AI App Similar To Grok

AI App Similar To Grok — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  Automatic acquisition of sense-tagged corpora

  The knowledge acquisition bottleneck is perhaps the major impediment to solving the word-sense disambiguation (WSD) problem. Unsupervised learning methods rely on knowledge about word senses, which is barely formulated in dictionaries and lexical databases. Supervised learning methods depend heavily on the existence of manually annotated examples for every word sense, a requisite that can so far be met only for a handful of words for testing purposes, as it is done in the Senseval exercises. == Existing methods == Therefore, one of the most promising trends in WSD research is using the largest corpus ever accessible, the World Wide Web, to acquire lexical information automatically. WSD has been traditionally understood as an intermediate language engineering technology which could improve applications such as information retrieval (IR). In this case, however, the reverse is also true: Web search engines implement simple and robust IR techniques that can be successfully used when mining the Web for information to be employed in WSD. The most direct way of using the Web (and other corpora) to enhance WSD performance is the automatic acquisition of sense-tagged corpora, the fundamental resource to feed supervised WSD algorithms. Although this is far from being commonplace in the WSD literature, a number of different and effective strategies to achieve this goal have already been proposed. Some of these strategies are: acquisition by direct Web searching (searches for monosemous synonyms, hypernyms, hyponyms, parsed gloss' words, etc.), Yarowsky algorithm (bootstrapping), acquisition via Web directories, and acquisition via cross-language meaning evidences. == Summary == === Optimistic results === The automatic extraction of examples to train supervised learning algorithms reviewed has been, by far, the best explored approach to mine the web for word-sense disambiguation. Some results are certainly encouraging: In some experiments, the quality of the Web data for WSD equals that of human-tagged examples. This is the case of the monosemous relatives plus bootstrapping with Semcor seeds technique and the examples taken from the ODP Web directories. In the first case, however, Semcor-size example seeds are necessary (and only available for English), and it has only been tested with a very limited set of nouns; in the second case, the coverage is quite limited, and it is not yet clear whether it can be grown without compromising the quality of the examples retrieved. It has been shown that a mainstream supervised learning technique trained exclusively with web data can obtain better results than all unsupervised WSD systems which participated at Senseval-2. Web examples made a significant contribution to the best Senseval-2 English all-words system. === Difficulties === There are, however, several open research issues related to the use of Web examples in WSD: High precision in the retrieved examples (i.e., correct sense assignments for the examples) does not necessarily lead to good supervised WSD results (i.e., the examples are possibly not useful for training). The most complete evaluation of Web examples for supervised WSD indicates that learning with Web data improves over unsupervised techniques, but the results are nevertheless far from those obtained with hand-tagged data, and do not even beat the most-frequent-sense baseline. Results are not always reproducible; the same or similar techniques may lead to different results in different experiments. Compare, for instance, Mihalcea (2002) with Agirre and Martínez (2004), or Agirre and Martínez (2000) with Mihalcea and Moldovan (1999). Results with Web data seem to be very sensitive to small differences in the learning algorithm, to when the corpus was extracted (search engines change continuously), and on small heuristic issues (e.g., differences in filters to discard part of the retrieved examples). Results are strongly dependent on bias (i.e., on the relative frequencies of examples per word sense). It is unclear whether this is simply a problem of Web data, or an intrinsic problem of supervised learning techniques, or just a problem of how WSD systems are evaluated (indeed, testing with rather small Senseval data may overemphasize sense distributions compared to sense distributions obtained from the full Web as corpus). In any case, Web data has an intrinsic bias, because queries to search engines directly constrain the context of the examples retrieved. There are approaches that alleviate this problem, such as using several different seeds/queries per sense or assigning senses to Web directories and then scanning directories for examples; but this problem is nevertheless far from being solved. Once a Web corpus of examples is built, it is not entirely clear whether its distribution is safe from a legal perspective. === Future === Besides automatic acquisition of examples from the Web, there are some other WSD experiments that have profited from the Web: The Web as a social network has been successfully used for cooperative annotation of a corpus (OMWE, Open Mind Word Expert project), which has already been used in three Senseval-3 tasks (English, Romanian and Multilingual). The Web has been used to enrich WordNet senses with domain information: topic signatures and Web directories, which have in turn been successfully used for WSD. Also, some research benefited from the semantic information that the Wikipedia maintains on its disambiguation pages. It is clear, however, that most research opportunities remain largely unexplored. For instance, little is known about how to use lexical information extracted from the Web in knowledge-based WSD systems; and it is also hard to find systems that use Web-mined parallel corpora for WSD, even though there are already efficient algorithms that use parallel corpora in WSD.

  Read more →
• 

  History of machine translation

  Machine translation is a sub-field of computational linguistics that investigates the use of software to translate text or speech from one natural language to another. In the 1950s, machine translation became a reality in research, although references to the subject can be found as early as the 17th century. The Georgetown experiment, which involved successful fully automatic translation of more than sixty Russian sentences into English in 1954, was one of the earliest recorded projects. Researchers of the Georgetown experiment asserted their belief that machine translation would be a solved problem within a few years. In the Soviet Union, similar experiments were performed shortly after. Consequently, the success of the experiment ushered in an era of significant funding for machine translation research in the United States. The achieved progress was much slower than expected; in 1966, the ALPAC report found that ten years of research had not fulfilled the expectations of the Georgetown experiment and resulted in dramatically reduced funding. Interest grew in statistical models for machine translation, which became more common and also less expensive in the 1980s as available computational power increased. Although there exists no autonomous system of "fully automatic high quality translation of unrestricted text," there are many programs now available that are capable of providing useful output within strict constraints. Several of these programs are available online, such as Google Translate and the SYSTRAN system that powers AltaVista's BabelFish (which was replaced by Microsoft Bing translator in May 2012). == The beginning == The origins of machine translation can be traced back to the work of Al-Kindi, a 9th-century Arabic cryptographer who developed techniques for systemic language translation, including cryptanalysis, frequency analysis, and probability and statistics, which are used in modern machine translation. The idea of machine translation later appeared in the 17th century. In 1629, René Descartes proposed a universal language, with equivalent ideas in different tongues sharing one symbol. In the mid-1930s the first patents for "translating machines" were applied for by Georges Artsrouni, for an automatic bilingual dictionary using punched tape. Russian Peter Troyanskii submitted a more detailed proposal that included both the bilingual dictionary and a method for dealing with grammatical roles between languages, based on the grammatical system of Esperanto. This system was separated into three stages: stage one consisted of a native-speaking editor in the source language to organize the words into their logical forms and to exercise the syntactic functions; stage two required the machine to "translate" these forms into the target language; and stage three required a native-speaking editor in the target language to normalize this output. Troyanskii's proposal remained unknown until the late 1950s, by which time computers were well-known and utilized. == The early years == The first set of proposals for computer based machine translation was presented in 1949 by Warren Weaver, a researcher at the Rockefeller Foundation, "Translation memorandum". These proposals were based on information theory, successes in code breaking during the Second World War, and theories about the universal principles underlying natural language. A few years after Weaver submitted his proposals, research began in earnest at many universities in the United States. On 7 January 1954 the Georgetown–IBM experiment was held in New York at the head office of IBM. This was the first public demonstration of a machine translation system. The demonstration was widely reported in the newspapers and garnered public interest. The system itself, however, was no more than a "toy" system. It had only 250 words and translated 49 carefully selected Russian sentences into English – mainly in the field of chemistry. Nevertheless, it encouraged the idea that machine translation was imminent and stimulated the financing of the research, not only in the US but worldwide. Early systems used large bilingual dictionaries and hand-coded rules for fixing the word order in the final output which was eventually considered too restrictive in linguistic developments at the time. For example, generative linguistics and transformational grammar were exploited to improve the quality of translations. During this period operational systems were installed. The United States Air Force used a system produced by IBM and Washington University in St. Louis, while the Atomic Energy Commission and Euratom, in Italy, used a system developed at Georgetown University. While the quality of the output was poor it met many of the customers' needs, particularly in terms of speed. At the end of the 1950s, Yehoshua Bar-Hillel was asked by the US government to look into machine translation, to assess the possibility of fully automatic high-quality translation by machines. Bar-Hillel described the problem of semantic ambiguity or double-meaning, as illustrated in the following sentence: Little John was looking for his toy box. Finally he found it. The box was in the pen. The word pen may have two meanings: the first meaning, something used to write in ink with; the second meaning, a container of some kind. To a human, the meaning is obvious, but Bar-Hillel claimed that without a "universal encyclopedia" a machine would never be able to deal with this problem. At the time, this type of semantic ambiguity could only be solved by writing source texts for machine translation in a controlled language that uses a vocabulary in which each word has exactly one meaning. == The 1960s, the ALPAC report and the seventies == Research in the 1960s in both the Soviet Union and the United States concentrated mainly on the Russian–English language pair. The objects of translation were chiefly scientific and technical documents, such as articles from scientific journals. The rough translations produced were sufficient to get a basic understanding of the articles. If an article discussed a subject deemed to be confidential, it was sent to a human translator for a complete translation; if not, it was discarded. A great blow came to machine-translation research in 1966 with the publication of the ALPAC report. The report was commissioned by the US government and delivered by ALPAC, the Automatic Language Processing Advisory Committee, a group of seven scientists convened by the US government in 1964. The US government was concerned that there was a lack of progress being made despite significant expenditure. The report concluded that machine translation was more expensive, less accurate and slower than human translation, and that despite the expenditures, machine translation was not likely to reach the quality of a human translator in the near future. The report recommended, however, that tools be developed to aid translators – automatic dictionaries, for example – and that some research in computational linguistics should continue to be supported. The publication of the report had a profound impact on research into machine translation in the United States, and to a lesser extent the Soviet Union and United Kingdom. Research, at least in the US, was almost completely abandoned for over a decade. In Canada, France and Germany, however, research continued. In the US the main exceptions were the founders of SYSTRAN (Peter Toma) and Logos (Bernard Scott), who established their companies in 1968 and 1970 respectively and served the US Department of Defense. In 1970, the SYSTRAN system was installed for the United States Air Force, and subsequently by the Commission of the European Communities in 1976. The METEO System, developed at the Université de Montréal, was installed in Canada in 1977 to translate weather forecasts from English to French, and was translating close to 80,000 words per day or 30 million words per year until it was replaced by a competitor's system on 30 September 2001. While research in the 1960s concentrated on limited language pairs and input, demand in the 1970s was for low-cost systems that could translate a range of technical and commercial documents. This demand was spurred by the increase of globalisation and the demand for translation in Canada, Europe, and Japan. == The 1980s and early 1990s == By the 1980s, both the diversity and the number of installed systems for machine translation had increased. A number of systems relying on mainframe technology were in use, such as SYSTRAN, Logos, Ariane-G5, and Metal. As a result of the improved availability of microcomputers, there was a market for lower-end machine translation systems. Many companies took advantage of this in Europe, Japan, and the USA. Systems were also brought onto the market in China, Eastern Europe, Korea, and the Soviet Union. During the 1980s there was a lot of activity in MT in Japan especially. With the fifth-generation co

