Michael Irwin Jordan (born February 25, 1956) is an American scientist, professor at the University of California, Berkeley, research scientist at the Inria Paris, and researcher in machine learning, statistics, and artificial intelligence. Jordan was elected a member of the National Academy of Engineering in 2010 for contributions to the foundations and applications of machine learning. He is one of the leading figures in machine learning, and in 2016 Science reported him as the world's most influential computer scientist. In 2022, Jordan won the inaugural World Laureates Association Prize in Computer Science or Mathematics, "for fundamental contributions to the foundations of machine learning and its application." == Education == Jordan received a Bachelor of Science magna cum laude in psychology from the Louisiana State University in 1978, a Master of Science in mathematics from Arizona State University in 1980, and a Doctor of Philosophy in cognitive science from the University of California, San Diego in 1985. At UC San Diego, Jordan was a student of David Rumelhart and a member of the Parallel Distributed Processing (PDP) Group in the 1980s. == Career and research == Jordan is the Pehong Chen Distinguished Professor at the University of California, Berkeley, where his appointment is split across EECS and Statistics. He was a professor at the Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences at MIT from 1988 to 1998. In the 1980s Jordan started developing recurrent neural networks as a cognitive model. In recent years, his work is less driven from a cognitive perspective and more from the background of traditional statistics. Jordan popularised Bayesian networks in the machine learning community and is known for pointing out links between machine learning and statistics. He was also prominent in the formalisation of variational methods for approximate inference and the popularisation of the expectation–maximization algorithm in machine learning. === Resignation from Machine Learning === In 2001, Jordan and others resigned from the editorial board of the journal Machine Learning. In a public letter, they argued for less restrictive access and pledged support for a new open access journal, the Journal of Machine Learning Research, which was created by Leslie Kaelbling to support the evolution of the field of machine learning. === Honors and awards === Jordan has received numerous awards, including a best student paper award (with X. Nguyen and M. Wainwright) at the International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML 2004), a best paper award (with R. Jacobs) at the American Control Conference (ACC 1991), the ACM-AAAI Allen Newell Award, the IEEE Neural Networks Pioneer Award, and an NSF Presidential Young Investigator Award. In 2002 he was named an AAAI Fellow "for significant contributions to reasoning under uncertainty, machine learning, and human motor control." In 2004 he was named an IMS Fellow "for contributions to graphical models and machine learning." In 2005 he was named an IEEE Fellow "for contributions to probabilistic graphical models and neural information processing systems." In 2007 he was named an ASA Fellow. In 2010 he was named a Cognitive Science Society Fellow and named an ACM Fellow "for contributions to the theory and application of machine learning." In 2012 he was named a SIAM Fellow "for contributions to machine learning, in particular variational approaches to statistical inference." In 2014 he was named an International Society for Bayesian Analysis Fellow "for his outstanding research contributions at the interface of statistics, computer sciences and probability, for his leading role in promoting Bayesian methods in machine learning, engineering and other fields, and for his extensive service to ISBA in many roles." Jordan is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, a member of the National Academy of Engineering and a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. He has been named a Neyman Lecturer and a Medallion Lecturer by the Institute of Mathematical Statistics. He received the David E. Rumelhart Prize in 2015 and the ACM/AAAI Allen Newell Award in 2009. He also won the 2020 IEEE John von Neumann Medal. In 2016, Jordan was identified as the "most influential computer scientist", based on an analysis of the published literature by the Semantic Scholar project. In 2019, Jordan argued that the artificial intelligence revolution hasn't happened yet and that the AI revolution required a blending of computer science with statistics. In 2022, Jordan was awarded the inaugural World Laureates Association Prize by non-governmental and non-profit international organization World Laureates Association, for fundamental contributions to the foundations of machine learning and its application. For 2024 he received the BBVA Foundation Frontiers of Knowledge Award in the category of "Information and Communication Technologies".
