In machine learning, the margin of a single data point is defined to be the distance from the data point to a decision boundary. Note that there are many distances and decision boundaries that may be appropriate for certain datasets and goals. A margin classifier is a classification model that utilizes the margin of each example to learn such classification. There are theoretical justifications (based on the VC dimension) as to why maximizing the margin (under some suitable constraints) may be beneficial for machine learning and statistical inference algorithms. For a given dataset, there may be many hyperplanes that could classify it. One reasonable choice as the best hyperplane is the one that represents the largest separation, or margin, between the classes. Hence, one should choose the hyperplane such that the distance from it to the nearest data point on each side is maximized. If such a hyperplane exists, it is known as the maximum-margin hyperplane, and the linear classifier it defines is known as a maximum margin classifier (or, equivalently, the perceptron of optimal stability).
Principle of rationality
The principle of rationality (or rationality principle) was coined by Karl R. Popper in his Harvard Lecture of 1963, and published in his book Myth of Framework. It is related to what he called the 'logic of the situation' in an Economica article of 1944/1945, published later in his book The Poverty of Historicism. According to Popper's rationality principle, agents act in the most adequate way according to the objective situation. It is an idealized conception of human behavior which he used to drive his model of situational analysis. Cognitive scientist Allen Newell elaborated on the principle in his account of knowledge level modeling. == Popper == Popper called for social science to be grounded in what he called situational analysis or situational logic. This requires building models of social situations which include individual actors and their relationship to social institutions, e.g. markets, legal codes, bureaucracies, etc. These models attribute certain aims and information to the actors. This forms the 'logic of the situation', the result of reconstructing meticulously all circumstances of an historical event. The 'principle of rationality' is the assumption that people are instrumental in trying to reach their goals, and this is what drives the model. Popper believed that this model could be continuously refined to approach the objective truth. Popper called his principle of rationality nearly empty (a technical term meaning without empirical content) and strictly speaking false, but nonetheless tremendously useful. These remarks earned him a lot of criticism because seemingly he had swerved from his famous Logic of Scientific Discovery. Among the many philosophers having discussed Popper's principle of rationality from the 1960s up to now are Noretta Koertge, R. Nadeau, Viktor J. Vanberg, Hans Albert, E. Matzner, Ian C. Jarvie, Mark A. Notturno, John Wettersten, Ian C. Böhm. == Newell == In the context of knowledge-based systems, Newell (in 1982) proposed the following principle of rationality: "If an agent has knowledge that one of its actions will lead to one of its goals, then the agent will select that action." This principle is employed by agents at the knowledge level to move closer to a desired goal. An important philosophical difference between Newell and Popper is that Newell argued that the knowledge level is real in the sense that it exists in nature and is not made up. This allowed Newell to treat the rationality principle as a way of understanding nature and avoid the problems Popper ran into by treating knowledge as non physical and therefore non empirical.
Agentic commerce
Agentic commerce (also referred to as agent-based commerce) describes an emerging form of e-commerce in which autonomous artificial intelligence (AI) agents independently execute purchasing and payment processes on behalf of users or organizations. Unlike conventional digital commerce systems, which require direct human interaction at key decision points, agentic commerce systems are designed to search for products or services, evaluate options, make purchasing decisions, and complete payments without real-time human involvement. An emerging development within the broader fields of e-commerce, fintech, and artificial intelligence; agentic commerce combines advances in generative AI, autonomous agents, application programming interfaces (APIs), and digital payment infrastructures to direct transactions with no direct human interaction. == Characteristics == A defining feature of agentic commerce is the delegation of end-to-end commercial activities to software agents. These agents typically operate according to predefined user preferences, rules, or constraints, such as price limits, quality criteria, delivery times, or preferred payment methods. Based on these parameters, an agent can autonomously perform tasks including product discovery, price comparison, contract selection, order placement, and payment execution. In contrast to decision-support systems, which provide recommendations to human users, agentic commerce systems are designed to act independently. Human involvement may be limited to initial