Infer.NET is a free and open source .NET software library for machine learning. It supports running Bayesian inference in graphical models and can also be used for probabilistic programming. == Overview == Infer.NET follows a model-based approach and is used to solve different kinds of machine learning problems including standard problems like classification, recommendation or clustering, customized solutions and domain-specific problems. The framework is used in various different domains such as bioinformatics, epidemiology, computer vision, and information retrieval. Development of the framework was started by a team at Microsoft's research centre in Cambridge, UK in 2004. It was first released for academic use in 2008 and later open sourced in 2018. In 2013, Microsoft was awarded the USPTO's Patents for Humanity Award in Information Technology category for Infer.NET and the work in advanced machine learning techniques. Infer.NET is used internally at Microsoft as the machine learning engine in some of their products such as Office, Azure, and Xbox. The source code is licensed under MIT License and available on GitHub. It is also available as NuGet package.
Supervisor Mode Access Prevention
Supervisor Mode Access Prevention (SMAP) is a feature of some CPU implementations such as the Intel Broadwell microarchitecture that allows supervisor mode programs to optionally set user-space memory mappings so that access to those mappings from supervisor mode will cause a trap. This makes it harder for malicious programs to "trick" the kernel into using instructions or data from a user-space program. == History == Supervisor Mode Access Prevention is designed to complement Supervisor Mode Execution Prevention (SMEP), which was introduced earlier. SMEP can be used to prevent supervisor mode from unintentionally executing user-space code. SMAP extends this protection to reads and writes. == Benefits == Without Supervisor Mode Access Prevention, supervisor code usually has full read and write access to user-space memory mappings (or has the ability to obtain full access). This has led to the development of several security exploits, including privilege escalation exploits, which operate by causing the kernel to access user-space memory when it did not intend to. Operating systems can block these exploits by using SMAP to force unintended user-space memory accesses to trigger page faults. Additionally, SMAP can expose flawed kernel code which does not follow the intended procedures for accessing user-space memory. However, the use of SMAP in an operating system may lead to a larger kernel size and slower user-space memory accesses from supervisor code, because SMAP must be temporarily disabled any time supervisor code intends to access user-space memory. == Technical details == Processors indicate support for Supervisor Mode Access Prevention through the Extended Features CPUID leaf. SMAP is enabled when memory paging is active and the SMAP bit in the CR4 control register is set. SMAP can be temporarily disabled for explicit memory accesses by setting the EFLAGS.AC (Alignment Check) flag. The stac (Set AC Flag) and clac (Clear AC Flag) instructions can be used to easily set or clear the flag. When the SMAP bit in CR4 is set, explicit memory reads and writes to user-mode pages performed by code running with a privilege level less than 3 will always result in a page fault if the EFLAGS.AC flag is not set. Implicit reads and writes (such as those made to descriptor tables) to user-mode pages will always trigger a page fault if SMAP is enabled, regardless of the value of EFLAGS.AC. == Operating system support == Linux kernel support for Supervisor Mode Access Prevention was implemented by H. Peter Anvin. It was merged into the mainline Linux 3.7 kernel (released December 2012) and it is enabled by default for processors which support the feature. FreeBSD has supported Supervisor Mode Execution Prevention since 2012 and Supervisor Mode Access Prevention since 2018. OpenBSD has supported Supervisor Mode Access Prevention and the related Supervisor Mode Execution Prevention since 2012, with OpenBSD 5.3 being the first release with support for the feature enabled. NetBSD support for Supervisor Mode Execution Prevention (SMEP) was implemented by Maxime Villard in December 2015. Support for Supervisor Mode Access Prevention (SMAP) was also implemented by Maxime Villard, in August 2017. NetBSD 8.0 was the first release with both features supported and enabled. Haiku support for Supervisor Mode Execution Prevention (SMEP) was implemented by Jérôme Duval in January 2018. macOS has support for SMAP at least since macOS 10.13 released 2017.
