AI Chat Free No Limit

AI Chat Free No Limit — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

Cumulus (software)

Cumulus is a digital asset management software designed for client/server system which is developed by Canto Software. The product makes use of metadata for indexing, organizing, and searching. == History == Cumulus was first released as a Macintosh application in 1992, and was named by Apple Computer as the "Most Innovative Product of 1992". Cumulus introduced search capabilities beyond those available in the Macintosh at the time, particularly relating to thumbnails. Cumulus 1.0 was a single-user product with no network capabilities. Among the main features of Cumulus 1.0, the search function automatically generated previews and contained support for the included AppleTalk – Peer-to-Peer – network. Cumulus 2.5 was available in five different languages and received the 1993 MacUser magazine Eddy award for "Best Publishing & Graphics Utility". In 1995, Canto introduced the scanner software "Cirrus" to focus on the development of Cumulus. Cumulus 3, released in 1996, introduced a server version for the first time and contained the possibility to spread files over the Internet via the "Web Publisher". Since Apple offered Cumulus 3 with its "Workgroup Server" as a bundle, Cumulus became one of the leading digital asset management systems. Cumulus 4 was the first version that was network-ready, and was available for Macintosh, Windows and UNIX operating systems allowing for cross-platform file sharing. Released in 1998, the support of Solaris was discounted later. Cumulus 5 modified the software core to use an open architecture providing an API to external systems and databases. The open architecture of Cumulus 5 also enabled a more functional bridge between Cumulus and the Internet. Cumulus 6 introduced Embedded Java Plugin (EJP) which allowed system integrators to build custom Java plug-ins in order to extend the functionality of the Cumulus client. Cumulus 6.5 marked the end of the Cumulus Single User Edition product, which was licensed to MediaDex for further development and distribution. Cumulus 7 was introduced summer of 2006. Cumulus 8 was released in June 2009, with new indexing capabilities taking advantage of multicore/multiprocessor systems, and ability to manage a wider variety of file formats. Cumulus 8.5 was released in May 2011. Support was added for multilingual metadata, sometimes referred to as "World Metadata." Cumulus Sites was updated to support metadata editing and file uploads. Cumulus 8.6 was released in July 2012, and contains an updated user interface for the administration of Cumulus Sites and additional features for web-based administration of Cumulus. Other additions include features for collaboration links, multi-language support and automated version control. Cumulus 9 was released in September 2013 and introduced a new Web Client User Interface and the Cumulus Video Cloud. The Cumulus Web Client UI was redesigned to provide users with a modern, easy-to-use interface to support and guide the user while addressing modern business needs. The Cumulus Video Cloud extends the Cumulus video handling capabilities to add conversion and global streaming. Cumulus 9 also saw the addition of upload collection links which allow external collaborators to drag and drop files directly into Cumulus without needing a Cumulus account. Cumulus 9.1 was released in May 2014 and introduced the Adobe Drive Adapter for Cumulus which allows users to browse and search digital assets in Cumulus directly from Adobe work environments such as Photoshop, InDesign, Illustrator, Premier and other Adobe applications. Cumulus 10 (Cumulus X) was released July 2015 and introduced two mobile-friendly products: the Cumulus app and Portals. The Cumulus app on iOS was designed to allow users to collaborate either on an iPhone or iPad. Portals is the read-only version of the Cumulus Web Client where users can work with assets that admins allow. Cumulus 10.1 was introduced in January 2016 and included the InDesign Client integration where users can work with Adobe InDesign while accessing their assets from Cumulus. Cumulus 10.2 was introduced in September 2016 and brought the Media Delivery Cloud using Amazon Web Services (AWS). It allows users to manage their media rendition in a single source and distribute media files globally across different channels and devices. Cumulus 10.2.3 was released in February 2017 and came with a "crop and customize photos" feature for Portals and the Web Client. == Product overview == The cataloging of the file via upload into the archive is where Cumulus transfers maximum information about the file from the metadata. For image or photo files, this is typically Exif and IPTC data. The metadata is mainly used to search the archive. The use of embargo data supports license management for copyrighted material. The managed files can be cataloged and their usage can be set. The indexing is based on a predefined taxonomy, which is governed by the internal rules of the organization or by industry standards. You can specify whether files can only be used for specific purposes or only by certain groups of people. The production management system includes version management for files. Via the publication function, the files can be distributed directly via links or e-mails. It's also possible to access from the outside via the Cumulus Portals web interface, which allows a read access to released content from the catalog. There are different variants, starting with the "Workgroup archive server" up to the "Enterprise Business Server" for large companies. Both server and client are extensible through a Java-based plug-in architecture. Since version 7.0, there is a web application based on Ajax with a separate user interface. For access to the Cumulus catalog on mobile, there has been an application for Apple devices based on iOS since 2010. == Miscellaneous == In 2015, Cumulus developer Canto established the first Canto digital asset management (DAM) event. The event is held annually in Berlin. The Henry Stewart team has been hosting DAM conferences since 2006.
Read more →
Irwin King

