AI Art Free No Sign Up

AI Art Free No Sign Up — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

Marq (company)

Marq (formerly Lucidpress) is a cloud-based software platform for brand management and templated content creation. The platform integrates with digital asset management (DAM) systems—including Aprimo and Bynder and customer relationship management (CRM) tools such as Salesforce and HubSpot. Marq also includes AI-assisted features for brand compliance and content automation. Trade publications have described the product as a brand templating and creative automation platform. == History == In October 2013, Lucid Software, Inc. announced Lucidpress as a public beta version. Following its release, Lucidpress was featured in TechCrunch, VentureBeat and PC World, with TechCrunch noting: "I had a chance to test the app before its launch and it is indeed very easy to use. If you've ever used a desktop publishing app in the past, you'll feel right at home with Marq, as it features the same kind of standard top-bar menu and layout options as most other publishing apps. In terms of features, it can also hold its own against similar desktop-based apps." In May 2021, Lucidpress announced that it had been acquired by Charles Thayne Capital ("CTC"), a growth-oriented and technology-focused private investment firm. In May 2021, following its acquisition by Charles Thayne Capital, Lucidpress became fully independent. Owen Fuller, who had served as General Manager since 2017, was appointed Chief Executive Officer. In 2022, Lucidpress was rebranded as Marq to reflect the company’s shift toward brand templating and creative automation tools, while continuing to support its publishing features. == Features == Marq integrates with customer relationship management (CRM) platforms such as Salesforce and HubSpot, enabling the creation of personalized, on-brand sales and marketing materials. The platform also connects with multiple digital asset management (DAM) systems, including Bynder, Aprimo, MediaValet, PhotoShelter, Acquia, and Canto. == Investment == Lucid Software raised $1 million in Seed in 2011, led by Google Ventures. In May 2014, the company received a $5 million investment. The round was led by Salt Lake-based Kickstart Seed Fund. In September 2016, the company received a $36 million investment from Spectrum Equity.
Read more →
Tamara Berg

Tamara Lee Berg is a tenured associate professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a research scientist manager at Facebook AML/FAIR. == Education == Berg obtained her PhD in computer science from the University of California, Berkeley in 2007 as a member of the Berkeley Computer Vision Group. She was an assistant professor at Stony Brook University from 2008 to 2013 before joining University of North Carolina Chapel Hill in 2013. == Research == Berg's research interests are at the boundary of computer vision and natural language processing. In particular, she focuses on understanding the connections between vision and language, for example, to automatically identify people in news photographs, for generating natural language descriptions for images, or for recognising clothing and style. == Selected awards and honours == 2019 Mark Everingham Prize 2013 Marr Prize at the International Conference on Computer Vision 2011 National Science Foundation Career Award == Personal life == Berg is married to fellow computer vision researcher Alexander Berg.
Read more →
Marilyn Walker

Marilyn A. Walker is an American computer scientist. She is professor of computer science and head of the Natural Language and Dialogue Systems Lab at the University of California, Santa Cruz (UCSC). Her research includes work on computational models of dialogue interaction and conversational agents, analysis of affect, sarcasm and other social phenomena in social media dialogue, acquiring causal knowledge from text, conversational summarization, interactive story and narrative generation, and statistical methods for training the dialogue manager and the language generation engine for dialogue systems. == Biography == Walker received an M.S. in Computer Science from Stanford University in 1987, and a Ph.D. in Computer and Information Science and an M.A in linguistics from the University of Pennsylvania in 1993. Walker was awarded a Royal Society Wolfson Research Fellowship at the University of Sheffield from 2003 to 2009. She was inducted as a Fellow of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL) in December 2016 for "fundamental contributions to statistical methods for dialog optimization, to centering theory, and to expressive generation for dialog". She served as the general chair of the 2018 North American Association for Computational Linguistics (NAACL-2018) conference. Walker pioneered the use of statistical methods for dialog optimization at AT&T Bell Labs Research where she conducted some of the first experiments on reinforcement learning for optimizing dialogue systems. Her research on Centering Theory is taught in standard textbooks on NLP. She also pioneered the use of statistical NLP methods for Natural Language Generation with the development of the first statistical sentence planner for dialogue systems in 2001. She is well known for her work with François Mairesse on recognizing Big Five personality from text as well as using statistical methods for stylistic Natural Language Generation to express a particular Big Five personality type. An extension of this work learns how to manifest the linguistic style of a particular character in a film. She has published over 300 papers and is the holder of 10 U.S. patents. Her work on the evaluation of dialogue systems conducted at AT&T Bell Labs Research (PARADISE: A framework for evaluating spoken dialogue agents) is a classic, has been cited more than 1100 times. At UCSC, her lab focuses on computational modeling of dialogue and user-generated content in social media such as weblogs, including spoken dialogue systems and interactive stories. She led the Athena team, which was selected as a contender in the Alexa Prize SocialBot Challenge for 5 challenges between 2018 and 2023.
Read more →
AI Paraphrasing Tools: Free vs Paid (2026)