configuration, periodic supervision, or exception handling. == Comparison with traditional and AI-assisted commerce == Traditional e-commerce requires users to manually browse products, select offers, and authorize payments. Generative AI systems used in commerce commonly assist users by answering questions or suggesting options, and do not complete transactions autonomously. Agentic commerce differs in that decision-making authority is partially or fully transferred to AI agents. As a result, the conventional customer journey, characterized by conscious decision points, may be replaced by continuous, automated micro-decisions performed by software. == Applications and business use cases == Potential applications of agentic commerce include recurring purchases, subscription management, business-to-business procurement, inventory replenishment, and price monitoring. In such contexts, transactions are often predictable and standardized, making them suitable for automation. From a business perspective, agentic commerce systems may be used to optimize supply chains, manage inventory levels, negotiate prices algorithmically, or execute transactions across multiple platforms. Enterprises adopting the new technology include retailers Walmart, Home Depot, Wayfair and Urban Outfitters, and ad tech DSPs, including Google Ads, Amazon, and Yahoo. Chinese tech firms are using apps to provide full-service shopping and payment tools. These includes Alibaba, Tencent, and ByteDance who are currently developing AI powered shopping apps. The Qwen AI chatbot allows users to complete transactions directly within its interface. US firms are still leading in developing AI models but integration is slower due to privacy restrictions. == Payments and technical infrastructure == Agentic commerce relies on digital payment systems capable of supporting automated, machine-initiated transactions, including API-based payment processing, tokenization, real-time authorization, and continuous risk monitoring. Typical user interfaces, such as shopping carts, may be replaced by backend integrations between AI agents, merchants, and payment service providers. For example, Iike 2025, Alibaba launched Alipay AI Pay, which grew and began operating as an application for different retailers. In December 2025, Alipay teamed up with Rokid to enable developers to integrate AI payments into AI agents on Rokid's Lingzhu platform. In January 2025, Alipay unveiled the Agentic Commerce Trust Protocol in partnership with Alibaba's consumer AI applications, such as the Qwen App and Taobao Instant Commerce. Qwen adopted the platform first, connecting it to Taobao Instant Commerce and Alipay AI Pay. Users could use Qwen's agentic feature to place food and drink orders within the application instead of having to click outside to an external browser. For merchants, participation in agentic commerce may require products and services to be presented in structured, machine-readable formats to ensure discoverability and interoperability with autonomous agents. == Universal Commerce Protocol (UCP) == In January 2026, Google announced the Universal Commerce Protocol (UCP), an open-source web standard intended to enable interoperability between AI agents and retail systems across the shopping journey, from discovery and checkout to post-purchase support. UCP makes use of REST, JSON-RPC transports, and support for Agent Payments Protocol (AP2), Agent2Agent (A2A), and Model Context Protocol (MCP). == Legal, regulatory, and security considerations == The use of autonomous agents in commerce raises legal and regulatory questions, particularly regarding authorization, liability, consumer protection, and fraud prevention. Existing payment and contract frameworks are generally based on human decision-makers, and their applicability to autonomous agents remains an area of active discussion. Open issues include responsibility for unauthorized or erroneous transactions, mechanisms for dispute resolution, standards for agent authentication, and compliance with data protection and financial regulations. Continuous, automated transaction patterns may also require new approaches to security and risk assessment. Traditional fraud models centered on identity verification may be insufficient for agentic commerce, and that merchants may need intent-based detection methods using machine learning and behavioral analysis to distinguish legitimate AI agents from malicious automation. === Governance frameworks === The deployment of autonomous AI agents in commercial environments has prompted the development of dedicated governance frameworks. These aim to define operational boundaries, decision authority, oversight mechanisms, and accountability structures for agentic systems. The Agentic Commerce Framework (ACF), created in 2025 by Vincent Dorange, is a governance standard that structures the deployment of autonomous AI agents around four founding principles (Decision Sovereignty, Governance by Design, Ultimate Human Control, Traceable Accountability), four operational layers, and 18 governance KPIs. In January 2026, Singapore's Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) published the Model AI Governance Framework for Agentic AI, extending its existing AI governance guidelines to address