Irwin King is a Hong Kong computer scientist known for his contributions to machine learning, social computing, and recommender systems. == Career == King is a professor in the Department of Computer Science and Engineering at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. His research focuses on machine learning and social computing, including work on social recommendation, trust-aware recommender systems, and graph-based learning. King has served as editor-in-chief of the journal ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology (TIST). == Awards == ACM Fellow (2024) IEEE Fellow (2019) INNS Fellow (2021) AAIA Fellow (2022) HKIE Fellow ACM WSDM Test of Time Award (2022) ACM SIGIR Test of Time Award (2020) ACM CIKM Test of Time Award (2019) 2021 INNS Dennis Gabor Award for work in Neural Engineering for Social Computing 2020 APNNS Outstanding Achievement Award
Read more →
Sudip Roy (computer scientist)

Sudip Roy is a computer scientist and technology executive. He is the co-founder and chief technology officer of Adaption. He has worked on large-scale machine learning systems at organizations including Google DeepMind and Cohere. == Education == Roy earned a PhD in Computer Science from Cornell University. He holds a B.Tech in Computer Science and Engineering from the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Kharagpur. == Career == Sudip worked at Google Brain (now part of Google DeepMind) on systems research and large-scale data management. During his tenure, he contributed to infrastructure projects including Pathways and TensorFlow Extended, which support training and inference workflows for production machine learning models. He later served as Senior Director of Engineering at Cohere, leading work on inference infrastructure and fine-tuning systems. In late 2025, he co-founded the company Adaption Labs with Sara Hooker. The company focuses on developing AI systems designed for continuous learning and adaptation. Roy’s research spans systems for AI and AI for systems, including work on optimizing system performance and compilers. His publications have appeared in conferences such as MLSys, NeurIPS, SIGMOD, and KDD. He has been a program committee member or reviewer for the conferences SIGMOD, VLDB, ICDE, and MLSys. == Awards == He is the recipient of the MLSys Outstanding Paper Award (2022) and the SIGMOD Best Paper Award (2011). He holds multiple patents in machine learning systems, including methods for learned graph optimizations and neural network-based device placement.
Read more →
Muller automaton

In automata theory, a Muller automaton is a type of an ω-automaton. The acceptance condition separates a Muller automaton from other ω-automata. The Muller automaton is defined using a Muller acceptance condition, i.e. the set of all states visited infinitely often must be an element of the acceptance set. Both deterministic and non-deterministic Muller automata recognize the ω-regular languages. They are named after David E. Muller, an American mathematician and computer scientist, who invented them in 1963. == Formal definition == Formally, a deterministic Muller-automaton is a tuple A = (Q,Σ,δ,q0,F) that consists of the following information: Q is a finite set. The elements of Q are called the states of A. Σ is a finite set called the alphabet of A. δ: Q × Σ → Q is a function, called the transition function of A. q0 is an element of Q, called the initial state. F is a set of sets of states. Formally, F ⊆ P(Q) where P(Q) is powerset of Q. F defines the acceptance condition. A accepts exactly those runs in which the set of infinitely often occurring states is an element of F In a non-deterministic Muller automaton, the transition function δ is replaced with a transition relation Δ that returns a set of states and the initial state q0 is replaced by a set of initial states Q0. Generally, 'Muller automaton' refers to a non-deterministic Muller automaton. For more comprehensive formalisation look at ω-automaton. == Equivalence with other ω-automata == The Muller automata are equally expressive as parity automata, Rabin automata, Streett automata, and non-deterministic Büchi automata, to mention some, and strictly more expressive than the deterministic Büchi automata. The equivalence of the above automata and non-deterministic Muller automata can be shown very easily as the accepting conditions of these automata can be emulated using the acceptance condition of Muller automata and vice versa. McNaughton's theorem demonstrates the equivalence of non-deterministic Büchi automaton and deterministic Muller automaton. Thus, deterministic and non-deterministic Muller automata are equivalent in terms of the languages they can accept. == Transformation to non-deterministic Muller automata == Following is a list of automata constructions that each transforms a type of ω-automata to a non-deterministic Muller automaton. From Büchi automata If B is the set of final states in a Büchi automaton with the set of states Q, we can construct a Muller automaton with same set of states, transition function and initial state with the Muller accepting condition as F = { X | X ∈ P(Q) ∧ X ∩ B ≠ ∅}. From Rabin automata/parity automata Similarly, the Rabin conditions ( E j , F j ) {\displaystyle (E_{j},F_{j})} can be emulated by constructing the acceptance set in the Muller automaton as all sets F ⊆ Q {\displaystyle F\subseteq Q} that satisfy F ∩ E j = ∅ {\displaystyle F\cap E_{j}=\emptyset } and F ∩ F j ≠ ∅ {\displaystyle F\cap F_{j}\neq \emptyset } , for some j. Note that this covers the case of parity automata too, as the parity acceptance condition can be expressed as a Rabin acceptance condition easily. From Streett automata The Streett conditions ( E j , F j ) {\displaystyle (E_{j},F_{j})} can be emulated by constructing the acceptance set in the Muller automaton as all sets F ⊆ Q {\displaystyle F\subseteq Q} that satisfy F ∩ F j = ∅ ⟹ F ∩ E j = ∅ {\displaystyle F\cap F_{j}=\emptyset \implies F\cap E_{j}=\emptyset } , for all j. == Transformation to deterministic Muller automata == From Büchi automaton McNaughton's theorem provides a procedure to transform any non-deterministic Büchi automaton into a deterministic Muller automaton.
Read more →
Sanad (government app)

