AI Data Visualization Tools

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

• 

  Score bug

  A score bug is a digital on-screen graphic which is displayed in a broadcast of a sporting event, displaying the current score and other statistics. It is similar in function to a scoreboard, and is usually placed at either the top or lower third of the television screen. == History == The concept of a persistent score bug was devised by Sky Sports head David Hill, who was dissatisfied over having to wait to see what the score was after tuning into a football match in-progress. The score bug was introduced when Sky launched its coverage of the then newly-formed English Premier League in August 1992. Hill's boss repeatedly demanded that the graphic be removed, describing it as the "stupidest thing [he] had ever seen". Hill defied the boss's demands and kept the graphic in place. ITV introduced a score bug at the start of the 1993–94 football season, and the BBC introduced a score bug towards the end of 1993. The concept was introduced to the United States by ABC Sports and ESPN during coverage of the 1994 FIFA World Cup. Their justification for the graphic was to provide a location for a rotating series of sponsor logos, in order to allow matches to air without commercial interruption. With the acquisition of rights to the National Football League (NFL) by BSkyB's American sibling Fox (a fellow venture of Rupert Murdoch), Hill became the first president of Fox Sports. Under Hill's leadership, Fox introduced a version of the score bug branded as the "Fox Box", which was part of its inaugural season of NFL coverage in 1994. Variety criticized it as an "annoying see-through clock and score graphic" and expressed concern for people "who actually watched the beginning of the game and would rather have their screen clear of graphics". Hill even received a death threat from an irate viewer, with a specific emphasis on him being a "foreigner", but the score bug soon became a ubiquitous feature for American football broadcasts, along with almost all American sports broadcasts in the years that followed. Dick Ebersol of NBC Sports initially opposed the idea of a score bug, as he thought that fans would dislike seeing more graphics on the screen and would change the channel from blowout games if the score was constantly being displayed. Since the 2010s, the on-air design and positioning of some score bugs have been influenced by the needs of Internet video (especially when viewing an event on devices with smaller screens), including bugs noticeably larger than prior iterations designed with television viewing in mind, or designs primarily kept towards the bottom-center of the screen (easing the ability for the bug to remain visible when highlights are cropped for square videos posted on social media). == Details == Score bugs used in team sports typically include the names of both teams, an abbreviation of the team's name, and/or the team's logo; for individual sports, they include the names of individual competitors. In sports where a game clock or playing periods are used, those are generally also displayed as part of the score bug. Some broadcasts also include teams' win-loss records. In 2024, ESPN experimented with adding a persistent win probability meter to its bug in Major League Baseball, which was based on input from its statisticians. === Variations === In addition to the above information, score bugs in some sports include additional information: In baseball, score bugs display the current inning, number of outs, the pitch clock if applicable, and a graphic displaying which bases are occupied; and usually include names of the current pitcher and batter, the pitcher's pitch count, and the number of balls and strikes accrued by the batter. In basketball, score bugs generally include the shot clock, the number of fouls accrued by each team, and whether a team is in the bonus. In cricket, score bugs often take the form of larger dashboards across the bottom of the screen, displaying the current team up and their number of runs, wickets, and overs, a display showing the runs scored and number of balls faced by the current batting partnership, and statistics for the opposing team's bowler (including the number of wickets scored and runs given up). In American football, score bugs usually include the play clock and the down and distance of the current play; they also incorporate graphics indicating when a penalty flag has been thrown. In ice hockey, score bugs display when a penalty or power play is in effect, and often include the number of shots on goal accrued by each team. In golf, Fox popularized the display of a persistent leaderboard graphic in the bottom-right of the screen, usually displaying the top 5. ==== Racing ==== Telecasts of automobile races often include a score bug with the current positions of participants, statistics such as distance behind the leader, and the remaining distance or number of laps. In the mid-2010s, NASCAR broadcasters such as Fox began to transition from horizontal tickers to vertical leaderboards (also referred to as "pylons", in reference to the physical scoring pylons at). The CW differentiated itself by using a horizontal display that divides the field into multiple columns along the bottom of the screen.

