Best AI for Resume

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

Virtual Woman

Virtual Woman is a software program that has elements of a chatbot, virtual reality, artificial intelligence, a video game, and a virtual human. It claims to be the oldest form of virtual life in existence, as it has been distributed since the late 1980s. Recent releases of the program can update their intelligence by connecting online and downloading newer personalities and histories. == Program play == When Virtual Woman starts, the user is presented with a list of options and then may choose their Virtual Woman's ethnic type, personality, location, clothing, etc. or load a pre-built Virtual Woman from a Digital DNA file. Once the options are determined, the user is presented with a 3-D animated Virtual Woman of their selection and then can engage them in conversation, progressing in a manner similar to that of its predecessor, ELIZA and its successors, the chatbots. In most versions of Virtual Woman, this is done through the keyboard, but some versions also support voice input. == In popular culture == Software sales and usage statistics from private companies are difficult to verify. WinSite, an independent Internet shareware distribution site that does publish public download counts, has for some time now listed some version of Virtual Woman in their top three shareware downloads of all time with well over seven hundred thousand downloads. == Compadre == The group of beta testers and advisers for Virtual Woman are referred to as Compadre and have their own beta testing site and forum. == Criticisms == As Virtual Woman has developed the ability to conduct longer and more realistic interactions, particularly in recent beta releases, criticism has arisen that this may lead some users to social isolation, or to use the program as a substitute for real human interaction. However, these are criticisms that have been leveled at all video games and at the use of the Internet itself. == Release history == Versions of Virtual Woman with rough release dates and PC platforms for which they were designed: Virtual Woman (????) (DOS) Virtual Woman for Windows (1991) (Windows 3.0) Virtual Woman 95 (1995) (Windows 3X, Windows 95) Virtual Woman 98 (1998) (Windows 3X, Windows 95) Virtual Woman 2000 (2000) (Windows 95+) Virtual Woman Millennium (Windows 95, XP) Virtual Woman Net ( Windows XP/Vista specific)
Read more →
Computer vision dazzle

Computer vision dazzle, also known as CV dazzle, dazzle makeup, or anti-surveillance makeup, is a type of camouflage used to hamper facial recognition software, inspired by dazzle camouflage used by vehicles such as ships and planes. == Methods == CV dazzle combines stylized makeup, asymmetric hair, and sometimes infrared lights built in to glasses or clothing to break up detectable facial patterns recognized by computer vision algorithms in much the same way that warships contrasted color and used sloping lines and curves to distort the structure of a vessel. It has been shown to be somewhat successful at defeating face detection software in common use, including that employed by Facebook. CV dazzle attempts to block detection by facial recognition technologies such as DeepFace "by creating an 'anti-face'". It uses occlusion, covering certain facial features; transformation, altering the shape or colour of parts of the face; and a combination of the two. Prominent artists employing this technique include Adam Harvey and Jillian Mayer. == Use in protests == Computer vision dazzle makeup has been used by protestors in several different protest movements. Its use as a protesting aid has often been found ineffective. It may be effective to thwart computer technology, but draws human attention, is easy for human monitors to spot on security cameras, and makes it hard for protestors to blend in within a crowd. Advances in facial recognition technology make dazzle makeup increasingly ineffective.
Read more →
LanguageWare

LanguageWare is a natural language processing (NLP) technology developed by IBM, which allows applications to process natural language text. It comprises a set of Java libraries that provide a range of NLP functions: language identification, text segmentation/tokenization, normalization, entity and relationship extraction, and semantic analysis and disambiguation. The analysis engine uses a finite-state machine approach at multiple levels, which aids its performance characteristics while maintaining a reasonably small footprint. The behaviour of the system is driven by a set of configurable lexico-semantic resources which describe the characteristics and domain of the processed language. A default set of resources comes as part of LanguageWare and these describe the native language characteristics, such as morphology, and the basic vocabulary for the language. Supplemental resources have been created that capture additional vocabularies, terminologies, rules and grammars, which may be generic to the language or specific to one or more domains. A set of Eclipse-based customization tooling, LanguageWare Resource Workbench, is available on IBM's alphaWorks site, and allows domain knowledge to be compiled into these resources and thereby incorporated into the analysis process. LanguageWare can be deployed as a set of UIMA-compliant annotators, Eclipse plug-ins or Web Services.
Read more →
Text simplification

Text simplification is an aspect of natural language processing that involves modifying, organizing, or categorizing existing text to make it easier to understand while retaining its original meaning. This process is essential in today's world, where communication is increasingly complex due to advancements in science, technology, and media. Human languages are inherently intricate, with extensive vocabularies and complex structures that can be challenging for machines to handle efficiently. Researchers have found that semantic compression techniques can help streamline and simplify text by reducing linguistic diversity and simplifying the vocabulary used in a given context. == Example == Text simplification involves modifying complex sentences into simpler ones to enhance readability and comprehension. Siddharthan (2006) provides an example to illustrate this process. The original sentence contains multiple clauses and phrases, which can be broken down into simpler sentences for better understanding. Also contributing to the firmness in copper, the analyst noted, was a report by Chicago purchasing agents, which precedes the full purchasing agents report that is due out today and gives an indication of what the full report might hold. Also contributing to the firmness in copper, the analyst noted, was a report by Chicago purchasing agents. The Chicago report precedes the full purchasing agents report. The Chicago report gives an indication of what the full report might hold. The full report is due out today. An approach to text simplification involves lexical simplification via lexical substitution, a process that replaces complex words with simpler synonyms. Identifying complex words is a challenge addressed by machine learning classifiers trained on labeled data. Researchers have found that asking labelers to sort words by complexity levels yields more consistent results than the traditional method of categorizing words as simple or complex.
Read more →
Operational image

