AI For Business Ualbany

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

• 

  Automaton

  An automaton ( ; pl.: automata or automatons) is a relatively self-operating machine or control mechanism designed to automatically follow a sequence of operations or respond to predetermined instructions. Some automata, such as bellstrikers in mechanical clocks, are designed to give the illusion to the casual observer that they are operating under their own power or will, like a mechanical robot. The term has long been commonly associated with automated puppets that resemble moving humans or animals, built to impress and/or to entertain people. Animatronics are a modern type of automata with electronics, often used for the portrayal of characters or creatures in films and in theme park attractions. == Etymology == The word automaton is the latinization of the Ancient Greek automaton (αὐτόματον), which means "acting of one's own will". It was first used by Homer to describe an automatic door opening, or automatic movement of wheeled tripods. It is more often used to describe non-electronic moving machines, especially those that have been made to resemble human or animal actions, such as the jacks on old public striking clocks, or the cuckoo and any other animated figures on a cuckoo clock. == History == === Ancient === There are many examples of automata in Greek mythology: Hephaestus created automata for his workshop; Talos was an artificial man of bronze; King Alkinous of the Phaiakians employed gold and silver watchdogs. According to Aristotle, Daedalus used quicksilver to make his wooden statue of Aphrodite move. In other Greek legends he used quicksilver to install voice in his moving statues. The automata in the Hellenistic world were intended as tools, toys, religious spectacles, or prototypes for demonstrating basic scientific principles. Numerous water-powered automata were built by Ktesibios, a Greek inventor and the first head of the Great Library of Alexandria; for example, he "used water to sound a whistle and make a model owl move. He had invented the world's first 'cuckoo clock'". This tradition continued in Alexandria with inventors such as the Greek mathematician Hero of Alexandria (sometimes known as Heron), whose writings on hydraulics, pneumatics, and mechanics described siphons, a fire engine, a water organ, the aeolipile, and a programmable cart. Philo of Byzantium was famous for his inventions. Complex mechanical devices are known to have existed in Hellenistic Greece, though the only surviving example is the Antikythera mechanism, the earliest known analog computer. The clockwork is thought to have come originally from Rhodes, where there was apparently a tradition of mechanical engineering; the island was renowned for its automata; to quote Pindar's seventh Olympic Ode: The animated figures stand Adorning every public street And seem to breathe in stone, or move their marble feet. However, the information gleaned from recent scans of the fragments indicate that it may have come from the colonies of Corinth in Sicily and implies a connection with Archimedes. According to Jewish legend, King Solomon used his wisdom to design a throne with mechanical animals which hailed him as king when he ascended it; upon sitting down an eagle would place a crown upon his head, and a dove would bring him a Torah scroll. It is also said that when King Solomon stepped upon the throne, a mechanism was set in motion. As soon as he stepped upon the first step, a golden ox and a golden lion each stretched out one foot to support him and help him rise to the next step. On each side, the animals helped the King up until he was comfortably seated upon the throne. In ancient China, a curious account of automata is found in the Lie Zi text, believed to have originated around 400 BCE and compiled around the fourth century CE. Within it there is a description of a much earlier encounter between King Mu of Zhou (1023–957 BCE) and a mechanical engineer known as Yan Shi, an 'artificer'. The latter proudly presented the king with a very realistic and detailed life-size, human-shaped figure of his mechanical handiwork: The king stared at the figure in astonishment. It walked with rapid strides, moving its head up and down, so that anyone would have taken it for a live human being. The artificer touched its chin, and it began singing, perfectly in tune. He touched its hand, and it began posturing, keeping perfect time...As the performance was drawing to an end, the robot winked its eye and made advances to the ladies in attendance, whereupon the king became incensed and would have had Yen Shih [Yan Shi] executed on the spot had not the latter, in mortal fear, instantly taken the robot to pieces to let him see what it really was. And, indeed, it turned out to be only a construction of leather, wood, glue and lacquer, variously coloured white, black, red and blue. Examining it closely, the king found all the internal organs complete—liver, gall, heart, lungs, spleen, kidneys, stomach and intestines; and over these again, muscles, bones and limbs with their joints, skin, teeth and hair, all of them artificial...The king tried the effect of taking away the heart, and found that the mouth could no longer speak; he took away the liver and the eyes could no longer see; he took away the kidneys and the legs lost their power of locomotion. The king was delighted. Other notable examples of automata include Archytas' dove, mentioned by Aulus Gellius. Similar Chinese accounts of flying automata are written of the 5th century BC Mohist philosopher Mozi and his contemporary Lu Ban, who made artificial wooden birds (ma yuan) that could successfully fly according to the Han Fei Zi and other texts. === Medieval === The manufacturing tradition of automata continued in the Greek world well into the Middle Ages. On his visit to Constantinople in 949 ambassador Liutprand of Cremona described automata in the emperor Theophilos' palace, including "lions, made either of bronze or wood covered with gold, which struck the ground with their tails and roared with open mouth and quivering tongue," "a tree of gilded bronze, its branches filled with birds, likewise made of bronze gilded over, and these emitted cries appropriate to their species" and "the emperor's throne" itself, which "was made in such a cunning manner that at one moment it was down on the ground, while at another it rose higher and was to be seen up in the air." Similar automata in the throne room (singing birds, roaring and moving lions) were described by Luitprand's contemporary the Byzantine emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus, in his book De Ceremoniis (Perì tês Basileíou Tákseōs). In the mid-8th century, the first wind powered automata were built: "statues that turned with the wind over the domes of the four gates and the palace complex of the Round City of Baghdad". The "public spectacle of wind-powered statues had its private counterpart in the 'Abbasid palaces where automata of various types were predominantly displayed." Also in the 8th century, the Muslim alchemist, Jābir ibn Hayyān (Geber), included recipes for constructing artificial snakes, scorpions, and humans that would be subject to their creator's control in his coded Book of Stones. In 827, Abbasid caliph al-Ma'mun had a silver and golden tree in his palace in Baghdad, which had the features of an automatic machine. There were metal birds that sang automatically on the swinging branches of this tree built by Muslim inventors and engineers. The Abbasid caliph al-Muqtadir also had a silver and golden tree in his palace in Baghdad in 917, with birds on it flapping their wings and singing. In the 9th century, the Banū Mūsā brothers invented a programmable automatic flute player and which they described in their Book of Ingenious Devices. Al-Jazari described complex programmable humanoid automata amongst other machines he designed and constructed in the Book of Knowledge of Ingenious Mechanical Devices in 1206. His automaton was a boat with four automatic musicians that floated on a lake to entertain guests at royal drinking parties. His mechanism had a programmable drum machine with pegs (cams) that bump into little levers that operate the percussion. The drummer could be made to play different rhythms and drum patterns if the pegs were moved around. Al-Jazari constructed a hand washing automaton first employing the flush mechanism now used in modern toilets. It features a female automaton standing by a basin filled with water. When the user pulls the lever, the water drains and the automaton refills the basin. His "peacock fountain" was another more sophisticated hand washing device featuring humanoid automata as servants who offer soap and towels. Mark E. Rosheim describes it as follows: "Pulling a plug on the peacock's tail releases water out of the beak; as the dirty water from the basin fills the hollow base a float rises and actuates a linkage which makes a servant figure appear from behind a door under the peacock and offer soap.

