AI App For Home Design

AI App For Home Design — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  Coalition for App Fairness

  The Coalition for App Fairness (CAF) is a coalition comprised by companies, who aim to reach a fairer deal for the inclusion of their apps into the Apple App Store or the Google Play Store. The organization's executive director is Meghan DiMuzio and its headquarters are located in Washington, D.C. == Background == In July 2015, Spotify launched an email campaign to urge its App Store subscribers to cancel their subscriptions and start new ones through its website, bypassing the 30% transaction fee for in-app purchases required for iOS applications by technology company Apple Inc. A later update to the Spotify app on iOS was rejected by Apple, prompting Spotify's general counsel Horacio Gutierrez to write a letter to Apple's then-general counsel Bruce Sewell, stating: "This latest episode raises serious concerns under both U.S. and EU competition law. It continues a troubling pattern of behavior by Apple to exclude and diminish the competitiveness of Spotify on iOS and as a rival to Apple Music, particularly when seen against the backdrop of Apple's previous anticompetitive conduct aimed at Spotify … we cannot stand by as Apple uses the App Store approval process as a weapon to harm competitors." In August 2020, Epic Games updated their Fortnite Battle Royale game app on both Apple's App Store and Google's Google Play to include its own storefront that offered a 20% discount on V-Bucks, the in-game currency, if players bought through there rather than through the app stores' storefront, both which take a 30% revenue cut of the sale. Both Apple and Google removed the Fortnite app within hours, as this alternate storefront violated their terms of use that required all in-app purchases to be made through their storefronts. Epic immediately filed lawsuits against both companies challenging their storefront policies on antitrust principles, arguing that their non-negotiable 30% revenue cut is too high and the restrictions against alternate storefronts anticompetitive. Apple countersued Epic over its behavior, leading to a highly publicized 2021 bench trial. Ultimately, Epic largely lost its lawsuit against Apple, though the court did order Apple to allow developers to point users to alternative payment methods. Conversely, Epic won its antitrust lawsuit against Google in late 2023. == Foundation == On 24 September 2020, Epic Games joined forces with thirteen other prominent companies—including the music streaming platform Spotify, Tinder owner Match Group, the encrypted mail service Proton Mail, and the crypto currency website Blockchain.com—to establish the Coalition for App Fairness. It also includes Basecamp. The coalition criticizes the fact that for now the app stores of both Apple and Google charge their clients a 30% fee on any purchases made over their stores. Apple and Google defended themselves by arguing that the 30% transaction fee is a standard in the industry while the Coalition for App Fairness states that there is no other transaction fee which is even close to the 30%. In October 2020, it was reported that the coalition grew from 13 to 40 members since its foundation and received more than 400 applications for membership. In October 2025, X (formerly Twitter) joined CAF. This was seen as a larger pushback in the industry against Apple and Google, and a step towards hopefully passing the Bipartisan Open App Markets Act. == Aims == The group has broadened their demands for the app stores and now also aim for a better treatment for the apps available in the App Store. They claim that Apple favors its own services before other services available on the market and unjustifiably excludes other apps from their App Store. The group has also been viewing other transaction fees like the 5% fee which is charged by credit card companies, and states that Apple charges up to 600% more and would like the 30% fee, which was only included in 2011 by Apple, adapted to a comparable percentage that charge other providers of payment solutions. Its demands are mainly directed at Apple's strict control over its App Store, but to a lesser extent are also directed towards Google. Google allows apps to be downloaded over an independent web link or also another App Store, such as the Epic Game App Store. The organization emphasizes that no app developer should come into the position in which they are discriminated and are not granted the same rights as to the developers of the owner of the app store. == Reactions == In October 2020, Microsoft presented a new framework concerning the access to its Windows 10 operating system by app stores other than the one offered by Microsoft. The new framework is based on the demands of the Coalition for App Fairness. Microsoft emphasized though, that these principles would not apply to the Xbox. In December 2020, Apple announced that they would be lowering the revenue cut Apple takes for app developers making $1M or less from 30% to 15% if app developers fill out an application for the lowered revenue cut. In March 2021, Google followed suit by also lowering the revenue cut from the Play Store from 30% to 15% for the first million in revenue earned by a developer each year. == Notable members == Members listed are notable companies listed as members the groups website: Blockchain.com Deezer Epic Games European Digital SME Alliance Fanfix Life360 Masimo Nium Proton Mail Spotify TapTap Threema Vipps

  Read more →
• 

  Co-occurrence

  In linguistics, co-occurrence or cooccurrence (in older texts often shown with diacritic as coöccurrence) is an above-chance frequency of ordered occurrence of two adjacent terms in a text corpus. Co-occurrence in this linguistic sense can be interpreted as an indicator of semantic proximity or an idiomatic expression. Corpus linguistics and its statistical analyses can reveal (regularity of) patterns of co-occurrences within a language and enable the working out of typical collocations for its lexical items. A co-occurrence restriction is identified when linguistic elements never occur together. Analysis of these restrictions can lead to discoveries about the structure and development of a language. Co-occurrence can be seen an extension of word counting in higher dimensions. Co-occurrence can be quantitatively described using measures like a massive correlation or mutual information. Co-occurrence information and knowledge of co-occurring words may be relevant in analysis of language for the purposes of large language models, part of the emerging field of artificial intelligence, and helpful in word games such as scrabble.

