亚洲男人的天堂2018av,欧美草比,久久久久久免费视频精选,国色天香在线看免费,久久久久亚洲av成人片仓井空

Game engines are increasingly used as simulation platforms by the autonomous vehicle (AV) community to develop vehicle control systems and test environments. A key requirement for simulation-based development and verification is determinism, since a deterministic process will always produce the same output given the same initial conditions and event history. Thus, in a deterministic simulation environment, tests are rendered repeatable and yield simulation results that are trustworthy and straightforward to debug. However, game engines are seldom deterministic. This paper reviews and identifies the potential causes of non-deterministic behaviours in game engines. A case study using CARLA, an open-source autonomous driving simulation environment powered by Unreal Engine, is presented to highlight its inherent shortcomings in providing sufficient precision in experimental results. Different configurations and utilisations of the software and hardware are explored to determine an operational domain where the simulation precision is sufficiently low i.e.\ variance between repeated executions becomes negligible for development and testing work. Finally, a method of a general nature is proposed, that can be used to find the domains of permissible variance in game engine simulations for any given system configuration.

In this work, we propose a unified framework, called Visual Reasoning with Differ-entiable Physics (VRDP), that can jointly learn visual concepts and infer physics models of objects and their interactions from videos and language. This is achieved by seamlessly integrating three components: a visual perception module, a concept learner, and a differentiable physics engine. The visual perception module parses each video frame into object-centric trajectories and represents them as latent scene representations. The concept learner grounds visual concepts (e.g., color, shape, and material) from these object-centric representations based on the language, thus providing prior knowledge for the physics engine. The differentiable physics model, implemented as an impulse-based differentiable rigid-body simulator, performs differentiable physical simulation based on the grounded concepts to infer physical properties, such as mass, restitution, and velocity, by fitting the simulated trajectories into the video observations. Consequently, these learned concepts and physical models can explain what we have seen and imagine what is about to happen in future and counterfactual scenarios. Integrating differentiable physics into the dynamic reasoning framework offers several appealing benefits. More accurate dynamics prediction in learned physics models enables state-of-the-art performance on both synthetic and real-world benchmarks while still maintaining high transparency and interpretability; most notably, VRDP improves the accuracy of predictive and counterfactual questions by 4.5% and 11.5% compared to its best counterpart. VRDP is also highly data-efficient: physical parameters can be optimized from very few videos, and even a single video can be sufficient. Finally, with all physical parameters inferred, VRDP can quickly learn new concepts from a few examples.

If we accept Savage's set of axioms, then all uncertainties must be treated like ordinary probability. Savage espoused subjective probability, allowing, for example, the probability of Donald Trump's re-election. But Savage's probability also covers the objective version, such as the probability of heads in a fair toss of a coin. In other words, there is no distinction between objective and subjective probability. Savage's system has great theoretical implications; for example, prior probabilities can be elicited from subjective preferences, and then get updated by objective evidence, a learning step that forms the basis of Bayesian computations. Non-Bayesians have generally refused to accept the subjective aspect of probability or to allow priors in formal statistical modelling. As demanded, for example, by the late Dennis Lindley, since Bayesian probability is axiomatic, it is the non-Bayesians' duty to point out which axioms are not acceptable to them. This is not a simple request, since the Bayesian axioms are not commonly covered in our professional training, even in the Bayesian statistics courses. So our aim is to provide a readable exposition the Bayesian axioms from a close rereading Savage's classic book.

The rapid development of technology has introduced new formats of human-computer interaction, which have in turn produced many new forms of media and a whole new field of interactive multimedia. One of the major mediums that has grown in popularity since its early development is video games. For a long time, video games have been developed and distributed for the purpose of entertainment, however, in the late 2010s, researchers have taken an interest in the characteristics of games and how they can be used for different purposes. Video games allow a tight loop of action-reaction which provides fertile ground for many types of experiments which would be impossible or prohibitively difficult to perform in the physical world, and as such serve as strong virtual alternatives. A video game that is able to produce an immersive experience for the player in which the player believes that they are "actually there" in the game, and that the game is an extension of reality provides an alternate way to explore human behaviors and decision-making processes. Prospect theory questionnaires explore decision-making in hypothetical situations. In most cases, these experiments are done in controlled environments and rely on the respondent's imagination to reproduce the situation which is presented to them. Creating a virtual world with which the players can directly interact with and face tangible consequences of their decisions brings the hypothetical situations of the prospect theory questions closer to the respondent. If the players can interact with and manipulate the virtual world, then it is much easier for them to empathize with it and their character, and thus, the assumption is that the answers represent a more realistic image of the player's decision making.

In the design and analysis of political redistricting maps, it is often useful to be able to sample from the space of all partitions of the graph of census blocks into connected subgraphs of equal population. There are influential Markov chain Monte Carlo methods for doing so that are based on sampling and splitting random spanning trees. Empirical evidence suggests that the distributions such algorithms sample from place higher weight on more "compact" redistricting plans, which is a practically useful and desirable property. In this paper, we confirm these observations analytically, establishing an inverse exponential relationship between the total length of the boundaries separating districts and the probability that such a map will be sampled. This result provides theoretical underpinnings for algorithms that are already making a significant real-world impact.

