Information

Are there any cognitive test (or test suites) available on the iPad?

Are there any cognitive test (or test suites) available on the iPad?


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

I find the IPad to be a great piece of hardware that is easy to bring along and that has an intuitive touch interface. This would make it an ideal platform for many cognitive tests such as n-back. As the IPad seems to have a short response latency (observation based on the plethora of music aplications available) reaction time tests should also be able to work ok.

My question is: Are there any cognitive tests, or test suits, available on the IPad (and possible the Iphone).


FingerFriendlySoft has created an app for all iOS devices (that is, iPod touch, iPhone and iPad) that is called N-back Suite. This is, as the name suggests, an app which lets you take the n-back test.

Included are both the single and the dual n-back test and you can chose different amounts of n (from 1 to 10), five different speeds, and different type of stimuli for the two tasks (color, letters, images, 3x3 matrixes, and sounds).

You can also export your results to a tab delimited text file that you can analyse using statistical software (or by hand if you feel a bit masochistic), for example R.

So, I guess, with this example in mind, that the answer to your quesion is "yes" :)


I would say there are no such tests/toolboxes, that would allow you to properly conduct any cognitive testing on iPhone, iPad or even using web-based applications. There are some games that attempt to do it, like the one suggested by @Speldosa, but nothing really serious.

At the moment there seem to be no way to control and record different variables (like reaction time) as tightly as with desktop application, like Psychtoolbox or Neurobehavioural System Presentation (you will find plenty of problems there anyway). What's more, iPhone and iPad are tightly controlled platforms, and developers are limited in getting access to some user parameters and data. For example getting informations about parameters like brightness/contrast or volume would be important for cognitive testing apps by default. But it's unlikely to be possible with the current Apple policy (I would bid more for Android devices, as they are much more open for such purposes).

I agree tho that touch panels are promising platform. I imagine people do work on that in some labs, using jailbroken devices, but I am not aware of anything available in the public domain at the moment.

Another issue is novelty of using touch devices. People didn't tested them yet in terms of proper psychophysical accuracy, it's still undiscovered area. Potential seem to be very promising (think eye tracking using iPad camera for example), but we shall see what comes out of it.


@Jeromy Anglim: I'm actually creating a serial response time task (a widely used learning task) for the iPad now. We hope to get it up in the appstore soon but I'm using it along with a few others for my master's thesis. We're almost done putting the finishing touches on the task and hope to post a youtube video soon of the task. We're not intending to make any money off of the app and will be providing the source code for empirical scrutiny and maybe improvement of the paradigm (once it comes out).

As per the general discussion concerning RT and psychophysical properties of the iPad: In my task I am not necessarily concerned with the perceptual delay appearing AFTER you've touched an object. Rather I'm more concerned about the delay in the iPad's speed of registering a touch on the screen as I'm saving response time based upon the participant touch. I'm not very familiar with the steps involved in the touch registration process but assume a piece of the overall 100 ms delay is in the time it takes for the iPad to register the touch. I also assume that this would be a relatively small proportion of that 100ms. However, I then have to worry about the time at which the iPad's hardward and then iOS "grace" my app with this information (about this, I'm completely clueless). As my task is about visuomotor implicit learning I may expect to see differences across time on the order of tens of milliseconds and so am certainly concerned about the touch registration delay from: screen touch >> hardware >> iOS >> my app.

Any ideas on this second form of delay?


There is now an app available on the iPad offering a cognitive test battery. It is a commercial application but fairly inexpensive. Joggle Research adapts several widely validated tests to the touch platform. Test result data is stored and instantly accessible on a cloud service (with a free tier to try it out).

Some here have noted potential limitations of iOS however it offers some great advantages the make it a great platform for cognitive testing. Response time measurement is a problem on all general purpose operating systems that needs to be carefully addressed. The iPad offers a very consistent precision and performance platform for all models. For this factor, a closely controlled "closed" platform actually offers a great benefit.

I would love to engage in dialog with those interested in bringing cognitive testing to touch platforms.


I'm currently working on a similar project and wanted to share some info.

A recent paper reports a similar concern but also a solution via the iPad's built in mic. http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0057364

"The touch screen alone cannot be used for high temporal resolution measurements because of the inherent delay associated with sensing touch via a capacitive screen as well as the fact that these events are then discretized to the frame refresh rate of 60 Hz. A temporal resolution of 0.2 msec was achieved by using the built-in microphone (44.1 kHz sampling rate) on the iPad to record the vibrations produced by touch onset and offset"

I think this tutorial is relevant here: http://mobileorchard.com/tutorial-detecting-when-a-user-blows-into-the-mic/


www.cognitive-innovations.com just released an iPad based cognitive assessment. Looks pretty comprehensive.


There is a program called Paradigm that allows you to build millisecond-accurate neurocognitive experiments for iOS devices. The experiment builder is like E-Prime but easier to use. The app is available in the app store. You upload your experiments to a Dropbox and then log in to access them through the app. It's pretty flexible. I've used it to build n-back, Visual World, and Match-To-Sample tasks.

Paradigm

http://www.paradigmexperiments.com


We have developed an iPad cognitive test battery (CABPad) for use at bedside with stroke patients: www.cognisoft.info. It is used for research at two university hospitals in Copenhagen and a publication on validation is currently being prepared for publication (see this abstract from The International Stroke Conference, Feb 2015: L Willer, PM Pedersen, A Gullach, HB Forchhammer, HK Christensen: Assessment Of Cognitive Symptoms In Sub-acute Stroke With An iPad Test-battery. Stroke 2015; 46: ATP415.). The test battery is currently available in Danish and English, with translations to Norwegian, German, Italinan, Spanish, Portuguese an Brazilian Portuguese ongoing and expected finished early autumn 2015. CABPad is available on the AppStore. Please mail any questions to: [email protected]


Finally - this product looks interesting.

Video is worth a quick watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nohio43YSyU&fmt=22


I just found PAR has some tests available on PARiConnect, however they are very limited and mostly for psych evals (ie: BRIEF, CAD, etc.)


I've been developing an online platform to run HTML5/Javascript experiments, recruit participants via email, Facebook, or Twitter, and collect and evaluate results in real time on any web browser including mobile devices.

Mobile devices are challenging though: On the one hand the different and limited form factors of phones and tablets impose restrictions on any experiment's layout; on the other hand, as @Steve Trawley pointed out, the devices inherent delay to recognize touch events impose restrictions on any experiment's accuracy.

However depending on your use case the experiment may still produce viable results on mobile devices.

Please see stato.de for a demo that works on phones, tablets, and desktops; it does not require signup.


CS362 Software Engineering II

Multiple programmers need to work on the same codebase at the same time
Changes made by multiple programmers need to be combined so other team members can access the new code
There needs to be a way to undo changes that introduce bugs into the codebase
Version Control Systems (VCS) help with the above problems by creating a centralized repository (repo) for the project files. This means that developers do not have to ask the other team members to send them their changes as they are all checked in to this central repo.

VCS's also allow for the merging of changes into the centralized codebase. Merges require any conflicts in the code to be addressed and fixed before the changes can be incorporated into the repo. This means that if multiple members change the same lines of code it needs to be manually addressed to ensure which changes should be kept.

Most VCS's create historical records of changes made to the codebase. This means that changes usually are tagged by the author and they are timestamped. This allows for teams to see who made what changes and when in case something needs to be updated or fixed. It also allows for these changes to be rolled back and the codebase reverted to a previous state. This is very useful when a bug is introduced that isn't easily fixed and the team wants to have a stable version to work with or deploy.


Concluding Galen Framework

In conclusion, it’s always more useful to let the automation do the detection work, and people do the final scrutiny without the annoying part of flipping through a lot of images. All methods tend to complement each other.

Testing Responsive web design on different browsers and different devices is a challenge, and furthermore obviously beneficial over the long run. We found that using Galen and Selenium makes the task much more relaxed and results in more maintainable test suites. In this article, we concentrated on using Selenium and Galen to test layout of a web application, including a brief introduction to write and utilize specification documents and tips for quickly testing the app code on various browsers.

