AI App Orange Logo

AI App Orange Logo — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

  • Wide-column store

    Wide-column store

    A wide-column store (or extensible record store) is a type of NoSQL database. It uses tables, rows, and columns, but unlike a relational database, the names and format of the columns can vary from row to row in the same table. A wide-column store can be interpreted as a two-dimensional key–value store. Google's Bigtable is one of the prototypical examples of a wide-column store. == Wide-column stores versus columnar databases == Wide-column stores such as Bigtable and Apache Cassandra are not column stores in the original sense of the term, since their two-level structures do not use a columnar data layout. In genuine column stores, a columnar data layout is adopted such that each column is stored separately on disk. Wide-column stores do often support the notion of column families that are stored separately. However, each such column family typically contains multiple columns that are used together, similar to traditional relational database tables. Within a given column family, all data is stored in a row-by-row fashion, such that the columns for a given row are stored together, rather than each column being stored separately. Wide-column stores that support column families are also known as column family databases. == Notable examples == Notable wide-column stores include: Apache Accumulo Apache Cassandra Apache HBase Bigtable DataStax Enterprise (uses Apache Cassandra) DataStax Astra DB (uses Apache Cassandra) Hypertable Azure Tables ScyllaDB

    Read more →
  • Büchi automaton

    Büchi automaton

    In computer science and automata theory, a deterministic Büchi automaton is a theoretical machine which either accepts or rejects infinite inputs. Such a machine has a set of states and a transition function, which determines which state the machine should move to from its current state when it reads the next input character. Some states are accepting states and one state is the start state. The machine accepts an input if and only if it will pass through an accepting state infinitely many times as it reads the input. A non-deterministic Büchi automaton, later referred to just as a Büchi automaton, has a transition function which may have multiple outputs, leading to many possible paths for the same input; it accepts an infinite input if and only if some possible path is accepting. Deterministic and non-deterministic Büchi automata generalize deterministic finite automata and nondeterministic finite automata to infinite inputs. Each are types of ω-automata. Büchi automata recognize the ω-regular languages, the infinite word version of regular languages. They are named after the Swiss mathematician Julius Richard Büchi, who invented them in 1962. Büchi automata are often used in model checking as an automata-theoretic version of a formula in linear temporal logic. == Formal definition == Formally, a deterministic Büchi automaton is a tuple A = ( Q , Σ , δ , q 0 , F ) {\textstyle A=(Q,\Sigma ,\delta ,q_{0},\mathbf {F} )} 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 \to 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 of A {\textstyle A} . F ⊆ Q {\textstyle \mathbf {F} \subseteq Q} is the acceptance condition. A run i _ = i 0 i 1 i 2 ⋯ ∈ Σ ω {\displaystyle {\underline {i}}=i_{0}i_{1}i_{2}\cdots \in \Sigma ^{\omega }} is an infinite string of inputs of A {\displaystyle A} . By calling δ {\displaystyle \delta } recursively, we can extend it to a function δ ω : Σ ω → Q ω {\displaystyle \delta ^{\omega }:\Sigma ^{\omega }\to Q^{\omega }} . A state q ∈ Q {\displaystyle q\in Q} is said to occur infinitely often for a run i _ {\displaystyle {\underline {i}}} when the set { n ∈ N ∣ δ ω ( i _ ) n = q } {\displaystyle \{n\in \mathbb {N} \mid \delta ^{\omega }({\underline {i}})_{n}=q\}} is infinite. Let I n f ( i _ ) {\displaystyle \mathrm {Inf} ({\underline {i}})} be the set of states occurring infinitely often for i _ {\displaystyle {\underline {i}}} . The language of A {\displaystyle A} is then the set of runs of A {\displaystyle A} in which at least one of the infinitely-often occurring states is in F {\textstyle \mathbf {F} } ; in symbols: L ( A ) = { i _ ∈ Σ ω ∣ I n f ( i _ ) ∩ F ≠ ∅ } . {\displaystyle L(A)=\{{\underline {i}}\in \Sigma ^{\omega }\mid \mathrm {Inf} ({\underline {i}})\cap \mathbf {F} \neq \varnothing \}.} In a (non-deterministic) Büchi automaton, the transition function δ {\textstyle \delta } is replaced with a transition relation Δ {\textstyle \Delta } that returns a set of states, and the single initial state q 0 {\textstyle q_{0}} is replaced by a set I {\textstyle I} of initial states. Generally, the term Büchi automaton without qualifier refers to non-deterministic Büchi automata. For more comprehensive formalism see also ω-automaton. == Closure properties == The set of Büchi automata is closed under the following operations. Let A = ( Q A , Σ , Δ A , I A , F A ) {\displaystyle A=(Q_{A},\Sigma ,\Delta _{A},I_{A},{F}_{A})} and B = ( Q B , Σ , Δ B , I B , F B ) {\displaystyle B=(Q_{B},\Sigma ,\Delta _{B},I_{B},{F}_{B})} be Büchi automata and C = ( Q C , Σ , Δ C , I C , F C ) {\displaystyle C=(Q_{C},\Sigma ,\Delta _{C},I_{C},{F}_{C})} be a finite automaton. Union: There is a Büchi automaton that recognizes the language L ( A ) ∪ L ( B ) . {\displaystyle L(A)\cup L(B).