Sanad (Arabic: سند) is the official digital identity and e-government services application of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. Developed and managed by the Ministry of Digital Economy and Entrepreneurship, the app provides a unified platform for accessing a range of public services and personal records digitally. == Overview == Launched in February 2020, Sanad is part of Jordan's broader digital transformation strategy aimed at improving public service delivery and enhancing administrative efficiency. The app allows users to authenticate their identity digitally and access over 550 services from more than 50 government and private sector entities. == Features == Sanad provides a wide array of services, including: Viewing and managing official digital documents Applying for government services (e.g., jordanian passport issuance or renewal, health insurance) Accessing personal records (e.g., pension, property ownership) Digitally signing documents Paying utility bills and traffic fines Receiving and tracking official notifications The app is available on iOS, Android, and HarmonyOS platforms and supports both Arabic and English languages. == Digital Identity == A core feature of Sanad is the digital identity system, which enables secure login and authentication for all integrated services. Users must activate their digital identity at designated Sanad stations across Jordan to access the full suite of services. == Adoption and Impact == As of 2025, more than 1.6 million Jordanians have activated their digital identities through Sanad. The app has played a significant role in streamlining government interactions and reducing the need for in-person visits, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. == Recent Developments == In 2025, the Ministry launched an updated version of the app with enhanced user experience and new services, including the e-passport issuance feature.
Read more →
Mirella Lapata

Mirella Lapata is a computer scientist and Professor in the School of Informatics at the University of Edinburgh. Working on the general problem of extracting semantic information from large bodies of text, Lapata develops computer algorithms and models in the field of natural language processing (NLP). == Education == Lapata obtained a Master of Arts (MA) degree from Carnegie Mellon University and subsequently earned a doctorate from the University of Edinburgh. Lapata's doctoral research investigated the acquisition of information from polysemous linguistic units using probabilistic methods supervised by Alex Lascarides, Chris Brew and Steve Finch. == Career and research == After her doctorate, Lapata assumed academic positions at Saarland University and at the Department of Computer Science at the University of Sheffield. At the University of Edinburgh she became a reader in the School of Informatics where she is a full Professor and holds a personal chair in natural language processing. Lapata is a member of the Human Communication Research Center and Institute for Language, Cognition and Computation, both in Edinburgh. Between 2015 and 2017, Lapata served as a member of the Royal Society Machine Learning Working Group. Recently Lapata was granted a European Research Council (ERC) Consolidator Grant worth €1.9M to fund five years of her project, TransModal: Translating from Multiple Modalities into Text. === Awards and honours === In 2009 Lapata became the first recipient of the Microsoft British Computer Society (BCS)/BCS IRSG Karen Spärck Jones Award. The award recognises achievement in furthering the progress in information retrieval and natural language processing; the award commemorates the life and work of Karen Spärck Jones. In 2012 Lapata won an Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP)-CoNLL 2012 Best Reviewer Award. In 2018 Lapata was awarded, alongside Li Dong, an Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL) Best Paper Honorable Mention. In 2019 Lapata was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh In 2020 Lapata was elected to the Academia Europaea. In 2025 Lapata was awarded the BCS Lovelace Medal for Computing Research.
Read more →
Top 10 AI Text-to-image Tools Compared (2026)

