In search of the best AI avatar generator? An AI avatar generator 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 avatar generator slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. Below we compare features, pricing, and real output so you can choose with confidence.
Phase stretch transform
Phase stretch transform (PST) is a computational approach to signal and image processing. One of its utilities is for feature detection and classification. PST is related to time stretch dispersive Fourier transform. It transforms the image by emulating propagation through a diffractive medium with engineered 3D dispersive property (refractive index). The operation relies on symmetry of the dispersion profile and can be understood in terms of dispersive eigenfunctions or stretch modes. PST performs similar functionality as phase-contrast microscopy, but on digital images. PST can be applied to digital images and temporal (time series) data. It is a physics-based feature engineering algorithm. == Operation principle == Here the principle is described in the context of feature enhancement in digital images. The image is first filtered with a spatial kernel followed by application of a nonlinear frequency-dependent phase. The output of the transform is the phase in the spatial domain. The main step is the 2-D phase function which is typically applied in the frequency domain. The amount of phase applied to the image is frequency dependent, with higher amount of phase applied to higher frequency features of the image. Since sharp transitions, such as edges and corners, contain higher frequencies, PST emphasizes the edge information. Features can be further enhanced by applying thresholding and morphological operations. PST is a pure phase operation whereas conventional edge detection algorithms operate on amplitude. == Physical and mathematical foundations of phase stretch transform == Photonic time stretch technique can be understood by considering the propagation of an optical pulse through a dispersive fiber. By disregarding the loss and non-linearity in fiber, the non-linear Schrödinger equation governing the optical pulse propagation in fiber upon integration reduces to: E o ( z , t ) = 1 2 π ∫ − ∞ ∞ E ~ i ( 0 , ω ) ⋅ e − i β 2 z ω 2 2 ⋅ e i ω t d ω {\displaystyle E_{o}(z,t)={\frac {1}{2\pi }}\int _{-\infty }^{\infty }{\tilde {E}}_{i}(0,\omega )\cdot e^{\frac {-i\beta _{2}z\omega ^{2}}{2}}\cdot e^{i\omega {t}}\,d\omega } (1) where β 2 {\displaystyle \beta _{2}} = GVD parameter, z is propagation distance, E o ( z , t ) {\displaystyle E_{o}(z,t)} is the reshaped output pulse at distance z and time t. The response of this dispersive element in the time-stretch system can be approximated as a phase propagator as presented in H ( ω ) = e i φ ( ω ) = e i ∑ m = 0 ∞ φ m ( ω ) = ∏ m = 0 ∞ H m ( ω ) {\displaystyle H(\omega )=e^{i\varphi (\omega )}=e^{i\sum _{m=0}^{\infty }\varphi _{m}(\omega )}=\prod _{m=0}^{\infty }H_{m}(\omega )} (2) Therefore, Eq. 1 can be written as following for a pulse that propagates through the time-stretch system and is reshaped into a temporal signal with a complex envelope given by E o ( t ) = 1 2 π ∫ − ∞ ∞ E ~ i ( ω ) ⋅ H ( ω ) ⋅ e i ω t d ω {\displaystyle E_{o}(t)={\frac {1}{2\pi }}\int _{-\infty }^{\infty }{\tilde {E}}_{i}(\omega )\cdot H(\omega )\cdot e^{i\omega t}\,d\omega } (3) The time stretch operation is formulated as generalized phase and amplitude operations, S { E i ( t ) } = ∫ − ∞ + ∞ F { E i ( t ) } ⋅ e i φ ( ω ) ⋅ L ~ ( ω ) ⋅ e i ω t d ω {\displaystyle \mathbb {S} \{E_{i}(t)\}=\int _{-\infty }^{+\infty }{\mathcal {F}}\{E_{i}(t)\}\cdot e^{i\varphi (\omega )}\cdot {\tilde {L}}(\omega )\cdot e^{i\omega {t}}d\omega } (4) where e i φ ( ω ) {\displaystyle e^{i\varphi (\omega )}} is the phase filter and L ~ ( ω ) {\displaystyle {\tilde {L}}(\omega )} is the amplitude filter. Next the operator is converted to discrete domain, S { E i [ n ] } = 1 N ∑ u = 0 N − 1 F F T { E i ( n ) } ⋅ K ~ ( u ) ⋅ L ~ ( u ) ⋅ e i 2 π N u n {\displaystyle \mathbb {S} \{E_{i}[n]\}={\frac {1}{N}}\sum _{u=0}^{N-1}FFT\{E_{i}(n)\}\cdot {\tilde {K}}(u)\cdot {\tilde {L}}(u)\cdot e^{i{\frac {2\pi }{N}}un}} (5) where u {\displaystyle u} is the discrete frequency, K ~ ( u ) {\displaystyle {\tilde {K}}(u)} is the phase filter, L ~ ( u ) {\displaystyle {\tilde {L}}(u)} is the amplitude filter and FFT is fast Fourier transform. The stretch operator S { } {\displaystyle \mathbb {S} \{\}} for a digital image is then S { E i [ n , m ] } = 1 M N ∑ v = 0 N − 1 ∑ u = 0 M − 1 F F T 2 { E i ( n , m ) } ⋅ K ~ ( u , v ) ⋅ L ~ ( u , v ) ⋅ e i 2 π M u m ⋅ e i 2 π N v n {\displaystyle \mathbb {S} \{E_{i}[n,m]\}={\frac {1}{MN}}\sum _{v=0}^{N-1}\sum _{u=0}^{M-1}FFT^{2}\{E_{i}(n,m)\}\cdot {\tilde {K}}(u,v)\cdot {\tilde {L}}(u,v)\cdot e^{i{\frac {2\pi }{M}}um}\cdot e^{i{\frac {2\pi }{N}}vn}} (6) In the above equations, E i [ n , m ] {\displaystyle E_{i}[n,m]} is the input image, n {\displaystyle n} and m {\displaystyle m} are the spatial variables, F F T 2 {\displaystyle FFT^{2}} is the two-dimensional fast Fourier transform, and u {\displaystyle u} and v {\displaystyle v} are spatial frequency variables. The function K ~ ( u , v ) {\displaystyle {\tilde {K}}(u,v)} is the warped phase kernel and the function L ~ ( u , v ) {\displaystyle {\tilde {L}}(u,v)} is a localization kernel implemented in frequency domain. PST operator is defined as the phase of the Warped Stretch Transform output as follows P S T { E i [ n , m ] } ≜ ∡ { S { E i [ x , y ] } } {\displaystyle PST\{E_{i}[n,m]\}\triangleq \measuredangle \{\mathbb {S} \{E_{i}[x,y]\}\}} (7) where ∡ { } {\displaystyle \measuredangle \{\}} is the angle operator. == PST kernel implementation == The warped phase kernel K ~ ( u , v ) {\displaystyle {\tilde {K}}(u,v)} can be described by a nonlinear frequency dependent phase K ~ ( u , v ) = e i φ ( u , v ) {\displaystyle {\tilde {K}}(u,v)=e^{i\varphi (u,v)}} While arbitrary phase kernels can be considered for PST operation, here we study the phase kernels for which the kernel phase derivative is a linear or sublinear function with respect to frequency variables. A simple example for such phase derivative profiles is the inverse tangent function. Consider the phase profile in the polar coordinate system φ ( u , v ) = φ polar ( r , θ ) = φ polar ( r ) {\displaystyle \varphi (u,v)=\varphi _{\text{polar}}(r,\theta )=\varphi _{\text{polar}}(r)} From d φ ( r ) d r = tan − 1 ( r ) {\displaystyle {\frac {d\varphi (r)}{dr}}=\tan ^{-1}(r)} we have φ ( r ) = r tan − 1 ( r ) − 1 2 log ( r 2 + 1 ) {\displaystyle \varphi (r)=r\tan ^{-1}(r)-{\frac {1}{2}}\log(r^{2}+1)} Therefore, the PST kernel is implemented as φ ( r ) = S ⋅ ( W r ) ⋅ tan − 1 ( W r ) − 1 2 log ( 1 + ( W r ) 2 ) ( W r max ) ⋅ tan − 1 ( W r max ) − 1 2 log ( 1 + ( W r max ) 2 ) {\displaystyle \varphi (r)=S\cdot {\frac {(Wr)\cdot \tan ^{-1}(Wr)-{\frac {1}{2}}\log(1+(Wr)^{2})}{(Wr_{\max })\cdot \tan ^{-1}(Wr_{\max })-{\frac {1}{2}}\log(1+(Wr_{\max })^{2})}}} where S {\displaystyle S} and W {\displaystyle W} are real-valued numbers related to the strength and warp of the phase profile == Applications == PST has been used for edge detection in biological and biomedical images as well as synthetic-aperture radar (SAR) image processing, as well as detail and feature enhancement for digital images. PST has also been applied to improve the point spread function for single molecule imaging in order to achieve super-resolution. The transform exhibits intrinsic superior properties compared to conventional edge detectors for feature detection in low contrast visually impaired images. The PST function can also be performed on 1-D temporal waveforms in the analog domain to reveal transitions and anomalies in real time. == Open source code release == On February 9, 2016, a UCLA Engineering research group has made public the computer code for PST algorithm that helps computers process images at high speeds and "see" them in ways that human eyes cannot. The researchers say the code could eventually be used in face, fingerprint, and iris recognition systems for high-tech security, as well as in self-driving cars' navigation systems or for inspecting industrial products. The Matlab implementation for PST can also be downloaded from Matlab Files Exchange. However, it is provided for research purposes only, and a license must be obtained for any commercial applications. The software is protected under a US patent. The code was then significantly refactored and improved to support GPU acceleration. In May 2022, it became one algorithm in PhyCV: the first physics-inspired computer vision library.
Fred (chatbot)
Fred, or FRED, was an early chatbot written by Robby Garner. == History == The name Fred was initially suggested by Karen Lindsey, and then Robby jokingly came up with an acronym, "Functional Response Emulation Device." Fred has also been implemented as a Java application by Paco Nathan called JFRED Archived 2008-08-24 at the Wayback Machine. Fred Chatterbot is designed to explore Natural Language communications between people and computer programs. In particular, this is a study of conversation between people and ways that a computer program can learn from other people's conversations to make its own conversations. Fred used a minimalistic "stimulus-response" approach. It worked by storing a database of statements and their responses, and made its own reply by looking up the input statements made by a user and then rendering the corresponding response from the database. This approach simplified the complexity of the rule base, but required expert coding and editing for modifications. Fred was a predecessor to Albert One, which Garner used in 1998 and 1999 to win the Loebner Prize.
