AI Analyst Jobs

AI Analyst Jobs — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

  • Quantification (machine learning)

    Quantification (machine learning)

    In machine learning, quantification (variously called learning to quantify, or supervised prevalence estimation, or class prior estimation) is the task of using supervised learning in order to train models (quantifiers) that estimate the relative frequencies (also known as prevalence values) of the classes of interest in a sample of unlabelled data items. For instance, in a sample of 100,000 unlabelled tweets known to express opinions about a certain political candidate, a quantifier may be used to estimate the percentage of these tweets which belong to class `Positive' (i.e., which manifest a positive stance towards this candidate), and to do the same for classes `Neutral' and `Negative'. Quantification may also be viewed as the task of training predictors that estimate a (discrete) probability distribution, i.e., that generate a predicted distribution that approximates the unknown true distribution of the items across the classes of interest. Quantification is different from classification, since the goal of classification is to predict the class labels of individual data items, while the goal of quantification it to predict the class prevalence values of sets of data items. Quantification is also different from regression, since in regression the training data items have real-valued labels, while in quantification the training data items have class labels. It has been shown in multiple research works that performing quantification by classifying all unlabelled instances and then counting the instances that have been attributed to each class (the 'classify and count' method) usually leads to suboptimal quantification accuracy. This suboptimality may be seen as a direct consequence of 'Vapnik's principle', which states: If you possess a restricted amount of information for solving some problem, try to solve the problem directly and never solve a more general problem as an intermediate step. It is possible that the available information is sufficient for a direct solution but is insufficient for solving a more general intermediate problem. In our case, the problem to be solved directly is quantification, while the more general intermediate problem is classification. As a result of the suboptimality of the 'classify and count' method, quantification has evolved as a task in its own right, different (in goals, methods, techniques, and evaluation measures) from classification. == Quantification tasks == === Quantification tasks according to the set of classes === The main variants of quantification, according to the characteristics of the set of classes used, are: Binary quantification, corresponding to the case in which there are only n = 2 {\displaystyle n=2} classes and each data item belongs to exactly one of them; Single-label multiclass quantification, corresponding to the case in which there are n > 2 {\displaystyle n>2} classes and each data item belongs to exactly one of them; Multi-label multiclass quantification, corresponding to the case in which there are n ≥ 2 {\displaystyle n\geq 2} classes and each data item can belong to zero, one, or several classes at the same time; Ordinal quantification, corresponding to the single-label multiclass case in which a total order is defined on the set of classes. Regression quantification, a task which stands to 'standard' quantification as regression stands to classification. Strictly speaking, this task is not a quantification task as defined above (since the individual items do not have class labels but are labelled by real values), but has enough commonalities with other quantification tasks to be considered one of them. Most known quantification methods address the binary case or the single-label multiclass case, and only few of them address the multi-label, ordinal, and regression cases. Binary-only methods include the Mixture Model (MM) method, the HDy method, SVM(KLD), and SVM(Q). Methods that can deal with both the binary case and the single-label multiclass case include probabilistic classify and count (PCC), adjusted classify and count (ACC), probabilistic adjusted classify and count (PACC), the Saerens-Latinne-Decaestecker EM-based method (SLD), and KDEy. Methods for multi-label quantification include regression-based quantification (RQ) and label powerset-based quantification (LPQ). Methods for the ordinal case include ordinal versions of the above-mentioned ACC, PACC, and SLD methods, and ordinal versions of the above-mentioned HDy method. Methods for the regression case include Regress and splice and Adjusted regress and sum. === Quantification tasks according to the type of data === Several subtasks of quantification may be identified according to the type of data involved. Example such tasks are: Quantification of networked data. This task consists of performing quantification when the datapoints are members of a relation, i.e., are interlinked. As such, this task is a strict relative of collective classification. Quantification over time. This task consists of performing quantification on sets that become available in a temporal sequence, i.e., as a data stream, and finds application in contexts in which class prevalence values must be monitored over time. == Evaluation measures for quantification == Several evaluation measures can be used for evaluating the error of a quantification method. Since quantification consists of generating a predicted probability distribution that estimates a true probability distribution, these evaluation measures are ones that compare two probability distributions. Most evaluation measures for quantification belong to the class of divergences. Evaluation measures for binary quantification, single-label multiclass quantification, and multi-label quantification, are Absolute Error Squared Error Relative Absolute Error Kullback–Leibler divergence Pearson Divergence Evaluation measures for ordinal quantification are Normalized Match Distance (a particular case of the Earth Mover's Distance) Root Normalized Order-Aware Distance == Applications == Quantification is of special interest in fields such as the social sciences, epidemiology, market research, allocating resources, and ecological modelling, since these fields are inherently concerned with aggregate data. However, quantification is also useful as a building block for solving other downstream tasks, such as improving the accuracy of classifiers on out-of-distribution data, measuring classifier bias and ranker bias, and estimating the accuracy of classifiers on out-of-distribution data. == Resources == LQ 2021: the 1st International Workshop on Learning to Quantify LQ 2022: the 2nd International Workshop on Learning to Quantify LQ 2023: the 3rd International Workshop on Learning to Quantify LQ 2024: the 4th International Workshop on Learning to Quantify LQ 2025: the 5th International Workshop on Learning to Quantify LeQua 2022: the 1st Data Challenge on Learning to Quantify LeQua 2024: the 2nd Data Challenge on Learning to Quantify QuaPy: An open-source Python-based software library for quantification QuantificationLib: A Python library for quantification and prevalence estimation

