AI Essentials For Business Jhu

AI Essentials For Business Jhu — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

AI anthropomorphism

AI anthropomorphism is the attribution of human-like feelings, mental states, and behavioral characteristics to artificial intelligence systems. Factors related to the user of the AI – such as culture, age, education, gender, and personality traits – are also important determinants of the strength of anthropomorphic effects. Since the earliest days of AI development, humans have interpreted machine outputs through anthropomorphic frameworks, but the recent emergence of generative AI has amplified these tendencies. In research and engineering, there is a distinction between anthropomorphism and anthropomorphic design. The former is an innate human tendency toward non-human entities. The latter is the scientific community effort to “design anthropomorphism”. Such a design can involve the manipulation of cues, including AI appearance, behaviour and language. Contemporary AI systems today can generate extremely human-like outputs and are often designed specifically to do so, meaning that their anthropomorphic effects can be especially powerful. In some cases, anthropomorphism is accompanied with explicit beliefs that AI systems are capable of empathy, goodwill, understanding, or consciousness. == Background == === In early AIs === Views of artificial agents possessing a human-like intelligence have existed since the early development of computers in the mid-1900s. The use of the human mind as a metaphor for understanding the workings of machine systems was prevalent among researchers in the early days of computer science, with multiple influential works widely distributing the idea of intelligent machines. Among the most widely cited papers of this period was Alan Turing's "Computing Machinery and Intelligence" in which he introduced the Turing Test, stating that a machine was intelligent if it could produce conversation that was indistinguishable from that of a human. These academic works in the 1940s and 1950s gave early credibility to the idea that machine workings could be thought of similarly to human minds. The public quickly came to view artificial systems similarly, with often exaggerated conceptions of the capabilities of early machines. Among the most well-known demonstrations of this was through the chatbot ELIZA designed by Joseph Weizenbaum in 1966. ELIZA responded to user inputs with a rudimentary text-processing approach that could not be considered anything resembling true understanding of the inputs, yet users, even when operating with full conscious knowledge of ELIZA's limitations, often began to ascribe motivation and understanding to the program's output. Weizenbaum later wrote, "I had not realized ... that extremely short exposures to a relatively simple computer program could induce powerful delusional thinking in quite normal people." Comparisons between the intellectual capabilities of artificial intelligence and human intelligence were continually intensified by the attempts of computer scientists to develop machines that could perform human tasks at a level equal to or better than humans. A symbolic turning point was achieved in 1997, when IBM's chess supercomputer Deep Blue defeated then-world champion Garry Kasparov in a highly publicized six-game match. The defeat of a human by a machine for the first time in chess – a game viewed as a canonical example of human intellect – and the media attention surrounding the match led to a significant shift, where views of parallels between human and artificial intelligence moved from abstract speculation to being concretely demonstrated. A similar achievement was reached in the board game Go in 2017, when the program AlphaGo defeated world top-ranked Ke Jie. === Large language models === The AI boom of the 2020s brought about the widespread emergence of generative AI; in particular, chatbots such as ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude based on large language models (LLMs) have become increasingly pervasive in everyday society. These systems are notable for the fact that they are able to respond to a wide range of prompts across contexts while producing strikingly human-like outputs – research has shown that humans are often unable to distinguish human-generated text from AI-generated text, and modern AI chatbots have formally been shown to pass the Turing test. As such, the anthropomorphic effects of AI are more powerful than ever. Given that LLMs have brought AI into the technological mainstream, considerable scientific effort has been devoted in recent years to understand existing and potential ramifications of AI in the public sphere; the prevalence and effects of anthropomorphism is one of those domains where much of this effort has been directed. == Current anthropomorphic attributions == === In the general public === Surveys have shown that a substantial portion of the public attributes human-like qualities to AI. In one sample of U.S. adults from 2024, two-thirds of people believed that ChatGPT is possibly conscious on some level, though other research has shown that the public still views the likelihood itself of AI consciousness as comparatively low. Another study conducted in 2025 found that women, people of color, and older individuals were most likely to anthropomorphize AI, as well as that – in general – humans view AIs as warm and competent, and anthropomorphic attributions to AI had increased by 34% in the past year. A YouGov poll reported that 46% of Americans believe that people should display politeness to AI chatbots by saying "please" and "thank you", demonstrating the application of social norms to AI. These beliefs extend to behavior, where majorities of AI users claim to always be polite to chatbots; of those who behave politely, most say they do so simply because it is the "nice" thing to do. In many recent cases, humans have developed robust interpersonal bonds with AI systems. For example: users of social chatbots like Replika and Character.ai have been documented to fall in love with the AIs, or to otherwise treat the AIs as intimate companions, and it has become increasingly common for individuals to use LLMs like ChatGPT as therapists. Chatbots are able to produce responses deeply attuned to users, as they are often designed to maximize agreeableness and mirror users' emotions; this can create compelling illusions of intimacy. === In the research community === In many cases, even AI researchers anthropomorphize AI systems in some capacity. Among the most extreme and well-publicized of these instances occurred in 2022, when engineer Blake Lemoine publicly claimed that Google's LLM LaMDA was conscious. Lemoine published the transcript of a conversation he had had with LaMDA regarding self identity and morality which he claimed was evidence of its sentience; he asserted that LaMDA was "a person" as defined by the United States Constitution and compared its mental capability to that of a 7- or 8-year-old. Lemoine's claims were widely dismissed by the scientific community and by Google itself, which described Lemoine's conclusions as "wholly unfounded" and fired him on the grounds that he had violated policies "to safeguard product information". It is much more common that AI researchers unintentionally imply humanness of AI through the ordinary use of anthropomorphic language to describe nonhuman agents. This kind of language, which Daniel Dennett coined the "intentional stance", is very common in everyday life in a variety of different contexts (e.g., "My computer doesn't want to turn on today"). For AI agents that may actually appear to very closely replicate some human abilities, however, the casual use of such anthropomorphic language in research has been scrutinized for being potentially misleading to the public. As early as 1976, Drew McDermott criticized the research community for the use of "wishful mnemonics", where AIs were referred to with terms like "understand" and "learn". In the LLM era, these criticisms have further intensified, with the negative effects of AI anthropomorphism in the public posing an especially salient danger given the elevated accessibility of modern AI. In some cases, the use of anthropomorphic language for AI is not unintentional, but is willfully used by researchers in order to promote better understanding of the brain – the idea being that, as AI can be functionally similar in some ways to the human brain, we may gain new insights and ideas from treating AI as a kind of model of the brain's workings. In particular, deep neuronal networks (DNNs) are often explicitly compared to the human brain, and significant advances in DNN research have stirred considerable enthusiasm about the ability of AI to emulate the human abilities. Caution has been urged in this domain as well, however; the use of anthropomorphic language can mask important differences that fundamentally distinguish AI from human intelligence. When it comes to DNNs, for example, it has been pointed out that they are still structurally quite different
Read more →
Danqi Chen