  Read more →
• 

  Question answering

  Question answering (QA) is a computer science discipline within the fields of information retrieval and natural language processing (NLP) that is concerned with building systems that automatically answer questions that are posed by humans in a natural language. A question-answering implementation, usually a computer program, may construct its answers by querying a structured database of knowledge or information, usually a knowledge base. More commonly, question-answering systems can pull answers from an unstructured collection of natural language documents. Some examples of natural language document collections used for question answering systems include reference texts, compiled newswire reports, Wikipedia pages and other World Wide Web pages. == History == Two early question answering systems were BASEBALL and LUNAR. BASEBALL answered questions about Major League Baseball over a period of one year. LUNAR answered questions about the geological analysis of rocks returned by the Apollo Moon missions. Both question answering systems were very effective in their chosen domains. LUNAR was demonstrated at a lunar science convention in 1971 and it was able to answer 90% of the questions in its domain that were posed by people untrained on the system. Further restricted-domain question answering systems were developed in the following years. The common feature of all these systems is that they had a core database or knowledge system that was hand-written by experts of the chosen domain. The language abilities of BASEBALL and LUNAR used techniques similar to ELIZA and DOCTOR, the first chatterbot programs. SHRDLU was a successful question-answering program developed by Terry Winograd in the late 1960s and early 1970s. It simulated the operation of a robot in a toy world (the "blocks world"), and it offered the possibility of asking the robot questions about the state of the world. The strength of this system was the choice of a very specific domain and a very simple world with rules of physics that were easy to encode in a computer program. In the 1970s, knowledge bases were developed that targeted narrower domains of knowledge. The question answering systems developed to interface with these expert systems produced more repeatable and valid responses to questions within an area of knowledge. These expert systems closely resembled modern question answering systems except in their internal architecture. Expert systems rely heavily on expert-constructed and organized knowledge bases, whereas many modern question answering systems rely on statistical processing of a large, unstructured, natural language text corpus. The 1970s and 1980s saw the development of comprehensive theories in computational linguistics, which led to the development of ambitious projects in text comprehension and question answering. One example was the Unix Consultant (UC), developed by Robert Wilensky at U.C. Berkeley in the late 1980s. The system answered questions pertaining to the Unix operating system. It had a comprehensive, hand-crafted knowledge base of its domain, and it aimed at phrasing the answer to accommodate various types of users. Another project was LILOG, a text-understanding system that operated on the domain of tourism information in a German city. The systems developed in the UC and LILOG projects never went past the stage of simple demonstrations, but they helped the development of theories on computational linguistics and reasoning. Specialized natural-language question answering systems have been developed, such as EAGLi for health and life scientists. Question answering systems have been extended in recent years to encompass additional domains of knowledge For example, systems have been developed to automatically answer temporal and geospatial questions, questions of definition and terminology, biographical questions, multilingual questions, and questions about the content of audio, images, and video. Current question answering research topics include: interactivity—clarification of questions or answers answer reuse or caching semantic parsing answer presentation knowledge representation and semantic entailment social media analysis with question answering systems sentiment analysis utilization of thematic roles Image captioning for visual question answering Embodied question answering In 2011, Watson, a question answering computer system developed by IBM, competed in two exhibition matches of Jeopardy! against Brad Rutter and Ken Jennings, winning by a significant margin. Facebook Research made their DrQA system available under an open source license. This system uses Wikipedia as knowledge source. The open source framework Haystack by deepset combines open-domain question answering with generative question answering and supports the domain adaptation of the underlying language models for industry use cases. Large Language Models (LLMs)[36] like GPT-4[37], Gemini[38] are examples of successful QA systems that are enabling more sophisticated understanding and generation of text. When coupled with Multimodal[39] QA Systems, which can process and understand information from various modalities like text, images, and audio, LLMs significantly improve the capabilities of QA systems. == Types == Question-answering research attempts to develop ways of answering a wide range of question types, including fact, list, definition, how, why, hypothetical, semantically constrained, and cross-lingual questions. Answering questions related to an article in order to evaluate reading comprehension is one of the simpler form of question answering, since a given article is relatively short compared to the domains of other types of question-answering problems. An example of such a question is "What did Albert Einstein win the Nobel Prize for?" after an article about this subject is given to the system. Closed-book question answering is when a system has memorized some facts during training and can answer questions without explicitly being given a context. This is similar to humans taking closed-book exams. Closed-domain question answering deals with questions under a specific domain (for example, medicine or automotive maintenance) and can exploit domain-specific knowledge frequently formalized in ontologies. Alternatively, "closed-domain" might refer to a situation where only a limited type of questions are accepted, such as questions asking for descriptive rather than procedural information. Question answering systems in the context of machine reading applications have also been constructed in the medical domain, for instance related to Alzheimer's disease. Open-domain question answering deals with questions about nearly anything and can only rely on general ontologies and world knowledge. Systems designed for open-domain question answering usually have much more data available from which to extract the answer. An example of an open-domain question is "What did Albert Einstein win the Nobel Prize for?" while no article about this subject is given to the system. Another way to categorize question-answering systems is by the technical approach used. There are a number of different types of QA systems, including: rule-based systems, statistical systems, and hybrid systems. Rule-based systems use a set of rules to determine the correct answer to a question. Statistical systems use statistical methods to find the most likely answer to a question. Hybrid systems use a combination of rule-based and statistical methods. == Architecture == As of 2001, question-answering systems typically included a question classifier module that determined the type of question and the type of answer. Different types of question-answering systems employ different architectures. For example, modern open-domain question answering systems may use a retriever-reader architecture. The retriever is aimed at retrieving relevant documents related to a given question, while the reader is used to infer the answer from the retrieved documents. Systems such as GPT-3, T5, and BART use an end-to-end architecture in which a transformer-based architecture stores large-scale textual data in the underlying parameters. Such models can answer questions without accessing any external knowledge sources. == Methods == Question answering is dependent on a good search corpus; without documents containing the answer, there is little any question answering system can do. Larger collections generally mean better question answering performance, unless the question domain is orthogonal to the collection. Data redundancy in massive collections, such as the web, means that nuggets of information are likely to be phrased in many different ways in differing contexts and documents, leading to two benefits: If the right information appears in many forms, the question answering system needs to perform fewer complex NLP techniques to understand the text. Correct answers can be filtered from false positives because the syst