    Read more →
  • Machine translation in China

    Machine translation in China

    Machine translation in China is the history of machine translation systems developed in China. China became the fourth country that began machine translation (MT) research following USA, UK, and the Soviet Union. In 1957, the Language Institute of Chinese Academy of Sciences took the initiative in Russian-Chinese MT research program and set up an MT research group. From then on the research activities were directed and applied for academic purposes in Universities. The turning point of MT systems launching initiatives in market began from 1990s. MT systems went into blossom into the market. Among these systems, there were commercialized MT systems. To be more specific, Transtar was the first commercialized MT system and has been constantly upgraded. What's more, IMC/EC MT system which was developed by Computer Institute of Chinese Academy of Sciences has further made great advancement. Meanwhile, the practical MT system MT-IT-EC specific to communication domain was also striking to notice, for it has greatly improved the efficiency and productivity in the issue of publications. Government funding is a critical component and support in the development of market-oriented machine translation in China. It is evident to see that since Chinese opened up to the outside world and joined the WTO, the vigorous import and export trade generate opportunities for machine translation to transfer technical terms of products into the readable target information. Facing the increasing demand of sophisticated state-of -the -art translation technology, the academic area including research institute and universities are even launching bachelors’ and master's programs regarding machine translation. Thus, strong evidence illustrates the promising field of machine translation in the future market of China.

    Read more →
  • Christopher K. I. Williams

    Christopher K. I. Williams

    Christopher Kenneth Ingle Williams (born 1960) is a professor at the School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh, working in Artificial intelligence, and particularly the areas of Machine learning and Computer vision. == Education == Williams received a BA in Physics and Theoretical Physics from the University of Cambridge in 1982, followed by Part III Mathematics (1983). He did a MSc in Water Resources at the University of Newcastle-Upon-Tyne, then worked in Lesotho on low-cost sanitation. In 1988, he studied at the Department of Computer Science of the University of Toronto under the supervision of Geoffrey Hinton. He obtained his MSc and PhD both in computer science, in 1990 and 1994, respectively. == Career and research == In 1994, Williams moved to Aston University as a Research Fellow. He became a Lecturer in August 1995. He moved to the University of Edinburgh in July 1998 and became Reader in 2000. He obtained a Personal Chair in Machine Learning in 2005 in the School of Informatics. Williams has been a Fellow of the European Laboratory for Learning and Intelligent Systems (ELLIS) since 2019. Williams' research interests are in machine learning and computer vision. He has worked on new models for understanding time-series and images, and for finding structure in data. He is best known for his work on Gaussian processes and for the book Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning, co-authored with Carl Rasmussen. The book received the 2009 DeGroot Prize of the International Society for Bayesian Analysis. Williams was an organizer of the PASCAL Visual Object Classes (VOC) project (2005–2012) along with Mark Everingham, Luc van Gool, John Winn, and Andrew Zisserman. == Awards and honours == In 2021 Williams was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh (FRSE).

