Attention inequality is the inequality of distribution of attention across users on social networks, people in general, and for scientific papers. Yun Family Foundation introduced "Attention Inequality Coefficient" as a measure of inequality in attention and arguments it by the close interconnection with wealth inequality. == Relationship to economic inequality == Attention inequality is related to economic inequality since attention is an economically scarce good. The same measures and concepts as in classical economy can be applied for attention economy. The relationship develops also beyond the conceptual level—considering the AIDA process, attention is the prerequisite for real monetary income on the Internet. On data of 2018, a significant relationship between likes and comments on Facebook to donations is proven for non-profit organizations. == Attention economy == The attention economy refers to the practice of maximizing the attention users give to a product for advertising-related reasons. Attention economy remains one of the most common forms of advertising, and has been steadily increasing thanks to new technologies such as television, internet and social media. It is one of the most widely-used approaches to economy for its effectiveness for maximising the noticeability of a certain product. == Attention inequality in social media == In social media, attention inequality refers to the unequal distribution of users' attention on social media platforms. This means that instead of an equal distribution of attention, fewer sources receive a disproportionate share of attention, leaving many unnoticed. This phenomenon is possibly the result of social media algorithms, which are commonly designed to drive maximum engagement. This phenomenon is a large factor in the polarization and creation of echo-chambers. Social media algorithms tend to note content that is already performing well and display it to more users, while content that is equally engaging or well-made is not recommended to users. Posts that trigger strong emotions usually out-perform more "uncontroversial" content. When many users interact with the post, it signals the algorithm that the specific post drives engagement. The algorithm then tends to recommend that type of content to an exponential number of people, potentially outperforming "un-emotional" content. These factors, when combined, tend to create an unequal social media environment. == Attention inequality in science == According to a recent 2025 study about research inequality among scientists published in Information Processing and Management, scientific discourse is restricted to a small group of connected scientists, and is frequently not an accurate representation of the whole scientific community. Using citation-network analysis in the fields of nanoscience and chemical physics, the study claims that a group of connected scientists has a significant notability in the scientific community. The calculated connection strength between these scientists is estimated to be about 4.5, the study also says that these authors cite each other four times more often than would be predicted in a random network, whereas ordinary scientists that exist outside of this group only reach an estimated connection strength of 0.9. The study findings suggest that that scientific attention is not distributed by merit, but rather by the connectedness of the scientists involved in the research. == Extent == As data of 2008 shows, 50% of the attention is concentrated on approximately 0.2% of all hostnames, and 80% on 5% of hostnames. The Gini coefficient of attention distribution lay in 2008 at over 0.921 for such commercial domains names as ac.jp and at 0.985 for .org-domains. The Gini coefficient was measured on Twitter in 2016 for the number of followers as 0.9412, for the number of mentions as 0.9133, and for the number of retweets as 0.9034. For comparison, the world's income Gini coefficient was 0.68 in 2005 and 0.904 in 2018. More than 96% of all followers, 93% of the retweets, and 93% of all mentions are owned by 20% of Twitter. == Causes == At least for scientific papers, today's consensus states that inequality is unexplainable by variations of quality and individual talent. The Matthew effect plays a significant role in the emergence of attention inequality—those who already enjoy large amounts of attention get even more attention, and those who do not lose even more. Ranking algorithms based on relevance to the user have been found to alleviate the inequality of the number of posts across topics.
