Baidu Fanyi is a service for translating text paragraphs and web pages provided by Baidu. In 2015, Baidu Translation won the second prize of China's National Science and Technology Progress Award. == Supported languages == Baidu translate has some languages that are missing from Google Translate, such as Cornish, albeit some of them are poor quality. As of June 2026, translation is available in 201 languages:
Pixel binning
Pixel binning, also known as binning, is a process image sensors of digital cameras use to combine adjacent pixels throughout an image, by summing or averaging their values, during or after readout. It improves low-light performance while still allowing for highly detailed photographs in good light. Charge from adjacent pixels in CCD or charge-coupled device image sensors and some other image sensors can be combined during readout, increasing the line rate or frame rate. In the context of image processing, binning is the procedure of combining clusters of adjacent pixels, throughout an image, into single pixels. For example, in 2×2 binning, an array of 4 pixels becomes a single larger pixel, reducing the number of pixels to 1/4 and halving the image resolution in each dimension. The result can be the sum, average, median, minimum, or maximum value of the cluster. Some systems use more advanced algorithms such as considering the values of nearby pixels, edge detection, self-claimed "AI", etc. to increase the perceived visual quality of the final downsized image. This aggregation, although associated with loss of information, reduces the amount of data to be processed, facilitating analysis. The binned image has lower resolution, but the relative noise level in each pixel is generally reduced. == History == Normally, an increase in megapixel count on a constant image sensor size would lead to a sacrifice of the surface size of the individual pixels, which would result in each pixel being able to catch less light in the same time, thus leading to a darker and/or noisier image in low light (given the same exposure time). In the past, camera manufacturers had to compromise between low-light performance and the amount of detail in good light, by dropping the megapixel count like HTC did in 2013 with their four-megapixel "UltraPixel" camera. However, this results in less detailed images in daylight where enough light is available. With pixel binning, the camera has "the best of both worlds", meaning both the benefit of high detail in good light and the benefit of high brightness in low light. In low light, the surfaces of four or more pixels can act as one large pixel that catches far more light. For example, some smartphones such as the Samsung Galaxy A15 are able to capture photographs with up to fifty megapixels in daylight. However, in low light, the individual pixels would be too small to capture the light needed for a bright image with the short exposure time available for handheld shooting. Therefore, with pixel binning activated, the 50-megapixel image sensor acts as a 12.5-megapixel image sensor, a quarter of its original resolution, with an accordingly larger surface area per pixel.
Manufacturing Automation Protocol
Manufacturing Automation Protocol (MAP) was a computer network standard released in 1982 for interconnection of devices from multiple manufacturers. It was developed by General Motors to combat the proliferation of incompatible communications standards used by suppliers of automation products such as programmable controllers. By 1985 demonstrations of interoperability were carried out and 21 vendors offered MAP products. In 1986 the Boeing corporation merged its Technical Office Protocol with the MAP standard, and the combined standard was referred to as "MAP/TOP". The standard was revised several times between the first issue in 1982 and MAP 3.0 in 1987, with significant technical changes that made interoperation between different revisions of the standard difficult. Although promoted and used by manufacturers such as General Motors, Boeing, and others, it lost market share to the contemporary Ethernet standard and was not widely adopted. Difficulties included changing protocol specifications, the expense of MAP interface links, and the speed penalty of a token-passing network. The token bus network protocol used by MAP became standardized as IEEE standard 802.4 but this committee disbanded in 2004 due to lack of industry attention.
Dynamic knowledge repository
The dynamic knowledge repository (DKR) is a concept developed by Douglas C. Engelbart as a primary strategic focus for allowing humans to address complex problems. He has proposed that a DKR will enable us to develop a collective IQ greater than any individual's IQ. References and discussion of Engelbart's DKR concept are available at the Doug Engelbart Institute. == Definition == A knowledge repository is a computerized system that systematically captures, organizes and categorizes an organization's knowledge. The repository can be searched and data can be quickly retrieved. The effective knowledge repositories include factual, conceptual, procedural and meta-cognitive techniques. The key features of knowledge repositories include communication forums. A knowledge repository can take many forms to "contain" the knowledge it holds. A customer database is a knowledge repository of customer information and insights – or electronic explicit knowledge. A Library is a knowledge repository of books – physical explicit knowledge. A community of experts is a knowledge repository of tacit knowledge or experience. The nature of the repository only changes to contain/manage the type of knowledge it holds. A repository (as opposed to an archive) is designed to get knowledge out. It should therefore have some rules of structure, classification, taxonomy, record management, etc., to facilitate user engagement.
