AI Art Keywords

AI Art Keywords — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

Digistar

Digistar is the first computer graphics-based planetarium projection and content system. It was designed by Evans & Sutherland and released in 1983. The technology originally focused on accurate and high quality display of stars, including for the first time showing stars from points of view other than Earth's surface, travelling through the stars, and accurately showing celestial bodies from different times in the past and future. Beginning with the Digistar 3 the system now projects full-dome video. == Projector == Unlike modern full-dome systems, which use LCD, DLP, SXRD, or laser projection technology, the Digistar projection system was designed for projecting bright pinpoints of light representing stars. This was accomplished using a calligraphic display, a form of vector graphics, rather than raster graphics. The heart of the Digistar projector is a large cathode-ray tube (CRT). A phosphor plate is mounted atop the tube, and light is then dispersed by a large lens with a 160 degree field of view to cover the planetarium dome. The original lens bore the inscription: "August 1979 mfg. by Lincoln Optical Corp., L.A., CA for Evans and Sutherland Computer Corp., SLC, UT, Digital planetarium CRT projection lens, 43mm, f2.8, 160 degree field of view". The coordinates of the stars and wire-frame models to be displayed by the projector were stored in computer RAM in a display list. The display would read each set of coordinates in turn and drive the CRT's electron beam directly to those coordinates. If the electron beam was enabled while being moved a line would be painted on the phosphor plate. Otherwise, the electron beam would be enabled once at its destination and a star would be painted. Once all coordinates in the display list had been processed, the display would repeat from the top of the display list. Thus, the shorter the display list the more frequently the electron beam would refresh the charge on a given point on the phosphor plate, making the projection of the points brighter. In this way, the stars projected by Digistar were substantially brighter than could be achieved using a raster display, which has to touch every point on the phosphor plate before repeating. Likewise, the calligraphic technology allowed Digistar to have a darker black-level than full-dome projectors, since the portions of the phosphor plate representing dark sky were never hit by the electron beam. As it is only one tube, with no pixelated color filter screen, the Digistar projector is monochromatic. The Digistar projects a bright, phosphorescent green, though many (including both visitors and planetarians) report they cannot distinguish between this green and white. Additionally, unlike a raster display, the calligraphic display is not discretized into pixels, so the displayed stars were a more realistic single spot of light, without the blocky or ropy artifacts that are hard to avoid with raster graphics. Due to the use of vector graphics, as opposed to raster imaging, the Digistar does not have the resolution issues that many full-dome systems have. Thanks to this, and the brightness of the CRT, only one projector is needed to project on the entire dome, whereas most full-dome systems require up to six raster projectors, depending on dome size. The projector in the original Digistar was housed in a square pyramid-shaped sheathing. When powered on, the four sides at the tip of the pyramid would recede into the housing, exposing the lens and appearing as a cut-off pyramid. As Digistar II was being developed, many planetaria were sold Digistar LEA projectors. The LEA, called Digistar 1.5 by many users, was effectively a prototype of the D2 projector, compatible with Digistar and upgradable to Digistar II. There are no significant differences in performance between the LEA and the true D2. == History == Digistar was the brainchild of Stephen McAllister and Brent Watson, both of whom were long-time amateur astronomers and computer graphics engineers. In 1977, E&S had been consulting with Johnson Space Center regarding training simulators for astronauts. McAllister had been writing proof-of-concept software for this consultation and in summer 1977 entered the data for 400 bright stars and wrote the software to display them. Steve and Brent both originally saw the system's purpose as celestial navigation training. Brent, who had until recently worked at Hansen planetarium, asked his planetarium coworkers what they thought of a potential digital planetarium system, and then Steve and Brent both targeted the system toward planetaria. The primary goal of the planetarium system was to use computer graphics to overcome the limitation of traditional star ball technology that only allowed display of star fields from the point of view of Earth's surface. By using computer graphics the stars could be displayed from viewpoints in space, including simulating the appearance of space flight. Likewise, planets and moons within the Solar System could be displayed accurately for any time in history, from any point of view. The system used the location of real stars from the Yale Bright Star Catalogue, as well as random stars. A laboratory prototype of Digistar was used to generate the star fields and tactical displays in the 1982 science fiction film Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. Filming was done directly from the Digistar display in the lab. ILM projected the effort would take two weeks, but in fact it took from late November 1981 until mid-February 1982. The last shot recorded was what became the first entirely computer generated feature film sequence. It was the opening scene of the film, a rotating forward translation through a star field that lasted 3.5 minutes. It was recorded in one take, at a rate of one frame every 3.5 seconds, taking four hours for the shoot. The Digistar team members are credited in the film. After prototyping in labs at Evans and Sutherland the team repeatedly used Salt Lake City's Hansen planetarium to beta test the system at the planetarium at night. The Digistar team performed one week of shows at the planetarium as a fund raiser to benefit the planetarium. The company also later gave the planetarium an improved prototype Digistar to replace "Jake", the planetarium's aging Spitz planetarium projector. The first customer installation was to the newly constructed Universe Planetarium at the Science Museum of Virginia in 1983, the largest planetarium dome in the world at the time, for $595,000. By September 1986 there were four installed Digistars. Even at this point the long-term success of the product was very much in doubt, but as of 2019 Digistar has an installed base of over 550 planetaria. === Versions === Digistar (1983) Digistar II (1995) Digistar 3 (2002) Digistar 4 (2010?) Digistar 5 (2012) Digistar 6 (2016) Digistar 7 (2021) == Hardware == Digistar was driven by a VAX-11/780 minicomputer, with custom graphics hardware related to the E&S Picture System 2. Later versions of Digistar 1 used a DEC MicroVAX 2, driving a custom version of a PS/300. The original Digistar and Digistar 2 had a physical control panel that was used for running the star shows. This control panel was approximately 3' x 4' and contained a keyboard, a 6 DOF joystick, and a large array of back-lit buttons. One button that was used for moving the viewpoint forward in space was labeled "Boldly Go". Later iterations of Digistar replaced the physical control panel with a common graphical user interface. Digistar 3 was the first Digistar system to offer full-dome video in 2002, using six projectors. Digistar 4 was able to cover the dome using only two projectors. == System limitations == Though technologically advanced in its day, and the closest system to true full-dome video at the time of its release, the original Digistar and Digistar 2 are limited to only projecting dots and lines—meaning only wireframe models can be projected. To compensate for this, the projector is capable of defocusing specific models, blurring lines and dots together. An example of this is in the Digistar 2's built-in Milky Way model. The model is a circle of parallel lines that, when defocused, appear as the continuous band of the Milky Way across the sky. On more complex models, especially three-dimensional ones, brightness and details may be lost in this process, so it is not useful in all situations. The Digistar and Digistar 2 also suffer focus limitations. Because they use a single lens to cover the entire dome, it is difficult to gain perfect focus across the dome. Coupled with this, stars greater than a certain brightness are "multihit" points, meaning the projector draws two dots at the given position to accommodate the brightness of the star. Errors in the projector can lead the second dot to be slightly out-of-place with the first one. These two issues together, along with other issues that can occur within the projector's focus system, give the stars a blobby look. Some p
Read more →
Aggregation (linguistics)

