AI Coding Benchmark Ranking

AI Coding Benchmark Ranking — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

  • Multi-scale approaches

    Multi-scale approaches

    The scale space representation of a signal obtained by Gaussian smoothing satisfies a number of special properties, scale-space axioms, which make it into a special form of multi-scale representation. There are, however, also other types of "multi-scale approaches" in the areas of computer vision, image processing and signal processing, in particular the notion of wavelets. The purpose of this article is to describe a few of these approaches: == Scale-space theory for one-dimensional signals == For one-dimensional signals, there exists quite a well-developed theory for continuous and discrete kernels that guarantee that new local extrema or zero-crossings cannot be created by a convolution operation. For continuous signals, it holds that all scale-space kernels can be decomposed into the following sets of primitive smoothing kernels: the Gaussian kernel : g ( x , t ) = 1 2 π t exp ⁡ ( − x 2 / 2 t ) {\displaystyle g(x,t)={\frac {1}{\sqrt {2\pi t}}}\exp({-x^{2}/2t})} where t > 0 {\displaystyle t>0} , truncated exponential kernels (filters with one real pole in the s-plane): h ( x ) = exp ⁡ ( − a x ) {\displaystyle h(x)=\exp({-ax})} if x ≥ 0 {\displaystyle x\geq 0} and 0 otherwise where a > 0 {\displaystyle a>0} h ( x ) = exp ⁡ ( b x ) {\displaystyle h(x)=\exp({bx})} if x ≤ 0 {\displaystyle x\leq 0} and 0 otherwise where b > 0 {\displaystyle b>0} , translations, rescalings. For discrete signals, we can, up to trivial translations and rescalings, decompose any discrete scale-space kernel into the following primitive operations: the discrete Gaussian kernel T ( n , t ) = I n ( α t ) {\displaystyle T(n,t)=I_{n}(\alpha t)} where α , t > 0 {\displaystyle \alpha ,t>0} where I n {\displaystyle I_{n}} are the modified Bessel functions of integer order, generalized binomial kernels corresponding to linear smoothing of the form f o u t ( x ) = p f i n ( x ) + q f i n ( x − 1 ) {\displaystyle f_{out}(x)=pf_{in}(x)+qf_{in}(x-1)} where p , q > 0 {\displaystyle p,q>0} f o u t ( x ) = p f i n ( x ) + q f i n ( x + 1 ) {\displaystyle f_{out}(x)=pf_{in}(x)+qf_{in}(x+1)} where p , q > 0 {\displaystyle p,q>0} , first-order recursive filters corresponding to linear smoothing of the form f o u t ( x ) = f i n ( x ) + α f o u t ( x − 1 ) {\displaystyle f_{out}(x)=f_{in}(x)+\alpha f_{out}(x-1)} where α > 0 {\displaystyle \alpha >0} f o u t ( x ) = f i n ( x ) + β f o u t ( x + 1 ) {\displaystyle f_{out}(x)=f_{in}(x)+\beta f_{out}(x+1)} where β > 0 {\displaystyle \beta >0} , the one-sided Poisson kernel p ( n , t ) = e − t t n n ! {\displaystyle p(n,t)=e^{-t}{\frac {t^{n}}{n!}}} for n ≥ 0 {\displaystyle n\geq 0} where t ≥ 0 {\displaystyle t\geq 0} p ( n , t ) = e − t t − n ( − n ) ! {\displaystyle p(n,t)=e^{-t}{\frac {t^{-n}}{(-n)!}}} for n ≤ 0 {\displaystyle n\leq 0} where t ≥ 0 {\displaystyle t\geq 0} . From this classification, it is apparent that we require a continuous semi-group structure, there are only three classes of scale-space kernels with a continuous scale parameter; the Gaussian kernel which forms the scale-space of continuous signals, the discrete Gaussian kernel which forms the scale-space of discrete signals and the time-causal Poisson kernel that forms a temporal scale-space over discrete time. If we on the other hand sacrifice the continuous semi-group structure, there are more options: For discrete signals, the use of generalized binomial kernels provides a formal basis for defining the smoothing operation in a pyramid. For temporal data, the one-sided truncated exponential kernels and the first-order recursive filters provide a way to define time-causal scale-spaces that allow for efficient numerical implementation and respect causality over time without access to the future. The first-order recursive filters also provide a framework for defining recursive approximations to the Gaussian kernel that in a weaker sense preserve some of the scale-space properties.

    Read more →
  • Best AI Clip Makers in 2026

    Best AI Clip Makers in 2026

    Trying to pick the best AI clip maker? An AI clip maker 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 clip maker 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 →
  • Bonnie Webber

    Bonnie Webber

    Bonnie Lynn Nash-Webber (born August 30, 1946) is a computational linguist. She is an honorary professor of intelligent systems in the Institute for Language, Cognition and Computation (ILCC) at the University of Edinburgh. == Education and career == Webber completed her PhD at Harvard University in 1978, advised by Bill Woods, while at the same time working with Woods at Bolt Beranek and Newman. == Career and research == Webber was appointed a professor at the University of Pennsylvania for 20 years before moving to Edinburgh in 1998. She has many academic descendants through her student at Pennsylvania, Martha E. Pollack. After retiring from the University of Edinburgh in 2016, she was listed by the university as an honorary professor. === Publications === Webber's doctoral dissertation, A Formal Approach to Discourse Anaphora, used formal logic to model the meanings of natural-language statements; it was published by Garland Publishers in 1979 in their Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics Series. With Norman Badler and Cary Phillips, Webber is a co-author of the book Simulating Humans: Computer Graphics Animation and Control (Oxford University Press, 1993). With Aravind Joshi and Ivan Sag she is a co-editor of Elements of Discourse Understanding, with Nils Nilsson she is co-editor of Readings in Artificial Intelligence, and with Barbara Grosz and Karen Spärck Jones she is co-editor of Readings in Natural Language Processing. === Awards and honours === Webber was appointed a Founding Fellow of the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) in 1990, and was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh (FRSE) in 2004. She served as president of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL) in 1980, and became a Fellow of the Association for Computational Linguistics in 2012, "for significant contributions to discourse structure and discourse-based interpretation". In 2020, she was awarded the Association for Computational Linguistics Lifetime Achievement Award.

