AI Google Grammar Checker

AI Google Grammar Checker — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  Materialized view

  In computing, a materialized view is a database object that contains the results of a query. For example, it may be a local copy of data located remotely, or may be a subset of the rows and/or columns of a table or join result, or may be a summary using an aggregate function. The process of setting up a materialized view is sometimes called materialization. This is a form of caching the results of a query, similar to memoization of the value of a function in functional languages, and it is sometimes described as a form of precomputation. As with other forms of precomputation, database users typically use materialized views for performance reasons, i.e. as a form of optimization. Materialized views that store data based on remote tables were also known as snapshots (deprecated Oracle terminology). In any database management system following the relational model, a view is a virtual table representing the result of a database query. Whenever a query or an update addresses an ordinary view's virtual table, the DBMS converts these into queries or updates against the underlying base tables. A materialized view takes a different approach: the query result is cached as a concrete ("materialized") table (rather than a view as such) that may be updated from the original base tables from time to time. This enables much more efficient access, at the cost of extra storage and of some data being potentially out-of-date. Materialized views find use especially in data warehousing scenarios, where frequent queries of the actual base tables can be expensive. In a materialized view, indexes can be built on any column. In contrast, in a normal view, it's typically only possible to exploit indexes on columns that come directly from (or have a mapping to) indexed columns in the base tables; often this functionality is not offered at all. == Implementations == === Oracle === Materialized views were implemented first by the Oracle Database: the Query rewrite feature was added from version 8i. Example syntax to create a materialized view in Oracle: === PostgreSQL === In PostgreSQL, version 9.3 and newer natively support materialized views. In version 9.3, a materialized view is not auto-refreshed, and is populated only at time of creation (unless WITH NO DATA is used). It may be refreshed later manually using REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW. In version 9.4, the refresh may be concurrent with selects on the materialized view if CONCURRENTLY is used. Example syntax to create a materialized view in PostgreSQL: === SQL Server === Microsoft SQL Server differs from other RDBMS by the way of implementing materialized view via a concept known as "Indexed Views". The main difference is that such views do not require a refresh because they are in fact always synchronized to the original data of the tables that compound the view. To achieve this, it is necessary that the lines of origin and destination are "deterministic" in their mapping, which limits the types of possible queries to do this. This mechanism has been realised since the 2000 version of SQL Server. Example syntax to create a materialized view in SQL Server: === Stream processing frameworks === Apache Kafka (since v0.10.2), Apache Spark (since v2.0), Apache Flink, Kinetica DB, Materialize, RisingWave, and Epsio all support materialized views on streams of data. === Others === Materialized views are also supported in Sybase SQL Anywhere. In IBM Db2, they are called "materialized query tables". ClickHouse supports materialized views that automatically refresh on merges. MySQL doesn't support materialized views natively, but workarounds can be implemented by using triggers or stored procedures or by using the open-source application Flexviews. Materialized views can be implemented in Amazon DynamoDB using data modification events captured by DynamoDB Streams. Google announced in 8 April 2020 the availability of materialized views for BigQuery as a beta release.