  Read more →
• 

  Is an AI Art Generator Worth It in 2026?

  Curious about the best AI art generator? An AI art 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 art generator 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 →
• 

  IBM alignment models

  The IBM alignment models are a sequence of increasingly complex models used in statistical machine translation to train a translation model and an alignment model, starting with lexical translation probabilities and moving to reordering and word duplication. They underpinned the majority of statistical machine translation systems for almost twenty years starting in the early 1990s, until neural machine translation began to dominate. These models offer principled probabilistic formulation and (mostly) tractable inference. The IBM alignment models were published in parts in 1988 and 1990, and the entire series is published in 1993. Every author of the 1993 paper subsequently went to the hedge fund Renaissance Technologies. The original work on statistical machine translation at IBM proposed five models, and a model 6 was proposed later. The sequence of the six models can be summarized as: Model 1: lexical translation Model 2: additional absolute alignment model Model 3: extra fertility model Model 4: added relative alignment model Model 5: fixed deficiency problem. Model 6: Model 4 combined with a HMM alignment model in a log linear way == Mathematical setup == The IBM alignment models translation as a conditional probability model. For each source-language ("foreign") sentence f {\displaystyle f} , we generate both a target-language ("English") sentence e {\displaystyle e} and an alignment a {\displaystyle a} . The problem then is to find a good statistical model for p ( e , a | f ) {\displaystyle p(e,a|f)} , the probability that we would generate English language sentence e {\displaystyle e} and an alignment a {\displaystyle a} given a foreign sentence f {\displaystyle f} . The meaning of an alignment grows increasingly complicated as the model version number grew. See Model 1 for the most simple and understandable version. == Model 1 == === Word alignment === Given any foreign-English sentence pair ( e , f ) {\displaystyle (e,f)} , an alignment for the sentence pair is a function of type { 1 , . , . . . , l e } → { 0 , 1 , . , . . . , l f } {\displaystyle \{1,.,...,l_{e}\}\to \{0,1,.,...,l_{f}\}} . That is, we assume that the English word at location i {\displaystyle i} is "explained" by the foreign word at location a ( i ) {\displaystyle a(i)} . For example, consider the following pair of sentences It will surely rain tomorrow -- 明日 は きっと 雨 だWe can align some English words to corresponding Japanese words, but not everyone:it -> ? will -> ? surely -> きっと rain -> 雨 tomorrow -> 明日This in general happens due to the different grammar and conventions of speech in different languages. English sentences require a subject, and when there is no subject available, it uses a dummy pronoun it. Japanese verbs do not have different forms for future and present tense, and the future tense is implied by the noun 明日 (tomorrow). Conversely, the topic-marker は and the grammar word だ (roughly "to be") do not correspond to any word in the English sentence. So, we can write the alignment as 1-> 0; 2 -> 0; 3 -> 3; 4 -> 4; 5 -> 1where 0 means that there is no corresponding alignment. Thus, we see that the alignment function is in general a function of type { 1 , . , . . . , l e } → { 0 , 1 , . , . . . , l f } {\displaystyle \{1,.,...,l_{e}\}\to \{0,1,.,...,l_{f}\}} . Future models will allow one English world to be aligned with multiple foreign words. === Statistical model === Given the above definition of alignment, we can define the statistical model used by Model 1: Start with a "dictionary". Its entries are of form t ( e i | f j ) {\displaystyle t(e_{i}|f_{j})} , which can be interpreted as saying "the foreign word f j {\displaystyle f_{j}} is translated to the English word e i {\displaystyle e_{i}} with probability t ( e i | f j ) {\displaystyle t(e_{i}|f_{j})} ". After being given a foreign sentence f {\displaystyle f} with length l f {\displaystyle l_{f}} , we first generate an English sentence length l e {\displaystyle l_{e}} uniformly in a range U n i f o r m [ 1 , 2 , . . . , N ] {\displaystyle Uniform[1,2,...,N]} . In particular, it does not depend on f {\displaystyle f} or l f {\displaystyle l_{f}} . Then, we generate an alignment uniformly in the set of all possible alignment functions { 1 , . , . . . , l e } → { 0 , 1 , . , . . . , l f } {\displaystyle \{1,.,...,l_{e}\}\to \{0,1,.,...,l_{f}\}} . Finally, for