    Read more →
  • Restricted Boltzmann machine

    Restricted Boltzmann machine

    A restricted Boltzmann machine (RBM) (also called a restricted Sherrington–Kirkpatrick model with external field or restricted stochastic Ising–Lenz–Little model) is a generative stochastic artificial neural network that can learn a probability distribution over its set of inputs. RBMs were initially proposed under the name Harmonium by Paul Smolensky in 1986, and rose to prominence after Geoffrey Hinton and collaborators used fast learning algorithms for them in the mid-2000s. RBMs have found applications in dimensionality reduction, classification, collaborative filtering, feature learning, topic modelling, immunology, and even many‑body quantum mechanics. They can be trained in either supervised or unsupervised ways, depending on the task. As their name implies, RBMs are a variant of Boltzmann machines, with the restriction that their neurons must form a bipartite graph: a pair of nodes from each of the two groups of units (commonly referred to as the "visible" and "hidden" units respectively) may have a symmetric connection between them; and there are no connections between nodes within a group. By contrast, "unrestricted" Boltzmann machines may have connections between hidden units. This restriction allows for more efficient training algorithms than are available for the general class of Boltzmann machines, in particular the gradient-based contrastive divergence algorithm. Restricted Boltzmann machines can also be used in deep learning networks. In particular, deep belief networks can be formed by "stacking" RBMs and optionally fine-tuning the resulting deep network with gradient descent and backpropagation. == Structure == The standard type of RBM has binary-valued (Boolean) hidden and visible units, and consists of a matrix of weights W {\displaystyle W} of size m × n {\displaystyle m\times n} . Each weight element ( w i , j ) {\displaystyle (w_{i,j})} of the matrix is associated with the connection between the visible (input) unit v i {\displaystyle v_{i}} and the hidden unit h j {\displaystyle h_{j}} . In addition, there are bias weights (offsets) a i {\displaystyle a_{i}} for v i {\displaystyle v_{i}} and b j {\displaystyle b_{j}} for h j {\displaystyle h_{j}} . Given the weights and biases, the energy of a configuration (pair of Boolean vectors) (v,h) is defined as E ( v , h ) = − ∑ i a i v i − ∑ j b j h j − ∑ i ∑ j v i w i , j h j {\displaystyle E(v,h)=-\sum _{i}a_{i}v_{i}-\sum _{j}b_{j}h_{j}-\sum _{i}\sum _{j}v_{i}w_{i,j}h_{j}} or, in matrix notation, E ( v , h ) = − a T v − b T h − v T W h . {\displaystyle E(v,h)=-a^{\mathrm {T} }v-b^{\mathrm {T} }h-v^{\mathrm {T} }Wh.} This energy function is analogous to that of a Hopfield network. As with general Boltzmann machines, the joint probability distribution for the visible and hidden vectors is defined in terms of the energy function as follows, P ( v , h ) = 1 Z e − E ( v , h ) {\displaystyle P(v,h)={\frac {1}{Z}}e^{-E(v,h)}} where Z {\displaystyle Z} is a partition function defined as the sum of e − E ( v , h ) {\displaystyle e^{-E(v,h)}} over all possible configurations, which can be interpreted as a normalizing constant to ensure that the probabilities sum to 1. The marginal probability of a visible vector is the sum of P ( v , h ) {\displaystyle P(v,h)} over all possible hidden layer configurations, P ( v ) = 1 Z ∑ { h } e − E ( v , h ) {\displaystyle P(v)={\frac {1}{Z}}\sum _{\{h\}}e^{-E(v,h)}} , and vice versa. Since the underlying graph structure of the RBM is bipartite (meaning there are no intra-layer connections), the hidden unit activations are mutually independent given the visible unit activations. Conversely, the visible unit activations are mutually independent given the hidden unit activations. That is, for m visible units and n hidden units, the conditional probability of a configuration of the visible units v, given a configuration of the hidden units h, is P ( v | h ) = ∏ i = 1 m P ( v i | h ) {\displaystyle P(v|h)=\prod _{i=1}^{m}P(v_{i}|h)} . Conversely, the conditional probability of h given v is P ( h | v ) = ∏ j = 1 n P ( h j | v ) {\displaystyle P(h|v)=\prod _{j=1}^{n}P(h_{j}|v)} . The individual activation probabilities are given by P ( h j = 1 | v ) = σ ( b j + ∑ i = 1 m w i , j v i ) {\displaystyle P(h_{j}=1|v)=\sigma \left(b_{j}+\sum _{i=1}^{m}w_{i,j}v_{i}\right)} and P ( v i = 1 | h ) = σ ( a i + ∑ j = 1 n w i , j h j ) {\displaystyle \,P(v_{i}=1|h)=\sigma \left(a_{i}+\sum _{j=1}^{n}w_{i,j}h_{j}\right)} where σ {\displaystyle \sigma } denotes the logistic sigmoid. The visible units of Restricted Boltzmann Machine can be multinomial, although the hidden units are Bernoulli. In this case, the logistic function for visible units is replaced by the softmax function P ( v i k = 1 | h ) = exp ⁡ ( a i k + Σ j W i j k h j ) Σ k ′ = 1 K exp ⁡ ( a i k ′ + Σ j W i j k ′ h j ) {\displaystyle P(v_{i}^{k}=1|h)={\frac {\exp(a_{i}^{k}+\Sigma _{j}W_{ij}^{k}h_{j})}{\Sigma _{k'=1}^{K}\exp(a_{i}^{k'}+\Sigma _{j}W_{ij}^{k'}h_{j})}}} where K is the number of discrete values that the visible values have. They are applied in topic modeling, and recommender systems. === Relation to other models === Restricted Boltzmann machines are a special case of Boltzmann machines and Markov random fields. The graphical model of RBMs corresponds to that of factor analysis. == Training algorithm == Restricted Boltzmann machines are trained to maximize the product of probabilities assigned to some training set V {\displaystyle V} (a matrix, each row of which is treated as a visible vector v {\displaystyle v} ), arg ⁡ max W ∏ v ∈ V P ( v ) {\displaystyle \arg \max _{W}\prod _{v\in V}P(v)} or equivalently, to maximize the expected log probability of a training sample v {\displaystyle v} selected randomly from V {\displaystyle V} : arg ⁡ max W E [ log ⁡ P ( v ) ] {\displaystyle \arg \max _{W}\mathbb {E} \left[\log P(v)\right]} The algorithm most often used to train RBMs, that is, to optimize the weight matrix W {\displaystyle W} , is the contrastive divergence (CD) algorithm due to Hinton, originally developed to train PoE (product of experts) models. The algorithm performs Gibbs sampling and is used inside a gradient descent procedure (similar to the way backpropagation is used inside such a procedure when training feedforward neural nets) to compute weight update. The basic, single-step contrastive divergence (CD-1) procedure for a single sample can be summarized as follows: Take a training sample v, compute the probabilities of the hidden units and sample a hidden activation vector h from this probability distribution. Compute the outer product of v and h and call this the positive gradient. From h, sample a reconstruction v' of the visible units, then resample the hidden activations h' from this. (Gibbs sampling step) Compute the outer product of v' and h' and call this the negative gradient. Let the update to the weight matrix W {\displaystyle W} be the positive gradient minus the negative gradient, times some learning rate: Δ W = ϵ ( v h T − v ′ h ′ T ) {\displaystyle \Delta W=\epsilon (vh^{\mathsf {T}}-v'h'^{\mathsf {T}})} . Update the biases a and b analogously: Δ a = ϵ ( v − v ′ ) {\displaystyle \Delta a=\epsilon (v-v')} , Δ b = ϵ ( h − h ′ ) {\displaystyle \Delta b=\epsilon (h-h')} . A Practical Guide to Training RBMs written by Hinton can be found on his homepage. == Stacked Restricted Boltzmann Machine == The difference between the Stacked Restricted Boltzmann Machines and RBM is that RBM has lateral connections within a layer that are prohibited to make analysis tractable. On the other hand, the Stacked Boltzmann consists of a combination of an unsupervised three-layer network with symmetric weights and a supervised fine-tuned top layer for recognizing three classes. The usage of Stacked Boltzmann is to understand Natural languages, retrieve documents, image generation, and classification. These functions are trained with unsupervised pre-training and/or supervised fine-tuning. Unlike the undirected symmetric top layer, with a two-way unsymmetric layer for connection for RBM. The restricted Boltzmann's connection is three-layers with asymmetric weights, and two networks are combined into one. Stacked Boltzmann does share similarities with RBM, the neuron for Stacked Boltzmann is a stochastic binary Hopfield neuron, which is the same as the Restricted Boltzmann Machine. The energy from both Restricted Boltzmann and RBM is given by Gibb's probability measure: E = − 1 2 ∑ i , j w i j s i s j + ∑ i θ i s i {\displaystyle E=-{\frac {1}{2}}\sum _{i,j}{w_{ij}{s_{i}}{s_{j}}}+\sum _{i}{\theta _{i}}{s_{i}}} . The training process of Restricted Boltzmann is similar to RBM. Restricted Boltzmann train one layer at a time and approximate equilibrium state with a 3-segment pass, not performing back propagation. Restricted Boltzmann uses both supervised and unsupervised on different RBM for pre-training for classification and recognition. The training uses contrastive divergence with

