SmartAction Company LLC is a U.S.-based software company that develops artificial intelligence–driven virtual agents for customer service applications, including voice-based interactive voice response (IVR) systems, chat, and SMS. The company was founded in 2009 by inventor and entrepreneur Peter Voss and is headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas. == History == In 2001, Peter Voss founded Adaptive AI, Inc., a research and development company focused on artificial intelligence concepts. In 2009, Voss founded SmartAction Company, LLC to commercialize customer-service automation software derived from this work. The company’s initial products focused on automating inbound and outbound calls for contact center environments. In November 2022, Kyle Johnson was appointed chief executive officer, succeeding Gary Davis, who had served as CEO since 2020. In 2024, SmartAction was acquired by Capacity, an AI-powered customer support automation company based in St. Louis, Missouri. == Technology == SmartAction develops cloud-based voice automation software that integrates speech recognition and natural language processing to support automated customer interactions in contact center environments. The platform supports automated handling of common customer service tasks and is designed to integrate with enterprise systems.
ElabFTW
eLabFTW is a web application written by Nicolas Carpi in PHP which can be used to create personal and common logbooks. It has been developed at the Curie Institute originally. Besides there, it is used on universities around the world eLabFTW is licensed under the GNU Affero General Public License as free software. It is translated into seven languages. == Description == eLabFTW is a free and open-source lab book. It is written in PHP and uses a MySQL database. Docker containers are also available. Among the various features are Secure. Entries and transmission are encrypted Timestamps. RFC 3161 compliant timestamping of experiments. Inventory management. Apart from experience logs, it also can manage the inventory Import and export. Entries can be imported and exported == Platforms == eLabFTW is a PHP package with Mysql database. Therefore, it can be executed on most servers. Furthermore, the docker containers allow to run it almost everywhere. == Usage == eLabFTW is used by various universities, like University of Alberta, Berkeley University, Hanover Medical School, Cardiff University and UMC Utrecht
Paola Velardi
Paola Velardi (born in Rome, April 26, 1955) is a full professor of computer science at Sapienza University in Rome, Italy. Her research encompasses Artificial Intelligence and specifically, natural language processing, machine learning business intelligence and semantic web. Velardi is one of the hundred female scientists included in the database "100esperte.it" (translated from Italian with "100 female experts"). This online, open database champions the recognition of top-rated female scientists in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) areas. Among her prestigious appointments and honors, her inclusion stands out —alongside 45 other international female scientists from the past, present, and future— in the Women in Science pavilion of UNESCO’s Virtual Science Museum. == Research == Paola Velardi's research activity has focused, since the early 1980s, on Artificial Intelligence, with a particular emphasis on natural language processing (NLP), Machine learning, and data mining. Her scientific contributions have evolved over time, following the sector's primary paradigms: Semantic Web and Ontologies: She is known for her pioneering work on semantic disambiguation and automated ontology learning, collaborating on the development of systems such as OntoLearn. Social Computing and Predictive Analysis: She has conducted research on extracting information from social media for epidemiological monitoring (syndromic surveillance) and for the identification of opinion leaders. In the educational field, she has developed machine learning models to predict the risk of student dropout. AI for Health and Elder Monitoring: She has coordinated projects to support frailty in the elderly, developing systems based on ambient intelligence and wearables to detect clinical and behavioral anomalies. She has also contributed to models for analyzing behavioral changes through dynamic clustering. Generative AI and Finance: More recently, her research has expanded into the use of generative AI and deep learning for finance, including benchmark studies on price trend prediction based on Limit Order Books (LOB) and the development of diffusion models for realistic market simulation (the TRADES project). According to Google Scholar bibliometrics updated until December 2025, Velardi's scientific publications have been cited more than 8100 times. Her h-index was 42. She has published more than 200 papers in international journals and conference proceedings. Some of her publications have been published in top rated journals such as Artificial Intelligence, Computational