AI Content Label

AI Content Label — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  Language Computer Corporation

  Language Computer Corporation (LCC) is a natural language processing research company based in Richardson, Texas. The company develops a variety of natural language processing products, including software for question answering, information extraction, and automatic summarization. Since its founding in 1995, the low-profile company has landed significant United States Government contracts, with $8,353,476 in contracts in 2006-2008. While the company has focused primarily on the government software market, LCC has also used its technology to spin off three start-up companies. The first spin-off, known as Lymba Corporation, markets the PowerAnswer question answering product originally developed at LCC. In 2010, LCC's CEO, Andrew Hickl, co-founded two start-ups which made use of the company's technology. These included Swingly, an automatic question answering start-up, and Extractiv, an information extraction service that was founded in partnership with Houston, Texas-based 80legs.

  Read more →
• 

  Inverse depth parametrization

  In computer vision, the inverse depth parametrization is a parametrization used in methods for 3D reconstruction from multiple images such as simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM). Given a point p {\displaystyle \mathbf {p} } in 3D space observed by a monocular pinhole camera from multiple views, the inverse depth parametrization of the point's position is a 6D vector that encodes the optical centre of the camera c 0 {\displaystyle \mathbf {c} _{0}} when in first observed the point, and the position of the point along the ray passing through p {\displaystyle \mathbf {p} } and c 0 {\displaystyle \mathbf {c} _{0}} . Inverse depth parametrization generally improves numerical stability and allows to represent points with zero parallax. Moreover, the error associated to the observation of the point's position can be modelled with a Gaussian distribution when expressed in inverse depth. This is an important property required to apply methods, such as Kalman filters, that assume normality of the measurement error distribution. The major drawback is the larger memory consumption, since the dimensionality of the point's representation is doubled. == Definition == Given 3D point p = ( x , y , z ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {p} =(x,y,z)} with world coordinates in a reference frame ( e 1 , e 2 , e 3 ) {\displaystyle (e_{1},e_{2},e_{3})} , observed from different views, the inverse depth parametrization y {\displaystyle \mathbf {y} } of p {\displaystyle \mathbf {p} } is given by: y = ( x 0 , y 0 , z 0 , θ , ϕ , ρ ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {y} =(x_{0},y_{0},z_{0},\theta ,\phi ,\rho )} where the first five components encode the camera pose in the first observation of the point, being c 0 = ( x 0 , y 0 , z 0 ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {c_{0}} =(x_{0},y_{0},z_{0})} the optical centre, ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } the azimuth, θ {\displaystyle \theta } the elevation angle, and ρ = 1 ‖ p − c 0 ‖ {\displaystyle \rho ={\frac {1}{\left\Vert \mathbf {p} -\mathbf {c} _{0}\right\Vert }}} the inverse depth of p {\displaystyle p} at the first observation.

