AI Data Center Texas

AI Data Center Texas — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

EPUAP

ePUAP (Electronic Platform of Public Administration Services) is a Polish nationwide platform for communication of citizens with public administrations in a uniform and standardized way. Built as part of the ePUAP-WKP project (State Informatization Plan). Service providers are public administration units and public institutions (especially entities that perform tasks commissioned by the state). The platform provides service providers with technological infrastructure to provide services to citizens (recipients). Among the participants of ePUAP there are both central administration units and local governments, including municipal offices. Among the services offered by ePUAP is also Profil Zaufany (Trusted Profile), which enables electronic filing with legal effect without the need to use a qualified signature and SAML-based single sign-on mechanism, which enables the same ePUAP account to log on to websites of various service providers. The website www.epuap.gov.pl enables defining citizen and businesses service processes, creates channels of access to different systems of public administration and extends the package of public services provided electronically. Services available through the ePUAP platform may be accessed at the official website. Currently all administration services are available in Polish only. == Overview == It is described by the Polish government as "a coherent and systematic action program designed and developed to allow public institutions make their electronic services available to the public". The platform provides citizens, businesses and institutions with a number of services intended to ensure smooth and safe communication between: customer to administrations (C2A), business to administration (B2A), administration to administration (A2A). === Main goals === The main project objectives are to create a single, secure and electronic access channel to public services for citizens, businesses and public administration and also to reduce time and lower the costs of sharing information resources and functionalities of administration domain systems. Within the project, the following functionalities and services were delivered: Public services catalogue – a method of presenting and describing administration services, ePUAP platform – a web platform designed to provide public services on the Internet, Interoperability portal – a portal for experts working on recommendations for electronic documents and forms used within Polish administration systems to assure the uniformity of IT standards, Central Repository of Electronic Document Models – a database for valid document models and electronic forms. == History and background == The ePUAP project was carried out in the years 2005–2008. Currently, a continuation project ePUAP2 is being carried out with the following objectives: to increase the number of online services available to the public including the registry services, to widen the scale of usage of public electronic services, to integrate subsequent systems of public administration and business on ePUAP portal, to define new processes of customer and business services. === ePUAP2 === ePUAP2 is a public and administrative project that extends the set of functional services developed during the first edition of the project and is another step in the process of transforming Poland into a modern and citizen-friendly country. The implementation period for the project covers the years 2009–2013. Project financing The cost of the project “Construction of electronic Platform of Public Administration Services” – 32 million PLN was covered in 75% by the funds from the European Regional Development Fund (under the Sector Operational Programme "Supporting Competitiveness of Enterprises for the years 2004–2006"), while the remaining 25% of the cost was covered by a Polish national co-financing. Funds for the ePUAP2 project were gained from the 7th priority axis of the Innovative Economy Operational Programme and amounts to 140 million PLN (85% of eligible expenses were covered by the European Regional Development Fund, 15% were covered by a national co-financing). The trustee of ePUAP is the Polish Ministry of the Interior and Administration. == Legal regulations == According to the Polish law from 1 May 2008, public authorities are required to accept documents in electronic form (bringing applications and proposals and other activities in electronic form). ePUAP enables public institutions to meet this requirement by providing a service infrastructure to set up am electronic inbox. The ePUAP inbox meets legal requirements, in particular: issuing an official confirmation of receipt in accordance with the regulation of the Prime Minister of 29 September 2005 on the organizational and technical conditions for the delivery of electronic documents to public entities; cooperation with hardware security modules (HSM), meeting the technical requirements set out in the law; handling documents electronically in accordance with the minimum requirements set out in the Regulation of the Polish Council of Ministers of 11 October 2005 on minimum requirements for ICT systems. == Incidents == === Crashes === The ePUAP system very often happens smaller or larger failures. Because it is used to sign the application profiles trusted also in other electronic systems such as public administration. Electronic Services Platform created by ZUS, the system fault ePUAP it very difficult to settle official matters most electronically. === "Infoafera" === According to TVN and the release of TVP News from 10 April 2014, the creation of ePUAP is also associated with the so-called "Infoafera." On 10 April 2014, the Minister of Internal Affairs of Poland confirmed the information that the American technology company HP confessed to its participation in the Polish info-tour and corruption of Polish officials. By March 2014, the construction of ePUAP and its maintenance cost PLN 98.4 million. PLN 67.8 million has been used for this project. Challenged expenses only on the portal itself is approx. PLN 20 million.
Read more →
Best AI Code Generators in 2026

Comparing the best AI code generator? An AI code generator is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it lowers the barrier so anyone can produce professional output. Privacy matters too: check whether your data trains the model and whether a no-log or enterprise tier is available. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI code generator slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. We tested the leading options and ranked them by quality, value, and ease of use.
Read more →
Regular language

