Lexical choice

Lexical choice is the subtask of Natural language generation that involves choosing the content words (nouns, non-auxiliary verbs, adjectives, and adverbs) in a generated text. Function words (determiners, for example) are usually chosen during realisation. == Examples == The simplest type of lexical choice involves mapping a domain concept (perhaps represented in an ontology) to a word. For example, the concept Finger might be mapped to the word finger. A more complex situation is when a domain concept is expressed using different words in different situations. For example, the domain concept Value-Change can be expressed in many ways: The temperature rose: the verb rose is used for a Value-Change in temperature which increases the value. The temperature fell: the verb fell is used for a Value-Change in temperature which decreases the value. The rain got heavier: the phrase got heavier is used for a Value-Change in precipitation amount when the precipitation is rain. Sometimes words can communicate additional contextual information, for example: The temperature plummeted: the verb plummeted is used for a Value-Change in temperature which decreases the value, when the change is rapid and large. Contextual information is especially significant for vague terms such as tall. For example, a 2m tall man is tall, but a 2m tall horse is small. == Linguistic perspective == Lexical choice modules must be informed by linguistic knowledge of how the system's input data maps onto words. This is a question of semantics, but it is also influenced by syntactic factors (such as collocation effects) and pragmatic factors (such as context). Hence NLG systems need linguistic models of how meaning is mapped to words in the target domain (genre) of the NLG system. Genre tends to be very important; for example the verb veer has a very specific meaning in weather forecasts (wind direction is changing in a clockwise direction) which it does not have in general English, and a weather-forecast generator must be aware of this genre-specific meaning. In some cases there are major differences in how different people use the same word; for example, some people use by evening to mean 6PM and others use it to mean midnight. Psycholinguists have shown that when people speak to each other, they agree on a common interpretation via lexical alignment; this is not something which NLG systems can yet do. Ultimately, lexical choice must deal with the fundamental issue of how language relates to the non-linguistic world. For example, a system which chose colour terms such as red to describe objects in a digital image would need to know which RGB pixel values could generally be described as red; how this was influenced by visual (lighting, other objects in the scene) and linguistic (other objects being discussed) context; what pragmatic connotations were associated with red (for example, when an apple is called red, it is assumed to be ripe as well as have the colour red); and so forth. == Algorithms and models == A number of algorithms and models have been developed for lexical choice in the research community, for example Edmonds developed a model for choosing between near-synonyms (words with similar core meanings but different connotations). However such algorithms and models have not been widely used in applied NLG systems; such systems have instead often used quite simple computational models, and invested development effort in linguistic analysis instead of algorithm development.

