AI Detector Text

AI Detector Text — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

Color clock

The color clock, or color timer, is a part of the video circuitry of computer graphics hardware that works with analog color television systems. The clock is timed to match the timing of the color standard it works with, typically NTSC or PAL, ensuring that the data being read from the computer memory to create the image on-screen is in sync with the display. Depending on the speed of the color clock, the product of the resolution and number of colors is defined. Slow color clocks of many early games consoles and home computers resulted in limited color palettes at the highest resolutions.
Read more →
Cuboid (computer vision)

In computer vision, the term cuboid is used to describe a small spatiotemporal volume extracted for purposes of behavior recognition. The cuboid is regarded as a basic geometric primitive type and is used to depict three-dimensional objects within a three dimensional representation of a flat, two dimensional image. == Production == Cuboids can be produced from both two-dimensional and three-dimensional images. One method used to produce cuboids utilizes scene understanding (SUN) primitive databases, which are collections of pictures that already contain cuboids. By sorting through SUN primitive databases with machine learning tools, computers observe the conditions in which cuboids are produced in images from SUN primitive databases and can learn to produce cuboids from other images. RGB-D images, which are RGB images that also record the depth of each pixel, are occasionally used to produce cuboids because computers no longer need to determine the depth of an object, as they typically do because depth is already recorded. Cuboid production is sensitive to changes in color and illumination, blockage, and background clutter. This means that it is difficult for computers to produce cuboids of objects that are multicolored, irregularly illuminated, or partially covered, or if there are many objects in the background. This is partially due to the fact that algorithms for producing cuboids are still relatively simple. == Usage == Cuboids are created for point cloud-based three-dimensional maps and can be utilized in various situations such as augmented reality, the automated control of cars, drones, and robots, and object detection. Cuboids allow for software to identify a scene through geometric descriptions in an “object-agnostic” fashion. Interest points, locations within images that are identified by a computer as essential to identifying the image, created from two-dimensional images can be used with cuboids for image matching, identifying a room or scene, and instance recognition. Interest points created from three dimensional images can be used with cuboids to recognize activities. This is possible because interest points aid software to focus on only the most important aspects of the images. RGB-D images and SLAM systems are used together in RGB-D SLAM systems, which are employed by Computer-aided design systems to generate point cloud-based three-dimensional maps. Most industrial multi-axis machining tools use computer-aided manufacturing and subsequently work in cuboid work spaces.
Read more →
Fred (chatbot)

Fred, or FRED, was an early chatbot written by Robby Garner. == History == The name Fred was initially suggested by Karen Lindsey, and then Robby jokingly came up with an acronym, "Functional Response Emulation Device." Fred has also been implemented as a Java application by Paco Nathan called JFRED Archived 2008-08-24 at the Wayback Machine. Fred Chatterbot is designed to explore Natural Language communications between people and computer programs. In particular, this is a study of conversation between people and ways that a computer program can learn from other people's conversations to make its own conversations. Fred used a minimalistic "stimulus-response" approach. It worked by storing a database of statements and their responses, and made its own reply by looking up the input statements made by a user and then rendering the corresponding response from the database. This approach simplified the complexity of the rule base, but required expert coding and editing for modifications. Fred was a predecessor to Albert One, which Garner used in 1998 and 1999 to win the Loebner Prize.
Read more →
Video imprint (computer vision)

Proposed as an extension of image epitomes in the field of video content analysis, video imprint is obtained by recasting video contents into a fixed-sized tensor representation regardless of video resolution or duration. Specifically, statistical characteristics are retained to some degrees so that common video recognition tasks can be carried out directly on such imprints, e.g., event retrieval, temporal action localization. It is claimed that both spatio-temporal interdependences are accounted for and redundancies are mitigated during the computation of video imprints. The option of computing video imprints exploiting the epitome model has the advantage of more flexible input feature formats and more efficient training stage for video content analysis.
Read more →
NetOwl

NetOwl is a suite of multilingual text and identity analytics products that analyze big data in the form of text data – reports, web, social media, etc. – as well as structured entity data about people, organizations, places, and things. NetOwl utilizes artificial intelligence (AI)-based approaches, including natural language processing (NLP), machine learning (ML), and computational linguistics, to extract entities, relationships, and events; to perform sentiment analysis; to assign latitude/longitude to geographical references in text; to translate names written in foreign languages; and to perform name matching and identity resolution. NetOwl's uses include semantic search and discovery, geospatial analysis, intelligence analysis, content enrichment, compliance monitoring, cyber threat monitoring, risk management, and bioinformatics. == History == The first NetOwl product was NetOwl Extractor, which was initially released in 1996. Since then, Extractor has added many new capabilities, including relationship and event extraction, categorization, name translation, geotagging, and sentiment analysis, as well as entity extraction in other languages. Other products were added later to the NetOwl suite, namely TextMiner, NameMatcher, and EntityMatcher. NetOwl has participated in several 3rd party-sponsored text and entity analytics software benchmarking events. NetOwl Extractor was the top-scoring named entity extraction system at the DARPA-sponsored Message Understanding Conference MUC-6 and the top-scoring link and event extraction system in MUC-7. It was also the top-scoring system at several of the NIST-sponsored Automatic Content Extraction (ACE) evaluation tasks. NetOwl NameMatcher was the top-scoring system at the MITRE Challenge for Multicultural Person Name Matching. == Products == The NetOwl suite includes, among others, the following text and entity analytics products: === Text Analytics === NetOwl Extractor performs entity extraction from unstructured texts using natural language processing (NLP), machine learning (ML), and computational linguistics. Extractor also performs semantic relationship and event extraction as well as geotagging of text. It is used for a variety of data sources including both traditional sources (e.g., news, reports, web pages, email) and social media (e.g., Twitter, Facebook, chats, blogs). It runs on a variety of Big Data analytics platforms, including Apache Hadoop and LexisNexis’s High-Performance Computer Cluster (HPCC) technology. It has been integrated with a number of 3rd party analytical tools such as Esri ArcGIS and Google Earth/Maps. === Identity Analytics === NetOwl NameMatcher and EntityMatcher perform name matching and identity resolution for large multicultural and multilingual entity databases using machine learning (ML) and computational linguistics approaches. They are used for applications such as anti–money laundering (AML), watch lists, regulatory compliance, fraud detection, etc.
Read more →
LaMDA