    Read more →
  • BeyondCorp

    BeyondCorp

    BeyondCorp is an implementation of zero-trust computer security concepts creating a zero trust network. It is created by Google. == Background == It was created in response to the 2009 Operation Aurora. An open source implementation inspired by Google's research paper on an access proxy is known as "transcend". Google documented its Zero Trust journey from 2014 to 2018 through a series of articles in the journal ;login:. Google called their ZT network "BeyondCorp". Google implemented a Zero Trust architecture on a large scale, and relied on user and device credentials, regardless of location. Data was encrypted and protected from managed devices. Unmanaged devices, such as BYOD, were not given access to the BeyondCorp resources. == Design and technology == BeyondCorp utilized a zero trust security model, which is a relatively new security model that it assumes that all devices and users are potentially compromised. This is in contrast to traditional security models, which rely on firewalls and other perimeter defenses to protect sensitive data. === Trust === The corporate network grants no inherent trust, and all internal apps are accessed via the BeyondCorp system, regardless of whether the user is in a Google office or working remotely. BeyondCorp is related to Zero Trust architecture as it implements a true Zero Trust network, where all access is granted on identity, device, and authentication, based on robust underlying device and identity data sources. BeyondCorp works by using a number of security policies including authentication, authorization, and access control to ensure that only authorized users can access corporate resources. Authentication verifies the identity of the user, authorization determines whether the user has permission to access the requested resource, and access control policies restrict what the user can do with the resource. ==== Trust Inferrer ==== One of the main components in BeyondCorp's implementation is the Trust Inferrer. The Trust Inferrer is a security component (typically software) that looks at information about a user's device, like a computer or phone, to decide how much it can be trusted to access certain resources like important company documents. The Trust Inferrer checks things like the security of the device, whether it has the right software installed, and if it belongs to an authorized user. Based on all this information, the Trust Inferrer decides what the device can access and what it can't. === Security mechanisms === Unlike traditional VPNs, BeyondCorp's access policies are based on information about a device, its state, and its associated user. BeyondCorp considers both internal networks and external networks to be completely untrusted, and gates access to applications by dynamically asserting and enforcing levels, or “tiers,” of access. === Device Inventory Database === BeyondCorp utilized a Device Inventory Database and Device Identity that uniquely identifies a device through a digital certificate. Any changes to the device are recorded in the Device Inventory Database. The certificate is used to uniquely identify a device; however, additional information is required to grant access privileges to a resource. === Access Control Engine === Another important component of BeyondCorp's implementation is the Access Control Engine. Think of this as the brain of the Zero Trust architecture. The Access Control Engine is like a traffic cop standing at an intersection. Its job is to make sure that only authorized devices and users are allowed to access specific resources (like files or applications) on the network. It checks the access policy (the rules that say who can access what), the device's state (like whether it has the right software updates or security settings), and the resources being requested. Then it makes a decision on whether to grant or deny access based on all of this information. It helps ensure that only the right people and devices are allowed access to the network, which helps keep things secure. The Access Control Engine utilizes the output from the Trust Inferrer and other data that is fed into its system. == Usage == One of the first things Google did to implement a Zero Trust architecture was to capture and analyze network traffic. The purpose of analyzing the traffic was to build a baseline of what typical network traffic looked like. In doing so, BeyondCorp also discovered unusual, unexpected, and unauthorized traffic. This was very useful because it gave the BeyondCorp engineers critical information that assisted them in reengineering the system in a secure manner. Some of the benefits BeyondCorp realized by adopting a Zero Trust architecture include the ability to allow their employees to work securely from any location. It reduces the risk of data breaches since data and applications are protected and users and devices are constantly being verified. The Zero Trust architecture is scalable and can be adapted to the changing needs of the businesses and their users. Especially relevant in today's work-from-home era, BeyondCorp allows employees to access enterprise resources securely from any location, without the need for traditional VPNs.

    Read more →
  • AI Blog Writers: Free vs Paid (2026)

    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 →
  • Thompson's construction

    Thompson's construction

    In computer science, Thompson's construction algorithm, also called the McNaughton–Yamada–Thompson algorithm, is a method of transforming a regular expression into an equivalent nondeterministic finite automaton (NFA). This NFA can be used to match strings against the regular expression. This algorithm is credited to Ken Thompson. Regular expressions and nondeterministic finite automata are two representations of formal languages. For instance, text processing utilities use regular expressions to describe advanced search patterns, but NFAs are better suited for execution on a computer. Hence, this algorithm is of practical interest, since it can compile regular expressions into NFAs. From a theoretical point of view, this algorithm is a part of the proof that they both accept exactly the same languages, that is, the regular languages. An NFA can be made deterministic by the powerset construction and then be minimized to get an optimal automaton corresponding to the given regular expression. However, an NFA may also be interpreted directly. To decide whether two given regular expressions describe the same language, each can be converted into an equivalent minimal deterministic finite automaton via Thompson's construction, powerset construction, and DFA minimization. If, and only if, the resulting automata agree up to renaming of states, the regular expressions' languages agree. == The algorithm == The algorithm works recursively by splitting an expression into its constituent subexpressions, from which the NFA will be constructed using a set of rules. More precisely, from a regular expression E, the obtained automaton A with the transition function Δ respects the following properties: A has exactly one initial state q0, which is not accessible from any other state. That is, for any state q and any letter a, Δ ( q , a ) {\displaystyle \Delta (q,a)} does not contain q0. A has exactly one final state qf, which is not co-accessible from any other state. That is, for any letter a, Δ ( q f , a ) = ∅ {\displaystyle \Delta (q_{f},a)=\emptyset } . Let c be the number of concatenation of the regular expression E and let s be the number of symbols apart from parentheses — that is, |, , a and ε. Then, the number of states of A is 2s − c (linear in the size of E). The number of transitions leaving any state is at most two. Since an NFA of m states and at most e transitions from each state can match a string of length n in time O(emn), a Thompson NFA can do pattern matching in linear time, assuming a fixed-size alphabet. === Rules === The following rules are depicted according to Aho et al. (2007), p. 122. In what follows, N(s) and N(t) are the NFA of the subexpressions s and t, respectively. The empty-expression ε is converted to A symbol a of the input alphabet is converted to The union expression s|t is converted to State q goes via ε either to the initial state of N(s) or N(t). Their final states become intermediate states of the whole NFA and merge via two ε-transitions into the final state of the NFA. The concatenation expression st is converted to The initial state of N(s) is the initial state of the whole NFA. The final state of N(s) becomes the initial state of N(t). The final state of N(t) is the final state of the whole NFA. The Kleene star expression s is converted to An ε-transition connects initial and final state of the NFA with the sub-NFA N(s) in between. Another ε-transition from the inner final to the inner initial state of N(s) allows for repetition of expression s according to the star operator. The parenthesized expression (s) is converted to N(s) itself. With these rules, using the empty expression and symbol rules as base cases, it is possible to prove with structural induction that any regular expression may be converted into an equivalent NFA. == Example == Two examples are now given, a small informal one with the result, and a bigger with a step by step application of the algorithm. === Small Example === The picture below shows the result of Thompson's construction on (ε|ab). The purple oval corresponds to a, the teal oval corresponds to a, the green oval corresponds to b, the orange oval corresponds to ab, and the blue oval corresponds to ε. === Application of the algorithm === As an example, the picture shows the result of Thompson's construction algorithm on the regular expression (0|(1(01(00)0)1)) that denotes the set of binary numbers that are multiples of 3: { ε, "0", "00", "11", "000", "011", "110", "0000", "0011", "0110", "1001", "1100", "1111", "00000", ... }. The upper right part shows the logical structure (syntax tree) of the expression, with "." denoting concatenation (assumed to have variable arity); subexpressions are named a-q for reference purposes. The left part shows the nondeterministic finite automaton resulting from Thompson's algorithm, with the entry and exit state of each subexpression colored in magenta and cyan, respectively. An ε as transition label is omitted for clarity — unlabelled transitions are in fact ε transitions. The entry and exit state corresponding to the root expression q is the start and accept state of the automaton, respectively. The algorithm's steps are as follows: An equivalent minimal deterministic automaton is shown below. == Relation to other algorithms == Thompson's is one of several algorithms for constructing NFAs from regular expressions; an earlier algorithm was given by McNaughton and Yamada. Converse to Thompson's construction, Kleene's algorithm transforms a finite automaton into a regular expression. Glushkov's construction algorithm is similar to Thompson's construction, once the ε-transitions are removed. == Use in string pattern matching == Regular expressions are often used to specify patterns that software is then asked to match. Generating an NFA by Thompson's construction, and using an appropriate algorithm to simulate it, it is possible to create pattern-matching software with performance that is ⁠ O ( m n ) {\displaystyle O(mn)} ⁠, where m is the length of the regular expression and n is the length of the string being matched. This is much better than is achieved by many popular programming-language implementations; however, it is restricted to purely regular expressions and does not support patterns for non-regular languages like backreferences.