Once (dating platform)
Once is an online dating platform founded in 2015. The platform offers users one selected match per day for more meaningful connections. == History == Once was established in 2015, the founders included dating industry entrepreneur Jean Meyer, who became a CEO of the company, as well as Guillaume Sempe and Guilhem Duche. It focused on providing a single daily match to its users. On its early stages Once secured a $3.5 million seed round from Partech Ventures and some private investors. The same year, it opened offices in Paris, and London. By 2016, it reached 1 million users. In 2020, the company was acquired by Dating Group for $18 million. Following the acquisition, Once underwent rebranding. Alexandra Beaumont took over leadership of the brand in 2021, driving growth, rebranding, and innovation. == Overview == Once provides an online dating service with a focus on thoughtful connections. Users receive one selected match per day, which encourages meaningful interactions. The platform operates primarily in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, France, and Spain. The platform is supported by Android, iOS, and Apple Watch OS.
Regulation of algorithms
Regulation of algorithms, or algorithmic regulation, is the creation of laws, rules and public sector policies for promotion and regulation of algorithms, particularly in artificial intelligence and machine learning. For the subset of AI algorithms, the term regulation of artificial intelligence is used. The regulatory and policy landscape for artificial intelligence (AI) is an emerging issue in jurisdictions globally, including in the European Union. Regulation of AI is considered necessary to both encourage AI and manage associated risks, but challenging. Another emerging topic is the regulation of blockchain algorithms (Use of the smart contracts must be regulated) and is mentioned along with regulation of AI algorithms. Many countries have enacted regulations of high frequency trades, which is shifting due to technological progress into the realm of AI algorithms. The motivation for regulation of algorithms is the apprehension of losing control over the algorithms, whose impact on human life increases. Multiple countries have already introduced regulations in case of automated credit score calculation—right to explanation is mandatory for those algorithms. For example, The IEEE has begun developing a new standard to explicitly address ethical issues and the values of potential future users. Bias, transparency, and ethics concerns have emerged with respect to the use of algorithms in diverse domains ranging from criminal justice to healthcare—many fear that artificial intelligence could replicate existing social inequalities along race, class, gender, and sexuality lines. == Regulation of artificial intelligence == === Public discussion === In 2016, Joy Buolamwini founded Algorithmic Justice League after a personal experience with biased facial detection software in order to raise awareness of the social implications of artificial intelligence through art and research. In 2017 Elon Musk advocated regulation of algorithms in the context of the existential risk from artificial general intelligence. According to NPR, the Tesla CEO was "clearly not thrilled" to be advocating for government scrutiny that could impact his own industry, but believed the risks of going completely without oversight are too high: "Normally the way regulations are set up is when a bunch of bad things happen, there's a public outcry, and after many years a regulatory agency is set up to regulate that industry. It takes forever. That, in the past, has been bad but not something which represented a fundamental risk to the existence of civilisation." In response, some politicians expressed skepticism about the wisdom of regulating a technology that is still in development. Responding both to Musk and to February 2017 proposals by European Union lawmakers to regulate AI and robotics, Intel CEO Brian Krzanich has argued that artificial intelligence is in its infancy and that it is too early to regulate the technology. Instead of trying to regulate the technology itself, some scholars suggest to rather develop common norms including requirements for the testing and transparency of algorithms, possibly in combination with some form of warranty. One suggestion has been for the development of a global governance board to regulate AI development. In 2020, the European Union published its draft strategy paper for promoting and regulating AI. Algorithmic tacit collusion is a legally dubious antitrust practise committed by means of algorithms, which the courts are not able to prosecute. This danger concerns scientists and regulators in EU, US and beyond. European Commissioner Margrethe Vestager mentioned an early example of algorithmic tacit collusion in her speech on "Algorithms and Collusion" on March 16, 2017, described as follows: "A few years ago, two companies were selling a textbook called The Making of a Fly. One of those sellers used an algorithm which essentially matched its rival’s price. That rival had an algorithm which always set a price 27% higher than the first. The result was that prices kept spiralling upwards, until finally someone noticed what was going on, and adjusted the price manually. By that time, the book was selling – or rather, not selling – for 23 million dollars a copy." In 2018, the Netherlands employed an algorithmic system SyRI (Systeem Risico Indicatie) to detect citizens perceived being high risk for committing welfare fraud, which quietly flagged thousands of people to investigators. This caused a public protest. The district court of Hague shut down SyRI referencing Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). In 2020, algorithms assigning exam grades to students in the UK sparked open protest under the banner "Fuck the algorithm." This protest was successful and the grades were taken