AI Essentials For Business Jhu

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

• 

  Human–robot interaction

  Human–robot interaction (HRI) is the study of interactions between humans and robots. Human–robot interaction is a multidisciplinary field with contributions from human–computer interaction, artificial intelligence, robotics, natural language processing, design, psychology and philosophy. A subfield known as physical human–robot interaction (pHRI) has tended to focus on device design to enable people to safely interact with robotic systems. == Origins == Human–robot interaction has been a topic of both science fiction and academic speculation even before any robots existed. Because much of active HRI development depends on natural language processing, many aspects of HRI are continuations of human communications, a field of research which is much older than robotics. The origin of HRI as a discrete problem was stated by 20th-century author Isaac Asimov in 1941, in his novel I, Robot. Asimov coined Three Laws of Robotics, namely: A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws. These three laws provide an overview of the goals engineers and researchers hold for safety in the HRI field, although the fields of robot ethics and machine ethics are more complex than these three principles. However, generally human–robot interaction prioritizes the safety of humans that interact with potentially dangerous robotics equipment. Solutions to this problem range from the philosophical approach of treating robots as ethical agents (individuals with moral agency), to the practical approach of creating safety zones. These safety zones use technologies such as lidar to detect human presence or physical barriers to protect humans by preventing any contact between machine and operator. Although initially robots in the human–robot interaction field required some human intervention to function, research has expanded this to the extent that fully autonomous systems are now far more common than in the early 2000s. Autonomous systems include from simultaneous localization and mapping systems which provide intelligent robot movement to natural-language processing and natural-language generation systems which allow for natural, human-esque interaction which meet well-defined psychological benchmarks. Anthropomorphic robots (machines which imitate human body structure) are better described by the biomimetics field, but overlap with HRI in many research applications. Examples of robots which demonstrate this trend include Willow Garage's PR2 robot, the NASA Robonaut, and Honda ASIMO. However, robots in the human–robot interaction field are not limited to human-like robots: Paro and Kismet are both robots designed to elicit emotional response from humans, and so fall into the category of human–robot interaction. Goals in HRI range from industrial manufacturing through Cobots, medical technology through rehabilitation, autism intervention, and elder care devices, entertainment, human augmentation, and human convenience. Future research therefore covers a wide range of fields, much of which focuses on assistive robotics, robot-assisted search-and-rescue, and space exploration. == The goal of friendly human–robot interactions == Robots are artificial agents with capacities of perception and action in the physical world often referred by researchers as workspace. Their use has been generalized in factories but nowadays they tend to be found in the most technologically advanced societies in such critical domains as search and rescue, military battle, mine and bomb detection, scientific exploration, law enforcement, entertainment and hospital care. These new domains of applications imply a closer interaction with the user, sharing the workspace but also goals in terms of task achievement. The subfield of physical human–robot interaction (pHRI) has largely focused on device design to enable people to safely interact with robotic systems but is increasingly developing algorithmic approaches in an attempt to support fluent and expressive interactions between humans and robotic systems. With the advance in AI, the research is focusing on one part towards the safest physical interaction but also on a socially correct interaction, dependent on cultural criteria. The goal is to build an intuitive, and easy communication with the robot through speech, gestures, and facial expressions. Kerstin Dautenhahn refers to friendly Human–robot interaction as "Robotiquette" defining it as the "social rules for robot behaviour (a 'robotiquette') that is comfortable and acceptable to humans" The robot has to adapt itself to our way of expressing desires and orders and not the contrary. But every day environments such as homes have much more complex social rules than those implied by factories or even military environments. Thus, the robot needs perceiving and understanding capacities to build dynamic models of its surroundings. It needs to categorize objects, recognize and locate humans and further recognize their emotions. The need for dynamic capacities pushes forward every sub-field of robotics. Furthermore, by understanding and perceiving social cues, robots can enable collaborative scenarios with humans. For example, with the rapid rise of personal fabrication machines such as desktop 3D printers, laser cutters, etc., entering our homes, scenarios may arise where robots can collaboratively share control, co-ordinate and achieve tasks together. Industrial robots have already been integrated into industrial assembly lines and are collaboratively working with humans. The social impact of such robots have been studied and has indicated that workers still treat robots and social entities, rely on social cues to understand and work together. On the other end of HRI research the cognitive modelling of the "relationship" between human and the robots benefits the psychologists and robotic researchers the user study are often of interests on both sides. This research endeavours part of human society. For effective human – humanoid robot interaction numerous communication skills and related features should be implemented in the design of such artificial agents/systems. == General HRI research == HRI research spans a wide range of fields, some general to the nature of HRI. === Methods for perceiving humans === Methods for perceiving humans in the environment are based on sensor information. Research on sensing components and software led by Microsoft provide useful results for extracting the human kinematics (see Kinect). An example of older technique is to use colour information for example the fact that for light skinned people the hands are lighter than the clothes worn. In any case a human modelled a priori can then be fitted to the sensor data. The robot builds or has (depending on the level of autonomy the robot has) a 3D mapping of its surroundings to which is assigned the humans locations. Most methods intend to build a 3D model through vision of the environment. The proprioception sensors permit the robot to have information over its own state. This information is relative to a reference. Theories of proxemics may be used to perceive and plan around a person's personal space. A speech recognition system is used to interpret human desires or commands. By combining the information inferred by proprioception, sensor and speech the human position and state (standing, seated). In this matter, natural-language processing is concerned with the interactions between computers and human (natural) languages, in particular how to program computers to process and analyze large amounts of natural-language data. For instance, neural-network architectures and learning algorithms that can be applied to various natural-language processing tasks including part-of-speech tagging, chunking, named-entity recognition, and semantic role labeling. === Methods for motion planning === Motion planning in dynamic environments is a challenge that can at the moment only be achieved for robots with 3 to 10 degrees of freedom. Humanoid robots or even 2 armed robots, which can have up to 40 degrees of freedom, are unsuited for dynamic environments with today's technology. However lower-dimensional robots can use the potential field method to compute trajectories which avoid collisions with humans. === Cognitive models and theory of mind === Humans exhibit negative social and emotional responses as well as decreased trust toward some robots that closely, but imperfectly, resemble humans; this phenomenon has been termed the "Uncanny Valley". However recent research in telepresence robots has established that mimicking human body postures and expressive gestures has made the robots likeable and engaging in a remote setting. Further, the presence o

  Read more →
• 

  Node2vec

  node2vec is an algorithm to generate vector representations of nodes on a graph. The node2vec framework learns low-dimensional representations for nodes in a graph through the use of random walks through a graph starting at a target node. It is useful for a variety of machine learning applications. node2vec follows the intuition that random walks through a graph can be treated like sentences in a corpus. Each node in a graph is treated like an individual word, and a random walk is treated as a sentence. By feeding these "sentences" into a skip-gram, or by using the continuous bag of words model, paths found by random walks can be treated as sentences, and traditional data-mining techniques for documents can be used. The algorithm generalizes prior work which is based on rigid notions of network neighborhoods, and argues that the added flexibility in exploring neighborhoods is the key to learning richer representations of nodes in graphs. The algorithm is considered one of the best graph classifiers.