each English word e 1 , e 2 , . . . e l e {\displaystyle e_{1},e_{2},...e_{l_{e}}} , generate each one independently of every other English word. For the word e i {\displaystyle e_{i}} , generate it according to t ( e i | f a ( i ) ) {\displaystyle t(e_{i}|f_{a(i)})} . Together, we have the probability p ( e , a | f ) = 1 / N ( 1 + l f ) l e ∏ i = 1 l e t ( e i | f a ( i ) ) {\displaystyle p(e,a|f)={\frac {1/N}{(1+l_{f})^{l_{e}}}}\prod _{i=1}^{l_{e}}t(e_{i}|f_{a(i)})} IBM Model 1 uses very simplistic assumptions on the statistical model, in order to allow the following algorithm to have closed-form solution. === Learning from a corpus === If a dictionary is not provided at the start, but we have a corpus of English-foreign language pairs { ( e ( k ) , f ( k ) ) } k {\displaystyle \{(e^{(k)},f^{(k)})\}_{k}} (without alignment information), then the model can be cast into the following form: fixed parameters: the foreign sentences { f ( k ) } k {\displaystyle \{f^{(k)}\}_{k}} . learnable parameters: the entries of the dictionary t ( e i | f j ) {\displaystyle t(e_{i}|f_{j})} . observable variables: the English sentences { e ( k ) } k {\displaystyle \{e^{(k)}\}_{k}} . latent variables: the alignments { a ( k ) } k {\displaystyle \{a^{(k)}\}_{k}} In this form, this is exactly the kind of problem solved by expectation–maximization algorithm. Due to the simplistic assumptions, the algorithm has a closed-form, efficiently computable solution, which is the solution to the following equations: { max t ′ ∑ k ∑ i ∑ a ( k ) t ( a ( k ) | e ( k ) , f ( k ) ) ln ⁡ t ( e i ( k ) | f a ( k ) ( i ) ( k ) ) ∑ x t ′ ( e x | f y ) = 1 ∀ y {\displaystyle {\begin{cases}\max _{t'}\sum _{k}\sum _{i}\sum _{a^{(k)}}t(a^{(k)}|e^{(k)},f^{(k)})\ln t(e_{i}^{(k)}|f_{a^{(k)}(i)}^{(k)})\\\sum _{x}t'(e_{x}|f_{y})=1\quad \forall y\end{cases}}} This can be solved by Lagrangian multipliers, then simplified. For a detailed derivation of the algorithm, see chapter 4 and. In short, the EM algorithm goes as follows:INPUT. a corpus of English-foreign sentence pairs { ( e ( k ) , f ( k ) ) } k {\displaystyle \{(e^{(k)},f^{(k)})\}_{k}} INITIALIZE. matrix of translations probabilities t ( e x | f y ) {\displaystyle t(e_{x}|f_{y})} .This could either be uniform or random. It is only required that every entry is positive, and for each y {\displaystyle y} , the probability sums to one: ∑ x t ( e x | f y ) = 1 {\displaystyle \sum _{x}t(e_{x}|f_{y})=1} . LOOP. until t ( e x | f y ) {\displaystyle t(e_{x}|f_{y})} converges: t ( e x | f y ) ← t ( e x | f y ) λ y ∑ k , i , j δ ( e x , e i ( k ) ) δ ( f y , f j ( k ) ) ∑ j ′ t ( e i ( k ) | f j ′ ( k ) ) {\displaystyle t(e_{x}|f_{y})\leftarrow {\frac {t(e_{x}|f_{y})}{\lambda _{y}}}\sum _{k,i,j}{\frac {\delta (e_{x},e_{i}^{(k)})\delta (f_{y},f_{j}^{(k)})}{\sum _{j'}t(e_{i}^{(k)}|f_{j'}^{(k)})}}} where each λ y {\displaystyle \lambda _{y}} is a normalization constant that makes sure each ∑ x t ( e x | f y ) = 1 {\displaystyle \sum _{x}t(e_{x}|f_{y})=1} .RETURN. t ( e x | f y ) {\displaystyle t(e_{x}|f_{y})} .In the above formula, δ {\displaystyle \delta } is the Dirac delta function -- it equals 1 if the two entries are equal, and 0 otherwise. The index notation is as follows: k {\displaystyle k} ranges over English-foreign sentence pairs in corpus; i {\displaystyle i} ranges over words in English sentences; j {\displaystyle j} ranges over words in foreign language sentences; x {\displaystyle x} ranges over the entire vocabulary of English words in the corpus; y {\displaystyle y} ranges over the entire vocabulary of foreign words in the corpus. === Limitations === There are several limitations to the IBM model 1. No fluency: Given any sentence pair ( e , f ) {\displaystyle (e,f)} , any permutation of the English sentence is equally likely: p ( e | f ) = p ( e ′ | f ) {\displaystyle p(e|f)=p(e'|f)} for any permutation of the English sentence e {\displaystyle e} into e ′ {\displaystyle e'} . No length preference: The probability of each length of translation is equal: ∑ e has length l p ( e | f ) = 1 N {\displaystyle \sum _{e{\text{ has length }}l}p(e|f)={\frac {1}{N}}} for any l ∈ { 1 , 2 , . . . , N } {\displaystyle l\in \{1,2,...,N\}} . Does not explicitly model fertility: some foreign words tend to produce a fixed number of English words. For example, for German-to-English translation, ja is usually omitted, and zum is usually translated to one of to the, for the, to a, for a. == Model 2 == Model 2 allows alignment to be conditional on sentence lengths. That is, we have a probability distribution p a ( j | i , l e , l f ) {\displaystyle

