A radio network is a system that distributes radio signals to multiple receivers or enables two-way communication between stations and mobile units. Worldwide, radio networks include broadcast networks, such as BBC Radio in the United Kingdom and NPR in the United States, which transmit one-to-many signals for news, entertainment, and public information; two-way radio networks, used by police, fire services, taxicabs, and delivery fleets for operational communication; and cellular networks, such as Verizon, Vodafone, and China Mobile, which provide mobile telephony and data services using frequency or time division duplexing. While all rely on radio-frequency technology like transmitters, receivers, and antennas, their network architectures, protocols, and regulatory frameworks differ substantially across applications and regions. The two-way type of radio network shares many of the same technologies and components as the broadcast-type radio network but is generally set up with fixed broadcast points (transmitters) with co-located receivers and mobile receivers/transmitters or transceivers. In this way both the fixed and mobile radio units can communicate with each other over broad geographic regions ranging in size from small single cities to entire states/provinces or countries. There are many ways in which multiple fixed transmit/receive sites can be interconnected to achieve the range of coverage required by the jurisdiction or authority implementing the system: conventional wireless links in numerous frequency bands, fibre-optic links, or microwave links. In all of these cases the signals are typically backhauled to a central switch of some type where the radio message is processed and resent (repeated) to all transmitter sites where it is required to be heard. In contemporary two-way radio systems, a concept called trunking is commonly used to achieve better efficiency of radio spectrum use. It provides a very wide range of coverage, with no switching of channels required by the mobile radio user as it roams throughout the system coverage. Trunking of two-way radio is identical to the concept used for cellular phone systems where each fixed and mobile radio is specifically identified to the system controller and its operation is switched by the controller. == Broadcasting networks == The broadcast type of radio network is a network system which distributes radio programming to multiple stations simultaneously, or slightly delayed, for the purpose of extending total coverage beyond the limits of a single broadcast signal. The resulting expanded audience for radio programming or information essentially applies the benefits of mass-production to the broadcasting enterprise. A radio network has two sales departments, one to package and sell programs to radio stations, and one to sell the audience of those programs to advertisers. Most radio networks also produce much of their programming. Originally, radio networks owned some or all of the stations that broadcast the network's radio format programming. Presently however, there are many networks that do not own any stations and only produce and/or distribute programming. Similarly station ownership does not always indicate network affiliation. A company might own stations in several different markets and purchase programming from a variety of networks. Radio networks rose rapidly with the growth of regular broadcasting of radio to home listeners in the 1920s. This growth took various paths in different places. In Britain the BBC was developed with public funding, in the form of a broadcast receiver license, and a broadcasting monopoly in its early decades. In contrast, in the United States various competing commercial broadcasting networks arose funded by advertising revenue. In that instance, the same corporation that owned or operated the network often manufactured and marketed the listener's radio. Major technical challenges to be overcome when distributing programs over long distances are maintaining signal quality and managing the number of switching/relay points in the signal chain. Early on, programs were sent to remote stations (either owned or affiliated) by various methods, including leased telephone lines, pre-recorded gramophone records and audio tape. The world's first all-radio, non-wireline network was claimed to be the Rural Radio Network, a group of six upstate New York FM stations that began operation in June 1948. Terrestrial microwave relay, a technology later introduced to link stations, has been largely supplanted by coaxial cable, fiber, and satellite, which usually offer superior cost-benefit ratios. Many early radio networks evolved into television networks.