back. In 2024, the Munich Convention on AI, Data and Human Rights was introduced as part of growing international efforts to regulate artificial intelligence through a human rights lens. Developed through a collaborative drafting process involving scholars from the Technical University of Munich, Stellenbosch University, Ulster University, and KNUST, the initiative calls for an international conversation on a binding treaty to safeguard human rights and the principles enshrined in the UN Charter in the age of AI. === Implementation === AI law and regulations can be divided into three main topics, namely governance of autonomous intelligence systems, responsibility and accountability for the systems, and privacy and safety issues. The development of public sector strategies for management and regulation of AI has been increasingly deemed necessary at the local, national, and international levels and in fields from public service management to law enforcement, the financial sector, robotics, the military, and international law. There are many concerns that there is not enough visibility and monitoring of AI in these sectors. In the United States financial sector, for example, there have been calls for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to more closely examine source code and algorithms when conducting audits of financial institutions' non-public data. In the United States, on January 7, 2019, following an Executive Order on 'Maintaining American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence', the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy released a draft Guidance for Regulation of Artificial Intelligence Applications, which includes ten principles for United States agencies when deciding whether and how to regulate AI. In response, the National Institute of Standards and Technology has released a position paper, the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence has published an interim report, and the Defense Innovation Board has issued recommendations on the ethical use of AI. In April 2016, for the first time in more than two decades, the European Parliament adopted a set of comprehensive regulations for the collection, storage, and use of personal information, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)1 (European Union, Parliament and Council 2016). The GDPR's policy on the right of citizens to receive an explanation for algorithmic decisions highlights the pressing importance of human interpretability in algorithm design. In 2016, China published a position paper questioning the adequacy of existing international law to address the eventuality of fully autonomous weapons, becoming the first permanent member of the U.N. Security Council to broach the issue, and leading to proposals for global regulation. In the United States, steering on regulating security-related AI is provided by the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence. In 2017, the U.K. Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill imposes liability on the owner of an uninsured automated vehicle when driving itself and makes provisions for cases where the owner has made "unauthorized alterations" to the vehicle or failed to update its software. Further ethical issues arise when, e.g., a self-driving car swerves to avoid a pedestrian and causes a fatal accident. In 2021, the European Commission proposed the Artificial Intelligence Act. == Algorithm certification == There is a concept of algorithm certification emerging as a method of regulating algorithms. Algorithm certification involves auditing whether the algorithm used during the life cycle 1) conforms to the protocoled requirements (e.g., for correctness, completeness, consistency, and accuracy); 2) satisfies the standards, practices, and conventions; and 3) solves the right problem (e.g., correctly model physical laws), and satisfies the intended use and user needs in the operational environment. == Regulation of blockchain algorithms == Blockchain systems provide transparent and fixed records of transactions and hereby contradict the goal of the European GDPR, which is to give individuals full control of their private data. By implementing the Decree on Development of Digital Economy, Bel
AI notetaker
An AI notetaker is a tool using artificial intelligence to take notes during meetings. They are created by tech companies such as Microsoft and Google; by AI transcription services such Otter.ai, and by smaller firms such as Cluely and Krisp. Some business executives send AI notetakers to attend meetings not only to take notes, but also to answer questions on their behalf. The use of AI notetakers raises ethical questions, including recording meetings without the consent of all participants and the possibility that the notetaker will hallucinate and misrepresent what was said during meetings. There are also concerns when it comes to the privacy and security of meeting data and the sensitive information that lives inside meetings. Further controversies have developed from the use of AI notetakers such as Cluely to cheat in technical job interviews. == Technology == Large technology companies have integrated transcription capabilities into broader productivity and accessibility tools, including real-time captioning, dictation, and meeting documentation features embedded in operating systems and office platforms. Standalone transcription platforms, such as Transkriptor, focus specifically on automated transcription workflows and apply AI-based speech recognition to convert audio and video recordings into text. The software supports transcription in multiple languages and processes recordings uploaded via a web interface as well as through mobile and browser extensions. Tools of this type typically provide editable, time-aligned transcripts and export options for text and subtitle formats, cloud-based processing, multilingual support, and automation in transcription technology.
