AI Chatbot That Sends Pictures

AI Chatbot That Sends Pictures — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

  • Multiple satellite imaging

    Multiple satellite imaging

    Multiple satellite imaging is the process of using multiple satellites to gather more information than a single satellite so that a better estimate of the desired source is possible. Something that cannot be resolved with one telescope might be visible with two or more telescopes. == Background == Interferometry is the process of combining waves in such a way that they constructively interfere. When two or more independent sources detect a signal at the same given frequency those signals can be combined and the result is better than each one individually. An overview of Astronomical interferometers and a History of astronomical interferometry can be referenced from their respective pages. The NASA Origins Program was created in the 1990s to ultimately search for the origin of the universe. The theory that the Origins Program is based on is: since light travels at a constant speed until it is absorbed by something; there is still light that was part of the first light ever created traveling about the universe and ultimately some of that light is coming in the general direction of Earth. So a satellite system capable of collecting light from the beginning of the universe would be able to tell us more about where we came from. There is also the constant search for life in other worlds. A satellite system using the interferometric technologies mentioned above would be able to have a much higher resolution than any of the current deep space imaging systems. == Future == NASA is currently focused on the Vision for Space Exploration and has reduced current funding for scientific unmanned space exploration in favor of human exploration. These budget cuts have slowed the multiple satellite imaging development and relevant scientific missions as Project Prometheus and Terrestrial Planet Finder have ended as well but research continues.

    Read more →
  • The Best Free AI Subtitle Generator for Beginners

    The Best Free AI Subtitle Generator for Beginners

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

    Read more →
  • Forrest N. Iandola

    Forrest N. Iandola

    Forrest N. Iandola is an American computer scientist specializing in efficient AI. == Career == Iandola earned a PhD in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science from UC Berkeley in 2016, advised by Kurt Keutzer. As part of his dissertation, he co-authored SqueezeNet, a deep neural network for image classification optimized for smartphones and other mobile devices. Iandola and Keutzer went on to co-found DeepScale. The firm squeezes deep neural networks onto low-cost automotive-grade processors for use in driver assistance systems. Tesla acquired DeepScale in 2019. In 2020, he co-authored SqueezeBERT, an efficient neural network for natural language processing. In 2022, he joined Meta as an AI research scientist. His research at Meta includes developing efficient AI models, such as EfficientSAM and MobileLLM.