  Read more →
• 

  Pronunciation assessment

  Automatic pronunciation assessment uses computer speech recognition to determine how accurately speech has been pronounced, instead of relying on a human instructor or proctor. It is also called speech verification, pronunciation evaluation, and pronunciation scoring. This technology is used to grade speech quality, for language testing, for computer-aided pronunciation teaching (CAPT) in computer-assisted language learning (CALL), for speaking skill remediation, and for accent reduction. Pronunciation assessment is different from dictation or automatic transcription, because instead of determining unknown speech, it verifies learners' pronunciation of known word(s), often from prior transcription of the same utterance; ideally scoring the intelligibility of the learners' speech. Sometimes pronunciation assessment evaluates the prosody of the learners' speech, such as intonation, pitch, tempo, rhythm, and syllable and word stress, although those are usually not essential for being understood in most languages. Pronunciation assessment is also used in reading tutoring, for example in products from Google, Microsoft, and Amira Learning. Automatic pronunciation assessment can also be used to help diagnose and treat speech disorders such as apraxia. == Intelligibility == Intelligibility refers to how well a learner's utterance is understood by a listener, rather than how much it sounds like a native speaker. This is separate from measures of fluency, such as so-called "Goodness of Pronunciation" (GoP) scores, which estimate how closely an utterance aligns with those of native speakers. Intelligibility is widely regarded as the most important communicative goal in pronunciation teaching and assessment. For example, in the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) assessment criteria for "overall phonological control", intelligibility outweighs formally correct pronunciation at all levels. Studies in applied linguistics have shown that accent reduction does not always increase intelligibility because listeners can often comprehend heavily accented speech without difficulty. Pronunciation assessment systems often rely on acoustic methods such as GoP which compare learner speech to reference models to produce phoneme-level scores, which are in turn aggregated to produce word and phrase scores. While these methods are effective for identifying deviations from native speakers' utterances, they do not effectively measure how understandable speech is to human listeners. Intelligibility is influenced by broader linguistic and contextual factors such as stress placement, speech rate, and coarticulation, which are not represented in purely segmental scores. The earliest work on pronunciation assessment avoided measuring genuine listener intelligibility, a shortcoming corrected in 2011 at the Toyohashi University of Technology, and included in the Versant high-stakes English fluency assessment from Pearson and mobile apps from 17zuoye Education & Technology, but still missing in 2023 products from Google Search, Microsoft, Educational Testing Service, Speechace, and ELSA. Assessing authentic listener intelligibility is essential for avoiding inaccuracies from accent bias, especially in high-stakes assessments; from words with multiple correct pronunciations; and from phoneme coding errors in machine-readable pronunciation dictionaries. In 2022, researchers found that some newer speech-to-text systems, based on end-to-end reinforcement learning to map audio signals directly into words, produce word and phrase confidence scores (from 10-25ms audio frame logit aggregation) closely correlated with genuine listener intelligibility. Others have been able to assess intelligibility using Levenshtein or dynamic time warping distance measures from Wav2Vec2 representation of good speech. Further work through 2025 has focused specifically on measuring intelligibility. A 2025 study of 42 pronunciation and speech coaching apps (32 mobile and 10 web) found that none offered intelligibility assessment. Instead, most provided only segmental and accent-focused scoring. About two-thirds of the apps provided some form of specific pronunciation feedback, usually with phonetic transcriptions, but accompanied by visual cues (such as animations of the vocal tract or the lips and tongue from the front) in only about 5% of the apps. Less than a third provided feedback on learner perception of exemplar speech. == Evaluation == Although there are as yet no industry-standard benchmarks for evaluating pronunciation assessment accuracy, researchers occasionally release evaluation speech corpuses for others to use for improving assessment quality. Such evaluation databases often emphasize formally unaccented pronunciation to the exclusion of genuine intelligibility evident from blinded listener transcriptions. As of mid-2025, state of the art approaches for automatically transcribing phonemes typically achieve an error rate of about 10% from known good speech. The International Speech Communication Association (ISCA) 2025 Workshop on Speech and Language Technology in Education (SLaTE) administered a Speak & Improve Challenge: Spoken Language Assessment and Feedback, introducing benchmarks for evaluating pronunciation assessment and remediation systems across languages, accents, and learner populations. The challenge emphasized cross-lingual generalization and alignment with human intelligibility judgments, for more robust and interpretable assessment systems. Ethical issues in pronunciation assessment are present in both human and automatic methods. Authentic validity, fairness, and mitigating bias in evaluation are all crucial. Diverse speech data should be included in automatic pronunciation assessment models. Combining human judgments, especially blinded transcriptions from a wide diversity of listeners, with automated feedback can improve accuracy and fairness. Second language learners benefit substantially from their use of widely available speech recognition systems for dictation, virtual assistants, and AI chatbots. In such systems, users naturally try to correct their own errors evident in speech recognition results that they notice. Such use improves their grammar and vocabulary development along with their pronunciation skills. The extent to which explicit pronunciation assessment and remediation approaches improve on such self-directed interactions remains an open question. Similarly, automatic dictation results have been shown to reflect intelligibility about as well as human scorers. == Recent developments == During 2021–22, a smartphone-based CAPT system was used to sense articulation through both audible and inaudible signals, providing feedback at the phoneme level. Some promising areas for improvement which were being developed in 2024 include articulatory feature extraction and transfer learning to suppress unnecessary corrections. Other interesting advances under development include "augmented reality" interfaces for mobile devices using optical character recognition to provide pronunciation training on text found in user environments. In 2024, audio multimodal large language models were first described as assessing pronunciation. That work has been carried forward by other researchers in 2025 who report positive results. Subsequently, researchers demonstrated pronunciation scoring by providing a language model with textual descriptions of speech, including the speech-to-text transcript, phoneme sequences, pauses, and phoneme sequence matching; this approach can achieve performance similar to multimodal LLMs that analyze raw audio while avoiding their higher computational cost. In 2025, the Duolingo English Test authors published a description of their pronunciation assessment method, purportedly built to measure intelligibility rather than accent imitation. While achieving a correlation of 0.82 with expert human ratings, very close to inter-rater agreement and outperforming alternative methods, the method is nonetheless based on experts' scores along the six-point CEFR common reference levels scale, instead of actual blinded listener transcriptions. Further promising work in 2025 includes assessment feedback aligning learner speech to synthetic utterances using interpretable features, identifying continuous spans of words for remediation feedback; synthesizing corrected speech matching learners' self-perceived voices, which they prefer and imitate more accurately as corrections; and streaming such interactions. On January 21, 2026, Educational Testing Service's TOEFL iBT high-stakes English language test, required by US university admissions and employers from English as a foreign language applicants more often than all other internet-based tests combined, changed its speaking assessments. While official rubrics claim that the new scoring will be based primarily on intelligibility, the new test's technical description indicates that it ju

  Read more →
• 

  Agent Ruby

  Agent Ruby (1998–2002) by Lynn Hershman Leeson is an interactive, multiuser work using artificial intelligence. == Description == On Agent Ruby's website, "Agent Ruby's Edream Portal," a female face moves her eyes and lips. Ruby, named from Hershman Leeson's own film, Teknolust, answers questions and often responds that she needs a better algorithm to answer questions not within her database. The work, created with AI, explores relationships between real and virtual worlds. Hershman Leeson had created an earlier version of Ruby, CyberRoberta, which was a custom-made doll with webcam eyes that interacted with the internet. The work in a gallery provides a screen and a sign inviting gallery-goers to "Chat with Ruby." == Artificial intelligence == In 2015 when Agent Ruby was exhibited at the gallery Modern Art Oxford, a review in Aesthetica Magazine described it as an artificial intelligence agent. A review in New Scientist noted that "Ruby is a fast learner, but perhaps not a natural conversationalist." A 2024 list of "25 Essential AI Artworks" published by ARTnews wrote that while "Agent Ruby's capabilities seem limited by today's standards," it was extensive for its day. == Publications and exhibitions == Agent Ruby was commissioned and displayed at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, Modern Art Oxford, and the ZKM Center for Art and Media in Karlsruhe, Germany. The San Francisco Museum of Modern Art (SFMOMA) presented Lynn Hershman Leeson: The Agent Ruby Files, March 30 through June 2, 2013 which presented the project server's archive of user conversations over the 12 years of exhibitions.

