AI Tools For Ecommerce

AI Tools For Ecommerce — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

  • Read Along

    Read Along

    Read Along, formerly known as Bolo, is an Android language-learning app for children developed by Google for the Android operating system. The application was released on the Play Store on March 7, 2019. It features a character named Diya helping children learn to read through illustrated stories. It has the facility to learn English and Indian major languages i.e. Hindi, Bengali, Tamil, Telugu, Marathi and Urdu, as well as Spanish, Portuguese and Arabic. == Technology == The app uses text-to-speech technology, through which the character named Dia reads the story, as well as speech-to-text technology, which mechanically identifies the matches between the text and the reading of the user. The story of Chhota Bheem and Katha Kids was added in September 2019. In April 2020, a new version of the application was released. In September 2020, it added Arabic language to its language option. A web version was launched in August 2022.

    Read more →
  • Is an AI Clip Maker Worth It in 2026?

    Is an AI Clip Maker Worth It in 2026?

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

    Nabil Ali

    Nabil Ali Mohammed Abd AL Azeez (Arabic:نبيل علي) (3 January 1938 – 27 January 2016) was an Egyptian scientist, writer, and intellectual who worked in the field of natural language processing and computational linguistics. Ali is considered a pioneer of Arabic language computing, making significant innovations in early computational linguistics. == Education and career == Ali earned a bachelor's degree in Aeronautical Engineering in 1960, and a master's degree in 1967. In 1971, he earned a PhD in Aeronautics. From 1961 to 1972 Ali worked as an engineering officer in the Egyptian Air Force, specializing in maintenance and training. In 1972, he shifted focus to computing, and from 1972 to 1977 he worked as a computer manager at Egyptair. While in this position, Ali introduced the first automated reservation system for airlines in the Arab world. He later held various computing positions in Egypt, Kuwait, Europe, Canada and the US. Ali started working for Sakhr Software, an Arabic language technology company, in 1983. From 1985 to 1999, he was vice president of Sakhr's council for Research and Development. As a director of the Multilingual Advanced Systems Foundation and project manager at the Egyptian National Company for Scientific and Technical Information, Ali did extensive research on information culture and artificial intelligence relating to the Arabic language. Over the course of his career, Ali developed more than 20 educational programs relating to computational linguistics. He developed the first Arabic lexical database and the first knowledge base for Arabic poetry, as well as many other pieces of Arabic language software. == Awards == 1994: General Book Authority Award for Best Book (in the field of future studies). 2003: General Book Authority Award for Best Culture Book (in the field of "Challenges of the Information Age"). 2007: General Book Authority "Innovation in Information Technology" Award. 2012: King Faisal International Award, with Professor Ali Helmy Mousa, in the field of computer processing of the Arabic Language. == Works == Arabic Language and Computer (Research study), Dar Localization, 1988. Al Arab and the Information Age, Knowledge World Series No. 184, April 1994. Arab Culture and the Information Age: A Vision for the Future of Arab Culture Discourse, World of Knowledge Series, No. 265 January 2001. The Digital Gap: an Arab Vision for a Knowledge Society (in partnership with Dr. Nadia Hegazy), World of Knowledge Series, No. 318 August 2005. The Arab Mind and the Knowledge Society: Manifestations of the Crisis and Suggestions for Solutions, Part 1, The World of Knowledge Series, No. 369, November 2009. The Arab Mind and the Knowledge Society: Manifestations of the Crisis and Suggestions for Solutions, Part 2, The World of Knowledge Series, No. 370, December 2009. == Tribute == On 3 January 2020, Google Doodle celebrated Nabil Ali Mohamed's 82nd Birthday.

    Read more →
  • AI Photo Editors Reviews: What Actually Works in 2026

    AI Photo Editors Reviews: What Actually Works in 2026

    Curious about the best AI photo editor? An AI photo editor 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 photo editor 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 →
  • Automate This

    Automate This

    Automate This: How Algorithms Came to Rule Our World is a book written by Christopher Steiner and published by Penguin Group. == Book == Steiner begins his study of algorithms on Wall Street in the 1980s but also provides examples from other industries. For example, he explains the history of Pandora Radio and the use of algorithms in music identification. He expresses concern that such use of algorithms may lead to the homogenization of music over time. Steiner also discusses the algorithms that eLoyalty (now owned by Mattersight Corporation following divestiture of the technology) was created by dissecting 2 million speech patterns and can now identify a caller's personality style and direct the caller with a compatible customer support representative. Steiner's book shares both the warning and the opportunity that algorithms bring to just about every industry in the world, and the pros and cons of the societal impact of automation (e.g. impact on employment).