An operational image, also known as operative image, is an image that serves a functional, rather than aesthetic, purpose. Operational images are not intended to be viewed by people as representations of the real world; they are created to be used as instruments in performing some task or operation, often by machine automation. Operational images are used in a wide variety of applications, such as weapons targeting and guidance systems, and assisting surgeons performing robot-assisted surgery. The term "operational image" was first coined in 2000 by German filmmaker Harun Farocki in the first part of his three-part audiovisual installation, Eye/Machine. Farocki's installation included operational images used by militaries, such as weapons guidance and targeting systems. Eye/Machine featured images shown to the public by the United States military from the cameras used by laser-guided missiles in the Gulf War. Farocki defined operational images as "Images without a social goal, not for edification, not for reflection," and that they "do not represent an object, but rather are part of an operation." According to Volker Pantenburg, operational images are more accurately characterized as "visualizations of data". He describes operational images as a "working image" or an image that "performs work". Operational images are ubiquitous in modern society, used for a variety of military and non-military applications, such as inspecting sewer piping, and assisting surgeons performing robotic surgery.
Read more →
Loebner Prize

The Loebner Prize was an annual competition in artificial intelligence that awarded prizes to the computer programs considered by the judges to be the most human-like. The format of the competition was that of a standard Turing test. In each round, a human judge simultaneously held textual conversations with a computer program and a human being via computer. Based upon the responses, the judge would attempt to determine which was which. The contest was launched in 1990 by Hugh Loebner in conjunction with the Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies, Massachusetts, United States. In 2004 and 2005, it was held in Loebner's apartment in New York City. Within the field of artificial intelligence, the Loebner Prize is somewhat controversial; the most prominent critic, Marvin Minsky, called it a publicity stunt that does not help the field along. Beginning in 2014, it was organised by the AISB at Bletchley Park. It has also been associated with Flinders University, Dartmouth College, the Science Museum in London, University of Reading and Ulster University, Magee Campus, Derry, UK City of Culture. For the final 2019 competition, the format changed. There was no panel of judges. Instead, the chatbots were judged by the public and there were to be no human competitors. The prize has been reported as defunct as of 2020. == Prizes == Originally, $2,000 was awarded for the most human-seeming program in the competition. The prize was $3,000 in 2005 and $2,250 in 2006. In 2008, $3,000 was awarded. In addition, there were two one-time-only prizes that have never been awarded. $25,000 is offered for the first program that judges cannot distinguish from a real human and which can convince judges that the human is the computer program. $100,000 is the reward for the first program that judges cannot distinguish from a real human in a Turing test that includes deciphering and understanding text, visual, and auditory input. The competition was planned to end after the achievement of this prize. == Competition rules and restrictions == The rules varied over the years and early competitions featured restricted conversation Turing tests but since 1995 the discussion has been unrestricted. For the three entries in 2007, Robert Medeksza, Noah Duncan and Rollo Carpenter, some basic "screening questions" were used by the sponsor to evaluate the state of the technology. These included simple questions about the time, what round of the contest it is, etc.; general knowledge ("What is a hammer for?"); comparisons ("Which is faster, a train or a plane?"); and questions demonstrating memory for preceding parts of the same conversation. "All nouns, adjectives and verbs will come from a dictionary suitable for children or adolescents under the age of 12." Entries did not need to respond "intelligently" to the questions to be accepted. For the first time in 2008 the sponsor allowed introduction of a preliminary phase to the contest opening up the competition to previously disallowed web-based entries judged by a variety of invited interrogators. The available rules do not state how interrogators are selected or instructed. Interrogators (who judge the systems) have limited time: 5 minutes per entity in the 2003 competition, 20+ per pair in 2004–2007 competitions, 5 minutes to conduct simultaneous conversations with a human and the program in 2008–2009, increased to 25 minutes of simultaneous conversation since 2010. == Criticisms == The prize has long been scorned by experts in the field, for a variety of reasons. It is regarded by many as a publicity stunt. Marvin Minsky scathingly offered a "prize" to anyone who could stop the competition. Loebner responded by jokingly observing that Minsky's offering a prize to stop the competition effectively made him a co-sponsor. The rules of the competition have encouraged poorly qualified judges to make rapid judgements. Interactions between judges and competitors was originally very brief, for example effectively 2.5 mins of questioning, which permitted only a few questions. Questioning was initially restricted to a single topic of the contestant's choice, such as "whimsical conversation", a domain suiting standard chatbot tricks. Competition entrants do not aim at understanding or intelligence but resort to basic ELIZA style tricks, and successful entrants find deception and pretense is rewarded. == Contests == See article history for more details of some earlier contests. A very incomplete listing of a few of the contests: === 2003 === In 2003, the contest was organised by Professor Richard H. R. Harper and Dr. Lynne Hamill from the Digital World Research Centre at the University of Surrey. Although no bot passed the Turing test, the winner was Jabberwock, created by Juergen Pirner. Second was Elbot (Fred Roberts, Artificial Solutions). Third was Jabberwacky, (Rollo Carpenter). === 2006 === In 2006, the contest was organised by Tim Child (CEO of Televirtual) and Huma Shah. On August 30, the four finalists were announced: Rollo Carpenter Richard Churchill and Marie-Claire Jenkins Noah Duncan Robert Medeksza The contest was held on 17 September in the VR theatre, Torrington Place campus of University College London. The judges included the University of Reading's cybernetics professor, Kevin Warwick, a professor of artificial intelligence, John Barnden (specialist in metaphor research at the University of Birmingham), a barrister, Victoria Butler-Cole and a journalist, Graham Duncan-Rowe. The latter's experience of the event can be found in an article in Technology Review. The winner was 'Joan', based on Jabberwacky, both created by Rollo Carpenter. === 2007 === The 2007 competition was held on October 21 in New York City. The judges were: computer science professor Russ Abbott, philosophy professor Hartry Field, psychology assistant professor Clayton Curtis and English lecturer Scott Hutchins. No bot passed the Turing test, but the judges ranked the three contestants as follows: 1st: Robert Medeksza, creator of Ultra Hal 2nd: Noah Duncan, a private entry, creator of Cletus 3rd: Rollo Carpenter from Icogno, creator of Jabberwacky The winner received $2,250 and the annual medal. The runners-up received $250 each. === 2008 === The 2008 competition was organised by professor Kevin Warwick, coordinated by Huma Shah and held on October 12 at the University of Reading, UK. After testing by over one hundred judges during the preliminary phase, in June and July 2008, six finalists were selected from thirteen original entrant artificial conversational entities (ACEs). Five of those invited competed in the finals: Brother Jerome, Peter Cole and Benji Adams Elbot, Fred Roberts / Artificial Solutions Eugene Goostman, Vladimir Veselov, Eugene Demchenko and Sergey Ulasen Jabberwacky, Rollo Carpenter Ultra Hal, Robert Medeksza In the finals, each of the judges was given five minutes to conduct simultaneous, split-screen conversations with two hidden entities. Elbot of Artificial Solutions won the 2008 Loebner Prize bronze award, for most human-like artificial conversational entity, through fooling three of the twelve judges who interrogated it (in the human-parallel comparisons) into believing it was human. This is coming very close to the 30% traditionally required to consider that a program has actually passed the Turing test. Eugene Goostman and Ultra Hal both deceived one judge each that it was the human. Will Pavia, a journalist for The Times, has written about his experience; a Loebner finals' judge, he was deceived by Elbot and Eugene. Kevin Warwick and Huma Shah have reported on the parallel-paired Turing tests. === 2009 === The 2009 Loebner Prize Competition was held September 6, 2009, at the Brighton Centre, Brighton UK in conjunction with the Interspeech 2009 conference. The prize amount for 2009 was $3,000. Entrants were David Levy, Rollo Carpenter, and Mohan Embar, who finished in that order. The writer Brian Christian participated in the 2009 Loebner Prize Competition as a human confederate, and described his experiences at the competition in his book The Most Human Human. === 2010 === The 2010 Loebner Prize Competition was held on October 23 at California State University, Los Angeles. The 2010 competition was the 20th running of the contest. The winner was Bruce Wilcox with Suzette. === 2011 === The 2011 Loebner Prize Competition was held on October 19 at the University of Exeter, Devon, United Kingdom. The prize amount for 2011 was $4,000. The four finalists and their chatterbots were Bruce Wilcox (Rosette), Adeena Mignogna (Zoe), Mohan Embar (Chip Vivant) and Ron Lee (Tutor), who finished in that order. That year there was an addition of a panel of junior judges, namely Georgia-Mae Lindfield, William Dunne, Sam Keat and Kirill Jerdev. The results of the junior contest were markedly different from the main contest, with chatterbots Tutor and Zoe tying for first place and Chip Vivant and Rosette coming in third and fourt
Read more →
Trigram