    Read more →
  • Dan Jurafsky

    Dan Jurafsky

    Daniel Jurafsky is a professor of linguistics and computer science at Stanford University, and also an author. With Daniel Gildea, he is known for developing the first automatic system for semantic role labeling (SRL). He is the author of The Language of Food: A Linguist Reads the Menu (2014) and a textbook on speech and language processing (2000). For the former, Jurafsky was named a finalist for the James Beard Award. Jurafsky was given a MacArthur Fellowship in 2002. == Education == Jurafsky received his B.A in linguistics (1983) and Ph.D. in computer science (1992), both at University of California, Berkeley; and then a postdoc at International Computer Science Institute, Berkeley (1992–1995). == Academic life == He is the author of The Language of Food: A Linguist Reads the Menu (W. W. Norton & Company, 2014). With James H. Martin, he wrote the textbook Speech and Language Processing: An Introduction to Natural Language Processing, Computational Linguistics, and Speech Recognition (Prentice Hall, 2000). The first automatic system for semantic role labeling (SRL, sometimes also referred to as "shallow semantic parsing") was developed by Daniel Gildea and Daniel Jurafsky to automate the FrameNet annotation process in 2002; SRL has since become one of the standard tasks in natural language processing. == Personal life == Jurafsky is Jewish. He is married. They reside in San Francisco, California. == Selected works == 2009. Speech and Language Processing: An Introduction to Natural Language Processing, Computational Linguistics, and Speech Recognition, 2nd Edition. (with James H. Martin) Prentice-Hall. ISBN 978-0131873216 2014. The Language of Food: A Linguist Reads the Menu. W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 978-0393240832 2026. Speech and Language Processing: An Introduction to Natural Language Processing, Computational Linguistics, and Speech Recognition, 3rd Edition draft. (with James H. Martin) == Honors and awards == 1998. NSF Career Award 2002. MacArthur Fellowship 2019. LSA Fellow 2022. Atkinson Prizes in Psychological and Cognitive Sciences

    Read more →
  • Scientific Working Group – Imaging Technology

    Scientific Working Group – Imaging Technology

    The Scientific Working Group on Imaging Technology was convened by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in 1997 to provide guidance to law enforcement agencies and others in the criminal justice system regarding the best practices for photography, videography, and video and image analysis. This group was terminated in 2015. == History == As technology has advanced through the years, law enforcement has needed to stay abreast of emerging technological advances and use these in the investigation of crime. A factor that is considered when new technology is used in these investigations is the determination of whether the use of that new technology will be admissible in court. The judicial system in the United States currently has two standards used in the determination of admissibility of testimony regarding scientific evidence; the Daubert Standard and the Frye Standard. These standards guide the courts in the admissibility of testimony derived from the use of new technologies and scientific techniques. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), seeking to address possible admissibility issues with such testimony, established Scientific Working Groups starting with the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis and Methods (SWGDAM) in 1988. The goal of these groups is to open lines of communication between law enforcement agencies and forensic laboratories around the world while providing guidance on the use of new and innovative technologies and techniques. This guidance can lead to admissibility of evidence and/or testimony, provided proper methods in the collection of evidence and its analysis are employed. In 2009, the National Academy of Sciences released a report entitled, "Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward." This report addresses many topics including challenges and disparities facing the forensic science community, standardization, certification of practitioners and accreditation of their respective entities, problems related to the interpretation of forensic evidence, the need for research, and the admission of forensic science evidence in litigation. This report mentions the Scientific Working Groups and their role in forensic science. The history of imaging technology (photography) can be said to extend back to the times of Chinese philosopher Mo-Ti (470-390 B.C.) who described the principles behind the precursor to the camera obscura. Since that time, advances in imaging technology include the discovery of chemical photographic processes in the 19th century and the use of electronic imaging technology that includes analog video cameras and digital video