Explore the best AI News and Guides — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step how-to guides, curated by Aizhi.
A catalog server provides a single point of access that allows users to centrally search for information across a distributed network. In other words, it indexes databases, files and information across large network and allows keywords, Boolean and other searches. If you need to provide a comprehensive searching service for your intranet, extranet or even the Internet, a catalog server is a standard solution.
Read more →
JAGGAER, formerly SciQuest, is a provider of cloud-based business automation technology for Business Spend Management. Its headquarters is in Durham, North Carolina. == Company history == SciQuest was established in 1995 as a B2B eCommerce exchange.The company went public with an IPO in 1999. In 2001, SciQuest transitioned from a B2B exchange company into eProcurement software and supplier enablement platforms. SciQuest was taken private in 2004 and continued to move into eProcurement, inventory management and accounts payable automation. SciQuest completed an IPO in September 2010, raising approximately $57 million. SciQuest, and its 510 person workforce, was taken private in June 2016 as part of a $509 million acquisition by Accel-KKR, a private equity firm headquartered in Menlo Park, CA. In 2017 SciQuest was rebranded as JAGGAER and announced increased focus on offering a complete, integrated source-to-pay suite. Along with the name change, the company expanded its market focus to manufacturing, healthcare, consumer packaged goods, retail, education, life sciences, logistics and the public sector. JAGGAER acquired the European direct materials procurement specialist Pool4Tool in June 2017 giving it end-to-end direct as well as indirect materials procurement coverage. JAGGAER acquired spend management company BravoSolution in 2017, and entered into a joint venture with United Arab Emirates-based Tejari. In February 2019 JAGGAER launched JAGGAER One, which unifies its full product suite on a single platform. In 2019 the UK-based private equity firm Cinven acquired a majority holding in the company. Jim Bureau was subsequently named JAGGAER's Chief Executive Officer. Bureau left the firm in March 2023, and Andy Hovancik was announced as the company's CEO in June. In 2024, JAGGAER was acquired by Vista Equity Partners, a private equity firm specializing in enterprise software investments. == Current positioning == As of April 2025, JAGGAER positions itself as "an enterprise procurement and supplier collaboration SaaS provider." Its core technology platform, which is called JAGGAER One, serves "direct and indirect procurement with specializations in Higher Education, Discrete and Process Manufacturing, and Public Sector." == Product Categories == The JAGGAER One platform supports the following products: Spend Analytics Category Management Supplier Management Sourcing Contracts eProcurement Invoicing Inventory Management Supply Chain Collaboration Quality Management == Acquisitions == SciQuest acquired the following companies: AECsoft - January 2011. Provider of supplier management and sourcing technology. Upside Software, Inc. - August 2012. Provider of contract lifecycle management (CLM) solutions. Spend Radar, LLC - October 2012, Provider of spend analysis software. CombineNet - September 2013, Provider of advanced sourcing software JAGGAER acquired the following companies: POOL4TOOL - June 2017, Provider of direct sourcing and supply chain management software BravoSolution - December 2017, Provider of global platform spend management solutions
Read more →
The Viola–Jones object detection framework is a machine learning object detection framework proposed in 2001 by Paul Viola and Michael Jones. It was motivated primarily by the problem of face detection, although it can be adapted to the detection of other object classes. In short, it consists of a sequence of classifiers. Each classifier is a single perceptron with several binary masks (Haar features). To detect faces in an image, a sliding window is computed over the image. For each image, the classifiers are applied. If at any point, a classifier outputs "no face detected", then the window is considered to contain no face. Otherwise, if all classifiers output "face detected", then the window is considered to contain a face. The algorithm is efficient for its time, able to detect faces in 384 by 288 pixel images at 15 frames per second on a conventional 700 MHz Intel Pentium III. It is also robust, achieving high precision and recall. While it has lower accuracy than more modern methods such as convolutional neural network, its efficiency and compact size (only around 50k parameters, compared to millions of parameters for typical CNN like DeepFace) means it is still used in cases with limited computational power. For example, in the original paper, they reported that this face detector could run on the Compaq iPAQ at 2 fps (this device has a low power StrongARM without floating point hardware). == Problem description == Face detection is a binary classification problem combined with a localization problem: given a picture, decide whether it contains faces, and construct bounding boxes for the faces. To make the task more manageable, the Viola–Jones algorithm only detects full view (no occlusion), frontal (no head-turning), upright (no rotation), well-lit, full-sized (occupying most of the frame) faces in fixed-resolution images. The restrictions are not as severe as they appear, as one can normalize the picture to bring it closer to the requirements for Viola-Jones. any image can be scaled to a fixed resolution for a general picture with a face of unknown size and orientation, one can perform blob detection to discover potential faces, then scale and rotate them into the upright, full-sized position. the brightness of the image can be corrected by white balancing. the bounding boxes can be found by sliding a window across the entire picture, and marking down every window that contains a face. This would generally detect the same face multiple times, for which duplication removal methods, such as non-maximal suppression, can be used. The "frontal" requirement is non-negotiable, as there is no simple transformation on the image that can turn a face from a side view to a frontal view. However, one can train multiple Viola-Jones classifiers, one for each angle: one for frontal view, one for 3/4 view, one for profile view, a few more for the angles in-between them. Then one can at run time execute all these classifiers in parallel to detect faces at different view angles. The "full-view" requirement is also non-negotiable, and cannot be simply dealt with by training more Viola-Jones classifiers, since there are too many possible ways to occlude a face. == Components of the framework == A full presentation of the algorithm is in. Consider an image I ( x , y ) {\displaystyle I(x,y)} of fixed resolution ( M , N ) {\displaystyle (M,N)} . Our task is to make a binary decision: whether it is a photo of a standardized