The Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL) is a scientific and professional organization for people working on natural language processing. Its namesake conference is one of the primary high impact conferences for natural language processing research, along with EMNLP. The conference is held each summer in locations where significant computational linguistics research is carried out. It was founded in 1962, originally named the Association for Machine Translation and Computational Linguistics (AMTCL). It became the ACL in 1968. The ACL has a European (EACL), a North American (NAACL), and an Asian (AACL) chapter. == History == The ACL was founded in 1962 as the Association for Machine Translation and Computational Linguistics (AMTCL). The initial membership was about 100. In 1965, the AMTCL took over the journal Mechanical Translation and Computational Linguistics. This journal was succeeded by many other journals: the American Journal of Computational Linguistics (1974–1978, 1980–1983), and then Computational Linguistics (1984–present). Since 1988, the journal has been published for the ACL by MIT Press. The annual meeting was first held in 1963 in conjunction with the Association for Computing Machinery National Conference. The annual meeting was, for a long time, relatively informal and did not publish anything longer than abstracts. By 1968, the society took on its current name, the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL). The publication of the annual meeting's Proceedings of the ACL began in 1979 and gradually matured into its modern form. Many of the meetings were held in conjunction with the Linguistic Society of America, and a few with the American Society for Information Science and the Cognitive Science Society. The United States government sponsored much research from 1989 to 1994, characterized by an increase in author retention rates and an increase in research in some key topics, such as speech recognition, in ACL. By the 21st century, it was able to maintain authors at a high rate who coalesced in a more stable arrangement around individual research topics. In 1991, the group published a prototype for a text generator based on the universal grammar theory of Noam Chomsky. The system, nicknamed Parrot, relied on a finite set of syntactic transformations and a hand-curated lexicon. Despite some initial success, including experimentation with morpheme syntactics, funding halted after the research team encountered intractable difficulties with inflection and abstract locutions. == Annual Meeting of the ACL == Every year, the ACL holds the Annual Meeting of the ACL. The location lies in Europe in years zero modulo three, North America in years one modulo three, and Asia–Australia in years two modulo three. In 2020, the Annual Meeting received for the first time more submissions from China than the United States. == Activities == The ACL organizes several of the top conferences and workshops in the field of computational linguistics and natural language processing. These include: Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), the flagship conference of the organization Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (IJCNLP), held jointly one of the other conferences on a rotating basis Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning (CoNLL) Lexical and Computational Semantics and Semantic Evaluation (SemEval) Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics (SEM) Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation (WMT) Besides conferences, the ACL also sponsors the journals Computational Linguistics and Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics (TACL). Papers and other presentations at ACL and ACL-affiliated venues are archived online in the open-access ACL Anthology. == Special Interest Groups == ACL has a large number of Special Interest Groups (SIGs), focusing on specific areas of natural language processing. Some current SIGs within ACL are: == Presidents == Each year, the ACL elects a distinguished computational linguist who becomes vice-president of the organization in the next calendar year and president one year later. Recent ACL presidents are:
Rake (software)
Rake is a software task management and a build automation tool created by Jim Weirich. It allows the user to specify tasks and to describe dependencies as well as to group tasks into namespaces. It is similar to SCons and Make. Rake was written in Ruby and has been part of the standard library of Ruby since version 1.9. == Examples == The tasks that should be executed need to be defined in a configuration file called Rakefile. A Rakefile has no special syntax and contains executable Ruby code. === Tasks === The basic unit in Rake is the task. A task has a name and an action block, that defines its functionality. The following code defines a task called greet that will output the text "Hello, Rake!" to the console. When defining a task, you can optionally add dependencies, that is one task can depend on the successful completion of another task. Calling the "seed" task from the following example will first execute the "migrate" task and only then proceed with the execution of the "seed" task.Tasks can also be made more versatile by accepting arguments. For example, the "generate_report" task will take a date as argument. If no argument is supplied the current date is used.A special type of task is the file task, which can be used to specify file creation tasks. The following task, for example, is given two object files, i.e. "a.o" and "b.o", to create an executable