Curious about the best AI essay writer? An AI essay writer 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 essay writer 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.
Controlled natural language
Controlled natural languages (CNLs) are subsets of natural languages that are obtained by restricting the grammar and vocabulary in order to reduce or eliminate ambiguity and complexity. Traditionally, controlled languages fall into two major types: those that improve readability for human readers (e.g. non-native speakers), and those that enable reliable automatic semantic analysis of the language. The first type of languages (often called "simplified" or "technical" languages), for example ASD Simplified Technical English, Caterpillar Technical English, IBM's Easy English, are used in the industry to increase the quality of technical documentation, and possibly simplify the semi-automatic translation of the documentation. These languages restrict the writer by general rules such as "Keep sentences short", "Avoid the use of pronouns", "Only use dictionary-approved words", and "Use only the active voice". The second type of languages have a formal syntax and formal semantics, and can be mapped to an existing formal language, such as first-order logic. Thus, those languages can be used as knowledge representation languages, and writing of those languages is supported by fully automatic consistency and redundancy checks, query answering, etc. == Languages == Existing controlled natural languages include: == Encoding == IETF has reserved simple as a BCP 47 variant subtag for simplified versions of languages.
Deep Learning Indaba
The Deep Learning Indaba is an annual conference and educational event that aims to strengthen machine learning and artificial intelligence (AI) capacity across Africa. Launched in 2017, it brings together students, researchers, industry practitioners, and policymakers from across the African continent. == History == The Deep Learning Indaba began in 2017 at the University of the Witwatersrand with over 300 participants from 23 African countries, offering tutorials in advanced AI topics and featuring notable speakers like Nando de Freitas. In 2018, it expanded to 650 delegates at Stellenbosch University, introducing parallel sessions to encourage collaboration. The 2019 edition in Nairobi, Kenya, reflected further growth, with increasing sponsorship and support from major tech companies like Google and Microsoft. === Deep Learning IndabaX ===
Kleene star
In formal language theory, the Kleene star (or Kleene operator or Kleene closure) refers to two related unary operations, that can be applied either to an alphabet of symbols or to a formal language, a set of strings (finite sequences of symbols). The Kleene star operator on an alphabet V generates the set V of all finite-length strings over V, that is, finite sequences whose elements belong to V; in mathematics, it is more commonly known as the free monoid construction. The Kleene star operator on a language L generates another language L, the set of all strings that can be obtained as a concatenation of zero or more members of L. In both cases, repetitions are allowed. The Kleene star operators are named after American mathematician Stephen Cole Kleene, who first introduced and widely used it to characterize automata for regular expressions. == Of an alphabet == Given an alphabet V {\displaystyle V} , define V 0 = { ε } {\displaystyle V^{0}=\{\varepsilon \}} (the set consists only of the empty string), V 1 = V , {\displaystyle V^{1}=V,} and define recursively the set V i + 1 = { w v : w ∈ V i and v ∈ V } {\displaystyle V^{i+1}=\{wv:w\in V^{i}{\text{ and }}v\in V\}} for each i > 0 , {\displaystyle i>0,} where w v {\displaystyle wv} denotes the string obtained by appending the single character v {\displaystyle v} to the end of w {\displaystyle w} . Here, V i {\displaystyle V^{i}} can be understood to be the set of all strings of length exactly i {\displaystyle i} , with characters from V {\displaystyle V} . The definition of Kleene star on V {\displaystyle V} is V ∗ = ⋃ i ≥ 0 V i = V 0 ∪ V 1 ∪ V 2 ∪ V 3 ∪ V 4 ∪ ⋯ . {\displaystyle V^{}=\bigcup _{i\geq 0}V^{i}=V^{0}\cup V^{1}\cup V^{2}\cup V^{3}\cup V^{4}\cup \cdots .