Trigrams are a special case of the n-gram, where n is 3. They are often used in natural language processing for performing statistical analysis of texts and in cryptography for control and use of ciphers and codes. See results of analysis of "Letter Frequencies in the English Language". == Frequency == Context is very important, varying analysis rankings and percentages are easily derived by drawing from different sample sizes, different authors; or different document types: poetry, science-fiction, technology documentation; and writing levels: stories for children versus adults, military orders, and recipes. Typical cryptanalytic frequency analysis finds that the 16 most common character-level trigrams in English are: Because encrypted messages sent by telegraph often omit punctuation and spaces, cryptographic frequency analysis of such messages includes trigrams that straddle word boundaries. This causes trigrams such as "edt" to occur frequently, even though it may never occur in any one word of those messages. == Examples == The sentence "the quick red fox jumps over the lazy brown dog" has the following word-level trigrams: the quick red quick red fox red fox jumps fox jumps over jumps over the over the lazy the lazy brown lazy brown dog And the word-level trigram "the quick red" has the following character-level trigrams (where an underscore "_" marks a space): the he_ e_q _qu qui uic ick ck_ k_r _re red
Read more →
Concept mining

Concept mining is an activity that results in the extraction of concepts from artifacts. Solutions to the task typically involve aspects of artificial intelligence and statistics, such as data mining and text mining. Because artifacts are typically a loosely structured sequence of words and other symbols (rather than concepts), the problem is nontrivial, but it can provide powerful insights into the meaning, provenance and similarity of documents. == Methods == Traditionally, the conversion of words to concepts has been performed using a thesaurus, and for computational techniques the tendency is to do the same. The thesauri used are either specially created for the task, or a pre-existing language model, usually related to Princeton's WordNet. The mappings of words to concepts are often ambiguous. Typically each word in a given language will relate to several possible concepts. Humans use context to disambiguate the various meanings of a given piece of text, where available machine translation systems cannot easily infer context. For the purposes of concept mining, however, these ambiguities tend to be less important than they are with machine translation, for in large documents the ambiguities tend to even out, much as is the case with text mining. There are many techniques for disambiguation that may be used. Examples are linguistic analysis of the text and the use of word and concept association frequency information that may be inferred from large text corpora. Recently, techniques that base on semantic similarity between the possible concepts and the context have appeared and gained interest in the scientific community. == Applications == === Detecting and indexing similar documents in large corpora === One of the spin-offs of calculating document statistics in the concept domain, rather than the word domain, is that concepts form natural tree structures based on hypernymy and meronymy. These structures can be used to generate simple tree membership statistics, that can be used to locate any document in a Euclidean concept space. If the size of a document is also considered as another dimension of this space then an extremely efficient indexing system can be created. This technique is currently in commercial use locating similar legal documents in a 2.5 million document corpus. === Clustering documents by topic === Standard numeric clustering techniques may be used in "concept space" as described above to locate and index documents by the inferred topic. These are numerically far more efficient than their text mining cousins, and tend to behave more intuitively, in that they map better to the similarity measures a human would generate.
Read more →
NASA AI Assisted-Air Quality Monitoring Project

