Double descent in statistics and machine learning is the phenomenon where a model's error rate on the test set initially decreases with the number of parameters, then peaks, then decreases again. This phenomenon has been considered surprising, as it contradicts assumptions about overfitting in classical machine learning. The increase usually occurs near the interpolation threshold, where the number of parameters is the same as the number of training data points (the model is just large enough to fit the training data). Or, more precisely, it is the maximum number of samples on which the model/training procedure achieves approximately on average 0 training error. == History == Early observations of what would later be called double descent in specific models date back to 1989. The term "double descent" was coined by Belkin et. al. in 2019, when the phenomenon gained popularity as a broader concept exhibited by many models. The latter development was prompted by a perceived contradiction between the conventional wisdom that too many parameters in the model result in a significant overfitting error (an extrapolation of the bias–variance tradeoff), and the empirical observations in the 2010s that some modern machine learning techniques tend to perform better with larger models. == Theoretical models == Double descent occurs in linear regression with isotropic Gaussian covariates and isotropic Gaussian noise. A model of double descent at the thermodynamic limit has been analyzed using the replica trick, and the result has been confirmed numerically. A number of works have suggested that double descent can be explained using the concept of effective dimension: While a network may have a large number of parameters, in practice only a subset of those parameters are relevant for generalization performance, as measured by the local Hessian curvature. This explanation is formalized through PAC-Bayes compression-based generalization bounds, which show that less complex models are expected to generalize better under a Solomonoff prior.
Sub-pixel resolution
In digital image processing, sub-pixel resolution can be obtained in images constructed from sources with information exceeding the nominal pixel resolution of said images. == Example == For example, if the image of a ship of length 50 metres (160 ft), viewed side-on, is 500 pixels long, the nominal resolution (pixel size) on the side of the ship facing the camera is 0.1 metres (3.9 in). Now sub-pixel resolution of well resolved features can measure ship movements which are an order of magnitude (10×) smaller. Movement is specifically mentioned here because measuring absolute positions requires an accurate lens model and known reference points within the image to achieve sub-pixel position accuracy. Small movements can however be measured (down to 1 cm) with simple calibration procedures. Specific fit functions often suffer specific bias with respect to image pixel boundaries. Users should therefore take care to avoid these "pixel locking" (or "peak locking") effects. == Determining feasibility == Whether features in a digital image are sharp enough to achieve sub-pixel resolution can be quantified by measuring the point spread function (PSF) of an isolated point in the image. If the image does not contain isolated points, similar methods can be applied to edges in the image. It is also important when attempting sub-pixel resolution to keep image noise to a minimum. This, in the case of a stationary scene, can be measured from a time series of images. Appropriate pixel averaging, through both time (for stationary images) and space (for uniform regions of the image) is often used to prepare the image for sub-pixel resolution measurements.
