AI Chatbots and Assistants

Explore the best AI Chatbots and Assistants — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step how-to guides, curated by Aizhi.

User-defined function

A user-defined function (UDF) is a function provided by the user of a program or environment, in a context where the usual assumption is that functions are built into the program or environment. UDFs are usually written for the requirement of its creator. == BASIC language == In some old implementations of the BASIC programming language, user-defined functions are defined using the "DEF FN" syntax. More modern dialects of BASIC are influenced by the structured programming paradigm, where most or all of the code is written as user-defined functions or procedures, and the concept becomes practically redundant. == COBOL language == In the COBOL programming language, a user-defined function is an entity that is defined by the user by specifying a FUNCTION-ID paragraph. A user-defined function must return a value by specifying the RETURNING phrase of the procedure division header and they are invoked using the function-identifier syntax. See the ISO/IEC 1989:2014 Programming Language COBOL standard for details. As of May 2022, the IBM Enterprise COBOL for z/OS 6.4 (IBM COBOL) compiler contains support for user-defined functions. == Databases == In relational database management systems, a user-defined function provides a mechanism for extending the functionality of the database server by adding a function, that can be evaluated in standard query language (usually SQL) statements. The SQL standard distinguishes between scalar and table functions. A scalar function returns only a single value (or NULL), whereas a table function returns a (relational) table comprising zero or more rows, each row with one or more columns. User-defined functions in SQL are declared using the CREATE FUNCTION statement. For example, a user-defined function that converts Celsius to Fahrenheit (a temperature scale used in USA) might be declared like this: Once created, a user-defined function may be used in expressions in SQL statements. For example, it can be invoked where most other intrinsic functions are allowed. This also includes SELECT statements, where the function can be used against data stored in tables in the database. Conceptually, the function is evaluated once per row in such usage. For example, assume a table named Elements, with a row for each known chemical element. The table has a column named BoilingPoint for the boiling point of that element, in Celsius. The query would retrieve the name and the boiling point from each row. It invokes the CtoF user-defined function as declared above in order to convert the value in the column to a value in Fahrenheit. Each user-defined function carries certain properties or characteristics. The SQL standard defines the following properties: Language - defines the programming language in which the user-defined function is implemented; examples include SQL, C, C# and Java. Parameter style - defines the conventions that are used to pass the function parameters and results between the implementation of the function and the database system (only applicable if language is not SQL). Specific name - a name for the function that is unique within the database. Note that the function name does not have to be unique, considering overloaded functions. Some SQL implementations require that function names are unique within a database, and overloaded functions are not allowed. Determinism - specifies whether the function is deterministic or not. The determinism characteristic has an influence on the query optimizer when compiling a SQL statement. SQL-data access - tells the database management system whether the function contains no SQL statements (NO SQL), contains SQL statements but does not access any tables or views (CONTAINS SQL), reads data from tables or views (READS SQL DATA), or actually modifies data in the database (MODIFIES SQL DATA). User-defined functions should not be confused with stored procedures. Stored procedures allow the user to group a set of SQL commands. A procedure can accept parameters and execute its SQL statements depending on those parameters. A procedure is not an expression and, thus, cannot be used like user-defined functions. Some database management systems allow the creation of user defined functions in languages other than SQL. Microsoft SQL Server, for example, allows the user to use .NET languages including C# for this purpose. DB2 and Oracle support user-defined functions written in C or Java programming languages. === SQL Server 2000 === There are three types of UDF in Microsoft SQL Server 2000: scalar functions, inline table-valued functions, and multistatement table-valued functions. Scalar functions return a single data value (not a table) with RETURNS clause. Scalar functions can use all scalar data types, with exception of timestamp and user-defined data types. Inline table-valued functions return the result set of a single SELECT statement. Multistatement table-valued functions return a table, which was built with many TRANSACT-SQL statements. User-defined functions can be invoked from a query like built‑in functions such as OBJECT_ID, LEN, DATEDIFF, or can be executed through an EXECUTE statement like stored procedures. Performance Notes: User-defined functions are subroutines made of one or more Transact-SQL statements that can be used to encapsulate code for reuse. It takes zero or more arguments and evaluates a return value. Has both control-flow and DML statements in its body similar to stored procedures. Does not allow changes to any Global Session State, like modifications to database or external resource, such as a file or network. Does not support output parameter. DEFAULT keyword must be specified to pass the default value of parameter. Errors in UDF cause UDF to abort which, in turn, aborts the statement that invoked the UDF. === Apache Hive === Apache Hive defines, in addition to the regular user-defined functions (UDF), also user-defined aggregate functions (UDAF) and table-generating functions (UDTF). Hive enables developers to create their own custom functions with Java. === Apache Doris === Apache Doris, an open-source real-time analytical database, allows external users to contribute their own UDFs written in C++ to it.
Read more →
List of large language models

A large language model (LLM) is a type of machine learning model designed for natural language processing tasks such as language generation. LLMs are language models with many parameters, and are trained with self-supervised learning on a vast amount of text. == List == For the training cost column, 1 petaFLOP-day equals 1 petaFLOP/sec × 1 day, or 8.64×1019 FLOP (floating point operations). Only the cost of the largest model is shown. The number of parameters is measured in billions, and the training cost is measured in petaFLOP-days. === 2018 === === 2019 === === 2020 === === 2021 === === 2022 === === 2023 === === 2024 === === 2025 === === 2026 ===
Read more →
Doubao

Doubao (Chinese: 豆包) is an artificial intelligence assistant developed by ByteDance. == History == The chatbot was launched in August 2023. By November 2024, it had become China's most popular AI chatbot, with approximately 60 million monthly active users according to industry analytics. == Design == Doubao is powered by Volcano Engine (Volcengine), 120 trillion tokens consumed per day. == Variants == === Dola === The international version of Doubao is Dola which was launched in August 2023 as Cici. Dola is powered by OpenAI's GPT series of large language models and by Google's Gemini.
Read more →
Lesk algorithm