    Read more →
  • Markov chain central limit theorem

    Markov chain central limit theorem

    In the mathematical theory of random processes, the Markov chain central limit theorem has a conclusion somewhat similar in form to that of the classic central limit theorem (CLT) of probability theory, but the quantity in the role taken by the variance in the classic CLT has a more complicated definition. See also the general form of Bienaymé's identity. == Statement == Suppose that: the sequence X 1 , X 2 , X 3 , … {\textstyle X_{1},X_{2},X_{3},\ldots } of random elements of some set is a Markov chain that has a stationary probability distribution; and the initial distribution of the process, i.e. the distribution of X 1 {\textstyle X_{1}} , is the stationary distribution, so that X 1 , X 2 , X 3 , … {\textstyle X_{1},X_{2},X_{3},\ldots } are identically distributed. In the classic central limit theorem these random variables would be assumed to be independent, but here we have only the weaker assumption that the process has the Markov property; and g {\textstyle g} is some (measurable) real-valued function for which var ⁡ ( g ( X 1 ) ) < + ∞ . {\textstyle \operatorname {var} (g(X_{1}))<+\infty .} Now let μ = E ⁡ ( g ( X 1 ) ) , μ ^ n = 1 n ∑ k = 1 n g ( X k ) σ 2 := lim n → ∞ var ⁡ ( n μ ^ n ) = lim n → ∞ n var ⁡ ( μ ^ n ) = var ⁡ ( g ( X 1 ) ) + 2 ∑ k = 1 ∞ cov ⁡ ( g ( X 1 ) , g ( X 1 + k ) ) . {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\mu &=\operatorname {E} (g(X_{1})),\\{\widehat {\mu }}_{n}&={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{k=1}^{n}g(X_{k})\\\sigma ^{2}&:=\lim _{n\to \infty }\operatorname {var} ({\sqrt {n}}{\widehat {\mu }}_{n})=\lim _{n\to \infty }n\operatorname {var} ({\widehat {\mu }}_{n})=\operatorname {var} (g(X_{1}))+2\sum _{k=1}^{\infty }\operatorname {cov} (g(X_{1}),g(X_{1+k})).\end{aligned}}} Then as n → ∞ , {\textstyle n\to \infty ,} we have n ( μ ^ n − μ ) → D Normal ( 0 , σ 2 ) , {\displaystyle {\sqrt {n}}({\hat {\mu }}_{n}-\mu )\ {\xrightarrow {\mathcal {D}}}\ {\text{Normal}}(0,\sigma ^{2}),} where the decorated arrow indicates convergence in distribution. == Monte Carlo Setting == The Markov chain central limit theorem can be guaranteed for functionals of general state space Markov chains under certain conditions. In particular, this can be done with a focus on Monte Carlo settings. An example of the application in a MCMC (Markov Chain Monte Carlo) setting is the following: Consider a simple hard spheres model on a grid. Suppose X = { 1 , … , n 1 } × { 1 , … , n 2 } ⊆ Z 2 {\displaystyle X=\{1,\ldots ,n_{1}\}\times \{1,\ldots ,n_{2}\}\subseteq Z^{2}} . A proper configuration on X {\displaystyle X} consists of coloring each point either black or white in such a way that no two adjacent points are white. Let χ {\displaystyle \chi } denote the set of all proper configurations on X {\displaystyle X} , N χ ( n 1 , n 2 ) {\displaystyle N_{\chi }(n_{1},n_{2})} be the total number of proper configurations and π be the uniform distribution on χ {\displaystyle \chi } so that each proper configuration is equally likely. Suppose our goal is to calculate the typical number of white points in a proper configuration; that is, if W ( x ) {\displaystyle W(x)} is the number of white points in x ∈ χ {\displaystyle x\in \chi } then we want the value of E π W = ∑ x ∈ χ W ( x ) N χ ( n 1 , n 2 ) {\displaystyle E_{\pi }W=\sum _{x\in \chi }{\frac {W(x)}{N_{\chi }{\bigl (}n_{1},n_{2}{\bigr )}}}} If n 1 {\displaystyle n_{1}} and n 2 {\displaystyle n_{2}} are even moderately large then we will have to resort to an approximation to E π W {\displaystyle E_{\pi }W} . Consider the following Markov chain on χ {\displaystyle \chi } . Fix p ∈ ( 0 , 1 ) {\displaystyle p\in (0,1)} and set X 1 = x 1 {\displaystyle X_{1}=x_{1}} where x 1 ∈ χ {\displaystyle x_{1}\in \chi } is an arbitrary proper configuration. Randomly choose a point ( x , y ) ∈ X {\displaystyle (x,y)\in X} and independently draw U ∼ U n i f o r m ( 0 , 1 ) {\displaystyle U\sim \mathrm {Uniform} (0,1)} . If u ≤ p {\displaystyle u\leq p} and all of the adjacent points are black then color ( x , y ) {\displaystyle (x,y)} white leaving all other points alone. Otherwise, color ( x , y ) {\displaystyle (x,y)} black and leave all other points alone. Call the resulting configuration