Exploration–exploitation dilemma

The exploration–exploitation dilemma, also known as the explore–exploit tradeoff, is a fundamental concept in decision-making that arises in many domains. It is depicted as the balancing act between two opposing strategies. Exploitation involves choosing the best option based on current knowledge of the system (which may be incomplete or misleading), while exploration involves trying out new options that may lead to better outcomes in the future at the expense of an exploitation opportunity. Finding the optimal balance between these two strategies is a crucial challenge in many decision-making problems whose goal is to maximize long-term benefits. == Application in machine learning == In the context of machine learning, the exploration–exploitation tradeoff is fundamental in reinforcement learning (RL), a type of machine learning that involves training agents to make decisions based on feedback from the environment. Crucially, this feedback may be incomplete or delayed. The agent must decide whether to exploit the current best-known policy or explore new policies to improve its performance. === Multi-armed bandit methods === The multi-armed bandit (MAB) problem was a classic example of the tradeoff, and many methods were developed for it, such as epsilon-greedy, Thompson sampling, and the upper confidence bound (UCB). See the page on MAB for details. In more complex RL situations than the MAB problem, the agent can treat each choice as a MAB, where the payoff is the expected future reward. For example, if the agent performs an epsilon-greedy method, then the agent will often "pull the best lever" by picking the action that had the best predicted expected reward (exploit). However, it would pick a random action with probability epsilon (explore). Monte Carlo tree search, for example, uses a variant of the UCB method. === Exploration problems === There are some problems that make exploration difficult. Sparse reward. If rewards occur only once a long while, then the agent might not persist in exploring. Furthermore, if the space of actions is large, then the sparse reward would mean the agent would not be guided by the reward to find a good direction for deeper exploration. A standard example is Montezuma's Revenge. Deceptive reward. If some early actions give immediate small reward, but other actions give later large reward, then the agent might be lured away from exploring the other actions. Noisy TV problem. If certain observations are irreducibly noisy (such as a television showing random images), then the agent might be trapped exploring those observations (watching the television). === Exploration reward === This section based on. The exploration reward (also called exploration bonus) methods convert the exploration-exploitation dilemma into a balance of exploitations. That is, instead of trying to get the agent to balance exploration and exploitation, exploration is simply treated as another form of exploitation, and the agent simply attempts to maximize the sum of rewards from exploration and exploitation. The exploration reward can be treated as a form of intrinsic reward. We write these as r t i , r t e {\displaystyle r_{t}^{i},r_{t}^{e}} , meaning the intrinsic and extrinsic rewards at time step t {\displaystyle t} . However, exploration reward is different from exploitation in two regards: The reward of exploitation is not freely chosen, but given by the environment, but the reward of exploration may be picked freely. Indeed, there are many different ways to design r t i {\displaystyle r_{t}^{i}} described below. The reward of exploitation is usually stationary (i.e. the same action in the same state gives the same reward), but the reward of exploration is non-stationary (i.e. the same action in the same state should give less and less reward). Count-based exploration uses N n ( s ) {\displaystyle N_{n}(s)} , the number of visits to a state s {\displaystyle s} during the time-steps 1 : n {\displaystyle 1:n} , to calculate the exploration reward. This is only possible in small and discrete state space. Density-based exploration extends count-based exploration by using a density model ρ n ( s ) {\displaystyle \rho _{n}(s)} . The idea is that, if a state has been visited, then nearby states are also partly-visited. In maximum entropy exploration, the entropy of the agent's policy π {\displaystyle \pi } is included as a term in the intrinsic reward. That is, r t i = − ∑ a π ( a | s t ) ln ⁡ π ( a | s t ) + ⋯ {\displaystyle r_{t}^{i}=-\sum _{a}\pi (a|s_{t})\ln \pi (a|s_{t})+\cdots } . === Prediction-based === This section based on. The forward dynamics model is a function for predicting the next state based on the current state and the current action: f : ( s t , a t ) ↦ s t + 1 {\displaystyle f:(s_{t},a_{t})\mapsto s_{t+1}} . The forward dynamics model is trained as the agent plays. The model becomes better at predicting state transition for state-action pairs that had been done many times. A forward dynamics model can define an exploration reward by r t i = ‖ f ( s t , a t ) − s t + 1 ‖ 2 2 {\displaystyle r_{t}^{i}=\|f(s_{t},a_{t})-s_{t+1}\|_{2}^{2}} . That is, the reward is the squared-error of the prediction compared to reality. This rewards the agent to perform state-action pairs that had not been done many times. This is however susceptible to the noisy TV problem. Dynamics model can be run in latent space. That is, r t i = ‖ f ( s t , a t ) − ϕ ( s t + 1 ) ‖ 2 2 {\displaystyle r_{t}^{i}=\|f(s_{t},a_{t})-\phi (s_{t+1})\|_{2}^{2}} for some featurizer ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } . The featurizer can be the identity function (i.e. ϕ ( x ) = x {\displaystyle \phi (x)=x} ), randomly generated, the encoder-half of a variational autoencoder, etc. A good featurizer improves forward dynamics exploration. The Intrinsic Curiosity Module (ICM) method trains simultaneously a forward dynamics model and a featurizer. The featurizer is trained by an inverse dynamics model, which is a function for predicting the current action based on the features of the current and the next state: g : ( ϕ ( s t ) , ϕ ( s t + 1 ) ) ↦ a t {\displaystyle g:(\phi (s_{t}),\phi (s_{t+1}))\mapsto a_{t}} . By optimizing the inverse dynamics, both the inverse dynamics model and the featurizer are improved. Then, the improved featurizer improves the forward dynamics model, which improves the exploration of the agent. Random Network Distillation (RND) method attempts to solve this problem by teacher–student distillation. Instead of a forward dynamics model, it has two models f , f ′ {\displaystyle f,f'} . The f ′ {\displaystyle f'} teacher model is fixed, and the f {\displaystyle f} student model is trained to minimize ‖ f ( s ) − f ′ ( s ) ‖ 2 2 {\displaystyle \|f(s)-f'(s)\|_{2}^{2}} on states s {\displaystyle s} . As a state is visited more and more, the student network becomes better at predicting the teacher. Meanwhile, the prediction error is also an exploration reward for the agent, and so the agent learns to perform actions that result in higher prediction error. Thus, we have a student network attempting to minimize the prediction error, while the agent attempting to maximize it, resulting in exploration. The states are normalized by subtracting a running average and dividing a running variance, which is necessary since the teacher model is frozen. The rewards are normalized by dividing with a running variance. Exploration by disagreement trains an ensemble of forward dynamics models, each on a random subset of all ( s t , a t , s t + 1 ) {\displaystyle (s_{t},a_{t},s_{t+1})} tuples. The exploration reward is the variance of the models' predictions. === Noise === For neural network–based agents, the NoisyNet method changes some of its neural network modules by noisy versions. That is, some network parameters are random variables from a probability distribution. The parameters of the distribution are themselves learnable. For example, in a linear layer y = W x + b {\displaystyle y=Wx+b} , both W , b {\displaystyle W,b} are sampled from Gaussian distributions N ( μ W , Σ W ) , N ( μ b , Σ b ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {N}}(\mu _{W},\Sigma _{W}),{\mathcal {N}}(\mu _{b},\Sigma _{b})} at every step, and the parameters μ W , Σ W , μ b , Σ b {\displaystyle \mu _{W},\Sigma _{W},\mu _{b},\Sigma _{b}} are learned via the reparameterization trick.

