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.
Facial age estimation
Facial age estimation is the use of artificial intelligence to estimate the age of a person based on their facial features. Computer vision techniques are used to analyse the facial features in the images of millions of people whose age is known and then deep learning is used to create an algorithm that tries to predict the age of an unknown person. The key use of the technology is to prevent access to age-restricted goods and services. Examples include restricting children from accessing internet pornography, checking that they meet a mandatory minimum age when registering for an account on social media, or preventing adults from accessing websites, online chat or games designed only for use by children. The technology is distinct from facial recognition systems as the software does not attempt to uniquely identify the individual. Researchers have applied neural networks for age estimation since at least 2010. == Evaluation == An ongoing study by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) entitled 'Face Analysis Technology Evaluation' seeks to establish the technical performance of prototype age estimation algorithms submitted by academic teams and software vendors including Brno University of Technology, Czech Technical University in Prague, Dermalog, IDEMIA, Incode Technologies Inc, Jumio, Nominder, Rank One Computing, Unissey and Yoti. == Public sector use == The UK government has explored using facial age estimation at the UK border as an alternative to bone X-rays and MRI scans when determining child status of asylum seekers. == Commercial use == Commercial users of facial age estimation include Instagram and OnlyFans. In January 2025, John Lewis & Partners announced that had started using the technology to check the age of people shopping for knives on its website, to comply with UK legislation to limit knife crime. In the UK, several supermarket chains have taken part in Home Office trials of the technology to automate the checking of a customer's age when buying age-restricted goods such as alcohol. UK legislation introduced in January 2025 mandates robust forms of age verification hosting adult content viewable in the UK by July 2025. Allowable methods include facial age estimation. == Criticism == Adam Schwartz, a lawyer for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, criticized the use of facial age estimation software, noting its inaccuracy especially in cases of minorities and women, as was found in NIST's 2024 report. Twenty organisations jointly under European Digital Rights called the practice a "systematic and invasive processing of young people's data" that risks discriminatory profiling.
FrameNet
FrameNet is a group of online lexical databases based upon the theory of meaning known as Frame semantics, developed by linguist Charles J. Fillmore. The project's fundamental notion is simple: most words' meanings may be best understood in terms of a semantic frame, which is a description of a certain kind of event, connection, or item and its actors. As an illustration, the act of cooking usually requires the following: a cook, the food being cooked, a container to hold the food while it is being cooked, and a heating instrument. Within FrameNet, this act is represented by a frame named Apply_heat, and its components (Cook, Food, Container, and Heating_instrument), are referred to as frame elements (FEs). The Apply_heat frame also lists a number of words that represent it, known as lexical units (LUs), like fry, bake, boil, and broil. Other frames are simpler. For example, Placing only has an agent or cause, a theme—something that is placed—and the location where it is placed. Some frames are more complex, like Revenge, which contains more FEs (offender, injury, injured party, avenger, and punishment). As in the examples of Apply_heat and Revenge below, FrameNet's role is to define the frames and annotate sentences to demonstrate how the FEs fit syntactically around the word that elicits the frame. == Concepts == === Frames === A frame is a schematic representation of a situation involving various participants, props, and other conceptual roles. Examples of frame names are Being_born and Locative_relation. A frame in FrameNet contains a textual description of what it represents (a frame definition), associated frame elements, lexical units, example sentences, and frame-to-frame relations. === Frame elements === Frame elements (FE) provide additional information to the semantic structure of a sentence. Each frame has a number of core and non-core FEs which can be thought of as semantic roles. Core FEs are essential to the meaning of the frame while non-core FEs are generally descriptive (such as time, place, manner, etc.) For example: The only core FE of the Being_born frame is called Child; non-core FEs Time, Place, Means, etc. Core FEs of the Commerce_goods-transfer frame include the Seller, Buyer, and Goods, while non-core FEs include a Place, Purpose, etc. FrameNet includes shallow data on syntactic roles that frame elements play in the example sentences. For example, for a sentence like "She was born about AD 460", FrameNet would mark She as a noun phrase referring to the Child frame element, and "about AD 460" as