X 1 {\displaystyle X_{1}} . Continuing in this fashion yields a Harris ergodic Markov chain { X 1 , X 2 , X 3 , … } {\displaystyle \{X_{1},X_{2},X_{3},\ldots \}} having π {\displaystyle \pi } as its invariant distribution. It is now a simple matter to estimate E π W {\displaystyle E_{\pi }W} with w n ¯ = ∑ i = 1 n W ( X i ) / n {\displaystyle {\overline {w_{n}}}=\sum _{i=1}^{n}W(X_{i})/n} . Also, since χ {\displaystyle \chi } is finite (albeit potentially large) it is well known that X {\displaystyle X} will converge exponentially fast to π {\displaystyle \pi } which implies that a CLT holds for w n ¯ {\displaystyle {\overline {w_{n}}}} . == Implications == Not taking into account the additional terms in the variance which stem from correlations (e.g. serial correlations in markov chain monte carlo simulations) can result in the problem of pseudoreplication when computing e.g. the confidence intervals for the sample mean.

    Read more →
  • Contextual AI

    Contextual AI

    Contextual AI is an enterprise software company based in Mountain View, California. It develops a platform for building specialized Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) agents for enterprise use. The company was founded in 2023 by Douwe Kiela and Amanpreet Singh, both former AI researchers at Facebook AI Research (FAIR) and Hugging Face. Douwe Kiela previously led the Meta research team that introduced the Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) approach in 2020. Contextual AI focuses on enterprise generative AI applications using RAG 2.0 technology, with deployments primarily in the technology, banking, finance and media sectors. == History == In June 2023, Contextual AI announced it had raised $20 million in a seed funding round led by Bain Capital Ventures (BCV), with participation from Lightspeed Venture Partners, Greycroft, SV Angel, and several angel investors. In August 2024, the company raised $80 million in a Series A funding round led by Greycroft, with participation from previous investors including Bain Capital Ventures, Lightspeed, and Conviction Partners. The round also included new backers such as Bezos Expeditions, NVentures (Nvidia), HSBC Ventures, and Snowflake Ventures. == Features == Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) is an artificial intelligence framework that integrates information retrieval with text generation to improve the performance of large language models (LLMs) on complex, knowledge-intensive tasks. It was introduced in 2020 by researchers at Meta AI, including Douwe Kiela, Patrick Lewis and others, in their paper Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Tasks. RAG enables language models to access and incorporate external information, such as proprietary databases or real-time web content, at query time, instead of relying solely on pre-trained, internal, static knowledge. This architecture addresses common limitations of standard LLMs, including hallucination, outdated information, and lack of attribution to source materials. RAG systems retrieve relevant context through a variety of techniques - including vector search, keyword search, text-to-SQL - and feeds this context into the language model to generate responses. The approach improves factual accuracy, supports domain-specific customization, enables citation of sources, and allows for more updated information without retraining the model itself. General Availability. In January 2025, Contextual AI announced the general availability of its enterprise platform for building specialized RAG agents. Early adopters included Qualcomm, which used the platform for their Customer Engineering team needs. Grounded Language Model. In March 2025, the company introduced a Grounded Language Model (GLM) for factual accuracy in enterprise AI applications. Reranker. In March 2025, Contextual AI released an instruction-following reranker that allows users to influence the ranking of retrieved documents through natural language instructions, such as prioritizing recent files, specific formats, or content from designated sources. == Applications == Contextual AI's platform has been adopted across a range of industries, including finance, technology, media and professional services. Clients include Fortune 500 companies such as Qualcomm and HSBC.