Smart data capture
Smart data capture (SDC), also known as 'intelligent data capture' or 'automated data capture', describes the branch of technology concerned with using computer vision techniques like optical character recognition (OCR), barcode scanning, object recognition and other similar technologies to extract and process information from semi-structured and unstructured data sources. IDC characterize smart data capture as an integrated hardware, software, and connectivity strategy to help organizations enable the capture of data in an efficient, repeatable, scalable, and future-proof way. Data is captured visually from barcodes, text, IDs and other objects - often from many sources simultaneously - before being converted and prepared for digital use, typically by artificial intelligence-powered software. An important feature of SDC is that it focuses not just on capturing data more efficiently but serving up easy-to-access, actionable insights at the instant of data collection to both frontline and desk-based workers, aiding decision-making and making it a two-way process. Smart data capture automates and accelerates capture, applying insights in real time and automating processes based on extracted input. Smart data capture is designed to be repeatable and scalable to reduce low-level manual tasks and eliminate human error. To achieve this goal, smart data capture solutions are often made available using specialist software installed on commodity hardware such as smartphones. However, some solutions may rely on specialized hardware such as dedicated scanning devices, wearables or shop floor robots. == Differences from OCR == Optical character recognition applications are typically concerned with the actual data capture process; they are intended to faithfully reproduce text, words, letters and symbols from a printed document. Smart data capture is multimodal, capable of extracting data from a wider range of semi-structured and unstructured sources, going beyond basic text recognition to offer a wider scope of applications. By extending functionality to provide actionable insights at the point of capture, SDC is also a two-way process (capture-display), while OCR is more commonly one-way (capture only), primarily used for data input. Smart data capture solutions typically have two parts: Data capture (which includes OCR, barcode scanning, object recognition) Functionality that then uses this data to provide actionable insights at the point of capture. == Applications == Smart data capture can be applied to almost any industry and application that requires visual information capture and interpretation. This may include: Retail Warehouse inventory control Logistics, handling and shipping Manufacturing Field service Healthcare Transport and travel Fraud detection
Pronunciation assessment
Automatic pronunciation assessment uses computer speech recognition to determine how accurately speech has been pronounced, instead of relying on a human instructor or proctor. It is also called speech verification, pronunciation evaluation, and pronunciation scoring. This technology is used to grade speech quality, for language testing, for computer-aided pronunciation teaching (CAPT) in computer-assisted language learning (CALL), for speaking skill remediation, and for accent reduction. Pronunciation assessment is different from dictation or automatic transcription, because instead of determining unknown speech, it verifies learners' pronunciation of known word(s), often from prior transcription of the same utterance; ideally scoring the intelligibility of the learners' speech. Sometimes pronunciation assessment evaluates the prosody of the learners' speech, such as intonation, pitch, tempo, rhythm, and syllable and word stress, although those are usually not essential for being understood in most languages. Pronunciation assessment is also used in reading tutoring, for example in products from Google, Microsoft, and Amira Learning. Automatic pronunciation assessment can also be used to help diagnose and treat speech disorders such as apraxia. == Intelligibility == Intelligibility refers to how well a learner's utterance is understood by a listener, rather than how much it sounds like a native speaker. This is separate from measures of fluency, such as so-called "Goodness of Pronunciation" (GoP) scores, which estimate how closely an utterance aligns with those of native speakers. Intelligibility is widely regarded as the most important communicative goal in pronunciation teaching and assessment. For