  Read more →
• 

  Content determination

  Content determination is the subtask of natural language generation (NLG) that involves deciding on the information to be communicated in a generated text. It is closely related to the task of document structuring. == Example == Consider an NLG system which summarises information about sick babies. Suppose this system has four pieces of information it can communicate The baby is being given morphine via an IV drop The baby's heart rate shows bradycardia's (temporary drops) The baby's temperature is normal The baby is crying Which of these bits of information should be included in the generated texts? == Issues == There are three general issues which almost always impact the content determination task, and can be illustrated with the above example. Perhaps the most fundamental issue is the communicative goal of the text, i.e. its purpose and reader. In the above example, for instance, a doctor who wants to make a decision about medical treatment would probably be most interested in the heart rate bradycardias, while a parent who wanted to know how her child was doing would probably be more interested in the fact that the baby was being given morphine and was crying. The second issue is the size and level of detail of the generated text. For instance, a short summary which was sent to a doctor as a 160 character SMS text message might only mention the heart rate bradycardias, while a longer summary which was printed out as a multipage document might also mention the fact that the baby is on a morphine IV. The final issue is how unusual and unexpected the information is. For example, neither doctors nor parents would place a high priority on being told that the baby's temperature was normal, if they expected this to be the case. Regardless, content determination is very important to users, indeed in many cases the quality of content determination is the most important factor (from the user's perspective) in determining the overall quality of the generated text. == Techniques == There are three basic approaches to document structuring: schemas (content templates), statistical approaches, and explicit reasoning. Schemas are templates which explicitly specify the content of a generated text (as well as document structuring information). Typically, they are constructed by manually analysing a corpus of human-written texts in the target genre, and extracting a content template from these texts. Schemas work well in practice in domains where content is somewhat standardised, but work less well in domains where content is more fluid (such as the medical example above). Statistical techniques use statistical corpus analysis techniques to automatically determine the content of the generated texts. Such work is in its infancy, and has mostly been applied to contexts where the communicative goal, reader, size, and level of detail are fixed. For example, generation of newswire summaries of sporting events. Explicit reasoning approaches have probably attracted the most attention from researchers. The basic idea is to use AI reasoning techniques (such as knowledge-based rules, planning, pattern detection, case-based reasoning, etc.) to examine the information available to be communicated (including how unusual/unexpected it is), the communicative goal and reader, and the characteristics of the generated text (including target size), and decide on the optimal content for the generated text. A very wide range of techniques has been explored, but there is no consensus as to which is most effective.

  Read more →
• 

  Stixel

  In computer vision, a stixel (portmanteau of "stick" and "pixel") is a superpixel representation of depth information in an image, in the form of a vertical stick that approximates the closest obstacles within a certain vertical slice of the scene. Introduced in 2009, stixels have applications in robotic navigation and advanced driver-assistance systems, where they can be used to define a representation of robotic environments and traffic scenes with a medium level of abstraction. == Definition == One of the problems of scene understanding in computer vision is to determine horizontal freespace around the camera, where the agent can move, and the vertical obstacles delimiting it. An image can be paired with depth information (produced e.g. from stereo disparity, lidar, or monocular depth estimation), allowing a dense tridimensional reconstruction of the observed scene. One drawback of dense reconstruction is the large amount of data involved, since each pixel in the image is mapped to an element of a point cloud. Vision problems characterised by planar freespace delimited by mostly vertical obstacles, such as traffic scenes or robotic navigation, can benefit from a condensed representation that allows to save memory and processing time. Stixels are thin vertical rectangles representing a slice of a vertical surface belonging to the closest obstacle in the observed scene. They allow to dramatically reduce the amount of information needed to represent a scene in such problems. A stixel is characterised by three parameters: vertical coordinate of the bottom, height of the stick, and depth. Stixels have fixed width, with each stixel spanning over a certain number of image columns, allowing downsampling of the horizontal image resolution. In the original formulation, each column of the image would contain at most one stixel, and later extensions were developed to allow multiple stixels on each column, allowing to represent multiple objects at different distances. == Stixel estimation == The input to stixel estimation is a dense depth map, that can be computed from stereo disparity or other means. The original approach computes an occupancy grid that can be segmented to estimate the freespace, with dynamic programming providing an efficient method to find an optimal segmentation. Alternative approaches can be used instead of occupancy grid mapping, such as manifold-based methods. The freespace boundary provides the base points of the obstacles at closest longitudinal distance, however multiple objects at different distances might appear in each column of the image. To fully define the obstacles, their height should be estimated, and this is accomplished by segmenting the depth of the object from the depth of the background. A membership function over the pixels can be defined based on the depth value, where the membership represents the confidence of a pixel belonging to the closest vertical obstacle or to the background, and a cut separating the obstacles from the background can again be computed effectively with dynamic programming. Once both the freespace and the obstacle height are known, the stixels can be estimated by fusing the information over the columns spanned by each stixel, and finally a refined depth of the stixel can be estimated via model fitting over the depth of the pixels covered by the stixel, possibly paired with confidence information (e.g. disparity confidence produced by methods such as semi-global matching).