Distributed artificial intelligence
Distributed Artificial Intelligence (DAI) (also called Decentralized Artificial Intelligence) is a melding of artificial intelligence with distributed computing. From artificial intelligence comes the theory and technology for constructing or analyzing an intelligent system. But where artificial intelligence uses psychology as a source of ideas, inspiration, and metaphor, DAI uses sociology, economics, and management science for inspiration. Where the focus of artificial intelligence is on the individual, the focus of DAI is on the group. Distributed computing provides the computational substrate on which this group focus can occur. Using techniques from artificial intelligence, communication theory, control theory, and interaction theory, it produces a cooperative solution to problems by a decentralized group of computational entities (agents). DAI is closely related to and a predecessor of the field of multi-agent systems. They are distinguished generally by multi-agent systems being open, where the entities might arise from different interests and have individual goals, and distributed artificial-intelligence systems, where the entities have common goals. There are numerous applications and tools. == Definition == Distributed Artificial Intelligence (DAI) is an approach to solving complex learning, planning, and decision-making problems. It is embarrassingly parallel, thus able to exploit large scale computation and spatial distribution of computing resources. These properties allow it to solve problems that require the processing of very large data sets. DAI systems consist of autonomous learning processing nodes (agents), that are distributed, often at a very large scale. DAI nodes can act independently, and partial solutions are integrated by communication between nodes, often asynchronously. By virtue of their scale, DAI systems are robust and elastic, and by necessity, loosely coupled. Furthermore, DAI systems are built to be adaptive to changes in the problem definition or underlying data sets due to the scale and difficulty in redeployment. DAI systems do not require all the relevant data to be aggregated in a single location, in contrast to monolithic or centralized Artificial Intelligence systems, which have tightly coupled and geographically close processing nodes. Therefore, DAI systems often operate on sub-samples or hashed impressions of very large datasets. In addition, the source dataset may change or be updated during the course of the execution of a DAI system. == Development == In 1975 distributed artificial intelligence emerged as a subfield of artificial intelligence that dealt with interactions of intelligent agents. As a scientific discipline, it progressed through a series of workshops in the USA (International Workshop on Distributed Artificial Intelligence, held in 13 editions from 1978 - 1994), Europe (Workshop on Modelling Autonomous Agents in a Multi-Agent World https://link.springer.com/conference/maamaw), and Asia (Multi-Agent and Cooperative Computation Workshop (MACC) https://sites.google.com/view/sig-macc/macc-workshop?authuser=0). Distributed artificial intelligence systems were conceived as a group of intelligent entities, called agents, that interacted by cooperation, by coexistence, or by competition. DAI is categorized into multi-agent systems and distributed problem solving. In multi-agent systems the main focus is how agents coordinate their knowledge and activities. For distributed problem solving the major focus is how the problem is decomposed and the solutions are synthesized. == Goals == The objectives of Distributed Artificial Intelligence are to solve the reasoning, planning, learning and perception problems of artificial intelligence, especially if they require large data, by distributing the problem to autonomous processing nodes (agents). To reach the objective, DAI requires: A distributed system with robust and elastic computation on unreliable and failing resources that are loosely coupled Coordination of the actions and communication of the nodes Subsamples of large data sets and online machine learning There are many reasons for wanting to distribute intelligence or cope with multi-agent systems. Mainstream problems in DAI research include the following: Parallel problem solving: mainly deals with how classic artificial intelligence concepts can be modified, so that multiprocessor systems and clusters of computers can be used to speed up calculation. Distributed problem solving (DPS): the concept of agent, autonomous entities that can communicate with each other, was developed to serve as an abstraction for developing DPS systems. See below for further details. Multi-Agent Based Simulation (MABS): a branch of DAI that builds the foundation for simulations that need to analyze not only phenomena at macro level but also at micro level, as it is in many social simulation scenarios. == Approaches == Two types of DAI has emerged: In Multi-agent systems agents coordinate their knowledge and activities and reason about the processes of coordination. Agents are physical or virtual entities that can act, perceive their environment, and communicate with other agents. An agent is autonomous and has skills to achieve goals. The agents change the state of their environment by their actions. There are a number of different coordination techniques. In distributed problem solving the work is divided among nodes and the knowledge is shared. The main concerns are task decomposition and synthesis of the knowledge and solutions. DAI can apply a bottom-up approach to AI, similar to the subsumption architecture as well as the traditional top-down approach of AI. In addition, DAI can also be a vehicle for emergence. === Challenges === The challenges in Distributed AI are: How to carry out communication and interaction of agents and which communication language or protocols should be used. How to ensure the coherency of agents. How