105 skills found · Page 1 of 4
piotrmurach / Tty SpinnerA terminal spinner for tasks that have non-deterministic time frame.
HackerFoo / PoprcA Compiler for the Popr Language
igordejanovic / ParglareA pure Python LR/GLR parser - http://www.igordejanovic.net/parglare/
openserv-labs / SDKA powerful TypeScript framework for building non-deterministic AI agents with advanced cognitive capabilities like reasoning, decision-making, and inter-agent collaboration within the OpenServ platform. Built with strong typing, extensible architecture, and a fully autonomous agent runtime.
evonneng / Learning2listenOfficial pytorch implementation for Learning to Listen: Modeling Non-Deterministic Dyadic Facial Motion (CVPR 2022)
zomux / LanmtLaNMT: Latent-variable Non-autoregressive Neural Machine Translation with Deterministic Inference
adrielcafe / Hal🔴 A non-deterministic finite-state machine for Android & JVM that won't let you down
yedhukrishnan / Turing MachineMy implementations of deterministic and non-deterministic turing machines
nasa / UQPCEUncertainty Quantification using Polynomial Chaos Expansion (UQPCE) is an open-source, python-based research code for use in parametric, non-deterministic computational studies. UQPCE utilizes a non-intrusive polynomial chaos expansion surrogate modeling technique to efficiently estimate uncertainties for computational analyses.
Aryia-Behroziuan / ReferencesPoole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, p. 1. Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 55. Definition of AI as the study of intelligent agents: Poole, Mackworth & Goebel (1998), which provides the version that is used in this article. These authors use the term "computational intelligence" as a synonym for artificial intelligence.[1] Russell & Norvig (2003) (who prefer the term "rational agent") and write "The whole-agent view is now widely accepted in the field".[2] Nilsson 1998 Legg & Hutter 2007 Russell & Norvig 2009, p. 2. McCorduck 2004, p. 204 Maloof, Mark. "Artificial Intelligence: An Introduction, p. 37" (PDF). georgetown.edu. Archived (PDF) from the original on 25 August 2018. "How AI Is Getting Groundbreaking Changes In Talent Management And HR Tech". Hackernoon. Archived from the original on 11 September 2019. Retrieved 14 February 2020. Schank, Roger C. (1991). "Where's the AI". AI magazine. Vol. 12 no. 4. p. 38. Russell & Norvig 2009. "AlphaGo – Google DeepMind". Archived from the original on 10 March 2016. Allen, Gregory (April 2020). "Department of Defense Joint AI Center - Understanding AI Technology" (PDF). AI.mil - The official site of the Department of Defense Joint Artificial Intelligence Center. Archived (PDF) from the original on 21 April 2020. Retrieved 25 April 2020. Optimism of early AI: * Herbert Simon quote: Simon 1965, p. 96 quoted in Crevier 1993, p. 109. * Marvin Minsky quote: Minsky 1967, p. 2 quoted in Crevier 1993, p. 109. Boom of the 1980s: rise of expert systems, Fifth Generation Project, Alvey, MCC, SCI: * McCorduck 2004, pp. 426–441 * Crevier 1993, pp. 161–162,197–203, 211, 240 * Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 24 * NRC 1999, pp. 210–211 * Newquist 1994, pp. 235–248 First AI Winter, Mansfield Amendment, Lighthill report * Crevier 1993, pp. 115–117 * Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 22 * NRC 1999, pp. 212–213 * Howe 1994 * Newquist 1994, pp. 189–201 Second AI winter: * McCorduck 2004, pp. 430–435 * Crevier 1993, pp. 209–210 * NRC 1999, pp. 214–216 * Newquist 1994, pp. 301–318 AI becomes hugely successful in the early 21st century * Clark 2015 Pamela McCorduck (2004, p. 424) writes of "the rough shattering of AI in subfields—vision, natural language, decision theory, genetic algorithms, robotics ... and these with own sub-subfield—that would hardly have anything to say to each other." This list of intelligent traits is based on the topics covered by the major AI textbooks, including: * Russell & Norvig 2003 * Luger & Stubblefield 2004 * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998 * Nilsson 1998 Kolata 1982. Maker 2006. Biological intelligence vs. intelligence in general: Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 2–3, who make the analogy with aeronautical engineering. McCorduck 2004, pp. 100–101, who writes that there are "two major branches of artificial intelligence: one aimed at producing intelligent behavior regardless of how it was accomplished, and the other aimed at modeling intelligent processes found in nature, particularly human ones." Kolata 1982, a paper in Science, which describes McCarthy's indifference to biological models. Kolata quotes McCarthy as writing: "This is AI, so we don't care if it's psychologically real".[19] McCarthy recently reiterated his position at the AI@50 conference where he said "Artificial intelligence is not, by definition, simulation of human intelligence".[20]. Neats vs. scruffies: * McCorduck 2004, pp. 421–424, 486–489 * Crevier 1993, p. 168 * Nilsson 1983, pp. 10–11 Symbolic vs. sub-symbolic AI: * Nilsson (1998, p. 7), who uses the term "sub-symbolic". General intelligence (strong AI) is discussed in popular introductions to AI: * Kurzweil 1999 and Kurzweil 2005 See the Dartmouth proposal, under Philosophy, below. McCorduck 2004, p. 34. McCorduck 2004, p. xviii. McCorduck 2004, p. 3. McCorduck 2004, pp. 340–400. This is a central idea of Pamela McCorduck's Machines Who Think. She writes: "I like to think of artificial intelligence as the scientific apotheosis of a venerable cultural tradition."[26] "Artificial intelligence in one form or another is an idea that has pervaded Western intellectual history, a dream in urgent need of being realized."[27] "Our history is full of attempts—nutty, eerie, comical, earnest, legendary and real—to make artificial intelligences, to reproduce what is the essential us—bypassing the ordinary means. Back and forth between myth and reality, our imaginations supplying what our workshops couldn't, we have engaged for a long time in this odd form of self-reproduction."[28] She traces the desire back to its Hellenistic roots and calls it the urge to "forge the Gods."[29] "Stephen Hawking believes AI could be mankind's last accomplishment". BetaNews. 21 October 2016. Archived from the original on 28 August 2017. Lombardo P, Boehm I, Nairz K (2020). "RadioComics – Santa Claus and the future of radiology". Eur J Radiol. 122 (1): 108771. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2019.108771. PMID 31835078. Ford, Martin; Colvin, Geoff (6 September 2015). "Will robots create more jobs than they destroy?". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 16 June 2018. Retrieved 13 January 2018. AI applications widely used behind the scenes: * Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 28 * Kurzweil 2005, p. 265 * NRC 1999, pp. 216–222 * Newquist 1994, pp. 189–201 AI in myth: * McCorduck 2004, pp. 4–5 * Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 939 AI in early science fiction. * McCorduck 2004, pp. 17–25 Formal reasoning: * Berlinski, David (2000). The Advent of the Algorithm. Harcourt Books. ISBN 978-0-15-601391-8. OCLC 46890682. Archived from the original on 26 July 2020. Retrieved 22 August 2020. Turing, Alan (1948), "Machine Intelligence", in Copeland, B. Jack (ed.), The Essential Turing: The ideas that gave birth to the computer age, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 412, ISBN 978-0-19-825080-7 Russell & Norvig 2009, p. 16. Dartmouth conference: * McCorduck 2004, pp. 111–136 * Crevier 1993, pp. 47–49, who writes "the conference is generally recognized as the official birthdate of the new science." * Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 17, who call the conference "the birth of artificial intelligence." * NRC 1999, pp. 200–201 McCarthy, John (1988). "Review of The Question of Artificial Intelligence". Annals of the History of Computing. 10 (3): 224–229., collected in McCarthy, John (1996). "10. Review of The Question of Artificial Intelligence". Defending AI Research: A Collection of Essays and Reviews. CSLI., p. 73, "[O]ne of the reasons for inventing the term "artificial intelligence" was to escape association with "cybernetics". Its concentration on analog feedback seemed misguided, and I wished to avoid having either to accept Norbert (not Robert) Wiener as a guru or having to argue with him." Hegemony of the Dartmouth conference attendees: * Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 17, who write "for the next 20 years the field would be dominated by these people and their students." * McCorduck 2004, pp. 129–130 Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 18. Schaeffer J. (2009) Didn't Samuel Solve That Game?. In: One Jump Ahead. Springer, Boston, MA Samuel, A. L. (July 1959). "Some Studies in Machine Learning Using the Game of Checkers". IBM Journal of Research and Development. 3 (3): 210–229. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.368.2254. doi:10.1147/rd.33.0210. "Golden years" of AI (successful symbolic reasoning programs 1956–1973): * McCorduck 2004, pp. 243–252 * Crevier 1993, pp. 52–107 * Moravec 1988, p. 9 * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 18–21 The programs described are Arthur Samuel's checkers program for the IBM 701, Daniel Bobrow's STUDENT, Newell and Simon's Logic Theorist and Terry Winograd's SHRDLU. DARPA pours money into undirected pure research into AI during the 1960s: * McCorduck 2004, p. 131 * Crevier 1993, pp. 51, 64–65 * NRC 1999, pp. 204–205 AI in England: * Howe 1994 Lighthill 1973. Expert systems: * ACM 1998, I.2.1 * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 22–24 * Luger & Stubblefield 2004, pp. 227–331 * Nilsson 1998, chpt. 17.4 * McCorduck 2004, pp. 327–335, 434–435 * Crevier 1993, pp. 145–62, 197–203 * Newquist 1994, pp. 155–183 Mead, Carver A.; Ismail, Mohammed (8 May 1989). Analog VLSI Implementation of Neural Systems (PDF). The Kluwer International Series in Engineering and Computer Science. 80. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers. doi:10.1007/978-1-4613-1639-8. ISBN 978-1-4613-1639-8. Archived from the original (PDF) on 6 November 2019. Retrieved 24 January 2020. Formal methods are now preferred ("Victory of the neats"): * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 25–26 * McCorduck 2004, pp. 486–487 McCorduck 2004, pp. 480–483. Markoff 2011. "Ask the AI experts: What's driving today's progress in AI?". McKinsey & Company. Archived from the original on 13 April 2018. Retrieved 13 April 2018. Administrator. "Kinect's AI breakthrough explained". i-programmer.info. Archived from the original on 1 February 2016. Rowinski, Dan (15 January 2013). "Virtual Personal Assistants & The Future Of Your Smartphone [Infographic]". ReadWrite. Archived from the original on 22 December 2015. "Artificial intelligence: Google's AlphaGo beats Go master Lee Se-dol". BBC News. 12 March 2016. Archived from the original on 26 August 2016. Retrieved 1 October 2016. Metz, Cade (27 May 2017). "After Win in China, AlphaGo's Designers Explore New AI". Wired. Archived from the original on 2 June 2017. "World's Go Player Ratings". May 2017. Archived from the original on 1 April 2017. "柯洁迎19岁生日 雄踞人类世界排名第一已两年" (in Chinese). May 2017. Archived from the original on 11 August 2017. Clark, Jack (8 December 2015). "Why 2015 Was a Breakthrough Year in Artificial Intelligence". Bloomberg News. Archived from the original on 23 November 2016. Retrieved 23 November 2016. After a half-decade of quiet breakthroughs in artificial intelligence, 2015 has been a landmark year. Computers are smarter and learning faster than ever. "Reshaping Business With Artificial Intelligence". MIT Sloan Management Review. Archived from the original on 19 May 2018. Retrieved 2 May 2018. Lorica, Ben (18 December 2017). "The state of AI adoption". O'Reilly Media. Archived from the original on 2 May 2018. Retrieved 2 May 2018. Allen, Gregory (6 February 2019). "Understanding China's AI Strategy". Center for a New American Security. Archived from the original on 17 March 2019. "Review | How two AI superpowers – the U.S. and China – battle for supremacy in the field". Washington Post. 2 November 2018. Archived from the original on 4 November 2018. Retrieved 4 November 2018. at 10:11, Alistair Dabbs 22 Feb 2019. "Artificial Intelligence: You know it isn't real, yeah?". www.theregister.co.uk. Archived from the original on 21 May 2020. Retrieved 22 August 2020. "Stop Calling it Artificial Intelligence". Archived from the original on 2 December 2019. Retrieved 1 December 2019. "AI isn't taking over the world – it doesn't exist yet". GBG Global website. Archived from the original on 11 August 2020. Retrieved 22 August 2020. Kaplan, Andreas; Haenlein, Michael (1 January 2019). "Siri, Siri, in my hand: Who's the fairest in the land? On the interpretations, illustrations, and implications of artificial intelligence". Business Horizons. 62 (1): 15–25. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2018.08.004. Domingos 2015, Chapter 5. Domingos 2015, Chapter 7. Lindenbaum, M., Markovitch, S., & Rusakov, D. (2004). Selective sampling for nearest neighbor classifiers. Machine learning, 54(2), 125–152. Domingos 2015, Chapter 1. Intractability and efficiency and the combinatorial explosion: * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 9, 21–22 Domingos 2015, Chapter 2, Chapter 3. Hart, P. E.; Nilsson, N. J.; Raphael, B. (1972). "Correction to "A Formal Basis for the Heuristic Determination of Minimum Cost Paths"". SIGART Newsletter (37): 28–29. doi:10.1145/1056777.1056779. S2CID 6386648. Domingos 2015, Chapter 2, Chapter 4, Chapter 6. "Can neural network computers learn from experience, and if so, could they ever become what we would call 'smart'?". Scientific American. 2018. Archived from the original on 25 March 2018. Retrieved 24 March 2018. Domingos 2015, Chapter 6, Chapter 7. Domingos 2015, p. 286. "Single pixel change fools AI programs". BBC News. 3 November 2017. Archived from the original on 22 March 2018. Retrieved 12 March 2018. "AI Has a Hallucination Problem That's Proving Tough to Fix". WIRED. 2018. Archived from the original on 12 March 2018. Retrieved 12 March 2018. Matti, D.; Ekenel, H. K.; Thiran, J. P. (2017). Combining LiDAR space clustering and convolutional neural networks for pedestrian detection. 2017 14th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Video and Signal Based Surveillance (AVSS). pp. 1–6. arXiv:1710.06160. doi:10.1109/AVSS.2017.8078512. ISBN 978-1-5386-2939-0. S2CID 2401976. Ferguson, Sarah; Luders, Brandon; Grande, Robert C.; How, Jonathan P. (2015). Real-Time Predictive Modeling and Robust Avoidance of Pedestrians with Uncertain, Changing Intentions. Algorithmic Foundations of Robotics XI. Springer Tracts in Advanced Robotics. 107. Springer, Cham. pp. 161–177. arXiv:1405.5581. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-16595-0_10. ISBN 978-3-319-16594-3. S2CID 8681101. "Cultivating Common Sense | DiscoverMagazine.com". Discover Magazine. 2017. Archived from the original on 25 March 2018. Retrieved 24 March 2018. Davis, Ernest; Marcus, Gary (24 August 2015). "Commonsense reasoning and commonsense knowledge in artificial intelligence". Communications of the ACM. 58 (9): 92–103. doi:10.1145/2701413. S2CID 13583137. Archived from the original on 22 August 2020. Retrieved 6 April 2020. Winograd, Terry (January 1972). "Understanding natural language". Cognitive Psychology. 3 (1): 1–191. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(72)90002-3. "Don't worry: Autonomous cars aren't coming tomorrow (or next year)". Autoweek. 2016. Archived from the original on 25 March 2018. Retrieved 24 March 2018. Knight, Will (2017). "Boston may be famous for bad drivers, but it's the testing ground for a smarter self-driving car". MIT Technology Review. Archived from the original on 22 August 2020. Retrieved 27 March 2018. Prakken, Henry (31 August 2017). "On the problem of making autonomous vehicles conform to traffic law". Artificial Intelligence and Law. 25 (3): 341–363. doi:10.1007/s10506-017-9210-0. Lieto, Antonio (May 2018). "The knowledge level in cognitive architectures: Current limitations and possible developments". Cognitive Systems Research. 48: 39–55. doi:10.1016/j.cogsys.2017.05.001. hdl:2318/1665207. S2CID 206868967. Problem solving, puzzle solving, game playing and deduction: * Russell & Norvig 2003, chpt. 3–9, * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, chpt. 2,3,7,9, * Luger & Stubblefield 2004, chpt. 3,4,6,8, * Nilsson 1998, chpt. 7–12 Uncertain reasoning: * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 452–644, * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 345–395, * Luger & Stubblefield 2004, pp. 333–381, * Nilsson 1998, chpt. 19 Psychological evidence of sub-symbolic reasoning: * Wason & Shapiro (1966) showed that people do poorly on completely abstract problems, but if the problem is restated to allow the use of intuitive social intelligence, performance dramatically improves. (See Wason selection task) * Kahneman, Slovic & Tversky (1982) have shown that people are terrible at elementary problems that involve uncertain reasoning. (See list of cognitive biases for several examples). * Lakoff & Núñez (2000) have controversially argued that even our skills at mathematics depend on knowledge and skills that come from "the body", i.e. sensorimotor and perceptual skills. (See Where Mathematics Comes From) Knowledge representation: * ACM 1998, I.2.4, * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 320–363, * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 23–46, 69–81, 169–196, 235–277, 281–298, 319–345, * Luger & Stubblefield 2004, pp. 227–243, * Nilsson 1998, chpt. 18 Knowledge engineering: * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 260–266, * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 199–233, * Nilsson 1998, chpt. ≈17.1–17.4 Representing categories and relations: Semantic networks, description logics, inheritance (including frames and scripts): * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 349–354, * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 174–177, * Luger & Stubblefield 2004, pp. 248–258, * Nilsson 1998, chpt. 18.3 Representing events and time:Situation calculus, event calculus, fluent calculus (including solving the frame problem): * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 328–341, * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 281–298, * Nilsson 1998, chpt. 18.2 Causal calculus: * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 335–337 Representing knowledge about knowledge: Belief calculus, modal logics: * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 341–344, * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 275–277 Sikos, Leslie F. (June 2017). Description Logics in Multimedia Reasoning. Cham: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-54066-5. ISBN 978-3-319-54066-5. S2CID 3180114. Archived from the original on 29 August 2017. Ontology: * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 320–328 Smoliar, Stephen W.; Zhang, HongJiang (1994). "Content based video indexing and retrieval". IEEE Multimedia. 1 (2): 62–72. doi:10.1109/93.311653. S2CID 32710913. Neumann, Bernd; Möller, Ralf (January 2008). "On scene interpretation with description logics". Image and Vision Computing. 26 (1): 82–101. doi:10.1016/j.imavis.2007.08.013. Kuperman, G. J.; Reichley, R. M.; Bailey, T. C. (1 July 2006). "Using Commercial Knowledge Bases for Clinical Decision Support: Opportunities, Hurdles, and Recommendations". Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. 13 (4): 369–371. doi:10.1197/jamia.M2055. PMC 1513681. PMID 16622160. MCGARRY, KEN (1 December 2005). "A survey of interestingness measures for knowledge discovery". The Knowledge Engineering Review. 20 (1): 39–61. doi:10.1017/S0269888905000408. S2CID 14987656. Bertini, M; Del Bimbo, A; Torniai, C (2006). "Automatic annotation and semantic retrieval of video sequences using multimedia ontologies". MM '06 Proceedings of the 14th ACM international conference on Multimedia. 