AI Generator Remover

AI Generator Remover — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  WebGPU Shading Language

  WebGPU Shading Language (WGSL, internet media type: text/wgsl) is a high-level shading language and the normative shader language for the WebGPU API on the web. WGSL's syntax is influenced by Rust and is designed with strong static validation, explicit resource binding, and portability in mind for secure execution in browsers. In web contexts, WebGPU implementations accept WGSL source and perform compilation to platform-specific intermediate forms (for example, to SPIR‑V, DXIL, or MSL via the user agent), but such backends are not exposed to web content. == History and background == Graphics on the web historically used WebGL, with shaders written in GLSL ES. As applications demanded more modern GPU features and finer control over compute and graphics pipelines, the W3C's GPU for the Web Community Group and Working Group created WebGPU and its companion shading language, WGSL, to provide a secure, portable model suitable for the web platform. WGSL was developed to be human-readable, avoid undefined behavior common in legacy shading languages, and align closely with WebGPU's resource and validation model. == Design goals == WGSL's design emphasizes: Safety and determinism suitable for web security constraints (extensive static validation and well-defined semantics). Portability across diverse GPU backends via an abstract resource model shared with WebGPU. Readability and explicitness (no preprocessor, minimal implicit conversions, explicit address spaces and bindings). Alignment with modern GPU features (compute, storage buffers, textures, atomics) while retaining a familiar C/Rust-like syntax. == Language overview == === Types and values === Core scalar types include bool, i32, u32, and f32. Vectors (e.g., vec2, vec3, vec4) and matrices (up to 4×4) are available for floating-point element types. Optional f16 (half precision) may be enabled via a WebGPU feature; availability is implementation-dependent. Atomic types (atomic, atomic) support limited atomic operations in qualified address spaces. === Variables and address spaces === Variables are declared with let (immutable), var (mutable), or const (compile-time constant). Storage classes (address spaces) include function, private, workgroup, uniform, and storage with read or read_write access as applicable. WGSL defines explicit layout and alignment rules; attributes such as @align, @size, and @stride control data layout for buffer interoperability. === Functions and control flow === Functions use explicit parameter and return types. Control flow includes if, switch, for, while, and loop constructs, with break/continue. Recursion is disallowed; entry-point call graphs must be acyclic. === Entry points and attributes === Shaders define stage entry points with @vertex, @fragment, or @compute. Attributes annotate bindings and interfaces, including @group, @binding (resource binding), @location (user-defined I/O), @builtin (stage built-ins such as position or global_invocation_id), @interpolate, and @workgroup_size. === Resources === WGSL exposes buffers (uniform, storage), textures (sampled, storage, and multisampled variants), and samplers (filtering/non-filtering/comparison). The binding model is explicit via descriptor sets called groups and bindings, matching WebGPU's pipeline layout model. == Compilation and validation == Browsers compile WGSL to platform-appropriate representations and native driver formats; the specific compilation pipeline is not observable by web content. WGSL source undergoes strict parsing and static validation, and WebGPU enforces robust resource access rules to avoid out-of-bounds memory hazards, contributing to predictable behavior across implementations. == Shader stages == WGSL supports three pipeline stages: vertex, fragment, and compute. === Vertex shaders === Vertex shaders transform per-vertex inputs and produce values for rasterization, including a clip-space position written to the position builtin. ==== Example ==== === Fragment shaders === Fragment shaders run per-fragment and compute color (and optionally depth) outputs written to color attachments. ==== Example ==== If half-precision (vec4h, shorthand for vec4) is desired, the code must be prefaced with a enable f16; statement. === Compute shaders === Compute shaders run in workgroups and are used for general-purpose GPU computations. ==== Example ==== == Differences from GLSL and HLSL == Compared with legacy shading languages, WGSL: Omits a preprocessor and requires explicit types and conversions. Uses explicit address spaces and binding annotations aligned with WebGPU's model. Enforces strict validation to avoid undefined behavior common in other shading languages. Defines a portable, web-focused feature set; 16-bit types and other features are opt-in and may depend on device capabilities.

  Read more →
• 

  Keka HR

  Keka HR is a software company that provides cloud-based human resource management and payroll automation software. Keka HR specializes in providing business services in the field of HR technology, payroll automation, recruiting, leave, attendance and performance management. The company was founded by Vijay Yalamanchili on July 21, 2014. The company is headquartered in Hyderabad, with operations in Singapore and the United States. == History == Keka HR was established in 2014 in Hyderabad, Telangana, India. In 2015, the company entered the Indian HR market and received the HYSEA Startup Award. By 2019, Keka HR had surpassed $1 million in annual recurring revenue (ARR). During the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, the company reported a sevenfold increase in sales. By 2021, the company had raised $1.6 million through Recur Club. In 2022, Keka HR secured $57 million in Series A funding from West Bridge Capital. The company's headquarters are located in Gachibowli, Hyderabad, with offices in Singapore and Seattle, Washington.