The NASA Expert-System Ion Trap Mass Spectrometer (ES-ITMS) Project was a public-private partnership to develop an artificial intelligence assisted, air quality monitoring system and was qualified for use on the Space Shuttle. The partnership was also the first cost and intellectual property shared public-partnership implemented by NASA, which used the commercial Research and Development Limited Partnership (RDLP) model that had been adopted by the Reagan Administration for Department of Defense semiconductor development, and recommended for use by NASA for space commercialization. The project partners included NASA, the University of Florida and Finnigan MAT Corporation, was organized and administered by the NASA Joint Enterprise Institute (subsequently NASA Joint Sponsored Program) and ran from 1988 through 1990. The partnership concluded final testing in 1991, generating four patents, expert system software and application protocol reports. The system was space qualified for use on the Shuttle and elements of the ES-ITMS system were integrated into the product Improvements for Finnigan MAT corporation. The success of the partnership lead NASA to create a pilot program to develop partnership business models as an ongoing management practice. == Purpose and objectives == The need to monitor air quality in confined spaces represented an increasing challenge for NASA's planned space missions and private sector facility managers facing the increased scrutiny of possible air contaminants. Up to the early 1980's, air quality monitors generally required large spaces and human technicians to interpret readings. This created a need for miniaturized air quality monitors that could generate reliable and accurate analytic results without on-site technician presence. NASA initiated projects to develop..."mobile and/or portable mass spectrometers" that evaluated the "tradeoff between instrumentation capabilities and space, weight and power considerations." NASA selected a "commercial ITMS instrument capable of generating electron ionization, chemical ionization and mass spectrometry data", to develop a linked expert system to accomplish analysis without human intervention. The commercial instrumentation was from Finnigan MAT corporation while the scientific expertise to support expert system development was available at the University of Florida. The project managers at NASA Ames created a single, integrated project using the RDLP model with objectives to: Develop AI/expert system software for instrument control (NASA's role) Expand sensitivity, selectivity and speed of the spectrometer (Univ Florida role) Expand the spectrometer analytic capability and automate the screening (Finnigan role) == Membership == The partnership included seven specialists from five member organizations: Federal Government National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) NASA Ames Research Center (ARC) NASA Kennedy Space Center (KSC) Commercial Finnigan MAT Corporation (Thermo-Fisher Scientific) TGS Technology, Inc. Research Management University of Florida == Organization, management and administration == The technical project was organized into two development teams, one located in at the NASA Ames Research Center covering expert systems and analytic capabilities and one in Florida covering improved sensitivity and testing. The partnership management and administration was provided by a non-profit, partnership support organization: the Joint Enterprise Institute operating through San Francisco State University Foundation (SFSUF) with a NASA employee liaison, Syed Shariq. == Public-private partnership == The partnership structure was as a prototype test of a pilot NASA program to develop public-private partnership business models. The pilot program was known as the NASA Joint Sponsored Research Program (JSRP), which operated as the NASA Joint Enterprise Institute between 1988 and 1991. The partnership was the first public-private, research and development partnership implemented by NASA in response to national policy shifts to increase technology transfer and space commercialization. The partnership structure included a two year technology development and testing plan that cost $610,000, of which NASA funded $310,000, Finnigan $175,000 and the University of Florida $95,000. == Results and commercialization == The project generated patents (4), software (2) and application protocol reports (8). NASA gained use of the patents and jointly development software while Finnigan received commercial utilization rights. The results were commercialized within eighteen months of project completion. == Recognition == NASA recognized the project as a space qualified instrument. Its achievements were reported to the NASA Administrator, directly leading to establishment of the agency-wide Joint Sponsored Research Program.
Read more →
Apache OpenNLP

The Apache OpenNLP library is a machine learning based toolkit for the processing of natural language text. It supports the most common NLP tasks, such as language detection, tokenization, sentence segmentation, part-of-speech tagging, named entity extraction, chunking, parsing and coreference resolution. These tasks are usually required to build more advanced text processing services.
Read more →
SemEval

