Postediting

Post-editing (or postediting) is the process whereby humans amend machine-generated translation to achieve an acceptable final product. A person who post-edits is called a post-editor. The concept of post-editing is linked to that of pre-editing. In the process of translating a text via machine translation, best results may be gained by pre-editing the source text – for example by applying the principles of controlled language – and then post-editing the machine output. It is distinct from editing, which refers to the process of improving human generated text (a process which is often known as revision in the field of translation). Post-edited text may afterwards be revised to ensure the quality of the language choices are proofread to correct simple mistakes. Post-editing involves the correction of machine translation output to ensure that it meets a level of quality negotiated in advance between the client and the post-editor. Light post-editing aims at making the output simply understandable; full post-editing at making it also stylistically appropriate. With advances in machine translation full post-editing is becoming an alternative to manual translation. Practically all computer-assisted translation (CAT) tools now support post-editing of machine translated output. == Post-editing and machine translation == Machine translation left the labs to start being used for its actual purpose in the late seventies at some big institutions such as the European Commission and the Pan-American Health Organization, and then, later, at some corporations such as Caterpillar and General Motors. First studies on post-editing appeared in the eighties, linked to those implementations. To develop appropriate guidelines and training, members of the Association for Machine Translation in the Americas (AMTA) and the European Association for Machine Translation (EAMT) set a Post-editing Special Interest Group in 1999. After the nineties, advances in computer power and connectivity sped machine translation development and allowed for its deployment through the web browser, including as a free, useful adjunct to the main search engines (Google Translate, Bing Translator, Yahoo! Babel Fish). A wider acceptance of less than perfect machine translation was accompanied also by a wider acceptance of post-editing. With the demand for localisation of goods and services growing at a pace that could not be met by human translation, not even assisted by translation memory and other translation management technologies, industry bodies such as the Translation Automation Users Society (TAUS) expect machine translation and post-editing to play a much bigger role within the next few years. The use of Machine Translation suggests sometimes pre-editing. Human translators possess significantly more sophisticated cognitive abilities than machine translation (MT) systems. They leverage a wealth of life experience, common sense, and multi-sensory input to understand context, identify semantic intent, and add cultural nuances to translations. This remains true even as MT capabilities continue to improve. Unlike MT systems, which primarily focus on literal word-for-word conversion, human translators grasp the underlying meaning and intent, even when information is implicit. They "read between the lines," guided by their understanding of the world. Essentially, MT models excel at text string prediction, not true comprehension. Their success often stems from framing problems as prediction tasks, such as in self-driving cars or fraud detection. Studies have demonstrated that integrating adaptive MT with post-editing interfaces can lead to reductions in technical effort and time, improving overall translation efficiency. These systems are also supported by research that highlights the benefits of adaptive MT in real-world translation scenarios. For example, incremental adaptation in Neural Machine Translation (NMT) for professional post-editors has been shown to improve translation quality and reduce time spent on edits, showcasing how human expertise and machine assistance can complement each other effectively. == Light and full post-editing == For many years, no widely accepted, standardized post-editing guidelines existed; however, in 2017, ISO standard 18587:2017: Translation services — Post-editing of machine translation output — Requirements was published. Studies in the eighties distinguished between degrees of post-editing which, in the context of the European Commission Translation Service, were first defined as conventional and rapid or full and rapid. Light and full post-editing seems the wording most used today. Light post-editing implies minimal intervention by the post-editor, with the aim of ensuring quality is "good enough" or "understandable"; the expectation is that the client will use it for inbound purposes only, often when the text is needed urgently, or has a short time span. Full post-editing involves a greater level of intervention to achieve a degree of quality to be negotiated between client and post-editor; the expectation is that the outcome will be a text that is not only understandable but presented in some stylistically appropriate way, so it can be used for assimilation and even for dissemination, for inbound and for outbound purposes. The quality is expected to be publishable and equivalent to that of a human translation. The assumption, however, has been that it takes less effort for translators to work directly from the source text than to post-edit the machine generated version. With advances in machine translation, this may be changing. For some language pairs and for some tasks, and with engines that have been customised with domain specific good quality data, some clients are already requesting translators to post-edit instead of translating from scratch, in the belief that they will attain similar quality at a lower cost. The light/full classification, developed in the nineties when machine translation still came on a CD-ROM, may not suit advances in machine translation at the light post-editing end either. For some language pairs and some tasks, particularly if the source has been pre-edited, raw machine output may be good enough for gisting purposes without requiring subsequent human intervention. == Post-editing efficiency == Post-editing is used when raw machine translation is not good enough and human translation not required. Industry advises post-editing to be used when it can at least double the productivity of manual translation, even fourfold it in the case of light post-editing (1000 words per hour vs. 250 wph). However, post-editing efficiency is difficult to predict. Various studies from both academia and industry have claimed that post-editing is generally faster than translating from scratch, regardless of language pairs or translators' experience. There is, however, no agreement about how much time can be saved through post-editing in practice (if any at all): While the industry reports on time savings around 40%, some academic studies suggest that time savings under actual working conditions are more likely to be between 0–20%, or that it may depend on the terminological proximity between the source and target languages. Professionals have also reported negative productivity gains where corrections require more time than to translate from scratch. == Post-editing and the language industry == After some thirty years, post-editing is still "a nascent profession". What the right profile of the post-editor is, has not yet been fully studied. Post-editing overlaps with translating and editing, but only partially. Most think the ideal post-editor will be a translator keen to be trained on the specific skills required, but there are some who think a bilingual without a background in translation may be easier to train. Not much is known either on who the actual post-editors are, whether they tend to be professional translators, whether they work mostly as in-house employees or self-employed, and on which conditions. Many professional translators dislike post-editing, among other reasons because it tends to be paid at lower rates than conventional translations, with the International Association of Professional Translators and Interpreters (IAPTI) having been particularly vocal about it.

