AI Headshot Business

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

  • Quantum artificial life

    Quantum artificial life

    Quantum artificial life is the application of quantum algorithms with the ability to simulate biological behavior. Quantum computers offer many potential improvements to processes performed on classical computers, including machine learning and artificial intelligence. Artificial intelligence applications are often inspired by the idea of mimicking human brains through closely related biomimicry. This has been implemented to a certain extent on classical computers (using neural networks), but quantum computers offer many advantages in the simulation of artificial life. Artificial life and artificial intelligence are extremely similar, with minor differences; the goal of studying artificial life is to understand living beings better, while the goal of artificial intelligence is to create intelligent beings. In 2016, Alvarez-Rodriguez et al. developed a proposal for a quantum artificial life algorithm with the ability to simulate life and Darwinian evolution. In 2018, the same research team led by Alvarez-Rodriguez performed the proposed algorithm on the IBM ibmqx4 quantum computer, and received optimistic results. The results accurately simulated a system with the ability to undergo self-replication at the quantum scale. == Artificial life on quantum computers == The growing advancement of quantum computers has led researchers to develop quantum algorithms for simulating life processes. Researchers have designed a quantum algorithm that can accurately simulate Darwinian Evolution. Since the complete simulation of artificial life on quantum computers has only been actualized by one group, this section shall focus on the implementation by Alvarez-Rodriguez, Sanz, Lomata, and Solano on an IBM quantum computer. Individuals were realized as two qubits, one representing the genotype of the individual and the other representing the phenotype. The genotype is copied to transmit genetic information through generations, and the phenotype is dependent on the genetic information as well as the individual's interactions with their environment. In order to set up the system, the state of the genotype is instantiated by some rotation of an ancillary state ( | 0 ⟩ ⟨ 0 | {\displaystyle |0\rangle \langle 0|} ). The environment is a two-dimensional spatial grid occupied by individuals and ancillary states. The environment is divided into cells that are able to possess one or more individuals. Individuals move throughout the grid and occupy cells randomly; when two or more individuals occupy the same cell they interact with each other. === Self replication === The ability to self-replicate is critical for simulating life. Self-replication occurs when the genotype of an individual interacts with an ancillary state, creating a genotype for a new individual; this genotype interacts with a different ancillary state in order to create the phenotype. During this interaction, one would like to copy some information about the initial state into the ancillary state, but by the no cloning theorem, it is impossible to copy an arbitrary unknown quantum state. However, physicists have derived different methods for quantum cloning which does not require the exact copying of an unknown state. The method that has been implemented by Alvarez-Rodriguez et al. is one that involves the cloning of the expectation value of some observable. For a unitary U {\displaystyle U} which copies the expectation value of some set of observables X {\displaystyle {\mathsf {X}}} of state ρ {\displaystyle \rho } into a blank state ρ e {\displaystyle \rho _{e}} , the cloning machine is defined by any ( U , ρ e , X ) {\displaystyle (U,\rho _{e},{\mathsf {X}})} that fulfill the following: ∀ ρ ∀ X ∈ X {\displaystyle \forall \rho \forall X\in {\mathsf {X}}} X ¯ = X 1 ¯ = X 2 ¯ {\displaystyle {\bar {X}}={\bar {X_{1}}}={\bar {X_{2}}}} Where X ¯ {\displaystyle {\bar {X}}} is the mean value of the observable in ρ {\displaystyle \rho } before cloning, X 1 ¯ {\displaystyle {\bar {X_{1}}}} is the mean value of the observable in ρ {\displaystyle \rho } after cloning, and X 2 ¯ {\displaystyle {\bar {X_{2}}}} is the mean value of the observable in ρ e {\displaystyle \rho _{e}} after cloning. Note that the cloning machine has no dependence on ρ {\displaystyle \rho } because we want to be able to clone the expectation of the observables for any initial state. It is important to note that cloning the mean value of the