In linguistics, aggregation is a subtask of natural language generation, which involves merging syntactic constituents (such as sentences and phrases) together. Sometimes aggregation can be done at a conceptual level. == Examples == A simple example of syntactic aggregation is merging the two sentences John went to the shop and John bought an apple into the single sentence John went to the shop and bought an apple. Syntactic aggregation can be much more complex than this. For example, aggregation can embed one of the constituents in the other; e.g., we can aggregate John went to the shop and The shop was closed into the sentence John went to the shop, which was closed. From a pragmatic perspective, aggregating sentences together often suggests to the reader that these sentences are related to each other. If this is not the case, the reader may be confused. For example, someone who reads John went to the shop and bought an apple may infer that the apple was bought in the shop; if this is not the case, then these sentences should not be aggregated. == Algorithms and issues == Aggregation algorithms must do two things: Decide when two constituents should be aggregated Decide how two constituents should be aggregated, and create the aggregated structure The first issue, deciding when to aggregate, is poorly understood. Aggegration decisions certainly depend on the semantic relations between the constituents, as mentioned above; they also depend on the genre (e.g., bureaucratic texts tend to be more aggregated than instruction manuals). They probably should depend on rhetorical and discourse structure. The literacy level of the reader is also probably important (poor readers need shorter sentences). But we have no integrated model which brings all these factors together into a single algorithm. With regard to the second issue, there have been some studies of different types of aggregation, and how they should be carried out. Harbusch and Kempen describe several syntactic aggregation strategies. In their terminology, John went to the shop and bought an apple is an example of forward conjunction Reduction Much less is known about conceptual aggregation. Di Eugenio et al. show how conceptual aggregation can be done in an intelligent tutoring system, and demonstrate that performing such aggregation makes the system more effective (and that conceptual aggregation make a bigger impact than syntactic aggregation). == Software == Unfortunately there is not much software available for performing aggregation. However the SimpleNLG system does include limited support for basic aggregation. For example, the following code causes SimpleNLG to print out The man is hungry and buys an apple.
Read more →
Sentence embedding

In natural language processing, a sentence embedding is a representation of a sentence as a vector of numbers which encodes meaningful semantic information. State of the art embeddings are based on the learned hidden layer representation of dedicated sentence transformer models. BERT pioneered an approach involving the use of a dedicated [CLS] token prepended to the beginning of each sentence inputted into the model; the final hidden state vector of this token encodes information about the sentence and can be fine-tuned for use in sentence classification tasks. In practice however, BERT's sentence embedding with the [CLS] token achieves poor performance, often worse than simply averaging non-contextual word embeddings. SBERT later achieved superior sentence embedding performance by fine tuning BERT's [CLS] token embeddings through the usage of a siamese neural network architecture on the SNLI dataset. Other approaches are loosely based on the idea of distributional semantics applied to sentences. Skip-Thought trains an encoder-decoder structure for the task of neighboring sentences predictions; this has been shown to achieve worse performance than approaches such as InferSent or SBERT. An alternative direction is to aggregate word embeddings, such as those returned by Word2vec, into sentence embeddings. The most straightforward approach is to simply compute the average of word vectors, known as continuous bag-of-words (CBOW). However, more elaborate solutions based on word vector quantization have also been proposed. One such approach is the vector of locally aggregated word embeddings (VLAWE), which demonstrated performance improvements in downstream text classification tasks. == Applications == In recent years, sentence embedding has seen a growing level of interest due to its applications in natural language queryable knowledge bases through the usage of vector indexing for semantic search. LangChain for instance utilizes sentence transformers for purposes of indexing documents. In particular, an indexing is generated by generating embeddings for chunks of documents and storing (document chunk, embedding) tuples. Then given a query in natural language, the embedding for the query can be generated. A top k similarity search algorithm is then used between the query embedding and the document chunk embeddings to retrieve the most relevant document chunks as context information for question answering tasks. This approach is also known formally as retrieval-augmented generation. Though not as predominant as BERTScore, sentence embeddings are commonly used for sentence similarity evaluation which sees common use for the task of optimizing a Large language model's generation parameters is often performed via comparing candidate sentences against reference sentences. By using the cosine-similarity of the sentence embeddings of candidate and reference sentences as the evaluation function, a grid-search algorithm can be utilized to automate hyperparameter optimization. == Evaluation == A way of testing sentence encodings is to apply them on Sentences Involving Compositional Knowledge (SICK) corpus for both entailment (SICK-E) and relatedness (SICK-R). In the best results are obtained using a BiLSTM network trained on the Stanford Natural Language Inference (SNLI) Corpus. The Pearson correlation coefficient for SICK-R is 0.885 and the result for SICK-E is 86.3. A slight improvement over previous scores is presented in: SICK-R: 0.888 and SICK-E: 87.8 using a concatenation of bidirectional Gated recurrent unit.
Read more →
Airfair

