AI Headshot Generator

AI Headshot Generator — hands-on reviews, top picks, pricing, pros and cons and a practical how-to guide on Aizhi.

D/Vision Pro

D/Vision Pro was one of the earliest marketed non-linear editing systems. It was released by TouchVision Systems, Inc. in the mid-1990s. The program was DOS-based and worked on either Intel's 386 or 486 processor. The system used AVI compression and worked with the Action Media II board. The system allowed users to digitize video, audio, and timecode, create an edit decision list (EDL), instantly play back the edited program, and output the finished EDL in a wide variety of formats. These cost-effective editing systems were used by numerous independent filmmakers and in low-budget productions during the mid-late 1990s. D/Vision Pro's low-quality compression led TouchVision (later renamed D/Vision Systems) to abandon it in favor of D/Vision Online, which was purchased by Discreet Logic and renamed edit. In June 2002, Discreet discontinued edit, as they did not want it to interfere with smoke sales which were more profitable. Discreet was later purchased by Autodesk.
Read more →
AI Resume Builders Reviews: What Actually Works in 2026

Shopping for the best AI resume builder? An AI resume builder is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it keeps getting smarter as the underlying models improve. Pricing, accuracy, and the size of the model behind the tool are the three factors that most affect daily usefulness. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI resume builder 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 →
Markovian discrimination

Markovian discrimination is a class of spam filtering methods used in CRM114 and other spam filters to filter based on statistical patterns of transition probabilities between words or other lexical tokens in spam messages that would not be captured using simple bag-of-words naive Bayes spam filtering. == Markovian Discrimination vs. Bag-of-Words Discrimination == A bag-of-words model contains only a dictionary of legal words and their relative probabilities in spam and genuine messages. A Markovian model additionally includes the relative transition probabilities between words in spam and in genuine messages, where the relative transition probability is the likelihood that a given word will be written next, based on what the current word is. Put another way, a bag-of-words filter discriminates based on relative probabilities of single words alone regardless of phrase structure, while a Markovian word-based filter discriminates based on relative probabilities of either pairs of words, or, more commonly, short sequences of words. This allows the Markovian filter greater sensitivity to phrase structure. Neither naive Bayes nor Markovian filters are limited to the word level for tokenizing messages. They may also process letters, partial words, or phrases as tokens. In such cases, specific bag-of-words methods would correspond to general bag-of-tokens methods. Modelers can parameterize Markovian spam filters based on the relative probabilities of any such tokens' transitions appearing in spam or in legitimate messages. == Visible and Hidden Markov Models == There are two primary classes of Markov models, visible Markov models and hidden Markov models, which differ in whether the Markov chain generating token sequences is assumed to have its states fully determined by each generated token (the visible Markov models) or might also have additional state (the hidden Markov models). With a visible Markov model, each current token is modeled as if it contains the complete information about previous tokens of the message relevant to the probability of future tokens, whereas a hidden Markov model allows for more obscure conditional relationships. Since those more obscure conditional relationships are more typical of natural language messages including both genuine messages and spam, hidden Markov models are generally preferred over visible Markov models for spam filtering. Due to storage constraints, the most commonly employed model is a specific type of hidden Markov model known as a Markov random field, typically with a 'sliding window' or clique size ranging between four and six tokens.
Read more →
Radford M. Neal

Radford M. Neal (born September 12, 1956) is a professor emeritus at the Department of Statistics and Department of Computer Science at the University of Toronto, where he held a Canada research chair in statistics and machine learning. == Education and career == Neal studied computer science at the University of Calgary, where he received his B.Sc. in 1977 and M.Sc. in 1980, with thesis work supervised by David Hill. He worked for several years as a sessional instructor at the University of Calgary and as a statistical consultant in the industry before coming back to the academia. Neal continued his study at the University of Toronto, where he received his Ph.D. in 1995 under the supervision of Geoffrey Hinton. Neal became an assistant professor at the University of Toronto in 1995, an associated professor in 1999 and a full professor since 2001. He was the Canada Research Chair in Statistics and Machine Learning from 2003 to 2016 and retired in 2017. Neal has made great contributions in the area of machine learning and statistics, where he is particularly well known for his work on Markov chain Monte Carlo, error correcting codes and Bayesian learning for neural networks. He is also known for his blog and as the developer of pqR: a new version of the R interpreter.
Read more →
Drops (app)