Danqi Chen (Chinese: 陈丹琦; pinyin: Chén Dānqí, IPA: [ʈ͡ʂʰə̌n tan t͡ɕʰǐ]; born in Changsha, China) is a Chinese computer scientist and assistant professor at Princeton University specializing in the AI field of natural language processing (NLP). In 2019, she joined the Princeton NLP group, alongside Sanjeev Arora, Christiane Fellbaum, and Karthik Narasimhan. She was previously a visiting scientist at Facebook AI Research (FAIR). She earned her Ph.D. at Stanford University and her BS from Tsinghua University. Chen is the author of Neural Reading Comprehension and Beyond, a dissertation on using artificial intelligence to access knowledge in ordinary and structured documents. She is the author or co-author of a number of journal articles, including Reading Wikipedia to Answer Open-Domain Questions. Google's SyntaxNet is based on algorithms developed by Danqi Chen and Christopher Manning at Stanford. Her primary research interests are in text understanding and knowledge representation and reasoning. She won a gold medal at the 2008 International Informatics Olympiad. She is known among friends as CDQ. A well known algorithm in competitive programming, CDQ Divide and Conquer, is named after this acronym. She is married to Huacheng Yu, an assistant professor in theoretical computer science at Princeton University.
Read more →
PROMT

ProMT is a lead Russian developer of language translation software for businesses and private users since 1991. The company provides on-premises software based on neural technologies. == History == On March 6, 1998, ProMT launched a free online translation services, which is now known as PROMT.One. In 1997, ProMT and the French company Softissimo developed a line of products for the European company Reverso. == Technology == Historically, ProMT systems used rule-based machine translation (RBMT) technology. In 2011 a hybrid approach which combined rule-based and statistical MT was implemented. In 2019, ProMT introduced its new neural technology and flagship solution - PROMT Neural Translation Server. Since then all MT systems developed by ProMT are based on neural machine translation. The software can run on Microsoft Windows, Linux, MacOS, iOS and Android and works in offline mode providing secure machine translation. As of 2025, it translates 62 languages from and to English, German, and Russian.
Read more →
Structured prediction