AirFair was a mobile travel application that checks flights, and shows whether a traveler is owed compensation. == History == AirFair was developed in 2016 by Allay Logic Ltd; a Newcastle-based tech-company. == Services == AirFair offered a free flight check to see if compensation is owed. The app could indicate how much the person is owed within minutes whether the flight was delayed, cancelled or the traveler is refused boarding.
Read more →
Software agent

In computer science, a software agent is a computer program that acts for a user or another program in a relationship of agency. The term agent is derived from the Latin agere (to do): an agreement to act on one's behalf. Such "action on behalf of" implies the authority to decide which, if any, action is appropriate. Some agents are colloquially known as bots, from robot. They may be embodied, as when execution is paired with a robot body, or as software such as a chatbot executing on a computer, such as a mobile device, e.g. Siri. Software agents may be autonomous or work together with other agents or people. Software agents interacting with people (e.g. chatbots, human-robot interaction environments) may possess human-like qualities such as natural language understanding and speech, personality or embody humanoid form (see Asimo). Related and derived concepts include intelligent agents (in particular exhibiting some aspects of artificial intelligence, such as reasoning), autonomous agents (capable of modifying the methods of achieving their objectives), distributed agents (being executed on physically distinct computers), multi-agent systems (distributed agents that work together to achieve an objective that could not be accomplished by a single agent acting alone), and mobile agents (agents that can relocate their execution onto different processors). == Concepts == The basic attributes of an autonomous software agent are that agents: are not strictly invoked for a task, but activate themselves, may reside in wait status on a host, perceiving context, may get to run status on a host upon starting conditions, do not require interaction of user, may invoke other tasks including communication. The concept of an agent provides a method of describing a complex software entity that is capable of acting with a certain degree of autonomy in order to accomplish tasks on behalf of its host. But unlike objects, which are defined in terms of methods and attributes, an agent is defined in terms of its behavior. Various authors have proposed different definitions of agents, these commonly include concepts such as: persistence: code is not executed on demand but runs continuously and decides for itself when it should perform some activity; autonomy: agents have capabilities of task selection, prioritization, goal-directed behavior, decision-making without human intervention; social ability: agents are able to engage other components through some sort of communication and coordination, they may collaborate on a task; reactivity: agents perceive the context in which they operate and react to it appropriately. === Distinguishing agents from programs === All agents are programs, but not all programs are agents. Contrasting the term with related concepts may help clarify its meaning. Franklin & Graesser (1997) discuss four key notions that distinguish agents from arbitrary programs: reaction to the environment, autonomy, goal-orientation and persistence. === Intuitive distinguishing agents from objects === Agents are more autonomous than objects. Agents have flexible behavior: reactive, proactive, social. Agents have at least one thread of control but may have more. === Distinguishing agents from expert systems === Expert systems are not coupled to their environment. Expert systems are not designed for reactive, proactive behavior. Expert systems do not consider social ability. === Distinguishing intelligent software agents from intelligent agents in AI === Intelligent agents (also known as rational agents) are not just computer programs: they may also be machines, human beings, communities of human beings (such as firms) or anything that is capable of goal-directed behavior. == Impact of software agents == Software agents may offer various benefits to their end users by automating complex or repetitive tasks. However, there are organizational and cultural impacts of this technology that need to be considered prior to implementing software agents. === Organizational impact === === Work contentment and job satisfaction impact === People like to perform easy tasks providing the sensation of success unless the repetition of the simple tasking is affecting the overall output. In general implementing software agents to perform administrative requirements provides a substantial increase in work contentment, as administering their own work does never please the worker. The effort freed up serves for a higher degree of engagement in the substantial tasks of individual work. Hence, software agents may provide the basics to implement self-controlled work, relieved from hierarchical controls and interference. Such conditions may be secured by application of software agents for required formal support. === Cultural impact === The cultural effects of the implementation of software agents include trust affliction, skills erosion, privacy attrition and social detachment. Some users may not feel entirely comfortable fully delegating important tasks to software applications. Those who start relying solely on intelligent agents may lose important skills, for example, relating to information literacy. In order to act on a user's behalf, a software agent needs to have a complete understanding of a user's profile, including his/her personal preferences. This, in turn, may lead to unpredictable privacy issues. When users start relying on their software agents more, especially for communication activities, they may lose contact with other human users and look at the world with the eyes of their agents. These consequences are what agent researchers and users must consider when dealing with intelligent agent technologies. === History === The concept of an agent can be traced back to Hewitt's Actor Model (Hewitt, 1977) - "A self-contained, interactive and concurrently-executing object, possessing internal state and communication capability." To be more academic, software agent systems are a direct evolution of Multi-Agent Systems (MAS). MAS evolved from Distributed Artificial Intelligence (DAI), Distributed Problem Solving (DPS) and Parallel AI (PAI), thus inheriting all characteristics (good and bad) from DAI and AI. John Sculley's 1987 "Knowledge Navigator" video portrayed an image of a relationship between end-users and agents. Being an ideal first, this field experienced a series of unsuccessful top-down implementations, instead of a piece-by-piece, bottom-up approach. The range of agent types is now (from 1990) broad: WWW, search engines, etc. == Examples of intelligent software agents == === Buyer agents (shopping bots) === Buyer agents travel around a network (e.g. the internet) retrieving information about goods and services. These agents, also known as 'shopping bots', work very efficiently for commodity products such as CDs, books, electronic components, and other one-size-fits-all products. Buyer agents are typically optimized to allow for digital payment services used in e-commerce and traditional businesses. === User agents (personal agents) === User agents, or personal agents, are intelligent agents that take action on your behalf. In this category belong those intelligent agents that already perform, or will shortly perform, the following tasks: Check your e-mail, sort it according to the user's order of preference, and alert you when important emails arrive. Play computer games as your opponent or patrol game areas for you. Assemble customized news reports for you. There are several versions of these, including CNN. Find information for you on the subject of your choice. Fill out forms on the Web automatically for you, storing your information for future reference Scan Web pages looking for and highlighting text that constitutes the "important" part of the information there Discuss topics with you ranging from your deepest fears to sports Facilitate with online job search duties by scanning known job boards and sending the resume to opportunities who meet the desired criteria Profile synchronization across heterogeneous social networks === Monitoring-and-surveillance (predictive) agents === Monitoring and surveillance agents are used to observe and report on equipment, usually computer systems. The agents may keep track of company inventory levels, observe competitors' prices and relay them back to the company, watch stock manipulation by insider trading and rumors, etc. For example, NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory has an agent that monitors inventory, planning, schedules equipment orders to keep costs down, and manages food storage facilities. These agents usually monitor complex computer networks that can keep track of the configuration of each computer connected to the network. A special case of monitoring-and-surveillance agents are organizations of agents used to automate decision-making process during tactical operations. The agents monitor the status of assets (ammunition, weapons available, platforms for transport, etc.) and receive goals from hi
Read more →
Knowledge assessment methodology