  Read more →
• 

  State complexity

  State complexity is an area of theoretical computer science dealing with the size of abstract automata, such as different kinds of finite automata. The classical result in the area is that simulating an n {\displaystyle n} -state nondeterministic finite automaton by a deterministic finite automaton requires exactly 2 n {\displaystyle 2^{n}} states in the worst case. == Transformation between variants of finite automata == Finite automata can be deterministic and nondeterministic, one-way (DFA, NFA) and two-way (2DFA, 2NFA). Other related classes are unambiguous (UFA), self-verifying (SVFA) and alternating (AFA) finite automata. These automata can also be two-way (2UFA, 2SVFA, 2AFA). All these machines can accept exactly the regular languages. However, the size of different types of automata necessary to accept the same language (measured in the number of their states) may be different. For any two types of finite automata, the state complexity tradeoff between them is an integer function f {\displaystyle f} where f ( n ) {\displaystyle f(n)} is the least number of states in automata of the second type sufficient to recognize every language recognized by an n {\displaystyle n} -state automaton of the first type. The following results are known. NFA to DFA: 2 n {\displaystyle 2^{n}} states. This is the subset construction by Rabin and Scott, proved optimal by Lupanov. UFA to DFA: 2 n {\displaystyle 2^{n}} states, see Leung, An earlier lower bound by Schmidt was smaller. NFA to UFA: 2 n − 1 {\displaystyle 2^{n}-1} states, see Leung. There was an earlier smaller lower bound by Schmidt. SVFA to DFA: Θ ( 3 n / 3 ) {\displaystyle \Theta (3^{n/3})} states, see Jirásková and Pighizzini 2DFA to DFA: n ( n n − ( n − 1 ) n ) {\displaystyle n(n^{n}-(n-1)^{n})} states, see Kapoutsis. Earlier construction by Shepherdson used more states, and an earlier lower bound by Moore was smaller. 2DFA to NFA: ( 2 n n + 1 ) = O ( 4 n n ) {\displaystyle {\binom {2n}{n+1}}=O({\frac {4^{n}}{\sqrt {n}}})} , see Kapoutsis. Earlier construction by Birget used more states. 2NFA to NFA: ( 2 n n + 1 ) {\displaystyle {\binom {2n}{n+1}}} , see Kapoutsis. 2NFA to NFA accepting the complement: O ( 4 n ) {\displaystyle O(4^{n})} states, see Vardi. AFA to DFA: 2 2 n {\displaystyle 2^{2^{n}}} states, see Chandra, Kozen and Stockmeyer. AFA to NFA: 2 n {\displaystyle 2^{n}} states, see Fellah, Jürgensen and Yu. 2AFA to DFA: 2 n 2 n {\displaystyle 2^{n2^{n}}} , see Ladner, Lipton and Stockmeyer. 2AFA to NFA: 2 Θ ( n log ⁡ n ) {\displaystyle 2^{\Theta (n\log n)}} , see Geffert and Okhotin. === The 2DFA vs. 2NFA problem and logarithmic space === It is an open problem whether all 2NFAs can be converted to 2DFAs with polynomially many states, i.e. whether there is a polynomial p ( n ) {\displaystyle p(n)} such that for every n {\displaystyle n} -state 2NFA there exists a p ( n ) {\displaystyle p(n)} -state 2DFA. The problem was raised by Sakoda and Sipser, who compared it to the P vs. NP problem in the computational complexity theory. Berman and Lingas discovered a formal relation between this problem and the L vs. NL open problem. This relation was further elaborated by Kapoutsis. == State complexity of operations for finite automata == Given a binary regularity-preserving operation on languages ∘ {\displaystyle \circ } and a family of automata X (DFA, NFA, etc.), the state complexity of ∘ {\displaystyle \circ } is an integer function f ( m , n ) {\displaystyle f(m,n)} such that for each m-state X-automaton A and n-state X-automaton B there is an f ( m , n ) {\displaystyle f(m,n)} -state X-automaton for L ( A ) ∘ L ( B ) {\displaystyle L(A)\circ L(B)} , and for all integers m, n there is an m-state X-automaton A and an n-state X-automaton B such that every X-automaton for L ( A ) ∘ L ( B ) {\displaystyle L(A)\circ L(B)} must have at least f ( m , n ) {\displaystyle f(m,n)} states. Analogous definition applies for operations with any number of arguments. The first results on state complexity of operations for DFAs were published by Maslov and by Yu, Zhuang and Salomaa. Holzer and Kutrib pioneered the state complexity of operations on NFA. The known results for basic operations are listed below. === Union === If language L 1 {\displaystyle L_{1}} requires m states and language L 2 {\displaystyle L_{2}} requires n states, how many states does L 1 ∪ L 2 {\displaystyle L_{1}\cup L_{2}} require? DFA: m n {\displaystyle mn} states, see Maslov and Yu, Zhuang and Salomaa. NFA: m + n + 1 {\displaystyle m+n+1} states, see Holzer and Kutrib. UFA: at least min ( n , m ) Ω ( log ⁡ ( min ( n , m ) ) ) {\displaystyle \min(n,m)^{\Omega (\log(\min(n,m)))}} ; between m n + m + n {\displaystyle mn+m+n} and m + n m 2 0.79 m {\displaystyle m+nm2^{0.79m}} states, see Jirásek, Jirásková and Šebej. SVFA: m n {\displaystyle mn} states, see Jirásek, Jirásková and Szabari. 