Kruti
Kruti is a multilingual AI agent and chatbot developed by the Indian company Ola Krutrim. It is designed to perform real-world tasks for users, such as booking taxis and ordering food, by integrating directly with various online services. It is notable for its ability to understand and respond in multiple Indian languages. Developed by a team founded by Bhavish Aggarwal, Kruti functions as an "agentic" AI, meaning it can reason, plan, and execute multi-step tasks to fulfill a user's request. The backend technology combines several open-source large language models with Ola's proprietary Krutrim V2 model. The system was developed to work primarily on smartphones, addressing the Indian market's specific needs, including language diversity and potential bandwidth constraints. Kruti was officially released in June 2025, replacing an earlier chatbot from the company that was also named Krutrim. Initially supporting 13 languages, the company plans to expand its capabilities to 22 Indian languages. == Background == Kruti is an improved version of Ola's Krutrim chatbot, which was first launched in 2023 and was intended to be replaced by Kruti. It was officially released on 12 June 2025 as an upgrade to passive chatbots, with support for text and voice in 13 Indian languages. As an agentic AI, it can execute tasks with customization and reasoning, providing adaptive answers based on user preferences and past interactions. Kruti is optimized for smartphone usage and designed to accommodate bandwidth constraints and usage patterns in India. To ensure scalability and cost-effective performance, it combines various open-source large language models with Ola's own Krutrim V2, which has 12 billion parameters. Its speech recognition is built to identify regional Indian languages, dialects, and accents. Due to its integration with numerous apps and services, Kruti is context-aware and can proactively complete tasks. Initially connected only with Ola ecosystem services, Krutrim intends to expand and incorporate various Indian services into Kruti, with the goal of adding services from Blinkit, Swiggy, and Uber with respective voice command support. On 20 June 2025, Krutrim acquired the AI platform BharatSah‘AI’yak to increase its involvement in government, education, and agriculture projects. This acquisition will allow Kruti to assist in broadening the scope of BharatSah'AI'yak's work on India-centric, vernacular retrieval-augmented generation AI bots. == Development == Kruti is designed to perform tasks with minimal user input, accepting documents, images, and text, without requiring users to switch between applications. Its agentic framework breaks queries into sub-tasks executed by multiple agents working sequentially or concurrently, with reported accuracy exceeding 90%. Kruti connects to company databases and APIs via the Model Context Protocol and presents responses as summaries, tables, or narratives adapted to user behaviour. The system supports payments via credit/debit cards and UPI. The underlying stack, which includes foundation models and AI training and inference systems, is intended to support adaptation across sectors such as healthcare, education, and finance. Ola Cabs and the Open Network for Digital Commerce have begun integrating Kruti into their platforms pending broader reliability testing.
Ugly duckling theorem
The ugly duckling theorem is an argument showing that classification is not really possible without some sort of bias. More particularly, it assumes finitely many properties combinable by logical connectives, and finitely many objects; it asserts that any two different objects share the same number of (extensional) properties. The theorem is named after Hans Christian Andersen's 1843 story "The Ugly Duckling", because it shows that a duckling is just as similar to a swan as two swans are to each other. It was derived by Satosi Watanabe in 1969. == Mathematical formula == Suppose there are n things in the universe, and one wants to put them into classes or categories. One has no preconceived ideas or biases about what sorts of categories are "natural" or "normal" and what are not. So one has to consider all the possible classes that could be, all the possible ways of making a set out of the n objects. There are 2 n {\displaystyle 2^{n}} such ways, the size of the power set of n objects. One can use that to measure the similarity between two objects, and one would see how many sets they have in common. However, one cannot. Any two objects have exactly the same number of classes in common if we can form any possible class, namely 2 n − 1 {\displaystyle 2^{n-1}} (half the total number of classes there are). To see this is so, one may imagine each class is represented by an n-bit string (or binary encoded integer), with a zero for each element not in the class and a one for each element in the class. As one finds, there are 2 n {\displaystyle 2^{n}} such strings. As all possible choices of zeros and ones are there, any two bit-positions will agree exactly half the time. One may pick two elements and reorder the bits so they are the first two, and imagine the numbers sorted lexicographically. The first 2 n / 2 {\displaystyle 2^{n}/2} numbers will have bit #1 set to zero, and the second 2 n / 2 {\displaystyle 2^{n}/2} will have it set to one. Within each of those blocks, the top 2 n / 4 {\displaystyle 2^{n}/4} will have bit #2 set to zero and the other 2 n / 4 {\displaystyle 2^{n}/4} will