SemEval (Semantic Evaluation) is an ongoing series of evaluations of computational semantic analysis systems; it evolved from the Senseval word sense evaluation series. The evaluations are intended to explore the nature of meaning in language. While meaning is intuitive to humans, transferring those intuitions to computational analysis has proved elusive. This series of evaluations provides a mechanism to characterize in more precise terms exactly what is necessary to compute in meaning. As such, the evaluations provide an emergent mechanism to identify the problems and solutions for computations with meaning. These exercises have evolved to articulate more of the dimensions that are involved in our use of language. They began with apparently simple attempts to identify word senses computationally. They have evolved to investigate the interrelationships among the elements in a sentence (e.g., semantic role labeling), relations between sentences (e.g., coreference), and the nature of what we are saying (semantic relations and sentiment analysis). The purpose of the SemEval and Senseval exercises is to evaluate semantic analysis systems. "Semantic Analysis" refers to a formal analysis of meaning, and "computational" refer to approaches that in principle support effective implementation. The first three evaluations, Senseval-1 through Senseval-3, were focused on word sense disambiguation (WSD), each time growing in the number of languages offered in the tasks and in the number of participating teams. Beginning with the fourth workshop, SemEval-2007 (SemEval-1), the nature of the tasks evolved to include semantic analysis tasks outside of word sense disambiguation. Triggered by the conception of the SEM conference, the SemEval community had decided to hold the evaluation workshops yearly in association with the SEM conference. It was also the decision that not every evaluation task will be run every year, e.g. none of the WSD tasks were included in the SemEval-2012 workshop. == History == === Early evaluation of algorithms for word sense disambiguation === From the earliest days, assessing the quality of word sense disambiguation algorithms had been primarily a matter of intrinsic evaluation, and “almost no attempts had been made to evaluate embedded WSD components”. Only very recently (2006) had extrinsic evaluations begun to provide some evidence for the value of WSD in end-user applications. Until 1990 or so, discussions of the sense disambiguation task focused mainly on illustrative examples rather than comprehensive evaluation. The early 1990s saw the beginnings of more systematic and rigorous intrinsic evaluations, including more formal experimentation on small sets of ambiguous words. === Senseval to SemEval === In April 1997, Martha Palmer and Marc Light organized a workshop entitled Tagging with Lexical Semantics: Why, What, and How? in conjunction with the Conference on Applied Natural Language Processing. At the time, there was a clear recognition that manually annotated corpora had revolutionized other areas of NLP, such as part-of-speech tagging and parsing, and that corpus-driven approaches had the potential to revolutionize automatic semantic analysis as well. Kilgarriff recalled that there was "a high degree of consensus that the field needed evaluation", and several practical proposals by Resnik and Yarowsky kicked off a discussion that led to the creation of the Senseval evaluation exercises. === SemEval's 3, 2 or 1 year(s) cycle === After SemEval-2010, many participants feel that the 3-year cycle is a long wait. Many other shared tasks such as Conference on Natural Language Learning (CoNLL) and Recognizing Textual Entailments (RTE) run annually. For this reason, the SemEval coordinators gave the opportunity for task organizers to choose between a 2-year or a 3-year cycle. The SemEval community favored the 3-year cycle. Although the votes within the SemEval community favored a 3-year cycle, organizers and coordinators had settled to split the SemEval task into 2 evaluation workshops. This was triggered by the introduction of the new SEM conference. The SemEval organizers thought it would be appropriate to associate our event with the SEM conference and collocate the SemEval workshop with the SEM conference. The organizers got very positive responses (from the task coordinators/organizers and participants) about the association with the yearly SEM, and 8 tasks were willing to switch to 2012. Thus was born SemEval-2012 and SemEval-2013. The current plan is to switch to a yearly SemEval schedule to associate it with the SEM conference but not every task needs to run every year. ==== List of Senseval and SemEval Workshops ==== Senseval-1 took place in the summer of 1998 for English, French, and Italian, culminating in a workshop held at Herstmonceux Castle, Sussex, England on September 2–4. Senseval-2 took place in the summer of 2001, and was followed by a workshop held in July 2001 in Toulouse, in conjunction with ACL 2001. Senseval-2 included tasks for Basque, Chinese, Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, Estonian, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Spanish and Swedish. Senseval-3 took place in March–April 2004, followed by a workshop held in July 2004 in Barcelona, in conjunction with ACL 2004. Senseval-3 included 14 different tasks for core word sense disambiguation, as well as identification of semantic roles, multilingual annotations, logic forms, subcategorization acquisition. SemEval-2007 (Senseval-4) took place in 2007, followed by a workshop held in conjunction with ACL in Prague. SemEval-2007 included 18 different tasks targeting the evaluation of systems for the semantic analysis of text. A special issue of Language Resources and Evaluation is devoted to the result. SemEval-2010 took place in 2010, followed by a workshop held in conjunction with ACL in Uppsala. SemEval-2010 included 18 different tasks targeting the evaluation of semantic analysis systems. SemEval-2012 took place in 2012; it was associated with the new SEM, First Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics, and co-located with NAACL, Montreal, Canada. SemEval-2012 included 8 different tasks targeting at evaluating computational semantic systems. However, there was no WSD task involved in SemEval-2012, the WSD related tasks were scheduled in the upcoming SemEval-2013. SemEval-2013 was associated with NAACL 2013, North American Association of Computational Linguistics, Georgia, USA and took place in 2013. It included 13 different tasks targeting at evaluating computational semantic systems. SemEval-2014 took place in 2014. It was co-located with COLING 2014, 25th International Conference on Computational Linguistics and SEM 2014, Second Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics, Dublin, Ireland. There were 10 different tasks in SemEval-2014 evaluating various computational semantic systems. SemEval-2015 took place in 2015. It was co-located with NAACL-HLT 2015, 2015 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics – Human Language Technologies and SEM 2015, Third Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics, Denver, USA. There were 17 different tasks in SemEval-2015 evaluating various computational semantic systems. == SemEval Workshop framework == The framework of the SemEval/Senseval evaluation workshops emulates the Message Understanding Conferences (MUCs) and other evaluation workshops ran by ARPA (Advanced Research Projects Agency, renamed the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)). Stages of SemEval/Senseval evaluation workshops Firstly, all likely participants were invited to express their interest and participate in the exercise design. A timetable towards a final workshop was worked out. A plan for selecting evaluation materials was agreed. 'Gold standards' for the individual tasks were acquired, often human annotators were considered as a gold standard to measure precision and recall scores of computer systems. These 'gold standards' are what the computational systems strive towards. In WSD tasks, human annotators were set on the task of generating a set of correct WSD answers (i.e. the correct sense for a given word in a given context) The gold standard materials, without answers, were released to participants, who then had a short time to run their programs over them and return their sets of answers to the organizers. The organizers then scored the answers and the scores were announced and discussed at a workshop. == Semantic evaluation tasks == Senseval-1 & Senseval-2 focused on evaluation WSD systems on major languages that were available corpus and computerized dictionary. Senseval-3 looked beyond the lexemes and started to evaluate systems that looked into wider areas of semantics, such as Semantic Roles (technically known as Theta roles in formal semantics), Logic Form Transformation (commonly semantics of phrases, clauses or sentences were represented
Read more →
Graph cut optimization