agent-specific risks including delegation chains and multi-agent coordination. The Cloud Security Alliance (CSA) has also proposed an Agentic Trust Framework applying zero-trust principles to AI agent governance. == Ecosystem and implementation == The adoption of agentic commerce typically requires changes in commerce architecture, data modeling, identity and permissions, and API-based orchestration of checkout and post-purchase workflows. Management consultancies have identified agentic commerce as a structural evolution of digital commerce, emphasizing the role of AI-driven agents in automating discovery, decision-making, and transaction processes across commerce systems. McKinsey & Company has described agentic commerce as a significant shift in how consumers interact with brands and how enterprises design their commerce operating models. In Europe, this ecosystem also includes digital commerce consultancies specializing in the adoption of agentic commerce. Consulting firms such as Horrea support brands in understanding and implementing the technological and organizational shifts associated with agentic commerce. == Market development and outlook == Agentic commerce is generally regarded as an early-stage development. Industry analysts have projected that AI-driven agents could account for a small but growing share of digital payment transactions within the coming years. Due to the scale of global digital commerce, even limited adoption could represent substantial transaction volumes. Analysts expect that by 2029, AI agents could handle between 1% and 4% of all digital payment transactions. With a projected total transaction volume of over $36 trillion a year, even a small share translates into a market worth up to $1.47 trillion. According to a McKinsey study from October 2025, agentic commerce projects that by 2030, the U.S. business-to-consumer retail market alone could see up to $1 trillion in revenue orchestrated through agentic commerce. On a global scale, the opportunity could range from $3 trillion to $5 trillion. Early experiments and pilot projects have demonstrated both the potential and current limitations of the
Hindley–Milner type system
A Hindley–Milner (HM) type system is a classical type system for the lambda calculus with parametric polymorphism. It is also known as Damas–Milner or Damas–Hindley–Milner. It was first described by J. Roger Hindley and later rediscovered by Robin Milner. Luis Damas contributed a close formal analysis and proof of the method in his PhD thesis. Among HM's more notable properties are its completeness and its ability to infer the most general type of a given program without programmer-supplied type annotations or other hints. Algorithm W is an efficient type inference method in practice and has been successfully applied on large code bases, although it has a high theoretical complexity. HM is preferably used for functional programming languages. It was first implemented as part of the type system of the programming language ML. Since then, HM has been extended in various ways, most notably with type class constraints like those in Haskell. == Introduction == As a type inference method, Hindley–Milner is able to deduce the types of variables, expressions and functions from programs written in an entirely untyped style. Being scope sensitive, it is not limited to deriving the types only from a small portion of source code, but rather from complete programs or modules. Being able to cope with parametric types, too, it is core to the type systems of many functional programming languages. It was first applied in this manner in the ML programming language. The origin is the type inference algorithm for the simply typed lambda calculus that was devised by Haskell Curry and Robert Feys in 1958. In 1969, J. Roger Hindley extended this work and proved that their algorithm always inferred the most general type. In 1978, Robin Milner, independently of Hindley's work, provided an equivalent algorithm, Algorithm W. In 1982, Luis Damas finally proved that Milner's algorithm is complete and extended it to support systems with polymorphic references. === Monomorphism vs. polymorphism === In the simply typed lambda calculus, types T are either atomic type constants or function types of form T → T {\displaystyle T\rightarrow T} . Such types are monomorphic. Typical examples are the types used in arithmetic values: 3 : N u m b e r a d d 3 4 : N u m b e r a d d : N u m b e r → N u m b e r → N u m b e r {\displaystyle {\begin{array}{ll}3&:{\mathtt {Number}}\\{\mathtt {add}}\ 3\ 4&:{\mathtt {Number}}\\{\mathtt {add}}&:{\mathtt {Number}}\rightarrow {\mathtt {Number}}\rightarrow {\mathtt {Number}}\end{array}}} Contrary to this, the untyped lambda calculus is neutral to typing at all, and many of its functions can be meaningfully applied to all type of arguments. The trivial example is the identity function i d ≡ λ x . x {\displaystyle {\mathtt {id}}\equiv \lambda x.x} which simply returns whatever value it is applied to. Less trivial examples include parametric types like lists. While polymorphism in general means that operations accept values of more than one type, the polymorphism used here is parametric. One finds the notation of type schemes in the literature, too, emphasizing the parametric nature of the polymorphism. Additionally, constants may be typed with (quantified) type variables. For example, the following type schemes quantify universally over α {\displaystyle \alpha } , meaning that they are true for all possible α {\displaystyle \alpha } : c o n s : ∀ α . α → L i s t α → L i s t α n i l : ∀ α . L i s t α i d : ∀ α . α → α {\displaystyle {\begin{array}{ll}{\mathtt {cons}}&:\forall \alpha .