involving "powerful malware" which could completely take over a compromised target.
Concurrent MetateM is a multi-agent language in which each agent is programmed using a set of (augmented) temporal logic specifications of the behaviour it should exhibit. These specifications are executed directly to generate the behaviour of the agent. As a result, there is no risk of invalidating the logic as with systems where logical specification must first be translated to a lower-level implementation. The root of the MetateM concept is Gabbay's separation theorem; any arbitrary temporal logic formula can be rewritten in a logically equivalent past → future form. Execution proceeds by a process of continually matching rules against a history, and firing those rules when antecedents are satisfied. Any instantiated future-time consequents become commitments which must subsequently be satisfied, iteratively generating a model for the formula made up of the program rules. == Temporal Connectives == The Temporal Connectives of Concurrent MetateM can divided into two categories, as follows: Strict past time connectives: '●' (weak last), '◎' (strong last), '◆' (was), '■' (heretofore), 'S' (since), and 'Z' (zince, or weak since). Present and future time connectives: '◯' (next), '◇' (sometime), '□' (always), 'U' (until), and 'W' (unless). The connectives {◎,●,◆,■,◯,◇,□} are unary; the remainder are binary. === Strict past time connectives === ==== Weak last ==== ●ρ is satisfied now if ρ was true in the previous time. If ●ρ is interpreted at the beginning of time, it is satisfied despite there being no actual previous time. Hence "weak" last. ==== Strong last ==== ◎ρ is satisfied now if ρ was true in the previous time. If ◎ρ is interpreted at the beginning of time, it is not satisfied because there is no actual previous time. Hence "strong" last. ==== Was ==== ◆ρ is satisfied now if ρ was true in any previous moment in time. ==== Heretofore ==== ■ρ is satisfied now if ρ was true in every previous moment in time. ==== Since ==== ρSψ is satisfied now if ψ is true at any previous moment and ρ is true at every moment after that moment. ==== Zince, or weak since ==== ρZψ is satisfied now if (ψ is true at any previous moment and ρ is true at every moment after that moment) OR ψ has not happened in the past. === Present and future time connectives === ==== Next ==== ◯ρ is satisfied now if ρ is true in the next moment in time. ==== Sometime ==== ◇ρ is satisfied now if ρ is true now or in any future moment in time. ==== Always ==== □ρ is satisfied now if ρ is true now and in every future moment in time. ==== Until ==== ρUψ is satisfied now if ψ is true at any future moment and ρ is true at every moment prior. ==== Unless ==== ρWψ is satisfied now if (ψ is true at any future moment and ρ is true at every moment prior) OR ψ does not happen in the future.
Description logics (DL) are a family of formal knowledge representation languages. Many DLs are more expressive than propositional logic but less expressive than first-order logic. In contrast to the latter, the core reasoning problems for DLs are (usually) decidable, and efficient decision procedures have been designed and implemented for these problems. There are general, spatial, temporal, spatiotemporal, and fuzzy description logics, and each description logic features a different balance between expressive power and reasoning complexity by supporting different sets of mathematical constructors. DLs are used in artificial intelligence to describe and reason about the relevant concepts of an application domain (known as terminological knowledge). It is of particular importance in providing a logical formalism for ontologies and the Semantic Web: the Web Ontology Language (OWL) and its profiles are based on DLs. A major area of application of DLs and OWL is in biomedical informatics, where they assist in the codification of biomedical knowledge. DLs and OWL are also applied in other domains, including defense, climate modeling, and large-scale industrial knowledge graphs. == Introduction == A DL models concepts, roles and individuals, and their relationships. The fundamental modeling concept of a DL is the axiom—a logical statement relating roles and/or concepts. This is a key difference from the frames paradigm where a frame specification declares and completely defines a class. == Nomenclature == === Terminology compared to FOL and OWL === The description logic community uses different terminology than the first-order logic (FOL) community for operationally equivalent notions; some examples are given below. The Web Ontology Language (OWL) uses again a different terminology, also given in the table below. === Naming convention === There are many varieties of description logics and there is an informal naming convention, roughly describing the operators allowed. The expressivity is encoded in the label for a logic starting with one of the following basic logics: Followed by any of the following extensions: ==== Exceptions ==== Some canonical DLs that do