Linguistics, Knowledge-Based Systems, IEEE Transactions on Data and Knowledge Engineering , IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, IEEE Transactions on Computers, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering , Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, and Journal of Web Semantics. == Education and previous employments == Velardi graduated in electronic engineering from Sapienza University in 1978. From 1978 to 1983, she worked for the Ugo Bordoni Foundation, a research institution focusing on ICT and working under the supervision of the Italian Ministry of Economic Development. In 1983, she was a visiting scholar at Stanford University. During this period she became passionate about Artificial Intelligence, which will remain her area of research throughout her career. From 1984 to 1986, she came back to her natal city and worked as a researcher for IBM. From 1986 to 1996 she was an associate professor in the engineering faculty of Polytechnic University of the Marches (Ancona, Italy). Starting in November 1996, she taught in and did research for the Department of Computer Science at the Sapienza University. Velardi was the head of Bachelor and Master Programs in Computer Science at Sapienza University from 2010 to 2013 and from 2015 to 2016. == Current employment == Since November 2001, Velardi has been a full professor in the department of computer science ("Dipartimento di Informatica" in Italian) at Sapienza University in Rome, Italy. Since 2013, she has been the coordinator of the Distance Learning Degree in Computer Science at Sapienza University. As of today, Velardi is a Senior Associate at the Institute of Cognitive Sciences and Technologies (ISTC) of the CNR. == Recognition == Velardi is one of the hundred female scientists included in the database "100esperte.it" (translated from Italian with "100 female experts"). This database lists top Italian female STEM scientists. Six out of one hundred scientists in the 100esperte's database are computer scientists like Velardi. Velardi is in the list of the top Italian scientists. A top scientist appearing in the Top-Italian-Scientists database is a scientist whose h-index is greater than 30. In March 2017, she was given an IBM Faculty Award for her research on social recommender systems. In December 2018, Velardi was included in the list of the 50 most influential Italian women in science and technology by Inspiring Fifty, a non-profit that aims to increase diversity in STEM by making female role models in tech more visible. In September 2019 she was the local co-organizer and Program Chair of the 6th ACM Celebration of Women in Computing. In November 2019 Velardi received the Standout Woman Award International at the seat of the Italian Parliament in Montecitorio. == Causes == Velardi aims at debunking the myth of computer science as a man-oriented and "inflexible" discipline. She is the founder of the project "NERD? Non e' roba per donne?" (translated from Italian: "NERD? Is it not stuff for women?"). This project was launched by Velardi in 2012 in the Department of Computer Science at Sapienza University. Since 2013 the project has been carried out in partnership with IBM Italy, which later created a spin-off of the project. The goal of the project is two-fold: (1) conveying computer science as creative, interdisciplinary and problem-solving-oriented science, and (2) encouraging young female students in studying computer science by, for instance, developing apps for smartphones. She has been the program chair of the 19th ACM celebration of Women in Computing. She is the creator and coordinator of the G4GRETA, an educational project that involves students of the third and fourth grades of Rome and Lazio. The project combines the development of IT skills with the themes of environmental sustainability and soft skills (teambuilding, pitching, social networking, etc.) Velardi is also involved in scientific dissemination. In 2020 and 2021 she cooperated with RaiCultura, the cultural division of RAI, the national broadcasting company.
European Association for Machine Translation
The European Association for Machine Translation is the European branch of the International Association for Machine Translation Archived 2010-06-24 at the Wayback Machine. It is a non-profit organisation and organises conferences and workshops on the subject of machine translation. It was registered in 1991 in Switzerland and is the only organisation of its type in Europe.
Top 10 AI Headshot Generators Compared (2026)
Trying to pick the best AI headshot generator? An AI headshot generator is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it scales effortlessly from a single task to thousands. The best picks balance beginner-friendly simplicity with the depth power users need, and they ship updates often. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI headshot generator slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. Read on for hands-on impressions, pricing tiers, and the standout features that matter.