} Proof: If we assume, w.l.o.g., Q A ∩ Q B {\displaystyle Q_{A}\cap Q_{B}} is empty then L ( A ) ∪ L ( B ) {\displaystyle L(A)\cup L(B)} is recognized by the Büchi automaton ( Q A ∪ Q B , Σ ∪ Σ , Δ A ∪ Δ B , I A ∪ I B , F A ∪ F B ) . {\displaystyle (Q_{A}\cup Q_{B},\Sigma \cup \Sigma ,\Delta _{A}\cup \Delta _{B},I_{A}\cup I_{B},{F}_{A}\cup {F}_{B}).} Intersection: There is a Büchi automaton that recognizes the language L ( A ) ∩ L ( B ) . {\displaystyle L(A)\cap L(B).} Proof: The Büchi automaton A ′ = ( Q ′ , Σ , Δ ′ , I ′ , F ′ ) {\displaystyle A'=(Q',\Sigma ,\Delta ',I',F')} recognizes L ( A ) ∩ L ( B ) , {\displaystyle L(A)\cap L(B),} where Q ′ = Q A × Q B × { 1 , 2 } {\displaystyle Q'=Q_{A}\times Q_{B}\times \{1,2\}} Δ ′ = Δ 1 ∪ Δ 2 {\displaystyle \Delta '=\Delta _{1}\cup \Delta _{2}} Δ 1 = { ( ( q A , q B , 1 ) , a , ( q A ′ , q B ′ , i ) ) | ( q A , a , q A ′ ) ∈ Δ A and ( q B , a , q B ′ ) ∈ Δ B and if q A ∈ F A then i = 2 else i = 1 } {\displaystyle \Delta _{1}=\{((q_{A},q_{B},1),a,(q'_{A},q'_{B},i))|(q_{A},a,q'_{A})\in \Delta _{A}{\text{ and }}(q_{B},a,q'_{B})\in \Delta _{B}{\text{ and if }}q_{A}\in F_{A}{\text{ then }}i=2{\text{ else }}i=1\}} Δ 2 = { ( ( q A , q B , 2 ) , a , ( q A ′ , q B ′ , i ) ) | ( q A , a , q A ′ ) ∈ Δ A and ( q B , a , q B ′ ) ∈ Δ B and if q B ∈ F B then i = 1 else i = 2 } {\displaystyle \Delta _{2}=\{((q_{A},q_{B},2),a,(q'_{A},q'_{B},i))|(q_{A},a,q'_{A})\in \Delta _{A}{\text{ and }}(q_{B},a,q'_{B})\in \Delta _{B}{\text{ and if }}q_{B}\in F_{B}{\text{ then }}i=1{\text{ else }}i=2\}} I ′ = I A × I B × { 1 } {\displaystyle I'=I_{A}\times I_{B}\times \{1\}} F ′ = { ( q A , q B , 2 ) | q B ∈ F B } {\displaystyle F'=\{(q_{A},q_{B},2)|q_{B}\in F_{B}\}} By construction, r ′ = ( q A 0 , q B 0 , i 0 ) , ( q A 1 , q B 1 , i 1 ) , … {\displaystyle r'=(q_{A}^{0},q_{B}^{0},i^{0}),(q_{A}^{1},q_{B}^{1},i^{1}),\dots } is a run of automaton A' on input word w {\textstyle w} if r A = q A 0 , q A 1 , … {\displaystyle r_{A}=q_{A}^{0},q_{A}^{1},\dots } is run of A {\textstyle A} on w {\textstyle w} and r B = q B 0 , q B 1 , … {\displaystyle r_{B}=q_{B}^{0},q_{B}^{1},\dots } is run of B {\textstyle B} on w {\textstyle w} . r A {\textstyle r_{A}} is accepting and r B {\textstyle r_{B}} is accepting if r ′ {\textstyle r'} is concatenation of an infinite series of finite segments of 1-states (states with third component 1) and 2-states (states with third component 2) alternatively. There is such a series of segments of r ′ {\textstyle r'} if r ′ {\textstyle r'} is accepted by A ′ {\textstyle A'} . Concatenation: There is a Büchi automaton that recognizes the language L ( C ) ⋅ L ( A ) . {\displaystyle L(C)\cdot L(A).} Proof: If we assume, w.l.o.g., Q C ∩ Q A {\displaystyle Q_{C}\cap Q_{A}} is empty then the Büchi automaton A ′ = ( Q C ∪ Q A , Σ , Δ ′ , I ′ , F A ) {\displaystyle A'=(Q_{C}\cup Q_{A},\Sigma ,\Delta ',I',F_{A})} recognizes L ( C ) ⋅ L ( A ) {\displaystyle L(C)\cdot L(A)} , where Δ ′ = Δ A ∪ Δ C ∪ { ( q , a , q ′ ) | q ′ ∈ I A and ∃ f ∈ F C . ( q , a , f ) ∈ Δ C } {\displaystyle \Delta '=\Delta _{A}\cup \Delta _{C}\cup \{(q,a,q')|q'\in I_{A}{\text{ and }}\exists f\in F_{C}.(q,a,f)\in \Delta _{C}\}} if I C ∩ F C is empty then I ′ = I C otherwise I ′ = I C ∪ I A {\displaystyle {\text{ if }}I_{C}\cap F_{C}{\text{ is empty then }}I'=I_{C}{\text{ otherwise }}I'=I_{C}\cup I_{A}} ω-closure: If L ( C ) {\displaystyle L(C)} does not contain the empty word then there is a Büchi automaton that recognizes the language L ( C ) ω . {\displaystyle L(C)^{\omega }.} Proof: The Büchi automaton that recognizes L ( C ) ω {\displaystyle L(C)^{\omega }} is constructed in two stages. First, we construct a finite automaton A ′ {\textstyle A'} such that A ′ {\textstyle A'} also recognizes L ( C ) {\displaystyle L(C)} but there are no incoming transitions to initial states of A ′ {\textstyle A'} . So, A ′ = ( Q C ∪ { q new } , Σ , Δ ′ , { q new } , F C ) , {\displaystyle A'=(Q_{C}\cup \{q_{\text{new}}\},\Sigma ,\Delta ',\{q_{\text{new}}\},F_{C}),} where Δ ′ = Δ C ∪ { ( q new , a , q ′ ) | ∃ q ∈ I C . ( q , a , q ′ ) ∈ Δ C } . {\displaystyle \Delta '=\Delta _{C}\cup \{(q_{\text{new}},a,q')|\exists q\in I_{C}.(q,a,q')\in \Delta _{C}\}.} Note that L ( C ) = L ( A ′ ) {\displaystyle L(C)=L(A')} because L ( C ) {\displaystyle L(C)} does not contain the empty string. Second, we will construct the Büchi automaton A ″ {\textstyle A''} that recognize L ( C ) ω {\displaystyle L(C)^{\omega }} by adding a loop back to the initial state of A ′ {\textstyle A'} . So, A ″ = ( Q C ∪ { q new } , Σ , Δ ″ , { q new } , { q new } ) {\displaystyle A''=(Q_{C}\cup \{q_{\text{new}}\},\Sigma ,\Delta '',\{q_{\text{new}}\},\{q_{\text{new}}\})} , where Δ ″ = Δ ′ ∪ { ( q , a , q new ) | ∃ q ′ ∈ F C . ( q , a , q ′ ) ∈ Δ ′ } . {\displaystyle \Delta ''=\Delta '\cup \{(q,a,q_{\text{new}})|\exists q'\in F_{C}.(q,a,q')\in \Delta '\}.} Complementation:

