Abstract: Techniques are provided herein for creating well-balanced computer-based reasoning systems and using those to control systems. The techniques include receiving a request to determine whether to use one or more particular features, cases, etc. in a computer-based reasoning model (e.g., as cases or features are being added, or as part of pruning existing features or cases). Conviction measures (such as targeted or untargeted conviction, contribution, surprisal, etc.) are determined and inclusivity conditions are tested. The result of comparing the conviction measure can be used to determine whether to include or exclude the feature, case, etc. in the computer-based reasoning model. A controllable system may then be controlled using the computer-based reasoning model. Examples controllable systems include self-driving cars, image labeling systems, manufacturing and assembly controls, federated systems, smart voice controls, automated control of experiments, energy transfer systems, and the like.

Abstract: Techniques are provided for imputation in computer-based reasoning systems. The techniques include performing the following until there are no more cases in a computer-based reasoning model with missing fields for which imputation is desired: determining which cases have fields to impute (e.g., missing fields) in the computer-based reasoning model and determining conviction scores and/or imputation order information for the cases that have fields to impute. The techniques proceed by determining for which cases to impute data and, for each of the determined one or more cases with missing fields to impute data is imputed for the missing field, and the case is modified with the imputed data. Control of a system is then caused using the updated computer-based reasoning model.

Abstract: Techniques for synthetic data generation in computer-based reasoning systems are discussed and include receiving a request for generation of synthetic training data based on a set of training data cases. One or more focal training data cases are determined. For undetermined features (either all of them or those that are not subject to conditions), a value for the feature is determined based on the focal cases. In some embodiments, validity of the generated value may be checked based on feature information. In some embodiments, generated synthetic data may be checked against all or a portion of the training data to ensure that it is not overly similar.

Abstract: Techniques for synthetic data generation in computer-based reasoning systems are discussed and include receiving a request for generation of synthetic training data based on a set of training data cases. One or more focal training data cases are determined. For undetermined features (either all of them or those that are not subject to conditions), a distribution for the feature among the training cases is determined, and a value for the feature is determined based on that distribution. In some embodiments, the distribution may be perturbed based on target surprisal. In some embodiments, generated synthetic data may be tested for fitness. Further, the generated synthetic data may be provided in response to a request, used to train a computer-based reasoning model, and/or used to cause control of a system.

Abstract: The techniques herein include using an input context to determine a suggested action. One or more explanations may also be determined and returned along with the suggested action. The one or more explanations may include (i) one or more most similar cases to the suggested case (e.g., the case associated with the suggested action) and, optionally, a conviction score for each nearby cases; (ii) action probabilities, (iii) excluding cases and distances, (iv) archetype and/or counterfactual cases for the suggested action; (v) feature residuals; (vi) regional model complexity; (vii) fractional dimensionality; (viii) prediction conviction; (ix) feature prediction contribution; and/or other measures such as the ones discussed herein, including certainty. In some embodiments, the explanation data may be used to determine whether to perform a suggested action.

Abstract: The techniques herein include using an input context to determine a suggested action. One or more explanations may also be determined and returned along with the suggested action. The one or more explanations may include (i) one or more most similar cases to the suggested case (e.g., the case associated with the suggested action) and, optionally, a conviction score for each nearby cases; (ii) action probabilities, (iii) excluding cases and distances, (iv) archetype and/or counterfactual cases for the suggested action; (v) feature residuals; (vi) regional model complexity; (vii) fractional dimensionality; (viii) prediction conviction; (ix) feature prediction contribution; and/or other measures such as the ones discussed herein, including certainty. In some embodiments, the explanation data may be used to determine whether to perform a suggested action.