2DFA: between m + n {\displaystyle m+n} and 4 m + n + 4 {\displaystyle 4m+n+4} states, see Kunc and Okhotin. 2NFA: m + n {\displaystyle m+n} states, see Kunc and Okhotin. === Intersection === How many states does L 1 ∩ L 2 {\displaystyle L_{1}\cap L_{2}} require? DFA: m n {\displaystyle mn} states, see Maslov and Yu, Zhuang and Salomaa. NFA: m n {\displaystyle mn} states, see Holzer and Kutrib. UFA: m n {\displaystyle mn} states, see Jirásek, Jirásková and Šebej. SVFA: m n {\displaystyle mn} states, see Jirásek, Jirásková and Szabari. 2DFA: between m + n {\displaystyle m+n} and m + n + 1 {\displaystyle m+n+1} states, see Kunc and Okhotin. 2NFA: between m + n {\displaystyle m+n} and m + n + 1 {\displaystyle m+n+1} states, see Kunc and Okhotin. === Complementation === If language L requires n states then how many states does its complement require? DFA: n {\displaystyle n} states, by exchanging accepting and rejecting states. NFA: 2 n {\displaystyle 2^{n}} states, see Birget. or Jirásková UFA: at least n Ω ~ ( log ⁡ n ) {\displaystyle n^{{\tilde {\Omega }}(\log n)}} states, see Göös, Kiefer and Yuan, (this follows an earlier bound by Raskin); and at most n + 1 ⋅ 2 0.5 n {\displaystyle {\sqrt {n+1}}\cdot 2^{0.5n}} states, see Indzhev and Kiefer. SVFA: n {\displaystyle n} states, by exchanging accepting and rejecting states. 2DFA: at least n {\displaystyle n} and at most 4 n {\displaystyle 4n} states, see Geffert, Mereghetti and Pighizzini. === Concatenation === How many states does L 1 L 2 = { w 1 w 2 ∣ w 1 ∈ L 1 , w 2 ∈ L 2 } {\displaystyle L_{1}L_{2}=\{w_{1}w_{2}\mid w_{1}\in L_{1},w_{2}\in L_{2}\}} require? DFA: m ⋅ 2 n − 2 n − 1 {\displaystyle m\cdot 2^{n}-2^{n-1}} states, see Maslov and Yu, Zhuang and Salomaa. NFA: m + n {\displaystyle m+n} states, see Holzer and Kutrib. UFA: 3 4 2 m + n − 1 {\displaystyle {\frac {3}{4}}2^{m+n}-1} states, see Jirásek, Jirásková and Šebej. SVFA: Θ ( 3 n / 3 2 m ) {\displaystyle \Theta (3^{n/3}2^{m})} states, see Jirásek, Jirásková and Szabari. 2DFA: at least 2 Ω ( n ) log ⁡ m {\displaystyle {\frac {2^{\Omega (n)}}{\log m}}} and at most 2 m m + 1 ⋅ 2 n n + 1 {\displaystyle 2m^{m+1}\cdot 2^{n^{n+1}}} states, see Jirásková and Okhotin. === Kleene star === DFA: 3 4 2 n {\displaystyle {\frac {3}{4}}2^{n}} states, see Maslov and Yu, Zhuang and Salomaa. NFA: n + 1 {\displaystyle n+1} states, see Holzer and Kutrib. UFA: 3 4 2 n {\displaystyle {\frac {3}{4}}2^{n}} states, see Jirásek, Jirásková and Šebej. SVFA: 3 4 2 n {\displaystyle {\frac {3}{4}}2^{n}} states, see Jirásek, Jirásková and Szabari. 2DFA: at least 1 n 2 n 2 − 1 {\displaystyle {\frac {1}{n}}2^{{\frac {n}{2}}-1}} and at most 2 O ( n n + 1 ) {\displaystyle 2^{O(n^{n+1})}} states, see Jirásková and Okhotin. === Reversal === DFA: 2 n {\displaystyle 2^{n}} states, see Mirkin, Leiss, and Yu, Zhuang and Salomaa. NFA: n + 1 {\displaystyle n+1} states, see Holzer and Kutrib. UFA: n {\displaystyle n} states. SVFA: 2 n + 1 {\displaystyle 2n+1} states, see Jirásek, Jirásková and Szabari. 2DFA: between n + 1 {\displaystyle n+1} and n + 2 {\displaystyle n+2} states, see Jirásková and Okhotin. == Finite automata over a unary alphabet == State complexity of finite automata with a one-letter (unary) alphabet, pioneered by Chrobak, is different from the multi-letter case. Let g ( n ) = e Θ ( n ln ⁡ n ) {\displaystyle g(n)=e^{\Theta ({\sqrt {n\ln n}})}} be Landau's function. === Transformation between models === For a one-letter alphabet, transformations between different types of finite automata are sometimes more efficient than in the general case. NFA to DFA: g ( n ) + O ( n 2 ) {\displaystyle g(n)+O(n^{2})} states, see Chrobak. 2DFA to DFA: g ( n ) + O ( n ) {\displaystyle g(n)+O(n)} states, see Chrobak and Kunc and Okhotin. 2NFA to DFA: O ( g ( n ) ) {\displaystyle O(g(n))} states, see Mereghetti and Pighizzini. and Geffert, Mereghetti and Pighizzini. NFA to 2DFA: at most O ( n 2 ) {\displaystyle O(n^{2})} states, see Chrobak. 2NFA to 2DFA: at most n O ( log ⁡ n ) {\displaystyle n^{O(\log n)}} states, proved by implementing the method of Savitch's theorem, see