  Read more →
• 

  Jürgen Schmidhuber

  Jürgen Schmidhuber (born 17 January 1963) is a German computer scientist noted for his work in the field of artificial intelligence, specifically artificial neural networks. He has been described by media outlets as a leading pioneer of modern artificial intelligence. He is a scientific director of the Dalle Molle Institute for Artificial Intelligence Research in Switzerland. He is also director of the Artificial Intelligence Initiative and professor of the Computer Science program in the Computer, Electrical, and Mathematical Sciences and Engineering (CEMSE) division at the King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST) in Saudi Arabia. He is best known for his work on long short-term memory (LSTM), a type of neural network architecture which was the dominant technique for various natural language processing tasks in research and commercial applications in the 2010s. He also introduced principles of dynamic neural networks, meta-learning, generative adversarial networks and linear transformers, all of which are widespread in modern AI. == Career == Schmidhuber completed his undergraduate (1987) and PhD (1991) studies at the Technical University of Munich in Munich, Germany. His PhD advisors were Wilfried Brauer and Klaus Schulten. He taught there from 2004 until 2009. From 2009 to 2021, he was a professor of artificial intelligence at the Università della Svizzera Italiana in Lugano, Switzerland. He has served as the director of Dalle Molle Institute for Artificial Intelligence Research (IDSIA), a Swiss AI lab, since 1995. Since 2021, he has also been the director of the AI Initiative at the King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST). In 2014, Schmidhuber formed a company, NNAISENSE, to work on commercial applications of artificial intelligence in fields such as finance, heavy industry and self-driving cars. Sepp Hochreiter, Jaan Tallinn, and Marcus Hutter are advisers to the company. Sales were under US$11 million in 2016; however, Schmidhuber states that the current emphasis is on research and not revenue. NNAISENSE raised its first round of capital funding in January 2017. Schmidhuber's overall goal is to create an all-purpose AI by training a single AI in sequence on a variety of narrow tasks, but as of 2026 he has said that the focus of NNAISENSE has shifted from artificial general intelligence to asset management. == Research == In the 1980s, backpropagation did not work well for deep learning with long credit assignment paths in artificial neural networks. To overcome this problem, Schmidhuber (1991) proposed a hierarchy of recurrent neural networks (RNNs) pre-trained one level at a time by self-supervised learning. It uses predictive coding to learn internal representations at multiple self-organizing time scales, facilitating downstream deep learning. The RNN hierarchy can be collapsed into a single RNN, by distilling a higher level chunker network into a lower level automatizer network. In 1993, a chunker solved a deep learning task whose depth exceeded 1000. In 1991, Schmidhuber published adversarial neural networks that contest with each other in the form of a zero-sum game, where one network's gain is the other network's loss. The first network is a generative model that models a probability distribution over output patterns. The second network learns by gradient descent to predict the reactions of the environment to these patterns. This was called "artificial curiosity". In 2014, this principle was used in the creation of the generative adversarial network, which Schmidhuber describes as a special case of artificial curiosity where the environmental reaction is 1 or 0 depending on whether the first network's output is in a given set. Schmidhuber supervised the 1991 diploma thesis of his student Sepp Hochreiter which he considered "one of the most important documents in the history of machine learning". It studied the neural history compressor and analyzed and overcame the vanishing gradient problem. This led to the creation of long short-term memory (LSTM), a type of recurrent neural network. The name LSTM was introduced in a tech report in 1995, leading to the most cited LSTM publication, published in 1997 and co-authored by Hochreiter and Schmidhuber. The standard LSTM architecture was introduced in 2000 by Felix Gers, Schmidhuber, and Fred Cummins. Today's "vanilla LSTM" using backpropagation through time was published with his student Alex Graves in 2005, and its connectionist temporal classification (CTC) training algorithm in 2006. CTC was applied to end-to-end speech recognition with LSTM. In 2014, the state of the art was training “very deep neural network” with 20 to 30 layers. Stacking too many layers led to a steep reduction in training accuracy, known as the "degradation" problem. In May 2015, Rupesh Kumar Srivastava, Klaus Greff, and Schmidhuber used LSTM principles to create the highway network, a feedforward neural network with hundreds of layers, much deeper than previous networks. In Dec 2015, the residual neural network (ResNet) was published, which is a variant of the highway network. In 1992, Schmidhuber published fast weights programmer, an alternative to recurrent neural networks. It has a slow feedforward neural network that learns by gradient descent to control the fast weights of another neural network through outer products of self-generated activation patterns, and the fast weights network itself operates over inputs. This was later shown to be equivalent to the unnormalized linear transformer. In 2011, Schmidhuber's team at IDSIA with his postdoc Dan Ciresan also achieved dramatic speedups of convolutional neural networks (CNNs) using graphics processing units (GPUs), based on CNN designs introduced much earlier by Kunihiko Fukushima. An earlier CNN on GPU by Chellapilla et al. (2006) was 4 times faster than an equivalent implementation on CPU. The deep CNN of Dan Ciresan et al. (2011) at IDSIA was 60 times faster and achieved the first superhuman performance in a computer vision contest in August 2011. Between 15 May 2011 and 10 September 2012, these CNNs won four more image competitions and improved the state of the art on multiple image benchmarks. The approach has become central to the field of computer vision. == Credit disputes == Schmidhuber has controversially argued that he and other researchers have been denied adequate recognition for their contribution to the field of deep learning, in favour of Geoffrey Hinton, Yoshua Bengio and Yann LeCun, who shared the 2018 Turing Award for their work in deep learning. He wrote a "scathing" 2015 article arguing that Hinton, Bengio and LeCun "heavily cite each other" but "fail to credit the pioneers of the field". In a statement to the New York Times, Yann LeCun wrote that "Jürgen is manically obsessed with recognition and keeps claiming credit he doesn't deserve for many, many things... It causes him to systematically stand up at the end of every talk and claim credit for what was just presented, generally not in a justified manner." Schmidhuber replied that LeCun did this "without any justification, without providing a single example", and published details of numerous priority disputes with Hinton, Bengio and LeCun. The term "schmidhubered" has been jokingly used in the AI community to describe Schmidhuber's habit of publicly challenging the originality of other researchers' work, a practice seen by some in the AI community as a "rite of passage" for young researchers. Some suggest that Schmidhuber's significant accomplishments have been underappreciated due to his confrontational personality. == Recognition == Schmidhuber received the Helmholtz Award of the International Neural Network Society in 2013, and the Neural Networks Pioneer Award of the IEEE Computational Intelligence Society in 2016 for "pioneering contributions to deep learning and neural networks." He is a member of the European Academy of Sciences and Arts. He has been referred to as the "father of modern AI", the "father of generative AI", and the "father of deep learning". Schmidhuber himself, however, has called Alexey Grigorevich Ivakhnenko the "father of deep learning", and gives credit to many even earlier AI pioneers. The New York Times ran a profile under the headline "When A.I. Matures, It May Call Jürgen Schmidhuber 'Dad'", highlighting his early work on deep learning and his long‑term vision for self‑improving AI. == Views == Schmidhuber is a proponent of open source AI, and believes that they will become competitive against commercial closed-source AI. Since the 1970s, Schmidhuber wanted to create "intelligent machines that could learn and improve on their own and become smarter than him within his lifetime." He differentiates between two types of AIs: tool AI, such as those for improving healthcare, and autonomous AIs that set their own goals, perform their own research, and explore the universe. He has worked on both types for de