Also, prepare test data across multiple environments is a predictable pain point of test automation. Integrating your test automation framework to a database or web services infrastructure enables your test cases to set up required data before running dynamically.

Advanced planning in the following additional regions can reward effort after some time:

Running the tests can take a quite long while, especially to run against different browsers. Map out how many browsers you have to hook up to your Selenium grid to complete tests in a reasonable time.


What are the most common types of pre-employment tests?

The whole hiring process is a test for candidates. But in this context, pre-employment testing refers to standardized tests.

1. Job knowledge tests

Job knowledge tests measure a candidate’s technical or theoretical expertise in a particular field. For example, an accountant may be asked about basic accounting principles. These kinds of tests are most useful for jobs that require specialized knowledge or high levels of expertise.

Limitations

A job knowledge test doesn’t take into account a very desirable attribute: learning ability. A candidate may have limited knowledge but be a fast learner. Or they may know a lot but be unable to adjust to new knowledge and ideas. Plus, there’s always a gap between knowing something in theory and applying it in practice.

2. Integrity tests

The story of pre-employment testing began with integrity tests. They can help companies avoid hiring dishonest, unreliable or undisciplined people. Overt integrity tests ask direct questions about integrity and ethics. Covert tests assess personality traits connected with integrity, like conscientiousness.

Limitations

Candidates faking answers is always a concern. Especially with overt integrity tests. If a candidate is asked whether they ever stole something, how likely are they to answer yes? If they did, they’d be (paradoxically) honest enough to tell the truth. Employers should consider the fact that people can repent and change.

Evaluate candidates quickly and fairly

Workable’s new pre-employment tests are backed by science and delivered directly through our platform. Hire the best candidates without ever leaving your ATS!

3. Cognitive ability tests

Cognitive ability tests measure a candidate’s general mental capacity which is strongly correlated to job performance. These kinds of tests are much more accurate predictors of job performance than interviews or experience. Workable uses a General Aptitude Test (GAT) which measures logical, verbal and numerical reasoning.

Limitations

As with any cognitive ability test, practice can improve test takers’ scores. Also, cognitive ability tests are vulnerable to racial and ethnic differences, posing a discrimination risk. Use multiple evaluation methods and don’t base hiring decisions on these tests alone. Just use the results as a guide.

4. Personality tests

Personality assessments can offer insight into candidates’ cultural fit and whether their personality can translate into job success. Personality traits have been shown to correlate to job performance in different roles. For example, salespeople who score high on extraversion and assertiveness tend to do better. The Big five model is popular. Motivation tests are also personality assessment tests, used more frequently by career guidance counsellors in schools.

Limitations

Social desirability bias plays an important role in self-reported tests. People tend to answer based on what they think you want to hear and end up misrepresenting themselves. Make sure the test you choose is designed to catch misrepresentations. Some candidates might also find personality questionnaires invasive, which could hurt candidate experience. So, be careful how and when you use them.

5. Emotional Intelligence tests

Emotional Intelligence (EI) refers to how well someone builds relationships and understands emotions (both their own and others’). These abilities are an important factor in professions that involve frequent interpersonal relationships and leadership. In general, tests that measure EI have some predictability of job performance.

Limitations

People don’t always tell the truth when reporting their own EI abilities. You can ask experts or observers to give their input but be prepared to spend more money and time in the process.

6. Skills assessment tests

Skills assessments don’t focus on knowledge or abstract personality traits. They measure actual skills, either soft skills (e.g. attention to detail) or hard skills (e.g. computer literacy). For example, a secretarial candidate may take a typing test to show how fast and accurately they can type. Other examples include data checking tests, leaderships tests, presentations or writing assignments.

Limitations

Skills assessment tests are time-consuming. Candidates need time to submit work or give presentations. Hiring managers also need time to evaluate results. You can use skills assessments during later stages of your hiring process when you have a smaller candidate pool.

7. Physical ability tests

Physical abilities tests measure strength and stamina. These traits are critical for many professions (like firefighting). So they should never be neglected when relevant. By extension, they’ll help reduce workplace accidents and worker’s compensation claims. And candidates won’t be able to fake results as easily as with other tests.

Limitations

Sometimes physical ability tests may resemble medical examinations that are protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act. If you’re not careful, you could face litigation. You should also allow for differences in gender, age and ethnicity when interpreting your candidates’ results, for the same reason.

How much should tests count?

Tests are a useful way to sift through candidates, helping you to disqualify people who don’t meet your minimum requirements. But, what happens if a candidate scores exceptionally high on a test? Should you rush to hire them? Well, maybe.

If a candidate meets every other criteria, then a stellar test result could be the final push towards a hiring decision. But relying too much on a score isn’t a good idea. The best hiring decisions consider many aspects of a candidate’s personality, behavior and skills. It’s better to use multiple tests, developed and validated by experts. View the results as one of many dimensions that can influence your hiring decision.


Testing Isn’t Enough – Ensure Your App Functions as Expected

LogRocket is a frontend logging tool that lets you replay problems as if they happened in your own browser. Instead of guessing why errors happen, or asking users for screenshots and log dumps, LogRocket lets you replay the session to quickly understand what went wrong. https://logrocket.com/signup/

In addition to logging Redux actions and state, LogRocket records console logs, JavaScript errors, stacktraces, network requests/responses with headers + bodies, browser metadata, and custom logs. It also instruments the DOM to record the HTML and CSS on the page, recreating pixel-perfect videos of even the most complex single-page apps.