The Lesk algorithm is a classical algorithm for word sense disambiguation introduced by Michael E. Lesk in 1986. It operates on the premise that words within a given context are likely to share a common meaning. This algorithm compares the dictionary definitions of an ambiguous word with the words in its surrounding context to determine the most appropriate sense. Variations, such as the Simplified Lesk algorithm, have demonstrated improved precision and efficiency. However, the Lesk algorithm has faced criticism for its sensitivity to definition wording and its reliance on brief glosses. Researchers have sought to enhance its accuracy by incorporating additional resources like thesauruses and syntactic models. == Overview == The Lesk algorithm is based on the assumption that words in a given "neighborhood" (section of text) will tend to share a common topic. A simplified version of the Lesk algorithm is to compare the dictionary definition of an ambiguous word with the terms contained in its neighborhood. Versions have been adapted to use WordNet. An implementation might look like this: for every sense of the word being disambiguated one should count the number of words that are in both the neighborhood of that word and in the dictionary definition of that sense the sense that is to be chosen is the sense that has the largest number of this count. A frequently used example illustrating this algorithm is for the context "pine cone". The following dictionary definitions are used: PINE 1. kinds of evergreen tree with needle-shaped leaves 2. waste away through sorrow or illness CONE 1. solid body which narrows to a point 2. something of this shape whether solid or hollow 3. fruit of certain evergreen trees As can be seen, the best intersection is Pine #1 ⋂ Cone #3 = 2. == Simplified Lesk algorithm == In Simplified Lesk algorithm, the correct meaning of each word in a given context is determined individually by locating the sense that overlaps the most between its dictionary definition and the given context. Rather than simultaneously determining the meanings of all words in a given context, this approach tackles each word individually, independent of the meaning of the other words occurring in the same context. "A comparative evaluation performed by Vasilescu et al. (2004) has shown that the simplified Lesk algorithm can significantly outperform the original definition of the algorithm, both in terms of precision and efficiency. By evaluating the disambiguation algorithms on the Senseval-2 English all words data, they measure a 58% precision using the simplified Lesk algorithm compared to the only 42% under the original algorithm. Note: Vasilescu et al. implementation considers a back-off strategy for words not covered by the algorithm, consisting of the most frequent sense defined in WordNet. This means that words for which all their possible meanings lead to zero overlap with current context or with other word definitions are by default assigned sense number one in WordNet." Simplified LESK Algorithm with smart default word sense (Vasilescu et al., 2004) The COMPUTEOVERLAP function returns the number of words in common between two sets, ignoring function words or other words on a stop list. The original Lesk algorithm defines the context in a more complex way. == Criticisms == Unfortunately, Lesk’s approach is very sensitive to the exact wording of definitions, so the absence of a certain word can radically change the results. Further, the algorithm determines overlaps only among the glosses of the senses being considered. This is a significant limitation in that dictionary glosses tend to be fairly short and do not provide sufficient vocabulary to relate fine-grained sense distinctions. A lot of work has appeared offering different modifications of this algorithm. These works use other resources for analysis (thesauruses, synonyms dictionaries or morphological and syntactic models): for instance, it may use such information as synonyms, different derivatives, or words from definitions of words from definitions. == Lesk variants == Original Lesk (Lesk, 1986) Adapted/Extended Lesk (Banerjee and Pederson, 2002/2003): In the adaptive lesk algorithm, a word vector is created corresponds to every content word in the wordnet gloss. Concatenating glosses of related concepts in WordNet can be used to augment this vector. The vector contains the co-occurrence counts of words co-occurring with w in a large corpus. Adding all the word vectors for all the content words in its gloss creates the Gloss vector g for a concept. Relatedness is determined by comparing the gloss vector using the Cosine similarity measure. There are a lot of studies concerning Lesk and its extensions: Wilks and Stevenson, 1998, 1999; Mahesh et al., 1997; Cowie et al., 1992; Yarowsky, 1992; Pook and Catlett, 1988; Kilgarriff and Rosensweig, 2000; Kwong, 2001; Nastase and Szpakowicz, 2001; Gelbukh and Sidorov, 2004.
Read more →
Online OS

