Grammatik was the first grammar-checking program for home computers. Aspen Software of Albuquerque, NM, released the earliest version of this diction and style checker for personal computers. It was first released no later than 1981, and was inspired by the Writer's Workbench. Grammatik was first available for the TRS-80, and soon had versions for CP/M and the IBM PC. Reference Software International of San Francisco, California, acquired Grammatik in 1985. Development of Grammatik continued, and it became an actual grammar checker that could detect writing errors beyond simple style checking. Subsequent versions were released for MS-DOS, Windows, Macintosh, and Unix. Grammatik was ultimately acquired by WordPerfect Corporation and is integrated into the WordPerfect word processor.
Deductive language
A deductive language is a computer programming language in which the program is a collection of predicates ('facts') and rules that connect them. Such a language is used to create knowledge based systems or expert systems which can deduce answers to problem sets by applying the rules to the facts they have been given. An example of a deductive language is Prolog, or its database-query cousin, Datalog. == History == As the name implies, deductive languages are rooted in the principles of deductive reasoning; making inferences based upon current knowledge. The first recommendation to use a clausal form of logic for representing computer programs was made by Cordell Green (1969) at Stanford Research Institute (now SRI International). This idea can also be linked back to the battle between procedural and declarative information representation in early artificial intelligence systems. Deductive languages and their use in logic programming can also be dated to the same year when Foster and Elcock introduced Absys, the first deductive/logical programming language. Shortly after, the first Prolog system was introduced in 1972 by Colmerauer through collaboration with Robert Kowalski. == Components == The components of a deductive language are a system of formal logic and a knowledge base upon which the logic is applied. === Formal Logic === Formal logic is the study of inference in regards to formal content. The distinguishing feature between formal and informal logic is that in the former case, the logical rule applied to the content is not specific to a situation. The laws hold regardless of a change in context. Although first-order logic is described in the example below to demonstrate the uses of a deductive language, no formal system is mandated and the use of a specific system is defined within the language rules or grammar. As input, a predicate takes any object(s) in the domain of interest and outputs either one of two Boolean values: true or false. For example, consider the sentences "Barack Obama is the 44th president" and "If it rains today, I will bring an umbrella". The first is a statement with an associated truth value. The second is a conditional statement relying on the value of some other statement. Either of these sentences can be broken down into predicates which can be compared and form the knowledge base of a deductive language. Moreover, variables such as 'Barack Obama' or 'president' can be quantified over. For example, take 'Barack Obama' as variable 'x'. In the sentence "There exists an 'x' such that if 'x' is the president, then 'x' is the commander in chief." This is an example of the existential quantifier in first order logic. Take 'president' to be the variable 'y'. In the sentence "For every 'y', 'y' is the leader of their nation." This is an example of the universal quantifier. === Knowledge Base === A collection of 'facts' or predicates and variables form the knowledge base of a deductive language. Depending on the language, the order of declaration of these predicates within the knowledge base may or may not influence the result of applying logical rules. Upon application of certain 'rules' or inferences, new predicates may be added to a knowledge base. As new facts are established or added, they form the basis for new inferences. As the core of early expert systems, artificial intelligence systems which can make decisions like an expert human, knowledge bases provided more information than databases. They contained structured data, with classes, subclasses, and instances. == Prolog == Prolog is an example of a deductive, declarative language that applies first- order logic to a knowledge base. To run a program in Prolog, a query is posed and based upon the inference engine and the specific facts in the knowledge base, a result is returned. The result can be anything appropriate from a new relation or predicate, to a literal such as a Boolean (true/false), depending on the engine and type system.