  Read more →
• 

  Weak supervision

  Weak supervision (also known as semi-supervised learning) is a paradigm in machine learning, the relevance and notability of which increased with the advent of large language models due to the large amount of data required to train them. It is characterized by using a combination of a small amount of human-labeled data (exclusively used in more expensive and time-consuming supervised learning paradigm), followed by a large amount of unlabeled data (used exclusively in unsupervised learning paradigm). In other words, the desired output values are provided only for a subset of the training data. The remaining data is unlabeled or imprecisely labeled. Intuitively, it can be seen as an exam and labeled data as sample problems that the teacher solves for the class as an aid in solving another set of problems. In the transductive setting, these unsolved problems act as exam questions. In the inductive setting, they become practice problems of the sort that will make up the exam. == Problem == The acquisition of labeled data for a learning problem often requires a skilled human agent (e.g. to transcribe an audio segment) or a physical experiment (e.g. determining the 3D structure of a protein or determining whether there is oil at a particular location). The cost associated with the labeling process thus may render large, fully labeled training sets infeasible, whereas acquisition of unlabeled data is relatively inexpensive. In such situations, semi-supervised learning can be of great practical value. Semi-supervised learning is also of theoretical interest in machine learning and as a model for human learning. == Technique == More formally, semi-supervised learning assumes a set of l {\displaystyle l} independently identically distributed examples x 1 , … , x l ∈ X {\displaystyle x_{1},\dots ,x_{l}\in X} with corresponding labels y 1 , … , y l ∈ Y {\displaystyle y_{1},\dots ,y_{l}\in Y} and u {\displaystyle u} unlabeled examples x l + 1 , … , x l + u ∈ X {\displaystyle x_{l+1},\dots ,x_{l+u}\in X} are processed. Semi-supervised learning combines this information to surpass the classification performance that can be obtained either by discarding the unlabeled data and doing supervised learning or by discarding the labels and doing unsupervised learning. Semi-supervised learning may refer to either transductive learning or inductive learning. The goal of transductive learning is to infer the correct labels for the given unlabeled data x l + 1 , … , x l + u {\displaystyle x_{l+1},\dots ,x_{l+u}} only. The goal of inductive learning is to infer the correct mapping from X {\displaystyle X} to Y {\displaystyle Y} . It is unnecessary (and, according to Vapnik's principle, imprudent) to perform transductive learning by way of inferring a classification rule over the entire input space; however, in practice, algorithms formally designed for transduction or induction are often used interchangeably. == Assumptions == In order to make any use of unlabeled data, some relationship to the underlying distribution of data must exist. Semi-supervised learning algorithms make use of at least one of the following assumptions: === Continuity / smoothness assumption === Points that are close to each other are more likely to share a label. This is also generally assumed in supervised learning and yields a preference for geometrically simple decision boundaries. In the case of semi-supervised learning, the smoothness assumption additionally yields a preference for decision boundaries in low-density regions, so few points are close to each other but in different classes. === Cluster assumption === The data tend to form discrete clusters, and points in the same cluster are more likely to share a label (although data that shares a label may spread across multiple clusters). This is a special case of the smoothness assumption and gives rise to feature learning with clustering algorithms. === Manifold assumption === The data lie approximately on a manifold of much lower dimension than the input space. In this case learning the manifold using both the labeled and unlabeled data can avoid the curse of dimensionality. Then learning can proceed using distances and densities defined on the manifold. The manifold assumption is practical when high-dimensional data are generated by some process that may be hard to model directly, but which has only a few degrees of freedom. For instance, human voice is controlled by a few vocal folds, and images of