AI Coder Youtube

AI Coder Youtube — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

  • Cognition Network Technology

    Cognition Network Technology

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

    Read more →
  • Best AI Video Generators in 2026

    Best AI Video Generators in 2026

    Curious about the best AI video generator? An AI video generator is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it combines speed, accuracy, and an interface that just works. Hands-on testing shows real-world results vary, so a short free trial is the smartest way to decide. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI video 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 →
  • Is an AI Analytics Tool Worth It in 2026?

    Is an AI Analytics Tool Worth It in 2026?

    Curious about the best AI analytics tool? An AI analytics tool is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it combines speed, accuracy, and an interface that just works. Hands-on testing shows real-world results vary, so a short free trial is the smartest way to decide. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI analytics tool 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 →
  • Separating words problem

    Separating words problem

    In theoretical computer science, the separating words problem is the problem of finding the smallest deterministic finite automaton that behaves differently on two given strings, meaning that it accepts one of the two strings and rejects the other string. It is an open problem how large such an automaton must be, in the worst case, as a function of the length of the input strings. == Example == The two strings 0010 and 1000 may be distinguished from each other by a three-state automaton in which the transitions from the start state go to two different states, both of which are terminal in the sense that subsequent transitions from these two states always return to the same state. The state of this automaton records the first symbol of the input string. If one of the two terminal states is accepting and the other is rejecting, then the automaton will accept only one of the strings 0010 and 1000. However, these two strings cannot be distinguished by any automaton with fewer than three states. == Simplifying assumptions == For proving bounds on this problem, it may be assumed without loss of generality that the inputs are strings over a two-letter alphabet. For, if two strings over a larger alphabet differ then there exists a string homomorphism that maps them to binary strings of the same length that also differ. Any automaton that distinguishes the binary strings can be translated into an automaton that distinguishes the original strings, without any increase in the number of states. It may also be assumed that the two strings have equal length. For strings of unequal length, there always exists a prime number p whose value is logarithmic in the smaller of the two input lengths, such that the two lengths are different modulo p. An automaton that counts the length of its input modulo p can be used to distinguish the two strings from each other in this case. Therefore, strings of unequal lengths can always be distinguished from each other by automata with few states. == History and bounds == The problem of bounding the size of an automaton that distinguishes two given strings was first formulated by Goralčík & Koubek (1986), who showed that the automaton size is always sublinear. Later, Robson (1989) proved the upper bound O(n2/5(log n)3/5) on the automaton size that may be required. This was improved by Chase (2020) to O(n1/3(log n)7). There exist pairs of inputs that are both binary strings of length n for which any automaton that distinguishes the inputs must have size Ω(log n). Closing the gap between this lower bound and Chase's upper bound remains an open problem. Jeffrey Shallit has offered a prize of 100 British pounds for any improvement to Robson's upper bound. == Special cases == Several special cases of the separating words problem are known to be solvable using few states: If two binary words have differing numbers of zeros or ones, then they can be distinguished from each other by counting their Hamming weights modulo a prime of logarithmic size, using a logarithmic number of states. More generally, if a pattern of length k appears a different number of times in the two words, they can be distinguished from each other using O(k log n) states. If two binary words differ from each other within their first or last k positions, they can be distinguished from each other using k + O(1) states. This implies that almost all pairs of binary words can be distinguished from each other with a logarithmic number of states, because only a polynomially small fraction of pairs have no difference in their initial O(log n) positions. If two binary words have Hamming distance d, then there exists a prime p with p = O(d log n) and a position i at which the two strings differ, such that i is not equal modulo p to the position of any other difference. By computing the parity of the input symbols at positions congruent to i modulo p, it is possible to distinguish the words using an automaton with O(d log n) states.