Abstract: The techniques herein include using an input context to determine a suggested action. One or more explanations may also be determined and returned along with the suggested action. The one or more explanations may include (i) one or more most similar cases to the suggested case (e.g., the case associated with the suggested action) and, optionally, a conviction score for each nearby cases; (ii) action probabilities, (iii) excluding cases and distances, (iv) archetype and/or counterfactual cases for the suggested action; (v) feature residuals; (vi) regional model complexity; (vii) fractional dimensionality; (viii) prediction conviction; (ix) feature prediction contribution; and/or other measures such as the ones discussed herein, including certainty. In some embodiments, the explanation data may be used to determine whether to perform a suggested action.

Abstract: The techniques herein include using an input context to determine a suggested action and/or cluster. Explanations may also be determined and returned along with the suggested action. The explanations may include (i) one or more most similar cases to the suggested case (e.g., the case associated with the suggested action) and, optionally, a conviction score for each nearby cases; (ii) action probabilities, (iii) excluding cases and distances, (iv) archetype and/or counterfactual cases for the suggested action; (v) feature residuals; (vi) regional model complexity; (vii) fractional dimensionality; (viii) prediction conviction; (ix) feature prediction contribution; and/or other measures such as the ones discussed herein, including certainty. The explanation data may be used to determine whether to perform a suggested action.

Abstract: Techniques are provided for imputation in computer-based reasoning systems. The techniques include performing the following until there are no more cases in a computer-based reasoning model with missing fields for which imputation is desired: determining which cases have fields to impute (e.g., missing fields) in the computer-based reasoning model and determining conviction scores for the cases that have fields to impute. The techniques proceed by determining for which cases to impute data based on conviction scores. For each of the determined one or more cases with missing fields to impute data is imputed for the missing field, and the case is modified with the imputed data. Control of a system is then caused using the updated computer-based reasoning model.

Abstract: Techniques are provided for imputation in computer-based reasoning systems. The techniques include performing the following until there are no more cases in a computer-based reasoning model with missing fields for which imputation is desired: determining which cases have fields to impute (e.g., missing fields) in the computer-based reasoning model and determining conviction scores for the cases that have fields to impute. The techniques proceed by determining for which cases to impute data based on the conviction scores. For each of the determined one or more cases with missing fields to impute data is imputed for the missing field, and the case is modified with the imputed data. Control of a system is then caused using the updated computer-based reasoning model.

Abstract: The techniques herein include using an input context to determine a suggested action. One or more explanations may also be determined and returned along with the suggested action. The one or more explanations may include (i) one or more most similar cases to the suggested case (e.g., the case associated with the suggested action) and, optionally, a conviction score for each nearby cases; (ii) action probabilities, (iii) excluding cases and distances, (iv) archetype and/or counterfactual cases for the suggested action; (v) feature residuals; (vi) regional model complexity; (vii) fractional dimensionality; (viii) prediction conviction; (ix) feature prediction contribution; and/or other measures such as the ones discussed herein, including certainty. In some embodiments, the explanation data may be used to determine whether to perform a suggested action.

Abstract: Techniques are provided herein for creating well-balanced computer-based reasoning systems and using those to control systems. The techniques include receiving a request to determine whether to use one or more particular data elements, features, cases, etc. in a computer-based reasoning model (e.g., as data elements, cases or features are being added, or as part of pruning existing features or cases). Conviction measures (such as targeted or untargeted conviction, contribution, surprisal, etc.) are determined and inclusivity conditions are tested. The result of comparing the conviction measure can be used to determine whether to include or exclude the feature, case, etc. in the computer-based reasoning model. A controllable system may then be controlled using the computer-based reasoning model.

Abstract: Techniques are provided herein for creating well-balanced computer-based reasoning systems and using those to control systems. The techniques include receiving a request to determine whether to use one or more particular features, cases, etc. in a computer-based reasoning model (e.g., as cases or features are being added, or as part of pruning existing features or cases). Conviction measures (such as targeted or untargeted conviction, contribution, surprisal, etc.) are determined and inclusivity conditions are tested. The result of comparing the conviction measure can be used to determine whether to include or exclude the feature, case, etc. in the computer-based reasoning model. A controllable system may then be controlled using the computer-based reasoning model. Examples controllable systems include self-driving cars, image labeling systems, manufacturing and assembly controls, federated systems, smart voice controls, automated control of experiments, energy transfer systems, and the like.