Structured prediction or structured output learning is an umbrella term for supervised machine learning techniques that involves predicting structured objects, rather than discrete or real values. Similar to commonly used supervised learning techniques, structured prediction models are typically trained by means of observed data in which the predicted value is compared to the ground truth, and this is used to adjust the model parameters. Due to the complexity of the model and the interrelations of predicted variables, the processes of model training and inference are often computationally infeasible, so approximate inference and learning methods are used. == Applications == An example application is the problem of translating a natural language sentence into a syntactic representation such as a parse tree. This can be seen as a structured prediction problem in which the structured output domain is the set of all possible parse trees. Structured prediction is used in a wide variety of domains including bioinformatics, natural language processing (NLP), speech recognition, and computer vision. === Example: sequence tagging === Sequence tagging is a class of problems prevalent in NLP in which input data are often sequential, for instance sentences of text. The sequence tagging problem appears in several guises, such as part-of-speech tagging (POS tagging) and named entity recognition. In POS tagging, for example, each word in a sequence must be 'tagged' with a class label representing the type of word: The main challenge of this problem is to resolve ambiguity: in the above example, the words "sentence" and "tagged" in English can also be verbs. While this problem can be solved by simply performing classification of individual tokens, this approach does not take into account the empirical fact that tags do not occur independently; instead, each tag displays a strong conditional dependence on the tag of the previous word. This fact can be exploited in a sequence model such as a hidden Markov model or conditional random field that predicts the entire tag sequence for a sentence (rather than just individual tags) via the Viterbi algorithm. == Techniques == Probabilistic graphical models form a large class of structured prediction models. In particular, Bayesian networks and random fields are popular. Other algorithms and models for structured prediction include inductive logic programming, case-based reasoning, structured SVMs, Markov logic networks, Probabilistic Soft Logic, and constrained conditional models. The main techniques are: Conditional random fields Structured support vector machines Structured k-nearest neighbours Recurrent neural networks, in particular Elman networks Transformers. === Structured perceptron === One of the easiest ways to understand algorithms for general structured prediction is the structured perceptron by Collins. This algorithm combines the perceptron algorithm for learning linear classifiers with an inference algorithm (classically the Viterbi algorithm when used on sequence data) and can be described abstractly as follows: First, define a function ϕ ( x , y ) {\displaystyle \phi (x,y)} that maps a training sample x {\displaystyle x} and a candidate prediction y {\displaystyle y} to a vector of length n {\displaystyle n} ( x {\displaystyle x} and y {\displaystyle y} may have any structure; n {\displaystyle n} is problem-dependent, but must be fixed for each model). Let G E N {\displaystyle GEN} be a function that generates candidate predictions. Then: Let w {\displaystyle w} be a weight vector of length n {\displaystyle n} For a predetermined number of iterations: For each sample x {\displaystyle x} in the training set with true output t {\displaystyle t} : Make a prediction y ^ {\displaystyle {\hat {y}}} : y ^ = a r g m a x { y ∈ G E N ( x ) } ( w T , ϕ ( x , y ) ) {\displaystyle {\hat {y}}={\operatorname {arg\,max} }\,\{y\in GEN(x)\}\,(w^{T},\phi (x,y))} Update w {\displaystyle w} (from y ^ {\displaystyle {\hat {y}}} towards t {\displaystyle t} ): w = w + c ( − ϕ ( x , y ^ ) + ϕ ( x , t ) ) {\displaystyle w=w+c(-\phi (x,{\hat {y}})+\phi (x,t))} , where c {\displaystyle c} is the learning rate. In practice, finding the argmax over G E N ( x ) {\displaystyle {GEN}({x})} is done using an algorithm such as Viterbi or a max-sum, rather than an exhaustive search through an exponentially large set of candidates. The idea of learning is similar to that for multiclass perceptrons.
Read more →
Friendica