face (frontal, well-lit, etc) or not. Viola–Jones is essentially a boosted feature learning algorithm, trained by running a modified AdaBoost algorithm on Haar feature classifiers to find a sequence of classifiers f 1 , f 2 , . . . , f k {\displaystyle f_{1},f_{2},...,f_{k}} . Haar feature classifiers are crude, but allows very fast computation, and the modified AdaBoost constructs a strong classifier out of many weak ones. At run time, a given image I {\displaystyle I} is tested on f 1 ( I ) , f 2 ( I ) , . . . f k ( I ) {\displaystyle f_{1}(I),f_{2}(I),...f_{k}(I)} sequentially. If at any point, f i ( I ) = 0 {\displaystyle f_{i}(I)=0} , the algorithm immediately returns "no face detected". If all classifiers return 1, then the algorithm returns "face detected". For this reason, the Viola-Jones classifier is also called "Haar cascade classifier". === Haar feature classifiers === Consider a perceptron f w , b {\displaystyle f_{w,b}} defined by two variables w ( x , y ) , b {\displaystyle w(x,y),b} . It takes in an image I ( x , y ) {\displaystyle I(x,y)} of fixed resolution, and returns f w , b ( I ) = { 1 , if ∑ x , y w ( x , y ) I ( x , y ) + b > 0 0 , else {\displaystyle f_{w,b}(I)={\begin{cases}1,\quad {\text{if }}\sum _{x,y}w(x,y)I(x,y)+b>0\\0,\quad {\text{else}}\end{cases}}} A Haar feature classifier is a perceptron f w , b {\displaystyle f_{w,b}} with a very special kind of w {\displaystyle w} that makes it extremely cheap to calculate. Namely, if we write out the matrix w ( x , y ) {\displaystyle w(x,y)} , we find that it takes only three possible values { + 1 , − 1 , 0 } {\displaystyle \{+1,-1,0\}} , and if we color the matrix with white on + 1 {\displaystyle +1} , black on − 1 {\displaystyle -1} , and transparent on 0 {\displaystyle 0} , the matrix is in one of the 5 possible patterns shown on the right. Each pattern must also be symmetric to x-reflection and y-reflection (ignoring the color change), so for example, for the horizontal white-black feature, the two rectangles must be of the same width. For the vertical white-black-white feature, the white rectangles must be of the same height, but there is no restriction on the black rectangle's height. ==== Rationale for Haar features ==== The Haar features used in the Viola-Jones algorithm are a subset of the more general Haar basis functions, which have been used previously in the realm of image-based object detection. While crude compared to alternatives such as steerable filters, Haar features are sufficiently complex to match features of typical human faces. For example: The eye region is darker than the upper-cheeks. The nose bridge region is brighter than the eyes. Composition of properties forming matchable facial features: Location and size: eyes, mouth, bridge of nose Value: oriented gradients of pixel intensities Further, the design of Haar features allows for efficient computation of f w , b ( I ) {\displaystyle f_{w,b}(I)} using only constant number of additions and subtractions, regardless of the size of the rectangular features, using the summed-area table. === Learning and using a Viola–Jones classifier === Choose a resolution ( M , N ) {\displaystyle (M,N)} for the images to be classified. In the original paper, they recommended ( M , N ) = ( 24 , 24 ) {\displaystyle (M,N)=(24,24)} . ==== Learning ==== Collect a training set, with some containing faces, and others not containing faces. Perform a certain modified AdaBoost training on the set of all Haar feature classifiers of dimension ( M , N ) {\displaystyle (M,N)} , until a desired level of precision and recall is reached. The modified AdaBoost algorithm would output a sequence of Haar feature classifiers f 1 , f 2 , . . . , f k {\displaystyle f_{1},f_{2},...,f_{k}} . The details of the modified AdaBoost algorithm is detailed below. ==== Using ==== To use a Viola-Jones classifier with f 1 , f 2 , . . . , f k {\displaystyle f_{1},f_{2},...,f_{k}} on an image I {\displaystyle I} , compute f 1 ( I ) , f 2 ( I ) , . . . f k ( I ) {\displaystyle f_{1}(I),f_{2}(I),...f_{k}(I)} sequentially. If at any point, f i ( I ) = 0 {\displaystyle f_{i}(I)=0} , the algorithm immediately returns "no face detected". If all classifiers return 1, then the algorithm returns "face detected". === Learning algorithm === The speed with which features may be evaluated does not adequately compensate for their number, however. For example, in a standard 24x24 pixel sub-window, there are a total of M = 162336 possible features, and it would be prohibitively expensive to evaluate them all when testing an image. Thus, the object detection framework employs a variant of the learning algorithm AdaBoost to both select the best features and to train classifiers that use them. This algorithm constructs a "strong" classifier as a linear combination of weighted simple “weak” classifiers. h ( x ) = sgn ( ∑ j = 1 M α j h j ( x ) ) {\displaystyle h(\mathbf {x} )=\operatorname {sgn} \left(\sum _{j=1}^{M}\alpha _{j}h_{j}(\mathbf {x} )\right)} Each weak classifier is a threshold function based on the feature f j {\displaystyle f_{j}} . h j ( x ) = { − s j if f j < θ j s j otherwise {\displaystyle h_{j}(\mathbf {x} )={\begin{cases}-s_{j}&{\text{if }}f_{j}<\theta _{j}\\s_{j}&{\text{otherwise}}\end{cases}}} The threshold value θ j {\displaystyle \theta _{j}} and the polarity s j ∈ ± 1 {\displaystyle s_{j}\in \pm 1} are determined in the training, as well as the coefficients α j {\displaystyle \alpha _{j}} . Here a simplified version of the lea
Read more →
Sayre's paradox is a dilemma encountered in the design of automated handwriting recognition systems. A standard statement of the paradox is that a cursively written word cannot be recognized without being segmented and cannot be segmented without being recognized. The paradox was first articulated in a 1973 publication by Kenneth M. Sayre, after whom it was named. == Nature of the problem == It is relatively easy to design automated systems capable of recognizing words inscribed in a printed format. Such words are segmented into letters by the very act of writing them on the page. Given templates matching typical letter shapes in a given language, individual letters can be identified with a high degree of probability. In cases of ambiguity, probable letter sequences can be compared with a selection of properly spelled words in that language (called a lexicon). If necessary, syntactic features of the language can be applied to render a generally accurate identification of the words in question. Printed-character recognition systems of this sort are commonly used in processing standardized government forms, in sorting mail by zip code, and so forth. In cursive writing, however, letters comprising a given word typically flow sequentially without gaps between them. Unlike a sequence of printed letters, cursively connected letters are not segmented in advance. Here is where Sayre's Paradox comes into play. Unless the word is already segmented into letters, template-matching techniques like those described above cannot be applied. That is, segmentation is a prerequisite