Drops is a language learning app that was created in Estonia by Daniel Farkas and Mark Szulyovszky in 2015. It is the second product from the company, after their first app, LearnInvisible, had issues in retaining a user's engagement over the required time period. The languages available include Native Hawaiian and Māori, and was classified as one of the fifty "Most Innovative Companies" for 2019 by Fast Company. The company partnered with Global Eagle Entertainment to include Travel Talk, a feature intended to focus on words and phrases frequently used by travelers. At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020, the number of users increased by 55 percent in the United States and 92 percent in the United Kingdom. Droplets, a language app for children, includes profiles for multiple teachers working with remote students. The company also produces an app called Scripts, intended to help users learn to write alphabets. The app was purchased by the Norwegian company Kahoot! on 24 November 2020.
Read more →
Best AI Presentation Makers in 2026

In search of the best AI presentation maker? An AI presentation maker 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 presentation maker 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 →
Lori Levin

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

In theoretical linguistics and computational linguistics, probabilistic context free grammars (PCFGs) extend context-free grammars, similar to how hidden Markov models extend regular grammars. Each production is assigned a probability. The probability of a derivation (parse) is the product of the probabilities of the productions used in that derivation. These probabilities can be viewed as parameters of the model, and for large problems it is convenient to learn these parameters via machine learning. A probabilistic grammar's validity is constrained by context of its training dataset. PCFGs originated from grammar theory, and have application in areas as diverse as natural language processing to the study the structure of RNA molecules and design of programming languages. Designing efficient PCFGs has to weigh factors of scalability and generality. Issues such as grammar ambiguity must be resolved. The grammar design affects results accuracy. Grammar parsing algorithms have various time and memory requirements. == Definitions == Derivation: The process of recursive generation of strings from a grammar. Parsing: Finding a valid derivation using an automaton. Parse Tree: The alignment of the grammar to a sequence. An example of a parser for PCFG grammars is the pushdown automaton. The algorithm parses grammar nonterminals from left to right in a stack-like manner. This brute-force approach is not very efficient. In RNA secondary structure prediction variants of the Cocke–Younger–Kasami (CYK) algorithm provide more efficient alternatives to grammar parsing than pushdown automata. Another example of a PCFG parser is the Stanford Statistical Parser which has been trained using Treebank. == Formal definition == Similar to a CFG, a probabilistic context-free grammar G can be defined by a quintuple: G = ( M , T , R , S , P ) {\displaystyle G=(M,T,R,S,P)} where M is the set of non-terminal symbols T is the set of terminal symbols R is the set of production rules S is the start symbol P is the set of probabilities on production rules == Relation with hidden Markov models == PCFGs models extend context-free grammars the same way as hidden Markov models extend regular grammars. The Inside-Outside algorithm is an analogue of the Forward-Backward algorithm. It computes the total probability of all derivations that are consistent with a given sequence, based on some PCFG. This is equivalent to the probability of the PCFG generating the sequence, and is intuitively a measure of how consistent the sequence is with the given grammar. The Inside-Outside algorithm is used in model parametrization to estimate prior frequencies observed from training sequences in the case of RNAs. Dynamic programming variants of the CYK algorithm find the Viterbi parse of a RNA sequence for a PCFG model. This parse is the most likely derivation of the sequence by the given PCFG. == Grammar construction == Context-free grammars are represented as a set of rules inspired from attempts to model natural languages. The rules are absolute and have a typical syntax representation known as Backus–Naur form. The production rules consist of terminal { a , b } {\displaystyle \left\{a,b\right\}} and non-terminal S symbols and a blank ϵ {\displaystyle \epsilon } may also be used as an end point. In the production rules of CFG and PCFG the left side has only one nonterminal whereas the right side can be any string of terminal or nonterminals. In PCFG nulls are excluded. An example of a grammar: S → a S , S → b S , S → ϵ {\displaystyle S\to aS,S\to bS,S\to \epsilon } This grammar can be shortened using the '|' ('or') character into: S → a S | b S | ϵ {\displaystyle S\to aS|bS|\epsilon } Terminals in a grammar are words and through the grammar rules a non-terminal symbol is transformed into a string of either terminals and/or