TeaOnHer

TeaOnHer is a male-oriented dating surveillance mobile app that allows men to anonymously rate and comment on women they are dating. It was set up in response to the existence of Tea, a female-oriented dating app that allowed women to rate and comment on men. In 2025, Cosmopolitian magazine described it as America's second most popular mobile app, with it being the second most popular app in the lifestyle section of Apple's App Store. The TeaOnHer app has fewer features than the rival Tea app, focusing instead on anonymous commenting. It is listed as having been developed by a company called Newville Media Corporation. TechCrunch reported in 2025 that TeaOnHer had leaked credentials of some of its users.

Cobham's theorem

Cobham's theorem is a theorem in combinatorics on words that has important connections with number theory, notably transcendental numbers, and automata theory. Informally, the theorem gives the condition for the members of a set S of natural numbers written in bases b1 and base b2 to be recognised by finite automata. Specifically, consider bases b1 and b2 such that they are not powers of the same integer. Cobham's theorem states that S written in bases b1 and b2 is recognised by finite automata if and only if S differs by a finite set from a finite union of arithmetic progressions. The theorem was proved by Alan Cobham in 1969 and has since given rise to many extensions and generalisations. == Definitions == Let n > 0 {\displaystyle n>0} be an integer. The representation of a natural number n {\textstyle n} in base b {\textstyle b} is the sequence of digits n 0 n 1 ⋯ n h {\displaystyle n_{0}n_{1}\cdots n_{h}} such that n = n 0 + n 1 b + ⋯ + n h b h {\displaystyle n=n_{0}+n_{1}b+\cdots +n_{h}b^{h}} where 0 ≤ n 0 , n 1 , … , n h < b {\displaystyle 0\leq n_{0},n_{1},\ldots ,n_{h} 0 {\displaystyle n_{h}>0} . The word n 0 n 1 ⋯ n h {\displaystyle n_{0}n_{1}\cdots n_{h}} is often denoted ⟨ n ⟩ b {\displaystyle \langle n\rangle _{b}} , or more simply, n b {\displaystyle n_{b}} . A set of natural numbers S is recognisable in base b {\textstyle b} or more simply b {\textstyle b} -recognisable or b {\textstyle b} -automatic if the set { n b ∣ n ∈ S } {\displaystyle \{n_{b}\mid n\in S\}} of the representations of its elements in base b {\displaystyle b} is a language recognisable by a finite automaton on the alphabet { 0 , 1 , … , b − 1 } {\displaystyle \{0,1,\ldots ,b-1\}} . Two positive integers k {\displaystyle k} and ℓ {\displaystyle \ell } are multiplicatively independent if there are no non-negative integers p {\displaystyle p} and q {\displaystyle q} such that k p = ℓ q {\displaystyle k^{p}=\ell ^{q}} . For example, 2 and 3 are multiplicatively independent, but 8 and 16 are not since 8 4 = 16 3 {\displaystyle 8^{4}=16^{3}} . Two integers are multiplicatively dependent if and only if they are powers of a same third integer. == Problem statements == === Original problem statement === More equivalent statements of the theorem have been given. The original version by Cobham is the following: Another way to state the theorem is by using automatic sequences. Cobham himself calls them "uniform tag sequences." The following form is found in Allouche and Shallit's book:We can show that the characteristic sequence of a set of natural numbers S recognisable by finite automata in base k is a k-automatic sequence and that conversely, for all k-automatic sequences u {\displaystyle u} and all integers 0 ≤ i < k {\displaystyle 0\leq i 1 {\displaystyle \alpha >1} is the dominant eigenvalue of the matrix of morphism f {\displaystyle f} , namely, the matrix M ( f ) = ( m x , y ) x ∈ B , y ∈ A {\displaystyle M(f)=(m_{x,y})_{x\in B,y\in A}} , where m x , y {\displaystyle m_{x,y}} is the number of occurrences of the letter x {\displaystyle x} in the word f ( y ) {\displaystyle f(y)} . A set S of natural numbers is α {\displaystyle \alpha } -recognisable if its characteristic sequence s {\displaystyle s} is α {\displaystyle \alpha } -substitutive. A last definition: a Perron number is an algebraic number z > 1 {\displaystyle z>1} such that all its conjugates belong to the disc { z ′ ∈ C , | z ′ | < z } {\displaystyle \{z'\in \mathbb {C} ,|z'|