  Read more →
• 

  Is an AI Analytics Tool Worth It in 2026?

  Curious about the best AI analytics tool? An AI analytics tool is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it combines speed, accuracy, and an interface that just works. Hands-on testing shows real-world results vary, so a short free trial is the smartest way to decide. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI analytics tool 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 →
• 

  Semantic neural network

  Semantic neural network (SNN) is based on John von Neumann's neural network [von Neumann, 1966] and Nikolai Amosov M-Network. There are limitations to a link topology for the von Neumann’s network but SNN accept a case without these limitations. Only logical values can be processed, but SNN accept that fuzzy values can be processed too. All neurons into the von Neumann network are synchronized by tacts. For further use of self-synchronizing circuit technique SNN accepts neurons can be self-running or synchronized. In contrast to the von Neumann network there are no limitations for topology of neurons for semantic networks. It leads to the impossibility of relative addressing of neurons as it was done by von Neumann. In this case an absolute readdressing should be used. Every neuron should have a unique identifier that would provide a direct access to another neuron. Of course, neurons interacting by axons-dendrites should have each other's identifiers. An absolute readdressing can be modulated by using neuron specificity as it was realized for biological neural networks. There’s no description for self-reflectiveness and self-modification abilities into the initial description of semantic networks [Dudar Z.V., Shuklin D.E., 2000]. But in [Shuklin D.E. 2004] a conclusion had been drawn about the necessity of introspection and self-modification abilities in the system. For maintenance of these abilities a concept of pointer to neuron is provided. Pointers represent virtual connections between neurons. In this model, bodies and signals transferring through the neurons connections represent a physical body, and virtual connections between neurons are representing an astral body. It is proposed to create models of artificial neuron networks on the basis of virtual machine supporting the opportunity for paranormal effects. SNN is generally used for natural language processing. == Related models == Computational creativity Semantic hashing Semantic Pointer Architecture Sparse distributed memory

  Read more →
• 

  EDLUT

  EDLUT (Event-Driven LookUp Table) is a computer application for simulating networks of spiking neurons. It was developed in the University of Granada and source code was released under GNU GPL version 3. EDLUT uses event-driven simulation scheme and lookup tables to efficiently simulate medium or large spiking neural networks. This allows this application to simulate detailed biological neuron models and to interface with experimental setups (such as a robotic arm) in real time.

  Read more →
• 

  AI Code Generators: Free vs Paid (2026)

  Looking for the best AI code generator? An AI code 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 code 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 →
• 