    Read more →
  • Kuwahara filter

    Kuwahara filter

    The Kuwahara filter is a non-linear smoothing filter used in image processing for adaptive noise reduction. Most filters that are used for image smoothing are linear low-pass filters that effectively reduce noise but also blur out the edges. However the Kuwahara filter is able to apply smoothing on the image while preserving the edges. It is named after Michiyoshi Kuwahara, Ph.D., who worked at Kyoto and Osaka Sangyo Universities in Japan, developing early medical imaging of dynamic heart muscle in the 1970s and 80s. == The Kuwahara operator == Suppose that I ( x , y ) {\displaystyle I(x,y)} is a grey scale image and that we take a square window of size 2 a + 1 {\displaystyle 2a+1} centered around a point ( x , y ) {\displaystyle (x,y)} in the image. This square can be divided into four smaller square regions Q i = 1 ⋯ 4 {\displaystyle Q_{i=1\cdots 4}} each of which will be Q i ( x , y ) = { [ x , x + a ] × [ y , y + a ] if i = 1 [ x − a , x ] × [ y , y + a ] if i = 2 [ x − a , x ] × [ y − a , y ] if i = 3 [ x , x + a ] × [ y − a , y ] if i = 4 {\displaystyle Q_{i}(x,y)={\begin{cases}\left[x,x+a\right]\times \left[y,y+a\right]&{\mbox{ if }}i=1\\\left[x-a,x\right]\times \left[y,y+a\right]&{\mbox{ if }}i=2\\\left[x-a,x\right]\times \left[y-a,y\right]&{\mbox{ if }}i=3\\\left[x,x+a\right]\times \left[y-a,y\right]&{\mbox{ if }}i=4\\\end{cases}}} where × {\displaystyle \times } is the cartesian product. Pixels located on the borders between two regions belong to both regions so there is a slight overlap between subregions. The arithmetic mean m i ( x , y ) {\displaystyle m_{i}(x,y)} and standard deviation σ i ( x , y ) {\displaystyle \sigma _{i}(x,y)} of the four regions centered around a pixel (x,y) are calculated and used to determine the value of the central pixel. The output of the Kuwahara filter Φ ( x , y ) {\displaystyle \Phi (x,y)} for any point ( x , y ) {\displaystyle (x,y)} is then given by Φ ( x , y ) = m i ( x , y ) {\textstyle \Phi (x,y)=m_{i}(x,y)} where i = a r g min j ⁡ σ j ( x , y ) {\displaystyle i=\operatorname {arg\min } _{j}\sigma _{j}(x,y)} . This means that the central pixel will take the mean value of the area that is most homogenous. The location of the pixel in relation to an edge plays a great role in determining which region will have the greater standard deviation. If for example the pixel is located on a dark side of an edge it will most probably take the mean value of the dark region. On the other hand, should the pixel be on the lighter side of an edge it will most probably take a light value. On the event that the pixel is located on the edge it will take the value of the more smooth, least textured region. The fact that the filter takes into account the homogeneity of the regions ensures that it will preserve the edges while using the mean creates the blurring effect. Similarly to the median filter, the Kuwahara filter uses a sliding window approach to access every pixel in the image. The size of the window is chosen in advance and may vary depending on the desired level of blur in the final image. Bigger windows typically result in the creation of more abstract images whereas small windows produce images that retain their detail. Typically windows are chosen to be square with sides that have an odd number of pixels for symmetry. However, there are variations of the Kuwahara filter that use rectangular windows. Additionally, the subregions do not need to overlap or have the same size as long as they cover all of the window. == Color images == For color images, the filter should not be performed by applying the filter to each RGB channel separately, and then recombining the three filtered color channels to form the filtered RGB image. The main problem with that is that the quadrants will have different standard deviations for each of the channels. For example, the upper left quadrant may have the lowest standard deviation in the red channel, but the lower right quadrant may have the lowest standard deviation in the green channel. This situation would result in the color of the central pixel to be determined by different regions, which might result in color artifacts or blurrier edges. To overcome this problem, for color images a slightly modified Kuwahara filter must be used. The image is first converted into another color space, the HSV color space. The modified filter then operates on only the "brightness" channel, the Value coordinate in the HSV model. The