14th ACM international conference on Multimedia. Santa Barbara: ACM. pp. 679–682. Qualification problem: * McCarthy & Hayes 1969 * Russell & Norvig 2003[page needed] While McCarthy was primarily concerned with issues in the logical representation of actions, Russell & Norvig 2003 apply the term to the more general issue of default reasoning in the vast network of assumptions underlying all our commonsense knowledge. Default reasoning and default logic, non-monotonic logics, circumscription, closed world assumption, abduction (Poole et al. places abduction under "default reasoning". Luger et al. places this under "uncertain reasoning"): * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 354–360, * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 248–256, 323–335, * Luger & Stubblefield 2004, pp. 335–363, * Nilsson 1998, ~18.3.3 Breadth of commonsense knowledge: * Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 21, * Crevier 1993, pp. 113–114, * Moravec 1988, p. 13, * Lenat & Guha 1989 (Introduction) Dreyfus & Dreyfus 1986. Gladwell 2005. Expert knowledge as embodied intuition: * Dreyfus & Dreyfus 1986 (Hubert Dreyfus is a philosopher and critic of AI who was among the first to argue that most useful human knowledge was encoded sub-symbolically. See Dreyfus' critique of AI) * Gladwell 2005 (Gladwell's Blink is a popular introduction to sub-symbolic reasoning and knowledge.) * Hawkins & Blakeslee 2005 (Hawkins argues that sub-symbolic knowledge should be the primary focus of AI research.) Planning: * ACM 1998, ~I.2.8, * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 375–459, * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 281–316, * Luger & Stubblefield 2004, pp. 314–329, * Nilsson 1998, chpt. 10.1–2, 22 Information value theory: * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 600–604 Classical planning: * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 375–430, * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 281–315, * Luger & Stubblefield 2004, pp. 314–329, * Nilsson 1998, chpt. 10.1–2, 22 Planning and acting in non-deterministic domains: conditional planning, execution monitoring, replanning and continuous planning: * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 430–449 Multi-agent planning and emergent behavior: * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 449–455 Turing 1950. Solomonoff 1956. Alan Turing discussed the centrality of learning as early as 1950, in his classic paper "Computing Machinery and Intelligence".[120] In 1956, at the original Dartmouth AI summer conference, Ray Solomonoff wrote a report on unsupervised probabilistic machine learning: "An Inductive Inference Machine".[121] This is a form of Tom Mitchell's widely quoted definition of machine learning: "A computer program is set to learn from an experience E with respect to some task T and some performance measure P if its performance on T as measured by P improves with experience E." Learning: * ACM 1998, I.2.6, * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 649–788, * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 397–438, * Luger & Stubblefield 2004, pp. 385–542, * Nilsson 1998, chpt. 3.3, 10.3, 17.5, 20 Jordan, M. I.; Mitchell, T. M. (16 July 2015). "Machine learning: Trends, perspectives, and prospects". Science. 349 (6245): 255–260. Bibcode:2015Sci...349..255J. doi:10.1126/science.aaa8415. PMID 26185243. S2CID 677218. Reinforcement learning: * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 763–788 * Luger & Stubblefield 2004, pp. 442–449 Natural language processing: * ACM 1998, I.2.7 * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 790–831 * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 91–104 * Luger & Stubblefield 2004, pp. 591–632 "Versatile question answering systems: seeing in synthesis" Archived 1 February 2016 at the Wayback Machine, Mittal et al., IJIIDS, 5(2), 119–142, 2011 Applications of natural language processing, including information retrieval (i.e. text mining) and machine translation: * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 840–857, * Luger & Stubblefield 2004, pp. 623–630 Cambria, Erik; White, Bebo (May 2014). "Jumping NLP Curves: A Review of Natural Language Processing Research [Review Article]". IEEE Computational Intelligence Magazine. 9 (2): 48–57. doi:10.1109/MCI.2014.2307227. S2CID 206451986. Vincent, James (7 November 2019). "OpenAI has published the text-generating AI it said was too dangerous to share". The Verge. Archived from the original on 11 June 2020. Retrieved 11 June 2020. Machine perception: * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 537–581, 863–898 * Nilsson 1998, ~chpt. 6 Speech recognition: * ACM 1998, ~I.2.7 * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 568–578 Object recognition: * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 885–892 Computer vision: * ACM 1998, I.2.10 * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 863–898 * Nilsson 1998, chpt. 6 Robotics: * ACM 1998, I.2.9, * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 901–942, * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 443–460 Moving and configuration space: * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 916–932 Tecuci 2012. Robotic mapping (localization, etc): * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 908–915 Cadena, Cesar; Carlone, Luca; Carrillo, Henry; Latif, Yasir; Scaramuzza, Davide; Neira, Jose; Reid, Ian; Leonard, John J. (December 2016). "Past, Present, and Future of Simultaneous Localization and Mapping: Toward the Robust-Perception Age". IEEE Transactions on Robotics. 32 (6): 1309–1332. arXiv:1606.05830. Bibcode:2016arXiv160605830C. doi:10.1109/TRO.2016.2624754. S2CID 2596787. Moravec, Hans (1988). Mind Children. Harvard University Press. p. 15. Chan, Szu Ping (15 November 2015). "This is what will happen when robots take over the world". Archived from the original on 24 April 2018. Retrieved 23 April 2018. "IKEA furniture and the limits of AI". The Economist. 2018. Archived from the original on 24 April 2018. Retrieved 24 April 2018. Kismet. Thompson, Derek (2018). "What Jobs Will the Robots Take?". The Atlantic. Archived from the original on 24 April 2018. Retrieved 24 April 2018. Scassellati, Brian (2002). "Theory of mind for a humanoid robot". Autonomous Robots. 12 (1): 13–24. doi:10.1023/A:1013298507114. S2CID 1979315. Cao, Yongcan; Yu, Wenwu; Ren, Wei; Chen, Guanrong (February 2013). "An Overview of Recent Progress in the Study of Distributed Multi-Agent Coordination". IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics. 9 (1): 427–438. arXiv:1207.3231. doi:10.1109/TII.2012.2219061. S2CID 9588126. Thro 1993. Edelson 1991. Tao & Tan 2005. Poria, Soujanya; Cambria, Erik; Bajpai, Rajiv; Hussain, Amir (September 2017). "A review of affective computing: From unimodal analysis to multimodal fusion". Information Fusion. 37: 98–125. doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2017.02.003. hdl:1893/25490. Emotion and affective computing: * Minsky 2006 Waddell, Kaveh (2018). "Chatbots Have Entered the Uncanny Valley". The Atlantic. Archived from the original on 24 April 2018. Retrieved 24 April 2018. Pennachin, C.; Goertzel, B. (2007). Contemporary Approaches to Artificial General Intelligence. Artificial General Intelligence. Cognitive Technologies. Cognitive Technologies. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-68677-4_1. ISBN 978-3-540-23733-4. Roberts, Jacob (2016). "Thinking Machines: The Search for Artificial Intelligence". Distillations. Vol. 2 no. 2. pp. 14–23. Archived from the original on 19 August 2018. Retrieved 20 March 2018. "The superhero of artificial intelligence: can this genius keep it in check?". the Guardian. 16 February 2016. Archived from the original on 23 April 2018. Retrieved 26 April 2018. Mnih, Volodymyr; Kavukcuoglu, Koray; Silver, David; Rusu, Andrei A.; Veness, Joel; Bellemare, Marc G.; Graves, Alex; Riedmiller, Martin; Fidjeland, Andreas K.; Ostrovski, Georg; Petersen, Stig; Beattie, Charles; Sadik, Amir; Antonoglou, Ioannis; King, Helen; Kumaran, Dharshan; Wierstra, Daan; Legg, Shane; Hassabis, Demis (26 February 2015). "Human-level control through deep reinforcement learning". Nature. 518 (7540): 529–533. Bibcode:2015Natur.518..529M. doi:10.1038/nature14236. PMID 25719670. S2CID 205242740. Sample, Ian (14 March 2017). "Google's DeepMind makes AI program that can learn like a human". the Guardian. Archived from the original on 26 April 2018. Retrieved 26 April 2018. "From not working to neural networking". The Economist. 2016. Archived from the original on 31 December 2016. Retrieved 26 April 2018. Domingos 2015. Artificial brain arguments: AI requires a simulation of the operation of the human brain * Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 957 * Crevier 1993, pp. 271 and 279 A few of the people who make some form of the argument: * Moravec 1988 * Kurzweil 2005, p. 262 * Hawkins & Blakeslee 2005 The most extreme form of this argument (the brain replacement scenario) was put forward by Clark Glymour in the mid-1970s and was touched on by Zenon Pylyshyn and John Searle in 1980. Goertzel, Ben; Lian, Ruiting; Arel, Itamar; de Garis, Hugo; Chen, Shuo (December 2010). "A world survey of artificial brain projects, Part II: Biologically inspired cognitive architectures". Neurocomputing. 74 (1–3): 30–49. doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2010.08.012. Nilsson 1983, p. 10. Nils Nilsson writes: "Simply put, there is wide disagreement in the field about what AI is all about."