INDECT

INDECT is a research project in the area of intelligent security systems performed by several European universities since 2009 and funded by the European Union. The purpose of the project is to involve European scientists and researchers in the development of solutions to and tools for automatic threat detection through e.g. processing of CCTV camera data streams, standardization of video sequence quality for user applications, threat detection in computer networks as well as data and privacy protection. The area of research, applied methods, and techniques are described in the public deliverables which are available to the public on the project's website. Practically, all information related to the research is public. Only documents that comprise information related to financial data or information that could negatively influence the competitiveness and law enforcement capabilities of parties involved in the project are not published. This follows regulations and practices applied in EU research projects. == Application and target users == The main end-user of INDECT solutions are police forces and security services. The principle of operation of the project is detecting threats and identifying sources of threats, without monitoring and searching for particular citizens or groups of citizens. Then, the system operator (i.e. police officer) decides whether an intervention of services responsible for public security are required or not. Further investigation eventually leading to persons related to threats is performed, preserving the presumption of innocence, based on existing procedures already used by police services and prosecutors. As it can be found in the project deliverables, INDECT does not involve storage of personal data (such as names, addresses, identity document numbers, etc.). A similar, behavior-based surveillance program was SAMURAI (Suspicious and Abnormal behavior Monitoring Using a netwoRk of cAmeras & sensors for sItuation awareness enhancement). == Expected results == The main expected results of the INDECT project are: Trial of intelligent analysis of video and audio data for threat detection in urban environments Creation of tools and technology for privacy and data protection during storage and transmission of information using quantum cryptography and new methods of digital watermarking Performing computer-aided detection of threats and targeted crimes in Internet resources with privacy-protecting solutions Construction of a search engine for rapid semantic search based on watermarking of content related to child pornography and human organ trafficking Implementation of a distributed computer system that is capable of effective intelligent processing == Controversy == Some media and other sources accuse INDECT of privacy abuse, collecting personal data, and keeping information from the public. Consequently, these issues have been commented and discussed by some Members of the European Parliament. As seen in the project's documentation, INDECT does not involve mobile phone tracking or call interception. The rumors about testing INDECT during 2012 UEFA European Football Championship also turned out to be false. The mid-term review of the Seventh Framework Programme to the European Parliament strongly urges the European Commission to immediately make all documents available and to define a clear and strict mandate for the research goal, the application, and the end users of INDECT, and stresses a thorough investigation of the possible impact on fundamental rights. Nevertheless, according to Mr. Paweł Kowal, MEP, the project had the ethical review on 15 March 2011 in Brussels with the participation of ethics experts from Austria, France, Netherlands, Germany and Great Britain.

Shape analysis (digital geometry)

This article describes shape analysis to analyze and process geometric shapes. == Description == Shape analysis is the (mostly) automatic analysis of geometric shapes, for example using a computer to detect similarly shaped objects in a database or parts that fit together. For a computer to automatically analyze and process geometric shapes, the objects have to be represented in a digital form. Most commonly a boundary representation is used to describe the object with its boundary (usually the outer shell, see also 3D model). However, other volume based representations (e.g. constructive solid geometry) or point based representations (point clouds) can be used to represent shape. Once the objects are given, either by modeling (computer-aided design), by scanning (3D scanner) or by extracting shape from 2D or 3D images, they have to be simplified before a comparison can be achieved. The simplified representation is often called a shape descriptor (or fingerprint, signature). These simplified representations try to carry most of the important information, while being easier to handle, to store and to compare than the shapes directly. A complete shape descriptor is a representation that can be used to completely reconstruct the original object (for example the medial axis transform). == Application fields == Shape analysis is used in many application fields: archeology for example, to find similar objects or missing parts architecture for example, to identify objects that spatially fit into a specific space medical imaging to understand shape changes related to illness or aid surgical planning virtual environments or on the 3D model market to identify objects for copyright purposes security applications such as face recognition entertainment industry (movies, games) to construct and process geometric models or animations computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing to process and to compare designs of mechanical parts or design objects. == Shape descriptors == Shape descriptors can be classified by their invariance with respect to the transformations allowed in the associated shape definition. Many descriptors are invariant with respect to congruency, meaning that congruent shapes (shapes that could be translated, rotated and mirrored) will have the same descriptor (for example moment or spherical harmonic based descriptors or Procrustes analysis operating on point clouds). Another class of shape descriptors (called intrinsic shape descriptors) is invariant with respect to isometry. These descriptors do not change with different isometric embeddings of the shape. Their advantage is that they can be applied nicely to deformable objects (e.g. a person in different body postures) as these deformations do not involve much stretching but are in fact near-isometric. Such descriptors are commonly based on geodesic distances measures along the surface of an object or on other isometry invariant characteristics such as the Laplace–Beltrami spectrum (see also spectral shape analysis). There are other shape descriptors, such as graph-based descriptors like the medial axis or the Reeb graph that capture geometric and/or topological information and simplify the shape representation but can not be as easily compared as descriptors that represent shape as a vector of numbers. From this discussion it becomes clear, that different shape descriptors target different aspects of shape and can be used for a specific application. Therefore, depending on the application, it is necessary to analyze how well a descriptor captures the features of interest.

