AI For Business Edinburgh

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

  • DryvIQ

    DryvIQ

    DryvIQ is a software application that enables businesses to migrate on-site system files and associated data across storage and content management platforms, as well as create synchronized hybrid storage systems. == History == Before it was DryvIQ, the software SkySync was released in 2013 by Ann Arbor, Michigan based company, Portal Architects, Inc. The company created SkySync, a back-end, administrative application designed to transfer content across storage platforms, after abandoning 18 months of development on a desktop application called SkyBrary in 2011. Between 2014 and 2015, Portal Architects established partnerships with the following companies: Autodesk, Box, Dropbox, Egnyte, EMC, Google, Syncplicity, Huddle, IBM, Microsoft, OpenText, Oracle, Citrix ShareFile, Hightail and Internet2. SkySync (currently DryvIQ) was named a "Cool Vendor in Content Management" by Gartner in 2015. In 2022, SkySync changed its name to DryvIQ, which is now what the company is currently known as. == Overview == DryvIQ is a software application that syncs, migrates or backs up files including their associated properties, metadata, versions, user accounts and permissions across on-premises and Cloud-based storage platforms. The software deploys on a server, virtual machine or within Microsoft Azure, Amazon Web Services or other cloud computing services.

    Read more →
  • CarPlay

    CarPlay

    CarPlay is an Apple standard that enables a car radio or automotive head unit to be a display and controller for an iOS device. It is available on iPhone 5 and later models running iOS 7.1 or later. More than 800 car and motorcycle models support CarPlay, according to Apple. Vehicle owners can add support by installing certain aftermarket vehicle audio products. Most CarPlay systems connect to iOS through USB, some are wireless, and wireless support can be added through aftermarket dongles. CarPlay Ultra, a more integrated version of CarPlay, was first announced on Aston Martin DBX707 in May 2025. == Software == Apple's CarPlay-enabled apps include: Phone Apple Music Apple Maps Calendar Messages Audiobooks (part of Apple Books) Podcasts Settings News Developers must obtain permission from Apple to develop CarPlay-enabled apps. Such apps fall into five categories: Audio: primarily provide audio content, such as music or podcasts. Examples: Amazon Music, Audible, Google Play Music, iHeartRadio, QQ Music, Spotify, and Overcast. Navigation: turn-by-turn guidance, including searching for points of interests and navigating to a destination. Examples: AutoNavi, Baidu Maps, Google Maps, ChargeFinder and Waze. Automaker-made apps allow a user to control vehicle-specific features such as climate controls, gas levels, or radio via CarPlay. Messaging/Voice over IP (VoIP): listen to new messages and reply using dictation in an audio-only interface. Messaging apps on CarPlay integrate with third-party Siri support (known as SiriKit), while VoIP apps integrate with the iOS calling interface using CallKit. Examples: Telegram, WhatsApp, and Zoom. Food-ordering and parking-services apps. To discourage distracted driving, Siri is used extensively, providing voice turn-by-turn navigation guidance and voice-input for text messages. Newscast-style weather and stock results are announced instead of displayed. Requests that bring up visual information may be blocked when the car is in gear, and most native CarPlay apps deliver audio content with minimal interaction. CarPlay-enabled apps installed on the device appear on the CarPlay home screen unless disabled by the user. The inclusion or exclusion and order of app appearance can be changed on a per-vehicle basis. == Hardware == Most of the CarPlay software runs on the connected iPhone. The CarPlay interface provides audio output and a visual display to the vehicle's infotainment system, while adapting to the vehicle's available control methods, including touch screens, rotary dials, physical buttons, steering-wheel controls, and hands-free microphones. Aftermarket head units may support CarPlay or Android Auto, and many support both platforms. === Wired CarPlay === In a wired CarPlay configuration, the iPhone connects to the vehicle or head unit via a USB cable. The USB connection supplies power to the iPhone and provides a stable data link for audio, video, and control input. Wired CarPlay is supported by a wide range of factory-installed infotainment systems and aftermarket head units. Some third-party devices marketed as wireless CarPlay adapters operate by emulating a wired CarPlay connection to the vehicle. These devices plug into the vehicle's USB port and present themselves as a wired CarPlay interface, while separately establishing a wireless connection to the iPhone. Such devices still require the vehicle or head unit to support standard (wired) CarPlay. === Wireless CarPlay === Wireless CarPlay allows the iPhone to connect to a compatible vehicle or head unit without a physical cable. During the initial pairing process, the iPhone exchanges network credentials with the CarPlay receiver over Bluetooth. Once paired, CarPlay data is transmitted over a two-way Wi-Fi connection between the phone and the vehicle. Wireless CarPlay support depends on both the vehicle or head unit hardware and the iPhone model, and is generally limited to newer factory systems and select aftermarket receivers. == History == === Predecessor === In 2008, one year after the release of the iPhone, Mercedes vehicles were first to sell an audio system incorporating both the iPod and iPhone, equipped with 30-pin iOS input jacks. The new 2008 Harman Kardon NTG 2.5 featured full audio streaming, syncing, charging and control integrated into the steering wheel controls, instrument panel, and head unit. Apple was working with Mercedes to develop iOS compatible audio systems into their cars first only a year after iPhone launch. With an Apple Lightning-to-30-pin adapter, iPhones/iPods remain backwards-compatible with the Harman Kardon 2.5 and later models. This is the earliest audio system specifically engineered for iPod/iPhone integration, which predated CarPlay and every other manufacturer incorporating iOS into vehicles. The concept of CarPlay was based on the iOS 4 feature called "iPod Out" which was produced through several years of joint development by Apple and the BMW Group's Technology Office USA. iPod Out enabled vehicles with the necessary infrastructure to "host" the analog video and audio from a supporting iOS device while receiving inputs, such as button presses and knob rotations, from a car's infotainment system, to drive the "hosted" user interface in the vehicle's built-in display. It was announced at WWDC 2010 and first shipped in BMW Group vehicles in early 2011. The BMW and Mini option was called "PlugIn" and paved the way for the first cross-OEM platforms, introducing the concept of requiring a car-specific interface for apps (as opposed to MirrorLink's simple and insufficient mirroring of what was shown on the smartphone's screen). === Development === CarPlay's codename was Stark. Apple's Eddy Cue announced it as iOS in the Car at WWDC 2013. In January 2014, it was reported that Apple's hardware-oriented corporate culture had led to release delays. iOS in the Car was then rebranded and launched as CarPlay with significant design changes at the Geneva Motor Show in March 2014 with Ferrari, Kia, Mercedes-Benz, and Volvo among the first car manufacturers. At WWDC 2022, Apple announced plans to release an all-new version of CarPlay, informally dubbed CarPlay 2. The new version was said to be able to control vehicle functions, access vehicle stats, and take over multiple vehicle screens. Officials said they planned to release it in late 2024 and that manufacturers that are planning to adopt the new CarPlay include: Audi, Acura, Ford, Honda, Infiniti, Jaguar, Land Rover, Lincoln, Mercedes-Benz, Nissan, Polestar, Porsche, Renault, and Volvo. In January 2025, amidst delays, Apple removed the planned released date from its website. On May 15, 2025, Apple announced that next-generation CarPlay, now called CarPlay Ultra, would be included with all new vehicles from Aston Martin. Existing vehicles will also be receiving CarPlay Ultra through a future software update. It is only available in the US and Canada. == Timeline == June 2013: Apple introduced iOS in the Car; an early version of CarPlay that was never publicly released, at WWDC 2013. June 2013: BMW officials announced their cars would not support iOS in the Car; they later changed their minds. November 2013: Siri Eyes Free mode was offered as a dealer-installed accessory in the US to some Honda Accord and Acura RDX & ILX models. In December, Honda offered additional integration, featuring new HondaLink services, on some US and Canada models of the Civic and the Fit. March 2014: Apple introduced CarPlay, which was renamed from iOS in the Car with significant design changes, at the 2014 Geneva Motor Show with automakers Ferrari, Mercedes-Benz and Volvo. September 2014: A Ferrari FF was the first car with a full version of CarPlay. November 2014: Hyundai announced the Sonata sedan would be their first model with available CarPlay by the end of the first quarter of 2015. January 2015: Volkswagen announced CarPlay support would be coming later in 2015 and would be either standard or available on the majority of their 2016 model year lineup. May 2015: General Motors announced CarPlay would be available starting with 14 different 2016 model year Chevrolet vehicles. July 2015: Honda announced CarPlay would be available in their vehicles starting with the 2016 Honda Accord. December 2015: Volvo implemented CarPlay in the 2016 Volvo XC90 as their first vehicle with CarPlay support. December 2015: Mercedes-Benz confirmed that CarPlay would be available starting with select 2016 model year vehicles. January 2016: Apple released a list detailing the car models which support CarPlay. January 2016: Ford announced CarPlay would be available on all 2017 Ford/Lincoln model year vehicles equipped with the Sync 3 infotainment system. January 2016: FCA (now a part of Stellantis) announced CarPlay would be available on their UConnect infotainment system starting with select 2016 model year vehicles. March 2016: Subaru announced the beginning of CarPlay and Android Auto support, st