Inception score
The Inception Score (IS) is an algorithm used to assess the quality of images created by a generative image model such as a generative adversarial network (GAN). The score is calculated based on the output of a separate, pretrained Inception v3 image classification model applied to a sample of (typically around 30,000) images generated by the generative model. The Inception Score is maximized when the following conditions are true: The entropy of the distribution of labels predicted by the Inceptionv3 model for the generated images is minimized. In other words, the classification model confidently predicts a single label for each image. Intuitively, this corresponds to the desideratum of generated images being "sharp" or "distinct". The predictions of the classification model are evenly distributed across all possible labels. This corresponds to the desideratum that the output of the generative model is "diverse". It has been somewhat superseded by the related Fréchet inception distance. While the Inception Score only evaluates the distribution of generated images, the FID compares the distribution of generated images with the distribution of a set of real images ("ground truth"). == Definition == Let there be two spaces, the space of images Ω X {\displaystyle \Omega _{X}} and the space of labels Ω Y {\displaystyle \Omega _{Y}} . The space of labels is finite. Let p g e n {\displaystyle p_{gen}} be a probability distribution over Ω X {\displaystyle \Omega _{X}} that we wish to judge. Let a discriminator be a function of type p d i s : Ω X → M ( Ω Y ) {\displaystyle p_{dis}:\Omega _{X}\to M(\Omega _{Y})} where M ( Ω Y ) {\displaystyle M(\Omega _{Y})} is the set of all probability distributions on Ω Y {\displaystyle \Omega _{Y}} . For any image x {\displaystyle x} , and any label y {\displaystyle y} , let p d i s ( y | x ) {\displaystyle p_{dis}(y|x)} be the probability that image x {\displaystyle x} has label y {\displaystyle y} , according to the discriminator. It is usually implemented as an Inception-v3 network trained on ImageNet. The Inception Score of p g e n {\displaystyle p_{gen}} relative to p d i s {\displaystyle p_{dis}} is I S ( p g e n , p d i s ) := exp ( E x ∼ p g e n [ D K L ( p d i s ( ⋅ | x ) ‖ ∫ p d i s ( ⋅ | x ) p g e n ( x ) d x ) ] ) {\displaystyle IS(p_{gen},p_{dis}):=\exp \left(\mathbb {E} _{x\sim p_{gen}}\left[D_{KL}\left(p_{dis}(\cdot |x)\|\int p_{dis}(\cdot |x)p_{gen}(x)dx\right)\right]\right)} Equivalent rewrites include ln I S ( p g e n , p d i s ) := E x ∼ p g e n [ D K L ( p d i s ( ⋅ | x ) ‖ E x ∼ p g e n [ p d i s ( ⋅ | x ) ] ) ] {\displaystyle \ln IS(p_{gen},p_{dis}):=\mathbb {E} _{x\sim p_{gen}}\left[D_{KL}\left(p_{dis}(\cdot |x)\|\mathbb {E} _{x\sim p_{gen}}[p_{dis}(\cdot |x)]\right)\right]} ln I S ( p g e n , p d i s ) := H [ E x ∼ p g e n [ p d i s ( ⋅ | x ) ] ] − E x ∼ p g e n [ H [ p d i s ( ⋅ | x ) ] ] {\displaystyle \ln IS(p_{gen},p_{dis}):=H[\mathbb {E} _{x\sim p_{gen}}[p_{dis}(\cdot |x)]]-\mathbb {E} _{x\sim p_{gen}}[H[p_{dis}(\cdot |x)]]} ln I S {\displaystyle \ln IS} is nonnegative by Jensen's inequality. Pseudocode:INPUT discriminator p d i s {\displaystyle p_{dis}} . INPUT generator g {\displaystyle g} . Sample images x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} from generator. Compute p d i s ( ⋅ | x i ) {\displaystyle p_{dis}(\cdot |x_{i})} , the probability distribution over labels conditional on image x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} . Sum up the results to obtain p ^ {\displaystyle {\hat {p}}} , an empirical estimate of ∫ p d i s ( ⋅ | x ) p g e n ( x ) d x {\displaystyle \int p_{dis}(\cdot |x)p_{gen}(x)dx} . Sample more images x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} from generator, and for each, compute D K L ( p d i s ( ⋅ | x i ) ‖ p ^ ) {\displaystyle D_{KL}\left(p_{dis}(\cdot |x_{i})\|{\hat {p}}\right)} . Average the results, and take its exponential. RETURN the result. === Interpretation === A higher inception score is interpreted as "better", as it means that p g e n {\displaystyle p_{gen}} is a "sharp and distinct" collection of pictures. ln I S ( p g e n , p d i s ) ∈ [ 0 , ln N ] {\displaystyle \ln IS(p_{gen},p_{dis})\in [0,\ln N]} , where N {\displaystyle N} is the total number of possible labels. ln I S ( p g e n , p d i s ) = 0 {\displaystyle \ln IS(p_{gen},p_{dis})=0} iff for almost all x ∼ p g e n {\displaystyle x\sim p_{gen}} p d i s ( ⋅ | x ) = ∫ p d i s ( ⋅ | x ) p g e n ( x ) d x {\displaystyle p_{dis}(\cdot |x)=\int p_{dis}(\cdot |x)p_{gen}(x)dx} That means p g e n {\displaystyle p_{gen}} is completely "indistinct". That is, for any image x {\displaystyle x} sampled from p g e n {\displaystyle p_{gen}} , discriminator