State complexity

State complexity is an area of theoretical computer science dealing with the size of abstract automata, such as different kinds of finite automata. The classical result in the area is that simulating an n {\displaystyle n} -state nondeterministic finite automaton by a deterministic finite automaton requires exactly 2 n {\displaystyle 2^{n}} states in the worst case. == Transformation between variants of finite automata == Finite automata can be deterministic and nondeterministic, one-way (DFA, NFA) and two-way (2DFA, 2NFA). Other related classes are unambiguous (UFA), self-verifying (SVFA) and alternating (AFA) finite automata. These automata can also be two-way (2UFA, 2SVFA, 2AFA). All these machines can accept exactly the regular languages. However, the size of different types of automata necessary to accept the same language (measured in the number of their states) may be different. For any two types of finite automata, the state complexity tradeoff between them is an integer function f {\displaystyle f} where f ( n ) {\displaystyle f(n)} is the least number of states in automata of the second type sufficient to recognize every language recognized by an n {\displaystyle n} -state automaton of the first type. The following results are known. NFA to DFA: 2 n {\displaystyle 2^{n}} states. This is the subset construction by Rabin and Scott, proved optimal by Lupanov. UFA to DFA: 2 n {\displaystyle 2^{n}} states, see Leung, An earlier lower bound by Schmidt was smaller. NFA to UFA: 2 n − 1 {\displaystyle 2^{n}-1} states, see Leung. There was an earlier smaller lower bound by Schmidt. SVFA to DFA: Θ ( 3 n / 3 ) {\displaystyle \Theta (3^{n/3})} states, see Jirásková and Pighizzini 2DFA to DFA: n ( n n − ( n − 1 ) n ) {\displaystyle n(n^{n}-(n-1)^{n})} states, see Kapoutsis. Earlier construction by Shepherdson used more states, and an earlier lower bound by Moore was smaller. 2DFA to NFA: ( 2 n n + 1 ) = O ( 4 n n ) {\displaystyle {\binom {2n}{n+1}}=O({\frac {4^{n}}{\sqrt {n}}})} , see Kapoutsis. Earlier construction by Birget used more states. 2NFA to NFA: ( 2 n n + 1 ) {\displaystyle {\binom {2n}{n+1}}} , see Kapoutsis. 2NFA to NFA accepting the complement: O ( 4 n ) {\displaystyle O(4^{n})} states, see Vardi. AFA to DFA: 2 2 n {\displaystyle 2^{2^{n}}} states, see Chandra, Kozen and Stockmeyer. AFA to NFA: 2 n {\displaystyle 2^{n}} states, see Fellah, Jürgensen and Yu. 2AFA to DFA: 2 n 2 n {\displaystyle 2^{n2^{n}}} , see Ladner, Lipton and Stockmeyer. 2AFA to NFA: 2 Θ ( n log ⁡ n ) {\displaystyle 2^{\Theta (n\log n)}} , see Geffert and Okhotin. === The 2DFA vs. 2NFA problem and logarithmic space === It is an open problem whether all 2NFAs can be converted to 2DFAs with polynomially many states, i.e. whether there is a polynomial p ( n ) {\displaystyle p(n)} such that for every n {\displaystyle n} -state 2NFA there exists a p ( n ) {\displaystyle p(n)} -state 2DFA. The problem was raised by Sakoda and Sipser, who compared it to the P vs. NP problem in the computational complexity theory. Berman and Lingas discovered a formal relation between this problem and the L vs. NL open problem. This relation was further elaborated by Kapoutsis. == State complexity of operations for finite automata == Given a binary regularity-preserving operation on languages ∘ {\displaystyle \circ } and a family of automata X (DFA, NFA, etc.), the state complexity of ∘ {\displaystyle \circ } is an integer function f ( m , n ) {\displaystyle f(m,n)} such that for each m-state X-automaton A and n-state X-automaton B there is an f ( m , n ) {\displaystyle f(m,n)} -state X-automaton for L ( A ) ∘ L ( B ) {\displaystyle L(A)\circ L(B)} , and for all integers m, n there is an m-state X-automaton A and an n-state X-automaton B such that every X-automaton for L ( A ) ∘ L ( B ) {\displaystyle L(A)\circ L(B)} must have at least f ( m , n ) {\displaystyle f(m,n)} states. Analogous definition applies for operations with any number of arguments. The first results on state complexity of operations for DFAs were published by Maslov and by Yu, Zhuang and Salomaa. Holzer and Kutrib pioneered the state complexity of operations on NFA. The known results for basic operations are listed below. === Union === If language L 1 {\displaystyle L_{1}} requires m states and language L 2 {\displaystyle L_{2}} requires n states, how many states does L 1 ∪ L 2 {\displaystyle L_{1}\cup L_{2}} require? DFA: m n {\displaystyle mn} states, see Maslov and Yu, Zhuang and Salomaa. NFA: m + n + 1 {\displaystyle m+n+1} states, see Holzer and Kutrib. UFA: at least min ( n , m ) Ω ( log ⁡ ( min ( n , m ) ) ) {\displaystyle \min(n,m)^{\Omega (\log(\min(n,m)))}} ; between m n + m + n {\displaystyle mn+m+n} and m + n m 2 0.79 m {\displaystyle m+nm2^{0.79m}} states, see Jirásek, Jirásková and Šebej. SVFA: m n {\displaystyle mn} states, see Jirásek, Jirásková and Szabari. 