References

  • [1] Sam S Adams, Guruduth Banavar, and Murray Campbell. I-athlon: Towards a multidimensional turing test. AI Magazine , (1):78–84, 2016.
  • [2] John R. Anderson and Christian Lebiere. The newell test for a theory of cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences , pages 587–601, 2003.
  • [3] Aristotle. De Anima . c. 350 BC.
  • [4] Minoru Asada et al. Cognitive developmental robotics: A survey. IEEE Transactions on Autonomous Mental Development , pages 12–34, 2009.
  • [5] Mayank Bansal, Alex Krizhevsky, and Abhijit Ogale. Chauffeurnet: Learning to drive by imitating the best and synthesizing the worst. arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.03079 , 2018.
  • [6] Marc G. Bellemare, Yavar Naddaf, Joel Veness, and Michael Bowling. The arcade learning environment: An evaluation platform for general agents. J. Artif. Int. Res. , (1):253–279, May 2013.
  • [7] Benjamin Beyret, José Hernández-Orallo, Lucy Cheke, Marta Halina, Murray Shanahan, and Matthew Crosby. The animal-ai environment: Training and testing animal-like artificial cognition, 2019.
  • [8] Alfred Binet and Théodore Simon. Méthodes nouvelles pour le diagnostic du niveau intellectuel des anormaux. L’année psychologique , pages 191–244, 1904.
  • [9] Selmer Bringsjord and Bettina Schimanski. What is artificial intelligence? psychometric ai as an answer. In Proceedings of the 18th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence , IJCAI’03, pages 887–893, San Francisco, CA, USA, 2003. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.
  • [10] Jacob Buckman, Danijar Hafner, George Tucker, Eugene Brevdo, and Honglak Lee. Sample-efficient reinforcement learning with stochastic ensemble value expansion, 2018.
  • [11] Martin Buehler, Karl Iagnemma, and Sanjiv Singh. The 2005 DARPA Grand Challenge: The Great Robot Race . Springer Publishing Company, Incorporated, 1st edition, 2007.
  • [12] Murray Campbell, A. Joseph Hoane, Jr., and Feng-hsiung Hsu. Deep blue. Artif. Intell. , (1-2):57–83, 2002.
  • [13] Raymond B. Cattell. Abilities: Their structure, growth, and action. 1971.
  • [14] G. Chaitin. Algorithmic Information Theory . Cambridge University Press, 1987.
  • [15] Gregory J Chaitin. A theory of program size formally identical to information theory. Journal of the ACM (JACM) , (3):329–340, 1975.
  • [16] Francois Chollet. Deep Learning with Python . Manning Publications, 2017.
  • [17] Karl Cobbe, Oleg Klimov, Christopher Hesse, Taehoon Kim, and John Schulman. Quantifying generalization in reinforcement learning. CoRR , 2018.
  • [18] Ebinepre A Cocodia. Cultural perceptions of human intelligence. Journal of Intelligence , 2(4):180–196, 2014.
  • [19] L. Cosmides and J. Tooby. Origins of domain specificity: the evolution of functional organization. page 85–116, 1994.
  • [20] Linda Crocker and James Algina. Introduction to classical and modern test theory. ERIC, 1986.
  • [21] Charles Darwin. The Origin of Species . 1859.
  • [22] J. Deng, W. Dong, R. Socher, L.-J. Li, K. Li, and L. Fei-Fei. ImageNet: A Large-Scale Hierarchical Image Database. In CVPR09 , 2009.
  • [23] D. K. Detterman. A challenge to watson. Intelligence , page 77–78, 2011.
  • [24] T.G. Evans. A program for the solution of a class of geometric-analogy intelligence-test questions. pages 271–353, 1968.
  • [25] James R Flynn. What is intelligence?: Beyond the Flynn effect . Cambridge University Press, 2007.
  • [26] Richard M Friedberg. A learning machine: Part i. IBM Journal of Research and Development , 2(1):2–13, 1958.
  • [27] Manuela Veloso Gary Marcus, Francesca Rossi. Beyond the Turing Test (workshop) , 2014.
  • [28] B. Goertzel and C. Pennachin, editors. Artificial general intelligence . Springer, New York, 2007.
  • [29] Bert F Green Jr. Intelligence and computer simulation. Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences , 1964.
  • [30] Peter D. Grünwald and Paul M. B. Vitányi. Algorithmic information theory. 2008.
  • [31] Sumit Gulwani, José Hernández-Orallo, Emanuel Kitzelmann, Stephen H Muggleton, Ute Schmid, and Benjamin Zorn. Inductive programming meets the real world. Communications of the ACM , 58(11):90–99, 2015.
  • [32] Sumit Gulwani, Alex Polozov, and Rishabh Singh. Program Synthesis . 2017.
  • [33] William H. Guss, Cayden Codel, Katja Hofmann, Brandon Houghton, Noburu Kuno, Stephanie Milani, Sharada Prasanna Mohanty, Diego Perez Liebana, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, Nicholay Topin, Manuela Veloso, and Phillip Wang. The minerl competition on sample efficient reinforcement learning using human priors. CoRR , 2019.
  • [34] R. Hambleton, H. Swaminathan, and H. Rogers. Fundamentals of Item Response Theory . Sage Publications, Inc., 1991.
  • [35] Islam R. Bachman P. Pineau J. Precup D. Henderson, P. and D. Meger. Deep reinforcement learning that matters. 2018.
  • [36] José Hernández-Orallo. Evaluation in artificial intelligence: from task-oriented to ability-oriented measurement. Artificial Intelligence Review , pages 397–447, 2017.
  • [37] José Hernández-Orallo. The Measure of All Minds: Evaluating Natural and Artificial Intelligence . Cambridge University Press, 2017.
  • [38] José Hernández-Orallo and David L Dowe. Measuring universal intelligence: Towards an anytime intelligence test. Artificial Intelligence , 174(18):1508–1539, 2010.
  • [39] José Hernández-Orallo, David L. Dowe, and M.Victoria Hernández-Lloreda. Universal psychometrics. Cogn. Syst. Res. , (C):50–74, March 2014.
  • [40] José Hernández-Orallo and Neus Minaya-Collado. A formal definition of intelligence based on an intensional variant of algorithmic complexity. 1998.
  • [41] G.E. Hinton. How neural networks learn from experience. Mind and brain: Readings from the Scientific American magazine , page 113–124, 1993.
  • [42] Thomas Hobbes. Human Nature: or The fundamental Elements of Policie . 1650.
  • [43] Marcus Hutter. Universal artificial intelligence: Sequential decisions based on algorithmic probability . Springer Science & Business Media, 2004.
  • [44] D.L. Dowe J. Hernández-Orallo. Iq tests are not for machines, yet. Intelligence , page 77–81, 2012.
  • [45] Yiding Jiang, Dilip Krishnan, Hossein Mobahi, and Samy Bengio. Predicting the generalization gap in deep networks with margin distributions. ArXiv , 2018.
  • [46] Jason Jo and Yoshua Bengio. Measuring the tendency of cnns to learn surface statistical regularities. ArXiv , 2017.
  • [47] Raven J. John. Raven Progressive Matrices . Springer, Boston, MA, 2003.
  • [48] Wendy Johnson and Thomas J.Bouchard Jr. The structure of human intelligence: It is verbal, perceptual, and image rotation (vpr), not fluid and crystallized. Intelligence , pages 393–416, 2005.
  • [49] Arthur Juliani, Ahmed Khalifa, Vincent-Pierre Berges, Jonathan Harper, Ervin Teng, Hunter Henry, Adam Crespi, Julian Togelius, and Danny Lange. Obstacle tower: A generalization challenge in vision, control, and planning. Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence , Aug 2019.
  • [50] Niels Justesen, Ruben Rodriguez Torrado, Philip Bontrager, Ahmed Khalifa, Julian Togelius, and Sebastian Risi. Illuminating generalization in deep reinforcement learning through procedural level generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.10729 , 2018.
  • [51] Brenden M. Lake, Tomer D. Ullman, Joshua B. Tenenbaum, and Samuel J. Gershman. Building machines that learn and think like people. CoRR , 2016.
  • [52] Yann LeCun, Yoshua Bengio, and Geoffrey Hinton. Deep learning. nature , (7553):436, 2015.
  • [53] Shane Legg and Marcus Hutter. A collection of definitions of intelligence. 2007.
  • [54] Shane Legg and Marcus Hutter. Universal intelligence: A definition of machine intelligence. Minds and machines , 17(4):391–444, 2007.
  • [55] Ming Li, Paul Vitányi, et al. An introduction to Kolmogorov complexity and its applications , volume 3. Springer.
  • [56] John Locke. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding . 1689.
  • [57] James Macgregor and Yun Chu. Human performance on the traveling salesman and related problems: A review. The Journal of Problem Solving , 3, 02 2011.
  • [58] James Macgregor and Thomas Ormerod. Human performance on the traveling salesman problem. Perception & psychophysics , 58:527–39, 06 1996.
  • [59] Gary Marcus. Deep learning: A critical appraisal. arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.00631 , 2018.
  • [60] John McCarthy. Generality in artificial intelligence. Communications of the ACM , 30(12):1030–1035, 1987.
  • [61] Pamela McCorduck. Machines Who Think: A Personal Inquiry into the History and Prospects of Artificial Intelligence . AK Peters Ltd, 2004.
  • [62] Kevin McGrew. The cattell-horn-carroll theory of cognitive abilities: Past, present, and future. Contemporary Intellectual Assessment: Theories, Tests, and Issues , 01 2005.
  • [63] Marvin Minsky. Society of mind . Simon and Schuster, 1988.
  • [64] May-Britt Moser, David C Rowland, and Edvard I Moser. Place cells, grid cells, and memory. Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in biology , 7(2):a021808, 2015.
  • [65] Shane Mueller, Matt Jones, Brandon Minnery, Ph Julia, and M Hiland. The bica cognitive decathlon: A test suite for biologically-inspired cognitive agents. Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Behavior Representation in Modeling and Simulation , 2007.
  • [66] A. Newell. You can’t play 20 questions with nature and win: Projective comments on the papers of this symposium. 1973.
  • [67] Behnam Neyshabur, Srinadh Bhojanapalli, David McAllester, and Nati Srebro. Exploring generalization in deep learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , pages 5947–5956, 2017.
  • [68] Ian Osband, Yotam Doron, Matteo Hessel, John Aslanides, Eren Sezener, Andre Saraiva, Katrina McKinney, Tor Lattimore, Csaba Szepezvari, Satinder Singh, et al. Behaviour suite for reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.03568 , 2019.
  • [69] A. E. Howe P. R. Cohen. How evaluation guides ai research: the message still counts more than the medium. AI Mag , page 35, 1988.
  • [70] Charles Packer, Katelyn Gao, Jernej Kos, Philipp Krähenbühl, Vladlen Koltun, and Dawn Xiaodong Song. Assessing generalization in deep reinforcement learning. ArXiv , 2018.
  • [71] Diego Perez-Liebana, Katja Hofmann, Sharada Prasanna Mohanty, Noboru Sean Kuno, Andre Kramer, Sam Devlin, Raluca D. Gaina, and Daniel Ionita. The multi-agent reinforcement learning in malmÖ (marlÖ) competition. Technical report, 2019.
  • [72] Diego Perez-Liebana, Jialin Liu, Ahmed Khalifa, Raluca D Gaina, Julian Togelius, and Simon M Lucas. General video game ai: a multi-track framework for evaluating agents, games and content generation algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.10363 , 2018.
  • [73] Joelle Pineau. Reproducible, Reusable, and Robust Reinforcement Learning , 2018. Neural Information Processing Systems.
  • [74] S. Pinker. The blank slate: The modern denial of human nature . Viking, New York, 2002.
  • [75] David M. W. Powers. The total Turing test and the loebner prize. In New Methods in Language Processing and Computational Natural Language Learning , 1998.
  • [76] Lowrey K. Todorov E. V. Rajeswaran, A. and S. M. Kakade. Towards generalization and simplicity in continuous control. 2017.
  • [77] Fred Reed. Promise of AI not so bright , 2006.
  • [78] Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Emile, or On Education . 1762.
  • [79] & McClelland J.L. Rumelhart, D.E. Distributed memory and the representation of general and specific information. Journal of Experimental Psychology , page 159–188, 1985.
  • [80] P. Sanghi and D. L. Dowe. A computer program capable of passing iq tests. page 570–575, 2003.
  • [81] David Silver, Thomas Hubert, Julian Schrittwieser, Ioannis Antonoglou, Matthew Lai, Arthur Guez, Marc Lanctot, Laurent Sifre, Dharshan Kumaran, Thore Graepel, et al. Mastering chess and shogi by self-play with a general reinforcement learning algorithm. arXiv preprint arXiv:1712.01815 , 2017.
  • [82] David Silver, Julian Schrittwieser, Karen Simonyan, Ioannis Antonoglou, Aja Huang, Arthur Guez, Thomas Hubert, Lucas Baker, Matthew Lai, Adrian Bolton, et al. Mastering the game of go without human knowledge. Nature , 550(7676):354, 2017.
  • [83] C. E. Spearman. ‘general intelligence’, objectively determined and measured. American Journal of Psychology , page 201–293, 1904.
  • [84] C. E. Spearman. The Abilities of Man . Macmillan, London, 1927.
  • [85] Elizabeth S. Spelke and Katherine D. Kinzler. Core knowledge. Developmental science , pages 89–96, 2007.
  • [86] Robert Sternberg. Culture and intelligence. The American psychologist , 59:325–38, 07 2004.
  • [87] Robert Sternberg and Douglas Detterman. What is Intelligence? Contemporary Viewpoints on Its Nature and Definition . 1986.
  • [88] Richard S. Sutton and Andrew G. Barto. Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction (Second Edition) . MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2018.
  • [89] OpenAI team. OpenAI Five , 2019. https://openai.com/blog/openai-five/ Accessed: 2019-09-30.
  • [90] OpenAI team. OpenAI Five Arena Results , 2019. https://arena.openai.com/#/results Accessed: 2019-09-30.
  • [91] A. M. Turing. Computing machinery and intelligence. 1950.
  • [92] Vladimir N. Vapnik. The Nature of Statistical Learning Theory . Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1995.
  • [93] Oriol Vinyals, Timo Ewalds, Sergey Bartunov, Petko Georgiev, Alexander Sasha Vezhnevets, Michelle Yeo, Alireza Makhzani, Heinrich Küttler, John Agapiou, Julian Schrittwieser, John Quan, Stephen Gaffney, Stig Petersen, Karen Simonyan, Tom Schaul, Hado van Hasselt, David Silver, Timothy P. Lillicrap, Kevin Calderone, Paul Keet, Anthony Brunasso, David Lawrence, Anders Ekermo, Jacob Repp, and Rodney Tsing. Starcraft ii: A new challenge for reinforcement learning. ArXiv , abs/1708.04782, 2017.
  • [94] Alex Wang, Yada Pruksachatkun, Nikita Nangia, Amanpreet Singh, Julian Michael, Felix Hill, Omer Levy, and Samuel R Bowman. Superglue: A stickier benchmark for general-purpose language understanding systems. 2019.
  • [95] Alex Wang, Amanpreet Singh, Julian Michael, Felix Hill, Omer Levy, and Samuel R Bowman. Glue: A multi-task benchmark and analysis platform for natural language understanding. 2018.
  • [96] Rui Wang, Joel Lehman, Jeff Clune, and Kenneth O. Stanley. Paired open-ended trailblazer (poet): Endlessly generating increasingly complex and diverse learning environments and their solutions. ArXiv , abs/1901.01753, 2019.
  • [97] David H Wolpert. What the no free lunch theorems really mean how to improve search algorithms.
  • [98] D.H. Wolpert and W.G. Macready. No free lunch theorems for optimization. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation , pages 67–82, 1997.
  • [99] Stephen G. Wozniak. Three minutes with steve wozniak. PC World , 2007.
  • [100] Shih-Ying Yang and Robert J Sternberg. Taiwanese chinese people’s conceptions of intelligence. Intelligence , 25(1):21–36, 1997.
  • [101] Amy Zhang, Nicolas Ballas, and Joelle Pineau. A dissection of overfitting and generalization in continuous reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.07937 , 2018.
  • [102] Chiyuan Zhang, Samy Bengio, Moritz Hardt, Benjamin Recht, and Oriol Vinyals. Understanding deep learning requires rethinking generalization. 2017.