  Read more →
• 

  Contract management software

  Contract management software constitutes software and associated data management used to support contract management, contract lifecycle management, and contractor management on projects in the procurement of goods and services. It may be used together with project management software. == History == Historically, contract management was seen as a "paper-intensive" process. Early steps from the early 2000's reported by the Aberdeen Group required extensive data conversion work to enable documents to be handled electronically. With the adoption of the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in 2016, companies needed to take additional steps in regards to contract management. Each data responsible entity was obliged to sign data processing agreements (DPAs) with the various vendors, who treat personal data on behalf of the data responsible. DPAs need to be regularly controlled, adjusted and renewed, which adds an extra agreement to such vendors or at least an extra DPA addendum to each agreement. By 2018, Ardent Partner's research had found that software used for automating contract management activities was being more extensively used among major companies or businesses with "Best-in-Class" procurement teams. Contract management process automation was found to be closely linked with more effective internal business collaboration, standardization and risk management. == Advantages and key functions == Using contract management software can have multiple benefits compared to manually managing paper contracts. This software can help keep track of multiple activities and can have features for automating administration, ensuring compliance, monitoring risk, running reports and triggering alerts. In addition to these types of features, contract management software systems provide a centralized repository for employees to quickly access all contracts worldwide in one place. Contract management software is produced by many companies, working on a range of scales and offering varying degrees of customizability. Basic functions should include the ability to store contract documents, track changes to contract documents, search documents for a particular criterion, send key date alerts and to report required aspects of the contract. Other functions include managing a new contract request, capturing related data, following a document through a review and approval process, and collecting digital signatures. Contract management software may also be an aid to project portfolio management and spend analysis, and may also monitor KPIs. Leading contract management software provides contract visibility, monitoring, and compliance to automate and streamline the contract lifecycle process. Contract management software which uses artificial intelligence (AI) can identify contract types based on pattern recognition. AI contracting software trains its algorithms on a set of contract data to recognize patterns and extract variables such as clauses, dates, and parties. It also offers simple prediction capabilities, by sorting through a large volume of contracts and flagging individual contracts based on specified criteria. AI software can also read contracts in multiple formats and languages, extract contract data, and provide analytics. It can reduce the risk of human error in contract drafting and review. A centralized repository provides a critical advantage allowing for all contract documents to be stored within one location. Having contracts stored in multiple locations can delay and interrupt the contracting process. == Contract risk management software (CRMS) for capital projects == Very large enterprises, such as capital expenditure (capex) projects, involve multiple parties and high risk and uncertainty. They are unlike traditional operating contracts in that they are subject to shared deadlines in unique situations. As the complexity of these unique projects increases, the relationships between parties become more important. This requires contract management software, or contract risk management software (CRMS), to become more dynamic and responsive. The terms of these capex contracts necessarily involve assumptions at the start of the process and are likely to change over the lifetime of the project lifecycle. For this reason, CRMS must be capable of recording one single instance of agreed changes to contract terms and incorporating these changes in an auditable and legally robust way. With multiple decision makers involved, CRMS should also make accountability more transparent and enable faster decisions about variation proposals.

  Read more →
• 

  Meta-learning (computer science)

  Meta-learning is a subfield of machine learning where automatic learning algorithms are applied to metadata about machine learning experiments. As of 2017, the term had not found a standard interpretation, however the main goal is to use such metadata to understand how automatic learning can become flexible in solving learning problems, hence to improve the performance of existing learning algorithms or to learn (induce) the learning algorithm itself, hence the alternative term learning to learn. Flexibility is important because each learning algorithm is based on a set of assumptions about the data, its inductive bias. This means that it will only learn well if the bias matches the learning problem. A learning algorithm may perform very well in one domain, but not on the next. This poses strong restrictions on the use of machine learning or data mining techniques, since the relationship between the learning problem (often some kind of database) and the effectiveness of different learning algorithms is not yet understood. By using different kinds of metadata, like properties of the learning problem, algorithm properties (like performance measures), or patterns previously derived from the data, it is possible to learn, select, alter or combine different learning algorithms to effectively solve a given learning problem. Critiques of meta-learning approaches bear a strong resemblance to the critique of metaheuristic, a possibly related problem. A good analogy to meta-learning, and the inspiration for Jürgen Schmidhuber's early work (1987) and Yoshua Bengio et al.'s work (1991), considers that genetic evolution learns the learning procedure encoded in genes and executed in each individual's brain. In an open-ended hierarchical meta-learning system using genetic programming, better evolutionary methods can be learned by meta evolution, which itself can be improved by meta meta evolution, etc. == Definition == A proposed definition for a meta-learning system combines three requirements: The system must include a learning subsystem. Experience is gained by exploiting meta knowledge extracted in a previous learning episode on a single dataset, or from different domains. Learning bias must be chosen dynamically. Bias refers to the assumptions that influence the choice of explanatory hypotheses and not the notion of bias represented in the bias-variance dilemma. Meta-learning is concerned with two aspects of learning bias. Declarative bias specifies the representation of the space of hypotheses, and affects the size of the search space (e.g., represent hypotheses using linear functions only). Procedural bias imposes constraints on the ordering of the inductive hypotheses (e.g., preferring smaller hypotheses). == Common approaches == There are three common approaches: using (cyclic) networks with external or internal memory (model-based) learning effective distance metrics (metrics-based) explicitly optimizing model parameters for fast learning (optimization-based). === Model-Based === Model-based meta-learning models updates its parameters rapidly with a few training steps, which can be achieved by its internal architecture or controlled by another meta-learner model. ==== Memory-Augmented Neural Networks ==== A Memory-Augmented Neural Network, or MANN for short, is claimed to be able to encode new information quickly and thus to adapt to new tasks after only a few examples. ==== Meta Networks ==== Meta Networks (MetaNet) learns a meta-level knowledge across tasks and shifts its inductive biases via fast parameterization for rapid generalization. === Metric-Based === The core idea in metric-based meta-learning is similar to nearest neighbors algorithms, which weight is generated by a kernel function. It aims to learn a metric or distance function over objects. The notion of a good metric is problem-dependent. It should represent the relationship between inputs in the task space and facilitate problem solving. ==== Convolutional Siamese Neural Network ==== Siamese neural network is composed of two twin networks whose output is jointly trained. There is a function above to learn the relationship between input data sample pairs. The two networks are the same, sharing the same weight and network parameters. ==== Matching Networks ==== Matching Networks learn a network that maps a small labelled support set and an unlabelled example to its label, obviating the need for fine-tuning to adapt to new class types. ==== Relation Network ==== The Relation Network (RN), is trained end-to-end from scratch. During meta-learning, it learns to learn a deep distance metric to compare a small number of images within episodes, each of which is designed to simulate the few-shot setting. ==== Prototypical Networks ==== Prototypical Networks learn a metric space in which classification can be performed by computing distances to prototype representations of each class. Compared to recent approaches for few-shot learning, they reflect a simpler inductive bias that is beneficial in this limited-data regime, and achieve satisfied results. === Optimization-Based === What optimization-based meta-learning algorithms intend for is to adjust the optimization algorithm so that the model can be good at learning with a few examples. ==== LSTM Meta-Learner ==== LSTM-based meta-learner is to learn the exact optimization algorithm used to train another learner neural network classifier in the few-shot regime. The parametrization allows it to learn appropriate parameter updates specifically for the scenario where a set amount of updates will be made, while also learning a general initialization of the learner (classifier) network that allows for quick convergence of training. ==== Temporal Discreteness ==== Model-Agnostic Meta-Learning (MAML) is a fairly general optimization algorithm, compatible with any model that learns through gradient descent. ==== Reptile ==== Reptile is a remarkably simple meta-learning optimization algorithm, given that both of its components rely on meta-optimization through gradient descent and both are model-agnostic. == Examples == Some approaches which have been viewed as instances of meta-learning: Recurrent neural networks (RNNs) are universal computers. In 1993, Jürgen Schmidhuber showed how "self-referential" RNNs can in principle learn by backpropagation to run their own weight change algorithm, which may be quite different from backpropagation. In 2001, Sepp Hochreiter & A.S. Younger & P.R. Conwell built a successful supervised meta-learner based on Long short-term memory RNNs. It learned through backpropagation a learning algorithm for quadratic functions that is much faster than backpropagation. Researchers at Deepmind (Marcin Andrychowicz et al.) extended this approach to optimization in 2017. In the 1990s, Meta Reinforcement Learning or Meta RL was achieved in Schmidhuber's research group through self-modifying policies written in a universal programming language that contains special instructions for changing the policy itself. There is a single lifelong trial. The goal of the RL agent is to maximize reward. It learns to accelerate reward intake by continually improving its own learning algorithm which is part of the "self-referential" policy. An extreme type of Meta Reinforcement Learning is embodied by the Gödel machine, a theoretical construct which can inspect and modify any part of its own software which also contains a general theorem prover. It can achieve recursive self-improvement in a provably optimal way. Model-Agnostic Meta-Learning (MAML) was introduced in 2017 by Chelsea Finn et al. Given a sequence of tasks, the parameters of a given model are trained such that few iterations of gradient descent with few training data from a new task will lead to good generalization performance on that task. MAML "trains the model to be easy to fine-tune." MAML was successfully applied to few-shot image classification benchmarks and to policy-gradient-based reinforcement learning. Variational Bayes-Adaptive Deep RL (VariBAD) was introduced in 2019. While MAML is optimization-based, VariBAD is a model-based method for meta reinforcement learning, and leverages a variational autoencoder to capture the task information in an internal memory, thus conditioning its decision making on the task. When addressing a set of tasks, most meta learning approaches optimize the average score across all tasks. Hence, certain tasks may be sacrificed in favor of the average score, which is often unacceptable in real-world applications. By contrast, Robust Meta Reinforcement Learning (RoML) focuses on improving low-score tasks, increasing robustness to the selection of task. RoML works as a meta-algorithm, as it can be applied on top of other meta learning algorithms (such as MAML and VariBAD) to increase their robustness. It is applicable to both supervised meta learning and meta reinforcement learning. Discovering meta-knowledge works by inducing knowledge

