Ambient awareness (AmA) is a term used by social scientists to describe a form of peripheral social awareness through social media. This awareness is propagated from relatively constant contact with one's friends and colleagues via social networking platforms on the Internet. The term essentially defines the sort of omnipresent knowledge one experiences by being a regular user of these media outlets that allow a constant connection with one's social circle. According to Clive Thompson of The New York Times, ambient awareness is "very much like being physically near someone and picking up on mood through the little things; body language, sighs, stray comments". Academic Andreas Kaplan defines ambient awareness as "awareness created through regular and constant reception, and/or exchange of information fragments through social media". Two friends who regularly follow one another's digital information can already be aware of each other's lives without actually being physically present to have had a conversation. == Social == Socially speaking, ambient awareness and social media are products of the new generations who are being born or growing up in the digital age, starting circa 1998 and running to current times. Social media is personal media (what you're doing in the moment, how you feel, a picture of where you are) combined with social communication. Social media is the lattice work for ambient awareness. Without social media the state of ambient awareness cannot exist. Artificial Social Networking Intelligence (ASNI) refers to the application of artificial intelligence within social networking services and social media platforms. It encompasses various technologies and techniques used to automate, personalize, enhance, improve, and synchronize user's interactions and experiences within social networks. ASNI is expected to evolve rapidly, influencing how we interact online and shaping their digital experiences. Transparency, ethical considerations, media influence bias, and user control over data will be crucial to ensure responsible development and positive impact. A significant feature of social media is that it is created by those who also consume it. Mostly, those participating in this phenomenon are adolescents, college age, or young adult professionals. According to Dr. Mimi Ito, a cultural anthropologist and Professor in Residence at the University of California at Irvine, the mobile device is the greatest proxy device used to create and distribute Social Media. She reportedly states that "teenagers capture and produce their own media, and stay in constant ambient contact with each other..." using mobile devices. Usually while doing this they are consuming other forms of media such as music or video content via their smart phones, tablets, or other similar devices. Effectively this has led social scientists to believe that learning and multitasking will have a new face as the products of the digital generation enter the work force and begin to integrate their learning methods into the standard preexisting business models of today. Professors Kaplan and Haenlein see ambient awareness as one of the major reasons for the success of such microblogging sites as Twitter. == Origins == The earliest available technology that could be used for constant social contact is the cell phone. For the first time, people could be contacted readily and at will beyond the confines of their work or homes. Then later, with the additional service of texting, one can see the somewhat primitive form of the status update. Since the text message only allows for 160 characters to transmit pertinent information it paved the way for the status update as we know it today. The transition from only having a few points of regular long distance contact, to being constantly available via cell phone, is what primed society for social networking websites. Perhaps the first instance where these websites created the possibility of larger scale ambient awareness was when Facebook installed the news feed. The news feed automatically sends compiled information on all of a users contacts activities directly to them so that they can access all of the happenings in their world from one location. For the first time, becoming someone's Facebook friend was the equivalent of subscribing to a feed of their daily minutiae. Since this innovation, a new wave of micro-blogging services have emerged, such as Twitter or Tumblr. Although these services have often been criticized as containing seemingly meaningless snippets of information, when a follower gathers a certain amount of information, they begin to obtain an ambient understanding of who they are following. This has led to the mass usage of social media as not only a social tool but also as a marketing and business tool. == Uses in marketing == Websites such as Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, and Myspace, among many others, have been used by people in all forms of business to create a closer digital/ambient bond with their clientele base. This is most notably seen in the music industry where social media networking has become the mainstay of all advertising for independent and major artists. The effect of this type of ambient marketing is that the consumer begins to get a sense of the artist's life style and personality. In this way social media outlets and ambient awareness have managed to tighten the gap between consumers and producers in all areas of business. == Uses in business processes == As web-based collaboration tools and social project management suites proliferate, the addition of activity streams to those products help to create business context-specific ambient awareness, and produce a new class of products, such as social project management platforms.
Dhammin
Dhammin (Arabic: ضمّن) is a political platform that manages candidates' electoral campaigns for the National Assembly, Municipal Council or Cooperative Society councils of Kuwait. The platform was founded by Abdullah Al-Salloum and it is, according to news reports and interviews, the first within the field to apply distributed-systems' methodologies.
Top 10 AI Text-to-image Tools Compared (2026)
Comparing the best AI text-to-image tool? An AI text-to-image tool is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it lowers the barrier so anyone can produce professional output. Privacy matters too: check whether your data trains the model and whether a no-log or enterprise tier is available. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI text-to-image tool slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. Below we compare features, pricing, and real output so you can choose with confidence.