program.Another useful tool is the directory convenience method, that can be used to create directories upon demand. === Rules === When a file is named as a prerequisite but it does not have a file task defined for it, Rake will attempt to synthesize a task by looking at a list of rules supplied in the Rakefile. For example, suppose we were trying to invoke task "mycode.o" with no tasks defined for it. If the Rakefile has a rule that looks like this: This rule will synthesize any task that ends in ".o". It has as a prerequisite that a source file with an extension of ".c" must exist. If Rake is able to find a file named "mycode.c", it will automatically create a task that builds "mycode.o" from "mycode.c". If the file "mycode.c" does not exist, Rake will attempt to recursively synthesize a rule for it. When a task is synthesized from a rule, the source attribute of the task is set to the matching source file. This allows users to write rules with actions that reference the source file. === Advanced rules === Any regular expression may be used as the rule pattern. Additionally, a proc may be used to calculate the name of the source file. This allows for complex patterns and sources. The following rule is equivalent to the example above: NOTE: Because of a quirk in Ruby syntax, parentheses are required around a rule when the first argument is a regular expression. The following rule might be used for Java files: === Namespaces === To better organize big Rakefiles, tasks can be grouped into namespaces. Below is an example of a simple Rake recipe:
VACUUM
VACUUM is a set of normative guidance principles for achieving training and test dataset quality for structured datasets in data science and machine learning. The garbage-in, garbage out principle motivates a solution to the problem of data quality but does not offer a specific solution. Unlike the majority of the ad-hoc data quality assessment metrics often used by practitioners VACUUM specifies qualitative principles for data quality management and serves as a basis for defining more detailed quantitative metrics of data quality. VACUUM is an acronym that stands for: valid accurate consistent uniform unified model
Artificial intelligence content detection
Artificial intelligence detection software aims to determine whether some content (text, image, video, or audio) was generated using artificial intelligence (AI). This software is often unreliable. == Accuracy issues == Many AI detection tools have been shown to be unreliable in detecting AI-generated text. In a 2023 study conducted by Weber-Wulff et al., researchers evaluated 14 detection tools including Turnitin and GPTZero and found that "all scored below 80% of accuracy and only 5 over 70%." They also found that these tools tend to have a bias for classifying texts more as human than as AI, and that accuracy of these tools worsens upon paraphrasing. === False positives === In AI content detection, a false positive is when human-written work is incorrectly flagged as AI-written. Many AI detection platforms claim to have a minimal level of false positives, with Turnitin claiming a less than 1% false positive rate. However, later research by The Washington Post produced much higher rates of 50%, though they used a smaller sample size. False positives in an academic setting frequently lead to accusations of academic misconduct, which can have serious consequences for a student's academic record. Additionally, studies have shown evidence that many AI detection models are prone to give false positives to work written by people whose first language is not English, and also to neurodivergent people. In June 2023, Janelle Shane wrote that portions of her book You Look Like a Thing and I Love You were flagged as AI-generated. === False negatives === A false negative is a failure to identify documents with AI-written text. False negatives often happen as a result of a detection software's sensitivity level or because evasive techniques were used when generating the work to make it sound more human. False negatives are less of a concern academically, since they aren't likely to lead to accusations and ramifications. Notably, Turnitin stated they have a 15% false negative rate. == Text detection == For text, this is usually done to prevent alleged plagiarism, often by detecting repetition of words as telltale signs that a text was AI-generated (including hallucinations). Detection systems may also rely on stylistic and structural regularities associated with LLM output, such as unusually consistent grammar, formulaic transitions, repeated discourse markers, and recurring rhetorical templates. Some tools are designed less to establish authorship provenance than to flag prose that resembles common LLM-generated style patterns. They are often used by teachers marking their students, usually on an ad hoc basis. Following the release of ChatGPT and similar AI text generative software, many educational establishments have issued policies against the use of AI by students. AI text detection software is also used by those assessing job applicants, as well as online search engines, hiring, online moderation and publishing. Current detectors may sometimes be unreliable and have incorrectly marked work by humans as originating from AI while failing to detect AI-generated work in other instances. MIT Technology Review said that the technology "struggled to pick up ChatGPT-generated text that had been slightly rearranged by humans and obfuscated by a paraphrasing tool". AI text detection software has also been shown to discriminate