The Online Operating System was a fully multi-lingual and free to use web desktop written in JavaScript using Ajax. It was a Windows-based desktop environment with open-source applications and system utilities developed upon the reBOX web application framework by iCUBE Network Solutions, an Austrian company located in Vienna. == About the project == OOS.cc, which is short for Online Operating System, was a web application platform that mimicked the look and feel of classic desktop operating systems such as Microsoft Windows, Mac OS X or KDE. It consisted of various open source applications built upon the so-called reBOX web application framework. As applications could be executed in an integrated and parallel way, the OOS could have been considered a web desktop or webtop. It provided basic services such as a GUI, a virtual file system, access control management and possibilities to develop and deploy applications online. As the Online Operating System was executed within a web browser, it was no real operating system but rather a portal to various web applications, offering a high usability and flexibility. The project was partly funded by grants from the Internetprivatstiftung Austria (IPA). As at 01.08.2008 almost 20.000 users have joined the oos.cc community, using the offered featured and applications. == History == The development of the web desktop was started by iCUBE Network Solutions in 2005, followed by the first beta releases in 2006. Hence, together with YouOS and eyeOS, it can be considered to be one of the first publicly available systems of its kind. The first full version including core-level multi-language support, the file system and a basic set of applications was released to the public in March 2007 on the occasion of a national exhibition (ITnT Austria Archived 2007-06-30 at the Wayback Machine) and has left beta state half a year later in October 2007. The first release considered stable (1.0.0) was published in July 2007. The project itself and the contained applications have received several national innovation awards (see,) and have gained attention mainly due to the comprehensive approach taken (see,). OOS.cc started as a national project. The full platform including all offered applications are currently available in three languages (German, English as well as Spanish) and is receiving increasing coverage around the world (for examples see, or). The current version is 1.3.01 from 01.08.2008. == Technical overview == The project is fully written in JavaScript, exclusively using DHTML techniques to run in any web browser without any additional software installation needed. The system implements a modern kind of web application model, excessively using Ajax for communicating between client components and the Java server backend in an exclusively asynchronous manner. Aim is to offer users the unique interaction behavior following the desktop metaphor, which is the main idea of any web desktop. Also typical for this sort of web application is the broadly use of Javascript-on-demand techniques, cutting the complete project source into pieces and loading them instantly when needed. Based on this technical basis, reBOX was the framework library all applications in oos.cc were built of. It is a fully flexible and extensible API, including a GUI widget set, communication mechanisms and server services offering general and framework specific services. The Online Operating System itself consisted of a basic framework, which was able to launch any JavaScript application using the reBOX library. The user interface was based on the behavior of the Windows desktop with a start menu, a task bar and a desktop background. All applications were running in this environment. At server side, there were Java based web services that ran to serve the client processes and to provide data from the relational database in the backend. oos.cc also provided an integrated development environment called Developer Suite, which allowed the community to build own applications for the desktop environment based on reBOX (see development section below). == License == All applications available in oos.cc were open source under the European Union Public Licence (EUPL). The reBOX development toolkit is free to use developing any applications for the webtop. == Features == As mentioned above, all applications published on oos.cc are open source based on the EUPL, and can be "installed" or "deinstalled" to what-ever preferences the user has. Besides global services like the multi-language support or the global theme support, as well as some minor tools and games, oos.cc offered four major services that could be used completely free of charge. Integrated and fully flexible file storage (1 GB per user) HTTP as well as FTP file transfer from and to local file system User-based file-shares within the oos-community WebDAV access Document Management (including Version Control and File Locking mechanisms) Image publishing, organization and post-processing A free sub domain (user.oos.cc) for web- or image publishing, directly integrated in the desktop Groupware applications, including free mail, fetchmail and contact management An integrated development environment where oos-applications can be created directly from within the system (see development section below) Next releases were planned to focus on an extensive security and privacy suite, dealing with challenges like anonymous communication (browsing as well as temporary mail-addresses) as well as offering encrypted password and file storage and connectivity services. Since its initial stable release, OOS.cc could have been accessed using https to ensure secure communication. == Limitations and drawbacks == Limited number of applications: no commercial applications can be hosted. Only reviewed applications are being published No processing of popular office formats (.doc, .odt, etc.) Limited language support: Only English, German and Spanish Dependence on foreign infrastructure: No possibility to extend storage, no additional/guaranteed bandwidth, etc. == Development == One of the key focuses of the team was right from the beginning to offer a very flexible and comprehensive API, that can be used to develop not only custom applications within oos.cc, but also stand-alone web-applications or to integrate single components in existing web-sites. By decoupling the development from web-related "problems" using the reBOX API web-applications can be development in a similar fashion to any Java program: Elements can be positioned and can interact like in high-level object oriented programming languages, without taking care of divs, browser specific behavior or communication handling. The framework also offers multi-language and theme support for existing as well as newly created applications, allowing changing almost every aspect of the look and feel of the used components according to the preferences of its users. For taking advantage of this approach, one of the applications offered in the OOS was an integrated Development Suite, allowing directly writing and executing code and hence creating new programs within the boundaries of the web computer. All applications on oos.cc were released as open source, thus all existing programs were offered to be imported, reviewed or changed and then locally deployed. Following this idea, every user was free to submit changed or newly created applications to be included in the globally offered application set. The last release offered features like auto-completion and an outline-window.
Read more →
Natural Language Toolkit

The Natural Language Toolkit, or more commonly NLTK, is a suite of libraries and programs for symbolic and statistical natural language processing (NLP) for English written in the Python programming language. It supports classification, tokenization, stemming, tagging, parsing, and semantic reasoning functionalities. It was developed by Steven Bird and Edward Loper in the Department of Computer and Information Science at the University of Pennsylvania. NLTK includes graphical demonstrations and sample data. It is accompanied by a book that explains the underlying concepts behind the language processing tasks supported by the toolkit, plus a cookbook. NLTK is intended to support research and teaching in NLP or closely related areas, including empirical linguistics, cognitive science, artificial intelligence, information retrieval, and machine learning. NLTK has been used successfully as a teaching tool, as an individual study tool, and as a platform for prototyping and building research systems. == Library highlights == Discourse representation Lexical analysis: Word and text tokenizer n-gram and collocations Part-of-speech tagger Tree model and Text chunker for capturing Named-entity recognition
Read more →
Egocentric vision