The Best Free AI Writing Assistant for Beginners

Shopping for the best AI writing assistant? An AI writing assistant 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 writing assistant slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. Below we compare features, pricing, and real output so you can choose with confidence.

Noisy channel model

The noisy channel model is a framework used in spell checkers, question answering, speech recognition, and machine translation. In this model, the goal is to find the intended word given a word where the letters have been scrambled in some manner. == In spell-checking == See Chapter B of. Given an alphabet Σ {\displaystyle \Sigma } , let Σ ∗ {\displaystyle \Sigma ^{}} be the set of all finite strings over Σ {\displaystyle \Sigma } . Let the dictionary D {\displaystyle D} of valid words be some subset of Σ ∗ {\displaystyle \Sigma ^{}} , i.e., D ⊆ Σ ∗ {\displaystyle D\subseteq \Sigma ^{}} . The noisy channel is the matrix Γ w s = Pr ( s | w ) {\displaystyle \Gamma _{ws}=\Pr(s|w)} , where w ∈ D {\displaystyle w\in D} is the intended word and s ∈ Σ ∗ {\displaystyle s\in \Sigma ^{}} is the scrambled word that was actually received. The goal of the noisy channel model is to find the intended word given the scrambled word that was received. The decision function σ : Σ ∗ → D {\displaystyle \sigma :\Sigma ^{}\to D} is a function that, given a scrambled word, returns the intended word. Methods of constructing a decision function include the maximum likelihood rule, the maximum a posteriori rule, and the minimum distance rule. In some cases, it may be better to accept the scrambled word as the intended word rather than attempt to find an intended word in the dictionary. For example, the word schönfinkeling may not be in the dictionary, but might in fact be the intended word. === Example === Consider the English alphabet Σ = { a , b , c , . . . , y , z , A , B , . . . , Z , . . . } {\displaystyle \Sigma =\{a,b,c,...,y,z,A,B,...,Z,...\}} . Some subset D ⊆ Σ ∗ {\displaystyle D\subseteq \Sigma ^{}} makes up the dictionary of valid English words. There are several mistakes that may occur while typing, including: Missing letters, e.g., leter instead of letter Accidental letter additions, e.g., misstake instead of mistake Swapping letters, e.g., recieved instead of received Replacing letters, e.g., fimite instead of finite To construct the noisy channel matrix Γ {\displaystyle \Gamma } , we must consider the probability of each mistake, given the intended word ( Pr ( s | w ) {\displaystyle \Pr(s|w)} for all w ∈ D {\displaystyle w\in D} and s ∈ Σ ∗ {\displaystyle s\in \Sigma ^{}} ). These probabilities may be gathered, for example, by considering the Damerau–Levenshtein distance between s {\displaystyle s} and w {\displaystyle w} or by comparing the draft of an essay with one that has been manually edited for spelling. == In machine translation == One naturally wonders if the problem of translation could conceivably be treated as a problem in cryptography. When I look at an article in Russian, I say: 'This is really written in English, but it has been coded in some strange symbols. I will now proceed to decode. See chapter 1, and chapter 25 of. Suppose we want to translate a foreign language to English, we could model P ( E | F ) {\displaystyle P(E|F)} directly: the probability that we have English sentence E given foreign sentence F, then we pick the most likely one E ^ = arg ⁡ max E P ( E | F ) {\displaystyle {\hat {E}}=\arg \max _{E}P(E|F)} . However, by Bayes law, we have the