against non-native speakers of English. Two students from the University of California, Davis, were referred to the university's Office of Student Success and Judicial Affairs (OSSJA) after their professors scanned their essays with positive results; the first with an AI detector called GPTZero, and the second with an AI detector integration in Turnitin. However, following media coverage, and a thorough investigation, the students were cleared of any wrongdoing. In April 2023, Cambridge University and other members of the Russell Group of universities in the United Kingdom opted out of Turnitin's AI text detection tool, after expressing concerns it was unreliable. The University of Texas at Austin opted out of the system six months later. In May 2023, a professor at Texas A&M University–Commerce used ChatGPT to detect whether his students' content was written by it, which ChatGPT said was the case. As such, he threatened to fail the class despite ChatGPT not being able to detect AI-generated writing. No students were prevented from graduating because of the issue, and all but one student (who admitted to using the software) were exonerated from accusations of having used ChatGPT in their content. In July 2023, a paper titled "GPT detectors are biased against non-native English writers" was released, reporting that GPTs discriminate against non-native English authors. The paper compared seven GPT detectors against essays from both non-native English speakers and essays from United States students. The essays from non-native English speakers had an average false positive rate of 61.3%. An article by Thomas Germain, published on Gizmodo in June 2024, reported job losses among freelance writers and journalists due to AI text detection software mistakenly classifying their work as AI-generated. In September 2024, Common Sense Media reported that generative AI detectors had a 20% false positive rate for Black students, compared to 10% of Latino students and 7% of White students. To improve the reliability of AI text detection, researchers have explored digital watermarking techniques. A 2023 paper titled "A Watermark for Large Language Models" presents a method to embed imperceptible watermarks into text generated by large language models (LLMs). This watermarking approach allows content to be flagged as AI-generated with a high level of accuracy, even when text is slightly paraphrased or modified. The technique is designed to be subtle and hard to detect for casual readers, thereby preserving readability, while providing a detectable signal for those employing specialized tools. However, while promising, watermarking faces challenges in remaining robust under adversarial transformations and ensuring compatibility across different LLMs. == Anti text detection == There is software available designed to bypass AI text detection. In practice, evasion may not require specialized bypass tools. Paraphrasing, style editing, and removal of repeated discourse markers can substantially reduce the effectiveness of detectors that rely on recognizable surface patterns. A study published in August 2023 analyzed 20 abstracts from papers published in the Eye Journal, which were then paraphrased using GPT-4.0. The AI-paraphrased abstracts were examined for plagiarism using QueText and for AI-generated content using Originality.AI. The texts were then re-processed through an adversarial software called Undetectable.ai in order to reduce the AI-detection scores. The study found that the AI detection tool, Originality.AI, identified text generated by GPT-4 with a mean accuracy of 91.3%. However, after reprocessing by Undetectable.ai, the detection accuracy of Originality.ai dropped to a mean accuracy of 27.8%. Some experts also believe that techniques like digital watermarking are ineffective because they can be removed or added to trigger false positives. "A Watermark for Large Language Models" paper by Kirchenbauer et al. (2023) also addresses potential vulnerabilities of watermarking techniques. The authors outline a range of adversarial tactics, including text insertion, deletion, and substitution attacks, that could be used to bypass watermark detection. These attacks vary in complexity, from simple paraphrasing to more sophisticated approaches involving tokenization and homoglyph alterations. The study highlights the challenge of maintaining watermark robustness against attackers who may employ automated paraphrasing tools or even specific language model replacements to alter text spans iteratively while retaining semantic similarity. Experimental results show that although such attacks can degrade watermark strength, they also come at the cost of text quality and increased computational resources. == Image, video, and audio detection == Several purported AI image detection software exist, to detect AI-generated images (for example, those originating from Midjourney or DALL-E). They are not completely reliable. Industry analyses have also noted that AI-driven image recognition systems often struggle in real-world environments, where inconsistent lighting, noise and variable visual inputs reduce detection reliability, a challenge highlighted in modern agricultural quality-control research. Others claim to identify video and audio deepfakes, but this technology is also not fully reliable yet either. Despite debate around the efficacy of watermarking, Google DeepMind is actively developing a detection software called SynthID, which works by inserting a digital watermark that is invisible to the human eye into the pixels of an image.