various facial expressions are controlled by a few muscles. In these cases, it is better to consider distances and smoothness in the natural space of the generating problem, rather than in the space of all possible acoustic waves or images, respectively. == History == The heuristic approach of self-training (also known as self-learning or self-labeling) is historically the oldest approach to semi-supervised learning, with examples of applications starting in the 1960s. The transductive learning framework was formally introduced by Vladimir Vapnik in the 1970s. Interest in inductive learning using generative models also began in the 1970s. A probably approximately correct learning bound for semi-supervised learning of a Gaussian mixture was demonstrated by Ratsaby and Venkatesh in 1995. == Methods == === Generative models === Generative approaches to statistical learning first seek to estimate p ( x | y ) {\displaystyle p(x|y)} , the distribution of data points belonging to each class. The probability p ( y | x ) {\displaystyle p(y|x)} that a given point x {\displaystyle x} has label y {\displaystyle y} is then proportional to p ( x | y ) p ( y ) {\displaystyle p(x|y)p(y)} by Bayes' rule. Semi-supervised learning with generative models can be viewed either as an extension of supervised learning (classification plus information about p ( x ) {\displaystyle p(x)} ) or as an extension of unsupervised learning (clustering plus some labels). Generative models assume that the distributions take some particular form p ( x | y , θ ) {\displaystyle p(x|y,\theta )} parameterized by the vector θ {\displaystyle \theta } . If these assumptions are incorrect, the unlabeled data may actually decrease the accuracy of the solution relative to what would have been obtained from labeled data alone. However, if the assumptions are correct, then the unlabeled data necessarily improves performance. The unlabeled data are distributed according to a mixture of individual-class distributions. In order to learn the mixture distribution from the unlabeled data, it must be identifiable, that is, different parameters must yield different summed distributions. Gaussian mixture distributions are identifiable and commonly used for generative models. The parameterized joint distribution can be written as p ( x , y | θ ) = p ( y | θ ) p ( x | y , θ ) {\displaystyle p(x,y|\theta )=p(y|\theta )p(x|y,\theta )} by using the chain rule. Each parameter vector θ {\displaystyle \theta } is associated with a decision function f θ ( x ) = argmax y p ( y | x , θ ) {\displaystyle f_{\theta }(x)={\underset {y}{\operatorname {argmax} }}\ p(y|x,\theta )} . The parameter is then chosen based on fit to both the labeled and unlabeled data, weighted by λ {\displaystyle \lambda } : argmax Θ ( log ⁡ p ( { x i , y i } i = 1 l | θ ) + λ log ⁡ p ( { x i } i = l + 1 l + u | θ ) ) {\displaystyle {\underset {\Theta }{\operatorname {argmax} }}\left(\log p(\{x_{i},y_{i}\}_{i=1}^{l}|\theta )+\lambda \log p(\{x_{i}\}_{i=l+1}^{l+u}|\theta )\right)} === Low-density separation === Another major class of methods attempts to place boundaries in regions with few data points (labeled or unlabeled). One of the most commonly used algorithms is the transductive support vector machine, or TSVM (which, despite its name, may be used for inductive learning as well). Whereas support vector machines for supervised learning seek a decision boundary with maximal margin over the labeled data, the goal of TSVM is a labeling of the unlabeled data such that the decision boundary has maximal margin over all of the data. In addition to the standard hinge loss ( 1 − y f ( x ) ) + {\displaystyle (1-yf(x))_{+}} for labeled data, a loss function ( 1 − | f ( x ) | ) + {\displaystyle (1-|f(x)|)_{+}} is introduced over the unlabeled data by letting y = sign ⁡ f ( x ) {\displaystyle y=\operatorname {sign} {f(x)}} . TSVM then selects f ∗ ( x ) = h ∗ ( x ) + b {\displaystyle f^{}(x)=h^{}(x)+b} from a reproducing kernel Hilbert space H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} by minimizing the regularized empirical risk: f ∗ = argmin f ( ∑ i = 1 l ( 1 − y i f ( x i ) ) + + λ 1 ‖ h ‖ H 2 + λ 2 ∑ i = l + 1 l + u ( 1 − | f ( x i ) | ) + ) {\displaystyle f^{}={\underset {f}{\operatorname {argmin} }}\left(\displaystyle \sum _{i=1}^{l}(1-y_{i}f(x_{i}))_{+}+\lambda _{1}\|h\|_{\mathcal {H}}^{2}+\lambda _{2}\sum _{i=l+1}^{l+u}(1-|f(x_{i})|)_{+}\right)} An exact solution is intractable due to the non-convex term ( 1 − | f ( x ) | ) + {\displayst