variance of the "brightness" of each quadrant is calculated to determine the quadrant from which the final filtered color should be taken from. The filter will produce an output for each channel which will correspond to the mean of that channel from the quadrant that had the lowest standard deviation in "brightness". This ensures that only one region will determine the RGB values of the central pixel. ImageMagick uses a similar approach, but using the Rec. 709 Luma as the brightness metric. === Julia Implementation === == Applications == Originally the Kuwahara filter was proposed for use in processing RI-angiocardiographic images of the cardiovascular system. The fact that any edges are preserved when smoothing makes it especially useful for feature extraction and segmentation and explains why it is used in medical imaging. The Kuwahara filter however also finds many applications in artistic imaging and fine-art photography due to its ability to remove textures and sharpen the edges of photographs. The level of abstraction helps create a desirable painting-like effect in artistic photographs especially in the case of the colored image version of the filter. These applications have known great success and have encouraged similar research in the field of image processing for the arts. Although the vast majority of applications have been in the field of image processing there have been cases that use modifications of the Kuwahara filter for machine learning tasks such as clustering. The Kuwahara filter has been implemented in CVIPtools. The Kuwahara filter is present as a shader node in Blender. == Drawbacks and restrictions == The Kuwahara filter despite its capabilities in edge preservation has certain drawbacks. At a first glance it is noticeable that the Kuwahara filter does not take into account the case where two regions have equal standard deviations. This is not often the case in real images since it is rather hard to find two regions with exactly the same standard deviation due to the noise that is always present. In cases where two regions have similar standard deviations the value of the center pixel could be decided at random by the noise in these regions. Again this would not be a problem if the regions had the same mean. However, it is not unusual for regions of very different means to have the same standard deviation. This makes the Kuwahara filter susceptible to noise. Different ways have been proposed for dealing with this issue, one of which is to set the value of the center pixel to ( m 1 + m 2 ) / 2 {\textstyle (m_{1}+m_{2})/2} in cases where the standard deviation of two regions do not differ more than a certain value D {\displaystyle D} . The Kuwahara filter is also known to create block artifacts in the images especially in regions of the image that are highly textured. These blocks disrupt the smoothness of the image and are considered to have a negative effect in the aesthetics of the image. This phenomenon occurs due to the division of the window into square regions. A way to overcome this effect is to take windows that are not rectangular(i.e. circular windows) and separate them into more non-rectangular regions. There have also been approaches where the filter adapts its window depending on the input image. == Extensions of the Kuwahara filter == The success of the Kuwahara filter has spurred an increase the development of edge-enhancing smoothing filters. Several variations have been proposed for similar use most of which attempt to deal with the drawbacks of the original Kuwahara filter. The "Generalized Kuwahara filter" proposed by P. Bakker considers several windows that contain a fixed pixel. Each window is then assigned an estimate and a confidence value. The value of the fixed pixel then takes the value of the estimate of the window with the highest confidence. This filter is not characterized by the same ambiguity in the presence of noise and manages to eliminate the block artifacts. The "Mean of Least Variance"(MLV) filter, proposed by M.A. Schulze also produces edge-enhancing smoothing results in images. Similarly to the Kuwahara filter it assumes a window of size 2 d − 1 × 2 d − 1 {\displaystyle 2d-1\times 2d-1} but instead of searching amongst four subregions of size d × d {\displaystyle d\times d} for the one with minimum variance it searches amongst all possible d × d {\displaystyle d\times d} subregions. This means the central pixel of the window will be assigned the mean of the one subregion out of a poss