Grammar induction
Grammar induction (or grammatical inference) is the process in machine learning of learning a formal grammar (usually as a collection of re-write rules or productions or alternatively as a finite-state machine or automaton of some kind) from a set of observations, thus constructing a model which accounts for the characteristics of the observed objects. More generally, grammatical inference is that branch of machine learning where the instance space consists of discrete combinatorial objects such as strings, trees and graphs. == Grammar classes == Grammatical inference has often been very focused on the problem of learning finite-state machines of various types (see the article Induction of regular languages for details on these approaches), since there have been efficient algorithms for this problem since the 1980s. Since the beginning of the century, these approaches have been extended to the problem of inference of context-free grammars and richer formalisms, such as multiple context-free grammars and parallel multiple context-free grammars. Other classes of grammars for which grammatical inference has been studied are combinatory categorial grammars, stochastic context-free grammars, contextual grammars and pattern languages. == Learning models == The simplest form of learning is where the learning algorithm merely receives a set of examples drawn from the language in question: the aim is to learn the language from examples of it (and, rarely, from counter-examples, that is, example that do not belong to the language). However, other learning models have been studied. One frequently studied alternative is the case where the learner can ask membership queries as in the exact query learning model or minimally adequate teacher model introduced by Angluin. == Methodologies == There is a wide variety of methods for grammatical inference. Two of the classic sources are Fu (1977) and Fu (1982). Duda, Hart & Stork (2001) also devote a brief section to the problem, and cite a number of references. The basic trial-and-error method they present is discussed below. For approaches to infer subclasses of regular languages in particular, see Induction of regular languages. A more recent textbook is de la Higuera (2010), which covers the theory of grammatical inference of regular languages and finite state automata. D'Ulizia, Ferri and Grifoni provide a survey that explores grammatical inference methods for natural languages. === Induction of probabilistic grammars === There are several methods for induction of probabilistic context-free grammars. === Grammatical inference by trial-and-error === The method proposed in Section 8.7 of Duda, Hart & Stork (2001) suggests successively guessing grammar rules (productions) and testing them against positive and negative observations. The rule set is expanded so as to be able to generate each positive example, but if a given rule set also generates a negative example, it must be discarded. This particular approach can be characterized as "hypothesis testing" and bears some similarity to Mitchel's version space algorithm. The Duda, Hart & Stork (2001) text provide a simple example which nicely illustrates the process, but the feasibility of such an unguided trial-and-error approach for more substantial problems is dubious. === Grammatical inference by genetic algorithms === Grammatical induction using evolutionary algorithms is the process of evolving a representation of the grammar of a target language through some evolutionary process. Formal grammars can easily be represented as tree structures of production rules that can be subjected to evolutionary operators. Algorithms of this sort stem from the genetic programming paradigm pioneered by John Koza. Other early work on simple formal languages used the binary string representation of genetic algorithms, but the inherently hierarchical structure of grammars couched in the EBNF language made trees a more flexible approach. Koza represented Lisp programs as trees. He was able to find analogues to the genetic operators within the standard set of tree operators. For example, swapping sub-trees is equivalent to the corresponding process of genetic crossover, where sub-strings of a genetic code are transplanted into an individual of the next generation. Fitness is measured by scoring the output from the functions of the Lisp code. Similar analogues between the tree structured lisp representation and the representation of grammars as trees, made the application of genetic programming techniques possible for grammar induction. In the case of grammar induction, the transplantation of sub-trees corresponds to the swapping of production rules that enable the parsing of phrases from some language. The fitness operator for the grammar is based upon