  Read more →
• 

  P4-metric

  The P4 metric (also known as FS or Symmetric F ) enables performance evaluation of a binary classifier. The P4 metric is calculated from precision, recall, specificity, and NPV (negative predictive value). The definition of the P4 metric is similar to that of the F1 metric, however the P4 metric definition addresses criticisms leveled against the definition of the F1 metric. The definition of the P4 metric may, therefore, be understood as an extension of the F1 metric. Like the other known metrics, the P4 metric is a function of: TP (true positives), TN (true negatives), FP (false positives), FN (false negatives). == Justification == The key concept of the P4 metric is to leverage the four key conditional probabilities: P ( + ∣ C + ) {\displaystyle P(+\mid C{+})} — the probability that the sample is positive, provided the classifier result was positive. P ( C + ∣ + ) {\displaystyle P(C{+}\mid +)} — the probability that the classifier result will be positive, provided the sample is positive. P ( C − ∣ − ) {\displaystyle P(C{-}\mid -)} — the probability that the classifier result will be negative, provided the sample is negative. P ( − ∣ C − ) {\displaystyle P(-\mid C{-})} — the probability the sample is negative, provided the classifier result was negative. The main assumption behind this metric is that all the probabilities mentioned above are close to 1 for a properly designed binary classifier. Indeed, P 4 = 1 {\displaystyle \mathrm {P} _{4}=1} if, and only if, all of the probabilities above are equal to 1. Another important feature is that P 4 {\displaystyle \mathrm {P} _{4}} tends to zero any of the above probabilities tend to zero. == Definition == P4 is defined as a harmonic mean of four key conditional probabilities: P 4 = 4 1 P ( + ∣ C + ) + 1 P ( C + ∣ + ) + 1 P ( C − ∣ − ) + 1 P ( − ∣ C − ) = 4 1 p r e c i s i o n + 1 r e c a l l + 1 s p e c i f i c i t y + 1 N P V . {\displaystyle \mathrm {P} _{4}={\frac {4}{{\frac {1}{P(+\mid C{+})}}+{\frac {1}{P(C{+}\mid +)}}+{\frac {1}{P(C{-}\mid -)}}+{\frac {1}{P(-\mid C{-})}}}}={\frac {4}{{\frac {1}{\mathit {precision}}}+{\frac {1}{\mathit {recall}}}+{\frac {1}{\mathit {specificity}}}+{\frac {1}{\mathit {NPV}}}}}.} In terms of TP,TN,FP,FN it can be calculated as follows: P 4 = 4 ⋅ T P ⋅ T N 4 ⋅ T P ⋅ T N + ( T P + T N ) ⋅ ( F P + F N ) . {\displaystyle \mathrm {P} _{4}={\frac {4\cdot \mathrm {TP} \cdot \mathrm {TN} }{4\cdot \mathrm {TP} \cdot \mathrm {TN} +(\mathrm {TP} +\mathrm {TN} )\cdot (\mathrm {FP} +\mathrm {FN} )}}.} == Evaluation of the binary classifier performance == Evaluating the performance of binary classifiers is a multidisciplinary concept. It spans from the evaluation of medical tests, psychiatric tests to machine learning classifiers from a variety of fields. Thus, many of the metrics in use exist under several names, some defined independently. == Properties of P4 metric == Symmetry — contrasting to the F1 metric, P4 is symmetrical. It means - it does not change its value when dataset labeling is changed - positives named negatives and negatives named positives. Range: P 4 ∈ [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle \mathrm {P} _{4}\in [0,1]} . Achieving P 4 ≈ 1 {\displaystyle \mathrm {P} _{4}\approx 1} requires all the key four conditional probabilities being close to 1. For P 4 ≈ 0 {\displaystyle \mathrm {P} _{4}\approx 0} it is sufficient that one of the key four conditional probabilities is close to 0. == Examples, comparing with the other metrics == Dependency table for selected metrics ("true" means depends, "false" - does not depend): Metrics that do not depend on a given probability are prone to misrepresentation when the probability approaches 0. === Example 1: Rare disease detection test === Let us consider a medical test used to detect a rare disease. Suppose a population size of 100000 and 0.05% of the population is infected. Further suppose the following test performance: 95% of all positive individuals are classified correctly (TPR=0.95) and 95% of all negative individuals are classified correctly (TNR=0.95). In such a case, due to high population imbalance and in spite of having high test accuracy (0.95), the probability that an individual who has been classified as positive is in fact positive is very low: P ( + ∣ C + ) = 0.0095. {\displaystyle P(+\mid C{+})=0.0095.} We can observe how this low probability is reflected in some of the metrics: P 4 = 0.0370 {\displaystyle \mathrm {P} _{4}=0.0370} , F 1 = 0.0188 {\displaystyle \mathrm {F} _{1}=0.0188} , J = 0.9100 {\displaystyle \mathrm {J} =\mathbf {0.9100} } (Informedness / Youden index), M K = 0.0095 {\displaystyle \mathrm {MK} =0.0095} (Markedness). === Example 2: Image recognition — cats vs dogs === Consider the problem of training a neural network based image classifier with only two types of images: those containing dogs (labeled as 0) and those containing cats (labeled as 1). Thus, the goal is to distinguish between the cats and dogs. Suppose that the classifier overpredicts in favour of cats ("positive" samples): 99.99% of cats are classified correctly and only 1% of dogs are classified correctly. Further, suppose that the image dataset consists of 100000 images, 90% of which are pictures of cats and 10% are pictures of dogs. In this situation, the probability that the picture containing dog will be classified correctly is pretty low: P ( C − | − ) = 0.01. {\displaystyle P(C-|-)=0.01.} Not all metrics are notice this low probability: P 4 = 0.0388 {\displaystyle \mathrm {P} _{4}=0.0388} , F 1 = 0.9478 {\displaystyle \mathrm {F} _{1}=\mathbf {0.9478} } , J = 0.0099 {\displaystyle \mathrm {J} =0.0099} (Informedness / Youden index), M K = 0.8183 {\displaystyle \mathrm {MK} =\mathbf {0.8183} } (Markedness).

  Read more →
• 

  Human visual system model

  A human visual system model (HVS model) is used by image processing, video processing and computer vision experts to deal with biological and psychological processes that are not yet fully understood. Such a model is used to simplify the behaviors of what is a very complex system. As our knowledge of the true visual system improves, the model is updated. Psychovisual study is the study of the psychology of vision. The human visual system model can produce desired effects in perception and vision. Examples of using an HVS model include color television, lossy compression, and Cathode-ray tube (CRT) television. Originally, it was thought that color television required too high a bandwidth for the then available technology. Then it was noticed that the color resolution of the HVS was much lower than the brightness resolution; this allowed color to be squeezed into the signal by chroma subsampling. Another example is lossy image compression, like JPEG. Our HVS model says we cannot see high frequency detail, so in JPEG we can quantize these components without a perceptible loss of quality. Similar concepts are applied in audio compression, where sound frequencies inaudible to humans are band-stop filtered. Several HVS features are derived from evolution when we needed to defend ourselves or hunt for food. We often see demonstrations of HVS features when we are looking at optical illusions. == Block diagram of HVS == == Assumptions about the HVS == Low-pass filter characteristic (limited number of rods in human eye): see Mach bands Lack of color resolution (fewer cones in human eye than rods) Motion sensitivity More sensitive in peripheral vision Stronger than texture sensitivity, e.g. viewing a camouflaged animal Texture stronger than disparity – 3D depth resolution does not need to be so accurate Integral Face recognition (babies smile at faces) Depth inverted face looks normal (facial features overrule depth information) Upside down face with inverted mouth and eyes looks normal == Examples of taking advantage of an HVS model == Flicker frequency of film and television using persistence of vision to fool viewer into seeing a continuous image Interlaced television painting half images to give the impression of a higher flicker frequency Color television (chrominance at half resolution of luminance corresponding to proportions of rods and cones in eye) Image compression (difficult to see higher frequencies more harshly quantized) Motion estimation (use luminance and ignore color) Watermarking and Steganography

  Read more →
• 

  Lori Levin

  Lorraine Susan (Lori) Levin is an American computer scientist and computational linguist specializing in natural language processing, particularly involving syntax, morphosyntax, and languages with small corpora. She is a research professor in the Language Technologies Institute of the Carnegie Mellon University School of Computer Science, and one of the founders of the North American Computational Linguistics Open Competition. == Education and career == Levin has a 1979 bachelor's degree in linguistics (summa cum laude) from the University of Pennsylvania, and a 1986 Ph.D. in linguistics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Her dissertation, Operations on Lexical Forms: Unaccusative Rules in Germanic Languages, was jointly supervised by Joan Bresnan and Kenneth L. Hale. She worked as an assistant professor of linguistics at the University of Pittsburgh from 1983 until 1988, when she joined the Carnegie Mellon University Language Technologies Institute. == Recognition == Levin was named as a Fellow of the Association for Computational Linguistics in 2025, "for pioneering work on the use of phonetics, syntax, lexical semantics and dialogue modeling in machine translation and in the transfer of NLP technologies to low resource languages, as well as an enduring contribution to the North American Computational Linguistics Olympiad". Levin was awarded the Antonio Zampolli prize of the ELRA Language Resources Association at the LREC 2026 conference.