  Read more →
• 

  Jacek M. Zurada

  Jacek M. Zurada is a Polish-American computer scientist who is a Professor of the Electrical and Computer Engineering Department at the University of Louisville, Kentucky. His M.S. and Ph.D. degrees are from Politechnika Gdaṅska (Gdansk University of Technology, Poland). He has held visiting appointments at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich, Princeton, Northeastern, and Auburn, and at overseas universities in Australia, Chile, China, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Italy, Japan, Poland, Singapore, Spain, and South Africa. He is a life fellow of IEEE and a fellow of the International Neural Networks Society and Doctor Honoris Causa of Czestochowa Institute of Technology, Poland. == Research == Zurada's research covers neural networks, deep learning, data mining with emphasis on data and feature understanding, rule extraction from semantic and visual information, machine learning, decomposition methods for salient feature extraction, and lambda learning rule for neural networks. == Professional and editorial service == Zurada was the editor-in-chief of IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks (1998–2003), an associate editor of IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems, Pt. I and Pt. II, Action Editor in Neural Networks (Elsevier) and on the editorial board of the Proceedings of the IEEE. He is an associate editor of Neurocomputing, Schedae Informaticae, the International Journal of Applied Mathematics and Computer Science, and Editor of the Springer Natural Computing, Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing and Studies in Computational Intelligence Book series or volumes. == Awards and honours == In 2003 he was given the title of Professor by the President of Poland. Since 2005 he has been an elected Foreign Member of the Polish Academy of Sciences. He also received five honorary professorships from foreign universities, including Sichuan University in Chengdu, China, and Obuda University in Budapest, Hungary.

  Read more →
• 

  Maximum-entropy Markov model

  In statistics, a maximum-entropy Markov model (MEMM), or conditional Markov model (CMM), is a graphical model for sequence labeling that combines features of hidden Markov models (HMMs) and maximum entropy (MaxEnt) models. An MEMM is a discriminative model that extends a standard maximum entropy classifier by assuming that the unknown values to be learnt are connected in a Markov chain rather than being conditionally independent of each other. MEMMs find applications in natural language processing, specifically in part-of-speech tagging and information extraction. == Model == Suppose we have a sequence of observations O 1 , … , O n {\displaystyle O_{1},\dots ,O_{n}} that we seek to tag with the labels S 1 , … , S n {\displaystyle S_{1},\dots ,S_{n}} that maximize the conditional probability P ( S 1 , … , S n ∣ O 1 , … , O n ) {\displaystyle P(S_{1},\dots ,S_{n}\mid O_{1},\dots ,O_{n})} . In a MEMM, this probability is factored into Markov transition probabilities, where the probability of transitioning to a particular label depends only on the observation at that position and the previous position's label: P ( S 1 , … , S n ∣ O 1 , … , O n ) = ∏ t = 1 n P ( S t ∣ S t − 1 , O t ) . {\displaystyle P(S_{1},\dots ,S_{n}\mid O_{1},\dots ,O_{n})=\prod _{t=1}^{n}P(S_{t}\mid S_{t-1},O_{t}).} Each of these transition probabilities comes from the same general distribution P ( s ∣ s ′ , o ) {\displaystyle P(s\mid s',o)} . For each possible label value of the previous label s ′ {\displaystyle s'} , the probability of a certain label s {\displaystyle s} is modeled in the same way as a maximum entropy classifier: P ( s ∣ s ′ , o ) = P s ′ ( s ∣ o ) = 1 Z ( o , s ′ ) exp ⁡ ( ∑ a λ a f a ( o , s ) ) . {\displaystyle P(s\mid s',o)=P_{s'}(s\mid o)={\frac {1}{Z(o,s')}}\exp \left(\sum _{a}\lambda _{a}f_{a}(o,s)\right).} Here, the f a ( o , s ) {\displaystyle f_{a}(o,s)} are real-valued or categorical feature-functions, and Z ( o , s ′ ) {\displaystyle Z(o,s')} is a normalization term ensuring that the distribution sums to one. This form for the distribution corresponds to the maximum entropy probability distribution satisfying the constraint that the empirical expectation for the feature is equal to the expectation given the model: E e ⁡ [ f a ( o , s ) ] = E p ⁡ [ f a ( o , s ) ] for all a . {\displaystyle \operatorname {E} _{e}\left[f_{a}(o,s)\right]=\operatorname {E} _{p}\left[f_{a}(o,s)\right]\quad {\text{ for all }}a.} The parameters λ a {\displaystyle \lambda _{a}} can be estimated using generalized iterative scaling. Furthermore, a variant of the Baum–Welch algorithm, which is used for training HMMs, can be used to estimate parameters when training data has incomplete or missing labels. The optimal state sequence S 1 , … , S n {\displaystyle S_{1},\dots ,S_{n}} can be found using a very similar Viterbi algorithm to the one used for HMMs. The dynamic program uses the forward probability: α t + 1 ( s ) = ∑ s ′ ∈ S α t ( s ′ ) P s ′ ( s ∣ o t + 1 ) . {\displaystyle \alpha _{t+1}(s)=\sum _{s'\in S}\alpha _{t}(s')P_{s'}(s\mid o_{t+1}).} == Strengths and weaknesses == An advantage of MEMMs rather than HMMs for sequence tagging is that they offer increased freedom in choosing features to represent observations. In sequence tagging situations, it is useful to use domain knowledge to design special-purpose features. In the original paper introducing MEMMs, the authors write that "when trying to extract previously unseen company names from a newswire article, the identity of a word alone is not very predictive; however, knowing that the word is capitalized, that is a noun, that it is used in an appositive, and that it appears near the top of the article would all be quite predictive (in conjunction with the context provided by the state-transition structure)." Useful sequence tagging features, such as these, are often non-independent. Maximum entropy models do not assume independence between features, but generative observation models used in HMMs do. Therefore, MEMMs allow the user to specify many correlated, but informative features. Another advantage of MEMMs versus HMMs and conditional random fields (CRFs) is that training can be considerably more efficient. In HMMs and CRFs, one needs to use some version of the forward–backward algorithm as an inner loop in training. However, in MEMMs, estimating the parameters of the maximum-entropy distributions used for the transition probabilities can be done for each transition distribution in isolation. A drawback of MEMMs is that they potentially suffer from the "label bias problem," where states with low-entropy transition distributions "effectively ignore their observations." Conditional random fields were designed to overcome this weakness, which had already been recognised in the context of neural network-based Markov models in the early 1990s. Another source of label bias is that training is always done with respect to known previous tags, so the model struggles at test time when there is uncertainty in the previous tag.