Run-time algorithm specialization
In computer science, run-time algorithm specialization is a methodology for creating efficient algorithms for costly computation tasks of certain kinds. The methodology originates in the field of automated theorem proving and, more specifically, in the Vampire theorem prover project. The idea is inspired by the use of partial evaluation in optimising program translation. Many core operations in theorem provers exhibit the following pattern. Suppose that we need to execute some algorithm a l g ( A , B ) {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}(A,B)} in a situation where a value of A {\displaystyle A} is fixed for potentially many different values of B {\displaystyle B} . In order to do this efficiently, we can try to find a specialization of a l g {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}} for every fixed A {\displaystyle A} , i.e., such an algorithm a l g A {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}_{A}} , that executing a l g A ( B ) {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}_{A}(B)} is equivalent to executing a l g ( A , B ) {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}(A,B)} . The specialized algorithm may be more efficient than the generic one, since it can exploit some particular properties of the fixed value A {\displaystyle A} . Typically, a l g A ( B ) {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}_{A}(B)} can avoid some operations that a l g ( A , B ) {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}(A,B)} would have to perform, if they are known to be redundant for this particular parameter A {\displaystyle A} . In particular, we can often identify some tests that are true or false for A {\displaystyle A} , unroll loops and recursion, etc. == Difference from partial evaluation == The key difference between run-time specialization and partial evaluation is that the values of A {\displaystyle A} on which a l g {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}} is specialised are not known statically, so the specialization takes place at run-time. There is also an important technical difference. Partial evaluation is applied to algorithms explicitly represented as codes in some programming language. At run-time, we do not need any concrete representation of a l g {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}} . We only have to imagine a l g {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}} when we program the specialization procedure. All we need is a concrete representation of the specialized version a l g A {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}_{A}} . This also means that we cannot use any universal methods for specializing algorithms, which is usually the case with partial evaluation. Instead, we have to program a specialization procedure for every particular algorithm a l g {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}} . An important advantage of doing so is that we can use some powerful ad hoc tricks exploiting peculiarities of a l g {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}} and the representation of A {\displaystyle A} and B {\displaystyle B} , which are beyond the reach of any universal specialization methods. == Specialization with compilation == The specialized algorithm has to be represented in a form that can be interpreted. In many situations, usually when a l g A ( B ) {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}_{A}(B)} is to be computed on many values of B {\displaystyle B} in a row, a l g A {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}_{A}} can be written as machine code instructions for a special abstract machine, and it is typically said that A {\displaystyle A} is compiled. The code itself can then be additionally optimized by answer-preserving transformations that rely only on the semantics of instructions of the abstract machine. The instructions of the abstract machine can usually be represented as records. One field of such a record, an instruction identifier (or instruction tag), would identify the instruction type, e.g. an integer field may be used, with particular integer values corresponding to particular instructions. Other fields may be used for storing additional parameters of the instruction, e.g. a pointer field may point to another instruction representing a label, if the semantics of the instruction require a jump. All instructions of the code can be stored in a traversable data structure such as an array, linked list, or tree. Interpretation (or execution) proceeds by fetching instructions in some order, identifying their type, and executing the actions associated with said type. In many programming languages, such as C and C++, a simple switch statement may be used to associate actions with different instruction identifiers. Modern compilers usually compile a switch statement with constant (e.g. integer) labels from a narrow range by storing the address of the statement corresponding to a value i {\displaystyle i} in the i {\displaystyle i} -th cell of a special array, as a means of efficient optimisation. This can be exploited by taking values for instruction identifiers from a small interval of values. == Data-and-algorithm specialization == There are situations when many instances of A {\displaystyle A} are intended for long-term storage and the calls of a l g ( A , B ) {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}(A,B)} occur with different B {\displaystyle B} in an unpredictable order. For example, we may have to check a l g ( A 1 , B 1 ) {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}(A_{1},B_{1})} first, then a l g ( A 2 , B 2 ) {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}(A_{2},B_{2})} , then a l g ( A 1 , B 3 ) {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}(A_{1},B_{3})} , and so on. In such circumstances, full-scale specialization with compilation may not be suitable due to excessive memory usage. However, we can sometimes find a compact specialized representation A ′ {\displaystyle A^{\prime }} for every A {\displaystyle A} , that can be stored with, or instead of, A {\displaystyle A} . We also define a variant a l g ′ {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}^{\prime }} that works on this representation and any call to a l g ( A , B ) {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}(A,B)} is replaced by a l g ′ ( A ′ , B ) {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}^{\prime }(A^{\prime },B)} , intended to do the same job faster.