\alpha \rightarrow {\mathtt {List}}\ \alpha \rightarrow {\mathtt {List}}\ \alpha \\{\mathtt {nil}}&:\forall \alpha .{\mathtt {List}}\ \alpha \\{\mathtt {id}}&:\forall \alpha .\alpha \rightarrow \alpha \end{array}}} Polymorphic types can become monomorphic by consistent substitution of their variables. Examples of monomorphic instances are: i d ′ : S t r i n g → S t r i n g n i l ′ : L i s t N u m b e r {\displaystyle {\begin{array}{ll}{\mathtt {id}}'&:{\mathtt {String}}\rightarrow {\mathtt {String}}\\{\mathtt {nil}}'&:{\mathtt {List}}\ {\mathtt {Number}}\end{array}}} More generally, types are polymorphic when they contain type variables, while types without them are monomorphic. Contrary to the type systems used for example in Pascal (1970) or C (1972), which only support monomorphic types, HM is designed with emphasis on parametric polymorphism. The successors of the languages mentioned, like C++ (1985), focused on different types of polymorphism, namely subtyping in connection with object-oriented programming and overloading. While subtyping is incompatible with HM, a variant of systematic overloading is available in the HM-based type system of Haskell. === Let-polymorphism === When extending the type inference for the simply-typed lambda calculus towards polymorphism, one has to decide whether assigning a polymorphic type not only as type of an expression, but also as the type of a λ-bound variable is admissible. This would allow the generic identity type to be assigned to the variable 'id' in: (λ id . ... (id 3) ... (id "text") ... ) (λ x . x) Allowing this gives rise to the polymorphic lambda calculus; however, type inference in this system is not decidable. Instead, HM distinguishes variables that are immediately bound to an expression from more general λ-bound variables, calling the former let-bound variables, and allows polymorphic types to be assigned only to these. This leads to let-polymorphism where the above example takes the form let id = λ x . x in ... (id 3) ... (id "text") ... which can be typed with a polymorphic type for 'id'. As indicated, the expression syntax is extended to make the let-bound variables explicit, and by restricting the type system to allow only let-bound variable to have polymorphic types, while the parameters in lambda-abstractions must get a monomorphic type, type inference becomes decidable. == Overview == The remainder of this article proceeds as follows: The HM type system is defined. This is done by describing a deduction system that makes precise what expressions have what type, if any. From there, it works towards an implementation of the type inference method. After introducing a syntax-driven variant of the above deductive system, it sketches an efficient implementation (algorithm J), appealing mostly to the reader's metalogical intuition. Because it remains open whether algorithm J indeed realises the initial deduction system, a less efficient implementation (algorithm W), is introduced and its use in a proof is hinted. Finally, further topics related to the algorithm are discussed. The same description of the deduction system is used throughout, even for the two algorithms, to make the various forms in which the HM method is presented directly comparable. == The Hindley–Milner type system == The type system can be formally described by syntax rules that fix a language for the expressions, types, etc. The presentation here of such a syntax is not too formal, in that it is written down not to study the surface grammar, but rather the depth grammar, and leaves some syntactical details open. This form of presentation is usual. Building on this, typing rules are used to define how expressions and types are related. As before, the form used is a bit liberal. === Syntax === The expressions to be typed are exactly those of the lambda calculus extended with a let-expression as shown in the adjacent table. Parentheses can be used to disambiguate an expression. The application is left-binding and binds stronger than abstraction or the let-in construct. Types are syntactically split into two groups, monotypes and polytypes. ==== Monotypes ==== Monotypes always designate a particular type. Monotypes τ {\displaystyle \tau } are syntactically represented as terms. Examples of monotypes include type constants like i n t {\displaystyle {\mathtt {int}}} or s t r i n g {\displaystyle {\mathtt {string}}} , and parametric types like M a p ( S e t s t r i n g ) i n t {\displaystyle {\mathtt {Map\ (Set\ string)\ int}}} . The latter types are examples of applications of type functions, for example, from the set { M a p 2 , S e t 1 , s t r i n g 0 , i n t 0 , → 2 } {\displaystyle \{{\mathtt {Map^{2},\ Set^{1},\ string^{0},\ int^{0}}},\ \rightarrow ^{2}\}} , where the superscript indicates the number of type parameters. The complete set of type functions C {\displaystyle C} is arbitrary in HM, except that it must contain at least → 2 {\displaystyle \rightarrow ^{2}} , the type of functions. It is often written in infix notation for convenience. For example, a function mapping integers to strings has type i n t → s t r i n g {\displaystyle {\mathtt {int}}\rightarrow {\mathtt {string}}} . Again, parentheses can be used to disambiguate a type expression. The application binds stronger than the infix arrow, which is right-binding. Type variables are admitted as monotypes. Monotypes are not to be confused with monomorphic types, which exc