returns exactly the same label predictions p d i s ( ⋅ | x ) {\displaystyle p_{dis}(\cdot |x)} . The highest inception score N {\displaystyle N} is achieved if and only if the two conditions are both true: For almost all x ∼ p g e n {\displaystyle x\sim p_{gen}} , the distribution p d i s ( y | x ) {\displaystyle p_{dis}(y|x)} is concentrated on one label. That is, H y [ p d i s ( y | x ) ] = 0 {\displaystyle H_{y}[p_{dis}(y|x)]=0} . That is, every image sampled from p g e n {\displaystyle p_{gen}} is exactly classified by the discriminator. For every label y {\displaystyle y} , the proportion of generated images labelled as y {\displaystyle y} is exactly E x ∼ p g e n [ p d i s ( y | x ) ] = 1 N {\displaystyle \mathbb {E} _{x\sim p_{gen}}[p_{dis}(y|x)]={\frac {1}{N}}} . That is, the generated images are equally distributed over all labels.
Nanosemantics
Nanosemantics Lab is a Russian IT company specializing in natural language processing (NLP), computer vision (CV), speech technologies (ASR/TTS) and creation of interactive dialog interfaces, particularly chatbots and virtual assistants, based on artificial intelligence (AI). The company uses neural network platforms, including its own-made platform PuzzleLib which works on Russian-made microprocessor architecture Elbrus and Russia-based Astra Linux operating system. The company was founded in 2005 by Igor Ashmanov and Natalya Kaspersky. == Profile == The company was one of the first on Russian market to develop dialog interfaces for different branches of businesses, as well as to support community of AI developers. The company's most demanded product, as for beginning of the 2020s, is the automated "online advisers", functioning as chat bots, made for helping customers with usage of commercial products. In 2009 the company released an online service called iii.ru, where visitors were able to create their own AI-based virtual personalities entitles "infs" (for free). A visitor was able to train its own "inf" and let them chat to other "live" visitors as well with other "infs". More than 2.3 million of "infs" were created and trained by visitors over several years. Nanosemantics Lab maintains its own linguistic programming language for AI development called Dialog Language (DL). Popular social networks and instant messaging services may be used as base platforms. Nanosemantics' AI bots support different types of businesses: banks and financial services, telecommunications, retail, travel and automobile industry, home appliances production, etc. Among its solutions, Nanosemantics lists projects for various companies and institutions, among them VTB, Beeline, MTS, Sberbank, Higher School of Economics, Webmoney, Gazpromneft, Rostelecom, Ford Motors, Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation and others. The company uses the term "inf" for naming its numerous types of chat bots. The term was coined by co-founder Igor Ashmanov, head of Ashmanov & Partners. A 2014 scholarly research at Higher School of Economics, called "Basics of Business Informatics", states that such "infs", when used at business, may lower load on employees, collect statistics useful for understanding market demand and also may increase customer loyalty by providing fast and informative answers due to usage of large databases. The same research describes Nanosemantics' project for Russian branch of Ford Motors company, when AI capabilities were used for promoting the car model Ford Kuga. The research pointed out that within 2 months since beginning, the promo-website conducted 47774 talks of visitors with the specialized "inf", which indicated several hundred thousand of questions and the longest chat lasted for 3 hours 10 minutes. One-year promo campaign showed that 28.6% of people who made pre-orders talked to an "inf". In 2016 Nanosemantics launched a SaaS platform aimed at creating customized virtual assistants by users. The company's flagship product is considered to be Dialog Operating System (DialogOS), a professional corporate platform for creating intellectual voice and textual bots. It has its own linguistic programming language for creation of flexible scenarios and ready-studied neural natural language processing modules that are able to understand human interlocutors. In 2021 the company presented technology called NLab Speech ASR which contains a set of neural-networking algorithms for processing audio signals and analysis of texts that were trained and calibrated using speech-based big data marked up manually. The technology allows speed of processing of data up to "6 real-time factor" and precision values in noisy audio data may exceed 82%. In March 2022 the technology was included in Russia's Joint