observable transmits more information than is allowed classically. The calculation of the mean value is defined naturally as: X ¯ = T r [ ρ X ] {\displaystyle {\bar {X}}=Tr[\rho X]} , X 1 ¯ = T r [ R X ⊗ I ] {\displaystyle {\bar {X_{1}}}=Tr[RX\otimes I]} , X 2 ¯ = T r [ R I ⊗ X ] {\displaystyle {\bar {X_{2}}}=Tr[RI\otimes X]} where R = U ρ ⊗ ρ e U † {\displaystyle R=U\rho \otimes \rho _{e}U^{\dagger }} The simplest cloning machine clones the expectation value of σ z {\displaystyle \sigma _{z}} in arbitrary state ρ = | ψ ⟩ ⟨ ψ | {\displaystyle \rho =|\psi \rangle \langle \psi |} to ρ e = | 0 ⟩ ⟨ 0 | {\displaystyle \rho _{e}=|0\rangle \langle 0|} using U = C N O T {\displaystyle U=CNOT} . This is the cloning machine implemented for self-replication by Alvarez-Rodriguez et al. The self-replication process clearly only requires interactions between two qubits, and therefore this cloning machine is the only one necessary for self replication. === Interactions === Interactions occur between individuals when the two take up the same space on the environmental grid. The presence of interactions between individuals provides an advantage for shorter-lifespan individuals. When two individuals interact, exchanges of information between the two phenotypes may or may not occur based on their existing values. When both individual's control qubits (genotypes) are alike, no information will be exchanged. When the control qubits differ, the target qubits (phenotype) will be exchanged between the two individuals. This procedure produces a constantly changing predator-prey dynamic in the simulation. Therefore, long-living qubits, with a larger genetic makeup in the simulation, are at a disadvantage. Since information is only exchanged when interacting with an individual of different genetic makeup, the short-lived population has the advantage. === Mutation === Mutations exist in the artificial world with limited probability, equivalent to their occurrence in the real world. There are two ways in which the individual can mutate: through random single qubit rotations and by errors in the self-replication process. There are two different operators that act on the individual and cause mutations. The M operation causes a spontaneous mutation within the individual by rotating a single qubit by parameter θ. The parameter θ is random for each mutation, which creates biodiversity within the artificial environment. The M operation is a unitary matrix which can be described as: M = ( cos ⁡ ( θ ) s i n ( θ ) s i n ( θ ) − c o s ( θ ) ) {\displaystyle M={\begin{pmatrix}\cos(\theta )&sin(\theta )\\sin(\theta )&-cos(\theta )\end{pmatrix}}} The other possible way for mutations to occur is due to errors in the replication process. Due to the no-cloning theorem, it is impossible to produce perfect copies of systems that are originally in unknown quantum states. However, quantum cloning machines make it possible to create imperfect copies of quantum states, in other words, the process introduces some degree of error. The error that exists in current quantum cloning machines is the root cause for the second kind of mutations in the artificial life experiment. The imperfect cloning operation can be seen as: U M ( θ ) = I 4 + 1 2 ( 0 0 0 1 ) ⊗ ( − 1 1 1 − 1 ) ( c o s θ + i s i n θ + 1 ) {\displaystyle U_{M}(\theta )=\mathrm {I} _{4}+{\frac {1}{2}}{\begin{pmatrix}0&0\\0&1\end{pmatrix}}\otimes {\begin{pmatrix}-1&1\\1&-1\end{pmatrix}}(cos\theta +isin\theta +1)} The two kinds of mutations affect the individual differently. While the spontaneous M operation does not affect the phenotype of the individual, the self-replicating error mutation, UM, alters both the genotype of the individual, and its associated lifetime. The presence of mutations in the quantum artificial life experiment is critical for providing randomness and biodiversity. The inclusion of mutations helps to increase the accuracy of the quantum algorithm. === Death === At the instant the individual is created (when the genotype is copied into the phenotype), the phenotype interacts with the environment. As time evolves, the interaction of the individual with the environment simulates aging which eventually leads to the death of the individual. The death of an individual occurs when the expectation value of σ z {\displaystyle \sigma _{z}} is within some ϵ {\displaystyle \epsilon } of 1 in the phenotype, or, equivalently, when ρ p = | 0 ⟩ ⟨ 0 | {\displaystyle \rho _{p}=|0\rangle \langle 0|} The Lindbladian describes the interaction of the individual with the environment: ρ