  Read more →
• 

  Convolutional layer

  In artificial neural networks, a convolutional layer is a type of network layer that applies a convolution operation to the input. Convolutional layers are some of the primary building blocks of convolutional neural networks (CNNs), a class of neural network most commonly applied to images, video, audio, and other data that have the property of uniform translational symmetry. The convolution operation in a convolutional layer involves sliding a small window (called a kernel or filter) across the input data and computing the dot product between the values in the kernel and the input at each position. This process creates a feature map that represents detected features in the input. == Concepts == === Kernel === Kernels, also known as filters, are small matrices of weights that are learned during the training process. Each kernel is responsible for detecting a specific feature in the input data. The size of the kernel is a hyperparameter that affects the network's behavior. === Convolution === For a 2D input x {\displaystyle x} and a 2D kernel w {\displaystyle w} , the 2D convolution operation can be expressed as: y [ i , j ] = ∑ m = 0 k h − 1 ∑ n = 0 k w − 1 x [ i + m , j + n ] ⋅ w [ m , n ] {\displaystyle y[i,j]=\sum _{m=0}^{k_{h}-1}\sum _{n=0}^{k_{w}-1}x[i+m,j+n]\cdot w[m,n]} where k h {\displaystyle k_{h}} and k w {\displaystyle k_{w}} are the height and width of the kernel, respectively. This generalizes immediately to nD convolutions. Commonly used convolutions are 1D (for audio and text), 2D (for images), and 3D (for spatial objects, and videos). === Stride === Stride determines how the kernel moves across the input data. A stride of 1 means the kernel shifts by one pixel at a time, while a larger stride (e.g., 2 or 3) results in less overlap between convolutions and produces smaller output feature maps. === Padding === Padding involves adding extra pixels around the edges of the input data. It serves two main purposes: Preserving spatial dimensions: Without padding, each convolution reduces the size of the feature map. Handling border pixels: Padding ensures that border pixels are given equal importance in the convolution process. Common padding strategies include: No padding/valid padding. This strategy typically causes the output to shrink. Same padding: Any method that ensures the output size same as input size is a same padding strategy. Full padding: Any method that ensures each input entry is convolved over for the same number of times is a full padding strategy. Common padding algorithms include: Zero padding: Add zero entries to the borders of input. Mirror/reflect/symmetric padding: Reflect the input array on the border. Circular padding: Cycle the input array back to the opposite border, like a torus. The exact numbers used in convolutions is complicated, for which we refer to (Dumoulin and Visin, 2018) for details. == Variants == === Standard === The basic form of convolution as described above, where each kernel is applied to the entire input volume. === Depthwise separable === Depthwise separable convolution separates the standard convolution into two steps: depthwise convolution and pointwise convolution. The depthwise separable convolution decomposes a single standard convolution into two convolutions: a depthwise convolution that filters each input channel independently and a pointwise convolution ( 1 × 1 {\displaystyle 1\times 1} convolution) that combines the outputs of the depthwise convolution. This factorization significantly reduces computational cost. It was first developed by Laurent Sifre during an internship at Google Brain in 2013 as an architectural variation on AlexNet to improve convergence speed and model size. === Dilated === Dilated convolution, or atrous convolution, introduces gaps between kernel elements, allowing the network to capture a larger receptive field without increasing the kernel size. === Transposed === Transposed convolution, also known as deconvolution, fractionally strided convolution, and upsampling convolution, is a convolution where the output tensor is larger than its input tensor. It's often used in encoder-decoder architectures for upsampling. It's used in image generation, semantic segmentation, and super-resolution tasks. == History == The concept of convolution in neural networks was inspired by the visual cortex in biological brains. Early work by Hubel and Wiesel in the 1960s on the cat's visual system laid the groundwork for artificial convolution networks. An early convolution neural network was developed by Kunihiko Fukushima in 1969. It had mostly hand-designed kernels inspired by convolutions in mammalian vision. In 1979 he improved it to the Neocognitron, which learns all convolutional kernels by unsupervised learning (in his terminology, "self-organized by 'learning without a teacher'"). During the 1988 to 1998 period, a series of CNN were introduced by Yann LeCun et al., ending with LeNet-5 in 1998. It was an early influential CNN architecture for handwritten digit recognition, trained on the MNIST dataset, and was used in ATM. (Olshausen & Field, 1996) discovered that simple cells in the mammalian primary visual cortex implement localized, oriented, bandpass receptive fields, which could be recreated by fitting sparse linear codes for natural scenes. This was later found to also occur in the lowest-level kernels of trained CNNs. The field saw a resurgence in the 2010s with the development of deeper architectures and the availability of large datasets and powerful GPUs. AlexNet, developed by Alex Krizhevsky et al. in 2012, was a catalytic event in modern deep learning. In that year’s ImageNet competition, the AlexNet model achieved a 16% top-five error rate, significantly outperforming the next best entry, which had a 26% error rate. The network used eight trainable layers, approximately 650,000 neurons, and around 60 million parameters, highlighting the impact of deeper architectures and GPU acceleration on image recognition performance. From the 2013 ImageNet competition, most entries adopted deep convolutional neural networks, building on the success of AlexNet. Over the following years, performance steadily improved, with the top-five error rate falling from 16% in 2012 and 12% in 2013 to below 3% by 2017, as networks grew increasingly deep.

  Read more →
• 

  Ernie Bot

  Ernie Bot (Chinese: 文心一言, Pinyin: wénxīn yīyán), full name Enhanced Representation through Knowledge Integration, is an artificial intelligence chatbot developed by the Chinese technology company Baidu. Ernie Bot rivals GPT models in Chinese NLP tasks. It is built on the company's ERNIE series of large language models, which have been in development since 2019. The service was first launched for invited testing on March 16, 2023, and was released to the general public on August 31, 2023, after receiving approval from Chinese regulators. Since its public launch, Ernie Bot has undergone several updates, with newer versions like ERNIE 4.0 and 4.5 released to improve its capabilities. The service has seen rapid user adoption, reportedly reaching over 200 million users by April 2024. It has been integrated into various products, notably powering AI features for the Chinese release of Samsung's Galaxy S24 smartphones. As a product operating in China, Ernie Bot is subject to the country's censorship regulations. It has been observed to refuse answers to politically sensitive questions, such as those regarding CCP general secretary Xi Jinping, the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre, and other topics deemed taboo by the government. == History == Ernie Bot was initially released for invited testing on March 16, 2023. The live release demo was reported to have been prerecorded, which caused Baidu's stock to drop 10 percent on the day of the launch. The company's stock gained 14 percent the following day after analysts from Citigroup and Bank of America tested Ernie Bot and gave it positive preliminary reviews. On August 31, 2023, Ernie Bot was released to the public after receiving approval from Chinese regulatory authorities. By December 2023, Baidu announced the service had surpassed 100 million users. In January 2024, Hong Kong newspaper South China Morning Post reported that a university research lab linked to the People's Liberation Army (PLA) had tested Ernie Bot for military response scenarios. Baidu denied the allegations, stating it had no connection with the academic paper. That same month, Ernie was integrated into Samsung's Galaxy S24 lineup for its launch in China. The user base reportedly grew to 200 million by April 2024 and 300 million by June 2024. In September 2024, Baidu changed the chatbot's Chinese name from "Wenxin Yiyan" (文心一言) to "Wenxiaoyan" (文小言) to position it as a search assistant. On March 16, 2025, Baidu announced version 4.5 and the reasoning model ERNIE X1. The following month, at the Create2025 Baidu AI Developer Conference, the company released the Wenxin 4.5 Turbo and Wenxin X1 Turbo models, designed to be faster and less expensive to operate. == Development == Ernie Bot is based on Baidu's ERNIE (Enhanced Representation through Knowledge Integration) series of foundation models. The general training process begins with pre-training on large datasets, followed by refinement using techniques like supervised fine-tuning, reinforcement learning with human feedback, and prompt engineering. === Foundation models === ==== Ernie 3.0 ==== The model powering the initial launch of Ernie Bot. It was trained with 10 billion parameters on a 4-terabyte corpus consisting of plain text and a large-scale knowledge graph. ==== Ernie 3.5 ==== Released in June 2023. At the time of release, its performance was reported as "slightly inferior" to OpenAI's GPT-4. ==== Ernie 4.0 ==== Unveiled in October 2023 and released to paying subscribers in November. According to Baidu, this version featured improved performance over its predecessor, with information updated to April 2023. ==== Ernie X1 ==== Announced in March 2025, with Ernie X1 positioned as a specialized reasoning model. Baidu stated that performance improvements were achieved through new technologies such as "FlashMask" dynamic attention masking and a heterogeneous multimodal mixture-of-experts architecture. === Turbo Models === In June 2024, Baidu announced Ernie 4.0 Turbo. In April 2025, Ernie 4.5 Turbo and X1 Turbo were released. These models are optimized for faster response times and lower operational costs. == Service == In its subscription options, the professional plan gives users access to Ernie 4.0 with a payment either for a month or with reduced payment for auto-renewal per month. Meanwhile, Ernie 3.5 is free of charge. Ernie 4.0, the language model for Ernie bot, has information updated to April 2023. == Censorship == Ernie Bot is subject to the Chinese government's censorship regime. In public tests with journalists, Ernie Bot refused to answer questions about CCP general secretary Xi Jinping, the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre, the persecution of Uyghurs in China in Xinjiang, and the 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests. When queried about the origin of SARS-CoV-2, Ernie Bot stated that it originated among American vape users.