and still cameras. By the mid 1990s, it was apparent that technologically advanced camera systems such as these were being adopted for use in the criminal justice system. This led the FBI to convene a meeting of individuals working in the field of forensic imaging from federal, state, local, and foreign law enforcement, and the U.S. military, during the summer of 1997. As a result of this meeting, the Technical Working Group on Imaging Technology was formed from a core group of the meeting’s participants. This group later became the Scientific Working Group on Imaging Technology (SWGIT). Prior to the inception of SWGIT, some law enforcement agencies began adopting digital imaging technology. Due to the lack of guidelines or standards, some of these agencies attempted to replace all their film cameras with substandard digital cameras, only to find that the equipment they had purchased was not capable of accomplishing the mission for which they were intended. At that time only low resolution digital cameras were deemed affordable by some law enforcement agencies. Some of these agencies were forced to rethink their photography procedures and reverted to the use of film cameras or replaced their low-resolution digital cameras with higher quality, more expensive equipment. Also lacking at this early stage was guidance on how to store and archive digital image files. When SWGIT was formed, it was tasked with providing guidance to law enforcement and others in the criminal justice system by releasing documents that describe the best practices and guidelines for the use of imaging technology, to include these concerns and many others. This group was terminated in 2015. == SWGIT Function == During its existence, SWGIT provided information on the appropriate use of various imaging technologies including both established and new. This was accomplished through the release of documents such as the SWGIT Best Practices documents. As changes in technology occurred, these documents were updated. Over the course of its existence, SWGIT collaborated with other Scientific Working Groups to address imaging concerns within their respective disciplines. SWGIT published over 20 documents that dealt specifically with imaging technology. SWGIT also co-published documents with the Scientific Working Group on Digital Evidence (SWGDE) that had a component or components dealing with imaging technology. SWGIT also provided imaging technology guidance and input for documents from the Scientific Working Group on Friction Ridge Analysis, Study and Technology (SWGFAST), the Scientific Working Group for Forensic Document Examination (SWGDOC), and the Scientific Working Group on Shoeprint and Tire Tread Evidence (SWGTREAD). SWGIT assisted the American Society of Crime Lab Directors/Laboratory Accreditation Board (ASCLD/LAB) in the writing of definitions and standards for the accreditation of Digital and Multimedia Evidence sections of crime laboratories. In addition to releasing documents, SWGIT members disseminated best practices for law enforcement professionals where imaging technology was concerned. This was carried out by attending and lecturing at meetings and conferences of various forensic organizations that included: The American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS) The International Association for Identification (IAI) The Law Enforcement and Emergency Services Video Association (LEVA) The American Society of Crime Lab Directors (ASCLD) The SWGIT membership consisted of approximately fifty scientists, photographers, instructors, and managers from more than two dozen federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies, as well as from the academic and research communities. The membership elected its officers from within. SWGIT was composed of the Executive Committee, four standing subcommittees, and ad hoc subcommittees appointed on an as-needed basis. The standing subcommittees were: Image Analysis, Forensic Photography, Video, and Outreach. This group was terminated in 2015. == Legal Proceedings == The following court cases have conducted Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) hearings in which SWGIT best practice documents have been cited as accepted protocol, methodology, and as generally accepted techniques in the forensic community: U. S. v. Rudy Frabizio, U.S. District Court, Boston, MA, 2008 (Image Authentication) U.S. v. Nobumochi Furukawa, U.S. District Court, Minnesota, 2007 (Video Authentication) U.S. v. John Stroman, U.S. District Court, South Carolina, 2007 (Facial Comparison Analysis) State of Texas v. Daniel Day, Tarrant County Texas, 2005 (Camera Identification to Images) U.S. v. Marc Watzman, U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois, 2004 (Video Authentication) U.S. v. McKreith, U.S. District Court, Fort Lauderdale, FL, 2002 (Photo comparison of shirt) == Termination == This group was unfunded by the FBI in 2015.