  Read more →
• 

  AirPair

  AirPair is a service and eponymous company that connects people who need help with programming issues (usually, programmers at small technology companies or at finance companies that use technology products) and people who can help them. Unlike services such as oDesk and Elance, AirPair is not a service for outsourcing programming tasks, but rather a service that facilitates one-off knowledge transfers from people with highly specialized knowledge of particular technology stacks or programming issues to people who are in need of specialized help. == History == AirPair launched in March 2013, with founder Jonathon Kresner, who hails from Australia, working full-time, and it soon hired three other part-time developers to work alongside him. Kresner had previously founded two other startups: Preparty, a social invitation and event-booking service based in Australia, and ClimbFind, an online rock-climbing community that reached a million users. Kresner was inspired to work on AirPair because he saw the need for outside expert assistance with programming issues arise regularly at these startups. In November 2013, founder Kresner describes the company's initial success at bootstrapping itself to "Ramen profitability" in a blog post. In December 2013, AirPair was accepted into the Winter 2014 Y Combinator batch. In March 2014, AirPair announced it would launch partnerships with Stripe, Twilio, and other companies that had their own application programming interfaces, allowing developers having trouble with the APIs to seek help over AirPair from experts on the APIs. AirPair presented at the Y Combinator Winter 2014 Demo Day on March 25, 2014, and successfully raised over $1 million within the next 48 hours. == Reception == A review of AirPair by Will Lam stressed that because payment was based on time rather than results, it was important to use it for clearly thought-out questions where one had high confidence that the session would help. Dennis Beatty, who met AirPair founder Jonathon Kresner in March 2014, wrote in April 2014 a glowing review of AirPair's vision of connecting people and its business success. AirPair has been compared with other peer-to-peer coding help sites such as Codementor and HackHands.

  Read more →
• 

  Katie Bouman

  Katherine Louise Bouman (; born 1989) is an American engineer and computer scientist working in the field of computational imaging. She led the development of an algorithm for imaging black holes, known as Continuous High-resolution Image Reconstruction using Patch priors (CHIRP), and was a member of the Event Horizon Telescope team that captured the first image of a black hole. The California Institute of Technology, which hired Bouman as an assistant professor in June 2019, awarded her a named professorship in 2020. In 2021, asteroid 291387 Katiebouman was named after her. In 2024, she became an associate professor. == Early life and education == Bouman grew up in West Lafayette, Indiana. Her father, Charles Bouman, is a professor of electrical and computer engineering and biomedical engineering at Purdue University. As a high school student, Bouman conducted imaging research at Purdue University. She graduated from West Lafayette Junior-Senior High School in 2007. Bouman studied electrical engineering at the University of Michigan and graduated summa cum laude in 2011. She earned her master's degree in 2013 and obtained a doctoral degree in electrical engineering and computer science in 2017 from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). At MIT, she was a member of the MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL). This group also worked closely with MIT's Haystack Observatory and with the Event Horizon Telescope. She was supported by a National Science Foundation Graduate Fellowship. Her master's thesis, Estimating Material Properties of Fabric through the Observation of Motion, was awarded the Ernst Guillemin Award for best Master's Thesis in electrical engineering. Her Ph.D. dissertation, Extreme imaging via physical model inversion: seeing around corners and imaging black holes, was supervised by William T. Freeman. Prior to receiving her doctoral degree, Bouman delivered a TEDx talk, How to Take a Picture of a Black Hole, which explained algorithms that could be used to capture the first image of a black hole. == Research and career == After earning her doctorate, Bouman joined Harvard University as a postdoctoral fellow on the Event Horizon Telescope Imaging team. Bouman joined Event Horizon Telescope project in 2013. She led the development of an algorithm for imaging black holes, known as Continuous High-resolution Image Reconstruction using Patch priors (CHIRP). CHIRP inspired image validation procedures used in acquiring the first image of a black hole in April 2019, and Bouman played a significant role in the project by verifying images, selecting parameters for filtering images taken by the Event Horizon Telescope, and participating in the development of a robust imaging framework that compared the results of different image reconstruction techniques. Her group is analyzing the Event Horizon Telescope's images to learn more about general relativity in a strong gravitational field. Bouman received significant media attention after a photo, showing her reaction to the detection of the black hole shadow in the EHT images, went viral. Some people in the media and on the Internet misleadingly implied that Bouman was a "lone genius" behind the image. However, Bouman herself repeatedly noted that the result came from the work of a large collaboration, showing the importance of teamwork in science. Bouman also became the target of online harassment, to the extent that her colleague Andrew Chael made a statement on Twitter criticizing "awful and sexist attacks on my colleague and friend", including attempts to undermine her contributions by crediting him solely with work accomplished by the team. Bouman joined the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) as an assistant professor in June 2019, where she works on new systems for computational imaging using computer vision and machine learning. In 2024, she was promoted to associate professor of computing and mathematical sciences, electrical engineering and astronomy as well as a Rosenberg Scholar. Bouman received a named professorship at Caltech in 2020. In 2021, Bouman was awarded the Royal Photographic Society Progress Medal and Honorary Fellowship. == Recognition == She was recognized as one of the BBC's 100 women of 2019. In 2024, Bouman was awarded a Sloan Research Fellowship.

  Read more →
• 

  Deterministic acyclic finite state automaton

  In computer science, a deterministic acyclic finite state automaton (DAFSA), is a data structure that represents a set of strings, and allows for a query operation that tests whether a given string belongs to the set in time proportional to its length. Algorithms exist to construct and maintain such automata, while keeping them minimal. DAFSA is the rediscovery of a data structure called Directed Acyclic Word Graph (DAWG), although the same name had already been given to a different data structure which is related to suffix automaton. A DAFSA is a special case of a finite state recognizer that takes the form of a directed acyclic graph with a single source vertex (a vertex with no incoming edges), in which each edge of the graph is labeled by a letter or symbol, and in which each vertex has at most one outgoing edge for each possible letter or symbol. The strings represented by the DAFSA are formed by the symbols on paths in the graph from the source vertex to any sink vertex (a vertex with no outgoing edges). In fact, a deterministic finite state automaton is acyclic if and only if it recognizes a finite set of strings. == History == Blumer et al first defined terminology Directed Acyclic Word Graph (DAWG) in 1983. Appel and Jacobsen used the same naming for a different data structure in 1988. Independent of earlier work, Daciuk et al rediscovered the latter data structure in 2000 but called it DAFSA. == Comparison to tries == By allowing the same vertices to be reached by multiple paths, a DAFSA may use significantly fewer vertices than the strongly related trie data structure. Consider, for example, the four English words "tap", "taps", "top", and "tops". A trie for those four words would have 12 vertices, one for each of the strings formed as a prefix of one of these words, or for one of the words followed by the end-of-string marker. However, a DAFSA can represent these same four words using only six vertices vi for 0 ≤ i ≤ 5, and the following edges: an edge from v0 to v1 labeled "t", two edges from v1 to v2 labeled "a" and "o", an edge from v2 to v3 labeled "p", an edge v3 to v4 labeled "s", and edges from v3 and v4 to v5 labeled with the end-of-string marker. There is a tradeoff between memory and functionality, because a standard DAFSA can tell you if a word exists within it, but it cannot point you to auxiliary information about that word, whereas a trie can. The primary difference between DAFSA and trie is the elimination of suffix and infix redundancy in storing strings. The trie eliminates prefix redundancy since all common prefixes are shared between strings, such as between doctors and doctorate the doctor prefix is shared. In a DAFSA common suffixes are also shared, for words that have the same set of possible suffixes as each other. For dictionary sets of common English words, this translates into major memory usage reduction. Because the terminal nodes of a DAFSA can be reached by multiple paths, a DAFSA cannot directly store auxiliary information relating to each path, e.g. a word's frequency in the English language. However, if for each node we store the number of unique paths through that point in the structure, we can use it to retrieve the index of a word, or a word given its index. The auxiliary information can then be stored in an array.