2DFA: between m + n {\displaystyle m+n} and 4 m + n + 4 {\displaystyle 4m+n+4} states, see Kunc and Okhotin. 2NFA: m + n {\displaystyle m+n} states, see Kunc and Okhotin. === Intersection === How many states does L 1 ∩ L 2 {\displaystyle L_{1}\cap L_{2}} require? DFA: m n {\displaystyle mn} states, see Maslov and Yu, Zhuang and Salomaa. NFA: m n {\displaystyle mn} states, see Holzer and Kutrib. UFA: m n {\displaystyle mn} states, see Jirásek, Jirásková and Šebej. SVFA: m n {\displaystyle mn} states, see Jirásek, Jirásková and Szabari. 2DFA: between m + n {\displaystyle m+n} and m + n + 1 {\displaystyle m+n+1} states, see Kunc and Okhotin. 2NFA: between m + n {\displaystyle m+n} and m + n + 1 {\displaystyle m+n+1} states, see Kunc and Okhotin. === Complementation === If language L requires n states then how many states does its complement require? DFA: n {\displaystyle n} states, by exchanging accepting and rejecting states. NFA: 2 n {\displaystyle 2^{n}} states, see Birget. or Jirásková UFA: at least n Ω ~ ( log ⁡ n ) {\displaystyle n^{{\tilde {\Omega }}(\log n)}} states, see Göös, Kiefer and Yuan, (this follows an earlier bound by Raskin); and at most n + 1 ⋅ 2 0.5 n {\displaystyle {\sqrt {n+1}}\cdot 2^{0.5n}} states, see Indzhev and Kiefer. SVFA: n {\displaystyle n} states, by exchanging accepting and rejecting states. 2DFA: at least n {\displaystyle n} and at most 4 n {\displaystyle 4n} states, see Geffert, Mereghetti and Pighizzini. === Concatenation === How many states does L 1 L 2 = { w 1 w 2 ∣ w 1 ∈ L 1 , w 2 ∈ L 2 } {\displaystyle L_{1}L_{2}=\{w_{1}w_{2}\mid w_{1}\in L_{1},w_{2}\in L_{2}\}} require? DFA: m ⋅ 2 n − 2 n − 1 {\displaystyle m\cdot 2^{n}-2^{n-1}} states, see Maslov and Yu, Zhuang and Salomaa. NFA: m + n {\displaystyle m+n} states, see Holzer and Kutrib. UFA: 3 4 2 m + n − 1 {\displaystyle {\frac {3}{4}}2^{m+n}-1} states, see Jirásek, Jirásková and Šebej. SVFA: Θ ( 3 n / 3 2 m ) {\displaystyle \Theta (3^{n/3}2^{m})} states, see Jirásek, Jirásková and Szabari. 2DFA: at least 2 Ω ( n ) log ⁡ m {\displaystyle {\frac {2^{\Omega (n)}}{\log m}}} and at most 2 m m + 1 ⋅ 2 n n + 1 {\displaystyle 2m^{m+1}\cdot 2^{n^{n+1}}} states, see Jirásková and Okhotin. === Kleene star === DFA: 3 4 2 n {\displaystyle {\frac {3}{4}}2^{n}} states, see Maslov and Yu, Zhuang and Salomaa. NFA: n + 1 {\displaystyle n+1} states, see Holzer and Kutrib. UFA: 3 4 2 n {\displaystyle {\frac {3}{4}}2^{n}} states, see Jirásek, Jirásková and Šebej. SVFA: 3 4 2 n {\displaystyle {\frac {3}{4}}2^{n}} states, see Jirásek, Jirásková and Szabari. 2DFA: at least 1 n 2 n 2 − 1 {\displaystyle {\frac {1}{n}}2^{{\frac {n}{2}}-1}} and at most 2 O ( n n + 1 ) {\displaystyle 2^{O(n^{n+1})}} states, see Jirásková and Okhotin. === Reversal === DFA: 2 n {\displaystyle 2^{n}} states, see Mirkin, Leiss, and Yu, Zhuang and Salomaa. NFA: n + 1 {\displaystyle n+1} states, see Holzer and Kutrib. UFA: n {\displaystyle n} states. SVFA: 2 n + 1 {\displaystyle 2n+1} states, see Jirásek, Jirásková and Szabari. 2DFA: between n + 1 {\displaystyle n+1} and n + 2 {\displaystyle n+2} states, see Jirásková and Okhotin. == Finite automata over a unary alphabet == State complexity of finite automata with a one-letter (unary) alphabet, pioneered by Chrobak, is different from the multi-letter case. Let g ( n ) = e Θ ( n ln ⁡ n ) {\displaystyle g(n)=e^{\Theta ({\sqrt {n\ln n}})}} be Landau's function. === Transformation between models === For a one-letter alphabet, transformations between different types of finite automata are sometimes more efficient than in the general case. NFA to DFA: g ( n ) + O ( n 2 ) {\displaystyle g(n)+O(n^{2})} states, see Chrobak. 2DFA to DFA: g ( n ) + O ( n ) {\displaystyle g(n)+O(n)} states, see Chrobak and Kunc and Okhotin. 2NFA to DFA: O ( g ( n ) ) {\displaystyle O(g(n))} states, see Mereghetti and Pighizzini. and Geffert, Mereghetti and Pighizzini. NFA to 2DFA: at most O ( n 2 ) {\displaystyle O(n^{2})} states, see Chrobak. 2NFA to 2DFA: at most n O ( log ⁡ n ) {\displaystyle n^{O(\log n)}} states, proved by implementing the method of Savitch's theorem, see