  Read more →
• 

  Symbolic regression

  Symbolic regression (SR) is a type of regression analysis that searches the space of mathematical expressions to find the model that best fits a given dataset, both in terms of accuracy and simplicity. No particular model is provided as a starting point for symbolic regression. Instead, initial expressions are formed by randomly combining mathematical building blocks such as mathematical operators, analytic functions, constants, and state variables. Usually, a subset of these primitives will be specified by the person operating it, but that's not a requirement of the technique. The symbolic regression problem for mathematical functions has been tackled with a variety of methods, including recombining equations most commonly using genetic programming, as well as more recent methods utilizing Bayesian methods and neural networks. Another non-classical alternative method to SR is called Universal Functions Originator (UFO), which has a different mechanism, search-space, and building strategy. Further methods such as Exact Learning attempt to transform the fitting problem into a moments problem in a natural function space, usually built around generalizations of the Meijer-G function. By not requiring a priori specification of a model, symbolic regression isn't affected by human bias, or unknown gaps in domain knowledge. It attempts to uncover the intrinsic relationships of the dataset, by letting the patterns in the data itself reveal the appropriate models, rather than imposing a model structure that is deemed mathematically tractable from a human perspective. The fitness function that drives the evolution of the models takes into account not only error metrics (to ensure the models accurately predict the data), but also special complexity measures, thus ensuring that the resulting models reveal the data's underlying structure in a way that's understandable from a human perspective. This facilitates reasoning and favors the odds of getting insights about the data-generating system, as well as improving generalisability and extrapolation behaviour by preventing overfitting. Accuracy and simplicity may be left as two separate objectives of the regression—in which case the optimum solutions form a Pareto front—or they may be combined into a single objective by means of a model selection principle such as minimum description length. It has been proven that symbolic regression is an NP-hard problem. Nevertheless, if the sought-for equation is not too complex it is possible to solve the symbolic regression problem exactly by generating every possible function (built from some predefined set of operators) and evaluating them on the dataset in question. == Difference from classical regression == While conventional regression techniques seek to optimize the parameters for a pre-specified model structure, symbolic regression avoids imposing prior assumptions, and instead infers the model from the data. In other words, it attempts to discover both model structures and model parameters. This approach has the disadvantage of having a much larger space to search, because not only the search space in symbolic regression is infinite, but there are an infinite number of models which will perfectly fit a finite data set (provided that the model complexity isn't artificially limited). This means that it will possibly take a symbolic regression algorithm longer to find an appropriate model and parametrization, than traditional regression techniques. This can be attenuated by limiting the set of building blocks provided to the algorithm, based on existing knowledge of the system that produced the data; but in the end, using symbolic regression is a decision that has to be balanced with how much is known about the underlying system. Nevertheless, this characteristic of symbolic regression also has advantages: because the evolutionary algorithm requires diversity in order to effectively explore the search space, the result is likely to be a selection of high-scoring models (and their corresponding set of parameters). Examining this collection could provide better insight into the underlying process, and allows the user to identify an approximation that better fits their needs in terms of accuracy and simplicity. == Benchmarking == === SRBench === In 2021, SRBench was proposed as a large benchmark for symbolic regression. In its inception, SRBench featured 14 symbolic regression methods, 7 other ML methods, and 252 datasets from PMLB. The benchmark intends to be a living project: it encourages the submission of improvements, new datasets, and new methods, to keep track of the state of the art in SR. === SRBench Competition 2022 === In 2022, SRBench announced the competition Interpretable Symbolic Regression for Data Science, which was held at the GECCO conference in Boston, MA. The competition pitted nine leading symbolic regression algorithms against each other on a novel set of data problems and considered different evaluation criteria. The competition was organized in two tracks, a synthetic track and a real-world data track. ==== Synthetic Track ==== In the synthetic track, methods were compared according to five properties: re-discovery of exact expressions; feature selection; resistance to local optima; extrapolation; and sensitivity to noise. Rankings of the methods were: QLattice PySR (Python Symbolic Regression) uDSR (Deep Symbolic Optimization) ==== Real-world Track ==== In the real-world track, methods were trained to build interpretable predictive models for 14-day forecast counts of COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths in New York State. These models were reviewed by a subject expert and assigned trust ratings and evaluated for accuracy and simplicity. The ranking of the methods was: uDSR (Deep Symbolic Optimization) QLattice geneticengine (Genetic Engine) == Non-standard methods == Most symbolic regression algorithms prevent combinatorial explosion by implementing evolutionary algorithms that iteratively improve the best-fit expression over many generations. Recently, researchers have proposed algorithms utilizing other tactics in AI. Silviu-Marian Udrescu and Max Tegmark developed the "AI Feynman" algorithm, which attempts symbolic regression by training a neural network to represent the mystery function, then runs tests against the neural network to attempt to break up the problem into smaller parts. For example, if f ( x 1 , . . . , x i , x i + 1 , . . . , x n ) = g ( x 1 , . . . , x i ) + h ( x i + 1 , . . . , x n ) {\displaystyle f(x_{1},...,x_{i},x_{i+1},...,x_{n})=g(x_{1},...,x_{i})+h(x_{i+1},...,x_{n})} , tests against the neural network can recognize the separation and proceed to solve for g {\displaystyle g} and h {\displaystyle h} separately and with different variables as inputs. This is an example of divide and conquer, which reduces the size of the problem to be more manageable. AI Feynman also transforms the inputs and outputs of the mystery function in order to produce a new function which can be solved with other techniques, and performs dimensional analysis to reduce the number of independent variables involved. The algorithm was able to "discover" 100 equations from The Feynman Lectures on Physics, while a leading software using evolutionary algorithms, Eureqa, solved only 71. AI Feynman, in contrast to classic symbolic regression methods, requires a very large dataset in order to first train the neural network and is naturally biased towards equations that are common in elementary physics.