    Read more →
  • Tom M. Mitchell

    Tom M. Mitchell

    Tom Michael Mitchell (born August 9, 1951) is an American computer scientist and the Founders University Professor at Carnegie Mellon University (CMU). He is a founder and former chair of the Machine Learning Department at CMU. Mitchell is known for his contributions to the advancement of machine learning, artificial intelligence, and cognitive neuroscience and is the author of the textbook Machine Learning. He is a member of the United States National Academy of Engineering since 2010. He is also a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science and a Fellow and past president of the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence. In October 2018, Mitchell was appointed as the Interim Dean of the School of Computer Science at Carnegie Mellon. == Early life and education == Mitchell was born in Blossburg, Pennsylvania and grew up in Upstate New York, in the town of Vestal. He received his bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1973 and a Ph.D. from Stanford University under the direction of Bruce G. Buchanan in 1979. == Career == Mitchell began his teaching career at Rutgers University in 1978. During his tenure at Rutgers, he held the positions of assistant and associate professor in the Department of Computer Science. In 1986, he left Rutgers and joined Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh as a professor. In 1999, he became the E. Fredkin Professor in the School of Computer Science. In 2006 Mitchell was appointed as the first chair of the Machine Learning Department within the School of Computer Science. He became university professor in 2009, and served as Interim Dean of the Carnegie Mellon School of Computer Science during 2018–2019. Mitchell currently serves on the Scientific Advisory Board of the Allen Institute for AI and on the Science Board of the Santa Fe Institute. == Honors and awards == He was elected into the United States National Academy of Engineering in 2010 "for pioneering contributions and leadership in the methods and applications of machine learning." He is also a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) since 2008 and a Fellow the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) since 1990. In 2016 he became a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Mitchell was awarded an Honorary Doctor of Laws degree from Dalhousie University in 2015 for his contributions to machine learning and to cognitive neuroscience, and the President's Medal from Stevens Institute of Technology in 2018. He is a recipient of the NSF Presidential Young Investigator Award in 1984. == Publications == Mitchell is a prolific author of scientific works on various topics in computer science, including machine learning, artificial intelligence, robotics, and cognitive neuroscience. He has authored hundreds of scientific articles. Mitchell published one of the first textbooks in machine learning, entitled Machine Learning, in 1997 (publisher: McGraw Hill Education). He is also a coauthor of the following books: J. Franklin, T. Mitchell, and S. Thrun (eds.), Recent Advances in Robot Learning, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1996. T. Mitchell, J. Carbonell, and R. Michalski (eds.), Machine Learning: A Guide to Current Research, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1986. R. Michalski, J. Carbonell, and T. Mitchell (eds.), Machine Learning: An Artificial Intelligence Approach, Volume 2, Morgan Kaufmann, 1986. R. Michalski, J. Carbonell, and T. Mitchell (eds.), Machine Learning: An Artificial Intelligence Approach, Tioga Press, 1983.