example, in the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) assessment criteria for "overall phonological control", intelligibility outweighs formally correct pronunciation at all levels. Studies in applied linguistics have shown that accent reduction does not always increase intelligibility because listeners can often comprehend heavily accented speech without difficulty. Pronunciation assessment systems often rely on acoustic methods such as GoP which compare learner speech to reference models to produce phoneme-level scores, which are in turn aggregated to produce word and phrase scores. While these methods are effective for identifying deviations from native speakers' utterances, they do not effectively measure how understandable speech is to human listeners. Intelligibility is influenced by broader linguistic and contextual factors such as stress placement, speech rate, and coarticulation, which are not represented in purely segmental scores. The earliest work on pronunciation assessment avoided measuring genuine listener intelligibility, a shortcoming corrected in 2011 at the Toyohashi University of Technology, and included in the Versant high-stakes English fluency assessment from Pearson and mobile apps from 17zuoye Education & Technology, but still missing in 2023 products from Google Search, Microsoft, Educational Testing Service, Speechace, and ELSA. Assessing authentic listener intelligibility is essential for avoiding inaccuracies from accent bias, especially in high-stakes assessments; from words with multiple correct pronunciations; and from phoneme coding errors in machine-readable pronunciation dictionaries. In 2022, researchers found that some newer speech-to-text systems, based on end-to-end reinforcement learning to map audio signals directly into words, produce word and phrase confidence scores (from 10-25ms audio frame logit aggregation) closely correlated with genuine listener intelligibility. Others have been able to assess intelligibility using Levenshtein or dynamic time warping distance measures from Wav2Vec2 representation of good speech. Further work through 2025 has focused specifically on measuring intelligibility. A 2025 study of 42 pronunciation and speech coaching apps (32 mobile and 10 web) found that none offered intelligibility assessment. Instead, most provided only segmental and accent-focused scoring. About two-thirds of the apps provided some form of specific pronunciation feedback, usually with phonetic transcriptions, but accompanied by visual cues (such as animations of the vocal tract or the lips and tongue from the front) in only about 5% of the apps. Less than a third provided feedback on learner perception of exemplar speech. == Evaluation == Although there are as yet no industry-standard benchmarks for evaluating pronunciation assessment accuracy, researchers occasionally release evaluation speech corpuses for others to use for improving assessment quality. Such evaluation databases often emphasize formally unaccented pronunciation to the exclusion of genuine intelligibility evident from blinded listener transcriptions. As of mid-2025, state of the art approaches for automatically transcribing phonemes typically achieve an error rate of about 10% from known good speech. The International Speech Communication Association (ISCA) 2025 Workshop on Speech and Language Technology in Education (SLaTE) administered a Speak & Improve Challenge: Spoken Language Assessment and Feedback, introducing benchmarks for evaluating pronunciation assessment and remediation systems across languages, accents, and learner populations. The challenge emphasized cross-lingual generalization and alignment with human intelligibility judgments, for more robust and interpretable assessment systems. Ethical issues in pronunciation assessment are present in both human and automatic methods. Authentic validity, fairness, and mitigating bias in evaluation are all crucial. Diverse speech data should be included in automatic pronunciation assessment models. Combining human judgments, especially blinded transcriptions from a wide diversity of listeners, with automated feedback can improve accuracy and fairness. Second language learners benefit substantially from their use of widely available speech recognition systems for dictation, virtual assistants, and AI chatbots. In such systems, users naturally try to correct their own errors evident in speech recognition results that they notice. Such use improves their grammar and vocabulary development along with their pronunciation