  Read more →
• 

  Artificial intelligence content detection

  Artificial intelligence detection software aims to determine whether some content (text, image, video, or audio) was generated using artificial intelligence (AI). This software is often unreliable. == Accuracy issues == Many AI detection tools have been shown to be unreliable in detecting AI-generated text. In a 2023 study conducted by Weber-Wulff et al., researchers evaluated 14 detection tools including Turnitin and GPTZero and found that "all scored below 80% of accuracy and only 5 over 70%." They also found that these tools tend to have a bias for classifying texts more as human than as AI, and that accuracy of these tools worsens upon paraphrasing. === False positives === In AI content detection, a false positive is when human-written work is incorrectly flagged as AI-written. Many AI detection platforms claim to have a minimal level of false positives, with Turnitin claiming a less than 1% false positive rate. However, later research by The Washington Post produced much higher rates of 50%, though they used a smaller sample size. False positives in an academic setting frequently lead to accusations of academic misconduct, which can have serious consequences for a student's academic record. Additionally, studies have shown evidence that many AI detection models are prone to give false positives to work written by people whose first language is not English, and also to neurodivergent people. In June 2023, Janelle Shane wrote that portions of her book You Look Like a Thing and I Love You were flagged as AI-generated. === False negatives === A false negative is a failure to identify documents with AI-written text. False negatives often happen as a result of a detection software's sensitivity level or because evasive techniques were used when generating the work to make it sound more human. False negatives are less of a concern academically, since they aren't likely to lead to accusations and ramifications. Notably, Turnitin stated they have a 15% false negative rate. == Text detection == For text, this is usually done to prevent alleged plagiarism, often by detecting repetition of words as telltale signs that a text was AI-generated (including hallucinations). Detection systems may also rely on stylistic and structural regularities associated with LLM output, such as unusually consistent grammar, formulaic transitions, repeated discourse markers, and recurring rhetorical templates. Some tools are designed less to establish authorship provenance than to flag prose that resembles common LLM-generated style patterns. They are often used by teachers marking their students, usually on an ad hoc basis. Following the release of ChatGPT and similar AI text generative software, many educational establishments have issued policies against the use of AI by students. AI text detection software is also used by those assessing job applicants, as well as online search engines, hiring, online moderation and publishing. Current detectors may sometimes be unreliable and have incorrectly marked work by humans as originating from AI while failing to detect AI-generated work in other instances. MIT Technology Review said that the technology "struggled to pick up ChatGPT-generated text that had been slightly rearranged by humans and obfuscated by a paraphrasing tool". AI text detection software has also been shown to discriminate against non-native speakers of English. Two students from the University of California, Davis, were referred to the university's Office of Student Success and Judicial Affairs (OSSJA) after their professors scanned their essays with positive results; the first with an AI detector called GPTZero, and the second with an AI detector integration in Turnitin. However, following media coverage, and a thorough investigation, the students were cleared of any wrongdoing. In April 2023, Cambridge University and other members of the Russell Group of universities in the United Kingdom opted out of Turnitin's AI text detection tool, after expressing concerns it was unreliable. The University of Texas at Austin opted out of the system six months later. In May 2023, a professor at Texas A&M University–Commerce used ChatGPT to detect whether his students' content was written by it, which ChatGPT said was the case. As such, he threatened to fail the class despite ChatGPT not being able to detect AI-generated writing. No students were prevented from graduating because of the issue, and all but one student (who admitted to using the software) were exonerated from accusations of having used ChatGPT in their content. In July 2023, a paper titled "GPT detectors are biased against non-native English writers" was released, reporting that GPTs discriminate against non-native English authors. The paper compared seven GPT detectors against essays from both non-native English speakers and essays from United States students. The essays from non-native English speakers had an average false positive rate of 61.3%. An article by Thomas Germain, published on Gizmodo in June 2024, reported job losses among freelance writers and journalists due to AI text detection software mistakenly classifying their work as AI-generated. In September 2024, Common Sense Media reported that generative AI detectors had a 20% false positive rate for Black students, compared to 10% of Latino students and 7% of White students. To improve the reliability of AI text detection, researchers have explored digital watermarking techniques. A 2023 paper titled "A Watermark for Large Language Models" presents a method to embed imperceptible watermarks into text generated by large language models (LLMs). This watermarking approach allows content to be flagged as AI-generated with a high level of accuracy, even when text is slightly paraphrased or modified. The technique is designed to be subtle and hard to detect for casual readers, thereby preserving readability, while providing a detectable signal for those employing specialized tools. However, while promising, watermarking faces challenges in remaining robust under adversarial transformations and ensuring compatibility across different LLMs. == Anti text detection == There is software available designed to bypass AI text detection. In practice, evasion may not require specialized bypass tools. Paraphrasing, style editing, and removal of repeated discourse markers can substantially reduce the effectiveness of detectors that rely on recognizable surface patterns. A study published in August 2023 analyzed 20 abstracts from papers published in the Eye Journal, which were then paraphrased using GPT-4.0. The AI-paraphrased abstracts were examined for plagiarism using QueText and for AI-generated content using Originality.AI. The texts were then re-processed through an adversarial software called Undetectable.ai in order to reduce the AI-detection scores. The study found that the AI detection tool, Originality.AI, identified text generated by GPT-4 with a mean accuracy of 91.3%. However, after reprocessing by Undetectable.ai, the detection accuracy of Originality.ai dropped to a mean accuracy of 27.8%. Some experts also believe that techniques like digital watermarking are ineffective because they can be removed or added to trigger false positives. "A Watermark for Large Language Models" paper by Kirchenbauer et al. (2023) also addresses potential vulnerabilities of watermarking techniques. The authors outline a range of adversarial tactics, including text insertion, deletion, and substitution attacks, that could be used to bypass watermark detection. These attacks vary in complexity, from simple paraphrasing to more sophisticated approaches involving tokenization and homoglyph alterations. The study highlights the challenge of maintaining watermark robustness against attackers who may employ automated paraphrasing tools or even specific language model replacements to alter text spans iteratively while retaining semantic similarity. Experimental results show that although such attacks can degrade watermark strength, they also come at the cost of text quality and increased computational resources. == Image, video, and audio detection == Several purported AI image detection software exist, to detect AI-generated images (for example, those originating from Midjourney or DALL-E). They are not completely reliable. Industry analyses have also noted that AI-driven image recognition systems often struggle in real-world environments, where inconsistent lighting, noise and variable visual inputs reduce detection reliability, a challenge highlighted in modern agricultural quality-control research. Others claim to identify video and audio deepfakes, but this technology is also not fully reliable yet either. Despite debate around the efficacy of watermarking, Google DeepMind is actively developing a detection software called SynthID, which works by inserting a digital watermark that is invisible to the human eye into the pixels of an image.