Graph cut optimization is a combinatorial optimization method applicable to a family of functions of discrete variables, named after the concept of cut in the theory of flow networks. Thanks to the max-flow min-cut theorem, determining the minimum cut over a graph representing a flow network is equivalent to computing the maximum flow over the network. Given a pseudo-Boolean function f {\displaystyle f} , if it is possible to construct a flow network with positive weights such that each cut C {\displaystyle C} of the network can be mapped to an assignment of variables x {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} } to f {\displaystyle f} (and vice versa), and the cost of C {\displaystyle C} equals f ( x ) {\displaystyle f(\mathbf {x} )} (up to an additive constant) then it is possible to find the global optimum of f {\displaystyle f} in polynomial time by computing a minimum cut of the graph. The mapping between cuts and variable assignments is done by representing each variable with one node in the graph and, given a cut, each variable will have a value of 0 if the corresponding node belongs to the component connected to the source, or 1 if it belong to the component connected to the sink. Not all pseudo-Boolean functions can be represented by a flow network, and in the general case the global optimization problem is NP-hard. There exist sufficient conditions to characterise families of functions that can be optimised through graph cuts, such as submodular quadratic functions. Graph cut optimization can be extended to functions of discrete variables with a finite number of values, that can be approached with iterative algorithms with strong optimality properties, computing one graph cut at each iteration. Graph cut optimization is an important tool for inference over graphical models such as Markov random fields or conditional random fields, and it has applications in computer vision problems such as image segmentation, denoising, registration and stereo matching. == Representability == A pseudo-Boolean function f : { 0 , 1 } n → R {\displaystyle f:\{0,1\}^{n}\to \mathbb {R} } is said to be representable if there exists a graph G = ( V , E ) {\displaystyle G=(V,E)} with non-negative weights and with source and sink nodes s {\displaystyle s} and t {\displaystyle t} respectively, and there exists a set of nodes V 0 = { v 1 , … , v n } ⊂ V − { s , t } {\displaystyle V_{0}=\{v_{1},\dots ,v_{n}\}\subset V-\{s,t\}} such that, for each tuple of values ( x 1 , … , x n ) ∈ { 0 , 1 } n {\displaystyle (x_{1},\dots ,x_{n})\in \{0,1\}^{n}} assigned to the variables, f ( x 1 , … , x n ) {\displaystyle f(x_{1},\dots ,x_{n})} equals (up to a constant) the value of the flow determined by a minimum cut C = ( S , T ) {\displaystyle C=(S,T)} of the graph G {\displaystyle G} such that v i ∈ S {\displaystyle v_{i}\in S} if x i = 0 {\displaystyle x_{i}=0} and v i ∈ T {\displaystyle v_{i}\in T} if x i = 1 {\displaystyle x_{i}=1} . It is possible to classify pseudo-Boolean functions according to their order, determined by the maximum number of variables contributing to each single term. All first order functions, where each term depends upon at most one variable, are always representable. Quadratic functions f ( x ) = w 0 + ∑ i w i ( x i ) + ∑ i < j w i j ( x i , x j ) . {\displaystyle f(\mathbf {x} )=w_{0}+\sum _{i}w_{i}(x_{i})+\sum _{i 0 {\displaystyle p>0} then w i j k ( x i , x j , x k ) = w i j k ( 0 , 0 , 0 ) + p 1 ( x i − 1 ) + p 2 ( x j − 1 ) + p 3 ( x k − 1 ) + p 23 ( x j − 1 ) x k + p 31 x i ( x k − 1 ) + p 12 ( x i − 1 ) x j − p x i x j x k {\displaystyle w_{ijk}(x_{i},x_{j},x_{k})=w_{ijk}(0,0,0)+p_{1}(x_{i}-1)+p_{2}(x_{j}-1)+p_{3}(x_{k}-1)+p_{23}(x_{j}-1)x_{k}+p_{31}x_{i}(x_{k}-1)+p_{12}(x_{i}-1)x_{j}-px_{i}x_{j}x_{k}} with p 1 = w i j k ( 1 , 0 , 1 ) − w i j k ( 0 , 0 , 1 ) p 2 = w i j k ( 1 , 1 , 0 ) − w i j k ( 1 , 0 , 1 ) p 3 = w i j k ( 0 , 1 , 1 ) − w i j k ( 0 , 1 , 0 ) p 23 = w i j k ( 0 , 0 , 1 ) + w i j k ( 0 , 1 , 0 ) − w i j k ( 0 , 0 , 0 ) − w i j k ( 0 , 1 , 1 ) p 31 = w i j k ( 0 , 0 , 1 ) + w i j k ( 1 , 0 , 0 ) − w i j k ( 0 , 0 , 0 ) − w i j k ( 1 , 0 , 1 ) p 12 = w i j k ( 0 , 1 , 0 ) + w i j k ( 1 , 0 , 0 ) − w i j k ( 0 , 0 , 0 ) − w i j k ( 1 , 1 , 0 ) . {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}p_{1}&=w_{ijk}(1,0,1)-w_{ijk}(0,0,1)\\p_{2}&=w_{ijk}(1,1,0)-w_{ijk}(1,0,1)\\p_{3}&=w_{ijk}(0,1,1)-w_{ijk}(0,1,0)\\p_{23}&=w_{ijk}(0,0,1)+w_{ijk}(0,1,0)-w_{ijk}(0,0,0)-w_{ijk}(0,1,1)\\p_{31}&=w_{ijk}(0,0,1)+w_{ijk}(1,0,0)-w_{ijk}(0,0,0)-w_{ijk}(1,0,1)\\p_{12}&=w_{ijk}(0,1,0)+w_{ijk}(1,0,0)-w_{ijk}(0,0,0)-w_{ijk}(1,1
Read more →
List of color palettes