    Read more →
  • EuroMatrixPlus

    EuroMatrixPlus

    The EuroMatrixPlus is a project that ran from March 2009 to February 2012. EuroMatrixPlus succeeded a project called EuroMatrix (September 2006 to February 2009) and continued in further development and improvement of machine translation (MT) systems for languages of the European Union (EU). == Project objectives == EuroMatrixPlus focused on achieving several goals: To continue advance of MT technology (create MT systems for all official EU languages and provide other MT researchers with existing data and infrastructure). To continually expand and investigate different MT approaches and techniques; to stay open to novel combinations of methods of MT. To bring MT to the users. Users post-edit output of statistical models and the system learns from the feedback and improves itself. Two groups of users were aimed at: Professional translators and translation agencies Users who voluntarily translate texts into their native language To contribute to MT research in Europe. To produce sample application for automatic translation of news and web pages and make that application freely accessible. == Outcome == EuroMatrixPlus contributed to MT field in several ways. It continued in development of an open source statistical MT engine Moses. The project worked on research in hybrid approaches to MT (combination of rule-based and statistical techniques). Several “MT Marathons” and annual evaluation campaigns were organized by the project. The project also resulted in releasing of 196 scientific publications. The results of the work were arranged into ten work packages: WP1: Rich Tree-Based Statistical Translation WP2: Hybrid Machine Translation WP3: Advanced Learning Methods for MT WP4: Open Source Tools and Data WP5: "WikiTrans" Translation Environments WP6: Integrated Localisation Workflow WP7: Evaluation Campaign WP8: Project Management and Dissemination WP9: Integrating Slovak Language Resources WP10: HPSG-based Statistical Translation === Software and data === Here is a list of software and data that were released by the project: Appraise – an open source tool for manual evaluation of MT output BURGER – Bulgarian Resource BulTreeBank – Treebank of Bulgarian CSLM toolkit – free tool for training continuous space language models (CSLM) to large tasks Caitra – tool for post-editing MT results Europarl – European Parliament parallel corpus IRSTLM toolkit – tool for training language models Joshua – an open-source statistical machine translation decoder for hierarchical and syntax-based MT MT Server Land – an open-source architecture for MT Moses – statistical MT MultiUN Corpora – parallel corpus extracted from the United Nations Website PCEDT 2.0 – Prague Czech-English Dependency Treebank PEDT 2.0 – English part of the Prague Czech-English Dependency Treebank Slovak corpora – English-Slovak and Czech-Slovak as well as a Slovak-English and a Slovak-Czech parallel corpus Slovak treebank – A dependency treebank TermEx – RBMT-Suited Statistical Terminology Extraction Tool Treex, TectoMT == Funding == The EuroMatrixPlus project was sponsored by EU Information Society Technology program. Total cost of the project was 5 942 121 €, from which the European Union contributed 4 266 896 €. == Project members == To ensure advance in MT, several organizations that are experts in various disciplines (linguistics, computer science, mathematics, translation) were brought together to cooperate on EuroMatrixPlus. The consortium consisted of academic as well as commercial partners. Academic partners were the University of Edinburgh (United Kingdom), DFKI – German Research Centre for Artificial Intelligence (Germany), Charles University (Czech Republic), Johns Hopkins University (United States), University of Le Mans (France), Fondazione Bruno Kessler (Italy), Dublin City University (Ireland). Two institutions joined about one year into the project. These were the L'udovít Štúr Institute of Linguistics (Slovak Republic) and IICT – Institute of Information and Communication Technologies at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences (Bulgaria). Commercial partners included Lucy Software and Services GmbH (Germany) and CEET s.r.o. (Czech Republic). Coordination of the project was in hands of DFKI with its Language Technology Lab in Saarbrücken. The principal investigator and scientific coordinator was Hans Uszkoreit, a professor of Computational Linguistics at Saarland University.