  Ω-automaton

  In automata theory, a branch of theoretical computer science, an ω-automaton (or stream automaton) is a variation of a finite automaton that runs on infinite, rather than finite, strings as input. Since ω-automata do not stop, they have a variety of acceptance conditions rather than simply a set of accepting states. ω-automata are useful for specifying behavior of systems that are not expected to terminate, such as hardware, operating systems and control systems. For such systems, one may want to specify a property such as "for every request, an acknowledge eventually follows", or its negation "there is a request that is not followed by an acknowledge". The former is a property of infinite words: one cannot say of a finite sequence that it satisfies this property. Classes of ω-automata include the Büchi automata, Rabin automata, Streett automata, parity automata and Muller automata, each deterministic or non-deterministic. These classes of ω-automata differ only in terms of acceptance condition. They all recognize precisely the regular ω-languages except for the deterministic Büchi automata, which is strictly weaker than all the others. Although all these types of automata recognize the same set of ω-languages, they nonetheless differ in succinctness of representation for a given ω-language. == Deterministic ω-automata == Formally, a deterministic ω-automaton is a tuple A = ( Q , Σ , δ , q 0 , A a c c ) {\textstyle A=(Q,\Sigma ,\delta ,q_{0},A_{acc})} , that consists of the following components: Q {\textstyle Q} , is a finite set. The elements of Q {\textstyle Q} are called the states of A {\textstyle A} . Σ {\textstyle \Sigma } , is a finite set called the alphabet of A {\textstyle A} . δ : Q × Σ → Q {\textstyle \delta \colon Q\times \Sigma \rightarrow Q} is a function, called the transition function of A {\textstyle A} . Q 0 {\textstyle Q_{0}} is an element of Q {\textstyle Q} , called the initial state. A a c c {\textstyle A_{acc}} is a set of accepting states of A {\textstyle A} , formally a subset of Q ω {\textstyle Q^{\omega }} . An input for A {\textstyle A} is an infinite string over the alphabet Σ {\textstyle \Sigma } , i.e. it is an infinite sequence α = ( a 1 , a 2 , a 3 , … ) {\textstyle \alpha =(a_{1},a_{2},a_{3},\ldots )} . The run of A {\textstyle A} on such an input is an infinite sequence ρ = ( r 0 , r 1 , r 2 , … ) {\textstyle \rho =(r_{0},r_{1},r_{2},\ldots )} of states, defined as follows: r 0 = q 0 {\textstyle r_{0}=q_{0}} . r 1 = δ ( r 0 , a 1 ) {\textstyle r_{1}=\delta (r_{0},a_{1})} . r 2 = δ ( r 1 , a 2 ) {\textstyle r_{2}=\delta (r_{1},a_{2})} . ... that is, for every i {\textstyle i} : r i = δ ( r i − 1 , a i ) {\textstyle r_{i}=\delta (r_{i-1},a_{i})} . The main purpose of an ω-automaton is to define a subset of the set of all inputs: The set of accepted inputs. Whereas in the case of an ordinary finite automaton every run ends with a state r n {\textstyle r_{n}} and the input is accepted if and only if r n {\textstyle r_{n}} is an accepting state, the definition of the set of accepted inputs is more complicated for ω-automata. Here we must look at the entire run ρ {\textstyle \rho } . The input is accepted if the corresponding run is in Acc {\textstyle {\text{Acc}}} . The set of accepted input ω-words is called the recognized ω-language by the automaton, which is denoted as L ( A ) {\textstyle L(A)} . The definition of Acc {\textstyle {\text{Acc}}} as a subset of Q ω {\textstyle Q^{\omega }} is purely formal and not suitable for practice because normally such sets are infinite. The difference between various types of ω-automata (Büchi, Rabin etc.) consists in how they encode certain subsets Acc {\textstyle {\text{Acc}}} of Q ω {\textstyle Q^{\omega }} as finite sets, and therefore in which such subsets they can encode. == Nondeterministic ω-automata == Formally, a nondeterministic ω-automaton is a tuple A = ( Q , Σ , Δ , Q 0 , Acc ) {\textstyle A=(Q,\Sigma ,\Delta ,Q_{0},{\text{Acc}})} that consists of the following components: Q {\textstyle Q} is a finite set. The elements of Q {\textstyle Q} are called the states of A {\textstyle A} . Σ {\textstyle \Sigma } is a finite set called the alphabet of A {\textstyle A} . Δ {\textstyle \Delta } is a subset of Q × Σ × Q {\textstyle Q\times \Sigma \times Q} and is called the transition relation of A {\textstyle A} . Q 0 {\textstyle Q_{0}} is a subset of Q {\textstyle Q} , called the initial set of states. Acc {\textstyle {\text{Acc}}} is the acceptance condition, a subset of Q ω {\textstyle Q^{\omega }} . Unlike a deterministic ω-automaton, which has a transition function δ {\textstyle \delta } , the non-deterministic version has a transition relation Δ {\textstyle \Delta } . Note that Δ {\textstyle \Delta } can be regarded as a function Q × Σ → P ( Q ) {\textstyle Q\times \Sigma \rightarrow {\mathcal {P}}(Q)} from Q × Σ {\textstyle Q\times \Sigma } to the power set P ( Q ) {\textstyle {\mathcal {P}}(Q)} . Thus, given a state q n {\textstyle q_{n}} and a symbol a n {\textstyle a_{n}} , the next state q n + 1 {\textstyle q_{n+1}} is not necessarily determined uniquely, rather there is a set of possible next states. A run of A {\textstyle A} on the input α = ( a 1 , a 2 , a 3 , … ) {\textstyle \alpha =(a_{1},a_{2},a_{3},\ldots )} is any infinite sequence ρ = ( r 0 , r 1 , r 2 , … ) {\textstyle \rho =(r_{0},r_{1},r_{2},\ldots )} of states that satisfies the following conditions: r 0 {\textstyle r_{0}} is an element of Q 0 {\textstyle Q_{0}} . r 1 {\textstyle r_{1}} is an element of Δ ( r 0 , a 1 ) {\textstyle \Delta (r_{0},a_{1})} . r 2 {\textstyle r_{2}} is an element of Δ ( r 1 , a 2 ) {\textstyle \Delta (r_{1},a_{2})} . ... that is, for every i {\textstyle i} : r i {\textstyle r_{i}} is an element of Δ ( r i − 1 , a i ) {\textstyle \Delta (r_{i-1},a_{i})} . A nondeterministic ω-automaton may admit many different runs on any given input, or none at all. The input is accepted if at least one of the possible runs is accepting. Whether a run is accepting depends only on Acc {\textstyle {\text{Acc}}} , as for deterministic ω-automata. Every deterministic ω-automaton can be regarded as a nondeterministic ω-automaton by taking Δ {\textstyle \Delta } to be the graph of δ {\textstyle \delta } . The definitions of runs and acceptance for deterministic ω-automata are then special cases of the nondeterministic cases. == Acceptance conditions == Acceptance conditions may be infinite sets of ω-words. However, people mostly study acceptance conditions that are finitely representable. The following lists a variety of popular acceptance conditions. Before discussing the list, let's make the following observation. In the case of infinitely running systems, one is often interested in whether certain behavior is repeated infinitely often. For example, if a network card receives infinitely many ping requests, then it may fail to respond to some of the requests but should respond to an infinite subset of received ping requests. This motivates the following definition: For any run ρ {\textstyle \rho } , let Inf ( ρ ) {\textstyle {\text{Inf}}(\rho )} be the set of states that occur infinitely often in ρ {\textstyle \rho } . This notion of certain states being visited infinitely often will be helpful in defining the following acceptance conditions. A Büchi automaton is an ω-automaton A {\textstyle A} that uses the following acceptance condition, for some subset F {\textstyle F} of Q {\textstyle Q} : Büchi condition A {\textstyle A} accepts exactly those runs ρ {\textstyle \rho } for which Inf ( ρ ) ∩ F ≠ ∅ {\textstyle {\text{Inf}}(\rho )\cap F\neq \emptyset } , i.e. there is an accepting state that occurs infinitely often in ρ {\textstyle \rho } . A Rabin automaton is an ω-automaton A {\textstyle A} that uses the following acceptance condition, for some set Ω {\textstyle \Omega } of pairs ( B i , G i ) {\textstyle (B_{i},G_{i})} of sets of states: Rabin condition A {\textstyle A} accepts exactly those runs ρ {\textstyle \rho } for which there exists a pair ( B i , G i ) {\textstyle (B_{i},G_{i})} in Ω {\textstyle \Omega } such that B i ∩ Inf ( ρ ) = ∅ {\textstyle B_{i}\cap {\text{Inf}}(\rho )=\emptyset } and G i ∩ Inf ( ρ ) ≠ ∅ {\textstyle G_{i}\cap {\text{Inf}}(\rho )\neq \emptyset } . A Streett automaton is an ω-automaton A {\textstyle A} that uses the following acceptance condition, for some set Ω {\textstyle \Omega } of pairs ( B i , G i ) {\textstyle (B_{i},G_{i})} of sets of states: Streett condition A {\textstyle A} accepts exactly those runs ρ {\textstyle \rho } such that for all pairs ( B i , G i ) {\textstyle (B_{i},G_{i})} in Ω {\textstyle \Omega } , B i ∩ Inf ( ρ ) ≠ ∅ {\textstyle B_{i}\cap {\text{Inf}}(\rho )\neq \emptyset } or G i ∩ Inf ( ρ ) = ∅ {\textstyle G_{i}\cap {\text{Inf}}(\rho )=\emptyset } . A parity automaton is an automaton A {\textstyle A} whose set of states is Q = { 0 , 1 , 2 , … , k } {\textstyle Q=\{0,1,2,\ldots ,k\}} for some natural number k {\textst