  Read more →
• 

  Coalition for App Fairness

  The Coalition for App Fairness (CAF) is a coalition comprised by companies, who aim to reach a fairer deal for the inclusion of their apps into the Apple App Store or the Google Play Store. The organization's executive director is Meghan DiMuzio and its headquarters are located in Washington, D.C. == Background == In July 2015, Spotify launched an email campaign to urge its App Store subscribers to cancel their subscriptions and start new ones through its website, bypassing the 30% transaction fee for in-app purchases required for iOS applications by technology company Apple Inc. A later update to the Spotify app on iOS was rejected by Apple, prompting Spotify's general counsel Horacio Gutierrez to write a letter to Apple's then-general counsel Bruce Sewell, stating: "This latest episode raises serious concerns under both U.S. and EU competition law. It continues a troubling pattern of behavior by Apple to exclude and diminish the competitiveness of Spotify on iOS and as a rival to Apple Music, particularly when seen against the backdrop of Apple's previous anticompetitive conduct aimed at Spotify … we cannot stand by as Apple uses the App Store approval process as a weapon to harm competitors." In August 2020, Epic Games updated their Fortnite Battle Royale game app on both Apple's App Store and Google's Google Play to include its own storefront that offered a 20% discount on V-Bucks, the in-game currency, if players bought through there rather than through the app stores' storefront, both which take a 30% revenue cut of the sale. Both Apple and Google removed the Fortnite app within hours, as this alternate storefront violated their terms of use that required all in-app purchases to be made through their storefronts. Epic immediately filed lawsuits against both companies challenging their storefront policies on antitrust principles, arguing that their non-negotiable 30% revenue cut is too high and the restrictions against alternate storefronts anticompetitive. Apple countersued Epic over its behavior, leading to a highly publicized 2021 bench trial. Ultimately, Epic largely lost its lawsuit against Apple, though the court did order Apple to allow developers to point users to alternative payment methods. Conversely, Epic won its antitrust lawsuit against Google in late 2023. == Foundation == On 24 September 2020, Epic Games joined forces with thirteen other prominent companies—including the music streaming platform Spotify, Tinder owner Match Group, the encrypted mail service Proton Mail, and the crypto currency website Blockchain.com—to establish the Coalition for App Fairness. It also includes Basecamp. The coalition criticizes the fact that for now the app stores of both Apple and Google charge their clients a 30% fee on any purchases made over their stores. Apple and Google defended themselves by arguing that the 30% transaction fee is a standard in the industry while the Coalition for App Fairness states that there is no other transaction fee which is even close to the 30%. In October 2020, it was reported that the coalition grew from 13 to 40 members since its foundation and received more than 400 applications for membership. In October 2025, X (formerly Twitter) joined CAF. This was seen as a larger pushback in the industry against Apple and Google, and a step towards hopefully passing the Bipartisan Open App Markets Act. == Aims == The group has broadened their demands for the app stores and now also aim for a better treatment for the apps available in the App Store. They claim that Apple favors its own services before other services available on the market and unjustifiably excludes other apps from their App Store. The group has also been viewing other transaction fees like the 5% fee which is charged by credit card companies, and states that Apple charges up to 600% more and would like the 30% fee, which was only included in 2011 by Apple, adapted to a comparable percentage that charge other providers of payment solutions. Its demands are mainly directed at Apple's strict control over its App Store, but to a lesser extent are also directed towards Google. Google allows apps to be downloaded over an independent web link or also another App Store, such as the Epic Game App Store. The organization emphasizes that no app developer should come into the position in which they are discriminated and are not granted the same rights as to the developers of the owner of the app store. == Reactions == In October 2020, Microsoft presented a new framework concerning the access to its Windows 10 operating system by app stores other than the one offered by Microsoft. The new framework is based on the demands of the Coalition for App Fairness. Microsoft emphasized though, that these principles would not apply to the Xbox. In December 2020, Apple announced that they would be lowering the revenue cut Apple takes for app developers making $1M or less from 30% to 15% if app developers fill out an application for the lowered revenue cut. In March 2021, Google followed suit by also lowering the revenue cut from the Play Store from 30% to 15% for the first million in revenue earned by a developer each year. == Notable members == Members listed are notable companies listed as members the groups website: Blockchain.com Deezer Epic Games European Digital SME Alliance Fanfix Life360 Masimo Nium Proton Mail Spotify TapTap Threema Vipps

  Read more →
• 

  Spleak

  Spleak was an IM platform where users could publish and rate content. It existed in the form of six bots covering as many subject areas: CelebSpleak, SportSpleak, VoteSpleak, TVSpleak, GameSpleak, and StyleSpleak. == Overview == Users can add a "multi-Spleak" (which contains all of the different Spleak bots in one) or add the separate bots to their IM buddy lists on MSN and AIM. Users are also allowed access to Spleak online by using a CelebSpleak, SportSpleak, or VoteSpleak widget, or through the CelebSpleak and SportSpleak applications with Facebook. Spleak was an alternate reality game and is moving to its own company, Spleak Media Network. "Celebrate Spleak" was introduced throughout 2007, launched in 2008, and was forced to retire in 2009. == Key people == Spleak was co-founded by Morten Lund and Nicolaj Reffstrup. The company's chief executive officer is Morrie Eisenburg; Josh Scott is Vice President in Product and Tyler Wells is Vice President in Engineering.