} == Of a language == Given a language L {\displaystyle L} (any finite or infinite set of strings), define L 0 = { ε } {\displaystyle L^{0}=\{\varepsilon \}} (the language consisting only of the empty string), L 1 = L , {\displaystyle L^{1}=L,} and define recursively the set L i + 1 = { w v : w ∈ L i and v ∈ L } {\displaystyle L^{i+1}=\{wv:w\in L^{i}{\text{ and }}v\in L\}} for each i > 0 , {\displaystyle i>0,} where w v {\displaystyle wv} denotes the string obtained by concatenating w {\displaystyle w} and v {\displaystyle v} . Here, L i {\displaystyle L^{i}} can be understood to be the set of all strings that can be obtained by concatenating exactly i {\displaystyle i} strings from L {\displaystyle L} , allowing repetitions. The definition of Kleene star on L {\displaystyle L} is L ∗ = ⋃ i ≥ 0 L i = L 0 ∪ L 1 ∪ L 2 ∪ L 3 ∪ L 4 ∪ ⋯ . {\displaystyle L^{}=\bigcup _{i\geq 0}L^{i}=L^{0}\cup L^{1}\cup L^{2}\cup L^{3}\cup L^{4}\cup \cdots .} == Kleene plus == In some formal language studies, (e.g. AFL theory) a variation on the Kleene star operation called the Kleene plus is used. The Kleene plus omits the V 0 {\displaystyle V^{0}} or L 0 {\displaystyle L^{0}} term in the above unions. In other words, the Kleene plus on V {\displaystyle V} is V + = ⋃ i ≥ 1 V i = V 1 ∪ V 2 ∪ V 3 ∪ ⋯ , {\displaystyle V^{+}=\bigcup _{i\geq 1}V^{i}=V^{1}\cup V^{2}\cup V^{3}\cup \cdots ,} or V + = V ∗ V . {\displaystyle V^{+}=V^{}V.} == Examples == Example of Kleene star applied to a set of strings: {"ab","c"} = { ε, "ab", "c", "abab", "abc", "cab", "cc", "ababab", "ababc", "abcab", "abcc", "cabab", "cabc", "ccab", "ccc", ...}. Example of Kleene star applied to a set of strings without the prefix property: {"a","ab","b"} = { ε, "a", "ab", "b", "aa", "aab", "aba", "abab", "abb", "ba", "bab", "bb", ...};In this example, the string "aab" can be obtained in two different ways. The Sardinas-Patterson algorithm can be used to check for a given V whether any member of V can be obtained in more than one way. Example of Kleene and Kleene plus applied to a set of characters (following the C programming language convention where a character is denoted by single quotes and a string is denoted by double quotes): {'a', 'b', 'c'} = { ε, "a", "b", "c", "aa", "ab", "ac", "ba", "bb", "bc", "ca", "cb", "cc", "aaa", "aab", ...}. {'a', 'b', 'c'}+ = { "a", "b", "c", "aa", "ab", "ac", "ba", "bb", "bc", "ca", "cb", "cc", "aaa", "aab", ...}. == Properties == If V {\displaystyle V} is any finite or countably infinite set of characters, then V ∗ {\displaystyle V^{}} is a countably infinite set. As a result, each formal language over a finite or countably infinite alphabet Σ {\displaystyle \Sigma } is countable, since it is a subset of the countably infinite set Σ ∗ {\displaystyle \Sigma ^{}} . ( L ∗ ) ∗ = L ∗ {\displaystyle (L^{})^{}=L^{}} , which means that the Kleene star operator is an idempotent unary operator, as ( L ∗ ) i = L ∗ {\displaystyle (L^{})^{i}=L^{}} for every i ≥ 1 {\displaystyle i\geq 1} . V ∗ = { ε } {\displaystyle V^{}=\{\varepsilon \}} , if V {\displaystyle V} is the empty set ∅. For the version of the Kleene star operator on languages, L ∗ = { ε } {\displaystyle L^{}=\{\varepsilon \}} when L {\displaystyle L} is either the empty set ∅ or the singleton set { ε } {\displaystyle \{\varepsilon \}} . == Generalization == Strings form a monoid with concatenation as the binary operation and ε the identity element. In addition to strings, the Kleene star is defined for any monoid. More precisely, let (M, ⋅) be a monoid, and S ⊆ M. Then S is the smallest submonoid of M containing S; that is, S contains the neutral element of M, the set S, and is such that if x,y ∈ S, then x⋅y ∈ S. Furthermore, the Kleene star is generalized by including the -operation (and the union) in the algebraic structure itself by the notion of complete star semiring.