The following is a list that contains color palettes for notable computer graphics, terminals and video game consoles. Only a simulated image using a palette and its name are given. Main articles are linked from the name of each palette, test charts, sample colours, simulated images, and further technical details (including references). During older eras of computing, manufacturers developed many different display systems often in a competitive, non-collaborative basis (with a few exceptions in the VESA consortium), creating many proprietary, non-standard different instances of display hardware. Often, as with early personal and home computers, a given machine employed its unique display subsystem, also with its unique color palette. Furthermore, software developers had made use of the color abilities of distinct display systems in many different ways. The result is that there is no single common standard nomenclature or classification taxonomy which can encompass every computer color palette. In order to organize the material, color palettes have been grouped following certain criteria. First, generic monochrome and full RGB repertories common to various computer display systems are listed. Then, usual color repertories used for display systems that employ indexed color techniques. And finally, specific manufacturers' color palettes implemented in many representative early personal computers and video game consoles of various brands. The list for personal computer palettes is split into two categories: 8-bit and 16-bit machines. This is not intended as a true strict categorization of such machines, because mixed architectures also exist (16-bit processors with an 8-bit data bus or 32-bit processors with a 16-bit data bus, among others). The distinction is based more on broad 8-bit and 16-bit computer ages or generations (around 1975–1985 and 1985–1995, respectively) and their associated state of the art in color display capabilities. The following is the common color test chart and sample image used to render each palette in this list: See further details in the summary paragraph of the corresponding article. == List of monochrome and RGB palettes == In this article, the term monochrome palette means a set of intensities for a monochrome display, and the term RGB palette is defined as the complete set of combinations a given RGB display can offer by mixing all the possible intensities of the red, green, and blue primaries available in its hardware. These are generic complete repertories of colors to produce black and white and RGB color pictures by the display hardware, not necessarily the total number of such colors that can be simultaneously displayed in a given text or graphic mode of any machine. RGB is the most common method to produce colors for displays; so these complete RGB color repertories have every possible combination of R-G-B triplets within any given maximum number of levels per component. For specific hardware and different methods to produce colors than RGB, see the List of computer hardware palettes and the List of video game consoles sections. For various software arrangements and sorts of colors, including other possible full RGB arrangements within 8-bit depth displays, see the List of software palettes section. === Monochrome palettes === These palettes only have shades of gray. === Dichrome palettes === Each permuted pair of red, green, and blue (16-bit color palette, with 65,536 colors). For example, "additive red green" has zero blue and "subtractive red green" has full blue. === Regular RGB palettes === These full RGB palettes employ the same number of bits to store the relative intensity for the red, green and blue components of every image's pixel color. Thus, they have the same number of levels per channel and the total number of possible colors is always the cube of a power of two. It should be understood that 'when developed' many of these formats were directly related to the size of some host computers 'natural word length' in bytes—the amount of memory in bits held by a single memory address such that the CPU can grab or put it in one operation. === Non-regular RGB palettes === These are also RGB palettes, in the sense defined above (except for 4-bit RGBI, which has an intensity bit that affects all channels at once), but either they do not have the same number of levels for each primary channel, or the numbers are not powers of two, so are not represented as separate bit fields. All of these have been used in popular personal computers. == List of software palettes == Systems that use a 4-bit or 8-bit pixel depth can display up to 16 or 256 colors simultaneously. Many personal computers in the later 1980s and early 1990s displayed at most 256 different colors, freely selected by software (either by the user or by a program) from their wider hardware's color palette. Usual selections of colors in limited subsets (generally 16 or 256) of the full palette includes some RGB level arrangements commonly used with the 8 bpp palettes as master palettes or universal palettes (i.e., palettes for multipurpose uses). These are some representative software palettes, but any selection can be made in such types of systems. === System specific palettes === These are selections of colors officially employed as system palettes in some popular operating systems for personal computers that feature 8-bit displays. === RGB arrangements === These are selections of colors based on evenly ordered RGB levels, mainly used as master palettes to display any kind of image within the limitations of the 8-bit pixel depth. === Other common uses of software palettes === == List of computer hardware palettes == In old personal computers and terminals that offered color displays, some color palettes were chosen algorithmically to provide the most diverse set of colors for a given palette size, and others were chosen to assure the availability of certain colors. In many early home computers, especially when the palette choices were determined at the hardware level by resistor combinations, the palette was determined by the manufacturer. Many early models output composite video colors. When seen on TV devices, the perception of the colors may not correspond with the value levels for the color values employed (most noticeable with NTSC TV color system). For current RGB display systems for PCs (Super VGA, etc.), see the 16-bit RGB and 24-bit RGB for High Color (thousands) and True Color (millions of colors) modes. For video game consoles, see the List of video game consoles section. For every model, their main different graphical color modes are listed based exclusively in the way they handle colors on screen, not all their different screen modes. The list is organized roughly historically by video hardware, not by branch. They are listed according to the original model of each system, which means that extended versions, clones, and compatibles also support the original palette. === Terminals and 8-bit machines === === 16-bit machines === === Video game console palettes === Color palettes of some of the most popular video game consoles. The criteria are the same as those of the List of computer hardware palettes section.
Read more →
Region Based Convolutional Neural Networks