In theoretical computer science and formal language theory, a regular language (also called a rational language) is a formal language that can be defined by a regular expression, in the strict sense in theoretical computer science (as opposed to many modern regular expression engines, which are augmented with features that allow the recognition of non-regular languages). Alternatively, a regular language can be defined as a language recognised by a finite automaton. The equivalence of regular expressions and finite automata is known as Kleene's theorem (after American mathematician Stephen Cole Kleene). In the Chomsky hierarchy, regular languages are the languages generated by Type-3 grammars. == Formal definition == The collection of regular languages over an alphabet Σ is defined recursively as follows: The empty language ∅ is a regular language. For each a ∈ Σ (a belongs to Σ), the singleton language {a} is a regular language. If A is a regular language, A (Kleene star) is a regular language. Due to this, the empty string language {ε} is also regular. If A and B are regular languages, then A ∪ B (union) and A • B (concatenation) are regular languages. No other languages over Σ are regular. See Regular expression § Formal language theory for syntax and semantics of regular expressions. == Examples == All finite languages are regular; in particular the empty string language {ε} = ∅ is regular. Other typical examples include the language consisting of all strings over the alphabet {a, b} which contain an even number of as, or the language consisting of all strings of the form: several as followed by several bs. A simple example of a language that is not regular is the set of strings {anbn | n ≥ 0}. Intuitively, it cannot be recognized with a finite automaton, since a finite automaton has finite memory and it cannot remember the exact number of a's. Techniques to prove this fact rigorously are given below. == Equivalent formalisms == A regular language satisfies the following equivalent properties: it is the language of a regular expression (by the above definition) it is the language accepted by a nondeterministic finite automaton (NFA) it is the language accepted by a deterministic finite automaton (DFA) it can be generated by a regular grammar it is the language accepted by an alternating finite automaton it is the language accepted by a two-way finite automaton it can be generated by a prefix grammar it can be accepted by a read-only Turing machine it can be defined in monadic second-order logic (Büchi–Elgot–Trakhtenbrot theorem) it is recognized by some finite syntactic monoid M, meaning it is the preimage {w ∈ Σ | f(w) ∈ S} of a subset S of a finite monoid M under a monoid homomorphism f : Σ → M from the free monoid on its alphabet the number of equivalence classes of its syntactic congruence is finite. (This number equals the number of states of the minimal deterministic finite automaton accepting L.) Properties 10. and 11. are purely algebraic approaches to define regular languages; a similar set of statements can be formulated for a monoid M ⊆ Σ. In this case, equivalence over M leads to the concept of a recognizable language. Some authors use one of the above properties different from "1." as an alternative definition of regular languages. Some of the equivalences above, particularly those among the first four formalisms, are called Kleene's theorem in textbooks. Precisely which one (or which subset) is called such varies between authors. One textbook calls the equivalence of regular expressions and NFAs ("1." and "2." above) "Kleene's theorem". Another textbook calls the equivalence of regular expressions and DFAs ("1." and "3." above) "Kleene's theorem". Two other textbooks first prove the expressive equivalence of NFAs and DFAs ("2." and "3.") and then state "Kleene's theorem" as the equivalence between regular expressions and finite automata (the latter said to describe "recognizable languages"). A linguistically oriented text first equates regular grammars ("4." above) with DFAs and NFAs, calls the languages generated by (any of) these "regular", after which it introduces regular expressions which it terms to describe "rational languages", and finally states "Kleene's theorem" as the coincidence of regular and rational languages. Other authors simply define "rational expression" and "regular expressions" as synonymous and do the same with "rational languages" and "regular languages". Apparently, the term regular originates from a 1951 technical report where Kleene introduced regular events and explicitly welcomed "any suggestions as to a more descriptive term". Noam Chomsky, in his 1959 seminal article, used the term regular in a different meaning at first (referring to what is called Chomsky normal form today), but noticed that his finite state languages were equivalent to Kleene's regular events. == Closure properties == The regular languages are closed under various operations, that is, if the languages K and L are regular, so is the result of the following operations: the set-theoretic Boolean operations: union K ∪ L, intersection K ∩ L, and complement L, hence also relative complement K − L. the regular operations: K ∪ L, concatenation ⁠ K ∘ L {\displaystyle K\circ L} ⁠, and Kleene star L. the trio operations: string homomorphism, inverse string homomorphism, and intersection with regular languages. As a consequence they are closed under arbitrary finite state transductions, like quotient K / L with a regular language. Even more, regular languages are closed under quotients with arbitrary languages: If L is regular then L / K is regular for any K. the reverse (or mirror image) LR. Given a nondeterministic finite automaton to recognize L, an automaton for LR can be obtained by reversing all transitions and interchanging starting and finishing states. This may result in multiple starting states; ε-transitions can be used to join them. == Decidability properties == Given two deterministic finite automata A and B, it is decidable whether they accept the same language. As a consequence, using the above closure properties, the following problems are also decidable for arbitrarily given deterministic finite automata A and B, with accepted languages LA and LB, respectively: Containment: is LA ⊆ LB ? Disjointness: is LA ∩ LB = {} ? Emptiness: is LA = {} ? Universality: is LA = Σ ? Membership: given a ∈ Σ, is a ∈ LB ? For regular expressions, the universality problem is NP-complete already for a singleton alphabet. For larger alphabets, that problem is PSPACE-complete. If regular expressions are extended to allow also a squaring operator, with "A2" denoting the same as "AA", still just regular languages can be described, but the universality problem has an exponential space lower bound, and is in fact complete for exponential space with respect to polynomial-time reduction. For a fixed finite alphabet, the theory of the set of all languages – together with strings, membership of a string in a language, and for each character, a function to append the character to a string (and no other operations) – is decidable, and its minimal elementary substructure consists precisely of regular languages. For a binary alphabet, the theory is called S2S. == Complexity results == In computational complexity theory, the complexity class of all regular languages is sometimes referred to as REGULAR or REG and equals DSPACE(O(1)), the decision problems that can be solved in constant space (the space used is independent of the input size). REGULAR ≠ AC0, since it (trivially) contains the parity problem of determining whether the number of 1 bits in the input is even or odd and this problem is not in AC0. On the other hand, REGULAR does not contain AC0, because the nonregular language of palindromes, or the nonregular language { 0 n 1 n : n ∈ N } {\displaystyle \{0^{n}1^{n}:n\in \mathbb {N} \}} can both be recognized in AC0. If a language is not regular, it requires a machine with at least Ω(log log n) space to recognize (where n is the input size). In other words, DSPACE(o(log log n)) equals the class of regular languages. In practice, most nonregular problems are studied in a setting with at least logarithmic space, as this is the amount of space required to store a pointer into the input tape. == Location in the Chomsky hierarchy == To locate the regular languages in the Chomsky hierarchy, one notices that every regular language is context-free. The converse is not true: for example, the language consisting of all strings having the same number of as as bs is context-free but not regular. To prove that a language is not regular, one often uses the Myhill–Nerode theorem and the pumping lemma. Other approaches include using the closure properties of regular languages or quantifying Kolmogorov complexity. Important subclasses of regular languages include: Finite languages, those containing only a finite number of words. These are regular la
Read more →
Law and Corpus Linguistics