Statistical machine translation

Statistical machine translation (SMT) is a machine translation approach where translations are generated on the basis of statistical models whose parameters are derived from the analysis of bilingual text corpora. The statistical approach contrasts with the rule-based approaches to machine translation as well as with example-based machine translation, that superseded the previous rule-based approach that required explicit description of each and every linguistic rule, which was costly, and which often did not generalize to other languages. The first ideas of statistical machine translation were introduced by Warren Weaver in 1949, including the ideas of applying Claude Shannon's information theory. Statistical machine translation was re-introduced in the late 1980s and early 1990s by researchers at IBM's Thomas J. Watson Research Center. Before the introduction of neural machine translation, it was by far the most widely studied machine translation method. == Basis == The idea behind statistical machine translation comes from information theory. A document is translated according to the probability distribution p ( e | f ) {\displaystyle p(e|f)} that a string e {\displaystyle e} in the target language (for example, English) is the translation of a string f {\displaystyle f} in the source language (for example, French). The problem of modeling the probability distribution p ( e | f ) {\displaystyle p(e|f)} has been approached in a number of ways. One approach which lends itself well to computer implementation is to apply Bayes' theorem, that is p ( e | f ) ∝ p ( f | e ) p ( e ) {\displaystyle p(e|f)\propto p(f|e)p(e)} , where the translation model p ( f | e ) {\displaystyle p(f|e)} is the probability that the source string is the translation of the target string, and the language model p ( e ) {\displaystyle p(e)} is the probability of seeing that target language string. This decomposition is attractive as it splits the problem into two subproblems. Finding the best translation e ~ {\displaystyle {\tilde {e}}} is done by picking up the one that gives the highest probability: e ~ = a r g max e ∈ e ∗ p ( e | f ) = a r g max e ∈ e ∗ p ( f | e ) p ( e ) {\displaystyle {\tilde {e}}=arg\max _{e\in e^{}}p(e|f)=arg\max _{e\in e^{}}p(f|e)p(e)} . For a rigorous implementation of this one would have to perform an exhaustive search by going through all strings e ∗ {\displaystyle e^{}} in the native language. Performing the search efficiently is the work of a machine translation decoder that uses the foreign string, heuristics and other methods to limit the search space and at the same time keeping acceptable quality. This trade-off between quality and time usage can also be found in speech recognition. As the translation systems are not able to store all native strings and their translations, a document is typically translated sentence by sentence. Language models are typically approximated by smoothed n-gram models, and similar approaches have been applied to translation models, but this introduces additional complexity due to different sentence lengths and word orders in the languages. Statistical translation models were initially word based (Models 1-5 from IBM Hidden Markov model from Stephan Vogel and Model 6 from Franz-Joseph Och), but significant advances were made with the introduction of phrase based models. Later work incorporated syntax or quasi-syntactic structures. == Benefits == The most frequently cited benefits of statistical machine translation (SMT) over rule-based approach are: More efficient use of human and data resources There are many parallel corpora in machine-readable format and even more monolingual data. Generally, SMT systems are not tailored to any specific pair of languages. More fluent translations owing to use of a language model == Shortcomings == Corpus creation can be costly. Specific errors are hard to predict and fix. Results may have superficial fluency that masks translation problems. Statistical machine translation usually works less well for language pairs with significantly different word order. The benefits obtained for translation between Western European languages are not representative of results for other language pairs, owing to smaller training corpora and greater grammatical differences. == Word-based translation == In word-based translation, the fundamental unit of translation is a word in some natural language. Typically, the number of words in translated sentences are different, because of compound words, morphology and idioms. The ratio of the lengths of sequences of translated words is called fertility, which tells how many foreign words each native word produces. Necessarily it is assumed by information theory that each covers the same concept. In practice this is not really true. For example, the English word corner can be translated in Spanish by either rincón or esquina, depending on whether it is to mean its internal or external angle. Simple word-based translation cannot translate between languages with different fertility. Word-based translation systems can relatively simply be made to cope with high fertility, such that they could map a single word to multiple words, but not the other way about. For example, if we were translating from English to French, each word in English could produce any number of French words— sometimes none at all. But there is no way to group two English words producing a single French word. An example of a word-based translation system is the freely available GIZA++ package (GPLed), which includes the training program for IBM models and HMM model and Model 6. The word-based translation is not widely used today; phrase-based systems are more common. Most phrase-based systems are still using GIZA++ to align the corpus. The alignments are used to extract phrases or deduce syntax rules. And matching words in bi-text is still a problem actively discussed in the community. Because of the predominance of GIZA++, there are now several distributed implementations of it online. == Phrase-based translation == In phrase-based translation, the aim is to reduce the restrictions of word-based translation by translating whole sequences of words, where the lengths may differ. The sequences of words are called blocks or phrases. These are typically not linguistic phrases, but phrasemes that were found using statistical methods from corpora. It has been shown that restricting the phrases to linguistic phrases (syntactically motivated groups of words, see syntactic categories) decreased the quality of translation. The chosen phrases are further mapped one-to-one based on a phrase translation table, and may be reordered. This table could be learnt based on word-alignment, or directly from a parallel corpus. The second model is trained using the expectation maximization algorithm, similarly to the word-based IBM model. == Syntax-based translation == Syntax-based translation is based on the idea of translating syntactic units, rather than single words or strings of words (as in phrase-based MT), i.e. (partial) parse trees of sentences/utterances. Until the 1990s, with advent of strong stochastic parsers, the statistical counterpart of the old idea of syntax-based translation did not take off. Examples of this approach include DOP-based MT and later synchronous context-free grammars. == Hierarchical phrase-based translation == Hierarchical phrase-based translation combines the phrase-based and syntax-based approaches to translation. It uses synchronous context-free grammar rules, but the grammars can be constructed by an extension of methods for phrase-based translation without reference to linguistically motivated syntactic constituents. This idea was first introduced in Chiang's Hiero system (2005). == Language models == A language model is an essential component of any statistical machine translation system, which aids in making the translation as fluent as possible. It is a function that takes a translated sentence and returns the probability of it being said by a native speaker. A good language model will for example assign a higher probability to the sentence "the house is small" than to "small the is house". Other than word order, language models may also help with word choice: if a foreign word has multiple possible translations, these functions may give better probabilities for certain translations in specific contexts in the target language. == Systems implementing statistical machine translation == Google Translate (started transition to neural machine translation in 2016) Microsoft Translator (started transition to neural machine translation in 2016) Yandex.Translate (switched to hybrid approach incorporating neural machine translation in 2017) == Challenges with statistical machine translation == Problems with statistical machine translation include: === Sentence alignment === Single sentences in one language can be found translated into several sentences in the o