    Read more →
  • Best AI Resume Builders in 2026

    Best AI Resume Builders in 2026

    Looking for the best AI resume builder? An AI resume builder 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 resume builder 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 →
  • AI Resume Builders: Free vs Paid (2026)

    AI Resume Builders: Free vs Paid (2026)

    Comparing the best AI resume builder? An AI resume builder is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it lowers the barrier so anyone can produce professional output. Privacy matters too: check whether your data trains the model and whether a no-log or enterprise tier is available. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI resume builder 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 →
  • Top 10 Conversational AI Platforms Compared (2026)

    Top 10 Conversational AI Platforms Compared (2026)

    In search of the best conversational AI platform? An conversational AI platform 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 conversational AI platform slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. We tested the leading options and ranked them by quality, value, and ease of use.

    Read more →
  • SeaTable

    SeaTable

    SeaTable is a no-code platform that allows users to develop and implement business processes. The cloud collaboration service SeaTable is marketed by the GmbH of the same name with headquarters in Mainz and additional offices in Berlin and Beijing, and developed by the same company as Seafile. == History == SeaTable is a collaborative database and low-code application platform developed as part of a joint venture between Seafile Ltd., a software company based in Guangzhou, China, and SeaTable GmbH, a German firm headquartered in Mainz. Founded in 2020, the project represents the international expansion of Seafile, a Chinese developer originally known for its file synchronization and sharing software. While SeaTable's cloud services and European client operations are managed by the German entity, the platform itself is developed in China by Seafile's engineering team. This cross-border structure, described by TechCrunch as an “unconventional path” for a Chinese startup expanding abroad, reflects Seafile's effort to maintain its product development in China while addressing growing scrutiny in Western markets over data governance and corporate control. In 2021, an innovation project led by the Cyber Innovation Hub at the IT School of the German Armed Forces started to evaluate the possibilities of a large-scale deployment at the German Armed Forces. The evaluation project is currently still ongoing. In 2022, SeaTable is optimizing its database backend to allow millions of records within one base in the future. The focus of development is increasingly on automation and visualization. In 2025, SeaTable introduced AI-powered automations with version 6. The update enabled the integration of large language models (LLMs) for text analysis and automated decision-making. SeaTable operates a self-hosted LLM on servers provided by Hetzner (Germany), while self-hosted deployments can connect to any compatible model. == Features == SeaTable combines the traditional capabilities of a spreadsheet such as Excel and supplements them with a wide range of functions for process automation and visualization as well as a fully comprehensive API. SeaTable is not a pure cloud solution, but can alternatively be installed on a private server and operated completely autonomously. In this way, the owner retains full control over their own data. The installation is done via Docker on a Linux server. == Security and privacy == While most no-code platforms exist only as SaaS solutions, SeaTable describes itself as a data-sparse European solution. While initially the SeaTable Cloud was hosted on Amazon AWS, the move to the German data centers of Swiss provider Exoscale then took place in May 2021. This was followed by the replacement of the Freshdesk cloud ticketing system with a self-hosted Zammad instance, and since April 2022 SeaTable has completely dispensed with all tracking cookies on its website.

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

    Top 10 AI Marketing Tools Compared (2026)

    Comparing the best AI marketing tool? An AI marketing tool is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it lowers the barrier so anyone can produce professional output. Privacy matters too: check whether your data trains the model and whether a no-log or enterprise tier is available. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI marketing tool slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. We tested the leading options and ranked them by quality, value, and ease of use.

    Read more →
  • Ronald J. Williams

    Ronald J. Williams

    Ronald James Williams (1945 – February 16, 2024) was an American mathematician and computer scientist who spent the majority of his career at Northeastern University. He is considered one of the pioneers of neural networks. In 1986, he co-authored the seminal paper in Nature on the backpropagation algorithm along with David Rumelhart and Geoffrey Hinton, which triggered a boom in neural network research. == Education and career == Williams was born in Southern California. He studied at California Institute of Technology as a undergraduate student and received a B.S. in mathematics there in 1966. He received his M.A. and Ph.D. in mathematics, both at University of California, San Diego (UCSD) in 1972 and 1975, respectively. His Ph.D. thesis was supervised by Donald Werner Anderson. He worked for a defense contractor for some time after graduation. From 1983 to 1986, Williams was a member of the Parallel Distributed Processing research group headed by David Rumelhart at the Institute for Cognitive Science at UCSD. In 1986, Williams accepted a professorship in computer science at Northeastern University in Boston, where he remained afterwards. In addition to the backpropagation paper, Williams made fundamental contributions to the fields of recurrent neural networks, where he, along with David Zipser, invented the teacher forcing algorithm and made important contributions to backpropagation through time. In reinforcement learning, Williams introduced the REINFORCE algorithm in 1992, which became the first policy gradient method. Besides his works on neural networks, Williams, together with Wenxu Tong and Mary Jo Ondrechen, developed Partial Order Optimum Likelihood (POOL), a machine learning method used in the prediction of active amino acids in protein structures. POOL is a maximum likelihood method with a monotonicity constraint and is a general predictor of properties that depend monotonically on the input features.