  Read more →
• 

  The Best Free AI Image Generator for Beginners

  In search of the best AI image generator? An AI image generator 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 image generator 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 →
• 

  How to Choose an Conversational AI Platform

  Trying to pick the best conversational AI platform? An conversational AI platform is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it scales effortlessly from a single task to thousands. The best picks balance beginner-friendly simplicity with the depth power users need, and they ship updates often. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right conversational AI platform 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 →
• 

  Secure coding

  Secure coding is the practice of developing computer software in such a way that guards against the accidental introduction of security vulnerabilities. Defects, bugs and logic flaws are consistently the primary cause of commonly exploited software vulnerabilities. Through the analysis of thousands of reported vulnerabilities, security professionals have discovered that most vulnerabilities stem from a relatively small number of common software programming errors. By identifying the insecure coding practices that lead to these errors and educating developers on secure alternatives, organizations can take proactive steps to help significantly reduce or eliminate vulnerabilities in software before deployment. Some scholars have suggested that in order to effectively confront threats related to cybersecurity, proper security should be coded or "baked in" to the systems. With security being designed into the software, this ensures that there will be protection against insider attacks and reduces the threat to application security. Implementing secure coding practices is part of the secure by design approach to security engineering. == Buffer-overflow prevention == Buffer overflows, a common software security vulnerability, happen when a process tries to store data beyond a fixed-length buffer. For example, if there are 8 slots to store items in, there will be a problem if there is an attempt to store 9 items. In computer memory the overflowed data may overwrite data in the next location which can result in a security vulnerability (stack smashing) or program termination (segmentation fault). An example of a C program prone to a buffer overflow is If the user input is larger than the destination buffer, a buffer overflow will occur. To fix this unsafe program, use strncpy to prevent a possible buffer overflow. Another secure alternative is to dynamically allocate memory on the heap using malloc. In the above code snippet, the program attempts to copy the contents of src into dst, while also checking the return value of malloc() to ensure that enough memory was able to be allocated for the destination buffer. == Format-string attack prevention == A Format String Attack is when a malicious user supplies specific inputs that will eventually be entered as an argument to a function that performs formatting, such as printf(). The attack involves the adversary reading from or writing to the stack. The C printf function writes output to stdout. If the parameter of the printf function is not properly formatted, several security bugs can be introduced. Below is a program that is vulnerable to a format string attack. A malicious argument passed to the program could be "%s%s%s%s%s%s%s", which can crash the program from improper memory reads. == Integer-overflow prevention == Integer overflow occurs when an arithmetic operation results in an integer too large to be represented within the available space. A program which does not properly check for integer overflow introduces potential software bugs and exploits. Below is a function in C++ which attempts to confirm that the sum of x and y is less than or equal to a defined value MAX: The problem with the code is it does not check for integer overflow on the addition operation. If the sum of x and y is greater than the maximum possible value of an unsigned int, the addition operation will overflow and perhaps result in a value less than or equal to MAX, even though the sum of x and y is greater than MAX. Below is a function which checks for overflow by confirming the sum is greater than or equal to both x and y. If the sum did overflow, the sum would be less than x or less than y. == Path traversal prevention == Path traversal is a vulnerability whereby paths provided from an untrusted source are interpreted in such a way that unauthorised file access is possible. For example, consider a script that fetches an article by taking a filename, which is then read by the script and parsed. Such a script might use the following hypothetical URL to retrieve an article about dog food: https://www.example.net/cgi-bin/article.sh?name=dogfood.html If the script has no input checking, instead trusting that the filename is always valid, a malicious user could forge a URL to retrieve configuration files from the web server: https://www.example.net/cgi-bin/article.sh?name=../../../../../etc/passwd Depending on the script, this may expose the /etc/passwd file, which on Unix-like systems contains (among others) user IDs, their login names, home directory paths and shells. (See SQL injection for a similar attack.) == Regulatory drivers == Secure coding practices are increasingly mandated by regulatory frameworks governing the development and maintenance of software systems that process sensitive data. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Security Rule requires covered entities to protect the integrity of protected health information through technical safeguards under 45 CFR 164.312(c)(1) and to implement mechanisms to authenticate electronic protected health information under 45 CFR 164.312(c)(2). The Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI DSS) version 4.0 Requirement 6.2 mandates that custom software is developed securely, including training developers in secure coding techniques (6.2.2), reviewing custom code for vulnerabilities before release (6.2.3), and addressing common software attacks in development practices (6.2.4).