The Best Free AI Customer-support Bot for Beginners
Shopping for the best AI customer-support bot? An AI customer-support bot is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it keeps getting smarter as the underlying models improve. Pricing, accuracy, and the size of the model behind the tool are the three factors that most affect daily usefulness. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI customer-support bot slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. Below we compare features, pricing, and real output so you can choose with confidence.
Nondeterministic finite automaton
In automata theory, a finite-state machine is called a deterministic finite automaton (DFA), if each of its transitions is uniquely determined by its source state and input symbol, and reading an input symbol is required for each state transition. A nondeterministic finite automaton (NFA), or nondeterministic finite-state machine, does not need to obey these restrictions. In particular, every DFA is also an NFA. Sometimes the term NFA is used in a narrower sense, referring to an NFA that is not a DFA, but not in this article. Using the subset construction algorithm, each NFA can be translated to an equivalent DFA; i.e., a DFA recognizing the same formal language. Like DFAs, NFAs only recognize regular languages. NFAs were introduced in 1959 by Michael O. Rabin and Dana Scott, who also showed their equivalence to DFAs. NFAs are used in the implementation of regular expressions: Thompson's construction is an algorithm for compiling a regular expression to an NFA that can efficiently perform pattern matching on strings. Conversely, Kleene's algorithm can be used to convert an NFA into a regular expression (whose size is generally exponential in the input automaton). NFAs have been generalized in multiple ways, e.g., nondeterministic finite automata with ε-moves, finite-state transducers, pushdown automata, alternating automata, ω-automata, and probabilistic automata. Besides the DFAs, other known special cases of NFAs are unambiguous finite automata (UFA) and self-verifying finite automata (SVFA). == Informal introduction == There are at least two equivalent ways to describe the behavior of an NFA. The first way makes use of the nondeterminism in the name of an NFA. For each input symbol, the NFA transitions to a new state until all input symbols have been consumed. In each step, the automaton nondeterministically "chooses" one of the applicable transitions. If there exists at least one "lucky run", i.e. some sequence of choices leading to an accepting state after completely consuming the input, it is accepted. Otherwise, i.e. if no choice sequence at all can consume all the input and lead to an accepting state, the input is rejected. In the second way, the NFA consumes a string of input symbols, one by one. In each step, whenever two or more transitions are applicable, it "clones" itself into appropriately many copies, each one following a different transition. If no transition is applicable, the current copy is in a dead end, and it "dies". If, after consuming the complete input, any of the copies is in an accept state, the input is accepted, else, it is rejected. == Formal definition == For a more elementary introduction of the formal definition, see automata theory. === Automaton === An NFA is represented formally by a 5-tuple, ( Q , Σ , δ , q 0 , F ) {\displaystyle (Q,\Sigma ,\delta ,q_{0},F)} , consisting of a finite set of states Q {\displaystyle Q} , a finite set of input symbols called the alphabet Σ {\displaystyle \Sigma } , a transition function δ {\displaystyle \delta } : Q × Σ → P ( Q ) {\displaystyle Q\times \Sigma \rightarrow {\mathcal {P}}(Q)} , an initial (or start) state q 0 ∈ Q {\displaystyle q_{0}\in Q} , and a set of accepting (or final) states F ⊆ Q {\displaystyle F\subseteq Q} . Here, P ( Q ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}(Q)} denotes the power set of Q {\displaystyle Q} . === Recognized language === Given an NFA M = ( Q , Σ , δ , q 0 , F ) {\displaystyle M=(Q,\Sigma ,\delta ,q_{0},F)} , its recognized language is denoted by L ( M ) {\displaystyle L(M)} , and is defined as the set of all strings over the alphabet Σ {\displaystyle \Sigma } that are accepted by M {\displaystyle M} . Loosely corresponding to the above informal explanations, there are several equivalent formal definitions of a string w = a 1 a 2 . . . a n {\displaystyle w=a_{1}a_{2}...a_{n}} being accepted by M {\displaystyle M} : w {\displaystyle w} is accepted if a sequence of states, r 0 , r 1 , . . . , r n {\displaystyle r_{0},r_{1},...,r_{n}} , exists in Q {\displaystyle Q} such that: r 0 = q 0 {\displaystyle r_{0}=q_{0}} r i + 1 ∈ δ ( r i , a i + 1 ) {\displaystyle r_{i+1}\in \delta (r_{i},a_{i+1})} , for i = 0 , … , n − 1 {\displaystyle i=0,\ldots ,n-1} r n ∈ F {\displaystyle r_{n}\in F} . In words, the first condition says that the machine starts in the start state q 0 {\displaystyle q_{0}} . The second condition says that given each character of string w {\displaystyle w} , the machine will transition from state to state according to the transition function δ {\displaystyle \delta } . The last condition says that the machine accepts w {\displaystyle w} if the last input of w {\displaystyle