HTK Limited is a software-as-a-service company that provides mobile phone messaging and IVR services. Founded in 1996, HTK is headquartered in Ipswich, Suffolk, UK. HTK provide mass notification services. Specifically, the "Police Direct" messaging service to Suffolk and Norfolk Constabularies. In 2010 the HTK Horizon SaaS platform was selected by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) for their Floodline Warnings Direct service. == History == HTK was founded in 1996 by Marlon Bowser and Adrian Gregory and from the outset focused on what has now become commonly known as Software-as-a-Service. in 2004, according to the Deloitte Fast 50 (UK), HTK was the 17th fastest growing company in the East of England. In 2005 The Times listed HTK 65th nationally and 4th in the East of England in the Sunday Times & Microsoft "Tech Track 100" awards. In 2009 the company was approved as a supplier to UK Government under a new framework agreement. In 2010 HTK launched version 2.2 of its Horizon platform, with a feature set that signals a shift from mass notification into the customer service automation market.
Word error rate
Word error rate (WER) is a common metric of the performance of a speech recognition or machine translation system. The WER metric typically ranges from 0 to 1, where 0 indicates that the compared pieces of text are exactly identical, and 1 (or larger) indicates that they are completely different with no similarity. This way, a WER of 0.8 means that there is an 80% error rate for compared sentences. The general difficulty of measuring performance lies in the fact that the recognized word sequence can have a different length from the reference word sequence (supposedly the correct one). The WER is derived from the Levenshtein distance, working at the word level instead of the phoneme level. The WER is a valuable tool for comparing different systems as well as for evaluating improvements within one system. This kind of measurement, however, provides no details on the nature of translation errors and further work is therefore required to identify the main source(s) of error and to focus any research effort. This problem is solved by first aligning the recognized word sequence with the reference (spoken) word sequence using dynamic string alignment. Examination of this issue is seen through a theory called the power law that states the correlation between perplexity and word error rate. Word error rate can then be computed as: W E R = S + D + I N = S + D + I S + D + C {\displaystyle {\mathit {WER}}={\frac {S+D+I}{N}}={\frac {S+D+I}{S+D+C}}} where S is the number of substitutions, D is the number of deletions, I is the number of insertions, C is the number of correct words, N is the number of words in the reference (N=S+D+C) The intuition behind 'deletion' and 'insertion' is how to get from the reference to the hypothesis. So if we have the reference "This is wikipedia" and hypothesis "This _ wikipedia", we call it a deletion. Note that since N is the number of words in the reference, the word error rate can be larger than 1.0, namely if the number of insertions I is larger than the number of correct words C. When reporting the performance of a speech recognition system, sometimes word accuracy (WAcc) is used instead: W A c c = 1 − W E R = N − S − D − I N = C − I N {\displaystyle {\mathit {WAcc}}=1-{\mathit {WER}}={\frac {N-S-D-I}{N}}={\frac {C-I}{N}}} Since the WER can be larger than 1.0, the word accuracy can be smaller than 0.0. == Experiments == It is commonly believed that a lower word error rate shows superior accuracy in recognition of speech, compared with a higher word error rate. However, at least one study has shown that this may not be true. In a Microsoft Research experiment, it was shown that, if people were trained under "that matches the optimization objective for understanding", (Wang, Acero and Chelba, 2003) they would show a higher accuracy in understanding of language than other people who demonstrated a lower word error rate, showing that true understanding of spoken language relies on more than just high word recognition accuracy. == Other metrics == One problem with using a generic formula such as the one above, however, is that no account is taken of the effect that different types of error may have on the likelihood of successful outcome, e.g. some errors may be more disruptive than others and some may be corrected more easily than others. These factors are likely to be specific to the syntax being tested. A further problem is that, even with the best alignment, the formula cannot distinguish a substitution error from a combined deletion plus insertion error. Hunt (1990) has proposed the use of a weighted measure of performance accuracy where errors of substitution are weighted at unity but errors of deletion and insertion are both weighted only at 0.5, thus: W E R = S + 0.5 D + 0.5 I N {\displaystyle {\mathit {WER}}={\frac {S+0.5D+0.5I}{N}}} There is some debate, however, as to whether Hunt's formula may properly be used to assess the performance of a single system, as it was developed as a means of comparing more fairly competing candidate systems. A further complication is added by whether a given syntax allows for error correction and, if it does, how easy that process is for the user. There is thus some merit to the argument that performance metrics should be developed to suit the particular system being measured. Whichever metric is used, however, one major theoretical problem in assessing the performance of a system is deciding whether a word has been “mis-pronounced,” i.e. does the fault lie with the user or with the recogniser. This may be particularly relevant in a system which is designed to cope with non-native speakers of a given language or with strong regional accents. The pace at which words should be spoken during the measurement process is also a source of variability between subjects, as is the need for subjects to rest or take a breath. All such factors may need to be controlled in some way. For text dictation it is generally agreed that performance accuracy at a rate below 95% is not acceptable, but this again may be syntax and/or domain specific, e.g. whether there is time pressure on users to complete the task, whether there are alternative methods of completion, and so on. The term "Single Word Error Rate" is sometimes referred to as the percentage of incorrect recognitions for each different word in the system vocabulary. == Edit distance == The word error rate may also be referred to as the length normalized edit distance. The normalized edit distance between X and Y, d( X, Y ) is defined as the minimum of W( P ) / L ( P ), where P is an editing path between X and Y, W ( P ) is the sum of the weights of the elementary edit operations of P, and L(P) is the number of these operations (length of P).