Law and corpus linguistics (LCL) is an academic sub-discipline that uses large databases of examples of language usage equipped with tools designed by linguists called corpora to better get at the meaning of words and phrases in legal texts (statutes, constitutions, contracts, etc.). Thus, LCL is the application of corpus linguistic tools, theories, and methodologies to issues of legal interpretation in much the same way law and economics is the application of economic tools, theories, and methodologies to various legal issues. == History == A 2005 law review article by Lawrence Solan noted in passing that corpus linguistics had potential for its application to interpreting legal texts. But the first systematic exploration and advocacy of applying the tools and methodologies of corpus linguistics to legal interpretive questions of law and corpus linguistics came in the fall of 2010, when the BYU Law Review published a note by Stephen Mouritsen, entitled The Dictionary is Not a Fortress: Definitional Fallacies and a Corpus-Based Approach to Plain Meaning. The note argued that dictionaries are the primary linguistic tool used by judges to determine the plain or ordinary meaning of words and phrases, and highlighted the deficiencies of such an approach. In its stead, the note proposed using corpus linguistics. And the note would be later cited by Adam Liptak in a New York Times article on statutory construction. Law and corpus linguistics (LCL) gained greater legitimacy in July 2011 with the first judicial opinion in American history utilizing corpus linguistics to determine the meaning of a legal text: In re the Adoption of Baby E.Z. In a concurrence in part and in the judgment, Justice Thomas Lee wrote to put forth an alternative ground for the majority's holding—interpreting the phrase "custody determination" by using corpus linguistics. Justice Lee looked at 500 randomized sample sentences from the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) and found that the most common sense of "custody" was in the context of divorce rather than adoption. Further, he found that "custody" is ten times more likely to co-occur (or collocate) with "divorce" than with "adoption". From that evidence Justice Lee concluded that he "would find that the custody proceedings covered by the Act are limited to proceedings resulting in the modifiable custody orders of a divorce", rather than the broader range of custody proceedings. Other jurisprudence and scholarship would follow. In a 2015 concurrence in State v. Rasabout, Justice Lee used a COCA search to determine that "discharge" when used with a firearm (or one of its synonyms) overwhelmingly referred to a single shot rather than emptying the entire magazine of the weapon. And in 2016, four of the five justices joined a footnote in a majority opinion by Justice Lee commending a party for using corpus linguistics in its briefing even though the Court found it unnecessary to resolve the related question. Finally, in 2016 the Michigan Supreme Court became the first court to use a linguist-designed corpus in a majority opinion (COCA), with both the majority and the dissent turning to COCA to determine the meaning of the word "information". In 2020, courts desiring to bolster the legal theory of original intent have sought the opportunity to undertake analyses of statutes utilizing corpus linguistics. In a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals case, Jones v. Becerra (No. 20-56174), a case involving the Second Amendment and the constitutionality of a California statute which bans the sale of firearms to individuals under the age of 21, a Ninth Circuit panel requested that the parties address three questions: 1) “What is the original public meaning of the Second Amendment phrases: ‘A well regulated Militia’; ‘the right of the people’; and ‘shall not be infringed’? 2) How does the tool of corpus linguistics help inform the determination of the original public meaning of those Second Amendment phrases?” 3) How do the data yielded from corpus linguistics assist in the interpretation of the constitutionality of age-based restrictions under the Second Amendment? As to scholarship, in 2012, Mouritsen followed up his original work with an article in the Columbia Science and Technology Law Review, where he further refined and promoted the use of corpus-based methods for determining questions of legal ambiguity. Additionally, in 2016 two essays and an article on law and corpus linguistics were published. The Yale Law Journal Forum published Corpus Linguistics & Original Public Meaning: A New Tool to Make Originalism More Empirical. Written by Justice Lee and two co-authors, the essay urged originalists to turn to corpus linguistics to improve the rigor and accuracy of originalist scholarship. And in response, the Forum published an essay by Lawrence Solan (a Brooklyn Law professor with a PhD in linguistics), Can Corpus Linguistics Help Make Originalism Scientific? The Boston University Public Interest Law Journal published The Merciful Corpus: The Rule of Lenity, Ambiguity and Corpus Linguistics by Daniel Ortner. In the article Ortner applied corpus linguistics to determining whether sufficient ambiguity exists to trigger the rule of lenity in five Supreme Court cases. Looking forward, in 2017 two more articles are slated for publication. Lee Strang focuses on corpus linguistics and originalism in the U.C. Davis Law Review, and Lawrence Solan and Tammy Gales explore corpus linguistics in the context of finding ordinary meaning in statutory interpretation in the International Journal of Legal Discourse. Lawyers and journalists have also taken notice of corpus linguistics at it relates to the law. In 2010, Neal Goldfarb filed the first known brief in the Supreme Court using corpus linguistics (COCA) to determine whether the ordinary meaning of "personal" referred to corporations in the case FCC v. AT&T. The amicus brief looked at the top collocates (words that co-occur) of "personal" in COHA as well as BYU's Time Magazine Corpus. And writing for The Atlantic, Ben Zimmer took note of this new trend, referring to corpus linguistics in the courts as "Like Lexis on Steroids". On the academic front, in 2013 BYU Law School started the first class on law and corpus linguistics, co-taught by Mouritsen, Lee, and (now Dean) Gordon Smith. The class is currently in its fourth year. And in February 2016, BYU Law School hosted the inaugural conference on LCL, with over two dozen legal and linguistic scholars from around the country discussing and debating the next steps forward for the growing academic movement. The conference has been held regularly in subsequent years. At the 2016 conference BYU Law School announced its plans and progress on the Corpus of Founding Era American English (COFEA), a corpus that covers 1760–1799 and contains more than 120 million words have been collected from founding era letters, diaries, newspapers, non-fiction books, fiction, sermons, speeches, debates, legal cases, and other legal materials.
Read more →
Teleradiology