In search of the best AI paraphrasing tool? An AI paraphrasing tool is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it turns a rough idea into a polished result in seconds. When choosing one, weigh output quality, pricing, export formats, and how well it fits the tools you already use. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI paraphrasing tool slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. Below we compare features, pricing, and real output so you can choose with confidence.
Read more →
SemEval

SemEval (Semantic Evaluation) is an ongoing series of evaluations of computational semantic analysis systems; it evolved from the Senseval word sense evaluation series. The evaluations are intended to explore the nature of meaning in language. While meaning is intuitive to humans, transferring those intuitions to computational analysis has proved elusive. This series of evaluations provides a mechanism to characterize in more precise terms exactly what is necessary to compute in meaning. As such, the evaluations provide an emergent mechanism to identify the problems and solutions for computations with meaning. These exercises have evolved to articulate more of the dimensions that are involved in our use of language. They began with apparently simple attempts to identify word senses computationally. They have evolved to investigate the interrelationships among the elements in a sentence (e.g., semantic role labeling), relations between sentences (e.g., coreference), and the nature of what we are saying (semantic relations and sentiment analysis). The purpose of the SemEval and Senseval exercises is to evaluate semantic analysis systems. "Semantic Analysis" refers to a formal analysis of meaning, and "computational" refer to approaches that in principle support effective implementation. The first three evaluations, Senseval-1 through Senseval-3, were focused on word sense disambiguation (WSD), each time growing in the number of languages offered in the tasks and in the number of participating teams. Beginning with the fourth workshop, SemEval-2007 (SemEval-1), the nature of the tasks evolved to include semantic analysis tasks outside of word sense disambiguation. Triggered by the conception of the SEM conference, the SemEval community had decided to hold the evaluation workshops yearly in association with the SEM conference. It was also the decision that not every evaluation task will be run every year, e.g. none of the WSD tasks were included in the SemEval-2012 workshop. == History == === Early evaluation of algorithms for word sense disambiguation === From the earliest days, assessing the quality of word sense disambiguation algorithms had been primarily a matter of intrinsic evaluation, and “almost no attempts had been made to evaluate embedded WSD components”. Only very recently (2006) had extrinsic evaluations begun to provide some evidence for the value of WSD in end-user applications. Until 1990 or so, discussions of the sense disambiguation task focused mainly on illustrative examples rather than comprehensive evaluation. The early 1990s saw the beginnings of more systematic and rigorous intrinsic evaluations, including more formal experimentation on small sets of ambiguous words. === Senseval to SemEval === In April 1997, Martha Palmer and Marc Light organized a workshop entitled Tagging with Lexical Semantics: Why, What, and How? in conjunction with the Conference on Applied Natural Language Processing. At the time, there was a clear recognition that manually annotated corpora had revolutionized other areas of NLP, such as part-of-speech tagging and parsing, and that corpus-driven approaches had the potential to revolutionize automatic semantic analysis as well. Kilgarriff recalled that there was "a high degree of consensus that the field needed evaluation", and several practical proposals by Resnik and Yarowsky kicked off a discussion that led to the creation of the Senseval evaluation exercises. === SemEval's 3, 2 or 1 year(s) cycle === After SemEval-2010, many participants feel that the 3-year cycle is a long wait. Many other shared tasks such as Conference on Natural Language Learning (CoNLL) and Recognizing Textual Entailments (RTE) run annually. For this reason, the SemEval coordinators gave the opportunity for task organizers to choose between a 2-year or a 3-year cycle. The SemEval community favored the 3-year cycle. Although the votes within the SemEval community favored a 3-year cycle, organizers and coordinators had settled to split the SemEval task into 2 evaluation workshops. This was triggered by the introduction of the new SEM conference. The SemEval organizers thought it would be appropriate to associate our event with the SEM conference and collocate the SemEval workshop with the SEM conference. The organizers got very positive responses (from the task coordinators/organizers and participants) about the association with the yearly SEM, and 8 tasks were willing to switch to 2012. Thus was born SemEval-2012 and SemEval-2013. The current plan is to switch to a yearly SemEval schedule to associate it with the SEM conference but not every task needs to run every year. ==== List of Senseval and SemEval Workshops ==== Senseval-1 took place in the summer of 1998 for English, French, and Italian, culminating in a workshop held at Herstmonceux Castle, Sussex, England on September 2–4. Senseval-2 took place in the summer of 2001, and was followed by a workshop held in July 2001 in Toulouse, in conjunction with ACL 2001. Senseval-2 included tasks for Basque, Chinese, Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, Estonian, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Spanish and Swedish. Senseval-3 took place in March–April 2004, followed by a workshop held in July 2004 in Barcelona, in conjunction with ACL 2004. Senseval-3 included 14 different tasks for core word sense disambiguation, as well as identification of semantic roles, multilingual annotations, logic forms, subcategorization acquisition. SemEval-2007 (Senseval-4) took place in 2007, followed by a workshop held in conjunction with ACL in Prague. SemEval-2007 included 18 different tasks targeting the evaluation of systems for the semantic analysis of text. A special issue of Language Resources and Evaluation is devoted to the result. SemEval-2010 took place in 2010, followed by a workshop held in conjunction with ACL in Uppsala. SemEval-2010 included 18 different tasks targeting the evaluation of semantic analysis systems. SemEval-2012 took place in 2012; it was associated with the new SEM, First Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics, and co-located with NAACL, Montreal, Canada. SemEval-2012 included 8 different tasks targeting at evaluating computational semantic systems. However, there was no WSD task involved in SemEval-2012, the WSD related tasks were scheduled in the upcoming SemEval-2013. SemEval-2013 was associated with NAACL 2013, North American Association of Computational Linguistics, Georgia, USA and took place in 2013. It included 13 different tasks targeting at evaluating computational semantic systems. SemEval-2014 took place in 2014. It was co-located with COLING 2014, 25th International Conference on Computational Linguistics and SEM 2014, Second Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics, Dublin, Ireland. There were 10 different tasks in SemEval-2014 evaluating various computational semantic systems. SemEval-2015 took place in 2015. It was co-located with NAACL-HLT 2015, 2015 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics – Human Language Technologies and SEM 2015, Third Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics, Denver, USA. There were 17 different tasks in SemEval-2015 evaluating various computational semantic systems. == SemEval Workshop framework == The framework of the SemEval/Senseval evaluation workshops emulates the Message Understanding Conferences (MUCs) and other evaluation workshops ran by ARPA (Advanced Research Projects Agency, renamed the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)). Stages of SemEval/Senseval evaluation workshops Firstly, all likely participants were invited to express their interest and participate in the exercise design. A timetable towards a final workshop was worked out. A plan for selecting evaluation materials was agreed. 'Gold standards' for the individual tasks were acquired, often human annotators were considered as a gold standard to measure precision and recall scores of computer systems. These 'gold standards' are what the computational systems strive towards. In WSD tasks, human annotators were set on the task of generating a set of correct WSD answers (i.e. the correct sense for a given word in a given context) The gold standard materials, without answers, were released to participants, who then had a short time to run their programs over them and return their sets of answers to the organizers. The organizers then scored the answers and the scores were announced and discussed at a workshop. == Semantic evaluation tasks == Senseval-1 & Senseval-2 focused on evaluation WSD systems on major languages that were available corpus and computerized dictionary. Senseval-3 looked beyond the lexemes and started to evaluate systems that looked into wider areas of semantics, such as Semantic Roles (technically known as Theta roles in formal semantics), Logic Form Transformation (commonly semantics of phrases, clauses or sentences were represented
Read more →
Sparse dictionary learning