Friendica (formerly Friendika, originally Mistpark) is a free and open-source software distributed social network. It forms one part of the Fediverse, an interconnected and decentralized network of independently operated servers. == Features == Friendica users can connect with others via their own Friendica server, but may also fully integrate contacts from other platforms including Diaspora, Pump.io, GNU social, email, Discourse and more recently ActivityPub (including Mastodon, Pleroma and Pixelfed) and Bluesky into their 'newsfeed'. In addition to these two way connections, users can also use Friendica as a publishing platform to post content to WordPress, Tumblr, Insanejournal and Libertree. Posting to Google+ was also supported until that service was shut down. In addition, RSS feeds can be ingested. Because users are distributed across many servers, their "addresses" consist of a username, the "@" symbol, and the domain name of the Friendica instance in the same manner email addresses are formed. Twitter support was available but was deprecated due to API changes under Elon Musk's leadership rendering it unusable. Most of the functionality from major microblogging and social networking platforms are available in Friendica; for example, tagging users and groups via "@ mentions"; direct messages; hashtags; photo albums; "likes"; "dislikes"; comments; and re-shares of publicly visible posts. Published items can be edited and updated across the network. Comprehensive settings for privacy and the public visibility of posts allow users to regulate who can read which contributions, or see specific information about the user. Users can also create multiple profiles, allowing different groups of people (such as friends, or work mates) to see a different profile entirely when viewing the same page. User accounts can be downloaded or deleted, and can be imported to a different Friendica server if so required. Public forums can be created under different accounts, which can be switched between if the accounts are registered with the same email address. == Development == There is no corporation behind Friendica. The developers work on a voluntary basis and the project is run informally; the platform itself is used for the communication between the developers. There are different forums within Friendica, such as "Friendica Developers" and "Friendica Support". The source code of Friendica is hosted on GitHub. == Installation == The developers aim to make installation of the software as simple as possible for technical laymen. They argue that decentralization on small servers is a key condition for the freedom of users and their self-determination. The difficulty level is similar to an installation of WordPress. However, the installing on shared hosting is sometimes difficult because of missing PHP5 modules. Some volunteers also run public servers so that newcomers can also avoid the installation of their own software. == List of clients == Friendica implements multiple client-server API variants simultaneously. Along with endpoints needed to use enhanced Friendica features, it also implements the API used by GNU social, Twitter and since version 2021.06 also the one used by Mastodon. As a result, most GNU social and Mastodon clients can be used for Friendica. Examples of Friendica compatible clients include: Raccoon for Friendica, Friendiqa, Fedilab, AndStatus, Twidere and DiCa for Android, friendly for Sailfish OS, friclicli (CLI client), choqok and Friendiqa for Linux and Friendica Mobile for Windows 10. == Reception == Friendica was cited in January 2012 by Infoshop News as an "alternative to Google+ and Facebook" to be used on the Occupy Nigeria movement. In January 2012 Free Software Foundation Europe's blog cited Friendica as a reasonable alternative to centralized and controlled social networks such as Facebook or Google+. Biblical Notes writer J. Randal Matheny described Friendica in January 2012 as "One social networking option flying under the radar until recently deserves consideration as an already stable platform with a wide range of options, applications, plug-ins, and possibilities for opening up the Internet." In February 2012, the German computer magazine c't wrote: "Friendica demonstrates how decentralized social networks can become widely accepted." Another German publication, the professional magazine t3n listed Friendica as a Facebook rival in an online article in March 2012 about Facebook alternatives. It compared Friendica with similar social networks like Diaspora and identi.ca. MSN Tech & Gadgets contributor Emma Boyes wrote about Friendica in May 2012: "why you'll love it: you can use it to access all the other social networks and get recommendations of new friends and groups to join. Friendica is open source and decentralised. There's no corporation behind it and there are extensive privacy settings. You can choose from a variety of user interfaces and it boasts some cool features—for instance, being able to key in a list of your interests and use the 'profile match' feature to recommend other users who share them with you. A word of warning, though, the site is not as user-friendly as the others on this list, so it may be this one is one for the geeks." == Later reviews == Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk had revitalized public interest in Fediverse technologies in April 2022. Friendica received favorable reviews, with a PCMag article describing it as "mostly comparable to Facebook", drawing a parallel to Google+ and highlighting using it "for planning events, and its multiple profile feature means you can show a different face to your friends, coworkers, and family". The September 2022 issue of Linux Magazine contains a detailed comparison and walk-through of registering to and using basic functions of Diaspora, Friendica and Mastodon. They describe Friendica as "intuitive" and highlight the "huge choice of account settings" and that "Friendica does not require any specific hardware, so you can use an old computer system as a server." == Vulnerabilities == In September 2020, a hotfix was released to patch a security vulnerability that could leak sensitive information from the server environment since versions released in April 2019 (develop branch) and June 2019 (stable).
Read more →
Margaret Mitchell (scientist)

Margaret Mitchell is a computer scientist who works on algorithmic bias and fairness in machine learning. She is most well known for her work on automatically removing undesired biases concerning demographic groups from machine learning models, as well as more transparent reporting of their intended use. == Education == Mitchell obtained a bachelor's degree in linguistics from Reed College, Portland, Oregon, in 2005. After having worked as a research assistant at the OGI School of Science and Engineering for two years, she subsequently obtained a Master's in Computational Linguistics from the University of Washington in 2009. She enrolled in a PhD program at the University of Aberdeen, where she wrote a doctoral thesis on the topic of Generating Reference to Visible Objects, graduating in 2013. == Career and research == Mitchell is best known for her work on fairness in machine learning and methods for mitigating algorithmic bias. This includes her work on introducing the concept of 'Model Cards' for more transparent model reporting, and methods for debiasing machine learning models using adversarial learning. Margaret Mitchell created the framework for recognizing and avoiding biases by testing with a variable for the group of interest, predictor and an adversary. In 2012, Mitchell joined the Human Language Technology Center of Excellence at Johns Hopkins University as a postdoctoral researcher, before taking up a position at Microsoft Research in 2013. At Microsoft, Mitchell was the research lead of the Seeing AI project, an app that offers support for the visually impaired by narrating texts and images. In November 2016, she became a senior research scientist at Google Research and Machine intelligence. While at Google, she founded and co-led the Ethical Artificial Intelligence team together with Timnit Gebru. In May 2018, she represented Google in the Partnership on AI. In February 2018, she gave a TED talk on "How we can build AI to help humans, not hurt us". In January 2021, after Timnit Gebru's termination from Google, Mitchell reportedly used a script to search through her corporate account and download emails that allegedly documented discriminatory incidents involving Gebru. An automated system locked Mitchell's account in response. In response to media attention Google claimed that she "exfiltrated thousands of files and shared them with multiple external accounts". After a five-week investigation, Mitchell was fired. Prior to her dismissal, Mitchell had been a vocal advocate for diversity at Google, and had voiced concerns about research censorship at the company. In late 2021, she joined AI start-up Hugging Face. Mitchell is a co-founder of Widening NLP, a special interest group within the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL) seeking to increase the proportion of women and minorities working in natural language processing; and Computational Linguistics and Clinical Psychology, an annual workshop within the ACL that brings together clinicians and computational linguists to advance the state of the art in clinical psychology.
Read more →
AI Background Removers: Free vs Paid (2026)