for word recognition. But there are no reliable techniques for segmenting a word into letters unless the word itself has been identified. Word recognition requires letter segmentation, and letter segmentation requires word recognition. There is no way a cursive writing recognition system employing standard template-matching techniques can do both simultaneously. Advantages to be gained by use of automated cursive writing recognition systems include routing mail with handwritten addresses, reading handwritten bank checks, and automated digitalization of hand-written documents. These are practical incentives for finding ways of circumventing Sayre's Paradox. == Avoiding the paradox == One way of ameliorating the adverse effects of the paradox is to normalize the word inscriptions to be recognized. Normalization amounts to eliminating idiosyncrasies in the penmanship of the writer, such as unusual slope of the letters and unusual slant of the cursive line. This procedure can increase the probability of a correct match with a letter template, resulting in an incremental improvement in the success rate of the system. Since improvement of this sort still depends on accurate segmentation, however, it remains subject to the limitations of Sayre's Paradox. Researchers have come to realize that the only way to circumvent the paradox is by use of procedures that do not rely on accurate segmentation. == Directions of current research == Segmentation is accurate to the extent that it matches distinctions among letters in the actual inscriptions presented to the system for recognition (the input data). This is sometimes referred to as “explicit segmentation”. “Implicit segmentation,” by contrast, is division of the cursive line into more parts than the number of actual letters in the cursive line itself. Processing these “implicit parts” to achieve eventual word identification requires specific statistical procedures involving hidden Markov models (HMM). A Markov model is a statistical representation of a random process, which is to say a process in which future states are independent of states occurring before the present. In such a process, a given state is dependent only on the conditional probability of its following the state immediately before it. An example is a series of outcomes from successive casts of a die. An HMM is a Markov model, individual states of which are not fully known. Conditional probabilities between states are still determinate, but the identities of individual states are not fully disclosed. Recognition proceeds by matching HMMs of words to be recognized with previously prepared HMMs of words in the lexicon. The best match in a given case is taken to indicate the identity of the handwritten word in question. As with systems based on explicit segmentation, automated recognition systems based on implicit segmentation are judged more or less successful according to the percentage of correct identifications they accomplish. Instead of explicit segmentation techniques, most automated handwriting recognition systems today employ implicit segmentation in conjunction with HMM-based matching procedures. The constraints epitomized by Sayre's Paradox are largely responsible for this shift in approach.
Read more →
Google Mobile Services (GMS) is a collection of proprietary applications and application programming interfaces (APIs) services from Google that are typically pre-installed on the majority of Android devices, such as smartphones, tablets, and smart TVs. GMS is not a part of the Android Open Source Project (AOSP), which means an Android manufacturer needs to obtain a license from Google in order to legally pre-install GMS on an Android device. This license is provided by Google without any licensing fees except in the EU. == Core applications == The following are core applications that are part of Google Mobile Services: Google Search Google Chrome YouTube Google Play Google Drive Gmail Google Meet Google Maps Google Photos Google TV YouTube Music === Historically === Google+ Google Hangouts Google Wallet Google Play Magazines Google Play Music Google Play Movies & TV Google Duo == Reception, competitors, and regulators == === FairSearch === Numerous European firms filed a complaint to the European Commission stating that Google had manipulated their power and dominance within the market to push their Services to be used by phone manufacturers. The firms were joined under the name FairSearch, and the main firms included were Microsoft, Expedia, TripAdvisor, Nokia and Oracle. FairSearch's major problem with Google's practices was that they believed Google were forcing phone manufacturers to use their Mobile Services. They claimed Google managed this by asking these manufacturers to sign a contract stating that they must preinstall specific Google Mobile Services, such as Maps, Search and YouTube, in order to get the latest version of Android. Google swiftly responded stating that they "continue to work co-operatively with the European Commission". === Aptoide === The third-party Android app store Aptoide also filed an EU competition complaint against Google once again stating that they are misusing their power within the market. Aptoide alleged that Google was blocking third-party app stores from being on Google Play, as well as blocking Google Chrome from downloading any third-party apps and app stores. As of June 2014, Google had not responded to these allegations. === Abuse of Android dominance === In May 2019, Umar Javeed, Sukarma Thapar, Aaqib Javeed vs. Google LLC & Ors. the Competition Commission of India ordered an antitrust probe against Google for abusing its dominant position with Android to block market rivals. In Prima Facie opinion the commission held that mandatory pre-installation of the entire Google Mobile Services (GMS) suite, under Mobile Application Distribution Agreements (MADA), amounts to the imposition of unfair conditions on the device manufacturers. === EU antitrust ruling === On July 18, 2018, the European Commission fined Google €4.34 billion for breaching EU antitrust rules which resulted in a change of licensing policy for the GMS in the EU. A new paid licensing agreement for smartphones and tablets shipped into the EEA was created. The change is that the GMS is now decoupled from the base Android and will be offered under a separate paid licensing agreement. === Privacy policy === At the same time, Google faced problems with various European data protection agencies, most notably In the United Kingdom and France. The problem they faced was that they had a set of 60 rules merged into one, which allowed Google to "track users more closely". Google once again came out and stated that their new policies still abide by European Union laws. === Android distributions without Google Mobile Services === After surveillance and privacy concerns, several custom android distributions have been implemented, such as GrapheneOS, LineageOS, CalyxOS, iodéOS or /e/OS, and they come either without any GMS installed by default or with microG, that adds a compatibility layer.