[163] AI's immediate precursors: * McCorduck 2004, pp. 51–107 * Crevier 1993, pp. 27–32 * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 15, 940 * Moravec 1988, p. 3 Haugeland 1985, pp. 112–117 The most dramatic case of sub-symbolic AI being pushed into the background was the devastating critique of perceptrons by Marvin Minsky and Seymour Papert in 1969. See History of AI, AI winter, or Frank Rosenblatt. Cognitive simulation, Newell and Simon, AI at CMU (then called Carnegie Tech): * McCorduck 2004, pp. 139–179, 245–250, 322–323 (EPAM) * Crevier 1993, pp. 145–149 Soar (history): * McCorduck 2004, pp. 450–451 * Crevier 1993, pp. 258–263 McCarthy and AI research at SAIL and SRI International: * McCorduck 2004, pp. 251–259 * Crevier 1993 AI research at Edinburgh and in France, birth of Prolog: * Crevier 1993, pp. 193–196 * Howe 1994 AI at MIT under Marvin Minsky in the 1960s : * McCorduck 2004, pp. 259–305 * Crevier 1993, pp. 83–102, 163–176 * Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 19 Cyc: * McCorduck 2004, p. 489, who calls it "a determinedly scruffy enterprise" * Crevier 1993, pp. 239–243 * Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 363−365 * Lenat & Guha 1989 Knowledge revolution: * McCorduck 2004, pp. 266–276, 298–300, 314, 421 * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 22–23 Frederick, Hayes-Roth; William, Murray; Leonard, Adelman. "Expert systems". AccessScience. doi:10.1036/1097-8542.248550. Embodied approaches to AI: * McCorduck 2004, pp. 454–462 * Brooks 1990 * Moravec 1988 Weng et al. 2001. Lungarella et al. 2003. Asada et al. 2009. Oudeyer 2010. Revival of connectionism: * Crevier 1993, pp. 214–215 * Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 25 Computational intelligence * IEEE Computational Intelligence Society Archived 9 May 2008 at the Wayback Machine Hutson, Matthew (16 February 2018). "Artificial intelligence faces reproducibility crisis". Science. pp. 725–726. Bibcode:2018Sci...359..725H. doi:10.1126/science.359.6377.725. Archived from the original on 29 April 2018. Retrieved 28 April 2018. Norvig 2012. Langley 2011. Katz 2012. The intelligent agent paradigm: * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 27, 32–58, 968–972 * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 7–21 * Luger & Stubblefield 2004, pp. 235–240 * Hutter 2005, pp. 125–126 The definition used in this article, in terms of goals, actions, perception and environment, is due to Russell & Norvig (2003). Other definitions also include knowledge and learning as additional criteria. Agent architectures, hybrid intelligent systems: * Russell & Norvig (2003, pp. 27, 932, 970–972) * Nilsson (1998, chpt. 25) Hierarchical control system: * Albus 2002 Lieto, Antonio; Lebiere, Christian; Oltramari, Alessandro (May 2018). "The knowledge level in cognitive architectures: Current limitations and possibile developments". Cognitive Systems Research. 48: 39–55. doi:10.1016/j.cogsys.2017.05.001. hdl:2318/1665207. S2CID 206868967. Lieto, Antonio; Bhatt, Mehul; Oltramari, Alessandro; Vernon, David (May 2018). "The role of cognitive architectures in general artificial intelligence". Cognitive Systems Research. 48: 1–3. doi:10.1016/j.cogsys.2017.08.003. hdl:2318/1665249. S2CID 36189683. Russell & Norvig 2009, p. 1. White Paper: On Artificial Intelligence - A European approach to excellence and trust (PDF). Brussels: European Commission. 2020. p. 1. Archived (PDF) from the original on 20 February 2020. Retrieved 20 February 2020. CNN 2006. Using AI to predict flight delays Archived 20 November 2018 at the Wayback Machine, Ishti.org. N. Aletras; D. Tsarapatsanis; D. Preotiuc-Pietro; V. Lampos (2016). "Predicting judicial decisions of the European Court of Human Rights: a Natural Language Processing perspective". PeerJ Computer Science. 2: e93. doi:10.7717/peerj-cs.93. "The Economist Explains: Why firms are piling into artificial intelligence". The Economist. 31 March 2016. Archived from the original on 8 May 2016. Retrieved 19 May 2016. Lohr, Steve (28 February 2016). "The Promise of Artificial Intelligence Unfolds in Small Steps". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 29 February 2016. Retrieved 29 February 2016. Frangoul, Anmar (14 June 2019). "A Californian business is using A.I. to change the way we think about energy storage". CNBC. Archived from the original on 25 July 2020. Retrieved 5 November 2019. Wakefield, Jane (15 June 2016). "Social media 'outstrips TV' as news source for young people". BBC News. Archived from the original on 24 June 2016. Smith, Mark (22 July 2016). "So you think you chose to read this article?". BBC News. Archived from the original on 25 July 2016. Brown, Eileen. "Half of Americans do not believe deepfake news could target them online". ZDNet. Archived from the original on 6 November 2019. Retrieved 3 December 2019. The Turing test: Turing's original publication: * Turing 1950 Historical influence and philosophical implications: * Haugeland 1985, pp. 6–9 * Crevier 1993, p. 24 * McCorduck 2004, pp. 70–71 * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 2–3 and 948 Dartmouth proposal: * McCarthy et al. 1955 (the original proposal) * Crevier 1993, p. 49 (historical significance) The physical symbol systems hypothesis: * Newell & Simon 1976, p. 116 * McCorduck 2004, p. 153 * Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 18 Dreyfus 1992, p. 156. Dreyfus criticized the necessary condition of the physical symbol system hypothesis, which he called the "psychological assumption": "The mind can be viewed as a device operating on bits of information according to formal rules."[206] Dreyfus' critique of artificial intelligence: * Dreyfus 1972, Dreyfus & Dreyfus 1986 * Crevier 1993, pp. 120–132 * McCorduck 2004, pp. 211–239 * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 950–952, Gödel 1951: in this lecture, Kurt Gödel uses the incompleteness theorem to arrive at the following disjunction: (a) the human mind is not a consistent finite machine, or (b) there exist Diophantine equations for which it cannot decide whether solutions exist. Gödel finds (b) implausible, and thus seems to have believed the human mind was not equivalent to a finite machine, i.e., its power exceeded that of any finite machine. He recognized that this was only a conjecture, since one could never disprove (b). Yet he considered the disjunctive conclusion to be a "certain fact". The Mathematical Objection: * Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 949 * McCorduck 2004, pp. 448–449 Making the Mathematical Objection: * Lucas 1961 * Penrose 1989 Refuting Mathematical Objection: * Turing 1950 under "(2) The Mathematical Objection" * Hofstadter 1979 Background: * Gödel 1931, Church 1936, Kleene 1935, Turing 1937 Graham Oppy (20 January 2015). "Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Archived from the original on 22 April 2016. Retrieved 27 April 2016. These Gödelian anti-mechanist arguments are, however, problematic, and there is wide consensus that they fail. Stuart J. Russell; Peter Norvig (2010). "26.1.2: Philosophical Foundations/Weak AI: Can Machines Act Intelligently?/The mathematical objection". Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. ISBN 978-0-13-604259-4. even if we grant that computers have limitations on what they can prove, there is no evidence that humans are immune from those limitations. Mark Colyvan. An introduction to the philosophy of mathematics. Cambridge University Press, 2012. From 2.2.2, 'Philosophical significance of Gödel's incompleteness results': "The accepted wisdom (with which I concur) is that the Lucas-Penrose arguments fail." Iphofen, Ron; Kritikos, Mihalis (3 January 2019). "Regulating artificial intelligence and robotics: ethics by design in a digital society". Contemporary Social Science: 1–15. doi:10.1080/21582041.2018.1563803. ISSN 2158-2041. "Ethical AI Learns Human Rights Framework". Voice of America. Archived from the original on 11 November 2019. Retrieved 10 November 2019. Crevier 1993, pp. 132–144. In the early 1970s, Kenneth Colby presented a version of Weizenbaum's ELIZA known as DOCTOR which he promoted as a serious therapeutic tool.[216] Joseph Weizenbaum's critique of AI: * Weizenbaum 1976 * Crevier 1993, pp. 132–144 * McCorduck 2004, pp. 356–373 * Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 961 Weizenbaum (the AI researcher who developed the first chatterbot program, ELIZA) argued in 1976 that the misuse of artificial intelligence has the potential to devalue human life. Wendell Wallach (2010). Moral Machines, Oxford University Press. Wallach, pp 37–54. Wallach, pp 55–73. Wallach, Introduction chapter. Michael Anderson and Susan Leigh Anderson (2011), Machine Ethics, Cambridge University Press. "Machine Ethics". aaai.org. Archived from the original on 29 November 2014. Rubin, Charles (Spring 2003). "Artificial Intelligence and Human Nature". The New Atlantis. 1: 88–100. Archived from the original on 11 June 2012. Brooks, Rodney (10 November 2014). "artificial intelligence is a tool, not a threat". Archived from the original on 12 November 2014. "Stephen Hawking, Elon Musk, and Bill Gates Warn About Artificial Intelligence". Observer. 19 August 2015. Archived from the original on 30 October 2015. Retrieved 30 October 2015. Chalmers, David (1995). "Facing up to the problem of consciousness". Journal of Consciousness Studies. 2 (3): 200–219. Archived from the original on 8 March 2005. Retrieved 11 October 2018. See also this link Archived 8 April 2011 at the Wayback Machine Horst, Steven, (2005) "The Computational Theory of Mind" Archived 11 September 2018 at the Wayback Machine in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Searle 1980, p. 1. This version is from Searle (1999), and is also quoted in Dennett 1991, p. 435. Searle's original formulation was "The appropriately programmed computer really is a mind, in the sense that computers given the right programs can be literally said to understand and have other cognitive states." [230] Strong AI is defined similarly by Russell & Norvig (2003, p. 947): "The assertion that machines could possibly act intelligently
HackerFoo / PegA lazy non-deterministic concatenative programming language
php-mock / Php Mock MockeryMock non deterministic built-in PHP functions (e.g. time() or rand()) with Mockery.