AI anthropomorphism
AI anthropomorphism is the attribution of human-like feelings, mental states, and behavioral characteristics to artificial intelligence systems. Factors related to the user of the AI – such as culture, age, education, gender, and personality traits – are also important determinants of the strength of anthropomorphic effects. Since the earliest days of AI development, humans have interpreted machine outputs through anthropomorphic frameworks, but the recent emergence of generative AI has amplified these tendencies. In research and engineering, there is a distinction between anthropomorphism and anthropomorphic design. The former is an innate human tendency toward non-human entities. The latter is the scientific community effort to “design anthropomorphism”. Such a design can involve the manipulation of cues, including AI appearance, behaviour and language. Contemporary AI systems today can generate extremely human-like outputs and are often designed specifically to do so, meaning that their anthropomorphic effects can be especially powerful. In some cases, anthropomorphism is accompanied with explicit beliefs that AI systems are capable of empathy, goodwill, understanding, or consciousness. == Background == === In early AIs === Views of artificial agents possessing a human-like intelligence have existed since the early development of computers in the mid-1900s. The use of the human mind as a metaphor for understanding the workings of machine systems was prevalent among researchers in the early days of computer science, with multiple influential works widely distributing the idea of intelligent machines. Among the most widely cited papers of this period was Alan Turing's "Computing Machinery and Intelligence" in which he introduced the Turing Test, stating that a machine was intelligent if it could produce conversation that was indistinguishable from that of a human. These academic works in the 1940s and 1950s gave early credibility to the idea that machine workings could be thought of similarly to human minds. The public quickly came to view artificial systems similarly, with often exaggerated conceptions of the capabilities of early machines. Among the most well-known demonstrations of this was through the chatbot ELIZA designed by Joseph Weizenbaum in 1966. ELIZA responded to user inputs with a rudimentary text-processing approach that could not be considered anything resembling true understanding of the inputs, yet users, even when operating with full conscious knowledge of ELIZA's limitations, often began to ascribe motivation and understanding to the program's output. Weizenbaum later wrote, "I had not realized ... that extremely short exposures to a relatively simple computer program could induce powerful delusional thinking in quite normal people." Comparisons between the intellectual capabilities of artificial intelligence and human intelligence were continually intensified by the attempts of computer scientists to develop machines that could perform human tasks at a level equal to or better than humans. A symbolic turning point was achieved in 1997, when IBM's chess supercomputer Deep Blue defeated then-world champion Garry Kasparov in a highly publicized six-game match. The defeat of a human by a machine for the first time in chess – a game viewed as a canonical example of human intellect – and the media attention surrounding the match led to a significant shift, where views of parallels between human and artificial intelligence moved from abstract speculation to being concretely demonstrated. A similar achievement was reached in the board game Go in 2017, when the program AlphaGo defeated world top-ranked Ke Jie. === Large language models === The AI boom of the 2020s brought about the widespread emergence of generative AI; in particular, chatbots such as ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude based on large language models (LLMs) have become increasingly pervasive in everyday society. These systems are notable for the fact that they are able to respond to a wide range of prompts across contexts while producing strikingly human-like outputs – research has shown that humans are often unable to distinguish human-generated text from AI-generated text, and modern AI chatbots have formally been shown to pass the Turing test. As such, the anthropomorphic effects of AI are more powerful than ever. Given that LLMs have brought AI into the technological mainstream, considerable scientific effort has been devoted in recent years to understand existing and potential ramifications of AI in the public sphere; the prevalence and effects of anthropomorphism is one of those domains where much of this effort has been directed. == Current anthropomorphic attributions == === In the general public === Surveys have shown that a substantial portion of the public attributes human-like qualities to AI. In one sample of U.S. adults from 2024, two-thirds of people believed that ChatGPT is possibly conscious on some level, though other research has shown that the public still views the likelihood itself of AI consciousness as comparatively low. Another study conducted in 2025 found that women, people of color, and older individuals were most likely to anthropomorphize AI, as well as that – in general – humans view AIs as warm and competent, and anthropomorphic attributions to AI had increased by 34% in the past year. A YouGov poll reported that 46% of Americans believe that people should display politeness to AI chatbots by saying "please" and "thank you", demonstrating the application of social norms to AI. These beliefs extend to behavior, where majorities of AI users claim to always be polite to chatbots; of those who behave politely, most say they do so simply because it is the "nice" thing to do. In many recent cases, humans have developed robust interpersonal bonds with AI systems. For example: users of social chatbots like Replika and Character.ai have been documented to fall in love