to synthesise the results among 'intelligent agents' group by formulation, description, decomposition and allocation. == Applications and tools == Areas where DAI have been applied are: Electronic commerce, e.g. for trading strategies the DAI system learns financial trading rules from subsamples of very large samples of financial data Networks, e.g. in telecommunications the DAI system controls the cooperative resources in a WLAN network Routing, e.g. model vehicle flow in transport networks Scheduling, e.g. flow shop scheduling where the resource management entity ensures local optimization and cooperation for global and local consistency Search engines, e.g. in LLM federated search like Ithy where document retrieval and analysis are distributed to DAI agents before aggregation Multi-Agent systems, e.g. artificial life, the study of simulated life Electric power systems, e.g. Condition Monitoring Multi-Agent System (COMMAS) applied to transformer condition monitoring, and IntelliTEAM II Automatic Restoration System DAI integration in tools has included: ECStar is a distributed rule-based learning system. == Agents == === Systems: Agents and multi-agents === Notion of Agents: Agents can be described as distinct entities with standard boundaries and interfaces designed for problem solving. Notion of Multi-Agents: Multi-Agent system is defined as a network of agents which are loosely coupled working as a single entity like society for problem solving that an individual agent cannot solve. === Software agents === The key concept used in DPS and MABS is the abstraction called software agents. An agent is a virtual (or physical) autonomous entity that has an understanding of its environment and acts upon it. An agent is usually able to communicate with other agents in the same system to achieve a common goal, that one agent alone could not achieve. This communication system uses an agent communication language. A first classification that is useful is to divide agents into: reactive agent – A reactive agent is not much more than an automaton that receives input, processes it and produces an output. deliberative agent – A deliberative agent in contrast should have an internal view of its environment and is able to follow its own plans. hybrid agent – A hybrid agent is a mixture of reactive and deliberative, that follows its own plans, but also sometimes directly reacts to external events without deliberation. Well-recognized agent architectures that describe how an agent is internally structured are: ASMO (emergence of distributed modules) BDI (Believe Desire Intention, a general architecture that describes how plans are made) InterRAP (A three-layer architecture, with a reactive, a deliberative and a social layer) PECS (Physics, Emotion, Cognition, Social, describes how those four parts influences the agents behavior). Soar (a rule-based approach)
Painworth
PainWorth is a justice, legal and insurance services application founded by Canadian entrepreneurs Mike Zouhri, Chris Trudel and Ryan Bencic. The application is a "robot lawyer" that uses artificial intelligence to automate personal injury claims for injury victims. It is currently available in Canada and the United States. PainWorth has been featured by several news outlets, including CTV, Global News, CBC, and has also been featured by the American Bar Association and LexisNexis for its role addressing social issues such as access to justice and other systemic issues in the legal and insurance industry. == Application == PainWorth began as a tool for calculating non-pecuniary damages for injury victims but has since expanded beyond a personal injury calculator to include features that help injury victims and business users with pecuniary damages, economic calculations, prescribed rates and providing informational guides to help navigate settlement negotiation, managing claims records and other issues encountered by self-represented litigants or claims managers. The platform makes use of automation to provide free user-guided calculations, steps and processes to successfully settle an injury claim. The application is supported by Microsoft Azure. == Personal Injury Calculator == PainWorth is the first service to use Artificial Intelligence to interpret case law in order to determine the value of pain and suffering incurred by specific injury types and injury severities. The cited case law is used as evidence and presented in statistical models to determine an accurate valuation compliant with the jurisdiction, regulatory rules and case complexities. == General Damages Calculator == PainWorth also offers a personal injury settlement calculator that assesses general damages based on specific case complexities and jurisdiction. The service takes into account medical complications and recovery in order to calculate the fair valuation. == Injury Settlement Platform == PainWorth insurance settlement platform facilitates a direct and automated way resolution center to settle cases for their assessed value without enduring the hardship of litigation. In 2021, Painworth won the title of World's Best Emerging Insurance Product for the development of this platform. == History == In 2019, Mike Zouhri was struck by a drunk driver which left him seriously injured and resulted in a lawsuit. Frustrated by the slow and expensive process, Zouhri went down to the law library and learned how to manage injury claims. After learning the process, he partnered lawyers and legal advisors to create an app to allow users to quickly settle their own injury claims fairly and accurately. Immediately after its launch, PainWorth quickly became widely used by thousands of users and gained significant media coverage. Global News reported that the bot had successfully helped people with more than $10 million in claims in only a few short months, all free of charge. In July 2020, PainWorth began raising concern over injustices and gender bias in the legal system. in Canadian courts.