non-terminals. The above grammar is read as "beginning from a non-terminal S the emission can generate either a or b or ϵ {\displaystyle \epsilon } ". Its derivation is: S ⇒ a S ⇒ a b S ⇒ a b b S ⇒ a b b {\displaystyle S\Rightarrow aS\Rightarrow abS\Rightarrow abbS\Rightarrow abb} Ambiguous grammar may result in ambiguous parsing if applied on homographs since the same word sequence can have more than one interpretation. Pun sentences such as the newspaper headline "Iraqi Head Seeks Arms" are an example of ambiguous parses. One strategy of dealing with ambiguous parses (originating with grammarians as early as Pāṇini) is to add yet more rules, or prioritize them so that one rule takes precedence over others. This, however, has the drawback of proliferating the rules, often to the point where they become difficult to manage. Another difficulty is overgeneration, where unlicensed structures are also generated. Probabilistic grammars circumvent these problems by ranking various productions on frequency weights, resulting in a "most likely" (winner-take-all) interpretation. As usage patterns are altered in diachronic shifts, these probabilistic rules can be re-learned, thus updating the grammar. Assigning probability to production rules makes a PCFG. These probabilities are informed by observing distributions on a training set of similar composition to the language to be modeled. On most samples of broad language, probabilistic grammars where probabilities are estimated from data typically outperform hand-crafted grammars. CFGs when contrasted with PCFGs are not applicable to RNA structure prediction because while they incorporate sequence-structure relationship they lack the scoring metrics that reveal a sequence structural potential == Weighted context-free grammar == A weighted context-free grammar (WCFG) is a more general category of context-free grammar, where each production has a numeric weight associated with it. The weight of a specific parse tree in a WCFG is the product (or sum ) of all rule weights in the tree. Each rule weight is included as often as the rule is used in the tree. A special case of WCFGs are PCFGs, where the weights are (logarithms of ) probabilities. An extended version of the CYK algorithm can be used to find the "lightest" (least-weight) derivation of a string given some WCFG. When the tree weight is the product of the rule weights, WCFGs and PCFGs can express the same set of probability distributions. == Applications == === RNA structure prediction === Since the 1990s, PCFG has been applied to model RNA structures. Energy minimization and PCFG provide ways of predicting RNA secondary structure with comparable performance. However structure prediction by PCFGs is scored probabilistically rather than by minimum free energy calculation. PCFG model parameters are directly derived from frequencies of different features observed in databases of RNA structures rather than by experimental determination as is the case with energy minimization methods. The types of various structure that can be modeled by a PCFG include long range interactions, pairwise structure and other nested structures. However, pseudoknots can not be modeled. PCFGs extend CFG by assigning probabilities to each production rule. A maximum probability parse tree from the grammar implies a maximum probability structure. Since RNAs preserve their structures over their primary sequence, RNA structure prediction can be guided by combining evolutionary information from comparative sequence analysis with biophysical knowledge about a structure plausibility based on such probabilities. Also search results for structural homologs using PCFG rules are scored according to PCFG derivations probabilities. Therefore, building grammar to model the behavior of base-pairs and single-stranded regions starts with exploring features of structural multiple sequence alignment of related RNAs. S → a S a | b S b | a a | b b {\displaystyle S\to aSa|bSb|aa|bb} The above grammar generates a string in an outside-in fashion, that is the basepair on the furthest extremes of the terminal is derived first. So a string such as a a b a a b a a {\displaystyle aabaabaa} is derived by first generating the distal a's on both sides before moving inwards: S ⇒ a S a ⇒ a a S a a ⇒ a a b S b a a ⇒ a a b a a b a a {\displaystyle S\Rightarrow aSa\Rightarrow aaSaa\Rightarrow aabSbaa\Rightarrow aabaabaa} A PCFG model extendibility allows constraining structure prediction by incorporating expectations about different features of an RNA . Such expectation may reflect for example the propensity for assuming a certain structure by an RNA. However incorporation of too much information may increase PCFG space and memory complexity and it is desirable that a PCFG-based model be as simple as possible. Every possible string x a grammar generates is assigned a probability weight P ( x | θ ) {\displaystyle P(x|\theta )} given the PCFG model θ {\displaystyle \theta } . It follows that the sum of all probabilities to all possible grammar productions is ∑ x P ( x | θ ) = 1 {\displaystyle \sum _{\text{x}}P(x|\theta )=1} . The scores
Read more →
Sketch Engine