a noun phrase corresponding to the Time frame element. Details of how frame elements can be realized in a sentence are important because this reveals important information about the subcategorization frames as well as possible diathesis alternations (e.g. "John broke the window" vs. "The window broke") of a verb. === Lexical units === Lexical units (LUs) are lemmas, with their part of speech, that evoke a specific frame. In other words, when an LU is identified in a sentence, that specific LU can be associated with its specific frame(s). For each frame, there may be many LUs associated to that frame, and also there may be many frames that share a specific LU; this is typically the case with LUs that have multiple word senses. Alongside the frame, each lexical unit is associated with specific frame elements by means of the annotated example sentences. For example, lexical units that evoke the Complaining frame (or more specific perspectivized versions of it, to be precise), include the verbs complain, grouse, lament, and others. === Example sentences === Frames are associated with example sentences and frame elements are marked within the sentences. Thus, the sentence She was born about AD 460 is associated with the frame Being_born, while She is marked as the frame element Child and "about AD 460" is marked as Time. From the start, the FrameNet project has been committed to looking at evidence from actual language use as found in text collections like the British National Corpus. Based on such example sentences, automatic semantic role labeling tools are able to determine frames and mark frame elements in new sentences. === Valences === FrameNet also exposes statistics on the valence of each frame; that is, the number and position of the frame elements within example sentences. The sentence She was born about AD 460 falls in the valence pattern NP Ext, INI --, NP Dep which occurs twice in the FrameNet's annotation report for the born.v lexical unit, namely: She was born about AD 460, daughter and granddaughter of Roman and Byzantine emperors, whose family had been prominent in Roman politics for over 700 years. He was soon posted to north Africa, and never met their only child, a daughter born 8 June 1941. === Frame relations === FrameNet additionally captures relationships between different frames using relations. These include the following: Inheritance: When one frame is a more specific version of another, more abstract, parent frame. Anything that is true about the parent frame must also be true about the child frame, and a mapping is specified between the frame elements of the parent and the frame elements of the child. Perspectivization: A neutral frame is connected to a frame with a specific perspective of the same scenario. For example, Commerce_transfer-goods is considered from the perspective of the buyer in Commerce_buy and from that of the seller in Commerce_sell. Subframe: Some frames refer to complex scenarios that consist of several individual states or events that can be described by separate frames. For example, Criminal_process is composed of Arrest, Trial, and so on. Precedence: This relation captures the temporal order that holds between subframes of a complex frame. For example, within the Cycle_of_life_and_death frame, the subframe Death is preceded by the subframe Being_born. Causative and Inchoative: These two relations mark, for causative- and inchoative-aspect frames, the separate stative frame they refer to. For example, the stative Position_on_a_scale (e.g. "She had a high salary") is described by the causative Cause_change_of_scalar_position (e.g. "She raised his salary") and by the inchoative Change_position_on_a_scale frame (e.g. "Her salary increased"). Using: This relation marks a frame that in some way involves another frame. For example, Judgment_communication uses both Judgment and Statement, but does not inherit from either of them because there is no clear correspondence of frame elements. See also: Connects frames that bear some resemblance but need to be distinguished carefully. == Applications == FrameNet has proven to be useful in a number of computational applications, because computers need additional knowledge in order to recognize that "John sold a car to Mary" and "Mary bought a car from John" describe essentially the same situation, despite using two quite different verbs, different prepositions and a different word order. FrameNet has been used in applications like question answering, paraphrasing, recognizing textual entailment, and information extraction, either directly or by means of Semantic Role Labeling tools. The first automatic system for Semantic Role Labeling (SRL, sometimes also referred to as "shallow semantic parsing") was developed by Daniel Gildea and Daniel Jurafsky based on FrameNet in 2002. Semantic Role Labeling has since become one of the standard tasks in natural language processing, with the latest version (1.7) of FrameNet now fully supported in the Natural Language Toolkit. Since frames are essentially semantic descriptions, they are similar across languages, and several projects have arisen over the years that have relied on the original FrameNet as the basis for additional non-English FrameNets, for Spanish, Japanese, German, and Polish, among others.