    Read more →
  • Glottochronology

    Glottochronology

    Glottochronology (from Attic Greek γλῶττα 'tongue, language' and χρόνος 'time') is the part of lexicostatistics which involves comparative linguistics and deals with the chronological relationship between languages. The idea was developed by Morris Swadesh in the 1950s in his article on Salish internal relationships. He developed the idea under two assumptions: there indeed exists a relatively stable basic vocabulary (referred to as Swadesh lists) in all languages of the world; and, any replacements happen in a way analogous to radioactive decay in a constant percentage per time elapsed. Using mathematics and statistics, Swadesh developed an equation to determine when languages separated and give an approximate time of when the separation occurred. His methods aimed to aid linguistic anthropologists by giving them a definitive way to determine a separation date between two languages. The formula provides an approximate number of centuries since two languages were supposed to have separated from a singular common ancestor. His methods also purported to provide information on when ancient languages may have existed. Despite multiple studies and literature containing the information of glottochronology, it is not widely used today and is surrounded with controversy. Glottochronology tracks language separation from thousands of years ago but many linguists are skeptical of the concept because it is more of a 'probability' rather than a 'certainty.' On the other hand, some linguists may say that glottochronology is gaining traction because of its relatedness to archaeological dates. Glottochronology is not as accurate as archaeological data, but some linguists still believe that it can provide a solid estimate. Over time many different extensions of the Swadesh method evolved; however, Swadesh's original method is so well known that 'glottochronology' is usually associated with him. == Methodology == The original method of glottochronology presumed that the core vocabulary of a language is replaced at a constant (or constant average) rate across all languages and cultures and so can be used to measure the passage of time. The process makes use of a list of lexical terms and morphemes which are similar to multiple languages. Lists were compiled by Morris Swadesh and assumed to be resistant against borrowing (originally designed in 1952 as a list of 200 items, but the refined 100-word list in Swadesh (1955) is much more common among modern day linguists). The core vocabulary was designed to encompass concepts common to every human language such as personal pronouns, body parts, heavenly bodies and living beings, verbs of basic actions, numerals, basic adjectives, kin terms, and natural occurrences and events. Through a basic word list, one eliminates concepts that are specific to a particular culture or time period. It has been found through differentiating word lists that the ideal is really impossible and that the meaning set may need to be tailored to the languages being compared. Word lists are not homogenous throughout studies and they are often changed and designed to suit both languages being studied. Linguists find that it is difficult to find a word list where all words used are culturally unbiased. Many alternative word lists have been compiled by other linguists and often use fewer meaning slots. The percentage of cognates (words with a common origin) in the word lists is then measured. The larger the percentage of cognates, the more recently the two languages being compared are presumed to have separated. === Glottochronologic constant === Determining word lists rely on morpheme decay or change in vocabulary. Morpheme decay must stay at a constant rate for glottochronology to be applied to a language. This leads to a critique of the glottochronologic formula because some linguists argue that the morpheme decay rate is not guaranteed to stay the same throughout history. American Linguist Robert Lees obtained a value for the "glottochronological constant" (r) of words by considering the known changes in 13 pairs of languages using the 200 word list. He obtained a value of 0.8048 ± 0.0176 with 90% confidence. For his 100-word list Swadesh obtained a value of 0.86, the higher value reflecting the elimination of semantically unstable words. === Divergence time === The basic formula of glottochronology proposed by Morris Swadesh is: t = − ln ⁡ ( c ) 2 ln ⁡ ( r ) {\displaystyle t=-{\frac {\ln(c)}{2\ln(r)}}} t = a given period of time from one stage of the language to another (measured in millennia), c = proportion of wordlist items retained at the end of that period and r = rate of replacement for that word list. By testing historically verifiable cases in which t is known by nonlinguistic data (such as the approximate distance from Classical Latin to modern Romance languages), Swadesh arrived at the empirical value of approximately 0.14 for L, (c?) which means that the rate of replacement constitutes around 14 words from the 100-wordlist per millennium. This is represented in the table below. === Results === Glottochronology was applied to a range of language families, including Salishan, Indo-European, Japonic, Afro-Asiatic, Chinese and Mayan and other American languages. For Amerind, correlations have been obtained with radiocarbon dating and blood groups as well as archaeology. === Example Wordlist === Below is an example of a basic word list composed of basic Turkish words and their English translations. == Discussion == The concept of language change is old, and its history is reviewed in Hymes (1973) and Wells (1973). In some sense, glottochronology is a reconstruction of history and can often be closely related to archaeology. Many linguistic studies find the success of glottochronology to be found alongside archaeological data. Glottochronology itself dates back to the mid-20th century. An introduction to the subject is given in Embleton (1986) and in McMahon and McMahon (2005). Glottochronology has been controversial ever since, partly because of issues of accuracy but also because of the question of whether its basis is sound (for example, Bergsland 1958; Bergsland and Vogt 1962; Fodor 1961; Chrétien 1962; Guy 1980). The concerns have been addressed by Dobson et al. (1972), Dyen (1973) and Kruskal, Dyen and Black (1973). The assumption of a single-word replacement rate can distort the divergence-time estimate when borrowed words are included (Thomason and Kaufman 1988). The presentations vary from "Why linguists don't do dates" to the one by Starostin discussed below. Since its original inception, glottochronology has been rejected by many linguists, mostly Indo-Europeanists of the school of the traditional comparative method. Criticisms have been answered in particular around three points of discussion: Criticism levelled against the higher stability of lexemes in Swadesh lists alone (Haarmann 1990) misses the point because a certain amount of losses only enables the computations (Sankoff 1970). The non-homogeneity of word lists often leads to lack of understanding between linguists. Linguists also have difficulties finding a completely unbiased list of basic cultural words. it can take a long time for linguists to find a viable word list which can take several test lists to find a usable list. Traditional glottochronology presumes that language changes at a stable rate. Thus, in Bergsland & Vogt (1962), the authors make an impressive demonstration, on the basis of actual language data verifiable by extralinguistic sources, that the "rate of change" for Icelandic constituted around 4% per millennium, but for closely connected Riksmal (Literary Norwegian), it would amount to as much as 20% (Swadesh's proposed "constant rate" was supposed to be around 14% per millennium). That and several other similar examples effectively proved that Swadesh's formula would not work on all available material, which is a serious accusation since evidence that can be used to "calibrate" the meaning of L (language history recorded during prolonged periods of time) is not overwhelmingly large in the first place. It is highly likely that the chance of replacement is different for every word or feature ("each word has its own history", among hundreds of other sources:). That global assumption has been modified and downgraded to single words, even in single languages, in many newer attempts (see below). There is a lack of understanding of Swadesh's mathematical/statistical methods. Some linguists reject the methods in full because the statistics lead to 'probabilities' when linguists trust 'certainties' more. A serious argument is that language change arises from socio-historical events that are, of course, unforeseeable and, therefore, uncomputable. == Modifications == Somewhere in between the original concept of Swadesh and the rejection of glottochronology in its entirety lies the idea that glottochronology as a formal method of linguistic

