The Experimental Semi-Automatic Ground Environment (SAGE) Sector (ESS, Experimental SAGE Subsector until planned Sectors/Subsectors were renamed NORAD Regions, Divisions, and Sectors) was a prototype Cold War Air Defense Sector for developing the Semi Automatic Ground Environment. The Lincoln Laboratory control center in a new building was at Lexington, Massachusetts. == ESS Computer System == The network's Direction Center was completed in a new 1954 building (Building F, 42°27′37″N 071°16′04″W) with prototype peripherals and a single IBM XD-1 computer, a successor to Lincoln Lab's Whirlwind I computer (WWI). In 1955, Air Force personnel began IBM training at the Kingston, New York, prototype facility, and the "4620th Air Defense Wing (experimental SAGE) was established at Lincoln Laboratory"—its "primary mission was computer programming". ESS had a capacity of 48 tracks and used a pre-SAGE ground environment in a "prototype intercept monitor room [at] MIT's Barta building" with "track situation displays, which geographically showed Air Defense Identification Zone lines and antiaircraft circles [and] each console also had a 5-inch CRT for digital information display. Audible alert signals were used, with a different signal for each symbol on a situation display." == Radar stations == Initial service test models of the Burroughs AN/FST-2 Coordinate Data Transmitting Set were placed with radars at South Truro and West Bath, Maine; followed by Texas Tower#2 (TT2) in the Atlantic Ocean, which provided a "triangular pattern with overlap" radar coverage (TT2 later had a connection from the XD-1 via the GE G/A Data Link Output Subsystem through North Truro Air Force Station.) By August 1955, 13 radar stations were networked by the subsector, e.g.: Chatham Clinton, Massachusetts with gap-filler radar Great Boars Head Halibut Point Killingly, Connecticut (41.865734°N 71.820958°W / 41.865734; -71.820958).with gap-filler radar Rockport Air Force Station Scituate, Massachusetts South Truro West Bath, Maine (43°54′7″N 69°50′43″W) with AN/FPS-31 on Jug Handle Hill: ("Lincoln Laboratories experimental radar station") Required by 21 November 1955 were 44 consoles: 38 for the operations floor, 3 on the computer floor for display maintenance, and 3 near the maintenance console (program checkout). WWI was connected to the Experimental SAGE Subsector to verify crosstelling (collateral communication) with the ESS DC, and WWI was also used for a Ground-to-Air (G/A) experiment using a transmitter of the GE G/A Data Link Output Subsystem on Prospect Hill, Waltham, MA sending data to simulated airborne equipment at Lexington. Transmissions from the WWI SAGE Evaluation (WISE) computer system to XD-1 and back were without error by December 1955 when operational software specifications were frozen. Operating procedures for the ESS external sites were complete in March 1956, and == System Operation Testing == From November 15, 1955, to November 7, 1956, three System Operation Tests were conducted which used voice "Ground-to-Air" communication from the Barta control room to aircraft outfitted with SAGE receivers (F-86 interceptors modified to F-86L models in "Project FOLLOW-ON".) Test teams included employees of Bell Telephone Laboratories, Western Electric-ADES, IBM, the RAND Corporation, and Lincoln Labs' Division 6, Division 3, & Division 2 (Division 6 had been created for ESS support.) The North Truro P-10 AN/FST-2 was moved to Almaden Air Force Station (M-96)c. 1957-8 and on August 7, 1958, control of an airborne BOMARC missile that had malfunctioned transferred from the "Experimental SAGE Sector" to a Westinghouse AN/GPA-35 Ground Environment system and the missile crashed into the Atlantic Ocean. By December 31, 1958, ADC Manual 55-28 described the Model 3 SAGE System. == 1959 Experimental Testing == "To prove out the revised SAGE computer program" for Automatic Targeting and Battery Evaluation and ADDC-AADCP crosstelling, a "SAGE/Missile Master" test was conducted beginning in September 1959 with communications between the ESS XD-1 and Martin AN/FSG-1 Antiaircraft Defense System equipment at Fort Banks planned for the CONAD Joint Control Center at Fort Heath—a "SAGE ATABE Simulation Study" (SASS) was also completed 1959–60 by MITRE Corporation.