F-score
In statistical analysis of binary classification and information retrieval systems, the F-score or F-measure is a measure of predictive performance. It is calculated from the precision and recall of the test, where the precision is the number of true positive results divided by the number of all samples predicted to be positive, including those not identified correctly, and the recall is the number of true positive results divided by the number of all samples that should have been identified as positive. Precision is also known as positive predictive value, and recall is also known as sensitivity in diagnostic binary classification. The F1 score is the harmonic mean of the precision and recall. It thus symmetrically represents both precision and recall in one metric. The more generic F β {\displaystyle F_{\beta }} score applies additional weights, valuing one of precision or recall more than the other. The highest possible value of an F-score is 1.0, indicating perfect precision and recall, and the lowest possible value is 0, if the precision or the recall is zero. == Etymology == The name F-measure is believed to be named after a different F function in Van Rijsbergen's book, when introduced to the Fourth Message Understanding Conference (MUC-4, 1992). == Definition == The traditional F-measure or balanced F-score (F1 score) is the harmonic mean of precision and recall: F 1 = 2 r e c a l l − 1 + p r e c i s i o n − 1 = 2 p r e c i s i o n ⋅ r e c a l l p r e c i s i o n + r e c a l l = 2 T P 2 T P + F P + F N {\displaystyle F_{1}={\frac {2}{\mathrm {recall} ^{-1}+\mathrm {precision} ^{-1}}}=2{\frac {\mathrm {precision} \cdot \mathrm {recall} }{\mathrm {precision} +\mathrm {recall} }}={\frac {2\mathrm {TP} }{2\mathrm {TP} +\mathrm {FP} +\mathrm {FN} }}} With precision = TP / (TP + FP) and recall = TP / (TP + FN), it follows that the numerator of F1 is the sum of their numerators and the denominator of F1 is the sum of their denominators. If FP=FN F 1 = 2 T P 2 T P + 2 F P = T P T P + F P {\displaystyle F_{1}={\frac {2\mathrm {TP} }{2\mathrm {TP} +2\mathrm {FP} }}={\frac {\mathrm {TP} }{\mathrm {TP} +\mathrm {FP} }}} or F 1 = 2 T P 2 T P + 2 F N = T P T P + F N {\displaystyle F_{1}={\frac {2\mathrm {TP} }{2\mathrm {TP} +2\mathrm {FN} }}={\frac {\mathrm {TP} }{\mathrm {TP} +\mathrm {FN} }}} So, F1 = precision = recall If TP=FP=FN F 1 = 2 T P 2 T P + 2 F P = 2 T P 4 T P = 1 2 = 0.5 {\displaystyle F_{1}={\frac {2\mathrm {TP} }{2\mathrm {TP} +2\mathrm {FP} }}={\frac {2\mathrm {TP} }{4\mathrm {TP} }}={\frac {1}{2}}=0.5} or F 1 = 2 T P 2 T P + 2 F N = 2 T P 4 T P = 1 2 = 0.5 {\displaystyle F_{1}={\frac {2\mathrm {TP} }{2\mathrm {TP} +2\mathrm {FN} }}={\frac {2\mathrm {TP} }{4\mathrm {TP} }}={\frac {1}{2}}=0.5} To see it as a harmonic mean, note that F 1 − 1 = 1 2 ( r e c a l l − 1 + p r e c i s i o n − 1 ) {\displaystyle F_{1}^{-1}={\frac {1}{2}}(\mathrm {recall} ^{-1}+\mathrm {precision} ^{-1})} . === Fβ score === A more general F score, F β {\displaystyle F_{\beta }} , that uses a positive real factor β {\displaystyle \beta } , where β {\displaystyle \beta } is chosen such that recall is considered β {\displaystyle \beta } times as important as precision, is: F β = β 2 + 1 ( β 2 ⋅ r e c a l l − 1 ) + p r e c i s i o n − 1 = ( 1 + β 2 ) ⋅ p r e c i s i o n ⋅ r e c a l l ( β 2 ⋅ p r e c i s i o n ) + r e c a l l {\displaystyle F_{\beta }={\frac {\beta ^{2}+1}{(\beta ^{2}\cdot \mathrm {recall} ^{-1})+\mathrm {precision} ^{-1}}}={\frac {(1+\beta ^{2})\cdot \mathrm {precision} \cdot \mathrm {recall} }{(\beta ^{2}\cdot \mathrm {precision} )+\mathrm {recall} }}} To see that as a weighted harmonic mean, note that F β − 1 = 1 β + β − 1 ( β ⋅ r e c a l l − 1 + β − 1 ⋅ p r e c i s i o n − 1 ) {\displaystyle F_{\beta }^{-1}={\frac {1}{\beta +\beta ^{-1}}}(\beta \cdot \mathrm {recall} ^{-1}+\beta ^{-1}\cdot \mathrm {precision} ^{-1})} . In terms of Type I and type II errors this becomes: F β = ( 1 + β 2 ) ⋅ T P ( 1 + β 2 ) ⋅ T P + β 2 ⋅ F N + F P = ( 1 + β 2 ) ⋅ T P ( T P + F N ) ⋅ β 2 + ( T P + F P ) {\displaystyle F_{\beta }={\frac {(1+\beta ^{2})\cdot \mathrm {TP} }{(1+\beta ^{2})\cdot \mathrm {TP} +\beta ^{2}\cdot \mathrm {FN} +\mathrm {FP} }}\,={\frac {(1+\beta ^{2})\cdot \mathrm {TP} }{(\mathrm {TP} +\mathrm {FN} )\cdot \beta ^{2}+(\mathrm {TP} +\mathrm {FP} )}}\,} Two commonly used values for β {\displaystyle \beta } are 2, which weighs recall higher than precision, and 1/2, which weighs recall lower than precision. The F-measure was derived so that F β {\displaystyle F_{\beta }} "measures the effectiveness of retrieval with respect to a user who attaches β {\displaystyle \beta } times as much importance to recall as precision". It is based on Van Rijsbergen's effectiveness measure E = 1 − ( α p + 1 − α r ) − 1 {\displaystyle E=1-\left({\frac {\alpha }{p}}+{\frac {1-\alpha }{r}}\right)^{-1}} Their relationship is: F β = 1 − E {\displaystyle F_{\beta }=1-E} where α = 1 1 + β 2 {\displaystyle \alpha ={\frac {1}{1+\beta ^{2}}}} == Diagnostic testing == This is related to the field of binary classification where recall is often termed "sensitivity". == Dependence of the F-score on class imbalance == Precision-recall curve, and thus the F β {\displaystyle F_{\beta }} score, explicitly depends on