    Read more →
  • Jerome H. Friedman

    Jerome H. Friedman

    Jerome Harold Friedman (born December 29, 1939) is an American statistician, consultant and Professor of Statistics at Stanford University, known for his contributions in the field of statistics and data mining. == Biography == Friedman studied at Chico State College for two years before transferring to the University of California, Berkeley in 1959, where he received his AB in Physics in 1962, and his PhD in High Energy Particle Physics in 1967. In 1968 he started his academic career as research physicist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. In 1972 he started at Stanford University as leader of the Computation Research Group at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, where he would participate until 2003. In the year 1976–77 he was a visiting scientist at CERN in Geneva. From 1981 to 1984 he was visiting professor at the University of California, Berkeley. In 1982 he was appointed Professor of Statistics at Stanford University. In 1984 he was elected as a Fellow of the American Statistical Association. In 2002 he was awarded the SIGKDD Innovation Award by the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM). In 2010 he was elected as a member of the National Academy of Sciences (Applied mathematical sciences). == Publications == Friedman has authored and co-authored many publications in the field of data-mining including "nearest neighbor classification, logistical regressions, and high dimensional data analysis. His primary research interest is in the area of machine learning." A selection: Friedman, Jerome H. & Tukey, John W. (1974). "A projection pursuit algorithm for exploratory data analysis". IEEE Transactions on Computers. 23 (9): 881–890. doi:10.1109/T-C.1974.224051. OSTI 1442925. S2CID 7997450. Friedman, Jerome H. & Stuetzle, Werner (1981). "Projection pursuit regression". Journal of the American Statistical Association. 76 (376): 817–823. doi:10.1080/01621459.1981.10477729. OSTI 1445517. Friedman, Jerome H. (1991). "Multivariate adaptive regression splines". Annals of Statistics. 19 (1): 1–67. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.382.970. doi:10.1214/aos/1176347963. JSTOR 2241837. Friedman, Jerome H. (2001). "Greedy function approximation: a gradient boosting machine". Annals of Statistics. 29 (5): 1189–1232. doi:10.1214/aos/1013203451. JSTOR 2699986.

    Read more →
  • Hidden layer

    Hidden layer

    In artificial neural networks, a hidden layer is a layer of artificial neurons that is neither an input layer nor an output layer. The simplest examples appear in multilayer perceptrons (MLP), as illustrated in the diagram. An MLP without any hidden layer is essentially just a linear model. With hidden layers and activation functions, however, nonlinearity is introduced into the model. In typical machine learning practice, the weights and biases are initialized, then iteratively updated during training via backpropagation.

    Read more →
  • Collocation extraction

    Collocation extraction

    Collocation extraction is the task of using a computer to extract collocations automatically from a corpus. The traditional method of performing collocation extraction is to find a formula based on the statistical quantities of those words to calculate a score associated to every word pairs. Proposed formulas are mutual information, t-test, z test, chi-squared test and likelihood ratio. Within the area of corpus linguistics, collocation is defined as a sequence of words or terms which co-occur more often than would be expected by chance. 'Crystal clear', 'middle management', 'nuclear family', and 'cosmetic surgery' are examples of collocated pairs of words. Some words are often found together because they make up a compound noun, for example 'riding boots' or 'motor cyclist' or ‘collocation extraction’ its very self.

    Read more →
  • Collocation extraction

    Collocation extraction

    Collocation extraction is the task of using a computer to extract collocations automatically from a corpus. The traditional method of performing collocation extraction is to find a formula based on the statistical quantities of those words to calculate a score associated to every word pairs. Proposed formulas are mutual information, t-test, z test, chi-squared test and likelihood ratio. Within the area of corpus linguistics, collocation is defined as a sequence of words or terms which co-occur more often than would be expected by chance. 'Crystal clear', 'middle management', 'nuclear family', and 'cosmetic surgery' are examples of collocated pairs of words. Some words are often found together because they make up a compound noun, for example 'riding boots' or 'motor cyclist' or ‘collocation extraction’ its very self.