jackwadden / VASimVASim is a virtual homogeneous non-deterministic finite automata automata simulator and transformation tool. VASim can parse, transform, simulate, and profile homogeneous NFAs, and is meant to be an open tool for automata processing research. VASim can also be extended to support hypothetical automata processing elements.
ennocramer / Monad DijkstraHaskell monad transformer for weighted, non-deterministic computation
Mdshobu / Liberty House Club Whitepaper# Liberty House Club **A Parallel Binance Chain to Enable Smart Contracts** _NOTE: This document is under development. Please check regularly for updates!_ ## Table of Contents - [Motivation](#motivation) - [Design Principles](#design-principles) - [Consensus and Validator Quorum](#consensus-and-validator-quorum) * [Proof of Staked Authority](#proof-of-staked-authority) * [Validator Quorum](#validator-quorum) * [Security and Finality](#security-and-finality) * [Reward](#reward) - [Token Economy](#token-economy) * [Native Token](#native-token) * [Other Tokens](#other-tokens) - [Cross-Chain Transfer and Communication](#cross-chain-transfer-and-communication) * [Cross-Chain Transfer](#cross-chain-transfer) * [BC to BSC Architecture](#bc-to-bsc-architecture) * [BSC to BC Architecture](#bsc-to-bc-architecture) * [Timeout and Error Handling](#timeout-and-error-handling) * [Cross-Chain User Experience](#cross-chain-user-experience) * [Cross-Chain Contract Event](#cross-chain-contract-event) - [Staking and Governance](#staking-and-governance) * [Staking on BC](#staking-on-bc) * [Rewarding](#rewarding) * [Slashing](#slashing) - [Relayers](#relayers) * [BSC Relayers](#bsc-relayers) * [Oracle Relayers](#oracle-relayers) - [Outlook](#outlook) # Motivation After its mainnet community [launch](https://www.binance.com/en/blog/327334696200323072/Binance-DEX-Launches-on-Binance-Chain-Invites-Further-Community-Development) in April 2019, [Binance Chain](https://www.binance.org) has exhibited its high speed and large throughput design. Binance Chain’s primary focus, its native [decentralized application](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decentralized_application) (“dApp”) [Binance DEX](https://www.binance.org/trade), has demonstrated its low-latency matching with large capacity headroom by handling millions of trading volume in a short time. Flexibility and usability are often in an inverse relationship with performance. The concentration on providing a convenient digital asset issuing and trading venue also brings limitations. Binance Chain's most requested feature is the programmable extendibility, or simply the [Smart Contract](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_contract) and Virtual Machine functions. Digital asset issuers and owners struggle to add new decentralized features for their assets or introduce any sort of community governance and activities. Despite this high demand for adding the Smart Contract feature onto Binance Chain, it is a hard decision to make. The execution of a Smart Contract may slow down the exchange function and add non-deterministic factors to trading. If that compromise could be tolerated, it might be a straightforward idea to introduce a new Virtual Machine specification based on [Tendermint](https://tendermint.com/core/), based on the current underlying consensus protocol and major [RPC](https://docs.binance.org/api-reference/node-rpc.html) implementation of Binance Chain. But all these will increase the learning requirements for all existing dApp communities, and will not be very welcomed. We propose a parallel blockchain of the current Binance Chain to retain the high performance of the native DEX blockchain and to support a friendly Smart Contract function at the same time. # Design Principles After the creation of the parallel blockchain into the Binance Chain ecosystem, two blockchains will run side by side to provide different services. The new parallel chain will be called “**Binance Smart Chain**” (short as “**BSC**” for the below sections), while the existing mainnet remains named “**Binance Chain**” (short as “**BC**” for the below sections). Here are the design principles of **BSC**: 1. **Standalone Blockchain**: technically, BSC is a standalone blockchain, instead of a layer-2 solution. Most BSC fundamental technical and business functions should be self-contained so that it can run well even if the BC stopped for a short period. 2. **Ethereum Compatibility**: The first practical and widely-used Smart Contract platform is Ethereum. To take advantage of the relatively mature applications and community, BSC chooses to be compatible with the existing Ethereum mainnet. This means most of the **dApps**, ecosystem components, and toolings will work with BSC and require zero or minimum changes; BSC node will require similar (or a bit higher) hardware specification and skills to run and operate. The implementation should leave room for BSC to catch up with further Ethereum upgrades. 3. **Staking Involved Consensus and Governance**: Staking-based consensus is more environmentally friendly and leaves more flexible option to the community governance. Expectedly, this consensus should enable better network performance over [proof-of-work](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_work) blockchain system, i.e., faster blocking time and higher transaction capacity. 4. **Native Cross-Chain Communication**: both BC and BSC will be implemented with native support for cross-chain communication among the two blockchains. The communication protocol should be bi-directional, decentralized, and trustless. It will concentrate on moving digital assets between BC and BSC, i.e., [BEP2](https://github.com/binance-chain/BEPs/blob/master/BEP2.md) tokens, and eventually, other BEP tokens introduced later. The protocol should care for the minimum of other items stored in the state of the blockchains, with only a few exceptions. # Consensus and Validator Quorum Based on the above design principles, the consensus protocol of BSC is to fulfill the following goals: 1. Blocking time should be shorter than Ethereum network, e.g. 5 seconds or even shorter. 2. It requires limited time to confirm the finality of transactions, e.g. around 1-min level or shorter. 3. There is no inflation of native token: BNB, the block reward is collected from transaction fees, and it will be paid in BNB. 4. It is compatible with Ethereum system as much as possible. 5. It allows modern [proof-of-stake](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_stake) blockchain network governance. ## Proof of Staked Authority Although Proof-of-Work (PoW) has been recognized as a practical mechanism to implement a decentralized network, it is not friendly to the environment and also requires a large size of participants to maintain the security. Ethereum and some other blockchain networks, such as [MATIC Bor](https://github.com/maticnetwork/bor), [TOMOChain](https://tomochain.com/), [GoChain](https://gochain.io/), [xDAI](https://xdai.io/), do use [Proof-of-Authority(PoA)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_authority) or its variants in different scenarios, including both testnet and mainnet. PoA provides some defense to 51% attack, with improved efficiency and tolerance to certain levels of Byzantine players (malicious or hacked). It serves as an easy choice to pick as the fundamentals. Meanwhile, the PoA protocol is most criticized for being not as decentralized as PoW, as the validators, i.e. the nodes that take turns to produce blocks, have all the authorities and are prone to corruption and security attacks. Other blockchains, such as EOS and Lisk both, introduce different types of [Delegated Proof of Stake (DPoS)](https://en.bitcoinwiki.org/wiki/DPoS) to allow the token holders to vote and elect the validator set. It increases the decentralization and favors community governance. BSC here proposes to combine DPoS and PoA for consensus, so that: 1. Blocks are produced by a limited set of validators 2. Validators take turns to produce blocks in a PoA manner, similar to [Ethereum’s Clique](https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-225) consensus design 3. Validator set are elected in and out based on a staking based governance ## Validator Quorum In the genesis stage, a few trusted nodes will run as the initial Validator Set. After the blocking starts, anyone can compete to join as candidates to elect as a validator. The staking status decides the top 21 most staked nodes to be the next validator set, and such an election will repeat every 24 hours. **BNB** is the token used to stake for BSC. In order to remain as compatible as Ethereum and upgradeable to future consensus protocols to be developed, BSC chooses to rely on the **BC** for staking management (Please refer to the below “[Staking and Governance](#staking-and-governance)” section). There is a **dedicated staking module for BSC on BC**. It will accept BSC staking from BNB holders and calculate the highest staked node set. Upon every UTC midnight, BC will issue a verifiable `ValidatorSetUpdate` cross-chain message to notify BSC to update its validator set. While producing further blocks, the existing BSC validators check whether there is a `ValidatorSetUpdate` message relayed onto BSC periodically. If there is, they will update the validator set after an **epoch period**, i.e. a predefined number of blocking time. For example, if BSC produces a block every 5 seconds, and the epoch period is 240 blocks, then the current validator set will check and update the validator set for the next epoch in 1200 seconds (20 minutes). ## Security and Finality Given there are more than ½\*N+1 validators are honest, PoA based networks usually work securely and properly. However, there are still cases where certain amount Byzantine validators may still manage to attack the network, e.g. through the “[Clone Attack](https://arxiv.org/pdf/1902.10244.pdf)”. To secure as much as BC, BSC users are encouraged to wait until receiving blocks sealed by more than ⅔\*N+1 different validators. In that way, the BSC can be trusted at a similar security level to BC and can tolerate less than ⅓\*N Byzantine validators. With 21 validators, if the block time is 5 seconds, the ⅔\*N+1 different validator seals