skills. The extent to which explicit pronunciation assessment and remediation approaches improve on such self-directed interactions remains an open question. Similarly, automatic dictation results have been shown to reflect intelligibility about as well as human scorers. == Recent developments == During 2021–22, a smartphone-based CAPT system was used to sense articulation through both audible and inaudible signals, providing feedback at the phoneme level. Some promising areas for improvement which were being developed in 2024 include articulatory feature extraction and transfer learning to suppress unnecessary corrections. Other interesting advances under development include "augmented reality" interfaces for mobile devices using optical character recognition to provide pronunciation training on text found in user environments. In 2024, audio multimodal large language models were first described as assessing pronunciation. That work has been carried forward by other researchers in 2025 who report positive results. Subsequently, researchers demonstrated pronunciation scoring by providing a language model with textual descriptions of speech, including the speech-to-text transcript, phoneme sequences, pauses, and phoneme sequence matching; this approach can achieve performance similar to multimodal LLMs that analyze raw audio while avoiding their higher computational cost. In 2025, the Duolingo English Test authors published a description of their pronunciation assessment method, purportedly built to measure intelligibility rather than accent imitation. While achieving a correlation of 0.82 with expert human ratings, very close to inter-rater agreement and outperforming alternative methods, the method is nonetheless based on experts' scores along the six-point CEFR common reference levels scale, instead of actual blinded listener transcriptions. Further promising work in 2025 includes assessment feedback aligning learner speech to synthetic utterances using interpretable features, identifying continuous spans of words for remediation feedback; synthesizing corrected speech matching learners' self-perceived voices, which they prefer and imitate more accurately as corrections; and streaming such interactions. On January 21, 2026, Educational Testing Service's TOEFL iBT high-stakes English language test, required by US university admissions and employers from English as a foreign language applicants more often than all other internet-based tests combined, changed its speaking assessments. While official rubrics claim that the new scoring will be based primarily on intelligibility, the new test's technical description indicates that it ju
Fred (chatbot)
Fred, or FRED, was an early chatbot written by Robby Garner. == History == The name Fred was initially suggested by Karen Lindsey, and then Robby jokingly came up with an acronym, "Functional Response Emulation Device." Fred has also been implemented as a Java application by Paco Nathan called JFRED Archived 2008-08-24 at the Wayback Machine. Fred Chatterbot is designed to explore Natural Language communications between people and computer programs. In particular, this is a study of conversation between people and ways that a computer program can learn from other people's conversations to make its own conversations. Fred used a minimalistic "stimulus-response" approach. It worked by storing a database of statements and their responses, and made its own reply by looking up the input statements made by a user and then rendering the corresponding response from the database. This approach simplified the complexity of the rule base, but required expert coding and editing for modifications. Fred was a predecessor to Albert One, which Garner used in 1998 and 1999 to win the Loebner Prize.
Inverse consistency
In image registration, inverse consistency measures the consistency of mappings between images produced by a registration algorithm. The inverse consistency error, introduced by Christiansen and Johnson in 2001, quantifies the distance between the composition of the mappings from each image to the other, produced by the registration procedure, and the identity function, and is used as a regularisation constraint in the loss function of many registration algorithms to enforce consistent mappings. Inverse consistency is necessary for good image registration but it is not sufficient, since a mapping can be perfectly consistent but not register the images at all. == Definition == Image registration is the process of establishing a common coordinate system