not exactly fit this convention are: ==== Examples ==== As an example, A L C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {ALC}}} is a centrally important description logic from which comparisons with other varieties can be made. A L C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {ALC}}} is simply A L {\displaystyle {\mathcal {AL}}} with complement of any concept allowed, not just atomic concepts. A L C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {ALC}}} is used instead of the equivalent A L U E {\displaystyle {\mathcal {ALUE}}} . A further example, the description logic S H I Q {\displaystyle {\mathcal {SHIQ}}} is the logic A L C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {ALC}}} plus extended cardinality restrictions, and transitive and inverse roles. The naming conventions aren't purely systematic so that the logic A L C O I N {\displaystyle {\mathcal {ALCOIN}}} might be referred to as A L C N I O {\displaystyle {\mathcal {ALCNIO}}} and other abbreviations are also made where possible. The Protégé ontology editor supports S H O I N ( D ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {SHOIN}}^{\mathcal {(D)}}} . Three major biomedical informatics terminology bases, SNOMED CT, GALEN, and GO, are expressible in E L {\displaystyle {\mathcal {EL}}} (with additional role properties). OWL 2 provides the expressiveness of S R O I Q ( D ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {SROIQ}}^{\mathcal {(D)}}} , OWL-DL is based on S H O I N ( D ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {SHOIN}}^{\mathcal {(D)}}} , and for OWL-Lite it is S H I F ( D ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {SHIF}}^{\mathcal {(D)}}} . == History == Description logic was given its current name in the 1980s. Previous to this it was called (chronologically): terminological systems, and concept languages. === Knowledge representation === Frames and semantic networks lack formal (logic-based) semantics. DL was first introduced into knowledge representation (KR) systems to overcome this deficiency. The first DL-based KR system was KL-ONE (by Ronald J. Brachman and Schmolze, 1985). During the '80s other DL-based systems using structural subsumption algorithms were developed including KRYPTON (1983), LOOM (1987), BACK (1988), K-REP (1991) and CLASSIC (1991). This approach featured DL with limited expressiveness but relatively efficient (polynomial time) reasoning. In the early '90s, the introduction of a new tableau based algorithm paradigm allowed efficient reasoning on more expressive DL. DL-based systems using these algorithms — such as KRIS (1991) — show acceptable reasoning performance on typical inference problems even though the worst case complexity is no longer polynomial. From the mid '90s, reasoners were created with good practical performance on very expressive DL with high worst case complexity. Examples from this period include FaCT, RACER (2001), CEL (2005), and KAON 2 (2005). DL reasoners, such as FaCT, FaCT++, RACER, DLP and Pellet, implement the method of analytic tableaux. KAON2 is implemented by algorithms which reduce a SHIQ(D) knowledge base to a disjunctive datalog program. === Semantic web === The DARPA Agent Markup Language (DAML) and Ontology Inference Layer (OIL) ontology languages for the Semantic Web can be viewed as syntactic variants of DL. In particular, the formal semantics and reasoning in OIL use the S H I Q {\displaystyle {\mathcal {SHIQ}}} DL. The DAML+OIL DL was developed as a submission to—and formed the starting point of—the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Web Ontology Working Group. In 2004, the Web Ontology Working Group completed its work by issuing the OWL recommendation. The design of OWL is based on the S H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {SH}}} family of DL with OWL DL and OWL Lite based on S H O I N ( D ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {SHOIN}}^{\mathcal {(D)}}} and S H I F ( D ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {SHIF}}^{\mathcal {(D)}}} respectively. The W3C OWL Working Group began work in 2007 on a refinement of - and extension to - OWL. In 2009, this was completed by the issuance of the OWL2 recommendation. OWL2 is based on the description logic S R O I Q ( D ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {SROIQ}}^{\mathcal {(D)}}} . Practical experience demonstrated that OWL DL lacked several key features necessary to model complex domains. == Modeling == === TBox vs Abox === In DL, a distinction is drawn between the so-called TBox (terminological box) and the ABox (assertional box). In general, the TBox contains sentences describing concept hierarchies (i.e., relations between concepts) while the ABox contains ground sentences stating where in the hierarchy, individuals belong (i.e., relations between individuals and concepts). For example, the statement: belongs in the TBox, while the statement: belongs in the ABox. Note that the TBox/ABox distinction is not significant, in the same sense that the two "kinds" of