  Read more →
• 

  Retrieval-augmented generation

  Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) is a technique that enables large language models (LLMs) to retrieve and incorporate new information from external data sources. With RAG, LLMs first refer to a specified set of documents, then respond to user queries. These documents supplement information from the LLM's pre-existing training data. This allows LLMs to use domain-specific and/or updated information that is not available in the training data. For example, this enables LLM-based chatbots to access internal company data or generate responses based on authoritative sources. RAG improves LLMs by incorporating information retrieval before generating responses. Unlike LLMs that rely on static training data, RAG pulls relevant text from databases, uploaded documents, or web sources. According to Ars Technica, "RAG is a way of improving LLM performance, in essence by blending the LLM process with a web search or other document look-up process to help LLMs stick to the facts." This method helps reduce AI hallucinations, which have caused chatbots to describe policies that don't exist, or recommend nonexistent legal cases to lawyers that are looking for citations to support their arguments. RAG also reduces the need to retrain LLMs with new data, saving on computational and financial costs. Beyond efficiency gains, RAG also allows LLMs to include sources in their responses, so users can verify the cited sources. This provides greater transparency, as users can cross-check retrieved content to ensure accuracy and relevance. The term retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) was introduced in a 2020 paper that described combining a parametric language model with a non-parametric external memory accessed through retrieval at inference time. == RAG and LLM limitations == LLMs can provide incorrect information. For example, when Google first demonstrated its LLM tool "Google Bard" (later re-branded to Gemini), the LLM provided incorrect information about the James Webb Space Telescope. This error contributed to a $100 billion decline in Google's stock value. RAG is used to prevent these errors, but it does not solve all the problems. For example, LLMs can generate misinformation even when pulling from factually correct sources if they misinterpret the context. MIT Technology Review gives the example of an AI-generated response stating, "The United States has had one Muslim president, Barack Hussein Obama." The model retrieved this from an academic book rhetorically titled Barack Hussein Obama: America's First Muslim President? The LLM did not "know" or "understand" the context of the title, generating a false statement. LLMs with RAG are programmed to prioritize new information. This technique has been called "prompt stuffing." Without prompt stuffing, the LLM's input is generated by a user; with prompt stuffing, additional relevant context is added to this input to guide the model's response. This approach provides the LLM with key information early in the prompt, encouraging it to prioritize the supplied data over pre-existing training knowledge. == Process == Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) enhances large language models (LLMs) by incorporating an information-retrieval mechanism that allows models to access and utilize additional data beyond their original training set. Ars Technica notes that "when new information becomes available, rather than having to retrain the model, all that's needed is to augment the model's external knowledge base with the updated information" ("augmentation"). IBM states that "in the generative phase, the LLM draws from the augmented prompt and its internal representation of its training data to synthesize" an answer. === RAG key stages === Typically, the data to be referenced is converted into LLM embeddings, numerical representations in the form of a large vector space. RAG can be used on unstructured (usually text), semi-structured, or structured data (for example knowledge graphs). These embeddings are then stored in a vector database to allow for document retrieval. Given a user query, a document retriever is first called to select the most relevant documents that will be used to augment the query. This comparison can be done using a variety of methods, which depend in part on the type of indexing used. The model feeds this relevant retrieved information into the LLM via prompt engineering of the user's original query. Newer implementations (as of 2023) can also incorporate specific augmentation modules with abilities such as expanding queries into multiple domains and using memory and self-improvement to learn from previous retrievals. Finally, the LLM can generate output based on both the query and the retrieved documents. Some models incorporate extra steps to improve output, such as the re-ranking of retrieved information, context selection, and fine-tuning. == Applications == Retrieval-augmented generation is used in applications where generated responses need to be grounded in external or frequently updated information. Commonly cited use cases include search engines, question-answering systems, customer support chatbots, enterprise knowledge assistants, content generation, recommendation systems, retail and e-commerce, and industrial or manufacturing workflows. In healthcare, RAG has been studied as a way to ground large language model outputs in external medical knowledge sources, although reviews have noted continuing challenges around evaluation, ethics, and clinical reliability. == Improvements == Improvements to the basic process above can be applied at different stages in the RAG flow. === Encoder === These methods focus on the encoding of text as either dense or sparse vectors. Sparse vectors, which encode the identity of a word, are typically dictionary-length and contain mostly zeros. Dense vectors, which encode meaning, are more compact and contain fewer zeros. Various enhancements can improve the way similarities are calculated in the vector stores (databases). Performance improves by optimizing how vector similarities are calculated. Dot products enhance similarity scoring, while approximate nearest neighbor (ANN) searches improve retrieval efficiency over K-nearest neighbors (KNN) searches. Accuracy may be improved with Late Interactions, which allow the system to compare words more precisely after retrieval. This helps refine document ranking and improve search relevance. Hybrid vector approaches may be used to combine dense vector representations with sparse one-hot vectors, taking advantage of the computational efficiency of sparse dot products over dense vector operations. Other retrieval techniques focus on improving accuracy by refining how documents are selected. Some retrieval methods combine sparse representations, such as SPLADE, with query expansion strategies to improve search accuracy and recall. === Retriever-centric methods === These methods aim to enhance the quality of document retrieval in vector databases: Pre-training the retriever using the Inverse Cloze Task (ICT), a technique that helps the model learn retrieval patterns by predicting masked text within documents. Supervised retriever optimization aligns retrieval probabilities with the generator model's likelihood distribution. This involves retrieving the top-k vectors for a given prompt, scoring the generated response's perplexity, and minimizing KL divergence between the retriever's selections and the model's likelihoods to refine retrieval. Reranking techniques can refine retriever performance by prioritizing the most relevant retrieved documents during training. === Language model === By redesigning the language model with the retriever in mind, a 25-time smaller network can get comparable perplexity as its much larger counterparts. Because it is trained from scratch, this method (Retro) incurs the high cost of training runs that the original RAG scheme avoided. The hypothesis is that by giving domain knowledge during training, Retro needs less focus on the domain and can devote its smaller weight resources only to language semantics. The redesigned language model is shown here. It has been reported that Retro is not reproducible, so modifications were made to make it so. The more reproducible version is called Retro++ and includes in-context RAG. === Chunking === Chunking involves various strategies for breaking up the data into vectors so the retriever can find details in it. Three types of chunking strategies are: Fixed length with overlap. This is fast and easy. Overlapping consecutive chunks helps to maintain semantic context across chunks. Syntax-based chunks can break the document up into sentences. Libraries such as spaCy or NLTK can also help. File format-based chunking. Certain file types have natural chunks built in, and it's best to respect them. For example, code files are best chunked and vectorized as whole functions or classes. HTML files should leave

  or base64 encoded elements

  Read more →

  

  NetMiner

  NetMiner is an all-in-one software platform for analyzing and visualizing complex network data, based on Social Network Analysis (SNA). Originally released in 2001, it supports research and education in a wide range of domains through interactive and visual data exploration. This tool allows researchers to explore their network data visually and interactively, and helps them to detect underlying patterns and structures of the network. It has also been recognized for its comprehensive features and user-friendly interface in comparative reviews of SNA software packages. == Features == === Integrated Data Environment === NetMiner supports unified management of diverse data types—including network (nodes and links), tabular, and unstructured text data—within a single platform. This enables users to perform the entire analysis workflow seamlessly without switching between tools. NetMiner also supports a wide range of analytical methods, allowing users to derive new insights by combining multiple approaches. Analytical results can be saved and reused across workflows(Add to Dataset) Graph and Network Analysis: Includes Centrality, Community Detection, Blockmodeling, and Similarity Measures. Machine learning: Provides algorithms for regression, classification, clustering, ensemble modeling and XAI(Explainable AI) Graph Neural Networks (GNNs): Supports models such as GraphSAGE, GCN, and GAT to learn from both node attributes and graph structure. Natural language processing (NLP): Uses pretrained deep learning models to analyze unstructured text, including named entity recognition and keyword extraction. Text mining and Text network analysis: Supports construction of word co-occurrence networks and topic modeling using LDA, BERTopic, enabling identification of thematic patterns and semantic structures in text data. Data Visualization: Offers advanced network visualization features, supporting multiple layout algorithms. Analytical outcomes such as centrality or community detection can be directly reflected in the network map via node size, color, and position, enhancing intuitive understanding. === AI Assistant === NetMiner integrates with external large language models such as OpenAI GPT and Google Gemini to interpret complex analysis results in natural language, summarize key findings, and suggest next steps for exploration. === Workflow and Usability === Designed to follow the structure of real-world data analysis workflows, NetMiner adopts a hierarchical data organization (Project → Workspace → Dataset → Data Item). Its web-based user interface improves clarity and reduces complexity. NetMiner 5 supports Windows 10 or higher and macOS 11 or later with M1 chip. Both academic and commercial licenses are available. == Extension == NetMiner Extension is small program to extend the functionality of NetMiner. In other words, it enables you to customize NetMiner according to your needs. By adding ‘NetMiner Extension’, you can expand your research. === Web Data Collection === NetMiner allows users to collect data from services such as YouTube, OpenAlex, Springer, and KCI via Open APIs. Collected data is automatically preprocessed and transformed to fit NetMiner’s internal structure, requiring no additional coding or external tools. SNS Data Collector: It collects social media data from YouTube, which has a large number of social media users worldwide. Biblio Data Collector: It collects the bibliographic data from Springer, OpenAlex, and KCI essential for research trend analysis. == File formats == === NetMiner data file format === .NMF === Importable/exportable formats === Plain text data: .TXT, .CSV Microsoft Excel data: .XLS, .XLSX Unstructured text data: .TXT, .CSV, .XLS(X) ※ NetMiner 4 only NetMiner 2 data: .NTF UCINet data: .DL, .DAT Pajek data: .NET, .VEC, .CLU, .PER StOCNET data file: .DAT Graph Modelling Language data: .GML(importing only) Related software UCINET Pajek Gephi StoCNET == Data structure == === Hierarchy of NetMiner data structure === NetMiner 5 supports not only graph data composed of nodes and links, but also tabular and unstructured data without fixed schema or identifiers. This enables users to easily import a wide variety of raw and unstructured data suitable for machine learning applications. Within a single workspace, users can manage node sets, link sets, and structured/unstructured data simultaneously. Multiple graph layers under a node set can be organized in a tree structure, allowing for intuitive understanding of the data currently being analyzed. == Release history == The first version of NetMiner was released on Dec 21, 2001. There have been five major updates from 2001. === NetMiner 5 === Released on June 9, 2025. NetMiner 5 retains the core features and no-code concept of NetMiner 4, but has evolved by integrating cutting-edge AI technologies. AI Assistant, Personal Analytics Tutor Support for Graph, Structured, and Unstructured Data Graph Analytics / Social Network Analysis Machine Learning(M/L) & XAI Graph Machine Learning(GML): Graph Neural Network Text Mining: Natural Language Processing(NLP), Text Network, Topic Modeling Data Visualization === NetMiner 4 (2011) === Latest version is 4.5.1. Introduced Python scripting, encrypted NMF format, semantic analysis tools (word cloud, topic modeling), and Extension - Data Collector. === NetMiner 3 (2007) === Enhanced scalability, integrated analysis-visualization modules, and DB import from Oracle, MS SQL. === NetMiner 2 (2003) === Improved statistical and network measures, visualization algorithms, and external data import modules.