    Read more →
  • Sinkov statistic

    Sinkov statistic

    Sinkov statistics, also known as log-weight statistics, is a specialized field of statistics that was developed by Abraham Sinkov, while working for the small Signal Intelligence Service organization, the primary mission of which was to compile codes and ciphers for use by the U.S. Army. The mathematics involved include modular arithmetic, a bit of number theory, some linear algebra of two dimensions with matrices, some combinatorics, and a little statistics. Sinkov did not explain the theoretical underpinnings of his statistics, or characterized its distribution, nor did he give a decision procedure for accepting or rejecting candidate plaintexts on the basis of their S1 scores. The situation becomes more difficult when comparing strings of different lengths because Sinkov does not explain how the distribution of his statistics changes with length, especially when applied to higher-order grams. As for how to accept or reject a candidate plaintext, Sinkov simply said to try all possibilities and to pick the one with the highest S1 value. Although the procedure works for some applications, it is inadequate for applications that require on-line decisions. Furthermore, it is desirable to have a meaningful interpretation of the S1 values.

    Read more →
  • Top 10 AI Copywriting Tools Compared (2026)

    Top 10 AI Copywriting Tools Compared (2026)

    In search of the best AI copywriting tool? An AI copywriting tool 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 copywriting tool 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 →
  • Waveform graphics

    Waveform graphics

    Waveform graphics is a simple vector graphics system introduced by Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC) on the VT55 and VT105 terminals in the mid-1970s. It was used to produce graphics output from mainframes and minicomputers. DEC used the term "waveform graphics" to refer specifically to the hardware, but it was used more generally to describe the whole system. The system was designed to use as little computer memory as possible. At any given X location it could draw two dots at given Y locations, making it suitable for producing two superimposed waveforms, line charts or histograms. Text and graphics could be mixed, and there were additional tools for drawing axes and markers. The waveform graphics system was used only for a short period of time before it was replaced by the more sophisticated ReGIS system, first introduced on the VT125 in 1981. ReGIS allowed the construction of arbitrary vectors and other shapes. Whereas DEC normally provided a backward compatible solution in newer terminal models, they did not choose to do this when ReGIS was introduced, and waveform graphics disappeared from later terminals. == Description == Waveform graphics was introduced on the VT55 terminal in October 1975, an era when memory was extremely expensive. Although it was technically possible to produce a bitmap display using a framebuffer using technology of the era, the memory needed to do so at a reasonable resolution was typically beyond the price point that made it practical. All sorts of systems were used to replace computer memory with other concepts, like the storage tubes used in the Tektronix 4010 terminals, or the zero memory racing-the-beam system used in the Atari 2600. DEC chose to attack this problem through a clever use of a small buffer representing only the vertical positions on the screen. Such a system could not draw arbitrary shapes, but would allow the display of graph data. The system was based on a 512 by 236 pixel display, producing 512 vertical columns along the X-axis, and 236 horizontal rows on the Y-axis. Y locations were counted up from the bottom, so the coordinate 0,0 was in the lower left, and 511, 235 in the upper right. Had this been implemented using a framebuffer with each location represented by a single bit, 512 × 236 × 1 = 120,832 bits, or 15,104 bytes, would have been required. At the time, memory cost about $50 per kilobyte, so the buffer alone would cost over $700 (equivalent to $4,570 in 2025). Instead, the waveform graphic system used one byte of memory for each X axis location, with the byte's value representing the Y location. This required only 512 bytes for each graph, a total of 1024 bytes for the two graphs. Drawing a line required the programmer to construct a series of Y locations and send them as individual points, the terminal could not connect the dots itself. To make this easier, the terminal automatically incremented the X location every time an Y coordinate was received, so a graph line could be sent as a long string of numbers for subsequent Y locations instead of having to repeatedly send the X location every time. Drawing normally started by sending a single instruction to set the initial X location, often 0 on the left, and then sending in data for the entire curve. The system also included storage for up to 512 markers on both lines. These were always drawn centered on the Y value of the line they were associated with, meaning that a simple on/off indication for X locations was all that was needed, requiring only 1024 bits, or 128 bytes, in total. The markers extended 16 pixels vertically, and could only be aligned on 16-pixel boundaries, so they were not necessarily centered across the underlying graph. Markers were used to indicate important points on the graph, where a symbol of some sort would normally be used. The system also allowed a vertical line to be drawn for every horizontal location and a horizontal one at every vertical location. These were also stored as simple on/off bits, requiring another 128 bytes of memory. These lines were used to draw axes and scale lines, or could be used for a screen-spanning crosshair cursor. A separate set of two 7-bit registers held additional information about the drawing style and other settings. Although complex from the user's perspective, this system was easy to implement in hardware. A cathode ray tube produces a display by scanning the screen in a series of horizontal motions, moving down one vertical line after each horizontal scan. At any given instant during this process, the display hardware examines a few memory locations to see if anything needs to be displayed. For instance, it can determine whether to draw a marker on graph 0 by examining register 1 to see if markers are turned on, looking in the marker buffer to see if there is a 1 at the current X location, and then examining the Y location of graph 0 to see if it is within 16 pixels of the current scan line. If all of these are true, a spot is drawn to present that portion of the marker. As this will be true for 16 vertical locations during the scanning process, a 16-pixel high marker will be drawn. Sold alone, the VT55 was priced at $2,496 (equivalent to $16,295 in 2025),. Like other models of the VT50 series, the terminal could be equipped with an optional wet-paper printer in a panel on the right of the screen. This added $800 (equivalent to $5,223 in 2025) to the price. DEC also offered VT55 in a package with a small model of the PDP-11 to create one model of the DEClab 11/03 system. The DEClab normally sold for $14,000 (equivalent to $91,397 in 2025) with a DECwriter II (LA36) hard-copy terminal for $15,000 (equivalent to $97,925 in 2025), with the VT55. The system had I/O channels for up to 15 lab devices, and included libraries for FORTRAN and BASIC for reading the data and creating graphs. The fairly extensive VT55 Programmers Manual covered the latter in depth. == Commands and data == Data was sent to the terminal using an extended set of codes similar to those introduced on the VT52. VT52 codes generally started with the ESC character (octal 33, decimal 27) and was then followed by a single letter instruction. For instance, the string of four characters ESC H ESC J would reposition the cursor in the upper left (home) and then clear the screen from that point down. These codes were basically modeless; triggered by the ESC the resulting escape mode automatically exited again when the command was complete. Escape codes could be interspersed with display text anywhere in the stream of data. In contrast, the graphics system was entirely modal, with escape sequences being sent to cause the terminal to enter or exit graph drawing mode. Data sent between these two codes were interpreted by the graphics hardware, so text and graphics could not be mixed in a single stream of instructions. Graphics mode was entered by sending the string ESC 1, and exited again with the string ESC 2. Even the commands within the graphics mode were modal; characters were interpreted as being additional data for the previous load character (command) until another load character is seen. Ten load characters were available: @ - no operation, used to tell the terminal the last command is no longer active A - load data into register 0, selecting the drawing mode for the two graphs I - load data into register 1, selecting other drawing options H - load the starting X position (Horizontal) for the following commands B - load data for Y locations for graph 0 starting at the H position selected earlier J - load data for Y locations for graph 1 starting at the H position selected earlier C - store a marker on graph 0 at the following X location K - store a marker on graph 1 at the following X location D - draw a horizontal line at the given Y location L - draw a vertical line at the given X location X and Y locations were sent as 10-bit decimal numbers, encoded as ASCII characters, with 5 bits per character. This means that any number within the 1024 number space (210) can be stored as a string of two characters. To ensure the characters can be transmitted over 7-bit links, the pattern 01 is placed in front of both 5-bit numbers, producing 7-bit ASCII values that are always within the printable range. This results in a somewhat complex encoding algorithm. For instance, if one wanted to encode the decimal value 102, first you convert that to the 10-bit decimal pattern 0010010010. That is then split that into upper and lower 5-bit parts, 00100 and 10010. Then append 01 binary to produce 7-bit numbers 0100100 and 0110010. Individually convert back to decimal 40 and 50, and then look up those characters in an ASCII chart, finding ( and 2. These have to be sent to the terminal least significant character first. If these were being used to set the X coordinate, the complete string would be H2(. When used as X and Y locations for the graphs, extra digits were ignored. For instance, the 512 pixel X axis r