the ratio r {\displaystyle r} of positive to negative test cases. This means that comparison of the F-score across different problems with differing class ratios is problematic. One way to address this issue (see e.g., Siblini et al., 2020) is to use a standard class ratio r 0 {\displaystyle r_{0}} when making such comparisons. == Applications == The F-score is often used in the field of information retrieval for measuring search, document classification, and query classification performance. It is particularly relevant in applications which are primarily concerned with the positive class and where the positive class is rare relative to the negative class. Earlier works focused primarily on the F1 score, but with the proliferation of large scale search engines, performance goals changed to place more emphasis on either precision or recall and so F β {\displaystyle F_{\beta }} is seen in wide application. The F-score is also used in machine learning. However, the F-measures do not take true negatives into account, hence measures such as the Matthews correlation coefficient, Informedness or Cohen's kappa may be preferred to assess the performance of a binary classifier. The F-score has been widely used in the natural language processing literature, such as in the evaluation of named entity recognition and word segmentation. == Properties == The F1 score is the Dice coefficient of the set of retrieved items and the set of relevant items. The F1-score of a classifier which always predicts the positive class converges to 1 as the probability of the positive class increases. The F1-score of a classifier which always predicts the positive class is equal to 2 proportion_of_positive_class / ( 1 + proportion_of_positive_class ), since the recall is 1, and the precision is equal to the proportion of the positive class. If the scoring model is uninformative (cannot distinguish between the positive and negative class) then the optimal threshold is 0 so that the positive class is always predicted. F1 score is concave in the true positive rate. == Criticism == David Hand and others criticize the widespread use of the F1 score since it gives equal importance to precision and recall. In practice, different types of mis-classifications incur different costs. In other words, the relative importance of precision and recall is an aspect of the problem. According to Davide Chicco and Giuseppe Jurman, the F1 score is less truthful and informative than the Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC) in binary evaluation classification. David M W Powers has pointed out that F1 ignores the True Negatives and thus is misleading for unbalanced classes, while kappa and correlation measures are symmetric and assess both directions of predictability - the classifier predicting the true class and the true class predicting the classifier prediction, proposing separate multiclass measures Informedness and Markedness for the two directions, noting that their geometric mean is correlation. Another source of critique of F1 is its lack of symmetry. It means it may change its value when dataset labeling is changed - the "positive" samples are named "negative" and vice versa. This criticism is met by the P4 metric definition, which is sometimes indicated as a symmetrical extension of F1. Finally, Ferrer and Dyrland et al. argue that the expected cost (or its counterpart, the expected utility) is the only principled metric for evaluation of classification decisions, having various advantages over the F-score and the MCC. Both works show that the F-score can result in wrong conclusions about the absolute and relative quality of systems. == Difference from Fowlkes–Mallows index == While the F-measur
Powerset construction
In the theory of computation and automata theory, the powerset construction or subset construction is a standard method for converting a nondeterministic finite automaton (NFA) into a deterministic finite automaton (DFA) that recognizes the same formal language. It is important in theory because it establishes that NFAs, despite their additional flexibility, are unable to recognize any language that cannot be recognized by some DFA. It is also important in practice for converting easier-to-construct NFAs into more efficiently executable DFAs. However, if the NFA has n states, the resulting DFA may have up to 2n states, an exponentially larger number, which sometimes makes the construction impractical for large NFAs. The construction, sometimes called the Rabin–Scott powerset construction (or subset construction) to distinguish it from similar constructions for other types of automata, was first published by Michael O. Rabin and Dana Scott in 1959. == Intuition == To simulate the operation of a DFA on a given input string, one needs to keep track of a single state at any time: the state that the automaton will reach after seeing a prefix of the input. In contrast, to simulate an NFA, one needs to keep track of a set of states: all of the states that the automaton could reach after seeing the same prefix of the input, according to the nondeterministic choices made by the automaton. If, after a certain prefix of the input, a set S of states can be reached, then after the next input symbol x the set of reachable