Sparse dictionary learning (also known as sparse coding or SDL) is a representation learning method which aims to find a sparse representation of the input data in the form of a linear combination of basic elements as well as those basic elements themselves. These elements are called atoms, and they compose a dictionary. Atoms in the dictionary are not required to be orthogonal, and they may be an over-complete spanning set. This problem setup also allows the dimensionality of the signals being represented to be higher than any one of the signals being observed. These two properties lead to having seemingly redundant atoms that allow multiple representations of the same signal, but also provide an improvement in sparsity and flexibility of the representation. One of the most important applications of sparse dictionary learning is in the field of compressed sensing or signal recovery. In compressed sensing, a high-dimensional signal can be recovered with only a few linear measurements, provided that the signal is sparse or near-sparse. Since not all signals satisfy this condition, it is crucial to find a sparse representation of that signal such as the wavelet transform or the directional gradient of a rasterized matrix. Once a matrix or a high-dimensional vector is transferred to a sparse space, different recovery algorithms like basis pursuit, CoSaMP, or fast non-iterative algorithms can be used to recover the signal. One of the key principles of dictionary learning is that the dictionary has to be inferred from the input data. The emergence of sparse dictionary learning methods was stimulated by the fact that in signal processing, one typically wants to represent the input data using a minimal amount of components. Before this approach, the general practice was to use predefined dictionaries such as Fourier or wavelet transforms. However, in certain cases, a dictionary that is trained to fit the input data can significantly improve the sparsity, which has applications in data decomposition, compression, and analysis, and has been used in the fields of image denoising and classification, and video and audio processing. Sparsity and overcomplete dictionaries have immense applications in image compression, image fusion, and inpainting. == Problem statement == Given the input dataset X = [ x 1 , . . . , x K ] , x i ∈ R d {\displaystyle X=[x_{1},...,x_{K}],x_{i}\in \mathbb {R} ^{d}} we wish to find a dictionary D ∈ R d × n : D = [ d 1 , . . . , d n ] {\displaystyle \mathbf {D} \in \mathbb {R} ^{d\times n}:D=[d_{1},...,d_{n}]} and a representation R = [ r 1 , . . . , r K ] , r i ∈ R n {\displaystyle R=[r_{1},...,r_{K}],r_{i}\in \mathbb {R} ^{n}} such that both ‖ X − D R ‖ F 2 {\displaystyle \|X-\mathbf {D} R\|_{F}^{2}} is minimized and the representations r i {\displaystyle r_{i}} are sparse enough. This can be formulated as the following optimization problem: argmin D ∈ C , r i ∈ R n ∑ i = 1 K ‖ x i − D r i ‖ 2 2 + λ ‖ r i ‖ 0 {\displaystyle {\underset {\mathbf {D} \in {\mathcal {C}},r_{i}\in \mathbb {R} ^{n}}{\text{argmin}}}\sum _{i=1}^{K}\|x_{i}-\mathbf {D} r_{i}\|_{2}^{2}+\lambda \|r_{i}\|_{0}} , where C ≡ { D ∈ R d × n : ‖ d i ‖ 2 ≤ 1 ∀ i = 1 , . . . , n } {\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}\equiv \{\mathbf {D} \in \mathbb {R} ^{d\times n}:\|d_{i}\|_{2}\leq 1\,\,\forall i=1,...,n\}} , λ > 0 {\displaystyle \lambda >0} C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}} is required to constrain D {\displaystyle \mathbf {D} } so that its atoms would not reach arbitrarily high values allowing for arbitrarily low (but non-zero) values of r i {\displaystyle r_{i}} . λ {\displaystyle \lambda } controls the trade off between the sparsity and the minimization error. The minimization problem above is not convex because of the ℓ0-"norm" and solving this problem is NP-hard. In some cases L1-norm is known to ensure sparsity and so the above becomes a convex optimization problem with respect to each of the variables D {\displaystyle \mathbf {D} } and R {\displaystyle \mathbf {R} } when the other one is fixed, but it is not jointly convex in ( D , R ) {\displaystyle (\mathbf {D} ,\mathbf {R} )} . === Properties of the dictionary === The dictionary D {\displaystyle \mathbf {D} } defined above can be "undercomplete" if n < d {\displaystyle n d {\displaystyle n>d} with the latter being a typical assumption for a sparse dictionary learning problem. The case of a complete dictionary does not provide any improvement from a representational point of view