AlphaFold is an artificial intelligence (AI) program developed by DeepMind, a subsidiary of Alphabet, which performs predictions of protein structure. It is designed using deep learning techniques. AlphaFold 1 (2018) placed first in the overall rankings of the 13th Critical Assessment of Structure Prediction (CASP) in December 2018. It was particularly successful at predicting the most accurate structures for targets rated as most difficult by the competition organizers, where no existing template structures were available from proteins with partially similar sequences. AlphaFold 2 (2020) repeated this placement in the CASP14 competition in November 2020. It achieved a level of accuracy much higher than any other entry. It scored above 90 on CASP's global distance test (GDT) for approximately two-thirds of the proteins, a test measuring the similarity between a computationally predicted structure and the experimentally determined structure, where 100 represents a complete match. The inclusion of metagenomic data has improved the quality of the prediction of multiple sequence alignments. One of the biggest sources of the training data was the custom-built Big Fantastic Database of 65,983,866 protein families, represented as multiple sequence alignments and Hidden Markov models, covering 2,204,359,010 protein sequences from reference databases, metagenomes, and metatranscriptomes. AlphaFold 2's results at CASP14 were described as "astounding" and "transformational". However, some researchers noted that the accuracy was insufficient for a third of its predictions, and that it did not reveal the underlying mechanism or rules of protein folding for the protein folding problem, which remains unsolved. Despite this, the technical achievement was widely recognized. On 15 July 2021, the AlphaFold 2 paper was published in Nature as an advance access publication alongside open source software and a searchable database of species proteomes. As of November 2025, the paper had been cited nearly 43,000 times. AlphaFold 3 was announced on 8 May 2024. It can predict the structure of complexes created by proteins with DNA, RNA, various ligands, and ions. The new prediction method shows a minimum 50% improvement in accuracy for protein interactions with other molecules compared to existing methods. Demis Hassabis and John Jumper shared one half of the 2024 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, awarded "for protein structure prediction," while the other half went to David Baker "for computational protein design." Hassabis and Jumper had previously won the Breakthrough Prize in Life Sciences and the Albert Lasker Award for Basic Medical Research in 2023 for their leadership of the AlphaFold project. == Background == Proteins consist of chains of amino acids which spontaneously fold to form the three dimensional (3-D) structures of the proteins. The 3-D structure is crucial to understanding the biological function of the protein. Protein structures can be determined experimentally through techniques such as X-ray crystallography, cryo-electron microscopy and nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR), which are all expensive and time-consuming. Such efforts, using the experimental methods, have identified the structures of about 170,000 proteins over the last 60 years, while there are over 200 million known proteins across all life forms. Over the years, researchers have applied numerous computational methods to predict the 3D structures of proteins from their amino acid sequences, accuracy of such methods in best possible scenario is close to experimental techniques (NMR) by the use of homology modeling based on molecular evolution. CASP, which was launched in 1994 to challenge the scientific community to produce their best protein structure predictions, found that GDT scores of only about 40 out of 100 can be achieved for the most difficult proteins by 2016. AlphaFold started competing in the 2018 CASP using an artificial intelligence (AI) deep learning technique. == Algorithm == DeepMind is known to have trained the program on over 170,000 protein structures from the Protein Data Bank, a public repository of protein sequences and structures. The program uses a form of attention network, a deep learning technique that focuses on having the AI identify parts of a larger problem, then piece it together to obtain the overall solution. The overall training was conducted on processing power between 100 and 200 GPUs. === AlphaFold 1 (2018) === AlphaFold 1 (2018) was built on work developed by various teams in the 2010s, work that looked at the large databases of related protein sequences now available from many different organisms (most without known 3D structures), to try to find changes at different residues (peptides) that appeared to be correlated, even though the residues were not consecutive in the main chain. Such correlations suggest that the residues may be close to each