    Read more →
  • Best AI Subtitle Generators in 2026

    Best AI Subtitle Generators in 2026

    Comparing the best AI subtitle generator? An AI subtitle generator is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it lowers the barrier so anyone can produce professional output. Privacy matters too: check whether your data trains the model and whether a no-log or enterprise tier is available. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI subtitle generator slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. Below we compare features, pricing, and real output so you can choose with confidence.

    Read more →
  • How to Choose an AI Bug Finder

    How to Choose an AI Bug Finder

    Comparing the best AI bug finder? An AI bug finder is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it lowers the barrier so anyone can produce professional output. Privacy matters too: check whether your data trains the model and whether a no-log or enterprise tier is available. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI bug finder slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. Below we compare features, pricing, and real output so you can choose with confidence.

    Read more →
  • Is an AI Subtitle Generator Worth It in 2026?

    Is an AI Subtitle Generator Worth It in 2026?

    Comparing the best AI subtitle generator? An AI subtitle generator is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it lowers the barrier so anyone can produce professional output. Privacy matters too: check whether your data trains the model and whether a no-log or enterprise tier is available. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI subtitle generator slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. We tested the leading options and ranked them by quality, value, and ease of use.

    Read more →
  • GCube system

    GCube system

    gCube is an open source software system specifically designed and developed to enact the building and operation of a Data Infrastructure providing their users with a rich array of services suitable for supporting the co-creation of Virtual Research Environments and promoting the implementation of open science workflows and practices. It is at the heart of the D4Science Data Infrastructure. == Overview == It is primarily organised in a number of web service called to offer functionality supporting the phases of knowledge production and sharing. In addition, it consists of a set of software libraries supporting service development, service-to-service integration, and service capabilities extension, and a set of portlets dedicated to realise user interface constituents facilitating the exploitation of one or more services. It is designed and conceived to enact system of systems. In fact, its gCube services rely on standards and mediators to interact with other services as well as are made available by standard and APIs to make it possible for clients to use them. For instance, the DataMiner service implements the Web Processing Service protocol to facilitate clients to execute processes. The set of components dealing with Identity and Access Management rely on Keycloak and federates other IDMs thus making the overall Authentication and the Authorization management compliant with open standards such as OAuth2, User-Managed Access (UMA), and OpenID Connect (OIDC)protocols. The Catalogue relies on DCAT, OAI-PMH, and Catalogue Service for the Web to collect contents from other catalogues and data sources and offers its content by DCAT, OAI-PMH, and a proprietary REST API (gCat REST API). Its Continuous Integration/Continuous Delivery pipeline implemented by Jenkins represents an innovative approach to software delivering conceived to be scalable and easy to maintain and upgrade at a minimal cost. == History == gCube has been developed in the context of the D4Science initiative with the support of several EU projects.