Symbolic regression
Symbolic regression (SR) is a type of regression analysis that searches the space of mathematical expressions to find the model that best fits a given dataset, both in terms of accuracy and simplicity. No particular model is provided as a starting point for symbolic regression. Instead, initial expressions are formed by randomly combining mathematical building blocks such as mathematical operators, analytic functions, constants, and state variables. Usually, a subset of these primitives will be specified by the person operating it, but that's not a requirement of the technique. The symbolic regression problem for mathematical functions has been tackled with a variety of methods, including recombining equations most commonly using genetic programming, as well as more recent methods utilizing Bayesian methods and neural networks. Another non-classical alternative method to SR is called Universal Functions Originator (UFO), which has a different mechanism, search-space, and building strategy. Further methods such as Exact Learning attempt to transform the fitting problem into a moments problem in a natural function space, usually built around generalizations of the Meijer-G function. By not requiring a priori specification of a model, symbolic regression isn't affected by human bias, or unknown gaps in domain knowledge. It attempts to uncover the intrinsic relationships of the dataset, by letting the patterns in the data itself reveal the appropriate models, rather than imposing a model structure that is deemed mathematically tractable from a human perspective. The fitness function that drives the evolution of the models takes into account not only error metrics (to ensure the models accurately predict the data), but also special complexity measures, thus ensuring that the resulting models reveal the data's underlying structure in a way that's understandable from a human perspective. This facilitates reasoning and favors the odds of getting insights about the data-generating system, as well as improving generalisability and extrapolation behaviour by preventing overfitting. Accuracy and simplicity may be left as two separate objectives of the regression—in which case the optimum solutions form a Pareto front—or they may be combined into a single objective by means of a model selection principle such as minimum description length. It has been proven that symbolic regression is an NP-hard problem. Nevertheless, if the sought-for equation is not too complex it is possible to solve the symbolic regression problem exactly by generating every possible function (built from some predefined set of operators) and evaluating them on the dataset in question. == Difference from classical regression == While conventional regression techniques seek to optimize the parameters for a pre-specified model structure, symbolic regression avoids imposing prior assumptions, and instead infers the model from the data. In other words, it attempts to discover both model structures and model parameters. This approach has the disadvantage of having a much larger space to search, because not only the search space in symbolic regression is infinite, but there are an infinite number of models which will perfectly fit a finite data set (provided that the model complexity isn't artificially limited). This means that it will possibly take a symbolic regression algorithm longer to find an appropriate model and parametrization, than traditional regression techniques. This can be attenuated by limiting the set of building blocks provided to the algorithm, based on existing knowledge of the system that produced the data; but in the end, using symbolic regression is a decision that has to be balanced with how much is known about the underlying system. Nevertheless, this characteristic of symbolic regression also has advantages: because the evolutionary algorithm requires diversity in order to effectively explore the search space, the result is likely to be a selection of high-scoring models (and their corresponding set of parameters). Examining this collection could provide better insight into the underlying process, and allows the user to identify an approximation that better fits their needs in terms of accuracy and simplicity. == Benchmarking == === SRBench === In 2021, SRBench was proposed as a large benchmark for symbolic regression. In its inception, SRBench featured 14 symbolic regression methods, 7 other ML methods, and 252 datasets from PMLB. The benchmark intends to be a living project: it encourages the submission of improvements, new datasets, and new methods, to keep track of the state of the art in SR. === SRBench Competition 2022 === In 2022, SRBench announced the competition Interpretable Symbolic Regression for Data Science, which was held at the GECCO conference in Boston, MA. The competition pitted nine leading symbolic regression algorithms against each other on a novel set of data problems and considered different evaluation criteria. The competition was organized in two tracks, a synthetic track and a real-world data track. ==== Synthetic Track ==== In the synthetic track, methods were compared according to five properties: re-discovery of exact expressions; feature selection; resistance to local optima; extrapolation; and sensitivity to noise. Rankings of the methods were: QLattice PySR (Python Symbolic Regression) uDSR (Deep Symbolic Optimization) ==== Real-world Track ==== In the real-world track, methods were trained to build interpretable predictive models for 14-day forecast counts of COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths in New York State. These models were reviewed by a subject expert and assigned trust ratings and evaluated for accuracy and simplicity. The ranking of the methods was: uDSR (Deep Symbolic Optimization) QLattice geneticengine (Genetic Engine) == Non-standard methods == Most symbolic regression algorithms prevent combinatorial explosion by implementing evolutionary algorithms that iteratively improve the best-fit expression over many generations. Recently, researchers have proposed algorithms utilizing other tactics in AI. Silviu-Marian Udrescu and Max Tegmark developed the "AI Feynman" algorithm, which attempts symbolic regression by training a neural network to represent the mystery function, then runs tests against the neural network to attempt to break up the problem into smaller parts. For example, if f ( x 1 , . . . , x i , x i + 1 , . . . , x n ) = g ( x 1 , . . . , x i ) + h ( x i + 1 , . . . , x n ) {\displaystyle f(x_{1},...,x_{i},x_{i+1},...,x_{n})=g(x_{1},...,x_{i})+h(x_{i+1},...,x_{n})} , tests against the neural network can recognize the separation and proceed to solve for g {\displaystyle g} and h {\displaystyle h} separately and with different variables as inputs. This is an example of divide and conquer, which reduces the size of the problem to be more manageable. AI Feynman also transforms the inputs and outputs of the mystery function in order to produce a new function which can be solved with other techniques, and performs dimensional analysis to reduce the number of independent variables involved. The algorithm was able to "discover" 100 equations from The Feynman Lectures on Physics, while a leading software using evolutionary algorithms, Eureqa, solved only 71. AI Feynman, in contrast to classic symbolic regression methods, requires a very large dataset in order to first train the neural network and is naturally biased towards equations that are common in elementary physics.
H (company)
H Company, also known simply as H, is a French artificial intelligence startup which develops "action-oriented" artificial intelligence agents for enterprise automation and productivity. In May 2024, H Company closed a record-setting $220 million seed round, at the time the largest AI raise in Europe. In 2026, H Company released Holo 3, the latest generation of its computer-use AI models. The update marked a major advance in agentic AI, enabling agents to navigate any user interface, interpret screens, and complete complex, multi-step tasks across enterprise systems—much like a human user. This breakthrough positioned H Company at the frontier of computer-use autonomy, accelerating the integration of AI in enterprise workflows. == History == H Company was founded in 2023 in Paris by Laurent Sifre, Charles Kantor, and three DeepMind veterans: Daan Wiestra, Karl Tuyls, Julien Perollat. In May 2024, the firm secured what was then the largest European AI seed round, totaling $220 million led by US investors including Eric Schmidt (former Google CEO), Amazon, and backed by Accel, Bpifrance, UiPath, Eurazeo, Xavier Niel, Yuri Milner, Bernard Arnault, Samsung and others. In August 2024, three cofounders (Wiestra, Tuyls, Perollat) left the company over operational disagreements. In November 2024, H launched Runner H, its first agentic-API platform, which combined a large language model (LLM) and a reduced, 2-billion parameter vision-language model (VLM). In May 2025, H Company acquired Mithril Security, and in June 2025 the company widened its offering for agentic models. In June 2025, Gautier Cloix (formerly CEO Palantir France) replaced Charles Kantor as CEO of H Company, aiming to pivot the company towards a "forward deployed engineers" model. In July 2025, H Company introduced Surfer-H-CLI, an open-source, web-native Chrome agent designed for browser-based automation—able to search, scroll, click, and type on behalf of users and controllable via any visual language model (VLM). When paired with its June 2025 open-sourced 3B-parameter Holo-1 model, Surfer-H-CLI achieved 92.2% WebVoyager benchmark accuracy. == Activity == H Company creates enterprise AI models and agents (agentic AI) to automate and optimize complex workflows. H Company specifically designs AI agents called computer use capable of autonomously interfacing with any software (local or cloud-based) to detect and automate repetitive operations. H Company is based in Paris, France, with international offices in London and New York. H Company raised $220 million since its inception. Gautier Cloix is president and CEO of the company. H Company client include the French national lottery FDJ United. In March 2026, H Company released Holo3, a family of artificial intelligence models designed to operate digital systems by interacting directly with user interfaces. Holo3 enables agents ("virtual humanoids") to understand what is displayed in front-end environments—such as web pages, desktop applications, and other graphical user interfaces—and perform actions such as clicking, typing, and navigating across them to complete multi-step tasks. On the OSWorld-Verified benchmark, Holo3 reportedly achieved about 78.9%, surpassing the scores of OpenAI’s GPT‑5.4 and Anthropic’s Claude Opus 4.6 on this specific test, at roughly one-tenth of the inference cost of these proprietary systems. The release has been presented as a significant step toward automating routine digital workflows, allowing organizations to offload repetitive on-screen work, such as data entry and reconciliation across multiple tools, to AI-based agents.