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

In computer science, a deterministic acyclic finite state automaton (DAFSA), is a data structure that represents a set of strings, and allows for a query operation that tests whether a given string belongs to the set in time proportional to its length. Algorithms exist to construct and maintain such automata, while keeping them minimal. DAFSA is the rediscovery of a data structure called Directed Acyclic Word Graph (DAWG), although the same name had already been given to a different data structure which is related to suffix automaton. A DAFSA is a special case of a finite state recognizer that takes the form of a directed acyclic graph with a single source vertex (a vertex with no incoming edges), in which each edge of the graph is labeled by a letter or symbol, and in which each vertex has at most one outgoing edge for each possible letter or symbol. The strings represented by the DAFSA are formed by the symbols on paths in the graph from the source vertex to any sink vertex (a vertex with no outgoing edges). In fact, a deterministic finite state automaton is acyclic if and only if it recognizes a finite set of strings. == History == Blumer et al first defined terminology Directed Acyclic Word Graph (DAWG) in 1983. Appel and Jacobsen used the same naming for a different data structure in 1988. Independent of earlier work, Daciuk et al rediscovered the latter data structure in 2000 but called it DAFSA. == Comparison to tries == By allowing the same vertices to be reached by multiple paths, a DAFSA may use significantly fewer vertices than the strongly related trie data structure. Consider, for example, the four English words "tap", "taps", "top", and "tops". A trie for those four words would have 12 vertices, one for each of the strings formed as a prefix of one of these words, or for one of the words followed by the end-of-string marker. However, a DAFSA can represent these same four words using only six vertices vi for 0 ≤ i ≤ 5, and the following edges: an edge from v0 to v1 labeled "t", two edges from v1 to v2 labeled "a" and "o", an edge from v2 to v3 labeled "p", an edge v3 to v4 labeled "s", and edges from v3 and v4 to v5 labeled with the end-of-string marker. There is a tradeoff between memory and functionality, because a standard DAFSA can tell you if a word exists within it, but it cannot point you to auxiliary information about that word, whereas a trie can. The primary difference between DAFSA and trie is the elimination of suffix and infix redundancy in storing strings. The trie eliminates prefix redundancy since all common prefixes are shared between strings, such as between doctors and doctorate the doctor prefix is shared. In a DAFSA common suffixes are also shared, for words that have the same set of possible suffixes as each other. For dictionary sets of common English words, this translates into major memory usage reduction. Because the terminal nodes of a DAFSA can be reached by multiple paths, a DAFSA cannot directly store auxiliary information relating to each path, e.g. a word's frequency in the English language. However, if for each node we store the number of unique paths through that point in the structure, we can use it to retrieve the index of a word, or a word given its index. The auxiliary information can then be stored in an array.
Read more →
Security awareness