  Read more →
• 

  Tree transducer

  In theoretical computer science and formal language theory, a tree transducer (TT) is an abstract machine taking as input a tree, and generating output – generally other trees, but models producing words or other structures exist. Roughly speaking, tree transducers extend tree automata in the same way that word transducers extend word automata. Manipulating tree structures instead of words enable TT to model syntax-directed transformations of formal or natural languages. However, TT are not as well-behaved as their word counterparts in terms of algorithmic complexity, closure properties, etcetera. In particular, most of the main classes are not closed under composition. The main classes of tree transducers are: == Top-Down Tree Transducers (TOP) == A TOP T is a tuple (Q, Σ, Γ, I, δ) such that: Q is a finite set, the set of states; Σ is a finite ranked alphabet, called the input alphabet; Γ is a finite ranked alphabet, called the output alphabet; I is a subset of Q, the set of initial states; and δ is a set of rules of the form q ( f ( x 1 , … , x n ) ) → u {\displaystyle q(f(x_{1},\dots ,x_{n}))\to u} , where f is a symbol of Σ, n is the arity of f, q is a state, and u is a tree on Γ and Q × 1.. n {\displaystyle Q\times 1..n} , such pairs being nullary. === Examples of rules and intuitions on semantics === For instance, q ( f ( x 1 , … , x 3 ) ) → g ( a , q ′ ( x 1 ) , h ( q ″ ( x 3 ) ) ) {\displaystyle q(f(x_{1},\dots ,x_{3}))\to g(a,q'(x_{1}),h(q''(x_{3})))} is a rule – one customarily writes q ( x i ) {\displaystyle q(x_{i})} instead of the pair ( q , x i ) {\displaystyle (q,x_{i})} – and its intuitive semantics is that, under the action of q, a tree with f at the root and three children is transformed into g ( a , q ′ ( x 1 ) , h ( q ″ ( x 3 ) ) ) {\displaystyle g(a,q'(x_{1}),h(q''(x_{3})))} where, recursively, q ′ ( x 1 ) {\displaystyle q'(x_{1})} and q ″ ( x 3 ) {\displaystyle q''(x_{3})} are replaced, respectively, with the application of q ′ {\displaystyle q'} on the first child and with the application of q ″ {\displaystyle q''} on the third. === Semantics as term rewriting === The semantics of each state of the transducer T, and of T itself, is a binary relation between input trees (on Σ) and output trees (on Γ). A way of defining the semantics formally is to see δ {\displaystyle \delta } as a term rewriting system, provided that in the right-hand sides the calls are written in the form q ( x i ) {\displaystyle q(x_{i})} , where states q are unary symbols. Then the semantics [ [ q ] ] {\displaystyle [\![q]\!]} of a state q is given by [ [ q ] ] = { u ↦ v ∣ u is a tree on Σ , v is a tree on Γ , and q ( u ) → δ ∗ v } . {\displaystyle [\![q]\!]=\{u\mapsto v\mid u{\text{ is a tree on }}\Sigma ,\ v{\text{ is a tree on }}\Gamma {\text{, and }}q(u)\to _{\delta }^{}v\}.} The semantics of T is then defined as the union of the semantics of its initial states: [ [ T ] ] = ⋃ q ∈ I [ [ q ] ] . {\displaystyle [\![T]\!]=\bigcup _{q\in I}[\![q]\!].} === Determinism and domain === As with tree automata, a TOP is said to be deterministic (abbreviated DTOP) if no two rules of δ share the same left-hand side, and there is at most one initial state. In that case, the semantics of the DTOP is a partial function from input trees (on Σ) to output trees (on Γ), as are the semantics of each of the DTOP's states. The domain of a transducer is the domain of its semantics. Likewise, the image of a transducer is the image of its semantics. === Properties of DTOP === DTOP are not closed under union: this is already the case for deterministic word transducers. The domain of a DTOP is a regular tree language. Furthermore, the domain is recognisable by a deterministic top-down tree automaton (DTTA) of size at most exponential in that of the initial DTOP. That the domain is DTTA-recognizable is not surprising, considering that the left-hand sides of DTOP rules are the same as for DTTA. As for the reason for the exponential explosion in the worst case (that does not exist in the word case), consider the rule q ( f ( x 1 , x 2 ) ) → g ( p 1 ( x 1 ) , p 2 ( x 1 ) , p 3 ( x 2 ) ) {\displaystyle q(f(x_{1},x_{2}))\to g(p_{1}(x_{1}),p_{2}(x_{1}),p_{3}(x_{2}))} . In order for the computation to succeed, it must succeed for both children. That means that the right child must be in the domain of p 3 {\displaystyle p_{3}} . As for the left child, it must be in the domain of both p 1 {\displaystyle p_{1}} and p 2 {\displaystyle p_{2}} . Generally, since subtrees can be copied, a single subtree can be evaluated by multiple states during a run, despite the determinism, and unlike DTTA. Thus the construction of the DTTA recognising the domain of a DTOP must account for sets of states and compute the intersections of their domains, hence the exponential. In the special case of linear DTOP, that is to say DTOP where each x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} appears at most once in the right-hand side of each rule, the construction is linear in time and space. The image of a DTOP is not a regular tree language. Consider the transducer coding the transformation f ( x ) → g ( x , x ) {\displaystyle f(x)\to g(x,x)} ; that is, duplicate the child of the input. This is easily done by a rule q ( f ( x 1 ) ) → g ( p ( x 1 ) , p ( x 1 ) ) {\displaystyle q(f(x_{1}))\to g(p(x_{1}),p(x_{1}))} , where p encodes the identity. Then, absent any restrictions on the first child of the input, the image is a classical non-regular tree language. However, the domain of a DTOP cannot be restricted to a regular tree language. That is to say, given a DTOP T and a language L, one cannot in general build a DTOP T ′ {\displaystyle T'} such that the semantics of T ′ {\displaystyle T'} is that of T, restricted to L. This property is linked to the reason deterministic top-down tree automata are less expressive than bottom-up automata: once you go down a given path, information from other paths is inaccessible. Consider the transducer coding the transformation f ( x , y ) → y {\displaystyle f(x,y)\to y} ; that is, output the right child of the input. This is easily done by a rule q ( f ( x 1 , x 2 ) ) → p ( x 2 ) {\displaystyle q(f(x_{1},x_{2}))\to p(x_{2})} , where p encodes the identity. Now let's say we want to restrict this transducer to the finite (and thus, in particular, regular) domain { f ( c , a ) , f ( c , b ) } {\displaystyle \{f(c,a),\ f(c,b)\}} . We must use the rules q ( f ( x 1 , x 2 ) ) → p ( x 2 ) , p ( a ) → a , p ( b ) → b {\displaystyle q(f(x_{1},x_{2}))\to p(x_{2}),\ p(a)\to a,\ p(b)\to b} . But in the first rule, x 1 {\displaystyle x_{1}} does not appear at all, since nothing is produced from the left child. Thus, it is not possible to test that the left child is c. In contrast, since we produce from the right child, we can test that it is a or b. In general, the criterion is that DTOP cannot test properties of subtrees from which they do not produce output. DTOP are not closed under composition. However this problem can be solved by the addition of a lookahead: a tree automaton, coupled to the transducer, that can perform tests on the domain which the transducer is incapable of. This follows from the point about domain restriction: composing the DTOP encoding identity on { f ( c , a ) , f ( c , b ) } {\displaystyle \{f(c,a),\ f(c,b)\}} with the one encoding f ( x , y ) → y {\displaystyle f(x,y)\to y} must yield a transducer with the semantics { f ( c , a ) ↦ a , f ( c , b ) ↦ b } {\displaystyle \{f(c,a)\mapsto a,\ f(c,b)\mapsto b\}} , which we know is not expressible by a DTOP. The typechecking problem—testing whether the image of a regular tree language is included in another regular tree language—is decidable. The equivalence problem—testing whether two DTOP define the same functions—is decidable. == Bottom-Up Tree Transducers (BOT) == As in the simpler case of tree automata, bottom-up tree transducers are defined similarly to their top-down counterparts, but proceed from the leaves of the tree to the root, instead of from the root to the leaves. Thus the main difference is in the form of the rules, which are of the form f ( q 1 ( x 1 ) , … , q n ( x n ) ) → q ( u ) {\displaystyle f(q_{1}(x_{1}),\dots ,q_{n}(x_{n}))\to q(u)} .