    Read more →
  • Model inversion attack

    Model inversion attack

    Model inversion attack is a type of adversarial machine learning attack where an attacker tries to reconstruct or infer sensitive information about a model's training data by analyzing the outputs of a trained machine learning model. Instead of directly querying the underlying dataset, attackers query the model (usually via APIs or prediction interfaces), and leverage patterns in the model responses to infer properties of the original inputs. These attacks leverage the fact that machine learning models encode statistical information about their training data in their parameters and outputs, which can unintentionally leak private or proprietary information. Depending on the access level to the target model, model inversion attacks can be performed in both black-box and white-box settings. In a generic attack, an adversary makes several queries to a model and leverages the responses (e.g. confidence scores, predictions) to train a surrogate or inversion model that learns to approximate the inverse mapping from outputs to inputs. This process may enable the reconstruction of sensitive attributes, e.g., facial features, medical data, or user behavior patterns, from models trained on such data. The technique has been demonstrated against various models like deep neural networks, classification systems etc. The technique has significant privacy risks in areas like healthcare, finance, biometric identification etc. Mitigation strategies include restricting model access, reducing output granularity, using differential privacy and monitoring anomalous query patterns.

    Read more →
  • Google matrix

    Google matrix

    A Google matrix is a particular stochastic matrix that is used by Google's PageRank algorithm. The matrix represents a graph with edges representing links between pages. The PageRank of each page can then be generated iteratively from the Google matrix using the power method. However, in order for the power method to converge, the matrix must be stochastic, irreducible and aperiodic. == Adjacency matrix A and Markov matrix S == In order to generate the Google matrix G, we must first generate an adjacency matrix A which represents the relations between pages or nodes. Assuming there are N pages, we can fill out A by doing the following: A matrix element A i , j {\displaystyle A_{i,j}} is filled with 1 if node j {\displaystyle j} has a link to node i {\displaystyle i} , and 0 otherwise; this is the adjacency matrix of links. A related matrix S corresponding to the transitions in a Markov chain of given network is constructed from A by dividing the elements of column "j" by a number of k j = Σ i = 1 N A i , j {\displaystyle k_{j}=\Sigma _{i=1}^{N}A_{i,j}} where k j {\displaystyle k_{j}} is the total number of outgoing links from node j to all other nodes. The columns having zero matrix elements, corresponding to dangling nodes, are replaced by a constant value 1/N. Such a procedure adds a link from every sink, dangling state a {\displaystyle a} to every other node. Now by the construction the sum of all elements in any column of matrix S is equal to unity. In this way the matrix S is mathematically well defined and it belongs to the class of Markov chains and the class of Perron-Frobenius operators. That makes S suitable for the PageRank algorithm. == Construction of Google matrix G == Then the final Google matrix G can be expressed via S as: G i j = α S i j + ( 1 − α ) 1 N ( 1 ) {\displaystyle G_{ij}=\alpha S_{ij}+(1-\alpha ){\frac {1}{N}}\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;(1)} By the construction the sum of all non-negative elements inside each matrix column is equal to unity. The numerical coefficient α {\displaystyle \alpha } is known as a damping factor. Usually S is a sparse matrix and for modern directed networks it has only about ten nonzero elements in a line or column, thus only about 10N multiplications are needed to multiply a vector by matrix G. == Examples of Google matrix == An example of the matrix S {\displaystyle S} construction via Eq.