Neuro-symbolic AI
Neuro-symbolic AI is a subfield of artificial intelligence that integrates neural methods (e.g., neural networks and deep learning) with symbolic methods (e.g., formal logic, knowledge representation, and automated reasoning). The goal is to combine the strengths of both approaches, resulting in AI systems that can be trained from raw data and demonstrate robustness against outliers or errors in the base data, while preserving explainability, explicit use of expert knowledge, and explicit cognitive reasoning. As argued by Leslie Valiant and others, the effective construction of rich computational cognitive models demands the combination of symbolic reasoning and efficient machine learning. Gary Marcus argued, "We cannot construct rich cognitive models in an adequate, automated way without the triumvirate of hybrid architecture, rich prior knowledge, and sophisticated techniques for reasoning." Further, "To build a robust, knowledge-driven approach to AI we must have the machinery of symbol manipulation in our toolkit. Too much of useful knowledge is abstract to make do without tools that represent and manipulate abstraction, and to date, the only known machinery that can manipulate such abstract knowledge reliably is the apparatus of symbol manipulation." Angelo Dalli, Henry Kautz, Francesca Rossi, and Bart Selman also argued for such a synthesis. Their arguments attempt to address the two kinds of thinking, as discussed in Daniel Kahneman's book Thinking, Fast and Slow. It describes cognition as encompassing two components: System 1 is fast, reflexive, intuitive, and unconscious. System 2 is slower, step-by-step, and explicit. System 1 is used for pattern recognition. System 2 handles planning, deduction, and deliberative thinking. In this view, deep learning best handles the first kind of cognition, while symbolic reasoning best handles the second kind. Both are necessary for the development of a robust and reliable AI system capable of learning, reasoning, and interacting with humans to accept advice and answer questions. Since the 1990s, dual-process models with explicit references to the two contrasting systems have been the focus of research in both the fields of AI and cognitive science by numerous researchers. In 2025, the adoption of neurosymbolic AI, an approach that integrates neural networks with symbolic reasoning, increased in response to the need to address hallucination issues in large language models. For example, Amazon implemented Neurosymbolic AI in its Vulcan warehouse robots and Rufus shopping assistant to enhance accuracy and decision-making. == Approaches == Approaches for integration are diverse. Henry Kautz's taxonomy of neuro-symbolic architectures follows, along with some examples: Symbolic Neural symbolic is the current approach of many neural models in natural language processing, where words or subword tokens are the ultimate input and output of large language models. Examples include BERT, RoBERTa, and GPT-3. Symbolic[Neural] is exemplified by AlphaGo, where symbolic techniques are used to invoke neural techniques. In this case, the symbolic approach is Monte Carlo tree search and the neural techniques learn how to evaluate game positions. Neural | Symbolic uses a neural architecture to interpret perceptual data as symbols and relationships that are reasoned about symbolically. Neural-Concept Learner is an example. Neural: Symbolic → Neural relies on symbolic reasoning to generate or label training data that is subsequently learned by a deep learning model, e.g., to train a neural model for symbolic computation by using a Macsyma-like symbolic mathematics system to create or label examples. NeuralSymbolic uses a neural net that is generated from symbolic rules. An example is the Neural Theorem Prover, which constructs a neural network from an AND-OR proof tree generated from knowledge base rules and terms. Logic Tensor Networks also fall into this category. Neural[Symbolic] according to Kautz, this approach embeds true symbolic reasoning inside a neural network. These are tightly-coupled neural-symbolic systems, in which the logical inference rules are internal to the neural network. This way, the neural network internally computes the inference from the premises and learns to reason based on logical inference systems. Early work on connectionist modal and temporal logics by Garcez, Lamb, and Gabbay is aligned with this approach. These categories are not exhaustive, as they do not consider multi-agent systems. In 2005, Bader and Hitzler presented a more fine-grained categorization that took into account, e.g., whether the use of symbols included logic and, if so, whether the logic was propositional or first-order logic. The 2005 categorization and Kautz's taxonomy above are compared and contrasted in a 2021 article. Sepp Hochreiter argued that Graph Neural Networks "...are the predominant models of neural-symbolic computing" since "[t]hey describe the properties of molecules, simulate social networks, or predict future states in physical and engineering applications with particle-particle interactions." == Artificial general intelligence == Gary Marcus