  Read more →
• 

  Myhill–Nerode theorem

  In the theory of formal languages, the Myhill–Nerode theorem provides a necessary and sufficient condition for a language to be regular. The theorem is named for John Myhill and Anil Nerode, who proved it at the University of Chicago in 1957 (Nerode & Sauer 1957, p. ii). == Statement == Given a language L {\displaystyle L} , and a pair of strings x {\displaystyle x} and y {\displaystyle y} , define a distinguishing extension to be a string z {\displaystyle z} such that exactly one of the two strings x z {\displaystyle xz} and y z {\displaystyle yz} belongs to L {\displaystyle L} . Define a relation ∼ L {\displaystyle \sim _{L}} on strings as x ∼ L y {\displaystyle x\;\sim _{L}\ y} if there is no distinguishing extension for x {\displaystyle x} and y {\displaystyle y} . It is easy to show that ∼ L {\displaystyle \sim _{L}} is an equivalence relation on strings, and thus it divides the set of all strings into equivalence classes. The Myhill–Nerode theorem states that a language L {\displaystyle L} is regular if and only if ∼ L {\displaystyle \sim _{L}} has a finite number of equivalence classes, and moreover, that this number is equal to the number of states in the minimal deterministic finite automaton (DFA) accepting L {\displaystyle L} . Furthermore, every minimal DFA for the language is isomorphic to the canonical one (Hopcroft & Ullman 1979). Generally, for any language, the constructed automaton is a state automaton acceptor. However, it does not necessarily have finitely many states. The Myhill–Nerode theorem shows that finiteness is necessary and sufficient for language regularity. Some authors refer to the ∼ L {\displaystyle \sim _{L}} relation as Nerode congruence, in honor of Anil Nerode. == Use and consequences == The Myhill–Nerode theorem may be used to show that a language L {\displaystyle L} is regular by proving that the number of equivalence classes of ∼ L {\displaystyle \sim _{L}} is finite. This may be done by an exhaustive case analysis in which, beginning from the empty string, distinguishing extensions are used to find additional equivalence classes until no more can be found. For example, the language consisting of binary representations of numbers that can be divided by 3 is regular. Given two binary strings x , y {\displaystyle x,y} , extending them by one digit gives 2 x + b , 2 y + b {\displaystyle 2x+b,2y+b} , so 2 x + b ≡ 2 y + b mod 3 {\displaystyle 2x+b\equiv 2y+b\mod 3} iff x ≡ y mod 3 {\displaystyle x\equiv y\mod 3} . Thus, 00 {\displaystyle 00} (or 11 {\displaystyle 11} ), 01 {\displaystyle 01} , and 10 {\displaystyle 10} are the only distinguishing extensions, resulting in the 3 classes. The minimal automaton accepting our language would have three states corresponding to these three equivalence classes. Another immediate corollary of the theorem is that if for a language L {\displaystyle L} the relation ∼ L {\displaystyle \sim _{L}} has infinitely many equivalence classes, it is not regular. It is this corollary that is frequently used to prove that a language is not regular. == Generalizations == The Myhill–Nerode theorem can be generalized to tree automata.

  Read more →
• 

  OCR-B

  OCR-B is a monospace font developed in 1968 by Adrian Frutiger for Monotype by following the European Computer Manufacturer's Association standard. Its function was to facilitate the optical character recognition operations by specific electronic devices, originally for financial and bank-oriented uses. It was accepted as the world standard in 1973. It follows the ISO 1073-2:1976 (E) standard, refined in 1979 ("letterpress" design, size I). It includes all ASCII symbols, and other symbols needed in the bank environment. It is widely used for the human readable digits in UPC/EAN barcodes. It is also used for machine-readable passports. It shares that purpose with OCR-A, but it is easier for the human eye and brain to read and it has a less technical look than OCR-A. == History == In June 1961, the European Computer Manufacturers Association (ECMA) started standardization activities related to Optical Character Recognition (OCR). After evaluating existing OCR designs, it was decided to develop two new fonts: A stylized design with just digits, called “Class A”; and a more conventional type design with broader character coverage, called “Class B”. In February 1965, ECMA proposed a design for the “Class B” font to ISO, who adopted it as international standard ISO 1073-2 in October 1965. The first revision contained three font sizes: I, II and III. The specification included a Letterpress design, intended for high-quality printing equipment; and a rounded-edge Constant Strokewidth design for impact printers with reduced typographic quality. In September 1969, ECMA started work to revise its published standard. To make OCR-B more widely accepted, the shapes of some characters were slightly modified. The new revision removed font size II, which had been rarely used in practice; it deleted five character shapes; and it added a new font size IV. ECMA published the second edition of OCR-B in October 1971. In March 1976, ECMA published a third revision of its ECMA-11 specification. It added the symbols § and ¥ to OCR-B; two types of erasure marks (█) for blackening out mis-printed characters were added; and the length of the Vertical bar was changed to match ISO 1073-2. In 1993, Turkey proposed extending ISO 1073-2 to include the Turkish letters Ğğ, İı, and Şş. The request was generalized to extend OCR-B with a number of Latin and Greek letters used in European languages. A revision of the ISO 1073-2:1976 standard was therefore started, producing three successive draft documents. The final draft would have extended OCR-B with 40 Latin and 10 Greek letters; for six Latin letters, the draft gave new alternate shapes. A request to extend OCR-B with Vietnamese accents was rejected. Other than previous versions of the standard, which specified glyph shapes via reference drawings, the new revision would have included the shapes in machine-readable form. However, industry support for testing the new font could not be secured at the time, so the revision effort was halted in 1997. The working group described their findings in a technical report. In June 1998, the European Committee for Standardization published a report for adding the Euro sign to OCR-B. The report proposed both a single-stroked and a double-stroked variant of the Euro sign, leaving the decision to further testing of OCR performance. Testing was difficult: the theoretical design methods used when the OCR-B glyphs were originally developed could no longer be reproduced, and the technological constraints of the 1960s were also not entirely relevant anymore in the OCR environments of the 1990s. A new test method was devised, using present-time OCR technology. The tests found no difference in OCR performance between the two Euro variants, and recommended the adoption of the double-stroked variant as it matches the conventional glyph shape. The project did not have funds to thoroughly test the glyph extensions of the 1993 proposal; initial results were inconclusive. == Availability == Microsoft Office ships a version of Letterpress OCR-B produced by Monotype. It covers Windows-1252. Many vendors, including Adobe, still sell their versions of OCR-A and OCR-B. The TeX typesetting system has a public domain Constant Strokewidth OCR-B font in METAFONT definition form. It was created by Norbert Swartz in 1995 and updated in 2010. It has a setting for square stroke ends. The definition has also been translated to METATYPE1, so the rounded version is available in TrueType and OpenType too. A version of Constant Strokewidth OCR-B by Matthew Anderson has extended character coverage. It is available under CC-BY 4.0.