Winner-take-all in action selection
Winner-take-all is a computer science concept that has been widely applied in behavior-based robotics as a method of action selection for intelligent agents. Winner-take-all systems work by connecting modules (task-designated areas) in such a way that when one action is performed it stops all other actions from being performed, so only one action is occurring at a time. The name comes from the idea that the "winner" action takes all of the motor system's power. == History == In the 1980s and 1990s, many roboticists and cognitive scientists were attempting to find speedier and more efficient alternatives to the traditional world modeling method of action selection. In 1982, Jerome A. Feldman and D.H. Ballard published the "Connectionist Models and Their Properties", referencing and explaining winner-take-all as a method of action selection. Feldman's architecture functioned on the simple rule that in a network of interconnected action modules, each module will set its own output to zero if it reads a higher input than its own in any other module. In 1986, Rodney Brooks introduced behavior-based artificial intelligence. Winner-take-all architectures for action selection soon became a common feature of behavior-based robots, because selection occurred at the level of the action modules (bottom-up) rather than at a separate cognitive level (top-down), producing a tight coupling of stimulus and reaction. == Types of winner-take-all architectures == === Hierarchy === In the hierarchical architecture, actions or behaviors are programmed in a high-to-low priority list, with inhibitory connections between all the action modules. The agent performs low-priority behaviors until a higher-priority behavior is stimulated, at which point the higher behavior inhibits all other behaviors and takes over the motor system completely. Prioritized behaviors are usually key to the immediate survival of the agent, while behaviors of lower priority are less time-sensitive. For example, "run away from predator" would be ranked above "sleep." While this architecture allows for clear programming of goals, many roboticists have moved away from the hierarchy because of its inflexibility. === Heterarchy and fully distributed === In the heterarchy and fully distributed architecture, each behavior has a set of pre-conditions to be met before it can be performed, and a set of post-conditions that will be true after the action has been performed. These pre- and post-conditions determine the order in which behaviors must be performed and are used to causally connect action modules. This enables each module to receive input from other modules as well as from the sensors, so modules can recruit each other. For example, if the agent's goal were to reduce thirst, the behavior "drink" would require the pre-condition of having water available, so the module would activate the module in charge of "find water". The activations organize the behaviors into a sequence, even though only one action is performed at a time. The distribution of larger behaviors across modules makes this system flexible and robust to noise. Some critics of this model hold that any existing set of division rules for the predecessor and conflictor connections between modules produce sub-par action selection. In addition, the feedback loop used in the model can in some circumstances lead to improper action selection. === Arbiter and centrally coordinated === In the arbiter and centrally coordinated architecture, the action modules are not connected to each other but to a central arbiter. When behaviors are triggered, they begin "voting" by sending signals to the arbiter, and the behavior with the highest number of votes is selected. In these systems, bias is created through the "voting weight", or how often a module is allowed to vote. Some arbiter systems take a different spin on this type of winner-take-all by using a "compromise" feature in the arbiter. Each module is able to vote for or against each smaller action in a set of actions, and the arbiter selects the action with the most votes, meaning that it benefits the most behavior modules. This can be seen as violating the general rule against creating representations of the world in behavior-based AI, established by Brooks. By performing command fusion, the system is creating a larger composite pool of knowledge than is obtained from the sensors alone, forming a composite inner representation of the environment. Defenders of these systems argue that forbidding world-modeling puts unnecessary constraints on behavior-based robotics, and that agents benefits from forming representations and can still remain reactive.