IBM optical mark and character readers

IBM designed, manufactured and sold optical mark and character readers from 1960 until 1984. The IBM 1287 is notable as being the first commercially sold scanner capable of reading handwritten numbers. == Initial development work == IBM Poughkeepsie studied machine character recognition from 1950 till 1954, developing an experimental machine that used a cathode-ray-tube attached an IBM 701 which performed the character analysis. They pursued a technique known as lakes and bays which examined different areas of dark and light where the lakes were white areas enclosed by black and the bays were partially enclosed areas. Their machine and mission was moved to IBM Endicott in 1954, where research continued. From 1955 to 1956 they then worked on the VIDOR (Visual Document Reader) program, but they could not get agreement on acceptable reject rate. The developers felt 80% recognition was acceptable (meaning 20% of documents would need to be manually processed), while product planners and IBM Marketing felt that compared to punched card, the reject rate was unacceptably high. This led to no new products being released. In 1956 the American Bankers Association chose to use Magnetic Ink Character Recognition (MICR) to automate check handling, rejecting a proposed solution generated by an IBM Poughkeepsie banking project that used optical characters formed by vertical bars and digits. IBM developed a magnetic read head to handle the new standard, releasing the IBM 1210 MICR reader/sorter in 1959. The development work for this product both with read heads and document handling, helped move optical character recognition forward, with development focusing on reading one or two lines of print from a paper document larger than an IBM punched card. The first product to be released was the IBM 1418. == IBM 123x Optical Mark Readers == The IBM 1230, IBM 1231, and IBM 1232 were optical mark readers used to input the contents of data sources such as questionnaires, test results, surveys as well as historical data that could be easily entered as marks on sheets. Educational institutes used them to score test results and they were effectively a replacement for the IBM 805 Test Scoring Machine that used electrical resistance and a mark sense pencil to score a test, rather than optical mark detection. They were developed and manufactured by IBM Rochester. They have the following features: A pneumatic input hopper that can hold approximately 600 sheets Two output stackers: the normal stacker that holds 600 sheets and the select (or reject) stacker which holds 50 sheets. Pluggable SMS printed circuit cards They can read positional marks made by a lead pencil using an optical read head that consists of photovoltaic(solar) cells and lamps The 1230 has 21 photovoltaic cells, 20 for reading the pencil marks and one to read timing marks on the right hand border of the sheet. The 1231 and 1232 have 22 photovoltaic cells, 20 to read data, one to read timing marks and one to read a special feature called a master mark. Input size is a 8+1⁄2 in × 11 in (22 cm × 28 cm) sheet called a data sheet that can have up to 1000 marked or printed positions per side. Uses electromechanical devices known as sonic delay lines to store results. === IBM 1230 Optical Mark Scoring Reader === The IBM 1230 is an offline optical mark scoring machine announced on 2 November 1962 that was designed to read and scores 1,200 answer sheets per hour. Scored results are printed via a wire matrix printer on the right margin of each answer sheet as it is processed. Two master sheets are required for the process: one that encoded the correct answers and one for the machine to record run information. Output could be sent to an IBM 534 Model 3 Card Punch as an option, which limits throughput to 750 sheets per hour when punching 80 columns of data. === IBM 1231 Optical Mark Page Reader === The IBM 1231 is an online optical mark reader that was designed to read and score 2000 test answer sheets per hour, depending on downstream operations. The correct answers for the test can either be entered using a master sheet (like the 1230) or sent to the 1231 using the optional master-mark special feature. === IBM 1232 Optical Mark Page Reader === The IBM 1232 is an offline optical mark reader that was designed to read up to 2000 marked sheets per hour. Documents can be read at up to 2000 sheets per hour, but this depends on the number of characters that need to be punched from