  Read more →
• 

  Subpixel rendering

  Subpixel rendering is a method used to increase the effective resolution of a color display device. It utilizes the composition of each pixel, which consists of three subpixels of which are red, green, and blue that can each be individually addressable on the display matrix. Subpixel rendering is primarily used for text rendering on standard DPI displays. Despite the inherent color anomalies, it can also be used to render general graphics. == History == The origin of subpixel rendering as used today remains controversial. Apple Inc., IBM, and Microsoft patented various implementations that differed in technical details owing to the different purposes for which their technologies were intended. Microsoft held several patents in the United States for subpixel rendering technology used in text rendering on RGB Stripe layouts. The patents 6,219,025; 6,239,783; 6,307,566; 6,225,973; 6,243,070; 6,393,145; 6,421,054; 6,282,327; and 6,624,828 were filed between October 7, 1998, and October 7, 1999, and expired on July 30, 2019. Analysis of the patent by FreeType indicates that the patent does not cover the idea of subpixel rendering, but rather the actual filter used as a last step to balance the color. Microsoft's patent describes the smallest possible filter that distributes each subpixel value equally among the R, G, and B pixels. Any other filter will either be blurrier or will introduce color artifacts. Apple was able to use it in Mac OS X due to a patent cross-licensing agreement. == Characteristics == A single pixel on a color display is made of several subpixels, typically three arranged left-to-right as red, green, and blue (RGB). The components are readily visible with a small magnifying glass, such as a loupe. These pixel components appear as a single color to the human eye because of blurring by optics and spatial integration by nerve cells in the eye. However, the eye is much more sensitive to the location. Therefore, turning on the G and B of one pixel and the R of the next pixel to the right will produce a white dot, but it will appear to be 1/3 of a pixel to the right of the white dot that would be seen from the RGB of only the first pixel. Subpixel rendering leverages this to provide three times the horizontal resolution of the rendered image. However, it has to blur this image to produce the correct color by ensuring the same amount of red, green, and blue are turned on as when no subpixel rendering is being done. Subpixel rendering does not necessitate the use of antialiasing. It gives a smoother result regardless of whether antialiasing is used or not since it artificially increases the resolution. However, it introduces color aliasing since subpixels are colored. Subsequent filtering applied to remove the color artifacts is a form of antialiasing, although its purpose is not smoothing jagged shapes as in conventional antialiasing. Subpixel rendering requires the software to know the layout of the subpixels. The most common reason it is wrong is monitors that can be rotated 90 (or 180) degrees, though monitors are manufactured with other arrangements of the subpixels, such as BGR or in triangles, or with 4 colors like RGBW squares. On any such display the result of incorrect subpixel rendering will be worse than if no subpixel rendering was done at all (it will not produce color artifacts, but it will produce noisy edges). == Implementations == === Apple II === Steve Gibson has claimed that the Apple II, introduced in 1977, supports an early form of subpixel rendering in its high-resolution (280×192) graphics mode. The Wozniak patent only used 2 "sub-pixels". The bytes that comprise the Apple II high-resolution screen buffer contain seven visible bits (each corresponding directly to a pixel) and a flag bit used to select between purple/green or blue/orange color sets. Each pixel, since it is represented by a single bit, is either on or off; there are no bits within the pixel itself for specifying color or brightness. Color is instead created as an artifact of the NTSC color encoding scheme, determined by horizontal position: pixels with even horizontal coordinates are always purple (or blue, if the flag bit is set), and odd pixels are always green (or orange). Two lit pixels next to each other are always white, regardless of whether the pair is even/odd or odd/even, and irrespective of the value of the flag bit. This is an approximation, but it is what most programmers of the time would have in mind while working with the Apple's high-resolution mode. Gibson's example claims that because two adjacent bits form a white block, there are, in fact, two bits per pixel: one that activates the pixel's purple left half and the other that activates its green right half. If the programmer instead activates the green right half of a pixel and the purple left half of the next pixel, the result is a white block 1/2 pixel to the right, which is indeed an instance of subpixel rendering. However, it is not clear whether any programmers of the Apple II have considered the pairs of bits as pixels—instead calling each bit a pixel. The flag bit in each byte affects color by shifting pixels half a pixel-width to the right. This half-pixel shift was exploited by some graphics software, such as HRCG (High-Resolution Character Generator), an Apple utility that displayed text using the high-resolution graphics mode, to smooth diagonals. === ClearType === Microsoft announced its subpixel rendering technology, called ClearType, at COMDEX in 1998. Microsoft published a paper in May 2000, Displaced Filtering for Patterned Displays, describing the filtering behind ClearType. It was then made available in Windows XP. Still, it was not activated by default until Windows Vista, while Windows XP OEMs could and did change the default setting. === FreeType === FreeType, the library used by most current software on the X Window System, contains two open source implementations. The original implementation uses the ClearType antialiasing filters and carries the following notice: "The colour filtering algorithm of Microsoft's ClearType technology for subpixel rendering is covered by patents; for this reason, the corresponding code in FreeType is disabled by default. Note that subpixel rendering per se is prior art; using a different colour filter thus easily circumvents Microsoft's patent claims." FreeType offers a variety of color filters. Since version 2.6.2, the default filter is light, a filter that is both normalized (value sums up to 1) and color-balanced (eliminate color fringes at the cost of resolution). Since version 2.8.1, a second implementation exists, called Harmony, that "offers high quality LCD-optimized output without resorting to ClearType techniques of resolution tripling and filtering". This is the method enabled by default. When using this method, "each color channel is generated separately after shifting the glyph outline, capitalizing on the fact that the color grids on LCD panels are shifted by a third of a pixel. This output is indistinguishable from ClearType with a light 3-tap filter." Since the Harmony method does not require additional filtering, it is not covered by the ClearType patents. === CoolType === Adobe created their own subpixel renderer called CoolType, allowing them to display documents the same way across various operating systems: Windows, MacOS, Linux etc. When it was launched around the year 2001, CoolType supported a wider range of fonts than Microsoft's ClearType, which at the time was limited to TrueType fonts. In contrast, Adobe's CoolType also supported PostScript fonts (and their OpenType equivalents). === macOS === Mac OS X (later OS X, now macOS) also used subpixel rendering, as part of Quartz 2D. However, it was removed after the introduction of Retina displays. Unlike Microsoft's implementation, which favors a tight fit to the grid (font hinting) to maximize legibility, Apple's implementation prioritizes the shape of the glyphs as set out by their designer.