sentences are not treated differently in first-order logic (which subsumes most DL). When translated into first-order logic, a subsumption axiom like (1) is simply a conditional restriction to unary predicates (concepts) with only variables appearing in it. Clearly, a sentence of this form is not privileged or special over sentences in which only constants ("grounded" values) appear like (2). === Motivation for having Tbox and Abox === So why was the distinction introduced? The primary reason is that the separation can be useful when describing and formulating decision-procedures for various DL. For example, a reasoner might process the TBox and ABox separately, in part because certain key inference problems are tied to one but not the other one ('classification' is related to the TBox, 'instance checking' to the ABox). Another example is that the complexity of the TBox can greatly affect the performance of a given decision-procedure for a certain DL, independently of the ABox. Thus, it is useful to have a way to talk about that specific part of the knowledge base. The secondary reason is that the distinction can make sense from the knowledge base modeler's perspective. It is plausible to distinguish between our conception of terms/concepts in the world (class axioms in the TBox) and particular manifestations of those terms/concepts (instance assertions in the ABox). In the above example: when the hierarchy within a company is the same in every branch but the assignment to employees is different in every department (because there are other people working there), it makes sense to reuse the TBox for different branches that do not use the same ABox. There are two features of description logic that are not shared by most other data description formalisms: DL does not make the unique name assumption (UNA) or the closed-world assumption (CWA). Not having UNA means that two concepts with different names may be allowed by some inference to be shown to be equivalent. Not having CWA, or rather having the open world assumption (OWA) means that
Robot learning is a research field at the intersection of machine learning and robotics. It studies techniques allowing a robot to acquire novel skills or adapt to its environment through learning algorithms. The embodiment of the robot, situated in a physical embedding, provides at the same time specific difficulties (e.g. high-dimensionality, real time constraints for collecting data and learning) and opportunities for guiding the learning process (e.g. sensorimotor synergies, motor primitives). Example of skills that are targeted by learning algorithms include sensorimotor skills such as locomotion, grasping, active object categorization, as well as interactive skills such as joint manipulation of an object with a human peer, and linguistic skills such as the grounded and situated meaning of human language. Learning can happen either through autonomous self-exploration or through guidance from a human teacher, like for example in robot learning by imitation. Robot learning can be closely related to adaptive control, reinforcement learning as well as developmental robotics which considers the problem of autonomous lifelong acquisition of repertoires of skills. While machine learning is frequently used by computer vision algorithms employed in the context of robotics, these applications are usually not referred to as "robot learning". == Imitation learning == Many research groups are developing techniques where robots learn by imitating. This includes various techniques for learning from demonstration (sometimes also referred to as "programming by demonstration") and observational learning. == Sharing learned skills and knowledge == In Tellex's "Million Object Challenge", the goal is robots that learn how to spot and handle simple items and upload their data to the cloud to allow other robots to analyze and use the information. RoboBrain is a knowledge engine for robots which can be freely accessed by any device wishing to carry out a task. The database gathers new information about tasks as robots perform them, by searching the Internet, interpreting natural language text, images, and videos, object recognition as well as interaction. The project is led by Ashutosh Saxena at Stanford University. RoboEarth is a project that has been described as a "World Wide Web for robots" − it is a network and database repository where robots can share information and learn from each other and a cloud for outsourcing heavy computation tasks. The project brings together researchers from five major universities in Germany, the Netherlands and Spain and is backed by the European Union. Google Research, DeepMind, and Google X have decided to allow their robots share their experiences. == Vision-language-action model == Research groups and companies are developing vision-language-action models, foundation models that allow robotic control through the combination of vision and language. Google DeepMind, Figure AI and Hugging Face are actively working on that.