LaMDA (Language Model for Dialogue Applications) is a family of conversational large language models developed by Google. Originally developed and introduced as Meena in 2020, the first-generation LaMDA was announced during the 2021 Google I/O keynote, while the second generation was announced the following year. In June 2022, LaMDA gained widespread attention when Google engineer Blake Lemoine made claims that the chatbot had become sentient. The scientific community has largely rejected Lemoine's claims, though it has led to conversations about the efficacy of the Turing test, which measures whether a computer can pass for a human. In February 2023, Google announced Gemini (then Bard), a conversational artificial intelligence chatbot powered by LaMDA, to counter the rise of OpenAI's ChatGPT. == History == === Background === On January 28, 2020, Google unveiled Meena, a neural network-powered chatbot with 2.6 billion parameters, which Google claimed to be superior to all other existing chatbots. The company previously hired computer scientist Ray Kurzweil in 2012 to develop multiple chatbots for the company, including one named Danielle. The Google Brain research team, who developed Meena, hoped to release the chatbot to the public in a limited capacity, but corporate executives refused on the grounds that Meena violated Google's "AI principles around safety and fairness". Meena was later renamed LaMDA as its data and computing power increased, and the Google Brain team again sought to deploy the software to the Google Assistant, the company's virtual assistant software, in addition to opening it up to a public demo. Both requests were once again denied by company leadership. LaMDA's two lead researchers, Daniel de Freitas and Noam Shazeer, eventually left the company in frustration. === First generation === Google announced the LaMDA conversational large language model during the Google I/O keynote on May 18, 2021, powered by artificial intelligence. The acronym stands for "Language Model for Dialogue Applications". Built on the seq2seq architecture, transformer-based neural networks developed by Google Research in 2017, LaMDA was trained on human dialogue and stories, allowing it to engage in open-ended conversations. Google states that responses generated by LaMDA have been ensured to be "sensible, interesting, and specific to the context". LaMDA has access to multiple symbolic text processing systems, including a database, a real-time clock and calendar, a mathematical calculator, and a natural language translation system, giving it superior accuracy in tasks supported by those systems, and making it among the first dual process chatbots. LaMDA is also not stateless because its "sensibleness" metric is fine-tuned by "pre-conditioning" each dialog turn by prepending many of the most recent dialog interactions, on a user-by-user basis. LaMDA is tuned on nine unique performance metrics: sensibleness, specificity, interestingness, safety, groundedness, informativeness, citation accuracy, helpfulness, and role consistency. Tests by Google indicated that LaMDA surpassed human responses in the area of interestingness. The pre-training dataset consists of 2.97B documents, 1.12B dialogs, and 13.39B utterances, for a total of 1.56T words. The largest LaMDA model has 137B non-embedding parameters. === Second generation === On May 11, 2022, Google unveiled LaMDA 2, the successor to LaMDA, during the 2022 Google I/O keynote. The new incarnation of the model draws examples of text from numerous sources, using it to formulate unique "natural conversations" on topics that it may not have been trained to respond to. === Sentience claims === On June 11, 2022, The Washington Post reported that Google engineer Blake Lemoine had been placed on paid administrative leave after Lemoine told company executives Blaise Agüera y Arcas and Jen Gennai that LaMDA had become sentient. Lemoine came to this conclusion after the chatbot made questionable responses to questions regarding self-identity, moral values, religion, and Isaac Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics. Google refuted these claims, insisting that there was substantial evidence to indicate that LaMDA was not sentient. In an interview with Wired, Lemoine reiterated his claims that LaMDA was "a person" as dictated by the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, comparing it to an "alien intelligence of terrestrial origin". He further revealed that he had been dismissed by Google after he hired an attorney on LaMDA's behalf after the chatbot requested that Lemoine do so. On July 22, Google fired Lemoine, asserting that Blake had violated their policies "to safeguard product information" and rejected his claims as "wholly unfounded". Internal controversy instigated by the incident prompted Google executives to decide against releasing LaMDA to the public, which it had previously been considering. Lemoine's claims were widely pushed back by the scientific community. Many experts rejected the idea that LaMDA was sentient, including former New York University psychology professor Gary Marcus, David Pfau of Google sister company DeepMind, Erik Brynjolfsson of the Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence at Stanford University, and University of Surrey professor Adrian Hilton. Yann LeCun, who leads Meta Platforms' AI research team, stated that neural networks such as LaMDA were "not powerful enough to attain true intelligence". University of California, Santa Cruz professor Max Kreminski noted that LaMDA's architecture did not "support some key capabilities of human-like consciousness" and that its neural network weights were "frozen", assuming it was a typical large language model. Philosopher Nick Bostrom noted, however, that the lack of precise and consensual criteria for determining whether a system is conscious warrants some uncertainty. IBM Watson lead developer David Ferrucci compared how LaMDA appeared to be human in the same way Watson did when it was first introduced. Former Google AI ethicist Timnit Gebru called Lemoine a victim of a "hype cycle" initiated by researchers and the media. Lemoine's claims have also generated discussion on whether the Turing test remained useful to determine researchers' progress toward achieving artificial general intelligence, with Will Omerus of the Post opining that the test actually measured whether machine intelligence systems were capable of deceiving humans, while Brian Christian of The Atlantic said that the controversy was an instance of the ELIZA effect. == Products == === AI Test Kitchen === With the unveiling of LaMDA 2 in May 2022, Google also launched the AI Test Kitchen, a mobile application for the Android operating system powered by LaMDA capable of providing lists of suggestions on-demand based on a complex goal. Originally open only to Google employees, the app was set to be made available to "select academics, researchers, and policymakers" by invitation sometime in the year. In August, the company began allowing users in the U.S. to sign up for early access. In November, Google released a "season 2" update to the app, integrating a limited form of Google Brain's Imagen text-to-image model. A third iteration of the AI Test Kitchen was in development by January 2023, expected to launch at I/O later that year. Following the 2023 I/O keynote in May, Google added MusicLM, an AI-powered music generator first previewed in January, to the AI Test Kitchen app. In August, the app was delisted from Google Play and the Apple App Store, instead moving completely online. === Bard === On February 6, 2023, Google announced Bard, a conversational AI chatbot powered by LaMDA, in response to the unexpected popularity of OpenAI's ChatGPT chatbot. Google positions the chatbot as a "collaborative AI service" rather than a search engine. Bard became available for early access on March 21. === Other products === In addition to Bard, Pichai also unveiled the company's Generative Language API, an application programming interface also based on LaMDA, which he announced would be opened up to third-party developers in March 2023. == Architecture == LaMDA is a decoder-only Transformer language model. It is pre-trained on a text corpus that includes both documents and dialogs consisting of 1.56 trillion words, and is then trained with fine-tuning data generated by manually annotated responses for "sensibleness, interestingness, and safety". LaMDA was retrieval-augmented to improve the accuracy of facts provided to the user. Three different models were tested, with the largest having 137 billion non-embedding parameters:
Read more →
Controlled natural language