The knowledge assessment methodology (KAM) is "an interactive benchmarking tool created by the World Bank's Knowledge for Development Program to help countries identify the challenges and opportunities they face in making the transition to the knowledge-based economy." KAM does so by providing information on knowledge economy indicators for 146 countries. Its products include the Knowledge Economy Index and the Knowledge Index.
Read more →
Ericom Connect

Ericom Connect is a remote access/application publishing solution produced by Ericom Software that provides secure, centrally managed access to physical or hosted desktops and applications running on Microsoft Windows and Linux systems. == Product overview == Ericom Connect is desktop virtualization and application virtualization software that allows users to run applications remotely, without installing them on the local computer or device. The software is noted for its scalability, ease of deployment, and compatibility with any type of infrastructure, cloud or physical. Ericom Connect uses AccessPad (native client for desktops), AccessToGo (native client for mobile), or AccessNow, one of the first HTML5 RDP solutions to support clientless access to Windows desktops and applications from any device with an HTML5-compatible browser, including Macintosh computers, mobile devices, and Google Chromebooks. Other notable features include performance monitoring, built-in real-time analytics & BI, support for two-factor authentication (using RSA SecurID), multi-tenancy and multi-datacenter support via a single unified web interface, and a “Launch Simulation” feature that allows users to visualize and simulate actual step-by-step user processes directly from within the administration console. In addition to scalability, by distributing configurations, logs, etc., across multiple servers there is no single point of failure, as can be the case if all configuration information is stored on one server. == History == Ericom Connect was introduced in 2015. Ericom Connect is a successor to Ericom PowerTerm Web Connect. PowerTerm Web Connect used an architecture similar to what was then current with Citrix and VMWare, relying on a centralized SQL server, a connection broker, image management for different hypervisors, and a variety of clients. Ericom Connect uses a new grid architecture that provides more scalability, reliability, and flexibility than before.
Read more →
Airfair

AirFair was a mobile travel application that checks flights, and shows whether a traveler is owed compensation. == History == AirFair was developed in 2016 by Allay Logic Ltd; a Newcastle-based tech-company. == Services == AirFair offered a free flight check to see if compensation is owed. The app could indicate how much the person is owed within minutes whether the flight was delayed, cancelled or the traveler is refused boarding.
Read more →
Surrogate model