w} causes the machine to halt in one of the accepting states. In order for w {\displaystyle w} to be accepted by M {\displaystyle M} , it is not required that every state sequence ends in an accepting state, it is sufficient if one does. Otherwise, i.e. if it is impossible at all to get from q 0 {\displaystyle q_{0}} to a state from F {\displaystyle F} by following w {\displaystyle w} , it is said that the automaton rejects the string. The set of strings M {\displaystyle M} accepts is the language recognized by M {\displaystyle M} and this language is denoted by L ( M ) {\displaystyle L(M)} . Alternatively, w {\displaystyle w} is accepted if δ ∗ ( q 0 , w ) ∩ F ≠ ∅ {\displaystyle \delta ^{}(q_{0},w)\cap F\not =\emptyset } , where δ ∗ : Q × Σ ∗ → P ( Q ) {\displaystyle \delta ^{}:Q\times \Sigma ^{}\rightarrow {\mathcal {P}}(Q)} is defined recursively by: δ ∗ ( r , ε ) = { r } {\displaystyle \delta ^{}(r,\varepsilon )=\{r\}} where ε {\displaystyle \varepsilon } is the empty string, and δ ∗ ( r , x a ) = ⋃ r ′ ∈ δ ∗ ( r , x ) δ ( r ′ , a ) {\displaystyle \delta ^{}(r,xa)=\bigcup _{r'\in \delta ^{}(r,x)}\delta (r',a)} for all x ∈ Σ ∗ , a ∈ Σ {\displaystyle x\in \Sigma ^{},a\in \Sigma } . In words, δ ∗ ( r , x ) {\displaystyle \delta ^{}(r,x)} is the set of all states reachable from state r {\displaystyle r} by consuming the string x {\displaystyle x} . The string w {\displaystyle w} is accepted if some accepting state in F {\displaystyle F} can be reached from the start state q 0 {\displaystyle q_{0}} by consuming w {\displaystyle w} . === Initial state === The above automaton definition uses a single initial state, which is not necessary. Sometimes, NFAs are defined with a set of initial states. There is an easy construction that translates an NFA with multiple initial states to an NFA with a single initial state, which provides a convenient notation. == Example == The following automaton M, with a binary alphabet, determines if the input ends with a 1. Let M = ( { p , q } , { 0 , 1 } , δ , p , { q } ) {\displaystyle M=(\{p,q\},\{0,1\},\delta ,p,\{q\})} where the transition function δ {\displaystyle \delta } can be defined by this state transition table (cf. upper left picture): State Input 0 1 p { p } { p , q } q ∅ ∅ {\displaystyle {\begin{array}{|c|cc|}{\bcancel {{}_{\text{State}}\quad {}^{\text{Input}}}}&0&1\\\hline p&\{p\}&\{p,q\}\\q&\emptyset &\emptyset \end{array}}} Since the set δ ( p , 1 ) {\displaystyle \delta (p,1)} contains more than one state, M is nondeterministic. The language of M can be described by the regular language given by the regular expression (0|1)1. All possible state sequences for the input string "1011" are shown in the lower picture. The string is accepted by M since one state sequence satisfies the above definition; it does not matter that other sequences fail to do so. The picture can be interpreted in a couple of ways: In terms of the above "lucky-run" explanation, each path in the picture denotes a sequence of choices of M. In terms of the "cloning" explanation, each vertical column shows all clones of M at a given point in time, multiple arrows emanating from a node indicate cloning, a node without emanating arrows indicating the "death" of a clone. The feasibility to read the same picture in two ways also indicates the equivalence of both above explanations. Considering the first of the above formal definitions, "1011" is accepted since when reading it M may traverse the state sequence ⟨ r 0 , r 1 , r 2 , r 3 , r 4 ⟩ = ⟨ p , p , p , p , q ⟩ {\displaystyle \langle r_{0},r_{1},r_{2},r_{3},r_{4}\rangle =\langle p,p,p,p,q\rangle } , which satisfies conditions 1 to 3. Concerning the second formal definition, bottom-up computation shows that δ ∗ ( p , ε ) = { p } {\displaystyle \delta ^{}(p,\varepsilon )=\{p\}} , hence δ ∗ ( p , 1 ) = δ ( p , 1 ) = { p , q } {\displaystyle \delta ^{}(p,1)=\delta (p,1)=\{p,q\}} , hence δ ∗ ( p , 10 ) = δ ( p , 0 ) ∪ δ ( q , 0 ) = { p } ∪ { } {\displaystyle \delta ^{}(p,10)=\delta (p,0)\cup \delta (q,0)=\{p\}\cup \{\}} , hence δ ∗ ( p , 101 ) = δ ( p , 1 ) = { p , q } {\displaystyle \delta ^{}(p,101)=\delta (p,1)=\{p,q\}} , and hence δ ∗ ( p , 1011 ) = δ ( p , 1 ) ∪ δ ( q , 1 ) = { p , q } ∪ { } {\displaystyle \delta ^{}(p,1011)=\delta (p,1)\cup \delta (q,1)=\{p,q\}\cup \{\}} ; since that set is
Sentence extraction
Sentence extraction is a technique used for automatic summarization of a text. In this shallow approach, statistical heuristics are used to identify the most salient sentences of a text. Sentence extraction is a low-cost approach compared to more knowledge-intensive deeper approaches which require additional knowledge bases such as ontologies or linguistic knowledge. In short, sentence extraction works as a filter that allows only meaningful sentences to pass. The major downside of applying sentence-extraction techniques to the task of summarization is the loss of coherence in the resulting summary. Nevertheless, sentence extraction summaries can give valuable clues to the main points of a document and are frequently sufficiently intelligible to human readers. == Procedure == Usually, a combination of heuristics is used to determine the most important sentences within the document. Each heuristic assigns a (positive or