    Read more →
  • Scott Fahlman

    Scott Fahlman

    Scott Elliott Fahlman (born March 21, 1948) is an American computer scientist and Professor Emeritus at Carnegie Mellon University's Language Technologies Institute and Computer Science Department. He is notable for early work on automated planning and scheduling in a blocks world, on semantic networks, on neural networks (especially the cascade correlation algorithm), on the programming languages Dylan, and Common Lisp (especially CMU Common Lisp), and he was one of the founders of Lucid Inc. During the period when it was standardized, he was recognized as "the leader of Common Lisp." From 2006 to 2015, Fahlman was engaged in developing a knowledge base named Scone, based in part on his thesis work on the NETL Semantic Network. He also is credited with coining the use of the emoticon. == Life and career == Fahlman was born in Medina, Ohio, the son of Lorna May (Dean) and John Emil Fahlman. He attended the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where he received a Bachelor of Science (B.S.) and Master of Science (M.S.) degree in electrical engineering and computer science in 1973, and a Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) in artificial intelligence in 1977. He has noted that his doctoral diploma says the degree was awarded for "original research as demonstrated by a thesis in the field of Artificial Intelligence" and suggested that it may be the first doctorate to use that term. He is a fellow of the American Association for Artificial Intelligence. Fahlman acted as thesis advisor for Donald Cohen, David B. McDonald, David S. Touretzky, Skef Wholey, Justin Boyan, Michael Witbrock, and Alicia Tribble Sagae. From May 1996 to July 2001, Fahlman directed the Justsystem Pittsburgh Research Center. === Boltzmann Machine (1983) === In 1983, Fahlman, Geoffrey Hinton, and Terry Sejnowski published a paper in Proceedings of the AAAI-83 Conference, Washington DC, August 1983. The paper was titled as "Massively Parallel Architectures for AI: NETL, Thistle and Boltzmann Machines". === Emoticons === Fahlman was not the first to suggest the concept of the emoticon – a similar concept for a marker appeared in an article of Reader's Digest in May 1967, although that idea was never put into practice. In an interview printed in The New York Times in 1969, Vladimir Nabokov noted: "I often think there should exist a special typographical sign for a smile – some sort of concave mark, a supine round bracket." Fahlman is credited with originating the first smiley emoticon, which he thought would help people on a message board at Carnegie Mellon to distinguish serious posts from jokes. He proposed the use of :-) and :-( for this purpose, and the symbols caught on. The original message from which these symbols originated was posted on 19 September 1982. The message was recovered by Jeff Baird on 10 September 2002 and read: 19-Sep-82 11:44 Scott E Fahlman :-) From: Scott E Fahlman I propose that the following character sequence for joke markers: :-) Read it sideways. Actually, it is probably more economical to mark things that are NOT jokes, given current trends. For this, use :-(

    Read more →
  • AI Image Generators: Free vs Paid (2026)

    AI Image Generators: Free vs Paid (2026)

    Looking for the best AI image generator? An AI image generator is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it can save you hours every week by automating repetitive work. Most options offer a generous free tier, with paid plans unlocking higher limits, faster processing, and team features. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI image generator slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. This guide breaks down the top picks, their pros and cons, and who each one is best for.

    Read more →
  • How to Choose an AI Avatar Generator

    How to Choose an AI Avatar Generator

    Trying to pick the best AI avatar generator? An AI avatar generator is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it scales effortlessly from a single task to thousands. The best picks balance beginner-friendly simplicity with the depth power users need, and they ship updates often. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI avatar generator slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. Read on for hands-on impressions, pricing tiers, and the standout features that matter.