  Read more →
• 

  Top 10 AI Code Generators Compared (2026)

  Curious about the best AI code generator? An AI code generator is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it combines speed, accuracy, and an interface that just works. Hands-on testing shows real-world results vary, so a short free trial is the smartest way to decide. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI code generator slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. This guide breaks down the top picks, their pros and cons, and who each one is best for.

  Read more →
• 

  Abillion

  abillion was a mobile application helping users to find vegan and sustainable products. The platform allowed users to review plant-based, cruelty-free and sustainable products, while donating between 0.10 and $1 to nonprofit organisations for each review written. As of May 2023, the company claimed to have donated over $2.8M to various nonprofit organisations including Sea Shepherd and Mercy for Animals. The main objective of the company was to reach the number of one billion people following a vegan diet and lifestyle by 2030. == History == The American entrepreneur Vikas Garg founded the company in Singapore and the app was officially launched in May 2018. The start-up was first named 'abillionveg' and changed its name in 2020 to shorten it to 'abillion'. In 2019, the company raised $3M in its first round of funding (pre-Series A). In 2021, it raised $10M in its Series A funding. In February 2023, the company announced the launch of a community investment round, using the crowdfunding platform Wefunder, which reached a total of $500 000. In May 2023, it celebrated its 5th anniversary and reaching 1M downloads. In March 2026, the company announced that they would be closing down by the end of the month. == Awards == Using data from the reviews published by its users, abillion was awarding the most liked vegan products and brands. In May 2023, the company published a world Top 10 Best Plant Based Burgers, among the winning brands were Beyond Meat, NotCo and Sojasun.

  Read more →
• 

  Tomáš Mikolov

  Tomáš Mikolov is a Czech computer scientist working in the field of machine learning. In March 2020, Mikolov became a senior research scientist at the Czech Institute of Informatics, Robotics and Cybernetics. == Career == Mikolov obtained his PhD in Computer Science from Brno University of Technology for his work on recurrent neural network-based language models. He is the lead author of the 2013 paper that introduced the Word2vec technique in natural language processing and is an author on the FastText architecture. Mikolov came up with the idea to generate text from neural language models in 2007 and his RNNLM toolkit was the first to demonstrate the capability to train language models on large corpora, resulting in large improvements over the state of the art. Prior to joining Facebook in 2014, Mikolov worked as a visiting researcher at Johns Hopkins University, Université de Montréal, Microsoft and Google. He left Facebook at some time in 2019/2020 to join the Czech Institute of Informatics, Robotics and Cybernetics. Mikolov has argued that humanity might be at a greater existential risk if an artificial general intelligence is not developed.