with the AIs, or to otherwise treat the AIs as intimate companions, and it has become increasingly common for individuals to use LLMs like ChatGPT as therapists. Chatbots are able to produce responses deeply attuned to users, as they are often designed to maximize agreeableness and mirror users' emotions; this can create compelling illusions of intimacy. === In the research community === In many cases, even AI researchers anthropomorphize AI systems in some capacity. Among the most extreme and well-publicized of these instances occurred in 2022, when engineer Blake Lemoine publicly claimed that Google's LLM LaMDA was conscious. Lemoine published the transcript of a conversation he had had with LaMDA regarding self identity and morality which he claimed was evidence of its sentience; he asserted that LaMDA was "a person" as defined by the United States Constitution and compared its mental capability to that of a 7- or 8-year-old. Lemoine's claims were widely dismissed by the scientific community and by Google itself, which described Lemoine's conclusions as "wholly unfounded" and fired him on the grounds that he had violated policies "to safeguard product information". It is much more common that AI researchers unintentionally imply humanness of AI through the ordinary use of anthropomorphic language to describe nonhuman agents. This kind of language, which Daniel Dennett coined the "intentional stance", is very common in everyday life in a variety of different contexts (e.g., "My computer doesn't want to turn on today"). For AI agents that may actually appear to very closely replicate some human abilities, however, the casual use of such anthropomorphic language in research has been scrutinized for being potentially misleading to the public. As early as 1976, Drew McDermott criticized the research community for the use of "wishful mnemonics", where AIs were referred to with terms like "understand" and "learn". In the LLM era, these criticisms have further intensified, with the negative effects of AI anthropomorphism in the public posing an especially salient danger given the elevated accessibility of modern AI. In some cases, the use of anthropomorphic language for AI is not unintentional, but is willfully used by researchers in order to promote better understanding of the brain – the idea being that, as AI can be functionally similar in some ways to the human brain, we may gain new insights and ideas from treating AI as a kind of model of the brain's workings. In particular, deep neuronal networks (DNNs) are often explicitly compared to the human brain, and significant advances in DNN research have stirred considerable enthusiasm about the ability of AI to emulate the human abilities. Caution has been urged in this domain as well, however; the use of anthropomorphic language can mask important differences that fundamentally distinguish AI from human intelligence. When it comes to DNNs, for example, it has been pointed out that they are still structurally quite different
DFA minimization
In automata theory (a branch of theoretical computer science), DFA minimization is the task of transforming a given deterministic finite automaton (DFA) into an equivalent DFA that has a minimum number of states. Here, two DFAs are called equivalent if they recognize the same regular language. Several different algorithms accomplishing this task are known and described in standard textbooks on automata theory. == Minimal DFA == For each regular language, there also exists a minimal automaton that accepts it, that is, a DFA with a minimum number of states and this DFA is unique (except that states can be given different names). The minimal DFA ensures minimal computational cost for tasks such as pattern matching. There are three classes of states that can be removed or merged from the original DFA without affecting the language it accepts. Unreachable states are the states that are not reachable from the initial state of the DFA, for any input string. These states can be removed. Dead states are the states from which no final state is reachable. These states can be removed unless the automaton is required to be complete. Nondistinguishable states are those that cannot be distinguished from one another for any input string. These states can be merged. DFA minimization is usually done in three steps: remove dead and unreachable states (this will accelerate the following step), merge nondistinguishable states, optionally, re-create a single dead state ("sink" state) if the resulting DFA is required to be complete. == Unreachable states == The state p {\displaystyle p} of a deterministic finite automaton M = ( Q , Σ , δ , q 0 , F ) {\displaystyle M=(Q,\Sigma ,\delta ,q_{0},F)} is unreachable if no string w {\displaystyle w} in Σ ∗ {\displaystyle \Sigma ^{}} exists for which p = δ ∗ ( q 0 , w ) {\displaystyle p=\delta ^{}(q_{0},w)} . In this definition, Q {\displaystyle Q} is the set of states, Σ {\displaystyle \Sigma } is the set of input symbols, δ {\displaystyle \delta } is the transition function (mapping a state and an input symbol to a set of states), δ ∗ {\displaystyle \delta ^{}} is its extension to strings (also known as extended transition function), q 0 {\displaystyle q_{0}} is the initial state, and F {\displaystyle F} is the set of accepting (also known as final) states. Reachable states can be obtained with the following algorithm: Assuming an efficient implementation of the state sets (e.g. new_states) and operations on them (such as adding a state or checking whether it is present), this algorithm can be implemented with time complexity O ( n + m ) {\displaystyle O(n+m)} , where n {\displaystyle n} is the number of states and m {\displaystyle m} is the number of transitions of the input automaton. Unreachable states can be removed from the DFA without affecting the language that it accepts. == Nondistinguishable states == The following algorithms present various approaches to merging nondistinguishable states. === Hopcroft's