argues that "...hybrid architectures that combine learning and symbol manipulation are necessary for robust intelligence, but not sufficient", and that there are ...four cognitive prerequisites for building robust artificial intelligence: hybrid architectures that combine large-scale learning with the representational and computational powers of symbol manipulation, large-scale knowledge bases—likely leveraging innate frameworks—that incorporate symbolic knowledge along with other forms of knowledge, reasoning mechanisms capable of leveraging those knowledge bases in tractable ways, and rich cognitive models that work together with those mechanisms and knowledge bases. This echoes earlier calls for hybrid models as early as the 1990s. == History == Garcez and Lamb described research in this area as ongoing, at least since the 1990s. During that period, the terms symbolic and sub-symbolic AI were popular. A series of workshops on neuro-symbolic AI has been held annually since 2005 Neuro-Symbolic Artificial Intelligence. In the early 1990s, an initial set of workshops on this topic were organized. == Research == Key research questions remain, such as: What is the best way to integrate neural and symbolic architectures? How should symbolic structures be represented within neural networks and extracted from them? How should common-sense knowledge be learned and reasoned about? How can abstract knowledge that is hard to encode logically be handled? == Implementations == Implementations of neuro-symbolic approaches include: AllegroGraph: an integrated Knowledge Graph based platform for neuro-symbolic application development. Scallop: a language based on Datalog that supports differentiable logical and relational reasoning. Scallop can be integrated in Python and with a PyTorch learning module. Logic Tensor Networks: encode logical formulas as neural networks and simultaneously learn term encodings, term weights, and formula weights. DeepProbLog: combines neural networks with the probabilistic reasoning of ProbLog. Abductive Learning: integrates machine learning and logical reasoning in a balanced-loop via abductive reasoning, enabling them to work together in a mutually beneficial way. SymbolicAI: a compositional differentiable programming library.
DiscoVision
DiscoVision is the name of several things related to the video LaserDisc format. It was the original name of the "Reflective Optical Videodisc System" format later known as "LaserVision" or LaserDisc. == Description == MCA DiscoVision, Inc. was a division of entertainment giant MCA (Music Corporation of America), established in 1969 to develop and sell an optical videodisc system. MCA released discs pressed in Carson and Costa Mesa, California on the DiscoVision label from the format's Atlanta, Georgia launch in 1978 to 1982 and the release of the film The Four Seasons. DiscoVision titles included films from Universal Pictures, Paramount Pictures, Warner Bros. Pictures, and Disney content. Agreements were made with Columbia Pictures and United Artists, though no discs were released on the DiscoVision label from either studio. Most of these companies later established their own labels for the format, the first being Paramount with a dozen movies released on the Paramount Home Video label in the summer of 1981. The successor to MCA DiscoVision, DiscoVision Associates (DVA), was the result of a partnership between IBM and MCA. It was hoped that the merger would provide the basis for improvement of the quality of DiscoVision pressings, but no appreciable improvement ever took hold. In 1981, responsibility for the laser videodisc was sold to Pioneer Electronic Corporation, after MCA Discovision had previously started a partnership in 1977 with Pioneer, Universal Pioneer, to produce the Pioneer PR-7820 player (the first industrial model of DiscoVision player from 1978), as well as establishing disc pressing plants in Japan. As part of the partnership, Pioneer, in association with MCA, had a disc replication facility in Kofu, Japan that produced discs. Some of the last DiscoVision label discs were manufactured by Pioneer in Japan. In the same year, MCA discontinued their DiscoVision branding, due to the sale of the technology to Pioneer (who then rebranded the format as LaserDisc) and in turn rebranded their laserdisc releases, now fabricated by Pioneer, under the MCA Videodisc banner; this was changed to the "MCA Home Video" name for both its VHS and videodisc releases. Some of DiscoVision's technical staff went on to form MCA Video Games, in an effort to produce video game cartridges. DiscoVision Associates later evolved into a patent holding company which manages and licenses intellectual property related to LaserDisc, Compact Disc, and optical disc technologies, as well as other non-disc related fields. In 1989, Pioneer acquired DiscoVision Associates where it continues to license its technologies independently. As the portfolio of patent expired, the presence of DiscoVision became less visible. However, it established the success of a patent holding company, which other companies are stimulated to generate royalty income from their own patent portfolio.