    Read more →
  • Mona Diab

    Mona Diab

    Mona Talat Diab (Arabic: منى طلعت دياب) is a computer science professor and director of Carnegie Mellon University's Language Technologies Institute. Previously, she was a professor at George Washington University and a research scientist with Facebook AI. Her research focuses on natural language processing, computational linguistics, cross lingual/multilingual processing, computational socio-pragmatics, Arabic language processing, and applied machine learning. == Education == Diab completed her M.Sc. in computer science with a major in machine learning and artificial intelligence at The George Washington University (1997) and her Ph.D. in computational linguistics at the University of Maryland, Linguistics Department and University of Maryland Institute for Advanced Computer Studies (UMIACS) in 2003, under the supervision of Philip Resnik. She was also a postdoctoral research scientist at Stanford University (2003–2005) under the mentorship of Dan Jurafsky, where she was a part of the Stanford NLP Group. == Career == After her postdoc at Stanford, Diab took a position as research scientist (principal investigator) at the Center for Computational Learning Systems (CCLS) in Columbia University, where she was also adjunct professor in the computer science department. In 2013 she joined the George Washington University as an associate professor, where she was promoted to full professor in 2017. Diab is the founder and director of the GW NLP lab CARE4Lang. Diab served as an elected faculty senator at Columbia University for 6 years (2007–2012) and an elected faculty senator at GW (2013–2014). She served the computational linguistics community as elected member, secretary and president of ACL SIGLEX (2005–2016) and elected president of ACL SIGSemitic. She currently serves as the elected VP-elect for ACL SIGDAT. In 2017 Diab joined Amazon AWS AI Deep Learning Group for Human Language Technologies, where she led the AWS Lex project for task oriented dialogue systems for enterprises. A couple of years later, she moved to Facebook AI as a research scientist. In the fall of 2023, she became the director of CMU's Language Technologies Institute -- the first full time director since the passing of its founder Jaime Carbonell. == Research == Diab's research interests include several areas in computational linguistics/natural language processing, like conversational AI, computational lexical semantics, multilingual and cross lingual processing, social media processing with an emphasis on computational socio- pragmatics, information extraction & text analytics, machine translation. Besides this, she also has special interests in Arabic NLP and low resource scenarios. Diab co-established two research trends in the computational linguistics field, computational approaches to linguistic code switching in 2007 and semantic textual similarity in 2010. Diab together with Nizar Habash and Owen Rambow, co-founded CADIM in 2005, a global reference point in Arabic dialect processing. In 2012, Diab together with Eneko Agirre and Johan Bos, brought together two ACL communities SIGLEX and SIGSEM and established the 1st tier conference SEM. == Awards and recognition == Selected as one of top 150 leaders and visionaries in AI nationwide to participate in White House AI Summit in Government, Washington, D.C., US, September 2019 March 2017: 3 Muslim Women in STEM You Should Know About, Teen Vogue, March 2017 May 2017: Behind Every Strong Woman Is...Another Strong Woman: Ten women give thanks to the women who supported them on the way up. Elle, May 2017. Google Faculty Research Award – Tharwa++: Building a multidialectal Arabic Lexical Repository, (PI), 09.2015 –12.2016. Google Faculty Research Award – Nuanced Sentiment and Perspective Analysis for Arabic Social Media Text, (PI), 12.2014 –12.2015 QNRF Best Poster Award – Ossama Obeid, Houda Bouamor, Wajdi Zaghouani, Mahmoud Ghoneim, Abdelati Hawwari, Mona Diab, Kemal Oflazer. (2016) MANDIAC: A Web-based Annotation System For Manual Arabic Diacritization. Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Arabic Corpora and Processing Tools, LREC 2016. Best Paper Award – Aminian, Maryam, Mahmoud Ghoneim, Mona Diab. (2015) Unsupervised False Friend Disambiguation Using Contextual Word Clusters and Parallel Word Alignments. In Proceedings of Workshop 9th Semantics Syntax Statistical Translation, NAACL 2015, Denver CO, US. == Publications == Diab has over 250 publications, and she is an acting editor for several scientific journals. === Selected publications === Semeval-2012 task 6: A pilot on semantic textual similarity. E. Agirre, D. Cer, M. Diab, A. Gonzalez-Agirre. SEM 2012: The First Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics–Volume 1: Proceedings of the main conference and the shared task, and Volume 2: Proceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval 2012) Predictive linguistic features of schizophrenia. ES Kayi, M Diab, L Pauselli, M Compton, G Coppersmith. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.09377 Ideological perspective detection using semantic features. H Elfardy, M Diab, C Callison-Burch – Proceedings of SEM 2015 DeSePtion: Dual sequence prediction and adversarial examples for improved fact-checking. Christopher Hidey, Tuhin Chakrabarty, Tariq Alhindi, Siddharth Varia, Kriste Krstovski, Mona Diab, Smaranda Muresan, 2020 Does Causal Coherence Predict Online Spread of Social Media? Pedram Hosseini, Mona Diab, David A Broniatowski. Proceedings of International Conference on Social Computing, Behavioral-Cultural Modeling and Prediction and Behavior Representation in Modeling and Simulation, 2019. Diversity, Density, and Homogeneity: Quantitative Characteristic Metrics for Text Collections. YA Lai, X Zhu, Y Zhang, M Diab, arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.08529, 2020 Readability of written medicine information materials in Arabic language: expert and consumer evaluation. S Al Aqeel, N Abanmy, A Aldayel, H Al-Khalifa, M Al-Yahya, M Diab. BMC health services research 18 (1), 1–7, 2019 Unsupervised word mapping using structural similarities in monolingual embeddings. H Aldarmaki, M Mohan, M Diab – Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2018 An unsupervised method for word sense tagging using parallel corpora M Diab, P Resnik. Proceedings of ACL 2002 Overview for the first shared task on language identification in code-switched data. Thamar Solorio, Elizabeth Blair, Suraj Maharjan, Steven Bethard, Mona Diab, Mahmoud Ghoneim, Abdelati Hawwari, Fahad AlGhamdi, Julia Hirschberg, Alison Chang, Pascale Fung. Proceedings of the First Workshop on Computational Approaches to Code Switching, 2014 Modeling sentences in the latent space. W Guo, M Diab – ACL 20 12 Task-based evaluation of multiword expressions: a pilot study in statistical machine translation. M Carpuat, M Diab – NAACL-HLT 2010 Rumor detection and classification for twitter data. S Hamidian, MT Diab – arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.08926, 2019 Subgroup detection in ideological discussions. A Abu-Jbara, P Dasigi, M Diab, D Radev – ACL 2012 Madamira: A fast, comprehensive tool for morphological analysis and disambiguation of arabic. A. Pasha, M. Al-Badrashiny, M. Diab, A. El Kholy, R. Eskander, N. Habash, M. Pooleery, O. Rambow, R. Roth. LREC 14, 1094–1101. 2014 Context-Aware Self-Attentive Natural Language Understanding for Task-Oriented Chatbots. A. Gupta, P. Zhang, G. Lalwani, M. Diab. EMNLP 2019 A multitask learning approach for diacritic restoration. S. Alqahtani, A. Mishra, M. Diab. ACL 2020