(1) within a simple network is given in the article CheiRank. For the actual matrix, Google uses a damping factor α {\displaystyle \alpha } around 0.85. The term ( 1 − α ) {\displaystyle (1-\alpha )} gives a surfer probability to jump randomly on any page. The matrix G {\displaystyle G} belongs to the class of Perron-Frobenius operators of Markov chains. The examples of Google matrix structure are shown in Fig.1 for Wikipedia articles hyperlink network in 2009 at small scale and in Fig.2 for University of Cambridge network in 2006 at large scale. == Spectrum and eigenstates of G matrix == For 0 < α < 1 {\displaystyle 0<\alpha <1} there is only one maximal eigenvalue λ = 1 {\displaystyle \lambda =1} with the corresponding right eigenvector which has non-negative elements P i {\displaystyle P_{i}} which can be viewed as stationary probability distribution. These probabilities ordered by their decreasing values give the PageRank vector P i {\displaystyle P_{i}} with the PageRank K i {\displaystyle K_{i}} used by Google search to rank webpages. Usually one has for the World Wide Web that P ∝ 1 / K β {\displaystyle P\propto 1/K^{\beta }} with β ≈ 0.9 {\displaystyle \beta \approx 0.9} . The number of nodes with a given PageRank value scales as N P ∝ 1 / P ν {\displaystyle N_{P}\propto 1/P^{\nu }} with the exponent ν = 1 + 1 / β ≈ 2.1 {\displaystyle \nu =1+1/\beta \approx 2.1} . The left eigenvector at λ = 1 {\displaystyle \lambda =1} has constant matrix elements. With 0 < α {\displaystyle 0<\alpha } all eigenvalues move as λ i → α λ i {\displaystyle \lambda _{i}\rightarrow \alpha \lambda _{i}} except the maximal eigenvalue λ = 1 {\displaystyle \lambda =1} , which remains unchanged. The PageRank vector varies with α {\displaystyle \alpha } but other eigenvectors with λ i < 1 {\displaystyle \lambda _{i}<1} remain unchanged due to their orthogonality to the constant left vector at λ = 1 {\displaystyle \lambda =1} . The gap between λ = 1 {\displaystyle \lambda =1} and other eigenvalue being 1 − α ≈ 0.15 {\displaystyle 1-\alpha \approx 0.15} gives a rapid convergence of a random initial vector to the PageRank approximately after 50 multiplications on G {\displaystyle G} matrix. At α = 1 {\displaystyle \alpha =1} the matrix G {\displaystyle G} has generally many degenerate eigenvalues λ = 1 {\displaystyle \lambda =1} (see e.g. [6]). Examples of the eigenvalue spectrum of the Google matrix of various directed networks is shown in Fig.3 from and Fig.4 from. The Google matrix can be also constructed for the Ulam networks generated by the Ulam method [8] for dynamical maps. The spectral properties of such matrices are discussed in [9,10,11,12,13,15]. In a number of cases the spectrum is described by the fractal Weyl law [10,12]. The Google matrix can be constructed also for other directed networks, e.g. for the procedure call network of the Linux Kernel software introduced in [15]. In this case the spectrum of λ {\displaystyle \lambda } is described by the fractal Weyl law with the fractal dimension d ≈ 1.3 {\displaystyle d\approx 1.3} (see Fig.5 from ). Numerical analysis shows that the eigenstates of matrix G {\displaystyle G} are localized (see Fig.6 from ). Arnoldi iteration method allows to compute many eigenvalues and eigenvectors for matrices of rather large size [13]. Other examples of G {\displaystyle G} matrix include the Google matrix of brain [17] and business process management [18], see also. Applications of Google matrix analysis to DNA sequences is described in [20]. Such a Google matrix approach allows also to analyze entanglement of cultures via ranking of multilingual Wikipedia articles abouts persons [21] == Historical notes == The Google matrix with damping factor was described by Sergey Brin and Larry Page in 1998 [22], see also articles on PageRank history [23], [24].