states is a deterministic function of S and x. Therefore, the sets of reachable NFA states play the same role in the NFA simulation as single DFA states play in the DFA simulation, and in fact the sets of NFA states appearing in this simulation may be re-interpreted as being states of a DFA. == Construction == The powerset construction applies most directly to an NFA that does not allow state transformations without consuming input symbols (aka: "ε-moves"). Such an automaton may be defined as a 5-tuple (Q, Σ, T, q0, F), in which Q is the set of states, Σ is the set of input symbols, T is the transition function (mapping a state and an input symbol to a set of states), q0 is the initial state, and F is the set of accepting states. The corresponding DFA has states corresponding to subsets of Q. The initial state of the DFA is {q0}, the (one-element) set of initial states. The transition function of the DFA maps a state S (representing a subset of Q) and an input symbol x to the set T(S,x) = ∪{T(q,x) | q ∈ S}, the set of all states that can be reached by an x-transition from a state in S. A state S of the DFA is an accepting state if and only if at least one member of S is an accepting state of the NFA. In the simplest version of the powerset construction, the set of all states of the DFA is the powerset of Q, the set of all possible subsets of Q. However, many states of the resulting DFA may be useless as they may be unreachable from the initial state. An alternative version of the construction creates only the states that are actually reachable. === NFA with ε-moves === For an NFA with ε-moves (also called an ε-NFA), the construction must be modified to deal with these by computing the ε-closure of states: the set of all states reachable from some given state using only ε-moves. Van Noord recognizes three possible ways of incorporating this closure computation in the powerset construction: Compute the ε-closure of the entire automaton as a preprocessing step, producing an equivalent NFA without ε-moves, then apply the regular powerset construction. This version, also discussed by Hopcroft and Ullman, is straightforward to implement, but impractical for automata with large numbers of ε-moves, as commonly arise in natural language processing application. During the powerset computation, compute the ε-closure { q ′ | q → ε ∗ q ′ } {\displaystyle \{q'~|~q\to _{\varepsilon }^{}q'\}} of each state q that is considered by the algorithm (and cache the result). During the powerset computation, compute the ε-closure { q ′ | ∃ q ∈ Q ′ , q → ε ∗ q ′ } {\displaystyle \{q'~|~\exists q\in Q',q\to _{\varepsilon }^{}q'\}} of each subset of states Q' that is considered by the algorithm, and add its elements to Q'. === Multiple initial states === If NFAs are defined to allow for multiple initial states, the initial state of the corresponding DFA is the set of all initial states of the NFA, or (if the NFA also has ε-moves) the set of all states reachable from initial states by ε-moves. == Example == The NFA below has four states; state 1 is initial, and states 3 and 4 are accepting. Its alphabet consists of the two symbols 0 and 1, and it has ε-moves. The initial state of the DFA constructed from this NFA is the set of all NFA states that are reachable from state 1 by ε-moves; that is, it is the set {1,2,3}. A transition from {1,2,3} by input symbol 0 must follow either the arrow from state 1 to state 2, or the arrow from state 3 to state 4. Additionally, neither state 2 nor state 4 have outgoing ε-moves. Therefore, T({1,2,3},0) = {2,4}, and by the same reasoning the full DFA constructed from the NFA is as shown below. As can be seen in this example, there are five states reachable from the start state of the DFA; the remaining 11 sets in the powerset of the set of NFA states are not reachable. == Complexity == Because the DFA states consist of sets of NFA states, an n-state NFA may be converted to a DFA with at most 2n states. For every n, there exist n-state NFAs such that every subset of states is reachable from the initial subset, so that the converted DFA has exactly 2n states, giving Θ(2n) worst-case time complexity. A simple example requiring nearly this many states is the language of strings over the alphabet {0,1} in which there are at least n characters, the nth from last of which is 1. It can be represented by an (n + 1)-state NFA, but it requires 2n DFA states, one for each n-character suffix of the input; cf. picture for n=4. == Applications == Brzozowski's algorithm for DFA minimization uses the powerset construction, twice. It converts the input DFA into an NFA for the reverse language, by reversing all its arrows and exchanging the roles of initial and accepting states, converts the NFA back into a DFA using the powerset construction, and then repeats its process. Its worst-case complexity is exponential, unlike some other known DFA minimization algorithms, but in many examples it performs more quickly than its worst-case complexity would suggest. Safra's construction, which converts a non-deterministic Büchi automaton with n states into a deterministic Muller automaton or into a deterministic Rabin automaton with 2O(n log n) states, uses the powerset construction as part of its machinery.