  Read more →
• 

  T-pose

  In computer animation, a T-pose is a default posing for a humanoid 3D model's skeleton before it is animated. It is called so because of its shape: the straight legs and arms of a humanoid model combine to form a capital letter T. When the arms are angled downwards, the pose is sometimes referred to as an A-pose instead. Likewise, if the arms are angled upward, it is called a Y-pose. Generic terms encompassing all these (especially for non-humanoid models) include bind pose, blind pose, and reference pose. == Usage == The T-pose is primarily used as the default armature pose for skeletal animation in 3D software, which is then manipulated to create animation. The purpose of the T-pose relates to the important elements of the body being axis-aligned, thereby making it easier to rig the model for animation, physics, and other controls. Depending on the exact geometry of the model, other poses such as the A-pose may be more suitable for vertex deformation around areas such as the shoulders. Outside of being default poses in animation software, T-poses are typically used as placeholders for animation not yet completed, particularly in 3D animated video games. In some motion capture software, a T-pose must be assumed by the actor in the motion capture suit before motion capturing can begin. There are other poses used, but the T-pose is the most common one. == As an Internet meme == Starting in 2016 and resurfacing in 2017, the T-pose has become a widespread Internet meme due to its bizarre and somewhat comedic appearance, especially in video game glitches where a character's animation is unexpectedly supplanted by a T-pose. In a prerelease video of the game NBA Elite 11, the demo was filled with glitches, notably one unintentionally showing a T-pose in place of the proper animation for the model of player Andrew Bynum. The glitch later gained fame as the "Jesus Bynum glitch". Publisher EA eventually cancelled the game as they found it unsatisfactory. A similar occurrence happened with Cyberpunk 2077. In the 2023 Formula One season, driver George Russell performed a T-pose in the opening credits of the series' TV broadcasts. This quickly became a meme within the motorsports community. Russell repeated the pose after claiming pole position at the 2024 Canadian Grand Prix and winning the 2024 Austrian Grand Prix.

  Read more →
• 

  AI Background Removers Reviews: What Actually Works in 2026

  Trying to pick the best AI background remover? An AI background remover 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 background remover 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 →
• 

  Is an Conversational AI Platform Worth It in 2026?

