The Dodo is an American online publisher focused on animals. The website was launched in January 2014 by Izzie Lerer, the daughter of media executive Kenneth Lerer, and journalist Kerry Lauerman. The Dodo has become one of the most popular Facebook publishers, garnering 1 billion video views from the social network in November 2015. The Dodo is headquartered in New York, New York. == History == The company—named after the first recorded species that humans drove to extinction—was founded by Lerer out of "a personal passion for the subject manner". Lerer has a PhD in animal studies with a focus on animal ethics and human relationships from Columbia University, launching the website after noticing the viral success of animal videos online but seeing no one "really owned the space." The Dodo's editorial and video production staff unionized with the Writers Guild of America, East in April 2018.
Vulnerability assessment (computing)
Vulnerability assessment is a process of defining, identifying and classifying the security holes in information technology systems. An attacker can exploit a vulnerability to violate the security of a system. Some known vulnerabilities are Authentication Vulnerability, Authorization Vulnerability and Input Validation Vulnerability. == Purpose == Before deploying a system, it first must go through from a series of vulnerability assessments that will ensure that the build system is secure from all the known security risks. When a new vulnerability is discovered, the system administrator can again perform an assessment, discover which modules are vulnerable, and start the patch process. After the fixes are in place, another assessment can be run to verify that the vulnerabilities were actually resolved. This cycle of assess, patch, and re-assess has become the standard method for many organizations to manage their security issues. The primary purpose of the assessment is to find the vulnerabilities in the system, but the assessment report conveys to stakeholders that the system is secured from these vulnerabilities. If an intruder gained access to a network consisting of vulnerable Web servers, it is safe to assume that he gained access to those systems as well. Because of assessment report, the security administrator will be able to determine how intrusion occurred, identify compromised assets and take appropriate security measures to prevent critical damage to the system. == Assessment types == Depending on the system a vulnerability assessment can have many types and level. === Host assessment === A host assessment looks for system-level vulnerabilities such as insecure file permissions, application level bugs, backdoor and Trojan horse installations. It requires specialized tools for the operating system and software packages being used, in addition to administrative access to each system that should be tested. Host assessment is often very costly in term of time, and thus is only used in the assessment of critical systems. Tools like COPS and Tiger are popular in host assessment. === Network assessment === In a network assessment one assess the network for known vulnerabilities. It locates all systems on a network, determines what network services are in use, and then analyzes those services for potential vulnerabilities. This process does not require any configuration changes on the systems being assessed. Unlike host assessment, network assessment requires little computational cost and effort. == Vulnerability assessment vs penetration testing == Vulnerability assessment and penetration testing are two different testing methods. They are differentiated on the basis of certain specific parameters. == Regulatory requirements == Vulnerability assessments are mandated or strongly recommended by several regulatory frameworks. In the United States healthcare sector, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Security Rule requires covered entities to conduct periodic evaluations of their security posture, and a December 2024 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking would explicitly require vulnerability scanning at least every six months for systems containing electronic protected health information. The Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI DSS) requires quarterly vulnerability scans for organizations that process credit card transactions, and the NIST Cybersecurity Framework includes vulnerability assessment as a core component of its Identify function.
Top 10 AI Voice Assistants Compared (2026)
Comparing the best AI voice assistant? An AI voice assistant is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it lowers the barrier so anyone can produce professional output. Privacy matters too: check whether your data trains the model and whether a no-log or enterprise tier is available. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI voice assistant slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. Below we compare features, pricing, and real output so you can choose with confidence.
Mehryar Mohri
Mehryar Mohri is a professor and theoretical computer scientist at the Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences. He is also heading the Machine Learning Theory (ML Theory) team at Google Research. == Career == Prior to joining the Courant Institute, Mohri was a research department head and later technology leader at AT&T Bell Labs, where he was a member of the technical staff for about ten years. Mohri has also taught as an assistant professor at the University of Paris 7 (1992-1993) and Ecole Polytechnique (1992-1994). == Research == Mohri's main area of research is machine learning, in particular learning theory. He is also an expert in automata theory and algorithms. He is the author of several core algorithms that have served as the foundation for the design of many deployed speech recognition and natural language processing systems. == Publications == Mohri is the author of the reference book Foundations of Machine Learning used as a textbook in many graduate-level machine learning courses. Mohri is also a member of the Lothaire group of mathematicians with the pseudonym M. Lothaire and contributed to the book on Applied Combinatorics on Words. He is the author of more than 250 conference and journal publications. == Organizational affiliations == Mohri is currently the President of the Association for Algorithmic Learning Theory (AALT) and the Steering Committee Chair for the ALT conference. He is also Editorial Board member of Machine Learning and TheoretiCS, Action Editor of the Journal of Machine Learning Research (JMLR) and a member of the advisory board for the Journal of Automata, Languages and Combinatorics.