AI Headshot Generators Reviews: What Actually Works in 2026
Looking for the best AI headshot generator? An AI headshot generator is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it can save you hours every week by automating repetitive work. Most options offer a generous free tier, with paid plans unlocking higher limits, faster processing, and team features. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI headshot generator slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. Read on for hands-on impressions, pricing tiers, and the standout features that matter.
Dental AI
Dental artificial intelligence (Dental AI) refers to the application of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine-learning methods to oral healthcare data. These systems can be used to find patterns or make predictions that can aid in diagnosis, treatment, patient communication, or practice management. == History and development == Research into AI for dentistry dates to the 1990s and 2000s, alongside early CAD/CAM and image-analysis work in dental radiology. Recent developments in deep learning, especially those involving computer vision, such as convolutional neural networks, trained on large image datasets, led to a rapid improvement in performance, as well as a move from prototype technology to productization suitable for use in dental chairs. Dental schools and continuing education programs started incorporating AI content in the 2020s. == Definition and core technologies == The dental AI software accomplishes this task by using various dental images and patient data. Dental images and data used by the dental AI software include bitewing and periapical X-rays, complete mouth X-rays, detailed 3D images, intraoral images, and the patient’s medical history. The dental AI software utilizes several core technologies in accomplishing its task of assisting the dentist. First, the dental AI software utilizes machine learning and deep learning using programs that can learn from examples. Such programs are referred to as convolutional neural network (CNN) and can detect cavities and identify bone changes related to gum disease. The dental AI software utilizes computer vision, which enables the AI software to identify and quantify important features in images and data, whether they are 2D images or 3D images. Natural language processing (NLP) is used for the AI software to understand written text and can automatically generate dental notes and communicate with the patient. Furthermore, the dental AI software utilizes predictive analytics to identify patients that are more prone to dental complications and can suggest the best intervals for checkups or future dental procedures. == Applications in dentistry == Reported clinical and operational applications include diagnostic assistance for caries and periodontal disease, treatment planning assistance, patient education overlays, quality assurance, curriculum assistance for dental education, and claims documentation. Systematic reviews continue to find image-based applications such as caries detection with some variability in study design and a need for prospective validation. == Academic research and clinical validation == Several peer-reviewed studies have measured the effectiveness of AI for applications such as interproximal caries detection and periodontal bone level assessment, showing improvements over unaided readings with a focus on bias within the dataset. The Dental AI Council found variability among clinicians for diagnosis and treatment planning, suggesting the use of a standard tool as an assist. == Industry adoption == Multiple vendors offer FDA-cleared chairside AI for dental imaging: Pearl — Received U.S. FDA 510(k) clearance for its real-time radiologic aid (“Second Opinion”) in 2022 (2D), with subsequent clearances including pediatric and CBCT (“Second Opinion 3D”). TIME gave “Second Opinion” a special mention on its Best Inventions of 2022 list. Overjet — FDA-cleared for bone-level quantification and detection/outline of caries and calculus (e.g., K210187), with additional clearances expanding capabilities. VideaHealth — Received an FDA 510(k) covering 30+ detections across common dental findings (K232384), including indications for patients ages 3 and up; trade coverage has described elements of this as the first pediatric dental-AI clearance. == Regulations == In the U.S., AI-enabled dental imaging software is generally reviewed via the FDA’s 510(k) pathway. The FDA maintains a public AI-Enabled Medical Devices List, which includes numerous medical-imaging AI tools (including dental). Specific dental clearances include Overjet (K210187), VideaHealth (K232384), and Pearl entries such as “Second Opinion 3D” (K243989).