  Read more →
• 

  Lessac Technologies

  Lessac Technologies, Inc. (LTI) is an American firm which develops voice synthesis software, licenses technology and sells synthesized novels as MP3 files. The firm currently has seven patents granted and three more pending for its automated methods of converting digital text into human-sounding speech, more accurately recognizing human speech and outputting the text representing the words and phrases of said speech, along with recognizing the speaker's emotional state. The LTI technology is partly based on the work of the late Arthur Lessac, a Professor of Theater at the State University of New York and the creator of Lessac Kinesensic Training, and LTI has licensed exclusive rights to exploit Arthur Lessac's copyrighted works in the fields of speech synthesis and speech recognition. Based on the view that music is speech and speech is music, Lessac's work and books focused on body and speech energies and how they go together. Arthur Lessac's textual annotation system, which was originally developed to assist actors, singers, and orators in marking up scripts to prepare for performance, is adapted in LTI's speech synthesis system as the basic representation of the speech to be synthesized (Lessemes), in contrast to many other systems which use a phonetic representation. LTI's software has two major components: (1) a linguistic front-end that converts plain text to a sequence of prosodic and phonosensory graphic symbols (Lessemes) based on Arthur Lessac's annotation system, which specify the speech units to be synthesized; (2) a signal-processing back-end that takes the Lessemes as acoustic data and produces human-sounding synthesized speech as output, using unit selection and concatenation. LTI's text-to-speech system came in second in the world-wide Blizzard Challenge 2011 and 2012. The first-place team in 2011 also employed LTI's "front-end" technology, but with its own back-end. The Blizzard Challenge, conducted by the Language Technologies Institute of Carnegie Mellon University, was devised as a way to evaluate speech synthesis techniques by having different research groups build voices from the same voice-actor recordings, and comparing the results through listening tests. LTI was founded in 2000 by H. Donald Wilson (chairman), a lawyer, LexisNexis entrepreneur and business associate of Arthur Lessac; and Gary A. Marple (chief inventor), after Marple suggested that Arthur Lessac's kinesensic voice training might be applicable to computational linguistics. After Wilson's death in 2006, his nephew John Reichenbach became the firm's CEO.

  Read more →
• 

  Granular computing

  Granular computing is an emerging computing paradigm of information processing that concerns the processing of complex information entities called "information granules", which arise in the process of data abstraction and derivation of knowledge from information or data. Generally speaking, information granules are collections of entities that usually originate at the numeric level and are arranged together due to their similarity, functional or physical adjacency, indistinguishability, coherency, or the like. At present, granular computing is more a theoretical perspective than a coherent set of methods or principles. As a theoretical perspective, it encourages an approach to data that recognizes and exploits the knowledge present in data at various levels of resolution or scales. In this sense, it encompasses all methods which provide flexibility and adaptability in the resolution at which knowledge or information is extracted and represented. == Types of granulation == As mentioned above, granular computing is not an algorithm or process; there is no particular method that is called "granular computing". It is rather an approach to looking at data that recognizes how different and interesting regularities in the data can appear at different levels of granularity, much as different features become salient in satellite images of greater or lesser resolution. On a low-resolution satellite image, for example, one might notice interesting cloud patterns representing cyclones or other large-scale weather phenomena, while in a higher-resolution image, one misses these large-scale atmospheric phenomena but instead notices smaller-scale phenomena, such as the interesting pattern that is the streets of Manhattan. The same is generally true of all data: At different resolutions or granularities, different features and relationships emerge. The aim of granular computing is to try to take advantage of this fact in designing more effective machine-learning and reasoning systems. There are several types of granularity that are often encountered in data mining and machine learning, and we review them below: === Value granulation (discretization/quantization) === One type of granulation is the quantization of variables. It is very common that in data mining or machine-learning applications the resolution of variables needs to be decreased in order to extract meaningful regularities. An example of this would be a variable such as "outside temperature" (temp), which in a given application might be recorded to several decimal places of precision (depending on the sensing apparatus). However, for purposes of extracting relationships between "outside temperature" and, say, "number of health-club applications" (club), it will generally be advantageous to quantize "outside temperature" into a smaller number of intervals. ==== Motivations ==== There are several interrelated reasons for granulating variables in this fashion: Based on prior domain knowledge, there is no expectation that minute variations in temperature (e.g., the difference between 80–80.7 °F (26.7–27.1 °C)) could have an influence on behaviors driving the number of health-club applications. For this reason, any "regularity" which our learning algorithms might detect at this level of resolution would have to be spurious, as an artifact of overfitting. By coarsening the temperature variable into intervals the difference between which we do anticipate (based on prior domain knowledge) might influence number of health-club applications, we eliminate the possibility of detecting these spurious patterns. Thus, in this case, reducing resolution is a method of controlling overfitting. By reducing the number of intervals in the temperature variable (i.e., increasing its grain size), we increase the amount of sample data indexed by each interval designation. Thus, by coarsening the variable, we increase sample sizes and achieve better statistical estimation. In this sense, increasing granularity provides an antidote to the so-called curse of dimensionality, which relates to the exponential decrease in statistical power with increase in number of dimensions or variable cardinality. Independent of prior domain knowledge, it is often the case that meaningful regularities (i.e., which can be detected by a given learning methodology, representational language, etc.) may exist at one level of resolution and not at another. For example, a simple learner or pattern recognition system may seek to extract regularities satisfying a conditional probability threshold such as p ( Y = y j | X = x i ) ≥ α . {\displaystyle p(Y=y_{j}|X=x_{i})\geq \alpha .} In the special case where α = 1 , {\displaystyle \alpha =1,} this recognition system is essentially detecting logical implication of the form X = x i → Y = y j {\displaystyle X=x_{i}\rightarrow Y=y_{j}} or, in words, "if X = x i , {\displaystyle X=x_{i},} then Y = y j {\displaystyle Y=y_{j}} ". The system's ability to recognize such implications (or, in general, conditional probabilities exceeding threshold) is partially contingent on the resolution with which the system analyzes the variables. As an example of this last point, consider the feature space shown to the right. The variables may each be regarded at two different resolutions. Variable X {\displaystyle X} may be regarded at a high (quaternary) resolution wherein it takes on the four values { x 1 , x 2 , x 3 , x 4 } {\displaystyle \{x_{1},x_{2},x_{3},x_{4}\}} or at a lower (binary) resolution wherein it takes on the two values { X 1 , X 2 } . {\displaystyle \{X_{1},X_{2}\}.} Similarly, variable Y {\displaystyle Y} may be regarded at a high (quaternary) resolution or at a lower (binary) resolution, where it takes on the values { y 1 , y 2 , y 3 , y 4 } {\displaystyle \{y_{1},y_{2},y_{3},y_{4}\}} or { Y 1 , Y 2 } , {\displaystyle \{Y_{1},Y_{2}\},} respectively. At the high resolution, there are no detectable implications of the form X = x i → Y = y j , {\displaystyle X=x_{i}\rightarrow Y=y_{j},} since every x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} is associated with more than one y j , {\displaystyle y_{j},} and thus, for all x i , {\displaystyle x_{i},} p ( Y = y j | X = x i ) < 1. {\displaystyle p(Y=y_{j}|X=x_{i})<1.} However, at the low (binary) variable resolution, two bilateral implications become detectable: X = X 1 ↔ Y = Y 1 {\displaystyle X=X_{1}\leftrightarrow Y=Y_{1}} and X = X 2 ↔ Y = Y 2 {\displaystyle X=X_{2}\leftrightarrow Y=Y_{2}} , since every X 1 {\displaystyle X_{1}} occurs iff Y 1 {\displaystyle Y_{1}} and X 2 {\displaystyle X_{2}} occurs iff Y 2 . {\displaystyle Y_{2}.} Thus, a pattern recognition system scanning for implications of this kind would find them at the binary variable resolution, but would fail to find them at the higher quaternary variable resolution. ==== Issues and methods ==== It is not feasible to exhaustively test all possible discretization resolutions on all variables in order to see which combination of resolutions yields interesting or significant results. Instead, the feature space must be preprocessed (often by an entropy analysis of some kind) so that some guidance can be given as to how the discretization process should proceed. Moreover, one cannot generally achieve good results by naively analyzing and discretizing each variable independently, since this may obliterate the very interactions that we had hoped to discover. A sample of papers that address the problem of variable discretization in general, and multiple-variable discretization in particular, is as follows: Chiu, Wong & Cheung (1991), Bay (2001), Liu et al. (2002), Wang & Liu (1998), Zighed, Rabaséda & Rakotomalala (1998), Catlett (1991), Dougherty, Kohavi & Sahami (1995), Monti & Cooper (1999), Fayyad & Irani (1993), Chiu, Cheung & Wong (1990), Nguyen & Nguyen (1998), Grzymala-Busse & Stefanowski (2001), Ting (1994), Ludl & Widmer (2000), Pfahringer (1995), An & Cercone (1999), Chiu & Cheung (1989), Chmielewski & Grzymala-Busse (1996), Lee & Shin (1994), Liu & Wellman (2002), Liu & Wellman (2004). === Variable granulation (clustering/aggregation/transformation) === Variable granulation is a term that could describe a variety of techniques, most of which are aimed at reducing dimensionality, redundancy, and storage requirements. We briefly describe some of the ideas here, and present pointers to the literature. ==== Variable transformation ==== A number of classical methods, such as principal component analysis, multidimensional scaling, factor analysis, and structural equation modeling, and their relatives, fall under the genus of "variable transformation." Also in this category are more modern areas of study such as dimensionality reduction, projection pursuit, and independent component analysis. The common goal of these methods in general is to find a representation of the data in terms of new variables, which are a linear or nonlinear transformation of the original variables, and in which important stati

  Read more →
• 

  Lenny (chatbot)