    Read more →
  • Airfair

    Airfair

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

    Read more →
  • IBM alignment models

    IBM alignment models

    The IBM alignment models are a sequence of increasingly complex models used in statistical machine translation to train a translation model and an alignment model, starting with lexical translation probabilities and moving to reordering and word duplication. They underpinned the majority of statistical machine translation systems for almost twenty years starting in the early 1990s, until neural machine translation began to dominate. These models offer principled probabilistic formulation and (mostly) tractable inference. The IBM alignment models were published in parts in 1988 and 1990, and the entire series is published in 1993. Every author of the 1993 paper subsequently went to the hedge fund Renaissance Technologies. The original work on statistical machine translation at IBM proposed five models, and a model 6 was proposed later. The sequence of the six models can be summarized as: Model 1: lexical translation Model 2: additional absolute alignment model Model 3: extra fertility model Model 4: added relative alignment model Model 5: fixed deficiency problem. Model 6: Model 4 combined with a HMM alignment model in a log linear way == Mathematical setup == The IBM alignment models translation as a conditional probability model. For each source-language ("foreign") sentence f {\displaystyle f} , we generate both a target-language ("English") sentence e {\displaystyle e} and an alignment a {\displaystyle a} . The problem then is to find a good statistical model for p ( e , a | f ) {\displaystyle p(e,a|f)} , the probability that we would generate English language sentence e {\displaystyle e} and an alignment a {\displaystyle a} given a foreign sentence f {\displaystyle f} . The meaning of an alignment grows increasingly complicated as the model version number grew. See Model 1 for the most simple and understandable version. == Model 1 == === Word alignment === Given any foreign-English sentence pair ( e , f ) {\displaystyle (e,f)} , an alignment for the sentence pair is a function of type { 1 , . , . . . , l e } → { 0 , 1 , . , . . . , l f } {\displaystyle \{1,.,...,l_{e}\}\to \{0,1,.,...,l_{f}\}} . That is, we assume that the English word at location i {\displaystyle i} is "explained" by the foreign word at location a ( i ) {\displaystyle a(i)} . For example, consider the following pair of sentences It will surely rain tomorrow -- 明日 は きっと 雨 だWe can align some English words to corresponding Japanese words, but not everyone:it -> ? will -> ? surely -> きっと rain -> 雨 tomorrow -> 明日This in general happens due to the different grammar and conventions of speech in different languages. English sentences require a subject, and when there is no subject available, it uses a dummy pronoun it. Japanese verbs do not have different forms for future and present tense, and the future tense is implied by the noun 明日 (tomorrow). Conversely, the topic-marker は and the grammar word だ (roughly "to be") do not correspond to any word in the English sentence. So, we can write the alignment as 1-> 0; 2 -> 0; 3 -> 3; 4 -> 4; 5 -> 1where 0 means that there is no corresponding alignment. Thus, we see that the alignment function is in general a function of type { 1 , . , . . . , l e } → { 0 , 1 , . , . . . , l f } {\displaystyle \{1,.,...,l_{e}\}\to \{0,1,.,...,l_{f}\}} . Future models will allow one English world to be aligned with multiple foreign words. === Statistical model === Given the above definition of alignment, we can define the statistical model used by Model 1: Start with a "dictionary". Its entries are of form t ( e i | f j ) {\displaystyle t(e_{i}|f_{j})} , which can be interpreted as saying "the foreign word f j {\displaystyle f_{j}} is translated to the English word e i {\displaystyle e_{i}} with probability t ( e i | f j ) {\displaystyle t(e_{i}|f_{j})} ". After being given a foreign sentence f {\displaystyle f} with length l f {\displaystyle l_{f}} , we first generate an English sentence length l e {\displaystyle l_{e}} uniformly in a range U n i f o r m [ 1 , 2 , . . . , N ] {\displaystyle Uniform[1,2,...,N]} . In particular, it does not depend on f {\displaystyle f} or l f {\displaystyle l_{f}} . Then, we generate an alignment uniformly in the set of all possible alignment functions { 1 , . , . . . , l e } → { 0 , 1 , . , . . . , l f } {\displaystyle \{1,.,...,l_{e}\}\to \{0,1,.,...,l_{f}\}} . Finally, for each English word e 1 , e 2 , . . . e l e {\displaystyle e_{1},e_{2},...e_{l_{e}}} , generate each one independently of every other English word. For the word e i {\displaystyle