    Read more →
  • GLIMMER

    GLIMMER

    In bioinformatics, GLIMMER (Gene Locator and Interpolated Markov ModelER) is used to find genes in prokaryotic DNA. "It is effective at finding genes in bacteria, archea, viruses, typically finding 98-99% of all relatively long protein coding genes". GLIMMER was the first system that used the interpolated Markov model to identify coding regions. The GLIMMER software is open source and is maintained by Steven Salzberg, Art Delcher, and their colleagues at the Center for Computational Biology at Johns Hopkins University. The original GLIMMER algorithms and software were designed by Art Delcher, Simon Kasif and Steven Salzberg and applied to bacterial genome annotation in collaboration with Owen White. == Versions == === GLIMMER 1.0 === First Version of GLIMMER "i.e., GLIMMER 1.0" was released in 1998 and it was published in the paper Microbial gene identification using interpolated Markov model. Markov models were used to identify microbial genes in GLIMMER 1.0. GLIMMER considers the local composition sequence dependencies which makes GLIMMER more flexible and more powerful when compared to fixed-order Markov model. There was a comparison made between interpolated Markov model used by GLIMMER and fifth order Markov model in the paper Microbial gene identification using interpolated Markov models. "GLIMMER algorithm found 1680 genes out of 1717 annotated genes in Haemophilus influenzae where fifth order Markov model found 1574 genes. GLIMMER found 209 additional genes which were not included in 1717 annotated genes where fifth order Markov model found 104 genes."' === GLIMMER 2.0 === Second Version of GLIMMER i.e., GLIMMER 2.0 was released in 1999 and it was published in the paper Improved microbial identification with GLIMMER. This paper provides significant technical improvements such as using interpolated context model instead of interpolated Markov model and resolving overlapping genes which improves the accuracy of GLIMMER. Interpolated context models are used instead of interpolated Markov model which gives the flexibility to select any base. In interpolated Markov model probability distribution of a base is determined from the immediate preceding bases. If the immediate preceding base is irrelevant amino acid translation, interpolated Markov model still considers the preceding base to determine the probability of given base where as interpolated context model which was used in GLIMMER 2.0 can ignore irrelevant bases. False positive predictions were increased in GLIMMER 2.0 to reduce the number of false negative predictions. Overlapped genes are also resolved in GLIMMER 2.0. Various comparisons between GLIMMER 1.0 and GLIMMER 2.0 were made in the paper Improved microbial identification with GLIMMER which shows improvement in the later version. "Sensitivity of GLIMMER 1.0 ranges from 98.4 to 99.7% with an average of 99.1% where as GLIMMER 2.0 has a sensitivity range from 98.6 to 99.8% with an average of 99.3%. GLIMMER 2.0 is very effective in finding genes of high density. The parasite Trypanosoma brucei, responsible for causing African sleeping sickness is being identified by GLIMMER 2.0" === GLIMMER 3.0 === Third version of GLIMMER, "GLIMMER 3.0" was released in 2007 and it was published in the paper Identifying bacterial genes and endosymbiont DNA with Glimmer. This paper describes several major changes made to the GLIMMER system including improved methods to identify coding regions and start codon. Scoring of ORF in GLIMMER 3.0 is done in reverse order i.e., starting from stop codon and moves back towards the start codon. Reverse scanning helps in identifying the coding portion of the gene more accurately which is contained in the context window of IMM. GLIMMER 3.0 also improves the generated training set data by comparing the long-ORF with universal amino acid distribution of widely disparate bacterial genomes."GLIMMER 3.0 has an average long-ORF output of 57% for various organisms where as GLIMMER 2.0 has an average long-ORF output of 39%." GLIMMER 3.0 reduces the rate of false positive predictions which were increased in GLIMMER 2.0 to reduce the number of false negative predictions. "GLIMMER 3.0 has a start-site prediction accuracy of 99.5% for 3'5' matches where as GLIMMER 2.0 has 99.1% for 3'5' matches. GLIMMER 3.0 uses a new algorithm for scanning coding regions, a new start site detection module, and architecture which integrates all gene predictions across an entire genome." Minimum description length === Theoretical and Biological Foundation === The GLIMMER project helped introduce and popularize the use of variable length models in Computational Biology and Bioinformatics that subsequently have been applied to numerous problems such as protein classification and others. Variable length modeling was originally pioneered by information theorists and subsequently ingeniously applied and popularized in data compression (e.g. Ziv-Lempel compression). Prediction and compression are intimately linked using Minimum Description Length Principles. The basic idea is to create a dictionary of frequent words (motifs in biological sequences). The intuition is that the frequently occurring motifs are likely to be most predictive and informative. In GLIMMER the interpolated model is a mixture model of the probabilities of these relatively common motifs. Similarly to the development of HMMs in Computational Biology, the authors of GLIMMER were conceptually influenced by the previous application of another variant of interpolated Markov models to speech recognition by researchers such as Fred Jelinek (IBM) and Eric Ristad (Princeton). The learning algorithm in GLIMMER is different from these earlier approaches. == Access == GLIMMER can be downloaded from The Glimmer home page (requires a C++ compiler). Alternatively, an online version is hosted by NCBI [1]. == How it works == GLIMMER primarily searches for long-ORFS. An open reading frame might overlap with any other open reading frame which will be resolved using the technique described in the sub section. Using these long-ORFS and following certain amino acid distribution GLIMMER generates training set data. Using these training data, GLIMMER trains all the six Markov models of coding DNA from zero to eight order and also train the model for noncoding DNA GLIMMER tries to calculate the probabilities from the data. Based on the number of observations, GLIMMER determines whether to use fixed order Markov model or interpolated Markov model. If the number of observations are greater than 400, GLIMMER uses fixed order Markov model to obtain there probabilities. If the number of observations are less than 400, GLIMMER uses interpolated Markov model which is briefly explained in the next sub section. GLIMMER obtains score for every long-ORF generated using all the six coding DNA models and also using non-coding DNA model. If the score obtained in the previous step is greater than a certain threshold then GLIMMER predicts it to be a gene. The steps explained above describes the basic functionality of GLIMMER. There are various improvements made to GLIMMER and some of them are described in the following sub-sections. === The GLIMMER system === GLIMMER system consists of two programs. First program called build-imm, which takes an input set of sequences and outputs the interpolated Markov model as follows. The probability for each base i.e., A,C,G,T for all k-mers for 0 ≤ k ≤ 8 is computed. Then, for each k-mer, GLIMMER computes weight. New sequence probability is computed as follows. where n is the length of the sequence S x {\displaystyle S_{x}} is the oligomer at position x. I M M 8 ( S x ) {\displaystyle IMM_{8}(S_{x})} , the 8 t h {\displaystyle 8^{th}} -order interpolated Markov model score is computed as "where Y k ( S x − 1 ) {\displaystyle Y_{k}(S_{x-1})} is the weight of the k-mer at position x-1 in the sequence S and P k ( S x ) {\displaystyle P_{k}(S_{x})} is the estimate obtained from the training data of the probability of the base located at position x in the k t h {\displaystyle k^{th}} -order model." The probability of base S x {\displaystyle S_{x}} given the i previous bases is computed as follows. "The value of Y i ( S x ) {\displaystyle Y_{i}(S_{x})} associated with P i ( S x ) {\displaystyle P_{i}(S_{x})} can be regarded as a measure of confidence in the accuracy of this value as an estimate of the true probability. GLIMMER uses two criteria to determine Y i ( S x ) {\displaystyle Y_{i}(S_{x})} . The first of these is simple frequency occurrence in which the number of occurrences of context string S x , i {\displaystyle S_{x,i}} in the training data exceeds a specific threshold value, then Y i ( S x ) {\displaystyle Y_{i}(S_{x})} is set to 1.0. The current default value for threshold is 400, which gives 95% confidence. When there are insufficient sample occurrences of a context string, build-imm employ additional criteria to determine Y {\displaystyle Y} value. For a

    Read more →
  • CatDV

    CatDV

    CatDV is a media asset manager program for handling multimedia production workflows developed by Square Box Systems. Quantum Corporation acquired Square Box Systems in 2020. == Versions == The full family of CatDV Products is as follows: CatDV Standalone Products CatDV Professional Edition CatDV Pegasus CatDV Networked Products CatDV Essential - entry level server product CatDV Enterprise Server - for MySQL databases and most common server platforms including Linux, Windows and Mac OS X CatDV Pegasus Server - adds features such as high performance full-text indexing, access control lists, and more CatDV Worker Node - automated workflow and transcoding engine CatDV Web Client - provides access to the CatDV database via a web browser. There is no need to install special software on the desktop, making it easy to deploy to a large number of users. CatDV Professional Edition & Pegasus Clients - designed to support the multi-user capabilities of the CatDV Enterprise and Workgroup Servers from the desktop Using plugins and scripting, which often require additional professional services support to set up, complex integrations with a wide variety of third party systems (including archive, cloud storage, and artificial intelligence) are possible. == Awards == CatDV won two awards in 2010, a blue ribbon from Creative COW Magazine and a "Best of Show Vidy Award" from Videography. In April 2012 Square Box won a Queen's Award for Enterprise for CatDV.