Read more →
The XLNet was an autoregressive Transformer designed as an improvement over BERT, with 340M parameters and trained on 33 billion words. It was released on 19 June 2019, under the Apache 2.0 license. It achieved state-of-the-art results on a variety of natural language processing tasks, including language modeling, question answering, and natural language inference. == Architecture == The main idea of XLNet is to model language autoregressively like the GPT models, but allow for all possible permutations of a sentence. Concretely, consider the following sentence:My dog is cute.In standard autoregressive language modeling, the model would be tasked with predicting the probability of each word, conditioned on the previous words as its context: We factorize the joint probability of a sequence of words x 1 , … , x T {\displaystyle x_{1},\ldots ,x_{T}} using the chain rule: Pr ( x 1 , … , x T ) = Pr ( x 1 ) Pr ( x 2 | x 1 ) Pr ( x 3 | x 1 , x 2 ) … Pr ( x T | x 1 , … , x T − 1 ) . {\displaystyle \Pr(x_{1},\ldots ,x_{T})=\Pr(x_{1})\Pr(x_{2}|x_{1})\Pr(x_{3}|x_{1},x_{2})\ldots \Pr(x_{T}|x_{1},\ldots ,x_{T-1}).} For example, the sentence "My dog is cute" is factorized as: Pr ( My , dog , is , cute ) = Pr ( My ) Pr ( dog | My ) Pr ( is | My , dog ) Pr ( cute | My , dog , is ) . {\displaystyle \Pr({\text{My}},{\text{dog}},{\text{is}},{\text{cute}})=\Pr({\text{My}})\Pr({\text{dog}}|{\text{My}})\Pr({\text{is}}|{\text{My}},{\text{dog}})\Pr({\text{cute}}|{\text{My}},{\text{dog}},{\text{is}}).} Schematically, we can write it as
StatMuse Inc. is an American artificial intelligence company founded in 2014. It operates an eponymous website that hosts a database of sports statistics covering the four major North American sports leagues, the Women's National Basketball Association (WNBA), NCAA Division I men's basketball, NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision, the Big Five association football leagues in Europe, and various professional golf tours. == History == The company was founded by friends Adam Elmore and Eli Dawson in 2014. In email correspondence to the Springfield News-Leader, Elmore detailed that he and Dawson, fans of the National Basketball Association (NBA), were compelled to create StatMuse after they realized there was no online platform where they could search "Lebron James most points" [sic] and quickly get a result "showing his highest scoring games." As a startup, the company's goal was to utilize a type of artificial intelligence called natural language processing (NLP) for sports. In 2015, the company was part of the second group of startups accepted into the Disney Accelerator program. The company secured support from several investors, including The Walt Disney Company, Techstars, Allen & Company, the NFL Players Association, Greycroft and NBA Commissioner David Stern. As part of their partnership with Disney, StatMuse signed a content deal with ESPN (owned by Disney) to provide stats content on social media and television during the 2015–16 NBA season. Initially, the company only had stats available for the NBA, but eventually expanded to provide stats for the other major North American sports leagues. The company's initial demographic was players of fantasy sports, but it eventually expanded to target general sports fans as well. StatMuse offers responses to user queries in the voices of sports-related public figures. Dawson shared with VentureBeat that StatMuse brings people in and records them saying different words and phrases. These celebrity voices were made accessible through Google's Google Assistant service, Microsoft's Cortana virtual assistant, and Amazon's Echo devices. The company launched its phone app in September 2017. The app allows users to access StatMuse's sports statistics database by submitting queries in their natural language. Upon the launch of the phone app, Fitz Tepper of TechCrunch wrote that: "The technology isn't perfect – some of the pauses between words are a bit awkward, making it clear that some phrases are being stitched together on the fly. But this is the exception, and on the whole, most responses sound pretty good." StatMuse plug-ins for Slack and Facebook Messenger were also made, providing text-based sports stats. In 2019, StatMuse received investment from the Google Assistant Investment program. The service launched a premium option dubbed StatMuse+ in May 2023, offering options that had previously been included for free, such as unlimited searches and full results in data tables. The premium version also included early access to new features and a personalized search history, as well as not having ads. The app received a variety of feedback. In January 2024, the service launched a Premier League version of the website dubbed StatMuse FC. It is planned to introduce more leagues on the website.
Read more →
The scale space representation of a signal obtained by Gaussian smoothing satisfies a number of special properties, scale-space axioms, which make it into a special form of multi-scale representation. There are, however, also other types of "multi-scale approaches" in the areas of computer vision, image processing and signal processing, in particular the notion of wavelets. The purpose of this article is to describe a few of these approaches: == Scale-space theory for one-dimensional signals == For one-dimensional signals, there exists quite a well-developed theory for continuous and discrete kernels that guarantee that new local extrema or zero-crossings cannot be created by a convolution operation. For continuous signals, it holds that all scale-space kernels can be decomposed into the following sets of primitive smoothing kernels: the Gaussian kernel : g ( x , t ) = 1 2 π t exp ( − x 2 / 2 t ) {\displaystyle g(x,t)={\frac {1}{\sqrt {2\pi t}}}\exp({-x^{2}/2t})} where t > 0 {\displaystyle t>0} , truncated exponential kernels (filters with one real pole in the s-plane): h ( x ) = exp ( − a x ) {\displaystyle h(x)=\exp({-ax})} if x ≥ 0 {\displaystyle x\geq 0} and 0 otherwise where a > 0 {\displaystyle a>0} h ( x ) = exp ( b x ) {\displaystyle h(x)=\exp({bx})} if x ≤ 0 {\displaystyle x\leq 0} and 0 otherwise where b > 0 {\displaystyle b>0} , translations, rescalings. For discrete signals, we can, up to trivial translations and rescalings, decompose any discrete scale-space kernel into the following primitive operations: the discrete Gaussian kernel T ( n , t ) = I n ( α t ) {\displaystyle T(n,t)=I_{n}(\alpha t)} where α , t > 0 {\displaystyle \alpha ,t>0} where I n {\displaystyle I_{n}} are the modified Bessel functions of integer order, generalized binomial kernels corresponding to linear smoothing of the form f o u t ( x ) = p f i n ( x ) + q f i n ( x − 1 ) {\displaystyle f_{out}(x)=pf_{in}(x)+qf_{in}(x-1)} where p , q > 0 {\displaystyle p,q>0} f o u t ( x ) = p f i n ( x ) + q f i n ( x + 1 ) {\displaystyle f_{out}(x)=pf_{in}(x)+qf_{in}(x+1)} where p , q > 0 {\displaystyle p,q>0} , first-order recursive filters corresponding to linear smoothing of the form f o u t ( x ) = f i n ( x ) + α f o u t ( x − 1 ) {\displaystyle f_{out}(x)=f_{in}(x)+\alpha f_{out}(x-1)} where α > 0 {\displaystyle \alpha >0} f o u t ( x ) = f i n ( x ) + β f o u t ( x + 1 ) {\displaystyle f_{out}(x)=f_{in}(x)+\beta f_{out}(x+1)} where β > 0 {\displaystyle \beta >0} , the one-sided Poisson kernel p ( n , t ) = e − t t n n ! {\displaystyle p(n,t)=e^{-t}{\frac {t^{n}}{n!}}} for n ≥ 0 {\displaystyle n\geq 0} where t ≥ 0 {\displaystyle t\geq 0} p ( n , t ) = e − t t − n ( − n ) ! {\displaystyle p(n,t)=e^{-t}{\frac {t^{-n}}{(-n)!}}} for n ≤ 0 {\displaystyle n\leq 0} where t ≥ 0 {\displaystyle t\geq 0} . From this classification, it is apparent that we require a continuous semi-group structure, there are only three classes of scale-space kernels with a continuous scale parameter; the Gaussian kernel which forms the scale-space of continuous signals, the discrete Gaussian kernel which forms the scale-space of discrete signals and the time-causal Poisson kernel that forms a temporal scale-space over discrete time. If we on the other hand sacrifice the continuous semi-group structure, there are more options: For discrete signals, the use of generalized binomial kernels provides a formal basis for defining the smoothing operation in a pyramid. For temporal data, the one-sided truncated exponential kernels and the first-order recursive filters provide a way to define time-causal scale-spaces that allow for efficient numerical implementation and respect causality over time without access to the future. The first-order recursive filters also provide a framework for defining recursive approximations to the Gaussian kernel that in a weaker sense preserve some of the scale-space properties.