Restricted Boltzmann machine
A restricted Boltzmann machine (RBM) (also called a restricted Sherrington–Kirkpatrick model with external field or restricted stochastic Ising–Lenz–Little model) is a generative stochastic artificial neural network that can learn a probability distribution over its set of inputs. RBMs were initially proposed under the name Harmonium by Paul Smolensky in 1986, and rose to prominence after Geoffrey Hinton and collaborators used fast learning algorithms for them in the mid-2000s. RBMs have found applications in dimensionality reduction, classification, collaborative filtering, feature learning, topic modelling, immunology, and even many‑body quantum mechanics. They can be trained in either supervised or unsupervised ways, depending on the task. As their name implies, RBMs are a variant of Boltzmann machines, with the restriction that their neurons must form a bipartite graph: a pair of nodes from each of the two groups of units (commonly referred to as the "visible" and "hidden" units respectively) may have a symmetric connection between them; and there are no connections between nodes within a group. By contrast, "unrestricted" Boltzmann machines may have connections between hidden units. This restriction allows for more efficient training algorithms than are available for the general class of Boltzmann machines, in particular the gradient-based contrastive divergence algorithm. Restricted Boltzmann machines can also be used in deep learning networks. In particular, deep belief networks can be formed by "stacking" RBMs and optionally fine-tuning the resulting deep network with gradient descent and backpropagation. == Structure == The standard type of RBM has binary-valued (Boolean) hidden and visible units, and consists of a matrix of weights W {\displaystyle W} of size m × n {\displaystyle m\times n} . Each weight element ( w i , j ) {\displaystyle (w_{i,j})} of the matrix is associated with the connection between the visible (input) unit v i {\displaystyle v_{i}} and the hidden unit h j {\displaystyle h_{j}} . In addition, there are bias weights (offsets) a i {\displaystyle a_{i}} for v i {\displaystyle v_{i}} and b j {\displaystyle b_{j}} for h j {\displaystyle h_{j}} . Given the weights and biases, the energy of a configuration (pair of Boolean vectors) (v,h) is defined as E ( v , h ) = − ∑ i a i v i − ∑ j b j h j − ∑ i ∑ j v i w i , j h j {\displaystyle E(v,h)=-\sum _{i}a_{i}v_{i}-\sum _{j}b_{j}h_{j}-\sum _{i}\sum _{j}v_{i}w_{i,j}h_{j}} or, in matrix notation, E ( v , h ) = − a T v − b T h − v T W h . {\displaystyle E(v,h)=-a^{\mathrm {T} }v-b^{\mathrm {T} }h-v^{\mathrm {T} }Wh.} This energy function is analogous to that of a Hopfield network. As with general Boltzmann machines, the joint probability distribution for the visible and hidden vectors is defined in terms of the energy function as follows, P ( v , h ) = 1 Z e − E ( v , h ) {\displaystyle P(v,h)={\frac {1}{Z}}e^{-E(v,h)}} where Z {\displaystyle Z} is a partition function defined as the sum of e − E ( v , h ) {\displaystyle e^{-E(v,h)}} over all possible configurations, which can be interpreted as a normalizing constant to ensure that the probabilities sum to 1. The marginal probability of a visible vector is the sum of P ( v , h ) {\displaystyle P(v,h)} over all possible hidden layer configurations, P ( v ) = 1 Z ∑ { h } e − E ( v , h ) {\displaystyle P(v)={\frac {1}{Z}}\sum _{\{h\}}e^{-E(v,h)}} , and vice versa. Since the underlying graph structure of the RBM is bipartite (meaning there are no intra-layer connections), the hidden unit activations are mutually independent given the visible unit activations. Conversely, the visible unit activations are mutually independent given the hidden unit activations. That is, for m visible units and n hidden units, the conditional probability of a configuration of the visible units v, given a configuration of the hidden units h, is P ( v | h ) = ∏ i = 1 m P ( v i | h ) {\displaystyle P(v|h)=\prod _{i=1}^{m}P(v_{i}|h)} . Conversely, the conditional probability of h given v is P ( h | v ) = ∏ j = 1 n P ( h j | v ) {\displaystyle P(h|v)=\prod _{j=1}^{n}P(h_{j}|v)} . The individual activation probabilities are given by P ( h j = 1 | v ) = σ ( b j + ∑ i = 1 m w i , j v i ) {\displaystyle P(h_{j}=1|v)=\sigma \left(b_{j}+\sum _{i=1}^{m}w_{i,j}v_{i}\right)} and P ( v i = 1 | h ) = σ ( a i + ∑ j = 1 n w i , j h j ) {\displaystyle \,P(v_{i}=1|h)=\sigma \left(a_{i}+\sum _{j=1}^{n}w_{i,j}h_{j}\right)} where σ {\displaystyle \sigma } denotes the logistic sigmoid. The visible units of Restricted Boltzmann Machine can be multinomial, although the hidden units are Bernoulli. In this case, the logistic function for visible units is replaced by the softmax function P ( v i k = 1 | h ) = exp ( a i k + Σ j W i j k h j ) Σ k ′ = 1 K exp ( a i k ′ + Σ j W i j k ′ h j ) {\displaystyle P(v_{i}^{k}=1|h)={\frac {\exp(a_{i}^{k}+\Sigma _{j}W_{ij}^{k}h_{j})}{\Sigma _{k'=1}^{K}\exp(a_{i}^{k'}+\Sigma _{j}W_{ij}^{k'}h_{j})}}} where K is the number of discrete values that the visible values have. They are applied in topic modeling, and recommender systems. === Relation to other models === Restricted Boltzmann machines are a special case of Boltzmann machines and Markov random fields. The graphical model of RBMs corresponds to that of factor analysis. == Training algorithm == Restricted Boltzmann machines are trained to maximize the product of probabilities assigned to some training set V {\displaystyle V} (a matrix, each row of which is treated as a visible vector v {\displaystyle v} ), arg max W ∏ v ∈ V P ( v ) {\displaystyle \arg \max _{W}\prod _{v\in V}P(v)} or equivalently, to maximize the expected log probability of a training sample v {\displaystyle v} selected randomly from V {\displaystyle V} : arg max W E [ log P ( v ) ] {\displaystyle \arg \max _{W}\mathbb {E} \left[\log P(v)\right]} The algorithm most often used to train RBMs, that is, to optimize the weight matrix W {\displaystyle W} , is the contrastive divergence (CD) algorithm due to Hinton, originally developed to train PoE (product of experts) models. The algorithm performs Gibbs sampling and is used inside a gradient descent procedure (similar to the way backpropagation is used inside such a procedure when training feedforward neural nets) to compute weight update. The basic, single-step contrastive divergence (CD-1) procedure for a single sample can be summarized as follows: Take a training sample v, compute the probabilities of the hidden units and sample a hidden activation vector h from this probability distribution. Compute the outer product of v and h and call this the positive gradient. From h, sample a reconstruction v' of the visible units, then resample the hidden activations h' from this. (Gibbs sampling step) Compute the outer product of v' and h' and call this the negative gradient. Let the update to the weight matrix W {\displaystyle W} be the positive gradient minus the negative gradient, times some learning rate: Δ W = ϵ ( v h T − v ′ h ′ T ) {\displaystyle \Delta W=\epsilon (vh^{\mathsf {T}}-v'h'^{\mathsf {T}})} . Update the biases a and b analogously: Δ a = ϵ ( v − v ′ ) {\displaystyle \Delta a=\epsilon (v-v')} , Δ b = ϵ ( h − h ′ ) {\displaystyle \Delta b=\epsilon (h-h')} . A Practical Guide to Training RBMs written by Hinton can be found on his homepage. == Stacked Restricted Boltzmann Machine == The difference between the Stacked Restricted Boltzmann Machines and RBM is that RBM has lateral connections within a layer that are prohibited to make analysis tractable. On the other hand, the Stacked Boltzmann consists of a combination of an unsupervised three-layer network with symmetric weights and a supervised fine-tuned top layer for recognizing three classes. The usage of Stacked Boltzmann is to understand Natural languages, retrieve documents, image generation, and classification. These functions are trained with unsupervised pre-training and/or supervised fine-tuning. Unlike the undirected symmetric top layer, with a two-way unsymmetric layer for connection for RBM. The restricted Boltzmann's connection is three-layers with asymmetric weights, and two networks are combined into one. Stacked Boltzmann does share similarities with RBM, the neuron for Stacked Boltzmann is a stochastic binary Hopfield neuron, which is the same as the Restricted Boltzmann Machine. The energy from both Restricted Boltzmann and RBM is given by Gibb's probability measure: E = − 1 2 ∑ i , j w i j s i s j + ∑ i θ i s i {\displaystyle E=-{\frac {1}{2}}\sum _{i,j}{w_{ij}{s_{i}}{s_{j}}}+\sum _{i}{\theta _{i}}{s_{i}}} . The training process of Restricted Boltzmann is similar to RBM. Restricted Boltzmann train one layer at a time and approximate equilibrium state with a 3-segment pass, not performing back propagation. Restricted Boltzmann uses both supervised and unsupervised on different RBM for pre-training for classification and recognition. The training uses contrastive divergence with
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.