Teleradiology is the transmission of radiological patient images from procedures such as x-rays, Computed tomography (CT), and MRI imaging, from one location to another for the purposes of sharing studies with other radiologists and physicians. Teleradiology allows radiologists to provide services without actually having to be at the location of the patient. This is particularly important when a sub-specialist such as an MRI radiologist, neuroradiologist, pediatric radiologist, or musculoskeletal radiologist is needed, since these professionals are generally only located in large metropolitan areas working during daytime hours. Teleradiology allows for specialists to be available at all times. Teleradiology utilizes standard network technologies such as the Internet, telephone lines, wide area networks, local area networks (LAN) and the latest advanced technologies such as medical cloud computing. Specialized software is used to transmit the images and enable the radiologist to effectively analyze potentially hundreds of images of a given study. Technologies such as advanced graphics processing, voice recognition, artificial intelligence, and image compression are often used in teleradiology. Through teleradiology and mobile DICOM viewers, images can be sent to another part of the hospital or to other locations around the world with equal effort. Teleradiology is a growth technology given that imaging procedures are growing approximately 15% annually against an increase of only 2% in the radiologist population. == Reports == Teleradiology services commonly provide either preliminary or final interpretations of medical imaging studies. Preliminary reads are frequently used in emergency settings to support immediate clinical decisions and may include direct communication of critical findings to the referring physician. Some providers report turnaround times of approximately 30 minutes for emergency cases, with faster processing for time-sensitive conditions such as stroke. Final reads are definitive and used in official patient records and billing. These reports typically include all relevant findings and may require access to prior imaging and clinical data. Teleradiology is also employed to provide off-hour or overflow coverage for healthcare institutions lacking continuous on-site radiology staffing. == Subspecialties == Some teleradiologists are fellowship trained and have a wide variety of subspecialty expertise including such difficult-to-find areas as neuroradiology, pediatric neuroradiology, thoracic imaging, musculoskeletal radiology, mammography, and nuclear cardiology. There are also various medical practitioners who are not radiologists that take on studies in radiology to become sub specialists in their respected fields, an example of this is dentistry where oral and maxillofacial radiology allows those in dentistry to specialize in the acquisition and interpretation of radiographic imaging studies performed for diagnosis of treatment guidance for conditions affecting the maxillofacial region. == Teleultrasound == Teleradiology infrastructure has also been adapted to support point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) in remote and austere environments. In teleultrasound—also known as telementored ultrasound—a remote expert guides a non-specialist in real time during image acquisition. This technique has been successfully demonstrated in extreme settings, including aboard the International Space Station, on Mount Everest, and during helicopter flight. == Regulations == In the United States, Medicare and Medicaid laws require the teleradiologist to be on U.S. soil in order to qualify for reimbursement of the Final Read. In addition, advanced teleradiology systems must also be HIPAA compliant, which helps to ensure patients' privacy. HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996) is a uniform, federal floor of privacy protections for consumers. It limits the ways that entities can use patients' personal information and protects the privacy of all medical information no matter what form it is in. Quality teleradiology must abide by important HIPAA rules to ensure patients' privacy is protected. Also State laws governing the licensing requirements and medical malpractice insurance coverage required for physicians vary from state to state. Ensuring compliance with these laws is a significant overhead expense for larger multi-state teleradiology groups. Medicare (Australia) has identical requirements to that of the United States, where the guidelines are provided by the Department of Health and Ageing, and government based payments fall under the Health Insurance Act. The regulations in Australia are also conducted at both federal and state levels, ensuring that strict guidelines are adhered to at all times, with regular yearly updates and amendments are introduced (usually around March and November of every year), ensuring that the legislation is kept up to date with changes in the industry. One of the most recent changes to Medicare and radiology / teleradiology in Australia was the introduction of the Diagnostic Imaging Accreditation Scheme (DIAS) on 1 July 2008. DIAS was introduced to further improve the quality of Diagnostic Imaging and to amend the Health Insurance Act. == Industry growth == Until the late 1990s teleradiology was primarily used by individual radiologists to interpret occasional emergency studies from offsite locations, often in the radiologists home. The connections were made through standard analog phone lines. Teleradiology expanded rapidly as the growth of the internet and broad band combined with new CT scanner technology to become an essential tool in trauma cases in emergency rooms throughout the country. The occasional 2–3 x-ray studies a week soon became 3–10 CT scans, or more, a night. Because ER physicians are not trained to read CT scans or MRIs, radiologists went from working 8–10 hours a day, five and half days a week to a schedule of 24 hours a day, 7 days a week coverage. This became a particularly acute challenge in smaller rural facilities that only had one solo radiologist with no other to share call. These circumstances spawned a post-dot.com boom of firms and groups that provided medical outsourcing, off-site teleradiology on-call services to hospitals and Radiology Groups around the country. As an example, a teleradiology firm might cover trauma at a hospital in Indiana with doctors based in Texas. Some firms even used overseas doctors in locations like Australia and India. Nighthawk, founded by Paul Berger, was the first to station U.S. licensed radiologists overseas (initially Australia and later Switzerland) to maximize the time zone difference to provide nightcall in U.S. hospitals. Currently, teleradiology firms are facing pricing pressures. Industry consolidation is likely as there are more than 500 of these firms, large and small, throughout the United States.
Read more →
Machine translation in China