    Read more →
  • Rapid application development

    Rapid application development

    Rapid application development (RAD), also called rapid application building (RAB), is both a general term for adaptive software development approaches, and the name for James Martin's method of rapid development. In general, RAD approaches to software development put less emphasis on planning and more emphasis on an adaptive process. Prototypes are often used in addition to or sometimes even instead of design specifications. RAD is especially well suited for (although not limited to) developing software that is driven by user interface requirements. Graphical user interface builders are often called rapid application development tools. Other approaches to rapid development include the adaptive, agile, spiral, and unified models. == History == Rapid application development was a response to plan-driven waterfall processes, developed in the 1970s and 1980s, such as the Structured Systems Analysis and Design Method (SSADM). One of the problems with these methods is that they were based on a traditional engineering model used to design and build things like bridges and buildings. Software is an inherently different kind of artifact. Software can change the process used to solve a problem. As a result, knowledge gained from the development process itself can feed back to the requirements and design of the solution. Plan-driven approaches attempt to define requirements, the solution, and the implementation plan, and have a process that discourages changes. RAD approaches, on the other hand, recognize that software development is a knowledge intensive process and provide flexible processes that help take advantage of knowledge gained during the project to improve or adapt the solution. The first such RAD alternative was developed by Barry Boehm and was known as the spiral model. Boehm and other subsequent RAD approaches emphasized developing prototypes as well as or instead of rigorous design specifications. Prototypes had several advantages over traditional specifications: Risk reduction. A prototype could test some of the most difficult potential parts of the system early on in the life-cycle. This can provide valuable information as to the feasibility of a design and can prevent the team from pursuing solutions that turn out to be too complex or time-consuming to implement. This benefit of finding problems earlier in the life-cycle rather than later was a key benefit of the RAD approach. The earlier a problem can be found the cheaper it is to address. Users are better at using and reacting than at creating specifications. In the waterfall model it was common for a user to sign off on a set of requirements but then when presented with an implemented system to suddenly realize that a given design lacked some critical features or was too complex. In general most users give much more useful feedback when they can experience a prototype of the running system rather than abstractly define what that system should be. Prototypes can be usable and can evolve into the completed product. One approach used in some RAD methods was to build the system as a series of prototypes that evolve from minimal functionality to moderately useful to the final completed system. The advantage of this besides the two advantages above was that the users could get useful business functionality much earlier in the process. Starting with the ideas of Barry Boehm and others, James Martin developed the rapid application development approach during the 1980s at IBM and finally formalized it by publishing a book in 1991, Rapid Application Development. This has resulted in some confusion over the term RAD even among IT professionals. It is important to distinguish between RAD as a general alternative to the waterfall model and RAD as the specific method created by Martin. The Martin method was tailored toward knowledge intensive and UI intensive business systems. These ideas were further developed and improved upon by RAD pioneers like James Kerr and Richard Hunter, who together wrote the seminal book on the subject, Inside RAD, which followed the journey of a RAD project manager as he drove and refined the RAD Methodology in real-time on an actual RAD project. These practitioners, and those like them, helped RAD gain popularity as an alternative to traditional systems project life cycle approaches. The RAD approach also matured during the period of peak interest in business re-engineering. The idea of business process re-engineering was to radically rethink core business processes such as sales and customer support with the new capabilities of Information Technology in mind. RAD was often an essential part of larger business re engineering programs. The rapid prototyping approach of RAD was a key tool to help users and analysts "think out of the box" about innovative ways that technology might radically reinvent a core business process. Much of James Martin's comfort with RAD stemmed from Dupont's Information Engineering division and its leader Scott Schultz and their respective relationships with John Underwood who headed up a bespoke RAD development company that pioneered many successful RAD projects in Australia and Hong Kong. Successful projects that included ANZ Bank, Lendlease, BHP, Coca-Cola Amatil, Alcan, Hong Kong Jockey Club and numerous others. Success that led to both Scott Shultz and James Martin both spending time in Australia with John Underwood to understand the methods and details of why Australia was disproportionately successful in implementing significant mission critical RAD projects. == James Martin approach == The James Martin approach to RAD divides the process into four distinct phases: Requirements planning phase – combines elements of the system planning and systems analysis phases of the systems development life cycle (SDLC). Users, managers, and IT staff members discuss and agree on business needs, project scope, constraints, and system requirements. It ends when the team agrees on the key issues and obtains management authorization to continue. User design phase – during this phase, users interact with systems analysts and develop models and prototypes that represent all system processes, inputs, and outputs. The RAD groups or subgroups typically use a combination of joint application design (JAD) techniques and CASE tools to translate user needs into working models. User design is a continuous interactive process that allows users to understand, modify, and eventually approve a working model of the system that meets their needs. Construction phase – focuses on program and application development task similar to the SDLC. In RAD, however, users continue to participate and can still suggest changes or improvements as actual screens or reports are developed. Its tasks are programming and application development, coding, unit-integration and system testing. Cutover phase – resembles the final tasks in the SDLC implementation phase, including data conversion, testing, changeover to the new system, and user training. Compared with traditional methods, the entire process is compressed. As a result, the new system is built, delivered, and placed in operation much sooner. == Advantages == In modern Information Technology environments, many systems are now built using some degree of Rapid Application Development (not necessarily the James Martin approach). In addition to Martin's method, agile methods and the Rational Unified Process are often used for RAD development. The purported advantages of RAD include: Better quality. By having users interact with evolving prototypes the business functionality from a RAD project can often be much higher than that achieved via a waterfall model. The software can be more usable and has a better chance to focus on business problems that are critical to end users rather than technical problems of interest to developers. However, this excludes other categories of what are usually known as Non-functional requirements (AKA constraints or quality attributes) including security and portability. Risk control. Although much of the literature on RAD focuses on speed and user involvement a critical feature of RAD done correctly is risk mitigation. It's worth remembering that Boehm initially characterized the spiral model as a risk based approach. A RAD approach can focus in early on the key risk factors and adjust to them based on empirical evidence collected in the early part of the process. E.g., the complexity of prototyping some of the most complex parts of the system. More projects completed on time and within budget. By focusing on the development of incremental units the chances for catastrophic failures that have dogged large waterfall projects is reduced. In the Waterfall model it was common to come to a realization after six months or more of analysis and development that required a radical rethinking of the entire system. With RAD this kind of information can be discovered and acted upon earlier in the proces

