Overcategorization or category clutter is a phenomenon during classification where too many categories or classes are assigned to a document, record, or item. Overcategorization is related to the library and information science (LIS) concepts of document classification and subject indexing. It is also related to online shopping where excessive product categories can overwhelm users with too many choices or make it more difficult for customers to find the products they need. Although these categories are intended to improve organization and ease of navigation when shipping online, too many categories can lower customer satisfaction, increase difficulty navigating the online store, and reduce future shopping intentions. In LIS, the ideal number of terms that should be assigned to classify an item are measured by the variables precision and recall. Assigning few category labels that are most closely related to the content of the item being classified will result in searches that have high precision, I.e., where a high proportion of the results are closely related to the query. Assigning more category labels to each item will reduce the precision of each search, but increase the recall, retrieving more relevant results. Related LIS concepts include exhaustivity of indexing and information overload. == Basic principles == If too many categories are assigned to a given document, the implications for users depend on how informative the links are. If the user is able to distinguish between useful and not useful links, the damage is limited: The user only wastes time selecting links. In many cases, however, the user cannot judge whether or not a given link will turn out to be fruitful. In that case he or she has to follow the link and to read or skim another document. The worst case scenario is, of course, that even after reading the new document the user is unable to decide whether or not it might be useful if its subject matter is not thoroughly investigated. Overcategorization also has another unpleasant implication: It makes the system (for example in Wikipedia) difficult to maintain in a consistent way. If the system is inconsistent, it means that when the user considers the links in a given category, he or she will not find all documents relevant to that category. Basically, the problem of overcategorization should be understood from the perspective of relevance and the traditional measures of recall and precision. If too few relevant categories are assigned to a document, recall may decrease. If too many non-relevant categories are assigned, precision becomes lower. The hard job is to say which categories are fruitful or relevant for future use of the document.
Ware report
Security Controls for Computer Systems, commonly called the Ware report, is a 1970 text by Willis Ware that was foundational in the field of computer security. == Development == A defense contractor in St. Louis, Missouri, had bought an IBM mainframe computer, which it was using for classified work on a fighter aircraft. To provide additional income, the contractor asked the Department of Defense (DoD) for permission to sell computer time on the mainframe to local businesses via remote terminals, while the classified work continued. At the time, the DoD did not have a policy to cover this. The DoD's Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) asked Ware - a RAND employee - to chair a committee to examine and report on the feasibility of security controls for computer systems. The committee's report was a classified document given in January 1970 to the Defense Science Board (DSB), which had taken over the project from ARPA. After declassification, the report was published by RAND in October 1979. == Influence == The IEEE Computer Society said the report was widely circulated, and the IEEE Annals of the History of Computing said that it, together with Ware's 1967 Spring Joint Computer Conference session, marked the start of the field of computer security. The report influenced security certification standards and processes, especially in the banking and defense industries, where the report was instrumental in creating the Orange Book.
Underwater computer vision
Underwater computer vision is a subfield of computer vision. In recent years, with the development of underwater vehicles ( ROV, AUV, gliders), the need to be able to record and process huge amounts of information has become increasingly important. Applications range from inspection of underwater structures for the offshore industry to the identification and counting of fishes for biological research. However, no matter how big the impact of this technology can be to industry and research, it still is in a very early stage of development compared to traditional computer vision. One reason for this is that, the moment the camera goes into the water, a whole new set of challenges appear. On one hand, cameras have to be made waterproof, marine corrosion deteriorates materials quickly and access and modifications to experimental setups are costly, both in time and resources. On the other hand, the physical properties of the water make light behave differently, changing the appearance of a same object with variations of depth, organic material, currents, temperature etc. == Applications == Seafloor survey Vehicle navigation and positioning Biological monitoring {possibly aquatic biomonitoring) Video mosaics as visual navigation maps Submarine pipeline inspection Wreckage visualization Maintenance of underwater structures Drowning detection systems == Medium differences == === Illumination === In air, light comes from the whole hemisphere on cloudy days, and is dominated by the sun. In water direct lighting comes from a cone about 96° wide above the scene. This phenomenon is called Snell's window. Artificial lighting can be used where natural light levels are insufficient and where the light path is too long to produce acceptable colour, as the loss of colour is a function of the total distance through water from the source to the camera lens port. === Light attenuation === Unlike air, water attenuates light exponentially. This results in hazy images with very low contrast. The main reasons for light attenuation are light absorption (where energy is removed from