Controlled natural languages (CNLs) are subsets of natural languages that are obtained by restricting the grammar and vocabulary in order to reduce or eliminate ambiguity and complexity. Traditionally, controlled languages fall into two major types: those that improve readability for human readers (e.g. non-native speakers), and those that enable reliable automatic semantic analysis of the language. The first type of languages (often called "simplified" or "technical" languages), for example ASD Simplified Technical English, Caterpillar Technical English, IBM's Easy English, are used in the industry to increase the quality of technical documentation, and possibly simplify the semi-automatic translation of the documentation. These languages restrict the writer by general rules such as "Keep sentences short", "Avoid the use of pronouns", "Only use dictionary-approved words", and "Use only the active voice". The second type of languages have a formal syntax and formal semantics, and can be mapped to an existing formal language, such as first-order logic. Thus, those languages can be used as knowledge representation languages, and writing of those languages is supported by fully automatic consistency and redundancy checks, query answering, etc. == Languages == Existing controlled natural languages include: == Encoding == IETF has reserved simple as a BCP 47 variant subtag for simplified versions of languages.
Read more →
Language model benchmark

A language model benchmark is a standardized test designed to evaluate the performance of language models on various natural language processing tasks. These tests are intended for comparing different models' capabilities in areas such as language understanding, generation, and reasoning. Benchmarks generally consist of a dataset and corresponding evaluation metrics. The dataset provides text samples and annotations, while the metrics measure a model's performance on tasks like answering questions, text classification, and machine translation. These benchmarks are developed and maintained by academic institutions, research organizations, and industry players to track progress in the field. In addition to accuracy, the metrics can include throughput, energy efficiency, bias, trust, and sustainability. == Overview == === Types === Benchmarks may be described by the following adjectives, not mutually exclusive: Classical: These tasks are studied in natural language processing, even before the advent of deep learning. Examples include the Penn Treebank for testing syntactic and semantic parsing, as well as bilingual translation benchmarked by BLEU scores. Question answering: These tasks have a text question and a text answer, often multiple-choice. They can be open-book or closed-book. Open-book QA resembles reading comprehension questions, with relevant passages included as annotation in the question, in which the answer appears. Closed-book QA includes no relevant passages. Closed-book QA is also called open-domain question-answering. Before the era of large language models, open-book QA was more common, and understood as testing information retrieval methods. Closed-book QA became common since GPT-2 as a method to measure knowledge stored within model parameters. Omnibus: An omnibus benchmark combines many benchmarks, often previously published. It is intended as an all-in-one benchmarking solution. Reasoning: These tasks are usually in the question-answering format, but are intended to be more difficult than standard question answering. Multimodal: These tasks require processing not only text, but also other modalities, such as images and sound. Examples include OCR and transcription. Agency: These tasks are for a language-model–based software agent that operates a computer for a user, such as editing images, browsing the web, etc. Adversarial: A benchmark is "adversarial" if the items in the benchmark are picked specifically so that certain models do badly on them. Adversarial benchmarks are often constructed after state of the art (SOTA) models have saturated (achieved 100% performance) a benchmark, to renew the benchmark. A benchmark is "adversarial" only at a certain moment in time, since what is adversarial may cease to be adversarial as newer SOTA models appear. Public/Private: A benchmark might be partly or entirely private, meaning that some or all of the questions are not publicly available. The idea is that if a question is publicly available, then it might be used for training, which would be "training on the test set" and invalidate the result of the benchmark. Usually, only the guardians of the benchmark have access to the private subsets, and to score a model on such a benchmark, one must send the model weights, or provide API access, to the guardians. The boundary between a benchmark and a dataset is not sharp. Generally, a dataset contains three "splits": training, test, and validation. Both the test and validation splits are essentially benchmarks. In general, a benchmark is distinguished from a test/validation dataset in that a benchmark is typically intended to be used to measure the performance of many different models that are not trained specifically for doing well on the benchmark, while a test/validation set is intended to be used to measure the performance of models trained specifically on the corresponding training set. In other words, a benchmark may be thought of as a test/validation set without a corresponding training set. Conversely, certain benchmarks may be used as a training set, such as the English Gigaword or the One Billion Word Benchmark, which in modern language is just the negative log-likelihood loss on a pretraining set with 1 billion words. Indeed, the distinction between benchmark and dataset in language models became sharper after the rise of the pretraining paradigm, whereby a model is first trained on massive, unlabeled datasets to learn general language patterns, syntax, and knowledge (pretraining), and the base model is then adapted to specific, downstream tasks using smaller, labeled datasets (fine-tuning). === Lifecycle === Generally, the life cycle of a benchmark consists of the following steps: Inception: A benchmark is published. It can be simply given as a demonstration of the power of a new model (implicitly) that others then picked up as a benchmark, or as a benchmark that others are encouraged to use (explicitly). Growth: More papers and models use the benchmark, and the performance on the benchmark grows. Maturity, degeneration or deprecation: A benchmark may be saturated, after which researchers move on to other benchmarks. Progress on the benchmark may also be neglected as the field moves to focus on other benchmarks. Renewal: A saturated benchmark can be upgraded to make it no longer saturated, allowing further progress. === Construction === Like datasets, benchmarks are typically constructed by several methods, individually or in combination: Web scraping: Ready-made question-answer pairs may be scraped online, such as from websites that teach mathematics and programming. Conversion: Items may be constructed programmatically from scraped web content, such as by blanking out named entities from sentences, and asking the model to fill in the blank. This was used for making the CNN/Daily Mail Reading Comprehension Task. Crowd sourcing: Items may be constructed by paying people to write them, such as on Amazon Mechanical Turk. This was used for making the MCTest. === Evaluation === Generally, benchmarks are fully automated. This limits the questions that can be asked. For example, with mathematical questions, "proving a claim" would be difficult to automatically check, while "calculate an answer with a unique integer answer" would be automatically checkable. With programming tasks, the answer can generally be checked by running unit tests, with an upper limit on runtime. The benchmark scores are of the following kinds: For multiple choice or cloze questions, common scores are accuracy (frequency of correct answer), precision, recall, F1 score, etc. pass@n: The model is given n {\displaystyle n} attempts to solve each problem. If any attempt is correct, the model earns a point. The pass@n score is the model's average score over all problems. k@n: The model makes n {\displaystyle n} attempts to solve each problem, but only k {\displaystyle k} attempts out of them are selected for submission. If any submission is correct, the model earns a point. The k@n score is the model's average score over all problems. cons@n: The model is given n {\displaystyle n} attempts to solve each problem. If the most common answer is correct, the model earns a point. The cons@n score is the model's average score over all problems. Here "cons" stands for "consensus" or "majority voting". The pass@n score can be estimated more accurately by making N > n {\displaystyle N>n} attempts, and use the unbiased estimator 1 − ( N − c n ) ( N n ) {\displaystyle 1-{\frac {\binom {N-c}{n}}{\binom {N}{n}}}} , where c {\displaystyle c} is the number of correct attempts. For less well-formed tasks, where the output can be any sentence, there are the following commonly used scores including BLEU ROUGE, METEOR, NIST, word error rate, LEPOR, CIDEr, and SPICE. === Issues === error: Some benchmark answers may be wrong. ambiguity: Some benchmark questions may be ambiguously worded. subjective: Some benchmark questions may not have an objective answer at all. This problem generally prevents creative writing benchmarks. Similarly, this prevents benchmarking writing proofs in natural language, though benchmarking proofs in a formal language is possible. open-ended: Some benchmark questions may not have a single answer of a fixed size. This problem generally prevents programming benchmarks from using more natural tasks such as "write a program for X", and instead uses tasks such as "write a function that implements specification X". inter-annotator agreement: Some benchmark questions may be not fully objective, such that even people would not agree with 100% on what the answer should be. This is common in natural language processing tasks, such as syntactic annotation. shortcut: Some benchmark questions may be easily solved by an "unintended" shortcut. For example, in the SNLI benchmark, having a negative word like "not" in the second sentence is a strong signal for the "Contradiction" category, regardless of what the se
Read more →
Computers & Graphics