Security awareness is the knowledge and attitude members of an organization possess regarding the protection of the physical, and especially informational, assets of that organization. However, it is very tricky to implement because organizations are not able to impose such awareness directly on employees as there are no ways to explicitly monitor people's behavior. That being said, the literature does suggest several ways that such security awareness could be improved. Many organizations require formal security awareness training for all workers when they join the organization and periodically thereafter, usually annually. Another main force that is found to have a strong correlation with employees' security awareness is managerial security participation. It also bridges security awareness with other organizational aspects. == Relationship between Security Awareness and Human Factors == Employees' behavior, cognitive biases, and decision-making processes influence the effectiveness of security measures. Research indicates that psychological factors, such as optimism bias, overconfidence, and habitual behaviors, can undermine security awareness initiatives. To address these challenges, organizations are increasingly using behavioral analytics and security nudges—subtle prompts like password reminders and phishing warnings—to encourage secure behavior. Human error remains the leading cause of cybersecurity incidents. A 2023 IBM Security report found that 95% of breaches are due to human mistakes, including falling for phishing emails, using weak passwords, and mishandling sensitive data. Organizations emphasize security awareness training as a key strategy to mitigate this risk. It is particularly important for leadership to foster a culture of cybersecurity and to provide targeted training to increase security awareness among all employees across the organization. == Coverage == Topics covered in security awareness training include: The nature of sensitive material and physical assets they may come in contact with, such as trade secrets, privacy concerns and government classified information Employee and contractor responsibilities in handling sensitive information, including review of employee nondisclosure agreements Requirements for proper handling of sensitive material in physical form, including marking, transmission, storage and destruction Proper methods for protecting sensitive information on computer systems, including password policy and use of two-factor authentication Other computer security concerns, including malware, phishing, social engineering, etc. Workplace security, including building access, wearing of security badges, reporting of Incidents, forbidden articles, etc. Consequences of failure to properly protect information, including potential loss of employment, economic consequences to the firm, damage to individuals whose private records are divulged, and possible civil and criminal penalties Security awareness means understanding that there is the potential for some people to deliberately or accidentally steal, damage, or misuse the data that is stored within a company's computer systems and throughout its organization. Therefore, it would be prudent to support the assets of the institution (information, physical, and personal) by trying to stop that from happening. According to the European Network and Information Security Agency, "Awareness of the risks and available safeguards is the first line of defence for the security of information systems and networks." "The focus of Security Awareness consultancy should be to achieve a long term shift in the attitude of employees towards security, whilst promoting a cultural and behavioural change within an organisation. Security policies should be viewed as key enablers for the organisation, not as a series of rules restricting the efficient working of your business." == Role of Gamification and Interactive Training == Modern security awareness programs increasingly utilize gamification, phishing simulations, and interactive learning modules. Studies have shown that engaging employees through serious games, reward systems, and real-world attack simulations improves retention and application of security practices. One example is phishing simulation training, where employees receive simulated phishing emails to test their ability to recognize threats. Research indicates that repeated exposure to such exercises leads to long-term improvements in security awareness. == Legislation and Compliance Requirements == Many industries mandate security awareness training to comply with regulations such as: General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) – requires organizations to ensure data protection awareness among employees. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) – mandates security awareness programs for healthcare providers. Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI-DSS) – enforces security training for businesses handling payment card information. == Measuring security awareness == In a 2016 study, researchers developed a method of measuring security awareness. Specifically they measured "understanding about circumventing security protocols, disrupting the intended functions of systems or collecting valuable information, and not getting caught" (p. 38). The researchers created a method that could distinguish between experts and novices by having people organize different security scenarios into groups. Experts will organize these scenarios based on centralized security themes where novices will organize the scenarios based on superficial themes. Security awareness is also assessed through real-time security metrics, such as tracking phishing click rates, password reuse tendencies, and policy adherence rates. Organizations are adopting continuous monitoring strategies to provide immediate feedback to employees about risky behavior and suggest corrective actions. == Evolving cyber threats and security awareness strategies == As cyber threats continue to evolve, security awareness programs must adapt to new attack vectors, such as AI-driven cyberattacks, deepfakes, and insider threats. ENISA's Threat Landscape report highlights the increasing prominence of these emerging threats, stressing the need for security measures that address both traditional attacks like ransomware and malware, as well as more sophisticated techniques such as Living Off Trusted Sites (LOTS) and advanced evasion methods used by cybercriminals.
Read more →
Ronald J. Williams

Ronald James Williams (1945 – February 16, 2024) was an American mathematician and computer scientist who spent the majority of his career at Northeastern University. He is considered one of the pioneers of neural networks. In 1986, he co-authored the seminal paper in Nature on the backpropagation algorithm along with David Rumelhart and Geoffrey Hinton, which triggered a boom in neural network research. == Education and career == Williams was born in Southern California. He studied at California Institute of Technology as a undergraduate student and received a B.S. in mathematics there in 1966. He received his M.A. and Ph.D. in mathematics, both at University of California, San Diego (UCSD) in 1972 and 1975, respectively. His Ph.D. thesis was supervised by Donald Werner Anderson. He worked for a defense contractor for some time after graduation. From 1983 to 1986, Williams was a member of the Parallel Distributed Processing research group headed by David Rumelhart at the Institute for Cognitive Science at UCSD. In 1986, Williams accepted a professorship in computer science at Northeastern University in Boston, where he remained afterwards. In addition to the backpropagation paper, Williams made fundamental contributions to the fields of recurrent neural networks, where he, along with David Zipser, invented the teacher forcing algorithm and made important contributions to backpropagation through time. In reinforcement learning, Williams introduced the REINFORCE algorithm in 1992, which became the first policy gradient method. Besides his works on neural networks, Williams, together with Wenxu Tong and Mary Jo Ondrechen, developed Partial Order Optimum Likelihood (POOL), a machine learning method used in the prediction of active amino acids in protein structures. POOL is a maximum likelihood method with a monotonicity constraint and is a general predictor of properties that depend monotonically on the input features.
Read more →
Deterministic acyclic finite state automaton