STIT logic
STIT logic (from seeing to it that) is a family of modal and branching-time logics for reasoning about agency and choice. A typical STIT operator has the form [ i s t i t : φ ] {\displaystyle [i\ {\mathsf {stit}}:\varphi ]} , usually read as "agent i {\displaystyle i} sees to it that φ {\displaystyle \varphi } ", and is interpreted in models where agents choose between alternative possible futures. STIT logics are used in action theory, deontic logic, epistemic logic, and the theory of intelligent agents to formalise notions such as "could have done otherwise", responsibility, joint action, and strategic ability in an indeterministic world. == Etymology == The acronym STIT comes from the English phrase "seeing to it that", introduced in influential work by Nuel Belnap and Michael Perloff on the logical analysis of agentive expressions. In this tradition, "to see to it that φ {\displaystyle \varphi } " is treated as a primitive agency operator, rather than being reduced to ordinary modal necessity. == History == Modern STIT logic arose in the 1980s in the context of branching-time semantics and formal theories of agency. Belnap and Perloff's article "Seeing to it that: A canonical form for agentives" introduced the idea of treating expressions of the form "agent i sees to it that φ" as a primitive modal operator, and analysed such sentences using a branching tree of moments and histories. This approach was further developed in a series of papers on indeterminism and agency and provided the conceptual core for later STIT formalisms. In the 1990s the basic formal systems of STIT logic were worked out. Horty and Belnap's influential paper on the deliberative STIT operator distinguished between a "Chellas" STIT that merely records the result of an agent's present choice and a "deliberative" STIT that requires the agent's choice to make a difference, and connected STIT with issues of action, omission, ability and obligation. Around the same time, Ming Xu proved completeness and decidability results for basic STIT systems, including a single-agent logic with Kripke-style semantics and axiomatizations for multi-agent deliberative STIT, thereby establishing STIT as a well-behaved normal modal framework. This early work was systematised in Belnap, Perloff and Xu's monograph Facing the Future: Agents and Choices in Our Indeterminist World, which presents a general branching-time semantics for individual and group STIT operators, discusses independence-of-agents conditions and articulates the metaphysical picture of an indeterministic "tree" of moments. At roughly the same time, Horty's book Agency and Deontic Logic developed deontic STIT logics in which obligations are tied to agents' available choices rather than to static states of affairs, and used the resulting systems to analyse "ought implies can", contrary-to-duty obligations and deontic paradoxes. These works helped to position STIT at the intersection of action theory, temporal logic and deontic logic. From the late 1990s and 2000s onward, STIT logics were combined with epistemic, temporal and strategic modalities. Broersen introduced complete STIT logics for knowledge and action and deontic-epistemic STIT systems that distinguish different modes of mens rea, with applications to responsibility and the specification of multi-agent systems. Work on group and coalitional agency investigated axiomatisations and complexity results for group STIT logics, and related STIT-based analyses of agency to coalition logic and alternating-time temporal logic (ATL) by exhibiting formal embeddings between the frameworks. Explicit temporal operators were added to STIT in so-called temporal STIT logics. Lorini proposed a temporal STIT with "next" and "until" operators along histories and showed how it can be applied to normative reasoning about ongoing behaviour and commitments. Ciuni and Lorini compared different semantics for temporal STIT, clarifying the relationships between branching-time, game-based and epistemic approaches, while Boudou and Lorini gave a semantics for temporal STIT based on concurrent game structures, thus strengthening links with standard models of multi-agent interaction used for ATL and strategy logic. In parallel, complexity-theoretic work by Balbiani, Herzig and Troquard and by Schwarzentruber and co-authors investigated the satisfiability and model-checking problems for various STIT fragments, showing for instance that many expressive group STIT logics are undecidable or of high computational complexity. In the 2010s, STIT ideas were combined with justification logic, imagination operators and refined deontic notions. Justification STIT logics, developed by Olkhovikov and others, merge explicit justifications with STIT-style agency so that producing a proof can itself be treated as an action that brings about knowledge, and they come with completeness and decidability results. Olkhovikov and Wansing introduced STIT imagination logics, together with axiomatic systems and tableau calculi, to model acts of voluntary imagining and their role in doxastic control. Other authors have proposed STIT-based logics of responsibility, blameworthiness and