  Looking for the best conversational AI platform? An conversational AI platform 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 conversational AI platform 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 →
• 

  Jaime Carbonell

  Jaime Guillermo Carbonell (July 29, 1953 – February 28, 2020) was a computer scientist who made seminal contributions to the development of natural language processing tools and technologies. His research in machine translation resulted in the development of several state-of-the-art language translation and artificial intelligence systems. He earned his B.S. degrees in Physics and in Mathematics from MIT in 1975 and did his Ph.D. under Dr. Roger Schank at Yale University in 1979. He joined Carnegie Mellon University as an assistant professor of computer science in 1979 and moved to Pittsburgh. He was affiliated with the Language Technologies Institute, Computer Science Department, Machine Learning Department, and Computational Biology Department at Carnegie Mellon. His interests spanned several areas of artificial intelligence, language technologies and machine learning. In particular, his research focused on areas such as text mining (extraction, categorization, novelty detection) and in new theoretical frameworks such as a unified utility-based theory bridging information retrieval, summarization, free-text question-answering and related tasks. He also worked on machine translation, both high-accuracy knowledge-based MT and machine learning for corpus-based MT (such as generalized example-based MT). == Career == Carbonell was the Allen Newell Professor of Computer Science and head of the Language Technologies Institute at Carnegie Mellon University. He joined Carnegie Mellon in 1979, and became a key faculty member in the artificial intelligence area. He was appointed full professor in 1987, Newell Chair in 1995, and University Professor in 2012. He completed his undergraduate studies at MIT. He received dual degrees in Mathematics and Physics. He received his Ph.D. in computer science from Yale University in 1979. At the time of his appointment, Carbonell was the youngest chaired professor in the School of Computer Science at CMU. His research spanned several areas of computer science, mostly in artificial intelligence, including: machine learning, data and text mining, natural language processing, very-large-scale knowledge bases, translingual information retrieval and automated summarization. He wrote more than 300 technical papers and gave over 500 invited or refereed-paper presentations (colloquia, seminars, panels, conferences, keynotes, etc.). He died following a long illness on February 28, 2020. Mona Talat Diab became the director of CMU's Language Technologies Institute in 2023. == Research == Carbonell created MMR (maximal marginal relevance) technology for text summarization and informational novelty detection in search engines, invention of transformational analogy, a generalized method for case-based reasoning (CBR) to re-use, modify and compose past successful plans for increasingly complex problems and knowledge-based interlingual machine translation. He was instrumental in setting up the Computational Biolinguistics Program, a joint venture between Carnegie Mellon and the University of Pittsburgh, which combines Language Technologies and Machine Learning to model and predict genomic, proteomic and glycomic 3D structures. Carbonell also did work in machine learning. He organized the first four machine learning conferences, starting with CMU in 1981. The Language Technologies Institute (LTI), founded and directed by Carbonell, achieved top honors in multiple areas. These areas include machine translation, search engines (including founding of Lycos by Michael Mauldin, one of Carbonell’s PhD students), speech synthesis, and education. LTI remains the original, largest and best-known institute for language technologies, with over $12M in annual funding and 200 researchers (faculty, staff, PhD students, MS students, visiting scholars etc.). Carbonell made major technical contributions in several fields, including (1) Creation of MMR (maximal marginal relevance) technology for text summarization and informational novelty detection in search engines,(2) Proactive machine learning for multi-source cost-sensitive active learning, (3) Linked conditional random fields for predicting tertiary and quaternary protein folds, (4) Symmetric optimal phrasal alignment method for trainable example-based and statistical machine translation, (5) Series- anomaly modeling for financial fraud detection and syndromic surveillance, (6) Knowledge-based interlingual machine translation, (7) Robust case-frame parsing, (8) Seeded version-space learning and (9) Invention of transformational and derivational analogy, generalized methods for case-based reasoning (CBR) to re-use, modify and compose past successful plans for increasingly complex problems. The teams led by Carbonell achieved top honors in many areas such as first scalable high-accuracy interlingual machine translation (1991), first speech-to-speech machine translation (1992), first large-scale spider and search engine (1994), and first trainable, large-scale protein-structure topology predictor (2005). Modern machine learning, co-founded by Carbonell, Michalski and Mitchell, is a fundamental enabling technology in search engines, data mining and social networking. Starting in 1980, he co-edited the first three books on ML, launched the ML conferences and was a co-founder and editor-in-chief of ML Journal. Carbonell’s innovations have led to several successful start-ups: Carnegie Group (AI expertsystems), Lycos (web search), Wisdom (financial optimization & ML), Carnegie Speech (spoken-language tutoring), Dynamix (data mining and pattern discovery), and Meaningful Machines (context-based machine translation). Carbonell was the founding director of The Language Technology Institute, the preeminent global institution in language studies, unparalleled in size and scope and has since been adopted/imitated in Germany (DFKI), Japan (Tokyo Univ.), and the US (Johns Hopkins). == Awards and honors == Okawa Prize, 2015 Best paper award, “Translingual Search” w/Yang, International Joint Conference on AI, 1997 Allen Newell endowed chair, Carnegie Mellon University, 1995 Elected fellow of AAAI, 1991 Computer Science teaching award, Carnegie Mellon University, 1987 Sperry Fellowship for excellence in AI research, 1986 Herbert Simon teaching award, 1986 "Recognition of Service" award from the ACM for the SIGART presidency, 1983–1985 Provided congressional testimony on machine translation, 1990 == Selected works == === Books === 1983. (with Ryszard S. Michalski & Tom M. Mitchell, Eds.) Machine learning: An artificial intelligence approach. Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann. 1986. (with Ryszard S. Michalski & Tom Mitchell, Eds.) Machine learning: An artificial intelligence approach. Vol. II. Los Altos, CA: Morgan-Kaufmann. 1986. (with Ryszard S. Michalski & Tom Mitchell, Eds.) Machine Learning: A Guide to Current Research. Kluwer Academic Publishers. == Contributions == “Protein Quaternary Fold Recognition Using Conditional Graphical Models” IJCAI 2007 (w/Liu et al.) “Context-Based Machine Translation” AMTA 2006 (w/Klein et al.) “SCRFs: A New Approach for Protein Fold Recognition,’’ Journal of Computational Biology, 13,2, 2006 (w/Liu et al) “MT for Resource-Poor Languages Using Elicitation-Based Learning” Machine Translation, 2004 ‘‘Learning Approaches for Detecting and Tracking News Events,’’ IEEE Trans I.S., 14, 4, 2000 (w/Yang)