have it as one, so they agree on two blocks of 2 n / 4 {\displaystyle 2^{n}/4} or on half of all the cases, no matter which two elements one picks. So if we have no preconceived bias about which categories are better, everything is then equally similar (or equally dissimilar). The number of predicates simultaneously satisfied by two non-identical elements is constant over all such pairs. Thus, some kind of inductive bias is needed to make judgements to prefer certain categories over others. === Boolean functions === Let x 1 , x 2 , … , x n {\displaystyle x_{1},x_{2},\dots ,x_{n}} be a set of vectors of k {\displaystyle k} booleans each. The ugly duckling is the vector which is least like the others. Given the booleans, this can be computed using Hamming distance. However, the choice of boolean features to consider could have been somewhat arbitrary. Perhaps there were features derivable from the original features that were important for identifying the ugly duckling. The set of booleans in the vector can be extended with new features computed as boolean functions of the k {\displaystyle k} original features. The only canonical way to do this is to extend it with all possible Boolean functions. The resulting completed vectors have 2 k {\displaystyle 2^{k}} features. The ugly duckling theorem states that there is no ugly duckling because any two completed vectors will either be equal or differ in exactly half of the features. Proof. Let x and y be two vectors. If they are the same, then their completed vectors must also be the same because any Boolean function of x will agree with the same Boolean function of y. If x and y are different, then there exists a coordinate i {\displaystyle i} where the i {\displaystyle i} -th coordinate of x {\displaystyle x} differs from the i {\displaystyle i} -th coordinate of y {\displaystyle y} . Now the completed features contain every Boolean function on k {\displaystyle k} Boolean variables, with each one exactly once. Viewing these Boolean functions as polynomials in k {\displaystyle k} variables over GF(2), segregate the functions into pairs ( f , g ) {\displaystyle (f,g)} where f {\displaystyle f} contains the i {\displaystyle i} -th coordinate as a linear term and g {\displaystyle g} is f {\displaystyle f} without that linear term. Now, for every such pair ( f , g ) {\displaystyle (f,g)} , x {\displaystyle x} and y {\displaystyle y} will agree on exactly one of the two functions. If they agree on one, they must disagree on the other and vice versa. (This proof is believed to be due to Watanabe.) == Discussion == A possible way around the ugly duckling theorem would be to introduce a constraint on how similarity is measured by limiting the properties involved in classification, for instance, between A and B. However Medin et al. (1993) point out that this does not actually resolve the arbitrariness or bias problem since in what respects A is similar to B: "varies with the stimulus context and task, so that there is no unique answer, to the question of how similar is one object to another". For example, "a barberpole and a zebra would be more similar than a horse and a zebra if the feature striped had sufficient weight. Of course, if these feature weights were fixed, then these similarity relations would be constrained". Yet the property "striped" as a weight 'fix' or constraint is arbitrary itself, meaning: "unless one can specify such criteria, then the claim that categorization is based on attribute matching is almost entirely vacuous". Stamos (2003) remarked that some judgments of overall similarity are non-arbitrary in the sense they are useful: "Presumably, people's perceptual and conceptual processes have evolved that information that matters to human needs and goals can be roughly approximated by a similarity heuristic... If you are in the jungle and you see a tiger but you decide not to stereotype (perhaps because you believe that similarity is a false friend), then you will probably be eaten. In other words, in the biological world stereotyping based on veridical judgments of overall similarity statistically results in greater survival and reproductive success." Unless some properties are considered more salient, or 'weighted' more important than others, everything will appear equally similar, hence Watanabe (1986) wrote: "any objects, in so far as they are distinguishable, are equally similar". In a weaker setting that assumes infinitely many properties, Murphy and Medin (1985) give an example of two putative classified things, plums and lawnmowers: "Suppose that one is to list the attributes that plums and lawnmowers have in common in order to judge their similarity. It is easy to see that the list could be infinite: Both weigh less than 10,000 kg (and less than 10,001 kg), both did not exist 10,000,000 years ago (and 10,000,001 years ago), both cannot hear well, both can be dropped, both take up space, and so on. Likewise, the list of differences could be infinite… any two entities can be arbitrarily similar or dissimilar by changing the criterion of what counts as a relevant attribute." According to Woodward, the ugly duckling theorem is related to Schaffer's Conservation Law for Generalization Performance, which states that all algorithms for learning of boolean functions from input/output examples have the same overall generalization performance as random guessing. The latter result is generalized by Woodward to functions on countably infinite domains.