other physically, even though not close in the sequence, allowing a contact map to be estimated. Building on recent work prior to 2018, AlphaFold 1 extended this by estimating a probability distribution for the distances between residues, effectively transforming the contact map into a distance map. It also used more advanced learning methods than previously to develop the inference. The code was not made publicly available, except to run on sequences of proteins in the 2018 CASP competition. === AlphaFold 2 (2020) === The 2020 version of the program (AlphaFold 2, 2020) is significantly different from the original version that won CASP 13 in 2018, according to the team at DeepMind. AlphaFold 1 used a number of separately trained modules to produce a guide potential, which was then combined with a physics-based energy potential. AlphaFold 2 replaced this with a system of interconnected sub-networks, forming a single, differentiable, end-to-end model based on pattern recognition. This model was trained in an integrated manner. After the neural network's prediction converges, a final refinement step applies local physical constraints using energy minimization based on the AMBER force field. This step only slightly adjusts the predicted structure. A key part of the 2020 system are two modules, believed to be based on a transformer design, which are used to progressively refine a vector of information for each relationship (or "edge" in graph-theory terminology) between an amino acid residue of the protein and another amino acid residue (these relationships are represented by the array shown in green); and between each amino acid position and each different sequences in the input sequence alignment (these relationships are represented by the array shown in red). Internally these refinement transformations contain layers that have the effect of bringing relevant data together and filtering out irrelevant data (the "attention mechanism") for these relationships, in a context-dependent way, learned from training data. These transformations are iterated, the updated information output by one step becoming the input of the next, with the sharpened residue/residue information feeding into the update of the residue/sequence information, and then the improved residue/sequence information feeding into the update of the residue/residue information. As the iteration progresses, according to one report, the "attention algorithm ... mimics the way a person might assemble a jigsaw puzzle: first connecting pieces in small clumps—in this case clusters of amino acids—and then searching for ways to join the clumps in a larger whole." The output of these iterations then informs the final structure prediction module, which also uses transformers, and is itself then iterated. In an example presented by DeepMind, the structure prediction module achieved a correct topology for the target protein on its first iteration, scored as having a GDT_TS of 78, but with a large number (90%) of stereochemical violations – i.e. unphysical bond angles or lengths. With subsequent iterations the number of stereochemical violations fell. By the third iteration the GDT_TS of the prediction was approaching 90, and by the eighth iteration the number of stereochemical violations was approaching zero. The training data was originally restricted to single peptide chains. However, the October 2021 update, named AlphaFold-Multimer, included protein complexes in its training data. DeepMind stated this update succeeded about 70% of the time at accurately predicting protein-protein interactions. === AlphaFold 3 (2024) === Announced on 8 May 2024, AlphaFold 3 was co-developed by Google DeepMind and Isomorphic Labs, both subsidiaries of Alphabet. AlphaFold 3 is not limited to proteins, as it can also predict the structures of protein complexes with DNA, RNA, post-translational modifications and selected ligands and ions. AlphaFold 3 introduces the "Pairformer," a deep learning architecture inspired by the transformer, which is considered similar to, but si
Image destriping
Image destriping is the process of removing stripes or streaks from images and videos without disrupting the original image/video. These artifacts plague a range of fields in scientific imaging including atomic force microscopy, light sheet fluorescence microscopy, and planetary satellite imaging. The most common image processing techniques to reduce stripe artifacts is with Fourier filtering. Unfortunately, filtering methods risk altering or suppressing useful image data. Methods developed for multiple-sensor imaging systems in planetary satellites use statistical-based methods to match signal distribution across multiple sensors. More recently, a new class of approaches leverage compressed sensing, to regularize an optimization problem, and recover stripe free images. In many cases, these destriped images have little to no artifacts, even at low signal to noise ratios.
