Curious about the best AI code-review tool? An AI code-review 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 code-review tool slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. This guide breaks down the top picks, their pros and cons, and who each one is best for.
Content determination
Content determination is the subtask of natural language generation (NLG) that involves deciding on the information to be communicated in a generated text. It is closely related to the task of document structuring. == Example == Consider an NLG system which summarises information about sick babies. Suppose this system has four pieces of information it can communicate The baby is being given morphine via an IV drop The baby's heart rate shows bradycardia's (temporary drops) The baby's temperature is normal The baby is crying Which of these bits of information should be included in the generated texts? == Issues == There are three general issues which almost always impact the content determination task, and can be illustrated with the above example. Perhaps the most fundamental issue is the communicative goal of the text, i.e. its purpose and reader. In the above example, for instance, a doctor who wants to make a decision about medical treatment would probably be most interested in the heart rate bradycardias, while a parent who wanted to know how her child was doing would probably be more interested in the fact that the baby was being given morphine and was crying. The second issue is the size and level of detail of the generated text. For instance, a short summary which was sent to a doctor as a 160 character SMS text message might only mention the heart rate bradycardias, while a longer summary which was printed out as a multipage document might also mention the fact that the baby is on a morphine IV. The final issue is how unusual and unexpected the information is. For example, neither doctors nor parents would place a high priority on being told that the baby's temperature was normal, if they expected this to be the case. Regardless, content determination is very important to users, indeed in many cases the quality of content determination is the most important factor (from the user's perspective) in determining the overall quality of the generated text. == Techniques == There are three basic approaches to document structuring: schemas (content templates), statistical approaches, and explicit reasoning. Schemas are templates which explicitly specify the content of a generated text (as well as document structuring information). Typically, they are constructed by manually analysing a corpus of human-written texts in the target genre, and extracting a content template from these texts. Schemas work well in practice in domains where content is somewhat standardised, but work less well in domains where content is more fluid (such as the medical example above). Statistical techniques use statistical corpus analysis techniques to automatically determine the content of the generated texts. Such work is in its infancy, and has mostly been applied to contexts where the communicative goal, reader, size, and level of detail are fixed. For example, generation of newswire summaries of sporting events. Explicit reasoning approaches have probably attracted the most attention from researchers. The basic idea is to use AI reasoning techniques (such as knowledge-based rules, planning, pattern detection, case-based reasoning, etc.) to examine the information available to be communicated (including how unusual/unexpected it is), the communicative goal and reader, and the characteristics of the generated text (including target size), and decide on the optimal content for the generated text. A very wide range of techniques has been explored, but there is no consensus as to which is most effective.
One-shot learning (computer vision)
One-shot learning is an object categorization problem, found mostly in computer vision. Whereas most machine learning-based object categorization algorithms require training on hundreds or thousands of examples, one-shot learning aims to classify objects from one, or only a few, examples. The term few-shot learning is also used for these problems, especially when more than one example is needed. == Motivation == The ability to learn object categories from few examples, and at a rapid pace, has been demonstrated in humans. It is estimated that a child learns almost all of the 10 ~ 30 thousand object categories in the world by age six. This is due not only to the human mind's computational power, but also to its ability to synthesize and learn new object categories from existing information about different, previously learned categories. Given two examples from two object categories: one, an unknown object composed of familiar shapes, the second, an unknown, amorphous shape; it is much easier for humans to recognize the former than the latter, suggesting that humans make use of previously learned categories when learning new ones. The key motivation for solving one-shot learning is that systems, like humans, can use knowledge about object categories to classify new objects. == Background == As with most classification schemes, one-shot learning involves three main challenges: Representation: How should objects and categories be described? Learning: How can such descriptions be created? Recognition: How can a known object be filtered from enveloping clutter, irrespective of occlusion, viewpoint, and lighting? One-shot learning differs from single object recognition and standard category recognition algorithms in its emphasis on knowledge transfer, which makes use of previously learned categories. Model parameters: Reuses model parameters, based on the similarity between old and new categories. Categories are first learned on numerous training examples, then new categories are learned using transformations of model parameters from those initial categories or selecting relevant parameters for a classifier. Feature sharing: Shares parts or features of objects across categories. One algorithm extracts "diagnostic information" in patches from already learned categories by maximizing the patches' mutual information, and then applies these features to the learning of a new category. A dog category, for example, may be learned in one shot from previous knowledge of horse and cow categories, because dog objects may contain similar distinguishing patches. Contextual information: Appeals to global knowledge of the scene in which the object appears. Such global information can be used as frequency distributions in a conditional random field framework to recognize objects. Alternatively context can consider camera height and scene geometry. Algorithms of this type have two advantages. First, they learn object categories that are relatively dissimilar; and second, they perform well in ad hoc situations where an image has not been hand-cropped and aligned. == Theory == The Bayesian one-shot learning algorithm represents the foreground and background of images as parametrized by a mixture of constellation models. During the learning phase, the parameters of these models are learned using a conjugate density parameter posterior and variational Bayesian expectation–maximization (VBEM). In this stage the previously learned object categories inform the choice of model parameters via transfer by contextual information. For object recognition on new images, the posterior obtained during the learning phase is used in a Bayesian decision framework to estimate the ratio of p(object | test, train) to p(background clutter | test, train) where p is the probability of the outcome. === Bayesian framework === Given the task of finding a particular object in a query image, the overall objective of the Bayesian one-shot learning algorithm is to compare the probability that object is present vs the probability that only background clutter is present. If the former probability is higher, the algorithm reports the object's presence, otherwise the algorithm reports its absence. To compute these probabilities, the object class must be modeled from a set of (1 ~ 5) training images containing examples. To formalize these ideas, let I {\displaystyle I} be the query image, which contains either an example of the foreground category O f g {\displaystyle O_{fg}} or only background clutter of a generic background category O b g {\displaystyle O_{bg}} . Also let I t {\displaystyle I_{t}} be the set of training images used as the foreground category. The decision of whether I {\displaystyle I} contains an object from the foreground category, or only clutter from the background category is: R = p ( O f g | I , I t ) p ( O b g | I , I t ) = p ( I | I t , O f g ) p ( O f g ) p ( I | I t , O b g ) p ( O b g ) , {\displaystyle R={\frac {p(O_{fg}|I,I_{t})}{p(O_{bg}|I,I_{t})}}={\frac {p(I|I_{t},O_{fg})p(O_{fg})}{p(I|I_{t},O_{bg})p(O_{bg})}},} where the class posteriors p ( O f g | I , I t ) {\displaystyle p(O_{fg}|I,I_{t})} and p ( O b g | I , I t ) {\displaystyle p(O_{bg}|I,I_{t})} have been expanded by Bayes' theorem, yielding a ratio of likelihoods and a ratio of object category priors. We decide that the image I {\displaystyle I} contains an object from the foreground class if R {\displaystyle R} exceeds a certain threshold T {\displaystyle T} . We next introduce parametric models for the foreground and background categories with parameters θ {\displaystyle \theta } and θ b g {\displaystyle \theta _{bg}} respectively. This foreground parametric model is learned during the learning stage from I t {\displaystyle I_{t}} , as well as prior information of learned categories. The background model we assume to be uniform across images. Omitting the constant ratio of category priors, p ( O f g ) p ( O b g ) {\displaystyle {\frac {p(O_{fg})}{p(O_{bg})}}} , and parametrizing over θ {\displaystyle \theta } and θ b g {\displaystyle \theta _{bg}} yields R ∝ ∫ p ( I | θ , O f g ) p ( θ | I t , O f g ) d θ ∫ p ( I | θ b g , O b g ) p ( θ b g | I t , O b g ) d θ b g = ∫ p ( I | θ ) p ( θ | I t , O f g ) d θ ∫ p ( I | θ b g ) p ( θ b g | I t , O b g ) d θ b g {\displaystyle R\propto {\frac {\int {p(I|\theta ,O_{fg})p(\theta |I_{t},O_{fg})}d\theta }{\int {p(I|\theta _{bg},O_{bg})p(\theta _{bg}|I_{t},O_{bg})}d\theta _{bg}}}={\frac {\int {p(I|\theta )p(\theta |I_{t},O_{fg})}d\theta }{\int {p(I|\theta _{bg})p(\theta _{bg}|I_{t},O_{bg})}d\theta _{bg}}}} , having simplified p ( I | θ , O f g ) {\displaystyle p(I|\theta ,O_{fg})} and p ( I | θ , O b g ) {\displaystyle p(I|\theta ,O_{bg})} to p ( I | θ f g ) {\displaystyle p(I|\theta _{fg})} and p ( I | θ b g ) . {\displaystyle p(I|\theta _{bg}).} The posterior distribution of model parameters given the training images, p ( θ | I t , O f g ) {\displaystyle p(\theta |I_{t},O_{fg})} is estimated in the learning phase. In this estimation, one-shot learning differs sharply from more traditional Bayesian estimation models that approximate the integral as δ ( θ M L ) {\displaystyle \delta (\theta ^{ML})} . Instead, it uses a variational approach using prior information from previously learned categories. However, the traditional maximum likelihood estimation of the model parameters is used for the background model and the categories learned in advance through training. === Object category model === For each query image I {\displaystyle I} and training images I t {\displaystyle I_{t}} , a constellation model is used for representation. To obtain this model for a given image I {\displaystyle I} , first a set of N interesting regions is detected in the image using the Kadir–Brady saliency detector. Each region selected is represented by a location in the image, X i {\displaystyle X_{i}} and a description of its appearance, A i {\displaystyle A_{i}} . Letting X = ∑ i = 1 N X i , A = ∑ i = 1 N A i {\displaystyle X=\sum _{i=1}^{N}X_{i},A=\sum _{i=1}^{N}A_{i}} and X t {\displaystyle X_{t}} and A t {\displaystyle A_{t}} the analogous representations for training images, the expression for R becomes: R ∝ ∫ p ( X , A | θ , O f g ) p ( θ | X t , A t , O f g ) d θ ∫ p ( X , A | θ b g , O b g ) p ( θ b g | X t , A t , O b g ) d θ b g = ∫ p ( X , A | θ ) p ( θ | X t , A t , O f g ) d θ ∫ p ( X , A | θ b g ) p ( θ b g | X t , A t , O b g ) d θ b g {\displaystyle R\propto {\frac {\int {p(X,A|\theta ,O_{fg})p(\theta |X_{t},A_{t},O_{fg})}d\theta }{\int {p(X,A|\theta _{bg},O_{bg})p(\theta _{bg}|X_{t},A_{t},O_{bg})}d\theta _{bg}}}={\frac {\int {p(X,A|\theta )p(\theta |X_{t},A_{t},O_{fg})}d\theta }{\int {p(X,A|\theta _{bg})p(\theta _{bg}|X_{t},A_{t},O_{bg})}\,d\theta _{bg}}}} The likelihoods p ( X , A | θ ) {\displaystyle p(X,A|\theta )} and p ( X , A | θ b g ) {\displaystyle p(X,A|\theta _{bg})} are represented as mixtures of constellation models. A typical constellation model has
Dendrogram
A dendrogram is a diagram representing a tree graph. This diagrammatic representation is frequently used in different contexts: in hierarchical clustering, it illustrates the arrangement of the clusters produced by the corresponding analyses. in computational biology, it shows the clustering of genes or samples, sometimes in the margins of heatmaps. in phylogenetics, it displays the evolutionary relationships among various biological taxa. In this case, the dendrogram is also called a phylogenetic tree. The name dendrogram derives from the two ancient greek words δένδρον (déndron), meaning "tree", and γράμμα (grámma), meaning "drawing, mathematical figure". == Clustering example == For a clustering example, suppose that five taxa ( a {\displaystyle a} to e {\displaystyle e} ) have been clustered by UPGMA based on a matrix of genetic distances. The hierarchical clustering dendrogram would show a column of five nodes representing the initial data (here individual taxa), and the remaining nodes represent the clusters to which the data belong, with the arrows representing the distance (dissimilarity). The distance between merged clusters is monotone, increasing with the level of the merger: the height of each node in the plot is proportional to the value of the intergroup dissimilarity between its two daughters (the nodes on the right representing individual observations all plotted at zero height).