    Read more →
  • OCR Systems

    OCR Systems

    OCR Systems, Inc., was an American computer hardware manufacturer and software publisher dedicated to optical character recognition technologies. The company's first product, the System 1000 in 1970, was used by numerous large corporations for bill processing and mail sorting. Following a series of pitfalls in the 1970s and early 1980s, founder Theodor Herzl Levine put the company in the hands of Gregory Boleslavsky and Vadim Brikman, the company's vice presidents and recent immigrants from the Soviet Ukraine, who were able to turn OCR System's fortunes around and expand its employee base. The company released the software-based OCR application ReadRight for DOS, later ported to Windows, in the late 1980s. Adobe Inc. bought the company in 1992. == History == OCR Systems was co-founded by Theodor Herzl Levine (c. 1923 – May 30, 2005). Levine served in the U.S. Army Signal Corps during World War II in the Solomon Islands, where he helped develop a sonar to find ejected pilots in the ocean. After the war, Levine spent 22 years at the University of Pennsylvania, earning his bachelor's degree in 1951, his master's degree in electrical engineering in 1957, and his doctorate in 1968. Alongside his studies, Levine taught statistics and calculus at Temple University, Rutgers University, La Salle University and Penn State Abington. Sometime in the 1960s, Levine was hired at Philco. He and two of his co-workers decided to form their own company dedicated to optical character recognition, founding OCR Systems in 1969 in Bensalem, Pennsylvania. OCR Systems's first product, the System 1000, was announced in 1970. OCR Systems entered a partnership with 3M to resell the System 1000 throughout the United States in March 1973. This was 3M's entry into the data entry field, managed by the company's Microfilm Products Division and accompanying 3M's suite of data retrieval systems. It soon found use among Texas Instruments, AT&T, Ricoh, Panasonic and Canon for bill processing and mail sorting. Later in the mid-1970s an unspecified Fortune 500 company reneged on a contract to distribute the System 1000; later still a Canadian company distributing the System 1000 in Canada went defunct. Both incidents led OCR Systems to go nearly bankrupt, although it eventually recovered. By the early 1980s, however, the company was almost insolvent. In 1983 Levine had only $8,000 in his savings and became bedridden with an illness. He left the company in the hands of Gregory Boleslavsky and Vadim Brikman, two Soviet Ukraine expats whom Levine had hired earlier in the 1980s. Boleslavsky was hired as a wire wrapper for the System 1000 and as a programmer and beta tester for ReadRight—a software package developed by Levine implementing patents from Nonlinear Technology, another OCR-centric company from Greenbelt, Maryland. Boleslavsky in turn recommended Brikman to Levine. The two soon became vice presidents of the company while Levine was bedridden; in Boleslavsky's case, he worked 14-hour work days for over half a year in pursuit of the title. The two presented OCR Systems' products to the National Computer Conference in Chicago, where they were massively popular. The company soon gained such clients as Allegheny Energy in Pennsylvania and the postal service of Belgium and received an influx of employees—mostly expats from Russia but also Poland and South Korea, as well as American-born workers. To accommodate the company's employee base, which had grown to over 30 in 1988, Levine moved OCR System's headquarters from Bensalem to the Masons Mill Business Park in Bryn Athyn. Chinon Industries of Japan signed an agreement with OCR Systems in 1987 to distribute OCR's ReadRight 1.0 software with Chinon's scanners, starting with their N-205 overhead scanner. In 1988, OCR opened their agreement to distribute ReadRight to other scanner manufacturers, including Canon, Hewlett-Packard, Skyworld, Taxan, Diamond Flower and Abaton. That year, the company posted a revenue of $3 million. OCR Systems extended their agreement with Chinon in 1989 and introduced version 2.0 of ReadRight. OCR Systems faced stiff competition in the software OCR market in the turn of the 1990s. The Toronto-based software firm Delrina signed a letter of intent to purchase the company in November 1991, expecting the deal to close in December and have OCR software available by Christmas. OCR was to receive $3 million worth of Delrina shares in a stock swap, but the deal collapsed in January 1992. Delrine later marketed its own Extended Character Recognition, or XCR, software package to compete with ReadRight. In July 1992, OCR Systems was purchased by Adobe Inc. for an undisclosed sum. == Products == === System 1000 === The System 1000 was based on the 16-bit Varian Data 620/i minicomputer with 4 KB of core memory. The system used the 620/i for controlling the paper feed, interpreting the format of the documents, the optical character recognition process itself, error detection, sequencing and output. The System was initially programmed to recognize 1428 OCR (used by Selectrics); IBM 407 print; and the full character sets of OCR-A, OCR-B and Farrington 7B; as well as optical marks and handwritten numbers. OCR Systems promised added compatibility with more fonts available down the line—per request—in 1970. The number of fonts supported was limited by the amount of core memory, which was expandable in 4 KB increments up to 32 KB. The System 1000 later supported generalized typewriter and photocopier fonts. The rest of the System 1000 comprised the document transport, one or more scanner elements, a CRT display and a Teletype Model 33 or 35. Pages are fed via friction with a rubber belt. Up to three lines could be scanned per document, while the rest of the scanned document could be laid out in any manner granted there was enough space around the fields to be read. The reader initially supported pages as small as 3.25 in by 3.5 in dimension (later supporting 2.6 in by 3.5 in utility cash stubs) all the way to the standard ANSI letter size (8.5 in by 11 in; later 8.5 in by 12 in as used in stock certificates). The initial System 1000 had a maximum throughput of 420 documents per minute per transport (later 500 documents per minute), contingent on document size and content. A feature unique to the System 1000 over other optical character recognition systems of the time was its ability to alert the operator when a field was unreadable or otherwise invalid. This feature, called Document Referral, placed the document in front of the operator and displayed a blank field on the screen of the included CRT monitor for manual re-entry via keyboard. Once input, data could be output to 7- or 9-track tape, paper tape, punched cards and other mass storage media or to System/360 mainframes for further processing. The complete System 1000 could be purchased for US$69,000. Options for renting were $1,800 per month on a three-year lease or $1,600 per month for five years. Computerworld wrote that it was less than half the cost of its competitors while more capable and user-friendly. Competing systems included the Recognition Equipment Retina, the Scan-Optics IC/20 and the Scan-Data 250/350. === ReadRight === ReadRight processes individual letters topographically: it breaks down the scanned letter into parts—strokes, curves, angles, ascenders and descenders—and follows a tree structure of letters broken down into these parts to determine the corresponding character code. ReadRight was entirely software-based, requiring no expansion card to work. Version 2.01, the last version released for DOS, runs in real mode in under 640 KB of RAM. OCR Systems released the Windows-only version 3.0 in 1991 while offering version 2.01 alongside it. The company unveiled a sister product, ReadRight Personal, dedicated to handheld scanners and for Windows only in October 1991. This version adds real-time scanning—each word is updated to the screen while lines are being scanned. ReadRight proper was later made a Windows-only product with version 3.1 in 1992. The inclusion of ReadRight 2.0 with Canon's IX-12F flatbed scanner led PC Magazine to award it an Editor's Choice rating in 1989. Despite this, reviewer Robert Kendall found qualification with ReadRight's ability to parse proportional typefaces such as Helvetica and Times New Roman. Mitt Jones of the same publication found version 2.01 to have improved its ability to read such typefaces and praised its ease of use and low resource intensiveness. Jones disliked the inability to handle uneven page paragraph column widths and graphics, noting that the manual recommended the user block out graphics with a Post-it Note. Version 3.1 for Windows received mixed reviews. Mike Heck of InfoWorld wrote that its "low cost and rich collection of features are hard to ignore" but rated its speed and accuracy average. Barry Simon of PC Magazine called it economical but inaccurate, unable to correct errors it did