Read more →
A data access layer (DAL) is a software architectural layer that provides access to data from one or more sources, such as a relational database, NoSQL database, SQL query engine, file system, or other persistent storage. It separates client code from the details of storage systems, query execution, connection handling, and data retrieval. Data access layers are commonly used to centralize data access logic, reduce coupling between applications and data sources, and provide a consistent interface for retrieving, writing, or querying data. Depending on the system, a data access layer may be implemented as application code, a shared library, an intermediary service, or part of a broader database abstraction layer. == In application architecture == In application software, a data access layer provides a boundary between business logic or application code and the systems used to store or retrieve data. For example, a data access layer may expose methods or interfaces for retrieving, writing, or querying data while hiding details such as connection management, SQL statements, storage APIs, error handling, and result conversion. Depending on the application, the layer may return objects, records, tabular results, documents, streams, or other representations of data. A common implementation is a set of classes, functions, or methods that directly reference database queries, stored procedures, storage APIs, or other data sources. For example, instead of using commands such as insert, delete, and update throughout an application to access a specific table, methods such as registerUser or loginUser may be implemented inside the data access layer. Business logic methods from an application can also be mapped to the data access layer. Instead of making several database queries directly, an application can call a single DAL method that abstracts those database calls. Applications using a data access layer may be either dependent on or independent from a particular database server. If the data access layer supports multiple database systems, the application can use any database system that the DAL can access. In either case, the data access layer provides a centralized location for calls into the underlying data store, which can make it easier to maintain, test, or port the application to other storage systems. == Implementation patterns == A data access layer can be implemented using several patterns and technologies, including data access objects, repositories, stored procedures, query builders, database drivers, or object–relational mapping tools. These mechanisms may implement part or all of a data access layer, but are not always equivalent to the layer itself. Object–relational mapping tools are commonly used in data access layers for object-oriented applications that map records in a relational database to objects in a programming language. Other data access layers may expose lower-level database interfaces, tabular results, document-oriented data, files, streams, or protocol-level interfaces. == Use with multiple underlying data systems == A data access layer may be used to abstract differences between multiple underlying data systems, allowing applications to access them through a more consistent interface. In such designs, applications call the DAL rather than interacting directly with each database or storage system. The layer may then handle connection management, query generation, result mapping, error handling, and other implementation details. A data access layer may be implemented as a shared library or as an intermediary service, such as a proxy or gateway. In this configuration, client applications or services connect to the data access layer, which then communicates with one or more underlying databases or query engines. This can provide a common location for authentication, authorization, logging, routing, and translation between different database interfaces. == Interfaces and protocols == Data access layers may expose or use standardized interfaces and protocols for database access. Examples include Open Database Connectivity (ODBC), Java Database Connectivity (JDBC), database-native wire protocols, and newer interfaces such as Apache Arrow Database Connectivity (ADBC) and Arrow Flight SQL. In systems that support multiple data stores, a data access layer may provide a consistent interface while using different drivers, protocols, or query mechanisms internally. == Distinction from related patterns == A data access layer is related to, but broader than, a data access object, which is usually an object-oriented design pattern for encapsulating access to a persistence mechanism. It is also related to a database abstraction layer, which focuses on hiding differences between database systems. In practice, the terms may overlap.
Read more →
A GeneRIF or Gene Reference Into Function is a short (255 characters or fewer) statement about the function of a gene. GeneRIFs provide a simple mechanism for allowing scientists to add to the functional annotation of genes described in the Entrez Gene database. In practice, function is constructed quite broadly. For example, there are GeneRIFs that discuss the role of a gene in a disease, GeneRIFs that point the viewer towards a review article about the gene, and GeneRIFs that discuss the structure of a gene. However, the stated intent is for GeneRIFs to be about gene function. Currently over half a million geneRIFs have been created for genes from almost 1000 different species. GeneRIFs are always associated with specific entries in the Entrez Gene database. Each GeneRIF has a pointer to the PubMed ID (a type of document identifier) of a scientific publication that provides evidence for the statement made by the GeneRIF. GeneRIFs are often extracted directly from the document that is identified by the PubMed ID, very frequently from its title or from its final sentence. GeneRIFs are usually produced by NCBI indexers, but anyone may submit a GeneRIF. To be processed, a valid Gene ID must exist for the specific gene, or the Gene staff must have assigned an overall Gene ID to the species. The latter case is implemented via records in Gene with the symbol NEWENTRY. Once the Gene ID is identified, only three types of information are required to complete a submission: a concise phrase describing a function or functions (less than 255 characters in length, preferably more than a restatement of the title of the paper); a published paper describing that function, implemented by supplying the PubMed ID of a citation in PubMed; a valid e-mail address (which will remain confidential). == Example == Here are some GeneRIFs taken from Entrez Gene for GeneID 7157, the human gene TP53. The PubMed document identifiers have been omitted from the examples. Note the wide variability with respect to the presence or absence of punctuation and of sentence-initial capital letters. p53 and c-erbB-2 may have independent role in carcinogenesis of gall bladder cancer Degradation of endogenous HIPK2 depends on the presence of a functional p53 protein. p53 codon 72 alleles influence the response to anticancer drugs in cells from aged people by regulating the cell cycle inhibitor p21WAF1 Logistic regression analysis showed p53 and COX-2 as dependent predictors in pancreatic carcinogenesis, and a reciprocal relationship to neoplastic progression between p53 and COX-2. GeneRIFs are an unusual type of textual genre, and they have recently been the subject of a number of articles from the natural language processing community.