Scale-space axioms
In image processing and computer vision, a scale space framework can be used to represent an image as a family of gradually smoothed images. This framework is very general and a variety of scale space representations exist. A typical approach for choosing a particular type of scale space representation is to establish a set of scale-space axioms, describing basic properties of the desired scale-space representation and often chosen so as to make the representation useful in practical applications. Once established, the axioms narrow the possible scale-space representations to a smaller class, typically with only a few free parameters. A set of standard scale space axioms, discussed below, leads to the linear Gaussian scale-space, which is the most common type of scale space used in image processing and computer vision. == Scale space axioms for the linear scale-space representation == The linear scale space representation L ( x , y , t ) = ( T t f ) ( x , y ) = g ( x , y , t ) ∗ f ( x , y ) {\displaystyle L(x,y,t)=(T_{t}f)(x,y)=g(x,y,t)f(x,y)} of signal f ( x , y ) {\displaystyle f(x,y)} obtained by smoothing with the Gaussian kernel g ( x , y , t ) {\displaystyle g(x,y,t)} satisfies a number of properties 'scale-space axioms' that make it a special form of multi-scale representation: linearity T t ( a f + b h ) = a T t f + b T t h {\displaystyle T_{t}(af+bh)=aT_{t}f+bT_{t}h} where f {\displaystyle f} and h {\displaystyle h} are signals while a {\displaystyle a} and b {\displaystyle b} are constants, shift invariance T t S ( Δ x , Δ y ) f = S ( Δ x , Δ y ) T t f {\displaystyle T_{t}S_{(\Delta x,\Delta _{y})}f=S_{(\Delta x,\Delta _{y})}T_{t}f} where S ( Δ x , Δ y ) {\displaystyle S_{(\Delta x,\Delta _{y})}} denotes the shift (translation) operator ( S ( Δ x , Δ y ) f ) ( x , y ) = f ( x − Δ x , y − Δ y ) {\displaystyle (S_{(\Delta x,\Delta _{y})}f)(x,y)=f(x-\Delta x,y-\Delta y)} semi-group structure g ( x , y , t 1 ) ∗ g ( x , y , t 2 ) = g ( x , y , t 1 + t 2 ) {\displaystyle g(x,y,t_{1})g(x,y,t_{2})=g(x,y,t_{1}+t_{2})} with the associated cascade smoothing property L ( x , y , t 2 ) = g ( x , y , t 2 − t 1 ) ∗ L ( x , y , t 1 ) {\displaystyle L(x,y,t_{2})=g(x,y,t_{2}-t_{1})L(x,y,t_{1})} existence of an infinitesimal generator A {\displaystyle A} ∂ t L ( x , y , t ) = ( A L ) ( x , y , t ) {\displaystyle \partial _{t}L(x,y,t)=(AL)(x,y,t)} non-creation of local extrema (zero-crossings) in one dimension, non-enhancement of local extrema in any number of dimensions ∂ t L ( x , y , t ) ≤ 0 {\displaystyle \partial _{t}L(x,y,t)\leq 0} at spatial maxima and ∂ t L ( x , y , t ) ≥ 0 {\displaystyle \partial _{t}L(x,y,t)\geq 0} at spatial minima, rotational symmetry g ( x , y , t ) = h ( x 2 + y 2 , t ) {\displaystyle g(x,y,t)=h(x^{2}+y^{2},t)} for some function h {\displaystyle h} , scale invariance g ^ ( ω x , ω y , t ) = h ^ ( ω x φ ( t ) , ω x φ ( t ) ) {\displaystyle {\hat {g}}(\omega _{x},\omega _{y},t)={\hat {h}}({\frac {\omega _{x}}{\varphi (t)}},{\frac {\omega _{x}}{\varphi (t)}})} for some functions φ {\displaystyle \varphi } and h ^ {\displaystyle {\hat {h}}} where g ^ {\displaystyle {\hat {g}}} denotes the Fourier transform of g {\displaystyle g} , positivity g ( x , y , t ) ≥ 0 {\displaystyle g(x,y,t)\geq 0} , normalization ∫ x = − ∞ ∞ ∫ y = − ∞ ∞ g ( x , y , t ) d x d y = 1 {\displaystyle \int _{x=-\infty }^{\infty }\int _{y=-\infty }^{\infty }g(x,y,t)\,dx\,dy=1} . In fact, it can be shown that the Gaussian kernel is a unique choice given several different combinations of subsets of these scale-space axioms: most of the axioms (linearity, shift-invariance, semigroup) correspond to scaling being a semigroup of shift-invariant linear operator, which is satisfied by a number of families integral transforms, while "non-creation of local extrema" for one-dimensional signals or "non-enhancement of local extrema" for higher-dimensional signals are the crucial axioms which relate scale-spaces to smoothing (formally, parabolic partial differential equations), and hence select for the Gaussian. The Gaussian kernel is also separable in Cartesian coordinates, i.e. g ( x , y , t ) = g ( x , t ) g ( y , t ) {\displaystyle g(x,y,t)=g(x,t)\,g(y,t)} . Separability is, however, not counted as a scale-space axiom, since it is a coordinate dependent property related to issues of implementation. In addition, the requirement of separability in combination with rotational symmetry per se fixates the smoothing kernel to be a Gaussian. There exists a generalization of the Gaussian scale-space theory to more general affine and spatio-temporal scale-spaces. In addition to variabilities over scale, which original scale-space theory was designed to handle, this generalized scale-space theory also comprises other types of variabilities, including image deformations caused by viewing variations, approximated by local affine transformations, and relative motions between objects in the world and the observer, approximated by local Galilean transformations. In this theory, rotational symmetry is not imposed as a necessary scale-space axiom and is instead replaced by requirements of affine and/or Galilean covariance. The generalized scale-space theory leads to predictions about receptive field profiles in good qualitative agreement with receptive field profiles measured by cell recordings in biological vision. In the computer vision, image processing and signal processing literature there are many other multi-scale approaches, using wavelets and a variety of other kernels, that do not exploit or require the same requirements as scale space descriptions do; please see the article on related multi-scale approaches. There has also been work on discrete scale-space concepts that carry the scale-space properties over to the discrete domain; see the article on scale space implementation for examples and references.