Outline of artificial intelligence
The following outline is provided as an overview of and topical guide to artificial intelligence: Artificial intelligence (AI) is intelligence exhibited by machines or software. It is also the name of the scientific field which studies how to create computers and computer software that are capable of intelligent behavior. == AI terminology == Glossary of artificial intelligence == Goals and applications == === General intelligence === Artificial general intelligence AI-complete === Reasoning and problem solving === Automated reasoning Mathematics Automated theorem prover Computer-assisted proof – Computer algebra General Problem Solver Expert system – Decision support system – Clinical decision support system – === Knowledge representation === Knowledge representation Knowledge management Cyc === Planning === Automated planning and scheduling Strategic planning Sussman anomaly – === Learning === Machine learning – Constrained Conditional Models – Deep learning – Neural modeling fields – Supervised learning – Weak supervision (semi-supervised learning) – Unsupervised learning – === Natural language processing === Natural language processing (outline) – Chatterbots – Language identification – Large language model – Retrieval-augmented generation – Natural language user interface – Natural language understanding – Machine translation – Statistical semantics – Question answering – Semantic translation – Concept mining – Data mining – Text mining – Process mining – E-mail spam filtering – Information extraction – Named-entity extraction – Coreference resolution – Named-entity recognition – Relationship extraction – Terminology extraction – === Perception === Machine perception Pattern recognition – Computer Audition – Speech recognition – Speaker recognition – Computer vision (outline) – Image processing Intelligent word recognition – Object recognition – Optical mark recognition – Handwriting recognition – Optical character recognition – Automatic number plate recognition – Information extraction – Image retrieval – Automatic image annotation – Facial recognition systems – Silent speech interface – Activity recognition – Percept (artificial intelligence) === Robotics === Robotics – Behavior-based robotics – Cognitive – Cybernetics – Developmental robotics – Evolutionary robotics – === Control === Intelligent control Self-management (computer science) – Autonomic Computing – Autonomic Networking – === Social intelligence === Affective computing Kismet === Game playing === Game artificial intelligence – Computer game bot – computer replacement for human players. Video game AI – Computer chess – Computer Go – General game playing – General video game playing – === Creativity, art and entertainment === Artificial creativity Artificial life Artificial intelligence art AI anthropomorphism AI agent AI web browser AI boom AI slop Creative computing Generative artificial intelligence Generative pre trained transformer Uncanny valley Music and artificial intelligence Computational humor Chatbot === Integrated AI systems === AIBO – Sony's robot dog. It integrates vision, hearing and motorskills. Asimo (2000 to present) – humanoid robot developed by Honda, capable of walking, running, negotiating through pedestrian traffic, climbing and descending stairs, recognizing speech commands and the faces of specific individuals, among a growing set of capabilities. MIRAGE – A.I. embodied humanoid in an augmented reality environment. Cog – M.I.T. humanoid robot project under the direction of Rodney Brooks. QRIO – Sony's version of a humanoid robot. TOPIO, TOSY's humanoid robot that can play ping-pong with humans. Watson (2011) – computer developed by IBM that played and won the game show Jeopardy! It is now being used to guide nurses in medical procedures. Purpose: Open domain question answering Technologies employed: Natural language processing Information retrieval Knowledge representation Automated reasoning Machine learning Project Debater (2018) – artificially intelligent computer system, designed to make coherent arguments, developed at IBM's lab in Haifa, Israel. === Intelligent personal assistants === Intelligent personal assistant – Amazon Alexa – Assistant – Braina – Cortana – Google Assistant – Google Now – Mycroft – Siri – Viv – === Other applications === Artificial life – simulation of natural life through the means of computers, robotics, or biochemistry. Automatic target recognition – Diagnosis (artificial intelligence) – Speech generating device – Vehicle infrastructure integration – Virtual Intelligence – == History == History of artificial intelligence Progress in artificial intelligence Timeline of artificial