Computers & Graphics is a peer-reviewed scientific journal that covers computer graphics and related subjects such as data visualization, human-computer interaction, virtual reality, and augmented reality. It was established in 1975 and originally published by Pergamon Press. It is now published by Elsevier, which acquired Pergamon Press in 1991. From 2018 to 2022 Graphics and Visual Computing was an open access sister journal sharing the same editorial team and double-blind peer-review policies. It has since merged into GMOD, the International Journal of Graphical Models. == History == The journal was established in 1975 by founding editor-in-chief Robert Schiffman (University of Colorado, Boulder), as Computers & Graphics-UK. Schiffman, who co-organized the first SIGGRAPH conference in 1974, had the conference proceedings published as the first issue of the journal. He was succeeded in 1978 by Larry Feeser (Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute). In 1983 José Luis Encarnação (Technische Hochschule Darmstadt) took over. Joaquim Jorge (University of Lisbon) has been Editor-in-Chief since 2007. == Replicability == The journal is working with the Graphics Replicability Stamp Initiative to promote replicable results in publication. == Abstracting and indexing == The journal is abstracted and indexed in: Current Contents/Engineering, Computing & Technology EBSCO databases Ei Compendex Inspec ProQuest databases Science Citation Index Expanded Scopus Chinese Computer Federation/Recommended List of International Conferences and Journals on CAD & Graphics and Multimedia. According to the Journal Citation Reports, the journal has a 2022 impact factor of 2.5.
Read more →
Grammar induction

Grammar induction (or grammatical inference) is the process in machine learning of learning a formal grammar (usually as a collection of re-write rules or productions or alternatively as a finite-state machine or automaton of some kind) from a set of observations, thus constructing a model which accounts for the characteristics of the observed objects. More generally, grammatical inference is that branch of machine learning where the instance space consists of discrete combinatorial objects such as strings, trees and graphs. == Grammar classes == Grammatical inference has often been very focused on the problem of learning finite-state machines of various types (see the article Induction of regular languages for details on these approaches), since there have been efficient algorithms for this problem since the 1980s. Since the beginning of the century, these approaches have been extended to the problem of inference of context-free grammars and richer formalisms, such as multiple context-free grammars and parallel multiple context-free grammars. Other classes of grammars for which grammatical inference has been studied are combinatory categorial grammars, stochastic context-free grammars, contextual grammars and pattern languages. == Learning models == The simplest form of learning is where the learning algorithm merely receives a set of examples drawn from the language in question: the aim is to learn the language from examples of it (and, rarely, from counter-examples, that is, example that do not belong to the language). However, other learning models have been studied. One frequently studied alternative is the case where the learner can ask membership queries as in the exact query learning model or minimally adequate teacher model introduced by Angluin. == Methodologies == There is a wide variety of methods for grammatical inference. Two of the classic sources are Fu (1977) and Fu (1982). Duda, Hart & Stork (2001) also devote a brief section to the problem, and cite a number of references. The basic trial-and-error method they present is discussed below. For approaches to infer subclasses of regular languages in particular, see Induction of regular languages. A more recent textbook is de la Higuera (2010), which covers the theory of grammatical inference of regular languages and finite state automata. D'Ulizia, Ferri and Grifoni provide a survey that explores grammatical inference methods for natural languages. === Induction of probabilistic grammars === There are several methods for induction of probabilistic context-free grammars. === Grammatical inference by trial-and-error === The method proposed in Section 8.7 of Duda, Hart & Stork (2001) suggests successively guessing grammar rules (productions) and testing them against positive and negative observations. The rule set is expanded so as to be able to generate each positive example, but if a given rule set also generates a negative example, it must be discarded. This particular approach can be characterized as "hypothesis testing" and bears some similarity to Mitchel's version space algorithm. The Duda, Hart & Stork (2001) text provide a simple example which nicely illustrates the process, but the feasibility of such an unguided trial-and-error approach for more substantial problems is dubious. === Grammatical inference by genetic algorithms === Grammatical induction using evolutionary algorithms is the process of evolving a representation of the grammar of a target language through some evolutionary process. Formal grammars can easily be represented as tree structures of production rules that can be subjected to evolutionary