Machine translation in China is the history of machine translation systems developed in China. China became the fourth country that began machine translation (MT) research following USA, UK, and the Soviet Union. In 1957, the Language Institute of Chinese Academy of Sciences took the initiative in Russian-Chinese MT research program and set up an MT research group. From then on the research activities were directed and applied for academic purposes in Universities. The turning point of MT systems launching initiatives in market began from 1990s. MT systems went into blossom into the market. Among these systems, there were commercialized MT systems. To be more specific, Transtar was the first commercialized MT system and has been constantly upgraded. What's more, IMC/EC MT system which was developed by Computer Institute of Chinese Academy of Sciences has further made great advancement. Meanwhile, the practical MT system MT-IT-EC specific to communication domain was also striking to notice, for it has greatly improved the efficiency and productivity in the issue of publications. Government funding is a critical component and support in the development of market-oriented machine translation in China. It is evident to see that since Chinese opened up to the outside world and joined the WTO, the vigorous import and export trade generate opportunities for machine translation to transfer technical terms of products into the readable target information. Facing the increasing demand of sophisticated state-of -the -art translation technology, the academic area including research institute and universities are even launching bachelors’ and master's programs regarding machine translation. Thus, strong evidence illustrates the promising field of machine translation in the future market of China.
Read more →
Krohn–Rhodes theory