Egocentric vision or first-person vision is a sub-field of computer vision that entails analyzing images and videos captured by a wearable camera, which is typically worn on the head or on the chest and naturally approximates the visual field of the camera wearer. Consequently, visual data capture the part of the scene on which the user focuses to carry out the task at hand and offer a valuable perspective to understand the user's activities and their context in a naturalistic setting. The wearable camera looking forwards is often supplemented with a camera looking inward at the user's eye and able to measure a user's eye gaze, which is useful to reveal attention and to better understand the user's activity and intentions. == History == The idea of using a wearable camera to gather visual data from a first-person perspective dates back to the 70s, when Steve Mann invented "Digital Eye Glass", a device that, when worn, causes the human eye itself to effectively become both an electronic camera and a television display. Subsequently, wearable cameras were used for health-related applications in the context of Humanistic Intelligence and Wearable AI. Egocentric vision is best done from the point-of-eye, but may also be done by way of a neck-worn camera when eyeglasses would be in-the-way. This neck-worn variant was popularized by way of the Microsoft SenseCam in 2006 for experimental health research works. The interest of the computer vision community into the egocentric paradigm has been arising slowly entering the 2010s and it is rapidly growing in recent years, boosted by both the impressive advances in the field of wearable technology and by the increasing number of potential applications. The prototypical first-person vision system described by Kanade and Hebert, in 2012 is composed by three basic components: a localization component able to estimate the surrounding, a recognition component able to identify object and people, and an activity recognition component, able to provide information about the current activity of the user. Together, these three components provide a complete situational awareness of the user, which in turn can be used to provide assistance to the user or to the caregiver. Following this idea, the first computational techniques for egocentric analysis focused on hand-related activity recognition and social interaction analysis. Also, given the unconstrained nature of the video and the huge amount of data generated, temporal segmentation and summarization were among the first problems addressed. After almost ten years of egocentric vision (2007–2017), the field is still undergoing diversification. Emerging research topics include: Social saliency estimation Multi-agent egocentric vision systems Privacy preserving techniques and applications Attention-based activity analysis Social interaction analysis Hand pose analysis Ego graphical User Interfaces (EUI) Understanding social dynamics and attention Revisiting robotic vision and machine vision as egocentric sensing Activity forecasting Gaze prediction == Technical challenges == Today's wearable cameras are small and lightweight digital recording devices that can acquire images and videos automatically, without the user intervention, with different resolutions and frame rates, and from a first-person point of view. Therefore, wearable cameras are naturally primed to gather visual information from our everyday interactions since they offer an intimate perspective of the visual field of the camera wearer. Depending on the frame rate, it is common to distinguish between photo-cameras (also called lifelogging cameras) and video-cameras. The former (e.g., Narrative Clip and Microsoft SenseCam), are commonly worn on the chest, and are characterized by a very low frame rate (up to 2fpm) that allows to capture images over a long period of time without the need of recharging the battery. Consequently, they offer considerable potential for inferring knowledge about e.g. behaviour patterns, habits or lifestyle of the user. However, due to the low frame-rate and the free motion of the camera, temporally adjacent images typically present abrupt appearance changes so that motion features cannot be reliably estimated. The latter (e.g., Google Glass, GoPro), are commonly mounted on the head, and capture conventional video (around 35fps) that allows to capture fine temporal details of interactions. Consequently, they offer potential for in-depth analysis of daily or special activities. However, since the camera is moving with the wearer head, it becomes more difficult to estimate the global motion of the wearer and in the case of abrupt movements, the images can result blurred. In both cases, since the camera is worn in a naturalistic setting, visual data present a huge variability in terms of illumination conditions and object appearance. Moreover, the camera wearer is not visible in the image and what he/she is doing has to be inferred from the information in the visual field of the camera, implying that important information about the wearer, such for instance as pose or facial expression estimation, is not available. == Applications == A collection of studies published in a special theme issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine has demonstrated the potential of lifelogs captured through wearable cameras from a number of viewpoints. In particular, it has been shown that used as a tool for understanding and tracking lifestyle behaviour, lifelogs would enable the prevention of noncommunicable diseases associated to unhealthy trends and risky profiles (such as obesity and depression). In addition, used as a tool of re-memory cognitive training, lifelogs would enable the prevention of cognitive and functional decline in elderly people. More recently, egocentric cameras have been used to study human and animal cognition, human-human social interaction, human-robot interaction, human expertise in complex tasks. Other applications include navigation/assistive technologies for the blind, monitoring and assistance of industrial workflows, and augmented reality interfaces.
Read more →
Cloem

Cloem is a company based in Cannes, France, which applies natural language processing (NLP) technologies to assist patent applicants in creating variants of patent claims, called "cloems". According to the company, these "computer-generated claims can be published to keep potential competitors from attempting to file adjacent patent claims." == Technology == According to Cloem, dictionaries, ontologies and proprietary claim-drafting algorithms are used to draft alternative claims based on a client's original set of claims. In particular, the original set of claims is subject to various permutations and linguistic manipulations "by considering alternative definitions for terms as well as “synonyms, hyponyms, hyperonyms, meronyms, holonyms, and antonyms.”" == Possible uses == Cloem can optionally publish one or more created texts, as electronic publications or as paper-printed publications. These can potentially serve – through a defensive publication – as prior art to prevent another party for obtaining a patent on the subject-matter at stake. In other words, after an initial patent filing, an "improvement" patent (adjacent invention) can be applied for by another party, such as a competitor. By publishing variants of a patent claim, the risk of adverse patenting may potentially be decreased (improvement inventions may no longer be patentable). Cloems may also be potentially patentable. One of the issues of patentability, however, is that only a natural person can be a listed as an inventor on a patent. Since cloems are produced by a computer based on a person's input, it is not clear if the computer or the person is the inventor. The inventorship of Cloem texts is an open question.
Read more →
Behavior-based robotics

Behavior-based robotics (BBR) or behavioral robotics is an approach in robotics that focuses on robots that are able to exhibit complex-appearing behaviors despite little internal variable state to model its immediate environment, mostly gradually correcting its actions via sensory-motor links. == Principles == Behavior-based robotics sets itself apart from traditional artificial intelligence by using biological systems as a model. Classic artificial intelligence typically uses a set of steps to solve problems, it follows a path based on internal representations of events compared to the behavior-based approach. Rather than use preset calculations to tackle a situation, behavior-based robotics relies on adaptability. This advancement has allowed behavior-based robotics to become commonplace in researching and data gathering. Most behavior-based systems are also reactive, which means they need no programming of what a chair looks like, or what kind of surface the robot is moving on. Instead, all the information is gleaned from the input of the robot's sensors. The robot uses that information to gradually correct its actions according to the changes in immediate environment. Behavior-based robots (BBR) usually show more biological-appearing actions than their computing-intensive counterparts, which are very deliberate in their actions. A BBR often makes mistakes, repeats actions, and appears confused, but can also show the anthropomorphic quality of tenacity. Comparisons between BBRs and insects are frequent because of these actions. BBRs are sometimes considered examples of weak artificial intelligence, although some have claimed they are models of all intelligence. == Features == Most behavior-based robots are programmed with a basic set of features to start them off. They are given a behavioral repertoire to work with dictating what behaviors to use and when, obstacle avoidance and battery charging can provide a foundation to help the robots learn and succeed. Rather than build world models, behavior-based robots simply react to their environment and problems within that environment. They draw upon internal knowledge learned from their past experiences combined with their basic behaviors to resolve problems. == History == The school of behavior-based robots owes much to work undertaken in the 1980s at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology by Rodney Brooks, who with students and colleagues built a series of wheeled and legged robots utilizing the subsumption architecture. Brooks' papers, often written with lighthearted titles such as "Planning is just a way of avoiding figuring out what to do next", the anthropomorphic qualities of his robots, and the relatively low cost of developing such robots, popularized the behavior-based approach. Brooks' work builds—whether by accident or not—on two prior milestones in the behavior-based approach. In the 1950s, W. Grey Walter, an English scientist with a background in neurological research, built a pair of vacuum tube-based robots that were exhibited at the 1951 Festival of Britain, and which have simple but effective behavior-based control systems. The second milestone is Valentino Braitenberg's 1984 book, "Vehicles – Experiments in Synthetic Psychology" (MIT Press). He describes a series of thought experiments demonstrating how simply wired sensor/motor connections can result in some complex-appearing behaviors such as fear and love. Later work in BBR is from the BEAM robotics community, which has built upon the work of Mark Tilden. Tilden was inspired by the reduction in the computational power needed for walking mechanisms from Brooks' experiments (which used one microcontroller for each leg), and further reduced the computational requirements to that of logic chips, transistor-based electronics, and analog circuit design. A different direction of development includes extensions of behavior-based robotics to multi-robot teams. The focus in this work is on developing simple generic mechanisms that result in coordinated group behavior, either implicitly or explicitly.
Read more →
Grammar checker