Abstract: Techniques are provided herein for creating well-balanced computer-based reasoning systems and using those to control systems. The techniques include receiving a request to determine whether to use one or more particular features, cases, etc. in a computer-based reasoning model (e.g., as cases or features are being added, or as part of pruning existing features or cases). Conviction measures (such as targeted or untargeted conviction, contribution, surprisal, etc.) are determined and inclusivity conditions are tested. The result of comparing the conviction measure can be used to determine whether to include or exclude the feature, case, etc. in the computer-based reasoning model. A controllable system may then be controlled using the computer-based reasoning model. Examples controllable systems include self-driving cars, image labeling systems, manufacturing and assembly controls, federated systems, smart voice controls, automated control of experiments, energy transfer systems, and the like.

Abstract: A system and method effective to trigger precisely timed actions on computing devices. The system may include a transmitting device and a receiving device. The transmitter may modulate binary data into sound waves, and the receiver may demodulate the audio signal into binary data. Signal amplitude across a range of frequencies may be used to demodulate. The received data may be interpreted in order to trigger actions on the computing device. These actions may involve the device's screen, speaker, built-in lights, camera, or vibration function. The actions may change over time based on the time at which the signal was received. More actions may be loaded from the device's storage.

Abstract: A system and method effective to trigger precisely timed actions on computing devices. The system may include a transmitting device and a receiving device. The transmitter may modulate binary data into sound waves, and the receiver may demodulate the audio signal into binary data. Signal amplitude across a range of frequencies may be used to demodulate. The received data may be interpreted in order to trigger actions on the computing device. These actions may involve the device's screen, speaker, built-in lights, camera, or vibration function. The actions may change over time based on the time at which the signal was received. More actions may be loaded from the device's storage.

Abstract: Embodiments of the invention provide methods for effecting a desired business solution. In accordance with one embodiment of the invention, a plurality of aspects of a business are analyzed. Each aspect corresponds to an element of a particular domain of a set of domains wherein the plurality of aspects corresponds to elements from at least two domains. A modification of each element that will result in a desired outcome in regard to the corresponding aspect is determined. In accordance with one embodiment of the invention, the business solution development process identifies and provides exit criteria pertaining to each stage of the business solution development process. For one embodiment of the invention a set of metrics are defined and tracked to measure the effectiveness of the business solution.

Abstract: This disclosure provides several methods to generate nucleic acid mutations in vivo, for instance in such a way that no heterologous sequence is retained after the mutagenesis is complete. The methods employ integrative recombinant oligonucleotides (IROs). Specific examples of the described mutagenesis methods enable site-specific point mutations, deletions, and insertions. Also provided are methods that enable multiple rounds of mutation and random mutagenesis in a localized region. The described methods are applicable to any organism that has a homologous recombination system.

Abstract: The present invention provides isolated polypeptides of human p53 that contain mutations. These mutations can be toxic mutations, supertransactivating mutations or tox-suppressor mutations. Further provided by the invention are methods of identifying toxic, supertransactivating, weak transactivating and tox-suppressor mutations as well as methods of identifying compounds that mimic the toxic, supertransactivating and tox-suppressor mutations in human p53. Also provided are methods of inducing toxicity in a cell by administering a polypeptide comprising a supertransactivating or a toxic mutation.

Abstract: Embodiments of the invention provide methods for effecting a desired business solution. In accordance with one embodiment of the invention, a plurality of aspects of a business are analyzed. Each aspect corresponds to an element of a particular domain of a set of domains wherein the plurality of aspects corresponds to elements from at least two domains. A modification of each element that will result in a desired outcome in regard to the corresponding aspect is determined. In accordance with one embodiment of the invention, the business solution development process identifies and provides exit criteria pertaining to each stage of the business solution development process. For one embodiment of the invention a set of metrics are defined and tracked to measure the effectiveness of the business solution.