Enterprise cognitive systems (ECS) are part of a broader shift in computing, from a programmatic to a probabilistic approach, called cognitive computing. An Enterprise Cognitive System makes a new class of complex decision support problems computable, where the business context is ambiguous, multi-faceted, and fast-evolving, and what to do in such a situation is usually assessed today by the business user. An ECS is designed to synthesize a business context and link it to the desired outcome. It recommends evidence-based actions to help the end-user achieve the desired outcome. It does so by finding past situations similar to the current situation, and extracting the repeated actions that best influence the desired outcome. While general-purpose cognitive systems can be used for different outputs, prescriptive, suggestive, instructive, or simply entertaining, an enterprise cognitive system is focused on action, not insight, to help in assessing what to do in a complex situation. == Key characteristics == ECS have to be: Adaptive: They must learn as information changes, and as goals and requirements evolve. They must resolve ambiguity and tolerate unpredictability. They must be engineered to feed on dynamic data in real time, or near real time. In the Enterprise, near-real time learning from data requires an agile information federation approach to ingest incremental data updates as they occur, and an unsupervised learning approach to ensure that new best practice is leveraged across the organization in a timely manner. Interactive: They must interact easily with users so that those users can define their needs comfortably. They may also interact with other processors, devices, and Cloud services, as well as with people. In the Enterprise, interactions are controlled via existing workflows and UIs. Therefore, embedding best practices directly into these existing interfaces, in the context of a specific step, is critical to ensure maximum end-user adoption. Iterative and stateful: They must aid in defining a problem by asking questions or finding additional source input if a problem statement is ambiguous or incomplete. They must “remember” previous interactions in a process and return information that is suitable for the specific application at that point in time. In the Enterprise, business context is often structured by a business process, and therefore sufficiently data-rich to make relevant recommendations without significant iterations from the end-user. A stateful memory of overall interactions across communication channels is critical for understanding of context, as a static profile will not capture intent and outcome potential the way behavior does. Contextual: They must understand, identify, and extract contextual elements such as meaning, syntax, time, location, appropriate domain, regulations, user's profile, process, task and goal. They may draw on multiple sources of information, including both structured and unstructured digital information, as well as sensory inputs (visual, gestural, auditory, or sensor-provided). In the Enterprise, Context is fragmented and must be aggregated across data types, sources, and locations. In most business environments, such data is captured in existing enterprise information systems, and the effort is linked to quickly source and unify such information. It is rare to have to directly process sensor, audio or visual data in real-time as direct input into the enterprise cognitive system. Instead, these data types are captured by Enterprise Applications and pre-processed into a binary or text format prior to consumption by the System. == Business applications powered by an ECS == Bottlenose – trends and brands monitoring Cybereason – security threat monitoring Dataminr – social media monitoring