In computer science, a deterministic acyclic finite state automaton (DAFSA), is a data structure that represents a set of strings, and allows for a query operation that tests whether a given string belongs to the set in time proportional to its length. Algorithms exist to construct and maintain such automata, while keeping them minimal. DAFSA is the rediscovery of a data structure called Directed Acyclic Word Graph (DAWG), although the same name had already been given to a different data structure which is related to suffix automaton. A DAFSA is a special case of a finite state recognizer that takes the form of a directed acyclic graph with a single source vertex (a vertex with no incoming edges), in which each edge of the graph is labeled by a letter or symbol, and in which each vertex has at most one outgoing edge for each possible letter or symbol. The strings represented by the DAFSA are formed by the symbols on paths in the graph from the source vertex to any sink vertex (a vertex with no outgoing edges). In fact, a deterministic finite state automaton is acyclic if and only if it recognizes a finite set of strings. == History == Blumer et al first defined terminology Directed Acyclic Word Graph (DAWG) in 1983. Appel and Jacobsen used the same naming for a different data structure in 1988. Independent of earlier work, Daciuk et al rediscovered the latter data structure in 2000 but called it DAFSA. == Comparison to tries == By allowing the same vertices to be reached by multiple paths, a DAFSA may use significantly fewer vertices than the strongly related trie data structure. Consider, for example, the four English words "tap", "taps", "top", and "tops". A trie for those four words would have 12 vertices, one for each of the strings formed as a prefix of one of these words, or for one of the words followed by the end-of-string marker. However, a DAFSA can represent these same four words using only six vertices vi for 0 ≤ i ≤ 5, and the following edges: an edge from v0 to v1 labeled "t", two edges from v1 to v2 labeled "a" and "o", an edge from v2 to v3 labeled "p", an edge v3 to v4 labeled "s", and edges from v3 and v4 to v5 labeled with the end-of-string marker. There is a tradeoff between memory and functionality, because a standard DAFSA can tell you if a word exists within it, but it cannot point you to auxiliary information about that word, whereas a trie can. The primary difference between DAFSA and trie is the elimination of suffix and infix redundancy in storing strings. The trie eliminates prefix redundancy since all common prefixes are shared between strings, such as between doctors and doctorate the doctor prefix is shared. In a DAFSA common suffixes are also shared, for words that have the same set of possible suffixes as each other. For dictionary sets of common English words, this translates into major memory usage reduction. Because the terminal nodes of a DAFSA can be reached by multiple paths, a DAFSA cannot directly store auxiliary information relating to each path, e.g. a word's frequency in the English language. However, if for each node we store the number of unique paths through that point in the structure, we can use it to retrieve the index of a word, or a word given its index. The auxiliary information can then be stored in an array.
Read more →
Corpus linguistics