the light) and light scattering, by which the direction of light is changed. Light scattering can further be divided into forward scattering, which results in an increased blurriness and backward scattering that limits the contrast and is responsible for the characteristic veil of underwater images. Both scattering and attenuation are heavily influenced by the amount of organic matter dissolved or suspended in the water. Light attenuation in water is also a function of the wavelength. This means that different colours are attenuated at different rates, leading to colour degradation.with depth and distance. Red and orange light are attenuated faster, followed by yellows and greens. Blue is the least attenuated visible wavelength. === Artificial lighting === == Challenges == In high level computer vision, human structures are frequently used as image features for image matching in different applications. However, the sea bottom lacks such features, making it hard to find correspondences in two images. In order to be able to use a camera in the water, a watertight housing is required. However, refraction will happen at the water-glass and glass-air interface due to differences in density of the materials. This has the effect of introducing a non-linear image deformation. The motion of the vehicle presents another special challenge. Underwater vehicles are constantly moving due to currents and other phenomena. This introduces another uncertainty to algorithms, where small motions may appear in all directions. This can be specially important for video tracking. In order to reduce this problem image stabilization algorithms may be applied. == Relevant technology == === Image restoration === Image restoration< techniques are intended to model the degradation process and then invert it, obtaining the new image after solving. It is generally a complex approach that requires plenty of parameters that vary a lot between different water conditions. === Image enhancement === Image enhancement only tries to provide a visually more appealing image without taking the physical image formation process into account. These methods are usually simpler and less computational intensive. === Color correction === Various algorithms exist that perform automatic color correction. The UCM (Unsupervised Color Correction Method), for example, does this in the following steps: It firstly reduces the color cast by equalizing the color values. Then it enhances contrast by stretching the red histogram towards the maximum and finally saturation and intensity components are optimized. == Underwater stereo vision == It is usually assumed that stereo cameras have been calibrated previously, geometrically and radiometrically. This leads to the assumption that corresponding pixels should have the same color. However this can not be guaranteed in an underwater scene, because of dispersion and backscatter. However, it is possible to digitally model this phenomenon and create a virtual image with those effects removed == Other application fields == Imaging sonars have become more and more accessible and gained resolution, delivering better images. Sidescan sonars are used to produce complete maps of regions of the sea floor stitching together sequences of sonar images. However, sonar images often lack proper contrast and are degraded by artefacts and distortions due to noise, attitude changes of the AUV/ROV carrying the sonar or non uniform beam patterns. Another common problem with sonar computer vision is the comparatively low frame rate of sonar images.
SPL notation
SPL (Sentence Plan Language) is an abstract notation representing the semantics of a sentence in natural language. In a classical Natural Language Generation (NLG) workflow, an initial text plan (hierarchically or sequentially organized factoids, often modelled in accordance with Rhetorical Structure Theory) is transformed by a sentence planner (generator) component to a sequence of sentence plans modelled in a Sentence Plan Language. A surface generator can be used to transform the SPL notation into natural language sentences. Probably the most widely used SPL language used today (2022) is AMR (Abstract Meaning Representation, see there for further references), but is owes parts of its popularity to its application to NLP problems other than NLG, e.g., machine translation and semantic parsing.
ISLRN
The ISLRN or International Standard Language Resource Number is Persistent Unique Identifier for Language Resources. == Context == On November 18, 2013, 12 major organisations (see list below) from the fields Language Resources and Technologies, Computational Linguistics, and Digital Humanities held a cooperation meeting in Paris (France) and agreed to announce the establishment of the International Standard Language Resource Number (ISLRN), to be assigned to each Language Resource. Among the 12 organisations, 4 institutions constitute the ISLRN Steering Committee (ST) ADHO ACL Asian Federation of Natural Language Processing ST COCOSDA, International Committee for the Coordination & Standardisation of Speech Databases and Assessment Techniques ICCL (COLING) European Data Forum ELRA ST IAMT, International Association for Machine Translation Archived 2010-06-24 at the Wayback Machine ISCA LDC ST Oriental COCOSDA ST RMA, Language Resource Management Agency == Size and Content == The Joint Research Centre(JRC), the [European Commission]'s in-house science service, was the first organisation to adopt the ISLRN initiative and requested. 2500 resources and tools have already been allocated an ISLRN. These resources include written data (Annotated corpus, Annotated text, List of misspelled word, Terminological database, Treebank, Wordnet, etc.) and speech corpora (Synthesised Speech, Transcripts and Audiovisual Recordings, Conversational Speech, Folk Sayings, etc.) == Objectives == Providing Language Resources with unique names and identifiers using a standardized nomenclature ensures the identification of each Language Resources and streamlines the citation with proper references in activities within Human Language Technology as well as in documents and scientific publications. Such unique identifier also enhances the reproducibility, an essential feature of scientific work.