Comparison of machine learning software
The following tables are a comparison of machine learning software such as software frameworks, libraries, and computer programs used for machine learning. == Machine learning software == == Other comparisons == == Machine learning helper libraries and platforms == Apache OpenNLP — natural language processing toolkit CUDA — GPU computing platform used to accelerate machine learning and deep learning workloads Horovod — distributed training framework for deep learning Hugging Face Transformers — library of pretrained transformer models built on other machine learning frameworks Kubeflow — machine learning platform for Kubernetes Mallet — toolkit for natural language processing and text analysis NumPy — numerical computing library used in machine learning OpenCV — computer vision library with machine learning functions ONNX — open format for representing machine learning models pandas — data analysis and data preparation library used in machine learning PlaidML — tensor compiler and backend for machine learning frameworks Polars — Dataframe library used for machine learning data preparation and analysis PyArrow — columnar data library used in machine learning data processing ROOT (TMVA) — data analysis framework with machine learning tools SciPy — scientific computing and optimization library used in machine learning == Online development environments for machine learning == Google Colab — hosted Jupyter Notebook environment commonly used for machine learning and deep learning JupyterLab — notebook-based development environment for machine learning and data science Jupyter Notebook — interactive notebook environment used for machine learning and data science Kaggle — online data science and machine learning platform
Referring expression generation
Referring expression generation (REG) is the subtask of natural language generation (NLG) that received most scholarly attention. While NLG is concerned with the conversion of non-linguistic information into natural language, REG focuses only on the creation of referring expressions (noun phrases) that identify specific entities called targets. This task can be split into two sections. The content selection part determines which set of properties distinguish the intended target and the linguistic realization part defines how these properties are translated into natural language. A variety of algorithms have been developed in the NLG community to generate different types of referring expressions. == Types of referring expressions == A referring expression (RE), in linguistics, is any noun phrase, or surrogate for a noun phrase, whose function in discourse is to identify some individual object (thing, being, event...) The technical terminology for identify differs a great deal from one school of linguistics to another. The most widespread term is probably refer, and a thing identified is a referent, as for example in the work of John Lyons. In linguistics, the study of reference relations belongs to pragmatics, the study of language use, though it is also a matter of great interest to philosophers, especially those wishing to understand the nature of knowledge, perception and cognition more generally. Various devices can be used for reference: determiners, pronouns, proper names... Reference relations can be of different kinds; referents can be in a "real" or imaginary world, in discourse itself, and they may be singular, plural, or collective. === Pronouns === The simplest type of referring expressions are pronoun such as he and it. The linguistics and natural language processing communities have developed various models for predicting anaphor referents, such as centering theory, and ideally referring-expression generation would be based on such models. However most NLG systems use much simpler algorithms, for example using a pronoun if the referent was mentioned in the previous sentence (or sentential clause), and no other entity of the same gender was mentioned in this sentence. === Definite noun phrases === There has been a considerable amount of research on generating definite noun phrases, such as the big red book. Much of this builds on the model proposed by Dale and Reiter. This has been extended in various ways, for example Krahmer et al. present a graph-theoretic model of definite NP generation with many nice properties. In recent years a shared-task event has compared different algorithms for definite NP generation, using the TUNA corpus. === Spatial and temporal reference === Recently there has been more research on generating referring expressions for time and space. Such references tend to be imprecise (what is the exact meaning of tonight?), and also to be interpreted in different ways by different people. Hence it may be necessary to explicitly reason about false positive vs false negative tradeoffs, and even calculate the utility of different possible referring expressions in a particular task context. === Criteria for good expressions === Ideally, a good referring expression should satisfy a number of criteria: Referential success: It should unambiguously identify the referent to the reader. Ease of comprehension: The reader should be able to quickly read and understand it. Computational complexity: The generation algorithm should be fast No false inferences: The expression should not confuse or mislead the