The explanation dimension of Artificial Intelligence (AI) based system has been a hot topic for the past years. Different communities have raised concerns about the increasing presence of AI in people's everyday tasks and how it can affect people's lives. There is a lot of research addressing the interpretability and transparency concepts of explainable AI (XAI), which are usually related to algorithms and Machine Learning (ML) models. But in decision-making scenarios, people need more awareness of how AI works and its outcomes to build a relationship with that system. Decision-makers usually need to justify their decision to others in different domains. If that decision is somehow based on or influenced by an AI-system outcome, the explanation about how the AI reached that result is key to building trust between AI and humans in decision-making scenarios. In this position paper, we discuss the role of XAI in decision-making scenarios, our vision of Decision-Making with AI-system in the loop, and explore one case from the literature about how XAI can impact people justifying their decisions, considering the importance of building the human-AI relationship for those scenarios.

Machine learning plays a role in many deployed decision systems, often in ways that are difficult or impossible to understand by human stakeholders. Explaining, in a human-understandable way, the relationship between the input and output of machine learning models is essential to the development of trustworthy machine-learning-based systems. A burgeoning body of research seeks to define the goals and methods of explainability in machine learning. In this paper, we seek to review and categorize research on counterfactual explanations, a specific class of explanation that provides a link between what could have happened had input to a model been changed in a particular way. Modern approaches to counterfactual explainability in machine learning draw connections to the established legal doctrine in many countries, making them appealing to fielded systems in high-impact areas such as finance and healthcare. Thus, we design a rubric with desirable properties of counterfactual explanation algorithms and comprehensively evaluate all currently-proposed algorithms against that rubric. Our rubric provides easy comparison and comprehension of the advantages and disadvantages of different approaches and serves as an introduction to major research themes in this field. We also identify gaps and discuss promising research directions in the space of counterfactual explainability.

We introduce GQA, a new dataset for real-world visual reasoning and compositional question answering, seeking to address key shortcomings of previous VQA datasets. We have developed a strong and robust question engine that leverages scene graph structures to create 22M diverse reasoning questions, all come with functional programs that represent their semantics. We use the programs to gain tight control over the answer distribution and present a new tunable smoothing technique to mitigate question biases. Accompanying the dataset is a suite of new metrics that evaluate essential qualities such as consistency, grounding and plausibility. An extensive analysis is performed for baselines as well as state-of-the-art models, providing fine-grained results for different question types and topologies. Whereas a blind LSTM obtains mere 42.1%, and strong VQA models achieve 54.1%, human performance tops at 89.3%, offering ample opportunity for new research to explore. We strongly hope GQA will provide an enabling resource for the next generation of models with enhanced robustness, improved consistency, and deeper semantic understanding for images and language.

Over the past years, there has been a resurgence of Datalog-based systems in the database community as well as in industry. In this context, it has been recognized that to handle the complex knowl\-edge-based scenarios encountered today, such as reasoning over large knowledge graphs, Datalog has to be extended with features such as existential quantification. Yet, Datalog-based reasoning in the presence of existential quantification is in general undecidable. Many efforts have been made to define decidable fragments. Warded Datalog+/- is a very promising one, as it captures PTIME complexity while allowing ontological reasoning. Yet so far, no implementation of Warded Datalog+/- was available. In this paper we present the Vadalog system, a Datalog-based system for performing complex logic reasoning tasks, such as those required in advanced knowledge graphs. The Vadalog system is Oxford's contribution to the VADA research programme, a joint effort of the universities of Oxford, Manchester and Edinburgh and around 20 industrial partners. As the main contribution of this paper, we illustrate the first implementation of Warded Datalog+/-, a high-performance Datalog+/- system utilizing an aggressive termination control strategy. We also provide a comprehensive experimental evaluation.

Machine Learning models become increasingly proficient in complex tasks. However, even for experts in the field, it can be difficult to understand what the model learned. This hampers trust and acceptance, and it obstructs the possibility to correct the model. There is therefore a need for transparency of machine learning models. The development of transparent classification models has received much attention, but there are few developments for achieving transparent Reinforcement Learning (RL) models. In this study we propose a method that enables a RL agent to explain its behavior in terms of the expected consequences of state transitions and outcomes. First, we define a translation of states and actions to a description that is easier to understand for human users. Second, we developed a procedure that enables the agent to obtain the consequences of a single action, as well as its entire policy. The method calculates contrasts between the consequences of a policy derived from a user query, and of the learned policy of the agent. Third, a format for generating explanations was constructed. A pilot survey study was conducted to explore preferences of users for different explanation properties. Results indicate that human users tend to favor explanations about policy rather than about single actions.