will need a time period of (⅔\*21+1)*5 = 75 seconds. Any critical applications for BSC may have to wait for ⅔\*N+1 to ensure a relatively secure finality. However, besides such arrangement, BSC does introduce **Slashing** logic to penalize Byzantine validators for **double signing** or **inavailability**, which will be covered in the “Staking and Governance” section later. This Slashing logic will expose the malicious validators in a very short time and make the “Clone Attack” very hard or extremely non-beneficial to execute. With this enhancement, ½\*N+1 or even fewer blocks are enough as confirmation for most transactions. ## Reward All the BSC validators in the current validator set will be rewarded with transaction **fees in BNB**. As BNB is not an inflationary token, there will be no mining rewards as what Bitcoin and Ethereum network generate, and the gas fee is the major reward for validators. As BNB is also utility tokens with other use cases, delegators and validators will still enjoy other benefits of holding BNB. The reward for validators is the fees collected from transactions in each block. Validators can decide how much to give back to the delegators who stake their BNB to them, in order to attract more staking. Every validator will take turns to produce the blocks in the same probability (if they stick to 100% liveness), thus, in the long run, all the stable validators may get a similar size of the reward. Meanwhile, the stakes on each validator may be different, so this brings a counter-intuitive situation that more users trust and delegate to one validator, they potentially get less reward. So rational delegators will tend to delegate to the one with fewer stakes as long as the validator is still trustful (insecure validator may bring slashable risk). In the end, the stakes on all the validators will have less variation. This will actually prevent the stake concentration and “winner wins forever” problem seen on some other networks. Some parts of the gas fee will also be rewarded to relayers for Cross-Chain communication. Please refer to the “[Relayers](#relayers)” section below. # Token Economy BC and BSC share the same token universe for BNB and BEP2 tokens. This defines: 1. The same token can circulate on both networks, and flow between them bi-directionally via a cross-chain communication mechanism. 2. The total circulation of the same token should be managed across the two networks, i.e. the total effective supply of a token should be the sum of the token’s total effective supply on both BSC and BC. 3. The tokens can be initially created on BSC in a similar format as ERC20 token standard, or on BC as a BEP2, then created on the other. There are native ways on both networks to link the two and secure the total supply of the token. ## Native Token BNB will run on BSC in the same way as ETH runs on Ethereum so that it remains as “native token” for both BSC and BC. This means, in addition to BNB is used to pay most of the fees on Binance Chain and Binance DEX, BNB will be also used to: 1. pay “fees“ to deploy smart contracts on BSC 2. stake on selected BSC validators, and get corresponding rewards 3. perform cross-chain operations, such as transfer token assets across BC and BSC ### Seed Fund Certain amounts of BNB will be burnt on BC and minted on BSC during its genesis stage. This amount is called “Seed Fund” to circulate on BSC after the first block, which will be dispatched to the initial BC-to-BSC Relayer(described in later sections) and initial validator set introduced at genesis. These BNBs are used to pay transaction fees in the early stage to transfer more BNB from BC onto BSC via the cross-chain mechanism. The BNB cross-chain transfer is discussed in a later section, but for BC to BSC transfer, it is generally to lock BNB on BC from the source address of the transfer to a system-controlled address and unlock the corresponding amount from special contract to the target address of the transfer on BSC, or reversely, when transferring from BSC to BC, it is to lock BNB from the source address on BSC into a special contract and release locked amount on BC from the system address to the target address. The logic is related to native code on BC and a series of smart contracts on BSC. ## Other Tokens BC supports BEP2 tokens and upcoming [BEP8 tokens](https://github.com/binance-chain/BEPs/pull/69), which are native assets transferrable and tradable (if listed) via fast transactions and sub-second finality. Meanwhile, as BSC is Ethereum compatible, it is natural to support ERC20 tokens on BSC, which here is called “**BEP2E**” (with the real name to be introduced by the future BEPs,it potentially covers BEP8 as well). BEP2E may be “Enhanced” by adding a few more methods to expose more information, such as token denomination, decimal precision definition and the owner address who can decide the Token Binding across the chains. BSC and BC work together to ensure that one token can circulate in both formats with confirmed total supply and be used in different use cases. ### Token Binding BEP2 tokens will be extended to host a new attribute to associate the token with a BSC BEP2E token contract, called “**Binder**”, and this process of association is called “**Token Binding**”. Token Binding can happen at any time after BEP2 and BEP2E are ready. The token owners of either BEP2 or BEP2E don’t need to bother about the Binding, until before they really want to use the tokens on different scenarios. Issuers can either create BEP2 first or BEP2E first, and they can be bound at a later time. Of course, it is encouraged for all the issuers of BEP2 and BEP2E to set the Binding up early after the issuance. A typical procedure to bind the BEP2 and BEP2E will be like the below: 1. Ensure both the BEP2 token and the BEP2E token both exist on each blockchain, with the same total supply. BEP2E should have 3 more methods than typical ERC20 token standard: * symbol(): get token symbol * decimals(): get the number of the token decimal digits * owner(): get **BEP2E contract owner’s address.** This value should be initialized in the BEP2E contract constructor so that the further binding action can verify whether the action is from the BEP2E owner. 2. Decide the initial circulation on both blockchains. Suppose the total supply is *S*, and the expected initial circulating supply on BC is *K*, then the owner should lock S-K tokens to a system controlled address on BC. 3. Equivalently, *K* tokens is locked in the special contract on BSC, which handles major binding functions and is named as **TokenHub**. The issuer of the BEP2E token should lock the *K* amount of that token into TokenHub, resulting in *S-K* tokens to circulate on BSC. Thus the total circulation across 2 blockchains remains as *S*. 4. The issuer of BEP2 token sends the bind transaction on BC. Once the transaction is executed successfully after proper verification: * It transfers *S-K* tokens to a system-controlled address on BC. * A cross-chain bind request package will be created, waiting for Relayers to relay. 5. BSC Relayers will relay the cross-chain bind request package into **TokenHub** on BSC, and the corresponding request and information will be stored into the contract. 6. The contract owner and only the owner can run a special method of TokenHub contract, `ApproveBind`, to verify the binding request to mark it as a success. It will confirm: * the token has not been bound; * the binding is for the proper symbol, with proper total supply and decimal information; * the proper lock are done on both networks; 10. Once the `ApproveBind` method has succeeded, TokenHub will mark the two tokens are bounded and share the same circulation on BSC, and the status will be propagated back to BC. After this final confirmation, the BEP2E contract address and decimals will be written onto the BEP2 token as a new attribute on BC, and the tokens can be transferred across the two blockchains bidirectionally. If the ApproveBind fails, the failure event will also be propagated back to BC to release the locked tokens, and the above steps can be re-tried later. # Cross-Chain Transfer and Communication Cross-chain communication is the key foundation to allow the community to take advantage of the dual chain structure: * users are free to create any tokenization, financial products, and digital assets on BSC or BC as they wish * the items on BSC can be manually and programmingly traded and circulated in a stable, high throughput, lighting fast and friendly environment of BC * users can operate these in one UI and tooling ecosystem. ## Cross-Chain Transfer The cross-chain transfer is the key communication between the two blockchains. Essentially the logic is: 1. the `transfer-out` blockchain will lock the amount from source owner addresses into a system controlled address/contracts; 2. the `transfer-in` blockchain will unlock the amount from the system controlled address/contracts and send it to target addresses. The cross-chain transfer package message should allow the BSC Relayers and BC **Oracle Relayers** to verify: 1. Enough amount of token assets are removed from the source address and locked into a system controlled addresses/contracts on the source blockchain. And this can be confirmed on the target blockchain. 2. Proper amounts of token assets are released from a system controlled addresses/contracts and allocated into target addresses on the target blockchain. If this fails, it can be confirmed on source blockchain, so that the locked token can be released back (may deduct fees). 3. The sum of the total circulation of the token assets across the 2 blockchains are not changed after this transfer action completes, no matter if the transfer succeeds or not.  