  Read more →
• 

  Structured support vector machine

  The structured supportvector machine is a machine learning algorithm that generalizes the support vector machine (SVM) classifier. Whereas the SVM classifier supports binary classification, multiclass classification and regression, the structured SVM allows training of a classifier for general structured output labels. As an example, a sample instance might be a natural language sentence, and the output label is an annotated parse tree. Training a classifier consists of showing pairs of correct sample and output label pairs. After training, the structured SVM model allows one to predict for new sample instances the corresponding output label; that is, given a natural language sentence, the classifier can produce the most likely parse tree. == Training == For a set of n {\displaystyle n} training instances ( x i , y i ) ∈ X × Y {\displaystyle ({\boldsymbol {x}}_{i},y_{i})\in {\mathcal {X}}\times {\mathcal {Y}}} , i = 1 , … , n {\displaystyle i=1,\dots ,n} from a sample space X {\displaystyle {\mathcal {X}}} and label space Y {\displaystyle {\mathcal {Y}}} , the structured SVM minimizes the following regularized risk function. min w ‖ w ‖ 2 + C ∑ i = 1 n max y ∈ Y ( 0 , Δ ( y i , y ) + ⟨ w , Ψ ( x i , y ) ⟩ − ⟨ w , Ψ ( x i , y i ) ⟩ ) {\displaystyle {\underset {\boldsymbol {w}}{\min }}\quad \|{\boldsymbol {w}}\|^{2}+C\sum _{i=1}^{n}{\underset {y\in {\mathcal {Y}}}{\max }}\left(0,\Delta (y_{i},y)+\langle {\boldsymbol {w}},\Psi ({\boldsymbol {x}}_{i},y)\rangle -\langle {\boldsymbol {w}},\Psi ({\boldsymbol {x}}_{i},y_{i})\rangle \right)} The function is convex in w {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {w}}} because the maximum of a set of affine functions is convex. The function Δ : Y × Y → R + {\displaystyle \Delta :{\mathcal {Y}}\times {\mathcal {Y}}\to \mathbb {R} _{+}} measures a distance in label space and is an arbitrary function (not necessarily a metric) satisfying Δ ( y , z ) ≥ 0 {\displaystyle \Delta (y,z)\geq 0} and Δ ( y , y ) = 0 ∀ y , z ∈ Y {\displaystyle \Delta (y,y)=0\;\;\forall y,z\in {\mathcal {Y}}} . The function Ψ : X × Y → R d {\displaystyle \Psi :{\mathcal {X}}\times {\mathcal {Y}}\to \mathbb {R} ^{d}} is a feature function, extracting some feature vector from a given sample and label. The design of this function depends very much on the application. Because the regularized risk function above is non-differentiable, it is often reformulated in terms of a quadratic program by introducing one slack variable ξ i {\displaystyle \xi _{i}} for each sample, each representing the value of the maximum. The standard structured SVM primal formulation is given as follows. min w , ξ ‖ w ‖ 2 + C ∑ i = 1 n ξ i s.t. ⟨ w , Ψ ( x i , y i ) ⟩ − ⟨ w , Ψ ( x i , y ) ⟩ + ξ i ≥ Δ ( y i , y ) , i = 1 , … , n , ∀ y ∈ Y {\displaystyle {\begin{array}{cl}{\underset {{\boldsymbol {w}},{\boldsymbol {\xi }}}{\min }}&\|{\boldsymbol {w}}\|^{2}+C\sum _{i=1}^{n}\xi _{i}\\{\textrm {s.t.}}&\langle {\boldsymbol {w}},\Psi ({\boldsymbol {x}}_{i},y_{i})\rangle -\langle {\boldsymbol {w}},\Psi ({\boldsymbol {x}}_{i},y)\rangle +\xi _{i}\geq \Delta (y_{i},y),\qquad i=1,\dots ,n,\quad \forall y\in {\mathcal {Y}}\end{array}}} == Inference == At test time, only a sample x ∈ X {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {x}}\in {\mathcal {X}}} is known, and a prediction function f : X → Y {\displaystyle f:{\mathcal {X}}\to {\mathcal {Y}}} maps it to a predicted label from the label space Y {\displaystyle {\mathcal {Y}}} . For structured SVMs, given the vector w {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {w}}} obtained from training, the prediction function is the following. f ( x ) = argmax y ∈ Y ⟨ w , Ψ ( x , y ) ⟩ {\displaystyle f({\boldsymbol {x}})={\underset {y\in {\mathcal {Y}}}{\textrm {argmax}}}\quad \langle {\boldsymbol {w}},\Psi ({\boldsymbol {x}},y)\rangle } Therefore, the maximizer over the label space is the predicted label. Solving for this maximizer is the so-called inference problem and similar to making a maximum a-posteriori (MAP) prediction in probabilistic models. Depending on the structure of the function Ψ {\displaystyle \Psi } , solving for the maximizer can be a hard problem. == Separation == The above quadratic program involves a very large, possibly infinite number of linear inequality constraints. In general, the number of inequalities is too large to be optimized over explicitly. Instead the problem is solved by using delayed constraint generation where only a finite and small subset of the constraints is used. Optimizing over a subset of the constraints enlarges the feasible set and will yield a solution that provides a lower bound on the objective. To test whether the solution w {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {w}}} violates constraints of the complete set inequalities, a separation problem needs to be solved. As the inequalities decompose over the samples, for each sample ( x i , y i ) {\displaystyle ({\boldsymbol {x}}_{i},y_{i})} the following problem needs to be solved. y n ∗ = argmax y ∈ Y ( Δ ( y i , y ) + ⟨ w , Ψ ( x i , y ) ⟩ − ⟨ w , Ψ ( x i , y i ) ⟩ − ξ i ) {\displaystyle y_{n}^{}={\underset {y\in {\mathcal {Y}}}{\textrm {argmax}}}\left(\Delta (y_{i},y)+\langle {\boldsymbol {w}},\Psi ({\boldsymbol {x}}_{i},y)\rangle -\langle {\boldsymbol {w}},\Psi ({\boldsymbol {x}}_{i},y_{i})\rangle -\xi _{i}\right)} The right hand side objective to be maximized is composed of the constant − ⟨ w , Ψ ( x i , y i ) ⟩ − ξ i {\displaystyle -\langle {\boldsymbol {w}},\Psi ({\boldsymbol {x}}_{i},y_{i})\rangle -\xi _{i}} and a term dependent on the variables optimized over, namely Δ ( y i , y ) + ⟨ w , Ψ ( x i , y ) ⟩ {\displaystyle \Delta (y_{i},y)+\langle {\boldsymbol {w}},\Psi ({\boldsymbol {x}}_{i},y)\rangle } . If the achieved right hand side objective is smaller or equal to zero, no violated constraints for this sample exist. If it is strictly larger than zero, the most violated constraint with respect to this sample has been identified. The problem is enlarged by this constraint and resolved. The process continues until no violated inequalities can be identified. If the constants are dropped from the above problem, we obtain the following problem to be solved. y i ∗ = argmax y ∈ Y ( Δ ( y i , y ) + ⟨ w , Ψ ( x i , y ) ⟩ ) {\displaystyle y_{i}^{}={\underset {y\in {\mathcal {Y}}}{\textrm {argmax}}}\left(\Delta (y_{i},y)+\langle {\boldsymbol {w}},\Psi ({\boldsymbol {x}}_{i},y)\rangle \right)} This problem looks very similar to the inference problem. The only difference is the addition of the term Δ ( y i , y ) {\displaystyle \Delta (y_{i},y)} . Most often, it is chosen such that it has a natural decomposition in label space. In that case, the influence of Δ {\displaystyle \Delta } can be encoded into the inference problem and solving for the most violating constraint is equivalent to solving the inference problem.