Foveated rendering
Foveated rendering is a rendering technique which uses an eye tracker integrated with a virtual reality headset to reduce the rendering workload by greatly reducing the image quality in the peripheral vision (outside of the zone gazed by the fovea). A less sophisticated variant called fixed foveated rendering doesn't utilise eye tracking and instead assumes a fixed focal point. == History == Research into foveated rendering dates back at least to 1991. At Tech Crunch Disrupt SF 2014, Fove unveiled a headset featuring foveated rendering. This was followed by a successful kickstarter in May 2015. At CES 2016, SensoMotoric Instruments (SMI) demoed a new 250 Hz eye tracking system and a working foveated rendering solution. It resulted from a partnership with camera sensor manufacturer Omnivision who provided the camera hardware for the new system. In July 2016, Nvidia demonstrated during SIGGRAPH a new method of foveated rendering claimed to be invisible to users. In February 2017, Qualcomm announced their Snapdragon 835 Virtual Reality Development Kit (VRDK) which includes foveated rendering support called Adreno Foveation. == Use == According to chief scientist Michael Abrash at Oculus, utilising foveated rendering in conjunction with sparse rendering and deep learning image reconstruction has the potential to require an order of magnitude fewer pixels to be rendered in comparison to a full image. Later, these results have been demonstrated and published. In December 2019, fixed foveated rendering support was added to the Oculus Quest SDK. A number of VR headsets have included on-board eye tracking to provide support for foveated rendering, including HTC's Vive Pro Eye (2019), Meta Quest Pro (2022), PlayStation VR2 (2023), and Apple Vision Pro (2024). In 2025, Valve announced the upcoming Steam Frame headset, which applies a variation of the technique known as "foveated streaming" for wireless streaming from a PC to the headset; the method similarly uses variance in bit rate, and is performed at the encoder level rather than the software level.
Admissible heuristic
In computer science, specifically in algorithms related to pathfinding, a heuristic function is said to be admissible if it never overestimates the cost of reaching the goal, i.e. the cost it estimates to reach the goal is not higher than the lowest possible cost from the current point in the path. In other words, it should act as a lower bound. It is related to the concept of consistent heuristics. While all consistent heuristics are admissible, not all admissible heuristics are consistent. == Search algorithms == An admissible heuristic is used to estimate the cost of reaching the goal state in an informed search algorithm. In order for a heuristic to be admissible to the search problem, the estimated cost must always be lower than or equal to the actual cost of reaching the goal state. The search algorithm uses the admissible heuristic to find an estimated optimal path to the goal state from the current node. For example, in A search the evaluation function (where n {\displaystyle n} is the current node) is: f ( n ) = g ( n ) + h ( n ) {\displaystyle f(n)=g(n)+h(n)} where f ( n ) {\displaystyle f(n)} = the evaluation function. g ( n ) {\displaystyle g(n)} = the cost from the start node to the current node h ( n ) {\displaystyle h(n)} = estimated cost from current node to goal. h ( n ) {\displaystyle h(n)} is calculated using the heuristic function. With a non-admissible heuristic, the A algorithm could overlook the optimal solution to a search problem due to an overestimation in f ( n ) {\displaystyle f(n)} . == Formulation == n {\displaystyle n} is a node h {\displaystyle h} is a heuristic h ( n ) {\displaystyle h(n)} is cost indicated by h {\displaystyle h} to reach a goal from n {\displaystyle n} h ∗ ( n ) {\displaystyle h^{}(n)} is the optimal cost to reach a goal from n {\displaystyle n} h ( n ) {\displaystyle h(n)} is admissible if, ∀ n {\displaystyle \forall n} h ( n ) ≤ h ∗ ( n ) {\displaystyle h(n)\leq