    Read more →
  • AI Website Builders: Free vs Paid (2026)

    AI Website Builders: Free vs Paid (2026)

    Looking for the best AI website builder? An AI website builder is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it can save you hours every week by automating repetitive work. Most options offer a generous free tier, with paid plans unlocking higher limits, faster processing, and team features. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI website builder slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. This guide breaks down the top picks, their pros and cons, and who each one is best for.

    Read more →
  • Richard Zemel

    Richard Zemel

    Richard Stanley Zemel (born 1963) is a Canadian-American computer scientist and professor at Columbia University, Department of Computer Science, and a leading figure in the field of machine learning and computer vision. Zemel studied the history of science at Harvard University and obtained his B.A. in 1984. He continued his study at the Department of Computer Science of the University of Toronto under the supervision of Geoffrey Hinton. He obtained his M.Sc. and Ph.D. both in computer science in 1989 and 1994, respectively.

    Read more →
  • RockMyRun

    RockMyRun

    Rock My Run (stylized as RockMyRun; trademarked slogan: "The Best Running Music in the World™") is a mobile running/fitness app founded in 2011 that provides running and workout music in the form of DJ mixes. It is owned by Rock My World, Inc., a health and fitness technology company based in San Diego, California. The app allows users to listen to these professional DJ mixes on their smartphone while running or working out to enhance and motivate their performance. Rock My World, Inc. also developed the app Jolt.ai for the software Slack. == History == During the early stages of the company, Rock My World, Inc. raised more than $2 million in funding generated by the Irvine Company's The Vine SD and from institutional investors including Skullcandy, ZTE and Lighter Capital and were admitted to the Plug and Play Tech Center in Sunnyvale and to the tech incubator EvoNexus in San Diego. In an interview with co-founder and ex-Qualcomm staff Adam Riggs-Zeigen, he said that "from the beginning [their] big goal is to help people live healthier lives." == Features == The RockMyRun app contains thousands of mixes or "stations" produced by its professional DJs intended to increase enjoyment and performance during exercise. DJs who have provided mixes for the app include David Guetta, Zedd, Steve Aoki, Major Lazer and Afrojack. All of the music can be personalized based on the user's steps per minute, heart rate or ideal cadence allowing the user to "always hear the right music at the right time at the right tempo". All RockMyRun mixes are organized into stations to help users discover music that suits their needs. RockMyRun contains mixes of all genres and each station is categorized into their respective genres and displays tags to let users know the type of music contained in the mix. RockMyRun has two membership types; it is free as a standard member, but for uninterrupted listening and additional features, users can upgrade to a paid "Rockstar" membership. Since March 2023, couples can now be on the same RockMyRun playlists and "share" earbuds. This allows people to train together, easier. A group of DJs curate playlists for specific training needs and different energy levels. == Reception == RockMyRun has been featured on television programs such as The Today Show on two occasions and on The Rachael Ray Show, and in positive reviews by many publications and websites including The New York Times on four separate occasions, TIME, The Huffington Post, The Denver Post, Men's Fitness, Real Simple, The Vulcan Post, The L.A. Times, Glamour, Paste magazine, PCMag, Dubai Week, BetaNews, CNET, CNBC, Reuters, Insider, Tom's Guide and Yahoo! Tech. RockMyRun has also been mentioned/recommended in books/publications such as A Practical Guide to Teacher Wellbeing by Elizabeth Holmes and Applying Music in Exercise and Sport by Dr. Costas Karageorghis. Ultimate Ears placed RockMyRun at the top of their list at No. 1 on their "5 Favorite Workout Music Apps". In a positive review by David Strausser for AndroidGuys in 2015, he praised the app in a detailed review, saying "The mixes are incredible and the rates are reasonable. The app is quick, beautiful." In 2015, Jill Duffy of PC Magazine gave a review of the app, pointing out its key features, and stating that the app is great if you enjoy listening to different, or new music, that can match your tempo while running. Also in 2015, Digital Trends listed RockMyRun, as one of the best exercise music apps in the article "No need to make exercise playlists with these music apps". In 2018, Redbull.com recommended RockMyRun in preparation for the Wings for Life World Run in their article "10 essential hacks for running to work to get you in World Run shape". In 2019, The Fashion Spot included RockMyRun in their list of "The Best Workout Apps for People Who Hate to Work Out", saying: "RockMyRun matches music to the tempo of your running pace – the music literally follows your steps/heart rate. The app has thousands of mixes/music options along with tracking capabilities." Also in 2019, MakeUseOf.com included RockMyRun in their list of "The 7 Best Running and Workout Music Apps". In September 2022, VeryWellFit listed RockMyRun as the first of three "Other Playlist Options" in the article "How to Create a Running Playlist, According to Running Coaches". Tech Grapple recommended the app in "The best workout free music apps for iPhone and Android" saying that "RockMyRun is the best application that you can use during workout. It comes with amazing DJs to craft mixes that will keep you moving." == Partners == RockMyRun is partnered with the following brands/companies: C25K Del Taco JLab Audio iFit Active Network, LLC Night Nation Run (the world's first running music festival) Lady Foot Locker Mayweather Boxing + Fitness Mio Global Orangetheory Fitness Red Rock Apps Tapout Fitness

    Read more →
  • Is an AI Content Generator Worth It in 2026?

    Is an AI Content Generator Worth It in 2026?

    Trying to pick the best AI content generator? An AI content generator is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it scales effortlessly from a single task to thousands. The best picks balance beginner-friendly simplicity with the depth power users need, and they ship updates often. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI content generator slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. Read on for hands-on impressions, pricing tiers, and the standout features that matter.

    Read more →
  • The Best Free AI Presentation Maker for Beginners

    The Best Free AI Presentation Maker for Beginners

    Shopping for the best AI presentation maker? An AI presentation maker is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it keeps getting smarter as the underlying models improve. Pricing, accuracy, and the size of the model behind the tool are the three factors that most affect daily usefulness. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI presentation maker slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. Below we compare features, pricing, and real output so you can choose with confidence.