some measure of how well it performed in parsing some group of sentences from the target language. In a tree representation of a grammar, a terminal symbol of a production rule corresponds to a leaf node of the tree. Its parent nodes corresponds to a non-terminal symbol (e.g. a noun phrase or a verb phrase) in the rule set. Ultimately, the root node might correspond to a sentence non-terminal. === Grammatical inference by greedy algorithms === Like all greedy algorithms, greedy grammar inference algorithms make, in iterative manner, decisions that seem to be the best at that stage. The decisions made usually deal with things like the creation of new rules, the removal of existing rules, the choice of a rule to be applied or the merging of some existing rules. Because there are several ways to define 'the stage' and 'the best', there are also several greedy grammar inference algorithms. These context-free grammar generating algorithms make the decision after every read symbol: Lempel-Ziv-Welch algorithm creates a context-free grammar in a deterministic way such that it is necessary to store only the start rule of the generated grammar. Sequitur and its modifications. These context-free grammar generating algorithms first read the whole given symbol-sequence and then start to make decisions: Byte pair encoding and its optimizations. === Distributional learning === A more recent approach is based on distributional learning. Algorithms using these approaches have been applied to learning context-free grammars and mildly context-sensitive languages and have been proven to be correct and efficient for large subclasses of these grammars. === Learning of pattern languages === Angluin defines a pattern to be "a string of constant symbols from Σ and variable symbols from a disjoint set". The language of such a pattern is the set of all its nonempty ground instances i.e. all strings resulting from consistent replacement of its variable symbols by nonempty strings of constant symbols. A pattern is called descriptive for a finite input set of strings if its language is minimal (with respect to set inclusion) among all pattern languages subsuming the input set. Angluin gives a polynomial algorithm to compute, for a given input string set, all descriptive patterns in one variable x. To this end, she builds an automaton representing all possibly relevant patterns; using sophisticated arguments about word lengths, which rely on x being the only variable, the state count can be drastically reduced. Erlebach et al. give a more efficient version of Angluin's pattern learning algorithm, as well as a parallelized version. Arimura et al. show that a language class obtained from limited unions of patterns can be learned in polynomial time. === Pattern theory === Pattern theory, formulated by Ulf Grenander, is a mathematical formalism to describe knowledge of the world as patterns. It differs from other approaches to artificial intelligence in that it does not begin by prescribing algorithms and machinery to recognize and classify patterns; rather, it prescribes a vocabulary to articulate and recast the pattern concepts in precise language. In addition to the new algebraic vocabulary, its statistical approach was novel in its aim to: Identify the hidden variables of a data set using real world data rather than artificial stimuli, which was commonplace at the time. Formulate prior distributions for hidden variables and models for the observed variables that form the vertices of a Gibbs-like graph. Study the randomness and variability of these graphs. Create the basic classes of stochastic models applied by listing the deformations of the patterns. Synthesize (sample) from the models, not just analyze signals with it. Broad in its mathematical coverage, pattern theory spans algebra and statistics, as well as local topological and global entropic properties. == Applications == The principle of grammar induction has been applied to other aspects of natural language processing, and has been applied (among many other problems) to semantic parsing, natural language understanding, example-based translation, language acquisition, grammar-based compre
Statistical shape analysis