Region-based Convolutional Neural Networks (R-CNN) are a family of machine learning models for computer vision, and specifically object detection and localization. The original goal of R-CNN was to take an input image and produce a set of bounding boxes as output, where each bounding box contains an object and also the category (e.g. car or pedestrian) of the object. In general, R-CNN architectures perform selective search over feature maps outputted by a CNN. R-CNN has been extended to perform other computer vision tasks, such as: tracking objects from a drone-mounted camera, locating text in an image, and enabling object detection in Google Lens. Mask R-CNN is also one of seven tasks in the MLPerf Training Benchmark, which is a competition to speed up the training of neural networks. == History == The following covers some of the versions of R-CNN that have been developed. November 2013: R-CNN. April 2015: Fast R-CNN. June 2015: Faster R-CNN. March 2017: Mask R-CNN. December 2017: Cascade R-CNN is trained with increasing Intersection over Union (IoU, also known as the Jaccard index) thresholds, making each stage more selective against nearby false positives. June 2019: Mesh R-CNN adds the ability to generate a 3D mesh from a 2D image. == Architecture == For review articles see. === Selective search === Given an image (or an image-like feature map), selective search (also called Hierarchical Grouping) first segments the image by the algorithm in (Felzenszwalb and Huttenlocher, 2004), then performs the following: Input: (colour) image Output: Set of object location hypotheses L Segment image into initial regions R = {r1, ..., rn} using Felzenszwalb and Huttenlocher (2004) Initialise similarity set S = ∅ foreach Neighbouring region pair (ri, rj) do Calculate similarity s(ri, rj) S = S ∪ s(ri, rj) while S ≠ ∅ do Get highest similarity s(ri, rj) = max(S) Merge corresponding regions rt = ri ∪ rj Remove similarities regarding ri: S = S \ s(ri, r∗) Remove similarities regarding rj: S = S \ s(r∗, rj) Calculate similarity set St between rt and its neighbours S = S ∪ St R = R ∪ rt Extract object location boxes L from all regions in R === R-CNN === With R-CNN, prediction follows a two-step process. A preprocessing selective search step generates a large set of candidate objects (typically as many as 2000), known as regions of interest (ROI). These are forwarded to a CNN, which predicts an object class score and bounding box estimate, independently for each ROI. Importantly, the ROIs are heavily filtered to remove excess candidates. This is achieved using two mechanism. Filtering begins by removing ROIs assigned to the background category. This is a specialized category, which is scored by the CNN alongside other categories. An unfortunate reality is that remaining ROIs typically suffer from heavy duplication. Namely, multiple ROIs that cover same objects in the image are all assigned non-background categories. This is resolved by a heuristic non-maximum suppression (NMS) step. === Fast R-CNN === While the original R-CNN independently computed the neural network features on each of as many as two thousand regions of interest, Fast R-CNN runs the neural network once on the whole image. At the end of the network is a ROIPooling module, which slices out each ROI from the network's output tensor, reshapes it, and classifies it. As in the original R-CNN, the Fast R-CNN uses selective search to generate its region proposals. === Faster R-CNN === While Fast R-CNN used selective search to generate ROIs, Faster R-CNN integrates the ROI generation into the neural network itself. === Mask R-CNN === While previous versions of R-CNN focused on object detections, Mask R-CNN adds instance segmentation. Mask R-CNN also replaced ROIPooling with a new method called ROIAlign, which can represent fractions of a pixel.
Read more →
GasBuddy

GasBuddy is a technology company headquartered in Dallas, United States, that offers mobile applications and websites for tracking crowd-sourced locations and prices of gas stations and convenience stores in the United States and Canada. Their platforms offer information sourced from users, gas station operators, and partner companies. They also provide business-to-business services to gas stations and convenience store owners. == History == GasBuddy was founded in Minneapolis in 2000 by Dustin Coupal, Jason Toews as a community website for sharing gas prices. In 2004, they filed as a for-profit corporation in Minnesota under the name GasBuddy Organization Inc. In 2009, GasBuddy launched OpenStore, a platform that allows convenience stores to build and manage their own mobile apps. In 2010, the company launched its own mobile apps that allowed users to input gas prices from their smartphones. In 2013, Oil Price Information Service (OPIS), a subsidiary of UCG, acquired GasBuddy. OPIS is a provider of petroleum pricing and news for businesses. In 2016, IHS acquired OPIS, separating from GasBuddy, which remained with UCG as a subsidiary company. Initially only available in the United States and Canada, GasBuddy launched in Australia in March 2016. Also in that year, GasBuddy released a completely redesigned app, its first major redesign since its release in 2010. GasBuddy also unveiled a new logo and launched GasBuddy Business Pages. GasBuddy shut down the Australian version of their app in 2022. In 2017, GasBuddy launched a gas savings program titled "Pay with GasBuddy" intended to let consumers save at gas stations in the United States. In the same year, GasBuddy was involved in a lawsuit with Reveal Mobile, a location-based marketing company, over the sale of user location data. It was revealed that GasBuddy sold information on more than 4.5 million users to Reveal each month for $9.50 per 1000 users. According to CNET, that information included "users' latitude, longitude, IP address, and time stamps on the data collected," which sparked concern in the media and between its users. In 2021, the GasBuddy app rose to the most popular app on both Android and iPhone platforms in the wake of the Colonial Pipeline ransomware attack PDI acquired GasBuddy in 2021.
Read more →