    Read more →
  • Evaluation of machine translation

    Evaluation of machine translation

    Various methods for the evaluation for machine translation have been employed. This article focuses on the evaluation of the output of machine translation, rather than on performance or usability evaluation. == Round-trip translation == A typical way for lay people to assess machine translation quality is to translate from a source language to a target language and back to the source language with the same engine. Though intuitively this may seem like a good method of evaluation, it has been shown that round-trip translation is a "poor predictor of quality". The reason why it is such a poor predictor of quality is reasonably intuitive. A round-trip translation is not testing one system, but two systems: the language pair of the engine for translating into the target language, and the language pair translating back from the target language. Consider the following examples of round-trip translation performed from English to Italian and Portuguese from Somers (2005): In the first example, where the text is translated into Italian then back into English—the English text is significantly garbled, but the Italian is a serviceable translation. In the second example, the text translated back into English is perfect, but the Portuguese translation is meaningless; the program thought "tit" was a reference to a tit (bird), which was intended for a "tat", a word it did not understand. While round-trip translation may be useful to generate a "surplus of fun," the methodology is deficient for serious study of machine translation quality. == Human evaluation == This section covers two of the large scale evaluation studies that have had significant impact on the field—the ALPAC 1966 study and the ARPA study. === Automatic Language Processing Advisory Committee (ALPAC) === One of the constituent parts of the ALPAC report was a study comparing different levels of human translation with machine translation output, using human subjects as judges. The human judges were specially trained for the purpose. The evaluation study compared an MT system translating from Russian into English with human translators, on two variables. The variables studied were "intelligibility" and "fidelity". Intelligibility was a measure of how "understandable" the sentence was, and was measured on a scale of 1–9. Fidelity was a measure of how much information the translated sentence retained compared to the original, and was measured on a scale of 0–9. Each point on the scale was associated with a textual description. For example, 3 on the intelligibility scale was described as "Generally unintelligible; it tends to read like nonsense but, with a considerable amount of reflection and study, one can at least hypothesize the idea intended by the sentence". Intelligibility was measured without reference to the original, while fidelity was measured indirectly. The translated sentence was presented, and after reading it and absorbing the content, the original sentence was presented. The judges were asked to rate the original sentence on informativeness. So, the more informative the original sentence, the lower the quality of the translation. The study showed that the variables were highly correlated when the human judgment was averaged per sentence. The variation among raters was small, but the researchers recommended that at the very least, three or four raters should be used. The evaluation methodology managed to separate translations by humans from translations by machines with ease. The study concluded that, "highly reliable assessments can be made of the quality of human and machine translations". === Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) === As part of the Human Language Technologies Program, the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) created a methodology to evaluate machine translation systems, and continues to perform evaluations based on this methodology. The evaluation programme was instigated in 1991, and continues to this day. Details of the programme can be found in White et al. (1994) and White (1995). The evaluation programme involved testing several systems based on different theoretical approaches; statistical, rule-based and human-assisted. A number of methods for the evaluation of the output from these systems were tested in 1992 and the most recent suitable methods were selected for inclusion in the programmes for subsequent years. The methods were; comprehension evaluation, quality panel evaluation, and evaluation based on adequacy and fluency. Comprehension evaluation aimed to directly compare systems based on the results from multiple choice comprehension tests, as in Church et al. (1993). The texts chosen were a set of articles in English on the subject of financial news. These articles were translated by professional translators into a series of language pairs, and then translated back into English using the machine translation systems. It was decided that this was not adequate for a standalone method of comparing systems and as such abandoned due to issues with the modification of meaning in the process of translating from English. The idea of quality panel evaluation was to submit translations to a panel of expert native English speakers who were professional translators and get them to evaluate them. The evaluations were done on the basis of a metric, modelled on a standard US government metric used to rate human translations. This was good from the point of view that the metric was "externally motivated", since it was not specifically developed for machine translation. However, the quality panel evaluation was very difficult to set up logistically, as it necessitated having a number of experts together in one place for a week or more, and furthermore for them to reach consensus. This method was also abandoned. Along with a modified form of the comprehension evaluation (re-styled as informativeness evaluation), the most popular method was to obtain ratings from monolingual judges for segments of a document. The judges were presented with a segment, and asked to rate it for two variables, adequacy and fluency. Adequacy is a rating of how much information is transferred between the original and the translation, and fluency is a rating of how good the English is. This technique was found to cover the relevant parts of the quality panel evaluation, while at the same time being easier to deploy, as it didn't require expert judgment. Measuring systems based on adequacy and fluency, along with informativeness is now the standard methodology for the ARPA evaluation program. == Automatic evaluation == In the context of this article, a metric is a measurement. A metric that evaluates machine translation output represents the quality of the output. The quality of a translation is inherently subjective, there is no objective or quantifiable "good." Therefore, any metric must assign quality scores so they correlate with the human judgment of quality. That is, a metric should score highly translations that humans score highly, and give low scores to those humans give low scores. Human judgment is the benchmark for assessing automatic metrics, as humans are the end-users of any translation output. The measure of evaluation for metrics is correlation with human judgment. This is generally done at two levels, at the sentence level, where scores are calculated by the metric for a set of translated sentences, and then correlated against human judgment for the same sentences. And at the corpus level, where scores over the sentences are aggregated for both human judgments and metric judgments, and these aggregate scores are then correlated. Figures for correlation at the sentence level are rarely reported, although Banerjee et al. (2005) do give correlation figures that show that, at least for their metric, sentence-level correlation is substantially worse than corpus level correlation. While not widely reported, it has been noted that the genre, or domain, of a text has an effect on the correlation obtained when using metrics. Coughlin (2003) reports that comparing the candidate text against a single reference translation does not adversely affect the correlation of metrics when working in a restricted domain text. Even if a metric correlates well with human judgment in one study on one corpus, this successful correlation may not carry over to another corpus. Good metric performance, across text types or domains, is important for the reusability of the metric. A metric that only works for text in a specific domain is useful, but less useful than one that works across many domains—because creating a new metric for every new evaluation or domain is undesirable. Another important factor in the usefulness of an evaluation metric is to have a good correlation, even when working with small amounts of data, that is candidate sentences and reference translations. Turian et al. (2003) point out that, "Any MT evaluation measure is less reliable on shorter translations", and