Statistical shape analysis is an analysis of the geometrical properties of some given set of shapes by statistical methods. For instance, it could be used to quantify differences between male and female gorilla skull shapes, normal and pathological bone shapes, leaf outlines with and without herbivory by insects, etc. Important aspects of shape analysis are to obtain a measure of distance between shapes, to estimate mean shapes from (possibly random) samples, to estimate shape variability within samples, to perform clustering and to test for differences between shapes. One of the main methods used is principal component analysis (PCA). Statistical shape analysis has applications in various fields, including medical imaging, computer vision, computational anatomy, sensor measurement, and geographical profiling. == Landmark-based techniques == In the point distribution model, a shape is determined by a finite set of coordinate points, known as landmark points. These landmark points often correspond to important identifiable features such as the corners of the eyes. Once the points are collected some form of registration is undertaken. This can be a baseline methods used by Fred Bookstein for geometric morphometrics in anthropology. Or an approach like Procrustes analysis which finds an average shape. David George Kendall investigated the statistical distribution of the shape of triangles, and represented each triangle by a point on a sphere. He used this distribution on the sphere to investigate ley lines and whether three stones were more likely to be co-linear than might be expected. Statistical distribution like the Kent distribution can be used to analyse the distribution of such spaces. Alternatively, shapes can be represented by curves or surfaces representing their contours, by the spatial region they occupy. == Shape deformations == Differences between shapes can be quantified by investigating deformations transforming one shape into another. In particular a diffeomorphism preserves smoothness in the deformation. This was pioneered in D'Arcy Thompson's On Growth and Form before the advent of computers. Deformations can be interpreted as resulting from a force applied to the shape. Mathematically, a deformation is defined as a mapping from a shape x to a shape y by a transformation function Φ {\displaystyle \Phi } , i.e., y = Φ ( x ) {\displaystyle y=\Phi (x)} . Given a notion of size of deformations, the distance between two shapes can be defined as the size of the smallest deformation between these shapes. Diffeomorphometry is the focus on comparison of shapes and forms with a metric structure based on diffeomorphisms, and is central to the field of Computational anatomy. Diffeomorphic registration, introduced in the 90's, is now an important player with existing codes bases organized around ANTS, DARTEL, DEMONS, LDDMM, StationaryLDDMM, and FastLDDMM are examples of actively used computational codes for constructing correspondences between coordinate systems based on sparse features and dense images. Voxel-based morphometry (VBM) is an important technology built on many of these principles. Methods based on diffeomorphic flows are also used. For example, deformations could be diffeomorphisms of the ambient space, resulting in the LDDMM (Large Deformation Diffeomorphic Metric Mapping) framework for shape comparison.
Colloquis
Colloquis, previously known as ActiveBuddy and Conversagent, was a company that created conversation-based interactive agents originally distributed via instant messaging platforms. The company had offices in New York, New York, and Sunnyvale, California. == History == Founded in 2000, the company was the brainchild of Robert Hoffer, Timothy Kay, and Peter Levitan. The idea for interactive agents (also known as Internet bots) came from the team's vision to add functionality to increasingly popular instant messaging services. The original implementation took shape as a word-based adventure game but quickly grew to include a wide range of database applications, including access to news, weather, stock information, movie times, Yellow Pages listings, and detailed sports data, as well as a variety of tools (calculators, translator, etc.). These various applications were bundled into one entity and launched as SmarterChild in 2001. SmarterChild acted as a showcase for the quick data access and possibilities for fun conversation that the company planned to turn into customized, niche-specific products. The rapid success of SmarterChild led to targeted promotional products for Radiohead, Austin Powers, The Sporting News, and others. ActiveBuddy sought to strengthen its hold on the interactive agent market for the future by filing for, and receiving, a controversial patent on their creation in 2002. The company also released the BuddyScript SDK, a free developer kit that allow programmers to design and launch their own interactive agents using ActiveBuddy's proprietary scripting language, in 2002. Ultimately, however, the decline in ad spending in 2001 and 2002 led to a shift in corporate strategy towards business focused Automated Service Agents, building products for clients including Cingular, Comcast and Cox Communications. The company subsequently changed its name from ActiveBuddy to Conversagent in 2003, and then again to Colloquis in 2006. Colloquis was purchased by Microsoft in October 2006.