reader by suggesting false implicatures or other pragmatic inferences. For example, a reader may be confused if he is told Sit by the brown wooden table in a context where there is only one table. == History == === Pre-2000 era === REG goes back to the early days of NLG. One of the first approaches was done by Winograd in 1972 who developed an "incremental" REG algorithm for his SHRDLU program. Afterwards researchers started to model the human abilities to create referring expressions in the 1980s. This new approach to the topic was influenced by the researchers Appelt and Kronfeld who created the programs KAMP and BERTRAND and considered referring expressions as parts of bigger speech acts. Some of their most interesting findings were the fact that referring expressions can be used to add information beyond the identification of the referent as well as the influence of communicative context and the Gricean maxims on referring expressions. Furthermore, its skepticism concerning the naturalness of minimal descriptions made Appelt and Kronfeld's research a foundation of later work on REG. The search for simple, well-defined problems changed the direction of research in the early 1990s. This new approach was led by Dale and Reiter who stressed the identification of the referent as the central goal. Like Appelt they discuss the connection between the Gricean maxims and referring expressions in their culminant paper in which they also propose a formal problem definition. Furthermore, Reiter and Dale discuss the Full Brevity and Greedy Heuristics algorithms as well as their Incremental Algorithm(IA) which became one of the most important algorithms in REG. === Later developments === After 2000 the research began to lift some of the simplifying assumptions, that had been made in early REG research in order to create more simple algorithms. Different research groups concentrated on different limitations creating several expanded algorithms. Often these extend the IA in a single perspective for example in relation to: Reference to Sets like "the t-shirt wearers" or "the green apples and the banana on the left" Relational Descriptions like "the cup on the table" or "the woman who has three children" Context Dependency, Vagueness and Gradeability include statements like "the older man" or "the car on the left" which are often unclear without a context Salience and Generation of Pronouns are highly discourse dependent making for example "she" a reference to "the (most salient) female person" Many simplifying assumptions are still in place or have just begun to be worked on. Also a combination of the different extensions has yet to be done and is called a "non-trivial enterprise" by Krahmer and van Deemter. Another important change after 2000 was the increasing use of empirical studies in order to evaluate algorithms. This development took place due to the emergence of transparent corpora. Although there are still discussions about what the best evaluation metrics are, the use of experimental evaluation has already led to a better comparability of algorithms, a discussion about the goals of REG and more task-oriented research. Furthermore, research has extended its range to related topics such as the choice of Knowledge Representation(KR) Frameworks. In this area the main question, which KR framework is most suitable for the use in REG remains open. The answer to this question depends on how well descriptions can be expressed or found. A lot of the potential of KR frameworks has been left unused so far. Some of the different approaches are the usage of: Graph search which treats relations between targets in the same way as properties. Constraint Satisfaction which allows for a separation between problem specification and the implementation. Modern Knowledge Representation which offers logical inference in for example Description Logic or Conceptual Graphs. == Problem definition == Dale and Reiter (1995) think about referring expressions as distinguishing descriptions. They define: The referent as the entity that should be described The context set as set of salient entities The contrast set or potential distractors as all elements of the context set except the referent A property as a reference to a single attribute–value pair Each entity in the domain can be characterised as a set of attribute–value pairs for example ⟨ {\displaystyle \langle } type, dog ⟩ {\displaystyle \rangle } , ⟨ {\displaystyle \langle } gender, female ⟩ {\displaystyle \rangle } or ⟨ {\displaystyle \langle } age, 10 years ⟩ {\displaystyle \rangle } . The problem then is defined as follows: Let r {\displaystyle r} be the intended referent, and C {\displaystyle C} be the contrast set. Then, a set L {\displaystyle L} of attribute–value pairs will represent a distinguishing description if the following two conditions hold: Every attribute–value pair in L {\displaystyle L} applies to r {\displaystyle r} : that is, every element of L {\displaystyle L} specifies an attribute–value that r {\displaystyle r} possesses. For every member c {\displaystyle c} of C {\displaystyle C} , there is at least one element l {\displaystyle l} of L {\displaystyle L} that does not apply to c {\displaystyle c} : that is, there is an l {\displaystyle l} in L {\displaystyle L} that specifies an attribute–value that c {\displaystyle c} does not possess. l {\displaystyle l} is said