between two images, and given two images I 1 : Ω 1 → R I 2 : Ω 2 → R {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}I_{1}:\Omega _{1}\to \mathbb {R} \\I_{2}:\Omega _{2}\to \mathbb {R} \end{aligned}}} registering a source image I 1 {\displaystyle I_{1}} to a target image I 2 {\displaystyle I_{2}} consists of determining a transformation f 1 : Ω 2 → Ω 1 {\displaystyle f_{1}:\Omega _{2}\to \Omega _{1}} that maps points from the target space to the source space. An ideal registration algorithm should not be sensitive to which image in the pair is used as source or target, and the registration operator should be antisymmetric such that the mappings f 1 : Ω 2 → Ω 1 f 2 : Ω 1 → Ω 2 {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}f_{1}:\Omega _{2}\to \Omega _{1}\\f_{2}:\Omega _{1}\to \Omega _{2}\end{aligned}}} produced when registering I 1 {\displaystyle I_{1}} to I 2 {\displaystyle I_{2}} and I 2 {\displaystyle I_{2}} to I 1 {\displaystyle I_{1}} respectively should be the inverse of each other, i.e. f 2 = f 1 − 1 {\displaystyle f_{2}=f_{1}^{-1}} and f 1 = f 2 − 1 {\displaystyle f_{1}=f_{2}^{-1}} or, equivalently, f 2 ∘ f 1 = id Ω 2 {\displaystyle f_{2}\circ f_{1}=\operatorname {id} _{\Omega _{2}}} and f 1 ∘ f 2 = id Ω 1 {\displaystyle f_{1}\circ f_{2}=\operatorname {id} _{\Omega _{1}}} , where ∘ {\displaystyle \circ } denotes the function composition operator. Real algorithms are not perfect, and when swapping the role of source and target image in a registration problem the so obtained transformations are not the inverse of each other. Inverse consistency can be enforced by adding to the loss function of the registration a symmetric regularisation term that penalises inconsistent transformations ∫ Ω 2 ‖ f 2 ( f 1 ( x ) ) − x ‖ 2 d x + ∫ Ω 1 ‖ f 1 ( f 2 ( x ) ) − x ‖ 2 d x . {\displaystyle \int _{\Omega _{2}}\left\Vert f_{2}(f_{1}(x))-x\right\Vert ^{2}\mathrm {d} x+\int _{\Omega _{1}}\left\Vert f_{1}(f_{2}(x))-x\right\Vert ^{2}\mathrm {d} x.} Inverse consistency can be used as a quality metric to evaluate image registration results. The inverse consistency error ( I C E {\displaystyle ICE} ) measures the distance between the composition of the two transforms and the identity function, and it can be formulated in terms of both average ( I C E a {\displaystyle ICE_{a}} ) or maximum ( I C E m {\displaystyle ICE_{m}} ) over a region of interest Ω {\displaystyle \Omega } of the image: I C E a = 1 ∫ Ω d x ∫ Ω ‖ f 2 ( f 1 ( x ) ) − x ‖ d x I C E m = max x ∈ Ω ‖ f 2 ( f 1 ( x ) ) − x ‖ . {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}ICE_{a}&={\frac {1}{\int _{\Omega }\mathrm {d} x}}\int _{\Omega }\left\Vert f_{2}(f_{1}(x))-x\right\Vert \mathrm {d} x\\ICE_{m}&=\max _{x\in \Omega }\left\Vert f_{2}(f_{1}(x))-x\right\Vert .\end{aligned}}} While inverse consistency is a necessary property of good registration algorithms, inverse consistency error alone is not a sufficient metric to evaluate the quality of image registration results, since a perfectly consistent mapping, with no other constraint, may be not even close to correctly register a pair of images.
Depth peeling
In computer graphics, depth peeling is an exact multipass method of order-independent transparency that extracts transparent fragments into depth layers and composites those layers in depth order. Depth peeling has the advantage of being able to generate correct results even for complex images containing intersecting transparent objects. == Method == Depth peeling works by rendering the image multiple times. Depth peeling uses two Z buffers, one that works conventionally, and one that is not modified, and sets the minimum distance at which a fragment can be drawn without being discarded. For each pass, the previous pass' conventional Z-buffer is used as the minimal Z-buffer, so each pass removes already-captured nearer fragments and draws the next depth layer behind them. The resulting images can then be composited in depth order to form a single image. A major drawback of classical depth peeling is performance: it requires one geometry pass per peeled layer, so scenes with high depth complexity require many passes that each re-rasterize the transparent geometry. Later variants reduce the number of passes by peeling multiple layers or both front and back layers in a pass. Dual depth peeling reduces the geometry-pass count from N to N/2+1 by peeling one layer from the front and one from the back in each pass, while multi-layer depth peeling peels several layers per pass and reported up to an 8x speed-up in RGBA8 settings.