Want to hear about new tools we're making? Sign up to our mailing list for occasional updates.

If you find a rendering bug, file an issue on GitHub. Or, have a go at fixing it yourself – the renderer is open source!


How can I automatically test the functionality of iOS and Android applications?

I have to regularly test the availability and functioning of a movie rental website. I wrote a Windows program which is able to automate a web browser according to a script, so this task is basically solved. Now I have to automate the mobile version of this web application: a native iOS app and a native Android app.

These apps are closed source, so cannot be modified in any way. I think the test app should be deployed on the test devices (iPhone, iPad, Galaxy Tab, Galaxy S II), but I must be able to remote control it. I mean, I would like create a connection between the test devices and a PC, upload test scripts from the PC to the devices, run them, and download the test results to the PC. The test script should start the app to be tested, manipulate its GUI (fill editboxes, push buttons etc.), and follow its response somehow, for example by analyzing the GUI (the existence of some GUI elements, their caption, etc.), analyzing screenshots, and/or inspecting IP packets.

I wrote lots of similar test programs for Windows: I used ShellExecute, PostMessage, FindWindow, the WinPcap library etc., so I know how such a program should work. But since I never wrote applications for mobile OS's, I don't even know whether there are similar APIs and libraries for iOS and Android.

I would like to know where to start, I mean, which SDKs and developer tools could be used to write such an application. I'm also interested in commercial solutions. I would really appreciate any help.


How Good Are You at Remembering a Face? A New Test Tells

Are you good at remembering faces and names? There's a quick test you can take to find out, while helping a group of memory researchers at the same time.