    Read more →
  • AI Writing Assistants Reviews: What Actually Works in 2026

    AI Writing Assistants Reviews: What Actually Works in 2026

    Looking for the best AI writing assistant? An AI writing assistant 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 writing assistant 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 →
  • Normalization (image processing)

    Normalization (image processing)

    In image processing, normalization is a process that changes the range of pixel intensity values, a kind of intensity mapping. Applications include photographs with poor contrast due to glare, for example. A typical case is contrast stretching. In more general fields of data processing, such as digital signal processing, it is referred to as dynamic range expansion. The purpose of dynamic range expansion in the various applications is usually to bring the image, or other type of signal, into a range that is more familiar or normal to the senses, hence the term normalization. Often, the motivation is to achieve consistency in dynamic range for a set of data, signals, or images to avoid mental distraction or fatigue. For example, a newspaper will strive to make all of the images in an issue share a similar range of grayscale. Auto-normalization in image processing software typically normalizes to the full dynamic range of the number system specified in the image file format. == Definition == Normalization transforms an n-dimensional grayscale image I : { X ⊆ R n } → { Min , . . , Max } {\displaystyle I:\{\mathbb {X} \subseteq \mathbb {R} ^{n}\}\rightarrow \{{\text{Min}},..,{\text{Max}}\}} with intensity values in the range ( Min , Max ) {\displaystyle ({\text{Min}},{\text{Max}})} , into a new image I N : { X ⊆ R n } → { newMin , . . , newMax } {\displaystyle I_{N}:\{\mathbb {X} \subseteq \mathbb {R} ^{n}\}\rightarrow \{{\text{newMin}},..,{\text{newMax}}\}} with intensity values in the range ( newMin , newMax ) {\displaystyle ({\text{newMin}},{\text{newMax}})} . The linear normalization of a grayscale digital image is performed according to the formula I N = ( I − Min ) newMax − newMin Max − Min + newMin {\displaystyle I_{N}=(I-{\text{Min}}){\frac {{\text{newMax}}-{\text{newMin}}}{{\text{Max}}-{\text{Min}}}}+{\text{newMin}}} For example, if the intensity range of the image is 50 to 180 and the desired range is 0 to 255 the process entails subtracting 50 from each of pixel intensity, making the range 0 to 130. Then each pixel intensity is multiplied by 255/130, making the range 0 to 255. Normalization might also be non-linear, as the relationship between I {\displaystyle I} and I N {\displaystyle I_{N}} may not be linear. An example of non-linear normalization is when the normalization follows a sigmoid function, in which case the normalized image is computed according to the formula I N = ( newMax − newMin ) 1 1 + e − I − β α + newMin {\displaystyle I_{N}=({\text{newMax}}-{\text{newMin}}){\frac {1}{1+e^{-{\frac {I-\beta }{\alpha }}}}}+{\text{newMin}}} Where α {\displaystyle \alpha } defines the width of the input intensity range, and β {\displaystyle \beta } defines the intensity around which the range is centered. Gamma correction (log/inverse log) is also a common transformation function. === Colorspace === Intensity operations generally operate on a colorspace that maps to the human perception of lightness without intentionally changing the other properties. This can be done, for example, by operating on the L component of the CIELAB color space, or approximately by operating on the Y component of YCbCr. It is also possible to operate on each of the RGB color channels, though the result will not always make sense. == Contrast stretching == This is the most