Sketch Engine is a corpus manager and text analysis software developed by Lexical Computing since 2003. Its purpose is to enable people studying language behaviour (lexicographers, researchers in corpus linguistics, translators or language learners) to search large text collections according to complex and linguistically motivated queries. Sketch Engine gained its name after one of the key features, word sketches: one-page, automatic, corpus-derived summaries of a word's grammatical and collocational behaviour. Currently, it supports and provides corpora in over 100 languages. == History of development == Sketch Engine is a product of Lexical Computing, a company founded in 2003 by the lexicographer and research scientist Adam Kilgarriff. He started a collaboration with Pavel Rychlý, a computer scientist working at the Natural Language Processing Centre, Masaryk University, and the developer of Manatee and Bonito (two major parts of the software suite). Kilgarriff also introduced the concept of word sketches. Since then, Sketch Engine has been commercial software, however, all the core features of Manatee and Bonito that were developed by 2003 (and extended since then) are freely available under the GPL license within the NoSketch Engine suite. == Features == A list of tools available in Sketch Engine: Word sketches – a one-page automatic derived summary of a word's grammatical and collocational behaviour Word sketch difference – compares and contrasts two words by analysing their collocations Distributional thesaurus – automated thesaurus for finding words with similar meaning or appearing in the same/similar context Concordance search – finds occurrences of a word form, lemma, phrase, tag or complex structure Collocation search – word co-occurrence analysis displaying the most frequent words (for a search word) which can be regarded as collocation candidates Word lists – generates frequency lists which can be filtered with complex criteria n-grams – generates frequency lists of multi-word expressions Terminology / Keyword extraction (both monolingual and bilingual) – automatic extraction of key words and multi-word terms from texts (based on frequency count and linguistic criteria) Diachronic analysis (Trends) – detecting words which undergo changes in the frequency of use in time (show trending words) Corpus building and management – create corpora from the Web or uploaded texts including part-of-speech tagging and lemmatization which can be used as data mining software Parallel corpus (bilingual) facilities – looking up translation examples (EUR-Lex corpus, Europarl corpus, OPUS corpus, etc.) or building a parallel corpus from own aligned texts Text type analysis – statistics of metadata in the corpus === Keywords and terminology extraction === Sketch Engine can perform automatic term extraction by identifying words typical of a particular corpus, document, or text. Single words and multi-word units can be extracted from monolingual or bilingual texts. The terminology extraction feature provides a list of relevant terms based on comparison with a large corpus of general language. This functionality is also available as a separate service called OneClick Terms with a dedicated interface. === SKELL === A free web service based on Sketch Engine and aimed at language learners and teachers is SKELL (formerly SkELL). It exploits Sketch Engine's proprietary GDEX (Good Dictionary Examples) scoring function to provide authentic example sentences for specific target words. Results are drawn from a special corpus of high-quality texts covering everyday, standard, formal, and professional language and displayed as a concordance. SKELL also includes simplified versions of Sketch Engine's word sketch and thesaurus functions. It has been suggested that SKELL can be used, for instance, to help students understand the meaning and/or usage of a word or phrase; to help teachers wanting to use example sentences in a class; to discover and explore collocates; to create gap-fill exercises; to teach various kinds of homonyms and polysemous words. SKELL was first presented in 2014, when only English was supported. Later, support was added for Russian, Czech, German, Italian and Estonian. == List of text corpora == Sketch Engine provides access to more than 800 text corpora. There are monolingual as well as multilingual corpora of different sizes (from one thousand words up to 85 billion words) and various sources (e.g. web, books, subtitles, legal documents). The list of corpora includes British National Corpus, Brown Corpus, Cambridge Academic English Corpus and Cambridge Learner Corpus, CHILDES corpora of child language, OpenSubtitles (a set of 60 parallel corpora), 24 multilingual corpora of EUR-Lex documents, the TenTen Corpus Family (multi-billion web corpora), and Trends corpora (monitor corpora with daily updates). == Architecture == Sketch Engine consists of three main components: an underlying database management system called Manatee, a web interface search front-end called Bonito, and a web interface for corpus building and management called Corpus Architect. === Manatee === Manatee is a database management system specifically devised for effective indexing of large text corpora. It is based on the idea of inverted indexing (keeping an index of all positions of a given word in the text). It has been used to index text corpora comprising tens of billions of words. Searching corpora indexed by Manatee is performed by formulating queries in the Corpus Query Language (CQL). Manatee is written in C++ and offers an API for a number of other programming languages including Python, Java, Perl and Ruby. Recently, it was rewritten into Go for faster processing of corpus queries. === Bonito === Bonito is a web interface for Manatee providing access to corpus search. In the client–server model, Manatee is the server and Bonito plays the client part. It is written in Python. === Corpus Architect === Corpus Architect is a web interface providing corpus building and management features. It is also written in Python. == Applications == Sketch Engine has been used by major British and other publishing houses for producing dictionaries such as Macmillan English Dictionary, Dictionnaires Le Robert, Oxford University Press or Shogakukan. Four of United Kingdom's five biggest dictionary publishers use Sketch Engine.
Read more →
Distributional–relational database