The 10-minute test flashes 56 pictures of different faces with a name underneath for two seconds each. Participants are told to try to learn the face-name pairs. In the second part of the test, faces and names pop up on the screen and test-takers have to indicate whether they've seen the person before.

"The hope is to learn more about how well people learn faces and names in the general population," Mary Pyc wrote in an email to LiveScience. Pyc is part of the psychology research team at Washington University in St. Louis behind the test. They say they're using a crowd-sourced approach to access a more diverse sample of participants than they would typically evaluate.

Pyc and her colleagues hope people will be driven to take part, if only to see how their face-name memory IQ stacks up against other test-takers.

"As an added bonus, learning faces and names is something everyone does every day, so we believed people would be interested to see how good they are at it compared to other people," Pyc said.

In fact, past research has shown when a person is down in the dumps they are better able to recognize various faces. Another study, detailed this year in the journal Brain, suggests there's a brain pathway that processes faces. In that study, scientists found those with a disorder called prosopagnosia that renders them unable to distinguish another's mug suffered a breakdown in this pathway.

The new test, which can be taken from a computer, smartphone, iPad and other mobile devices, just went online this week, and David Balota, another researcher involved in the project, said more than 1,000 people have already taken the test. Upon completing the test, participants are invited to retake the second part a day later.

"In addition to better understanding memory for faces and names in a diverse population, we are interested in the range of memory on an immediate test, and how this is related to one's memory one day later," Balota told LiveScience in an email.

Pyc said the team plans to eventually write up the results for publication.


ACER abstract reasoning test

Thinking strategically to solve non-verbal puzzles is the order of the day with the ACER abstract reasoning test, which is most similar in style to a traditional deductive reasoning test.

Questions are presented in the form of shapes, patterns, diagrams and puzzles. Your job is to look for relationships between the images to deduce which shape is ‘missing’.

These tests can be particularly challenging if you’re not familiar with the question style or format, so we always recommend trying out as many mock tests and questions as you can before you take the ACER abstract reasoning test.


Software Development and Application for the Analysis of Cross-Sections

Naveed Anwar , Fawad Ahmed Najam , in Structural Cross Sections , 2017

Mobile Framework

The overall framework is separated into a mobile framework and a cloud framework which follow the CBSD principles described in earlier sections. The implementation of the mobile framework shall be done using the components illustrated in Fig. 8.26 .

Components Architecture

The components architecture represents all the basic components required to create comprehensive mobile applications as shown in Fig. 8.27 .

Figure 8.27 . Components architecture.

The authentication component provides security and user logging features for mobile apps that make use of cloud services. This component can be an optional feature for mobile applications that do not require any cloud services (e.g., beam design app), however, it is considered as a basic component.

The graphical user interface (GUI) component provides visualizations of user information and renders geometric objects onto the screen. GUI component also handles the presentation and flow of the user interface.

The computations component handles all of the structural engineering calculations relevant for the design of structural members and provides support for unit conversions.

The reporting component is used to organize the results obtained for the user to view.

The input/output (I/O) component handles all processes related to creation, transfer, display, and storage of data, therefore for data-related methods, all other components collaborate with each other through the I/O component. Linkage to the cloud framework is provided inside the I/O component.


ACER abstract reasoning test

Thinking strategically to solve non-verbal puzzles is the order of the day with the ACER abstract reasoning test, which is most similar in style to a traditional deductive reasoning test.

Questions are presented in the form of shapes, patterns, diagrams and puzzles. Your job is to look for relationships between the images to deduce which shape is ‘missing’.

These tests can be particularly challenging if you’re not familiar with the question style or format, so we always recommend trying out as many mock tests and questions as you can before you take the ACER abstract reasoning test.


CS362 Software Engineering II

Multiple programmers need to work on the same codebase at the same time
Changes made by multiple programmers need to be combined so other team members can access the new code
There needs to be a way to undo changes that introduce bugs into the codebase
Version Control Systems (VCS) help with the above problems by creating a centralized repository (repo) for the project files. This means that developers do not have to ask the other team members to send them their changes as they are all checked in to this central repo.

VCS's also allow for the merging of changes into the centralized codebase. Merges require any conflicts in the code to be addressed and fixed before the changes can be incorporated into the repo. This means that if multiple members change the same lines of code it needs to be manually addressed to ensure which changes should be kept.

Most VCS's create historical records of changes made to the codebase. This means that changes usually are tagged by the author and they are timestamped. This allows for teams to see who made what changes and when in case something needs to be updated or fixed. It also allows for these changes to be rolled back and the codebase reverted to a previous state. This is very useful when a bug is introduced that isn't easily fixed and the team wants to have a stable version to work with or deploy.


Software Development and Application for the Analysis of Cross-Sections

Naveed Anwar , Fawad Ahmed Najam , in Structural Cross Sections , 2017

Mobile Framework

The overall framework is separated into a mobile framework and a cloud framework which follow the CBSD principles described in earlier sections. The implementation of the mobile framework shall be done using the components illustrated in Fig. 8.26 .

Components Architecture

The components architecture represents all the basic components required to create comprehensive mobile applications as shown in Fig. 8.27 .

Figure 8.27 . Components architecture.

The authentication component provides security and user logging features for mobile apps that make use of cloud services. This component can be an optional feature for mobile applications that do not require any cloud services (e.g., beam design app), however, it is considered as a basic component.

The graphical user interface (GUI) component provides visualizations of user information and renders geometric objects onto the screen. GUI component also handles the presentation and flow of the user interface.

The computations component handles all of the structural engineering calculations relevant for the design of structural members and provides support for unit conversions.

The reporting component is used to organize the results obtained for the user to view.

The input/output (I/O) component handles all processes related to creation, transfer, display, and storage of data, therefore for data-related methods, all other components collaborate with each other through the I/O component. Linkage to the cloud framework is provided inside the I/O component.


What are the most common types of pre-employment tests?

The whole hiring process is a test for candidates. But in this context, pre-employment testing refers to standardized tests.

1. Job knowledge tests

Job knowledge tests measure a candidate’s technical or theoretical expertise in a particular field. For example, an accountant may be asked about basic accounting principles. These kinds of tests are most useful for jobs that require specialized knowledge or high levels of expertise.

Limitations

A job knowledge test doesn’t take into account a very desirable attribute: learning ability. A candidate may have limited knowledge but be a fast learner. Or they may know a lot but be unable to adjust to new knowledge and ideas. Plus, there’s always a gap between knowing something in theory and applying it in practice.

2. Integrity tests

The story of pre-employment testing began with integrity tests. They can help companies avoid hiring dishonest, unreliable or undisciplined people. Overt integrity tests ask direct questions about integrity and ethics. Covert tests assess personality traits connected with integrity, like conscientiousness.

Limitations

Candidates faking answers is always a concern. Especially with overt integrity tests. If a candidate is asked whether they ever stole something, how likely are they to answer yes? If they did, they’d be (paradoxically) honest enough to tell the truth. Employers should consider the fact that people can repent and change.

Evaluate candidates quickly and fairly

Workable’s new pre-employment tests are backed by science and delivered directly through our platform. Hire the best candidates without ever leaving your ATS!

3. Cognitive ability tests

Cognitive ability tests measure a candidate’s general mental capacity which is strongly correlated to job performance. These kinds of tests are much more accurate predictors of job performance than interviews or experience. Workable uses a General Aptitude Test (GAT) which measures logical, verbal and numerical reasoning.

Limitations

As with any cognitive ability test, practice can improve test takers’ scores. Also, cognitive ability tests are vulnerable to racial and ethnic differences, posing a discrimination risk. Use multiple evaluation methods and don’t base hiring decisions on these tests alone. Just use the results as a guide.