A surrogate model is an engineering method used when an outcome of interest cannot be easily measured or computed, so an approximate mathematical model of the outcome is used instead. Most engineering design problems require experiments and/or simulations to evaluate design objective and constraint functions as a function of design variables. For example, in order to find the optimal airfoil shape for an aircraft wing, an engineer simulates the airflow around the wing for different shape variables (e.g., length, curvature, material, etc.). For many real-world problems, however, a single simulation can take many minutes, hours, or even days to complete. As a result, routine tasks such as design optimization, design space exploration, sensitivity analysis and "what-if" analysis become impossible since they require thousands or even millions of simulation evaluations. One way of alleviating this burden is by constructing approximation models, known as surrogate models, metamodels or emulators, that mimic the behavior of the simulation model as closely as possible while being computationally cheaper to evaluate. Surrogate models are constructed using a data-driven, bottom-up approach. The exact, inner working of the simulation code is not assumed to be known (or even understood), relying solely on the input-output behavior. A model is constructed based on modeling the response of the simulator to a limited number of intelligently chosen data points. This approach is also known as behavioral modeling or black-box modeling, though the terminology is not always consistent. When only a single design variable is involved, the process is known as curve fitting. Though using surrogate models in lieu of experiments and simulations in engineering design is more common, surrogate modeling may be used in many other areas of science where there are expensive experiments and/or function evaluations. == Goals == The scientific challenge of surrogate modeling is the generation of a surrogate that is as accurate as possible, using as few simulation evaluations as possible. The process comprises three major steps which may be interleaved iteratively: Sample selection (also known as sequential design, optimal experimental design (OED) or active learning) Construction of the surrogate model and optimizing the model parameters (i.e., bias-variance tradeoff) Appraisal of the accuracy of the surrogate. The accuracy of the surrogate depends on the number and location of samples (expensive experiments or simulations) in the design space. A systematic data representation during training can improve model scalability, thereby reducing the need for expensive simulations. Various design of experiments (DOE) techniques cater to different sources of errors, in particular, errors due to noise in the data or errors due to an improper surrogate model. == Types of surrogate models == Popular surrogate modeling approaches are: polynomial response surfaces; kriging; more generalized Bayesian approaches; gradient-enhanced kriging (GEK); radial basis function; support vector machines; space mapping; artificial neural networks and Bayesian networks. Other methods recently explored include Fourier surrogate modeling , random forests, convolutional neural networks, and generative adversarial networks. For some problems, the nature of the true function is not known a priori, and therefore it is not clear which surrogate model will be the most accurate one. In addition, there is no consensus on how to obtain the most reliable estimates of the accuracy of a given surrogate. Many other problems have known physics properties. In these cases, physics-based surrogates such as space-mapping based models are commonly used. == Invariance properties == Recently proposed comparison-based surrogate models (e.g., ranking support vector machines) for evolutionary algorithms, such as CMA-ES, allow preservation of some invariance properties of surrogate-assisted optimizers: Invariance with respect to monotonic transformations of the function (scaling) Invariance with respect to orthogonal transformations of the search space (rotation) == Applications == An important distinction can be made between two different applications of surrogate models: design optimization and design space approximation (also known as emulation). In surrogate model-based optimization, an initial surrogate is constructed using some of the available budgets of expensive experiments and/or simulations. The remaining experiments/simulations are run for designs which the surrogate model predicts may have promising performance. The process usually takes the form of the following search/update procedure. Initial sample selection (the experiments and/or simulations to be run) Construct surrogate model Search surrogate model (the model can be searched extensively, e.g., using a genetic algorithm, as it is cheap to evaluate) Run and update experiment/simulation at new location(s) found by search and add to sample Iterate steps 2 to 4 until out of time or design is "good enough" Depending on the type of surrogate used and the complexity of the problem, the process may converge on a local or global optimum, or perhaps none at all. In design space approximation, one is not interested in finding the optimal parameter vector, but rather in the global behavior of the system. Here the surrogate is tuned to mimic the underlying model as closely as needed over the complete design space. Such surrogates are a useful, cheap way to gain insight into the global behavior of the system. Optimization can still occur as a post-processing step, although with no update procedure (see above), the optimum found cannot be validated. == Surrogate modeling software == Surrogate Modeling Toolbox (SMT: https://github.com/SMTorg/smt) is a Python package that contains a collection of surrogate modeling methods, sampling techniques, and benchmarking functions. This package provides a library of surrogate models that is simple to use and facilitates the implementation of additional methods. SMT is different from existing surrogate modeling libraries because of its emphasis on derivatives, including training derivatives used for gradient-enhanced modeling, prediction derivatives, and derivatives with respect to the training data. It also includes new surrogate models that are not available elsewhere: kriging by partial-least squares reduction and energy-minimizing spline interpolation. Python library SAMBO Optimization supports sequential optimization with arbitrary models, with tree-based models and Gaussian process models built in. Surrogates.jl is a Julia packages which offers tools like random forests, radial basis methods and kriging. == Surrogate-Assisted Evolutionary Algorithms (SAEAs) == SAEAs are an advanced class of optimization techniques that integrate evolutionary algorithms (EAs) with surrogate models. In traditional EAs, evaluating the fitness of candidate solutions often requires computationally expensive simulations or experiments. SAEAs address this challenge by building a surrogate model, which is a computationally inexpensive approximation of the objective function or constraint functions. The surrogate model serves as a substitute for the actual evaluation process during the evolutionary search. It allows the algorithm to quickly estimate the fitness of new candidate solutions, thereby reducing the number of expensive evaluations needed. This significantly speeds up the optimization process, especially in cases where the objective function evaluations are time-consuming or resource-intensive. SAEAs typically involve three main steps: (1) building the surrogate model using a set of initial sampled data points, (2) performing the evolutionary search using the surrogate model to guide the selection, crossover, and mutation operations, and (3) periodically updating the surrogate model with new data points generated during the evolutionary process to improve its accuracy. By balancing exploration (searching new areas in the solution space) and exploitation (refining known promising areas), SAEAs can efficiently find high-quality solutions to complex optimization problems. They have been successfully applied in various fields, including engineering design, machine learning, and computational finance, where traditional optimization methods may struggle due to the high computational cost of fitness evaluations.
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 →
Eigenmoments