  Read more →
• 

  Closest point method

  The closest point method (CPM) is an embedding method for solving partial differential equations on surfaces. The closest point method uses standard numerical approaches such as finite differences, finite element or spectral methods in order to solve the embedding partial differential equation (PDE) which is equal to the original PDE on the surface. The solution is computed in a band surrounding the surface in order to be computationally efficient. In order to extend the data off the surface, the closest point method uses a closest point representation. This representation extends function values to be constant along directions normal to the surface. == Definitions == Closest Point function: Given a surface S , c p ( x ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}},cp(\mathbf {x} )} refers to a (possibly non-unique) point belonging to S {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}} , which is closest to x {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} } [SE]. Closest point extension: Let S {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}} , be a smooth surface in R d {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{d}} . The closest point extension of a function u : S → R {\displaystyle u:{\mathcal {S}}\rightarrow \mathbb {R} } , to a neighborhood Ω {\displaystyle \Omega } of S {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}} , is the function v : Ω → R {\displaystyle v:\Omega \rightarrow \mathbb {R} } , defined by v ( x ) = u ( c p ( x ) ) {\displaystyle v(\mathbf {x} )=u(cp(\mathbf {x} ))} . == Closest point method == Initialization consists of these steps [EW]: If it is not already given, a closest point representation of the surface is constructed. A computational domain is chosen. Typically this is a band around the surface. Replace surface gradients by standard gradients in R 3 {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{3}} . Solution is initialized by extending the initial surface data on to the computational domain using the closest point function. After initialization, alternate between the following two steps: Using the closest point function, extend the solution off the surface to the computational domain. Compute the solution to the embedding PDE on a Cartesian mesh in the computational domain for one time step. == Banding == The surface PDE is extended into R 3 {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{3}} however it is only necessary to solve this new PDE near the surface. Hence, we solve the PDE in a band surrounding the surface for efficient computational purposes. Ω c x : ‖ x − c p ( x ) ‖ 2 ≤ λ {\displaystyle \Omega _{c}{x:\|x-cp(x)\|_{2}\leq \lambda }} where λ {\displaystyle \lambda } is the bandwidth. == Example: Heat equation on a circle == Using initial profile u S ( θ , t ) = sin ⁡ ( θ ) {\displaystyle u_{S}(\theta ,t)=\sin(\theta )} leads to the solution u S ( θ , t ) = exp ⁡ ( − t ) sin ⁡ ( θ ) {\displaystyle u_{S}(\theta ,t)=\exp(-t)\sin(\theta )} for the heat equation. Forward Euler time-stepping is used with relation Δ t = 0.1 Δ x 2 {\displaystyle \Delta t=0.1\Delta x^{2}} and degree-four interpolation polynomials for the interpolations. Second-order centered differences are used for the spatial discretization. The CPM results in the expected second order error in the solution u {\displaystyle u} . == Applications == The closest point method can be applied to various PDEs on surfaces. Reaction–diffusion problems on point clouds [RD], eigenvalue problems [EV], and level set equations [LS] are a few examples.

  Read more →
• 

  Aapo Hyvärinen

  Aapo Johannes Hyvärinen (born 1970 in Helsinki) is a Finnish professor of computer science at the University of Helsinki and known for his research in independent component analysis. == Education and career == Hyvärinen was born in Helsinki and studied mathematics at the University of Helsinki and received his Doctor of Technology in information science in 1997 at the Helsinki University of Technology under the supervision of Erkki Oja. His doctoral thesis, titled "Independent component analysis: A neural network approach", introduced the FastICA algorithm. Since then, Hyvärinen has conducted research especially in relation to the independent component analysis, as well as score matching (also known as Hyvärinen scoring rule). In November 2007, he was appointed as a professor at the University of Helsinki. Hyvärinen has been a member of the Finnish Academy of Sciences since 2016. From August 2016 to March 2019, he held a professorship in machine learning at the Gatsby Computational Neuroscience Unit of the University College London.

  Read more →
• 

  Is an AI Bug Finder Worth It in 2026?

  In search of the best AI bug finder? An AI bug finder is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it turns a rough idea into a polished result in seconds. When choosing one, weigh output quality, pricing, export formats, and how well it fits the tools you already use. 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 →