    Read more →
  • Distributional–relational database

    Distributional–relational database

    A distributional–relational database, or word-vector database, is a database management system (DBMS) that uses distributional word-vector representations to enrich the semantics of structured data. As distributional word-vectors can be built automatically from large-scale corpora, this enrichment supports the construction of databases which can embed large-scale commonsense background knowledge into their operations. Distributional-Relational models can be applied to the construction of schema-agnostic databases (databases in which users can query the data without being aware of its schema), semantic search, schema-integration and inductive and abductive reasoning as well as different applications in which a semantically flexible knowledge representation model is needed. The main advantage of distributional–relational models over purely logical or semantic web models is the fact that the core semantic associations can be automatically captured from corpora, in contrast to the definition of manually curated ontologies and rule knowledge bases. == Distributional–relational models == Distributional–relational models were first formalized as a mechanism to cope with the vocabulary/semantic gap between users and the schema behind the data. In this scenario, distributional semantic relatedness measures, combined with semantic pivoting heuristics can support the approximation between user queries (expressed in their own vocabulary), and data (expressed in the vocabulary of the designer). In this model, the database symbols (entities and relations) are embedded into a distributional semantic space and have a geometric interpretation under a latent or explicit semantic space. The geometric aspect supports the semantic approximation between entities from different databases, or between a query term and a database entity. The distributional relational model then becomes a double layered model where the semantics of the structured data provides the fine-grained semantics intended by the database designer, which is extended by the distributional semantic model which contains the semantic associations expressed at a broader use. These models support the generalization from a closed communication scenario (in which database designers and users live in the same context, e.g. the same organization) to an open communication scenario (e.g. different organizations, the Web), creating an abstraction layer between users and the specific representation of the conceptual model.

    Read more →
  • Kolmogorov–Arnold Networks

    Kolmogorov–Arnold Networks

    Kolmogorov–Arnold Networks (KANs) are a type of artificial neural network architecture inspired by the Kolmogorov–Arnold representation theorem, also known as the superposition theorem. Unlike traditional multilayer perceptrons (MLPs), which rely on fixed activation functions and linear weights, KANs replace each weight with a learnable univariate function, often represented using splines. == History == KANs (Kolmogorov–Arnold Networks) were proposed by Liu et al. (2024) as a generalization of the Kolmogorov–Arnold representation theorem (KART), aiming to outperform MLPs in small-scale AI and scientific tasks. Before KANs, numerous studies explored KART's connections to neural networks or used it as a basis for designing new network architectures. In the 1980s and 1990s, early research applied KART to neural network design. Kůrková et al. (1992), Hecht-Nielsen (1987), and Nees (1994) established theoretical foundations for multilayer networks based on KART. Igelnik et al. (2003) introduced the Kolmogorov Spline Network using cubic splines to model complex functions. Sprecher (1996, 1997) introduced numerical methods for building network layers, while Nakamura et al. (1993) created activation functions with guaranteed approximation accuracy. These works linked KART's theoretical potential with practical neural network implementation. KART has also been used in other computational and theoretical fields. Coppejans (2004) developed nonparametric regression estimators using B-splines, Bryant (2008) applied it to high-dimensional image tasks, Liu (2015) investigated theoretical applications in optimal transport and image encryption, and more recently, Polar and Poluektov (2021) used Urysohn operators for efficient KART construction, while Fakhoury et al. (2022) introduced ExSpliNet, integrating KART with probabilistic trees and multivariate B-splines for improved function approximation. == Architecture == KANs are based on the Kolmogorov–Arnold representation theorem, which was linked to the 13th Hilbert problem. Given x = ( x 1 , x 2 , … , x n ) {\displaystyle x=(x_{1},x_{2},\dots ,x_{n})} consisting of n variables, a multivariate continuous function f ( x ) {\displaystyle f(x)} can be represented as: f ( x ) = f ( x 1 , … , x n ) = ∑ q = 1 2 n + 1 Φ q ( ∑ p = 1 n φ q , p ( x p ) ) {\displaystyle f(x)=f(x_{1},\dots ,x_{n})=\sum _{q=1}^{2n+1}\Phi _{q}\left(\sum _{p=1}^{n}\varphi _{q,p}(x_{p})\right)} (1) This formulation contains two nested summations: an outer and an inner sum. The outer sum ∑ q = 1 2 n + 1 {\displaystyle \sum _{q=1}^{2n+1}} aggregates 2 n + 1 {\displaystyle 2n+1} terms, each involving a function Φ q : R → R {\displaystyle \Phi _{q}:\mathbb {R} \to \mathbb {R} } . The inner sum ∑ p = 1 n {\displaystyle \sum _{p=1}^{n}} computes n terms for each q, where each term φ q , p : [ 0 , 1 ] → R {\displaystyle \varphi _{q,p}:[0,1]\to \mathbb {R} } is a continuous function of the single variable x p {\displaystyle x_{p}} . The inner continuous functions φ q , p {\displaystyle \varphi _{q,p}} are universal, independent of f {\displaystyle f} , while the outer functions Φ q {\displaystyle \Phi _{q}} depend on the specific function f {\displaystyle f} being represented. The representation (1) holds for all multivariate functions f {\displaystyle f} as proved in . If f {\displaystyle f} is continuous, then the outer functions Φ q {\displaystyle \Phi _{q}} are continuous; if f {\displaystyle f} is discontinuous, then the corresponding Φ q {\displaystyle \Phi _{q}} are generally discontinuous, while the inner functions φ q , p {\displaystyle \varphi _{q,p}} remain the same universal functions. Liu et al. proposed the name KAN. A general KAN network consisting of L layers takes x to generate the output as: K A N ( x ) = ( Φ L − 1 ∘ Φ L − 2 ∘ ⋯ ∘ Φ 1 ∘ Φ 0 ) x {\displaystyle \mathrm {KAN} (x)=(\Phi ^{L-1}\circ \Phi ^{L-2}\circ \cdots \circ \Phi ^{1}\circ \Phi ^{0})x} (3) Here, Φ l {\displaystyle \Phi ^{l}} is the function matrix of the l-th KAN layer or a set of pre-activations. Let i denote the neuron of the l-th layer and j the neuron of the (l+1)-th layer. The activation function φ j , i l {\displaystyle \varphi _{j,i}^{l}} connects (l, i) to (l+1, j): φ j , i l , l = 0 , … , L − 1 , i = 1 , … , n l , j = 1 , … , n l + 1 {\displaystyle \varphi _{j,i}^{l},\quad l=0,\dots ,L-1,\;i=1,\dots ,n_{l},\;j=1,\dots ,n_{l+1}} (4) where nl is the number of nodes of the l-th layer. Thus, the function matrix Φ l {\displaystyle \Phi ^{l}} can be represented as an n l + 1 × n l {\displaystyle n_{l+1}\times n_{l}} matrix of activations: x l + 1 = ( φ 1 , 1 l ( ⋅ ) φ 1 , 2 l ( ⋅ ) ⋯ φ 1 , n l l ( ⋅ ) φ 2 , 1 l ( ⋅ ) φ 2 , 2 l ( ⋅ ) ⋯ φ 2 , n l l ( ⋅ ) ⋮ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ φ n l + 1 , 1 l ( ⋅ ) φ n l + 1 , 2 l ( ⋅ ) ⋯ φ n l + 1 , n l l ( ⋅ ) ) x l {\displaystyle x^{l+1}={\begin{pmatrix}\varphi _{1,1}^{l}(\cdot )&\varphi _{1,2}^{l}(\cdot )&\cdots &\varphi _{1,n_{l}}^{l}(\cdot )\\\varphi _{2,1}^{l}(\cdot )&\varphi _{2,2}^{l}(\cdot )&\cdots &\varphi _{2,n_{l}}^{l}(\cdot )\\\vdots &\vdots &\ddots &\vdots \\\varphi _{n_{l+1},1}^{l}(\cdot )&\varphi _{n_{l+1},2}^{l}(\cdot )&\cdots &\varphi _{n_{l+1},n_{l}}^{l}(\cdot )\end{pmatrix}}x^{l}} == Implementations == To make the KAN layers optimizable, the inner function is formed by the combination of spline and basic functions as the formula: φ ( x ) = w b b ( x ) + w s spline ( x ) {\displaystyle \varphi (x)=w_{b}\,b(x)+w_{s}\,{\text{spline}}(x)} where b ( x ) {\displaystyle b(x)} is the basic function, usually defined as s i l u ( x ) = x / ( 1 + e x ) {\displaystyle silu(x)=x/(1+e^{x})} and w b {\displaystyle w_{b}} is the base weight matrix. Also, w s {\displaystyle w_{s}} is the spline weight matrix and spline ( x ) {\displaystyle {\text{spline}}(x)} is the spline function. The spline function can be a sum of B-splines. spline ( x ) = ∑ i c i B i ( x ) {\displaystyle {\text{spline}}(x)=\sum _{i}c_{i}B_{i}(x)} Many studies suggested to use other polynomial and curve functions instead of B-spline to create new KAN variants. == Functions used == The choice of functional basis strongly influences the performance of KANs. Common function families include: B-splines: Provide locality, smoothness, and interpretability; they are the most widely used in current implementations. RBFs (include Gaussian RBFs): Capture localized features in data and are effective in approximating functions with non-linear or clustered structures. Chebyshev polynomials: Offer efficient approximation with minimized error in the maximum norm, making them useful for stable function representation. Rational function: Useful for approximating functions with singularities or sharp variations, as they can model asymptotic behavior better than polynomials. Fourier series: Capture periodic patterns effectively and are particularly useful in domains such as physics-informed machine learning. Wavelet functions (DoG, Mexican hat, Morlet, and Shannon): Used for feature extraction as they can capture both high-frequency and low-frequency data components. Piecewise linear functions: Provide efficient approximation for multivariate functions in KANs. == Usage == In some modern neural architectures like convolutional neural networks (CNNs), recurrent neural networks (RNNs), and Transformers, KANs are typically used as drop-in substitutes for MLP layers. Despite KANs' general-purpose design, researchers have created and used them for a number of tasks: Scientific machine learning (SciML): Function fitting, partial differential equations (PDEs) and physical/mathematical laws. Continual learning: KANs better preserve previously learned information during incremental updates, avoiding catastrophic forgetting due to the locality of spline adjustments. Graph neural networks: Extensions such as Kolmogorov–Arnold Graph Neural Networks (KA-GNNs) integrate KAN modules into message-passing architectures, showing improvements in molecular property prediction tasks. Sensor data processing: Kolmogorov–Arnold Networks (KANs) have recently been applied to sensor data processing due to their ability to model complex nonlinear relationships with relatively few parameters and improved interpretability compared to conventional multilayer perceptrons. Applications include industrial soft sensors, biomedical signal analysis, remote sensing, and environmental monitoring systems. == Drawbacks == KANs can be computationally intensive and require a large number of parameters due to their use of polynomial functions to capture data.