  Read more →
• 

  Neuroph

  Neuroph is an object-oriented artificial neural network framework written in Java. It can be used to create and train neural networks in Java programs. Neuroph provides Java class library as well as GUI tool easyNeurons for creating and training neural networks. It is an open-source project hosted at SourceForge under the Apache License. Versions before 2.4 were licensed under LGPL 3, from this version the license is Apache 2.0 License. == Features == Neuroph's core classes correspond to basic neural network concepts like artificial neuron, neuron layer, neuron connections, weight, transfer function, input function, learning rule etc. Neuroph supports common neural network architectures such as Multilayer perceptron with Backpropagation, Kohonen and Hopfield networks. All these classes can be extended and customized to create custom neural networks and learning rules. Neuroph has built-in support for image recognition.

  Read more →
• 

  Best AI Headshot Generators in 2026

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

  Pronunciation assessment

  Automatic pronunciation assessment uses computer speech recognition to determine how accurately speech has been pronounced, instead of relying on a human instructor or proctor. It is also called speech verification, pronunciation evaluation, and pronunciation scoring. This technology is used to grade speech quality, for language testing, for computer-aided pronunciation teaching (CAPT) in computer-assisted language learning (CALL), for speaking skill remediation, and for accent reduction. Pronunciation assessment is different from dictation or automatic transcription, because instead of determining unknown speech, it verifies learners' pronunciation of known word(s), often from prior transcription of the same utterance; ideally scoring the intelligibility of the learners' speech. Sometimes pronunciation assessment evaluates the prosody of the learners' speech, such as intonation, pitch, tempo, rhythm, and syllable and word stress, although those are usually not essential for being understood in most languages. Pronunciation assessment is also used in reading tutoring, for example in products from Google, Microsoft, and Amira Learning. Automatic pronunciation assessment can also be used to help diagnose and treat speech disorders such as apraxia. == Intelligibility == Intelligibility refers to how well a learner's utterance is understood by a listener, rather than how much it sounds like a native speaker. This is separate from measures of fluency, such as so-called "Goodness of Pronunciation" (GoP) scores, which estimate how closely an utterance aligns with those of native speakers. Intelligibility is widely regarded as the most important communicative goal in pronunciation teaching and assessment. For example, in the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) assessment criteria for "overall phonological control", intelligibility outweighs formally correct pronunciation at all levels. Studies in applied linguistics have shown that accent reduction does not always increase intelligibility because listeners can often comprehend heavily accented speech without difficulty. Pronunciation assessment systems often rely on acoustic methods such as GoP which compare learner speech to reference models to produce phoneme-level scores, which are in turn aggregated to produce word and phrase scores. While these methods are effective for identifying deviations from native speakers' utterances, they do not effectively measure how understandable speech is to human listeners. Intelligibility is influenced by broader linguistic and contextual factors such as stress placement, speech rate, and coarticulation, which are not represented in purely segmental scores. The earliest work on pronunciation assessment avoided measuring genuine listener intelligibility, a shortcoming corrected in 2011 at the Toyohashi University of Technology, and included in the Versant high-stakes English fluency assessment from Pearson and mobile apps from 17zuoye Education & Technology, but still missing in 2023 products from Google Search, Microsoft, Educational Testing Service, Speechace, and ELSA. Assessing authentic listener intelligibility is essential for avoiding inaccuracies from accent bias, especially in high-stakes assessments; from words with multiple correct pronunciations; and from phoneme coding errors in machine-readable pronunciation dictionaries. In 2022, researchers found that some newer speech-to-text systems, based on end-to-end reinforcement learning to map audio signals directly into words, produce word and phrase confidence scores (from 10-25ms audio frame logit aggregation) closely correlated with genuine listener intelligibility. Others have been able to assess intelligibility using Levenshtein or dynamic time warping distance measures from Wav2Vec2 representation of good speech. Further work through 2025 has focused specifically on measuring intelligibility. A 2025 study of 42 