    Read more →
  • Law and Corpus Linguistics

    Law and Corpus Linguistics

    Law and corpus linguistics (LCL) is an academic sub-discipline that uses large databases of examples of language usage equipped with tools designed by linguists called corpora to better get at the meaning of words and phrases in legal texts (statutes, constitutions, contracts, etc.). Thus, LCL is the application of corpus linguistic tools, theories, and methodologies to issues of legal interpretation in much the same way law and economics is the application of economic tools, theories, and methodologies to various legal issues. == History == A 2005 law review article by Lawrence Solan noted in passing that corpus linguistics had potential for its application to interpreting legal texts. But the first systematic exploration and advocacy of applying the tools and methodologies of corpus linguistics to legal interpretive questions of law and corpus linguistics came in the fall of 2010, when the BYU Law Review published a note by Stephen Mouritsen, entitled The Dictionary is Not a Fortress: Definitional Fallacies and a Corpus-Based Approach to Plain Meaning. The note argued that dictionaries are the primary linguistic tool used by judges to determine the plain or ordinary meaning of words and phrases, and highlighted the deficiencies of such an approach. In its stead, the note proposed using corpus linguistics. And the note would be later cited by Adam Liptak in a New York Times article on statutory construction. Law and corpus linguistics (LCL) gained greater legitimacy in July 2011 with the first judicial opinion in American history utilizing corpus linguistics to determine the meaning of a legal text: In re the Adoption of Baby E.Z. In a concurrence in part and in the judgment, Justice Thomas Lee wrote to put forth an alternative ground for the majority's holding—interpreting the phrase "custody determination" by using corpus linguistics. Justice Lee looked at 500 randomized sample sentences from the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) and found that the most common sense of "custody" was in the context of divorce rather than adoption. Further, he found that "custody" is ten times more likely to co-occur (or collocate) with "divorce" than with "adoption". From that evidence Justice Lee concluded that he "would find that the custody proceedings covered by the Act are limited to proceedings resulting in the modifiable custody orders of a divorce", rather than the broader range of custody proceedings. Other jurisprudence and scholarship would follow. In a 2015 concurrence in State v. Rasabout, Justice Lee used a COCA search to determine that "discharge" when used with a firearm (or one of its synonyms) overwhelmingly referred to a single shot rather than emptying the entire magazine of the weapon. And in 2016, four of the five justices joined a footnote in a majority opinion by Justice Lee commending a party for using corpus linguistics in its briefing even though the Court found it unnecessary to resolve the related question. Finally, in 2016 the Michigan Supreme Court became the first court to use a linguist-designed corpus in a majority opinion (COCA), with both the majority and the dissent turning to COCA to determine the meaning of the word "information". In 2020, courts desiring to bolster the legal theory of original intent have sought the opportunity to undertake analyses of statutes utilizing corpus linguistics. In a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals case, Jones v. Becerra (No. 20-56174), a case involving the Second Amendment and the constitutionality of a California statute which bans the sale of firearms to individuals under the age of 21, a Ninth Circuit panel requested that the parties address three questions: 1) “What is the original public meaning of the Second Amendment phrases: ‘A well regulated Militia’; ‘the right of the people’; and ‘shall not be infringed’? 2) How does the tool of corpus linguistics help inform the determination of the original public meaning of those Second Amendment phrases?” 3) How do the data yielded from corpus linguistics assist in the interpretation of the constitutionality of age-based restrictions under the Second Amendment? As to scholarship, in 2012, Mouritsen followed up his original work with an article in the Columbia Science and Technology Law Review, where he further refined and promoted the use of corpus-based methods for determining questions of legal ambiguity. Additionally, in 2016 two essays and an article on law and corpus linguistics were published. The Yale Law Journal Forum published Corpus Linguistics & Original Public Meaning: A New Tool to Make Originalism More Empirical. Written by Justice Lee and two co-authors, the essay urged originalists to turn to corpus linguistics to improve the rigor and accuracy of originalist scholarship. And in response, the Forum published an essay by Lawrence Solan (a Brooklyn Law professor with a PhD in linguistics), Can Corpus Linguistics Help Make Originalism Scientific? The Boston University Public Interest Law Journal published The Merciful Corpus: The Rule of Lenity, Ambiguity and Corpus Linguistics by Daniel Ortner. In the article Ortner applied corpus linguistics to determining whether sufficient ambiguity exists to trigger the rule of lenity in five Supreme Court cases. Looking forward, in 2017 two more articles are slated for publication. Lee Strang focuses on corpus linguistics and originalism in the U.C. Davis Law Review, and Lawrence Solan and Tammy Gales explore corpus linguistics in the context of finding ordinary meaning in statutory interpretation in the International Journal of Legal Discourse. Lawyers and journalists have also taken notice of corpus linguistics at it relates to the law. In 2010, Neal Goldfarb filed the first known brief in the Supreme Court using corpus linguistics (COCA) to determine whether the ordinary meaning of "personal" referred to corporations in the case FCC v. AT&T. The amicus brief looked at the top collocates (words that co-occur) of "personal" in COHA as well as BYU's Time Magazine Corpus. And writing for The Atlantic, Ben Zimmer took note of this new trend, referring to corpus linguistics in the courts as "Like Lexis on Steroids". On the academic front, in 2013 BYU Law School started the first class on law and corpus linguistics, co-taught by Mouritsen, Lee, and (now Dean) Gordon Smith. The class is currently in its fourth year. And in February 2016, BYU Law School hosted the inaugural conference on LCL, with over two dozen legal and linguistic scholars from around the country discussing and debating the next steps forward for the growing academic movement. The conference has been held regularly in subsequent years. At the 2016 conference BYU Law School announced its plans and progress on the Corpus of Founding Era American English (COFEA), a corpus that covers 1760–1799 and contains more than 120 million words have been collected from founding era letters, diaries, newspapers, non-fiction books, fiction, sermons, speeches, debates, legal cases, and other legal materials.