Pronunciation assessment
Automatic pronunciation assessment uses computer speech recognition to determine how accurately speech has been pronounced, instead of relying on a human instructor or proctor. It is also called speech verification, pronunciation evaluation, and pronunciation scoring. This technology is used to grade speech quality, for language testing, for computer-aided pronunciation teaching (CAPT) in computer-assisted language learning (CALL), for speaking skill remediation, and for accent reduction. Pronunciation assessment is different from dictation or automatic transcription, because instead of determining unknown speech, it verifies learners' pronunciation of known word(s), often from prior transcription of the same utterance; ideally scoring the intelligibility of the learners' speech. Sometimes pronunciation assessment evaluates the prosody of the learners' speech, such as intonation, pitch, tempo, rhythm, and syllable and word stress, although those are usually not essential for being understood in most languages. Pronunciation assessment is also used in reading tutoring, for example in products from Google, Microsoft, and Amira Learning. Automatic pronunciation assessment can also be used to help diagnose and treat speech disorders such as apraxia. == Intelligibility == Intelligibility refers to how well a learner's utterance is understood by a listener, rather than how much it sounds like a native speaker. This is separate from measures of fluency, such as so-called "Goodness of Pronunciation" (GoP) scores, which estimate how closely an utterance aligns with those of native speakers. Intelligibility is widely regarded as the most important communicative goal in pronunciation teaching and assessment. For example, in the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) assessment criteria for "overall phonological control", intelligibility outweighs formally correct pronunciation at all levels. Studies in applied linguistics have shown that accent reduction does not always increase intelligibility because listeners can often comprehend heavily accented speech without difficulty. Pronunciation assessment systems often rely on acoustic methods such as GoP which compare learner speech to reference models to produce phoneme-level scores, which are in turn aggregated to produce word and phrase scores. While these methods are effective for identifying deviations from native speakers' utterances, they do not effectively measure how understandable speech is to human listeners. Intelligibility is influenced by broader linguistic and contextual factors such as stress placement, speech rate, and coarticulation, which are not represented in purely segmental scores. The earliest work on pronunciation assessment avoided measuring genuine listener intelligibility, a shortcoming corrected in 2011 at the Toyohashi University of Technology, and included in the Versant high-stakes English fluency assessment from Pearson and mobile apps from 17zuoye Education & Technology, but still missing in 2023 products from Google Search, Microsoft, Educational Testing Service, Speechace, and ELSA. Assessing authentic listener intelligibility is essential for avoiding inaccuracies from accent bias, especially in high-stakes assessments; from words with multiple correct pronunciations; and from phoneme coding errors in machine-readable pronunciation dictionaries. In 2022, researchers found that some newer speech-to-text systems, based on end-to-end reinforcement learning to map audio signals directly into words, produce word and phrase confidence scores (from 10-25ms audio frame logit aggregation) closely correlated with genuine listener intelligibility. Others have been able to assess intelligibility using Levenshtein or dynamic time warping distance measures from Wav2Vec2 representation of good speech. Further work through 2025 has focused specifically on measuring intelligibility. A 2025 study of 42 pronunciation and speech coaching apps (32 mobile and 10 web) found that none offered intelligibility assessment. Instead, most provided only segmental and accent-focused scoring. About two-thirds of the apps provided some form of specific pronunciation feedback, usually with phonetic transcriptions, but accompanied by visual cues (such as animations of the vocal tract or the lips and tongue from the front) in only about 5% of the apps. Less than a third provided feedback on learner perception of exemplar speech. == Evaluation == Although there are as yet no industry-standard benchmarks for evaluating pronunciation assessment accuracy, researchers occasionally release evaluation speech corpuses for others to use for improving assessment quality. Such evaluation databases often emphasize formally unaccented pronunciation to the exclusion of genuine intelligibility evident from blinded listener transcriptions. As of mid-2025, state of the art approaches for automatically transcribing phonemes typically achieve an error rate of about 10% from known good speech. The International Speech Communication Association (ISCA) 2025 Workshop on Speech and Language Technology in Education (SLaTE) administered a Speak & Improve Challenge: Spoken Language Assessment and Feedback, introducing benchmarks for evaluating pronunciation assessment and remediation systems across languages, accents, and learner populations. The challenge emphasized cross-lingual generalization and alignment with human intelligibility judgments, for more robust and interpretable assessment systems. Ethical issues in pronunciation assessment are present in both human and automatic methods. Authentic validity, fairness, and mitigating bias in evaluation are all crucial. Diverse speech data should be included in automatic pronunciation assessment models. Combining