AI Avatar Generators Reviews: What Actually Works in 2026
Shopping for the best AI avatar generator? An AI avatar generator is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it keeps getting smarter as the underlying models improve. Pricing, accuracy, and the size of the model behind the tool are the three factors that most affect daily usefulness. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI avatar generator slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. Below we compare features, pricing, and real output so you can choose with confidence.
AI Text-to-video Tools: Free vs Paid (2026)
Curious about the best AI text-to-video tool? An AI text-to-video tool is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it combines speed, accuracy, and an interface that just works. Hands-on testing shows real-world results vary, so a short free trial is the smartest way to decide. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI text-to-video tool slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. Read on for hands-on impressions, pricing tiers, and the standout features that matter.
Glushkov's construction algorithm
In computer science theory – particularly formal language theory – Glushkov's construction algorithm, invented by Victor Mikhailovich Glushkov, transforms a given regular expression into an equivalent nondeterministic finite automaton (NFA). Thus, it forms a bridge between regular expressions and nondeterministic finite automata: two abstract representations of the same class of formal languages. A regular expression may be used to conveniently describe an advanced search pattern in a "find and replace"–like operation of a text processing utility. Glushkov's algorithm can be used to transform it into an NFA, which furthermore is small by nature, as the number of its states equals the number of symbols of the regular expression, plus one. Subsequently, the NFA can be made deterministic by the powerset construction and then be minimized to get an optimal automaton corresponding to the given regular expression. The latter format is best suited for execution on a computer. From another, more theoretical point of view, Glushkov's algorithm is a part of the proof that NFA and regular expressions both accept exactly the same languages; that is, the regular languages. The converse of Glushkov's algorithm is Kleene's algorithm, which transforms a finite automaton into a regular expression. The automaton obtained by Glushkov's construction is the same as the one obtained by Thompson's construction algorithm, once its ε-transitions are removed. Glushkov's construction algorithm is also called The algorithm of Berry-Sethi, named after Gérard Berry and Ravi Sethi who worked on this construction. == Construction == Given a regular expression e, the Glushkov Construction Algorithm creates a non-deterministic automaton that accepts the language L ( e ) {\displaystyle L(e)} accepted by e. The construction uses four steps: === Step 1 === Linearisation of the expression. Each letter of the alphabet appearing in the expression e is renamed, so that each letter occurs at most once in the new expression e ′ {\displaystyle e'} . Glushkov's construction essentially relies on the fact that e ′ {\displaystyle e'} represents a local language L ( e ′ ) {\displaystyle L(e')} . Let A be the old alphabet and let B be the new one. === Step 2a === Computation of the sets P ( e ′ ) {\displaystyle P(e')} , D ( e ′ ) {\displaystyle D(e')} , and F ( e ′ ) {\displaystyle F(e')} . The first, P ( e ′ ) {\displaystyle P(e')} , is the set of letters which occurs as first letter of a word of L ( e ′ ) {\displaystyle L(e')} . The second, D ( e ′ ) {\displaystyle D(e')} , is the set of letters that can end a word of L ( e ′ ) {\displaystyle L(e')} . The last one, F ( e ′ ) {\displaystyle F(e')} , is the set of letter pairs that can occur in words of L ( e ′ ) {\displaystyle L(e')} , i.e. it is the set of factors of length two of the words of L ( e ′ ) {\displaystyle L(e')} . Those sets are mathematically defined by P ( e ′ ) = { x ∈ B ∣ x B ∗ ∩ L ( e ′ ) ≠ ∅ } {\displaystyle P(e')=\{x\in B\mid xB^{}\cap L(e')\neq \emptyset \}} , D ( e ′ ) = { y ∈ B ∣ B ∗ y ∩ L ( e ′ ) ≠ ∅ } {\displaystyle D(e')=\{y\in B\mid B^{}y\cap L(e')\neq \emptyset \}} , F ( e ′ ) = { u ∈ B 2 ∣ B ∗ u B ∗ ∩ L ( e ′ ) ≠ ∅ } {\displaystyle F(e')=\{u\in B^{2}\mid B^{}uB^{}\cap L(e')\neq \emptyset \}} . They are computed by induction over