e_{i}} , generate it according to t ( e i | f a ( i ) ) {\displaystyle t(e_{i}|f_{a(i)})} . Together, we have the probability p ( e , a | f ) = 1 / N ( 1 + l f ) l e ∏ i = 1 l e t ( e i | f a ( i ) ) {\displaystyle p(e,a|f)={\frac {1/N}{(1+l_{f})^{l_{e}}}}\prod _{i=1}^{l_{e}}t(e_{i}|f_{a(i)})} IBM Model 1 uses very simplistic assumptions on the statistical model, in order to allow the following algorithm to have closed-form solution. === Learning from a corpus === If a dictionary is not provided at the start, but we have a corpus of English-foreign language pairs { ( e ( k ) , f ( k ) ) } k {\displaystyle \{(e^{(k)},f^{(k)})\}_{k}} (without alignment information), then the model can be cast into the following form: fixed parameters: the foreign sentences { f ( k ) } k {\displaystyle \{f^{(k)}\}_{k}} . learnable parameters: the entries of the dictionary t ( e i | f j ) {\displaystyle t(e_{i}|f_{j})} . observable variables: the English sentences { e ( k ) } k {\displaystyle \{e^{(k)}\}_{k}} . latent variables: the alignments { a ( k ) } k {\displaystyle \{a^{(k)}\}_{k}} In this form, this is exactly the kind of problem solved by expectation–maximization algorithm. Due to the simplistic assumptions, the algorithm has a closed-form, efficiently computable solution, which is the solution to the following equations: { max t ′ ∑ k ∑ i ∑ a ( k ) t ( a ( k ) | e ( k ) , f ( k ) ) ln ⁡ t ( e i ( k ) | f a ( k ) ( i ) ( k ) ) ∑ x t ′ ( e x | f y ) = 1 ∀ y {\displaystyle {\begin{cases}\max _{t'}\sum _{k}\sum _{i}\sum _{a^{(k)}}t(a^{(k)}|e^{(k)},f^{(k)})\ln t(e_{i}^{(k)}|f_{a^{(k)}(i)}^{(k)})\\\sum _{x}t'(e_{x}|f_{y})=1\quad \forall y\end{cases}}} This can be solved by Lagrangian multipliers, then simplified. For a detailed derivation of the algorithm, see chapter 4 and. In short, the EM algorithm goes as follows:INPUT. a corpus of English-foreign sentence pairs { ( e ( k ) , f ( k ) ) } k {\displaystyle \{(e^{(k)},f^{(k)})\}_{k}} INITIALIZE. matrix of translations probabilities t ( e x | f y ) {\displaystyle t(e_{x}|f_{y})} .This could either be uniform or random. It is only required that every entry is positive, and for each y {\displaystyle y} , the probability sums to one: ∑ x t ( e x | f y ) = 1 {\displaystyle \sum _{x}t(e_{x}|f_{y})=1} . LOOP. until t ( e x | f y ) {\displaystyle t(e_{x}|f_{y})} converges: t ( e x | f y ) ← t ( e x | f y ) λ y ∑ k , i , j δ ( e x , e i ( k ) ) δ ( f y , f j ( k ) ) ∑ j ′ t ( e i ( k ) | f j ′ ( k ) ) {\displaystyle t(e_{x}|f_{y})\leftarrow {\frac {t(e_{x}|f_{y})}{\lambda _{y}}}\sum _{k,i,j}{\frac {\delta (e_{x},e_{i}^{(k)})\delta (f_{y},f_{j}^{(k)})}{\sum _{j'}t(e_{i}^{(k)}|f_{j'}^{(k)})}}} where each λ y {\displaystyle \lambda _{y}} is a normalization constant that makes sure each ∑ x t ( e x | f y ) = 1 {\displaystyle \sum _{x}t(e_{x}|f_{y})=1} .RETURN. t ( e x | f y ) {\displaystyle t(e_{x}|f_{y})} .In the above formula, δ {\displaystyle \delta } is the Dirac delta function -- it equals 1 if the two entries are equal, and 0 otherwise. The index notation is as follows: k {\displaystyle k} ranges over English-foreign sentence pairs in corpus; i {\displaystyle i} ranges over words in English sentences; j {\displaystyle j} ranges over words in foreign language sentences; x {\displaystyle x} ranges over the entire vocabulary of English words in the corpus; y {\displaystyle y} ranges over the entire vocabulary of foreign words in the corpus. === Limitations === There are several limitations to the IBM model 1. No fluency: Given any sentence pair ( e , f ) {\displaystyle (e,f)} , any permutation of the English sentence is equally likely: p ( e | f ) = p ( e ′ | f ) {\displaystyle p(e|f)=p(e'|f)} for any permutation of the English sentence e {\displaystyle e} into e ′ {\displaystyle e'} . No length preference: The probability of each length of translation is equal: ∑ e has length l p ( e | f ) = 1 N {\displaystyle \sum _{e{\text{ has length }}l}p(e|f)={\frac {1}{N}}} for any l ∈ { 1 , 2 , . . . , N } {\displaystyle l\in \{1,2,...,N\}} . Does not explicitly model fertility: some foreign words tend to produce a fixed number of English words. For example, for German-to-English translation, ja is usually omitted, and zum is usually translated to one of to the, for the, to a, for a. == Model 2 == Model 2 allows alignment to be conditional on sentence lengths. That is, we have a probability distribution p a ( j | i , l e , l f ) {\displaystyle

    Read more →
  • Top 10 AI Bug Finders Compared (2026)

    Top 10 AI Bug Finders Compared (2026)

    Trying to pick the best AI bug finder? An AI bug finder 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 bug finder 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 →