    Read more →
  • Eurotra

    Eurotra

    Eurotra was a machine translation project established and funded by the European Commission from 1978 until 1992. == History == In 1976, the European Commission started using the commercially developed machine translation system SYSTRAN with a plan to make it work for further languages than originally developed for (Russian-English and English-French), which however turned out to be difficult. This and the potential in existing systems within European research center, led to the decision in 1978 to start the project Eurotra, first through a preparatory Eurotra Coordination Group. Four years later, the European Commission and coordination group gained the approval of the European Parliament. The goal of the project as to create machine translation system for the official languages of the European Community, which at the time were Danish, Dutch, German, English, French, Italian, later including Greek, Spanish and Portuguese. However, as time passed, expectations became tempered; "Fully Automatic High Quality Translation" was not a reasonably attainable goal. The true character of Eurotra was eventually acknowledged to be in fact pre-competitive research rather than prototype development. The project was motivated by one of the founding principles of the EU: that all citizens had the right to read any and all proceedings of the Commission in their own language. As more countries joined, this produced a combinatorial explosion in the number of language pairs involved, and the need to translate every paper, speech and even set of meeting minutes produced by the EU into the other eight languages meant that translation rapidly became the overwhelming component in the administrative budget. To solve this problem Eurotra was devised. The project was unusual in that rather than consisting of a single research team, it had member groups distributed around the member countries, organised along language rather than national lines (for example, groups in Leuven and Utrecht worked closely together), and the secretariat was based at the European Commission in Luxembourg. The actual design of the project was unusual as MT projects go. Older systems, such as SYSTRAN, were heavily dictionary-based, with minor support for rearranging word order. More recent systems have often worked on a probabilistic approach, based on parallel corpora. Eurotra addressed the constituent structure of the text to be translated, going through first a syntactic parse followed by a second parse to produce a dependency structure followed by a final parse with a third grammar to produce what was referred to internally as Intermediate Representation (IR). Since all three modules were implemented as Prolog programs, it would then in principle be possible to put this structure backwards through the corresponding modules for another language to produce a translated text in any of the other languages. However, in practice this was not in fact how language pairs were implemented. The first "live" translation occupied a 4Mb Microvax running Ultrix and C-Prolog for a complete weekend some time in early 1987. The sentence, translated from English into Danish, was "Japan makes computers". The main problem faced by the system was the generation of so-called "Parse Forests" - often a large number of different grammar rules could be applied to any particular phrase, producing hundreds, even thousands of (often identical) parse trees. This used up huge quantities of computer store, slowing the whole process down unnecessarily. While Eurotra never delivered a "working" MT system, the project made a far-reaching long-term impact on the nascent language industries in European member states, in particular among the southern countries of Greece, Italy, Spain, and Portugal. There is at least one commercial MT system (developed by an academic/commercial consortium in Denmark) derived from Eurotra technology.