    Read more →
  • Models of DNA evolution

    Models of DNA evolution

    A number of different Markov models of DNA sequence evolution have been proposed. These substitution models differ in terms of the parameters used to describe the rates at which one nucleotide replaces another during evolution. These models are frequently used in molecular phylogenetic analyses. In particular, they are used during the calculation of likelihood of a tree (in Bayesian and maximum likelihood approaches to tree estimation) and they are used to estimate the evolutionary distance between sequences from the observed differences between the sequences. == Introduction == These models are phenomenological descriptions of the evolution of DNA as a string of four discrete states. These Markov models do not explicitly depict the mechanism of mutation nor the action of natural selection. Rather they describe the relative rates of different changes. For example, mutational biases and purifying selection favoring conservative changes are probably both responsible for the relatively high rate of transitions compared to transversions in evolving sequences. However, the Kimura (K80) model described below only attempts to capture the effect of both forces in a parameter that reflects the relative rate of transitions to transversions. Evolutionary analyses of sequences are conducted on a wide variety of time scales. Thus, it is convenient to express these models in terms of the instantaneous rates of change between different states (the Q matrices below). If we are given a starting (ancestral) state at one position, the model's Q matrix and a branch length expressing the expected number of changes to have occurred since the ancestor, then we can derive the probability of the descendant sequence having each of the four states. The mathematical details of this transformation from rate-matrix to probability matrix are described in the mathematics of substitution models section of the substitution model page. By expressing models in terms of the instantaneous rates of change we can avoid estimating a large numbers of parameters for each branch on a phylogenetic tree (or each comparison if the analysis involves many pairwise sequence comparisons). The models described on this page describe the evolution of a single site within a set of sequences. They are often used for analyzing the evolution of an entire locus by making the simplifying assumption that different sites evolve independently and are identically distributed. This assumption may be justifiable if the sites can be assumed to be evolving neutrally. If the primary effect of natural selection on the evolution of the sequences is to constrain some sites, then models of among-site rate-heterogeneity can be used. This approach allows one to estimate only one matrix of relative rates of substitution, and another set of parameters describing the variance in the total rate of substitution across sites. == DNA evolution as a continuous-time Markov chain == === Continuous-time Markov chains === Continuous-time Markov chains have the usual transition matrices which are, in addition, parameterized by time, t {\displaystyle t} . Specifically, if E 1 , E 2 , E 3 , E 4 {\displaystyle E_{1},E_{2},E_{3},E_{4}} are the states, then the transition matrix P ( t ) = ( P i j ( t ) ) {\displaystyle P(t)={\big (}P_{ij}(t){\big )}} where each individual entry, P i j ( t ) {\displaystyle P_{ij}(t)} refers to the probability that state E i {\displaystyle E_{i}} will change to state E j {\displaystyle E_{j}} in time t {\displaystyle t} . Example: We would like to model the substitution process in DNA sequences (i.e. Jukes–Cantor, Kimura, etc.) in a continuous-time fashion. The corresponding transition matrices will look like: P ( t ) = ( p A A ( t ) p A G ( t ) p A C ( t ) p A T ( t ) p G A ( t ) p G G ( t ) p G C ( t ) p G T ( t ) p C A ( t ) p C G ( t ) p C C ( t ) p C T ( t ) p T A ( t ) p T G ( t ) p T C ( t ) p T T ( t ) ) {\displaystyle P(t)={\begin{pmatrix}p_{\mathrm {AA} }(t)&p_{\mathrm {AG} }(t)&p_{\mathrm {AC} }(t)&p_{\mathrm {AT} }(t)\\p_{\mathrm {GA} }(t)&p_{\mathrm {GG} }(t)&p_{\mathrm {GC} }(t)&p_{\mathrm {GT} }(t)\\p_{\mathrm {CA} }(t)&p_{\mathrm {CG} }(t)&p_{\mathrm {CC} }(t)&p_{\mathrm {CT} }(t)\\p_{\mathrm {TA} }(t)&p_{\mathrm {TG} }(t)&p_{\mathrm {TC} }(t)&p_{\mathrm {TT} }(t)\end{pmatrix}}} where the top-left and bottom-right 2 × 2 blocks correspond to transition probabilities and the top-right and bottom-left 2 × 2 blocks corresponds to transversion