4. Personality tests

Personality assessments can offer insight into candidates’ cultural fit and whether their personality can translate into job success. Personality traits have been shown to correlate to job performance in different roles. For example, salespeople who score high on extraversion and assertiveness tend to do better. The Big five model is popular. Motivation tests are also personality assessment tests, used more frequently by career guidance counsellors in schools.

Limitations

Social desirability bias plays an important role in self-reported tests. People tend to answer based on what they think you want to hear and end up misrepresenting themselves. Make sure the test you choose is designed to catch misrepresentations. Some candidates might also find personality questionnaires invasive, which could hurt candidate experience. So, be careful how and when you use them.

5. Emotional Intelligence tests

Emotional Intelligence (EI) refers to how well someone builds relationships and understands emotions (both their own and others’). These abilities are an important factor in professions that involve frequent interpersonal relationships and leadership. In general, tests that measure EI have some predictability of job performance.

Limitations

People don’t always tell the truth when reporting their own EI abilities. You can ask experts or observers to give their input but be prepared to spend more money and time in the process.

6. Skills assessment tests

Skills assessments don’t focus on knowledge or abstract personality traits. They measure actual skills, either soft skills (e.g. attention to detail) or hard skills (e.g. computer literacy). For example, a secretarial candidate may take a typing test to show how fast and accurately they can type. Other examples include data checking tests, leaderships tests, presentations or writing assignments.

Limitations

Skills assessment tests are time-consuming. Candidates need time to submit work or give presentations. Hiring managers also need time to evaluate results. You can use skills assessments during later stages of your hiring process when you have a smaller candidate pool.

7. Physical ability tests

Physical abilities tests measure strength and stamina. These traits are critical for many professions (like firefighting). So they should never be neglected when relevant. By extension, they’ll help reduce workplace accidents and worker’s compensation claims. And candidates won’t be able to fake results as easily as with other tests.

Limitations

Sometimes physical ability tests may resemble medical examinations that are protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act. If you’re not careful, you could face litigation. You should also allow for differences in gender, age and ethnicity when interpreting your candidates’ results, for the same reason.

How much should tests count?

Tests are a useful way to sift through candidates, helping you to disqualify people who don’t meet your minimum requirements. But, what happens if a candidate scores exceptionally high on a test? Should you rush to hire them? Well, maybe.

If a candidate meets every other criteria, then a stellar test result could be the final push towards a hiring decision. But relying too much on a score isn’t a good idea. The best hiring decisions consider many aspects of a candidate’s personality, behavior and skills. It’s better to use multiple tests, developed and validated by experts. View the results as one of many dimensions that can influence your hiring decision.


How can I automatically test the functionality of iOS and Android applications?

I have to regularly test the availability and functioning of a movie rental website. I wrote a Windows program which is able to automate a web browser according to a script, so this task is basically solved. Now I have to automate the mobile version of this web application: a native iOS app and a native Android app.

These apps are closed source, so cannot be modified in any way. I think the test app should be deployed on the test devices (iPhone, iPad, Galaxy Tab, Galaxy S II), but I must be able to remote control it. I mean, I would like create a connection between the test devices and a PC, upload test scripts from the PC to the devices, run them, and download the test results to the PC. The test script should start the app to be tested, manipulate its GUI (fill editboxes, push buttons etc.), and follow its response somehow, for example by analyzing the GUI (the existence of some GUI elements, their caption, etc.), analyzing screenshots, and/or inspecting IP packets.

I wrote lots of similar test programs for Windows: I used ShellExecute, PostMessage, FindWindow, the WinPcap library etc., so I know how such a program should work. But since I never wrote applications for mobile OS's, I don't even know whether there are similar APIs and libraries for iOS and Android.

I would like to know where to start, I mean, which SDKs and developer tools could be used to write such an application. I'm also interested in commercial solutions. I would really appreciate any help.


How Good Are You at Remembering a Face? A New Test Tells

Are you good at remembering faces and names? There's a quick test you can take to find out, while helping a group of memory researchers at the same time.

The 10-minute test flashes 56 pictures of different faces with a name underneath for two seconds each. Participants are told to try to learn the face-name pairs. In the second part of the test, faces and names pop up on the screen and test-takers have to indicate whether they've seen the person before.

"The hope is to learn more about how well people learn faces and names in the general population," Mary Pyc wrote in an email to LiveScience. Pyc is part of the psychology research team at Washington University in St. Louis behind the test. They say they're using a crowd-sourced approach to access a more diverse sample of participants than they would typically evaluate.

Pyc and her colleagues hope people will be driven to take part, if only to see how their face-name memory IQ stacks up against other test-takers.

"As an added bonus, learning faces and names is something everyone does every day, so we believed people would be interested to see how good they are at it compared to other people," Pyc said.

In fact, past research has shown when a person is down in the dumps they are better able to recognize various faces. Another study, detailed this year in the journal Brain, suggests there's a brain pathway that processes faces. In that study, scientists found those with a disorder called prosopagnosia that renders them unable to distinguish another's mug suffered a breakdown in this pathway.

The new test, which can be taken from a computer, smartphone, iPad and other mobile devices, just went online this week, and David Balota, another researcher involved in the project, said more than 1,000 people have already taken the test. Upon completing the test, participants are invited to retake the second part a day later.

"In addition to better understanding memory for faces and names in a diverse population, we are interested in the range of memory on an immediate test, and how this is related to one's memory one day later," Balota told LiveScience in an email.

Pyc said the team plans to eventually write up the results for publication.