equivalent equation: E ^ = argmax E ∈ English P ( F ∣ E ) ⏞ translation model P ( E ) ⏞ language model {\displaystyle {\hat {E}}={\underset {E\in {\text{ English }}}{\operatorname {argmax} }}\overbrace {P(F\mid E)} ^{\text{translation model }}\overbrace {P(E)} ^{\text{language model}}} The benefit of the noisy-channel model is in terms of data: If collecting a parallel corpus is costly, then we would have only a small parallel corpus, so we can only train a moderately good English-to-foreign translation model, and a moderately good foreign-to-English translation model. However, we can collect a large corpus in the foreign language only, and a large corpus in the English language only, to train two good language models. Combining these four models, we immediately get a good English-to-foreign translator and a good foreign-to-English translator. The cost of noisy-channel model is that using Bayesian inference is more costly than using a translation model directly. Instead of reading out the most likely translation by arg ⁡ max E P ( E | F ) {\displaystyle \arg \max _{E}P(E|F)} , it would have to read out predictions by both the translation model and the language model, multiply them, and search for the highest number. == In speech recognition == Speech recognition can be thought of as translating from a sound-language to a text-language. Consequently, we have T ^ = argmax T ∈ Text P ( S ∣ T ) ⏞ speech model P ( T ) ⏞ language model {\displaystyle {\hat {T}}={\underset {T\in {\text{ Text }}}{\operatorname {argmax} }}\overbrace {P(S\mid T)} ^{\text{speech model }}\overbrace {P(T)} ^{\text{language model}}} where P ( S | T ) {\displaystyle P(S|T)} is the probability that a speech sound S is produced if the speaker is intending to say text T. Intuitively, this equation states that the most likely text is a text that's both a likely text in the language, and produces the speech sound with high probability. The utility of the noisy-channel model is not in capacity. Theoretically, any noisy-channel model can be replicated by a direct P ( T | S ) {\displaystyle P(T|S)} model. However, the noisy-channel model factors the model into two parts which are appropriate for the situation, and consequently it is generally more well-behaved. When a human speaks, it does not produce the sound directly, but first produces the text it wants to speak in the language centers of the brain, then the text is translated into sound by the motor cortex, vocal cords, and other parts of the body. The noisy-channel model matches this model of the human, and so it is appropriate. This is justified in the practical success of noisy-channel model in speech recognition. === Example === Consider the sound-language sentence (written in IPA for English) S = aɪ wʊd laɪk wʌn tuː. There are three possible texts T 1 , T 2 , T 3 {\displaystyle T_{1},T_{2},T_{3}} : T 1 = {\displaystyle T_{1}=} I would like one to. T 2 = {\displaystyle T_{2}=} I would like one too. T 3 = {\displaystyle T_{3}=} I would like one two. that are equally likely, in the sense that P ( S | T 1 ) = P ( S | T 2 ) = P ( S | T 3 ) {\displaystyle P(S|T_{1})=P(S|T_{2})=P(S|T_{3})} . With a good English language model, we would have P ( T 2 ) > P ( T 1 ) > P ( T 3 ) {\displaystyle P(T_{2})>P(T_{1})>P(T_{3})} , since the second sentence is grammatical, the first is not quite, but close to a grammatical one (such as "I would like one to [go]."), while the third one is far from grammatical. Consequently, the noisy-channel model would output T 2 {\displaystyle T_{2}} as the best transcription.