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

Rada Mihalcea is the Janice M. Jenkins Collegiate Professor of Computer Science and Engineering at the University of Michigan. She has made significant contributions to natural language processing, multimodal processing, computational social science, and AI for Social Good. With Paul Tarau, she invented the TextRank Algorithm, which is a classic algorithm widely used for text summarization. == Career == Mihalcea has a Ph.D. in Computer Science and Engineering from Southern Methodist University (2001) and a Ph.D. in Linguistics, Oxford University (2010). In 2017 she was named Director of the Artificial Intelligence Laboratory at University of Michigan, Computer Science and Engineering. In 2018, Mihalcea was elected as vice president for the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL). In 2021, she was elected the president for ACL. She is a professor of Computer Science and Engineering at the University of Michigan, where she also leads the Language and Information Technologies (LIT) Lab. Before joining UofM, she was a professor at North Texas University between 2002-2013. A prolific researcher, Mihalcea has authored or coauthored over 500 articles since 1998 on topics ranging from semantic analysis of text to lie detection. Her work has been cited over 50,000 times on Google Scholar, which made her one of the most cited scholars in Multimodal Interaction and Computational Social Science. In 2008, Mihalcea received the Presidential Early Career Award for Scientists and Engineers (PECASE) She is an ACM Fellow (since 2019), AAAI Fellow (since 2021), and ACL Fellow (since 2025). Mihalcea is an outspoken promoter of diversity in computer science. She also supports an expansion of the traditional analysis of educational success, which tends to focus on academic behaviour, to include student life, personality and background outside of the classroom. Mihalcea leads Girls Encoded, a program designed to develop the pipeline of women in computer science as well as to retain the women who have entered into the program. == Awards == Elected to American Academy of Arts & Sciences, 2026 ACL Fellow, 2025 "for significant contributions to graph-based language processing, computational social science, and the advancement of NLP for social good." AAAI Fellow, 2021 "for significant contributions to natural language processing and computational social science". ACM Fellow, 2019 "for contributions to natural language processing, with innovations in data-driven and graph-based language processing". Sarah Goddard Power Award, 2019. Carol Hollenshead Award, 2018. Presidential Early Career Award for Scientists and Engineers (PECASE), 2009. Awarded by President Barack Obama. == Research == Mihalcea is known for her research in natural language processing, multimodal processing, computational social sciences. In a collaboration she leads at the University of Michigan, Mihalcea has created software that can detect human lying. In a study of video clips of high profile court cases, a computer was more accurate at detecting deception than human judges. Mihalcea's lie-detection software uses machine learning techniques to analyze video clips of actual trials. In her 2015 study, the team used clips from The Innocence Project, a national organization that works to reexamine cases where individuals were tried without the benefit of DNA testing with the aim of exonerating wrongfully convicted individuals. After identifying common human gestures, they transcribed the audio from the video clips of trials and analyzed how often subjects labeled deceptive used various words and phrases. The system was 75% accurate in identifying which subjects were deceptive among 120 videos. That