pronunciation and speech coaching apps (32 mobile and 10 web) found that none offered intelligibility assessment. Instead, most provided only segmental and accent-focused scoring. About two-thirds of the apps provided some form of specific pronunciation feedback, usually with phonetic transcriptions, but accompanied by visual cues (such as animations of the vocal tract or the lips and tongue from the front) in only about 5% of the apps. Less than a third provided feedback on learner perception of exemplar speech. == Evaluation == Although there are as yet no industry-standard benchmarks for evaluating pronunciation assessment accuracy, researchers occasionally release evaluation speech corpuses for others to use for improving assessment quality. Such evaluation databases often emphasize formally unaccented pronunciation to the exclusion of genuine intelligibility evident from blinded listener transcriptions. As of mid-2025, state of the art approaches for automatically transcribing phonemes typically achieve an error rate of about 10% from known good speech. The International Speech Communication Association (ISCA) 2025 Workshop on Speech and Language Technology in Education (SLaTE) administered a Speak & Improve Challenge: Spoken Language Assessment and Feedback, introducing benchmarks for evaluating pronunciation assessment and remediation systems across languages, accents, and learner populations. The challenge emphasized cross-lingual generalization and alignment with human intelligibility judgments, for more robust and interpretable assessment systems. Ethical issues in pronunciation assessment are present in both human and automatic methods. Authentic validity, fairness, and mitigating bias in evaluation are all crucial. Diverse speech data should be included in automatic pronunciation assessment models. Combining human judgments, especially blinded transcriptions from a wide diversity of listeners, with automated feedback can improve accuracy and fairness. Second language learners benefit substantially from their use of widely available speech recognition systems for dictation, virtual assistants, and AI chatbots. In such systems, users naturally try to correct their own errors evident in speech recognition results that they notice. Such use improves their grammar and vocabulary development along with their pronunciation skills. The extent to which explicit pronunciation assessment and remediation approaches improve on such self-directed interactions remains an open question. Similarly, automatic dictation results have been shown to reflect intelligibility about as well as human scorers. == Recent developments == During 2021–22, a smartphone-based CAPT system was used to sense articulation through both audible and inaudible signals, providing feedback at the phoneme level. Some promising areas for improvement which were being developed in 2024 include articulatory feature extraction and transfer learning to suppress unnecessary corrections. Other interesting advances under development include "augmented reality" interfaces for mobile devices using optical character recognition to provide pronunciation training on text found in user environments. In 2024, audio multimodal large language models were first described as assessing pronunciation. That work has been carried forward by other researchers in 2025 who report positive results. Subsequently, researchers demonstrated pronunciation scoring by providing a language model with textual descriptions of speech, including the speech-to-text transcript, phoneme sequences, pauses, and phoneme sequence matching; this approach can achieve performance similar to multimodal LLMs that analyze raw audio while avoiding their higher computational cost. In 2025, the Duolingo English Test authors published a description of their pronunciation assessment method, purportedly built to measure intelligibility rather than accent imitation. While achieving a correlation of 0.82 with expert human ratings, very close to inter-rater agreement and outperforming alternative methods, the method is nonetheless based on experts' scores along the six-point CEFR common reference levels scale, instead of actual blinded listener transcriptions. Further promising work in 2025 includes assessment feedback aligning learner speech to synthetic utterances using interpretable features, identifying continuous spans of words for remediation feedback; synthesizing corrected speech matching learners' self-perceived voices, which they prefer and imitate more accurately as corrections; and streaming such interactions. On January 21, 2026, Educational Testing Service's TOEFL iBT high-stakes English language test, required by US university admissions and employers from English as a foreign language applicants more often than all other internet-based tests combined, changed its speaking assessments. While official rubrics claim that the new scoring will be based primarily on intelligibility, the new test's technical description indicates that it ju