    Read more →
  • Structured prediction

    Structured prediction

    Structured prediction or structured output learning is an umbrella term for supervised machine learning techniques that involves predicting structured objects, rather than discrete or real values. Similar to commonly used supervised learning techniques, structured prediction models are typically trained by means of observed data in which the predicted value is compared to the ground truth, and this is used to adjust the model parameters. Due to the complexity of the model and the interrelations of predicted variables, the processes of model training and inference are often computationally infeasible, so approximate inference and learning methods are used. == Applications == An example application is the problem of translating a natural language sentence into a syntactic representation such as a parse tree. This can be seen as a structured prediction problem in which the structured output domain is the set of all possible parse trees. Structured prediction is used in a wide variety of domains including bioinformatics, natural language processing (NLP), speech recognition, and computer vision. === Example: sequence tagging === Sequence tagging is a class of problems prevalent in NLP in which input data are often sequential, for instance sentences of text. The sequence tagging problem appears in several guises, such as part-of-speech tagging (POS tagging) and named entity recognition. In POS tagging, for example, each word in a sequence must be 'tagged' with a class label representing the type of word: The main challenge of this problem is to resolve ambiguity: in the above example, the words "sentence" and "tagged" in English can also be verbs. While this problem can be solved by simply performing classification of individual tokens, this approach does not take into account the empirical fact that tags do not occur independently; instead, each tag displays a strong conditional dependence on the tag of the previous word. This fact can be exploited in a sequence model such as a hidden Markov model or conditional random field that predicts the entire tag sequence for a sentence (rather than just individual tags) via the Viterbi algorithm. == Techniques == Probabilistic graphical models form a large class of structured prediction models. In particular, Bayesian networks and random fields are popular. Other algorithms and models for structured prediction include inductive logic programming, case-based reasoning, structured SVMs, Markov logic networks, Probabilistic Soft Logic, and constrained conditional models. The main techniques are: Conditional random fields Structured support vector machines Structured k-nearest neighbours Recurrent neural networks, in particular Elman networks Transformers. === Structured perceptron === One of the easiest ways to understand algorithms for general structured prediction is the structured perceptron by Collins. This algorithm combines the perceptron algorithm for learning linear classifiers with an inference algorithm (classically the Viterbi algorithm when used on sequence data) and can be described abstractly as follows: First, define a function ϕ ( x , y ) {\displaystyle \phi (x,y)} that maps a training sample x {\displaystyle x} and a candidate prediction y {\displaystyle y} to a vector of length n {\displaystyle n} ( x {\displaystyle x} and y {\displaystyle y} may have any structure; n {\displaystyle n} is problem-dependent, but must be fixed for each model). Let G E N {\displaystyle GEN} be a function that generates candidate predictions. Then: Let w {\displaystyle w} be a weight vector of length n {\displaystyle n} For a predetermined number of iterations: For each sample x {\displaystyle x} in the training set with true output t {\displaystyle t} : Make a prediction y ^ {\displaystyle {\hat {y}}} : y ^ = a r g m a x { y ∈ G E N ( x ) } ( w T , ϕ ( x , y ) ) {\displaystyle {\hat {y}}={\operatorname {arg\,max} }\,\{y\in GEN(x)\}\,(w^{T},\phi (x,y))} Update w {\displaystyle w} (from y ^ {\displaystyle {\hat {y}}} towards t {\displaystyle t} ): w = w + c ( − ϕ ( x , y ^ ) + ϕ ( x , t ) ) {\displaystyle w=w+c(-\phi (x,{\hat {y}})+\phi (x,t))} , where c {\displaystyle c} is the learning rate. In practice, finding the argmax over G E N ( x ) {\displaystyle {GEN}({x})} is done using an algorithm such as Viterbi or a max-sum, rather than an exhaustive search through an exponentially large set of candidates. The idea of learning is similar to that for multiclass perceptrons.

    Read more →
  • The Best Free AI Bug Finder for Beginners

    The Best Free AI Bug Finder for Beginners

    Shopping for the best AI bug finder? An AI bug finder 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 bug finder slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. We tested the leading options and ranked them by quality, value, and ease of use.