Emma Hart (computer scientist)
Professor Emma Hart, FRSE (born 1967) is an English computer scientist known for her work in artificial immune systems (AIS), evolutionary computation and optimisation. She is a professor of computational intelligence at Edinburgh Napier University, editor-in-chief of the Journal of Evolutionary Computation (MIT Press), and D. Coordinator of the Future & Emerging Technologies (FET) Proactive Initiative, Fundamentals of Collective Adaptive Systems. == Early life and education == Hart was born in Middlesbrough, England in 1967. In 1990 she graduated from the University of Oxford with a first class BA(Hons) in Chemistry. She then continued her studies at the University of Edinburgh, graduating with an MSc in Artificial Intelligence in 1994, followed by a PhD that explored the use of immunology as an inspiration for computing, examining a range of techniques applied to optimization and data classification problems. Her dissertation was titled Immunology as a metaphor for computational information processing: Fact or fiction?, and her doctoral advisor was Peter Ross. == Career == In 2000 Hart took a position as a lecturer at Edinburgh Napier University, and was promoted to a Reader, Professor, and in 2008 Chair in Natural Computation. She is now director of the Centre of Algorithms, Visualisation and Evolving Systems (CAVES) group in the School of Computing. She continues to research in the area of developing novel bio-inspired techniques for solving a range of real-world optimisation and classification problems, as well as exploring the fundamental properties of immune-inspired computing through modelling and simulation. She is also involved in editorial activity and currently occupies the position of Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Evolutionary Computation (MIT Press). Her interests lie in the area of bio-inspired computing, in particular artificial immune systems (AIS). She also undertakes research in three main areas: optimisation, self-organising/self-adaptive systems, and artificial intelligence. Hart is D. Coordinator of Fundamentals of Collective Adaptive Systems (FoCAS), a Future and Emerging Technologies Proactive Initiative funded by the European Commission under FP7. == Selected works == === Conference talks === Hart, Emma. "Lifelong learning in optimization (video)". 28th European Conference on Operational Research. The Association of European Operational Research Societies. Hart, Emma (December 2021). "Self-assembling robots and the potential of artificial evolution". TED talk 2021. === Journal articles === "An immune system approach to scheduling in changing environments". E.Hart, P.Ross. 1999. Proceedings of the 1st Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation (2), 1559–1566. "Exploiting the analogy between immunology and sparse distributed memories: A system for clustering non-stationary data". E.Hart, P.Ross. 2002. 1st International Conference on Artificial Immune Systems. "Evolutionary scheduling: A review". E Hart, P Ross, D Corne. 2005. Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines 6(2), 191–220. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10710-005-7580-7 "Application areas of AIS: The past, the present and the future". E.Hart, J.Timmis. 2008. Applied soft computing 8(1), 191–201. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2006.12.004 "Structure versus function: a topological perspective on immune networks". E.Hart, H.Bersini, F.Santos. 2010. Natural computing 9(3), 603–624. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11047-009-9138-8 "On the life-long learning capabilities of a nelli: A hyper-heuristic optimisation system". E.Hart, K.Sim. 2014. International Conference on Parallel Problem Solving from Nature, 282–291. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10762-2_28 "A hyper-heuristic ensemble method for static job-shop scheduling". E.Hart, K.Sim. 2016. Evolutionary computation 24(4), 609-635. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1162/EVCO_a_00183 == Awards and recognition == 2016, Featured article on Lifelong Learning in Optimisation, IFORS newsletter 2016, "A Combined Generative and Selective Hyper-heuristic for the Vehicle Routing Problem" presented at GECCO 2016 (Denver, USA), ACM 2016, "A Hybrid Parameter Control Approach Applied to a Diversity-based Multi-objective Memetic Algorithm for Frequency Assignment Problems" presented at WCCI 2016 (Vancouver, Canada), IEEE 2017, Keynote Speaker, 2017 International Joint Conference on Computational Intelligence 2018, Bronze Award in International Human-Competitive Awards (Humies), International Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, Kyoto Japan 2018, Nomination for best paper award, GECCO 18, Kyoto, Japan 2022, Elected Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh
Superintelligence ban