  Read more →
• 

  Law and Corpus Linguistics

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

  Read more →
• 

  AI Essay Writers: Free vs Paid (2026)

  Looking for the best AI essay writer? An AI essay writer is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it can save you hours every week by automating repetitive work. Most options offer a generous free tier, with paid plans unlocking higher limits, faster processing, and team features. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI essay writer 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 →
• 

  Korpusomat

  Korpusomat - a tool for creating and searching electronic language corpora, created at the Institute of Computer Science of the Polish Academy of Sciences. Korpusomat is a fourth generation corpus tool. It is a web application, which eliminates the need to store data sets on the user's own computer. The corpus is created either by adding text files from the local drive (in any language and format), or by indicating websites from which texts are to be downloaded. Then, the corpus is annotated automatically on several levels: morphosyntantic, named entities recognition (e.g. geographical names or people) and partial syntantic information (which also allows for the visualization of dependency trees). The finished corpus can be edited, shared with other users, and searched. There are also a number of functions offering statistical summaries of the collected texts

  Read more →
• 

  Iubenda

  iubenda (stylized in lowercase; Italian pronunciation: [juˈbɛnda]) is an Italian software company that develops tools intended to support website and application compliance with data protection and privacy regulations, including consent management platforms. The company was founded in 2011 in Milan by Andrea Giannangelo. In February 2022, the company was acquired by team.blue. == History == iubenda was founded in 2011 in Milan, Italy, initially focusing on automated privacy policy generation. In 2015, the company expanded its services to include cookie compliance tools following the implementation of ePrivacy regulations in Italy. In 2018, following the introduction of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the European Union, iubenda expanded its products to include consent management and compliance documentation services. In February 2022, iubenda was acquired by team.blue, which obtained a majority stake in the company. Italian media described the acquisition as one of the largest Italian technology startup exits in recent years. In October 2022, iubenda acquired consentmanager, a Sweden-based consent management provider. In 2025, the company acquired CookieFirst, a Netherlands-based consent management platform. In 2025, iubenda partnered with AccessiWay, a digital accessibility company owned by team.blue. == Activities == iubenda develops software tools intended to support compliance with data protection and privacy regulations. Its products include generators for privacy policies, cookie banners, terms and conditions documents, and consent management platforms. The company’s consent management platform integrates with frameworks used for online advertising and privacy compliance, including Google's Consent Mode. The platform is designed to support compliance with regulatory frameworks including the GDPR in the European Union, the UK GDPR, Brazil’s LGPD, Switzerland’s FADP and privacy laws in the United States. Its tools can be integrated with content management systems, web applications, and other digital platforms, including WordPress. The company operates internationally, with a customer base of more than 150,000 organisations, primarily in Europe and the Americas.