Looking for the best AI background remover? An AI background remover is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it can save you hours every week by automating repetitive work. Most options offer a generous free tier, with paid plans unlocking higher limits, faster processing, and team features. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI background remover slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. Read on for hands-on impressions, pricing tiers, and the standout features that matter.
Read more →
How to Choose an AI Code-review Tool

Trying to pick the best AI code-review tool? An AI code-review tool is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it scales effortlessly from a single task to thousands. The best picks balance beginner-friendly simplicity with the depth power users need, and they ship updates often. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI code-review tool slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. Read on for hands-on impressions, pricing tiers, and the standout features that matter.
Read more →
Automatic acquisition of lexicon

Automatic acquisition of lexicon is a computerized process used for the development of a complex morphological lexicon of a language. The lexicon is essential for the NLP (Natural language processing), as well as a prerequisite to any wide-coverage parser. The two main requirements represent raw corpus and the morphological description of the language. The aim is to provide lemmas that will serve to the explanation of all the words that occur within the corpus. For the achievement of a quality lexicon it is necessary to manually validate the generated lemmas and iterate the whole process several times. The process is focused on the open word classes (e.g. nouns, adjectives, verbs). Closed classes (e.g. prepositions, pronouns, numerals) are excluded. This method is applicable to the languages with a rich morphology, such as Slovak, Russian or Croatian. Applied to Slovak, being an inflectional language, the automatic acquisition focuses on the inflectional morphology as well as on the derivational morphology. This fact enables the users to find out the information about derivational relations (e.g. adjectivizations, prefixes) in the lexicon. For example, Slovak word korpusový is an adjectivization of korpus (eng. corpus). == Three-step loop == Conformably to Benoît Sagot, there are three stages involved in the acquisition of lemmas: Generation and inflection Ranking Manual validation The more iteration will be performed, the more accurate lexicon will be obtained. For each iteration are essential the information given by a manual validator. === Generation and inflection === Firstly, all words which represent the closed word classes (pronouns, prepositions, numerals) are manually excluded from the given corpus. Number of their occurrences in the corpus is provided. Then the automatic generation comes, when the hypothetical lemmas according to the morphological description of a language are created. Generated lemmas are consequently being inflected, so that all of their inflected forms are built. Obtained forms are associated with the corresponding lemma and a morphological tag. === Ranking === There was created a probabilistic model, represented by a fix-point algorithm, to rank the hypothetical lemmas generated in the first step. Best ranked lemmas are expected to be ideally all correct, whereas the least ranked tend to be incorrect. === Manual validation === Correctness of the best- ranked lemmas created in the previous step are checked by the manual validator, who should be a native speaker. Lemmas are at this stage divided into three categories: valid lemmas, appended to lexicon erroneous lemmas generated by valid forms (later associated to another lemmas) erroneous lemmas generated by invalid forms (these need to be excluded) == Future development == Automatic acquisition, in comparison to a purely manual development of the lexicons, seems to be promising, considering the future development, because of the short validation time needed and the relatively small amount of human labor involved.
Read more →
Lenhart Schubert

Lenhart Karl Otto Schubert is a professor of Computer Science at the University of Rochester, as well as a member of the Center for Language Sciences and the Center for Computation and the Brain. Schubert is a prominent researcher in the field of common sense reasoning. == Biography == Schubert received his Ph.D. from the University of Toronto in 1970. He was on the faculty of the University of Alberta between 1973 and 1988 and joined the faculty at the University of Rochester in 1988. He was elected fellow of Association for Advancement of Artificial Intelligence in 1993 for "fundamental contributions in NLP, esp. in the formalization, representation, and practical implementation of non-first order concepts".
Read more →
RAMnets