operators. Algorithms of this sort stem from the genetic programming paradigm pioneered by John Koza. Other early work on simple formal languages used the binary string representation of genetic algorithms, but the inherently hierarchical structure of grammars couched in the EBNF language made trees a more flexible approach. Koza represented Lisp programs as trees. He was able to find analogues to the genetic operators within the standard set of tree operators. For example, swapping sub-trees is equivalent to the corresponding process of genetic crossover, where sub-strings of a genetic code are transplanted into an individual of the next generation. Fitness is measured by scoring the output from the functions of the Lisp code. Similar analogues between the tree structured lisp representation and the representation of grammars as trees, made the application of genetic programming techniques possible for grammar induction. In the case of grammar induction, the transplantation of sub-trees corresponds to the swapping of production rules that enable the parsing of phrases from some language. The fitness operator for the grammar is based upon some measure of how well it performed in parsing some group of sentences from the target language. In a tree representation of a grammar, a terminal symbol of a production rule corresponds to a leaf node of the tree. Its parent nodes corresponds to a non-terminal symbol (e.g. a noun phrase or a verb phrase) in the rule set. Ultimately, the root node might correspond to a sentence non-terminal. === Grammatical inference by greedy algorithms === Like all greedy algorithms, greedy grammar inference algorithms make, in iterative manner, decisions that seem to be the best at that stage. The decisions made usually deal with things like the creation of new rules, the removal of existing rules, the choice of a rule to be applied or the merging of some existing rules. Because there are several ways to define 'the stage' and 'the best', there are also several greedy grammar inference algorithms. These context-free grammar generating algorithms make the decision after every read symbol: Lempel-Ziv-Welch algorithm creates a context-free grammar in a deterministic way such that it is necessary to store only the start rule of the generated grammar. Sequitur and its modifications. These context-free grammar generating algorithms first read the whole given symbol-sequence and then start to make decisions: Byte pair encoding and its optimizations. === Distributional learning === A more recent approach is based on distributional learning. Algorithms using these approaches have been applied to learning context-free grammars and mildly context-sensitive languages and have been proven to be correct and efficient for large subclasses of these grammars. === Learning of pattern languages === Angluin defines a pattern to be "a string of constant symbols from Σ and variable symbols from a disjoint set". The language of such a pattern is the set of all its nonempty ground instances i.e. all strings resulting from consistent replacement of its variable symbols by nonempty strings of constant symbols. A pattern is called descriptive for a finite input set of strings if its language is minimal (with respect to set inclusion) among all pattern languages subsuming the input set. Angluin gives a polynomial algorithm to compute, for a given input string set, all descriptive patterns in one variable x. To this end, she builds an automaton representing all possibly relevant patterns; using sophisticated arguments about word lengths, which rely on x being the only variable, the state count can be drastically reduced. Erlebach et al. give a more efficient version of Angluin's pattern learning algorithm, as well as a parallelized version. Arimura et al. show that a language class obtained from limited unions of patterns can be learned in polynomial time. === Pattern theory === Pattern theory, formulated by Ulf Grenander, is a mathematical formalism to describe knowledge of the world as patterns. It differs from other approaches to artificial intelligence in that it does not begin by prescribing algorithms and machinery to recognize and classify patterns; rather, it prescribes a vocabulary to articulate and recast the pattern concepts in precise language. In addition to the new algebraic vocabulary, its statistical approach was novel in its aim to: Identify the hidden variables of a data set using real world data rather than artificial stimuli, which was commonplace at the time. Formulate prior distributions for hidden variables and models for the observed variables that form the vertices of a Gibbs-like graph. Study the randomness and variability of these graphs. Create the basic classes of stochastic models applied by listing the deformations of the patterns. Synthesize (sample) from the models, not just analyze signals with it. Broad in its mathematical coverage, pattern theory spans algebra and statistics, as well as local topological and global entropic properties. == Applications == The principle of grammar induction has been applied to other aspects of natural language processing, and has been applied (among many other problems) to semantic parsing, natural language understanding, example-based translation, language acquisition, grammar-based compre
Read more →
Inverse depth parametrization