Frederick Jelinek
Frederick Jelinek (18 November 1932 – 14 September 2010) was a Czech-American researcher in information theory, automatic speech recognition, and natural language processing. He is well known for his oft-quoted statement, "Every time I fire a linguist, the performance of the speech recognizer goes up". Jelinek was born in Czechoslovakia before World War II and emigrated with his family to the United States in the early years of the communist regime. He studied engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and taught for 10 years at Cornell University before accepting a job at IBM Research. In 1961, he married Czech screenwriter Milena Jelinek. At IBM, his team advanced approaches to computer speech recognition and machine translation. After IBM, he went to head the Center for Language and Speech Processing at Johns Hopkins University for 17 years, where he was still working on the day he died. == Personal life == Jelinek was born on November 18, 1932, as Bedřich Jelínek in Kladno to Vilém and Trude Jelínek. His father was Jewish; his mother was born in Switzerland to Czech Catholic parents and had converted to Judaism. Jelínek senior, a dentist, had planned early to escape Nazi occupation and flee to England; he arranged for a passport, visa, and the shipping of his dentistry materials. The couple planned to send their son to an English private school. However, Vilém decided to stay at the last minute and was eventually sent to the Theresienstadt concentration camp, where he died in 1945. The family was forced to move to Prague in 1941, but Frederick, his sister and mother—thanks to the latter's background—escaped the concentration camps. After the war, Jelinek entered in the gymnasium, despite having missed several years of schooling because education of Jewish children had been forbidden since 1942. His mother, anxious that her son should get a good education, made great efforts for their emigration, especially when it became clear he would not be allowed to even attempt the graduation examination. His mother hoped her son would become a physician, but Jelinek dreamed of being a lawyer. He studied engineering in evening classes at the City College of New York and received stipends from the National Committee for a Free Europe that allowed him to study at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. About his choice of specialty, he said: "Fortunately, to electrical engineering there belonged a discipline whose aim was not the construction of physical systems: the theory of information". He obtained his Ph.D. in 1962, with Robert Fano as his adviser. In 1957, Jelinek paid an unexpected visit to Prague. He had been in Vienna and applied for a visa, hoping to see his former acquaintances again. He met with his old friend Miloš Forman, who introduced him to film student Milena Tobolová—whose screenplay had been the basis for the movie Easy Life (Snadný život). His flight back to the U.S. had a stopover in Munich, during which he called her to propose. Tobolová was considered a dissident and the authorities were not happy with her film. Jelinek asked for help from Jerome Wiesner and Cyrus Eaton, the latter who lobbied Nikita Khrushchev. Following the inauguration of John F. Kennedy, a group of Czech dissidents were allowed to emigrate in January 1961. Thanks to the lobbying, the future Milena Jelinek was one of them. After completing his graduate studies, Jelinek, who had developed an interest in linguistics, had plans to work with Charles F. Hockett at Cornell University. However these fell through and during the next ten years he continued to study information theory. Having previously worked at IBM during a sabbatical, he began full-time work there in 1972—at first on leave for Cornell, but permanently from 1974. He remained there for over twenty years. Although at first he had been offered a regular research job, upon his arrival he learned that Josef Raviv had recently been promoted to head of the newly opened IBM Haifa Research Laboratory, and became head of the Continuous Speech Recognition group at the Thomas J. Watson Research Center. Despite his team's successes in this area, Jelinek's work remained little known in his home country because Czech scientists were not allowed to participate in key conferences. After the 1989 fall of communism, Jelinek helped establish scientific relationships, regularly visiting to lecture and helping to persuade IBM to establish a computing centre at