RAMnets is one of the oldest practical neurally inspired classification algorithms. The RAMnets is also known as a type of "n-tuple recognition method" or "weightless neural network". == Algorithm == Consider (let us say N) sets of n distinct bit locations are selected randomly. These are the n-tuples. The restriction of a pattern to an n-tuple can be regarded as an n-bit number which, together with the identity of the n-tuple, constitutes a `feature' of the pattern. The standard n-tuple recognizer operates simply as follows: A pattern is classified as belonging to the class for which it has the most features in common with at least one training pattern of that class. This is the Θ {\displaystyle \Theta } = 0 case of a more general rule whereby the class assigned to unclassified pattern u is a c r g m a x ( ∑ i = 1 N Θ ( ∑ v ∈ D c δ ( α i ( u ) , α i ( v ) ) ) ) {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}{\underset {c}{a}}rgmax(\sum _{i=1}^{N}\Theta (\sum _{v\in D_{c}}\delta (\alpha _{i}(u),\alpha _{i}(v))))\end{aligned}}} where Dc is the set of training patterns in class c, Θ ( x ) {\displaystyle \Theta (x)} = x for 0 ≤ x ≤ θ {\displaystyle 0\leq x\leq \theta } , Θ ( x ) = θ {\displaystyle \Theta (x)=\theta } for x ≥ θ {\displaystyle x\geq \theta } , δ i , j {\displaystyle \delta _{i,j}} is the Kronecker delta( δ i , j {\displaystyle \delta _{i,j}} =1 if i=j and 0 otherwise.)and ( α i ( u ) ) {\displaystyle (\alpha _{i}(u))} is the ith feature of the pattern u: ∑ j = 0 n − 1 u η i ( j ) 2 j {\displaystyle \sum _{j=0}^{n-1}u_{\eta }i(j)2^{j}} Here uk is the kth bit of u and u η i ( j ) {\displaystyle u_{\eta }i(j)} is the jth bit location of the ith n-tuple. With C classes to distinguish, the system can be implemented as a network of NC nodes, each of which is a random access memory (RAM); hence the term RAMnet. The memory content m c i α {\displaystyle m_{ci\alpha }} at address α {\displaystyle \alpha } of the ith node allocated to class c is set to m c i α {\displaystyle m_{ci\alpha }} = Θ ( ∑ v ∈ D c δ ( α , α i ( v ) ) ) {\displaystyle \Theta (\sum _{v\in D_{c}}\delta (\alpha ,\alpha _{i}(v)))} In the usual θ {\displaystyle \theta } = 1 case, the 1-bit content of m c i α {\displaystyle m_{ci\alpha }} is set if any pattern of Dc has feature α {\displaystyle \alpha } and unset otherwise. Recognition is accomplished by summing the contents of the nodes of each class at the addresses given by the features of the unclassified pattern. That is, pattern u is assigned to class a c r g m a x ( ∑ i = 1 N m c i α ( u ) ) {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}{\underset {c}{a}}rgmax(\sum _{i=1}^{N}m_{ci\alpha }(u))\end{aligned}}} == RAM-discriminators and WiSARD == The RAMnets formed the basis of a commercial product known as WiSARD (Wilkie, Stonham and Aleksander Recognition Device) was the first artificial neural network machine to be patented. A RAM-discriminator consists of a set of X one-bit word RAMs with n inputs and a summing device (Σ). Any such RAM-discriminator can receive a binary pattern of X⋅n bits as input. The RAM input lines are connected to the input pattern by means of a biunivocal pseudo-random mapping. The summing device enables this network of RAMs to exhibit – just like other ANN models based on synaptic weights – generalization and noise tolerance. In order to train the discriminator one has to set all RAM memory locations to 0 and choose a training set formed by binary patterns of X⋅n bits. For each training pattern, a 1 is stored in the memory location of each RAM addressed by this input pattern. Once the training of patterns is completed, RAM memory contents will be set to a certain number of 0's and 1's. The information stored by the RAM during the training phase is used to deal with previous unseen patterns. When one of these is given as input, the RAM memory contents addressed by the input pattern are read and summed by Σ. The number r thus obtained, which is called the discriminator response, is equal to the number of RAMs that output 1. r reaches the maximum X if the input belongs to the training set. r is equal to 0 if no n-bit component of the input pattern appears in the training set (not a single RAM outputs 1). Intermediate values of r express a kind of “similarity measure” of the input pattern with respect to the patterns in the training set. A system formed by various RAM-discriminators is called WiSARD. Each RAM-discriminator is trained on a particular class of patterns, and classification by the multi-discriminator system is performed in the following way. When a pattern is given as input, each RAM-discriminator gives a response to that input. The various responses are evaluated by an algorithm which compares them and computes the relative confidence c of the highest response (e.g., the difference d between the highest response and the second highest response, divided by the highest response). A schematic representation of a RAM-discriminator and a 10 RAM-discriminator WiSARD is shown in Figure 1.
Read more →
Weighted automaton