  Read more →
• 

  AI Essay Writers Reviews: What Actually Works in 2026

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

  Frank Hutter

  Frank Hutter is a German computer scientist recognized for his contributions to machine learning, particularly in the areas of automated machine learning (AutoML), hyperparameter optimization, meta-learning and tabular machine learning. He is currently a Hector-Endowed Fellow and PI at the ELLIS Institute Tübingen and a Full Professor (W3) for Machine Learning at the Department of Computer Science, University of Freiburg. Hutter is known for his role in establishing AutoML as a key area in artificial intelligence research. == Education and academic career == Frank Hutter received his academic training in computer science at Darmstadt University of Technology, where he completed his Vordiplom (comparable to a BSc) and Hauptdiplom (equivalent to MSc) by 2004. He later pursued his PhD at the University of British Columbia, under the supervision of Profs. Holger Hoos, Kevin Leyton-Brown and Kevin Murphy, where his doctoral thesis, titled "Automated Configuration of Algorithms for Solving Hard Computational Problems," was awarded the CAIAC Doctoral Dissertation Award for the best thesis in Artificial Intelligence completed at a Canadian university in 2009. Hutter did his postdoctoral research at the University of British Columbia, where he worked from 2009 to 2013. In 2013, he moved to the University of Freiburg, initially leading an Emmy Noether Research Group, and in 2017, he was appointed as a Full Professor. His contributions to machine learning have been recognized globally, particularly his work in AutoML and hyperparameter optimization. Overall, Hutter has authored over 180 peer-reviewed publications, which have garnered more than 89,000 citations, reflecting the high impact of his work. == Contributions in AutoML == Hutter's early research laid the groundwork for the field of Automated Machine Learning (AutoML). He has been a key figure in establishing AutoML as a distinct research area. Along with various colleagues, he organized the AutoML workshops from 2014 to 2021, wrote the first book on AutoML and taught the first MOOC on AutoML. He also co-founded the AutoML conference in 2022 and served as its general chair the first two years. He also published prominent works in various subfields of AutoML, such as hyperparameter optimization, neural architecture search, meta-Learning and AutoML systems. He is currently the most highly cited researcher in AutoML. == Contributions in machine learning for tabular data == Hutter has also made many contributions to machine learning for tabular data. He led the development of the first widely adopted AutoML system for tabular data, AutoWEKA, which was published at KDD 2013 and received the test of time award at KDD (2023). Subsequently, he led the development of Auto-sklearn, the first highly used AutoML system for tabular data in Python, and with it, won the first international AutoML challenge and the subsequent second international AutoML challenge, both of which only included tabular data. More recently, he focused on tabular foundation models, including TabPFN, which was published in Nature magazine. In 2024, he also co-founded Prior Labs, the first company focusing on tabular foundation models. == Awards and honors == Hutter has received numerous awards throughout his career. In 2023, he won the KDD Test of Time Award for Research together with Chris Thornton, Holger H. Hoos, and Kevin Leyton-Brown. He has received three grants from the ERC, including the ERC Starting Grant (2016) and ERC Consolidator Grant (2022), as well as an ERC Proof of Concept Grant (2020). In 2021, he became an ELLIS Unit Director and was also recognized as a EurAI Fellow, in addition to receiving the AIJ Prominent Paper Award. Earlier, he was a recipient of the Google Faculty Research Award in 2018. His groundbreaking research was acknowledged early in his career with the IJCAI Distinguished Paper Award in 2013 and the IJCAI/JAIR Best Paper Prize in 2010. == Representative publications == Hutter, F. Kotthoff, L. and Vanschoren, J., editors. Automated machine learning: methods, systems, challenges, Springer Nature, 2019. www.automl.org/book. Feurer, M., Klein, A., Eggensperger, K., Springenberg, T., Blum, M., Hutter, F. Efficient and Robust Automated Machine Learning. In NeurIPS 2015. Loshchilov, I., and Hutter, F. Decoupled weight decay regularization. In ICLR 2018. Zela, A., Elsken, T. ,Saikia, T. ,Marrakschi, Y. ,Brox, T. and Hutter. ,F.Understanding and Robustifying Differentiable Architecture Search. In ICLR 2020. Hollmann, N., Müller, S., Eggensperger, K. and Hutter, F. TabPFN: A Transformer That Solves Small Tabular Classification Problems in a Second, In ICLR 2023.