    Read more →
  • The Best Free AI Sales Assistant for Beginners

    The Best Free AI Sales Assistant for Beginners

    Comparing the best AI sales assistant? An AI sales assistant is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it lowers the barrier so anyone can produce professional output. Privacy matters too: check whether your data trains the model and whether a no-log or enterprise tier is available. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI sales assistant 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 →
  • The Best Free AI Essay Writer for Beginners

    The Best Free AI Essay Writer for Beginners

    In search of the best AI essay writer? An AI essay writer 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 essay writer 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 →
  • OCR-B

    OCR-B

    OCR-B is a monospace font developed in 1968 by Adrian Frutiger for Monotype by following the European Computer Manufacturer's Association standard. Its function was to facilitate the optical character recognition operations by specific electronic devices, originally for financial and bank-oriented uses. It was accepted as the world standard in 1973. It follows the ISO 1073-2:1976 (E) standard, refined in 1979 ("letterpress" design, size I). It includes all ASCII symbols, and other symbols needed in the bank environment. It is widely used for the human readable digits in UPC/EAN barcodes. It is also used for machine-readable passports. It shares that purpose with OCR-A, but it is easier for the human eye and brain to read and it has a less technical look than OCR-A. == History == In June 1961, the European Computer Manufacturers Association (ECMA) started standardization activities related to Optical Character Recognition (OCR). After evaluating existing OCR designs, it was decided to develop two new fonts: A stylized design with just digits, called “Class A”; and a more conventional type design with broader character coverage, called “Class B”. In February 1965, ECMA proposed a design for the “Class B” font to ISO, who adopted it as international standard ISO 1073-2 in October 1965. The first revision contained three font sizes: I, II and III. The specification included a Letterpress design, intended for high-quality printing equipment; and a rounded-edge Constant Strokewidth design for impact printers with reduced typographic quality. In September 1969, ECMA started work to revise its published standard. To make OCR-B more widely accepted, the shapes of some characters were slightly modified. The new revision removed font size II, which had been rarely used in practice; it deleted five character shapes; and it added a new font size IV. ECMA published the second edition of OCR-B in October 1971. In March 1976, ECMA published a third revision of its ECMA-11 specification. It added the symbols § and ¥ to OCR-B; two types of erasure marks (█) for blackening out mis-printed characters were added; and the length of the Vertical bar was changed to match ISO 1073-2. In 1993, Turkey proposed extending ISO 1073-2 to include the Turkish letters Ğğ, İı, and Şş. The request was generalized to extend OCR-B with a number of Latin and Greek letters used in European languages. A revision of the ISO 1073-2:1976 standard was therefore started, producing three successive draft documents. The final draft would have extended OCR-B with 40 Latin and 10 Greek letters; for six Latin letters, the draft gave new alternate shapes. A request to extend OCR-B with Vietnamese accents was rejected. Other than previous versions of the standard, which specified glyph shapes via reference drawings, the new revision would have included the shapes in machine-readable form. However, industry support for testing the new font could not be secured at the time, so the revision effort was halted in 1997. The working group described their findings in a technical report. In June 1998, the European Committee for Standardization published a report for adding the Euro sign to OCR-B. The report proposed both a single-stroked and a double-stroked variant of the Euro sign, leaving the decision to further testing of OCR performance. Testing was difficult: the theoretical design methods used when the OCR-B glyphs were originally developed could no longer be reproduced, and the technological constraints of the 1960s were also not entirely relevant anymore in the OCR environments of the 1990s. A new test method was devised, using present-time OCR technology. The tests found no difference in OCR performance between the two Euro variants, and recommended the adoption of the double-stroked variant as it matches the conventional glyph shape. The project did not have funds to thoroughly test the glyph extensions of the 1993 proposal; initial results were inconclusive. == Availability == Microsoft Office ships a version of Letterpress OCR-B produced by Monotype. It covers Windows-1252. Many vendors, including Adobe, still sell their versions of OCR-A and OCR-B. The TeX typesetting system has a public domain Constant Strokewidth OCR-B font in METAFONT definition form. It was created by Norbert Swartz in 1995 and updated in 2010. It has a setting for square stroke ends. The definition has also been translated to METATYPE1, so the rounded version is available in TrueType and OpenType too. A version of Constant Strokewidth OCR-B by Matthew Anderson has extended character coverage. It is available under CC-BY 4.0.