each sheet. The IBM 1232 reads the marks and then punches them into cards using a IBM 534 Model 3 Card Punch. Together they can read up to 64,000 characters per hour or 800 fully punched cards. === Example customers === The California Test Bureau (CTB) that provided standardised achievement tests for educational institutes across the USA, began replacing their IBM 805s with IBM 1230s in 1963. They then installed two IBM 1232s in 1964. Being able to use a full 8+1⁄2 in × 11 in (22 cm × 28 cm) answer sheet rather than a 7+3⁄8 in × 3+1⁄4 in (18.7 cm × 8.3 cm) mark sense card, eliminated the need to use multiple answer cards per test per student, as well as dramatically increased the marking speed for test answers. Credit Bureau Services of Dallas used an IBM 1232 in 1966 as part of their first computerisation project. They marked credit history data onto optical scanning sheets that were fed into their IBM 1232. The attached IBM 534 then punched this data onto punched cards, which were then fed into their IBM System/360 Model 30. In 1968 the US Army Corps of Engineers Coastal Engineering Research Center (CERC) began using special log books for their coastal surveyors to record coastal survey data, which was then converted to punched cards by an IBM 1232. == IBM 2956 Optical Mark/Hole Reader == The IBM 2956 Models 2 and 3 are custom build optical mark/hole readers designed to be attached to an IBM 2740 Communications Terminal. The IBM 2956-2 can read cards that have either been hand or machine marked or that have been punched. The cards can be fed by hand or from the 400 card hopper. It has a 400 card stacker. The 2956-2 could be ordered by request for price quotation (RPQ) 843086. The IBM 2956-3 can read cards that have either been hand or machine marked or that have been punched. It can also read marked sheets up to 9 in × 14 in (230 mm × 360 mm) in size, although only a 3+1⁄4 in (83 mm) band along the side of the sheet can be read (the width of a punched card). It does not have a hopper or a stacker, so each card or sheet must be manually fed into the machine. The 2956-3 could be ordered by request for price quotation (RPQ) 843106. The 2956-3 could be attached to an IBM 3276 or IBM 3278 display station with RPQ UB9001. One use case for the IBM 2956 is to grade school tests. On completion of a learning module a student can use an optical scan-type card to record answers to up to 27 questions, with up to 5 choices per question. They are scanned by the reader and the results are then transmitted to an IBM System/360 in remote job entry mode and can also be printed on the IBM 2740. The reader can also be attached to an IBM 3735 which transmits results to an IBM System/370 and which prints results on an IBM 3286 printer. They can also be attached to an IBM System/3. Note that the IBM 2956 Model 5 (2956-5) was a banking reader/sorter. == IBM 1282 Optical Reader Card Punch == The IBM 1282 is an offline optical reader that is used to read embossed credit card receipts, a mark read field or machine printed characters in three different fonts. It then outputs this data onto a punched card. It was developed and manufactured by IBM Endicott. It proved popular and within two years of announcement 100 machines were installed or on order. === Example customer === The New York Department of Motor Vehicles reported that from 1964 until 1968 they were using an IBM 1282 to read machine printed license renewal slips that had been mailed back as part of the renewal process. They would scan the slip and then process the resulting punched card. This worked well until the DMV decided to request renewals include the drivers Social Security Number (SSN), which meant a handwritten number needed to be either manually keyed or a new scanning device procured. They switched to the IBM 1287 in 1968. == IBM 1285 Optical Reader == The IBM 1285 is an online optical reader that is used to read printed paper tapes from cash registers or adding machines. It was developed by IBM Endicott and manufactured by IBM Rochester. The IBM 1285 attaches to an IBM 1401, 1440, 1460 or System/360. It has a small round screen to display characters being read and it has a keyboard to enter header information and to optionally enter character corrections for rejected characters. It can read a 200 ft (61 m) roll or paper tape in three-and-a half minutes, reading data at speeds of up to 3000 lines per minute. It can mark the tape with a dot to indicate unreadable characters, so they can be r