  Read more →
• 

  Symbaloo

  Symbaloo is a cloud-based site that allows users to organize and categorize web links in the form of buttons. Symbaloo works from a web browser and can be configured as a homepage, allowing users to create a personalized virtual desktop accessible from any device with an Internet connection. Symbaloo users, which must be previously registered, have a page with a grid of buttons that can be configured to link to a specific page. The site allows users to assign different colors to the buttons for easy visual classification. Symbaloo allows a single user to create different pages or screens with buttons. These screens called webmix are useful to separate topics and links can be shared with other users, making them public and sending the link via email. As of 2015 Symbaloo has 6 million users worldwide and mainly used as an online education resource. Symbaloo's slogan is "Start Simple".

  Read more →
• 

  E-gree (app)

  E-gree is a legal app that became well known in 2020. It was the first app of its kind to protect users against a number of dating-related issues, including revenge porn. == Background == The app was co-founded by Araz Mamet, Keith Fraser and Ilya Flaks. The app focuses on privacy, with users being able to set up various contracts to protect themselves following a breakup, or while dating. This notably included signing an NDA when sexting. The app received investment from a number of notable people and companies, including Natalia Vodianova.

  Read more →
• 

  Meta AI

  Meta AI is a research division of Meta (formerly Facebook) that develops artificial intelligence and augmented reality technologies. == History == Meta AI was founded in 2013 as Facebook Artificial Intelligence Research (FAIR). It has workspaces in Menlo Park, London, New York City, Paris, Seattle, Pittsburgh, Tel Aviv, and Montreal as of 2025. In 2016, FAIR partnered with Google, Amazon, IBM, and Microsoft in creating the Partnership on Artificial Intelligence to Benefit People and Society. Meta AI was directed by Yann LeCun until 2018, when Jérôme Pesenti succeeded the role. Pesenti is formerly the CTO of IBM's big data group. FAIR's research includes self-supervised learning, generative adversarial networks, document classification and translation, and computer vision. FAIR released Torch deep-learning modules as well as PyTorch in 2017, an open-source machine learning framework, which was subsequently used in several deep learning technologies, such as Tesla's autopilot and Uber's Pyro. That same year, a pair of chatbots were falsely rumored to be discontinued for developing a language that was unintelligible to humans. FAIR clarified that the research had been shut down because they had accomplished their initial goal to understand how languages are generated by their models, rather than out of fear. FAIR was renamed Meta AI following the rebranding that changed Facebook, Inc. to Meta Platforms Inc. On October 1, 2025, Facebook announced "We will soon use your interactions with AI at Meta to personalize the content and ads you see". == Virtual assistant == Meta AI is also the name of the virtual assistant developed by the team, now integrated as a chatbot into Meta's social networking products. It is also available as a subscription-based stand-alone app. The virtual assistant was pre-installed on the second generation of Ray-Ban Meta smartglasses, and can incorporate inputs from the glasses' cameras after an update. It is also available on Quest 2 and newer HMDs. Since May 2024, the chatbot has summarized news from various outlets without linking directly to original articles, including in Canada, where news links are banned on its platforms. This use of news content without compensation and attribution has raised ethical and legal concerns, especially as Meta continues to reduce news visibility on its platforms. == Current research == === Natural language processing and chatbot === Natural language processing is the ability for machines to understand and generate natural language. The team is also researching unsupervised machine translation and multilingual chatbots. ==== Galactica ==== Galactica is a large language model (LLM) designed for generating scientific text. It was available for three days from 15 November 2022, before being withdrawn for generating racist and inaccurate content. ==== Llama ==== Llama is an LLM released in February 2023. As of January 2026, the most recent release is the Llama 4. === Hardware === Meta used CPUs and in-house custom chips before 2022; they switched to Nvidia GPUs since then. MTIA v1, one of their early chips, is designed for the company's content recommendation algorithms. It was fabricated on TSMC's 7 nm process technology and consumed 25W, capable of 51.2 TFlops FP16. == Controversy == The French media outlet Mediapart reports that in 2022, Facebook's parent company illegally used works accumulated by the pirate site LibGen to train its artificial intelligence.

  Read more →
• 

  Application performance engineering

  Application performance engineering is a method to develop and test application performance in various settings, including mobile computing, the cloud, and conventional information technology (IT). == Methodology == According to the American National Institute of Standards and Technology, nearly four out of every five dollars spent on the total cost of ownership of an application is directly attributable to finding and fixing issues post-deployment. A full one-third of this cost could be avoided with better software testing. Application performance engineering attempts to test software before it is published. While practices vary among organizations, the method attempts to emulate the real-world conditions that software in development will confront, including network deployment and access by mobile devices. Techniques include network virtualization.

  Read more →
• 

  Buckeye Corpus

  The Buckeye Corpus of conversational speech is a speech corpus created by a team of linguists and psychologists at Ohio State University led by Prof. Mark Pitt. It contains high-quality recordings from 40 speakers in Columbus, Ohio conversing freely with an interviewer. The interviewer's voice is heard only faintly in the background of these recordings. The sessions were conducted as Sociolinguistics interviews, and are essentially monologues. The speech has been orthographically transcribed and phonetically labeled. The audio and text files, together with time-aligned phonetic labels, are stored in a format for use with speech analysis software (Xwaves and Wavesurfer). Software for searching the transcription files is also available at the project web site. The corpus is available to researchers in academia and industry. The project was funded by the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders and the Office of Research at Ohio State University.