intelligence AI effect – as soon as AI successfully solves a problem, the problem is no longer considered by the public to be a part of AI. This phenomenon has occurred in relation to every AI application produced, so far, throughout the history of development of AI. AI winter – a period of disappointment and funding reductions occurring after a wave of high expectations and funding in AI. Such funding cuts occurred in the 1970s, for instance. Moore's law === History by period === 2017 in artificial intelligence 2018 in artificial intelligence 2019 in artificial intelligence 2020 in artificial intelligence 2021 in artificial intelligence 2022 in artificial intelligence 2023 in artificial intelligence 2024 in artificial intelligence 2025 in artificial intelligence 2026 in artificial intelligence 2027 in artificial intelligence 2028 in artificial intelligence 2029 in artificial intelligence === History by subject === History of logic (formal reasoning is an important precursor of AI) History of machine learning (timeline) History of machine translation (timeline) History of natural language processing History of optical character recognition (timeline) == AI algorithms and techniques == === Search === Discrete search algorithms Uninformed search Brute force search – Problem-solving technique and algorithmic paradigmPages displaying short descriptions of redirect targets Search tree – Data structure in tree form sorted for fast lookup Breadth-first search – Algorithm to search the nodes of a graph Depth-first search – Algorithm to search the nodes of a graph State space search – Class of search algorithmsPages displaying short descriptions of redirect targets Informed search Best-first search – Graph exploring search algorithm A search algorithm – Algorithm used for pathfinding and graph traversal Heuristics – Problem-solving methodPages displaying short descriptions of redirect targets Pruning (algorithm) – Data compression techniquePages displaying short descriptions of redirect targets Adversarial search Minmax algorithm – Decision rule used for minimizing the possible loss for a worst-case scenarioPages displaying short descriptions of redirect targets Logic as search Production system (computer science) – Computer program used to provide artificial intelligence Rule based system – Type of computer systemPages displaying short descriptions of redirect targets Production rule – Computer program used to provide artificial intelligence Inference rule – Method of deriving conclusionsPages displaying short descriptions of redirect targets Horn clause – Type of logical formula Forward chaining – Inference engine in an expert system Backward chaining – Method of forming inferences Planning as search State space search – Class of search algorithmsPages displaying short descriptions of redirect targets Means–ends analysis – Problem solving technique === Optimization search === Optimization (mathematics) algorithms Hill climbing – Optimization algorithm Simulated annealing – Probabilistic optimization technique and metaheuristic Beam search – Heuristic search algorithm Random optimization – Optimization technique in mathematics Evolutionary computation Genetic algorithms – Competitive algorithm for searching a problem spacePages displaying short descriptions of redirect targets Gene expression programming – Evolutionary algorithm Genetic programming – Evolving computer programs with techniques analogous to natural genetic processes Differential evolution – Method of mathematical optimization Society based learning algorithms. Swarm intelligence – Collective behavior of decentralized, self-organized systems Particle swarm optimization – Iterative simulation method Ant colony optimization – Optimization algorithmPages displaying short descriptions of redirect targets Metaheuristic – Optimization technique === Logic === Logic and automated reasoning Programming using logic Logic programming – Programming paradigm based on formal logic See "Logic as search" above. Forms of Logic Propositional logic First-order logic First-order logic with equality Constraint satisfaction – Process in artificial intelligence and operations research Fuzzy logic Fuzzy set theory – Sets whose elements have degrees of membershipPages displaying short descriptions
Lesk algorithm
The Lesk algorithm is a classical algorithm for word sense disambiguation introduced by Michael E. Lesk in 1986. It operates on the premise that words within a given context are likely to share a common meaning. This algorithm compares the dictionary definitions of an ambiguous word with the words in its surrounding context to determine the most appropriate sense. Variations, such as the Simplified Lesk algorithm, have demonstrated improved precision and efficiency. However, the Lesk algorithm has faced criticism for its sensitivity to definition wording and its reliance on brief glosses. Researchers have sought to enhance its accuracy by incorporating additional resources like thesauruses and syntactic models. == Overview == The Lesk algorithm is based on the assumption that words in a given "neighborhood" (section of text) will tend to share a common topic. A simplified version of the Lesk algorithm is to compare the dictionary definition of an ambiguous word with the terms