the structure of the expression, as explained below. === Step 2b === Computation of the set Λ ( e ′ ) {\displaystyle \Lambda (e')} which contains the empty word ε {\displaystyle \varepsilon } if this word belongs to L ( e ′ ) {\displaystyle L(e')} , and is the empty set otherwise. Formally, this is Λ ( e ′ ) = { ε } ∩ L ( e ′ ) {\displaystyle \Lambda (e')=\{\varepsilon \}\cap L(e')} . === Step 3 === Computation of automaton recognizing the local language, as defined by P ( e ′ ) {\displaystyle P(e')} , D ( e ′ ) {\displaystyle D(e')} , F ( e ′ ) {\displaystyle F(e')} , and Λ ( e ′ ) {\displaystyle \Lambda (e')} . By definition, the local language defined by the sets P, D, and F is the set of words which begin with a letter of P, end by a letter of D, and whose factors of length 2 belong to F, optionally also including the empty word; that is, it is the language: L ′ = ( P B ∗ ∩ B ∗ D ) ∖ B ∗ ( B 2 ∖ F ) B ∗ ∪ Λ ( e ′ ) {\displaystyle L'=(PB^{}\cap B^{}D)\setminus B^{}(B^{2}\setminus F)B^{}\cup \Lambda (e')} . Strictly speaking, it is the computation of the automaton for the local language denoted by this linearised expression that is Glushkov's construction. === Step 4 === Remove the linearisation, replacing each indexed letter B by the original letter of A. == Example == Consider the regular expression e = ( a ( a b ) ∗ ) ∗ + ( b a ) ∗ {\displaystyle e=(a(ab)^{})^{}+(ba)^{}} . == Computation of the set of letters == The computation of the sets P, D, F, and Λ is done inductively over the regular expression e ′ {\displaystyle e'} . One must give the values for ∅, ε (the symbols for the empty language and the singleton language containing the empty word), the letters, and the results of the operations + , ⋅ , ∗ {\displaystyle +,\cdot ,^{}} . The most costly operations are the cartesian products of sets for the computation of F. == Properties == The obtained automaton is non-deterministic, and it has as many states as the number of letters of the regular expression, plus one. It has been proven that every Thompson's automaton can be transformed into Glushkov's automaton via a ε-transitions elimination method. == Applications and deterministic expressions == The computation of the automaton by the expression occurs often; it has been systematically used in search functions, in particular by the Unix grep command. Similarly, XML's specification also uses such constructions; for more efficiency, regular expressions of a certain kind, called deterministic expressions, have been studied.
IRows
iRows was a web-based spreadsheet in beta with a GUI similar to the traditional desktop-based spreadsheet applications, such as Microsoft Excel and OpenOffice.org. It was shut down on December 31, 2006, after it was announced that its two founders had been hired by Google. iRows used Ajax and XML. It was described as an example of a Web 2.0 system. iRows supported conventional spreadsheet features functions, value formatting and charts and added web oriented spreadsheet capabilities like collaboration (multiple people using a shared spreadsheet, sending a spreadsheet as a link instead of an attachment and ability to publish spreadsheets on other web pages (e.g. blogs).
Sinkov statistic
Sinkov statistics, also known as log-weight statistics, is a specialized field of statistics that was developed by Abraham Sinkov, while working for the small Signal Intelligence Service organization, the primary mission of which was to compile codes and ciphers for use by the U.S. Army. The mathematics involved include modular arithmetic, a bit of number theory, some linear algebra of two dimensions with matrices, some combinatorics, and a little statistics. Sinkov did not explain the theoretical underpinnings of his statistics, or characterized its distribution, nor did he give a decision procedure for accepting or rejecting candidate plaintexts on the basis of their S1 scores. The situation becomes more difficult when comparing strings of different lengths because Sinkov does not explain how the distribution of his statistics changes with length, especially when applied to higher-order grams. As for how to accept or reject a candidate plaintext, Sinkov simply said to try all possibilities and to pick the one with the highest S1 value. Although the procedure works for some applications, it is inadequate for applications that require on-line decisions. Furthermore, it is desirable to have a meaningful interpretation of the S1 values.