Inception is a family of convolutional neural network (CNN) for computer vision, introduced by researchers at Google in 2014 as GoogLeNet (later renamed Inception v1). The series was historically important as an early CNN that separates the stem (data ingest), body (data processing), and head (prediction), an architectural design that persists in all modern CNN. == Version history == === Inception v1 === In 2014, a team at Google developed the GoogLeNet architecture, an instance of which won the ImageNet Large-Scale Visual Recognition Challenge 2014 (ILSVRC14). The name came from the LeNet of 1998, since both LeNet and GoogLeNet are CNNs. They also called it "Inception" after a "we need to go deeper" internet meme, a phrase from Inception (2010) the film. Because later, more versions were released, the original Inception architecture was renamed again as "Inception v1". The models and the code were released under Apache 2.0 license on GitHub. The Inception v1 architecture is a deep CNN composed of 22 layers. Most of these layers were "Inception modules". The original paper stated that Inception modules are a "logical culmination" of Network in Network and (Arora et al, 2014). Since Inception v1 is deep, it suffered from the vanishing gradient problem. The team solved it by using two "auxiliary classifiers", which are linear-softmax classifiers inserted at 1/3-deep and 2/3-deep within the network, and the loss function is a weighted sum of all three: L = 0.3 L a u x , 1 + 0.3 L a u x , 2 + L r e a l {\displaystyle L=0.3L_{aux,1}+0.3L_{aux,2}+L_{real}} These were removed after training was complete. This was later solved by the ResNet architecture. The architecture consists of three parts stacked on top of one another: The stem (data ingestion): The first few convolutional layers perform data preprocessing to downscale images to a smaller size. The body (data processing): The next many Inception modules perform the bulk of data processing. The head (prediction): The final fully-connected layer and softmax produces a probability distribution for image classification. This structure is used in most modern CNN architectures. === Inception v2 === Inception v2 was released in 2015, in a paper that is more famous for proposing batch normalization. It had 13.6 million parameters. It improves on Inception v1 by adding batch normalization, and removing dropout and local response normalization which they found became unnecessary when batch normalization is used. === Inception v3 === Inception v3 was released in 2016. It improves on Inception v2 by using factorized convolutions. As an example, a single 5×5 convolution can be factored into 3×3 stacked on top of another 3×3. Both has a receptive field of size 5×5. The 5×5 convolution kernel has 25 parameters, compared to just 18 in the factorized version. Thus, the 5×5 convolution is strictly more powerful than the factorized version. However, this power is not necessarily needed. Empirically, the research team found that factorized convolutions help. It also uses a form of dimension-reduction by concatenating the output from a convolutional layer and a pooling layer. As an example, a tensor of size 35 × 35 × 320 {\displaystyle 35\times 35\times 320} can be downscaled by a convolution with stride 2 to 17 × 17 × 320 {\displaystyle 17\times 17\times 320} , and by maxpooling with pool size 2 × 2 {\displaystyle 2\times 2} to 17 × 17 × 320 {\displaystyle 17\times 17\times 320} . These are then concatenated to 17 × 17 × 640 {\displaystyle 17\times 17\times 640} . Other than this, it also removed the lowest auxiliary classifier during training. They found that the auxiliary head worked as a form of regularization. They also proposed label-smoothing regularization in classification. For an image with label c {\displaystyle c} , instead of making the model to predict the probability distribution δ c = ( 0 , 0 , … , 0 , 1 ⏟ c -th entry , 0 , … , 0 ) {\displaystyle \delta _{c}=(0,0,\dots ,0,\underbrace {1} _{c{\text{-th entry}}},0,\dots ,0)} , they made the model predict the smoothed distribution ( 1 − ϵ ) δ c + ϵ / K {\displaystyle (1-\epsilon )\delta _{c}+\epsilon /K} where K {\displaystyle K} is the total number of classes. === Inception v4 === In 2017, the team released Inception v4, Inception ResNet v1, and Inception ResNet v2. Inception v4 is an incremental update with even more factorized convolutions, and other complications that were empirically found to improve benchmarks. Inception ResNet v1 and v2 are both modifications of Inception v4, where residual connections are added to each Inception module, inspired by the ResNet architecture. === Xception === Xception ("Extreme Inception") was published in 2017. It is a linear stack of depthwise separable convolution layers with residual connections. The design was proposed on the hypothesis that in a CNN, the cross-channels correlations and spatial correlations in the feature maps can be entirely decoupled. Training each network took 3 days on 60 K80 GPUs, or approximately 0.5 petaFLOP-days.