  Read more →
• 

  Ω-automaton

  In automata theory, a branch of theoretical computer science, an ω-automaton (or stream automaton) is a variation of a finite automaton that runs on infinite, rather than finite, strings as input. Since ω-automata do not stop, they have a variety of acceptance conditions rather than simply a set of accepting states. ω-automata are useful for specifying behavior of systems that are not expected to terminate, such as hardware, operating systems and control systems. For such systems, one may want to specify a property such as "for every request, an acknowledge eventually follows", or its negation "there is a request that is not followed by an acknowledge". The former is a property of infinite words: one cannot say of a finite sequence that it satisfies this property. Classes of ω-automata include the Büchi automata, Rabin automata, Streett automata, parity automata and Muller automata, each deterministic or non-deterministic. These classes of ω-automata differ only in terms of acceptance condition. They all recognize precisely the regular ω-languages except for the deterministic Büchi automata, which is strictly weaker than all the others. Although all these types of automata recognize the same set of ω-languages, they nonetheless differ in succinctness of representation for a given ω-language. == Deterministic ω-automata == Formally, a deterministic ω-automaton is a tuple A = ( Q , Σ , δ , q 0 , A a c c ) {\textstyle A=(Q,\Sigma ,\delta ,q_{0},A_{acc})} , that consists of the following components: Q {\textstyle Q} , is a finite set. The elements of Q {\textstyle Q} are called the states of A {\textstyle A} . Σ {\textstyle \Sigma } , is a finite set called the alphabet of A {\textstyle A} . δ : Q × Σ → Q {\textstyle \delta \colon Q\times \Sigma \rightarrow Q} is a function, called the transition function of A {\textstyle A} . Q 0 {\textstyle Q_{0}} is an element of Q {\textstyle Q} , called the initial state. A a c c {\textstyle A_{acc}} is a set of accepting states of A {\textstyle A} , formally a subset of Q ω {\textstyle Q^{\omega }} . An input for A {\textstyle A} is an infinite string over the alphabet Σ {\textstyle \Sigma } , i.e. it is an infinite sequence α = ( a 1 , a 2 , a 3 , … ) {\textstyle \alpha =(a_{1},a_{2},a_{3},\ldots )} . The run of A {\textstyle A} on such an input is an infinite sequence ρ = ( r 0 , r 1 , r 2 , … ) {\textstyle \rho =(r_{0},r_{1},r_{2},\ldots )} of states, defined as follows: r 0 = q 0 {\textstyle r_{0}=q_{0}} . r 1 = δ ( r 0 , a 1 ) {\textstyle r_{1}=\delta (r_{0},a_{1})} . r 2 = δ ( r 1 , a 2 ) {\textstyle r_{2}=\delta (r_{1},a_{2})} . ... that is, for every i {\textstyle i} : r i = δ ( r i − 1 , a i ) {\textstyle r_{i}=\delta (r_{i-1},a_{i})} . The main purpose of an ω-automaton is to define a subset of the set of all inputs: The set of accepted inputs. Whereas in the case of an ordinary finite automaton every run ends with a state r n {\textstyle r_{n}} and the input is accepted if and only if r n {\textstyle r_{n}} is an accepting state, the definition of the set of accepted inputs is more complicated for ω-automata. Here we must look at the entire run ρ {\textstyle \rho } . The input is accepted if the corresponding run is in Acc {\textstyle {\text{Acc}}} . The set of accepted input ω-words is called the recognized ω-language by the automaton, which is denoted as L ( A ) {\textstyle L(A)} . The definition of Acc {\textstyle {\text{Acc}}} as a subset of Q ω {\textstyle Q^{\omega }} is purely formal and not suitable for practice because normally such sets are infinite. The difference between various types of ω-automata (Büchi, Rabin etc.) consists in how they encode certain subsets Acc {\textstyle {\text{Acc}}} of Q ω {\textstyle Q^{\omega }} as finite sets, and therefore in which such subsets they can encode. == Nondeterministic ω-automata == Formally, a nondeterministic ω-automaton is a tuple A = ( Q , Σ , Δ , Q 0 , Acc ) {\textstyle A=(Q,\Sigma ,\Delta ,Q_{0},{\text{Acc}})} that consists of the following components: Q {\textstyle Q} is a finite set. The elements of Q {\textstyle Q} are called the states of A {\textstyle A} . Σ {\textstyle \Sigma } is a finite set called the alphabet of A {\textstyle A} . Δ {\textstyle \Delta } is a subset of Q × Σ × Q {\textstyle Q\times \Sigma \times Q} and is called the transition relation of A {\textstyle A} . Q 0 {\textstyle Q_{0}} is a subset of Q {\textstyle Q} , called the initial set of states. Acc {\textstyle {\text{Acc}}} is the acceptance condition, a subset of Q ω {\textstyle Q^{\omega }} . Unlike a deterministic ω-automaton, which has a transition function δ {\textstyle \delta } , the non-deterministic version has a transition relation Δ {\textstyle \Delta } . Note that Δ {\textstyle \Delta } can be regarded as a function Q × Σ → P ( Q ) {\textstyle Q\times \Sigma \rightarrow {\mathcal {P}}(Q)} from Q × Σ {\textstyle Q\times \Sigma } to the power set P ( Q ) {\textstyle {\mathcal {P}}(Q)} . Thus, given a state q n {\textstyle q_{n}} and a symbol a n {\textstyle a_{n}} , the next state q n + 1 {\textstyle q_{n+1}} is not necessarily determined uniquely, rather there is a set of possible next states. A run of A {\textstyle A} on the input α = ( a 1 , a 2 , a 3 , … ) {\textstyle \alpha =(a_{1},a_{2},a_{3},\ldots )} is any infinite sequence ρ = ( r 0 , r 1 , r 2 , … ) {\textstyle \rho =(r_{0},r_{1},r_{2},\ldots )} of states that satisfies the following conditions: r 0 {\textstyle r_{0}} is an element of Q 0 {\textstyle Q_{0}} . r 1 {\textstyle r_{1}} is an element of Δ ( r 0 , a 1 ) {\textstyle \Delta (r_{0},a_{1})} . r 2 {\textstyle r_{2}} is an element of Δ ( r 1 , a 2 ) {\textstyle \Delta (r_{1},a_{2})} . ... that is, for every i {\textstyle i} : r i {\textstyle r_{i}} is an element of Δ ( r i − 1 , a i ) {\textstyle \Delta (r_{i-1},a_{i})} . A nondeterministic ω-automaton may admit many different runs on any given input, or none at all. The input is accepted if at least one of the possible runs is accepting. Whether a run is accepting depends only on Acc {\textstyle {\text{Acc}}} , as for deterministic ω-automata. Every deterministic ω-automaton can be regarded as a nondeterministic ω-automaton by taking Δ {\textstyle \Delta } to be the graph of δ {\textstyle \delta } . The definitions of runs and acceptance for deterministic ω-automata are then special cases of the nondeterministic cases. == Acceptance conditions == Acceptance conditions may be infinite sets of ω-words. However, people mostly study acceptance conditions that are finitely representable. The following lists a variety of popular acceptance conditions. Before discussing the list, let's make the following observation. In the case of infinitely running systems, one is often interested in whether certain behavior is repeated infinitely often. For example, if a network card receives infinitely many ping requests, then it may fail to respond to some of the requests but should respond to an infinite subset of received ping requests. This motivates the following definition: For any run ρ {\textstyle \rho } , let Inf ( ρ ) {\textstyle {\text{Inf}}(\rho )} be the set of states that occur infinitely often in ρ {\textstyle \rho } . This notion of certain states being visited infinitely often will be helpful in defining the following acceptance conditions. A Büchi automaton is an ω-automaton A {\textstyle A} that uses the following acceptance condition, for some subset F {\textstyle F} of Q {\textstyle Q} : Büchi condition A {\textstyle A} accepts exactly those runs ρ {\textstyle \rho } for which Inf ( ρ ) ∩ F ≠ ∅ {\textstyle {\text{Inf}}(\rho )\cap F\neq \emptyset } , i.e. there is an accepting state that occurs infinitely often in ρ {\textstyle \rho } . A Rabin automaton is an ω-automaton A {\textstyle A} that uses the following acceptance condition, for some set Ω {\textstyle \Omega } of pairs ( B i , G i ) {\textstyle (B_{i},G_{i})} of sets of states: Rabin condition A {\textstyle A} accepts exactly those runs ρ {\textstyle \rho } for which there exists a pair ( B i , G i ) {\textstyle (B_{i},G_{i})} in Ω {\textstyle \Omega } such that B i ∩ Inf ( ρ ) = ∅ {\textstyle B_{i}\cap {\text{Inf}}(\rho )=\emptyset } and G i ∩ Inf ( ρ ) ≠ ∅ {\textstyle G_{i}\cap {\text{Inf}}(\rho )\neq \emptyset } . A Streett automaton is an ω-automaton A {\textstyle A} that uses the following acceptance condition, for some set Ω {\textstyle \Omega } of pairs ( B i , G i ) {\textstyle (B_{i},G_{i})} of sets of states: Streett condition A {\textstyle A} accepts exactly those runs ρ {\textstyle \rho } such that for all pairs ( B i , G i ) {\textstyle (B_{i},G_{i})} in Ω {\textstyle \Omega } , B i ∩ Inf ( ρ ) ≠ ∅ {\textstyle B_{i}\cap {\text{Inf}}(\rho )\neq \emptyset } or G i ∩ Inf ( ρ ) = ∅ {\textstyle G_{i}\cap {\text{Inf}}(\rho )=\emptyset } . A parity automaton is an automaton A {\textstyle A} whose set of states is Q = { 0 , 1 , 2 , … , k } {\textstyle Q=\{0,1,2,\ldots ,k\}} for some natural number k {\textst