Deluxe Paint
Deluxe Paint, often referred to as DPaint, is a bitmap graphics editor created by Dan Silva for Electronic Arts and published for the then-new Amiga 1000 in November 1985. A series of updated versions followed, some of which were ported to other platforms. An MS-DOS release with support for the 256 color VGA standard became popular for creating pixel graphics in video games in the 1990s. Author Dan Silva previously worked on the Cut & Paste word processor (1984), also from Electronic Arts. == History == Deluxe Paint began as an in-house art development tool called Prism. As author Dan Silva added features to Prism, it was developed as a showcase product to coincide with the Amiga's debut in 1985. Upon release, it was quickly embraced by the Amiga community and became the de facto graphics (and later animation) editor for the platform. Amiga manufacturer Commodore International later commissioned EA to create version 4.5 AGA to bundle with the new Advanced Graphics Architecture chipset (A1200, A4000) capable Amigas. Version 5 was the last release after Commodore's bankruptcy in 1994. Early versions of Deluxe Paint were available in protected and non copy-protected versions, the latter retailing for a slightly higher price. The copy protection scheme was later dropped. Deluxe Paint was first in a series of products from the Electronic Arts Tools group—then later moved to the ICE (for Interactivity, Creativity, and Education) group—which included such Amiga programs as Deluxe Music Construction Set (preceded by Music Construction Set for the Apple II), Deluxe Video, and the Studio series of paint programs for the Mac. With the development of Deluxe Paint, EA introduced the ILBM and ANIM file format standards for graphics. While widely used on the Amiga, these formats never gained widespread end user acceptance on other platforms, but were heavily used by game development companies. Deluxe Paint was used by LucasArts to make graphics for their adventure games such as The Secret of Monkey Island, and the name of a particular filename used to store the main protagonist Guybrush Threepwood was probably at the origin of his peculiar name. One of the main artist developer of the game, Mark Ferrari, in an interview for The Making of Monkey Island 30th Anniversary Documentary remembers that "there was a pulldown menu in DPaint called brushes, so character sprites were referred to as brushes", and the male protagonist was simply "the guy.brush" until the artist Steve Purcell suggested to take the very name "Guybrush". The author Ron Gilbert remembers that the PC DOS version of the file was named "guybrush.bbm". == Versions == === Amiga === Deluxe Paint I was released in 1985. A major feature was animation by using color cycling. The Amiga natively supports indexed color, where a pixel's color value does not carry any RGB hue information but instead is an index to a color palette (a collection of unique color values). By adjusting the color value in the palette, all pixels with that palette value change simultaneously in the image or animation, creating cyclic movement in the image. In the Christmas demo files on the Deluxe Paint I disk, this kind of animation (which is toggled by pressing the tab key) is used to depict falling snowflakes, a blinking Christmas tree, and a roaring fire in the fireplace. In 1986, Deluxe Paint II was introduced, which added many convenient features such as pattern and gradient fill, which could be selected by right-clicking on a fill tool. An effects menu with e.g. perspective transformation was also added. The screen format could now be changed from a dedicated selection page. Deluxe Paint III appeared in 1989 and added support for Extra Halfbrite. New editing modes allowed one to stencil certain colors to protect them, so it is possible to e.g. paint a landscape from front to back, with the foreground protected by a stencil. A major new feature of Deluxe Paint III was the ability to create cel-like animation, and animbrushes (1MB of RAM is needed for animation). These let the user pick up a section of an animation as an "animbrush", which can then be placed onto the canvas while it animates. Deluxe Paint III was one of the first paint programs to support animbrushes. This is similar to copy and paste, except one can pick up more than one image. Deluxe Paint IV (introduced in 1991), which did not include Silva as the lead programmer, offered significant new features like non-bitplane-indexed Hold-and-Modify support for creating images with up to 4,096 colors. Animation support was improved by adding a light table, i.e. onion