In mathematics and computer science, the Krohn–Rhodes theory (or algebraic automata theory) is an approach to the study of finite semigroups and automata that seeks to decompose them in terms of elementary components. These components correspond to finite aperiodic semigroups and finite simple groups that are combined in a feedback-free manner (called a "wreath product" or "cascade"). Krohn and Rhodes found a general decomposition for finite automata. The authors discovered and proved an unexpected major result in finite semigroup theory, revealing a deep connection between finite automata and semigroups. Decidability of Krohn-Rhodes complexity long motivated much work in semigroup theory. In June 2024, Stuart Margolis, John Rhodes, and Anne Schilling announced a proof that the complexity is decidable. == Definitions and description of the Krohn–Rhodes theorem == Let T {\displaystyle T} be a semigroup. A semigroup S {\displaystyle S} that is a homomorphic image of a subsemigroup of T {\displaystyle T} is said to be a divisor of T {\displaystyle T} . The Krohn–Rhodes theorem for finite semigroups states that every finite semigroup S {\displaystyle S} is a divisor of a finite alternating wreath product of finite simple groups, each a divisor of S {\displaystyle S} , and finite aperiodic semigroups (which contain no nontrivial subgroups). In the automata formulation, the Krohn–Rhodes theorem for finite automata states that given a finite automaton A {\displaystyle A} with states Q {\displaystyle Q} and input alphabet I {\displaystyle I} , output alphabet U {\displaystyle U} , then one can expand the states to Q ′ {\displaystyle Q'} such that the new automaton A ′ {\displaystyle A'} embeds into a cascade of "simple", irreducible automata: In particular, A {\displaystyle A} is emulated by a feed-forward cascade of (1) automata whose transformation semigroups are finite simple groups and (2) automata that are banks of flip-flops running in parallel. The new automaton A ′ {\displaystyle A'} has the same input and output symbols as A {\displaystyle A} . Here, both the states and inputs of the cascaded automata have a very special hierarchical coordinate form. Moreover, each simple group (prime) or non-group irreducible semigroup (subsemigroup of the flip-flop monoid) that divides the transformation semigroup of A {\displaystyle A} must divide the transformation semigroup of some component of the cascade, and only the primes that must occur as divisors of the components are those that divide A {\displaystyle A} 's transformation semigroup. == Group complexity == The Krohn–Rhodes complexity (also called group complexity or just complexity) of a finite semigroup S is the least number of groups in a wreath product of finite groups and finite aperiodic semigroups of which S is a divisor. All finite aperiodic semigroups have complexity 0, while non-trivial finite groups have complexity 1. In fact, there are semigroups of every non-negative integer complexity. For example, for any n greater than 1, the multiplicative semigroup of all (n+1) × (n+1) upper-triangular matrices over any fixed finite field has complexity n (Kambites, 2007). A major open problem in finite semigroup theory is the decidability of complexity: is there an algorithm that will compute the Krohn–Rhodes complexity of a finite semigroup, given its multiplication table? Upper bounds and ever more precise lower bounds on complexity have been obtained (see, e.g. Rhodes & Steinberg, 2009). Rhodes has conjectured that the problem is decidable. In June 2024, Stuart Margolis, John Rhodes, and Anne Schilling announced a proof in the affirmative of the conjecture, though as of 2025 the result has yet to be confirmed. == History and applications == At a conference in 1962, Kenneth Krohn and John Rhodes announced a method for decomposing a (deterministic) finite automaton into "simple" components that are themselves finite automata. This joint work, which has implications for philosophy, comprised both Krohn's doctoral thesis at Harvard University and Rhodes' doctoral thesis at MIT. Simpler proofs, and generalizations of the theorem to infinite structures, have been published since then (see Chapter 4 of Rhodes and Steinberg's 2009 book The q-Theory of Finite Semigroups for an overview). In the 1965 paper by Krohn and Rhodes, the proof of the theorem on the decomposition of finite automata (or, equivalently sequential machines) made extensive use of the algebraic semigroup structure. Later proofs contained major simplifications using finite wreath products of finite transformation semigroups. The theorem generalizes the Jordan–Hölder decomposition for finite groups (in which the primes are the finite simple groups), to all finite transformation semigroups (for which the primes are again the finite simple groups plus all subsemigroups of the "flip-flop" (see above)). Both the group and more general finite automata decomposition require expanding the state-set of the general, but allow for the same number of input symbols. In the general case, these are embedded in a larger structure with a hierarchical "coordinate system". One must be careful in understanding the notion of "prime" as Krohn and Rhodes explicitly refer to their theorem as a "prime decomposition theorem" for automata. The components in the decomposition, however, are not prime automata (with prime defined in a naïve way); rather, the notion of prime is more sophisticated and algebraic: the semigroups and groups associated to the constituent automata of the decomposition are prime (or irreducible) in a strict and natural algebraic sense with respect to the wreath product (Eilenberg, 1976). Also, unlike earlier decomposition theorems, the Krohn–Rhodes decompositions usually require expansion of the state-set, so that the expanded automaton covers (emulates) the one being decomposed. These facts have made the theorem difficult to understand and challenging to apply in a practical way—until recently, when computational implementations became available (Egri-Nagy & Nehaniv 2005, 2008). H.P. Zeiger (1967) proved an important variant called the holonomy decomposition (Eilenberg 1976). The holonomy method appears to be relatively efficient and has been implemented computationally by A. Egri-Nagy (Egri-Nagy & Nehaniv 2005). Meyer and Thompson (1969) give a version of Krohn–Rhodes decomposition for finite automata that is equivalent to the decomposition previously developed by Hartmanis and Stearns, but for useful decompositions, the notion of expanding the state-set of the original automaton is essential (for the non-permutation automata case). Many proofs and constructions now exist of Krohn–Rhodes decompositions (e.g., [Krohn, Rhodes & Tilson 1968], [Ésik 2000], [Diekert et al. 2012]), with the holonomy method the most popular and efficient in general (although not in all cases). [Zimmermann 2010] gives an elementary proof of the theorem. Owing to the close relation between monoids and categories, a version of the Krohn–Rhodes theorem is applicable to category theory. This observation and a proof of an analogous result were offered by Wells (1980). The Krohn–Rhodes theorem for semigroups/monoids is an analogue of the Jordan–Hölder theorem for finite groups (for semigroups/monoids rather than groups). As such, the theorem is a deep and important result in semigroup/monoid theory. The theorem was also surprising to many mathematicians and computer scientists since it had previously been widely believed that the semigroup/monoid axioms were too weak to admit a structure theorem of any strength, and prior work (Hartmanis & Stearns) was only able to show much more rigid and less general decomposition results for finite automata. Work by Egri-Nagy and Nehaniv (2005, 2008–) continues to further automate the holonomy version of the Krohn–Rhodes decomposition extended with the related decomposition for finite groups (so-called Frobenius–Lagrange coordinates) using the computer algebra system GAP. Applications outside of the semigroup and monoid theories are now computationally feasible. They include computations in biology and biochemical systems (e.g. Egri-Nagy & Nehaniv 2008), artificial intelligence, finite-state physics, psychology, and game theory (see, for example, Rhodes 2009).
Read more →
Pushmeet Kohli