algorithm === One algorithm for merging the nondistinguishable states of a DFA, due to Hopcroft (1971), is based on partition refinement, partitioning the DFA states into groups by their behavior. These groups represent equivalence classes of the Nerode congruence, whereby every two states are equivalent if they have the same behavior for every input sequence. That is, for every two states p1 and p2 that belong to the same block of the partition P, and every input word w, the transitions determined by w should always take states p1 and p2 to either states that both accept or states that both reject. It should not be possible for w to take p1 to an accepting state and p2 to a rejecting state or vice versa. The following pseudocode describes the form of the algorithm as given by Xu. Alternative forms have also been presented. The algorithm starts with a partition that is too coarse: every pair of states that are equivalent according to the Nerode congruence belong to the same set in the partition, but pairs that are inequivalent might also belong to the same set. It gradually refines the partition into a larger number of smaller sets, at each step splitting sets of states into pairs of subsets that are necessarily inequivalent. The initial partition is a separation of the states into two subsets of states that clearly do not have the same behavior as each other: the accepting states and the rejecting states. The algorithm then repeatedly chooses a set A from the current partition and an input symbol c, and splits each of the sets of the partition into two (possibly empty) subsets: the subset of states that lead to A on input symbol c, and the subset of states that do not lead to A. Since A is already known to have different behavior than the other sets of the partition, the subsets that lead to A also have different behavior than the subsets that do not lead to A. When no more splits of this type can be found, the algorithm terminates. Lemma. Given a fixed character c and an equivalence class Y that splits into equivalence classes B and C, only one of B or C is necessary to refine the whole partition. Example: Suppose we have an equivalence class Y that splits into equivalence classes B and C. Suppose we also have classes D, E, and F; D and E have states with transitions into B on character c, while F has transitions into C on character c. By the Lemma, we can choose either B or C as the distinguisher, let's say B. Then the states of D and E are split by their transitions into B. But F, which doesn't point into B, simply doesn't split during the current iteration of the algorithm; it will be refined by other distinguisher(s). Observation. All of B or C is necessary to split referring classes like D, E, and F correctly—subsets won't do. The purpose of the outermost if statement (if Y is in W) is to patch up W, the set of distinguishers. We see in the previous statement in the algorithm that Y has just been split. If Y is in W, it has just become obsolete as a means to split classes in future iterations. So Y must be replaced by both splits because of the Observation above. If Y is not in W, however, only one of the two splits, not both, needs to be added to W because of the Lemma above. Choosing the smaller of the two splits guarantees that the new addition to W is no more than half the size of Y; this is the core of the Hopcroft algorithm: how it gets its speed, as explained in the next paragraph. The worst case running time of this algorithm is O(ns log n), where n is the number of states and s is the size of the alphabet. This bound follows from the fact that, for each of the ns transitions of the automaton, the sets drawn from Q that contain the target state of the transition have sizes that decrease relative to each other by a factor of two or more, so each transition participates in O(log n) of the splitting steps in the algorithm. The partition refinement data structure allows each splitting step to be performed in time proportional to the number of transitions that participate in it. This remains the most efficient algorithm known for solving the problem, and for certain distributions of inputs its average-case complexity is even better, O(n log log n). Once Hopcroft's algorithm has been used to group the states of the input DFA into equivalence classes, the minimum DFA can be constructed by forming one state for each equivalence class. If S is a set of states in P, s is a state in S, and c is an input character, then the transition in the minimum DFA from the state for S, on input c, goes to the set containing the state that the input automaton would go to from state s on input c. The initial state of the minimum DFA is the one containing the initial state of the input DFA, and the accepting states of the minimum DFA are the ones whose members are accepting states of the input DFA. === Moore's algorithm === Moore's algorithm for DFA minimization is due to Edward F. Moore (1956). Like Hopcroft's algorithm, it maintains a partition that starts off separating the accepting from the rejecting states, and repeatedly refines the partition until no more refinements can be made. At each step, it replaces the current partition with the coarsest common refinement of s + 1 partitions, one of which is the current one and the rest of which are the preimages of the current partition under the transition functions for each of the input symbols. The algorithm terminates when this replacement does not change the current partition. Its worst-case time complexity is O(n2s): each step of the algorithm may be performed in time O(ns) using a variant of radix sort to reorder the states so that states in the same set of the new partition are consecutive in the ordering, and there are at most n steps since each one but the last increases the number of sets in the partition. The instances of the DFA minimization problem that cause the worst-case behavior are the same as for Hopcroft's algorithm. The number of steps th