Corpus linguistics is an empirical method for the study of language by text corpus (plural corpora). Corpora are balanced, often stratified collections of authentic, "real world", text of speech or writing that aim to represent a given linguistic variety. Today, corpora are generally machine-readable data collections. Corpus linguistics proposes that a reliable analysis of a language is more feasible with corpora collected in the field—the natural context ("realia") of that language—with minimal experimental interference. Large collections of text, though corpora may also be small in terms of running words, allow linguists to run quantitative analyses on linguistic concepts that may be difficult to test in a qualitative manner. The text-corpus method uses the body of texts in any natural language to derive the set of abstract rules which govern that language. Those results can be used to explore the relationships between that subject language and other languages which have undergone a similar analysis. The first such corpora were manually derived from source texts, but now that work is automated. Corpora have not only been used for linguistics research, they have been increasingly used to compile dictionaries (starting with The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language in 1969) and reference grammars, with A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, published in 1985, as a first. Experts in the field have differing views about the annotation of a corpus. These views range from John McHardy Sinclair, who advocates minimal annotation so texts speak for themselves, to the Survey of English Usage team (University College, London), who advocate annotation as allowing greater linguistic understanding through rigorous recording. == History == Some of the earliest efforts at grammatical description were based at least in part on corpora of particular religious or cultural significance. For example, Prātiśākhya literature described the sound patterns of Sanskrit as found in the Vedas, and Pāṇini's grammar of classical Sanskrit was based at least in part on analysis of that same corpus. Similarly, the early Arabic grammarians paid particular attention to the language of the Quran. In the Western European tradition, scholars prepared concordances to allow detailed study of the language of the Bible and other canonical texts. === English corpora === A landmark in modern corpus linguistics was the publication of Computational Analysis of Present-Day American English in 1967. Written by Henry Kučera and W. Nelson Francis, the work was based on an analysis of the Brown Corpus, which is a structured and balanced corpus of one million words of American English from the year 1961. The corpus comprises 2000 text samples, from a variety of genres. The Brown Corpus was the first computerized corpus designed for linguistic research. Kučera and Francis subjected the Brown Corpus to a variety of computational analyses and then combined elements of linguistics, language teaching, psychology, statistics, and sociology to create a rich and variegated opus. A further key publication was Randolph Quirk's "Towards a description of English Usage" in 1960 in which he introduced the Survey of English Usage. Quirk's corpus was the first modern corpus to be built with the purpose of representing the whole language. Shortly thereafter, Boston publisher Houghton-Mifflin approached Kučera to supply a million-word, three-line citation base for its new American Heritage Dictionary, the first dictionary compiled using corpus linguistics. The AHD took the innovative step of combining prescriptive elements (how language should be used) with descriptive information (how it actually is used). Other publishers followed suit. The British publisher Collins' COBUILD monolingual learner's dictionary, designed for users learning English as a foreign language, was compiled using the Bank of English. The Survey of English Usage Corpus was used in the development of one of the most important Corpus-based Grammars, which was written by Quirk et al. and published in 1985 as A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. The Brown Corpus has also spawned a number of similarly structured corpora: the LOB Corpus (1960s British English), Kolhapur (Indian English), Wellington (New Zealand English), Australian Corpus of English (Australian English), the Frown Corpus (early 1990s American English), and the FLOB Corpus (1990s British English). Other corpora represent many languages, varieties and modes, and include the International Corpus of English, and the British National Corpus, a 100 million word collection of a range of spoken and written texts, created in the 1990s by a consortium of publishers, universities (Oxford and Lancaster) and the British Library. For contemporary American English, work has stalled on the American National Corpus, but the 400+ million word Corpus of Contemporary American English (1990–present) is now available through a web interface. The first computerized corpus of transcribed spoken language was constructed in 1971 by the Montreal French Project, containing one million words, which inspired Shana Poplack's much larger corpus of spoken French in the Ottawa-Hull area. === Multilingual corpora === In the 1990s, many of the notable early successes on statistical methods in natural-language programming (NLP) occurred in the field of machine translation, due especially to work at IBM Research. These systems were able to take advantage of existing multilingual textual corpora that had been produced by the Parliament of Canada and the European Union as a result of laws calling for the translation of all governmental proceedings into all official languages of the corresponding systems of government. There are corpora in non-European languages as well. For example, the National Institute for Japanese Language and Linguistics in Japan has built a number of corpora of spoken and written Japanese. Sign language corpora have also been created using video data. === Ancient languages corpora === Besides these corpora of living languages, computerized corpora have also been made of collections of texts in ancient languages. An example is the Andersen-Forbes database of the Hebrew Bible, developed since the 1970s, in which every clause is parsed using graphs representing up to seven levels of syntax, and every segment tagged with seven fields of information. The Quranic Arabic Corpus is an annotated corpus for the Classical Arabic language of the Quran. This is a recent project with multiple layers of annotation including morphological segmentation, part-of-speech tagging, and syntactic analysis using dependency grammar. The Digital Corpus of Sanskrit (DCS) is a "Sandhi-split corpus of Sanskrit texts with full morphological and lexical analysis... designed for text-historical research in Sanskrit linguistics and philology." === Corpora from specific fields === Besides pure linguistic inquiry, researchers had begun to apply corpus linguistics to other academic and professional fields, such as the emerging sub-discipline of Law and Corpus Linguistics, which seeks to understand legal texts using corpus data and tools. The DBLP Discovery Dataset concentrates on computer science, containing relevant computer science publications with sentient metadata such as author affiliations, citations, or study fields. A more focused dataset was introduced by NLP Scholar, a combination of papers of the ACL Anthology and Google Scholar metadata. Corpora can also aid in translation efforts or in teaching foreign languages. == Methods == Corpus linguistics has generated a number of research methods, which attempt to trace a path from data to theory. Wallis and Nelson (2001) first introduced what they called the 3A perspective: Annotation, Abstraction and Analysis. Annotation consists of the application of a scheme to texts. Annotations may include structural markup, part-of-speech tagging, parsing, and numerous other representations. Abstraction consists of the translation (mapping) of terms in the scheme to terms in a theoretically motivated model or dataset. Abstraction typically includes linguist-directed search but may include e.g., rule-learning for parsers. Analysis consists of statistically probing, manipulating and generalising from the dataset. Analysis might include statistical evaluations, optimisation of rule-bases or knowledge discovery methods. Most lexical corpora today are part-of-speech-tagged (POS-tagged). However even corpus linguists who work with 'unannotated plain text' inevitably apply some method to isolate salient terms. In such situations annotation and abstraction are combined in a lexical search. The advantage of publishing an annotated corpus is that other users can then perform experiments on the corpus (through corpus managers). Linguists with other interests and differing perspectives than the originators' can exploit this work. By sharing data
Read more →
Trustworthy computing