Registry for Russian Programs for Computers and Databases. As well, another technology was included: NLab Speech TTS, which is text-to-speech system that produces synthesized speech from printed text. == Joint projects == Nanosemantics participates in Ashmanov & Partners' projects related to AI. Since 2014, it helps in development of hardware "personal assistant" called Lexy, a solution similar to Amazon Alexa and the analogues. In August 2019 it was announced that Nanosemantics is going to participate in creation of open operating system for creating automated voice assistants. The project was called SOVA (Smart Open Virtual Assistant) and received investment of 300 million roubles (~$4,6 million) from Russian state-maintained National Technological Initiative. The company maintains long-term partnerships with Skolkovo Innovation Center (resident of IT cluster), branch association "Neuronet" and Yandex. Together with USA-based startup Remedy Logic, Nanosemantics has developed a medical diagnostic system for finding, using AI, spinal pathologies in tomography images of human bodies. Among them: central, foraminal and lateral lumbar stenosis, hernias, arthrosis. The system offers options of treatment. Since August 2021 the company is the resident of Technology Valley of Moscow State University. Also in 2021, Nanosemantics became a member of Committee on Artificial Intelligence within the Russian Association of Software Developers "Native Soft". The company states as one of its missions support of initiatives aimed at preservation and development of the Russian language. In May 2021, together with Pushkin Institute, the company created a chat bot called Phil, that explains to Russian people meaning of different Russian neologisms, and offers synonyms for them. Bot's vocabulary contains more than 500 neologisms, as well the bot can give advice on jargonisms and other types of specific words. Also in 2021, Nanosemanics Lab has signed the first-ever Russian "Codex of ethics of artificial intelligence". It establishes guidelines for ethical behavior of businesses that implement AI-based solutions. === IT contests === The company regularly organizes All-Russian Turing Test competitions for IT developers. Some of these events are co-organized with Microsoft. During the competitions, judges randomly choose virtual interlocutor and have a short conversation with them. They have to determine if a human or a machine is talking to them. An interlocutor may be either a bot or its human creator or operator. The results are measured in per cent of judges that were successfully convinced by a machine that it was a human. In 2021 Nanosemantics took part in federal project "Artificial Intelligence" by National Technological Initiative. In December 2021 the company together with state enterprise "Resource Center of Universal Design and Rehabilitation Technologies" (RCUD-RT) held an all-Russian hackathon aimed at development of AI solutions for medicine. During 3 days, participants created several training programs for patients with speech disorders. In April 2022, another hackathon by Nanosemantics was held together with MIREA – Russian Technological University. Students were participating and trying to generate algorithms for voice deepfakes. 17 teams contested in creation of software that generated artificial voice of a certain person. == Recognition == Since its foundation, Nanosemantics Lab has received a number of recognitions and awards. Among them are several professional ROTOR awards for the website iii.ru (created in 2009). The website gives the general public the means to create and train virtual assistants, which can then be used on a website or integrated into social networks. In 2013, a virtual assistant called Dana, created for Beeline Kazakhstan, was awarded with professional prize "Crystal Headset" in nomination "the best applying of technology". In 2015, the RBTH international media service included Nanosemantics in its list of "Top 50 Startups" in Russia. In 2016, the company received Russian state-maintained award called Runet Prize in two nominations: "State and Society" and "Technology and Innovation". In 2021, in Velikiy Novgorod, Nanosemantics team has won a hackathon aimed at finding means of discovering corruption schemes in Russian laws. In February 2022 the company won another contest by National Technological Initiative, called "Prochtenie", aimed at creation of AI systems for checking schoolchildren's school essays. The Nanosemantics team was awarded 20 million rubles for "overcoming technological barrier" in contest dedicated to English language, and 12 million for 1st place in special nomination "Structure" in Russian-language essay contest.