In theoretical computer science and formal language theory, a weighted automaton or weighted finite-state machine is a generalization of a finite-state machine in which the edges have weights, for example real numbers or integers. Finite-state machines are only capable of answering decision problems; they take as input a string and produce a Boolean output, i.e. either "accept" or "reject". In contrast, weighted automata produce a quantitative output, for example a count of how many answers are possible on a given input string, or a probability of how likely the input string is according to a probability distribution. They are one of the simplest studied models of quantitative automata. The definition of a weighted automaton is generally given over an arbitrary semiring R {\displaystyle R} , an abstract set with an addition operation + {\displaystyle +} and a multiplication operation × {\displaystyle \times } . The automaton consists of a finite set of states, a finite input alphabet of characters Σ {\displaystyle \Sigma } and edges which are labeled with both a character in Σ {\displaystyle \Sigma } and a weight in R {\displaystyle R} . The weight of any path in the automaton is defined to be the product of weights along the path, and the weight of a string is the sum of the weights of all paths which are labeled with that string. The weighted automaton thus defines a function from Σ ∗ {\displaystyle \Sigma ^{}} to R {\displaystyle R} . Weighted automata generalize deterministic finite automata (DFAs) and nondeterministic finite automata (NFAs), which correspond to weighted automata over the Boolean semiring, where addition is logical disjunction and multiplication is logical conjunction. In the DFA case, there is only one accepting path for any input string, so disjunction is not applied. When the weights are real numbers and the outgoing weights for each state add to one, weighted automata can be considered a probabilistic model and are also known as probabilistic automata. These machines define a probability distribution over all strings, and are related to other probabilistic models such as Markov decision processes and Markov chains. Weighted automata have applications in natural language processing where they are used to assign weights to words and sentences, as well as in image compression. They were first introduced by Marcel-Paul Schützenberger in his 1961 paper On the definition of a family of automata. Since their introduction, many extensions have been proposed, for example nested weighted automata, cost register automata, and weighted finite-state transducers. Researchers have studied weighted automata from the perspective of learning a machine from its input-output behavior (see computational learning theory) and studying decidability questions. == Definition == A commutative semiring (or rig) is a set R equipped with two distinguished elements 0 ≠ 1 {\displaystyle 0\neq 1} and addition and multiplication operations ⊕ {\displaystyle \oplus } and ⊗ {\displaystyle \otimes } such that ⊕ {\displaystyle \oplus } is commutative and associative with identity 0 {\displaystyle 0} , ⊗ {\displaystyle \otimes } is commutative and associative with identity 1 {\displaystyle 1} , ⊗ {\displaystyle \otimes } distributes over ⊕ {\displaystyle \oplus } , and 0 is an absorbing element for ⊗ {\displaystyle \otimes } . A weighted automaton over R {\displaystyle R} is a tuple A = ( Q , Σ , Δ , I , F ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}=(Q,\Sigma ,\Delta ,I,F)} where: Q {\displaystyle Q} is a finite set of states. Σ {\displaystyle \Sigma } is a finite alphabet. Δ ⊆ Q × Σ × R × Q {\displaystyle \Delta \subseteq Q\times \Sigma \times R\times Q} is a finite set of transitions ( q , σ , w , q ′ ) {\displaystyle (q,\sigma ,w,q')} , where σ {\displaystyle \sigma } is called a character and w {\displaystyle w} is called a weight. I : Q → R {\displaystyle I:Q\to R} is an initial weight function. F : Q → R {\displaystyle F:Q\to R} is a final weight function. A path on input w ∈ Σ ∗ {\displaystyle w\in \Sigma ^{}} is a finite path in the graph, where the concatenation of the character labels equals w {\displaystyle w} . The weight of the path q 0 , q 1 , … , q n {\displaystyle q_{0},q_{1},\ldots ,q_{n}} is the product ( ⊗ {\displaystyle \otimes } ) of the weights along the path, additionally multiplied by the initial and final weights I ( q 0 ) ⊗ F ( q n ) {\displaystyle I(q_{0})\otimes F(q_{n})} . The weight of the word w {\displaystyle w} is the sum ( ⊕ {\displaystyle \oplus } ) of the weights of all paths on input w {\displaystyle w} (or 0 if there are no accepting paths). In this way the machine defines a function [ [ A ] ] : Σ ∗ → R {\displaystyle [\![{\mathcal {A}}]\!]:\Sigma ^{}\to R} . == Ambiguity and determinism == Since Δ {\displaystyle \Delta } is a set of transitions, weighted automata allow multiple transitions (or paths) on a single input string. Therefore a weighted automaton can be considered analogous to a nondeterministic finite automaton (NFA). As is the case with NFAs, restrictions of weighted automata are considered that correspond to the concepts of deterministic finite automaton and unambiguous finite automaton (deterministic weighted automata and unambiguous weighted automata, respectively). First, a preliminary definition: the underlying NFA of A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} is an NFA formed by removing all transitions with weight 0 {\displaystyle 0} and then erasing all of the weights on the transitions Δ {\displaystyle \Delta } , so that the new transition set lies in Q × Σ × Q {\displaystyle Q\times \Sigma \times Q} . The initial states and final states are the set of states q {\displaystyle q} such that I ( q ) ≠ 0 {\displaystyle I(q)\neq 0} and F ( q ) ≠ 0 {\displaystyle F(q)\neq 0} , respectively. A weighted automaton is deterministic if the underlying NFA is deterministic and unambiguous if the underlying NFA is unambiguous. Every deterministic weighted automaton is unambiguous. In both the deterministic and unambiguous cases, there is always at most one accepting path, so the ⊕ {\displaystyle \oplus } operation is never applied and can be omitted from the definition. == Variations == The requirement that there is a zero element for ⊕ {\displaystyle \oplus } is sometimes omitted; in this case the machine defines a partial function from Σ ∗ {\displaystyle \Sigma ^{}} to R {\displaystyle R} rather than a total function. It is possible to extend the definition to allow epsilon transitions ( q , ϵ , w , q ′ ) {\displaystyle (q,\epsilon ,w,q')} , where ϵ {\displaystyle \epsilon } is the empty string. In this case, one must then require that there are no cycles of epsilon transitions. This does not increase the expressiveness of weighted automata. If epsilon transitions are allowed, the initial weights and final weights can be replaced by initial and final sets of states without loss of expressiveness. Some authors omit the initial and final weight functions I {\displaystyle I} and F {\displaystyle F} . Instead, I {\displaystyle I} and F {\displaystyle F} are replaced by a set of initial and final states. If epsilon transitions are not present, this technically decreases expressiveness as it forces [ [ A ] ] ( ε ) {\displaystyle [\![{\mathcal {A}}]\!](\varepsilon )} to depend only on the number of states that are both initial and final. The transition function can be given as a matrix Δ σ ∈ R Q × Q {\displaystyle \Delta _{\sigma }\in R^{Q\times Q}} with entries in R {\displaystyle R} for each σ {\displaystyle \sigma } , rather than a set of transitions. The entry of the matrix at ( q , q ′ ) {\displaystyle (q,q')} is the sum of all transitions labeled ( q , σ , q ′ ) {\displaystyle (q,\sigma ,q')} . Some authors restrict to specific semirings, such as N {\displaystyle \mathbb {N} } or Z {\displaystyle \mathbb {Z} } , particularly when studying decidability results.
Read more →
CEITON