Superintelligence ban refers to proposed legal, ethical, or policy measures intended to restrict or prohibit the development of artificial superintelligence, AI systems that would surpass human cognitive abilities in nearly all domains. The idea arises from concerns that such systems could become uncontrollable, potentially posing existential threats to humanity or causing severe social and economic disruption. == Background == The concept of limiting or banning superintelligence research has roots in early 21st-century debates on artificial general intelligence (AGI) safety. Thinkers such as Nick Bostrom and Eliezer Yudkowsky warned that self-improving AI could rapidly exceed human oversight. As advanced models like large-scale language models and autonomous agents began demonstrating complex reasoning abilities, policymakers and ethicists increasingly discussed the need for legal constraints on the creation of systems capable of recursive self-improvement. In October 2025, the Future of Life Institute published a statement calling for "a prohibition on the development of superintelligence, not lifted before there is broad scientific consensus that it will be done safely and controllably, and strong public buy-in." This statement was signed by various public personalities, such as Richard Branson and Steve Wozniak, and AI experts, such as Yoshua Bengio and Geoffrey Hinton. == Rationale == Supporters of a superintelligence ban argue that once AI systems surpass human intelligence, traditional containment, alignment, and control methods may fail. They contend that even limited experimentation with such systems could lead to irreversible outcomes, including loss of human decision-making power or unintended global harm. Some propose international treaties modeled after the nuclear non-proliferation framework to prevent a competitive AI arms race. Opponents argue that a ban would be difficult to define and enforce, given the lack of a precise threshold distinguishing advanced AGI from superintelligence. They also warn that excessive restriction could slow scientific progress, hinder beneficial automation, and encourage unregulated underground research. == Global discussion == Although no government has enacted an explicit superintelligence ban, the idea has been debated within the European Union, United Nations, and several independent AI safety organizations. The Future of Life Institute, Center for AI Safety, and other organizations have called for international cooperation to manage risks associated with the pursuit of superintelligent systems. In 2024 and 2025, proposals for a temporary moratorium on frontier AI research were circulated among major technology firms and research institutes, reflecting growing public concern over the trajectory of AI capabilities.
Algorithmic accountability
Algorithmic accountability refers to the allocation of responsibility for the consequences of real-world actions influenced by algorithms used in decision-making processes. Ideally, algorithms should be designed to eliminate bias from their decision-making outcomes. This means they ought to evaluate only relevant characteristics of the input data, avoiding distinctions based on attributes that are generally inappropriate in social contexts, such as an individual's ethnicity in legal judgments. However, adherence to this principle is not always guaranteed, and there are instances where individuals may be adversely affected by algorithmic decisions. Responsibility for any harm resulting from a machine's decision may lie with the algorithm itself or with the individuals who designed it, particularly if the decision resulted from bias or flawed data analysis inherent in the algorithm's design. == Algorithm usage == Algorithms are widely utilized across various sectors of society that incorporate computational techniques in their control systems. These applications span numerous industries, including but not limited to medical, transportation, and payment services. In these contexts, algorithms perform functions such as: Approving or denying credit card applications; Approving or denying immigrant visas; Determining which taxpayers will be audited on their income taxes; Managing systems that control self-driving cars on a highway; Scoring individuals as potential criminals for use in legal proceedings; Search engines that match and rank database and internet search results; Recommendation systems that filter which news, entertainment, or purchase items are featured in a feed; Market-making algorithms that match sellers and buyers, such as in transportation (ride-hailing) or financial platforms. However, the implementation of these algorithms can be complex and opaque. Generally, algorithms function as "black boxes," meaning that the specific processes an input undergoes during execution are often not transparent, with users typically only seeing the resulting output. This lack of transparency raises concerns about potential biases within the algorithms, as the parameters influencing decision-making may not be well understood. The outputs generated can lead to perceptions of bias, especially if individuals in similar circumstances receive different results. According to Nicholas Diakopoulos: But these algorithms can make mistakes. They have biases. Yet they sit in opaque black