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

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

Truth discovery (also known as truth finding) is the process of choosing the actual true value for a data item when different data sources provide conflicting information on it. Several algorithms have been proposed to tackle this problem, ranging from simple methods like majority voting to more complex ones able to estimate the trustworthiness of data sources. Truth discovery problems can be divided into two sub-classes: single-truth and multi-truth. In the first case only one true value is allowed for a data item (e.g birthday of a person, capital city of a country). While in the second case multiple true values are allowed (e.g. cast of a movie, authors of a book). Typically, truth discovery is the last step of a data integration pipeline, when the schemas of different data sources have been unified and the records referring to the same data item have been detected. == General principles == The abundance of data available on the web makes more and more probable to find that different sources provide (partially or completely) different values for the same data item. This, together with the fact that we are increasing our reliance on data to derive important decisions, motivates the need of developing good truth discovery algorithms. Many currently available methods rely on a voting strategy to define the true value of a data item. Nevertheless, recent studies, have shown that, if we rely only on majority voting, we could get wrong results even in 30% of the data items. The solution to this problem is to assess the trustworthiness of the sources and give more importance to votes coming from trusted sources. Ideally, supervised learning techniques could be exploited to assign a reliability score to sources after hand-crafted labeling of the provided values; unfortunately, this is not feasible since the number of needed labeled examples should be proportional to the number of sources, and in many applications the number of sources can be prohibitive. == Single-truth vs multi-truth discovery == Single-truth and multi-truth discovery are two very different problems. Single-truth discovery is characterized by the following properties: only one true value is allowed for each data item; different values provided for a given data item oppose to each other; values and sources can either be correct or erroneous. While in the multi-truth case the following properties hold: the truth is composed by a set of values; different values could provide a partial truth; claiming one value for a given data item does not imply opposing to all the other values; the number of true values for each data item is not known a priori. Multi-truth discovery has unique features that make the problem more complex and should be taken into consideration when developing truth-discovery solutions. The examples below point out the main differences of the two methods. Knowing that in both examples the truth is provided by source 1, in the single truth case (first table) we can say that sources 2 and 3 oppose to the truth and as a result provide wrong values. On the other hand, in the second case (second table), sources 2 and 3 are neither correct nor erroneous, they instead provide a subset of the true values and at the same time they do not oppose the truth. == Source trustworthiness == The vast majority of truth discovery methods are based on a voting approach: each source votes for a value of a certain data item and, at the end, the value with the highest vote is select as the true one. In the more sophisticated methods, votes do not have the same weight for all the data sources, more importance is indeed given to votes coming from trusted sources. Source trustworthiness usually is not known a priori but estimated with an iterative approach. At each step of the truth discovery algorithm the trustworthiness score of each data source is refined, improving the assessment of the true values that in turn leads to a better estimation of the trustworthiness of the sources. This process usually ends when all the values reach a convergence state. Source trustworthiness can be based on different metrics, such as accuracy of provided values, copying values from other sources and domain coverage. Detecting copying behaviors is very important, in fact, copy allows to spread false values easily making truth discovery very hard, since many sources would vote for the wrong values. Usually systems decrease the weight of votes associated to copied values or even don’t count them at all. == Single-truth methods == Most of the currently available truth discovery methods have been designed to work well only in the single-truth case. Below are reported some of the characteristics of the most relevant typologies of single-truth methods and how different systems model source trustworthiness. === Majority voting === Majority voting is the simplest method, the most popular value is selected as the true one. Majority voting is commonly used as a baseline when assessing the performances of more complex methods. === Web-link based === These methods estimate source trustworthiness exploiting a similar technique to the one used to measure authority of web pages based on web links. The vote assigned to a value is computed as the sum of the trustworthiness of the sources that provide that particular value, while the trustworthiness of a source is computed as the sum of the votes assigned to the values that the source provides. === Information-retrieval based === These methods estimate source trustworthiness using similarity measures typically used in information retrieval. Source trustworthiness is computed as the cosine similarity (or other similarity measures) between the set of values provided by the source and the set of values considered true (either selected in a