  Read more →
• 

  Best Conversational AI Platforms in 2026

  Looking for the best conversational AI platform? An conversational AI platform is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it can save you hours every week by automating repetitive work. Most options offer a generous free tier, with paid plans unlocking higher limits, faster processing, and team features. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right conversational AI platform 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 →
• 

  CLEVER score

  The CLEVER (Cross Lipschitz Extreme Value for nEtwork Robustness) score is a way of measuring the robustness of an artificial neural network towards adversarial attacks. It was developed by a team at the MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab in IBM Research and first presented at the 2018 International Conference on Learning Representations. It was mentioned and reviewed by Ian Goodfellow as well. It was adopted into an educational game Fool The Bank by Narendra Nath Joshi, Abhishek Bhandwaldar and Casey Dugan

  Read more →
• 

  Interlingual machine translation

  Interlingual machine translation is one of the classic approaches to machine translation. In this approach, the source language, i.e. the text to be translated is transformed into an interlingua, i.e., an abstract language-independent representation. The target language is then generated from the interlingua. Within the rule-based machine translation paradigm, the interlingual approach is an alternative to the direct approach and the transfer approach. In the direct approach, words are translated directly without passing through an additional representation. In the transfer approach the source language is transformed into an abstract, less language-specific representation. Linguistic rules which are specific to the language pair then transform the source language representation into an abstract target language representation and from this the target sentence is generated. The interlingual approach to machine translation has advantages and disadvantages. The advantages are that it requires fewer components in order to relate each source language to each target language, it takes fewer components to add a new language, it supports paraphrases of the input in the original language, it allows both the analysers and generators to be written by monolingual system developers, and it handles languages that are very different from each other (e.g. English and Arabic). The obvious disadvantage is that the definition of an interlingua is difficult and maybe even impossible for a wider domain. The ideal context for interlingual machine translation is thus multilingual machine translation in a very specific domain. For example, Interlingua has been used as a pivot language in international conferences and has been proposed as a pivot language for the European Union. == History == The first ideas about interlingual machine translation appeared in the 17th century with Descartes and Leibniz, who came up with theories of how to create dictionaries using universal numerical codes, not unlike numerical tokens used by large language models nowadays. Others, such as Cave Beck, Athanasius Kircher and Johann Joachim Becher worked on developing an unambiguous universal language based on the principles of logic and iconographs. In 1668, John Wilkins described his interlingua in his "Essay towards a Real Character and a Philosophical Language". In the 18th and 19th centuries many proposals for "universal" international languages were developed, the most well known being Esperanto. That said, applying the idea of a universal language to machine translation did not appear in any of the first significant approaches. Instead, work started on pairs of languages. However, during the 1950s and 60s, researchers in Cambridge headed by Margaret Masterman, in Leningrad headed by Nikolai Andreev and in Milan by Silvio Ceccato started work in this area. The idea was discussed extensively by the Israeli philosopher Yehoshua Bar-Hillel in 1969. During the 1970s, noteworthy research was done in Grenoble by researchers attempting to translate physics and mathematical texts from Russian to French, and in Texas a similar project (METAL) was ongoing for Russian to English. Early interlingual MT systems were also built at Stanford in the 1970s by Roger Schank and Yorick Wilks; the former became the basis of a commercial system for the transfer of funds, and the latter's code is preserved at The Computer Museum at Boston as the first interlingual machine translation system. In the 1980s, renewed relevance was given to interlingua-based, and knowledge-based approaches to machine translation in general, with much research going on in the field. The uniting factor in this research was that high-quality translation required abandoning the idea of requiring total comprehension of the text. Instead, the translation should be based on linguistic knowledge and the specific domain in which the system would be used. The most important research of this era was done in distributed language translation (DLT) in Utrecht, which worked with a modified version of Esperanto, and the Fujitsu system in Japan. In 2016, Google Neural Machine Translation achieved "zero-shot translation", that is it directly translates one language into another. For example, it might be trained just for Japanese-English and Korean-English