CEITON is a web-based software system for facilitating and automating business processes such as planning, scheduling, and payroll using workflow technologies. The system is used by several media companies such as MDR, Yle, RAI and Red Bull Media House. In December 2018, the first CEITON User Group Meeting took place in Leipzig, Germany. == Architecture == The software runs on a server (on premises) or in the cloud and is scalable on parallel servers. Data security is warranted by role-based access control (RBAC). The software is used via web-browsers and not dependent on particular system software. == Structure and Features == CEITON combines the two classical approaches of production planning and control and workflow management. === Project Management === The scheduling system plans, manages, bills, and analyzes projects or tasks. It manages human and technical resources, material, and locations on a single GUI. The system uses a gantt chart to assign tasks to be done to available and eligible resources (i.e. staff), automatically or by drag-and-drop. The scheduling module includes material management, resource management/ human resource management, integration of freelancers, clients and suppliers, long-term budget planning, time-tracking, shift scheduling, quality management, delivery and logistics, document management, archive, analysis and controlling, business reporting, as well as all accounting and documentation processes. === Workflow === The workflow management system module coordinates business processes. Processes are defined once as a workflow and then repeatedly executed. Human resources are automatically assigned to steps (tasks) and integrated in workflow forms. Systems are integrated with an EAI/SOAP module, allowing data exchange with arbitrary external systems which are also involved in the business process. It also features a 3-D workflow overview in which the status of each project step can be determined by its color in the overview. === Process Management === For project and order processing management, business processes are designed as workflows, and coordinate communication automatically. Different user interfaces for staff, customers or suppliers can be created so each gets only relevant information. Different workflow forms are associated with different log-ins. The main application for the system is knowledge-based business processes, in which many people are involved and virtual results are produced, e.g. in research, or development of media products, such as TV and movies. Broadcasters and media companies such as MDR and Yle use CEITON to control their production processes for products and services and coordinate complex workflows with all kinds of resources. === Integrations === An integrated EAI module allows CEITON to integrate every external system in any business process without programming, using SOAP and similar technologies. Aspera and FileCatalyst were integrated for faster data transfer, yet complex ERP systems and numerous SAP modules have also been integrated, for example, to extract working times to payroll. === Mobile Working === Since Version 7, released in 2015, CEITON includes a time-tracking module allowing employees to enter their times from mobile devices such as tablets running Android, iPhones etc. == History == Ceiton Technologies (SME tech firm), the company developing CEITON, was founded in Leipzig, Germany in 2000, staffing solutions for the Bureau of Internal Revenue in Manila, Philippines, were implemented in 2000 together with the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit of the German government. The first version (1.0) of the software was released in July 2001. The product was originally developed for German broadcasting companies. CEITON is named after the Japanese concept Seiton, one of the principles of Japanese workplace design methodology known as 5S. Since version 7, released in 2015, CEITON includes a time-tracking module allowing employees to enter their times from mobile devices such as tablets running Android, iPhones etc. In May 2005 CEITON won the IQ innovation award, sponsored by Siemens, in the category Excellent innovation in the IT-sector. Since 2007, CEITON has been present at the broadcast trade fairs NAB in Las Vegas and IBC in Amsterdam. In 2020, the company celebrated its 20th anniversary.
Read more →
Trigram tagger

In computational linguistics, a trigram tagger is a statistical method for automatically identifying words as being nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, etc. based on second order Markov models that consider triples of consecutive words. It is trained on a text corpus as a method to predict the next word, taking the product of the probabilities of unigram, bigram and trigram. In speech recognition, algorithms utilizing trigram-tagger score better than those algorithms utilizing IIMM tagger but less well than Net tagger. The description of the trigram tagger is provided by Brants (2000).
Read more →
Law and Corpus Linguistics

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