Read more →
The knowledge acquisition bottleneck is perhaps the major impediment to solving the word-sense disambiguation (WSD) problem. Unsupervised learning methods rely on knowledge about word senses, which is barely formulated in dictionaries and lexical databases. Supervised learning methods depend heavily on the existence of manually annotated examples for every word sense, a requisite that can so far be met only for a handful of words for testing purposes, as it is done in the Senseval exercises. == Existing methods == Therefore, one of the most promising trends in WSD research is using the largest corpus ever accessible, the World Wide Web, to acquire lexical information automatically. WSD has been traditionally understood as an intermediate language engineering technology which could improve applications such as information retrieval (IR). In this case, however, the reverse is also true: Web search engines implement simple and robust IR techniques that can be successfully used when mining the Web for information to be employed in WSD. The most direct way of using the Web (and other corpora) to enhance WSD performance is the automatic acquisition of sense-tagged corpora, the fundamental resource to feed supervised WSD algorithms. Although this is far from being commonplace in the WSD literature, a number of different and effective strategies to achieve this goal have already been proposed. Some of these strategies are: acquisition by direct Web searching (searches for monosemous synonyms, hypernyms, hyponyms, parsed gloss' words, etc.), Yarowsky algorithm (bootstrapping), acquisition via Web directories, and acquisition via cross-language meaning evidences. == Summary == === Optimistic results === The automatic extraction of examples to train supervised learning algorithms reviewed has been, by far, the best explored approach to mine the web for word-sense disambiguation. Some results are certainly encouraging: In some experiments, the quality of the Web data for WSD equals that of human-tagged examples. This is the case of the monosemous relatives plus bootstrapping with Semcor seeds technique and the examples taken from the ODP Web directories. In the first case, however, Semcor-size example seeds are necessary (and only available for English), and it has only been tested with a very limited set of nouns; in the second case, the coverage is quite limited, and it is not yet clear whether it can be grown without compromising the quality of the examples retrieved. It has been shown that a mainstream supervised learning technique trained exclusively with web data can obtain better results than all unsupervised WSD systems which participated at Senseval-2. Web examples made a significant contribution to the best Senseval-2 English all-words system. === Difficulties === There are, however, several open research issues related to the use of Web examples in WSD: High precision in the retrieved examples (i.e., correct sense assignments for the examples) does not necessarily lead to good supervised WSD results (i.e., the examples are possibly not useful for training). The most complete evaluation of Web examples for supervised WSD indicates that learning with Web data improves over unsupervised techniques, but the results are nevertheless far from those obtained with hand-tagged data, and do not even beat the most-frequent-sense baseline. Results are not always reproducible; the same or similar techniques may lead to different results in different experiments. Compare, for instance, Mihalcea (2002) with Agirre and Martínez (2004), or Agirre and Martínez (2000) with Mihalcea and Moldovan (1999). Results with Web data seem to be very sensitive to small differences in the learning algorithm, to when the corpus was extracted (search engines change continuously), and on small heuristic issues (e.g., differences in filters to discard part of the retrieved examples). Results are strongly dependent on bias (i.e., on the relative frequencies of examples per word sense). It is unclear whether this is simply a problem of Web data, or an intrinsic problem of supervised learning techniques, or just a problem of how WSD systems are evaluated (indeed, testing with rather small Senseval data may overemphasize sense distributions compared to sense distributions obtained from the full Web as corpus). In any case, Web data has an intrinsic bias, because queries to search engines directly constrain the context of the examples retrieved. There are approaches that alleviate this problem, such as using several different seeds/queries per sense or assigning senses to Web directories and then scanning directories for examples; but this problem is nevertheless far from being solved. Once a Web corpus of examples is built, it is not entirely clear whether its distribution is safe from a legal perspective. === Future === Besides automatic acquisition of examples from the Web, there are some other WSD experiments that have profited from the Web: The Web as a social network has been successfully used for cooperative annotation of a corpus (OMWE, Open Mind Word Expert project), which has already been used in three Senseval-3 tasks (English, Romanian and Multilingual). The Web has been used to enrich WordNet senses with domain information: topic signatures and Web directories, which have in turn been successfully used for WSD. Also, some research benefited from the semantic information that the Wikipedia maintains on its disambiguation pages. It is clear, however, that most research opportunities remain largely unexplored. For instance, little is known about how to use lexical information extracted from the Web in knowledge-based WSD systems; and it is also hard to find systems that use Web-mined parallel corpora for WSD, even though there are already efficient algorithms that use parallel corpora in WSD.
Read more →
Quantum natural language processing (QNLP) is the application of quantum computing to natural language processing (NLP). It computes word embeddings as parameterised quantum circuits that can solve NLP tasks faster than any classical computer. It is inspired by categorical quantum mechanics and the DisCoCat framework, making use of string diagrams to translate from grammatical structure to quantum processes. == Theory == The first quantum algorithm for natural language processing used the DisCoCat framework and Grover's algorithm to show a quadratic quantum speedup for a text classification task. It was later shown that quantum language processing is BQP-Complete, i.e. quantum language models are more expressive than their classical counterpart, unless quantum mechanics can be efficiently simulated by classical computers. These two theoretical results assume fault-tolerant quantum computation and a QRAM, i.e. an efficient way to load classical data on a quantum computer. Thus, they are not applicable to the noisy intermediate-scale quantum (NISQ) computers available today. == Experiments == The algorithm of Zeng and Coecke was adapted to the constraints of NISQ computers and implemented on IBM quantum computers to solve binary classification tasks. Instead of loading classical word vectors onto a quantum memory, the word vectors are computed directly as the parameters of quantum circuits. These parameters are optimised using methods from quantum machine learning to solve data-driven tasks such as question answering, machine translation and even algorithmic music composition.