translation, but can perform Japanese-Korean translation. The system appears to have learned to produce a language-independent intermediate representation of language (an "interlingua"), which allows it to perform zero-shot translation by converting from and to the interlingua. == Outline == In this method of translation, the interlingua can be thought of as a way of describing the analysis of a text written in a source language such that it is possible to convert its morphological, syntactic, semantic (and even pragmatic) characteristics, that is "meaning" into a target language. This interlingua is able to describe all of the characteristics of all of the languages which are to be translated, instead of simply translating from one language to another. Sometimes two interlinguas are used in translation. It is possible that one of the two covers more of the characteristics of the source language, and the other possess more of the characteristics of the target language. The translation then proceeds by converting sentences from the first language into sentences closer to the target language through two stages. The system may also be set up such that the second interlingua uses a more specific vocabulary that is closer, or more aligned with the target language, and this could improve the translation quality. The above-mentioned system is based on the idea of using linguistic proximity to improve the translation quality from a text in one original language to many other structurally similar languages from only one original analysis. This principle is also used in pivot machine translation, where a natural language is used as a "bridge" between two more distant languages. For example, in the case of translating to English from Ukrainian using Russian as an intermediate language. == Translation process == In interlingual machine translation systems, there are two monolingual components: the analysis of the source language and the interlingual, and the generation of the interlingua and the target language. It is however necessary to distinguish between interlingual systems using only syntactic methods (for example the systems developed in the 1970s at the universities of Grenoble and Texas) and those based on artificial intelligence (from 1987 in Japan and the research at the universities of Southern California and Carnegie Mellon). The first type of system corresponds to that outlined in Figure 1. while the other types would be approximated by the diagram in Figure 4. The following resources are necessary to an interlingual machine translation system: Dictionaries (or lexicons) for analysis and generation (specific to the domain and the languages involved). A conceptual lexicon (specific to the domain), which is the knowledge base about events and entities known in the domain. A set of projection rules (specific to the domain and the languages). Grammars for the analysis and generation of the languages involved. One of the problems of knowledge-based machine translation systems is that it becomes impossible to create databases for domains larger than very specific areas. Another is that processing these databases is very computationally expensive. == Efficacy == One of the main advantages of this strategy is that it provides an economical way to make multilingual translation systems. With an interlingua it becomes unnecessary to make a translation pair between each pair of languages in the system. So instead of creating n ( n − 1 ) {\displaystyle n(n-1)} language pairs, where n {\displaystyle n} is the number of languages in the system, it is only necessary to make 2 n {\displaystyle 2n} pairs between the n {\displaystyle n} languages and the interlingua. The main disadvantage of this strategy is the difficulty of creating an adequate interlingua. It should be both abstract and independent of the source and target languages. The more languages added to the translation system, and the more different they are, the more potent the interlingua must be to express all possible translation directions. Another problem is that it is difficult to extract meaning from texts in the original languages to create the intermediate representation. == Existing interlingual machine translation systems == Calliope-Aero Carabao Linguistic Virtual Machine Grammatical Framework Number Translator Google Translate use English internally as a pivot language for some language pairs such as Chinese and Japanese, and more generally those with "higher quality" neural-network translators with English but not between each other.

  Read more →
• 

  Max Welling

  Max Welling (born 1968) is a Dutch computer scientist in machine learning at the University of Amsterdam. In August 2017, the university spin-off Scyfer BV, co-founded by Welling, was acquired by Qualcomm. He has since then served as a Vice President of Technology at Qualcomm Netherlands. He is also a Distinguished Scientist at Microsoft Research AI4Science, based in Amsterdam. Welling received his PhD in physics with a thesis on quantum gravity under the supervision of Nobel laureate Gerard 't Hooft (1998) at the Utrecht University. He has published over 250 peer-reviewed articles in machine learning, computer vision, statistics and physics, and has most notably invented variational autoencoders (VAEs), together with Diederik P Kingma. In 2025 Welling was elected member of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.

  Read more →