and thus isn't considered. Undercomplete dictionaries represent the setup in which the actual input data lies in a lower-dimensional space. This case is strongly related to dimensionality reduction and techniques like principal component analysis which require atoms d 1 , . . . , d n {\displaystyle d_{1},...,d_{n}} to be orthogonal. The choice of these subspaces is crucial for efficient dimensionality reduction, but it is not trivial. And dimensionality reduction based on dictionary representation can be extended to address specific tasks such as data analysis or classification. However, their main downside is limiting the choice of atoms. Overcomplete dictionaries, however, do not require the atoms to be orthogonal (they will never have a basis anyway) thus allowing for more flexible dictionaries and richer data representations. An overcomplete dictionary which allows for sparse representation of signal can be a famous transform matrix (wavelets transform, fourier transform) or it can be formulated so that its elements are changed in such a way that it sparsely represents the given signal in a best way. Learned dictionaries are capable of giving sparser solutions as compared to predefined transform matrices. == Algorithms == As the optimization problem described above can be solved as a convex problem with respect to either dictionary or sparse coding while the other one of the two is fixed, most of the algorithms are based on the idea of iteratively updating one and then the other. The problem of finding an optimal sparse coding R {\displaystyle R} with a given dictionary D {\displaystyle \mathbf {D} } is known as sparse approximation (or sometimes just sparse coding problem). A number of algorithms have been developed to solve it (such as matching pursuit and LASSO) and are incorporated in the algorithms described below. === Method of optimal directions (MOD) === The method of optimal directions (or MOD) was one of the first methods introduced to tackle the sparse dictionary learning problem. The core idea of it is to solve the minimization problem subject to the limited number of non-zero components of the representation vector: min D , R { ‖ X − D R ‖ F 2 } s.t. ∀ i ‖ r i ‖ 0 ≤ T {\displaystyle \min _{\mathbf {D} ,R}\{\|X-\mathbf {D} R\|_{F}^{2}\}\,\,{\text{s.t.}}\,\,\forall i\,\,\|r_{i}\|_{0}\leq T} Here, F {\displaystyle F} denotes the Frobenius norm. MOD alternates between getting the sparse coding using a method such as matching pursuit and updating the dictionary by computing the analytical solution of the problem given by D = X R + {\displaystyle \mathbf {D} =XR^{+}} where R + {\displaystyle R^{+}} is a Moore-Penrose pseudoinverse. After this update D {\displaystyle \mathbf {D} } is renormalized to fit the constraints and the new sparse coding is obtained again. The process is repeated until convergence (or until a sufficiently small residue). MOD has proved to be a very efficient method for low-dimensional input data X {\displaystyle X} requiring just a few iterations to converge. However, due to the high complexity of the matrix-inversion operation, computing the pseudoinverse in high-dimensional cases is in many cases intractable. This shortcoming has inspired the development of other dictionary learning methods. === K-SVD === K-SVD is an algorithm that performs SVD at its core to update the atoms of the dictionary one by one and basically is a generalization of K-means. It enforces that each element of the input data x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} is encoded by a linear combination of not more than T 0 {\displaystyle T_{0}} elements in a way identical to the MOD approach: min D , R { ‖ X − D R ‖ F 2 } s.t. ∀ i ‖ r i ‖ 0 ≤ T 0 {\displaystyle \min _{\mathbf {D} ,R}\{\|X-\mathbf {D} R\|_{F}^{2}\}\,\,{\text{s.t.}}\,\,\forall i\,\,\|r_{i}\|_{0}\leq T_{0}} This algorithm's essence is to first fix the dictionary, find the best possible R {\displaystyle R} under the above constraint (using Orthogonal Matching Pursuit) and then iteratively update the atoms of dictionary D {\displaystyle \mathbf {D} } in the following manner: ‖ X − D R ‖ F 2 = | X − ∑ i = 1 K d i x T i | F 2 = ‖ E k − d k x T k ‖ F 2 {\displaystyle \|X-\mathbf {D} R\|_{F}^{2}=\left|X-\sum _{i=1}^{K}d_{i}x_{T}^{i}\right|_{F}^{2}=\|E_{k}-d_{k}x_{T}^{k}\|_{F}^{2}} The next steps of the algorithm include rank-1 approximation of the residual matrix E k {\displaystyle E_{k}} , updating d k {\displaystyle d_{k}} and enforcing the s
Read more →
Language and Computers