Rule-based machine learning
Rule-based machine learning (RBML) is a term in computer science intended to encompass any machine learning method that identifies, learns, or evolves 'rules' to store, manipulate or apply. The defining characteristic of a rule-based machine learner is the identification and utilization of a set of relational rules that collectively represent the knowledge captured by the system. Rule-based machine learning approaches include learning classifier systems, association rule learning, artificial immune systems, and any other method that relies on a set of rules, each covering contextual knowledge. While rule-based machine learning is conceptually a type of rule-based system, it is distinct from traditional rule-based systems, which are often hand-crafted, and other rule-based decision makers. This is because rule-based machine learning applies some form of learning algorithm such as Rough sets theory to identify and minimise the set of features and to automatically identify useful rules, rather than a human needing to apply prior domain knowledge to manually construct rules and curate a rule set. == Rules == Rules typically take the form of an '{IF:THEN} expression', (e.g. {IF 'condition' THEN 'result'}, or as a more specific example, {IF 'red' AND 'octagon' THEN 'stop-sign}). An individual rule is not in itself a model, since the rule is only applicable when its condition is satisfied. Therefore rule-based machine learning methods typically comprise a set of rules, or knowledge base, that collectively make up the prediction model usually known as decision algorithm. Rules can also be interpreted in various ways depending on the domain knowledge, data types(discrete or continuous) and in combinations. == RIPPER == Repeated incremental pruning to produce error reduction (RIPPER) is a propositional rule learner proposed by William W. Cohen as an optimized version of IREP.
Vicuna LLM
Vicuna LLM is an omnibus large language model used in AI research. Its methodology is to enable the public at large to contrast and compare the accuracy of LLMs "in the wild" (an example of citizen science) and to vote on their output; a question-and-answer chat format is used. At the beginning of each round two LLM chatbots from a diverse pool of nine are presented randomly and anonymously, their identities only being revealed upon voting on their answers. The user has the option of either replaying ("regenerating") a round, or beginning an entirely fresh one with new LLMs. (The user also has the option of choosing which LLMs to do battle.) Based on Llama 2, it is an open source project, and it itself has become the subject of academic research in the burgeoning field. A non-commercial, public demo of the Vicuna-13b model is available to access using LMSYS.