EigenMoments is a set of orthogonal, noise robust, invariant to rotation, scaling and translation and distribution sensitive moments. Their application can be found in signal processing and computer vision as descriptors of the signal or image. The descriptors can later be used for classification purposes. It is obtained by performing orthogonalization, via eigen analysis on geometric moments. == Framework summary == EigenMoments are computed by performing eigen analysis on the moment space of an image by maximizing signal-to-noise ratio in the feature space in form of Rayleigh quotient. This approach has several benefits in Image processing applications: Dependency of moments in the moment space on the distribution of the images being transformed, ensures decorrelation of the final feature space after eigen analysis on the moment space. The ability of EigenMoments to take into account distribution of the image makes it more versatile and adaptable for different genres. Generated moment kernels are orthogonal and therefore analysis on the moment space becomes easier. Transformation with orthogonal moment kernels into moment space is analogous to projection of the image onto a number of orthogonal axes. Nosiy components can be removed. This makes EigenMoments robust for classification applications. Optimal information compaction can be obtained and therefore a few number of moments are needed to characterize the images. == Problem formulation == Assume that a signal vector s ∈ R n {\displaystyle s\in {\mathcal {R}}^{n}} is taken from a certain distribution having correlation C ∈ R n × n {\displaystyle C\in {\mathcal {R}}^{n\times n}} , i.e. C = E [ s s T ] {\displaystyle C=E[ss^{T}]} where E[.] denotes expected value. Dimension of signal space, n, is often too large to be useful for practical application such as pattern classification, we need to transform the signal space into a space with lower dimensionality. This is performed by a two-step linear transformation: q = W T X T s , {\displaystyle q=W^{T}X^{T}s,} where q = [ q 1 , . . . , q n ] T ∈ R k {\displaystyle q=[q_{1},...,q_{n}]^{T}\in {\mathcal {R}}^{k}} is the transformed signal, X = [ x 1 , . . . , x n ] T ∈ R n × m {\displaystyle X=[x_{1},...,x_{n}]^{T}\in {\mathcal {R}}^{n\times m}} a fixed transformation matrix which transforms the signal into the moment space, and W = [ w 1 , . . . , w n ] T ∈ R m × k {\displaystyle W=[w_{1},...,w_{n}]^{T}\in {\mathcal {R}}^{m\times k}} the transformation matrix which we are going to determine by maximizing the SNR of the feature space resided by q {\displaystyle q} . For the case of Geometric Moments, X would be the monomials. If m = k = n {\displaystyle m=k=n} , a full rank transformation would result, however usually we have m ≤ n {\displaystyle m\leq n} and k ≤ m {\displaystyle k\leq m} . This is specially the case when n {\displaystyle n} is of high dimensions. Finding W {\displaystyle W} that maximizes the SNR of the feature space: S N R t r a n s f o r m = w T X T C X w w T X T N X w , {\displaystyle SNR_{transform}={\frac {w^{T}X^{T}CXw}{w^{T}X^{T}NXw}},} where N is the correlation matrix of the noise signal. The problem can thus be formulated as w 1 , . . . , w k = a r g m a x w w T X T C X w w T X T N X w {\displaystyle {w_{1},...,w_{k}}=argmax_{w}{\frac {w^{T}X^{T}CXw}{w^{T}X^{T}NXw}}} subject to constraints: w i T X T N X w j = δ i j , {\displaystyle w_{i}^{T}X^{T}NXw_{j}=\delta _{ij},} where δ i j {\displaystyle \delta _{ij}} is the Kronecker delta. It can be observed that this maximization is Rayleigh quotient by letting A = X T C X {\displaystyle A=X^{T}CX} and B = X T N X {\displaystyle B=X^{T}NX} and therefore can be written as: w 1 , . . . , w k = a r g m a x x w T A w w T B w {\displaystyle {w_{1},...,w_{k}}={\underset {x}{\operatorname {arg\,max} }}{\frac {w^{T}Aw}{w^{T}Bw}}} , w i T B w j = δ i j {\displaystyle w_{i}^{T}Bw_{j}=\delta _{ij}} === Rayleigh quotient === Optimization of Rayleigh quotient has the form: max w R ( w ) = max w w T A w w T B w {\displaystyle \max _{w}R(w)=\max _{w}{\frac {w^{T}Aw}{w^{T}Bw}}} and A {\displaystyle A} and B {\displaystyle B} , both are symmetric and B {\displaystyle B} is positive definite and therefore invertible. Scaling w {\displaystyle w} does not change the value of the object function and hence and additional scalar constraint w T B w = 1 {\displaystyle w^{T}Bw=1} can be imposed on w {\displaystyle w} and no solution would be lost when the objective function is optimized. This constraint optimization problem can be solved using Lagrangian multiplier: max w w T A w {\displaystyle \max _{w}{w^{T}Aw}} subject to w T B w = 1 {\displaystyle {w^{T}Bw}=1} max w L ( w ) = max w ( w T A w − λ w T B w ) {\displaystyle \max _{w}{\mathcal {L}}(w)=\max _{w}(w{T}Aw-\lambda w^{T}Bw)} equating first derivative to zero and we will have: A w = λ B w {\displaystyle Aw=\lambda Bw} which is an instance of Generalized Eigenvalue Problem (GEP). The GEP has the form: A w = λ B w {\displaystyle Aw=\lambda Bw} for any pair ( w , λ ) {\displaystyle (w,\lambda )} that is a solution to above equation, w {\displaystyle w} is called a generalized eigenvector and λ {\displaystyle \lambda } is called a generalized eigenvalue. Finding w {\displaystyle w} and λ {\displaystyle \lambda } that satisfies this equations would produce the result which optimizes Rayleigh quotient. One way of maximizing Rayleigh quotient is through solving the Generalized Eigen Problem. Dimension reduction can be performed by simply choosing the first components w i {\displaystyle w_{i}} , i = 1 , . . . , k {\displaystyle i=1,...,k} , with the highest values for R ( w ) {\displaystyle R(w)} out of the m {\displaystyle m} components, and discard the rest. Interpretation of this transformation is rotating and scaling the moment space, transforming it into a feature space with maximized SNR and therefore, the first k {\displaystyle k} components are the components with highest k {\displaystyle k} SNR values. The other method to look at this solution is to use the concept of simultaneous diagonalization instead of Generalized Eigen Problem. === Simultaneous diagonalization === Let A = X T C X {\displaystyle A=X^{T}CX} and B = X T N X {\displaystyle B=X^{T}NX} as mentioned earlier. We can write W {\displaystyle W} as two separate transformation matrices: W = W 1 W 2 . {\displaystyle W=W_{1}W_{2}.} W 1 {\displaystyle W_{1}} can be found by first diagonalize B: P T B P = D B {\displaystyle P^{T}BP=D_{B}} . Where D B {\displaystyle D_{B}} is a diagonal matrix sorted in increasing order. Since B {\displaystyle B} is positive definite, thus D B > 0 {\displaystyle D_{B}>0} . We can discard those eigenvalues that large and retain those close to 0, since this means the energy of the noise is close to 0 in this space, at this stage it is also possible to discard those eigenvectors that have large eigenvalues. Let P ^ {\displaystyle {\hat {P}}} be the first k {\displaystyle k} columns of P {\displaystyle P} , now P T ^ B P ^ = D B ^ {\displaystyle {\hat {P^{T}}}B{\hat {P}}={\hat {D_{B}}}} where D B ^ {\displaystyle {\hat {D_{B}}}} is the k × k {\displaystyle k\times k} principal submatrix of D B {\displaystyle D_{B}} . Let W 1 = P ^ D B ^ − 1 / 2 {\displaystyle W_{1}={\hat {P}}{\hat {D_{B}}}^{-1/2}} and hence: W 1 T B W 1 = ( P ^ D B ^ − 1 / 2 ) T B ( P ^ D B ^ − 1 / 2 ) = I {\displaystyle W_{1}^{T}BW_{1}=({\hat {P}}{\hat {D_{B}}}^{-1/2})^{T}B({\hat {P}}{\hat {D_{B}}}^{-1/2})=I} . W 1 {\displaystyle W_{1}} whiten B {\displaystyle B} and reduces the dimensionality from m {\displaystyle m} to k {\displaystyle k} . The transformed space resided by q ′ = W 1 T X T s {\displaystyle q'=W_{1}^{T}X^{T}s} is called the noise space. Then, we diagonalize W 1 T A W 1 {\displaystyle W_{1}^{T}AW_{1}} : W 2 T W 1 T A W 1 W 2 = D A {\displaystyle W_{2}^{T}W_{1}^{T}AW_{1}W_{2}=D_{A}} , where W 2 T W 2 = I {\displaystyle W_{2}^{T}W_{2}=I} . D A {\displaystyle D_{A}} is the matrix with eigenvalues of W 1 T A W 1 {\displaystyle W_{1}^{T}AW_{1}} on its diagonal. We may retain all the eigenvalues and their corresponding eigenvectors since most of the noise are already discarded in previous step. Finally the transformation is given by: W = W 1 W 2 {\displaystyle W=W_{1}W_{2}} where W {\displaystyle W} diagonalizes both the numerator and denominator of the SNR, W T A W = D A {\displaystyle W^{T}AW=D_{A}} , W T B W = I {\displaystyle W^{T}BW=I} and the transformation of signal s {\displaystyle s} is defined as q = W T X T s = W 2 T W 1 T X T s {\displaystyle q=W^{T}X^{T}s=W_{2}^{T}W_{1}^{T}X^{T}s} . === Information loss === To find the information loss when we discard some of the eigenvalues and eigenvectors we can perform following analysis: η = 1 − t r a c e ( W 1 T A W 1 ) t r a c e ( D B − 1 / 2 P T A P D B − 1 / 2 ) = 1 − t r a c e ( D B ^ − 1 / 2 P ^ T A P ^ D B ^ − 1 / 2 ) t r a c e ( D B − 1 / 2 P T A P D B − 1 / 2 ) {\displaystyle {\begin{array}{lll}\eta &=&
Read more →
Cuboid (computer vision)