F-score
In statistical analysis of binary classification and information retrieval systems, the F-score or F-measure is a measure of predictive performance. It is calculated from the precision and recall of the test, where the precision is the number of true positive results divided by the number of all samples predicted to be positive, including those not identified correctly, and the recall is the number of true positive results divided by the number of all samples that should have been identified as positive. Precision is also known as positive predictive value, and recall is also known as sensitivity in diagnostic binary classification. The F1 score is the harmonic mean of the precision and recall. It thus symmetrically represents both precision and recall in one metric. The more generic F β {\displaystyle F_{\beta }} score applies additional weights, valuing one of precision or recall more than the other. The highest possible value of an F-score is 1.0, indicating perfect precision and recall, and the lowest possible value is 0, if the precision or the recall is zero. == Etymology == The name F-measure is believed to be named after a different F function in Van Rijsbergen's book, when introduced to the Fourth Message Understanding Conference (MUC-4, 1992). == Definition == The traditional F-measure or balanced F-score (F1 score) is the harmonic mean of precision and recall: F 1 = 2 r e c a l l − 1 + p r e c i s i o n − 1 = 2 p r e c i s i o n ⋅ r e c a l l p r e c i s i o n + r e c a l l = 2 T P 2 T P + F P + F N {\displaystyle F_{1}={\frac {2}{\mathrm {recall} ^{-1}+\mathrm {precision} ^{-1}}}=2{\frac {\mathrm {precision} \cdot \mathrm {recall} }{\mathrm {precision} +\mathrm {recall} }}={\frac {2\mathrm {TP} }{2\mathrm {TP} +\mathrm {FP} +\mathrm {FN} }}} With precision = TP / (TP + FP) and recall = TP / (TP + FN), it follows that the numerator of F1 is the sum of their numerators and the denominator of F1 is the sum of their denominators. If FP=FN F 1 = 2 T P 2 T P + 2 F P = T P T P + F P {\displaystyle F_{1}={\frac {2\mathrm {TP} }{2\mathrm {TP} +2\mathrm {FP} }}={\frac {\mathrm {TP} }{\mathrm {TP} +\mathrm {FP} }}} or F 1 = 2 T P 2 T P + 2 F N = T P T P + F N {\displaystyle F_{1}={\frac {2\mathrm {TP} }{2\mathrm {TP} +2\mathrm {FN} }}={\frac {\mathrm {TP} }{\mathrm {TP} +\mathrm {FN} }}} So, F1 = precision = recall If TP=FP=FN F 1 = 2 T P 2 T P + 2 F P = 2 T P 4 T P = 1 2 = 0.5 {\displaystyle F_{1}={\frac {2\mathrm {TP} }{2\mathrm {TP} +2\mathrm {FP} }}={\frac {2\mathrm {TP} }{4\mathrm {TP} }}={\frac {1}{2}}=0.5} or F 1 = 2 T P 2 T P + 2 F N = 2 T P 4 T P = 1 2 = 0.5 {\displaystyle F_{1}={\frac {2\mathrm {TP} }{2\mathrm {TP} +2\mathrm {FN} }}={\frac {2\mathrm {TP} }{4\mathrm {TP} }}={\frac {1}{2}}=0.5} To see it as a harmonic mean, note that F 1 − 1 = 1 2 ( r e c a l l − 1 + p r e c i s i o n − 1 ) {\displaystyle F_{1}^{-1}={\frac {1}{2}}(\mathrm {recall} ^{-1}+\mathrm {precision} ^{-1})} . === Fβ score === A more general F score, F β {\displaystyle F_{\beta }} , that uses a positive real factor β {\displaystyle \beta } , where β {\displaystyle \beta } is chosen such that recall is considered β {\displaystyle \beta } times as important as precision, is: F β = β 2 + 1 ( β 2 ⋅ r e c a l l − 1 ) + p r e c i s i o n − 1 = ( 1 + β 2 ) ⋅ p r e c i s i o n ⋅ r e c a l l ( β 2 ⋅ p r e c i s i o n ) + r e c a l l {\displaystyle F_{\beta }={\frac {\beta ^{2}+1}{(\beta ^{2}\cdot \mathrm {recall} ^{-1})+\mathrm {precision} ^{-1}}}={\frac {(1+\beta ^{2})\cdot \mathrm {precision} \cdot \mathrm {recall} }{(\beta ^{2}\cdot \mathrm {precision} )+\mathrm {recall} }}} To see that as a weighted harmonic mean, note that F β − 1 = 1 β + β − 1 ( β ⋅ r e c a l l − 1 + β − 1 ⋅ p r e c i s i o n − 1 ) {\displaystyle F_{\beta }^{-1}={\frac {1}{\beta +\beta ^{-1}}}(\beta \cdot \mathrm {recall} ^{-1}+\beta ^{-1}\cdot \mathrm {precision} ^{-1})} . In terms of Type I and type II errors this becomes: F β = ( 1 + β 2 ) ⋅ T P ( 1 + β 2 ) ⋅ T P + β 2 ⋅ F N + F P = ( 1 + β 2 ) ⋅ T P ( T P + F N ) ⋅ β 2 + ( T P + F P ) {\displaystyle F_{\beta }={\frac {(1+\beta ^{2})\cdot \mathrm {TP} }{(1+\beta ^{2})\cdot \mathrm {TP} +\beta ^{2}\cdot \mathrm {FN} +\mathrm {FP} }}\,={\frac {(1+\beta ^{2})\cdot \mathrm {TP} }{(\mathrm {TP} +\mathrm {FN} )\cdot \beta ^{2}+(\mathrm {TP} +\mathrm {FP} )}}\,} Two commonly used values for β {\displaystyle \beta } are 2, which weighs recall higher than precision, and 1/2, which weighs recall lower than precision. The F-measure was derived so that F β {\displaystyle F_{\beta }} "measures the effectiveness of retrieval with respect to a user who attaches β {\displaystyle \beta } times as much importance to recall as precision". It is based on Van Rijsbergen's effectiveness measure E = 1 − ( α p + 1 − α r ) − 1 {\displaystyle E=1-\left({\frac {\alpha }{p}}+{\frac {1-\alpha }{r}}\right)^{-1}} Their relationship is: F β = 1 − E {\displaystyle F_{\beta }=1-E} where α = 1 1 + β 2 {\displaystyle \alpha ={\frac {1}{1+\beta ^{2}}}} == Diagnostic testing == This is related to the field of binary classification where recall is often termed "sensitivity". == Dependence of the F-score on class imbalance == Precision-recall curve, and thus the F β {\displaystyle F_{\beta }} score, explicitly depends on the ratio r {\displaystyle r} of positive to negative test cases. This means that comparison of the F-score across different problems with differing class ratios is problematic. One way to address this issue (see e.g., Siblini et al., 2020) is to use a standard class ratio r 0 {\displaystyle r_{0}} when making such comparisons. == Applications == The F-score is often used in the field of information retrieval for measuring search, document classification, and query classification performance. It is particularly relevant in applications which are primarily concerned with the positive class and where the positive class is rare relative to the negative class. Earlier works focused primarily on the F1 score, but with the proliferation of large scale search engines, performance goals changed to place more emphasis on either precision or recall and so F β {\displaystyle F_{\beta }} is seen in wide application. The F-score is also used in machine learning. However, the F-measures do not take true negatives into account, hence measures such as the Matthews correlation coefficient, Informedness or Cohen's kappa may be preferred to assess the performance of a binary classifier. The F-score has been widely used in the natural language processing literature, such as in the evaluation of named entity recognition and word segmentation. == Properties == The F1 score is the Dice coefficient of the set of retrieved items and the set of relevant items. The F1-score of a classifier which always predicts the positive class converges to 1 as the probability of the positive class increases. The F1-score of a classifier which always predicts the positive class is equal to 2 proportion_of_positive_class / ( 1 + proportion_of_positive_class ), since the recall is 1, and the precision is equal to the proportion of the positive class. If the scoring model is uninformative (cannot distinguish between the positive and negative class) then the optimal threshold is 0 so that the positive class is always predicted. F1 score is concave in the true positive rate. == Criticism == David Hand and others criticize the widespread use of the F1 score since it gives equal importance to precision and recall. In practice, different types of mis-classifications incur different costs. In other words, the relative importance of precision and recall is an aspect of the problem. According to Davide Chicco and Giuseppe Jurman, the F1 score is less truthful and informative than the Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC) in binary evaluation classification. David M W Powers has pointed out that F1 ignores the True Negatives and thus is misleading for unbalanced classes, while kappa and correlation measures are symmetric and assess both directions of predictability - the classifier predicting the true class and the true class predicting the classifier prediction, proposing separate multiclass measures Informedness and Markedness for the two directions, noting that their geometric mean is correlation. Another source of critique of F1 is its lack of symmetry. It means it may change its value when dataset labeling is changed - the "positive" samples are named "negative" and vice versa. This criticism is met by the P4 metric definition, which is sometimes indicated as a symmetrical extension of F1. Finally, Ferrer and Dyrland et al. argue that the expected cost (or its counterpart, the expected utility) is the only principled metric for evaluation of classification decisions, having various advantages over the F-score and the MCC. Both works show that the F-score can result in wrong conclusions about the absolute and relative quality of systems. == Difference from Fowlkes–Mallows index == While the F-measur
How to Choose an AI Video Editor
In search of the best AI video editor? An AI video editor is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it turns a rough idea into a polished result in seconds. When choosing one, weigh output quality, pricing, export formats, and how well it fits the tools you already use. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI video editor slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. We tested the leading options and ranked them by quality, value, and ease of use.