  Read more →
• 

  Cognitive philology

  Cognitive philology is the science that studies written and oral texts as the product of human mental processes. Studies in cognitive philology compare documentary evidence emerging from textual investigations with results of experimental research, especially in the fields of cognitive and ecological psychology, neurosciences and artificial intelligence. "The point is not the text, but the mind that made it". Cognitive Philology aims to foster communication between literary, textual, philological disciplines on the one hand and researches across the whole range of the cognitive, evolutionary, ecological and human sciences on the other. Cognitive philology: investigates transmission of oral and written text, and categorization processes which lead to classification of knowledge, mostly relying on the information theory; studies how narratives emerge in so called natural conversation and selective process which lead to the rise of literary standards for storytelling, mostly relying on embodied semantics; explores the evolutive and evolutionary role played by rhythm and metre in human ontogenetic and phylogenetic development and the pertinence of the semantic association during processing of cognitive maps; Provides the scientific ground for multimedia critical editions of literary texts. Among the founding thinkers and noteworthy scholars devoted to such investigations are: Alan Richardson: Studies Theory of Mind in early-modern and contemporary literature. Anatole Pierre Fuksas Benoît de Cornulier David Herman: Professor of English at North Carolina State University and an adjunct professor of linguistics at Duke University. He is the author of "Universal Grammar and Narrative Form" and the editor of "Narratologies: New Perspectives on Narrative Analysis". Domenico Fiormonte François Recanati Gilles Fauconnier, a professor in Cognitive science at the University of California, San Diego. He was one of the founders of cognitive linguistics in the 1970s through his work on pragmatic scales and mental spaces. His research explores the areas of conceptual integration and compressions of conceptual mappings in terms of the emergent structure in language. Julián Santano Moreno Luca Nobile Manfred Jahn in Germany Mark Turner Paolo Canettieri

  Read more →
• 

  Amazon Polly

  Amazon Polly is a cloud service by Amazon Web Services, a subsidiary of Amazon.com, that converts text into spoken audio. It allows developers to create speech-enabled applications and products. It was launched in November 2016 and (as of December 2024) includes 100+ voices across 41 language variants, some of which are Neural Text-to-Speech voices of higher quality. Users include Duolingo, a language education platform.

  Read more →
• 

  Julie Beth Lovins

  Julie Beth Lovins (October 19, 1945, in Washington, D.C. – January 26, 2018, in Mountain View, California) was a computational linguist who published The Lovins Stemming Algorithm - a type of stemming algorithm for word matching - in 1968. The Lovins Stemmer is a single pass, context sensitive stemmer, which removes endings based on the longest-match principle. The stemmer was the first to be published and was extremely well developed considering the date of its release, having been the main influence on a large amount of the future work in the area. -Adam G., et al == Background == Born on October 19, 1945, in Washington, D.C., Lovins grew up in Amherst, Massachusetts. Her father Gerald H. Lovins was an engineer and her mother, Miriam Lovins, a social services administrator. Lovins' brother Amory Lovins is the co-founder and chief environmental scientist of Rocky Mountain Institute. For her undergraduate degree, Lovins attended Pembroke College, the women's college of Brown University, which later combined into Brown University in 1971. At Pembroke College, Lovins studied mathematics and linguistics, graduating with honors. Her thesis was named, A Study of Idioms. She received the inaugural Bloch Fellowship in 1970 from the Linguistic Society of America to attend graduate school. Lovins obtained her Master of Arts in 1970 and Doctor of Philosophy in 1973 from the University of Chicago, studying linguistics. At the University of Chicago, her dissertation was titled, Loan Phonology -- Subject Matter. A revision of her thesis on loanwords and the phonological structure of Japanese was published in 1975 by the Indiana University Linguistics Club. == Teaching career == Following Lovins' PhD, she spent a year working as a linguist-at-large at a University of Tokyo language research institute and as an English conversation teacher. She then joined the faculty at Tsuda College as a professor of English and linguistics, where she taught for seven years. During her time as a faculty member at Tsuda College, Lovins also served as a guest researcher in the University of Tokyo's Research Institute of Logopedics and Phoniatrics, a research center for speech science. == Industry career == After teaching Japanese phonology at Japanese universities abroad, Lovins moved back to the U.S. to work in the computing industry. She worked on early speech synthesis at Bell Labs in Murray Hill, New Jersey. At Bell Labs, Lovins worked with Osamu Fujimura, a Japanese linguist who is credited as a pioneer in speech sciences. Lovins also worked as a software engineer at various companies in Silicon Valley and served as a consultant for computational linguistics throughout the 1990s. As a consultant, she called her business, "The Language Doctor." == The Lovins Stemming Algorithm == Lovins published an article about her work on developing a stemming algorithm through the Research Laboratory of Electronics at MIT in 1968. Lovins' stemming algorithm is frequently referred to as the Lovins stemmer. A stemming algorithm is the process of taking a word with suffixes and reducing it to its root, or base word. Stemming algorithms are used to improve the accuracy in information retrieval and in domain analysis. These algorithms help find variants of the terms being queried. Stemming algorithms bring value in their reduction of a given query into its less complex form, allowing more similar documents to be retrieved for similar queries. Stemming algorithms are prevalent in search engines, such as Google Search, which did not implement word stemming until 2003. This means that up until 2003, a Google search for the word warm would not have explicitly returned results for related words like warmth or warming. As the first published stemming algorithm, Lovins' work set a precedent and influenced future work in stemming algorithms, such as the Porter Stemmer published by Martin Porter in 1980 which has been recognized widely as the most common stemming algorithm for stemming English. Additionally, the Dawson Stemmer developed by John Dawson is an extension of the Lovins stemmer. The Lovins stemmer follows a rule-based affix elimination approach. It first removes the longest identifiable suffix from the target word - producing a base stem word - then indexes a lookup table to convert the (potentially malformed) stem word to a valid word. This process can be split into two phases. In the first phase, a word is compared with a pre-determined list of endings, and when a word is found to contain one of these endings, the ending is removed, leaving only the stem of the word. The second phase standardizes spelling exceptions that come from the first phase, ensuring that words with only marginally varying stems are appropriately paired together. For example, with the word dried, phase one results in dri, which should match with the word dry. The second phase takes care of these exceptions. Compared to other stemmers, Lovins' algorithm is fast and equipped to handle irregular plural words like person and people. Disadvantages, however, include many suffixes not being available in the table of endings. Furthermore, it is sometimes highly unreliable and frequently fails to form valid words from the stems or to match the stems of like-meaning words. This is most often caused by the usage of specialist terminology and domain-specific vocabulary by the author. == Personal life == Lovins moved to Mountain View, California, in 1979, and later to Old Mountain View in 1981 with her partner and later husband Greg Fowler, a software engineer and advocate for environmental issues & the blind. In their free time, she and her husband enjoyed taking walks and volunteering for their local community. Lovins actively volunteered for organizations like the Old Mountain View Neighborhood Association, Mountain View Friends of the Library, League of Women Voters, Mountain View Cool Cities Team, and the Mountain View Sustainability Task Force. In 2016, Lovins' husband died unexpectedly, following a heart attack. Eighteen days after her husband died, Lovins was diagnosed with brain cancer. She died on January 26, 2018, at a hospice, surrounded by friends, family and caregivers.

  Read more →