In computer vision, the term cuboid is used to describe a small spatiotemporal volume extracted for purposes of behavior recognition. The cuboid is regarded as a basic geometric primitive type and is used to depict three-dimensional objects within a three dimensional representation of a flat, two dimensional image. == Production == Cuboids can be produced from both two-dimensional and three-dimensional images. One method used to produce cuboids utilizes scene understanding (SUN) primitive databases, which are collections of pictures that already contain cuboids. By sorting through SUN primitive databases with machine learning tools, computers observe the conditions in which cuboids are produced in images from SUN primitive databases and can learn to produce cuboids from other images. RGB-D images, which are RGB images that also record the depth of each pixel, are occasionally used to produce cuboids because computers no longer need to determine the depth of an object, as they typically do because depth is already recorded. Cuboid production is sensitive to changes in color and illumination, blockage, and background clutter. This means that it is difficult for computers to produce cuboids of objects that are multicolored, irregularly illuminated, or partially covered, or if there are many objects in the background. This is partially due to the fact that algorithms for producing cuboids are still relatively simple. == Usage == Cuboids are created for point cloud-based three-dimensional maps and can be utilized in various situations such as augmented reality, the automated control of cars, drones, and robots, and object detection. Cuboids allow for software to identify a scene through geometric descriptions in an “object-agnostic” fashion. Interest points, locations within images that are identified by a computer as essential to identifying the image, created from two-dimensional images can be used with cuboids for image matching, identifying a room or scene, and instance recognition. Interest points created from three dimensional images can be used with cuboids to recognize activities. This is possible because interest points aid software to focus on only the most important aspects of the images. RGB-D images and SLAM systems are used together in RGB-D SLAM systems, which are employed by Computer-aided design systems to generate point cloud-based three-dimensional maps. Most industrial multi-axis machining tools use computer-aided manufacturing and subsequently work in cuboid work spaces.
Read more →
Cognition Network Technology