Interlacing (bitmaps)
In computing, interlacing (also known as interleaving) is a method of encoding a bitmap image such that a person who has partially received it sees a degraded copy of the entire image. When communicating over a slow communications link, this is often preferable to seeing a perfectly clear copy of one part of the image, as it helps the viewer decide more quickly whether to abort or continue the transmission. Interlacing is supported by the following formats, where it is optional: GIF interlacing stores the lines in the order 0 , 8 , 16 , … , ( 8 n ) , 4 , 12 , … , ( 8 n + 4 ) , 2 , 6 , 10 , 14 , … , ( 4 n + 2 ) , 1 , 3 , 5 , 7 , 9 , … , ( 2 n + 1 ) . {\displaystyle 0,8,16,\dots ,(8n),\ 4,12,\dots ,(8n+4),\ 2,6,10,14,\dots ,(4n+2),\ 1,3,5,7,9,\dots ,(2n+1).} PNG uses the Adam7 algorithm, which interlaces in both the vertical and horizontal direction. TGA uses two optional interlacing algorithms: Two-way: 0 , 2 , 4 , … , ( 2 n ) , 1 , 3 , … , ( 2 n + 1 ) , {\displaystyle 0,2,4,\dots ,(2n),\ 1,3,\dots ,(2n+1),} And four-way: 0 , 4 , 8 , … , ( 4 n ) , 1 , 5 , … , ( 4 n + 1 ) , 2 , 6 , … , ( 4 n + 2 ) , 3 , 7 , … , ( 4 n + 3 ) . {\displaystyle 0,4,8,\dots ,(4n),\ 1,5,\dots ,(4n+1),\ 2,6,\dots ,\ (4n+2),3,7,\dots ,(4n+3).} JPEG, JPEG 2000, and JPEG XR (actually using a frequency decomposition hierarchy rather than interlacing of pixel values) PGF (also using a frequency decomposition) Interlacing is a form of incremental decoding, because the image can be loaded incrementally. Another form of incremental decoding is progressive scan. In progressive scan the loaded image is decoded line for line, so instead of becoming incrementally clearer it becomes incrementally larger. The main difference between the interlace concept in bitmaps and in video is that even progressive bitmaps can be loaded over multiple frames. For example: Interlaced GIF is a GIF image that seems to arrive on your display like an image coming through a slowly opening Venetian blind. A fuzzy outline of an image is gradually replaced by seven successive waves of bit streams that fill in the missing lines until the image arrives at its full resolution. Interlaced graphics were once widely used in web design and before that in the distribution of graphics files over bulletin board systems and other low-speed communications methods. The practice is much less common today, as common broadband internet connections allow most images to be downloaded to the user's screen nearly instantaneously, and interlacing is usually an inefficient method of encoding images. Interlacing has been criticized because it may not be clear to viewers when the image has finished rendering, unlike non-interlaced rendering, where progress is apparent (remaining data appears as blank). Also, the benefits of interlacing to those on low-speed connections may be outweighed by having to download a larger file, as interlaced images typically do not compress as well.
Distributional–relational database
A distributional–relational database, or word-vector database, is a database management system (DBMS) that uses distributional word-vector representations to enrich the semantics of structured data. As distributional word-vectors can be built automatically from large-scale corpora, this enrichment supports the construction of databases which can embed large-scale commonsense background knowledge into their operations. Distributional-Relational models can be applied to the construction of schema-agnostic databases (databases in which users can query the data without being aware of its schema), semantic search, schema-integration and inductive and abductive reasoning as well as different applications in which a semantically flexible knowledge representation model is needed. The main advantage of distributional–relational models over purely logical or semantic web models is the fact that the core semantic associations can be automatically captured from corpora, in contrast to the definition of manually curated ontologies and rule knowledge bases. == Distributional–relational models == Distributional–relational models were first formalized as a mechanism to cope with the vocabulary/semantic gap between users and the schema behind the data. In this scenario, distributional semantic relatedness measures, combined with semantic pivoting heuristics can support the approximation between user queries (expressed in their own vocabulary), and data (expressed in the vocabulary of the designer). In this model, the database symbols (entities and relations) are embedded into a distributional semantic space and have a geometric interpretation under a latent or explicit semantic space. The geometric aspect supports the semantic approximation between entities from different databases, or between a query term and a database entity. The distributional relational model then becomes a double layered model where the semantics of the structured data provides the fine-grained semantics intended by the database designer, which is extended by the distributional semantic model which contains the semantic associations expressed at a broader use. These models support the generalization from a closed communication scenario (in which database designers and users live in the same context, e.g. the same organization) to an open communication scenario (e.g. different organizations, the Web), creating an abstraction layer between users and the specific representation of the conceptual model.