Zero-overhead looping
In computer architecture, zero-overhead looping is a hardware feature found in some processors that enables loops to execute without the performance cost of traditional loop control instructions. Instead of software managing loop iterations, the processor's hardware handles repetition automatically, saving clock cycles and improving efficiency. This technique is commonly employed in digital signal processors (DSPs) and certain complex instruction set computer (CISC) architectures. == Background == In many instruction sets, a loop must be implemented by using instructions to increment or decrement a counter, check whether the end of the loop has been reached, and if not jump to the beginning of the loop so it can be repeated. Although this typically only represents around 3–16 bytes of space for each loop, even that small amount could be significant depending on the size of the CPU caches. More significant is that those instructions each take time to execute, time which is not spent doing useful work. The overhead of such a loop is apparent compared to a completely unrolled loop, in which the body of the loop is duplicated exactly as many times as it will execute. In that case, no space or execution time is wasted on instructions to repeat the body of the loop. However, the duplication caused by loop unrolling can significantly increase code size, and the larger size can even impact execution time due to cache misses. (For this reason, it's common to only partially unroll loops, such as transforming it into a loop which performs the work of four iterations in one step before repeating. This balances the advantages of unrolling with the overhead of repeating the loop.) Moreover, completely unrolling a loop is only possible for a limited number of loops: those whose number of iterations is known at compile time. For example, the following C code could be compiled and optimized into the following x86 assembly code: == Implementation == Processors with zero-overhead looping have machine instructions and registers to automatically repeat one or more instructions. Depending on the instructions available, these may only be suitable for count-controlled loops ("for loops") in which the number of iterations can be calculated in advance, or only for condition-controlled loops ("while loops") such as operations on null-terminated strings. === Examples === ==== PIC ==== In the PIC instruction set, the REPEAT and DO instructions implement zero-overhead loops. REPEAT only repeats a single instruction, while DO repeats a specified number of following instructions. ==== Blackfin ==== Blackfin offers two zero-overhead loops. The loops can be nested; if both hardware loops are configured with the same "loop end" address, loop 1 will behave as the inner loop and repeat, and loop 0 will behave as the outer loop and repeat only if loop 1 would not repeat. Loops are controlled using the LTx and LBx registers (x either 0 to 1) to set the top and bottom of the loop — that is, the first and last instructions to be executed, which can be the same for a loop with only one instruction — and LCx for the loop count. The loop repeats if LCx is nonzero at the end of the loop, in which case LCx is decremented. The loop registers can be set manually, but this would typically consume 6 bytes to load the registers, and 8–16 bytes to set up the values to be loaded. More common is to use the loop setup instruction (represented in assembly as either LOOP with pseudo-instruction LOOP_BEGIN and LOOP_END, or in a single line as LSETUP), which optionally initializes LCx and sets LTx and LBx to the desired values. This only requires 4–6 bytes, but can only set LTx and LBx within a limited range relative to where the loop setup instruction is located. ==== x86 ==== The x86 assembly language REP prefixes implement zero-overhead loops for a few instructions (namely MOVS/STOS/CMPS/LODS/SCAS). Depending on the prefix and the instruction, the instruction will be repeated a number of times with (E)CX holding the repeat count, or until a match (or non-match) is found with AL/AX/EAX or with DS:[(E)SI]. This can be used to implement some types of searches and operations on null-terminated strings.
Acousto-electronics
Acousto-electronics (also spelled 'Acoustoelectronics') is a branch of physics, acoustics and electronics that studies interactions of ultrasonic and hypersonic waves in solids with electrons and with electro-magnetic fields. Typical phenomena studied in acousto-electronics are acousto-electric effect and also amplification of acoustic waves by flows of electrons in piezoelectric semiconductors, when the drift velocity of the electrons exceeds the velocity of sound. The term 'acousto-electronics' is often understood in a wider sense to include numerous practical applications of the interactions of electro-magnetic fields with acoustic waves in solids. In particular, these are signal processing devices using surface acoustic waves (SAW), different sensors of temperature, pressure, humidity, acceleration, etc.