    Read more →
  • Restricted Boltzmann machine

    Restricted Boltzmann machine

    A restricted Boltzmann machine (RBM) (also called a restricted Sherrington–Kirkpatrick model with external field or restricted stochastic Ising–Lenz–Little model) is a generative stochastic artificial neural network that can learn a probability distribution over its set of inputs. RBMs were initially proposed under the name Harmonium by Paul Smolensky in 1986, and rose to prominence after Geoffrey Hinton and collaborators used fast learning algorithms for them in the mid-2000s. RBMs have found applications in dimensionality reduction, classification, collaborative filtering, feature learning, topic modelling, immunology, and even many‑body quantum mechanics. They can be trained in either supervised or unsupervised ways, depending on the task. As their name implies, RBMs are a variant of Boltzmann machines, with the restriction that their neurons must form a bipartite graph: a pair of nodes from each of the two groups of units (commonly referred to as the "visible" and "hidden" units respectively) may have a symmetric connection between them; and there are no connections between nodes within a group. By contrast, "unrestricted" Boltzmann machines may have connections between hidden units. This restriction allows for more efficient training algorithms than are available for the general class of Boltzmann machines, in particular the gradient-based contrastive divergence algorithm. Restricted Boltzmann machines can also be used in deep learning networks. In particular, deep belief networks can be formed by "stacking" RBMs and optionally fine-tuning the resulting deep network with gradient descent and backpropagation. == Structure == The standard type of RBM has binary-valued (Boolean) hidden and visible units, and consists of a matrix of weights W {\displaystyle W} of size m × n {\displaystyle m\times n} . Each weight element ( w i , j ) {\displaystyle (w_{i,j})} of the matrix is associated with the connection between the visible (input) unit v i {\displaystyle v_{i}} and the hidden unit h j {\displaystyle h_{j}} . In addition, there are bias weights (offsets) a i {\displaystyle a_{i}} for v i {\displaystyle v_{i}} and b j {\displaystyle b_{j}} for h j {\displaystyle h_{j}} . Given the weights and biases, the energy of a configuration (pair of Boolean vectors) (v,h) is defined as E ( v , h ) = − ∑ i a i v i − ∑ j b j h j − ∑ i ∑ j v i w i , j h j {\displaystyle E(v,h)=-\sum _{i}a_{i}v_{i}-\sum _{j}b_{j}h_{j}-\sum _{i}\sum _{j}v_{i}w_{i,j}h_{j}} or, in matrix notation, E ( v , h ) = − a T v − b T h − v T W h . {\displaystyle E(v,h)=-a^{\mathrm {T} }v-b^{\mathrm {T} }h-v^{\mathrm {T} }Wh.} This energy function is analogous to that of a Hopfield network. As with general Boltzmann machines, the joint probability distribution for the visible and hidden vectors is defined in terms of the energy function as follows, P ( v , h ) = 1 Z e − E ( v , h ) {\displaystyle P(v,h)={\frac {1}{Z}}e^{-E(v,h)}} where Z {\displaystyle Z} is a partition function defined as the sum of e − E ( v , h ) {\displaystyle e^{-E(v,h)}} over all possible configurations, which can be interpreted as a normalizing constant to ensure that the probabilities sum to 1. The marginal probability of a visible vector is the sum of P ( v , h ) {\displaystyle P(v,h)} over all possible hidden layer configurations, P ( v ) = 1 Z ∑ { h } e − E ( v , h ) {\displaystyle P(v)={\frac {1}{Z}}\sum _{\{h\}}e^{-E(v,h)}} , and vice versa. Since the underlying graph structure of the RBM is bipartite (meaning there are no intra-layer connections), the hidden unit activations are mutually independent given the visible unit activations. Conversely, the visible unit activations are mutually independent given the hidden unit activations. That is, for m visible units and n hidden units, the conditional probability of a configuration of the visible units v, given a configuration of the hidden units h, is P ( v | h ) = ∏ i = 1 m P ( v i | h ) {\displaystyle P(v|h)=\prod _{i=1}^{m}P(v_{i}|h)} . Conversely, the conditional probability of h given v is P ( h | v ) = ∏ j = 1 n P ( h j | v ) {\displaystyle P(h|v)=\prod _{j=1}^{n}P(h_{j}|v)} . The individual activation probabilities are given by P ( h j = 1 | v ) = σ ( b j + ∑ i = 1 m w i , j v i ) {\displaystyle P(h_{j}=1|v)=\sigma \left(b_{j}+\sum _{i=1}^{m}w_{i,j}v_{i}\right)} and P ( v i = 1 | h ) = σ ( a i + ∑ j = 1 n w i , j h j ) {\displaystyle \,P(v_{i}=1|h)=\sigma \left(a_{i}+\sum _{j=1}^{n}w_{i,j}h_{j}\right)} where σ {\displaystyle \sigma } denotes the logistic sigmoid. The visible units of Restricted Boltzmann Machine can be multinomial, although the hidden units are Bernoulli. In this case, the logistic function for visible units is replaced by the softmax function P ( v i k = 1 | h ) = exp ⁡ ( a i k + Σ j W i j k h j ) Σ k ′ = 1 K exp ⁡ ( a i k ′ + Σ j W i j k ′ h j ) {\displaystyle P(v_{i}^{k}=1|h)={\frac {\exp(a_{i}^{k}+\Sigma _{j}W_{ij}^{k}h_{j})}{\Sigma _{k'=1}^{K}\exp(a_{i}^{k'}+\Sigma _{j}W_{ij}^{k'}h_{j})}}} where K is the number of discrete values that the visible values have. They are applied in topic modeling, and recommender systems. === Relation to other models === Restricted Boltzmann machines are a special case of Boltzmann machines and Markov random fields. The graphical model of RBMs corresponds to that of factor analysis. == Training algorithm == Restricted Boltzmann machines are trained to maximize the product of probabilities assigned to some training set V {\displaystyle V} (a matrix, each row of which is treated as a visible vector v {\displaystyle v} ), arg ⁡ max W ∏ v ∈ V P ( v ) {\displaystyle \arg \max _{W}\prod _{v\in V}P(v)} or equivalently, to maximize the expected log probability of a training sample v {\displaystyle v} selected randomly from V {\displaystyle V} : arg ⁡ max W E [ log ⁡ P ( v ) ] {\displaystyle \arg \max _{W}\mathbb {E} \left[\log P(v)\right]} The algorithm most often used to train RBMs, that is, to optimize the weight matrix W {\displaystyle W} , is the contrastive divergence (CD) algorithm due to Hinton, originally developed to train PoE (product of experts) models. The algorithm performs Gibbs sampling and is used inside a gradient descent procedure (similar to the way backpropagation is used inside such a procedure when training feedforward neural nets) to compute weight update. The basic, single-step contrastive divergence (CD-1) procedure for a single sample can be summarized as follows: Take a training sample v, compute the probabilities of the hidden units and sample a hidden activation vector h from this probability distribution. Compute the outer product of v and h and call this the positive gradient. From h, sample a reconstruction v' of the visible units, then resample the hidden activations h' from this. (Gibbs sampling step) Compute the outer product of v' and h' and call this the negative gradient. Let the update to the weight matrix W {\displaystyle W} be the positive gradient minus the negative gradient, times some learning rate: Δ W = ϵ ( v h T − v ′ h ′ T ) {\displaystyle \Delta W=\epsilon (vh^{\mathsf {T}}-v'h'^{\mathsf {T}})} . Update the biases a and b analogously: Δ a = ϵ ( v − v ′ ) {\displaystyle \Delta a=\epsilon (v-v')} , Δ b = ϵ ( h − h ′ ) {\displaystyle \Delta b=\epsilon (h-h')} . A Practical Guide to Training RBMs written by Hinton can be found on his homepage. == Stacked Restricted Boltzmann Machine == The difference between the Stacked Restricted Boltzmann Machines and RBM is that RBM has lateral connections within a layer that are prohibited to make analysis tractable. On the other hand, the Stacked Boltzmann consists of a combination of an unsupervised three-layer network with symmetric weights and a supervised fine-tuned top layer for recognizing three classes. The usage of Stacked Boltzmann is to understand Natural languages, retrieve documents, image generation, and classification. These functions are trained with unsupervised pre-training and/or supervised fine-tuning. Unlike the undirected symmetric top layer, with a two-way unsymmetric layer for connection for RBM. The restricted Boltzmann's connection is three-layers with asymmetric weights, and two networks are combined into one. Stacked Boltzmann does share similarities with RBM, the neuron for Stacked Boltzmann is a stochastic binary Hopfield neuron, which is the same as the Restricted Boltzmann Machine. The energy from both Restricted Boltzmann and RBM is given by Gibb's probability measure: E = − 1 2 ∑ i , j w i j s i s j + ∑ i θ i s i {\displaystyle E=-{\frac {1}{2}}\sum _{i,j}{w_{ij}{s_{i}}{s_{j}}}+\sum _{i}{\theta _{i}}{s_{i}}} . The training process of Restricted Boltzmann is similar to RBM. Restricted Boltzmann train one layer at a time and approximate equilibrium state with a 3-segment pass, not performing back propagation. Restricted Boltzmann uses both supervised and unsupervised on different RBM for pre-training for classification and recognition. The training uses contrastive divergence with