A grammar checker, in computing terms, is a program, or part of a program, that attempts to verify written text for grammatical correctness. Grammar checkers are most often implemented as a feature of a larger program, such as a word processor, but are also available as a stand-alone application that can be activated from within programs that work with editable text. The implementation of a grammar checker makes use of natural language processing. == History == The earliest "grammar checkers" were programs that checked for punctuation and style inconsistencies, rather than a complete range of possible grammatical errors. The first system was called Writer's Workbench, and was a set of writing tools included with Unix systems as far back as the 1970s. The whole Writer's Workbench package included several separate tools to check for various writing problems. The "diction" tool checked for wordy, trite, clichéd or misused phrases in a text. The tool would output a list of questionable phrases and provide suggestions for improving the writing. The "style" tool analyzed the writing style of a given text. It performed a number of readability tests on the text and output the results, and gave some statistical information about the sentences of the text. Aspen Software of Albuquerque, New Mexico released the earliest version of a diction and style checker for personal computers, Grammatik, in 1981. Grammatik was first available for a Radio Shack - TRS-80, and soon had versions for CP/M and the IBM PC. Reference Software International of San Francisco, California, acquired Grammatik in 1985. Development of Grammatik continued, and it became an actual grammar checker that could detect writing errors beyond simple style checking. Other early diction and style checking programs included Punctuation & Style, Correct Grammar, RightWriter and PowerEdit. While all the earliest programs started as simple diction and style checkers, all eventually added various levels of language processing, and developed some level of true grammar checking capability. Until 1992, grammar checkers were sold as add-on programs. There were a large number of different word processing programs available at that time, with WordPerfect and Microsoft Word the top two in market share. In 1992, Microsoft decided to add grammar checking as a feature of Word, and licensed CorrecText, a grammar checker from Houghton Mifflin that had not yet been marketed as a standalone product. WordPerfect answered Microsoft's move by acquiring Reference Software, and the direct descendant of Grammatik is still included with WordPerfect. As of 2019, grammar checkers are built into systems like Google Docs, browser extensions like Grammarly and Qordoba, desktop applications like Ginger, free and open-source software like LanguageTool, and text editor plugins like those available from WebSpellChecker Software. == Technical issues == The earliest writing style programs checked for wordy, trite, clichéd, or misused phrases in a text. This process was based on simple pattern matching. The heart of the program was a list of many hundreds or thousands of phrases that are considered poor writing by many experts. The list of questionable phrases included alternative wording for each phrase. The checking program would simply break text into sentences, check for any matches in the phrase dictionary, flag suspect phrases and show an alternative. These programs could also perform some mechanical checks. For example, they would typically flag doubled words, doubled punctuation, some capitalization errors, and other simple mechanical mistakes. True grammar checking is more complex. While a programming language has a very specific syntax and grammar, this is not so for natural languages. One can write a somewhat complete formal grammar for a natural language, but there are usually so many exceptions in real usage that a formal grammar is of minimal help in writing a grammar checker. One of the most important parts of a natural language grammar checker is a dictionary of all the words in the language, along with the part of speech of each word. The fact that a natural word may be used as any one of several parts of speech (such as "free" being used as an adjective, adverb, noun, or verb) greatly increases the complexity of any grammar checker. A grammar checker will find each sentence in a text, look up each word in the dictionary, and then attempt to parse the sentence into a form that matches a grammar. Using various rules, the program can then detect various errors, such as agreement in tense, number, word order, and so on. It is also possible to detect some stylistic problems with the text. For example, some popular style guides such as The Elements of Style deprecate excessive use of the passive voice. Grammar checkers may attempt to identify passive sentences and suggest an active-voice alternative. The software elements required for grammar checking are closely related to some of the development issues that need to be addressed for speech recognition software. In voice recognition, parsing can be used to help predict which word is most likely intended, based on part of speech and position in the sentence. In grammar checking, the parsing is used to detect words that fail to follow accepted grammar usage. Recently, research has focused on developing algorithms which can recognize grammar errors based on the context of the surrounding words. == Criticism == Grammar checkers are considered a type of foreign language writing aid which non-native speakers can use to proofread their writings as such programs endeavor to identify syntactical errors. However, as with other computerized writing aids such as spell checkers, popular grammar checkers are often criticized when they fail to spot errors and incorrectly flag correct text as erroneous. The linguist Geoffrey K. Pullum argued in 2007 that they were generally so inaccurate as to do more harm than good: "for the most part, accepting the advice of a computer grammar checker on your prose will make it much worse, sometimes hilariously incoherent."
Read more →
Semantic compression