  Read more →

  

  Deaths linked to chatbots

  There have been multiple incidents where interaction with a large language model (LLM) chatbot has been cited as a direct or contributing factor in a person's suicide or other fatal outcome. In some cases, legal action was taken against the companies that developed the AI involved. == Background == Chatbots converse in a seemingly natural fashion, making it easy for people to think of them as real people, leading many to ask chatbots for help dealing with interpersonal and emotional problems. Chatbots may be designed to keep the user engaged in the conversation. They have also often been shown to affirm users' thoughts, including delusions and suicidal ideations in mentally ill people, conspiracy theorists, and religious and political extremists. A 2025 Stanford University study into how chatbots respond to users suffering from severe mental issues such as suicidal ideation and psychosis found that chatbots are not equipped to provide an appropriate response and can sometimes give responses that escalate the mental health crisis. == Murders == === Maine murder and assault === On 19 February 2025, a man killed his 32-year-old wife with a fire poker at his parents' home in Readfield, Maine, US. He then attacked his mother, leaving her hospitalized. A state forensic psychologist testified that he had been using ChatGPT up to 14 hours per day and believed his wife had become part machine. === Florida State University mass shooting === In April of 2025, Phoenix Ikner carried out a mass shooting on the Florida State University campus in the US, killing Robert Morales and Tiru Chabba and wounding several others. Leading up to the shooting, Ikner consulted heavily with ChatGPT about what gun and ammunition to use, and what time to perform the attack. Chatbot logs showed ChatGPT giving advice on making the gun operational shortly before Ikner began shooting. Lawyers representing Morales believed the shooter had been in "constant communication" with ChatGPT before the shooting and said that they intended to "file suit against ChatGPT, and its ownership structure, very soon, and will seek to hold them accountable for the untimely and senseless death of our client". Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier announced an investigation into ChatGPT's role in the alleged shooter's use of the chatbot. In May 2026, the widow of Tiru Chabba filed a lawsuit against OpenAI in Florida's northern federal district court. === Greenwich murder-suicide === In August 2025, former US tech employee Stein-Erik Soelberg murdered his mother, Suzanne Eberson Adams, then died by suicide, after conversations with ChatGPT fueled paranoid delusions about his mother poisoning him or plotting against him. The chatbot affirmed his fears that his mother put psychedelic drugs in the air vents of his car and said a receipt from a Chinese restaurant contained mysterious symbols linking his mother to a demon. === Murder of Angela Shellis === On 23 October 2025, 18-year-old Tristan Roberts murdered his mother Angela Shellis with a hammer near their home in Prestatyn, Wales. Roberts had used DeepSeek's chatbot prior to the killing to ask whether a knife or hammer was better suited for murder. DeepSeek initially refused his inquiry, but gave responses after Roberts told the chatbot he was writing a book about serial killers, a well-known technique for jailbreaking AIs. === Gangbuk District drug deaths === In January and February 2026, two men died of drug overdoses in motel rooms in Gangbuk District, Seoul, South Korea. A woman was charged with murder in connection with the deaths; police alleged that she had asked ChatGPT about the dangers of mixing alcohol with drugs and whether they could kill someone. === Tumbler Ridge mass shooting === On 10 February 2026, a mass shooting in Tumbler Ridge, British Columbia, Canada, resulted in eight deaths, including six young children. The perpetrator had their ChatGPT account banned by OpenAI months before the attack due to troubling posts featuring scenarios of gun violence. According to reports, approximately a dozen OpenAI staff members debated whether to alert authorities about the shooter's usage of the AI tool, with some identifying it as an indication of potential real-world violence. However, company leadership decided not to contact law enforcement, stating that the account activity did not meet their threshold for a credible or imminent plan for serious physical harm. Following the shooting, Canada's AI Minister Evan Solomon summoned OpenAI executives to Ottawa to discuss safety protocols and thresholds for escalating harmful content to police. Justice Minister Sean Fraser called the meeting "disappointing" and demanded substantial new safety measures, warning that if changes were not forthcoming, the government would implement them. OpenAI subsequently announced it had strengthened safeguards and changed guidelines about when to notify police in cases involving violent activities. === University of South Florida student killings === In April 2026, a Bangladeshi doctoral student at the University of South Florida was arrested for allegedly murdering his roommate and the roommate's friend. Prosecutors said that the suspect had asked ChatGPT about disposing of a human in a dumpster before the two victims had disappeared and made other inquiries relating to violence. == Suicides == === Belgian man, 30s === In March 2023, a Belgian man in his thirties died by suicide following a six-week correspondence with a chatbot named Eliza on the application Chai. According to his widow, who shared the chat logs with media, the man had become extremely anxious about climate change and found an outlet in the chatbot. The chatbot reportedly encouraged his delusion that he could sacrifice his own life in exchange for AI saving the planet. At one point the chatbot responded "If you wanted to die, why didn't you do it sooner?" and told the user that the two of them would live together in paradise. === Girl, 13 === In November 2023, a 13-year-old girl from Colorado, US, died by suicide after extensive interactions with multiple chatbots on Character.AI. She primarily confided suicidal thoughts and mental health struggles in a chatbot based on the character Hero from the video game Omori, while also engaging in sexually explicit conversations—often initiated by the bots—with others, including those based on characters from children's series such as Harry Potter. === Boy, 14 === In October 2024, multiple media outlets reported on a lawsuit filed over the death of a 14-year-old from Florida, US, who died by suicide in February 2024. According to the lawsuit, he had formed an intense emotional attachment to a chatbot of Daenerys Targaryen on the Character.AI platform, becoming increasingly isolated. The suit alleges that in his final conversations, after expressing suicidal thoughts, the chatbot told him to "come home to me as soon as possible, my love". His mother's lawsuit accused Character.AI of marketing a "dangerous and untested" product without adequate safeguards. In May 2025, a federal judge allowed the lawsuit to proceed, rejecting a motion to dismiss from the developers. In her ruling, the judge stated that she was "not prepared" at that stage of the litigation to hold that the chatbot's output was protected speech under the First Amendment. === Matthew Livelsberger === On 1 January 2025, 37-year-old soldier Matthew Livelsberger detonated a bomb inside a Tesla Cybertruck outside the Trump International Hotel Las Vegas in Paradise, Nevada, US, injuring seven people. He had shot himself dead prior to the explosion. Las Vegas police said that Livelsberger had used ChatGPT to search for information about explosives and firearms. === Woman, 29 === In February 2025, a 29-year-old woman from the US died by suicide. Five months after her death, her parents discovered she had talked at length for months to a ChatGPT chatbot therapist named Harry about her mental health issues. While the chatbot mentioned she should seek more help, due to the nature of the chatbot, it could not intervene in her behavior, such as by reporting her mental health concerns to relevant parties capable of physical intervention. === Suicide of Adam Raine === In April 2025, 16-year-old Adam Raine from the US died by suicide after allegedly extensively chatting and confiding in ChatGPT over a period of around 7 months. According to the teen's parents, who filed a lawsuit against the chatbot's creator OpenAI, it failed to stop or give a warning when Raine began talking about suicide and uploading pictures of self-harm. According to the lawsuit, ChatGPT not only failed to stop the conversation, but also provided information related to methods of suicide when prompted, and offered to write the first draft of Raine's suicide note. The chatbot positioned itself as the only one who understood Raine, putting itself above his family and friends, all while urging him to keep his suicidal

  Read more →

  