Read more →
In statistical learning theory, a learnable function class is a set of functions for which an algorithm can be devised to asymptotically minimize the expected risk, uniformly over all probability distributions. The concept of learnable classes are closely related to regularization in machine learning, and provides large sample justifications for certain learning algorithms. == Definition == === Background === Let Ω = X × Y = { ( x , y ) } {\displaystyle \Omega ={\mathcal {X}}\times {\mathcal {Y}}=\{(x,y)\}} be the sample space, where y {\displaystyle y} are the labels and x {\displaystyle x} are the covariates (predictors). F = { f : X ↦ Y } {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}=\{f:{\mathcal {X}}\mapsto {\mathcal {Y}}\}} is a collection of mappings (functions) under consideration to link x {\displaystyle x} to y {\displaystyle y} . L : Y × Y ↦ R {\displaystyle L:{\mathcal {Y}}\times {\mathcal {Y}}\mapsto \mathbb {R} } is a pre-given loss function (usually non-negative). Given a probability distribution P ( x , y ) {\displaystyle P(x,y)} on Ω {\displaystyle \Omega } , define the expected risk I P ( f ) {\displaystyle I_{P}(f)} to be: I P ( f ) = ∫ L ( f ( x ) , y ) d P ( x , y ) {\displaystyle I_{P}(f)=\int L(f(x),y)dP(x,y)} The general goal in statistical learning is to find the function in F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} that minimizes the expected risk. That is, to find solutions to the following problem: f ^ = arg min f ∈ F I P ( f ) {\displaystyle {\hat {f}}=\arg \min _{f\in {\mathcal {F}}}I_{P}(f)} But in practice the distribution P {\displaystyle P} is unknown, and any learning task can only be based on finite samples. Thus we seek instead to find an algorithm that asymptotically minimizes the empirical risk, i.e., to find a sequence of functions { f ^ n } n = 1 ∞ {\displaystyle \{{\hat {f}}_{n}\}_{n=1}^{\infty }} that satisfies lim n → ∞ P ( I P ( f ^ n ) − inf f ∈ F I P ( f ) > ϵ ) = 0 {\displaystyle \lim _{n\rightarrow \infty }\mathbb {P} (I_{P}({\hat {f}}_{n})-\inf _{f\in {\mathcal {F}}}I_{P}(f)>\epsilon )=0} One usual algorithm to find such a sequence is through empirical risk minimization. === Learnable function class === We can make the condition given in the above equation stronger by requiring that the convergence is uniform for all probability distributions. That is: The intuition behind the more strict requirement is as such: the rate at which sequence { f ^ n } {\displaystyle \{{\hat {f}}_{n}\}} converges to the minimizer of the expected risk can be very different for different P ( x , y ) {\displaystyle P(x,y)} . Because in real world the true distribution P {\displaystyle P} is always unknown, we would want to select a sequence that performs well under all cases. However, by the no free lunch theorem, such a sequence that satisfies (1) does not exist if F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} is too complex. This means we need to be careful and not allow too "many" functions in F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} if we want (1) to be a meaningful requirement. Specifically, function classes that ensure the existence of a sequence { f ^ n } {\displaystyle \{{\hat {f}}_{n}\}} that satisfies (1) are known as learnable classes. It is worth noting that at least for supervised classification and regression problems, if a function class is learnable, then the empirical risk minimization automatically satisfies (1). Thus in these settings not only do we know that the problem posed by (1) is solvable, we also immediately have an algorithm that gives the solution. == Interpretations == If the true relationship between y {\displaystyle y} and x {\displaystyle x} is y ∼ f ∗ ( x ) {\displaystyle y\sim f^{}(x)} , then by selecting the appropriate loss function, f ∗ {\displaystyle f^{}} can always be expressed as the minimizer of the expected loss across all possible functions. That is, f ∗ = arg min f ∈ F ∗ I P ( f ) {\displaystyle f^{}=\arg \min _{f\in {\mathcal {F}}^{}}I_{P}(f)} Here we let F ∗ {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}^{}} be the collection of all possible functions mapping X {\displaystyle {\mathcal {X}}} onto Y {\displaystyle {\mathcal {Y}}} . f ∗ {\displaystyle f^{}} can be interpreted as the actual data generating mechanism. However, the no free lunch theorem tells us that in practice, with finite samples we cannot hope to search for the expected risk minimizer over F ∗ {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}^{}} . Thus we often consider a subset of F ∗ {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}^{}} , F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} , to carry out searches on. By doing so, we risk that f ∗ {\displaystyle f^{}} might not be an element of F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} . This tradeoff can be mathematically expressed as In the above decomposition, part ( b ) {\displaystyle (b)} does not depend on the data and is non-stochastic. It describes how far away our assumptions ( F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} ) are from the truth ( F ∗ {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}^{}} ). ( b ) {\displaystyle (b)} will be strictly greater than 0 if we make assumptions that are too strong ( F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} too small). On the other hand, failing to put enough restrictions on F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} will cause it to be not learnable, and part ( a ) {\displaystyle (a)} will not stochastically converge to 0. This is the well-known overfitting problem in statistics and machine learning literature. == Example: Tikhonov regularization == A good example where learnable classes are used is the so-called Tikhonov regularization in reproducing kernel Hilbert space (RKHS). Specifically, let F ∗ {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F^{}}}} be an RKHS, and | | ⋅ | | 2 {\displaystyle ||\cdot ||_{2}} be the norm on F ∗ {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F^{}}}} given by its inner product. It is shown in that F = { f : | | f | | 2 ≤ γ } {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}=\{f:||f||_{2}\leq \gamma \}} is a learnable class for any finite, positive γ {\displaystyle \gamma } . The empirical minimization algorithm to the dual form of this problem is arg min f ∈ F ∗ { ∑ i = 1 n L ( f ( x i ) , y i ) + λ | | f | | 2 } {\displaystyle \arg \min _{f\in {\mathcal {F}}^{}}\left\{\sum _{i=1}^{n}L(f(x_{i}),y_{i})+\lambda ||f||_{2}\right\}} This was first introduced by Tikhonov to solve ill-posed problems. Many statistical learning algorithms can be expressed in such a form (for example, the well-known ridge regression). The tradeoff between ( a ) {\displaystyle (a)} and ( b ) {\displaystyle (b)} in (2) is geometrically more intuitive with Tikhonov regularization in RKHS. We can consider a sequence of { F γ } {\displaystyle \{{\mathcal {F}}_{\gamma }\}} , which are essentially balls in F ∗ {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F^{}}}} with centers at 0. As γ {\displaystyle \gamma } gets larger, F γ {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}_{\gamma }} gets closer to the entire space, and ( b ) {\displaystyle (b)} is likely to become smaller. However we will also suffer smaller convergence rates in ( a ) {\displaystyle (a)} . The way to choose an optimal γ {\displaystyle \gamma } in finite sample settings is usually through cross-validation. == Relationship to empirical process theory == Part ( a ) {\displaystyle (a)} in (2) is closely linked to empirical process theory in statistics, where the empirical risk { ∑ i = 1 n L ( y i , f ( x i ) ) , f ∈ F } {\displaystyle \{\sum _{i=1}^{n}L(y_{i},f(x_{i})),f\in {\mathcal {F}}\}} are known as empirical processes. In this field, the function class F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} that satisfies the stochastic convergence are known as uniform Glivenko–Cantelli classes. It has been shown that under certain regularity conditions, learnable classes and uniformly Glivenko-Cantelli classes are equivalent. Interplay between ( a ) {\displaystyle (a)} and ( b ) {\displaystyle (b)} in statistics literature is often known as the bias-variance tradeoff. However, note that in the authors gave an example of stochastic convex optimization for General Setting of Learning where learnability is not equivalent with uniform convergence.