In natural language processing, semantic compression is a process of compacting a lexicon used to build a textual document (or a set of documents) by reducing language heterogeneity, while maintaining text semantics. As a result, the same ideas can be represented using a smaller set of words. In most applications, semantic compression is a lossy compression. Increased prolixity does not compensate for the lexical compression and an original document cannot be reconstructed in a reverse process. == By generalization == Semantic compression is basically achieved in two steps, using frequency dictionaries and semantic network: determining cumulated term frequencies to identify target lexicon, replacing less frequent terms with their hypernyms (generalization) from target lexicon. Step 1 requires assembling word frequencies and information on semantic relationships, specifically hyponymy. Moving upwards in word hierarchy, a cumulative concept frequency is calculating by adding a sum of hyponyms' frequencies to frequency of their hypernym: c u m f ( k i ) = f ( k i ) + ∑ j c u m f ( k j ) {\displaystyle cumf(k_{i})=f(k_{i})+\sum _{j}cumf(k_{j})} where k i {\displaystyle k_{i}} is a hypernym of k j {\displaystyle k_{j}} . Then a desired number of words with top cumulated frequencies are chosen to build a target lexicon. In the second step, compression mapping rules are defined for the remaining words in order to handle every occurrence of a less frequent hyponym as its hypernym in output text. Example The below fragment of text has been processed by the semantic compression. Words in bold have been replaced by their hypernyms. They are both nest building social insects, but paper wasps and honey bees organize their colonies in very different ways. In a new study, researchers report that despite their differences, these insects rely on the same network of genes to guide their social behavior.The study appears in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. Honey bees and paper wasps are separated by more than 100 million years of evolution, and there are striking differences in how they divvy up the work of maintaining a colony. The procedure outputs the following text: They are both facility building insect, but insects and honey insects arrange their biological groups in very different structure. In a new study, researchers report that despite their difference of opinions, these insects act the same network of genes to steer their party demeanor. The study appears in the proceeding of the institution bacteria Biological Sciences. Honey insects and insect are separated by more than hundred million years of organic processes, and there are impinging differences of opinions in how they divvy up the work of affirming a biological group. == Implicit semantic compression == A natural tendency to keep natural language expressions concise can be perceived as a form of implicit semantic compression, by omitting unmeaningful words or redundant meaningful words (especially to avoid pleonasms). == Applications and advantages == In the vector space model, compacting a lexicon leads to a reduction of dimensionality, which results in less computational complexity and a positive influence on efficiency. Semantic compression is advantageous in information retrieval tasks, improving their effectiveness (in terms of both precision and recall). This is due to more precise descriptors (reduced effect of language diversity – limited language redundancy, a step towards a controlled dictionary). As in the example above, it is possible to display the output as natural text (re-applying inflexion, adding stop words).
Read more →
Ugly duckling theorem

The ugly duckling theorem is an argument showing that classification is not really possible without some sort of bias. More particularly, it assumes finitely many properties combinable by logical connectives, and finitely many objects; it asserts that any two different objects share the same number of (extensional) properties. The theorem is named after Hans Christian Andersen's 1843 story "The Ugly Duckling", because it shows that a duckling is just as similar to a swan as two swans are to each other. It was derived by Satosi Watanabe in 1969. == Mathematical formula == Suppose there are n things in the universe, and one wants to put them into classes or categories. One has no preconceived ideas or biases about what sorts of categories are "natural" or "normal" and what are not. So one has to consider all the possible classes that could be, all the possible ways of making a set out of the n objects. There are 2 n {\displaystyle 2^{n}} such ways, the size of the power set of n objects. One can use that to measure the similarity between two objects, and one would see how many sets they have in common. However, one cannot. Any two objects have exactly the same number of classes in common if we can form any possible class, namely 2 n − 1 {\displaystyle 2^{n-1}} (half the total number of classes there are). To see this is so, one may imagine each class is represented by an n-bit string (or binary encoded integer), with a zero for each element not in the class and a one for each element in the class. As one finds, there are 2 n {\displaystyle 2^{n}} such strings. As all possible choices of zeros and ones are there, any two bit-positions will agree exactly half the time. One may pick two elements and reorder the bits so they are the first two, and imagine the numbers sorted lexicographically. The first 2 n / 2 {\displaystyle 2^{n}/2} numbers will have bit #1 set to zero, and the second 2 n / 2 {\displaystyle 2^{n}/2} will have it set to one. Within each of those blocks, the top 2 n / 4 {\displaystyle 2^{n}/4} will have bit #2 set to zero and the other 2 n / 4 {\displaystyle 2^{n}/4} will have it as one, so they agree on two blocks of 2 n / 4 {\displaystyle 2^{n}/4} or on half of all the cases, no matter which two elements one picks. So if we have no preconceived bias about which categories are better, everything is then equally similar (or equally dissimilar). The number of predicates simultaneously satisfied by two non-identical elements is constant over all such pairs. Thus, some kind of inductive bias is needed to make judgements to prefer certain categories over others. === Boolean functions === Let x 1 , x 2 , … , x n {\displaystyle x_{1},x_{2},\dots ,x_{n}} be a set of vectors of k {\displaystyle k} booleans each. The ugly duckling is the vector which is least like the others. Given the booleans, this can be computed using Hamming distance. However, the choice of boolean features to consider could have been somewhat arbitrary. Perhaps there were features derivable from the original features that were important for identifying the ugly duckling. The set of booleans in the vector can be extended with new features computed as boolean functions of the k {\displaystyle k} original features. The only canonical way to do this is to extend it with all possible Boolean functions. The resulting completed vectors have 2 k {\displaystyle 2^{k}} features. The ugly duckling theorem states that there is no ugly duckling because any two completed vectors will either be equal or differ in exactly half of the features. Proof. Let x and y be two vectors. If they are the same, then their completed vectors must also be the same because any Boolean function of x will agree with the same Boolean function of y. If x and y are different, then there exists a coordinate i {\displaystyle i} where the i {\displaystyle i} -th coordinate of x {\displaystyle x} differs from the i {\displaystyle i} -th coordinate of y {\displaystyle y} . Now the completed features contain every Boolean function on k {\displaystyle k} Boolean variables, with each one exactly once. Viewing these Boolean functions as polynomials in k {\displaystyle k} variables over GF(2), segregate the functions into pairs ( f , g ) {\displaystyle (f,g)} where f {\displaystyle f} contains the i {\displaystyle i} -th coordinate as a linear term and g {\displaystyle g} is f {\displaystyle f} without that linear term. Now, for every such pair ( f , g ) {\displaystyle (f,g)} , x {\displaystyle x} and y {\displaystyle y} will agree on exactly one of the two functions. If they agree on one, they must disagree on the other and vice versa. (This proof is believed to be due to Watanabe.) == Discussion == A possible way around the ugly duckling theorem would be to introduce a constraint on how similarity is measured by limiting the properties involved in classification, for instance, between A and B. However Medin et al. (1993) point out that this does not actually resolve the arbitrariness or bias problem since in what respects A is similar to B: "varies with the stimulus context and task, so that there is no unique answer, to the question of how similar is one object to another". For example, "a barberpole and a zebra would be more similar than a horse and a zebra if the feature striped had sufficient weight. Of course, if these feature weights were fixed, then these similarity relations would be constrained". Yet the property "striped" as a weight 'fix' or constraint is arbitrary itself, meaning: "unless one can specify such criteria, then the claim that categorization is based on attribute matching is almost entirely vacuous". Stamos (2003) remarked that some judgments of overall similarity are non-arbitrary in the sense they are useful: "Presumably, people's perceptual and conceptual processes have evolved that information that matters to human needs and goals can be roughly approximated by a similarity heuristic... If you are in the jungle and you see a tiger but you decide not to stereotype (perhaps because you believe that similarity is a false friend), then you will probably be eaten. In other words, in the biological world stereotyping based on veridical judgments of overall similarity statistically results in greater survival and reproductive success." Unless some properties are considered more salient, or 'weighted' more important than others, everything will appear equally similar, hence Watanabe (1986) wrote: "any objects, in so far as they are distinguishable, are equally similar". In a weaker setting that assumes infinitely many properties, Murphy and Medin (1985) give an example of two putative classified things, plums and lawnmowers: "Suppose that one is to list the attributes that plums and lawnmowers have in common in order to judge their similarity. It is easy to see that the list could be infinite: Both weigh less than 10,000 kg (and less than 10,001 kg), both did not exist 10,000,000 years ago (and 10,000,001 years ago), both cannot hear well, both can be dropped, both take up space, and so on. Likewise, the list of differences could be infinite… any two entities can be arbitrarily similar or dissimilar by changing the criterion of what counts as a relevant attribute." According to Woodward, the ugly duckling theorem is related to Schaffer's Conservation Law for Generalization Performance, which states that all algorithms for learning of boolean functions from input/output examples have the same overall generalization performance as random guessing. The latter result is generalized by Woodward to functions on countably infinite domains.
Read more →
Spotify Kids