Pushmeet Kohli is an Indian British computer scientist and Vice President of research at Google DeepMind. At Deepmind, he heads the "Science and Strategic Initiatives Unit". He was noted by Time magazine as being one of the 100 most influential people in AI according to the Time 100 AI list. Kohli has led and supervised a number of projects including AlphaFold, a system for predicting the 3D structures of proteins; AlphaEvolve, a general-purpose evolutionary coding agent; SynthID, a system for watermarking and detecting AI-generated content; and Co-Scientist, an agent for generating and testing new scientific hypotheses. == Education == Kohli received a Bachelor of Technology (BTech) degree in Computer Science and Engineering at the National Institute of Technology, Warangal. He went on to study at Oxford Brookes University, where he earned a PhD in computer vision for research supervised by Philip Torr in 2007. == Career and research == After his PhD, Kohli was a postdoctoral associate at the Psychometric Centre, University of Cambridge. Before joining Google DeepMind, Kohli was partner scientist and director of research at Microsoft Research. His research investigates applications of machine learning and artificial intelligence. Kohli has made research contributions in the fields of computational biology, program synthesis, superoptimization, discrete optimization, and psychometrics. Notable research projects he has contributed to include: AlphaFold - breakthrough AI system for protein structure prediction AlphaEvolve - agent for code super optimization. AlphaTensor - Reinforcement learning agent for discovering new algorithms for matrix multiplication SynthID - system for watermarking AI generated images. AlphaGenome and AlphaMissense - AI models for predicting the effect of mutations in the genome AlphaCode - Competition-level code generation with AI FunSearch - Discovering algorithms using LLMs to search over program space. Neural Program Synthesis Probabilistic Programming Community based Crowdsourcing of Data for Training AI Models Behavioral analysis and personality prediction using online networks Human Pose Estimation using the Kinect Learnt Magnetic confinement control for Fusion Learnt Density Functional for solving the fractional electron problem === Awards and honours === Kohli's research in computer vision and machine learning has been recognized by a number of scientific awards and prizes. Some notable ones include: Koenderink Prize (Test of Time award) by the European Conference of Computer Vision British Machine Vision Association and Society for Pattern Recognition (BMVA) Sullivan Prize for the best PhD thesis. IEEE Mixed Augmented Reality (ISMAR) Impact Paper award Lasting Impact Award by the ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology Best paper award at the International World Wide Web Conference 2014 Best paper award in the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) 2010 Best paper award in the Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI)
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 →
Ellen Voorhees

Ellen Marie Voorhees (born March 13, 1958) is an American computer scientist known for her work in document retrieval, information retrieval, and natural language processing. She works in the retrieval group at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). == Education and career == Voorhees was born in Bensalem Township, Pennsylvania, and was the 1976 valedictorian at Bensalem High School. She completed her undergraduate studies at Pennsylvania State University, graduating in 1979 with a bachelor's degree in computer science. She attended Cornell University, where she received her master's degree and then went on to complete her Ph.D. in 1985. Her dissertation, The Effectiveness and Efficiency of Agglomerative Hierarchic Clustering in Document Retrieval, was supervised by Gerard Salton. Prior to joining NIST, she was a senior member of the technical staff at Siemens Corporate Research in Princeton, New Jersey. == Recognition == Voorhees was elected as an ACM Fellow in 2018 for "contributions in evaluation of information retrieval, question answering, and other language technologies". In 2023, Voorhees was awarded an honorary Doctor of Science degree from the University of Glasgow in recognition of her body of work in the evaluation of information retrieval, question answering, and other language technologies. In 2024, Voorhees received the Gerard Salton Award, a lifetime achievement award given by ACM's Special Interest Group on Information Retrieval (SIGIR).
Read more →
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 →
Models of DNA evolution