The architecture of cross-chain communication is as in the above diagram. To accommodate the 2 heteroid systems, communication handling is different in each direction. ## BC to BSC Architecture BC is a Tendermint-based, instant finality blockchain. Validators with at least ⅔\*N+1 of the total voting power will co-sign each block on the chain. So that it is practical to verify the block transactions and even the state value via **Block Header** and **Merkle Proof** verification. This has been researched and implemented as “**Light-Client Protocol**”, which are intensively discussed in [the Ethereum](https://github.com/ethereum/wiki/wiki/Light-client-protocol) community, studied and implemented for [Cosmos inter-chain communication](https://github.com/cosmos/ics/blob/a4173c91560567bdb7cc9abee8e61256fc3725e9/spec/ics-007-tendermint-client/README.md). BC-to-BSC communication will be verified in an “**on-chain light client**” implemented via BSC **Smart Contracts** (some of them may be **“pre-compiled”**). After some transactions and state change happen on BC, if a transaction is defined to trigger cross-chain communication,the Cross-chain “**package**” message will be created and **BSC Relayers** will pass and submit them onto BSC as data into the "build-in system contracts". The build-in system contracts will verify the package and execute the transactions if it passes the verification. The verification will be guaranteed with the below design: 1. BC blocking status will be synced to the light client contracts on BSC from time to time, via block header and pre-commits, for the below information: * block and app hash of BC that are signed by validators * current validatorset, and validator set update 2. the key-value from the blockchain state will be verified based on the Merkle Proof and information from above #1. After confirming the key-value is accurate and trustful, the build-in system contracts will execute the actions corresponding to the cross-chain packages. Some examples of such packages that can be created for BC-to-BSC are: 1. Bind: bind the BEP2 tokens and BEP2E 2. Transfer: transfer tokens after binding, this means the circulation will decrease (be locked) from BC and appear in the target address balance on BSC 3. Error Handling: to handle any timeout/failure event for BSC-to-BC communication 4. Validatorset update of BSC To ensure no duplication, proper message sequence and timely timeout, there is a “Channel” concept introduced on BC to manage any types of the communication. For relayers, please also refer to the below “Relayers” section. ## BSC to BC Architecture BSC uses Proof of Staked Authority consensus protocol, which has a chance to fork and requires confirmation of more blocks. One block only has the signature of one validator, so that it is not easy to rely on one block to verify data from BSC. To take full advantage of validator quorum of BC, an idea similar to many [Bridge ](https://github.com/poanetwork/poa-bridge)or Oracle blockchains is adopted: 1. The cross-chain communication requests from BSC will be submitted and executed onto BSC as transactions. The execution of the transanction wil emit `Events`, and such events can be observed and packaged in certain “**Oracle**” onto BC. Instead of Block Headers, Hash and Merkle Proof, this type of “Oracle” package directly contains the cross-chain information for actions, such as sender, receiver and amount for transfer. 2. To ensure the security of the Oracle, the validators of BC will form anothe quorum of “**Oracle Relayers**”. Each validator of the BC should run a **dedicated process** as the Oracle Relayer. These Oracle Relayers will submit and vote for the cross-chain communication package, like Oracle, onto BC, using the same validator keys. Any package signed by more than ⅔\*N+1 Oracle Relayers’ voting power is as secure as any block signed by ⅔\*N+1 of the same quorum of validators’ voting power. By using the same validator quorum, it saves the light client code on BC and continuous block updates onto BC. Such Oracles also have Oracle IDs and types, to ensure sequencing and proper error handling. ## Timeout and Error Handling There are scenarios that the cross-chain communication fails. For example, the relayed package cannot be executed on BSC due to some coding bug in the contracts. **Timeout and error handling logics are** used in such scenarios. For the recognizable user and system errors or any expected exceptions, the two networks should heal themselves. For example, when BC to BSC transfer fails, BSC will issue a failure event and Oracle Relayers will execute a refund on BC; when BSC to BC transfer fails, BC will issue a refund package for Relayer to relay in order to unlock the fund. However, unexpected error or exception may still happen on any step of the cross-chain communication. In such a case, the Relayers and Oracle Relayers will discover that the corresponding cross-chain channel is stuck in a particular sequence. After a Timeout period, the Relayers and Oracle Relayers can request a “SkipSequence” transaction, the stuck sequence will be marked as “Unexecutable”. A corresponding alerts will be raised, and the community has to discuss how to handle this scenario, e.g. payback via the sponsor of the validators, or event clear the fund during next network upgrade. ## Cross-Chain User Experience Ideally, users expect to use two parallel chains in the same way as they use one single chain. It requires more aggregated transaction types to be added onto the cross-chain communication to enable this, which will add great complexity, tight coupling, and maintenance burden. Here BC and BSC only implement the basic operations to enable the value flow in the initial launch and leave most of the user experience work to client side UI, such as wallets. E.g. a great wallet may allow users to sell a token directly from BSC onto BC’s DEX order book, in a secure way. ## Cross-Chain Contract Event Cross-Chain Contract Event (CCCE) is designed to allow a smart contract to trigger cross-chain transactions, directly through the contract code. This becomes possible based on: 1. Standard system contracts can be provided to serve operations callable by general smart contracts; 2. Standard events can be emitted by the standard contracts; 3. Oracle Relayers can capture the standard events, and trigger the corresponding cross-chain operations; 4. Dedicated, code-managed address (account) can be created on BC and accessed by the contracts on the BSC, here it is named as **“Contract Address on BC” (CAoB)**. Several standard operations are implemented: 1. BSC to BC transfer: this is implemented in the same way as normal BSC to BC transfer, by only triggered via standard contract. The fund can be transferred to any addresses on BC, including the corresponding CAoB of the transfer originating contract. 2. Transfer on BC: this is implemented as a special cross-chain transfer, while the real transfer is from **CAoB** to any other address (even another CAoB). 3. BC to BSC transfer: this is implemented as two-pass cross-chain communication. The first is triggered by the BSC contract and propagated onto BC, and then in the second pass, BC will start a normal BC to BSC cross-chain transfer, from **CAoB** to contract address on BSC. A special note should be paid on that the BSC contract only increases balance upon any transfer coming in on the second pass, and the error handling in the second pass is the same as the normal BC to BSC transfer. 4. IOC (Immediate-Or-Cancel) Trade Out: the primary goal of transferring assets to BC is to trade. This event will instruct to trade a certain amount of an asset in CAoB into another asset as much as possible and transfer out all the results, i.e. the left the source and the traded target tokens of the trade, back to BSC. BC will handle such relayed events by sending an “Immediate-Or-Cancel”, i.e. IOC order onto the trading pairs, once the next matching finishes, the result will be relayed back to BSC, which can be in either one or two assets. 5. Auction Trade Out: Such event will instruct BC to send an auction order to trade a certain amount of an asset in **CAoB** into another asset as much as possible and transfer out all the results back to BSC at the end of the auction. Auction function is upcoming on BC. There are some details for the Trade Out: 1. both can have a limit price (absolute or relative) for the trade; 2. the end result will be written as cross-chain packages to relay back to BSC; 3. cross-chain communication fees may be charged from the asset transferred back to BSC; 4. BSC contract maintains a mirror of the balance and outstanding orders on CAoB. No matter what error happens during the Trade Out, the final status will be propagated back to the originating contract and clear its internal state. With the above features, it simply adds the cross-chain transfer and exchange functions with high liquidity onto all the smart contracts on BSC. It will greatly add the application scenarios on Smart Contract and dApps, and make 1 chain +1 chain > 2 chains. # Staking and Governance Proof of Staked Authority brings in decentralization and community involvement. Its core logic can be summarized as the below. You may see similar ideas from other networks, especially Cosmos and EOS. 1. Token holders, including the validators, can put their tokens “**bonded**” into the stake. Token holders can **delegate** their tokens onto any validator or validator candidate, to expect it can become an actual validator, and later they can choose a different validator or candidate to **re-delegate** their tokens<sup>1</sup>. 2. All validator candidates will be ranked by the number of bonded tokens on them, and the top ones will become the real validators. 3. Validators can share (part of) their blocking reward with their delegators. 4. Validators can suffer from “**Slashing**”, a punishment for their bad behaviors, such as double sign and/or instability. 5. There is an “**unbonding period**” for validators and delegators so that the system makes sure the tokens remain bonded when bad behaviors are caught, the responsible will get slashed during this period. ## Staking on BC Ideally, such staking and reward logic should be built into the blockchain, and automatically executed as the blocking happens. Cosmos Hub, who shares the same Tendermint consensus and libraries with Binance Chain, works in this way. BC has been preparing to enable staking logic since the design days. On the other side, as BSC wants to remain compatible with Ethereum as much as possible, it is a great challenge and efforts to implement such logic on it. This is especially true when Ethereum itself may move into a different Proof of Stake consensus protocol in a short (or longer) time. In order to keep the compatibility and reuse the good foundation of BC, the staking logic of BSC is implemented on BC: 1. The staking token is BNB, as it is a native token on both blockchains anyway 2. The staking, i.e. token bond and delegation actions and records for BSC, happens on BC. 3. The BSC validator set is determined by its staking and delegation logic, via a staking module built on BC for BSC, and propagated every day UTC 00:00 from BC to BSC via Cross-Chain communication. 