    Read more →
  • Scroll (web service)

    Scroll (web service)

    Scroll was a subscription-based web service developed by Scroll Labs Inc., offering ad-free access to websites in exchange for a fee. Scroll was not an ad blocker; instead, it partnered directly with internet publishers who voluntarily removed ads from their sites for Scroll users in exchange for a portion of the subscription fee. In May 2021, Scroll was acquired by Twitter. In October 2021, Scroll sent out an email announcing its integration into Twitter Blue within 30 days. == Functionality == Scroll enabled users to browse websites that partnered with Scroll without encountering online advertising, in exchange for a subscription fee. Unlike ad blocker, which disable advertisements without compensating the publisher, Scroll sent a browser cookie indicating that the user was a subscriber. The Scroll software integrated into the website detected this cookie and served an ad-free version of the site. In exchange for disabling advertisements, partner websites received a portion of the subscription fee. As of January 2020, Scroll retained 30% of the subscription fee, with the remaining 70% distributed among publisher sites. Payments to sites were made individually by users based on their 'engagement and loyalty,' rather than from a single pool of all subscription revenue. Scroll did not grant subscribers access to partner sites behind a paywall; it only removed ads from the site if the user also paid the publication's subscription fee. == History == Scroll was founded in 2016 by former Chartbeat Chief Executive Tony Haile. Scroll raised US$3 million in its first round of funding in 2016, including investments from The New York Times, Uncork Capital, and Axel Springer SE. By October 2018, Scroll had raised US$10 million in funding. In 2018, Scroll signed its first partner websites, which included The Atlantic, Fusion Media Group, Business Insider, Slate, MSNBC, The Philadelphia Inquirer, and Talking Points Memo. In February 2019, Scroll acquired the social media curation app Nuzzel. The same month, Mozilla and Scroll announced a partnership to run a "test pilot" together, but did not go into details. Scroll entered beta testing in 2019 and launched to the general public on January 28, 2020. In March 2020, Mozilla started offering Scroll as part of its "Firefox Better Web" service bundle. In May 2021, Scroll was acquired by Twitter, with the future of Scroll cited as being uncertain. An email to customers announcing the change said, "Later this year, Scroll will become part of a wider Twitter subscription that will expand on and adapt our services and functionality".

    Read more →
  • Interactive machine translation

    Interactive machine translation

    Interactive machine translation (IMT), is a specific sub-field of computer-aided translation. Under this translation paradigm, the computer software that assists the human translator attempts to predict the text the user is going to input by taking into account all the information it has available. Whenever such prediction is wrong and the user provides feedback to the system, a new prediction is performed considering the new information available. Such process is repeated until the translation provided matches the user's expectations. Interactive machine translation is specially interesting when translating texts in domains where it is not admissible to output a translation containing errors, hence requiring a human user to amend the translations provided by the system. In such cases, interactive machine translation has been proved to provide benefit to potential users. Nevertheless, there are few commercial software that implements interactive machine translation and work done in the field is mostly restrained to academic research. == History == Historically, interactive machine translation is born as an evolution of the computer-aided translation paradigm, where the human translator and the machine translation system were intended to work as a tandem. This first work was extended within the TransType research project, funded by the Canadian government. In this project, the human interaction was aimed towards producing the target text for the first time by embedding data-driven machine translation techniques within the interactive translation environment with the goal of achieving the best of both actors: the efficiency of the automatic system and the reliability of human translators. Later, a larger-scale research project, TransType2, funded by the European Commission extended such work by analyzing the incorporation of a complete machine translation system into the process, with the goal of producing a complete translation hypothesis, which the human user is allowed to amend or accept. If the user decides to amend the hypothesis, the system then attempts to make the best use of such feedback in order to produce a new translation hypothesis that takes into account the modifications introduced by the user. More recently, CASMACAT, also funded by the European Commission, aimed at developing novel types of assistance to human translators and integrated them into a new workbench, consisting of an editor, a server, and analysis and visualisation tools. The workbench was designed in a modular fashion and can be combined with existing computer aided translation tools. Furthermore, the CASMACAT workbench can learn from the interaction with the human translator by updating and adapting its models instantly based on the translation choices of the user. Recent work on involving an extensive evaluation with human users revealed the fact that interactive machine translation may even be used by users that do not speak the source language in order to achieve near professional translation quality. Moreover, it also elucidated the fact that an interactive scenario is more beneficial than a classic post-edition scenario. The previously described approaches rely on a tightly coupled underlying corpus-based machine translation system (usually, a Statistical machine translation system) that is used as a glass box, therefore inheriting the shortcomings of the translation systems and limiting the usage of interactive machine translation for some scenarios. For this reason, an approach that uses any kind of bilingual resource (not limited to machine translation) as a black-box to provide interactive machine translation was developed. This approach is not able to extract as much information from the bilingual resources used, due to the black-box nature of the interaction, but can use any resource available to the user. Forecat is a black-box interactive machine translation implementation that is available both as a web application (that includes a webpage and a web services interface) and as a plugin for OmegaT (Forecat-OmegaT). == Process == The interactive machine translation process starts with the system suggesting a translation hypothesis to the user. Then, the user may accept the complete sentence as correct, or may modify it if he considers there is some error. Typically, when modifying a given word, it is assumed that the prefix until that word is correct, leading to a left-to-right interaction scheme. Once the user has changed the word considered incorrect, the system then proposes a new suffix, i.e. the remainder of the sentence. Such process continues until the translation provided satisfies the user. Although explained at the word level, the previous process may also be implemented at the character level, and hence the system provides a suffix whenever the human translator types in a single character. In addition, there is ongoing effort towards changing the typical left-to-right interaction scheme in order to make human-machine interaction easier. A similar approach is used in the Caitra translation tool. == Evaluation == Evaluation is a difficult issue in interactive machine translation. Ideally, evaluation should take place in experiments involving human users. However, given the high monetary cost this would imply, this is seldom the case. Moreover, even when considering human translators in order to perform a true evaluation of interactive machine translation techniques, it is not clear what should be measured in such experiments, since there are many different variables that should be taken into account and cannot be controlled, as is for instance the time the user takes in order to get used to the process. In the CASMACAT project, some field trials have been carried out to study some of these variables. For quick evaluations in laboratory conditions, interactive machine translation is measured by using the key stroke ratio or the word stroke ratio. Such criteria attempt to measure how many key-strokes or words did the user need to introduce before producing the final translated document. == Differences with classical computer-aided translation == Although interactive machine translation is a sub-field of computer-aided translation, the main attractive of the former with respect to the latter is the interactivity. In classical computer-aided translation, the translation system may suggest one translation hypothesis in the best case, and then the user is required to post-edit such hypothesis. In contrast, in interactive machine translation the system produces a new translation hypothesis each time the user interacts with the system, i.e. after each word (or letter) has been introduced.