h^{}(n)} == Construction == An admissible heuristic can be derived from a relaxed version of the problem, or by information from pattern databases that store exact solutions to subproblems of the problem, or by using inductive learning methods. == Examples == Two different examples of admissible heuristics apply to the fifteen puzzle problem: Hamming distance Manhattan distance The Hamming distance is the total number of misplaced tiles. It is clear that this heuristic is admissible since the total number of moves to order the tiles correctly is at least the number of misplaced tiles (each tile not in place must be moved at least once). The cost (number of moves) to the goal (an ordered puzzle) is at least the Hamming distance of the puzzle. The Manhattan distance of a puzzle is defined as: h ( n ) = ∑ all tiles d i s t a n c e ( tile, correct position ) {\displaystyle h(n)=\sum _{\text{all tiles}}{\mathit {distance}}({\text{tile, correct position}})} Consider the puzzle below in which the player wishes to move each tile such that the numbers are ordered. The Manhattan distance is an admissible heuristic in this case because every tile will have to be moved at least the number of spots in between itself and its correct position. The subscripts show the Manhattan distance for each tile. The total Manhattan distance for the shown puzzle is: h ( n ) = 3 + 1 + 0 + 1 + 2 + 3 + 3 + 4 + 3 + 2 + 4 + 4 + 4 + 1 + 1 = 36 {\displaystyle h(n)=3+1+0+1+2+3+3+4+3+2+4+4+4+1+1=36} == Optimality proof == If an admissible heuristic is used in an algorithm that, per iteration, progresses only the path of lowest evaluation (current cost + heuristic) of several candidate paths, terminates the moment its exploration reaches the goal and, crucially, closes all optimal paths before terminating (something that's possible with A search algorithm if special care isn't taken), then this algorithm can only terminate on an optimal path. To see why, consider the following proof by contradiction: Assume such an algorithm managed to terminate on a path T with a true cost Ttrue greater than the optimal path S with true cost Strue. This means that before terminating, the evaluated cost of T was less than or equal to the evaluated cost of S (or else S would have been picked). Denote these evaluated costs Teval and Seval respectively. The above can be summarized as follows, Strue < Ttrue Teval ≤ Seval If our heuristic is admissible it follows that at this penultimate step Teval = Ttrue because any increase on the true cost by the heuristic on T would be inadmissible and the heuristic cannot be negative. On the other hand, an admissible heuristic would require that Seval ≤ Strue which combined with the above inequalities gives us Teval < Ttrue and more specifically Teval ≠ Ttrue. As Teval and Ttrue cannot be both equal and unequal our assumption must have been false and so it must be impossible to terminate on a more costly than optimal path. As an example, let us say we have costs as follows:(the cost above/below a node is the heuristic, the cost at an edge is the actual cost) 0 10 0 100 0 START ---- O ----- GOAL | | 0| |100 | | O ------- O ------ O 100 1 100 1 100 So clearly we would start off visiting the top middle node, since the expected total cost, i.e. f ( n ) {\displaystyle f(n)} , is 10 + 0 = 10 {\displaystyle 10+0=10} . Then the goal would be a candidate, with f ( n ) {\displaystyle f(n)} equal to 10 + 100 + 0 = 110 {\displaystyle 10+100+0=110} . Then we would clearly pick the bottom nodes one after the other, followed by the updated goal, since they all have f ( n ) {\displaystyle f(n)} lower than the f ( n ) {\displaystyle f(n)} of the current goal, i.e. their f ( n ) {\displaystyle f(n)} is 100 , 101 , 102 , 102 {\displaystyle 100,101,102,102} . So even though the goal was a candidate, we could not pick it because there were still better paths out there. This way, an admissible heuristic can ensure optimality. However, note that although an admissible heuristic can guarantee final optimality, it is not necessarily efficient.