  Read more →
• 

  Linux Trace Toolkit

  The Linux Trace Toolkit (LTT) is a set of tools that is designed to log program execution details from a patched Linux kernel and then perform various analyses on them, using console-based and graphical tools. LTT has been mostly superseded by its successor LTTng (Linux Trace Toolkit Next Generation). LTT allows the user to see in-depth information about the processes that were running during the trace period, including when context switches occurred, how long the processes were blocked for, and how much time the processes spent executing vs. how much time the processes were blocked. The data is logged to a text file and various console-based and graphical (GTK+) tools are provided for interpreting that data. In order to do data collection, LTT requires a patched Linux kernel. The authors of LTT claim that the performance hit for a patched kernel compared to a regular kernel is minimal; Their testing has reportedly shown that this is less than 2.5% on a "normal use" system (measured using batches of kernel makes) and less than 5% on a file I/O intensive system (measured using batches of tar). == Usage == === Collecting trace data === Data collection is Started by: trace 15 foo This command will cause the LTT tracedaemon to do a trace that lasts for 15 seconds, writing trace data to foo.trace and process information from the /proc filesystem to foo.proc. The trace command is actually a script which runs the program tracedaemon with some common options. It is possible to run tracedaemon directly and in that case, the user can use a number of command-line options to control the data which is collected. For the complete list of options supported by tracedaemon, see the online manual page for tracedaemon. === Viewing the results === Viewing the results of a trace can be accomplished with: traceview foo This command will launch a graphical (GTK+) traceview tool that will read from foo.trace and foo.proc. This tool can show information in various interesting ways, including Event Graph, Process Analysis, and Raw Trace. The Event Graph is perhaps the most interesting view, showing the exact timing of events like page faults, interrupts, and context switches, in a simple graphical way. The traceview command is a wrapper for a program called tracevisualizer. For the complete list of options supported by tracevisualizer, see the online manual page for tracevisualizer.

  Read more →
• 

  AI Coding Assistants: Free vs Paid (2026)

  In search of the best AI coding assistant? An AI coding assistant is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it turns a rough idea into a polished result in seconds. When choosing one, weigh output quality, pricing, export formats, and how well it fits the tools you already use. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI coding assistant slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. Below we compare features, pricing, and real output so you can choose with confidence.