Frank Hutter
Frank Hutter is a German computer scientist recognized for his contributions to machine learning, particularly in the areas of automated machine learning (AutoML), hyperparameter optimization, meta-learning and tabular machine learning. He is currently a Hector-Endowed Fellow and PI at the ELLIS Institute Tübingen and a Full Professor (W3) for Machine Learning at the Department of Computer Science, University of Freiburg. Hutter is known for his role in establishing AutoML as a key area in artificial intelligence research. == Education and academic career == Frank Hutter received his academic training in computer science at Darmstadt University of Technology, where he completed his Vordiplom (comparable to a BSc) and Hauptdiplom (equivalent to MSc) by 2004. He later pursued his PhD at the University of British Columbia, under the supervision of Profs. Holger Hoos, Kevin Leyton-Brown and Kevin Murphy, where his doctoral thesis, titled "Automated Configuration of Algorithms for Solving Hard Computational Problems," was awarded the CAIAC Doctoral Dissertation Award for the best thesis in Artificial Intelligence completed at a Canadian university in 2009. Hutter did his postdoctoral research at the University of British Columbia, where he worked from 2009 to 2013. In 2013, he moved to the University of Freiburg, initially leading an Emmy Noether Research Group, and in 2017, he was appointed as a Full Professor. His contributions to machine learning have been recognized globally, particularly his work in AutoML and hyperparameter optimization. Overall, Hutter has authored over 180 peer-reviewed publications, which have garnered more than 89,000 citations, reflecting the high impact of his work. == Contributions in AutoML == Hutter's early research laid the groundwork for the field of Automated Machine Learning (AutoML). He has been a key figure in establishing AutoML as a distinct research area. Along with various colleagues, he organized the AutoML workshops from 2014 to 2021, wrote the first book on AutoML and taught the first MOOC on AutoML. He also co-founded the AutoML conference in 2022 and served as its general chair the first two years. He also published prominent works in various subfields of AutoML, such as hyperparameter optimization, neural architecture search, meta-Learning and AutoML systems. He is currently the most highly cited researcher in AutoML. == Contributions in machine learning for tabular data == Hutter has also made many contributions to machine learning for tabular data. He led the development of the first widely adopted AutoML system for tabular data, AutoWEKA, which was published at KDD 2013 and received the test of time award at KDD (2023). Subsequently, he led the development of Auto-sklearn, the first highly used AutoML system for tabular data in Python, and with it, won the first international AutoML challenge and the subsequent second international AutoML challenge, both of which only included tabular data. More recently, he focused on tabular foundation models, including TabPFN, which was published in Nature magazine. In 2024, he also co-founded Prior Labs, the first company focusing on tabular foundation models. == Awards and honors == Hutter has received numerous awards throughout his career. In 2023, he won the KDD Test of Time Award for Research together with Chris Thornton, Holger H. Hoos, and Kevin Leyton-Brown. He has received three grants from the ERC, including the ERC Starting Grant (2016) and ERC Consolidator Grant (2022), as well as an ERC Proof of Concept Grant (2020). In 2021, he became an ELLIS Unit Director and was also recognized as a EurAI Fellow, in addition to receiving the AIJ Prominent Paper Award. Earlier, he was a recipient of the Google Faculty Research Award in 2018. His groundbreaking research was acknowledged early in his career with the IJCAI Distinguished Paper Award in 2013 and the IJCAI/JAIR Best Paper Prize in 2010. == Representative publications == Hutter, F. Kotthoff, L. and Vanschoren, J., editors. Automated machine learning: methods, systems, challenges, Springer Nature, 2019. www.automl.org/book. Feurer, M., Klein, A., Eggensperger, K., Springenberg, T., Blum, M., Hutter, F. Efficient and Robust Automated Machine Learning. In NeurIPS 2015. Loshchilov, I., and Hutter, F. Decoupled weight decay regularization. In ICLR 2018. Zela, A., Elsken, T. ,Saikia, T. ,Marrakschi, Y. ,Brox, T. and Hutter. ,F.Understanding and Robustifying Differentiable Architecture Search. In ICLR 2020. Hollmann, N., Müller, S., Eggensperger, K. and Hutter, F. TabPFN: A Transformer That Solves Small Tabular Classification Problems in a Second, In ICLR 2023.