Single cell analysis of human skeletal muscle (SM) tissue cross-sections is a fundamental tool for understanding many neuromuscular disorders. For this analysis to be reliable and reproducible, identification of individual fibres within microscopy images (segmentation) of SM tissue should be automatic and precise. Biomedical scientists in this field currently rely on custom tools and general machine learning (ML) models, both followed by labour intensive and subjective manual interventions to fine-tune segmentation. We believe that fully automated, precise, reproducible segmentation is possible by training ML models. However, in this important biomedical domain, there are currently no good quality, publicly available annotated imaging datasets available for ML model training. In this paper we release NCL-SM: a high quality bioimaging dataset of 46 human SM tissue cross-sections from both healthy control subjects and from patients with genetically diagnosed muscle pathology. These images include $>$ 50k manually segmented muscle fibres (myofibres). In addition we also curated high quality myofibre segmentations, annotating reasons for rejecting low quality myofibres and low quality regions in SM tissue images, making these annotations completely ready for downstream analysis. This, we believe, will pave the way for development of a fully automatic pipeline that identifies individual myofibres within images of tissue sections and, in particular, also classifies individual myofibres that are fit for further analysis.

The increasing attention being paid to artificial intelligence raises important questions about its integration with social sciences and humanity, according to David De Cremer, founder and director of the Centre on AI Technology for Humankind at the National University of Singapore Business School. He is the author of the recent book, Leadership by Algorithm: Who Leads and Who Follows in the AI Era? While AI today is good at repetitive tasks and can replace many managerial functions, it could over time acquire the "general intelligence" that humans have, he said in a recent interview with AI for Business (AIB), a new initiative at Analytics at Wharton. Headed by Wharton operations, information and decisions professor Kartik Hosanagar, AIB is a research initiative that focuses on helping students expand their knowledge and application of machine learning and understand the business and societal implications of AI. According to De Cremer, AI will never have "a soul" and it cannot replace human leadership qualities that let people be creative and have different perspectives. Leadership is required to guide the development and applications of AI in ways that best serve the needs of humans. "The job of the future may well be [that of] a philosopher who understands technology, what it means to our human identity, and what it means for the kind of society we would like to see," he noted. An edited transcript of the interview appears below. AI for Business: A lot is being written about artificial intelligence. What inspired you to write Leadership by Algorithm?

Natural language technology has fueled a boom in AI adoption, as everyone from small businesses to large corporations seek to introduce streamlined, automated language functions into their customer service and back-end systems. But it's also an area of confusion, owing to plenty of hype--and industries need to get through this confusion in order to bring the sophisticated natural language solutions of tomorrow to fruition. To gain a better understanding of what natural language AI will look like in 2020, we sat down with Alex Poulis. Alex is the senior director of AI at Transperfect, where he founded their Dataforce division, which focuses on training data for machine learning. He's been involved in language technologies since 2002--long before the world entered its current AI hype cycle--and previously worked with Lionbridge on their data collection efforts.

Information systems (IS) are widely used in organisations to improve business performance. The steady progression in improving technologies like artificial intelligence (AI) and the need of securing future success of organisations lead to new requirements for IS. This research in progress firstly introduces the term AI-based services (AIBS) describing AI as a component enriching IS aiming at collaborating with employees and assisting in the execution of work-related tasks. The study derives requirements from ten expert interviews to successful design AIBS following Design Science Research (DSR). For a successful deployment of AIBS in organisations the D&M IS Success Model will be considered to validated requirements within three major dimensions of quality: Information Quality, System Quality, and Service Quality. Amongst others, preliminary findings propose that AIBS must be preferably authentic. Further discussion and research on AIBS is forced, thus, providing first insights on the deployment of AIBS in organisations.

Dublin City University has teamed up with AIB to appoint the Ireland's first chair in data analytics, with Professor Tomas Ward taking up the role. Based in DCU's School of Computing, Prof Ward's research will focus on how data analytics can support decision making in business, and give insight into customer behaviour. "One area I will be exploring is how consumer attitudes to risk taking inform financial decision making," Prof Ward said. "I am also interested in investigating how we can improve decision making in industries from banking to healthcare by making the results of advanced machine learning algorithms and artificial intelligence more understandable to the employees who make decisions based on these insights." Prof Ward is joining DCU from Maynooth University.