significant and essential technique of spatial-based image enhancement. The basic intent of this contrast enhancement technique is to adjust the local contrast in the image so as to bring out the clear regions or objects in the image. Low-contrast images often result from poor or non-uniform lighting conditions, a limited dynamic range of the imaging sensor, or improper settings of the lens aperture. This operation tries to change the intensity of the pixel in the image, particularly in the input image, to obtain an enhanced image. It is based on the number of techniques, namely local, global, dark and bright levels of contrast. The contrast enhancement is considered as the amount of color or gray differentiation that lies among the different features in an image. The contrast enhancement improves the quality of image by increasing the luminance difference between the foreground and background. A contrast stretching transformation can be achieved by: Stretching the dark range of input values into a wider range of output values: This involves increasing the brightness of the darker areas in the image to enhance details and improve visibility. Shifting the mid-range of input values: This involves adjusting the brightness levels of the mid-tones in the image to improve overall contrast and clarity. Compressing the bright range of input values: This process involves reducing the brightness of the brighter areas in the image to prevent overexposure resulting in a more balanced and visually appealing image. It can be described as the following piecewise funciton: I N = { s 1 r 1 I if I < r 1 s 2 − s 1 r 1 − r 2 ( I − r 1 ) if r 1 ≤ I ≤ r 2 1 − s 2 1 − r 2 ( I − r 2 ) if I > r 2 {\displaystyle I_{N}={\begin{cases}{\frac {s_{1}}{r_{1}}}I&{\text{if }}Ir_{2}\end{cases}}} Where: ( r 1 , s 1 ) {\displaystyle (r_{1},s_{1})} defines the transition point between the "dark" range to the "main" range. ( r 2 , s 2 ) {\displaystyle (r_{2},s_{2})} defines the transition point between the "main" range to the "bright" range. A typical linear stretch is obtained when ( r 1 , s 1 ) = ( r min , 0 ) {\displaystyle (r_{1},s_{1})=(r_{\text{min}},0)} and ( r 2 , s 2 ) = ( r max , 1 ) {\displaystyle (r_{2},s_{2})=(r_{\text{max}},1)} , where r min {\displaystyle r_{\text{min}}} and r max {\displaystyle r_{\text{max}}} denote the minimum and maximum levels in the source image. === Global contrast stretching === Global Contrast Stretching considers all color palate ranges at once to determine the maximum and minimum values for the entire RGB color image. This approach utilizes the combination of RGB colors to derive a single maximum and minimum value for contrast stretching across the entire image. === Local contrast stretching === Local contrast stretching (LCS) is an image enhancement method that focuses on locally adjusting each pixel's value to improve the visualization of structures within an image, particularly in both the darkest and lightest portions. It operates by utilizing sliding windows, known as kernels, which traverse the image. The central pixel within each kernel is adjusted using the following formula: I p ( x , y ) = 255 × [ I 0 ( x , y ) − m i n ] ( m a x − m i n ) {\displaystyle I_{p}(x,y)=255\times {\frac {[I_{0}(x,y)-min]}{(max-min)}}} Where: Ip(x,y) is the color level for the output pixel (x,y) after the contrast stretching process. I0(x,y) is the color level input for data pixel (x, y). max is the maximum value for color level in the input image within the selected kernel. min is the minimum value for color level in the input image within the selected kernel. A piecewise form (see above) may also be used. LCS can be applied to the three color channels of an image separately.