    Read more →
  • Grokking (machine learning)

    Grokking (machine learning)

    In machine learning, grokking, or delayed generalization, is a phenomenon observed in some settings where a model abruptly transitions from overfitting (performing well only on training data) to generalizing (performing well on both training and test data), after many training iterations with little or no improvement on the held-out data. This contrasts with what is typically observed in machine learning, where generalization occurs gradually alongside improved performance on training data. == Origin == Grokking was introduced by OpenAI researcher Alethea Power and colleagues in the January 2022 paper "Grokking: Generalization Beyond Overfitting on Small Algorithmic Datasets". It is derived from the word grok coined by Robert Heinlein in his novel Stranger in a Strange Land. In ML research, "grokking" is not used as a synonym for "generalization"; rather, it names a sometimes-observed delayed‑generalization training phenomenon in which training and held‑out performance do not improve in tandem, and in which held‑out performance rises abruptly later. Authors also analyze the "grokking time", the epoch or step at which this transition occurs in those scenarios. == Interpretations == Grokking can be understood as a phase transition during the training process. In particular, recent work has shown that grokking may be due to a complexity phase transition in the model during training. While grokking has been thought of as largely a phenomenon of relatively shallow models, grokking has been observed in deep neural networks and non-neural models and is the subject of active research. One potential explanation is that the weight decay (a component of the loss function that penalizes higher values of the neural network parameters, also called regularization) slightly favors the general solution that involves lower weight values, but that is also harder to find. According to Neel Nanda, the process of learning the general solution may be gradual, even though the transition to the general solution occurs more suddenly later. Recent theories have hypothesized that grokking occurs when neural networks transition from a "lazy training" regime where the weights do not deviate far from initialization, to a "rich" regime where weights abruptly begin to move in task-relevant directions. Follow-up empirical and theoretical work has accumulated evidence in support of this perspective, and it offers a unifying view of earlier work as the transition from lazy to rich training dynamics is known to arise from properties of adaptive optimizers, weight decay, initial parameter weight norm, and more. This perspective is complementary to a unifying "pattern learning speeds" framework that links grokking and double descent; within this view, delayed generalization can arise across training time ("epoch‑wise") or across model size ("model‑wise"), and the authors report "model‑wise grokking".