    Read more →
  • Glottochronology

    Glottochronology

    Glottochronology (from Attic Greek γλῶττα 'tongue, language' and χρόνος 'time') is the part of lexicostatistics which involves comparative linguistics and deals with the chronological relationship between languages. The idea was developed by Morris Swadesh in the 1950s in his article on Salish internal relationships. He developed the idea under two assumptions: there indeed exists a relatively stable basic vocabulary (referred to as Swadesh lists) in all languages of the world; and, any replacements happen in a way analogous to radioactive decay in a constant percentage per time elapsed. Using mathematics and statistics, Swadesh developed an equation to determine when languages separated and give an approximate time of when the separation occurred. His methods aimed to aid linguistic anthropologists by giving them a definitive way to determine a separation date between two languages. The formula provides an approximate number of centuries since two languages were supposed to have separated from a singular common ancestor. His methods also purported to provide information on when ancient languages may have existed. Despite multiple studies and literature containing the information of glottochronology, it is not widely used today and is surrounded with controversy. Glottochronology tracks language separation from thousands of years ago but many linguists are skeptical of the concept because it is more of a 'probability' rather than a 'certainty.' On the other hand, some linguists may say that glottochronology is gaining traction because of its relatedness to archaeological dates. Glottochronology is not as accurate as archaeological data, but some linguists still believe that it can provide a solid estimate. Over time many different extensions of the Swadesh method evolved; however, Swadesh's original method is so well known that 'glottochronology' is usually associated with him. == Methodology == The original method of glottochronology presumed that the core vocabulary of a language is replaced at a constant (or constant average) rate across all languages and cultures and so can be used to measure the passage of time. The process makes use of a list of lexical terms and morphemes which are similar to multiple languages. Lists were compiled by Morris Swadesh and assumed to be resistant against borrowing (originally designed in 1952 as a list of 200 items, but the refined 100-word list in Swadesh (1955) is much more common among modern day linguists). The core vocabulary was designed to encompass concepts common to every human language such as personal pronouns, body parts, heavenly bodies and living beings, verbs of basic actions, numerals, basic adjectives, kin terms, and natural occurrences and events. Through a basic word list, one eliminates concepts that are specific to a particular culture or time period. It has been found through differentiating word lists that the ideal is really impossible and that the meaning set may need to be tailored to the languages being compared. Word lists are not homogenous throughout studies and they are often changed and designed to suit both languages being studied. Linguists find that it is difficult to find a word list where all words used are culturally unbiased. Many alternative word lists have been compiled by other linguists and often use fewer meaning slots. The percentage of cognates (words with a common origin) in the word lists is then measured. The larger the percentage of cognates, the more recently the two languages being compared are presumed to have separated. === Glottochronologic constant === Determining word lists rely on morpheme decay or change in vocabulary. Morpheme decay must stay at a constant rate for glottochronology to be applied to a language. This leads to a critique of the glottochronologic formula because some linguists argue that the morpheme decay rate is not guaranteed to stay the same throughout history. American Linguist Robert Lees obtained a value for the "glottochronological constant" (r) of words by considering the known changes in 13 pairs of languages using the 200 word list. He obtained a value of 0.8048 ± 0.0176 with 90% confidence. For his 100-word list Swadesh obtained a value of 0.86, the higher value reflecting the elimination of semantically unstable words. === Divergence time === The basic formula of glottochronology proposed by Morris Swadesh is: t = − ln ⁡ ( c ) 2 ln ⁡ ( r ) {\displaystyle t=-{\frac {\ln(c)}{2\ln(r)}}} t = a given period of time from one stage of the language to another (measured in millennia), c = proportion of wordlist items retained at the end of that period and r = rate of replacement for that word list. By testing historically verifiable cases in which t is known by nonlinguistic data (such as the approximate distance from Classical Latin to modern Romance languages), Swadesh arrived at the empirical value of approximately 0.14 for L, (c?) which means that the rate of replacement constitutes around 14 words from the 100-wordlist per millennium. This is represented in the table below. === Results === Glottochronology was applied to a range of language families, including Salishan, Indo-European, Japonic, Afro-Asiatic, Chinese and Mayan and other American languages. For Amerind, correlations have been obtained with radiocarbon dating and blood groups as well as archaeology. === Example Wordlist === Below is an example of a basic word list composed of basic Turkish words and their English translations. == Discussion == The concept of language change is old, and its history is reviewed in Hymes (1973) and Wells (1973). In some sense, glottochronology is a reconstruction of history and can often be closely related to archaeology. Many linguistic studies find the success of glottochronology to be found alongside archaeological data. Glottochronology itself dates back to the mid-20th century. An introduction to the subject is given in Embleton (1986) and in McMahon and McMahon (2005). Glottochronology has been controversial ever since, partly because of issues of accuracy but also because of the question of whether its basis is sound (for example, Bergsland 1958; Bergsland and Vogt 1962; Fodor 1961; Chrétien 1962; Guy 1980). The concerns have been addressed by Dobson et al. (1972), Dyen (1973) and Kruskal, Dyen and Black (1973). The assumption of a single-word replacement rate can distort the divergence-time estimate when borrowed words are included (Thomason and Kaufman 1988). The presentations vary from "Why linguists don't do dates" to the one by Starostin discussed below. Since its original inception, glottochronology has been rejected by many linguists, mostly Indo-Europeanists of the school of the traditional comparative method. Criticisms have been answered in particular around three points of discussion: Criticism levelled against the higher stability of lexemes in Swadesh lists alone (Haarmann 1990) misses the point because a certain amount of losses only enables the computations (Sankoff 1970). The non-homogeneity of word lists often leads to lack of understanding between linguists. Linguists also have difficulties finding a completely unbiased list of basic cultural words. it can take a long time for linguists to find a viable word list which can take several test lists to find a usable list. Traditional glottochronology presumes that language changes at a stable rate. Thus, in Bergsland & Vogt (1962), the authors make an impressive demonstration, on the basis of actual language data verifiable by extralinguistic sources, that the "rate of change" for Icelandic constituted around 4% per millennium, but for closely connected Riksmal (Literary Norwegian), it would amount to as much as 20% (Swadesh's proposed "constant rate" was supposed to be around 14% per millennium). That and several other similar examples effectively proved that Swadesh's formula would not work on all available material, which is a serious accusation since evidence that can be used to "calibrate" the meaning of L (language history recorded during prolonged periods of time) is not overwhelmingly large in the first place. It is highly likely that the chance of replacement is different for every word or feature ("each word has its own history", among hundreds of other sources:). That global assumption has been modified and downgraded to single words, even in single languages, in many newer attempts (see below). There is a lack of understanding of Swadesh's mathematical/statistical methods. Some linguists reject the methods in full because the statistics lead to 'probabilities' when linguists trust 'certainties' more. A serious argument is that language change arises from socio-historical events that are, of course, unforeseeable and, therefore, uncomputable. == Modifications == Somewhere in between the original concept of Swadesh and the rejection of glottochronology in its entirety lies the idea that glottochronology as a formal method of linguistic

    Read more →