  Read more →
• 

  Healthy Together

  Healthy Together is a health technology company that provides software for Health & Humans Services Departments. Healthy Together supports a “One Door” approach to eligibility, enrollment, and management for programs like Medicaid, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, TANF and WIC, as well as behavioral health (988), disease surveillance, vital records, child welfare and more. The platform's use is to increase the reach and efficacy of program initiatives, improve health equity and reduce cost. Software is available in the United States of America with current deployments in Florida, Oklahoma. The United States Department of Veterans Affairs also utilizes Healthy Together's mobile platform. == Development == Healthy Together launched in March 2020 and builds software for public health and health and human services departments. The Florida Department of Health began using the platform in September 2020 to deliver real-time test results to residents. Over 50% of households in Florida have adopted the mobile application. On December 6, 2022, the Advanced Technology Academic Research Center (ATARC) awarded Healthy Together and the State of Florida's Department of Health with a Digital Experience Award at their 2022 GITEC Emerging Technology Award Ceremony in Washington, D.C. to recognize success of the project. The partnership was also highlighted on the Federal News Network's show Federal Drive. The platform is also used at universities in Oklahoma. In November 2022, the United States Department of Veterans Affairs and Healthy Together announced a collaboration to expand access to health records for Veterans. The platform provides 18 million Veterans with access to their health information through their smartphones and mobile devices. In December 2022, the integration was recognized as one of Healthcare IT News' Top 10 stories of 2022.

  Read more →
• 

  SPL notation

  SPL (Sentence Plan Language) is an abstract notation representing the semantics of a sentence in natural language. In a classical Natural Language Generation (NLG) workflow, an initial text plan (hierarchically or sequentially organized factoids, often modelled in accordance with Rhetorical Structure Theory) is transformed by a sentence planner (generator) component to a sequence of sentence plans modelled in a Sentence Plan Language. A surface generator can be used to transform the SPL notation into natural language sentences. Probably the most widely used SPL language used today (2022) is AMR (Abstract Meaning Representation, see there for further references), but is owes parts of its popularity to its application to NLP problems other than NLG, e.g., machine translation and semantic parsing.

  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 →
• 

  AI-complete

  In the field of artificial intelligence (AI), tasks that are hypothesized to require artificial general intelligence to solve are informally known as AI-complete or AI-hard. Calling a problem AI-complete reflects the belief that it cannot be solved by a simple specific algorithm. Prior to 2013, problems supposed to be AI-complete included computer vision, natural language understanding, and dealing with unexpected circumstances while solving any real-world problem. AI-complete tasks were notably considered useful for distinguishing humans from automated agents, as CAPTCHAs aim to do. == History == The term was coined by Fanya Montalvo by analogy with NP-complete and NP-hard in complexity theory, which formally describes the most famous class of difficult problems. Early uses of the term are in Erik Mueller's 1987 PhD dissertation and in Eric Raymond's 1991 Jargon File. Expert systems, that were popular in the 1980s, were able to solve very simple and/or restricted versions of AI-complete problems, but never in their full generality. When AI researchers attempted to "scale up" their systems to handle more complicated, real-world situations, the programs tended to become excessively brittle without commonsense knowledge or a rudimentary understanding of the situation: they would fail as unexpected circumstances outside of its original problem context would begin to appear. When human beings are dealing with new situations in the world, they are helped by their awareness of the general context: they know what the things around them are, why they are there, what they are likely to do and so on. They can recognize unusual situations and adjust accordingly. Expert systems lacked this adaptability and were brittle when facing new situations. DeepMind published a work in May 2022 in which they trained a single model to do several things at the same time. The model, named Gato, can "play Atari, caption images, chat, stack blocks with a real robot arm and much more, deciding based on its context whether to output text, joint torques, button presses, or other tokens." Similarly, some tasks once considered to be AI-complete, like machine translation, are among the capabilities of large language models. == AI-complete problems == AI-complete problems have been hypothesized to include: AI peer review (composite natural language understanding, automated reasoning, automated theorem proving, formalized logic expert system) Bongard problems Computer vision (and subproblems such as object recognition) Natural language understanding (and subproblems such as text mining, machine translation, and word-sense disambiguation) Autonomous driving Dealing with unexpected circumstances while solving any real world problem, whether navigation, planning, or even the kind of reasoning done by expert systems. == Formalization == Computational complexity theory deals with the relative computational difficulty of computable functions. By definition, it does not cover problems whose solution is unknown or has not been characterized formally. Since many AI problems have no formalization yet, conventional complexity theory does not enable a formal definition of AI-completeness. == Research == Roman Yampolskiy suggests that a problem C {\displaystyle C} is AI-Complete if it has two properties: It is in the set of AI problems (Human Oracle-solvable). Any AI problem can be converted into C {\displaystyle C} by some polynomial time algorithm. On the other hand, a problem H {\displaystyle H} is AI-Hard if and only if there is an AI-Complete problem C {\displaystyle C} that is polynomial time Turing-reducible to H {\displaystyle H} . This also gives as a consequence the existence of AI-Easy problems, that are solvable in polynomial time by a deterministic Turing machine with an oracle for some problem. Yampolskiy has also hypothesized that the Turing Test is a defining feature of AI-completeness. Groppe and Jain classify problems which require artificial general intelligence to reach human-level machine performance as AI-complete, while only restricted versions of AI-complete problems can be solved by the current AI systems. For Šekrst, getting a polynomial solution to AI-complete problems would not necessarily be equal to solving the issue of artificial general intelligence, while emphasizing the lack of computational complexity research being the limiting factor towards achieving artificial general intelligence. For Kwee-Bintoro and Velez, solving AI-complete problems would have strong repercussions on society.