boxes, their inner workings, their inner “thoughts” hidden behind layers of complexity. We need to get inside that black box, to understand how they may be exerting power on us, and to understand where they might be making unjust mistakes == Wisconsin Supreme Court case == Algorithms are prevalent across various fields and significantly influence decisions that affect the population at large. Their underlying structures and parameters often remain unknown to those impacted by their outcomes. A notable case illustrating this issue is a recent ruling by the Wisconsin Supreme Court concerning "risk assessment" algorithms used in criminal justice. The court determined that scores generated by such algorithms, which analyze multiple parameters from individuals, should not be used as a determining factor for arresting an accused individual. Furthermore, the court mandated that all reports submitted to judges must include information regarding the accuracy of the algorithm used to compute these scores. This ruling is regarded as a noteworthy development in how society should manage software that makes consequential decisions, highlighting the importance of reliability, particularly in complex settings like the legal system. The use of algorithms in these contexts necessitates a high degree of impartiality in processing input data. However, experts note that there is still considerable work to be done to ensure the accuracy of algorithmic results. Questions about the transparency of data processing continue to arise, which raises issues regarding the appropriateness of the algorithms and the intentions of their designers. == Controversies == A notable instance of potential algorithmic bias is highlighted in an article by The Washington Post regarding the ride-hailing service Uber. An analysis of collected data revealed that estimated waiting times for users varied based on the neighborhoods in which they resided. Key factors influencing these discrepancies included the predominant ethnicity and average income of the area. Specifically, neighborhoods with a majority white population and higher economic status tended to have shorter waiting times, while those with more diverse ethnic compositions and lower average incomes experienced longer waits. It’s important to clarify that this observation reflects a correlation identified in the data, rather than a definitive cause-and-effect relationship. No value judgments are made regarding the behavior of the Uber app in these cases. In TechCrunch website, Hemant Taneja wrote: Concern about “black box” algorithms that govern our lives has been spreading. New York University’s Information Law Institute hosted a conference on algorithmic accountability, noting: “Scholars, stakeholders, and policymakers question the adequacy of existing mechanisms governing algorithmic decision-making and grapple with new challenges presented by the rise of algorithmic power in terms of transparency, fairness, and equal treatment.” Yale Law School’s Information Society Project is studying this, too. “Algorithmic modeling may be biased or limited, and the uses of algorithms are still opaque in many critical sectors,” the group concluded. == Possible solutions == Discussions among experts have sought viable solutions to understand the operations of algorithms, often referred to as "black boxes." It is generally proposed that companies responsible for developing and implementing these algorithms should ensure their reliability by disclosing the internal processes of their systems. Hemant Taneja, writing for TechCrunch, emphasizes that major technology companies, such as Google, Amazon, and Uber, must actively incorporate algorithmic accountability into their operations. He suggests that these companies should transparently monitor their own systems to avoid stringent regulatory measures. One potential approach is the introduction of regulations in the tech sector to enforce oversight of algorithmic processes. However, such regulations could significantly impact software developers and the industry as a whole. It may be more beneficial for companies to voluntarily disclose the details of their algorithms and decision-making parameters, which could enhance the trustworthiness of their solutions. Another avenue discussed is the possibility of self-regulation by the companies that create these algorithms, allowing them to take proactive steps in ensuring accountability and transparency in their operations. In TechCrunch website, Hemant Taneja wrote: There’s another benefit — perhaps a huge one — to software-defined regulation. It will also show us a path to a more efficient government. The world’s legal logic and regulations can be coded into software and smart sensors can offer real-time monitoring of everything from air and water quality, traffic flows and queues at the DMV. Regulators define the rules, technologist create the software to implement them and then AI and ML help refine iterations of policies going forward. This should lead to much more efficient, effective governments at the local, national and global levels.