Language and Computers: Studies in Practical Linguistics (ISSN 0921-5034) is a book series on corpus linguistics and related areas. As studies in linguistics, volumes in the series have, by definition, their foundations in linguistic theory; however, they are not concerned with theory for theory's sake, but always with a definite direct or indirect interest in the possibilities of practical application in the dynamic area where language and computers meet. The book series was founded in 1988, and is published by Brill|Rodopi. == Editors == Christian Mair Charles F. Meyer == Volumes == Volumes include: # 77. English Corpus Linguistics: Variation in Time, Space and Genre. Selected papers from ICAME 32., Edited by Gisle Andersen and Kristin Bech. ISBN 978-90-420-3679-6 E-ISBN 978-94-012-0940-3 # 76. English Corpus Linguistics: Crossing Paths., Edited by Merja Kytö. ISBN 978-90-420-3518-8 E-ISBN 978-94-012-0793-5 # 75. Corpus Linguistics and Variation in English.Theory and Description., Edited by Joybrato Mukherjee and Magnus Huber. ISBN 978-90-420-3495-2 E-ISBN 978-94-012-0771-3 # 74. English Corpus Linguistics: Looking back, Moving forward. Papers from the 30th International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora (ICAME 30), Lancaster, UK, 27–31 May 2009., Edited by Sebastian Hoffmann, Paul Rayson and Geoffrey Leech. ISBN 978-90-420-3466-2 E-ISBN 978-94-012-0747-8 #73. Corpus-based Studies in Language Use, Language Learning, and Language Documentation., Edited by John Newman, Harald Baayen and Sally Rice. ISBN 978-90-420-3401-3 E-ISBN 978-94-012-0688-4 #72. The Progressive in Modern English. A Corpus-Based Study of Grammaticalization and Related Changes., by Svenja Kranich. ISBN 978-90-420-3143-2 E-ISBN 978-90-420-3144-9 #71. Corpus-linguistic applications. Current studies, new directions, Edited by Stefan Th. Gries, Stefanie Wulff, and Mark Davies.. ISBN 978-90-420-2800-5 #70. A resource-light approach to morpho-syntactic tagging., by Anna Feldman and Jirka Hana. ISBN 978-90-420-2768-8 #69. Corpus Linguistics. Refinements and Reassessments., Edited by Antoinette Renouf and Andrew Kehoe. ISBN 978-90-420-2597-4 #68. Corpora: Pragmatics and Discourse. Papers from the 29th International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora (ICAME 29). Ascona, Switzerland, 14–18 May 2008., Edited by Andreas H. Jucker, Daniel Schreier and Marianne Hundt. ISBN 978-90-420-2592-9 #67. Modals and Quasi-modals in English., by Peter Collins. ISBN 978-90-420-2532-5 #66. Linking up contrastive and learner corpus research., Edited by Gaëtanelle Gilquin, Szilvia Papp and María Belén Díez-Bedmar. ISBN 978-90-420-2446-5 #64. Language, People, Numbers. Corpus Linguistics and Society., Edited by Andrea Gerbig and Oliver Mason. ISBN 978-90-420-2350-5 #63. Variation and change in the lexicon. A corpus-based analysis of adjectives in English ending in –ic and –ical. , by Mark Kaunisto. ISBN 978-90-420-2233-1 #62. Corpus Linguistics 25 Years on., Edited by Roberta Facchinetti. ISBN 978-90-420-2195-2 #61. Corpora in the Foreign Language Classroom. Selected papers from the Sixth International Conference on Teaching and Language Corpora (TaLC 6), Edited by Encarnación Hidalgo, Luis Quereda and Juan Santana. ISBN 978-90-420-2142-6 #60. Corpus Linguistics Beyond the Word. Corpus Research from Phrase to Discourse, Edited by Eileen Fitzpatrick. ISBN 978-90-420-2135-8 #59. Corpus Linguistics and the Web., Edited by Marianne Hundt, Nadja Nesselhauf and Carolin Biewer. ISBN 978-90-420-2128-0 #58. English mediopassive constructions. A cognitive, corpus-based study of their origin, spread, and current status, by Marianne Hundt. ISBN 978-90-420-2127-3 / ISBN 90-420-2127-6
Read more →
Hanna Hajishirzi