Andrei Knyazev (mathematician)

Andrew Knyazev is an American mathematician. He graduated from the Faculty of Computational Mathematics and Cybernetics of Moscow State University under the supervision of Evgenii Georgievich D'yakonov (Russian: Евгений Георгиевич Дьяконов) in 1981 and obtained his PhD in Numerical Mathematics at the Russian Academy of Sciences under the supervision of Vyacheslav Ivanovich Lebedev (Russian: Вячеслав Иванович Лебедев) in 1985. He worked at the Kurchatov Institute between 1981–1983, and then to 1992 at the Marchuk Institute of Numerical Mathematics (Russian: ru:Институт вычислительной математики имени Г. И. Марчука РАН) of the Russian Academy of Sciences, headed by Gury Marchuk (Russian: Гурий Иванович Марчук). From 1993–1994, Knyazev held a visiting position at the Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences of New York University, collaborating with Olof B. Widlund. From 1994 until retirement in 2014, he was a Professor of Mathematics at the University of Colorado Denver, supported by the National Science Foundation and United States Department of Energy grants. He was a recipient of the 2008 Excellence in Research Award, the 2000 college Teaching Excellence Award, and a finalist of the CU President's Faculty Excellence Award for Advancing Teaching and Learning through Technology in 1999. He was awarded the title of Professor Emeritus at the University of Colorado Denver and named the SIAM Fellow Class of 2016 and AMS Fellow Class of 2019. From 2012–2018, Knyazev worked at the Mitsubishi Electric Research Laboratories on algorithms for image and video processing, data sciences, optimal control, and material sciences, resulting in dozens of publications and 13 patent applications. Since 2018, he contributed to numerical techniques in quantum computing at Zapata Computing, real-time embedded anomaly detection in automotive data, and algorithms for silicon photonics-based hardware. Knyazev is mostly known for his work in numerical solution of large sparse eigenvalue problems, particularly preconditioning and the iterative method LOBPCG. Knyazev's implementation of LOBPCG is available in many open source software packages, e.g., BLOPEX, SciPy, and ABINIT. Knyazev collaborated with John Osborn on the theory of the Ritz method in the finite element method context and with Nikolai Sergeevich Bakhvalov (Russian: Николай Серге́евич Бахвалов) (Erdős number 3 via Leonid Kantorovich) on numerical solution of elliptic partial differential equations with large jumps in the main coefficients. Jointly with his Ph.D. students, Knyazev pioneered using majorization for bounds in the Rayleigh–Ritz method (see and references there) and contributed to the theory of angles between flats.

Andrei Knyazev (mathematician)

Availability zone

In cloud computing, an availability region is a group of data centres that are located in the same geographical region. Availability regions comprise multiple availability zones, which are groups of data centres that are located far enough from each other to prevent large-scale outages in the event of failure of a single zone, whilst still being close enough to each other to enable low-latency connections. Distributed systems spanning multiple availability zones allow for high availability, even in the event of catastrophic failure, such as natural disasters. Services offering distinct availability zones include Amazon Web Services, Microsoft Azure and Google Cloud.

Language Weaver

Language Weaver is the machine translation (MT) technology and brand of RWS. The brand name was revived in 2021 following the acquisition of SDL and Iconic Translation Machines Ltd. and the merging of the respective teams and technologies. Language Weaver was formerly a standalone company that was acquired by SDL in 2010. == History == Language Weaver was a Los Angeles, California–based company founded in 2002 as a spin-out company from the University of Southern California. The company was founded to commercialise a statistical approach to automatic language translation and natural language processing known as statistical machine translation (SMT). The company's name is a reference to one of the pioneers of machine translation — Warren Weaver — who first proposed the idea of using computers to ‘decode’ or ‘decrypt’ language in a memorandum back in 1947. Language Weaver’s statistical approach to machine translation was cutting-edge at the time, and a significant improvement over previous approaches such as Rule-Based MT. Language Weaver grew steadily over an 8 year period, with staff numbers totalling 96 across offices in US, Europe, and Japan. The company had significant business with Government organisations where its name continues to hold strong recognition to this day. In July 2010, Language Weaver was acquired by SDL plc for $42.5 million and the company was renamed SDL Language Weaver. == SDL Language Weaver == SDL Language Weaver was the primary machine translation technology at SDL where, over time, it evolved from SMT to syntax-based MT, to Neural Machine Translation. The Language Weaver brand was retired in 2015 in favour of SDL BeGlobal for the cloud-based solution, and SDL Enterprise Translation Server for the on-premise solution. Later, these products were rebranded again as SDL Machine Translation Cloud and SDL Machine Translation Edge respectively. == 2021 Relaunch == The Language Weaver brand was revived in 2021 following the acquisition of SDL by RWS, and the merger of the SDL MT and Iconic Translation Machines teams and technologies. The combined technologies of both companies, based on state-of-the-art Transformer-based Neural Machine Translation, are now sold as "Language Weaver" for cloud-based MT, and "Language Weaver Edge" for on-premise MT. == Supported languages == As of September 2021, Language Weaver supports the following languages and language varieties:

Exploration–exploitation dilemma

State complexity

Andrei Knyazev (mathematician)

Andrei Knyazev (mathematician)

Availability zone

Language Weaver

Related Articles