    Read more →
  • Evaluation of machine translation

    Evaluation of machine translation

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

    Read more →
  • AI Marketing Tools Reviews: What Actually Works in 2026

    AI Marketing Tools Reviews: What Actually Works in 2026

    In search of the best AI marketing tool? An AI marketing tool is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it turns a rough idea into a polished result in seconds. When choosing one, weigh output quality, pricing, export formats, and how well it fits the tools you already use. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI marketing tool slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. We tested the leading options and ranked them by quality, value, and ease of use.

    Read more →
  • Best AI Coding Assistants in 2026

    Best AI Coding Assistants in 2026

    Curious about the best AI coding assistant? An AI coding assistant is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it combines speed, accuracy, and an interface that just works. Hands-on testing shows real-world results vary, so a short free trial is the smartest way to decide. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI coding assistant 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 →
  • Kernel density estimation

    Kernel density estimation

    In statistics, kernel density estimation (KDE) is the application of kernel smoothing for probability density estimation, i.e., a non-parametric method to estimate the probability density function of a random variable based on kernels as weights. KDE answers a fundamental data smoothing problem where inferences about the population are made based on a finite data sample. In some fields such as signal processing and econometrics it is also termed the Parzen–Rosenblatt window method, after Emanuel Parzen and Murray Rosenblatt, who are usually credited with independently creating it in its current form. One of the famous applications of kernel density estimation is in estimating the class-conditional marginal densities of data when using a naive Bayes classifier, which can improve its prediction accuracy. == Definition == Let x = ( x 1 , x 2 , x 3 , . . . ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} =\left(x_{1},x_{2},x_{3},...\right)} be independent and identically distributed samples drawn from some univariate distribution with an unknown density f at any given point x. We are interested in estimating the shape of this function f. Its kernel density estimator is f ^ h ( x ) = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n K h ( x − x i ) = 1 n h ∑ i = 1 n K ( x − x i h ) , {\displaystyle {\hat {f}}_{h}(x)={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}K_{h}(x-x_{i})={\frac {1}{nh}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}K{\left({\frac {x-x_{i}}{h}}\right)},} where K is the kernel — a non-negative function — and h > 0 is a smoothing parameter called the bandwidth or simply width. A kernel with subscript h is called the scaled kernel and defined as Kh(x) = ⁠1/h⁠ K(⁠x/h⁠). Intuitively one wants to choose h as small as the data will allow; however, there is always a trade-off between the bias of the estimator and its variance. The choice of bandwidth is discussed in more detail below. A range of kernel functions are commonly used: uniform, triangular, biweight, triweight, Epanechnikov (parabolic), normal, and others. The Epanechnikov kernel is optimal in a mean square error sense, though the loss of efficiency is small for the kernels listed previously. Due to its convenient mathematical properties, the normal kernel is often used, which means K(x) = ϕ(x), where ϕ is the standard normal density function. The kernel density estimator then becomes f ^ h ( x ) = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n 1 h 2 π exp ⁡ ( − ( x − x i ) 2 2 h 2 ) , {\displaystyle {\hat {f}}_{h}(x)={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}{\frac {1}{h{\sqrt {2\pi }}}}\exp \left({\frac {-(x-x_{i})^{2}}{2h^{2}}}\right),} where h {\displaystyle h} is the standard deviation of the sample x {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} } . The construction of a kernel density estimate finds interpretations in fields outside of density estimation. For example, in thermodynamics, this is equivalent to the amount of heat generated when heat kernels (the fundamental solution to the heat equation) are placed at each data point locations xi. Similar methods are used to construct discrete Laplace operators on point clouds for manifold learning (e.g. diffusion map). == Example == Kernel density estimates are closely related to histograms, but can be endowed with properties such as smoothness or continuity by using a suitable kernel. The diagram below based on these 6 data points illustrates this relationship: For the histogram, first, the horizontal axis is divided into sub-intervals or bins which cover the range of the data: In this case, six bins each of width 2. Whenever a data point falls inside this interval, a box of height 1/12 is placed there. If more than one data point falls inside the same bin, the boxes are stacked on top of each other. For the kernel density estimate, normal kernels with a standard deviation of 1.5 (indicated by the red