    Read more →
  • Labeled data

    Labeled data

    Labeled data is a group of samples that have been tagged with one or more labels. Labeling typically takes a set of unlabeled data and augments each piece of it with informative tags called judgments. For example, a data label might indicate whether a photo contains a horse or a cow, which words were uttered in an audio recording, what type of action is being performed in a video, what the topic of a news article is, what the overall sentiment of a tweet is, or whether a dot in an X-ray is a tumor. Labels can be obtained by having humans make judgments about a given piece of unlabeled data. Labeled data is significantly more expensive to obtain than the raw unlabeled data. The quality of labeled data directly influences the performance of supervised machine learning models in operation, as these models learn from the provided labels. == Crowdsourced labeled data == In 2006, Fei-Fei Li, the co-director of the Stanford Human-Centered AI Institute, initiated research to improve the artificial intelligence models and algorithms for image recognition by significantly enlarging the training data. The researchers downloaded millions of images from the World Wide Web and a team of undergraduates started to apply labels for objects to each image. In 2007, Li outsourced the data labeling work on Amazon Mechanical Turk, an online marketplace for digital piece work. The 3.2 million images that were labeled by more than 49,000 workers formed the basis for ImageNet, one of the largest hand-labeled database for outline of object recognition. == Automated data labelling == After obtaining a labeled dataset, machine learning models can be applied to the data so that new unlabeled data can be presented to the model and a likely label can be guessed or predicted for that piece of unlabeled data. == Challenges == === Data-driven bias === Algorithmic decision-making is subject to programmer-driven bias as well as data-driven bias. Training data that relies on bias labeled data will result in prejudices and omissions in a predictive model, despite the machine learning algorithm being legitimate. The labeled data used to train a specific machine learning algorithm needs to be a statistically representative sample to not bias the results. For example, in facial recognition systems underrepresented groups are subsequently often misclassified if the labeled data available to train has not been representative of the population,. In 2018, a study by Joy Buolamwini and Timnit Gebru demonstrated that two facial analysis datasets that have been used to train facial recognition algorithms, IJB-A and Adience, are composed of 79.6% and 86.2% lighter skinned humans respectively. === Human error and inconsistency === Human annotators are prone to errors and biases when labeling data. This can lead to inconsistent labels and affect the quality of the data set. The inconsistency can affect the machine learning model's ability to generalize well. === Domain expertise === Certain fields, such as legal document analysis or medical imaging, require annotators with specialized domain knowledge. Without the expertise, the annotations or labeled data may be inaccurate, negatively impacting the machine learning model's performance in a real-world scenario.

    Read more →
  • Linguistic Systems

    Linguistic Systems

    Linguistic Systems, Inc., also known as LSI, provides language translation services (conversion) for all media in over 115 languages. LSI focuses on the translation of legal, medical, business, institutional, academic, government and personal documents. LSI is headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts. == About LSI == Linguistic Systems, Inc. (LSI) was founded in 1967 by Martin Roberts. LSI's translates to/from 115 languages, DTP, audio-visual conversions, software localization, consecutive and simultaneous interpreting services, foreign brand name analysis, and machine translation with post-editing. LSI has provided translation services to over half of the Fortune 500 companies and most of the Fortune 100. Among its clients are AT&T, Boeing, Citigroup, Coca-Cola, DuPont, Exxon-Mobil, General Electric, General Motors, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, Procter & Gamble, Simon & Schuster, Time Warner, Verizon, and Walmart. As of 2013, LSI had a network of more than 7,000 translators who translate into their native languages; These include lawyers, scientists, engineers, and other bilingual professionals.