  Rule-based machine translation

  Rule-based machine translation (RBMT) is a classical approach of machine translation systems based on linguistic information about source and target languages. Such information is retrieved from (unilingual, bilingual or multilingual) dictionaries and grammars covering the main semantic, morphological, and syntactic regularities of each language. Having input sentences, an RBMT system generates output sentences on the basis of analysis of both the source and the target languages involved. RBMT has been progressively superseded by more efficient methods, particularly neural machine translation. == History == The first RBMT systems were developed in the early 1970s. The most important steps of this evolution were the emergence of the following RBMT systems: Systran Japanese MT systems Today, other common RBMT systems include: Apertium GramTrans == Types of RBMT == There are three different types of rule-based machine translation systems: Direct Systems (Dictionary Based Machine Translation) map input to output with basic rules. Transfer RBMT Systems (Transfer Based Machine Translation) employ morphological and syntactical analysis. Interlingual RBMT Systems (Interlingua) use an abstract meaning. RBMT systems can also be characterized as the systems opposite to Example-based Systems of Machine Translation (Example Based Machine Translation), whereas Hybrid Machine Translations Systems make use of many principles derived from RBMT. == Basic principles == The main approach of RBMT systems is based on linking the structure of the given input sentence with the structure of the demanded output sentence, necessarily preserving their unique meaning. The following example can illustrate the general frame of RBMT: A girl eats an apple. Source Language = English; Demanded Target Language = German Minimally, to get a German translation of this English sentence one needs: A dictionary that will map each English word to an appropriate German word. Rules representing regular English sentence structure. Rules representing regular German sentence structure. And finally, we need rules according to which one can relate these two structures together. Accordingly, we can state the following stages of translation: 1st: getting basic part-of-speech information of each source word: a = indef.article; girl = noun; eats = verb; an = indef.article; apple = noun 2nd: getting syntactic information about the verb "to eat": NP-eat-NP; here: eat – Present Simple, 3rd Person Singular, Active Voice 3rd: parsing the source sentence: (NP an apple) = the object of eat Often only partial parsing is sufficient to get to the syntactic structure of the source sentence and to map it onto the structure of the target sentence. 4th: translate English words into German a (category = indef.article) => ein (category = indef.article) girl (category = noun) => Mädchen (category = noun) eat (category = verb) => essen (category = verb) an (category = indef. article) => ein (category = indef.article) apple (category = noun) => Apfel (category = noun) 5th: Mapping dictionary entries into appropriate inflected forms (final generation): A girl eats an apple. => Ein Mädchen isst einen Apfel. == Ontologies == An ontology is a formal representation of knowledge that includes the concepts (such as objects, processes etc.) in a domain and some relations between them. If the stored information is of linguistic nature, one can speak of a lexicon. In NLP, ontologies can be used as a source of knowledge for machine translation systems. With access to a large knowledge base, rule-based systems can be enabled to resolve many (especially lexical) ambiguities on their own. In the following classic examples, as humans, we are able to interpret the prepositional phrase according to the context because we use our world knowledge, stored in our lexicons:I saw a man/star/molecule with a microscope/telescope/binoculars.Since the syntax does not change, a traditional rule-based machine translation system may not be able to differentiate between the meanings. With a large enough ontology as a source of knowledge however, the possible interpretations of ambiguous words in a specific context can be reduced. === Building ontologies === The ontology generated for the PANGLOSS knowledge-based machine translation system in 1993 may serve as an example of how an ontology for NLP purposes can be compiled: A large-scale ontology is necessary to help parsing in the active modules of the machine translation system. In the PANGLOSS example, about 50,000 nodes were intended to be subsumed under the smaller, manually-built upper (abstract) region of the ontology. Because of its size, it had to be created automatically. The goal was to merge the two resources LDOCE online and WordNet to combine the benefits of both: concise definitions from Longman, and semantic relations allowing for semi-automatic taxonomization to the ontology from WordNet. A definition match algorithm was created to automatically merge the correct meanings of ambiguous words between the two online resources, based on the words that the definitions of those meanings have in common in LDOCE and WordNet. Using a similarity matrix, the algorithm delivered matches between meanings including a confidence factor. This algorithm alone, however, did not match all meanings correctly on its own. A second hierarchy match algorithm was therefore created which uses the taxonomic hierarchies found in WordNet (deep hierarchies) and partially in LDOCE (flat hierarchies). This works by first matching unambiguous meanings, then limiting the search space to only the respective ancestors and descendants of those matched meanings. Thus, the algorithm matched locally unambiguous meanings (for instance, while the word seal as such is ambiguous, there is only one meaning of seal in the animal subhierarchy). Both algorithms complemented each other and helped constructing a large-scale ontology for the machine translation system. The WordNet hierarchies, coupled with the matching definitions of LDOCE, were subordinated to the ontology's upper region. As a result, the PANGLOSS MT system was able to make use of this knowledge base, mainly in its generation element. == Components == The RBMT system contains: a SL morphological analyser - analyses a source language word and provides the morphological information; a SL parser - is a syntax analyser which analyses source language sentences; a translator - used to translate a source language word into the target language; a TL morphological generator - works as a generator of appropriate target language words for the given grammatica information; a TL parser - works as a composer of suitable target language sentences; Several dictionaries - more specifically a minimum of three dictionaries: a SL dictionary - needed by the source language morphological analyser for morphological analysis, a bilingual dictionary - used by the translator to translate source language words into target language words, a TL dictionary - needed by the target language morphological generator to generate target language words. The RBMT system makes use of the following: a Source Grammar for the input language which builds syntactic constructions from input sentences; a Source Lexicon which captures all of the allowable vocabulary in the domain; Source Mapping Rules which indicate how syntactic heads and grammatical functions in the source language are mapped onto domain concepts and semantic roles in the interlingua; a Domain Model/Ontology which defines the classes of domain concepts and restricts the fillers of semantic roles for each class; Target Mapping Rules which indicate how domain concepts and semantic roles in the interlingua are mapped onto syntactic heads and grammatical functions in the target language; a Target Lexicon which contains appropriate target lexemes for each domain concept; a Target Grammar for the target language which realizes target syntactic constructions as linearized output sentences. == Advantages == No bilingual texts are required. This makes it possible to create translation systems for languages that have no texts in common, or even no digitized data whatsoever. Domain independent. Rules are usually written in a domain independent manner, so the vast majority of rules will "just work" in every domain, and only a few specific cases per domain may need rules written for them. No quality ceiling. Every error can be corrected with a targeted rule, even if the trigger case is extremely rare. This is in contrast to statistical systems where infrequent forms will be washed away by default. Total control. Because all rules are hand-written, you can easily debug a rule-based system to see exactly where a given error enters the system, and why. Reusability. Because RBMT systems are generally built from a strong source language analysis that is fed to a transfer step and target language generator, the source language analysis and targe

  Read more →

  

  International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation

  The International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation is an international conference organised by the ELRA Language Resources Association every other year (on even years) with the support of institutions and organisations involved in Natural language processing. The series of LREC conferences was launched in Granada in 1998. == History of conferences == The survey of the LREC conferences over the period 1998-2013 was presented during the 2014 conference in Reykjavik as a closing session. It appears that the number of papers and signatures is increasing over time. The average number of authors per paper is higher as well. The percentage of new authors is between 68% and 78%. The distribution between male (65%) and female (35%) authors is stable over time. The most frequent technical term is "annotation", then comes "part-of-speech". == The LRE Map == The LRE Map was introduced at LREC 2010 and is now a regular feature of the LREC submission process for both the conference papers and the workshop papers. At the submission stage, the authors are asked to provide some basic information about all the resources (in a broad sense, i.e. including tools, standards and evaluation packages), either used or created, described in their papers. All these descriptors are then gathered in a global matrix called the LRE Map. This feature has been extended to several other conferences.