dashed lines) are placed on each of the data points xi. The kernels are summed to make the kernel density estimate (solid blue curve). The smoothness of the kernel density estimate (compared to the discreteness of the histogram) illustrates how kernel density estimates converge faster to the true underlying density for continuous random variables. == Bandwidth selection == The bandwidth of the kernel is a free parameter which exhibits a strong influence on the resulting estimate. To illustrate its effect, we take a simulated random sample from the standard normal distribution (plotted at the blue spikes in the rug plot on the horizontal axis). The grey curve is the true density (a normal density with mean 0 and variance 1). In comparison, the red curve is undersmoothed since it contains too many spurious data artifacts arising from using a bandwidth h = 0.05, which is too small. The green curve is oversmoothed since using the bandwidth h = 2 obscures much of the underlying structure. The black curve with a bandwidth of h = 0.337 is considered to be optimally smoothed since its density estimate is close to the true density. An extreme situation is encountered in the limit h → 0 {\displaystyle h\to 0} (no smoothing), where the estimate is a sum of n delta functions centered at the coordinates of analyzed samples. In the other extreme limit h → ∞ {\displaystyle h\to \infty } the estimate retains the shape of the used kernel, centered on the mean of the samples (completely smooth). The most common optimality criterion used to select this parameter is the expected L2 risk function, also termed the mean integrated squared error: MISE ⁡ ( h ) = E [ ∫ ( f ^ h ( x ) − f ( x ) ) 2 d x ] {\displaystyle \operatorname {MISE} (h)=\operatorname {E} \!\left[\int \!{\left({\hat {f}}\!_{h}(x)-f(x)\right)}^{2}dx\right]} Under weak assumptions on f and K, (f is the, generally unknown, real density function), MISE ⁡ ( h ) = AMISE ⁡ ( h ) + o ( ( n h ) − 1 + h 4 ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {MISE} (h)=\operatorname {AMISE} (h)+{\mathcal {o}}{\left((nh)^{-1}+h^{4}\right)}} where o is the little o notation, and n the sample size (as above). The AMISE is the asymptotic MISE, i. e. the two leading terms, AMISE ⁡ ( h ) = R ( K ) n h + 1 4 m 2 ( K ) 2 h 4 R ( f ″ ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {AMISE} (h)={\frac {R(K)}{nh}}+{\frac {1}{4}}m_{2}(K)^{2}h^{4}R(f'')} where R ( g ) = ∫ g ( x ) 2 d x {\textstyle R(g)=\int g(x)^{2}\,dx} for a function g, m 2 ( K ) = ∫ x 2 K ( x ) d x {\textstyle m_{2}(K)=\int x^{2}K(x)\,dx} and f ″ {\displaystyle f''} is the second derivative of f {\displaystyle f} and K {\displaystyle K} is the kernel. The minimum of this AMISE is the solution to this differential equation ∂ ∂ h AMISE ⁡ ( h ) = − R ( K ) n h 2 + m 2 ( K ) 2 h 3 R ( f ″ ) = 0 {\displaystyle {\frac {\partial }{\partial h}}\operatorname {AMISE} (h)=-{\frac {R(K)}{nh^{2}}}+m_{2}(K)^{2}h^{3}R(f'')=0} or h AMISE = R ( K ) 1 / 5 m 2 ( K ) 2 / 5 R ( f ″ ) 1 / 5 n − 1 / 5 = C n − 1 / 5 {\displaystyle h_{\operatorname {AMISE} }={\frac {R(K)^{1/5}}{m_{2}(K)^{2/5}R(f'')^{1/5}}}n^{-1/5}=Cn^{-1/5}} Neither the AMISE nor the hAMISE formulas can be used directly since they involve the unknown density function f {\displaystyle f} or its second derivative f ″ {\displaystyle f''} . To overcome that difficulty, a variety of automatic, data-based methods have been developed to select the bandwidth. Several review studies have been undertaken to compare their efficacies, with the general consensus that the plug-in selectors and cross validation selectors are the most useful over a wide range of data sets. Substituting any bandwidth h which has the same asymptotic order n−1/5 as hAMISE into the AMISE gives that AMISE(h) = O(n−4/5), where O is the big O notation. It can be shown that, under weak assumptions, there cannot exist a non-parametric estimator that converges at a faster rate than the kernel estimator. Note that the n−4/5 rate is slower than the typical n−1 convergence rate of parametric methods. If the bandwidth is not held fixed, but is varied depending upon the location of either the estimate (balloon estimator) or the samples (pointwise estimator), this produces a particularly powerful method termed adaptive or variable bandwidth kernel density estimation. Bandwidth selection for kernel density estimation of heavy-tailed distributions is relatively difficult. === A rule-of-thumb bandwidth estimator === If Gaussian basis functions are used to approximate univariate data, and the underlying density being estimated is Gaussian, the optimal choice for h (that is, the bandwidth that minimises the mean integrated squared error) is: h = ( 4 σ ^ 5 3 n ) 1 / 5 ≈ 1.06 σ ^ n − 1 / 5 , {\displaystyle h={\left({\frac {4{\hat {\sigma }}^{5}}{3n}}\right)}^{1/5}\approx 1.06\,{\hat {\sigma }}\,n^{-1/5},} An h {\displaystyle h} value is considered more robust when it improves the fit for long-tailed and skewed distributions or for bimodal mixture distributions. This is often done empirically by replacing the standard deviation σ ^ {\displaystyle {\hat {\sigma }}} by the parameter A {\displaystyle A} below: A = min ( σ ^ , I Q R 1.34 ) {\displaystyle A=\min \left({\hat {\sigma }},{\frac {\mathrm {IQR} }{1.34}}\right)} where IQR is the