contained in its neighborhood. Versions have been adapted to use WordNet. An implementation might look like this: for every sense of the word being disambiguated one should count the number of words that are in both the neighborhood of that word and in the dictionary definition of that sense the sense that is to be chosen is the sense that has the largest number of this count. A frequently used example illustrating this algorithm is for the context "pine cone". The following dictionary definitions are used: PINE 1. kinds of evergreen tree with needle-shaped leaves 2. waste away through sorrow or illness CONE 1. solid body which narrows to a point 2. something of this shape whether solid or hollow 3. fruit of certain evergreen trees As can be seen, the best intersection is Pine #1 ⋂ Cone #3 = 2. == Simplified Lesk algorithm == In Simplified Lesk algorithm, the correct meaning of each word in a given context is determined individually by locating the sense that overlaps the most between its dictionary definition and the given context. Rather than simultaneously determining the meanings of all words in a given context, this approach tackles each word individually, independent of the meaning of the other words occurring in the same context. "A comparative evaluation performed by Vasilescu et al. (2004) has shown that the simplified Lesk algorithm can significantly outperform the original definition of the algorithm, both in terms of precision and efficiency. By evaluating the disambiguation algorithms on the Senseval-2 English all words data, they measure a 58% precision using the simplified Lesk algorithm compared to the only 42% under the original algorithm. Note: Vasilescu et al. implementation considers a back-off strategy for words not covered by the algorithm, consisting of the most frequent sense defined in WordNet. This means that words for which all their possible meanings lead to zero overlap with current context or with other word definitions are by default assigned sense number one in WordNet." Simplified LESK Algorithm with smart default word sense (Vasilescu et al., 2004) The COMPUTEOVERLAP function returns the number of words in common between two sets, ignoring function words or other words on a stop list. The original Lesk algorithm defines the context in a more complex way. == Criticisms == Unfortunately, Lesk’s approach is very sensitive to the exact wording of definitions, so the absence of a certain word can radically change the results. Further, the algorithm determines overlaps only among the glosses of the senses being considered. This is a significant limitation in that dictionary glosses tend to be fairly short and do not provide sufficient vocabulary to relate fine-grained sense distinctions. A lot of work has appeared offering different modifications of this algorithm. These works use other resources for analysis (thesauruses, synonyms dictionaries or morphological and syntactic models): for instance, it may use such information as synonyms, different derivatives, or words from definitions of words from definitions. == Lesk variants == Original Lesk (Lesk, 1986) Adapted/Extended Lesk (Banerjee and Pederson, 2002/2003): In the adaptive lesk algorithm, a word vector is created corresponds to every content word in the wordnet gloss. Concatenating glosses of related concepts in WordNet can be used to augment this vector. The vector contains the co-occurrence counts of words co-occurring with w in a large corpus. Adding all the word vectors for all the content words in its gloss creates the Gloss vector g for a concept. Relatedness is determined by comparing the gloss vector using the Cosine similarity measure. There are a lot of studies concerning Lesk and its extensions: Wilks and Stevenson, 1998, 1999; Mahesh et al., 1997; Cowie et al., 1992; Yarowsky, 1992; Pook and Catlett, 1988; Kilgarriff and Rosensweig, 2000; Kwong, 2001; Nastase and Szpakowicz, 2001; Gelbukh and Sidorov, 2004.
Proof of authority
Proof of authority (PoA) is a category of consensus protocols used with blockchains based on reputation and identity as a stake that delivers comparatively fast and efficient transactions (compared to proof-of-work and proof-of-stake). The most notable platforms using PoA are VeChain, Bitgert, Palm Network and Xodex. == Description == Proof-of-authority is a category of consensus protocols for networks and blockchains where transactions and blocks are built and validated by approved entities known as validators. Their permissions are often granted through a centralized authority, but they can also be granted through a council or decentralized organization. The term "proof-of-authority" was coined by Gavin Wood, co-founder of Ethereum and Parity Technologies. With PoA, validators are incentivized to maintain good behavior and honesty when validating blocks to avoid developing a negative reputation. PoA can have higher security than PoW and even PoS due to validators wanting to avoid damaging their reputation. Because PoA is permissioned, it is not fully trustless. Validators without good reputation may risk having their validator permissions removed. PoA is generally more efficient than PoW and PoS because it operates with fewer nodes and validators, thus requiring fewer duplicated resources.