Course of Action Display and Evaluation Tool
Course of Action Display and Evaluation Tool (CADET) was a research program, and the eponymous prototype software system, that applied knowledge-based techniques of Artificial Intelligence to the problem of battle planning. CADET was also known as Course of Action Display and Elaboration Tool. It was considered an early example of such systems and was funded by the United States Army and by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). CADET influenced a later DARPA program called RAID which in turn produced a technology adopted by the United States Army and the United States Marine Corps. == History == The development of Course of Action Display and Evaluation Tool (CADET) began in 1996, at the Carnegie Group, Inc., Pittsburgh PA, funded under the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program. The goal of the first phase SBIR project was to produce “...a live storyboard of [Course of Action] COA development, wargaming, animation, and assessment.” In 1997, the United States Army awarded the Carnegie Group Inc. $750K for SBIR Phase II. The intent was to develop “...a war-gaming modeling and analysis Decision Support System (DSS), … CADET will consist of a combination of Knowledge-Based and decision analytic tools and technologies to provide fast nimble COA war-gaming modeling, simulation, and animation under direct control of the commander and staff. ...Phase II will result in an operations prototype (OP) suitable for use and evaluation in field exercises.” In 2000, CADET was integrated and experimentally evaluated within the framework of the Integrated Course of Action Critiquing and Elaboration System (ICCES) experiment, conducted by the Battle Command Battle Laboratory – Leavenworth (BCBL-L) within the program Concept Experimentation Program (CEP) sponsored by TRADOC. In 2000-2002, DARPA applied CADET in the program titled Command Post of the Future (CPoF) as a tool to generate a course of action. Under the umbrella of the CPoF program, CADET was integrated with the FOX GA system to provide a detailed planner, coupled with COA generation capability. In the same period, Battle Command Battle Lab-Huachuca (BCBL-H) performed an integration CADET with the system called All Source Analysis System-Light (ASAS-L); here CADET was intended to generate plans for intelligence assets, and conduct wargames of different COAs, enemy versus friendly. From 1996 through 2002, work on CADET was performed by the Carnegie Group, Inc., and supported by funding from the US Army CECOM (CADET SBIR Phase I, CADET SBIR Phase II and CADET Enhancements); DARPA (Command Post of the Future); and TRADOC BCBL-H. == Operation == CADET was intended to be used by the staff of the United States Army Brigade, within the Military Decision Making Process (MDMP). In particular, CADET helped produce, automatically or semi-automatically, the products generated within the step of MDMP called Course of Action (COA) Development and the following step of MDMP called COA Analysis and Wargaming. CADET software resided on a laptop computer. Using the computer, the staff officers entered the input to CADET, or alternatively this input arrived at CADET from upstream computer systems. The input consisted of: Order of Battle, i.e., the units constituting the friendly brigade and the enemy units participating in the battle, and their various characteristics; primary activities of the Course of Action, where each activity is typically linked to one or more geographic areas or a route, and sometimes to a major unit executing the activity; digital map of the region where the battle was to take place, including the digital description of significant features such as locations of friendly and enemy units, roads, assembly areas, objectives, and axes of attacks. Taking this input, CADET automatically performed the following tasks (not sequentially): Planning and scheduling the low-level tasks necessary for a given COA Allocating tasks to various units and assets constituting the brigade Assigning suitable locations and routes Estimating the battle losses (attrition) of friendly and enemy forces, and consumption of resources (e.g., fuel and ammunition) Predicting enemy actions or reactions. CADET produced the following outputs: Synchronization matrix, directly editable and printable; synchronization matrix is a kind of Gantt chart that shows assignments of activities to units, to locations/routes and to time periods Map overlays in PPT or JPG formats Animation output XML formally-encoded plan Textual Operation Plan (OPLAN) draft E-mail messages with attachments: XML and text versions of OPLAN == Design == The core algorithm is a planning algorithm where CADET uses a knowledge-based approach of the hierarchical-task-network type. Each task class is associated with a model of more detailed subtasks that should be performed in order to accomplish the higher-level task. Algorithms selected (heuristically) a task and then decomposes it into subtasks. Although similar to hierarchical-task-network planning algorithm, CADET’s algorithm includes elements of adversarial reasoning. After adding a subtask, the algorithm uses rules to determine the enemy’s probable actions and reactions as well as friendly counteractions This