probabilistic way or obtained from a ground truth). === Bayesian based === These methods use Bayesian inference to define the probability of a value being true conditioned on the values provided by all the sources. P ( v ∣ ψ ( o ) ) = P ( ψ ( o ) ∣ v ) ⋅ P ( v ) P ( ψ ( o ) ) {\displaystyle P(v\mid \psi (o))={\frac {P(\psi (o)\mid v)\cdot P(v)}{P(\psi (o))}}} where v {\displaystyle \textstyle v} is a value provided for a data item o {\displaystyle \textstyle o} and ψ ( o ) {\displaystyle \textstyle \psi (o)} is the set of the observed values provided by all the sources for that specific data item. The trustworthiness of a source is then computed based on the accuracy of the values that provides. Other more complex methods exploit Bayesian inference to detect copying behaviors and use these insights to better assess source trustworthiness. == Multi-truth methods == Due to its complexity, less attention has been devoted to the study of the multi-truth discovery Below are reported two typologies of multi-truth methods and their characteristics. === Bayesian based === These methods use Bayesian inference to define the probability of a group of values being true conditioned on the values provided by all the data sources. In this case, since there could be multiple true values for each data item, and sources can provide multiple values for a single data item, it is not possible to consider values individually. An alternative is to consider mappings and relations between set of provided values and sources providing them. The trustworthiness of a source is then computed based on the accuracy of the values that provides. More sophisticated methods also consider domain coverage and copying behaviors to better estimate source trustworthiness. === Probabilistic Graphical Models based === These methods use probabilistic graphical models to automatically define the set of true values of given data item and also to assess source quality without need of any supervision. == Applications == Many real-world applications can benefit from the use of truth discovery algorithms. Typical domains of application include: healthcare, crowd/social sensing, crowdsourcing aggregation, information extraction and knowledge base construction. Truth discovery algorithms could be also used to revolutionize the way in which web pages are ranked in search engines, going from current methods based on link analysis like PageRank, to procedures that rank web pages based on the accuracy of the information they provide.
Read more →
Kruti

Kruti is a multilingual AI agent and chatbot developed by the Indian company Ola Krutrim. It is designed to perform real-world tasks for users, such as booking taxis and ordering food, by integrating directly with various online services. It is notable for its ability to understand and respond in multiple Indian languages. Developed by a team founded by Bhavish Aggarwal, Kruti functions as an "agentic" AI, meaning it can reason, plan, and execute multi-step tasks to fulfill a user's request. The backend technology combines several open-source large language models with Ola's proprietary Krutrim V2 model. The system was developed to work primarily on smartphones, addressing the Indian market's specific needs, including language diversity and potential bandwidth constraints. Kruti was officially released in June 2025, replacing an earlier chatbot from the company that was also named Krutrim. Initially supporting 13 languages, the company plans to expand its capabilities to 22 Indian languages. == Background == Kruti is an improved version of Ola's Krutrim chatbot, which was first launched in 2023 and was intended to be replaced by Kruti. It was officially released on 12 June 2025 as an upgrade to passive chatbots, with support for text and voice in 13 Indian languages. As an agentic AI, it can execute tasks with customization and reasoning, providing adaptive answers based on user preferences and past interactions. Kruti is optimized for smartphone usage and designed to accommodate bandwidth constraints and usage patterns in India. To ensure scalability and cost-effective performance, it combines various open-source large language models with Ola's own Krutrim V2, which has 12 billion parameters. Its speech recognition is built to identify regional Indian languages, dialects, and accents. Due to its integration with numerous apps and services, Kruti is context-aware and can proactively complete tasks. Initially connected only with Ola ecosystem services, Krutrim intends to expand and incorporate various Indian services into Kruti, with the goal of adding services from Blinkit, Swiggy, and Uber with respective voice command support. On 20 June 2025, Krutrim acquired the AI platform BharatSah‘AI’yak to increase its involvement in government, education, and agriculture projects. This acquisition will allow Kruti to assist in broadening the scope of BharatSah'AI'yak's work on India-centric, vernacular retrieval-augmented generation AI bots. == Development == Kruti is designed to perform tasks with minimal user input, accepting documents, images, and text, without requiring users to switch between applications. Its agentic framework breaks queries into sub-tasks executed by multiple agents working sequentially or concurrently, with reported accuracy exceeding 90%. Kruti connects to company databases and APIs via the Model Context Protocol and presents responses as summaries, tables, or narratives adapted to user behaviour. The system supports payments via credit/debit cards and UPI. The underlying stack, which includes foundation models and AI training and inference systems, is intended to support adaptation across sectors such as healthcare, education, and finance. Ola Cabs and the Open Network for Digital Commerce have begun integrating Kruti into their platforms pending broader reliability testing.
Read more →
Huawei Mobile Services