Allied Irish Bank CIO Tim Hynes has seen many emerging technologies reach the hype cycle's peak during his IT career, now well into its third decade. Their history tells him that artificial intelligence will only reach its potential if it's promoted and applied to realistic scenarios. "Artificial intelligence feels a little bit like a gold rush event," said Hynes at the AI Congress London. "That doesn't mean there's not value in it. What it does mean is that if you're going to get real value, you have to be pragmatic."

There are several well-known justifications for conditioning as the appropriate method for updating a single probability measure, given an observation. However, there is a significant body of work arguing for sets of probability measures, rather than single measures, as a more realistic model of uncertainty. Conditioning still makes sense in this context--we can simply condition each measure in the set individually, then combine the results--and, indeed, it seems to be the preferred updating procedure in the literature. But how justified is conditioning in this richer setting? Here we show, by considering an axiomatic account of conditioning given by van Fraassen, that the single-measure and sets-of-measures cases are very different. We show that van Fraassen's axiomatization for the former case is nowhere near sufficient for updating sets of measures. We give a considerably longer (and not as compelling) list of axioms that together force conditioning in this setting, and describe other update methods that are allowed once any of these axioms is dropped.

Dempster-Shafer's model aims at quantifying degrees of belief But there are so many interpretations of Dempster-Shafer's theory in the literature that it seems useful to present the various contenders in order to clarify their respective positions. We shall successively consider the classical probability model, the upper and lower probabilities model, Dempster's model, the transferable belief model, the evidentiary value model, the provability or necessity model. None of these models has received the qualification of Dempster-Shafer. In fact the transferable belief model is our interpretation not of Dempster's work but of Shafer's work as presented in his book (Shafer 1976, Smets 1988). It is a ?purified' form of Dempster-Shafer's model in which any connection with probability concept has been deleted. Any model for belief has at least two components: one static that describes our state of belief, the other dynamic that explains how to update our belief given new pieces of information. We insist on the fact that both components must be considered in order to study these models. Too many authors restrict themselves to the static component and conclude that Dempster-Shafer theory is the same as some other theory. But once the dynamic component is considered, these conclusions break down. Any comparison based only on the static component is too restricted. The dynamic component must also be considered as the originality of the models based on belief functions lies in its dynamic component.

We define a new notion of conditional belief, which plays the same role for Dempster-Shafer belief functions as conditional probability does for probability functions. Our definition is different from the standard definition given by Dempster, and avoids many of the well-known problems of that definition. Just as the conditional probability Pr (lB) is a probability function which is the result of conditioning on B being true, so too our conditional belief function Bel (lB) is a belief function which is the result of conditioning on B being true. We define the conditional belief as the lower envelope (that is, the inf) of a family of conditional probability functions, and provide a closed form expression for it. An alternate way of understanding our definition of conditional belief is provided by considering ideas from an earlier paper [Fagin and Halpern, 1989], where we connect belief functions with inner measures. In particular, we show here how to extend the definition of conditional probability to non measurable sets, in order to get notions of inner and outer conditional probabilities, which can be viewed as best approximations to the true conditional probability, given our lack of information. Our definition of conditional belief turns out to be an exact analogue of our definition of inner conditional probability.

In Moral, Campos (1991) and Cano, Moral, Verdegay-Lopez (1991) a new method of conditioning convex sets of probabilities has been proposed. The result of it is a convex set of non-necessarily normalized probability distributions. The normalizing factor of each probability distribution is interpreted as the possibility assigned to it by the conditioning information. From this, it is deduced that the natural value for the conditional probability of an event is a possibility distribution. The aim of this paper is to study methods of transforming this possibility distribution into a probability (or uncertainty) interval. These methods will be based on the use of Sugeno and Choquet integrals. Their behaviour will be compared in basis to some selected examples.