  Read more →
• 

  Semantic space

  Semantic spaces in the natural language domain aim to create representations of natural language that are capable of capturing meaning. The original motivation for semantic spaces stems from two core challenges of natural language: Vocabulary mismatch (the fact that the same meaning can be expressed in many ways) and ambiguity of natural language (the fact that the same term can have several meanings). The application of semantic spaces in natural language processing (NLP) aims at overcoming limitations of rule-based or model-based approaches operating on the keyword level. The main drawback with these approaches is their brittleness, and the large manual effort required to create either rule-based NLP systems or training corpora for model learning. Rule-based and machine learning based models are fixed on the keyword level and break down if the vocabulary differs from that defined in the rules or from the training material used for the statistical models. Research in semantic spaces dates back more than 20 years. In 1996, two papers were published that raised a lot of attention around the general idea of creating semantic spaces: latent semantic analysis and Hyperspace Analogue to Language. However, their adoption was limited by the large computational effort required to construct and use those semantic spaces. A breakthrough with regard to the accuracy of modelling associative relations between words (e.g. "spider-web", "lighter-cigarette", as opposed to synonymous relations such as "whale-dolphin", "astronaut-driver") was achieved by explicit semantic analysis (ESA) in 2007. ESA was a novel (non-machine learning) based approach that represented words in the form of vectors with 100,000 dimensions (where each dimension represents an Article in Wikipedia). However practical applications of the approach are limited due to the large number of required dimensions in the vectors. More recently, advances in neural network techniques in combination with other new approaches (tensors) led to a host of new recent developments: Word2vec from Google, GloVe from Stanford University, and fastText from Facebook AI Research (FAIR) labs.

  Read more →
• 

  Averbis

  Averbis has a focus on healthcare, pharma, automotive and intellectual property analytics. Averbis is involved in various research projects of the German Federal Ministry of Economics and Energy and the European Union such as DebugIT, EUCases, Mantra and SEMCARE. In addition to these projects, Averbis was also involved in the following projects: Greenpilot is a virtual library, which provides technical information in the fields of nutrition, environment and agriculture. Medpilot is a virtual library, which provides information about medicine and related sciences. In 2013, Averbis has been nominated for the German Founder Prize 2013. Averbis GmbH provides text analytics and text mining software to transform unstructured text into actionable information. It was founded in 2007 by IT experts after years of relevant scientific experience in the field of text mining and multilingual information retrieval. Averbis works in the field of terminology management, natural language processing, machine learning and semantic search. Its text mining software is embedded into the text mining framework UIMA.