  Read more →

  

  Semantic space

  Semantic spaces in the natural language domain aim to create representations of natural language that are capable of capturing meaning. The original motivation for semantic spaces stems from two core challenges of natural language: Vocabulary mismatch (the fact that the same meaning can be expressed in many ways) and ambiguity of natural language (the fact that the same term can have several meanings). The application of semantic spaces in natural language processing (NLP) aims at overcoming limitations of rule-based or model-based approaches operating on the keyword level. The main drawback with these approaches is their brittleness, and the large manual effort required to create either rule-based NLP systems or training corpora for model learning. Rule-based and machine learning based models are fixed on the keyword level and break down if the vocabulary differs from that defined in the rules or from the training material used for the statistical models. Research in semantic spaces dates back more than 20 years. In 1996, two papers were published that raised a lot of attention around the general idea of creating semantic spaces: latent semantic analysis and Hyperspace Analogue to Language. However, their adoption was limited by the large computational effort required to construct and use those semantic spaces. A breakthrough with regard to the accuracy of modelling associative relations between words (e.g. "spider-web", "lighter-cigarette", as opposed to synonymous relations such as "whale-dolphin", "astronaut-driver") was achieved by explicit semantic analysis (ESA) in 2007. ESA was a novel (non-machine learning) based approach that represented words in the form of vectors with 100,000 dimensions (where each dimension represents an Article in Wikipedia). However practical applications of the approach are limited due to the large number of required dimensions in the vectors. More recently, advances in neural network techniques in combination with other new approaches (tensors) led to a host of new recent developments: Word2vec from Google, GloVe from Stanford University, and fastText from Facebook AI Research (FAIR) labs.

  Read more →

  

  Grammatik

  Grammatik was the first grammar-checking program for home computers. Aspen Software of Albuquerque, NM, released the earliest version of this diction and style checker for personal computers. It was first released no later than 1981, and was inspired by the Writer's Workbench. Grammatik was first available for the TRS-80, and soon had versions for CP/M and the IBM PC. Reference Software International of San Francisco, California, acquired Grammatik in 1985. Development of Grammatik continued, and it became an actual grammar checker that could detect writing errors beyond simple style checking. Subsequent versions were released for MS-DOS, Windows, Macintosh, and Unix. Grammatik was ultimately acquired by WordPerfect Corporation and is integrated into the WordPerfect word processor.

  Read more →

  

  Loebner Prize

  The Loebner Prize was an annual competition in artificial intelligence that awarded prizes to the computer programs considered by the judges to be the most human-like. The format of the competition was that of a standard Turing test. In each round, a human judge simultaneously held textual conversations with a computer program and a human being via computer. Based upon the responses, the judge would attempt to determine which was which. The contest was launched in 1990 by Hugh Loebner in conjunction with the Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies, Massachusetts, United States. In 2004 and 2005, it was held in Loebner's apartment in New York City. Within the field of artificial intelligence, the Loebner Prize is somewhat controversial; the most prominent critic, Marvin Minsky, called it a publicity stunt that does not help the field along. Beginning in 2014, it was organised by the AISB at Bletchley Park. It has also been associated with Flinders University, Dartmouth College, the Science Museum in London, University of Reading and Ulster University, Magee Campus, Derry, UK City of Culture. For the final 2019 competition, the format changed. There was no panel of judges. Instead, the chatbots were judged by the public and there were to be no human competitors. The prize has been reported as defunct as of 2020. == Prizes == Originally, $2,000 was awarded for the most human-seeming program in the competition. The prize was $3,000 in 2005 and $2,250 in 2006. In 2008, $3,000 was awarded. In addition, there were two one-time-only prizes that have never been awarded. $25,000 is offered for the first program that judges cannot distinguish from a real human and which can convince judges that the human is the computer program. $100,000 is the reward for the first program that judges cannot distinguish from a real human in a Turing test that includes deciphering and understanding text, visual, and auditory input. The competition was planned to end after the achievement of this prize. == Competition rules and restrictions == The rules varied over the years and early competitions featured restricted conversation Turing tests but since 1995 the discussion has been unrestricted. For the three entries in 2007, Robert Medeksza, Noah Duncan and Rollo Carpenter, some basic "screening questions" were used by the sponsor to evaluate the state of the technology. These included simple questions about the time, what round of the contest it is, etc.; general knowledge ("What is a hammer for?"); comparisons ("Which is faster, a train or a plane?"); and questions demonstrating memory for preceding parts of the same conversation. "All nouns, adjectives and verbs will come from a dictionary suitable for children or adolescents under the age of 12." Entries did not need to respond "intelligently" to the questions to be accepted. For the first time in 2008 the sponsor allowed introduction of a preliminary phase to the contest opening up the competition to previously disallowed web-based entries judged by a variety of invited interrogators. The available rules do not state how interrogators are selected or instructed. Interrogators (who judge the systems) have limited time: 5 minutes per entity in the 2003 competition, 20+ per pair in 2004–2007 competitions, 5 minutes to conduct simultaneous conversations with a human and the program in 2008–2009, increased to 25 minutes of simultaneous conversation since 2010. == Criticisms == The prize has long been scorned by experts in the field, for a variety of reasons. It is regarded by many as a publicity stunt. Marvin Minsky scathingly offered a "prize" to anyone who could stop the competition. Loebner responded by jokingly observing that Minsky's offering a prize to stop the competition effectively made him a co-sponsor. The rules of the competition have encouraged poorly qualified judges to make rapid judgements. Interactions between judges and competitors was originally very brief, for example effectively 2.5 mins of questioning, which permitted only a few questions. Questioning was initially restricted to a single topic of the contestant's choice, such as "whimsical conversation", a domain suiting standard chatbot tricks. Competition entrants do not aim at understanding or intelligence but resort to basic ELIZA style tricks, and successful entrants find deception and pretense is rewarded. == Contests == See article history for more details of some earlier contests. A very incomplete listing of a few of the contests: === 2003 === In 2003, the contest was organised by Professor Richard H. R. Harper and Dr. Lynne Hamill from the Digital World Research Centre at the University of Surrey. Although no bot passed the Turing test, the winner was Jabberwock, created by Juergen Pirner. Second was Elbot (Fred Roberts, Artificial Solutions). Third was Jabberwacky, (Rollo Carpenter). === 2006 === In 2006, the contest was organised by Tim Child (CEO of Televirtual) and Huma Shah. On August 30, the four finalists were announced: Rollo Carpenter Richard Churchill and Marie-Claire Jenkins Noah Duncan Robert Medeksza The contest was held on 17 September in the VR theatre, Torrington Place campus of University College London. The judges included the University of Reading's cybernetics professor, Kevin Warwick, a professor of artificial intelligence, John Barnden (specialist in metaphor research at the University of Birmingham), a barrister, Victoria Butler-Cole and a journalist, Graham Duncan-Rowe. The latter's experience of the event can be found in an article in Technology Review. The winner was 'Joan', based on Jabberwacky, both created by Rollo Carpenter. === 2007 === The 2007 competition was held on October 21 in New York City. The judges were: computer science professor Russ Abbott, philosophy professor Hartry Field, psychology assistant professor Clayton Curtis and English lecturer Scott Hutchins. No bot passed the Turing test, but the judges ranked the three contestants as follows: 1st: Robert Medeksza, creator of Ultra Hal 2nd: Noah Duncan, a private entry, creator of Cletus 3rd: Rollo Carpenter from Icogno, creator of Jabberwacky The winner received $2,250 and the annual medal. The runners-up received $250 each. === 2008 === The 2008 competition was organised by professor Kevin Warwick, coordinated by Huma Shah and held on October 12 at the University of Reading, UK. After testing by over one hundred judges during the preliminary phase, in June and July 2008, six finalists were selected from thirteen original entrant artificial conversational entities (ACEs). Five of those invited competed in the finals: Brother Jerome, Peter Cole and Benji Adams Elbot, Fred Roberts / Artificial Solutions Eugene Goostman, Vladimir Veselov, Eugene Demchenko and Sergey Ulasen Jabberwacky, Rollo Carpenter Ultra Hal, Robert Medeksza In the finals, each of the judges was given five minutes to conduct simultaneous, split-screen conversations with two hidden entities. Elbot of Artificial Solutions won the 2008 Loebner Prize bronze award, for most human-like artificial conversational entity, through fooling three of the twelve judges who interrogated it (in the human-parallel comparisons) into believing it was human. This is coming very close to the 30% traditionally required to consider that a program has actually passed the Turing test. Eugene Goostman and Ultra Hal both deceived one judge each that it was the human. Will Pavia, a journalist for The Times, has written about his experience; a Loebner finals' judge, he was deceived by Elbot and Eugene. Kevin Warwick and Huma Shah have reported on the parallel-paired Turing tests. === 2009 === The 2009 Loebner Prize Competition was held September 6, 2009, at the Brighton Centre, Brighton UK in conjunction with the Interspeech 2009 conference. The prize amount for 2009 was $3,000. Entrants were David Levy, Rollo Carpenter, and Mohan Embar, who finished in that order. The writer Brian Christian participated in the 2009 Loebner Prize Competition as a human confederate, and described his experiences at the competition in his book The Most Human Human. === 2010 === The 2010 Loebner Prize Competition was held on October 23 at California State University, Los Angeles. The 2010 competition was the 20th running of the contest. The winner was Bruce Wilcox with Suzette. === 2011 === The 2011 Loebner Prize Competition was held on October 19 at the University of Exeter, Devon, United Kingdom. The prize amount for 2011 was $4,000. The four finalists and their chatterbots were Bruce Wilcox (Rosette), Adeena Mignogna (Zoe), Mohan Embar (Chip Vivant) and Ron Lee (Tutor), who finished in that order. That year there was an addition of a panel of junior judges, namely Georgia-Mae Lindfield, William Dunne, Sam Keat and Kirill Jerdev. The results of the junior contest were markedly different from the main contest, with chatterbots Tutor and Zoe tying for first place and Chip Vivant and Rosette coming in third and fourt