approximated the action-reaction-counteraction technique of manual wargaming used by the United States Army. When a task involves movements of a unit, the algorithm performs routing, i.e., finds a route for the movement that minimizes the time required for the movement as well as exposure to the enemy attacks. Each added tasks (subtask) normally requires a unit which would execute the task, and a time period when the task would be executed. Therefore, when a certain number of subtasks is added by the planning process, the algorithm also performs the allocation of the newly added subtasks to units and to time periods (i.e., scheduling). allocation and scheduling of tasks relies on both domain-specific and constraint-guided heuristics. A tasks may also require expenditures of fuel and ammunition. If the tasks involves engagement with the enemy, the performing units will experience lossesof personnel and weapon systems (attrition). CADET’s algorithm includes estimates of consumption of different types of consumables, and also attrition. Depending on the degree of attrition and consumption, CADET adds tasks that are needed to refuel or reconstitute the units. The algorithm continually interleaves incremental steps of planning, routing, scheduling, and attrition and consumption estimates. == Evaluation == Two evaluation experiments are described in literature. The first experiment called ICCES took three days. The subjects were Army officers from combat arms branches, with 11 to 23 years of active service, in the ranks of majors and lieutenant colonels, a total of 8. Each officer was given 4 hours of training learning to operate CADET and related computer tools. Officers were divided into two groups and given a tactical scenario. One group (the control group) used the traditional, manual process; the other used the system called ICCES, the automated core of which was CADET. Each group produced three COA sketches and statements and one COA synchronization matrix. Then, the experiment was repeated with another scenario but the control group became the automated group and vice versa. The users were generally satisfied with the quality of the ICCES-generated products. The group using ICCES made only a few changes to the product that was automatically generated, indicating that they agreed with the majority of the plan that ICCES produced. The second experiment was reminiscent of Turing test. The experiment involved one user, nine judges (active-duty officers, mainly colonels and lieutenant colonels), and five scenarios obtained from several US Army exercises. For each scenario, experimenters obtained synchronization matrices that were produced in earlier exercises, typically by a team of four to five officers in three to four hours, spending approximately 16 person-hours in total. Using these scenarios and COAs, the user had CADET generate automatically detailed plans and express them as synchronization matrices. The user, a retired US Army officer, reviewed and slightly edited the matrices. The entire process took less than two minutes of computations by and approximately 20 minutes of review and post-editing, approximately 0.4 person-hour in total per product. The experimenters gave the resulting matrices the same visual style as those produced by humans. The judges, who did not know whether a planning product was a traditional product of humans, or with computerized aids, were asked to grade the products. The result was that the average grades for manual products and CADET-generated products were statistically indistinguishable, even though CADET-generated products required far less time to produce. == Legacy == CADET served as “...an example of how even relatively basic A
Context-sensitive user interface
A context-sensitive user interface offers the user options based on the state of the active program. Context sensitivity is ubiquitous in current graphical user interfaces, often in context menus. A user-interface may also provide context sensitive feedback, such as changing the appearance of the mouse pointer or cursor, changing the menu color, or with auditory or tactile feedback. == Reasoning and advantages of context sensitivity == The primary reason for introducing context sensitivity is to simplify the user interface. Advantages include: Reduced number of commands required to be known to the user for a given level of productivity. Reduced number of clicks or keystrokes required to carry out a given operation. Allows consistent behaviour to be pre-programmed or altered by the user. Reduces the number of options needed on screen at one time. === Disadvantages === Context sensitive actions may be perceived as dumbing down of the user interface, leaving the operator at a loss as to what to do when the computer decides to perform an unwanted action. Additionally non-automatic procedures may be hidden or obscured by the context sensitive interface causing an increase in user workload for operations the designers did not foresee. A poor implementation can be more annoying than helpful – a classic example of this is Office Assistant. == Implementation == At the simplest level each possible action is reduced to a single most likely action – the action performed is based on a single variable (such as file extension). In more