Hannaneh Hajishirzi is an Iranian-American computer scientist specializing in natural language processing. She is Torode Family Professor in Computer Science & Engineering in the Paul G. Allen School of Computer Science and Engineering at the University of Washington, head of the H2Lab in the Allen School, and a senior director of natural language processing in the Allen Institute for AI. == Education and career == After a bachelor's degree from the Sharif University of Technology, Hajishirzi completed her Ph.D. in computer science in 2011, at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. Her dissertation, Action-Centered Reasoning for Probabilistic Dynamic Systems, was supervised by Eyal Amir. After postdoctoral research at Disney Research in Pittsburgh, Hajishirzi joined the University of Washington in 2012, as a research scientist in electrical engineering. In 2015 she became a research assistant professor in electrical engineering. She obtained a regular-rank assistant professorship in 2018, at the same time becoming an AI Fellow in the Allen Institute for AI, where she became a senior director of research in 2021. She was promoted to associate professor in 2022 and to full professor in 2025. == Recognition == Hajishirzi was named as a Fellow of the Association for Computational Linguistics in 2025, "for significant contributions to question answering, scientific applications, multimodal artificial intelligence, and fully open language models". == Personal life == Hajishirzi is married to Ali Farhadi, the CEO of the Allen Institute for AI.
Read more →
Software durability