    Read more →
  • Collostructional analysis

    Collostructional analysis

    Collostructional analysis is a family of methods developed by (in alphabetical order) Stefan Th. Gries (University of California, Santa Barbara) and Anatol Stefanowitsch (Free University of Berlin). Collostructional analysis aims at measuring the degree of attraction or repulsion that words exhibit to constructions, where the notion of construction has so far been that of Goldberg's construction grammar. == Collostructional methods == Collostructional analysis so far comprises three different methods: collexeme analysis, to measure the degree of attraction/repulsion of a lemma to a slot in one particular construction; distinctive collexeme analysis, to measure the preference of a lemma to one particular construction over another, functionally similar construction; multiple distinctive collexeme analysis extends this approach to more than two alternative constructions; covarying collexeme analysis, to measure the degree of attraction of lemmas in one slot of a construction to lemmas in another slot of the same construction. == Input frequencies == Collostructional analysis requires frequencies of words and constructions and is similar to a wide variety of collocation statistics. It differs from raw frequency counts by providing not only observed co-occurrence frequencies of words and constructions, but also (i) a comparison of the observed frequency to the one expected by chance; thus, collostructional analysis can distinguish attraction and repulsion of words and constructions; (ii) a measure of the strength of the attraction or repulsion; this is usually the log-transformed p-value of a Fisher-Yates exact test. == Versus other collocation statistics == Collostructional analysis differs from most collocation statistics such that (i) it measures not the association of words to words, but of words to syntactic patterns or constructions; thus, it takes syntactic structure more seriously than most collocation-based analyses; (ii) it has so far only used the most precise statistics, namely the Fisher-Yates exact test based on the hypergeometric distribution; thus, unlike t-scores, z-scores, chi-square tests etc., the analysis is not based on, and does not violate, any distributional assumptions.

    Read more →
  • Marti Hearst

    Marti Hearst

    Marti Alice Hearst is a professor in the School of Information at the University of California, Berkeley. She did early work in corpus-based computational linguistics, including some of the first work in automating sentiment analysis, and word sense disambiguation. She invented an algorithm that became known as "Hearst patterns" which applies lexico-syntactic patterns to recognize hyponymy (ISA) relations with high accuracy in large text collections, including an early application of it to WordNet; this algorithm is widely used in commercial text mining applications including ontology learning. Hearst also developed early work in automatic segmentation of text into topical discourse boundaries, inventing a now well-known approach called TextTiling. Hearst's research is on user interfaces for search engine technology and big data analytics. She did early work in user interfaces and information visualization for search user interfaces, inventing the TileBars query term visualization. Her Flamenco research project investigated and developed the now widely used faceted navigation approach for searching and browsing web sites and information collections. She wrote the first academic book on the topic of Search User Interfaces (Cambridge University Press, 2009). Hearst is an Edge Foundation contributing author and a member of the Usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. Hearst received her B.A., M.S., and Ph.D. in computer science, all from Berkeley. In 2013 she became a fellow of the Association for Computing Machinery. She became a member of the CHI Academy in 2017, and has previously served as president of the Association for Computational Linguistics and on the advisory council of NSF's CISE Directorate. Additionally, she has been a member of the Web Board for CACM, the Usage Panel for the American Heritage Dictionary, the Edge.org panel of experts, the research staff at Xerox PARC, and the boards of ACM Transactions on the Web, Computational Linguistics, ACM Transactions on Information Systems, and IEEE Intelligent Systems. Hearst has received an NSF CAREER award, an IBM Faculty Award, and an Okawa Foundation Fellowship. Her work on user interfaces has had a profound impact on the industry, earning Hearst two Google Research Awards and four Excellence in Teaching Awards.} She has also led projects worth over $3.5M in research grants. Hearst’s publications date back to 1990, when ‘A Hybrid Approach to Restricted Text Interpretation’ was published in Stanford University’s AAAI Spring Symposium on Text Based Intelligent Systems in March of that year.

    Read more →
  • Information schema

    Information schema

    In relational databases, the information schema (information_schema) is an ANSI-standard set of read-only views that provide information about all of the tables, views, columns, and procedures in a database. It can be used as a source of the information that some databases make available through non-standard commands, such as: the SHOW command of MySQL the DESCRIBE command of Oracle's SQLPlus the \d command in psql (PostgreSQL's default command-line program). => SELECT count(table_name) FROM information_schema.tables; count ------- 99 (1 row) => SELECT column_name, data_type, column_default, is_nullable FROM information_schema.columns WHERE table_name='alpha'; column_name | data_type | column_default | is_nullable -------------+-----------+----------------+------------- foo | integer | | YES bar | character | | YES (2 rows) => SELECT FROM information_schema.information_schema_catalog_name; catalog_name -------------- johnd (1 row) == Implementation == As a notable exception among major database systems, Oracle does not as of 2015 implement the information schema. An open-source project exists to address this. RDBMSs that support information_schema include: Amazon Redshift Apache Hive Microsoft SQL Server MonetDB Snowflake MySQL PostgreSQL H2 Database HSQLDB InterSystems Caché MariaDB SingleStore (formerly MemSQL) Mimer SQL Snowflake Trino Presto CrateDB ClickHouse CockroachDB Kinetica DB TiDB RDBMSs that do not support information_schema include: Apache Derby Apache Ignite Firebird Microsoft Access IBM Informix Ingres IBM Db2 Oracle Database SAP HANA SQLite Sybase ASE Sybase SQL Anywhere Teradata Vertica