complicated implementations multiple factors can be assessed such as the user's previous actions, the size of the file, the programs in current use, metadata etc. The method is not only limited to the response to imperative button presses and mouse clicks – pop-up menus can be pruned and/or altered, or a web search can focus results based on previous searches. At higher levels of implementation context sensitive actions require either larger amounts of meta-data, extensive case analysis based programming, or other artificial intelligence algorithms. === In computer and video games === Context sensitivity is important in video games, especially those controlled by a gamepad, joystick or computer mouse in which the number of buttons available is limited. It is primarily applied when the player is in a certain place and is used to interact with a person or object. For example, if the player is standing next to a non-player character, an option may come up allowing the player to talk with them. Implementations range from the embryonic 'Quick Time Event' to context sensitive sword combat in which the attack used depends on the position and orientation of both the player and opponent, as well as the virtual surroundings. A similar range of use is found in the 'action button' which, depending upon the in-game position of the player's character, may cause it to pick something up, open a door, grab a rope, punch a monster or opponent, or smash an object. The response does not have to be player activated – an on-screen device may only be shown in certain circumstances, e.g. 'targeting' cross hairs in a flight combat game may indicate the player should fire. An alternative implementation is to monitor the input from the player (e.g. level of button pressing activity) and use that to control the pace of the game in an attempt to maximize enjoyment or to control the excitement or ambience. The method has become increasingly important as more complex games are designed for machines with few buttons (keyboard-less consoles). Bennet Ring commented (in 2006) that "Context-sensitive is the new lens flare". === Context-sensitive help === Context sensitive help is a common implementation of context sensitivity, a single help button is actioned and the help page or menu will open a specific page or related topic.
History of artificial life
Humans have considered and tried to create non-biological life for at least 3,000 years. As seen in tales ranging from Pygmalion to Frankenstein, humanity has long been intrigued by the concept of artificial life. == Pre-computer == The earliest examples of artificial life involve sophisticated automata constructed using pneumatics, mechanics, and/or hydraulics. The first automata were conceived during the third and second centuries BC and these were demonstrated by the theorems of Hero of Alexandria, which included sophisticated mechanical and hydraulic solutions. Many of his notable works were included in the book Pneumatics, which was also used for constructing machines until early modern times. In 1490, Leonardo da Vinci also constructed an armored knight, which is considered the first humanoid robot in Western civilization. Other early famous examples include al-Jazari's humanoid robots. This Arabic inventor once constructed a band of automata, which can be commanded to play different pieces of music. There is also the case of Jacques de Vaucanson's artificial duck exhibited in 1735, which had thousands of moving parts and one of the first to mimic a biological system. The duck could reportedly eat and digest, drink, quack, and splash in a pool. It was exhibited all over Europe until it fell into disrepair. In the late 1600s, following René Descartes' claims that animals could be understood as purely physical machines, there was increasing interest in the question of whether a machine could be designed that, like an animal, could generate offspring (a self-replicating machine). However, it wasn't until the invention of cheap computing power that artificial life as a legitimate science began in earnest, steeped more in the theoretical and computational than the mechanical and mythological. == 1950s–1970s == One of the earliest thinkers of the modern age to postulate the potentials of artificial life, separate from artificial intelligence, was math and computer prodigy John von Neumann. At the Hixon Symposium, hosted by Linus Pauling in Pasadena, California in the late 1940s, von Neumann delivered a lecture titled "The General and Logical Theory of Automata." He defined an "automaton" as any machine whose behavior proceeded logically from step to step by combining information from the environment and its own programming, and said that natural organisms would in the end be found to follow similar simple rules. He also spoke about the idea of self-replicating machines. He postulated a made-up of a control computer, a construction arm, and a long series of instructions, floating in a lake of parts. By following the instructions that were part of its own body, it could create an identical machine. He followed this idea by creating (with Stanislaw Ulam) a purely logic-based automaton, not requiring a physical body but based on the changing states of the cells in an infinite grid – the first cellular