  Read more →
• 

  Application-release automation

  Application-release automation (ARA) refers to the process of packaging and deploying an application or update of an application from development, across various environments, and ultimately to production. ARA solutions must combine the capabilities of deployment automation, environment management and modeling, and release coordination. == Relationship with DevOps == ARA tools help cultivate DevOps best practices by providing a combination of automation, environment modeling and workflow-management capabilities. These practices help teams deliver software rapidly, reliably and responsibly. ARA tools achieve a key DevOps goal of implementing continuous delivery with a large quantity of releases quickly. == Relationship with deployment == ARA is more than just software-deployment automation – it deploys applications using structured release-automation techniques that allow for an increase in visibility for the whole team. It combines workload automation and release-management tools as they relate to release packages, as well as movement through different environments within the DevOps pipeline. ARA tools help regulate deployments, how environments are created and deployed, and how and when releases are deployed. == ARA Solutions == All ARA solutions must include capabilities in automation, environment modeling, and release coordination. Additionally, the solution must provide this functionality without reliance on other tools.

  Read more →
• 

  Document mosaicing

  Document mosaicing is a process that stitches multiple, overlapping snapshot images of a document together to produce one large, high resolution composite. The document is slid under a stationary, over-the-desk camera by hand until all parts of the document are snapshotted by the camera's field of view. As the document slid under the camera, all motion of the document is coarsely tracked by the vision system. The document is periodically snapshotted such that the successive snapshots are overlap by about 50%. The system then finds the overlapped pairs and stitches them together repeatedly until all pairs are stitched together as one piece of document. The document mosaicing can be divided into four main processes. Tracking Feature detecting Correspondences establishing Images mosaicing. == Tracking (simple correlation process) == In this process, the motion of the document slid under the camera is coarsely tracked by the system. Tracking is performed by a process called simple correlation process. In the first frame of snapshots, a small patch is extracted from the center of the image as a correlation template. The correlation process is performed in the four times size of the patch area of the next frame. The motion of the paper is indicated by the peak in the correlation function. The peak in the correlation function indicates the motion of the paper. The template is resampled from this frame and the tracking continues until the template reaches the edge of the document. After the template reaches the edge of the document, another snapshot is taken and the tracking process performs repeatedly until the whole document is imaged. The snapshots are stored in an ordered list to facilitate pairing the overlapped images in later processes. == Feature detecting for efficient matching == Feature detection is the process of finding the transformation that aligns one image with another. There are two main approaches for feature detection. Feature-based approach : Motion parameters are estimated from point correspondences. This approach is suitable for the case that there is plenty supply of stable and detectable features. Featureless approach : When the motion between the two images is small, the motion parameters are estimated using optical flow. On the other hand, when the motion between the two images is large, the motion parameters are estimated using generalised cross-correlation. However, this approach requires a computationally expensive resources. Each image is segmented into a hierarchy of columns, lines, and words to match the organised sets of features across images. Skew angle estimation and columns, lines and words finding are the examples of feature detection operations. === Skew angle estimation === Firstly, the angle that the rows of text make with the image raster lines (skew angle) is estimated. It is assumed to lie in the range of ±20°. A small patch of text in the image is selected randomly and then rotated in the range of ±20° until the variance of the pixel intensities of the patch summed along the raster lines is maximised. To ensure that the found skew angle is accurate, the document mosaic system performs calculation at many image patches and derive the final estimation by finding the average of the individual angles weighted by the variance of the pixel intensities of each patch. === Columns, lines and words finding === In this operation, the de-skewed document is intuitively segmented into a hierarchy of columns, lines and words. The sensitivity to illumination and page coloration of the de-skewed document can be removed by applying a Sobel operator to the de-skewed image and thresholding the output to obtain the binary gradient, de-skewed image. The operation