    Read more →
  • How to Choose an AI Clip Maker

    How to Choose an AI Clip Maker

    Curious about the best AI clip maker? An AI clip maker is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it combines speed, accuracy, and an interface that just works. Hands-on testing shows real-world results vary, so a short free trial is the smartest way to decide. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI clip maker 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 →
  • RAMnets

    RAMnets

    RAMnets is one of the oldest practical neurally inspired classification algorithms. The RAMnets is also known as a type of "n-tuple recognition method" or "weightless neural network". == Algorithm == Consider (let us say N) sets of n distinct bit locations are selected randomly. These are the n-tuples. The restriction of a pattern to an n-tuple can be regarded as an n-bit number which, together with the identity of the n-tuple, constitutes a `feature' of the pattern. The standard n-tuple recognizer operates simply as follows: A pattern is classified as belonging to the class for which it has the most features in common with at least one training pattern of that class. This is the Θ {\displaystyle \Theta } = 0 case of a more general rule whereby the class assigned to unclassified pattern u is a c r g m a x ( ∑ i = 1 N Θ ( ∑ v ∈ D c δ ( α i ( u ) , α i ( v ) ) ) ) {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}{\underset {c}{a}}rgmax(\sum _{i=1}^{N}\Theta (\sum _{v\in D_{c}}\delta (\alpha _{i}(u),\alpha _{i}(v))))\end{aligned}}} where Dc is the set of training patterns in class c, Θ ( x ) {\displaystyle \Theta (x)} = x for 0 ≤ x ≤ θ {\displaystyle 0\leq x\leq \theta } , Θ ( x ) = θ {\displaystyle \Theta (x)=\theta } for x ≥ θ {\displaystyle x\geq \theta } , δ i , j {\displaystyle \delta _{i,j}} is the Kronecker delta( δ i , j {\displaystyle \delta _{i,j}} =1 if i=j and 0 otherwise.)and ( α i ( u ) ) {\displaystyle (\alpha _{i}(u))} is the ith feature of the pattern u: ∑ j = 0 n − 1 u η i ( j ) 2 j {\displaystyle \sum _{j=0}^{n-1}u_{\eta }i(j)2^{j}} Here uk is the kth bit of u and u η i ( j ) {\displaystyle u_{\eta }i(j)} is the jth bit location of the ith n-tuple. With C classes to distinguish, the system can be implemented as a network of NC nodes, each of which is a random access memory (RAM); hence the term RAMnet. The memory content m c i α {\displaystyle m_{ci\alpha }} at address α {\displaystyle \alpha } of the ith node allocated to class c is set to m c i α {\displaystyle m_{ci\alpha }} = Θ ( ∑ v ∈ D c δ ( α , α i ( v ) ) ) {\displaystyle \Theta (\sum _{v\in D_{c}}\delta (\alpha ,\alpha _{i}(v)))} In the usual θ {\displaystyle \theta } = 1 case, the 1-bit content of m c i α {\displaystyle m_{ci\alpha }} is set if any pattern of Dc has feature α {\displaystyle \alpha } and unset otherwise. Recognition is accomplished by summing the contents of the nodes of each class at the addresses given by the features of the unclassified pattern. That is, pattern u is assigned to class a c r g m a x ( ∑ i = 1 N m c i α ( u ) ) {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}{\underset {c}{a}}rgmax(\sum _{i=1}^{N}m_{ci\alpha }(u))\end{aligned}}} == RAM-discriminators and WiSARD == The RAMnets formed the basis of a commercial product known as WiSARD (Wilkie, Stonham and Aleksander Recognition Device) was the first artificial neural network machine to be patented. A RAM-discriminator consists of a set of X one-bit word RAMs with n inputs and a summing device (Σ). Any such RAM-discriminator can receive a binary pattern of X⋅n bits as input. The RAM input lines are connected to the input pattern by means of a biunivocal pseudo-random mapping. The summing device enables this network of RAMs to exhibit – just like other ANN models based on synaptic weights – generalization and noise tolerance. In order to train the discriminator one has to set all RAM memory locations to 0 and choose a training set formed by binary patterns of X⋅n bits. For each training pattern, a 1 is stored in the memory location of each RAM addressed by this input pattern. Once the training of patterns is completed, RAM memory contents will be set to a certain number of 0's and 1's. The information stored by the RAM during the training phase is used to deal with previous unseen patterns. When one of these is given as input, the RAM memory contents addressed by the input pattern are read and summed by Σ. The number r thus obtained, which is called the discriminator response, is equal to the number of RAMs that output 1. r reaches the maximum X if the input belongs to the training set. r is equal to 0 if no n-bit component of the input pattern appears in the training set (not a single RAM outputs 1). Intermediate values of r express a kind of “similarity measure” of the input pattern with respect to the patterns in the training set. A system formed by various RAM-discriminators is called WiSARD. Each RAM-discriminator is trained on a particular class of patterns, and classification by the multi-discriminator system is performed in the following way. When a pattern is given as input, each RAM-discriminator gives a response to that input. The various responses are evaluated by an algorithm which compares them and computes the relative confidence c of the highest response (e.g., the difference d between the highest response and the second highest response, divided by the highest response). A schematic representation of a RAM-discriminator and a 10 RAM-discriminator WiSARD is shown in Figure 1.

    Read more →