intentionality for use in philosophical and AI settings. Xu's survey article "Combinations of STIT with Ought and Know" (2015) reviews many of these developments and emphasises the interplay between deontic and epistemic STIT logics. Current research on STIT focuses on proof theory, automated reasoning and richer expressive resources. Lyon and van Berkel, building on earlier work on labelled calculi for STIT, have developed cut-free sequent systems and proof-search algorithms that yield syntactic decision procedures for a range of deontic and non-deontic multi-agent STIT logics and support applications such as duty checking and compliance checking in autonomous systems. Sawasaki has proposed first-order cstit-based STIT logics that can distinguish de re and de dicto readings of agency statements and has proved strong completeness results for Hilbert systems over finite models, moving the STIT programme beyond the purely propositional level. Further work investigates interpreted-system and computationally grounded semantics for STIT and its extensions in order to model the behaviour of autonomous agents in multi-agent settings, and proposes STIT-based semantics for epistemic notions based on patterns of information disclosure in interactive systems. == Branching-time semantics == STIT logics are usually interpreted over branching-time models. A standard STIT frame consists of: a non-empty set of moments T {\displaystyle T} , partially ordered by < {\displaystyle <} so that ( T , < ) {\displaystyle (T,<)} forms a tree (every pair of moments with a common predecessor has a greatest lower bound); a set of histories, each history being a maximal linearly ordered subset of T {\displaystyle T} ; a non-empty set of agents A g {\displaystyle Ag} ; for each agent i ∈ A g {\displaystyle i\in Ag} and moment m {\displaystyle m} , a choice function c h o i c e i m {\displaystyle {\mathsf {choice}}_{i}^{m}} that partitions the set of histories passing through m {\displaystyle m} into choice cells. The idea is that a moment represents a time at which choices are made, and histories represent complete possible future courses of events. At each moment, each agent's choice corresponds to selecting one of the available cells of histories determined by their choice function. Formulas are evaluated at pairs ( m , h ) {\displaystyle (m,h)} of a moment and a history through that moment (sometimes written m / h {\displaystyle m/h} ). A valuation assigns truth-values to atomic propositions at such indices; Boolean connectives are interpreted pointwise as in Kripke-style modal logic. == Chellas and deliberative STIT operators == Several STIT operators have been distinguished in the literature. A common approach uses two closely related operators, often called Chellas STIT and deliberative STIT. Let H m {\displaystyle H_{m}} be the set of histories passing through a moment m {\displaystyle m} , and write H m {\displaystyle H_{m}} ⟦ φ ⟧ m = { h ∈ H m ∣ M , m / h ⊨ φ } {\displaystyle {\text{⟦}}\varphi {\text{⟧}}_{m}=\{h\in H_{m}\mid M,m/h\models \varphi \}} for the set of histories at m {\displaystyle m} where φ {\displaystyle \varphi } holds. The Chellas STIT operator, often written [ i c s t i t : φ ] {\displaystyle [i\ {\mathsf {cstit}}:\varphi ]} , is given by M , m / h ⊨ [ i c s t i t : φ ] iff c h o i c e i m ( h ) ⊆ ⟦ φ ⟧ m . {\displaystyle M,m/h\models [i\ {\mathsf {cstit}}:\varphi ]\quad {\text{iff}}\quad {\mathsf {choice}}_{i}^{m}(h)\subseteq {\text{⟦}}\varphi {\text{⟧}}_{m}.} Intuitively, agent i {\displaystyle i} sees to it that φ {\displaystyle \varphi } if φ {\displaystyle \varphi } holds at all histories compatible with their present choice. The deliberative STIT operator, [ i d s t i t : φ ] {\displaystyle [i\ {\mathsf {dstit}}:\varphi ]} , adds
FAIR data
FAIR data is data which meets the 2016 FAIR principles of findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability (FAIR). The FAIR principles emphasize machine-actionability (i.e., the capacity of computational systems to find, access, interoperate, and reuse data with none or minimal human intervention) because humans increasingly rely on computational support to deal with data as a result of the increase in the volume, complexity, and rate of production of data. The abbreviation FAIR/O data is sometimes used to indicate that the dataset or database in question complies with the FAIR principles and also carries an explicit data‑capable open license. == FAIR principles published by GO FAIR == Findable The first step in (re)using data is to find them. Metadata and data should be easy to find for both humans and computers. Machine-readable metadata are essential for automatic discovery of datasets and services, so this is an essential component of the FAIRification process. F1. (Meta)data are assigned a globally unique and persistent identifier F2. Data are described with rich metadata (defined by R1 below) F3. Metadata clearly and explicitly include the identifier of the data they describe F4. (Meta)data are registered or indexed in a searchable resource Accessible Once the user finds the required data, they need to know how they can be accessed, possibly including