automaton. It was extraordinarily complicated compared to later CAs, having hundreds of thousands of cells which could each exist in one of twenty-nine states, but von Neumann felt he needed the complexity in order for it to function not just as a self-replicating "machine", but also as a universal computer as defined by Alan Turing. This "universal constructor" read from a tape of instructions and wrote out a series of cells that could then be made active to leave a fully functional copy of the original machine and its tape. Von Neumann worked on his automata theory intensively right up to his death, and considered it his most important work. Homer Jacobson illustrated basic self-replication in the 1950s with a model train set – a seed "organism" consisting of a "head" and "tail" boxcar could use the simple rules of the system to consistently create new "organisms" identical to itself, so long as there was a random pool of new boxcars to draw from. Edward F. Moore proposed "Artificial Living Plants", which would be floating factories which could create copies of themselves. They could be programmed to perform some function (extracting fresh water, harvesting minerals from seawater) for an investment that would be relatively small compared to the huge returns from the exponentially growing numbers of factories. Freeman Dyson also studied the idea, envisioning self-replicating machines sent to explore and exploit other planets and moons, and a NASA group called the Self-Replicating Systems Concept Team performed a 1980 study on the feasibility of a self-building lunar factory. University of Cambridge professor John Horton Conway invented the most famous cellular automaton in the 1960s. He called it the Game of Life, and publicized it through Martin Gardner's column in Scientific American magazine. Norwegian-Italian mathematician Nils Aall Barricelli, who worked mainly at US institutions, was a pioneer in computer based simulation of biological processes such as symbiogenesis and evolution. == 1970s–1980s == Philosophy scholar Arthur Burks, who had worked with von Neumann (and indeed, organized his papers after Neumann's death), headed the Logic of Computers Group at the University of Michigan. He brought the overlooked views of 19th century American thinker Charles Sanders Peirce into the modern age. Peirce was a strong believer that all of nature's workings were based on logic (though not always deductive logic). The Michigan group was one of the few groups still interested in alife and CAs in the early 1970s; one of its students, Tommaso Toffoli argued in his PhD thesis that the field was important because its results explain the simple rules that underlay complex effects in nature. Toffoli later provided a key proof that CAs were reversible, just as the true universe is considered to be. Christopher Langton was an unconventional researcher, with an undistinguished academic career that led him to a job programming DEC mainframes for a hospital. He became enthralled by Conway's Game of Life, and began pursuing the idea that the computer could emulate living creatures. After years of study, he began attempting to actualize Von Neumann's CA and the work of Edgar F. Codd, who had simplified Von Neumann's original twenty-nine state monster to one with only eight states. He succeeded in creating the first self-replicating computer organism in October 1979, using only an Apple II desktop computer. He entered Burks' graduate program at the Logic of Computers Group in 1982, at the age of 33, and helped to found a new discipline. Langton's official conference announcement of Artificial Life I was the earliest description of a field which had previously barely existed: Artificial life is the study of artificial systems that exhibit behavior characteristic of natural living systems. It is the quest to explain life in any of its possible manifestations, without restriction to the particular examples that have evolved on earth. This includes biological and chemical experiments, computer simulations, and purely theoretical endeavors. Processes occurring on molecular, social, and evolutionary scales are subject to investigation. The ultimate goal is to extract the logical form of living systems. Microelectronic technology and genetic engineering will soon give us the capability to create new life forms in silico as well as in vitro. This capacity will present humanity with the most far-reaching technical, theoretical and ethical challenges it has ever confronted. The time seems appropriate for a gathering of those involved in attempts to simulate or synthesize aspects of living systems. Ed Fredkin founded the Information Mechanics Group at MIT, which united Toffoli, Norman Margolus, and Charles Bennett. This group created a computer especially designed to execute cellular automata, eventually reducing it to the size of a single circuit board. This "cellular automata machine" allowed an explosion of alife research among scientists who could not otherwise afford sophisticated computers. In 1982, computer scientist named Stephen Wolfram turned his attention to cellular automata. He explored and categorized the types of complexity displayed by one-dimensional CAs, and showed how they applied to natural phenomena such as the patterns of seashells and the nature of plant growth. Norman Packard, who worked with Wolfram at the Institute for Advanced Study, used CAs to simulate the growth of snowflakes, following very basic rules. Computer animator Craig Reynolds similarly used three simple rules to create recognizable flocking behaviour in a computer program in 1987 to animate groups of boids. With no top-down programming at all, the boids produced lifelike solutions to evading obstacles placed in their path. Computer animation has continued to be a key commercial driver of alife research as the creators of movies attempt to find more realistic and inexpensive ways to animate natural forms such as plant life, animal movement, hair growth, and complicated org