Domain adaptation is a field associated with machine learning and transfer learning. It addresses the challenge of training a model on one data distribution (the source domain) and applying it to a related but different data distribution (the target domain). A common example is spam filtering, where a model trained on emails from one user (source domain) is adapted to handle emails for another user with significantly different patterns (target domain). Domain adaptation techniques can also leverage unrelated data sources to improve learning. When multiple source distributions are involved, the problem extends to multi-source domain adaptation. Domain adaptation is a specific type of transfer learning. According to the taxonomy laid out by Pan and Yang (2010), it falls into the category of transductive transfer learning. In this setting, the source and target tasks are the same (e.g., both are object recognition), but the domains differ (different marginal distributions). This distinguishes it from inductive transfer learning (where labeled data is available for the target task) and unsupervised transfer learning (where labels are unavailable in both domains). == Classification of domain adaptation problems == Domain adaptation setups are classified in two different ways: according to the distribution shift between the domains, and according to the available data from the target domain. === Distribution shifts === Common distribution shifts are classified as follows: Covariate Shift occurs when the input distributions of the source and destination change, but the relationship between inputs and labels remains unchanged. The above-mentioned spam filtering example typically falls in this category. Namely, the distributions (patterns) of emails may differ between the domains, but emails labeled as spam in the one domain should similarly be labeled in another. Prior Shift (Label Shift) occurs when the label distribution differs between the source and target datasets, while the conditional distribution of features given labels remains the same. An example is a classifier of hair color in images from Italy (source domain) and Norway (target domain). The proportions of hair colors (labels) differ, but images within classes like blond and black-haired populations remain consistent across domains. A classifier for the Norway population can exploit this prior knowledge of class proportions to improve its estimates. Concept Shift (Conditional Shift) refers to changes in the relationship between features and labels, even if the input distribution remains the same. For instance, in medical diagnosis, the same symptoms (inputs) may indicate entirely different diseases (labels) in different populations (domains). === Data available during training === Domain adaptation problems typically assume that some data from the target domain is available during training. Problems can be classified according to the type of this available data: Unsupervised: Unlabeled data from the target domain is available, but no labeled data. In the above-mentioned example of spam filtering, this corresponds to the case where emails from the target domain (user) are available, but they are not labeled as spam. Domain adaptation methods can benefit from such unlabeled data, by comparing its distribution (patterns) with the labeled source domain data. Semi-supervised: Most data that is available from the target domain is unlabelled, but some labeled data is also available. In the above-mentioned case of spam filter design, this corresponds to the case that the target user has labeled some emails as being spam or not. Supervised: All data that is available from the target domain is labeled. In this case, domain adaptation reduces to refinement of the source domain predictor. In the above-mentioned example classification of hair-color from images, this could correspond to the refinement of a network already trained on a large dataset of labeled images from Italy, using newly available labeled images from Norway. == Formalization == Let X {\displaystyle X} be the input space (or description space) and let Y {\displaystyle Y} be the output space (or label space). The objective of a machine learning algorithm is to learn a mathematical model (a hypothesis) h : X → Y {\displaystyle h:X\to Y} able to attach a label from Y {\displaystyle Y} to an example from X {\displaystyle X} . This model is learned from a learning sample S = { ( x i , y i ) ∈ ( X × Y ) } i = 1 m {\displaystyle S=\{(x_{i},y_{i})\in (X\times Y)\}_{i=1}^{m}} . Usually in supervised learning (without domain adaptation), we suppose that the examples ( x i , y i ) ∈ S {\displaystyle (x_{i},y_{i})\in S} are drawn i.i.d. from a distribution D S {\displaystyle D_{S}} of support X × Y {\displaystyle X\times Y} (unknown and fixed). The objective is then to learn h {\displaystyle h} (from S {\displaystyle S} ) such that it commits the least error possible for labelling new examples coming from the distribution D S {\displaystyle D_{S}} . The main difference between supervised learning and domain adaptation is that in the latter situation we study two different (but related) distributions D S {\displaystyle D_{S}} and D T {\displaystyle D_{T}} on X × Y {\displaystyle X\times Y} . The domain adaptation task then consists of the transfer of knowledge from the source domain D S {\displaystyle D_{S}} to the target one D T {\displaystyle D_{T}} . The goal is then to learn h {\displaystyle h} (from labeled or unlabelled samples coming from the two domains) such that it commits as little error as possible on the target domain D T {\displaystyle D_{T}} . The major issue is the following: if a model is learned from a source domain, what is its capacity to correctly label data coming from the target domain? == Four