  Lenny is a chatbot designed to scam bait telemarketers, scammers, and other unwanted incoming calls using messages. == Background == Telemarketers may be perceived by some as annoying and wasting people's time, and some deliberately attempt to scam or defraud people. In April 2018, stats published by YouMail estimated the United States received over three billion robocalls that month. Attempts to block the callers have been hindered by Caller ID spoofing. == Features == The bot was written in 2011, and development taken over by an Alberta-based programmer known as "Mango" two years later. It is driven by sixteen pre-recorded audio clips, spoken in a soft and slow Australian accent in the manner of an elderly man. The bot's original creator stated on Reddit that in building the character he asked himself the question "What would be a telemarketer's worst nightmare?" He answered with this being a lonely old man who is up for a chat, proud of his family and can't focus on the telemarketer's goal. There is no speech recognition or artificial intelligence, and the bot's software is simple and straightforward. The first four clips are played sequentially in order to grab the telemarketer's interest and begin their sales pitch to Lenny, then the remaining twelve are played sequentially on loop until the telemarketer hangs up. The program waits for a gap of 1.5 seconds of silence before playing the next audio clip, to simulate natural breaks in the conversation. The messages are purposefully vague and open-ended so they can be applied to as many conversations as possible. They include references to Lenny's children, the state of the economy, and being interrupted by some ducks outside. According to research into the bot, around 75% of callers realise they are talking to a computer program within two minutes; however, some calls have lasted around an hour. == Distribution == Though other chatbots had been developed earlier, Lenny was the first one to be released for free on a public server and could be accessed by anyone. Recordings of conversations with the bot are widely shared online on websites such as Reddit and YouTube. Though "Mango" only intended Lenny to be used against dishonest telemarketers, such as scammers, he does not mind it being used against callers who are merely annoying. The bot has also been used against political campaigners, such as a supporter of Pierre Poilievre in the 2015 Canadian federal election.

  Read more →
• 

  Gradient vector flow

  Gradient vector flow (GVF), a computer vision framework introduced by Chenyang Xu and Jerry L. Prince, is the vector field that is produced by a process that smooths and diffuses an input vector field. It is usually used to create a vector field from images that points to object edges from a distance. It is widely used in image analysis and computer vision applications for object tracking, shape recognition, segmentation, and edge detection. In particular, it is commonly used in conjunction with active contour model. == Background == Finding objects or homogeneous regions in images is a process known as image segmentation. In many applications, the locations of object edges can be estimated using local operators that yield a new image called an edge map. The edge map can then be used to guide a deformable model, sometimes called an active contour or a snake, so that it passes through the edge map in a smooth way, therefore defining the object itself. A common way to encourage a deformable model to move toward the edge map is to take the spatial gradient of the edge map, yielding a vector field. Since the edge map has its highest intensities directly on the edge and drops to zero away from the edge, these gradient vectors provide directions for the active contour to move. When the gradient vectors are zero, the active contour will not move, and this is the correct behavior when the contour rests on the peak of the edge map itself. However, because the edge itself is defined by local operators, these gradient vectors will also be zero far away from the edge and therefore the active contour will not move toward the edge when initialized far away from the edge. Gradient vector flow (GVF) is the process that spatially extends the edge map gradient vectors, yielding a new vector field that contains information about the location of object edges throughout the entire image domain. GVF is defined as a diffusion process operating on the components of the input vector field. It is designed to balance the fidelity of the original vector field, so it is not changed too much, with a regularization that is intended to produce a smooth field on its output. Although GVF was designed originally for the purpose of segmenting objects using active contours attracted to edges, it has been since adapted and used for many alternative purposes. Some newer purposes including defining a continuous medial axis representation, regularizing image anisotropic diffusion algorithms, finding the centers of ribbon-like objects, constructing graphs for optimal surface segmentations, creating a shape prior, and much more. == Theory == The theory of GVF was originally described by Xu and Prince. Let f ( x , y ) {\displaystyle \textstyle f(x,y)} be an edge map defined on the image domain. For uniformity of results, it is important to restrict the edge map intensities to lie between 0 and 1, and by convention f ( x , y ) {\displaystyle \textstyle f(x,y)} takes on larger values (close to 1) on the object edges. The gradient vector flow (GVF) field is given by the vector field v ( x , y ) = [ u ( x , y ) , v ( x , y ) ] {\displaystyle \textstyle \mathbf {v} (x,y)=[u(x,y),v(x,y)]} that minimizes the energy functional In this equation, subscripts denote partial derivatives and the gradient of the edge map is given by the vector field ∇ f = ( f x , f y ) {\displaystyle \textstyle \nabla f=(f_{x},f_{y})} . Figure 1 shows an edge map, the gradient of the (slightly blurred) edge map, and the GVF field generated by minimizing E {\displaystyle \textstyle {\mathcal {E}}} . Equation 1 is a variational formulation that has both a data term and a regularization term. The first term in the integrand is the data term. It encourages the solution v {\displaystyle \textstyle \mathbf {v} } to closely agree with the gradients of the edge map since that will make v − ∇ f {\displaystyle \textstyle \mathbf {v} -\nabla f} small. However, this only needs to happen when the edge map gradients are large since v − ∇ f {\displaystyle \textstyle \mathbf {v} -\nabla f} is multiplied by the square of the length of these gradients. The second term in the integrand is a regularization term. It encourages the spatial variations in the components of the solution to be small by penalizing the sum of all the partial derivatives of v {\displaystyle \textstyle \mathbf {v} } . As is customary in these types of variational formulations, there is a regularization parameter μ > 0 {\displaystyle \textstyle \mu >0} that must be specified by the user in order to trade off the influence of each of the two terms. If μ {\displaystyle \textstyle \mu } is large, for example, then the resulting field will be very smooth and may not agree as well with the underlying edge gradients. Theoretical Solution. Finding v ( x , y ) {\displaystyle \textstyle \mathbf {v} (x,y)} to minimize Equation 1 requires the use of calculus of variations since v ( x , y ) {\displaystyle \textstyle \mathbf {v} (x,y)} is a function, not a variable. Accordingly, the Euler equations, which provide the necessary conditions for v {\displaystyle \textstyle \mathbf {v} } to be a solution can be found by calculus of variations, yielding where ∇ 2 {\displaystyle \textstyle \nabla ^{2}} is the Laplacian operator. It is instructive to examine the form of the equations in (2). Each is a partial differential equation that the components u {\displaystyle u} and v {\displaystyle v} of v {\displaystyle \mathbf {v} } must satisfy. If the magnitude of the edge gradient is small, then the solution of each equation is guided entirely by Laplace's equation, for example ∇ 2 u = 0 {\displaystyle \textstyle \nabla ^{2}u=0} , which will produce a smooth scalar field entirely dependent on its boundary conditions. The boundary conditions are effectively provided by the locations in the image where the magnitude of the edge gradient is large, where the solution is driven to agree more with the edge gradients. Computational Solutions. There are two fundamental ways to compute GVF. First, the energy function E {\displaystyle {\mathcal {E}}} itself (1) can be directly discretized and minimized, for example, by gradient descent. Second, the partial differential equations in (2) can be discretized and solved iteratively. The original GVF paper used an iterative approach, while later papers introduced considerably faster implementations such as an octree-based method, a multi-grid method, and an augmented Lagrangian method. In addition, very fast GPU implementations have been developed in Extensions and Advances. GVF is easily extended to higher dimensions. The energy function is readily written in a vector form as which can be solved by gradient descent or by finding and solving its Euler equation. Figure 2 shows an illustration of a three-dimensional GVF field on the edge map of a simple object (see ). The data and regularization terms in the integrand of the GVF functional can also be modified. A modification described in , called generalized gradient vector flow (GGVF) defines two scalar functions and reformulates the energy as While the choices g ( ∇ f | ) = μ {\displaystyle \textstyle g(\nabla f|)=\mu } and h ( | ∇ f | ) = | ∇ f | 2 {\displaystyle \textstyle h(|\nabla f|)=|\nabla f|^{2}} reduce GGVF to GVF, the alternative choices g ( | ∇ f | ) = exp ⁡ { − | ∇ f | / K } {\displaystyle \textstyle g(|\nabla f|)=\exp\{-|\nabla f|/K\}} and h ( ∇ f | ) = 1 − g ( | ∇ f | ) {\displaystyle \textstyle h(\nabla f|)=1-g(|\nabla f|)} , for K {\displaystyle K} a user-selected constant, can improve the tradeoff between the data term and its regularization in some applications. The GVF formulation has been further extended to vector-valued images in where a weighted structure tensor of a vector-valued image is used. A learning based probabilistic weighted GVF extension was proposed in to further improve the segmentation for images with severely cluttered textures or high levels of noise. The variational formulation of GVF has also been modified in motion GVF (MGVF) to incorporate object motion in an image sequence. Whereas the diffusion of GVF vectors from a conventional edge map acts in an isotropic manner, the formulation of MGVF incorporates the expected object motion between image frames. An alternative to GVF called vector field convolution (VFC) provides many of the advantages of GVF, has superior noise robustness, and can be computed very fast. The VFC field v V F C {\displaystyle \textstyle \mathbf {v} _{\mathrm {VFC} }} is defined as the convolution of the edge map f {\displaystyle f} with a vector field kernel k {\displaystyle \mathbf {k} } where The vector field kernel k {\displaystyle \textstyle \mathbf {k} } has vectors that always point toward the origin but their magnitudes, determined in detail by the function m {\displaystyle m} , decrease to zero with increasing distance from the origin. The beauty of VFC is that it can be computed very rapidly using a fast Fourier tra