Example-based machine translation
Example-based machine translation (EBMT) is a method of machine translation often characterized by its use of a bilingual corpus with parallel texts as its main knowledge base at run-time. It is essentially a translation by analogy and can be viewed as an implementation of a case-based reasoning approach to machine learning. == Translation by analogy == At the foundation of example-based machine translation is the idea of translation by analogy. When applied to the process of human translation, the idea that translation takes place by analogy is a rejection of the idea that people translate sentences by doing deep linguistic analysis. Instead, it is founded on the belief that people translate by first decomposing a sentence into certain phrases, then by translating these phrases, and finally by properly composing these fragments into one long sentence. Phrasal translations are translated by analogy to previous translations. The principle of translation by analogy is encoded to example-based machine translation through the example translations that are used to train such a system. Other approaches to machine translation, including statistical machine translation, also use bilingual corpora to learn the process of translation. == History == Example-based machine translation was first suggested by Makoto Nagao in 1984. He pointed out that it is especially adapted to translation between two totally different languages, such as English and Japanese. In this case, one sentence can be translated into several well-structured sentences in another language, therefore, it is no use to do the deep linguistic analysis characteristic of rule-based machine translation. == Example == Example-based machine translation systems are trained from bilingual parallel corpora containing sentence pairs like the example shown in the table above. Sentence pairs contain sentences in one language with their translations into another. The particular example shows an example of a minimal pair, meaning that the sentences vary by just one element. These sentences make it simple to learn translations of portions of a sentence. For example, an example-based machine translation system would learn three units of translation from the above example: How much is that X ? corresponds to Ano X wa ikura desu ka. red umbrella corresponds to akai kasa small camera corresponds to chiisai kamera Composing these units can be used to produce novel translations in the future. For example, if we have been trained using some text containing the sentences: President Kennedy was shot dead during the parade. and The convict escaped on July 15th., then we could translate the sentence The convict was shot dead during the parade. by substituting the appropriate parts of the sentences. == Phrasal verbs == Example-based machine translation is best suited for sub-language phenomena like phrasal verbs. Phrasal verbs have highly context-dependent meanings. They are common in English, where they comprise a verb followed by an adverb and/or a preposition, which are called the particle to the verb. Phrasal verbs produce specialized context-specific meanings that may not be derived from the meaning of the constituents. There is almost always an ambiguity during word-to-word translation from source to the target language. As an example, consider the phrasal verb "put on" and its Hindustani translation. It may be used in any of the following ways: Ram put on the lights. (Switched on) (Hindustani translation: Jalana) Ram put on a cap. (Wear) (Hindustani translation: Pahenna)
TuVox
TuVox is a company that produces VXML-based telephone speech-recognition applications to replace DTMF touch-tone systems for their clients. == History == TuVox was founded in 2001 by Steven S. Pollock and Ashok Khosla, formerly of Apple Computer Corporation and Claris Corporation. Since then, TuVox has grown to over 150 employees and has US offices in Cupertino, California and Boca Raton, Florida as well as international offices in London, Vancouver and Sydney. In 2005, TuVox acquired the customers and hosting facilities of Net-By-Tel. In 2007, the company raised $20m for its speech recognition, and phone menu software. On July 22, 2010, West Interactive — a subsidiary of West Corporation — announced its acquisition of TuVox. == Customers == TuVox clients include: 1-800-Flowers.com, AMC Entertainment, American Airlines, British Airways, M&T Bank, Canon Inc., Gateway, Inc., Motorola, Progress Energy Inc., Telecom New Zealand, Time, Inc., BECU, Virgin America and USAA.