Cognition Network Technology (CNT), also known as Definiens Cognition Network Technology, is an object-based image analysis method developed by Nobel laureate Gerd Binnig together with a team of researchers at Definiens AG in Munich, Germany. It serves for extracting information from images using a hierarchy of image objects (groups of pixels), as opposed to traditional pixel processing methods. To emulate the human mind's cognitive powers, Definiens used patented image segmentation and classification processes, and developed a method to render knowledge in a semantic network. CNT examines pixels not in isolation, but in context. It builds up a picture iteratively, recognizing groups of pixels as objects. It uses the color, shape, texture and size of objects as well as their context and relationships to draw conclusions and inferences, similar to human analysis. == History == In 1994 Professor Gerd Binnig founded Definiens. CNT was first available with the launch of the eCognition software in May 2000. In June 2010, Trimble Navigation Ltd (NASDAQ: TRMB) acquired Definiens business asset in earth sciences markets, including eCognition software, and also licensed Definiens' patented CNT. In 2014, Definiens was acquired by MedImmune, the global biologics research and development arm of AstraZeneca, for an initial consideration of $150 million. == Software == Definiens Tissue Studio Definiens Tissue Studio is a digital pathology image analysis software application based on CNT. The intended use of Definiens Tissue Studio is for biomarker translational research in formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue samples which have been treated with immunohistochemical staining assays, or hematoxylin and eosin (H&E). The central concept behind Definiens Tissue Studio is a user interface that facilitates machine learning from example digital histopathology images to derive an image analysis solution suitable for the measurement of biomarkers and/or histological features within pre-defined regions of interest on a cell-by-cell basis, and within sub-cellular compartments. The derived image analysis solution is then automatically applied to subsequent digital images to objectively measure defined sets of multiparametric image features. These data sets are used for further understanding the underlying biological processes that drive cancer and other diseases. Image processing and data analysis are performed either on a local desktop computer workstation, or on a server grid. eCognition The eCognition suite offers three components that can be used stand-alone or in combination to solve image analysis tasks. eCognition Developer is a development environment for object-based image analysis. It is used in earth sciences to develop rule sets (or applications) for the analysis of remote sensing data. eCognition Architect enables non-technical users to configure, calibrate and execute image analysis workflows created in eCognition Developer. eCognition Server software provides a processing environment for batch execution of image analysis jobs. eCognition software is utilized in numerous remote sensing and geospatial application scenarios and environments, using a variety of data types: Generic: Rapid Mapping, Change Detection, Object Recognition By environment: Diverse Landcover Mapping, Urban Analysis (i.e. impervious surface area analysis for taxation, property assessment for insurance, inventory of green infrastructure), Forestry (i.e. biomass measurement, species identification, firescar measurement), Agriculture (i.e. regional planning, precision farming, crisis response), Marine and Riparian (i.e. ecosystem evaluation, disaster management, harbor monitoring). Other: Defense, security, atmosphere and climate The online eCognition community was launched in July 2009 and had 2813 members as of July 9, 2010. Membership is distributed globally and user conferences are held regularly, the last having taken place in November 2009 in Munich, Germany. The bi-annual GEOBIA (Geographic Object-Based Image Analysis) conference is heavily attended by eCognition users, with the majority of presentations based on eCognition software.
Read more →
Dhammin

Dhammin (Arabic: ضمّن) is a political platform that manages candidates' electoral campaigns for the National Assembly, Municipal Council or Cooperative Society councils of Kuwait. The platform was founded by Abdullah Al-Salloum and it is, according to news reports and interviews, the first within the field to apply distributed-systems' methodologies.
Read more →
Semantic space

Semantic spaces in the natural language domain aim to create representations of natural language that are capable of capturing meaning. The original motivation for semantic spaces stems from two core challenges of natural language: Vocabulary mismatch (the fact that the same meaning can be expressed in many ways) and ambiguity of natural language (the fact that the same term can have several meanings). The application of semantic spaces in natural language processing (NLP) aims at overcoming limitations of rule-based or model-based approaches operating on the keyword level. The main drawback with these approaches is their brittleness, and the large manual effort required to create either rule-based NLP systems or training corpora for model learning. Rule-based and machine learning based models are fixed on the keyword level and break down if the vocabulary differs from that defined in the rules or from the training material used for the statistical models. Research in semantic spaces dates back more than 20 years. In 1996, two papers were published that raised a lot of attention around the general idea of creating semantic spaces: latent semantic analysis and Hyperspace Analogue to Language. However, their adoption was limited by the large computational effort required to construct and use those semantic spaces. A breakthrough with regard to the accuracy of modelling associative relations between words (e.g. "spider-web", "lighter-cigarette", as opposed to synonymous relations such as "whale-dolphin", "astronaut-driver") was achieved by explicit semantic analysis (ESA) in 2007. ESA was a novel (non-machine learning) based approach that represented words in the form of vectors with 100,000 dimensions (where each dimension represents an Article in Wikipedia). However practical applications of the approach are limited due to the large number of required dimensions in the vectors. More recently, advances in neural network techniques in combination with other new approaches (tensors) led to a host of new recent developments: Word2vec from Google, GloVe from Stanford University, and fastText from Facebook AI Research (FAIR) labs.
Read more →