algorithmic principles == === Reweighting algorithms === The objective is to reweight the source labeled sample such that it "looks like" the target sample (in terms of the error measure considered). === Iterative algorithms === A method for adapting consists in iteratively "auto-labeling" the target examples. The principle is simple: a model h {\displaystyle h} is learned from the labeled examples; h {\displaystyle h} automatically labels some target examples; a new model is learned from the new labeled examples. Note that there exist other iterative approaches, but they usually need target labeled examples. === Search of a common representation space === The goal is to find or construct a common representation space for the two domains. The objective is to obtain a space in which the domains are close to each other while keeping good performances on the source labeling task. This can be achieved through the use of Adversarial machine learning techniques where feature representations from samples in different domains are encouraged to be indistinguishable. === Hierarchical Bayesian Model === The goal is to construct a Bayesian hierarchical model p ( n ) {\displaystyle p(n)} , which is essentially a factorization model for counts n {\displaystyle n} , to derive domain-dependent latent representations allowing both domain-specific and globally shared latent factors. == Software packages == Several compilations of domain adaptation and transfer learning algorithms have been implemented over the past decades: SKADA (Python) ADAPT (Python) TLlib (Python) Domain-Adaptation-Toolbox (MATLAB)
In scientific disciplines, a toy problem or a puzzlelike problem is a problem that is not of immediate scientific interest, yet is used as an expository device to illustrate a trait that may be shared by other, more complicated, instances of the problem, or as a way to explain a particular, more general, problem solving technique. A toy problem is useful to test and demonstrate methodologies. Researchers can use toy problems to compare the performance of different algorithms. They are also good for game designing. For instance, while engineering a large system, the large problem is often broken down into many smaller toy problems which have been well understood in detail. Often these problems distill a few important aspects of complicated problems so that they can be studied in isolation. Toy problems are thus often very useful in providing intuition about specific phenomena in more complicated problems. As an example, in the field of artificial intelligence, classical puzzles, games and problems are often used as toy problems. These include sliding-block puzzles, N-Queens problem, missionaries and cannibals problem, tic-tac-toe, chess, Tower of Hanoi and others.
Case-based reasoning (CBR), broadly construed, is the process of solving new problems based on the solutions of similar past problems. In everyday life, an auto mechanic who fixes an engine by recalling another car that exhibited similar symptoms is using case-based reasoning. A lawyer who advocates a particular outcome in a trial based on legal precedents or a judge who creates case law is using case-based reasoning. So, too, an engineer copying working elements of nature (practicing biomimicry) is treating nature as a database of solutions to problems. Case-based reasoning is a prominent type of analogy solution making. It has been argued that case-based reasoning is not only a powerful method for computer reasoning, but also a pervasive behavior in everyday human problem solving; or, more radically, that all reasoning is based on past cases personally experienced. This view is related to prototype theory, which is most deeply explored in cognitive science. == Process == Case-based reasoning has been formalized for purposes of computer reasoning as a four-step process: Retrieve: Given a target problem, retrieve cases relevant to solving it from memory. A case consists of a problem, its solution, and, typically, annotations about how the solution was derived. For example, suppose Fred wants to prepare blueberry pancakes. Being a novice cook, the most relevant experience he can recall is one in which he successfully made plain pancakes. The procedure he followed for making the plain pancakes, together with justifications for decisions made along the way, constitutes Fred's retrieved case. Reuse: Map the solution from the previous case to the target problem. This may involve adapting the solution as needed to fit the new situation. In the pancake example, Fred must adapt his retrieved solution to include the addition of blueberries. Revise: Having mapped the previous solution to the target situation, test the new solution in the real world (or a simulation) and, if necessary, revise. Suppose Fred adapted his pancake solution by adding blueberries to the batter. After mixing, he discovers that the batter has turned blue – an undesired effect. This suggests the following revision: delay the addition of blueberries until after the batter has been ladled into the pan. Retain: After the solution has been successfully adapted to the target problem, store the resulting experience as a new case in memory. Fred, accordingly, records his new-found procedure for making blueberry pancakes, thereby enriching his set of stored experiences, and better preparing him for future pancake-making demands. == Comparison to other methods == At first glance, CBR may seem similar to the rule induction algorithms of machine learning. Like a rule-induction algorithm, CBR starts with a set of cases or training examples; it forms generalizations of these examples, albeit implicit ones, by identifying commonalities between a retrieved case and the target problem. If for instance a procedure for plain