Hugging Face

Hugging Face, Inc., is an American company based in New York City that develops computation tools for building applications using machine learning. Its transformers library built for natural language processing applications and its platform allow users to share machine learning models and datasets and showcase their work. == History == === Founding === The company was founded in 2016 by French entrepreneurs Clément Delangue, Julien Chaumond, and Thomas Wolf in New York City, originally as a company that developed a chatbot app targeted at teenagers. The company was named after the U+1F917 🤗 HUGGING FACE emoji. After open sourcing the model behind the chatbot, the company pivoted to focus on being a platform for machine learning. === AI boom === On April 28, 2021, the company launched the BigScience Research Workshop in collaboration with several other research groups to release an open large language model. In 2022, the workshop concluded with the announcement of BLOOM, a multilingual large language model with 176 billion parameters. In February 2023, the company announced partnership with Amazon Web Services (AWS) which would allow Hugging Face's products to be available to AWS customers to use them as the building blocks for their custom applications. The company also said the next generation of BLOOM will be run on Trainium, a proprietary machine learning chip created by AWS. In June 2024, the company announced, along with Meta and Scaleway, their launch of a new AI accelerator program for European startups. The initiative aimed to help startups integrate open foundation models into their products, accelerating the EU AI ecosystem. The program, based at STATION F in Paris, ran from September 2024 to February 2025. Selected startups received mentoring, and access to AI models and tools and Scaleway's computing power. On September 23, 2024, to further the International Decade of Indigenous Languages, Hugging Face teamed up with Meta and UNESCO to launch a new online language translator. It was built on Meta's No Language Left Behind open-source AI model, enabling free text translation across 200 languages, including many low-resource languages. In April 2025, Hugging Face announced that they acquired a humanoid robotics startup, Pollen Robotics, based in France and founded by Matthieu Lapeyre and Pierre Rouanet in 2016. In an X tweet, Delangue shared his vision to "make Artificial Intelligence robotics Open Source". === Cyberattacks === In early 2026, hackers hijacked the Hugging Face platform to launch Android-targeted attacks involving "powerful malware" which could completely take over a compromised target.

AI Code-review Tools Reviews: What Actually Works in 2026

Shopping for the best AI code-review tool? An AI code-review tool 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 code-review tool slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. Below we compare features, pricing, and real output so you can choose with confidence.