The term trustworthy computing (TwC) has been applied to computing systems that are inherently secure, available, and reliable. It is particularly associated with the Microsoft initiative of the same name, launched in 2002. == History == Until 1995, there were restrictions on commercial traffic over the Internet. On, May 26, 1995, Bill Gates sent the "Internet Tidal Wave" memorandum to Microsoft executives assigning "...the Internet this highest level of importance..." but Microsoft's Windows 95 was released without a web browser as Microsoft had not yet developed one. The success of the web had caught them by surprise but by mid 1995, they were testing their own web server, and on August 24, 1995, launched a major online service, The Microsoft Network (MSN). The National Research Council recognized that the rise of the Internet simultaneously increased societal reliance on computer systems while increasing the vulnerability of such systems to failure and produced an important report in 1999, "Trust in Cyberspace". This report reviews the cost of un-trustworthy systems and identifies actions required for improvement. == Microsoft and Trustworthy Computing == Bill Gates launched Microsoft's "Trustworthy Computing" initiative with a January 15, 2002 memo, referencing an internal whitepaper by Microsoft CTO and Senior Vice President Craig Mundie. The move was reportedly prompted by the fact that they "...had been under fire from some of its larger customers–government agencies, financial companies and others–about the security problems in Windows, issues that were being brought front and center by a series of self-replicating worms and embarrassing attacks." such as Code Red, Nimda, Klez and Slammer. Four areas were identified as the initiative's key areas: Security, Privacy, Reliability, and Business Integrity, and despite some initial scepticism, at its 10-year anniversary it was generally accepted as having "...made a positive impact on the industry...". The Trustworthy Computing campaign was the main reason why Easter eggs disappeared from Windows, Office and other Microsoft products.
Read more →
Linguistic Data Consortium

The Linguistic Data Consortium is an open consortium of universities, companies and government research laboratories. It creates, collects and distributes speech and text databases, lexicons, and other resources for linguistics research and development purposes. The University of Pennsylvania is the LDC's host institution. The LDC was founded in 1992 with a grant from the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), and is partly supported by grant IRI-9528587 from the Information and Intelligent Systems division of the National Science Foundation. The director of LDC is Mark Liberman. It subsumed the previous ACL Data Collection Initiative. Part of the motivation was to support the benchmark-oriented methodology of DARPA's Human Language Technology program. Previously, John R. Pierce directed the committee that produced the ALPAC report (1966), which caused a severe decrease in funding for linguistic AI for about 10 years. Later, Charles Wayne restarted funding in speech and language in the mid-1980s. In order to avoid the criticisms from the ALPAC report, they needed a way to demonstrate objective progress, which led to the benchmark-oriented methodology. DARPA would propose specific quantifiable and testable score targets on benchmarks, and teams being funded would attempt to reach the score targets. It was noted that by 1993, the data needed for training and benchmarking the models was big enough that "Not even the largest companies can easily afford enough of [the needed] data... Researchers at smaller companies and in universities risk being frozen out of the process almost entirely." The LDC provided a central location for creating and dispensing such data. There is a membership fee that has been increased once since its founding.
Read more →
AI Blog Writers: Free vs Paid (2026)

Shopping for the best AI blog writer? An AI blog writer 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 blog writer 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 →