Linguistic Systems

Linguistic Systems, Inc., also known as LSI, provides language translation services (conversion) for all media in over 115 languages. LSI focuses on the translation of legal, medical, business, institutional, academic, government and personal documents. LSI is headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts. == About LSI == Linguistic Systems, Inc. (LSI) was founded in 1967 by Martin Roberts. LSI's translates to/from 115 languages, DTP, audio-visual conversions, software localization, consecutive and simultaneous interpreting services, foreign brand name analysis, and machine translation with post-editing. LSI has provided translation services to over half of the Fortune 500 companies and most of the Fortune 100. Among its clients are AT&T, Boeing, Citigroup, Coca-Cola, DuPont, Exxon-Mobil, General Electric, General Motors, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, Procter & Gamble, Simon & Schuster, Time Warner, Verizon, and Walmart. As of 2013, LSI had a network of more than 7,000 translators who translate into their native languages; These include lawyers, scientists, engineers, and other bilingual professionals.

Scientific Working Group – Imaging Technology

The Scientific Working Group on Imaging Technology was convened by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in 1997 to provide guidance to law enforcement agencies and others in the criminal justice system regarding the best practices for photography, videography, and video and image analysis. This group was terminated in 2015. == History == As technology has advanced through the years, law enforcement has needed to stay abreast of emerging technological advances and use these in the investigation of crime. A factor that is considered when new technology is used in these investigations is the determination of whether the use of that new technology will be admissible in court. The judicial system in the United States currently has two standards used in the determination of admissibility of testimony regarding scientific evidence; the Daubert Standard and the Frye Standard. These standards guide the courts in the admissibility of testimony derived from the use of new technologies and scientific techniques. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), seeking to address possible admissibility issues with such testimony, established Scientific Working Groups starting with the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis and Methods (SWGDAM) in 1988. The goal of these groups is to open lines of communication between law enforcement agencies and forensic laboratories around the world while providing guidance on the use of new and innovative technologies and techniques. This guidance can lead to admissibility of evidence and/or testimony, provided proper methods in the collection of evidence and its analysis are employed. In 2009, the National Academy of Sciences released a report entitled, "Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward." This report addresses many topics including challenges and disparities facing the forensic science community, standardization, certification of practitioners and accreditation of their respective entities, problems related to the interpretation of forensic evidence, the need for research, and the admission of forensic science evidence in litigation. This report mentions the Scientific Working Groups and their role in forensic science. The history of imaging technology (photography) can be said to extend back to the times of Chinese philosopher Mo-Ti (470-390 B.C.) who described the principles behind the precursor to the camera obscura. Since that time, advances in imaging technology include the discovery of chemical photographic processes in the 19th century and the use of electronic imaging technology that includes analog video cameras and digital video and still cameras. By the mid 1990s, it was apparent that technologically advanced camera systems such as these were being adopted for use in the criminal justice system. This led the FBI to convene a meeting of individuals working in the field of forensic imaging from federal, state, local, and foreign law enforcement, and the U.S. military, during the summer of 1997. As a result of this meeting, the Technical Working Group on Imaging Technology was formed from a core group of the meeting’s participants. This group later became the Scientific Working Group on Imaging Technology (SWGIT). Prior to the inception of SWGIT, some law enforcement agencies began adopting digital imaging technology. Due to the lack of guidelines or standards, some of these agencies attempted to replace all their film cameras with substandard digital cameras, only to find that the equipment they had purchased was not capable of accomplishing the mission for which they were intended. At that time only low resolution digital cameras were deemed affordable by some law enforcement agencies. Some of these agencies were forced to rethink their photography procedures and reverted to the use of film cameras or replaced their low-resolution digital cameras with higher quality, more expensive equipment. Also lacking at this early stage was guidance on how to store and archive digital image files. When SWGIT was formed, it was tasked with providing guidance to law enforcement and others in the criminal justice system by releasing documents that describe the best practices and guidelines for the use of imaging technology, to include these concerns and many others. This group was terminated in 2015. == SWGIT Function == During its existence, SWGIT provided information on the appropriate use of various imaging technologies including both established and new. This was accomplished through the release of documents such as the SWGIT Best Practices documents. As changes in technology occurred, these documents were updated. Over the course of its existence, SWGIT collaborated with other Scientific Working Groups to address imaging concerns within their respective disciplines. SWGIT published over 20 documents that dealt specifically with imaging technology. SWGIT also co-published documents with the Scientific Working Group on Digital Evidence (SWGDE) that had a component or components dealing with imaging technology. SWGIT also provided imaging technology guidance and input for documents from the Scientific Working Group on Friction Ridge Analysis, Study and Technology (SWGFAST), the Scientific Working Group for Forensic Document Examination (SWGDOC), and the Scientific Working Group on Shoeprint and Tire Tread Evidence (SWGTREAD). SWGIT assisted the American Society of Crime Lab Directors/Laboratory Accreditation Board (ASCLD/LAB) in the writing of definitions and standards for the accreditation of Digital and Multimedia Evidence sections of crime laboratories. In addition to releasing documents, SWGIT members disseminated best practices for law enforcement professionals where imaging technology was concerned. This was carried out by attending and lecturing at meetings and conferences of various forensic organizations that included: The American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS) The International Association for Identification (IAI) The Law Enforcement and Emergency Services Video Association (LEVA) The American Society of Crime Lab Directors (ASCLD) The SWGIT membership consisted of approximately fifty scientists, photographers, instructors, and managers from more than two dozen federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies, as well as from the academic and research communities. The membership elected its officers from within. SWGIT was composed of the Executive Committee, four standing subcommittees, and ad hoc subcommittees appointed on an as-needed basis. The standing subcommittees were: Image Analysis, Forensic Photography, Video, and Outreach. This group was terminated in 2015. == Legal Proceedings == The following court cases have conducted Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) hearings in which SWGIT best practice documents have been cited as accepted protocol, methodology, and as generally accepted techniques in the forensic community: U. S. v. Rudy Frabizio, U.S. District Court, Boston, MA, 2008 (Image Authentication) U.S. v. Nobumochi Furukawa, U.S. District Court, Minnesota, 2007 (Video Authentication) U.S. v. John Stroman, U.S. District Court, South Carolina, 2007 (Facial Comparison Analysis) State of Texas v. Daniel Day, Tarrant County Texas, 2005 (Camera Identification to Images) U.S. v. Marc Watzman, U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois, 2004 (Video Authentication) U.S. v. McKreith, U.S. District Court, Fort Lauderdale, FL, 2002 (Photo comparison of shirt) == Termination == This group was unfunded by the FBI in 2015.