Charles University. In 1993, he retired from IBM and went to Johns Hopkins University's Center for Language and Speech Processing, where he was director and Julian Sinclair Smith Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering. He was still working there at the time of his death; Jelinek died of a heart attack at the close of an otherwise normal workday in mid-September 2010. He was survived by his wife, daughter and son, sister, stepsister, and three grandchildren, including Sophie Gold Jelinek. == Research and legacy == Information theory was a fashionable scientific approach in the mid '50s. However, pioneer Claude Shannon wrote in 1956 that this trendiness was dangerous. He said, "Our fellow scientists in many different fields, attracted by the fanfare and by the new avenues opened to scientific analysis, are using these ideas in their own problems ... It will be all too easy for our somewhat artificial prosperity to collapse overnight when it is realized that the use of a few exciting words like information, entropy, redundancy, do not solve all our problems." During the next decade, a combination of factors shut down the application of information theory to natural language processing (NLP) problems—in particular machine translation. One factor was the 1957 publication of Noam Chomsky's Syntactic Structures, which stated, "probabilistic models give no insight into the basic problems of syntactic structure". This accorded well with the philosophy of the artificial intelligence research of the time, which promoted rule-based approaches. The other factor was the 1966 ALPAC report, which recommended that the government should stop funding research into machine translation. ALPAC chairman John Pierce later said that the field was filled with "mad inventors or untrustworthy engineers". He said that the underlying linguistic problems must be solved before attempts at NLP could be reasonably made. These elements essentially halted research in the field. Jelinek had begun to develop an interest in linguistics after the immigration of his wife, who initially enrolled in the MIT linguistics program with the help of Roman Jakobson. Jelinek often accompanied her to Chomsky's lectures, and even discussed the possibility of changing orientation with his adviser. Fano was "really upset", and after the failure of his project with Hockett at Cornell, he did not return to this field of research until starting work at IBM. The scope of research at IBM was considerably different from that of most other teams. According to Mark Liberman, "While [Jelinek] was leading IBM's effort to solve the general dictation problem during the decade or so following 1972, most other U.S. companies and academic researchers were working on very limited problems ... or were staying out of the field entirely". Jelinek regarded speech recognition as an information theory problem—a noisy channel, in this case the acoustic signal—which some observers considered a daring approach. The concept of perplexity was introduced in their first model, New Raleigh Grammar, which was published in 1976 as the paper "Continuous Speech Recognition by Statistical Methods" in the journal Proceedings of the IEEE. According to Young, the basic noisy channel approach "reduced the speech recognition problem to one of producing two statistical models". Whereas New Raleigh Grammar was a hidden Markov model, their next model, called Tangora, was broader and involved n-grams, specifically trigrams. Even though "it was obvious to everyone that this model was hopelessly impoverished", it was not improved upon until Jelinek presented another paper in 1999. The same trigram approach was applied to phones in single words. Although the identification of parts of speech turned out not to be very useful for speech recognition, tagging methods developed during these projects are now used in various NLP applications. The incremental research techniques developed at IBM eventually became dominant in the field after DARPA, in the mid-80s, returned to NLP research and imposed that methodology to participating teams, shared common goals, data, and precise evaluation metrics. The Continuous Speech Recognition Group's research, which required large amounts of data to train the algorithms, eventually led to the creation of the Linguistic Data Consortium. In the 1980s, although the broader problem of speech recognition remained unsolved, they sought to apply the methods developed to other problems; machine translat