    Read more →
  • Ocrad

    Ocrad

    Ocrad is an optical character recognition program and part of the GNU Project. It is free software licensed under the GNU GPL. Based on a feature extraction method, it reads images in portable pixmap formats known as Portable anymap and produces text in byte (8-bit) or UTF-8 formats. Also included is a layout analyser, able to separate the columns or blocks of text normally found on printed pages. == User interface == Ocrad can be used as a stand-alone command-line application or as a back-end to other programs. Kooka, which was the KDE environment's default scanning application until KDE 4, can use Ocrad as its OCR engine. Since conversion to newer Qt versions, current versions of KDE no longer contain Kooka; development continues in the KDE git repository. Ocrad can be also used as an OCR engine in OCRFeeder. == History == Ocrad has been developed by Antonio Diaz Diaz since 2003. Version 0.7 was released in February 2004, 0.14 in February 2006 and 0.18 in May 2009. It is written in C++. Archives of the bug-ocrad mailing list go back to October 2003.

    Read more →
  • Maghi King

    Maghi King

    Margaret (Maghi) Daniel King is a retired British computational linguist known for her work on evaluating the quality of machine translation. She is an honorary professor in the Department of Translation Technology of the University of Geneva in Switzerland, and the former director of the Dalle Molle Institute for Semantic and Cognitive Studies at the University of Geneva. == Education and career == King read classics, Ancient History and Philosophy (Greats) at the University of Oxford, worked as a computer programmer, and became a lecturer in the Department of Computation at the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology. She moved to the Dalle Molle Institute for Semantic and Cognitive Studies (ISSCO) in 1974. In 1976, ISSCO became part of the University of Geneva, and she continued there, becoming ISSCO's director in 1978. She remained director until her retirement in 2006. == Recognition == King is a Fellow of the European Association for Artificial Intelligence (formerly ECCAI), elected in 1999.

    Read more →
  • Marcus Hutter

    Marcus Hutter

    Marcus Hutter (born 14 April 1967 in Munich) is a German computer scientist, professor and artificial intelligence researcher. As a senior researcher at DeepMind, he studies the mathematical foundations of artificial general intelligence. Hutter studied physics and computer science at the Technical University of Munich. In 2000, he joined Jürgen Schmidhuber's group at the Dalle Molle Institute for Artificial Intelligence Research in Manno, Switzerland. He developed a mathematical formalism of artificial general intelligence named AIXI. He has served as a professor at the College of Engineering, Computing and Cybernetics of the Australian National University in Canberra, Australia. == Research == Starting in 2000, Hutter developed and published a mathematical theory of artificial general intelligence, AIXI, based on idealised intelligent agents and reward-motivated reinforcement learning. His first book Universal Artificial Intelligence: Sequential Decisions Based on Algorithmic Probability was published in 2005 by Springer. Also in 2005, Hutter published with his doctoral student Shane Legg an intelligence test for artificial intelligence devices. In 2009, Hutter developed and published the theory of feature reinforcement learning. In 2014, Lattimore and Hutter published an asymptotically optimal extension of the AIXI agent. An accessible podcast with Lex Fridman about his theory of Universal AI appeared in 2021 and a more technical follow-up with Tim Nguyen in 2024 in the Cartesian Cafe. His new (2024) book also gives a more accessible introduction to Universal AI and progress in the 20 years since his first book, including a chapter on ASI safety, which featured as a keynote at the inaugural workshop on AI safety in Sydney. == Hutter Prize == In 2006, Hutter announced the Hutter Prize for Lossless Compression of Human Knowledge, with a total of €50,000 in prize money. In 2020, Hutter raised the prize money for the Hutter Prize to €500,000.

    Read more →
  • CLAWS (linguistics)

    CLAWS (linguistics)

    The Constituent Likelihood Automatic Word-tagging System (CLAWS) is a program that performs part-of-speech tagging. It was developed in the 1980s at Lancaster University by the University Centre for Computer Corpus Research on Language. It has an overall accuracy rate of 96–97% with the latest version (CLAWS4) tagging around 100 million words of the British National Corpus. == History == A Part-Of-Speech Tagger (POS Tagger) is a piece of software that reads text in some language and assigns parts of speech to each word (and other token), such as noun, verb, adjective, etc., although generally computational applications use more fine-grained POS tags like 'noun-plural'. Developed in the early 1980s, CLAWS was built to fill the ever-growing gap created by always-changing POS necessities. Originally created to add part-of-speech tags to the LOB corpus of British English, the CLAWS tagset has since been adapted to other languages as well, including Urdu and Arabic. Since its inception, CLAWS has been hailed for its functionality and adaptability. Still, it is not without flaws, and though it boasts an error-rate of only 1.5% when judged in major categories, CLAWS still remains with c.3.3% ambiguities unresolved. Ambiguity arises in cases such as with the word flies, and whether it should be classified as a noun or a verb. It's these ambiguities that will require the various upgrades and tagsets that CLAWS will endure. == Rules and processing == CLAWS uses a Hidden Markov model to determine the likelihood of sequences of words in anticipating each part-of-speech label. === Sample output === This excerpt from Bram Stoker's Dracula (1897) has been tagged using both the CLAWS C5 and C7 tagsets. This is what a CLAWS output will generally look like, with the most likely part-of-speech tag following each word. == Tagsets == === CLAWS1 tagset === The first tagset developed in CLAWS, CLAWS1 tagset, has 132 word tags. In terms of form and application, C1 tagset is similar to Brown Corpus tags. See Table of tags in C1 tagset here. === CLAWS2 tagset === From 1983 to 1986, updated versions leading to CLAWS2 were part of a larger attempt to deal with aspects such as recognizing sentence breaks, in order to avoid the need for manual pre-processing of a text before the tags were applied, moving instead to optional manual post-editing to adjust the output of the automatic annotation, if needed. The CLAWS2 tagset has 166 word tags. See Table of tags in C2 tagset here. === CLAWS4 tagset === The CLAWS4 was used for the 100-million-word British National Corpus (BNC). A general-purpose grammatical tagger, it is a successor of the CLAWS1 tagger. In tagging the BNC, the many rounds of work that went into CLAWS4 focused on making the CLAWS program independent from the tagsets. For example, the BNC project used two tagset versions: "a main tagset (C5) with 62 tags with which the whole of the corpus has been tagged, and a larger (C7) tagset with 152 tags, which has been used to make a selected 'core' sample corpus of two million words." The latest version of CLAWS4 is offered by UCREL, a research center of Lancaster University. === CLAWS5 tagset === The CLAWS5 tagset, which was used for BNC, has over 60 tags. See Table of tags in C5 tagset here. === CLAWS6 tagset === The CLAWS6 tagset was used for the BNC sampler corpus and the COLT corpus. It has over 160 tags, including 13 determiner subtypes. See Table of tags in C6 tagset here. === CLAWS7 tagset === The standard CLAWS7 tagset is used currently. It is only different in the punctuation tags when compared to the CLAWS6 tagset. See Table of tags in C7 tagset here. === CLAWS8 tagset === CLAWS8 tagset was extended from C7 tagset with further distinctions in the determiner and pronoun categories, as well as 37 new auxiliary tags for forms of be, do, and have. See Table of tags in C8 tagset here