    Read more →
  • Stephen Muggleton

    Stephen Muggleton

    Stephen H. Muggleton (born 6 December 1959, son of Louis Muggleton) is Professor of Machine Learning and Head of the Computational Bioinformatics Laboratory at Imperial College London. == Education == Muggleton received his Bachelor of Science degree in computer science (1982) and Doctor of Philosophy in artificial intelligence (1986) supervised by Donald Michie at the University of Edinburgh. == Career == Following his PhD, Muggleton went on to work as a postdoctoral research associate at the Turing Institute in Glasgow (1987–1991) and later an EPSRC Advanced Research Fellow at Oxford University Computing Laboratory (OUCL) (1992–1997) where he founded the Machine Learning Group. In 1997 he moved to the University of York and in 2001 to Imperial College London. From 2025, Muggleton has joined Nanjing University as a full-time professor. == Research == Muggleton's research interests are primarily in Artificial intelligence. From 1997 to 2001 he held the Chair of Machine Learning at the University of York and from 2001 to 2006 the EPSRC Chair of Computational Bioinformatics at Imperial College in London. Since 2013 he holds the Syngenta/Royal Academy of Engineering Research Chair as well as the post of Director of Modelling for the Imperial College Centre for Integrated Systems Biology. He is known for founding the field of Inductive logic programming. In this field he has made contributions to theory introducing predicate invention, inverse entailment and stochastic logic programs. He has also played a role in systems development where he was instrumental in the systems Duce, Cigol, Golem, Progol and Metagol and applications – especially biological prediction tasks. He worked on a Robot Scientist together with Ross D. King that is capable of combining Inductive Logic Programming with active learning. His present work concentrates on the development of Meta-Interpretive Learning, a new form of Inductive Logic Programming which supports predicate invention and learning of recursive programs.

    Read more →
  • Separating words problem

    Separating words problem

    In theoretical computer science, the separating words problem is the problem of finding the smallest deterministic finite automaton that behaves differently on two given strings, meaning that it accepts one of the two strings and rejects the other string. It is an open problem how large such an automaton must be, in the worst case, as a function of the length of the input strings. == Example == The two strings 0010 and 1000 may be distinguished from each other by a three-state automaton in which the transitions from the start state go to two different states, both of which are terminal in the sense that subsequent transitions from these two states always return to the same state. The state of this automaton records the first symbol of the input string. If one of the two terminal states is accepting and the other is rejecting, then the automaton will accept only one of the strings 0010 and 1000. However, these two strings cannot be distinguished by any automaton with fewer than three states. == Simplifying assumptions == For proving bounds on this problem, it may be assumed without loss of generality that the inputs are strings over a two-letter alphabet. For, if two strings over a larger alphabet differ then there exists a string homomorphism that maps them to binary strings of the same length that also differ. Any automaton that distinguishes the binary strings can be translated into an automaton that distinguishes the original strings, without any increase in the number of states. It may also be assumed that the two strings have equal length. For strings of unequal length, there always exists a prime number p whose value is logarithmic in the smaller of the two input lengths, such that the two lengths are different modulo p. An automaton that counts the length of its input modulo p can be used to distinguish the two strings from each other in this case. Therefore, strings of unequal lengths can always be distinguished from each other by automata with few states. == History and bounds == The problem of bounding the size of an automaton that distinguishes two given strings was first formulated by Goralčík & Koubek (1986), who showed that the automaton size is always sublinear. Later, Robson (1989) proved the upper bound O(n2/5(log n)3/5) on the automaton size that may be required. This was improved by Chase (2020) to O(n1/3(log n)7). There exist pairs of inputs that are both binary strings of length n for which any automaton that distinguishes the inputs must have size Ω(log n). Closing the gap between this lower bound and Chase's upper bound remains an open problem. Jeffrey Shallit has offered a prize of 100 British pounds for any improvement to Robson's upper bound. == Special cases == Several special cases of the separating words problem are known to be solvable using few states: If two binary words have differing numbers of zeros or ones, then they can be distinguished from each other by counting their Hamming weights modulo a prime of logarithmic size, using a logarithmic number of states. More generally, if a pattern of length k appears a different number of times in the two words, they can be distinguished from each other using O(k log n) states. If two binary words differ from each other within their first or last k positions, they can be distinguished from each other using k + O(1) states. This implies that almost all pairs of binary words can be distinguished from each other with a logarithmic number of states, because only a polynomially small fraction of pairs have no difference in their initial O(log n) positions. If two binary words have Hamming distance d, then there exists a prime p with p = O(d log n) and a position i at which the two strings differ, such that i is not equal modulo p to the position of any other difference. By computing the parity of the input symbols at positions congruent to i modulo p, it is possible to distinguish the words using an automaton with O(d log n) states.

    Read more →