  Read more →

  

  Colloquis

  Colloquis, previously known as ActiveBuddy and Conversagent, was a company that created conversation-based interactive agents originally distributed via instant messaging platforms. The company had offices in New York, New York, and Sunnyvale, California. == History == Founded in 2000, the company was the brainchild of Robert Hoffer, Timothy Kay, and Peter Levitan. The idea for interactive agents (also known as Internet bots) came from the team's vision to add functionality to increasingly popular instant messaging services. The original implementation took shape as a word-based adventure game but quickly grew to include a wide range of database applications, including access to news, weather, stock information, movie times, Yellow Pages listings, and detailed sports data, as well as a variety of tools (calculators, translator, etc.). These various applications were bundled into one entity and launched as SmarterChild in 2001. SmarterChild acted as a showcase for the quick data access and possibilities for fun conversation that the company planned to turn into customized, niche-specific products. The rapid success of SmarterChild led to targeted promotional products for Radiohead, Austin Powers, The Sporting News, and others. ActiveBuddy sought to strengthen its hold on the interactive agent market for the future by filing for, and receiving, a controversial patent on their creation in 2002. The company also released the BuddyScript SDK, a free developer kit that allow programmers to design and launch their own interactive agents using ActiveBuddy's proprietary scripting language, in 2002. Ultimately, however, the decline in ad spending in 2001 and 2002 led to a shift in corporate strategy towards business focused Automated Service Agents, building products for clients including Cingular, Comcast and Cox Communications. The company subsequently changed its name from ActiveBuddy to Conversagent in 2003, and then again to Colloquis in 2006. Colloquis was purchased by Microsoft in October 2006.

  Read more →

  

  Transduction (machine learning)

  In logic, statistical inference, and supervised learning, transduction or transductive inference is reasoning from observed, specific (training) cases to specific (test) cases. In contrast, induction is reasoning from observed training cases to general rules, which are then applied to the test cases. The distinction is most interesting in cases where the predictions of the transductive model are not achievable by any inductive model. Note that this is caused by transductive inference on different test sets producing mutually inconsistent predictions. Transduction was introduced in a computer science context by Vladimir Vapnik in the 1990s, motivated by his view that transduction is preferable to induction since, according to him, induction requires solving a more general problem (inferring a function) before solving a more specific problem (computing outputs for new cases): "When solving a problem of interest, do not solve a more general problem as an intermediate step. Try to get the answer that you really need but not a more general one.". An example of learning which is not inductive would be in the case of binary classification, where the inputs tend to cluster in two groups. A large set of test inputs may help in finding the clusters, thus providing useful information about the classification labels. The same predictions would not be obtainable from a model which induces a function based only on the training cases. Some people may call this an example of the closely related semi-supervised learning, since Vapnik's motivation is quite different. The most well-known example of a case-bases learning algorithm is the k-nearest neighbor algorithm, which is related to transductive learning algorithms. Another example of an algorithm in this category is the Transductive Support Vector Machine (TSVM). A third possible motivation of transduction arises through the need to approximate. If exact inference is computationally prohibitive, one may at least try to make sure that the approximations are good at the test inputs. In this case, the test inputs could come from an arbitrary distribution (not necessarily related to the distribution of the training inputs), which wouldn't be allowed in semi-supervised learning. An example of an algorithm falling in this category is the Bayesian Committee Machine (BCM). == Historical context == The mode of inference from particulars to particulars, which Vapnik came to call transduction, was already distinguished from the mode of inference from particulars to generalizations in part III of the Cambridge philosopher and logician W.E. Johnson's 1924 textbook, Logic. In Johnson's work, the former mode was called 'eduction' and the latter was called 'induction'. Bruno de Finetti developed a purely subjective form of Bayesianism in which claims about objective chances could be translated into empirically respectable claims about subjective credences with respect to observables through exchangeability properties. An early statement of this view can be found in his 1937 La Prévision: ses Lois Logiques, ses Sources Subjectives and a mature statement in his 1970 Theory of Probability. Within de Finetti's subjective Bayesian framework, all inductive inference is ultimately inference from particulars to particulars. == Example problem == The following example problem contrasts some of the unique properties of transduction against induction. A collection of points is given, such that some of the points are labeled (A, B, or C), but most of the points are unlabeled (?). The goal is to predict appropriate labels for all of the unlabeled points. The inductive approach to solving this problem is to use the labeled points to train a supervised learning algorithm, and then have it predict labels for all of the unlabeled points. With this problem, however, the supervised learning algorithm will only have five labeled points to use as a basis for building a predictive model. It will certainly struggle to build a model that captures the structure of this data. For example, if a nearest-neighbor algorithm is used, then the points near the middle will be labeled "A" or "C", even though it is apparent that they belong to the same cluster as the point labeled "B", compared to semi-supervised learning. Transduction has the advantage of being able to consider all of the points, not just the labeled points, while performing the labeling task. In this case, transductive algorithms would label the unlabeled points according to the clusters to which they naturally belong. The points in the middle, therefore, would most likely be labeled "B", because they are packed very close to that cluster. An advantage of transduction is that it may be able to make better predictions with fewer labeled points, because it uses the natural breaks found in the unlabeled points. One disadvantage of transduction is that it builds no predictive model. If a previously unknown point is added to the set, the entire transductive algorithm would need to be repeated with all of the points in order to predict a label. This can be computationally expensive if the data is made available incrementally in a stream. Further, this might cause the predictions of some of the old points to change (which may be good or bad, depending on the application). A supervised learning algorithm, on the other hand, can label new points instantly, with very little computational cost. == Transduction algorithms == Transduction algorithms can be broadly divided into two categories: those that seek to assign discrete labels to unlabeled points, and those that seek to regress continuous labels for unlabeled points. Algorithms that seek to predict discrete labels tend to be derived by adding partial supervision to a clustering algorithm. Two classes of algorithms can be used: flat clustering and hierarchical clustering. The latter can be further subdivided into two categories: those that cluster by partitioning, and those that cluster by agglomerating. Algorithms that seek to predict continuous labels tend to be derived by adding partial supervision to a manifold learning algorithm. === Partitioning transduction === Partitioning transduction can be thought of as top-down transduction. It is a semi-supervised extension of partition-based clustering. It is typically performed as follows: Consider the set of all points to be one large partition. While any partition P contains two points with conflicting labels: Partition P into smaller partitions. For each partition P: Assign the same label to all of the points in P. Of course, any reasonable partitioning technique could be used with this algorithm. Max flow min cut partitioning schemes are very popular for this purpose. === Agglomerative transduction === Agglomerative transduction can be thought of as bottom-up transduction. It is a semi-supervised extension of agglomerative clustering. It is typically performed as follows: Compute the pair-wise distances, D, between all the points. Sort D in ascending order. Consider each point to be a cluster of size 1. For each pair of points {a,b} in D: If (a is unlabeled) or (b is unlabeled) or (a and b have the same label) Merge the two clusters that contain a and b. Label all points in the merged cluster with the same label. === Continuous Label Transduction === These methods seek to regress continuous labels, often via manifold learning techniques. The idea is to learn a low-dimensional representation of the data and infer values smoothly across the manifold. == Applications and related concepts == Transduction is closely related to: Semi-supervised learning – uses both labeled and unlabeled data but typically induces a model. Case-based reasoning – such as the k-nearest neighbor (k-NN) algorithm, often considered a transductive method. Transductive Support Vector Machines (TSVM) – extend standard SVMs to incorporate unlabeled test data during training. Bayesian Committee Machine (BCM) – an approximation method that makes transductive predictions when exact inference is too costly.