In software engineering, software durability means the solution ability of serviceability of software and to meet user's needs for a relatively long time. Software durability is important for user's satisfaction. For a software security to be durable, it must allow an organization to adjust the software to business needs that are constantly evolving, often in impulsive ways. Durability of software depends on four characteristics mainly; i.e. software trustworthiness, Human Trust for Serviceability, software dependability and software usability.
Read more →
Optical braille recognition

Optical braille recognition is technology to capture and process images of braille characters into natural language characters. It is used to convert braille documents for people who cannot read them into text, and for preservation and reproduction of the documents. == History == In 1984, a group of researchers at the Delft University of Technology designed a braille reading tablet, in which a reading head with photosensitive cells was moved along set of rulers to capture braille text line-by-line. In 1988, a group of French researchers at the Lille University of Science and Technology developed an algorithm, called Lectobraille, which converted braille documents into plain text. The system photographed the braille text with a low-resolution CCD camera, and used spatial filtering techniques, median filtering, erosion, and dilation to extract the braille. The braille characters were then converted to natural language using adaptive recognition. The Lectobraille technique had an error rate of 1%, and took an average processing time of seven seconds per line. In 1993, a group of researchers from the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven developed a system to recognize braille that had been scanned with a commercially available scanner. The system, however, was unable to handle deformities in the braille grid, so well-formed braille documents were required. In 1999, a group at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University implemented an optical braille recognition technique using edge detection to translate braille into English or Chinese text. In 2001, Murray and Dais created a handheld recognition system, that scanned small sections of a document at once. Because of the small area scanned at once, grid deformation was less of an issue, and a simpler, more efficient algorithm was employed. In 2003, Morgavi and Morando designed a system to recognize braille characters using artificial neural networks. This system was noted for its ability to handle image degradation more successfully than other approaches. == Challenges == Many of the challenges to successfully processing braille text arise from the nature of braille documents. Braille is generally printed on solid-color paper, with no ink to produce contrast between the raised characters and the background paper. However, imperfections in the page can appear in a scan or image of the page. Many documents are printed inter-point, meaning they are double-sided. As such, the depressions of the braille of one side appear interlaid with the protruding braille of the other side. == Techniques == Some optical braille recognition techniques attempt to use oblique lighting and a camera to reveal the shadows of the depressions and protrusions of the braille. Others make use of commercially available document scanners.
Read more →
The Best Free AI Pair Programmer for Beginners

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

Small language models or compact language models are artificial intelligence language models designed for human natural language processing including language and text generation. They are smaller in scale and scope than large language models. A large language model typically contains hundreds of billions of training parameters, with some models exceeding a trillion parameters. This substantial parameter count enables the model to encode vast amounts of information, thereby improving the generalizability and accuracy of its outputs. However, training such models demands enormous computational resources, rendering it infeasible for an individual to do so using a single computer and graphics processing unit. Small language models, on the other hand, use far fewer parameters, typically ranging from a few thousand to a few hundred million. This make them more feasible to train and host in resource-constrained environments such as a single computer or even a mobile device. Most contemporary (2020s) small language models use the same architecture as a large language model, but with a smaller parameter count and sometimes lower arithmetic precision. Parameter count is reduced by a combination of knowledge distillation and pruning. Precision can be reduced by quantization. Work on large language models mostly translate to small language models: pruning and quantization are also widely used to speed up large language models. == Models == Some notable models are: Below 1B parameters: Llama-Prompt-Guard-2-22M (detects prompt injection and jailbreaking, based on DeBERTa-xsmall), SmolLM2-135M, SmolLM2-360M 1–4B parameters: Llama3.2-1B, Qwen2.5-1.5B, DeepSeek-R1-1.5B, SmolLM2-1.7B, SmolVLM-2.25B, Phi-3.5-Mini-3.8B, Phi-4-Mini-3.8B, Gemma3-4B; closed-weights ones include Gemini Nano 4–14B parameters: Mistral 7B, Gemma 9B, Phi-4 14B. Phi-4 14B is marginally "small" at best, but Microsoft does market it as a small model. == Language model with small pre-training dataset == Traditional AI language systems need enormous computers and vast amounts of data. Pre-training matters, even tiny models show significant performance improvements when pre-trained performance increases with larger pre-training datasets. Classification accuracy improves when pre-training and test datasets share similar tokens. Shallow architectures can replicate deep model performance through collaborative learning.
Read more →
Apache Pig