Spotify Kids is a Swedish kid-friendly Music streaming service developed by Spotify. It offers curated content for children, including music, audiobooks, lullabies, and bedtime stories, while providing their parents with parental controls. The service is only available to subscribers to Spotify's Premium Family subscription plan. == Function == Spotify Kids is a Swedish Kid-friendly Music Streaming Service that allows children to browse Spotify with parental controls. Using the app, parents can view their children's listening history, block specific songs, and share playlists with their children. The app also includes sing-along songs, playlists designed for young children, and curated audiobooks, lullabies, and bedtime stories. Access is included in Spotify's Premium Family subscription plan, and is exclusive to subscribers to the plan. Users can configure the app for a specific age group upon first launch. The playlists on Spotify Kids are curated by groups including Discovery Kids, Nickelodeon, Universal Pictures, and The Walt Disney Company. All content on the Spotify Kids app is curated by editors. As of March 2021, there were roughly 8,000 songs available on the platform. The design of the Spotify Kids app is colorful, and user interface varies depending on the age group for which the app is configured. Spotify Kids is designed to comply with consent and data collection regulations for apps used by children. TechCrunch explains that it is "designed on a grand scale to drive subscriptions to Spotify's top-tier $14.99-per-month Premium Family Plan." == Release == After being beta tested in Ireland in October 2019, it was released as a beta across the United Kingdom on February 11, 2020. It was later released in Sweden, Denmark, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, Argentina, and Brazil. On March 31, 2021, it was made available in France, Canada, and the United States.
Read more →
NetMiner

NetMiner is an all-in-one software platform for analyzing and visualizing complex network data, based on Social Network Analysis (SNA). Originally released in 2001, it supports research and education in a wide range of domains through interactive and visual data exploration. This tool allows researchers to explore their network data visually and interactively, and helps them to detect underlying patterns and structures of the network. It has also been recognized for its comprehensive features and user-friendly interface in comparative reviews of SNA software packages. == Features == === Integrated Data Environment === NetMiner supports unified management of diverse data types—including network (nodes and links), tabular, and unstructured text data—within a single platform. This enables users to perform the entire analysis workflow seamlessly without switching between tools. NetMiner also supports a wide range of analytical methods, allowing users to derive new insights by combining multiple approaches. Analytical results can be saved and reused across workflows(Add to Dataset) Graph and Network Analysis: Includes Centrality, Community Detection, Blockmodeling, and Similarity Measures. Machine learning: Provides algorithms for regression, classification, clustering, ensemble modeling and XAI(Explainable AI) Graph Neural Networks (GNNs): Supports models such as GraphSAGE, GCN, and GAT to learn from both node attributes and graph structure. Natural language processing (NLP): Uses pretrained deep learning models to analyze unstructured text, including named entity recognition and keyword extraction. Text mining and Text network analysis: Supports construction of word co-occurrence networks and topic modeling using LDA, BERTopic, enabling identification of thematic patterns and semantic structures in text data. Data Visualization: Offers advanced network visualization features, supporting multiple layout algorithms. Analytical outcomes such as centrality or community detection can be directly reflected in the network map via node size, color, and position, enhancing intuitive understanding. === AI Assistant === NetMiner integrates with external large language models such as OpenAI GPT and Google Gemini to interpret complex analysis results in natural language, summarize key findings, and suggest next steps for exploration. === Workflow and Usability === Designed to follow the structure of real-world data analysis workflows, NetMiner adopts a hierarchical data organization (Project → Workspace → Dataset → Data Item). Its web-based user interface improves clarity and reduces complexity. NetMiner 5 supports Windows 10 or higher and macOS 11 or later with M1 chip. Both academic and commercial licenses are available. == Extension == NetMiner Extension is small program to extend the functionality of NetMiner. In other words, it enables you to customize NetMiner according to your needs. By adding ‘NetMiner Extension’, you can expand your research. === Web Data Collection === NetMiner allows users to collect data from services such as YouTube, OpenAlex, Springer, and KCI via Open APIs. Collected data is automatically preprocessed and transformed to fit NetMiner’s internal structure, requiring no additional coding or external tools. SNS Data Collector: It collects social media data from YouTube, which has a large number of social media users worldwide. Biblio Data Collector: It collects the bibliographic data from Springer, OpenAlex, and KCI essential for research trend analysis. == File formats == === NetMiner data file format === .NMF === Importable/exportable formats === Plain text data: .TXT, .CSV Microsoft Excel data: .XLS, .XLSX Unstructured text data: .TXT, .CSV, .XLS(X) ※ NetMiner 4 only NetMiner 2 data: .NTF UCINet data: .DL, .DAT Pajek data: .NET, .VEC, .CLU, .PER StOCNET data file: .DAT Graph Modelling Language data: .GML(importing only) Related software UCINET Pajek Gephi StoCNET == Data structure == === Hierarchy of NetMiner data structure === NetMiner 5 supports not only graph data composed of nodes and links, but also tabular and unstructured data without fixed schema or identifiers. This enables users to easily import a wide variety of raw and unstructured data suitable for machine learning applications. Within a single workspace, users can manage node sets, link sets, and structured/unstructured data simultaneously. Multiple graph layers under a node set can be organized in a tree structure, allowing for intuitive understanding of the data currently being analyzed. == Release history == The first version of NetMiner was released on Dec 21, 2001. There have been five major updates from 2001. === NetMiner 5 === Released on June 9, 2025. NetMiner 5 retains the core features and no-code concept of NetMiner 4, but has evolved by integrating cutting-edge AI technologies. AI Assistant, Personal Analytics Tutor Support for Graph, Structured, and Unstructured Data Graph Analytics / Social Network Analysis Machine Learning(M/L) & XAI Graph Machine Learning(GML): Graph Neural Network Text Mining: Natural Language Processing(NLP), Text Network, Topic Modeling Data Visualization === NetMiner 4 (2011) === Latest version is 4.5.1. Introduced Python scripting, encrypted NMF format, semantic analysis tools (word cloud, topic modeling), and Extension - Data Collector. === NetMiner 3 (2007) === Enhanced scalability, integrated analysis-visualization modules, and DB import from Oracle, MS SQL. === NetMiner 2 (2003) === Improved statistical and network measures, visualization algorithms, and external data import modules.
Read more →
Open information extraction