skinning, and AnimBrush morphing. The color mixer was now a HAM region at the bottom of the screen (instead of a floating window as before) and allowed mixing adjacent colors similar to a real palette. Deluxe Paint 4.5 AGA appeared the following year, addressing the stability issues and providing support for the new A1200 and A4000 AGA machines and a revamped screen mode interface. It appeared in both standalone and Commodore-bundled versions. The final release, Deluxe Paint V, in 1995, supported true 24-bit RGB images. However, using only the AGA native chipset, the 24-bit RGB color was only held in computer memory, the on-screen image was displayed in HAM8 (18-bit color). === Apple IIGS === DeluxePaint II for the Apple IIGS was developed by Brent Iverson and released in 1987. === MS-DOS === Deluxe Paint II for MS-DOS was released in 1988, It required MS-DOS 2.0 and 640 kB of RAM. It supports CGA, EGA, MCGA, VGA, Hercules and Tandy IBM PC-compatible graphic cards. Deluxe Paint II Enhanced was released in 1989, requiring MS-DOS 2.11 and 640 kB of RAM. It supports resolutions up to 800x600 pixels with 256 colors. Deluxe Paint II Enhanced 2.0, released in 1994, was the most successful MS-DOS version, and was compatible with PC Paintbrush PCX image files. The MS-DOS conversion was done by Brent Iverson with the enhanced features by Steve Shaw. It supports CGA, EGA, MCGA, VGA, Hercules, Tandy, and Amstrad video cards, as well as early Super VGA video cards enabling it to support up to 800 × 600 with 256 (from 262,144) colors and 1024 × 768 with 16 colors. The sister product Deluxe Paint Animation (only for 320×200 pixels and 256 colors) was widely used, especially in video game development. === Atari ST === Deluxe Paint ST was developed by ArtisTech Development, published by Electronic Arts, and was released in 1990. It supports the Atari STE 4096 color palette and animated graphics. Features advertised for the Atari ST version include 3D perspective, design your own fonts, mirror symmetry, multi-color airbrushing & animations, printing up to poster size, split-screen magnification with variable zoom, and working on animations (including multiple animations). == Workflow == "[" and "]" hotkeys step through the indexed palette, turning indexed-pixel-painting into a fast two-handed mouse+keys process, and the right mouse button paints with the background color. For example, transparency is obtained as simply as selecting a background color index (a single right click on the palette GUI to change). colors could be locked from editing by use of a stencil (a list of color indices whose pixels should not be altered in the image data) and simple color-cycling animations could be created using contiguous entries in the palette. This was easy to change the hue and tone of a section of the image by altering the corresponding colors in the palette. (The specific section needed to use a dedicated part of the palette for this technique to work.) Brushes can be cut from the background by using the box, freehand, or polygon selection tools. They can then be used in the same manner as any other brush or pen. This functionality is simpler to use than the "stamp" tool of Photoshop or Alpha Channels as provided in later programs. Brushes can be rotated and scaled, even in 3D. After a brush is selected, it appears attached to the mouse cursor, providing an exact preview of what will be drawn. This allows precise pixel positioning of brushes. Animations stored in IFF ANIM format are delta compressed making animations both smaller and faster to playback. == Reception == Compute! criticized the documentation of the first release of DeluxePaint as inadequate, but stated that "DeluxePaint is a visual arts program of immense scope and flexibility". In later versions the documentation was much improved; for instance DeluxePaint IV came with a 300-page manual. Deluxe Paint was a hit for EA. The main line of the series, particularly installments one to three, has won a total of at least nine awards from independent publications and organizations, including three Amiga-specific awards. Deluxe Paint III also won Commodore International's Enterprise and Vision award in 1990, becoming the first software to win the award, for what the company's judges believed to be best utilizing the Amiga's graphical capabilities. Deluxe Pai
Speculative decoding