Apache Pig is a high-level platform for creating programs that run on Apache Hadoop. The language for this platform is called Pig Latin. Pig can execute its Hadoop jobs in MapReduce, Apache Tez, or Apache Spark. Pig Latin abstracts the programming from the Java MapReduce idiom into a notation which makes MapReduce programming high level, similar to that of SQL for relational database management systems. Pig Latin can be extended using user-defined functions (UDFs) which the user can write in Java, Python, JavaScript, Ruby or Groovy and then call directly from the language. == History == Apache Pig was originally developed at Yahoo Research around 2006 for researchers to have an ad hoc way of creating and executing MapReduce jobs on very large data sets. In 2007, it was moved into the Apache Software Foundation. === Naming === Regarding the naming of the Pig programming language, the name was chosen arbitrarily and stuck because it was memorable, easy to spell, and for novelty. The story goes that the researchers working on the project initially referred to it simply as 'the language'. Eventually they needed to call it something. Off the top of his head, one researcher suggested Pig, and the name stuck. It is quirky yet memorable and easy to spell. While some have hinted that the name sounds coy or silly, it has provided us with an entertaining nomenclature, such as Pig Latin for the language, Grunt for the shell, and PiggyBank for the CPAN-like shared repository. == Example == Below is an example of a "Word Count" program in Pig Latin: The above program will generate parallel executable tasks which can be distributed across multiple machines in a Hadoop cluster to count the number of words in a dataset such as all the webpages on the internet. == Pig vs SQL == In comparison to SQL, Pig has a nested relational model, uses lazy evaluation, uses extract, transform, load (ETL), is able to store data at any point during a pipeline, declares execution plans, supports pipeline splits, thus allowing workflows to proceed along DAGs instead of strictly sequential pipelines. On the other hand, it has been argued DBMSs are substantially faster than the MapReduce system once the data is loaded, but that loading the data takes considerably longer in the database systems. It has also been argued RDBMSs offer out of the box support for column-storage, working with compressed data, indexes for efficient random data access, and transaction-level fault tolerance. Pig Latin is procedural and fits very naturally in the pipeline paradigm while SQL is instead declarative. In SQL users can specify that data from two tables must be joined, but not what join implementation to use (You can specify the implementation of JOIN in SQL, thus "... for many SQL applications the query writer may not have enough knowledge of the data or enough expertise to specify an appropriate join algorithm."). Pig Latin allows users to specify an implementation or aspects of an implementation to be used in executing a script in several ways. In effect, Pig Latin programming is similar to specifying a query execution plan, making it easier for programmers to explicitly control the flow of their data processing task. SQL is oriented around queries that produce a single result. SQL handles trees naturally, but has no built in mechanism for splitting a data processing stream and applying different operators to each sub-stream. Pig Latin script describes a directed acyclic graph (DAG) rather than a pipeline. Pig Latin's ability to include user code at any point in the pipeline is useful for pipeline development. If SQL is used, data must first be imported into the database, and then the cleansing and transformation process can begin.
Read more →
How to Choose an AI Video Editor

In search of the best AI video editor? An AI video editor is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it turns a rough idea into a polished result in seconds. When choosing one, weigh output quality, pricing, export formats, and how well it fits the tools you already use. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI video editor slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. We tested the leading options and ranked them by quality, value, and ease of use.
Read more →
Conversational AI Platforms: Free vs Paid (2026)

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