Cognos ReportNet
Cognos ReportNet (CRN) was a web-based software product for creating and managing ad hoc and custom-made reports. ReportNet was developed by the Ottawa-based company Cognos (formerly Cognos Incorporated), an IBM company. The web-based reporting tool was launched in September 2003. Since IBM's acquisition of Cognos, ReportNet has been renamed IBM Cognos ReportNet like all other Cognos products. ReportNet uses web services standards such as XML and Simple Object Access Protocol and also supports dynamic HTML and Java. ReportNet is compatible with multiple databases including Oracle, SAP, Teradata, Microsoft SQL server, DB2 and Sybase. The product provides interface in over 10 languages, has Web Services architecture to meet the needs of multi-national, diversified enterprises and helps reduce total cost of ownership. Multiple versions of Cognos ReportNet have since been released by the company. Cognos ReportNet was awarded the Software and Information Industry Association (SIIA) 2005 Codie awards for the "Best Business Intelligence or Knowledge Management Solution" category. CRN's capabilities have been further used in IBM Cognos 8 BI (2005), the latest reporting tool. CRN comes with its own software development kit (SDK). == Launch == Early adopters of Cognos ReportNet for their corporate reporting needs included Bear Stearns, BMW and Alfred Publishing. Around this same time of launch, Cognos competitor Business Objects released version 6.1 of its enterprise reporting tool. Cognos ReportNet has been successful since its launch, raising revenues in 2004 from licensing fees. == Controversy == Cognos rival Business Objects announced in 2005 that BusinessObjects XI significantly outperformed Cognos ReportNet in benchmark tests conducted by VeriTest, an independent software testing firm. The tests performed showed Cognos ReportNet performed poorly when processing styled reports, complex business reports and combination of both. The tests reported a massive 21 times higher report throughput for BusinessObjects XI than Cognos ReportNet at capacity loads. Cognos soon dismissed the claims by stating Business Objects dictated the environment and testing criteria and Cognos did not provide the software to participate in benchmark test. Cognos later performed their own test to demonstrate Cognos ReportNet capabilities. == Components == Cognos Report Studio – A Web-based product for creating complex professional looking reports. Cognos Query Studio - A Web-based product for creating ad-hoc reports. Cognos Framework Manager – A metadata modeling tool to create BI metadata for reporting and dashboard applications. Cognos Connection – Main portal used to access reports, schedule reports and perform administrator activities. == Versions == Cognos ReportNet 1.1 – Java EE-style professional web-based authoring tool. (base version) Cognos ReportNet IBM Special Edition – comes with an embedded version of IBM WebSphere as its application server and IBM DB2 as its data store. Cognos Linux – for Intel-based Linux platforms.
Word error rate
Word error rate (WER) is a common metric of the performance of a speech recognition or machine translation system. The WER metric typically ranges from 0 to 1, where 0 indicates that the compared pieces of text are exactly identical, and 1 (or larger) indicates that they are completely different with no similarity. This way, a WER of 0.8 means that there is an 80% error rate for compared sentences. The general difficulty of measuring performance lies in the fact that the recognized word sequence can have a different length from the reference word sequence (supposedly the correct one). The WER is derived from the Levenshtein distance, working at the word level instead of the phoneme level. The WER is a valuable tool for comparing different systems as well as for evaluating improvements within one system. This kind of measurement, however, provides no details on the nature of translation errors and further work is therefore required to identify the main source(s) of error and to focus any research effort. This problem is solved by first aligning the recognized word sequence with the reference (spoken) word sequence using dynamic string alignment. Examination of this issue is seen through a theory called the power law that states the correlation between perplexity and word error rate. Word error rate can then be computed as: W E R = S + D + I N = S + D + I S + D + C {\displaystyle {\mathit {WER}}={\frac {S+D+I}{N}}={\frac {S+D+I}{S+D+C}}} where S is the number of substitutions, D is the number of deletions, I is the number of insertions, C is the number of correct words, N is the number of words in the reference (N=S+D+C) The intuition behind 'deletion' and 'insertion' is how to get from the reference to the hypothesis. So if we have the reference "This is wikipedia" and hypothesis "This _ wikipedia", we call it a deletion. Note that since N is the number of words in the reference, the word error rate can be larger than 1.0, namely if the number of insertions I is larger than the number of correct words C. When reporting the performance of a speech recognition system, sometimes word accuracy (WAcc) is used instead: W A c c = 1 − W E R = N − S − D − I N = C − I N {\displaystyle {\mathit {WAcc}}=1-{\mathit {WER}}={\frac {N-S-D-I}{N}}={\frac {C-I}{N}}} Since the WER can be larger than 1.0, the word accuracy can be smaller than 0.0. == Experiments == It is commonly believed that a lower word error rate shows superior accuracy in recognition of speech, compared with a higher word error rate. However, at least one study has shown that this may not be true. In a Microsoft Research experiment, it was shown that, if people were trained under "that matches the optimization objective for understanding", (Wang, Acero and Chelba, 2003) they would show a higher accuracy in understanding of language than other people who demonstrated a lower word error rate, showing that true understanding of spoken language relies on more than just high word recognition accuracy. == Other metrics == One problem with using a generic formula such as the one above, however, is that no account is taken of the effect that different types of error may have on the likelihood of successful outcome, e.g. some errors may be more disruptive than others and some may be corrected more easily than others. These factors are likely to be specific to the syntax being tested. A further problem is that, even with the best alignment, the formula cannot distinguish a substitution error from a combined deletion plus insertion error. Hunt (1990) has proposed the use of a weighted measure of performance accuracy where errors of substitution are weighted at unity but errors of deletion and insertion are both weighted only at 0.5, thus: W E R = S + 0.5 D + 0.5 I N {\displaystyle {\mathit {WER}}={\frac {S+0.5D+0.5I}{N}}} There is some debate, however, as to whether Hunt's formula may properly be used to assess the performance of a single system, as it was developed as a means of comparing more fairly competing candidate systems. A further complication is added by whether a given syntax allows for error correction and, if it does, how easy that process is for the user. There is thus some merit to the argument that performance metrics should be developed to suit the particular system being measured. Whichever metric is used, however, one major theoretical problem in assessing the performance of a system is deciding whether a word has been “mis-pronounced,” i.e. does the fault lie with the user or with the recogniser. This may be particularly relevant in a system which is designed to cope with non-native speakers of a given language or with strong regional accents. The pace at which words should be spoken during the measurement process is also a source of variability between subjects, as is the need for subjects to rest or take a breath. All such factors may need to be controlled in some way. For text dictation it is generally agreed that performance accuracy at a rate below 95% is not acceptable, but this again may be syntax and/or domain specific, e.g. whether there is time pressure on users to complete the task, whether there are alternative methods of completion, and so on. The term "Single Word Error Rate" is sometimes referred to as the percentage of incorrect recognitions for each different word in the system vocabulary. == Edit distance == The word error rate may also be referred to as the length normalized edit distance. The normalized edit distance between X and Y, d( X, Y ) is defined as the minimum of W( P ) / L ( P ), where P is an editing path between X and Y, W ( P ) is the sum of the weights of the elementary edit operations of P, and L(P) is the number of these operations (length of P).
WYSIWYS
In cryptography, What You See Is What You Sign (WYSIWYS) is a property of digital signature systems that ensures the semantic content of signed messages can not be changed, either by accident or intent. == Mechanism of WYSIWYS == When digitally signing a document, the integrity of the signature relies not just on the soundness of the digital signature algorithms that are used, but also on the security of the computing platform used to sign the document. The WYSIWYS property of digital signature systems aims to tackle this problem by defining a desirable property that the visual representation of a digital document should be consistent across computing systems, particularly at the points of digital signature and digital signature verification. It is relatively easy to change the interpretation of a digital document by implementing changes on the computer system where the document is being processed, and the greater the semantic distance, the easier it gets. From a semantic perspective this creates uncertainty about what exactly has been signed. WYSIWYS is a property of a digital signature system that ensures that the semantic interpretation of a digitally signed message cannot be changed, either by accident or by intent. This property also ensures that a digital document to be signed can not contain hidden semantic content that can be revealed after the signature has been applied. Though a WYSIWYS implementation is only as secure as the computing platform it is running on, various methods have been proposed to make WYSIWYS more robust. The term WYSIWYS was coined by Peter Landrock and Torben Pedersen to describe some of the principles in delivering secure and legally binding digital signatures for Pan-European projects.