Computational photography
Computational photography refers to digital image capture and processing techniques that use digital computation instead of optical processes. Computational photography can improve the capabilities of a camera, or introduce features that were not possible at all with film-based photography, or reduce the cost or size of camera elements. Examples of computational photography include in-camera computation of digital panoramas, high-dynamic-range images, and light field cameras. Light field cameras use novel optical elements to capture three-dimensional scene information, which can then be used to produce 3D images, enhanced depth-of-field, and selective de-focusing (or "post focus"). Enhanced depth-of-field reduces the need for mechanical focusing systems. All of these features use computational imaging techniques. The definition of computational photography has evolved to cover a number of subject areas in computer graphics, computer vision, and applied optics. These areas are given below, organized according to a taxonomy proposed by Shree K. Nayar. Within each area is a list of techniques, and for each technique, one or two representative papers or books are cited. Deliberately omitted from the taxonomy are image processing (see also digital image processing) techniques applied to traditionally captured images to produce better images. Examples of such techniques are image scaling, dynamic range compression (i.e. tone mapping), color management, image completion (a.k.a. inpainting or hole filling), image compression, digital watermarking, and artistic image effects. Also omitted are techniques that produce range data, volume data, 3D models, 4D light fields, 4D, 6D, or 8D BRDFs, or other high-dimensional image-based representations. Epsilon photography is a sub-field of computational photography. == Effect on photography == Photos taken using computational photography can allow amateurs to produce photographs rivalling the quality of professional photographers, but as of 2019 do not outperform the use of professional-level equipment. == Computational illumination == This is controlling photographic illumination in a structured fashion, then processing the captured images, to create new images. The applications include image-based relighting, image enhancement, image deblurring, geometry/material recovery and so forth. High-dynamic-range imaging uses differently exposed pictures of the same scene to extend dynamic range. Other examples include processing and merging differently illuminated images of the same subject matter ("lightspace"). == Computational optics == This is a capture of optically coded images, followed by computational decoding to produce new images. Coded aperture imaging was mainly applied in astronomy and X-ray imaging to boost the image quality. Instead of a single pin-hole, a pinhole pattern is applied in imaging, and deconvolution is performed to recover the image. In coded exposure imaging, the on/off state of the shutter is coded to modify the kernel of motion blur. In this way, motion deblurring becomes a well-conditioned problem. Similarly, in a lens based coded aperture, the aperture can be modified by inserting a broadband mask. Thus, out of focus deblurring becomes a well-conditioned problem. The coded aperture can also improve the quality in light field acquisition using Hadamard transform optics. Coded aperture patterns can also be designed using color filters, in order to apply different codes at different wavelengths. This allows for increase the amount of light that reaches the camera sensor, compared to binary masks. == Computational imaging == Computational imaging is a set of imaging techniques that combine data acquisition and data processing to create the image of an object through indirect means to yield enhanced resolution, additional information such as optical phase or 3D reconstruction. The information is often recorded without using a conventional optical microscope configuration or with limited datasets. Computational imaging allows going beyond physical limitations of optical systems, such as numerical aperture, or even obliterates the need for optical elements. For parts of the optical spectrum where imaging elements such as objectives are difficult to manufacture or image sensors cannot be miniaturized, computational imaging provides useful alternatives, in fields such as X-ray and THz radiations. === Common techniques === Among common computational imaging techniques are lensless imaging, computational speckle imaging , ptychography and Fourier ptychography. Computational imaging technique often draws on compressive sensing or phase retrieval techniques, where the angular spectrum of the object is reconstructed. Other techniques are related to the field of computational imaging, such as digital holography, computer vision and inverse problems such as tomography. == Computational processing == This is the processing of non-optically-coded images to produce new images. == Computational sensors == These are detectors that combine sensing and processing, typically in hardware, like the oversampled binary image sensor. == Early work in computer vision == Although computational photography is a currently popular buzzword in computer graphics, many of its techniques first appeared in the computer vision literature, either under other names or within papers aimed at 3D shape analysis. == Art history == Computational photography, as an art form, has been practiced by capturing differently exposed pictures of the same subject matter and combining them. This was the inspiration for the development of the wearable computer in the 1970s and early 1980s. Computational photography was inspired by the work of Charles Wyckoff, and thus computational photography datasets (e.g. differently exposed pictures of the same subject matter that are taken in order to make a single composite image) are sometimes referred to as Wyckoff Sets, in his honor. Early work in this area (joint estimation of image projection and exposure value) was undertaken by Mann and Candoccia. Charles Wyckoff devoted much of his life to creating special kinds of 3-layer photographic films that captured different exposures of the same subject matter. A picture of a nuclear explosion, taken on Wyckoff's film, appeared on the cover of Life Magazine and showed the dynamic range from the dark outer areas to the inner core.