  Read more →
• 

  Ontology learning

  Ontology learning (ontology extraction, ontology augmentation generation, ontology generation, or ontology acquisition) is the automatic or semi-automatic creation of ontologies, including extracting the corresponding domain's terms and the relationships between the concepts that these terms represent from a corpus of natural language text, and encoding them with an ontology language for easy retrieval. As building ontologies manually is extremely labor-intensive and time-consuming, there is great motivation to automate the process. Typically, the process starts by extracting terms and concepts or noun phrases from plain text using linguistic processors such as part-of-speech tagging and phrase chunking. Then statistical or symbolic techniques are used to extract relation signatures, often based on pattern-based or definition-based hypernym extraction techniques. == Procedure == Ontology learning (OL) is used to (semi-)automatically extract whole ontologies from natural language text. The process is usually split into the following eight tasks, which are not all necessarily applied in every ontology learning system. === Domain terminology extraction === During the domain terminology extraction step, domain-specific terms are extracted, which are used in the following step (concept discovery) to derive concepts. Relevant terms can be determined, e.g., by calculation of the TF/IDF values or by application of the C-value / NC-value method. The resulting list of terms has to be filtered by a domain expert. In the subsequent step, similarly to coreference resolution in information extraction, the OL system determines synonyms, because they share the same meaning and therefore correspond to the same concept. The most common methods therefore are clustering and the application of statistical similarity measures. === Concept discovery === In the concept discovery step, terms are grouped to meaning bearing units, which correspond to an abstraction of the world and therefore to concepts. The grouped terms are these domain-specific terms and their synonyms, which were identified in the domain terminology extraction step. === Concept hierarchy derivation === In the concept hierarchy derivation step, the OL system tries to arrange the extracted concepts in a taxonomic structure. This is mostly achieved with unsupervised hierarchical clustering methods. Because the result of such methods is often noisy, a supervision step, e.g., user evaluation, is added. A further method for the derivation of a concept hierarchy exists in the usage of several patterns that should indicate a sub- or supersumption relationship. Patterns like “X, that is a Y” or “X is a Y” indicate that X is a subclass of Y. Such pattern can be analyzed efficiently, but they often occur too infrequently to extract enough sub- or supersumption relationships. Instead, bootstrapping methods are developed, which learn these patterns automatically and therefore ensure broader coverage. === Learning of non-taxonomic relations === In the learning of non-taxonomic relations step, relationships are extracted that do not express any sub- or supersumption. Such relationships are, e.g., works-for or located-in. There are two common approaches to solve this subtask. The first is based upon the extraction of anonymous associations, which are named appropriately in a second step. The second approach extracts verbs, which indicate a relationship between entities, represented by the surrounding words. The result of both approaches need to be evaluated by an ontologist to ensure accuracy. === Rule discovery === During rule discovery, axioms (formal description of concepts) are generated for the extracted concepts. This can be achieved, e.g., by analyzing the syntactic structure of a natural language definition and the application of transformation rules on the resulting dependency tree. The result of this process is a list of axioms, which, afterwards, is comprehended to a concept description. This output is then evaluated by an ontologist. === Ontology population === At this step, the ontology is augmented with instances of concepts and properties. For the augmentation with instances of concepts, methods based on the matching of lexico-syntactic patterns are used. Instances of properties are added through the application of bootstrapping methods, which collect relation tuples. === Concept hierarchy extension === In this step, the OL system tries to extend the taxonomic structure of an existing ontology with further concepts. This can be performed in a supervised manner with a trained classifier or in an unsupervised manner via the application of similarity measures. === Frame and Event detection === During frame/event detection, the OL system tries to extract complex relationships from text, e.g., who departed from where to what place and when. Approaches range from applying SVM with kernel methods to semantic role labeling (SRL) to deep semantic parsing techniques. == Tools == Dog4Dag (Dresden Ontology Generator for Directed Acyclic Graphs) is an ontology generation plugin for Protégé 4.1 and OBOEdit 2.1. It allows for term generation, sibling generation, definition generation, and relationship induction. Integrated into Protégé 4.1 and OBO-Edit 2.1, DOG4DAG allows ontology extension for all common ontology formats (e.g., OWL and OBO). Limited largely to EBI and Bio Portal lookup service extensions.

  Read more →
• 

  Facebook Messenger

  Messenger (formerly known as Facebook Messenger) is an American proprietary instant messaging service developed by Meta Platforms, the company that operates Facebook. Originally developed as Facebook Chat in 2008, the client application of Messenger is currently available on iOS and Android mobile platforms, Windows and macOS desktop platforms, through the Messenger.com web application, and on the standalone Meta Portal hardware. Messenger is used to send messages and exchange photos, videos, stickers, audio, and files, and also react to other users' messages and interact with bots. The service also supports voice and video calling. The standalone apps support using multiple accounts, conversations with end-to-end encryption, and playing games. There are also group chats where you can connect with multiple people at once in a private space such as Panama Chat. With a monthly userbase of over 1 billion people, it is among the largest social media platforms. == History == Following tests of a new instant messaging platform on Facebook in March 2008, the feature, then-titled "Facebook Chat", was gradually released to users in April 2008. Facebook revamped its messaging platform in November 2010, and subsequently acquired group messaging service Beluga in March 2011, which the company used to launch its standalone iOS and Android mobile apps on August 9, 2011. Facebook later launched a BlackBerry version in October 2011. An app for Windows Phone, though lacking features including voice messaging and chat heads, was released in March 2014. In April 2014, Facebook announced that the messaging feature would be removed from the main Facebook app and users will be required to download the separate Messenger app. An iPad-optimized version of the iOS app was released in July 2014. On April 8, 2015, Facebook launched a website interface for Messenger. A Tizen app was released on July 13, 2015. Facebook launched Messenger for Windows 10 in April 2016. In October 2016, Facebook released Messenger Lite, a stripped-down version of Messenger with a reduced feature set. The app is aimed primarily at old Android phones and regions where high-speed Internet is not widely available. In April 2017, Messenger Lite was expanded to 132 more countries. In May 2017, Facebook revamped the design for Messenger on Android and iOS, bringing a new home screen with tabs and categorization of content and interactive media, red dots indicating new activity, and relocated sections. Facebook announced a Messenger program for Windows 7 in a limited beta test in November 2011. The following month, Israeli blog TechIT leaked a download link for the program, with Facebook subsequently confirming and officially releasing the program. The program was eventually discontinued in March 2014. A Firefox web browser add-on was released in December 2012, but was also discontinued in March 2014. In December 2017, Facebook announced Messenger Kids, a new app aimed for persons under 13 years of age. The app comes with some differences compared to the standard version. In 2019, Messenger announced to be the 2nd most downloaded mobile app of the decade, from 2011 to 2019. In December 2019, Messenger dropped support for users to sign in using only a mobile number, meaning that users must sign in to a Facebook account in order to use the service. In March 2020, Facebook started to ship its dedicated Messenger for macOS app through the Mac App Store. The app is currently live in regions including France, Australia, Mexico, Poland, and many others. In April 2020, Facebook began rolling out a new feature called Messenger Rooms, a video chat feature that allows users to chat with up to 50 people at a time. The feature rivals Zoom, an application that gained a lot of popularity during the COVID-19 pandemic. Privacy concerns arose since the feature uses the same data collection policies as mainstream Facebook. In July 2020, Facebook added a new feature in Messenger that lets iOS users to use Apple's Face ID or Touch ID to lock their chats. The feature is called App Lock and is a part of several changes in Messenger regarding privacy and security. The option to view only "Unread Threads" was removed from the inbox, requiring the account holder to scroll through the entire inbox to be certain every unread message has been seen. On October 13, 2020, the Messenger application introduced cross-app messaging with Instagram, which was launched in September 2021. In addition to the integrated messaging, the application announced the introduction of a new logo, which should be an amalgamation of the Messenger and Instagram logo. The desktop app of Messenger was shut down on December 15, 2025. Messaging services were moved to the Facebook website or Messenger's site for those without an account on the former. The Messenger site was discontinued on April 16, 2026. Messaging services were moved to the Facebook website on the morning of April 17, 2026 without an Messenger account on the former to use Facebook account. == Features == The following is a table of features available in Messenger, as well as their geographical coverage and what devices they are available on. In addition there is a vanishing message feature. In addition there is an audio recording feature which allows audio recordings of up to one minute which may or may not be vanishing: === Messenger Rooms === It is a video conferencing feature of Messenger. It allows users to add up to 50 people at a time. Messenger Rooms does not require a Facebook account. Messenger Rooms competes with other services such as Zoom. Back in 2014, Facebook introduced an unrelated, stand-alone application named Rooms, letting users create places for users with similar interests, with users being anonymous to others. This was shut down in December 2015. In April 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, Facebook revealed video conferencing features for Messenger called Messenger Rooms. This was seen as a response to the popularity of other video conferencing platforms such as Zoom and Skype in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. Messenger Rooms allows users to add up to 50 people per room, without restrictions on time. It does not require a Facebook account or a separate app from Messenger. When used, it only prompts the user for basic information. Users can add 360° virtual backgrounds, mood lighting, and other AR effects as well as share screens. To prevent unwanted participants from joining, users can lock rooms and remove participants. Some have voiced concerns in regards to Messenger Room's privacy and how its parent, Facebook, handles data. Messenger Rooms, unlike some of its competitors, does not use end-to-end encryption. In addition, there have been concerns over how Messenger Rooms collects user data. == Monetization == In January 2017, Facebook announced that it was testing showing advertisements in Messenger's home feed. At the time, the testing was limited to a "small number of users in Australia and Thailand", with the ad format being swipe-based carousel ads. In July, the company announced that they were expanding the testing to a global audience. Stan Chudnovsky, head of Messenger, told VentureBeat that "We'll start slow ... When the average user can be sure to see them we truly don't know because we're just going to be very data-driven and user feedback-driven on making that decision". Facebook told TechCrunch that the advertisements' placement in the inbox depends on factors such as thread count, phone screen size, and pixel density. In a TechCrunch editorial by Devin Coldewey, he described the ads as "huge" in the space they occupy, "intolerable" in the way they appear in the user interface, and "irrelevant" due to the lack of context. Coldewey finished by writing "Advertising is how things get paid for on the internet, including TechCrunch, so I'm not an advocate of eliminating it or blocking it altogether. But bad advertising experiences can spoil a perfectly good app like (for the purposes of argument) Messenger. Messaging is a personal, purposeful use case and these ads are a bad way to monetize it." == Reception == In November 2014, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) listed Messenger (Facebook chat) on its Secure Messaging Scorecard. It received a score of 2 out of 7 points on the scorecard. It received points for having communications encrypted in transit and for having recently completed an independent security audit. It missed points because the communications were not encrypted with keys the provider didn't have access to, users could not verify contacts' identities, past messages were not secure if the encryption keys were stolen, the source code was not open to independent review, and the security design was not properly documented. As stated by Facebook in its Help Center, there is no way to log out of the Messenger application. Instead, users can choose between different availability statuses, including "Appear as inactive", "S