Yorick Wilks

Yorick Alexander Wilks FBCS (27 October 1939 – 14 April 2023) was a British computer scientist. He was an emeritus professor of artificial intelligence at the University of Sheffield, visiting professor of artificial intelligence at Gresham College (a post created especially for him), senior research fellow at the Oxford Internet Institute, senior scientist at the Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition, and a member of the Epiphany Philosophers. In February 2023, Wilks joined WiredVibe as Director of AI and a Board Member, with the goal of commercializing his previous research and ideas. He remained in this role until his death, which occurred shortly before WiredVibe was acquired by AKY X, a company that continues to build on his legacy and contributions. == Biography == Wilks was born in Gerrards Cross, Buckinghamshire in England. He was educated at Torquay Boys' Grammar School, followed by Pembroke College, Cambridge, where he read Philosophy, joined the Epiphany Philosophers and obtained his Doctor of Philosophy degree (1968) under Professor R. B. Braithwaite for the thesis 'Argument and Proof'; he was an early pioneer in meaning-based approaches to the understanding of natural language content by computers. His main early contribution in the 1970s was called "Preference Semantics" (Wilks, 1973; Wilks and Fass, 1992), an algorithmic method for assigning the "most coherent" interpretation to a sentence in terms of having the maximum number of internal preferences of its parts (normally verbs or adjectives) satisfied. That early work was hand-coded with semantic entries (of the order of some hundreds) as was normal at the time, but since then has led to the empirical determinations of preferences (chiefly of English verbs) in the 1980s and 1990s. A key component of the notion of preference in semantics was that the interpretation of an utterance is not a well- or ill-formed notion, as was argued in Chomskyan approaches, such as those of Jerry Fodor and Jerrold Katz. It was rather that a semantic interpretation was the best available, even though some preferences might not be satisfied. So, in "The machine answered the question with a low whine" the agent of "answer" does not satisfy that verb's preference for a human answerer—which would cause it to be deemed ill-formed by Fodor and Katz—but is accepted as sub-optimal or metaphorical, and, now, conventional. The function of the algorithm is not to determine well-formedness at all but to make the optimal selection of word-senses to participate in the overall interpretation. Thus, in "The Pole answered..." the system will always select the human sense of the agent and not the inanimate one if it gives a more coherent interpretation overall. Preference Semantics is thus some of the earliest computational work—with programs run at Systems Development Corporation in Santa Monica in 1967 in LISP on an IBM360—in the now established field of word sense disambiguation. This approach was used in the first operational machine translation system based principally on meaning structures and built by Wilks at Stanford Artificial Intelligence Laboratory in the early 1970s (Wilks, 1973) at the same time and place as Roger Schank was applying his "Conceptual Dependency" approach to machine translation. The LISP code of Wilks' system was in The Computer Museum, Boston. Wilks was elected a fellow of the American and European Associations for Artificial Intelligence, of the British Computer Society, a member of the UK Computing Research Committee, and a permanent member of ICCL, the International Committee on Computational Linguistics. He was professor of artificial intelligence at the University of Sheffield and a senior research fellow at the Oxford Internet Institute. In 1991 he received a Defense Advanced Projects Agency grant on interlingual pragmatics-based machine translation and in 1994 he received a grant by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council to investigate in the field of large-scale information extraction (LaSIE); in the following years he would obtain more grants to carry on exploring the field of information extraction (AVENTINUS, ECRAN, PASTA...). In the 1990s Wilks also became interested in modelling human-computer dialogue and the team led by David Levy and him as chief researcher won the Loebner Prize in 1997. He was the founding director of the EU funded Companions Project on creating long-term computer companions for people. At his Festschrift in 2007 at the