    Read more →
  • Synchronizing word

    Synchronizing word

    In computer science, more precisely, in the theory of deterministic finite automata (DFA), a synchronizing word or reset sequence is a word in the input alphabet of the DFA that sends any state of the DFA to one and the same state. That is, if an ensemble of copies of the DFA are each started in different states, and all of the copies process the synchronizing word, they will all end up in the same state. Not every DFA has a synchronizing word; for instance, a DFA with two states, one for words of even length and one for words of odd length, can never be synchronized. == Existence == Given a DFA, the problem of determining if it has a synchronizing word can be solved in polynomial time using a theorem due to Ján Černý. A simple approach considers the power set of states of the DFA, and builds a directed graph where nodes belong to the power set, and a directed edge describes the action of the transition function. A path from the node of all states to a singleton state shows the existence of a synchronizing word. This algorithm is exponential in the number of states. A polynomial algorithm results however, due to a theorem of Černý that exploits the substructure of the problem, and shows that a synchronizing word exists if and only if every pair of states has a synchronizing word. == Length == The problem of estimating the length of synchronizing words has a long history and was posed independently by several authors, but it is commonly known as the Černý conjecture. In 1969, Ján Černý conjectured that (n − 1)2 is the upper bound for the length of the shortest synchronizing word for any n-state complete DFA (a DFA with complete state transition graph). If this is true, it would be tight: in his 1964 paper, Černý exhibited a class of automata (indexed by the number n of states) for which the shortest reset words have this length. The best upper bound known is 0.1654n3, far from the lower bound. For n-state DFAs over a k-letter input alphabet, an algorithm by David Eppstein finds a synchronizing word of length at most 11n3/48 + O(n2), and runs in time complexity O(n3+kn2). This algorithm does not always find the shortest possible synchronizing word for a given automaton; as Eppstein also shows, the problem of finding the shortest synchronizing word is NP-complete. However, for a special class of automata in which all state transitions preserve the cyclic order of the states, he describes a different algorithm with time O(kn2) that always finds the shortest synchronizing word, proves that these automata always have a synchronizing word of length at most (n − 1)2 (the bound given in Černý's conjecture), and exhibits examples of automata with this special form whose shortest synchronizing word has length exactly (n − 1)2. == Road coloring == The road coloring problem is the problem of labeling the edges of a regular directed graph with the symbols of a k-letter input alphabet (where k is the outdegree of each vertex) in order to form a synchronizable DFA. It was conjectured in 1970 by Benjamin Weiss and Roy Adler that any strongly connected and aperiodic regular digraph can be labeled in this way; their conjecture was proven in 2007 by Avraham Trahtman. == Related: transformation semigroups == A transformation semigroup is synchronizing if it contains an element of rank 1, that is, an element whose image is of cardinality 1. A DFA corresponds to a transformation semigroup with a distinguished generator set.

    Read more →
  • AI Presentation Makers: Free vs Paid (2026)

    AI Presentation Makers: Free vs Paid (2026)

    Curious about the best AI presentation maker? An AI presentation maker is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it combines speed, accuracy, and an interface that just works. Hands-on testing shows real-world results vary, so a short free trial is the smartest way to decide. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI presentation maker 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 →
  • Error level analysis

    Error level analysis

    Error level analysis (ELA) is the analysis of compression artifacts in digital data with lossy compression such as JPEG. == Principles == When used, lossy compression is normally applied uniformly to a set of data, such as an image, resulting in a uniform level of compression artifacts. Alternatively, the data may consist of parts with different levels of compression artifacts. This difference may arise from the different parts having been repeatedly subjected to the same lossy compression a different number of times, or the different parts having been subjected to different kinds of lossy compression. A difference in the level of compression artifacts in different parts of the data may therefore indicate that the data has been edited. In the case of JPEG, even a composite with parts subjected to matching compressions will have a difference in the compression artifacts. In order to make the typically faint compression artifacts more readily visible, the data to be analyzed is subjected to an additional round of lossy compression, this time at a known, uniform level, and the result is subtracted from the original data under investigation. The resulting difference image is then inspected manually for any variation in the level of compression artifacts. In 2007, N. Krawetz denoted this method "error level analysis". Additionally, digital data formats such as JPEG sometimes include metadata describing the specific lossy compression used. If in such data the observed compression artifacts differ from those expected from the given metadata description, then the metadata may not describe the actual compressed data, and thus indicate that the data have been edited. == Limitations == By its nature, data without lossy compression, such as a PNG image, cannot be subjected to error level analysis. Consequently, since editing could have been performed on data without lossy compression with lossy compression applied uniformly to the edited, composite data, the presence of a uniform level of compression artifacts does not rule out editing of the data. Additionally, any non-uniform compression artifacts in a composite may be removed by subjecting the composite to repeated, uniform lossy compression. Also, if the image color space is reduced to 256 colors or less, for example, by conversion to GIF, then error level analysis will generate useless results. More significant, the actual interpretation of the level of compression artifacts in a given segment of the data is subjective, and the determination of whether editing has occurred is therefore not robust. == Controversy == In May 2013, Dr Neal Krawetz used error level analysis on the 2012 World Press Photo of the Year and concluded on his Hacker Factor blog that it was "a composite" with modifications that "fail to adhere to the acceptable journalism standards used by Reuters, Associated Press, Getty Images, National Press Photographer's Association, and other media outlets". The World Press Photo organizers responded by letting two independent experts analyze the image files of the winning photographer and subsequently confirmed the integrity of the files. One of the experts, Hany Farid, said about error level analysis that "It incorrectly labels altered images as original and incorrectly labels original images as altered with the same likelihood". Krawetz responded by clarifying that "It is up to the user to interpret the results. Any errors in identification rest solely on the viewer". In May 2015, the citizen journalism team Bellingcat wrote that error level analysis revealed that the Russian Ministry of Defense had edited satellite images related to the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 disaster. In a reaction to this, image forensics expert Jens Kriese said about error level analysis: "The method is subjective and not based entirely on science", and that it is "a method used by hobbyists". On his Hacker Factor Blog, the inventor of error level analysis Neal Krawetz criticized both Bellingcat's use of error level analysis as "misinterpreting the results" but also on several points Jens Kriese's "ignorance" regarding error level analysis.