  Read more →
• 

  Immuni

  Immuni was an open-source COVID-19 contact tracing app used for digital contact tracing in Italy, dismissed on 31 December 2022, after a long and debated criticism for having been a failure due to the lack of trust placed by citizens. Immuni COVID-19 contact-tracing app had in fact been downloaded only by 12% of Italians between 14 and 75 years old (the government had previously stated that, in order for the app to work properly, it should have been downloaded by at least 60% of Italians). It makes use of the Apple/Google Exposure Notification system. == Development == It was developed by Bending Spoons and released by the Italian Ministry of Health on 1 June 2020. After a testing phase in 4 Italian regions (Abruzzo, Apulia, Liguria, Marche), the app started being active in the whole country on 15 June 2020. The app was initially released on App Store and Google Play, and since 1 February 2021 it is available on the Huawei AppGallery as well. === Source code === The source code was published on GitHub on the 25 May. The app only works in Italy, but compatibility with other European contact tracing apps was a goal. Since 19 October 2020 the app supports key-exchanges with the EU Interoperability Gateway and is therefore able to communicate with contact tracing apps of other EU countries. == Shutdown == As of 16 December 2020, the app was downloaded more than 10 million times, a number which increased to 21.882.502 downloads the day before the app's shutdown. On 27 December 2022 the Italian Ministry of Health announced that the app and its infrastructures will be dismissed on the 31 December of the same year.

  Read more →
• 

  Automated essay scoring

  Automated essay scoring (AES) is the use of specialized computer programs to assign grades to essays written in an educational setting. It is a form of educational assessment and an application of natural language processing. Its objective is to classify a large set of textual entities into a small number of discrete categories, corresponding to the possible grades, for example, the numbers 1 to 6. Therefore, it can be considered a problem of statistical classification. Several factors have contributed to a growing interest in AES. Among them are cost, accountability, standards, and technology. Rising education costs have led to pressure to hold the educational system accountable for results by imposing standards. The advance of information technology promises to measure educational achievement at reduced cost. The use of AES for high-stakes testing in education has generated significant backlash, with opponents pointing to research that computers cannot yet grade writing accurately and arguing that their use for such purposes promotes teaching writing in reductive ways (i.e. teaching to the test). == History == Most historical summaries of AES trace the origins of the field to the work of Ellis Batten Page. In 1966, he argued for the possibility of scoring essays by computer, and in 1968 he published his successful work with a program called Project Essay Grade (PEG). Using the technology of that time, computerized essay scoring would not have been cost-effective, so Page abated his efforts for about two decades. Eventually, Page sold PEG to Measurement Incorporated. By 1990, desktop computers had become so powerful and so widespread that AES was a practical possibility. As early as 1982, a UNIX program called Writer's Workbench was able to offer punctuation, spelling and grammar advice. In collaboration with several companies (notably Educational Testing Service), Page updated PEG and ran some successful trials in the early 1990s. Peter Foltz and Thomas Landauer developed a system using a scoring engine called the Intelligent Essay Assessor (IEA). IEA was first used to score essays in 1997 for their undergraduate courses. It is now a product from Pearson Educational Technologies and used for scoring within a number of commercial products and state and national exams. IntelliMetric is Vantage Learning's AES engine. Its development began in 1996. It was first used commercially to score essays in 1998. Educational Testing Service offers "e-rater", an automated essay scoring program. It was first used commercially in February 1999. Jill Burstein was the team leader in its development. ETS's Criterion Online Writing Evaluation Service uses the e-rater engine to provide both scores and targeted feedback. Lawrence Rudner has done some work with Bayesian scoring, and developed a system called BETSY (Bayesian Essay Test Scoring sYstem). Some of his results have been published in print or online, but no commercial system incorporates BETSY as yet. Under the leadership of Howard Mitzel and Sue Lottridge, Pacific Metrics developed a constructed response automated scoring engine, CRASE. Currently utilized by several state departments of education and in a U.S. Department of Education-funded Enhanced Assessment Grant, Pacific Metrics’ technology has been used in large-scale formative and summative assessment environments since 2007. Measurement Inc. acquired the rights to PEG in 2002 and has continued to develop it. In 2012, the Hewlett Foundation sponsored a competition on Kaggle called the Automated Student Assessment Prize (ASAP). 201 challenge participants attempted to predict, using AES, the scores that human raters would give to thousands of essays written to eight different prompts. The intent was to demonstrate that AES can be as reliable as human raters, or more so. The competition also hosted a separate demonstration among nine AES vendors on a subset of the ASAP data. Although the investigators reported that the automated essay scoring was as reliable as human scoring, this claim was not substantiated by any statistical tests because some of the vendors required that no such tests be performed as a precondition for their participation. Moreover, the claim that the Hewlett Study demonstrated that AES can be as reliable as human raters has since been strongly contested, including by Randy E. Bennett, the Norman O. Frederiksen Chair in Assessment Innovation at the Educational Testing Service. Some of the major criticisms of the study have been that five of the eight datasets consisted of paragraphs rather than essays, four of the eight data sets were graded by human readers for content only rather than for writing ability, and that rather than measuring human readers and the AES machines against the "true score", the average of the two readers' scores, the study employed an artificial construct, the "resolved score", which in four datasets consisted of the higher of the two human scores if there was a disagreement. This last practice, in particular, gave the machines an unfair advantage by allowing them to round up for these datasets. In 1966, Page hypothesized that, in the future, the computer-based judge will be better correlated with each human judge than the other human judges are. Despite criticizing the applicability of this approach to essay marking in general, this hypothesis was supported for marking free text answers to short questions, such as those typical of the British GCSE system. Results of supervised learning demonstrate that the automatic systems perform well when marking by different human teachers is in good agreement. Unsupervised clustering of answers showed that excellent papers and weak papers formed well-defined clusters, and the automated marking rule for these clusters worked well, whereas marks given by human teachers for the third cluster ('mixed') can be controversial, and the reliability of any assessment of works from the 'mixed' cluster can often be questioned (both human and computer-based). == Different dimensions of essay quality == According to a recent survey, modern AES systems try to score different dimensions of an essay's quality in order to provide feedback to users. These dimensions include the following items: Grammaticality: following grammar rules Usage: using of prepositions, word usage Mechanics: following rules for spelling, punctuation, capitalization Style: word choice, sentence structure variety Relevance: how relevant of the content to the prompt Organization: how well the essay is structured Development: development of ideas with examples Cohesion: appropriate use of transition phrases Coherence: appropriate transitions between ideas Thesis Clarity: clarity of the thesis Persuasiveness: convincingness of the major argument == Procedure == From the beginning, the basic procedure for AES has been to start with a training set of essays that have been carefully hand-scored. The program evaluates surface features of the text of each essay, such as the total number of words, the number of subordinate clauses, or the ratio of uppercase to lowercase letters—quantities that can be measured without any human insight. It then constructs a mathematical model that relates these quantities to the scores that the essays received. The same model is then applied to calculate scores of new essays. Recently, one such mathematical model was created by Isaac Persing and Vincent Ng. which not only evaluates essays on the above features, but also on their argument strength. It evaluates various features of the essay, such as the agreement level of the author and reasons for the same, adherence to the prompt's topic, locations of argument components (major claim, claim, premise), errors in the arguments, cohesion in the arguments among various other features. In contrast to the other models mentioned above, this model is closer in duplicating human insight while grading essays. Due to the growing popularity of deep neural networks, deep learning approaches have been adopted for automated essay scoring, generally obtaining superior results, often surpassing inter-human agreement levels. The various AES programs differ in what specific surface features they measure, how many essays are required in the training set, and most significantly in the mathematical modeling technique. Early attempts used linear regression. Modern systems may use linear regression or other machine learning techniques often in combination with other statistical techniques such as latent semantic analysis and Bayesian inference. The automated essay scoring task has also been studied in the cross-domain setting using machine learning models, where the models are trained on essays written for one prompt (topic) and tested on essays written for another prompt. Successful approaches in the cross-domain scenario are based on deep neural networks or models that combine deep and shallow features. == Criteria for success == Any method of a

  Read more →