References

  • [1] Sam S Adams, Guruduth Banavar, and Murray Campbell. I-athlon: Towards a multidimensional turing test. AI Magazine , (1):78–84, 2016.
  • [2] John R. Anderson and Christian Lebiere. The newell test for a theory of cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences , pages 587–601, 2003.
  • [3] Aristotle. De Anima . c. 350 BC.
  • [4] Minoru Asada et al. Cognitive developmental robotics: A survey. IEEE Transactions on Autonomous Mental Development , pages 12–34, 2009.
  • [5] Mayank Bansal, Alex Krizhevsky, and Abhijit Ogale. Chauffeurnet: Learning to drive by imitating the best and synthesizing the worst. arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.03079 , 2018.
  • [6] Marc G. Bellemare, Yavar Naddaf, Joel Veness, and Michael Bowling. The arcade learning environment: An evaluation platform for general agents. J. Artif. Int. Res. , (1):253–279, May 2013.
  • [7] Benjamin Beyret, José Hernández-Orallo, Lucy Cheke, Marta Halina, Murray Shanahan, and Matthew Crosby. The animal-ai environment: Training and testing animal-like artificial cognition, 2019.
  • [8] Alfred Binet and Théodore Simon. Méthodes nouvelles pour le diagnostic du niveau intellectuel des anormaux. L’année psychologique , pages 191–244, 1904.
  • [9] Selmer Bringsjord and Bettina Schimanski. What is artificial intelligence? psychometric ai as an answer. In Proceedings of the 18th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence , IJCAI’03, pages 887–893, San Francisco, CA, USA, 2003. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.
  • [10] Jacob Buckman, Danijar Hafner, George Tucker, Eugene Brevdo, and Honglak Lee. Sample-efficient reinforcement learning with stochastic ensemble value expansion, 2018.
  • [11] Martin Buehler, Karl Iagnemma, and Sanjiv Singh. The 2005 DARPA Grand Challenge: The Great Robot Race . Springer Publishing Company, Incorporated, 1st edition, 2007.
  • [12] Murray Campbell, A. Joseph Hoane, Jr., and Feng-hsiung Hsu. Deep blue. Artif. Intell. , (1-2):57–83, 2002.
  • [13] Raymond B. Cattell. Abilities: Their structure, growth, and action. 1971.
  • [14] G. Chaitin. Algorithmic Information Theory . Cambridge University Press, 1987.
  • [15] Gregory J Chaitin. A theory of program size formally identical to information theory. Journal of the ACM (JACM) , (3):329–340, 1975.
  • [16] Francois Chollet. Deep Learning with Python . Manning Publications, 2017.
  • [17] Karl Cobbe, Oleg Klimov, Christopher Hesse, Taehoon Kim, and John Schulman. Quantifying generalization in reinforcement learning. CoRR , 2018.
  • [18] Ebinepre A Cocodia. Cultural perceptions of human intelligence. Journal of Intelligence , 2(4):180–196, 2014.
  • [19] L. Cosmides and J. Tooby. Origins of domain specificity: the evolution of functional organization. page 85–116, 1994.
  • [20] Linda Crocker and James Algina. Introduction to classical and modern test theory. ERIC, 1986.
  • [21] Charles Darwin. The Origin of Species . 1859.
  • [22] J. Deng, W. Dong, R. Socher, L.-J. Li, K. Li, and L. Fei-Fei. ImageNet: A Large-Scale Hierarchical Image Database. In CVPR09 , 2009.
  • [23] D. K. Detterman. A challenge to watson. Intelligence , page 77–78, 2011.
  • [24] T.G. Evans. A program for the solution of a class of geometric-analogy intelligence-test questions. pages 271–353, 1968.
  • [25] James R Flynn. What is intelligence?: Beyond the Flynn effect . Cambridge University Press, 2007.
  • [26] Richard M Friedberg. A learning machine: Part i. IBM Journal of Research and Development , 2(1):2–13, 1958.
  • [27] Manuela Veloso Gary Marcus, Francesca Rossi. Beyond the Turing Test (workshop) , 2014.
  • [28] B. Goertzel and C. Pennachin, editors. Artificial general intelligence . Springer, New York, 2007.
  • [29] Bert F Green Jr. Intelligence and computer simulation. Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences , 1964.
  • [30] Peter D. Grünwald and Paul M. B. Vitányi. Algorithmic information theory. 2008.
  • [31] Sumit Gulwani, José Hernández-Orallo, Emanuel Kitzelmann, Stephen H Muggleton, Ute Schmid, and Benjamin Zorn. Inductive programming meets the real world. Communications of the ACM , 58(11):90–99, 2015.
  • [32] Sumit Gulwani, Alex Polozov, and Rishabh Singh. Program Synthesis . 2017.
  • [33] William H. Guss, Cayden Codel, Katja Hofmann, Brandon Houghton, Noburu Kuno, Stephanie Milani, Sharada Prasanna Mohanty, Diego Perez Liebana, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, Nicholay Topin, Manuela Veloso, and Phillip Wang. The minerl competition on sample efficient reinforcement learning using human priors. CoRR , 2019.
  • [34] R. Hambleton, H. Swaminathan, and H. Rogers. Fundamentals of Item Response Theory . Sage Publications, Inc., 1991.
  • [35] Islam R. Bachman P. Pineau J. Precup D. Henderson, P. and D. Meger. Deep reinforcement learning that matters. 2018.
  • [36] José Hernández-Orallo. Evaluation in artificial intelligence: from task-oriented to ability-oriented measurement. Artificial Intelligence Review , pages 397–447, 2017.
  • [37] José Hernández-Orallo. The Measure of All Minds: Evaluating Natural and Artificial Intelligence . Cambridge University Press, 2017.
  • [38] José Hernández-Orallo and David L Dowe. Measuring universal intelligence: Towards an anytime intelligence test. Artificial Intelligence , 174(18):1508–1539, 2010.
  • [39] José Hernández-Orallo, David L. Dowe, and M.Victoria Hernández-Lloreda. Universal psychometrics. Cogn. Syst. Res. , (C):50–74, March 2014.
  • [40] José Hernández-Orallo and Neus Minaya-Collado. A formal definition of intelligence based on an intensional variant of algorithmic complexity. 1998.
  • [41] G.E. Hinton. How neural networks learn from experience. Mind and brain: Readings from the Scientific American magazine , page 113–124, 1993.
  • [42] Thomas Hobbes. Human Nature: or The fundamental Elements of Policie . 1650.
  • [43] Marcus Hutter. Universal artificial intelligence: Sequential decisions based on algorithmic probability . Springer Science & Business Media, 2004.
  • [44] D.L. Dowe J. Hernández-Orallo. Iq tests are not for machines, yet. Intelligence , page 77–81, 2012.
  • [45] Yiding Jiang, Dilip Krishnan, Hossein Mobahi, and Samy Bengio. Predicting the generalization gap in deep networks with margin distributions. ArXiv , 2018.
  • [46] Jason Jo and Yoshua Bengio. Measuring the tendency of cnns to learn surface statistical regularities. ArXiv , 2017.
  • [47] Raven J. John. Raven Progressive Matrices . Springer, Boston, MA, 2003.
  • [48] Wendy Johnson and Thomas J.Bouchard Jr. The structure of human intelligence: It is verbal, perceptual, and image rotation (vpr), not fluid and crystallized. Intelligence , pages 393–416, 2005.
  • [49] Arthur Juliani, Ahmed Khalifa, Vincent-Pierre Berges, Jonathan Harper, Ervin Teng, Hunter Henry, Adam Crespi, Julian Togelius, and Danny Lange. Obstacle tower: A generalization challenge in vision, control, and planning. Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence , Aug 2019.
  • [50] Niels Justesen, Ruben Rodriguez Torrado, Philip Bontrager, Ahmed Khalifa, Julian Togelius, and Sebastian Risi. Illuminating generalization in deep reinforcement learning through procedural level generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.10729 , 2018.
  • [51] Brenden M. Lake, Tomer D. Ullman, Joshua B. Tenenbaum, and Samuel J. Gershman. Building machines that learn and think like people. CoRR , 2016.
  • [52] Yann LeCun, Yoshua Bengio, and Geoffrey Hinton. Deep learning. nature , (7553):436, 2015.
  • [53] Shane Legg and Marcus Hutter. A collection of definitions of intelligence. 2007.
  • [54] Shane Legg and Marcus Hutter. Universal intelligence: A definition of machine intelligence. Minds and machines , 17(4):391–444, 2007.
  • [55] Ming Li, Paul Vitányi, et al. An introduction to Kolmogorov complexity and its applications , volume 3. Springer.
  • [56] John Locke. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding . 1689.
  • [57] James Macgregor and Yun Chu. Human performance on the traveling salesman and related problems: A review. The Journal of Problem Solving , 3, 02 2011.
  • [58] James Macgregor and Thomas Ormerod. Human performance on the traveling salesman problem. Perception & psychophysics , 58:527–39, 06 1996.
  • [59] Gary Marcus. Deep learning: A critical appraisal. arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.00631 , 2018.
  • [60] John McCarthy. Generality in artificial intelligence. Communications of the ACM , 30(12):1030–1035, 1987.
  • [61] Pamela McCorduck. Machines Who Think: A Personal Inquiry into the History and Prospects of Artificial Intelligence . AK Peters Ltd, 2004.
  • [62] Kevin McGrew. The cattell-horn-carroll theory of cognitive abilities: Past, present, and future. Contemporary Intellectual Assessment: Theories, Tests, and Issues , 01 2005.
  • [63] Marvin Minsky. Society of mind . Simon and Schuster, 1988.
  • [64] May-Britt Moser, David C Rowland, and Edvard I Moser. Place cells, grid cells, and memory. Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in biology , 7(2):a021808, 2015.
  • [65] Shane Mueller, Matt Jones, Brandon Minnery, Ph Julia, and M Hiland. The bica cognitive decathlon: A test suite for biologically-inspired cognitive agents. Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Behavior Representation in Modeling and Simulation , 2007.
  • [66] A. Newell. You can’t play 20 questions with nature and win: Projective comments on the papers of this symposium. 1973.
  • [67] Behnam Neyshabur, Srinadh Bhojanapalli, David McAllester, and Nati Srebro. Exploring generalization in deep learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , pages 5947–5956, 2017.
  • [68] Ian Osband, Yotam Doron, Matteo Hessel, John Aslanides, Eren Sezener, Andre Saraiva, Katrina McKinney, Tor Lattimore, Csaba Szepezvari, Satinder Singh, et al. Behaviour suite for reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.03568 , 2019.
  • [69] A. E. Howe P. R. Cohen. How evaluation guides ai research: the message still counts more than the medium. AI Mag , page 35, 1988.
  • [70] Charles Packer, Katelyn Gao, Jernej Kos, Philipp Krähenbühl, Vladlen Koltun, and Dawn Xiaodong Song. Assessing generalization in deep reinforcement learning. ArXiv , 2018.
  • [71] Diego Perez-Liebana, Katja Hofmann, Sharada Prasanna Mohanty, Noboru Sean Kuno, Andre Kramer, Sam Devlin, Raluca D. Gaina, and Daniel Ionita. The multi-agent reinforcement learning in malmÖ (marlÖ) competition. Technical report, 2019.
  • [72] Diego Perez-Liebana, Jialin Liu, Ahmed Khalifa, Raluca D Gaina, Julian Togelius, and Simon M Lucas. General video game ai: a multi-track framework for evaluating agents, games and content generation algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.10363 , 2018.
  • [73] Joelle Pineau. Reproducible, Reusable, and Robust Reinforcement Learning , 2018. Neural Information Processing Systems.
  • [74] S. Pinker. The blank slate: The modern denial of human nature . Viking, New York, 2002.
  • [75] David M. W. Powers. The total Turing test and the loebner prize. In New Methods in Language Processing and Computational Natural Language Learning , 1998.
  • [76] Lowrey K. Todorov E. V. Rajeswaran, A. and S. M. Kakade. Towards generalization and simplicity in continuous control. 2017.
  • [77] Fred Reed. Promise of AI not so bright , 2006.
  • [78] Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Emile, or On Education . 1762.
  • [79] & McClelland J.L. Rumelhart, D.E. Distributed memory and the representation of general and specific information. Journal of Experimental Psychology , page 159–188, 1985.
  • [80] P. Sanghi and D. L. Dowe. A computer program capable of passing iq tests. page 570–575, 2003.
  • [81] David Silver, Thomas Hubert, Julian Schrittwieser, Ioannis Antonoglou, Matthew Lai, Arthur Guez, Marc Lanctot, Laurent Sifre, Dharshan Kumaran, Thore Graepel, et al. Mastering chess and shogi by self-play with a general reinforcement learning algorithm. arXiv preprint arXiv:1712.01815 , 2017.
  • [82] David Silver, Julian Schrittwieser, Karen Simonyan, Ioannis Antonoglou, Aja Huang, Arthur Guez, Thomas Hubert, Lucas Baker, Matthew Lai, Adrian Bolton, et al. Mastering the game of go without human knowledge. Nature , 550(7676):354, 2017.
  • [83] C. E. Spearman. ‘general intelligence’, objectively determined and measured. American Journal of Psychology , page 201–293, 1904.
  • [84] C. E. Spearman. The Abilities of Man . Macmillan, London, 1927.
  • [85] Elizabeth S. Spelke and Katherine D. Kinzler. Core knowledge. Developmental science , pages 89–96, 2007.
  • [86] Robert Sternberg. Culture and intelligence. The American psychologist , 59:325–38, 07 2004.
  • [87] Robert Sternberg and Douglas Detterman. What is Intelligence? Contemporary Viewpoints on Its Nature and Definition . 1986.
  • [88] Richard S. Sutton and Andrew G. Barto. Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction (Second Edition) . MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2018.
  • [89] OpenAI team. OpenAI Five , 2019. https://openai.com/blog/openai-five/ Accessed: 2019-09-30.
  • [90] OpenAI team. OpenAI Five Arena Results , 2019. https://arena.openai.com/#/results Accessed: 2019-09-30.
  • [91] A. M. Turing. Computing machinery and intelligence. 1950.
  • [92] Vladimir N. Vapnik. The Nature of Statistical Learning Theory . Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1995.
  • [93] Oriol Vinyals, Timo Ewalds, Sergey Bartunov, Petko Georgiev, Alexander Sasha Vezhnevets, Michelle Yeo, Alireza Makhzani, Heinrich Küttler, John Agapiou, Julian Schrittwieser, John Quan, Stephen Gaffney, Stig Petersen, Karen Simonyan, Tom Schaul, Hado van Hasselt, David Silver, Timothy P. Lillicrap, Kevin Calderone, Paul Keet, Anthony Brunasso, David Lawrence, Anders Ekermo, Jacob Repp, and Rodney Tsing. Starcraft ii: A new challenge for reinforcement learning. ArXiv , abs/1708.04782, 2017.
  • [94] Alex Wang, Yada Pruksachatkun, Nikita Nangia, Amanpreet Singh, Julian Michael, Felix Hill, Omer Levy, and Samuel R Bowman. Superglue: A stickier benchmark for general-purpose language understanding systems. 2019.
  • [95] Alex Wang, Amanpreet Singh, Julian Michael, Felix Hill, Omer Levy, and Samuel R Bowman. Glue: A multi-task benchmark and analysis platform for natural language understanding. 2018.
  • [96] Rui Wang, Joel Lehman, Jeff Clune, and Kenneth O. Stanley. Paired open-ended trailblazer (poet): Endlessly generating increasingly complex and diverse learning environments and their solutions. ArXiv , abs/1901.01753, 2019.
  • [97] David H Wolpert. What the no free lunch theorems really mean how to improve search algorithms.
  • [98] D.H. Wolpert and W.G. Macready. No free lunch theorems for optimization. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation , pages 67–82, 1997.
  • [99] Stephen G. Wozniak. Three minutes with steve wozniak. PC World , 2007.
  • [100] Shih-Ying Yang and Robert J Sternberg. Taiwanese chinese people’s conceptions of intelligence. Intelligence , 25(1):21–36, 1997.
  • [101] Amy Zhang, Nicolas Ballas, and Joelle Pineau. A dissection of overfitting and generalization in continuous reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.07937 , 2018.
  • [102] Chiyuan Zhang, Samy Bengio, Moritz Hardt, Benjamin Recht, and Oriol Vinyals. Understanding deep learning requires rethinking generalization. 2017.