    Read more →
  • Conversational AI Platforms Reviews: What Actually Works in 2026

    Conversational AI Platforms Reviews: What Actually Works in 2026

    Shopping for the best conversational AI platform? An conversational AI platform 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 conversational AI platform slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. We tested the leading options and ranked them by quality, value, and ease of use.

    Read more →
  • Jiliang Tang

    Jiliang Tang

    Jiliang Tang is a Chinese-born computer scientist and a University Foundation Professor of Computer Science and Engineering at Michigan State University, where he is the director of the Data Science and Engineering (DSE) Lab. His research expertise is in data mining and machine learning. == Education and career == He received his BEng in software engineering (2008) and MSc in computer science (2010) from the Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing, China. His PhD is from Arizona State University (2015), under the direction of Huan Liu. After gaining his PhD, he worked as a research scientist at Yahoo Labs (2015–16) before joining Michigan State University as an assistant professor (2016). His research has mostly been published jointly with Huan Liu. It has received over thirteen thousand citations documented by Google Scholar, and has received coverage in the media. == Awards == He has received the 2020 ACM SIGKDD Rising Star Award that "aims to celebrate the early accomplishments of the SIGKDD communities' brightest new minds", NSF Career Award, and Michigan State University's Distinguished Withrow Research Award. == Selected publications == === Books === Jiliang Tang, Huan Liu. Trust in Social Media, (Synthesis digital library of engineering and computer science; Synthesis lectures on information security, privacy, and trust, # 13) Morgan & Claypool, 2015 ISBN 9781627054058 === Peer reviewed journal articles === Shu K, Sliva A, Wang S, Tang J, Liu H. Fake news detection on social media: A data mining perspective. ACM SIGKDD explorations newsletter. 2017 Sep 1;19(1):22-36. [1] Tang J, Alelyani S, Liu H. Feature selection for classification: A review. Data classification: Algorithms and applications. 2014:37. [2] Li J, Cheng K, Wang S, Morstatter F, Trevino RP, Tang J, Liu H. Feature selection: A data perspective. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR). 2017 Dec 6;50(6):1-45. [3] Chang S, Han W, Tang J, Qi GJ, Aggarwal CC, Huang TS. Heterogeneous network embedding via deep architectures. InProceedings of the 21th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining 2015 Aug 10 (pp. 119–128) Gao H, Tang J, Hu X, Liu H. Exploring temporal effects for location recommendation on location-based social networks. InProceedings of the 7th ACM conference on Recommender systems 2013 Oct 12 (pp. 93–100). Hu X, Tang J, Gao H, Liu H. Unsupervised sentiment analysis with emotional signals. InProceedings of the 22nd international conference on World Wide Web 2013 May 13 (pp. 607–618).

    Read more →