puts Mihalcea's algorithm on par with the most commonly accepted form of lie detection, polygraph tests, which are roughly 85 percent accurate when testing guilty people and 56 percent accurate when testing the innocent. She notes there are still improvements to be made — in particular to account for cultural and demographic differences. A possibly unique advantage of Mihalcea's study was the real world, high stakes nature of the footage analyzed in the study. In laboratory experiments, it is difficult to create a setting that motivates people to truly lie. In 2018, Mihalcea and her collaborators worked on an algorithm-based system that identifies linguistic cues in fake news stories. It successfully found fakes up to 76% of the time, compared to a human success rate of 70%. == Publications == === Books === Rada Mihalcea and Dragomir Radev, Graph-based Natural Language Processing and Information Retrieval, Cambridge U. Press, 2011. Gabe Ignatow and Rada Mihalcea, Text Mining: A Guidebook for the Social Sciences, SAGE, 2016. Gabe Ignatow and Rada Mihalcea, An Introduction to Text Mining: Research Design, Data Collection, and Analysis, SAGE, 2017. === Journals and conferences === Textrank: Bringing order into text. R. Mihalcea, P. Tarau. Proceedings of the 2004 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing. 2004 Corpus-based and knowledge-based measures of text semantic similarity. R. Mihalcea, C. Corley, C. Strapparava. AAAI 6, 775-780. 2006 Wikify!: linking documents to encyclopedic knowledge. R. Mihalcea, A. Csomai. Proceedings of the sixteenth ACM conference on Conference on information and information management. 2007 Learning to identify emotions in text. C. Strapparava, R. Mihalcea. Proceedings of the 2008 ACM symposium on Applied computing, 1556-1560. 2008 Semeval-2007 task 14: Affective text. C. Strapparava, R. Mihalcea. Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Semantic Evaluations. 2007 Learning multilingual subjective language via cross-lingual projections. R. Mihalcea, C. Banea, J. Wiebe. Proceedings of the 45th annual meeting of the association of computational linguistics. 2007 Graph-based ranking algorithms for sentence extraction, applied to text summarization. R. Mihalcea. Proceedings of the ACL Interactive Poster and Demonstration Sessions. 2004 Falcon: Boosting knowledge for answer engines. S. Harabagiu, D. Moldovan, M. Pasca, R. Mihalcea, M. Surdeanu, Razvan Bunescu, Roxana Girju, Vasile Rus, Paul Morarescu. TREC 9, 479-488. 2000 Measuring the semantic similarity of texts. C. Corley, R. Mihalcea. Proceedings of the ACL workshop on empirical modeling of semantic equivalence and entailment. 2005 R Mihalcea (2007). "Using wikipedia for automatic word-sense disambiguation". Human Language Technologies 2007: The Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics; Proceedings of the Main Conference. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.74.3561. - see also Word-sense disambiguation Unsupervised graph-based word sense disambiguation using measures of word semantic similarity. R. Sinha, R. Mihalcea. International Conference on Semantic Computing (ICSC 2007), 363-369. 2007 == Personal life == Mihalcea was born in Cluj-Napoca, Romania, where she attended the Technical University of Cluj-Napoca. She can speak Romanian, English, Italian, and French. Mihalcea has two children - Zara (b. 2009) and Caius (b. 2013). They were both born in Dallas, Texas. She is married to an associate professor of engineering at the University of Michigan–Flint - Mihai Burzo. They met while they were both completing Ph.D.s at Southern Methodist University in 2001 and have often collaborated on research, such as the 2015 study on lie detection.
Read more →
Tandem Money