probabilities. Assumption: If at some time t 0 {\displaystyle t_{0}} , the Markov chain is in state E i {\displaystyle E_{i}} , then the probability that at time t 0 + t {\displaystyle t_{0}+t} , it will be in state E j {\displaystyle E_{j}} depends only upon i {\displaystyle i} , j {\displaystyle j} and t {\displaystyle t} . This then allows us to write that probability as p i j ( t ) {\displaystyle p_{ij}(t)} . Theorem: Continuous-time transition matrices satisfy: P ( t + τ ) = P ( t ) P ( τ ) {\displaystyle P(t+\tau )=P(t)P(\tau )} Note: There is here a possible confusion between two meanings of the word transition. (i) In the context of Markov chains, transition is the general term for the change between two states. (ii) In the context of nucleotide changes in DNA sequences, transition is a specific term for the exchange between either the two purines (A ↔ G) or the two pyrimidines (C ↔ T) (for additional details, see the article about transitions in genetics). By contrast, an exchange between one purine and one pyrimidine is called a transversion. === Deriving the dynamics of substitution === Consider a DNA sequence of fixed length m evolving in time by base replacement. Assume that the processes followed by the m sites are Markovian independent, identically distributed and that the process is constant over time. For a particular site, let E = { A , G , C , T } {\displaystyle {\mathcal {E}}=\{A,\,G,\,C,\,T\}} be the set of possible states for the site, and p ( t ) = ( p A ( t ) , p G ( t ) , p C ( t ) , p T ( t ) ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {p} (t)=(p_{A}(t),\,p_{G}(t),\,p_{C}(t),\,p_{T}(t))} their respective probabilities at time t {\displaystyle t} . For two distinct x , y ∈ E {\displaystyle x,y\in {\mathcal {E}}} , let μ x y {\displaystyle \mu _{xy}\ } be the transition rate from state x {\displaystyle x} to state y {\displaystyle y} . Similarly, for any x {\displaystyle x} , let the total rate of change from x {\displaystyle x} be μ x = ∑ y ≠ x μ x y . {\displaystyle \mu _{x}=\sum _{y\neq x}\mu _{xy}\,.} The changes in the probability distribution p A ( t ) {\displaystyle p_{A}(t)} for small increments of time Δ t {\displaystyle \Delta t} are given by p A ( t + Δ t ) = p A ( t ) − p A ( t ) μ A Δ t + ∑ x ≠ A p x ( t ) μ x A Δ t . {\displaystyle p_{A}(t+\Delta t)=p_{A}(t)-p_{A}(t)\mu _{A}\Delta t+\sum _{x\neq A}p_{x}(t)\mu _{xA}\Delta t\,.} In other words, (in frequentist language), the frequency of A {\displaystyle A} 's at time t + Δ t {\displaystyle t+\Delta t} is equal to the frequency at time t {\displaystyle t} minus the frequency of the lost A {\displaystyle A} 's plus the frequency of the newly created A {\displaystyle A} 's. Similarly for the probabilities p G ( t ) {\displaystyle p_{G}(t)} , p C ( t ) {\displaystyle p_{C}(t)} and p T ( t ) {\displaystyle p_{T}(t)} . These equations can be written compactly as p ( t + Δ t ) = p ( t ) + p ( t ) Q Δ t , {\displaystyle \mathbf {p} (t+\Delta t)=\mathbf {p} (t)+\mathbf {p} (t)Q\Delta t\,,} where Q = ( − μ A μ A G μ A C μ A T μ G A − μ G μ G C μ G T μ C A μ C G − μ C μ C T μ T A μ T G μ T C − μ T ) {\displaystyle Q={\begin{pmatrix}-\mu _{A}&\mu _{AG}&\mu _{AC}&\mu _{AT}\\\mu _{GA}&-\mu _{G}&\mu _{GC}&\mu _{GT}\\\mu _{CA}&\mu _{CG}&-\mu _{C}&\mu _{CT}\\\mu _{TA}&\mu _{TG}&\mu _{TC}&-\mu _{T}\end{pmatrix}}} is known as the rate matrix. Note that, by definition, the sum of the entries in each row of Q {\displaystyle Q} is equal to zero. It follows that p ′ ( t ) = p ( t ) Q . {\displaystyle \mathbf {p} '(t)=\mathbf {p} (t)Q\,.} For a stationary process, where Q {\displaystyle Q} does not depend on time t, this differential equation can be solved. First, P ( t ) = exp ⁡ ( t Q ) , {\displaystyle P(t)=\exp(tQ),} where exp ⁡ ( t Q ) {\displaystyle \exp(tQ)} denotes the exponential of the matrix t Q {\displaystyle tQ} . As a result, p ( t ) = p ( 0 ) P ( t ) = p ( 0 ) exp ⁡ ( t Q ) . {\displaystyle \mathbf {p} (t)=\mathbf {p} (0)P(t)=\mathbf {p} (0)\exp(tQ)\,.} === Ergodicity === If the Markov chain is irreducible, i.e. if it is always possible to go from a state x {\displaystyle x} to a state y {\displaystyle y} (possibly in several steps), then it is also ergodic. As a result, it has a unique stationary distribution π = { π x , x ∈ E } {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\pi }}=\{\pi _{x},\,x\in {\mathcal {E}}\}} , where π x {\displaystyle \pi _{x}} corresponds to the proportion of time spent in state x {\displaystyle x} after the Markov chain has run for an infinite amount of time. In DNA evo