negative) score to the sentence. After all heuristics have been applied, the highest-scoring sentences are included in the summary. The individual heuristics are weighted according to their importance. === Early approaches and some sample heuristics === Seminal papers which laid the foundations for many techniques used today have been published by Hans Peter Luhn in 1958 and H. P Edmundson in 1969. Luhn proposed to assign more weight to sentences at the beginning of the document or a paragraph. Edmundson stressed the importance of title-words for summarization and was the first to employ stop-lists in order to filter uninformative words of low semantic content (e.g. most grammatical words such as of, the, a). He also distinguished between bonus words and stigma words, i.e. words that probably occur together with important (e.g. the word form significant) or unimportant information. His idea of using key-words, i.e. words which occur significantly frequently in the document, is still one of the core heuristics of today's summarizers. With large linguistic corpora available today, the tf–idf value which originated in information retrieval, can be successfully applied to identify the key words of a text: If for example the word cat occurs significantly more often in the text to be summarized (TF = "term frequency") than in the corpus (IDF means "inverse document frequency"; here the corpus is meant by document), then cat is likely to be an important word of the text; the text may in fact be a text about cats.
Evaluation of machine translation
Various methods for the evaluation for machine translation have been employed. This article focuses on the evaluation of the output of machine translation, rather than on performance or usability evaluation. == Round-trip translation == A typical way for lay people to assess machine translation quality is to translate from a source language to a target language and back to the source language with the same engine. Though intuitively this may seem like a good method of evaluation, it has been shown that round-trip translation is a "poor predictor of quality". The reason why it is such a poor predictor of quality is reasonably intuitive. A round-trip translation is not testing one system, but two systems: the language pair of the engine for translating into the target language, and the language pair translating back from the target language. Consider the following examples of round-trip translation performed from English to Italian and Portuguese from Somers (2005): In the first example, where the text is translated into Italian then back into English—the English text is significantly garbled, but the Italian is a serviceable translation. In the second example, the text translated back into English is perfect, but the Portuguese translation is meaningless; the program thought "tit" was a reference to a tit (bird), which was intended for a "tat", a word it did not understand. While round-trip translation may be useful to generate a "surplus of fun," the methodology is deficient for serious study of machine translation quality. == Human evaluation == This section covers two of the large scale evaluation studies that have had significant impact on the field—the ALPAC 1966 study and the ARPA study. === Automatic Language Processing Advisory Committee (ALPAC) === One of the constituent parts of the ALPAC report was a study comparing different levels of human translation with machine translation output, using human subjects as judges. The human judges were specially trained for the purpose. The evaluation study compared an MT system translating from Russian into English with human translators, on two variables. The variables studied were "intelligibility" and "fidelity". Intelligibility was a measure of how "understandable" the sentence was, and was measured on a scale of 1–9. Fidelity was a measure of how much information the translated sentence retained compared to the original, and was measured on a scale of 0–9. Each point on the scale was associated with a textual description. For example, 3 on the intelligibility scale was described as "Generally unintelligible; it tends to read like nonsense but, with a considerable amount of reflection and study, one can at least hypothesize the idea intended by the sentence". Intelligibility was measured without reference to the original, while fidelity was measured indirectly. The translated sentence was presented, and after reading it and absorbing the content, the original sentence was presented. The judges were asked to rate the original sentence on informativeness. So, the more informative the original sentence, the lower the quality of the translation. The study showed that the variables were highly correlated when the human judgment was averaged per sentence. The variation among raters was small, but the researchers recommended that at the very least, three or four raters should be used. The evaluation methodology managed to separate translations by humans from translations by machines with ease. The study concluded that, "highly reliable assessments can be made of the quality of human and machine translations". === Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) === As part of the Human Language Technologies