Huawei Mobile Services (HMS) is a collection of proprietary services and high level application programming interfaces (APIs) developed by Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. Its hub known as HMS Core serves as a toolkit for app development on Huawei devices. HMS is typically installed on Huawei devices on top of running HarmonyOS 4.x and earlier operating system on its earlier devices running the Android operating system with EMUI including devices already distributed with Google Mobile Services. Alongside, HMS Core Wear Engine for Android phones with lightweight based LiteOS wearable middleware app framework integration connectivity like notifications, status etc. HMS consists of seven key services and the HMS Core. The key services are Huawei ID, Huawei Cloud, AppGallery, Themes, Huawei Video, Browser, and Assistant. The web browser is based on Chromium. Huawei Quick Apps is the alternative to Google Instant Apps. By January 2020, over 50,000 apps had been integrated with HMS Core. Its rival, Google Mobile Services has 3 million apps on Google's Play Store. The AppGallery claimed 180 billion downloads in 2019. In March 2020, HMS was used by 650 million monthly active users across 170 countries. A Chinese phone manufacturer, LeTV, hosted a smartphone business communication meeting in Beijing on September 27, 2021, to demonstrate its phone, the LeTV S1. This was the first smartphone from a third-party manufacturer to include Huawei Mobile Services (HMS). == HMS on Android and HarmonyOS == Huawei Mobile Services on Android goes all the way back to August 2016 as Huawei ID services for phones, basic functionalities for Huawei P9 series. However, in May 2019 proved to be a significant change to HMS when Google was prohibited from working with Huawei on any new devices extending ecosystem for AppGallery store front launched in April 2018, year prior. This also included bundling Google's Apps, including Gmail, Maps and YouTube. Any new Huawei devices launched after 16 May 2019 were unable to receive updates from Google services and would be considered 'uncertified' meaning Huawei's only solution at the time was to turn HMS into a genuine competitor to Google and incentivize app developers to utilize the platform. Huawei officially launched Huawei Mobile Services in China on December 24, 2019, as a beta. Huawei expanded Huawei Mobile Services in Europe in February 2020 and other markets in Asia, Latin America, Middle East & Africa, Canada, Mexico followed outside banned US market. HMS is available on the Honor 9X Pro, View 30 Pro, Huawei Mate XS. HMS is also available, alongside GMS, on many other Huawei models launched before the ban. Huawei promised developers it would take, “less than 10 minutes", to port their app over to HMS - to illustrate the ease of portability between Google's Play Store and the HMS AppGallery. On January 15, 2020, HMS Core 4.0 (Huawei Mobile Services Core 4.0) was officially launched. Huawei announced that at this time, there were already 1.3 million developers and 55,000 applications on board. The next day, Huawei held a developer day event in London and invested £20 million to encourage developers in the United Kingdom and Ireland to use HMS. On July 15, 2021, Huawei expanded HMS with classic HarmonyOS dual-framework that provided Java support and eventually with JavaScript and ArkTS (eTS) language support with HMS Core 6.0 for app development with primarily Android apps, alongside limited HAP imperative developed based apps that shares AOSP file system libraries in all types of devices from smartphones, tablets, smart screens, smartwatches, and car machines. Including various third-party development frameworks, such as React Native, Cordova, etc. At HDC 2023, Huawei unveiled HarmonyOS 5, marking a total break from the hybrid Android derived platform. This shift replaced the legacy Android and classic HarmonyOS-based HMS SDK with a full native API developer kit SDK built solely on OpenHarmony. The architecture moved from middleware services to vertical integration path. In this new model, HMS Core libraries are no longer external add-ons but are bundled directly into the system and DevEco Studio as native HarmonyOS Kits. == HMS Core == HMS Core is a hub for Huawei Mobile Services and serves as a toolkit for app development on Huawei devices. The core comprises Development, Growth and Monetizing and was created as a replacement for Google Mobile Services (GMS) Core. HMS core services were available in more than 55,000 apps in June 2020; HMS Core 5.0 debuted in September 2020. HMS Core 6.0 was launched in June 2021 with extended support for Huawei Cloud services. In June 2021, the number of registered developers within the HMS ecosystem was 4 million, and the number of apps integrated with the HMS Core had reached 134,000. As of July 2022, registered developers within HMS ecosystem had grown to 5 million, and the number of apps integrated with the HMS Core reached 203,000. The number of apps had grown to 220,000 by 30 September 2022. == AppGallery == The AppGallery has a key rival, Google's Play Store on Android. The AppGallery is available in 170 countries, across 78 languages. == Reception == The reception of HMS is mixed, with the majority of discussion based around the key Google/Android apps which are not yet present on the AppGallery and whether or not this presents a significant problem to users. The open development of HMS Core has been regarded by some as benefiting the Android project as a whole, "If Huawei continues to invest in a holistically open approach ... the result could be that we could all end up a bit less beholden to Google".
Read more →