    Read more →
  • Render layers

    Render layers

    When creating computer-generated imagery, final scenes appearing in movies and television productions are usually produced by rendering more than one "layer" or "pass," which are multiple images designed to be put together through digital compositing to form a completed frame. Rendering in passes is based on a traditions in motion control photography which predate CGI. As an example, for a visual effects shot, a camera could be programmed to move past a physical model of a spaceship in one pass to film the fully lit beauty pass of the ship, and then to repeat exactly the same camera move passing the ship again to photograph additional elements such as the illuminated windows in the ship or its thrusters. Once all of the passes were filmed, they could then be optically printed together to form a completed shot. The terms render layers and render passes are sometimes used interchangeably. However, rendering in layers refers specifically to separating different objects into separate images, such as a layer each for foreground characters, sets, distant landscape, and sky. On the other hand, rendering in passes refers to separating out different aspects of the scene, such as shadows, highlights, or reflections, into separate images.

    Read more →
  • Klaus-Robert Müller

    Klaus-Robert Müller

    Klaus-Robert Müller (born 1964 in Karlsruhe, West Germany) is a German computer scientist and physicist, most noted for his work in machine learning and brain–computer interfaces. == Career == Klaus-Robert Müller received his Diplom in mathematical physics and PhD in theoretical computer science from the University of Karlsruhe. Following his Ph.D. he went to Berlin as a postdoctoral fellow at GMD (German National Research Center for Computer Science) Berlin (now part of Fraunhofer Institute for Open Communication Systems), where he started building up the Intelligent Data Analysis (IDA) group. From 1994 to 1995 he was a research fellow at Shun'ichi Amari's lab at the University of Tokyo. 1999 Müller became an associate professor for neuroinformatics at the University of Potsdam, transitioning to the full professorship for Neural Networks and Time Series Analysis in 2003. Since 2006 he holds the chair for Machine Learning at Technische Universität Berlin. Since 2012 he holds a distinguished professorship at Korea University in Seoul. He co-founded and is co-director of the Berlin Big Data Center (BBDC) of TU Berlin. As of 2017, 29 former doctoral or postdoctoral researchers of Klaus-Robert Müller have become full professors themselves. Bernhard Schölkopf and Alexander J. Smola were supervised by him as members of his research group. Since 2020 he is director of the Berlin Institute for the Foundations of Learning and Data (BIFOLD), a German National AI Competence Center, and director of the European Laboratory for Learning and Intelligent Systems (ELLIS) unit Berlin. In 2020/2021 he spent his sabbatical at Google Brain as a principal scientist. == Research == Müller has contributed extensively to several major interests of machine learning, including support vector machines (SVMs) and kernel methods, and artificial neural networks. He pioneered applying new methods of pattern recognition in domains like brain–computer interfaces, using them for patients with Locked-in syndrome. He is one of the leading computer scientists affiliated with Germany. His current research interests include: Statistical learning theory (Support Vector Machines, Deep Neural Networks, Boosting) Learning of non-stationarity data Fusion of structured heterogeneous multi-modal data, co-adaptation Applications: MEG, EEG, NIRS, ECoG, EMG, Brain Computer Interfaces, computational neuroscience, computer vision, genomic data analysis, computational chemistry and atomistic simulations, digital pathology == Honours and awards == Klaus-Robert Müller was elected a fellow of the German National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina in 2012. In 2017 he was elected member of the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities and also external scientific member of the Max Planck Society. In 2021 he was elected member of the German Academy of Science and Engineering. His work was honoured with several awards, including: 2026 Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Prize 2025 IEEE Neural Network Pioneer Award 2024 Feynman Prize in Nanotechnology 2023 Hector Fellow 2025, 2024, 2023, 2022, 2021, 2020, and 2019 Clarivate Highly Cited Researcher 2017 Vodafone Innovations Award 2017 2014 Science Prize of Berlin 2014 by the Governing Mayor of Berlin 2014 European Research Council Panel Consolidator Grants 2009 Best Paper award by IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society EMBS 2006 SEL-ALCATEL Research Prize for Technical Communication 1999 Olympus Award for Pattern Recognition == Books == with Holzinger, Andreas; et al., eds. (2022). xxAI – Beyond Explainable Artificial Intelligence. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Vol. 13200. Springer Cham. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-04083-2. ISBN 978-3-031-04082-5. with Schütt, Kristof T.; et al., eds. (2020). Machine Learning Meets Quantum Physics. Lecture Notes in Physics. Vol. 968. Springer Cham. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-40245-7. ISBN 978-3-030-40244-0. S2CID 242406994. with Samek, Wojciech; et al., eds. (2019). Explainable AI: Interpreting, Explaining and Visualizing Deep Learning. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Vol. 11700. Springer Cham. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-28954-6. ISBN 978-3-030-28953-9. with Montavon, Grégoire; et al., eds. (2012). Neural Networks: Tricks of the Trade. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Vol. 7700 (2nd ed.). Springer Berlin, Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-35289-8. ISBN 978-3-642-35288-1. S2CID 39578794.

    Read more →
  • How to Choose an AI Avatar Generator

    How to Choose an AI Avatar Generator

    Trying to pick the best AI avatar generator? An AI avatar generator is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it scales effortlessly from a single task to thousands. The best picks balance beginner-friendly simplicity with the depth power users need, and they ship updates often. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI avatar generator slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. Read on for hands-on impressions, pricing tiers, and the standout features that matter.

    Read more →