FERET (facial recognition technology)
The Facial Recognition Technology (FERET) program was a government-sponsored project that aimed to create a large, automatic face-recognition system for intelligence, security, and law enforcement purposes. The program began in 1993 under the combined leadership of Dr. Harry Wechsler at George Mason University (GMU) and Dr. Jonathon Phillips at the Army Research Laboratory (ARL) in Adelphi, Maryland and resulted in the development of the Facial Recognition Technology (FERET) database. The goal of the FERET program was to advance the field of face recognition technology by establishing a common database of facial imagery for researchers to use and setting a performance baseline for face-recognition algorithms. Potential areas where this face-recognition technology could be used include: Automated searching of mug books using surveillance photos Controlling access to restricted facilities or equipment Checking the credentials of personnel for background and security clearances Monitoring airports, border crossings, and secure manufacturing facilities for particular individuals Finding and logging multiple appearances of individuals over time in surveillance videos Verifying identities at ATM machines Searching photo ID records for fraud detection The FERET database has been used by more than 460 research groups and is currently managed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). By 2017, the FERET database has been used to train artificial intelligence programs and computer vision algorithms to identify and sort faces. == History == The origin of facial recognition technology is largely attributed to Woodrow Wilson Bledsoe and his work in the 1960s, when he developed a system to identify faces from a database of thousands of photographs. The FERET program first began as a way to unify a large body of face-recognition technology research under a standard database. Before the program's inception, most researchers created their own facial imagery database that was attuned to their own specific area of study. These personal databases were small and usually consisted of images from less than 50 individuals. The only notable exceptions were the following: Alex Pentland’s database of around 7500 facial images at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Joseph Wilder's database of around 250 individuals at Rutgers University Christoph von der Malsburg’s database of around 100 facial images at the University of Southern California (USC) The lack of a common database made it difficult to compare the results of face recognition studies in the scientific literature because each report involved different assumptions, scoring methods, and images. Most of the papers that were published did not use images from a common database nor follow a standard testing protocol. As a result, researchers were unable to make informed comparisons between the performances of different face-recognition algorithms. In September 1993, the FERET program was spearheaded by Dr. Harry Wechsler and Dr. Jonathon Phillips under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Defense Counterdrug Technology Development Program through DARPA with ARL serving as technical agent. === Phase I === The first facial images for the FERET database were collected from August 1993 to December 1994, a time period known as Phase I. The pictures were initially taken with a 35-mm camera at both GMU and ARL facilities, and the same physical setup was used in each photography session to keep the images consistent. For each individual, the pictures were taken in sets, including two frontal views, a right and left profile, a right and left quarter profile, a right and left half profile, and sometimes at five extra locations. Therefore, a set of images consisted of 5 to 11 images per person. At the end of Phase I, the FERET database had collected 673 sets of images, resulting in over 5000 total images. At the end of Phase I, five organizations were given the opportunity to test their face-recognition algorithm on the newly created FERET database in order to compare how they performed against each other. There five principal investigators were: MIT, led by Alex Pentland Rutgers University, led by Joseph Wilder The Analytic Science Company (TASC), led by Gale Gordon The University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC) and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, led by Lewis Sadler and Thomas Huang USC, led by Christoph von der Malsburg During this evaluation, three different automatic tests were given to the principal investigators without human intervention: The large gallery test, which served to baseline how algorithms performed against a database when it has not been properly tuned. The false-alarm test, which tested how well the algorithm monitored an airport for suspected terrorists. The rotation test, which measured how well the algorithm performed when the images of an individual in the gallery had different poses compared to those in the probe set. For most of the test trials, the algorithms developed by USC and MIT managed to outperform the other three algorithms for the Phase I evaluation. === Phase II === Phase II began after Phase I, and during this time, the FERET database acquired more sets of facial images. By the start of the Phase II evaluation in March 1995, the database contained 1109 sets of images for a total of 8525 images of 884 individuals. During the second evaluation, the same algorithms from the Phase I evaluation were given a single test. However, the database now contained significantly more duplicate images (463, compared to the previous 60), making the test more challenging. === Phase III === Afterwards, the FERET program entered Phase III where another 456 sets of facial images were added to the database. The Phase III evaluation, which took place in September 1996, aimed to not only gauge the progress of the algorithms since the Phase I assessment but also identify the strengths and weaknesses of each algorithm and determine future objectives for research. By the end of 1996, the FERET database had accumulated a total of 14,126 facial images pertaining to 1199 different individuals as well as 365 duplicate sets of images. As a result of the FERET program, researchers were able to establish a common baseline for comparing different face-recognition algorithms and create a large standard database of facial images that is open for research. In 2003, DARPA released a high-resolution, 24-bit color version of the images in the FERET database (existing reference).