Program, the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) created a methodology to evaluate machine translation systems, and continues to perform evaluations based on this methodology. The evaluation programme was instigated in 1991, and continues to this day. Details of the programme can be found in White et al. (1994) and White (1995). The evaluation programme involved testing several systems based on different theoretical approaches; statistical, rule-based and human-assisted. A number of methods for the evaluation of the output from these systems were tested in 1992 and the most recent suitable methods were selected for inclusion in the programmes for subsequent years. The methods were; comprehension evaluation, quality panel evaluation, and evaluation based on adequacy and fluency. Comprehension evaluation aimed to directly compare systems based on the results from multiple choice comprehension tests, as in Church et al. (1993). The texts chosen were a set of articles in English on the subject of financial news. These articles were translated by professional translators into a series of language pairs, and then translated back into English using the machine translation systems. It was decided that this was not adequate for a standalone method of comparing systems and as such abandoned due to issues with the modification of meaning in the process of translating from English. The idea of quality panel evaluation was to submit translations to a panel of expert native English speakers who were professional translators and get them to evaluate them. The evaluations were done on the basis of a metric, modelled on a standard US government metric used to rate human translations. This was good from the point of view that the metric was "externally motivated", since it was not specifically developed for machine translation. However, the quality panel evaluation was very difficult to set up logistically, as it necessitated having a number of experts together in one place for a week or more, and furthermore for them to reach consensus. This method was also abandoned. Along with a modified form of the comprehension evaluation (re-styled as informativeness evaluation), the most popular method was to obtain ratings from monolingual judges for segments of a document. The judges were presented with a segment, and asked to rate it for two variables, adequacy and fluency. Adequacy is a rating of how much information is transferred between the original and the translation, and fluency is a rating of how good the English is. This technique was found to cover the relevant parts of the quality panel evaluation, while at the same time being easier to deploy, as it didn't require expert judgment. Measuring systems based on adequacy and fluency, along with informativeness is now the standard methodology for the ARPA evaluation program. == Automatic evaluation == In the context of this article, a metric is a measurement. A metric that evaluates machine translation output represents the quality of the output. The quality of a translation is inherently subjective, there is no objective or quantifiable "good." Therefore, any metric must assign quality scores so they correlate with the human judgment of quality. That is, a metric should score highly translations that humans score highly, and give low scores to those humans give low scores. Human judgment is the benchmark for assessing automatic metrics, as humans are the end-users of any translation output. The measure of evaluation for metrics is correlation with human judgment. This is generally done at two levels, at the sentence level, where scores are calculated by the metric for a set of translated sentences, and then correlated against human judgment for the same sentences. And at the corpus level, where scores over the sentences are aggregated for both human judgments and metric judgments, and these aggregate scores are then correlated. Figures for correlation at the sentence level are rarely reported, although Banerjee et al. (2005) do give correlation figures that show that, at least for their metric, sentence-level correlation is substantially worse than corpus level correlation. While not widely reported, it has been noted that the genre, or domain, of a text has an effect on the correlation obtained when using metrics. Coughlin (2003) reports that comparing the candidate text against a single reference translation does not adversely affect the correlation of metrics when working in a restricted domain text. Even if a metric correlates well with human judgment in one study on one corpus, this successful correlation may not carry over to another corpus. Good metric performance, across text types or domains, is important for the reusability of the metric. A metric that only works for text in a specific domain is useful, but less useful than one that works across many domains—because creating a new metric for every new evaluation or domain is undesirable. Another important factor in the usefulness of an evaluation metric is to have a good correlation, even when working with small amounts of data, that is candidate sentences and reference translations. Turian et al. (2003) point out that, "Any MT evaluation measure is less reliable on shorter translations", and