Robomart
Robomart is an American technology company headquartered in Santa Monica, California that builds autonomous smart shops for cafes, ice cream parlors, and quick-service restaurants. The company’s white label platform gives retailers the option to expand their footprint at a significantly lower cost than traditional brick-and-mortar real-estate. Robomarts are equipped with a proprietary checkout-free system, temperature controlled compartments, sensors for autonomous operation, and external cameras for added security. The company licenses its technology and white label applications to retailers who manage their fleet of stores and deploy them to their consumers’ locations. After consumers have taken goods from the robomart, their order is automatically calculated, their card on file is charged and they are sent a receipt. The company has announced partnerships with Unilever, Mars, and Fatty Mart. == History == Robomart was founded by Ali Ahmed, Tigran Shahverdyan, and Emad Suhail Rahim. The company debuted at CES 2018 where it unveiled its concept of a self-driving store. At GITEX 2018 the company presented its first functional prototype of a fully driverless Robomart. At the 2019 Consumer Electronics Show the company demonstrated the technology behind its autonomous stores and checkout-free shopping experience. In January 2019, Robomart announced its first partnership with U.S. grocery chain Stop & Shop to test its driverless stores. In December 2020, Robomart deployed the Pharmacy Robomart in a trial in West Hollywood. In June 2021, the company launched its commercial service with a fleet of Pharmacy and Snacks Robomarts operating within West Hollywood and Central Hollywood. In August 2023, Robomart announced a $2 million seed round, putting its to-date funding at $3.4 million. == Partnerships == In September 2019, Robomart partnered with Avery Dennison to source the RFID tags used to enable its checkout-free shopping experience. In December 2020, Robomart partnered with Zeeba Vans to provide vehicles for its growing fleet. In June 2021, Robomart partnered with REEF Technology to provide inventory management and restocking services. In addition, REEF's Light Speed grocery division serves as the first merchant selling products through Robomart. == Products == The company currently offers three Robomart types. The frozen Robomart that stocks ice cream, the refrigerated Robomart that stocks perishable foods, and the ambient Robomart that stocks shelf-stable goods.
Style sheet (web development)
A web style sheet is a form of separation of content and presentation for web design in which the markup (i.e., HTML or XHTML) of a webpage contains the page's semantic content and structure, but does not define its visual layout (style). Instead, the style is defined in an external style sheet file using a style sheet language such as CSS or XSLT. This design approach is identified as a "separation" because it largely supersedes the antecedent methodology in which a page's markup defined both style and structure. The philosophy underlying this methodology is a specific case of separation of concerns. == Benefits == Separation of style and content has advantages, but has only become practical after improvements in popular web browsers' CSS implementations. === Speed === Overall, users experience of a site utilising style sheets will generally be quicker than sites that do not use the technology. ‘Overall’ as the first page will probably load more slowly – because the style sheet AND the content will need to be transferred. Subsequent pages will load faster because no style information will need to be downloaded – the CSS file will already be in the browser’s cache. === Maintainability === Holding all the presentation styles in one file can reduce the maintenance time and reduces the chance of error, thereby improving presentation consistency. For example, the font color associated with a type of text element may be specified — and therefore easily modified — throughout an entire website simply by changing one short string of characters in a single file. The alternative approach, using styles embedded in each individual page, would require a cumbersome, time consuming, and error-prone edit of every file. === Accessibility === Sites that use CSS with either XHTML or HTML are easier to tweak so that they appear similar in different browsers (Chrome, Internet Explorer, Mozilla Firefox, Opera, Safari, etc.). Sites using CSS "degrade gracefully" in browsers unable to display graphical content, such as Lynx, or those so very old that they cannot use CSS. Browsers ignore CSS that they do not understand, such as CSS 3 statements. This enables a wide variety of user agents to be able to access the content of a site even if they cannot render the style sheet or are not designed with graphical capability in mind. For example, a browser using a refreshable braille display for output could disregard layout information entirely, and the user would still have access to all page content. === Customization === If a page's layout information is stored externally, a user can decide to disable the layout information entirely, leaving the site's bare content still in a readable form. Site authors may also offer multiple style sheets, which can be used to completely change the appearance of the site without altering any of its content. Most modern web browsers also allow the user to define their own style sheet, which can include rules that override the author's layout rules. This allows users, for example, to bold every hyperlink on every page they visit. Browser extensions like Stylish and Stylus have been created to facilitate management of such user style sheets. === Consistency === Because the semantic file contains only the meanings an author intends to convey, the styling of the various elements of the document's content is very consistent. For example, headings, emphasized text, lists and mathematical expressions all receive consistently applied style properties from the external style sheet. Authors need not concern themselves with the style properties at the time of composition. These presentational details can be deferred until the moment of presentation. === Portability === The deferment of presentational details until the time of presentation means that a document can be easily re-purposed for an entirely different presentation medium with merely the application of a new style sheet already prepared for the new medium and consistent with elemental or structural vocabulary of the semantic document. A carefully authored document for a web page can easily be printed to a hard-bound volume complete with headers and footers, page numbers and a generated table of contents simply by applying a new style sheet.