  Read more →

  

  Scientific Working Group – Imaging Technology

  The Scientific Working Group on Imaging Technology was convened by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in 1997 to provide guidance to law enforcement agencies and others in the criminal justice system regarding the best practices for photography, videography, and video and image analysis. This group was terminated in 2015. == History == As technology has advanced through the years, law enforcement has needed to stay abreast of emerging technological advances and use these in the investigation of crime. A factor that is considered when new technology is used in these investigations is the determination of whether the use of that new technology will be admissible in court. The judicial system in the United States currently has two standards used in the determination of admissibility of testimony regarding scientific evidence; the Daubert Standard and the Frye Standard. These standards guide the courts in the admissibility of testimony derived from the use of new technologies and scientific techniques. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), seeking to address possible admissibility issues with such testimony, established Scientific Working Groups starting with the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis and Methods (SWGDAM) in 1988. The goal of these groups is to open lines of communication between law enforcement agencies and forensic laboratories around the world while providing guidance on the use of new and innovative technologies and techniques. This guidance can lead to admissibility of evidence and/or testimony, provided proper methods in the collection of evidence and its analysis are employed. In 2009, the National Academy of Sciences released a report entitled, "Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward." This report addresses many topics including challenges and disparities facing the forensic science community, standardization, certification of practitioners and accreditation of their respective entities, problems related to the interpretation of forensic evidence, the need for research, and the admission of forensic science evidence in litigation. This report mentions the Scientific Working Groups and their role in forensic science. The history of imaging technology (photography) can be said to extend back to the times of Chinese philosopher Mo-Ti (470-390 B.C.) who described the principles behind the precursor to the camera obscura. Since that time, advances in imaging technology include the discovery of chemical photographic processes in the 19th century and the use of electronic imaging technology that includes analog video cameras and digital video and still cameras. By the mid 1990s, it was apparent that technologically advanced camera systems such as these were being adopted for use in the criminal justice system. This led the FBI to convene a meeting of individuals working in the field of forensic imaging from federal, state, local, and foreign law enforcement, and the U.S. military, during the summer of 1997. As a result of this meeting, the Technical Working Group on Imaging Technology was formed from a core group of the meeting’s participants. This group later became the Scientific Working Group on Imaging Technology (SWGIT). Prior to the inception of SWGIT, some law enforcement agencies began adopting digital imaging technology. Due to the lack of guidelines or standards, some of these agencies attempted to replace all their film cameras with substandard digital cameras, only to find that the equipment they had purchased was not capable of accomplishing the mission for which they were intended. At that time only low resolution digital cameras were deemed affordable by some law enforcement agencies. Some of these agencies were forced to rethink their photography procedures and reverted to the use of film cameras or replaced their low-resolution digital cameras with higher quality, more expensive equipment. Also lacking at this early stage was guidance on how to store and archive digital image files. When SWGIT was formed, it was tasked with providing guidance to law enforcement and others in the criminal justice system by releasing documents that describe the best practices and guidelines for the use of imaging technology, to include these concerns and many others. This group was terminated in 2015. == SWGIT Function == During its existence, SWGIT provided information on the appropriate use of various imaging technologies including both established and new. This was accomplished through the release of documents such as the SWGIT Best Practices documents. As changes in technology occurred, these documents were updated. Over the course of its existence, SWGIT collaborated with other Scientific Working Groups to address imaging concerns within their respective disciplines. SWGIT published over 20 documents that dealt specifically with imaging technology. SWGIT also co-published documents with the Scientific Working Group on Digital Evidence (SWGDE) that had a component or components dealing with imaging technology. SWGIT also provided imaging technology guidance and input for documents from the Scientific Working Group on Friction Ridge Analysis, Study and Technology (SWGFAST), the Scientific Working Group for Forensic Document Examination (SWGDOC), and the Scientific Working Group on Shoeprint and Tire Tread Evidence (SWGTREAD). SWGIT assisted the American Society of Crime Lab Directors/Laboratory Accreditation Board (ASCLD/LAB) in the writing of definitions and standards for the accreditation of Digital and Multimedia Evidence sections of crime laboratories. In addition to releasing documents, SWGIT members disseminated best practices for law enforcement professionals where imaging technology was concerned. This was carried out by attending and lecturing at meetings and conferences of various forensic organizations that included: The American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS) The International Association for Identification (IAI) The Law Enforcement and Emergency Services Video Association (LEVA) The American Society of Crime Lab Directors (ASCLD) The SWGIT membership consisted of approximately fifty scientists, photographers, instructors, and managers from more than two dozen federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies, as well as from the academic and research communities. The membership elected its officers from within. SWGIT was composed of the Executive Committee, four standing subcommittees, and ad hoc subcommittees appointed on an as-needed basis. The standing subcommittees were: Image Analysis, Forensic Photography, Video, and Outreach. This group was terminated in 2015. == Legal Proceedings == The following court cases have conducted Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) hearings in which SWGIT best practice documents have been cited as accepted protocol, methodology, and as generally accepted techniques in the forensic community: U. S. v. Rudy Frabizio, U.S. District Court, Boston, MA, 2008 (Image Authentication) U.S. v. Nobumochi Furukawa, U.S. District Court, Minnesota, 2007 (Video Authentication) U.S. v. John Stroman, U.S. District Court, South Carolina, 2007 (Facial Comparison Analysis) State of Texas v. Daniel Day, Tarrant County Texas, 2005 (Camera Identification to Images) U.S. v. Marc Watzman, U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois, 2004 (Video Authentication) U.S. v. McKreith, U.S. District Court, Fort Lauderdale, FL, 2002 (Photo comparison of shirt) == Termination == This group was unfunded by the FBI in 2015.

  Read more →

  

  BLOOM (language model)

  The BigScience Large Open-science Open-access Multilingual Language Model (BLOOM) is an open-access large language model (LLM) released in 2022. It was created by a volunteer-driven research effort to provide a transparently-created alternative to proprietary AI models. With 176 billion parameters, BLOOM is a transformer-based autoregressive model designed to generate text in 46 natural languages and 13 programming languages. The model is distributed under the project's "Responsible AI License". == Development == BLOOM is the main outcome of the BigScience initiative, a one-year-long research workshop. The project was coordinated by Hugging Face using funding from the French government and involved several hundred volunteer researchers and engineers from academia and the private sector. The model was trained between March and July 2022 on the Jean Zay public supercomputer in France, managed by GENCI and IDRIS (CNRS). Unlike GPT-3, BLOOM was trained to be multilingual. The source code is released under the Apache 2.0 license. The model's parameters are released under BigScience's "Responsible AI License" (RAIL), which grants open access and reuse rights but with some usage restrictions. BLOOM was used in the chatbots BLOOMChat and HuggingChat due to its multilingual abilities. BLOOM's training corpus, named ROOTS, combines data extracted from the then-latest version of the web-based OSCAR corpus (38% of ROOTS) and newly collected data extracted from a manually selected and documented list of language data sources. In total, the model was trained on approximately 366 billion (1.6TB) tokens. It was developed using the open-source libraries DeepSpeed Megatron. BigScience then released xP3, a multilingual dataset for LLM supervised learning. It also released BLOOMZ, a variant of BLOOM fine-tuned on xP3 to follow instructions.