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

The NCAA transfer portal is a National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) application, database, and compliance tool that facilitates student athletes' transfers between member institutions. It is intended to bring greater transparency to the transfer process and to enable student athletes to publicize their desire to transfer. The transfer portal is an NCAA-wide database covering all three NCAA divisions, although most media coverage of the transfer portal involves its use in the top-level Division I (D-I). The portal launched on October 15, 2018. Regulations adopted in 2021 allowed student-athletes in D-I football, men's and women's basketball, men's ice hockey, and baseball to transfer schools using the portal once without sitting out a year. In 2024, the NCAA authorized athletes unlimited transfers. == Process == For Divisions I and II, once an athlete desiring to transfer informs their school; the school must enter the athlete's name in the database within two business days. Then coaches and staff from other universities may contact the athlete about potentially transferring. Before the January 2026 NCAA convention, Division III schools were allowed, but not required, to enter such a student into the portal. A proposal to require use of the portal in that division was approved at the convention. The timeline for D-III members to enter athletes into the portal differs from that of the other divisions. Athletes wishing to enter the portal must first complete an educational module. Once completed, the school has seven calendar days to enter the athlete's transfer request into the portal. == Transfer windows == On August 31, 2022, the D-I board adopted a series of changes to transfer rules, introducing the concept of transfer windows, similar to those used in professional soccer worldwide. Student-athletes who wish to take advantage of the one-time transfer rule must, under normal circumstances, enter the portal within a designated window for their sport. These windows are slightly different for each NCAA sport, but are broadly grouped by the NCAA's three athletic "seasons". At that time, the windows were as follows: Fall sports – A 45-day winter window opening the day after championship selections are made in that sport, and a spring window from May 1–15. According to the NCAA, "reasonable accommodations" would be made for participants in football's FBS and FCS championship games (respectively the College Football Playoff National Championship and Division I Football Championship Game), both of which take place in early January. Participants in those games had a 14-day window opening on the day after the championship game, as well as the spring window. Winter sports – A 60-day window opening the day after championship selections are made in that sport. Spring sports – A winter window from December 1–15, and a 45-day spring window opening the day after championship selections are made in that sport. For sports included in the NCAA Emerging Sports for Women program, transfer windows are the same as those for fully recognized NCAA sports. As with fully recognized NCAA sports, transfer windows linked to championship events open on the day after selections are made for the generally recognized championship events in emerging sports. Student-athletes whose athletic aid is reduced, canceled, or not renewed by their school, as well as those affected by a university's elimination of a sports team, may enter the transfer portal at any time without penalty. A slightly different exception applies to those undergoing a head coaching change; student-athletes so affected in sports other than Division I football can enter the portal within 30 days of the change, starting on the day after the coach's departure is announced. The coaching change window also applied to Division I football before October 2025. Less than a month after transfer windows were adopted, the Division I Council adopted a change that affected only graduate transfers. Student-athletes who are set to graduate with remaining athletic eligibility, and plan to continue competition as postgraduate students, were exempt from transfer windows. They could enter the portal at any time during the academic year, and were not subject to the standard deadlines of May 1 for fall and winter sports and July 1 for spring sports. In April 2024, graduate transfers became subject to the same deadlines as all other transfer students. This change did not affect windows for student-athletes affected by a head coaching change, a loss of athletic aid, or the discontinuation of a team. Because the Ivy League allows neither redshirting nor athletic participation by graduate students, athletes at its member schools who are set to complete four years of attendance but still have remaining athletic eligibility may enter the portal at any time during their fourth academic year of attendance. In October 2024, the Division I Council reduced transfer windows in football and basketball to a total of 30 days. For FBS and FCS football, the fall window opened for 20 days, starting on the Monday after FBS conference championship games. Participants in postseason play had a 5-day window that opened on the day after each team's final game. A 10-day spring window opened in mid-April. In men's and women's basketball, a single 30-day window opens on the day after the second round of each Division I tournament concludes. The existing exceptions regarding head coaching changes, a loss of athletic aid, or the discontinuation of a team remained in place. Almost exactly a year later, Division I adopted more significant changes to the football transfer portal for both FBS and FCS. The previous two windows were abolished and replaced by a single window that opens from January 2–16. Participants in the College Football Playoff National Championship—the only game in FBS or FCS played after the closure of the new window—receive a 5-day window that opens on the day after that game. The window for players undergoing a head coaching change was also reduced. A new window of 15 days opens five calendar days after the hiring or public announcement of a new head coach. Should a school fail to hire or publicly announce a new head coach within 30 days after the previous coach's departure, the window will open on the 31st day after departure, provided that the 31st day is no earlier than January 3. This particular window, also open for 15 days, may open at any time before June 30. No change was announced to the exceptions for those affected by a loss of athletic aid or the discontinuation of a team. == Impact on high school recruiting == Effective July 1, 2025, the NCAA Division I Board of Directors implemented new DI roster limits following the court-approved House settlement. Additionally, according to the NCAA, "NCAA rules for Division I programs will no longer include sport-specific scholarship limits." As a result, many top Division I programs, especially those in power conferences, are relying heavily on the transfer portal to bring in conference- and national-level student-athletes. This shift in recruiting focus has already been exemplified across Division I men's and women's track and field especially, beginning in the recruitment cycle for 2025 college entries. Track and field coaches formerly managing rosters of 120-plus (60-plus men and 60-plus women) are now limited to 45 per side for a total of 90 roster spots across men's and women's track and field, meaning they are recruiting fewer student-athletes out of high school and more immediately impactful scholarship-worthy student-athletes via the transfer portal. Roster limits for track and field teams are even more stringent in the Southeastern Conference (SEC): 35 men and 35 women. For high school track and field athletes seeking opportunities with top DI programs, they no longer need to display potential to be point-scorers, but demonstrate the ability to contribute immediately, often by competing at a level aligned with conference scoring standards.
Read more →
How to Choose an AI Video Generator

Looking for the best AI video generator? An AI video generator is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it can save you hours every week by automating repetitive work. Most options offer a generous free tier, with paid plans unlocking higher limits, faster processing, and team features. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI video generator 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 →
Marine Carpuat

Marine Carpuat is a computer scientist who works on machine translation and natural language processing. She is known for her research connecting cross-lingual semantics with machine translation. She has been recognized with a NSF Career Award in 2018, a Google Research award in 2016, and Amazon Faculty Awards in 2016 and 2018. == Education == Marine Carpuat obtained her MPhil and PhD from Hong Kong University of Science and Technology in 2008 under the supervision of Dekai Wu. Her PhD thesis was on the topic of machine translation, and demonstrated the first results showing that explicit modeling of lexical semantics could improve the accuracy of a machine translation system. == Career == After completing her education, Carpuat worked at the National Research Council Canada as a researcher. In 2015, she joined University of Maryland as an assistant professor in Computer Science where she is a member of the CLIP lab. Carpuat works in the area of natural language processing with a focus on machine translation and cross-lingual semantics. She has published over 100 peer-reviewed research papers. Her work is published in the proceedings of computer science conferences, including the Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. == Selected honors and distinctions == 2016 Google Research Award 2016, 2018 Amazon Research Awards 2018 NSF Career Award
Read more →