PARRY
PARRY was an early example of a chatbot, implemented in 1972 by psychiatrist Kenneth Colby. == History == PARRY was written in 1972 by psychiatrist Kenneth Colby, then at Stanford University. While ELIZA was a simulation of a Rogerian therapist, PARRY attempted to simulate a person with paranoid schizophrenia. The program implemented a crude model of the behavior of a person with paranoid schizophrenia based on concepts, conceptualizations, and beliefs (judgements about conceptualizations: accept, reject, neutral). It also embodied a conversational strategy, and as such was a much more serious and advanced program than ELIZA. It was described as "ELIZA with attitude". PARRY was tested in the early 1970s using a variation of the Turing Test. A group of experienced psychiatrists analysed a combination of real patients and computers running PARRY through teleprinters. Another group of 33 psychiatrists were shown transcripts of the conversations. The two groups were then asked to identify which of the "patients" were human and which were computer programs. The psychiatrists were able to make the correct identification only 48 percent of the time — a figure consistent with random guessing. PARRY and ELIZA (also known as "the Doctor") interacted several times. The most famous of these exchanges occurred at the ICCC 1972, where PARRY and ELIZA were hooked up over ARPANET and responded to each other.
Globetrooper
Globetrooper is a free travel app known for assisting travelers in finding partners for group trips and world adventures. Globetrooper offers a free social travel platform that helps people find travel partners. == History == Globetrooper was developed and released in 2010 by a couple; Todd Sullivan and Lauren McLeod who are two travel-minded individuals that wanted to make it easier for travelers to plan a journey and see the world. With their backgrounds in business, software & design, and a love for travel, both left the corporate world and launched Globetrooper on Lauren’s birthday 28 March 2010. Globetrooper was first launched as an information portal with a view to making it more social, but after some months, the content quickly grew and changed to the ‘travel partner’ concept.
Automated Mathematician
The Automated Mathematician (AM) is one of the earliest successful discovery systems. It was created by Douglas Lenat in Lisp, and in 1977 led to Lenat being awarded the IJCAI Computers and Thought Award. AM worked by generating and modifying short Lisp programs which were then interpreted as defining various mathematical concepts; for example, a program that tested equality between the length of two lists was considered to represent the concept of numerical equality, while a program that produced a list whose length was the product of the lengths of two other lists was interpreted as representing the concept of multiplication. The system had elaborate heuristics for choosing which programs to extend and modify, based on the experiences of working mathematicians in solving mathematical problems. == Controversy == Lenat claimed that the system was composed of hundreds of data structures called "concepts", together with hundreds of "heuristic rules" and a simple flow of control: "AM repeatedly selects the top task from the agenda and tries to carry it out. This is the whole control structure!" Yet the heuristic rules were not always represented as separate data structures; some had to be intertwined with the control flow logic. Some rules had preconditions that depended on the history, or otherwise could not be represented in the framework of the explicit rules. What's more, the published versions of the rules often involve vague terms that are not defined further, such as "If two expressions are structurally similar, ..." (Rule 218) or "... replace the value obtained by some other (very similar) value..." (Rule 129). Another source of information is the user, via Rule 2: "If the user has recently referred to X, then boost the priority of any tasks involving X." Thus, it appears quite possible that much of the real discovery work is buried in unexplained procedures. Lenat claimed that the system had rediscovered both Goldbach's conjecture and the fundamental theorem of arithmetic. Later critics accused Lenat of over-interpreting the output of AM. In his paper Why AM and Eurisko appear to work, Lenat conceded that any system that generated enough short Lisp programs would generate ones that could be interpreted by an external observer as representing equally sophisticated mathematical concepts. However, he argued that this property was in itself interesting—and that a promising direction for further research would be to look for other languages in which short random strings were likely to be useful. == Successor == This intuition was the basis of AM's successor Eurisko, which attempted to generalize the search for mathematical concepts to the search for useful heuristics.