    Read more →
  • Jollo

    Jollo

    Jollo was an online machine translation service where users could instantly translate texts into 23 languages, request human translations from a community of volunteers around the world, and compare the correctness of several leading machine translation websites. It was discontinued in 2012. == System == Jollo was a free Web 2.0 website that attempted to improve the way in which people translate online through the use of existing machine translation websites and a community of volunteers who correct and rate translations. The system relied on a similar methodology as computer-assisted translation to ensure translation quality, and featured a public translation memory that records past translations. Jollo received some notable media attention, including in The Daily Telegraph. According to the blog KillerStartups, Jollo combined the benefits of the speed of machine translations and human reviews to ensure translation quality. According to Jeffrey Hill from The English Blog, the community features made Jollo an interesting alternative to other online translation services. == Development == The Jollo website was classified as beta. It was developed using LAMP and was praised for its colorful graphics and simple user interface. Jollo offered a simple web-based API that could be used for translations. For example, the URL: http://www.jollo.com/translate.php?st=I%20love%20you&sl=en&tl=zh was used to translate the sentence "I love you" from English into Chinese.

    Read more →
  • Quotient automaton

    Quotient automaton

    In computer science, in particular in formal language theory, a quotient automaton can be obtained from a given nondeterministic finite automaton by joining some of its states. The quotient recognizes a superset of the given automaton; in some cases, handled by the Myhill–Nerode theorem, both languages are equal. == Formal definition == A (nondeterministic) finite automaton is a quintuple A = ⟨Σ, S, s0, δ, Sf⟩, where: Σ is the input alphabet (a finite, non-empty set of symbols), S is a finite, non-empty set of states, s0 is the initial state, an element of S, δ is the state-transition relation: δ ⊆ S × Σ × S, and Sf is the set of final states, a (possibly empty) subset of S. A string a1...an ∈ Σ is recognized by A if there exist states s1, ..., sn ∈ S such that ⟨si-1,ai,si⟩ ∈ δ for i=1,...,n, and sn ∈ Sf. The set of all strings recognized by A is called the language recognized by A; it is denoted as L(A). For an equivalence relation ≈ on the set S of A’s states, the quotient automaton A/≈ = ⟨Σ, S/≈, [s0], δ/≈, Sf/≈⟩ is defined by the input alphabet Σ being the same as that of A, the state set S/≈ being the set of all equivalence classes of states from S, the start state [s0] being the equivalence class of A’s start state, the state-transition relation δ/≈ being defined by δ/≈([s],a,[t]) if δ(s,a,t) for some s ∈ [s] and t ∈ [t], and the set of final states Sf/≈ being the set of all equivalence classes of final states from Sf. The process of computing A/≈ is also called factoring A by ≈. == Example == For example, the automaton A shown in the first row of the table is formally defined by ΣA = {0,1}, SA = {a,b,c,d}, sA0 = a, δA = { ⟨a,1,b⟩, ⟨b,0,c⟩, ⟨c,0,d⟩ }, and SAf = { b,c,d }. It recognizes the finite set of strings { 1, 10, 100 }; this set can also be denoted by the regular expression "1+10+100". The relation (≈) = { ⟨a,a⟩, ⟨a,b⟩, ⟨b,a⟩, ⟨b,b⟩, ⟨c,c⟩, ⟨c,d⟩, ⟨d,c⟩, ⟨d,d⟩ }, more briefly denoted as a≈b,c≈d, is an equivalence relation on the set {a,b,c,d} of automaton A’s states. Building the quotient of A by that relation results in automaton C in the third table row; it is formally defined by ΣC = {0,1}, SC = {a,c}, sC0 = a, δC = { ⟨a,1,a⟩, ⟨a,0,c⟩, ⟨c,0,c⟩ }, and SCf = { a,c }. It recognizes the finite set of all strings composed of arbitrarily many 1s, followed by arbitrarily many 0s, i.e. { ε, 1, 10, 100, 1000, ..., 11, 110, 1100, 11000, ..., 111, ... }; this set can also be denoted by the regular expression "10". Informally, C can be thought of resulting from A by glueing state a onto state b, and glueing state c onto state d. The table shows some more quotient relations, such as B = A/a≈b, and D = C/a≈c. == Properties == For every automaton A and every equivalence relation ≈ on its states set, L(A/≈) is a superset of (or equal to) L(A). Given a finite automaton A over some alphabet Σ, an equivalence relation ≈ can be defined on Σ by x ≈ y if ∀ z ∈ Σ: xz ∈ L(A) ↔ yz ∈ L(A). By the Myhill–Nerode theorem, A/≈ is a deterministic automaton that recognizes the same language as A. As a consequence, the quotient of A by every refinement of ≈ also recognizes the same language as A.

    Read more →