  Read more →
• 

  State complexity

  State complexity is an area of theoretical computer science dealing with the size of abstract automata, such as different kinds of finite automata. The classical result in the area is that simulating an n {\displaystyle n} -state nondeterministic finite automaton by a deterministic finite automaton requires exactly 2 n {\displaystyle 2^{n}} states in the worst case. == Transformation between variants of finite automata == Finite automata can be deterministic and nondeterministic, one-way (DFA, NFA) and two-way (2DFA, 2NFA). Other related classes are unambiguous (UFA), self-verifying (SVFA) and alternating (AFA) finite automata. These automata can also be two-way (2UFA, 2SVFA, 2AFA). All these machines can accept exactly the regular languages. However, the size of different types of automata necessary to accept the same language (measured in the number of their states) may be different. For any two types of finite automata, the state complexity tradeoff between them is an integer function f {\displaystyle f} where f ( n ) {\displaystyle f(n)} is the least number of states in automata of the second type sufficient to recognize every language recognized by an n {\displaystyle n} -state automaton of the first type. The following results are known. NFA to DFA: 2 n {\displaystyle 2^{n}} states. This is the subset construction by Rabin and Scott, proved optimal by Lupanov. UFA to DFA: 2 n {\displaystyle 2^{n}} states, see Leung, An earlier lower bound by Schmidt was smaller. NFA to UFA: 2 n − 1 {\displaystyle 2^{n}-1} states, see Leung. There was an earlier smaller lower bound by Schmidt. SVFA to DFA: Θ ( 3 n / 3 ) {\displaystyle \Theta (3^{n/3})} states, see Jirásková and Pighizzini 2DFA to DFA: n ( n n − ( n − 1 ) n ) {\displaystyle n(n^{n}-(n-1)^{n})} states, see Kapoutsis. Earlier construction by Shepherdson used more states, and an earlier lower bound by Moore was smaller. 2DFA to NFA: ( 2 n n + 1 ) = O ( 4 n n ) {\displaystyle {\binom {2n}{n+1}}=O({\frac {4^{n}}{\sqrt {n}}})} , see Kapoutsis. Earlier construction by Birget used more states. 2NFA to NFA: ( 2 n n + 1 ) {\displaystyle {\binom {2n}{n+1}}} , see Kapoutsis. 2NFA to NFA accepting the complement: O ( 4 n ) {\displaystyle O(4^{n})} states, see Vardi. AFA to DFA: 2 2 n {\displaystyle 2^{2^{n}}} states, see Chandra, Kozen and Stockmeyer. AFA to NFA: 2 n {\displaystyle 2^{n}} states, see Fellah, Jürgensen and Yu. 2AFA to DFA: 2 n 2 n {\displaystyle 2^{n2^{n}}} , see Ladner, Lipton and Stockmeyer. 2AFA to NFA: 2 Θ ( n log ⁡ n ) {\displaystyle 2^{\Theta (n\log n)}} , see Geffert and Okhotin. === The 2DFA vs. 2NFA problem and logarithmic space === It is an open problem whether all 2NFAs can be converted to 2DFAs with polynomially many states, i.e. whether there is a polynomial p ( n ) {\displaystyle p(n)} such that for every n {\displaystyle n} -state 2NFA there exists a p ( n ) {\displaystyle p(n)} -state 2DFA. The problem was raised by Sakoda and Sipser, who compared it to the P vs. NP problem in the computational complexity theory. Berman and Lingas discovered a formal relation between this problem and the L vs. NL open problem. This relation was further elaborated by Kapoutsis. == State complexity of operations for finite automata == Given a binary regularity-preserving operation on languages ∘ {\displaystyle \circ } and a family of automata X (DFA, NFA, etc.), the state complexity of ∘ {\displaystyle \circ } is an integer function f ( m , n ) {\displaystyle f(m,n)} such that for each m-state X-automaton A and n-state X-automaton B there is an f ( m , n ) {\displaystyle f(m,n)} -state X-automaton for L ( A ) ∘ L ( B ) {\displaystyle L(A)\circ L(B)} , and for all integers m, n there is an m-state X-automaton A and an n-state X-automaton B such that every X-automaton for L ( A ) ∘ L ( B ) {\displaystyle L(A)\circ L(B)} must have at least f ( m , n ) {\displaystyle f(m,n)} states. Analogous definition applies for operations with any number of arguments. The first results on state complexity of operations for DFAs were published by Maslov and by Yu, Zhuang and Salomaa. Holzer and Kutrib pioneered the state complexity of operations on NFA. The known results for basic operations are listed below. === Union === If language L 1 {\displaystyle L_{1}} requires m states and language L 2 {\displaystyle L_{2}} requires n states, how many states does L 1 ∪ L 2 {\displaystyle L_{1}\cup L_{2}} require? DFA: m n {\displaystyle mn} states, see Maslov and Yu, Zhuang and Salomaa. NFA: m + n + 1 {\displaystyle m+n+1} states, see Holzer and Kutrib. UFA: at least min ( n , m ) Ω ( log ⁡ ( min ( n , m ) ) ) {\displaystyle \min(n,m)^{\Omega (\log(\min(n,m)))}} ; between m n + m + n {\displaystyle mn+m+n} and m + n m 2 0.79 m {\displaystyle m+nm2^{0.79m}} states, see Jirásek, Jirásková and Šebej. SVFA: m n {\displaystyle mn} states, see Jirásek, Jirásková and Szabari. 2DFA: between m + n {\displaystyle m+n} and 4 m + n + 4 {\displaystyle 4m+n+4} states, see Kunc and Okhotin. 2NFA: m + n {\displaystyle m+n} states, see Kunc and Okhotin. === Intersection === How many states does L 1 ∩ L 2 {\displaystyle L_{1}\cap L_{2}} require? DFA: m n {\displaystyle mn} states, see Maslov and Yu, Zhuang and Salomaa. NFA: m n {\displaystyle mn} states, see Holzer and Kutrib. UFA: m n {\displaystyle mn} states, see Jirásek, Jirásková and Šebej. SVFA: m n {\displaystyle mn} states, see Jirásek, Jirásková and Szabari. 2DFA: between m + n {\displaystyle m+n} and m + n + 1 {\displaystyle m+n+1} states, see Kunc and Okhotin. 2NFA: between m + n {\displaystyle m+n} and m + n + 1 {\displaystyle m+n+1} states, see Kunc and Okhotin. === Complementation === If language L requires n states then how many states does its complement require? DFA: n {\displaystyle n} states, by exchanging accepting and rejecting states. NFA: 2 n {\displaystyle 2^{n}} states, see Birget. or Jirásková UFA: at least n Ω ~ ( log ⁡ n ) {\displaystyle n^{{\tilde {\Omega }}(\log n)}} states, see Göös, Kiefer and Yuan, (this follows an earlier bound by Raskin); and at most n + 1 ⋅ 2 0.5 n {\displaystyle {\sqrt {n+1}}\cdot 2^{0.5n}} states, see Indzhev and Kiefer. SVFA: n {\displaystyle n} states, by exchanging accepting and rejecting states. 2DFA: at least n {\displaystyle n} and at most 4 n {\displaystyle 4n} states, see Geffert, Mereghetti and Pighizzini. === Concatenation === How many states does L 1 L 2 = { w 1 w 2 ∣ w 1 ∈ L 1 , w 2 ∈ L 2 } {\displaystyle L_{1}L_{2}=\{w_{1}w_{2}\mid w_{1}\in L_{1},w_{2}\in L_{2}\}} require? DFA: m ⋅ 2 n − 2 n − 1 {\displaystyle m\cdot 2^{n}-2^{n-1}} states, see Maslov and Yu, Zhuang and Salomaa. NFA: m + n {\displaystyle m+n} states, see Holzer and Kutrib. UFA: 3 4 2 m + n − 1 {\displaystyle {\frac {3}{4}}2^{m+n}-1} states, see Jirásek, Jirásková and Šebej. SVFA: Θ ( 3 n / 3 2 m ) {\displaystyle \Theta (3^{n/3}2^{m})} states, see Jirásek, Jirásková and Szabari. 2DFA: at least 2 Ω ( n ) log ⁡ m {\displaystyle {\frac {2^{\Omega (n)}}{\log m}}} and at most 2 m m + 1 ⋅ 2 n n + 1 {\displaystyle 2m^{m+1}\cdot 2^{n^{n+1}}} states, see Jirásková and Okhotin. === Kleene star === DFA: 3 4 2 n {\displaystyle {\frac {3}{4}}2^{n}} states, see Maslov and Yu, Zhuang and Salomaa. NFA: n + 1 {\displaystyle n+1} states, see Holzer and Kutrib. UFA: 3 4 2 n {\displaystyle {\frac {3}{4}}2^{n}} states, see Jirásek, Jirásková and Šebej. SVFA: 3 4 2 n {\displaystyle {\frac {3}{4}}2^{n}} states, see Jirásek, Jirásková and Szabari. 2DFA: at least 1 n 2 n 2 − 1 {\displaystyle {\frac {1}{n}}2^{{\frac {n}{2}}-1}} and at most 2 O ( n n + 1 ) {\displaystyle 2^{O(n^{n+1})}} states, see Jirásková and Okhotin. === Reversal === DFA: 2 n {\displaystyle 2^{n}} states, see Mirkin, Leiss, and Yu, Zhuang and Salomaa. NFA: n + 1 {\displaystyle n+1} states, see Holzer and Kutrib. UFA: n {\displaystyle n} states. SVFA: 2 n + 1 {\displaystyle 2n+1} states, see Jirásek, Jirásková and Szabari. 2DFA: between n + 1 {\displaystyle n+1} and n + 2 {\displaystyle n+2} states, see Jirásková and Okhotin. == Finite automata over a unary alphabet == State complexity of finite automata with a one-letter (unary) alphabet, pioneered by Chrobak, is different from the multi-letter case. Let g ( n ) = e Θ ( n ln ⁡ n ) {\displaystyle g(n)=e^{\Theta ({\sqrt {n\ln n}})}} be Landau's function. === Transformation between models === For a one-letter alphabet, transformations between different types of finite automata are sometimes more efficient than in the general case. NFA to DFA: g ( n ) + O ( n 2 ) {\displaystyle g(n)+O(n^{2})} states, see Chrobak. 2DFA to DFA: g ( n ) + O ( n ) {\displaystyle g(n)+O(n)} states, see Chrobak and Kunc and Okhotin. 2NFA to DFA: O ( g ( n ) ) {\displaystyle O(g(n))} states, see Mereghetti and Pighizzini. and Geffert, Mereghetti and Pighizzini. NFA to 2DFA: at most O ( n 2 ) {\displaystyle O(n^{2})} states, see Chrobak. 2NFA to 2DFA: at most n O ( log ⁡ n ) {\displaystyle n^{O(\log n)}} states, proved by implementing the method of Savitch's theorem, see

  Read more →