    Read more →
  • Leo Breiman

    Leo Breiman

    Leo Breiman (January 27, 1928 – July 5, 2005) was an American statistician at the University of California, Berkeley and a member of the United States National Academy of Sciences. Breiman's work helped to bridge the gap between statistics and computer science, particularly in the field of machine learning. His most important contributions were his work on classification and regression trees and ensembles of trees fit to bootstrap samples. Bootstrap aggregation was given the name bagging by Breiman. Another of Breiman's ensemble approaches is the random forest.

    Read more →
  • Best AI Logo Makers in 2026

    Best AI Logo Makers in 2026

    Looking for the best AI logo maker? An AI logo maker 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 logo maker 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 →
  • Agent verification

    Agent verification

    Agent verification is activity to gain assurances that purposeful artificial constructs act in accordance with their specifications. While primitive forms of inorganic agents have been used in manufacturing for centuries, the study of artificial agents did not begin until the mid 20th century. Foundational work on such agents was closely bound with the emergence of artificial intelligence as an academic discipline. Early agents deployed for industrial control systems and in computing were often controlled by quite simple logic however, not involving artificial intelligence as such. When deployed as part of a multi-agent system, even such simple agents could require special agent orientated testing methods, as their collective behaviour was challenging to verify with traditional testing techniques. Difficulties in providing assurances that agents will not behave in dangerous ways became more prevalent after the introduction of LLM agents, especially after the rapid acceleration of their deployment in 2025. The verification of agent behaviour can be conducted by formal or informal methods. Informal verification requires less mathematical skill. But when agents are part of systems where errors have significant risks — such as danger to human life, environmental damage or major financial loss — formal verification is preferred. Both regulators and system designers themselves like formal verification as it provides a high degree of mathematical certainty. It is not however always possible to formally test all aspects of an agent based system's behaviour, especially where newer LLM based agents are concerned, due in part to their high degree of autonomy. Accordingly, agent verification for low impact deployments might be carried out only with informal methods, while for high impact deployments, it may be performed with a mix of formal and informal techniques. == Terminology == In academia, the term agent verification is often defined to mean activity concerned with gaining assurance that the agent behaves in accordance with its specification - whether by processes such as testing or simulation. 'Verification' is typically contrasted with 'validation', the latter meaning activity concerned with checking that the specification itself meets user or real world needs. Such definitions are not universally adhered to however - for example, in some workplaces and documents, the words 'verification' and 'validation' can be used synonymously. Efforts to gain confidence in Agents have intensified sharply since 2025 due to the rapid roll out of LLM agents; different terms are sometimes used in the commercial sector. Here the term 'agent verification' can be used in the same sense as it is in academia, but sometimes the same activity can be covered by more ambiguous and wider ranging terms such as 'Agent governance' , 'Agent observability' or 'AI agent policing'. == History == === Classical agents === The theoretical underpinnings for artificial (inorganic) agents emerged in the mid 20th century, with establishment of cybernetics and artificial intelligence. Oliver Selfridge's 1958 Pandemonium - A Paradigm for Learning paper was an important early theoretical contribution in establishing agent oriented architecture. Practical implementations of agents for real world applications began to become widespread in the 1990s, after the introduction of the belief–desire–intention software model (BDI), and agent-oriented programming. Pure digital agents were deployed in computer infrastructure for purposes such as monitoring, while agents connected to real-world sensors and actuators were increasingly used in industrial control systems. While the concept of artificial agents was interwoven with early artificial intelligence studies right from the start, early agents lacked general purpose reasoning capabilities, often only having simple if then logic. Even a device as simple as a thermostat, which has a sensor and a means of acting, can be considered a proto agent in this sense. Verifying the behaviours of a simple single agent system is not generally especially difficult, but it can be a different matter when several simple agents coexist in the same system. Craig Reynolds's work on boids showed that relatively complex, "intelligent" behaviour can emerge from a number of such simple agents working together in a Multi-agent system (MAS). By the 1990s, even the behaviour of a single agent system could sometimes be quite complex; in accordance with the Belief–desire–intention software model, agents could have believes that might evolve over time. Agents were increasingly introduced that were controlled by quite large decision tree models, which had new vulnerabilities to adversarial attack. It was becoming increasingly apparent that traditional software verification methods had limitations for testing such agents, or even for the more primitive type of agents when they were deployed as part of a MAS. It was the use of agents for industrial control systems, sometimes associated with robotics, that lent urgency to the practice of agent verification. Informal testing might be acceptable for digital agents used say to monitor whether each of an organisation's computers are properly licensed. But with an increasing potential for faulty agents to result in a failure that might cause a large fire to break out at a chemical manufacturing plant, a botched medical operation, or even a crashed aircraft, the need to develop reliable means of verifying behaviour of such agents was considered urgent. The Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents was established in 1996. From the late 90s, a growing number of industry and university based scientists began working on the problem, with researchers publishing papers on the verification of both single and multi agent systems. Much of this work showed how formal verification techniques like model checking could be used to gain a high level of assurance that agent based systems would conform with their specification. A 2018 systematic review covering 231 studies found that model checking was the most common technique for agent verification, with theorem proving the second most commonly used formal verification method. In the first two decades of the 20th century, agents run by AI became more common, with Siri and Alexa being well known examples. But such agents still lacked general reasoning capabilities and did not pose new pressing problems for agent verification. === General purpose reasoning agents === The advent of LLMs created huge potential for further use of artificial agents, as agents based on them could have general purpose cognitive abilities. Agents run by LLMs (and occasionally non-LLM foundation models) have similar vulnerability to adversarial attack as those run by decision tree models. The wider scope of actions for LLM agents has created new challenges for their verification, over and above those present for classical agents. For example, the LLM's neural network endows it with infinite domains, an especial challenge for traditional formal verification techniques. Academics began to study the problems involved in verifying LLM agents from 2018. Deployment of such agents began to accelerate in late 2023 after OpenAI's "function-calling" API was made available, and especially after Anthropic's late 2024 introduction of Model Context Protocol (MCP), a standardised way for LLM agents to gain contextual awareness, and to act on the world by calling various external tools. The rapid rollout of LLM agents following MCP's release has seen the task of agent verification receive increased attention within academia, and also from the private sector. In 2024 and 2025 several startups focusing on LLM agent verification have been founded in both Europe and the US to meet growing demand. == Approaches == === Formal verification === Formal verification involves proving the correctness of some or all aspects of a system using mathematical methods. Such methods can range from manual formal proof, to verification assisted with automated theorem provers like Isabelle. For agent verification, model checking is by far the most frequently used formal verification method; for pre-LLM models it was often complemented with techniques using computation tree logic. Another common method is theorem proving. Formal verification provides a higher degree of confidence than informal methods, but it is not always used, even when it is possible. Sometimes a person or organisation developing software agents won't have the necessary skills, or may not see it as worth the effort if the agent(s) will not have the ability to cause much harm even if they malfunction. When agents are deployed in systems where errors could have serious consequences, the ability of formal verification methods to provide mathematical certainty tends to be strongly preferred by both regulators and designers themselves. But even for high impact systems, formal verificatio