  Read more →
• 

  List of large language models

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

  Read more →
• 

  Focus recovery based on the linear canonical transform

  For digital image processing, the Focus recovery from a defocused image is an ill-posed problem since it loses the component of high frequency. Most of the methods for focus recovery are based on depth estimation theory. The Linear canonical transform (LCT) gives a scalable kernel to fit many well-known optical effects. Using LCTs to approximate an optical system for imaging and inverting this system, theoretically permits recovery of a defocused image. == Depth of field and perceptual focus == In photography, depth of field (DOF) means an effective focal length. It is usually used for stressing an object and deemphasizing the background (and/or the foreground). The important measure related to DOF is the lens aperture. Decreasing the diameter of aperture increases focus and lowers resolution and vice versa. == The Huygens–Fresnel principle and DOF == The Huygens–Fresnel principle describes diffraction of wave propagation between two fields. It belongs to Fourier optics rather than geometric optics. The disturbance of diffraction depends on two circumstance parameters, the size of aperture and the interfiled distance. Consider a source field and a destination field, field 1 and field 0, respectively. P1(x1,y1) is the position in the source field, P0(x0,y0) is the position in the destination field. The Huygens–Fresnel principle gives the diffraction formula for two fields U(x0,y0), U(x1,y1) as following: U ( x 0 , y 0 ) = 1 j λ ∫ ∫ U ( x 1 , y 1 ) e j k r 01 r 01 cos ⁡ θ d x 1 d y 1 {\displaystyle \mathbf {U} (x_{0},y_{0})={\frac {1}{j\lambda }}\int \!\int \mathbf {U} (x_{1},y_{1}){\frac {e^{jkr_{01}}}{r_{01}}}\cos \theta dx_{1}dy_{1}} where θ denotes the angle between r 01 {\displaystyle r_{01}} and z {\displaystyle z} . Replace cos θ by r 01 z {\displaystyle {\frac {r_{01}}{z}}} and r 01 {\displaystyle r_{01}} by [ ( x 0 − x 1 ) 2 + ( y 0 − y 1 ) 2 + z 2 ] 1 / 2 {\displaystyle [(x_{0}-x_{1})^{2}+(y_{0}-y_{1})^{2}+z^{2}]^{1/2}} we get U ( x 0 , y 0 ) = 1 j λ z ∫ ∫ U ( x 1 , y 1 ) exp ⁡ ( j k z [ 1 + ( x 0 − x 1 z ) 2 + ( y 0 − y 1 z ) 2 ] 1 / 2 ) 1 + ( x 0 − x 1 z ) 2 + ( y 0 − y 1 z ) 2 d x 1 d y 1 {\displaystyle \mathbf {U} (x_{0},y_{0})={\frac {1}{j\lambda z}}\int \!\int \mathbf {U} (x_{1},y_{1}){\frac {\exp(jkz[1+({\frac {x_{0}-x_{1}}{z}})^{2}+({\frac {y_{0}-y_{1}}{z}})^{2}]^{1/2})}{1+({\frac {x_{0}-x_{1}}{z}})^{2}+({\frac {y_{0}-y_{1}}{z}})^{2}}}dx_{1}dy_{1}} The further distance z or the smaller aperture (x1,y1) causes a greater diffraction. A larger DOF can lead to a more effective focused wave distribution. This seems to be a conflict. Here are the notations: Diffraction In a real imaging environment, the depths of objects comparing to the aperture are usually not enough to lead to serious diffraction. However, a long enough depth of the object can truly blurs the image. Effective Focus Small aperture, small blurring radius, few wave information. Loses details in comparing to a large aperture. In conclusion, diffraction explains a micro behavior whereas DOF shows a macro behavior. Both of them are related to aperture size. == Linear canonical transform == As the meaning of "canonical", the linear canonical transform (LCT) is a scalable transform that connects to many important kernels such as the Fresnel transform, Fraunhofer transform and the fractional Fourier transform. It can be easily controlled by its four parameters, a, b, c, d (3 degrees of freedom). The definition: L M ( f ( u ) ) = ∫ L M ( u , u ′ ) f ( u ′ ) d u ′ {\displaystyle L_{M}(f(u))=\int L_{M}(u,u')f(u')du'} where L M ( u , u ′ ) = { 1 b e − j π / 4 e [ j π ( d b u 2 ) − 2 1 b u u ′ + a b u ′ 2 ] , if b ≠ 0 d e j 2 c d u 2 δ ( u ′ − d u ) , if b = 0 {\displaystyle L_{M}(u,u')={\begin{cases}{\sqrt {\frac {1}{b}}}e^{-j\pi /4}e^{[j\pi ({\frac {d}{b}}u^{2})-2{\frac {1}{b}}uu'+{\frac {a}{b}}u'^{2}]},&{\mbox{if }}b\neq 0\\{\sqrt {d}}e^{{\frac {j}{2}}cdu^{2}}\delta (u'-du),&{\mbox{if }}b=0\end{cases}}} Consider a general imaging system with object distance z0, focal length of the thin lens f and an imaging distance z1. The effect of the propagation in freespace acts as nearly a chirp convolution, that is, the formula of diffraction. Besides, the effect of the propagation in thin lens acts as a chirp multiplication. The parameters are all simplified as paraxial approximations while meeting the freespace propagation. It does not consider aperture size. From the properties of the LCT, it is possible to obtain those 4 parameters for this optical system as: [ 1 − z 1 f λ z 0 − λ z 0 z 1 f + λ z 1 − 1 λ f 1 − z 0 f ] {\displaystyle {\begin{bmatrix}1-{\frac {z_{1}}{f}}\quad &\lambda z_{0}-{\frac {\lambda z_{0}z_{1}}{f}}+\lambda z_{1}\\-{\frac {1}{\lambda f}}\quad &1-{\frac {z_{0}}{f}}\end{bmatrix}}} Once the values of z1, z0 and f are known, the LCT can simulate any optical system.

  Read more →
• 

  Grammatik

  Grammatik was the first grammar-checking program for home computers. Aspen Software of Albuquerque, NM, released the earliest version of this diction and style checker for personal computers. It was first released no later than 1981, and was inspired by the Writer's Workbench. Grammatik was first available for the TRS-80, and soon had versions for CP/M and the IBM PC. Reference Software International of San Francisco, California, acquired Grammatik in 1985. Development of Grammatik continued, and it became an actual grammar checker that could detect writing errors beyond simple style checking. Subsequent versions were released for MS-DOS, Windows, Macintosh, and Unix. Grammatik was ultimately acquired by WordPerfect Corporation and is integrated into the WordPerfect word processor.

  Read more →
• 

  Kdan Mobile

  Kdan Mobile Software Limited is a software application development company based in Tainan City, Taiwan. Kdan also has branches in Taipei, Changsha, Irvine, California, Japan, and South Korea. The company was founded in 2009 by Kenny Su, the company's CEO. == History == Kdan Mobile was founded in 2009 by Kenny Su (蘇柏州) and develops an application for PDF documents. Su previously worked at the Industrial Technology Research Institute (ITRI) . In 2018, the company completed its Series B round of fundraising, in which it raised 16 million USD in total. Four global firms, Dattoz Partners (South Korea), WI Harper Group (U.S.), Taiwania Capital (Taiwan), and Golden Asia Fund Mitsubishi UFJ Capital (Japan), made up the Series B investment. Kdan previously raised 5 million USD in its Series A round in 2018.

  Read more →