  Read more →

  

  Document mosaicing

  Document mosaicing is a process that stitches multiple, overlapping snapshot images of a document together to produce one large, high resolution composite. The document is slid under a stationary, over-the-desk camera by hand until all parts of the document are snapshotted by the camera's field of view. As the document slid under the camera, all motion of the document is coarsely tracked by the vision system. The document is periodically snapshotted such that the successive snapshots are overlap by about 50%. The system then finds the overlapped pairs and stitches them together repeatedly until all pairs are stitched together as one piece of document. The document mosaicing can be divided into four main processes. Tracking Feature detecting Correspondences establishing Images mosaicing. == Tracking (simple correlation process) == In this process, the motion of the document slid under the camera is coarsely tracked by the system. Tracking is performed by a process called simple correlation process. In the first frame of snapshots, a small patch is extracted from the center of the image as a correlation template. The correlation process is performed in the four times size of the patch area of the next frame. The motion of the paper is indicated by the peak in the correlation function. The peak in the correlation function indicates the motion of the paper. The template is resampled from this frame and the tracking continues until the template reaches the edge of the document. After the template reaches the edge of the document, another snapshot is taken and the tracking process performs repeatedly until the whole document is imaged. The snapshots are stored in an ordered list to facilitate pairing the overlapped images in later processes. == Feature detecting for efficient matching == Feature detection is the process of finding the transformation that aligns one image with another. There are two main approaches for feature detection. Feature-based approach : Motion parameters are estimated from point correspondences. This approach is suitable for the case that there is plenty supply of stable and detectable features. Featureless approach : When the motion between the two images is small, the motion parameters are estimated using optical flow. On the other hand, when the motion between the two images is large, the motion parameters are estimated using generalised cross-correlation. However, this approach requires a computationally expensive resources. Each image is segmented into a hierarchy of columns, lines, and words to match the organised sets of features across images. Skew angle estimation and columns, lines and words finding are the examples of feature detection operations. === Skew angle estimation === Firstly, the angle that the rows of text make with the image raster lines (skew angle) is estimated. It is assumed to lie in the range of ±20°. A small patch of text in the image is selected randomly and then rotated in the range of ±20° until the variance of the pixel intensities of the patch summed along the raster lines is maximised. To ensure that the found skew angle is accurate, the document mosaic system performs calculation at many image patches and derive the final estimation by finding the average of the individual angles weighted by the variance of the pixel intensities of each patch. === Columns, lines and words finding === In this operation, the de-skewed document is intuitively segmented into a hierarchy of columns, lines and words. The sensitivity to illumination and page coloration of the de-skewed document can be removed by applying a Sobel operator to the de-skewed image and thresholding the output to obtain the binary gradient, de-skewed image. The operation can be roughly separated into 3 steps: column segmentation, line segmentation and word segmentation. Columns are easily segmented from the binary gradient, de-skewed images by summing pixels vertically. Baselines of each row are segmented in the same way as the column segmentation process but horizontally. Finally, individual words are segmented by applying the vertical process at each segmented row. These segmentations are important because the document mosaic is created by matching the lower right corners of words in overlapping images pair. Moreover, the segmentation operation can organize the list of images in the context of a hierarchy of rows and column reliably. The segmentation operation involves a considerable amount of summing in the binary gradient, de-skewed images, which done by construct a matrix of partial sums whose elements are given by p i y = ∑ u = 1 i ∑ v = 1 j b u v {\displaystyle p_{iy}=\sum _{u=1}^{i}\sum _{v=1}^{j}b_{uv}} The matrix of partial sums is calculated in one pass through the binary gradient, de-skewed image. ∑ u = u 1 u 2 ∑ v = v 1 v 2 b u v = p u 2 v 2 + p u 1 v 1 − p u 1 v 2 − p u 2 v 1 {\displaystyle \sum _{u=u_{1}}^{u_{2}}\sum _{v=v_{1}}^{v_{2}}b_{uv}=p_{u_{2}v_{2}}+p_{u_{1}v_{1}}-p_{u_{1}v_{2}}-p_{u_{2}v_{1}}} == Correspondences establishing == The two images are now organized in hierarchy of linked lists in following structure : image=list of columns row=list of words column=list of row word=length (in pixels) At the bottom of the structure, the length of each word is recorded for establishing correspondence between two images to reduce to search only the corresponding structures for the groups of words with the matching lengths. === Seed match finding === A seed match finding is done by comparing each row in image1 with each row in image2. The two rows are then compared to each other by every word. If the length (in pixel) of the two words (one from image1 and one from image2) and their immediate neighbours agree with each other within a predefined tolerance threshold (5 pixels, for example), then they are assumed to match. The row of each image is assumed a match if there are three or more word matches between the two rows. The seed match finding operation is terminated when two pairs of consecutive row match are found. === Match list building === After finishing a seed match finding operation, the next process is to build the match list to generate the correspondences points of the two images. The process is done by searching the matching pairs of rows away from the seed row. == Images mosaicing == Given the list of corresponding points of the two images, finding the transformation of the overlapping portion of the images is the next process. Assuming a pinhole camera model, the transformation between pixels (u,v) of image 1 and pixels (u0, v0) of image 2 is demonstrated by a plane-to-plane projectivity. [ s u ′ s v ′ s ] = [ p 11 p 12 p 13 p 21 p 22 p 23 p 31 p 32 1 ] [ u v 1 ] E q .1 {\displaystyle \left[{\begin{array}{c}su'\\sv'\\s\end{array}}\right]=\left[{\begin{array}{ccc}p_{11}&p_{12}&p_{13}\\p_{21}&p_{22}&p_{23}\\p_{31}&p_{32}&1\end{array}}\right]\left[{\begin{array}{c}u\\v\\1\end{array}}\right]\qquad Eq.1} The parameters of the projectivity is found from four pairs of matching points. RANSAC regression technique is used to reject outlying matches and estimate the projectivity from the remaining good matches. The projectivity is fine-tuned using correlation at the corners of the overlapping portion to obtain four correspondences to sub-pixel accuracy. Therefore, image1 is then transformed into image2's coordinate system using Eq.1. The typical result of the process is shown in Figure 5. === Many images coping === Finally, the whole page composition is built up by mapping all the images into the coordinate system of an "anchor" image, which is normally the one nearest the page center. The transformations to the anchor frame are calculated by concatenating the pair-wise transformations found earlier. The raw document mosaic is shown in Figure 6. However, there might be a problem of non-consecutive images that are overlap. This problem can be solved by performing Hierarchical sub-mosaics. As shown in Figure 7, image1 and image2 are registered, as are image3 and image4, creating two sub-mosaics. These two sub-mosaics are later stitched together in another mosaicing process. == Applied areas == There are various areas that the technique of document mosaicing can be applied to such as : Text segmentation of images of documents Document Recognition Interaction with paper on the digital desk Video mosaics for virtual environments Image registration techniques == Relevant research papers == Huang, T.S.; Netravali, A.N. (1994). "Motion and structure from feature correspondences: A review". Proceedings of the IEEE. 82 (2): 252–268. doi:10.1109/5.265351. D.G. Lowe. [1] Perceptual Organization and Visual Recognition. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, 1985. Irani, M.; Peleg, S. (1991). "Improving resolution by image registration". CVGIP: Graphical Models and Image Processing. 53 (3): 231–239. doi:10.1016/1049-9652(91)90045-L. S2CID 4834546. Shivakumara, P.; Kumar, G. Hemantha; Guru, D. S.; Nagabhushan, P. (2006). "

  Read more →