Tandem is one of the UK's original challenger banks. Tandem is a digital bank with a mobile app, and no branches. The acquisition of Harrods Bank in 2017 allowed the company to provide services using the former's banking licence. Tandem Bank Limited is authorised by the Prudential Regulation Authority and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Tandem has offices across the UK in Blackpool, Cardiff, Durham and London, employing over 500 people. == History == The company was founded by Ricky Knox, Matt Cooper and Michael Kent in 2014. In December 2016, Tandem announced that it had secured a £35 million investment from The Sanpower Group, the Chinese company that also owned the department store House of Fraser; however, £29 million of this investment was later revoked by Sanpower over concerns that the Chinese Government would object to the investment following increased restrictions on outbound investment in China. This resulted in a delay in the launch of Tandem's savings products, which, at the time of the revocation, was expected imminently and, more importantly, meant that Tandem volunteered the return of their banking license but retained all other permissions. In April 2018, Tandem launched fixed-term savings accounts, offering one-, two- and three-year terms through its app. === Acquisitions === In August 2017, it was announced that Tandem would fully acquire Harrods Bank, founded in 1893, in a deal that would bring a near-£200m loan book, over £300m of deposits and nearly £80 million of capital. Prior to its sale to Tandem Money, Harrods Bank catered for high-net-worth (HNW) individuals and operated from the Harrods store in Knightsbridge, London. It offered a variety of personal and business current and savings accounts, mortgages, foreign currency and gold bullion trading services. On 7 August 2017, Tandem Money Limited announced a deal to acquire 100% of Harrods Bank Limited shares. The purchase deal closed successfully on 11 January 2018. In March 2018, Tandem agreed to acquire Pariti Technologies Limited, developers of the Pariti money management application. In August 2020 Tandem acquired green home improvement loan specialists Allium Lending Group. It was announced on 8 February 2021 that Tandem had agreed to purchase the mortgage book from private bank Bank and Clients, consisting of 300 B&C customers for an undisclosed amount. In January 2022 Tandem Bank acquired consumer lender Oplo, creating a combined business with £1.2 billion of total assets. In April 2023, it was announced that Tandem had acquired money-sharing app Loop Money. At the time of the purchase, one of Loop's founders – Paul Pester – was also chairman at Tandem. == Features == Tandem Bank offers customers savings, mortgages, personal and secured loans, green home improvement loans and motor finance. In November 2022, the bank launched its new Tandem Marketplace, providing information and resources to help promote greener living.
Read more →
Small language model

Small language models or compact language models are artificial intelligence language models designed for human natural language processing including language and text generation. They are smaller in scale and scope than large language models. A large language model typically contains hundreds of billions of training parameters, with some models exceeding a trillion parameters. This substantial parameter count enables the model to encode vast amounts of information, thereby improving the generalizability and accuracy of its outputs. However, training such models demands enormous computational resources, rendering it infeasible for an individual to do so using a single computer and graphics processing unit. Small language models, on the other hand, use far fewer parameters, typically ranging from a few thousand to a few hundred million. This make them more feasible to train and host in resource-constrained environments such as a single computer or even a mobile device. Most contemporary (2020s) small language models use the same architecture as a large language model, but with a smaller parameter count and sometimes lower arithmetic precision. Parameter count is reduced by a combination of knowledge distillation and pruning. Precision can be reduced by quantization. Work on large language models mostly translate to small language models: pruning and quantization are also widely used to speed up large language models. == Models == Some notable models are: Below 1B parameters: Llama-Prompt-Guard-2-22M (detects prompt injection and jailbreaking, based on DeBERTa-xsmall), SmolLM2-135M, SmolLM2-360M 1–4B parameters: Llama3.2-1B, Qwen2.5-1.5B, DeepSeek-R1-1.5B, SmolLM2-1.7B, SmolVLM-2.25B, Phi-3.5-Mini-3.8B, Phi-4-Mini-3.8B, Gemma3-4B; closed-weights ones include Gemini Nano 4–14B parameters: Mistral 7B, Gemma 9B, Phi-4 14B. Phi-4 14B is marginally "small" at best, but Microsoft does market it as a small model. == Language model with small pre-training dataset == Traditional AI language systems need enormous computers and vast amounts of data. Pre-training matters, even tiny models show significant performance improvements when pre-trained performance increases with larger pre-training datasets. Classification accuracy improves when pre-training and test datasets share similar tokens. Shallow architectures can replicate deep model performance through collaborative learning.
Read more →
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 →