authentication and authorisation. A1. (Meta)data are retrievable by their identifier using a standardised communications protocol A1.1 The protocol is open, free, and universally implementable A1.2 The protocol allows for an authentication and authorisation procedure, where necessary A2. Metadata are accessible, even when the data are no longer available Interoperable The data usually need to be integrated with other data. In addition, the data need to interoperate with applications or workflows for analysis, storage, and processing. I1. (Meta)data use a formal, accessible, shared, and broadly applicable language for knowledge representation I2. (Meta)data use vocabularies that follow FAIR principles I3. (Meta)data include qualified references to other (meta)data Reusable The ultimate goal of FAIR is to optimise the reuse of data. To achieve this, metadata and data should be well-described so that they can be replicated and/or combined in different settings. R1. (Meta)data are richly described with a plurality of accurate and relevant attributes R1.1. (Meta)data are released with a clear and accessible data usage license R1.2. (Meta)data are associated with detailed provenance R1.3. (Meta)data meet domain-relevant community standards The principles refer to three types of entities: data (or any digital object), metadata (information about that digital object), and infrastructure. For instance, principle F4 defines that both metadata and data are registered or indexed in a searchable resource (the infrastructure component). === Acceptance and implementation === Before FAIR, a 2007 OECD report was the most influential paper discussing similar ideas related to data accessibility. In January 2014, the Lorentz Centre at Leiden University hosted a workshop entitled "Jointly designing a data FAIRPORT" where the participants first formulated the FAIR principles. After further discussions, they were published in the March 2016 issue of Scientific Data. At the 2016 G20 Hangzhou summit, the G20 leaders issued a statement endorsing the application of FAIR principles to research. Also in 2016, a group of Australian organisations developed a Statement on FAIR Access to Australia's Research Outputs, which aimed to extend the principles to research outputs more generally. In 2017, Germany, Netherlands and France agreed to establish an international office to support the FAIR initiative, the GO FAIR International Support and Coordination Office. Other international organisations active in the research data ecosystem, such as CODATA or Research Data Alliance (RDA) also support FAIR implementations by their communities. FAIR principles implementation assessment is being explored by FAIR Data Maturity Model Working Group of RDA, CODATA's strategic Decadal Programme "Data for Planet: Making data work for cross-domain challenges" mentions FAIR data principles as a fundamental enabler of data driven science. The Association of European Research Libraries recommends the use of FAIR principles. A 2017 paper by advocates of FAIR data reported that awareness of the FAIR concept was increasing among various researchers and institutes, but also, understanding of the concept was becoming confused as different people apply their own differing perspectives to it. Guides on implementing FAIR data practices state that the cost of a data management plan in compliance with FAIR data practices should be 5% of the total research budget. In 2019 the Global Indigenous Data Alliance (GIDA) released the CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance as a complementary guide. The CARE principles extend principles outlined in FAIR data to include Collective benefit, Authority to control, Responsibility, and Ethics to ensure data guidelines address historical contexts and power differentials. The CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance were drafted at the International Data Week and Research Data Alliance Plenary co-hosted event, "Indigenous Data Sovereignty Principles for the Governance of Indigenous Data Workshop", held 8 November 2018, in Gaborone, Botswana. The lack of information on how to implement the guidelines have led to inconsistent interpretations of them. In January 2020, representatives of nine groups of universities around the world produced the Sorbonne declaration on research data rights, which included a commitment to FAIR data, and called on governments to provide support to enable it. In 2021, researchers identified the FAIR principles as a conceptual component of data catalog software tools, with the other components being metadata management, business context and data responsibility roles. In April 2022, Matthias Scheffler and colleagues argued in Nature that FAIR principles are "a must" so that data mining and artificial intelligence can extract useful scientific information from the data. There have been moves in the geosciences to establish FAIR data by use of decimal georeferencing However, making data (and research outcomes) FAIR is a challenging task, and it is challenging to assess the FAIRness. In 2020, the FAIR Data Maturity Model Working Group published a set of guidelines for assessing "FAIRness".