In natural language processing, open information extraction (OIE) is the task of generating a structured, machine-readable representation of the information in text, usually in the form of triples or n-ary propositions. == Overview == A proposition can be understood as truth-bearer, a textual expression of a potential fact (e.g., "Dante wrote the Divine Comedy"), represented in an amenable structure for computers [e.g., ("Dante", "wrote", "Divine Comedy")]. An OIE extraction normally consists of a relation and a set of arguments. For instance, ("Dante", "passed away in" "Ravenna") is a proposition formed by the relation "passed away in" and the arguments "Dante" and "Ravenna". The first argument is usually referred as the subject while the second is considered to be the object. The extraction is said to be a textual representation of a potential fact because its elements are not linked to a knowledge base. Furthermore, the factual nature of the proposition has not yet been established. In the above example, transforming the extraction into a full fledged fact would first require linking, if possible, the relation and the arguments to a knowledge base. Second, the truth of the extraction would need to be determined. In computer science transforming OIE extractions into ontological facts is known as relation extraction. In fact, OIE can be seen as the first step to a wide range of deeper text understanding tasks such as relation extraction, knowledge-base construction, question answering, semantic role labeling. The extracted propositions can also be directly used for end-user applications such as structured search (e.g., retrieve all propositions with "Dante" as subject). OIE was first introduced by TextRunner developed at the University of Washington Turing Center headed by Oren Etzioni. Other methods introduced later such as Reverb, OLLIE, ClausIE or CSD helped to shape the OIE task by characterizing some of its aspects. At a high level, all of these approaches make use of a set of patterns to generate the extractions. Depending on the particular approach, these patterns are either hand-crafted or learned. == OIE systems and contributions == Reverb suggested the necessity to produce meaningful relations to more accurately capture the information in the input text. For instance, given the sentence "Faust made a pact with the devil", it would be erroneous to just produce the extraction ("Faust", "made", "a pact") since it would not be adequately informative. A more precise extraction would be ("Faust", "made a pact with", "the devil"). Reverb also argued against the generation of overspecific relations. OLLIE stressed two important aspects for OIE. First, it pointed to the lack of factuality of the propositions. For instance, in a sentence like "If John studies hard, he will pass the exam", it would be inaccurate to consider ("John", "will pass", "the exam") as a fact. Additionally, the authors indicated that an OIE system should be able to extract non-verb mediated relations, which account for significant portion of the information expressed in natural language text. For instance, in the sentence "Obama, the former US president, was born in Hawaii", an OIE system should be able to recognize a proposition ("Obama", "is", "former US president"). ClausIE introduced the connection between grammatical clauses, propositions, and OIE extractions. The authors stated that as each grammatical clause expresses a proposition, each verb mediated proposition can be identified by solely recognizing the set of clauses expressed in each sentence. This implies that to correctly recognize the set of propositions in an input sentence, it is necessary to understand its grammatical structure. The authors studied the case in the English language that only admits seven clause types, meaning that the identification of each proposition only requires defining seven grammatical patterns. The finding also established a separation between the recognition of the propositions and its materialization. In a first step, the proposition can be identified without any consideration of its final form, in a domain-independent and unsupervised way, mostly based on linguistic principles. In a second step, the information can be represented according to the requirements of the underlying application, without conditioning the identification phase. Consider the sentence "Albert Einstein was born in Ulm and died in Princeton". The first step will recognize the two propositions ("Albert Einstein", "was born", "in Ulm") and ("Albert Einstein", "died", "in Princeton"). Once the information has been correctly identified, the propositions can take the particular form required by the underlying application [e.g., ("Albert Einstein", "was born in", "Ulm") and ("Albert Einstein", "died in", "Princeton")]. CSD introduced the idea of minimality in OIE. It considers that computers can make better use of the extractions if they are expressed in a compact way. This is especially important in sentences with subordinate clauses. In these cases, CSD suggests the generation of nested extractions. For example, consider the sentence "The Embassy said that 6,700 Americans were in Pakistan". CSD generates two extractions [i] ("6,700 Americans", "were", "in Pakistan") and [ii] ("The Embassy", "said", "that [i]"). This is usually known as reification.
Read more →