human judgments, especially blinded transcriptions from a wide diversity of listeners, with automated feedback can improve accuracy and fairness. Second language learners benefit substantially from their use of widely available speech recognition systems for dictation, virtual assistants, and AI chatbots. In such systems, users naturally try to correct their own errors evident in speech recognition results that they notice. Such use improves their grammar and vocabulary development along with their pronunciation skills. The extent to which explicit pronunciation assessment and remediation approaches improve on such self-directed interactions remains an open question. Similarly, automatic dictation results have been shown to reflect intelligibility about as well as human scorers. == Recent developments == During 2021–22, a smartphone-based CAPT system was used to sense articulation through both audible and inaudible signals, providing feedback at the phoneme level. Some promising areas for improvement which were being developed in 2024 include articulatory feature extraction and transfer learning to suppress unnecessary corrections. Other interesting advances under development include "augmented reality" interfaces for mobile devices using optical character recognition to provide pronunciation training on text found in user environments. In 2024, audio multimodal large language models were first described as assessing pronunciation. That work has been carried forward by other researchers in 2025 who report positive results. Subsequently, researchers demonstrated pronunciation scoring by providing a language model with textual descriptions of speech, including the speech-to-text transcript, phoneme sequences, pauses, and phoneme sequence matching; this approach can achieve performance similar to multimodal LLMs that analyze raw audio while avoiding their higher computational cost. In 2025, the Duolingo English Test authors published a description of their pronunciation assessment method, purportedly built to measure intelligibility rather than accent imitation. While achieving a correlation of 0.82 with expert human ratings, very close to inter-rater agreement and outperforming alternative methods, the method is nonetheless based on experts' scores along the six-point CEFR common reference levels scale, instead of actual blinded listener transcriptions. Further promising work in 2025 includes assessment feedback aligning learner speech to synthetic utterances using interpretable features, identifying continuous spans of words for remediation feedback; synthesizing corrected speech matching learners' self-perceived voices, which they prefer and imitate more accurately as corrections; and streaming such interactions. On January 21, 2026, Educational Testing Service's TOEFL iBT high-stakes English language test, required by US university admissions and employers from English as a foreign language applicants more often than all other internet-based tests combined, changed its speaking assessments. While official rubrics claim that the new scoring will be based primarily on intelligibility, the new test's technical description indicates that it ju
Lessac Technologies
Lessac Technologies, Inc. (LTI) is an American firm which develops voice synthesis software, licenses technology and sells synthesized novels as MP3 files. The firm currently has seven patents granted and three more pending for its automated methods of converting digital text into human-sounding speech, more accurately recognizing human speech and outputting the text representing the words and phrases of said speech, along with recognizing the speaker's emotional state. The LTI technology is partly based on the work of the late Arthur Lessac, a Professor of Theater at the State University of New York and the creator of Lessac Kinesensic Training, and LTI has licensed exclusive rights to exploit Arthur Lessac's copyrighted works in the fields of speech synthesis and speech recognition. Based on the view that music is speech and speech is music, Lessac's work and books focused on body and speech energies and how they go together. Arthur Lessac's textual annotation system, which was originally developed to assist actors, singers, and orators in marking up scripts to prepare for performance, is adapted in LTI's speech synthesis system as the basic representation of the speech to be synthesized (Lessemes), in contrast to many other systems which use a phonetic representation. LTI's software has two major components: (1) a linguistic front-end that converts plain text to a sequence of prosodic and phonosensory graphic symbols (Lessemes) based on Arthur Lessac's annotation system, which specify the speech units to be synthesized; (2) a signal-processing back-end that takes the Lessemes as acoustic data and produces human-sounding synthesized speech as output, using unit selection and concatenation. LTI's text-to-speech system came in second in the world-wide Blizzard Challenge 2011 and 2012. The first-place team in 2011 also employed LTI's "front-end" technology, but with its own back-end. The Blizzard Challenge, conducted by the Language Technologies Institute of Carnegie Mellon University, was devised as a way to evaluate speech synthesis techniques by having different research groups build voices from the same voice-actor recordings, and comparing the results through listening tests. LTI was founded in 2000 by H. Donald Wilson (chairman), a lawyer, LexisNexis entrepreneur and business associate of Arthur Lessac; and Gary A. Marple (chief inventor), after Marple suggested that Arthur Lessac's kinesensic voice training might be applicable to computational linguistics. After Wilson's death in 2006, his nephew John Reichenbach became the firm's CEO.