Speculative decoding is an inference-time optimization for autoregressive large language models (LLMs) that generates multiple tokens per decoding step instead of one. A smaller draft model proposes a sequence of candidate tokens, and the larger target model verifies them in a single forward pass through a modified rejection sampling scheme. The verification preserves the target model's original output distribution, so the technique produces the same results as standard decoding while cutting latency by roughly two to three times. The name is an analogy to speculative execution in CPU design, where a processor runs instructions along a predicted branch before the outcome is known. == Background == Standard autoregressive decoding in large language models generates one token at a time. The model computes a probability distribution over its vocabulary, samples the next token, and feeds that token back as input. For large models, this process is bottlenecked by memory bandwidth rather than arithmetic throughput: loading the model's parameters from high-bandwidth memory (HBM) to the processor takes up most of the wall-clock time at each step. Because of this, a forward pass over one token and a forward pass over several tokens in a batch take roughly the same time. Speculative decoding relies on this property. == Mechanism == The technique alternates between two phases: drafting and verification. During drafting, a fast approximation model generates a short run of K candidate tokens, typically between 3 and 12. The draft model is usually a much smaller version of the target model or a lightweight auxiliary network. During verification, the target model scores the entire draft sequence in one batched forward pass. A modified rejection sampling algorithm compares the draft and target probabilities at each position. If the target model would have been at least as likely to produce a given token, that token is accepted; the first token that fails is resampled from a corrected distribution, and everything after it is thrown out. The result is that the output distribution is the same as if each token had been generated one at a time. How many tokens get accepted per cycle depends on how well the draft model matches the target. For common words and predictable continuations the match tends to be good, so the target model can confirm several tokens at once. == History == An early precursor was blockwise parallel decoding, proposed in 2018 by Stern, Shazeer, and Uszkoreit. Their method predicted multiple future tokens through auxiliary prediction heads and validated them against the autoregressive model, but it only worked with greedy decoding and did not preserve the full sampling distribution. The modern form of the technique came from Yaniv Leviathan, Matan Kalman, and Yossi Matias at Google Research, who posted "Fast Inference from Transformers via Speculative Decoding" on arXiv in November 2022. Separately and at about the same time, Charlie Chen and colleagues at DeepMind arrived at a closely related method they called speculative sampling, published in February 2023. Both papers introduced the use of rejection sampling to guarantee that the output distribution is unchanged. Leviathan et al. showed roughly 2–3x speedup on T5-XXL (11 billion parameters); Chen et al. reported 2–2.5x on the Chinchilla model (70 billion parameters). The Leviathan et al. paper was presented as an oral at the International Conference on Machine Learning in July 2023. == Variants == SpecInfer (Miao et al., 2024) uses multiple small language models to jointly build a tree of candidate continuations rather than a single chain. The target model verifies the whole tree in parallel and keeps the longest valid path, with reported speedups of 1.5–3.5x. Medusa (Cai et al., 2024) takes a different approach by not using a separate draft model at all. Extra lightweight decoding heads are attached to the target model itself, and each one predicts a token at a different future position. The candidates are evaluated through a tree-structured attention mechanism. The authors measured 2.2–3.6x speedup. EAGLE (Li et al., 2024) performs autoregression on the target model's internal feature representations (specifically the second-to-top layer) rather than on tokens directly. On LLaMA 2 Chat 70B, this gave a 2.7–3.5x latency reduction. Later versions added dynamic draft trees (EAGLE-2) and further optimizations (EAGLE-3), reaching 3–6.5x speedup. == Adoption == By 2024, speculative decoding had become a standard part of production LLM serving. Google uses it in the AI Overviews feature of Google Search. Open-source inference frameworks such as vLLM, NVIDIA's TensorRT-LLM, and SGLang all include built-in support for speculative decoding and its variants. Apple, AWS, and Meta have also published research extending the method or deploying it at scale.