    Read more →
  • Project Bergamot

    Project Bergamot

    Project Bergamot is a joint project between several European universities and Mozilla for the development of machine translation software based on artificial neural networks, which is intended for local execution on end-user devices. The software library that was created and the associated language models were made available to the general public as Free Software. Execution requires a x86 CPU with SSE4.1 instruction set extensions. In 2022, Devin Coldewey of TechCrunch judged the translation quality to be "more than adequate", but considered Firefox Translations to be not yet fully mature. == Usage == Mozilla used the Bergamot Translator to expand its web browser Firefox with a feature for translating web pages, which was previously considered an important gap in Firefox' feature set. It is often compared to the much older corresponding feature in Google Chrome, which utilizes a cloud-based background service. In contrast, Firefox Translations does not require any data to leave the user's computer, resulting in advantages in terms of data protection, availability and possibly response times. There is just the installation of a new language model that needs to take place the first time a new language is encountered. Greater independence from large technology companies and their interests is also mentioned as an important advantage. Mozilla thus strengthened its position as an alternative software vendor with a particular focus on data protection and security. Mozilla followed up with the similar feature of speech recognition for spoken user input, based on whisperfile. On the other hand, slow translation times have been observed, especially on older devices. Also, Firefox Translations initially supported far fewer language pairs than other major translation services and is only gradually adding new models. On that matter, the training pipeline is also made available to interested parties to enable the creation of missing language models. TranslateLocally is a Firefox-independent translation software based on the Bergamot Translator. It is also available as an (Electron-based) standalone application or as an extension for Chromium-based web browsers. == History == Mozilla had already tried to get a (cloud-based) web content translation feature into Firefox a few years before Project Bergamot, but had failed because of the financial challenge. Microsoft had already delivered offline capabilities for its translation software in 2018. Google soon followed suit, Apple two years later. The software is based on the free translation framework Marian, which the University of Edinburgh had previously developed in cooperation with Microsoft, and is itself based on the Nematus toolkit that was presented in 2017. Under the leadership of the University of Edinburgh, a development consortium was formed with the Mozilla Corporation and the additional European universities of Prague, Sheffield and Tartu. In 2018, it was able to get 3 million euros of funding from the EU's Horizon 2020 programme. Firefox Translations was initially provided as an add-on. A first functional demonstration prototype was presented in October 2019. Beta version 117 had the feature integrated directly into the browser, the official release was in version 118 from September 2023. Both the add-on module and as part of Firefox, the code and the models are subject to the version 2 of the Mozilla Public License. Since 2022, the EU-funded HPLT project creates new language models. It involves additional partners, including the universities of Helsinki, Turku, Oslo and other partners from Spain, Norway and the Czech Republic.

    Read more →
  • Brainware

    Brainware

    Brainware was an American software company that marketed Automatic identification and data capture and data extraction products. The company was acquired by Hyland Software in 2017. Brainware originally spun out of Dulles, Virginia-based SER Solutions Inc. in February 2006 when SER was acquired by The Gores Group LLC. From February 2006 to March 2012, Brainware's majority owner was San Francisco-based private equity firm Vista Equity Partners. == History == On March 5, 2012, Lexmark International announced it had acquired the company for a cash price of approximately $148 million. The company was added to Lexmark's Perceptive Software division. On July 10, 2017, Hyland Software finalized its acquisition of the Perceptive Business Unit of Lexmark International, Inc. All enterprise software business assets in the Perceptive business unit, including Perceptive Content (formerly ImageNow), Perceptive Intelligent Capture (formerly Brainware), Acuo VNA, PACSGEAR, Claron, Nolij, Saperion, Pallas Athena, ISYS and Twistage, now operate under Hyland's portfolio of products. Brainware was headquartered in Ashburn, Virginia, USA, with sales, support, professional services and R&D offices in London, UK; Kirchzarten, Germany; and Neuchâtel, Switzerland. The company had partnerships with most major enterprise software providers, including Oracle, SAP and Microsoft, and said its software integrated with most available enterprise content management platforms. Brainware also partnered with a number of hardware providers, including Hewlett-Packard, Fujitsu and OPEX. Brainware's core solution, Distiller, "disrupted the data capture industry by using contextual document data to deliver higher automated processing than earlier technology" said Henry Ijams, Managing Director and Founder, PayStream Advisors. Brainware was awarded a Technology Excellence Award by PayStream Advisors and their Advisory Board to honor those providers who are delivering industry leading solutions. Brainware said its software "could relieve a company of 60 percent to 80 percent of the work of manually keying in information from unstructured documents," and serviced companies such as NEC, Mayo Clinic, Bechtel, Royal Dutch Shell, and Rabobank. In a 2011 comparison report, Real Story Group classifies Brainware as a "Capture Solutions" vendor, competing directly with Kofax and ReadSoft. Brainware and its customers were profiled in publications including Profit Online, Business Finance, imageSource, Managing Automation, Industryweek, Treasury & Risk and others. The company's enterprise search technology has been profiled by InfoWorld.

    Read more →