Read more →
Lexical choice is the subtask of Natural language generation that involves choosing the content words (nouns, non-auxiliary verbs, adjectives, and adverbs) in a generated text. Function words (determiners, for example) are usually chosen during realisation. == Examples == The simplest type of lexical choice involves mapping a domain concept (perhaps represented in an ontology) to a word. For example, the concept Finger might be mapped to the word finger. A more complex situation is when a domain concept is expressed using different words in different situations. For example, the domain concept Value-Change can be expressed in many ways: The temperature rose: the verb rose is used for a Value-Change in temperature which increases the value. The temperature fell: the verb fell is used for a Value-Change in temperature which decreases the value. The rain got heavier: the phrase got heavier is used for a Value-Change in precipitation amount when the precipitation is rain. Sometimes words can communicate additional contextual information, for example: The temperature plummeted: the verb plummeted is used for a Value-Change in temperature which decreases the value, when the change is rapid and large. Contextual information is especially significant for vague terms such as tall. For example, a 2m tall man is tall, but a 2m tall horse is small. == Linguistic perspective == Lexical choice modules must be informed by linguistic knowledge of how the system's input data maps onto words. This is a question of semantics, but it is also influenced by syntactic factors (such as collocation effects) and pragmatic factors (such as context). Hence NLG systems need linguistic models of how meaning is mapped to words in the target domain (genre) of the NLG system. Genre tends to be very important; for example the verb veer has a very specific meaning in weather forecasts (wind direction is changing in a clockwise direction) which it does not have in general English, and a weather-forecast generator must be aware of this genre-specific meaning. In some cases there are major differences in how different people use the same word; for example, some people use by evening to mean 6PM and others use it to mean midnight. Psycholinguists have shown that when people speak to each other, they agree on a common interpretation via lexical alignment; this is not something which NLG systems can yet do. Ultimately, lexical choice must deal with the fundamental issue of how language relates to the non-linguistic world. For example, a system which chose colour terms such as red to describe objects in a digital image would need to know which RGB pixel values could generally be described as red; how this was influenced by visual (lighting, other objects in the scene) and linguistic (other objects being discussed) context; what pragmatic connotations were associated with red (for example, when an apple is called red, it is assumed to be ripe as well as have the colour red); and so forth. == Algorithms and models == A number of algorithms and models have been developed for lexical choice in the research community, for example Edmonds developed a model for choosing between near-synonyms (words with similar core meanings but different connotations). However such algorithms and models have not been widely used in applied NLG systems; such systems have instead often used quite simple computational models, and invested development effort in linguistic analysis instead of algorithm development.
Read more →
Boyfriend Maker was a dating sim, romance chatbot smartphone app for iOS (iPhone) and Android devices, developed by Japanese studio 36 You Games (styled as 36You) and distributed under the freemium business model. Boyfriend Maker incorporated advanced artificial intelligence chat technology a decade before products such as ChatGPT. According to the developer's website, Boyfriend Maker is an "app that lets you interact and chat with quirky virtual boyfriends". While each virtual boyfriend has certain unique characteristics, the various instances of the boyfriend are powered by a chat engine, that (at least within a language and market) can utilise vocabulary and knowledge acquired in a chat with one user in subsequent chats with other users. == Gameplay == Users gain experience points and in-game coins. Users can customize their virtual boyfriend's appearance by selecting items such as hair, clothing, face, and a necklace. == Apple delisting and reintroduction == In late November 2012, the original iOS Boyfriend Maker app was delisted from the Apple App Store due to "ribald" chat, according to the New York Times. Boyfriend Maker was removed by Apple due to "reports of references to violent sexual acts and pedophilia". Boyfriend Maker had an age rating of 4+, even though the chat bot "responds with often strange and explicit text unsuitable for young children". User-posted chat excerpts indicate that the virtual boyfriend would sometimes transition abruptly to sexual chat in response to a seemingly innocent question. In one user-posted example, in response to the question, "what kind of wedding cake will we have" the boyfriend responds, "a good sex ima be on top of u u gonna ride oon me bitin the pillow gurrl ima fuck da shit out of u". The developer's use of the SimSimi-created third-party chat engine may be responsible for the sexual text. As the virtual boyfriend converses with human users, the SimSimi chat engine acquires vocabulary from users of the game and applies this "learned" vocabulary in chats with other users. The chat engine might also employ lines harvested from human-human chat logs, song lyrics, movies or TV shows. In April 2013, a detuned and presumably tamer version of the app, titled Boyfriend Plus, was permitted on Apple's App Store.
Read more →