Want to hear about new tools we're making? Sign up to our mailing list for occasional updates.

If you find a rendering bug, file an issue on GitHub. Or, have a go at fixing it yourself – the renderer is open source!


Testing Isn’t Enough – Ensure Your App Functions as Expected

LogRocket is a frontend logging tool that lets you replay problems as if they happened in your own browser. Instead of guessing why errors happen, or asking users for screenshots and log dumps, LogRocket lets you replay the session to quickly understand what went wrong. https://logrocket.com/signup/

In addition to logging Redux actions and state, LogRocket records console logs, JavaScript errors, stacktraces, network requests/responses with headers + bodies, browser metadata, and custom logs. It also instruments the DOM to record the HTML and CSS on the page, recreating pixel-perfect videos of even the most complex single-page apps.


Concluding Galen Framework

In conclusion, it’s always more useful to let the automation do the detection work, and people do the final scrutiny without the annoying part of flipping through a lot of images. All methods tend to complement each other.

Testing Responsive web design on different browsers and different devices is a challenge, and furthermore obviously beneficial over the long run. We found that using Galen and Selenium makes the task much more relaxed and results in more maintainable test suites. In this article, we concentrated on using Selenium and Galen to test layout of a web application, including a brief introduction to write and utilize specification documents and tips for quickly testing the app code on various browsers.

Also, prepare test data across multiple environments is a predictable pain point of test automation. Integrating your test automation framework to a database or web services infrastructure enables your test cases to set up required data before running dynamically.

Advanced planning in the following additional regions can reward effort after some time:

Running the tests can take a quite long while, especially to run against different browsers. Map out how many browsers you have to hook up to your Selenium grid to complete tests in a reasonable time.


Watch the video: iPad 3 vs iPad 4 Boot Time Start Up Test (May 2022).