British Computer Society in London a volume of his own papers was presented along with a volume of essays in his honour. He was awarded the Antonio Zampolli prize in honour of his lifetime work at the LREC 2008 conference on 28 May 2008, and the Lifetime Achievement Award at the ACL 2008 conference on 18 June 2008. In 2009, he was awarded the British Computer Society's Lovelace Medal, its annual award for research achievement, and was awarded the Fellowship of the Association for Computing Machinery. In 1998, Wilks became head of the Department of Computer Science of the University of Sheffield, where he had started working in the year 1993 as professor of artificial intelligence, a post he still held. In 1993 he became the founding director of the Institute of Language, Speech and Hearing (ILASH). Wilks also set up the Natural Language Processing Group of the University of Sheffield. In 1994 he (along with Rob Gaizauskas and Hamish Cunningham) designed GATE, an advanced NLP architecture that has been widely distributed. National Life Stories conducted an oral history interview (C1672/24) with Yorick Wilks in 2016 for its Science and Religion collection held by the British Library. Wilks died on 14 April 2023, at the age of 83. == Awards == Wilks received many awards: (2009) Elected Fellow of the Association for Computing Machinery (2009) Lovelace Medal by the British Computer Society (2008) Zampolli Prize (ELRA, awarded at LREC in Marrakech, Morocco) (2008) Lifetime Achievement Award (Association for Computational Linguistics, in Columbus) (2006) Visiting Professor, University of Oxford (2004) Elected to UK Computing Research Committee (2004) Elected Fellow, British Computer Society (2003) Visiting Fellow, Oxford Internet Institute (1998) Elected Fellow of European Association for Artificial Intelligence (1997) Elected Fellow, EPSRC College of Computing (1991) Visiting Fellow, Trinity Hall, Cambridge (1991) Elected Fellow of the American Association for Artificial Intelligence (1983) Royal Society Travel Fellowship (1983) Commonwealth of Australia Visiting Professor (1981) Visiting Sloan Fellow, University of California, Berkeley (1980) Invited Participant in the Nobel Symposium on Language, Stockholm (1979) NATO Senior Scientist Fellowship (1979) Visiting Sloan Fellow, Yale University (1975) SRC Senior Visiting Fellowship, University of Edinburgh == Membership == Wilks was an active member of the following associations: Association for Computational Linguistics Society for the Study of AI and Simulation of Behaviour Association for Computing Machinery Cognitive Science Society British Society for the Philosophy of Science American Association for Artificial Intelligence Aristotelian Society == Selected works == === Books === Wilks, Y. (2019) Artificial Intelligence: Modern Magic or Dangerous Future?.Icon Books. New illustrated edition, 2023, MIT Press. Wilks, Y. (2015) Machine Translation: its scope and limits. Springer Wilks, Y (ed.) (2010) Close Engagements with Artificial Companions: Key Social, Psychological and Design issues. John Benjamins; Amsterdam Wilks, Y., Brewster, C. (2009) Natural Language Processing as a Foundation of the Semantic Web. Now Press: London. Wilks, Y. (2007) Words and Intelligence I, Selected papers by Yorick Wilks. In K. Ahmad, C. Brewster & M. Stevenson (eds.), Springer: Dordrecht. Wilks, Y. (ed. and with introduction and commentaries). (2006) Language, cohesion and form: selected papers of Margaret Masterman. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wilks, Y., Nirenburg, S., Somers, H. (eds.) (2003) Readings in Machine Translation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Wilks, Y.(ed.). (1999) Machine Conversations. Kluwer: New York. Wilks, Y., Slator, B., Guthrie, L. (1996) Electric Words: dictionaries, computers and meanings. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Ballim, A., Wilks, Y. (1991) Artificial Believers. Norwood, NJ: Erlbaum. Wilks, Y.(ed.). (1990) Theoretical Issues in Natural Language Processing. Norwood, NJ: Erlbaum. Wilks, Y., Partridge, D. (eds. plus three YW chapters and an introduction). (1990) The Foundations of Artificial Intelligence: a sourcebook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wilks, Y., Sparck-Jones, K.(eds.). (1984) Automatic Natural Language Processing, paperback edition. New York: Wiley. Originally published by Ellis Horwood. Wilks, Y., Charniak, E. (eds and principal authors). (1976) Computational Semantics—an Introduction to Artificial Intelligence and