4. The reward distribution happens on BC around every day UTC 00:00. ## Rewarding Both the validator update and reward distribution happen every day around UTC 00:00. This is to save the cost of frequent staking updates and block reward distribution. This cost can be significant, as the blocking reward is collected on BSC and distributed on BC to BSC validators and delegators. (Please note BC blocking fees will remain rewarding to BC validators only.) A deliberate delay is introduced here to make sure the distribution is fair: 1. The blocking reward will not be sent to validator right away, instead, they will be distributed and accumulated on a contract; 2. Upon receiving the validator set update into BSC, it will trigger a few cross-chain transfers to transfer the reward to custody addresses on the corresponding validators. The custody addresses are owned by the system so that the reward cannot be spent until the promised distribution to delegators happens. 3. In order to make the synchronization simpler and allocate time to accommodate slashing, the reward for N day will be only distributed in N+2 days. After the delegators get the reward, the left will be transferred to validators’ own reward addresses. ## Slashing Slashing is part of the on-chain governance, to ensure the malicious or negative behaviors are punished. BSC slash can be submitted by anyone. The transaction submission requires **slash evidence** and cost fees but also brings a larger reward when it is successful. So far there are two slashable cases. ### Double Sign It is quite a serious error and very likely deliberate offense when a validator signs more than one block with the same height and parent block. The reference protocol implementation should already have logic to prevent this, so only the malicious code can trigger this. When Double Sign happens, the validator should be removed from the Validator **Set** right away. Anyone can submit a slash request on BC with the evidence of Double Sign of BSC, which should contain the 2 block headers with the same height and parent block, sealed by the offending validator. Upon receiving the evidence, if the BC verifies it to be valid: 1. The validator will be removed from validator set by an instance BSC validator set update Cross-Chain update; 2. A predefined amount of BNB would be slashed from the **self-delegated** BNB of the validator; Both validator and its delegators will not receive the staking rewards. 3. Part of the slashed BNB will allocate to the submitter’s address, which is a reward and larger than the cost of submitting slash request transaction 4. The rest of the slashed BNB will allocate to the other validators’ custody addresses, and distributed to all delegators in the same way as blocking reward. ### Inavailability The liveness of BSC relies on everyone in the Proof of Staked Authority validator set can produce blocks timely when it is their turn. Validators can miss their turn due to any reason, especially problems in their hardware, software, configuration or network. This instability of the operation will hurt the performance and introduce more indeterministic into the system. There can be an internal smart contract responsible for recording the missed blocking metrics of each validator. Once the metrics are above the predefined threshold, the blocking reward for validator will not be relayed to BC for distribution but shared with other better validators. In such a way, the poorly-operating validator should be gradually voted out of the validator set as their delegators will receive less or none reward. If the metrics remain above another higher level of threshold, the validator will be dropped from the rotation, and this will be propagated back to BC, then a predefined amount of BNB would be slashed from the **self-delegated** BNB of the validator. Both validators and delegators will not receive their staking rewards. ### Governance Parameters There are many system parameters to control the behavior of the BSC, e.g. slash amount, cross-chain transfer fees. All these parameters will be determined by BSC Validator Set together through a proposal-vote process based on their staking. Such the process will be carried on BC, and the new parameter values will be picked up by corresponding system contracts via a cross-chain communication. # Relayers Relayers are responsible to submit Cross-Chain Communication Packages between the two blockchains. Due to the heterogeneous parallel chain structure, two different types of Relayers are created. ## BSC Relayers Relayers for BC to BSC communication referred to as “**BSC Relayers**”, or just simply “Relayers”. Relayer is a standalone process that can be run by anyone, and anywhere, except that Relayers must register themselves onto BSC and deposit a certain refundable amount of BNB. Only relaying requests from the registered Relayers will be accepted by BSC. The package they relay will be verified by the on-chain light client on BSC. The successful relay needs to pass enough verification and costs gas fees on BSC, and thus there should be incentive reward to encourage the community to run Relayers. ### Incentives There are two major communication types: 1. Users triggered Operations, such as `token bind` or `cross chain transfer`. Users must pay additional fee to as relayer reward. The reward will be shared with the relayers who sync the referenced blockchain headers. Besides, the reward won't be paid the relayers' accounts directly. A reward distribution mechanism will be brought in to avoid monopolization. 2. System Synchronization, such as delivering `refund package`(caused by failures of most oracle relayers), special blockchain header synchronization(header contains BC validatorset update), BSC staking package. System reward contract will pay reward to relayers' accounts directly. If some Relayers have faster networks and better hardware, they can monopolize all the package relaying and leave no reward to others. Thus fewer participants will join for relaying, which encourages centralization and harms the efficiency and security of the network. Ideally, due to the decentralization and dynamic re-election of BSC validators, one Relayer can hardly be always the first to relay every message. But in order to avoid the monopolization further, the rewarding economy is also specially designed to minimize such chance: 1. The reward for Relayers will be only distributed in batches, and one batch will cover a number of successful relayed packages. 2. The reward a Relayer can get from a batch distribution is not linearly in proportion to their number of successful relayed packages. Instead, except the first a few relays, the more a Relayer relays during a batch period, the less reward it will collect. ## Oracle Relayers Relayers for BSC to BC communication are using the “Oracle” model, and so-called “**Oracle Relayers**”. Each of the validators must, and only the ones of the validator set, run Oracle Relayers. Each Oracle Relayer watches the blockchain state change. Once it catches Cross-Chain Communication Packages, it will submit to vote for the requests. After Oracle Relayers from ⅔ of the voting power of BC validators vote for the changes, the cross-chain actions will be performed. Oracle Replayers should wait for enough blocks to confirm the finality on BSC before submitting and voting for the cross-chain communication packages onto BC. The cross-chain fees will be distributed to BC validators together with the normal BC blocking rewards. Such oracle type relaying depends on all the validators to support. As all the votes for the cross-chain communication packages are recorded on the blockchain, it is not hard to have a metric system to assess the performance of the Oracle Relayers. The poorest performer may have their rewards clawed back via another Slashing logic introduced in the future. # Outlook It is hard to conclude for Binance Chain, as it has never stopped evolving. The dual-chain strategy is to open the gate for users to take advantage of the fast transferring and trading on one side, and flexible and extendable programming on the other side, but it will be one stop along the development of Binance Chain. Here below are the topics to look into so as to facilitate the community better for more usability and extensibility: 1. Add different digital asset model for different business use cases 2. Enable more data feed, especially DEX market data, to be communicated from Binance DEX to BSC 3. Provide interface and compatibility to integrate with Ethereum, including its further upgrade, and other blockchain 4. Improve client side experience to manage wallets and use blockchain more conveniently ------ [1]: BNB business practitioners may provide other benefits for BNB delegators, as they do now for long term BNB holders.
AlephAlpha / NekomataAn experimental non-deterministic concatenative golfing language
DiogoRibeiro7 / Bmsspssspx is a clean, typed, and tested implementation of a deterministic Single‑Source Shortest Paths solver for directed graphs with non‑negative weights. It follows a BMSSP‑style divide‑and‑conquer design (levels, FindPivots, bounded base case) and includes a switchable frontier, an optional constant‑outdegree transform.
Angeld55 / Finite State ToolWork with Deterministic Finite Automaton (DFA), Non-deterministic Finite Automaton (NFA), Non-deterministic pushdown automation (NPDA), Context-free grammars (CFG).
crystal-term / SpinnerA terminal spinner for tasks that have a non-deterministic time frame
vnicolescu / Claude Expert Skill CreatorA non-slop skill creator for competent expert-level skills. Extract expertise through guided interviews or expert conversations, separate deterministic logic (scripts) from flexible interpretation (LLM), and load knowledge on-demand. Includes packaging tools, templates, and real-world examples.