Open information extraction
In natural language processing, open information extraction (OIE) is the task of generating a structured, machine-readable representation of the information in text, usually in the form of triples or n-ary propositions. == Overview == A proposition can be understood as truth-bearer, a textual expression of a potential fact (e.g., "Dante wrote the Divine Comedy"), represented in an amenable structure for computers [e.g., ("Dante", "wrote", "Divine Comedy")]. An OIE extraction normally consists of a relation and a set of arguments. For instance, ("Dante", "passed away in" "Ravenna") is a proposition formed by the relation "passed away in" and the arguments "Dante" and "Ravenna". The first argument is usually referred as the subject while the second is considered to be the object. The extraction is said to be a textual representation of a potential fact because its elements are not linked to a knowledge base. Furthermore, the factual nature of the proposition has not yet been established. In the above example, transforming the extraction into a full fledged fact would first require linking, if possible, the relation and the arguments to a knowledge base. Second, the truth of the extraction would need to be determined. In computer science transforming OIE extractions into ontological facts is known as relation extraction. In fact, OIE can be seen as the first step to a wide range of deeper text understanding tasks such as relation extraction, knowledge-base construction, question answering, semantic role labeling. The extracted propositions can also be directly used for end-user applications such as structured search (e.g., retrieve all propositions with "Dante" as subject). OIE was first introduced by TextRunner developed at the University of Washington Turing Center headed by Oren Etzioni. Other methods introduced later such as Reverb, OLLIE, ClausIE or CSD helped to shape the OIE task by characterizing some of its aspects. At a high level, all of these approaches make use of a set of patterns to generate the extractions. Depending on the particular approach, these patterns are either hand-crafted or learned. == OIE systems and contributions == Reverb suggested the necessity to produce meaningful relations to more accurately capture the information in the input text. For instance, given the sentence "Faust made a pact with the devil", it would be erroneous to just produce the extraction ("Faust", "made", "a pact") since it would not be adequately informative. A more precise extraction would be ("Faust", "made a pact with", "the devil"). Reverb also argued against the generation of overspecific relations. OLLIE stressed two important aspects for OIE. First, it pointed to the lack of factuality of the propositions. For instance, in a sentence like "If John studies hard, he will pass the exam", it would be inaccurate to consider ("John", "will pass", "the exam") as a fact. Additionally, the authors indicated that an OIE system should be able to extract non-verb mediated relations, which account for significant portion of the information expressed in natural language text. For instance, in the sentence "Obama, the former US president, was born in Hawaii", an OIE system should be able to recognize a proposition ("Obama", "is", "former US president"). ClausIE introduced the connection between grammatical clauses, propositions, and OIE extractions. The authors stated that as each grammatical clause expresses a proposition, each verb mediated proposition can be identified by solely recognizing the set of clauses expressed in each sentence. This implies that to correctly recognize the set of propositions in an input sentence, it is necessary to understand its grammatical structure. The authors studied the case in the English language that only admits seven clause types, meaning that the identification of each proposition only requires defining seven grammatical patterns. The finding also established a separation between the recognition of the propositions and its materialization. In a first step, the proposition can be identified without any consideration of its final form, in a domain-independent and unsupervised way, mostly based on linguistic principles. In a second step, the information can be represented according to the requirements of the underlying application, without conditioning the identification phase. Consider the sentence "Albert Einstein was born in Ulm and died in Princeton". The first step will recognize the two propositions ("Albert Einstein", "was born", "in Ulm") and ("Albert Einstein", "died", "in Princeton"). Once the information has been correctly identified, the propositions can take the particular form required by the underlying application [e.g., ("Albert Einstein", "was born in", "Ulm") and ("Albert Einstein", "died in", "Princeton")]. CSD introduced the idea of minimality in OIE. It considers that computers can make better use of the extractions if they are expressed in a compact way. This is especially important in sentences with subordinate clauses. In these cases, CSD suggests the generation of nested extractions. For example, consider the sentence "The Embassy said that 6,700 Americans were in Pakistan". CSD generates two extractions [i] ("6,700 Americans", "were", "in Pakistan") and [ii] ("The Embassy", "said", "that [i]"). This is usually known as reification.