pancakes is mapped to blueberry pancakes, a decision is made to use the same basic batter and frying method, thus implicitly generalizing the set of situations under which the batter and frying method can be used. The key difference, however, between the implicit generalization in CBR and the generalization in rule induction lies in when the generalization is made. A rule-induction algorithm draws its generalizations from a set of training examples before the target problem is even known; that is, it performs eager generalization. For instance, if a rule-induction algorithm were given recipes for plain pancakes, Dutch apple pancakes, and banana pancakes as its training examples, it would have to derive, at training time, a set of general rules for making all types of pancakes. It would not be until testing time that it would be given, say, the task of cooking blueberry pancakes. The difficulty for the rule-induction algorithm is in anticipating the different directions in which it should attempt to generalize its training examples. This is in contrast to CBR, which delays (implicit) generalization of its cases until testing time – a strategy of lazy generalization. In the pancake example, CBR has already been given the target problem of cooking blueberry pancakes; thus it can generalize its cases exactly as needed to cover this situation. CBR therefore tends to be a good approach for rich, complex domains in which there are myriad ways to generalize a case. In law, there is often explicit delegation of CBR to courts, recognizing the limits of rule based reasons: limiting delay, limited knowledge of future context, limit of negotiated agreement, etc. While CBR in law and cognitively inspired CBR have long been associated, the former is more clearly an interpolation of rule based reasoning, and judgment, while the latter is more closely tied to recall and process adaptation. The difference is clear in their attitude toward error and appellate review. Another name for case-based reasoning in problem solving is symptomatic strategies. It does require à priori domain knowledge that is gleaned from past experience which established connections between symptoms and causes. This knowledge is referred to as shallow, compiled, evidential, history-based as well as case-based knowledge. This is the strategy most associated with diagnosis by experts. Diagnosis of a problem transpires as a rapid recognition process in which symptoms evoke appropriate situation categories. An expert knows the cause by virtue of having previously encountered similar cases. Case-based reasoning is the most powerful strategy, and that used most commonly. However, the strategy won't work independently with truly novel problems, or where deeper understanding of whatever is taking place is sought. An alternative approach to problem solving is the topographic strategy which falls into the category of deep reasoning. With deep reasoning, in-depth knowledge of a system is used. Topography in this context means a description or an analysis of a structured entity, showing the relations among its elements. Also known as reasoning from first principles, deep reasoning is applied to novel faults when experience-based approaches aren't viable. The topographic strategy is therefore linked to à priori domain knowledge that is developed from a more a fundamental understanding of a system, possibly using first-principles knowledge. Such knowledge is referred to as deep, causal or model-based knowledge. Hoc and Carlier noted that symptomatic approaches may need to be supported by topographic approaches because symptoms can be defined in diverse terms. The converse is also true – shallow reasoning can be used abductively to generate causal hypotheses, and deductively to evaluate those hypotheses, in a topographical search. == Criticism == Critics of CBR argue that it is an approach that accepts anecdotal evidence as its main operating principle. Without statistically relevant data for backing and implicit generalization, there is no guarantee that the generalization is correct. However, all inductive reasoning where data is too scarce for statistical relevance is inherently based on anecdotal evidence. == History == CBR traces its roots to the work of Roger Schank and his students at Yale University in the early 1980s. Schank's model of dynamic memory was the basis for the earliest CBR systems: Janet Kolodner's CYRUS and Michael Lebowitz's IPP. Other schools of CBR and closely allied fields emerged in the 1980s, which directed at topics such as legal reasoning, memory-based reasoning (a way of reasoning from examples on massively parallel machines), and combinations of CBR with other reasoning methods. In the 1990s, interest in CBR grew internationally, as evidenced by the establishment of an International Conference on Case-Based Reasoning in 1995, as well as European, German, British, Italian, and other CBR workshops. CBR technology has resulted in the deployment of a number of successful systems, the earliest being Lockheed's CLAVIER, a system for laying out composite parts to be baked in an industrial convection oven. CBR has been used extensively in applications such as the Compaq SMART system and has found a major application area in the health sciences, as well as in structural safety management. There is recent work that develops CBR within a statistical framework and formalizes case-based inference as a specific type of probabilistic inference. Thus, it becomes possible to produce case-based predictions equipped with a certain level of confidence. One description of the difference between CBR and induction from instances is that statistical inference aims to find what tends to make cases similar while CBR aims to encode what suffices to claim similarly.