can be roughly separated into 3 steps: column segmentation, line segmentation and word segmentation. Columns are easily segmented from the binary gradient, de-skewed images by summing pixels vertically. Baselines of each row are segmented in the same way as the column segmentation process but horizontally. Finally, individual words are segmented by applying the vertical process at each segmented row. These segmentations are important because the document mosaic is created by matching the lower right corners of words in overlapping images pair. Moreover, the segmentation operation can organize the list of images in the context of a hierarchy of rows and column reliably. The segmentation operation involves a considerable amount of summing in the binary gradient, de-skewed images, which done by construct a matrix of partial sums whose elements are given by p i y = ∑ u = 1 i ∑ v = 1 j b u v {\displaystyle p_{iy}=\sum _{u=1}^{i}\sum _{v=1}^{j}b_{uv}} The matrix of partial sums is calculated in one pass through the binary gradient, de-skewed image. ∑ u = u 1 u 2 ∑ v = v 1 v 2 b u v = p u 2 v 2 + p u 1 v 1 − p u 1 v 2 − p u 2 v 1 {\displaystyle \sum _{u=u_{1}}^{u_{2}}\sum _{v=v_{1}}^{v_{2}}b_{uv}=p_{u_{2}v_{2}}+p_{u_{1}v_{1}}-p_{u_{1}v_{2}}-p_{u_{2}v_{1}}} == Correspondences establishing == The two images are now organized in hierarchy of linked lists in following structure : image=list of columns row=list of words column=list of row word=length (in pixels) At the bottom of the structure, the length of each word is recorded for establishing correspondence between two images to reduce to search only the corresponding structures for the groups of words with the matching lengths. === Seed match finding === A seed match finding is done by comparing each row in image1 with each row in image2. The two rows are then compared to each other by every word. If the length (in pixel) of the two words (one from image1 and one from image2) and their immediate neighbours agree with each other within a predefined tolerance threshold (5 pixels, for example), then they are assumed to match. The row of each image is assumed a match if there are three or more word matches between the two rows. The seed match finding operation is terminated when two pairs of consecutive row match are found. === Match list building === After finishing a seed match finding operation, the next process is to build the match list to generate the correspondences points of the two images. The process is done by searching the matching pairs of rows away from the seed row. == Images mosaicing == Given the list of corresponding points of the two images, finding the transformation of the overlapping portion of the images is the next process. Assuming a pinhole camera model, the transformation between pixels (u,v) of image 1 and pixels (u0, v0) of image 2 is demonstrated by a plane-to-plane projectivity. [ s u ′ s v ′ s ] = [ p 11 p 12 p 13 p 21 p 22 p 23 p 31 p 32 1 ] [ u v 1 ] E q .1 {\displaystyle \left[{\begin{array}{c}su'\\sv'\\s\end{array}}\right]=\left[{\begin{array}{ccc}p_{11}&p_{12}&p_{13}\\p_{21}&p_{22}&p_{23}\\p_{31}&p_{32}&1\end{array}}\right]\left[{\begin{array}{c}u\\v\\1\end{array}}\right]\qquad Eq.1} The parameters of the projectivity is found from four pairs of matching points. RANSAC regression technique is used to reject outlying matches and estimate the projectivity from the remaining good matches. The projectivity is fine-tuned using correlation at the corners of the overlapping portion to obtain four correspondences to sub-pixel accuracy. Therefore, image1 is then transformed into image2's coordinate system using Eq.1. The typical result of the process is shown in Figure 5. === Many images coping === Finally, the whole page composition is built up by mapping all the images into the coordinate system of an "anchor" image, which is normally the one nearest the page center. The transformations to the anchor frame are calculated by concatenating the pair-wise transformations found earlier. The raw document mosaic is shown in Figure 6. However, there might be a problem of non-consecutive images that are overlap. This problem can be solved by performing Hierarchical sub-mosaics. As shown in Figure 7, image1 and image2 are registered, as are image3 and image4, creating two sub-mosaics. These two sub-mosaics are later stitched together in another mosaicing process. == Applied areas == There are various areas that the technique of document mosaicing can be applied to such as : Text segmentation of images of documents Document Recognition Interaction with paper on the digital desk Video mosaics for virtual environments Image registration techniques == Relevant research papers == Huang, T.S.; Netravali, A.N. (1994). "Motion and structure from feature correspondences: A review". Proceedings of the IEEE. 82 (2): 252–268. doi:10.1109/5.265351. D.G. Lowe. [1] Perceptual Organization and Visual Recognition. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, 1985. Irani, M.; Peleg, S. (1991). "Improving resolution by image registration". CVGIP: Graphical Models and Image Processing. 53 (3): 231–239. doi:10.1016/1049-9652(91)90045-L. S2CID 4834546. Shivakumara, P.; Kumar, G. Hemantha; Guru, D. S.; Nagabhushan, P. (2006). "

  Read more →