Language and Computers

Language and Computers: Studies in Practical Linguistics (ISSN 0921-5034) is a book series on corpus linguistics and related areas. As studies in linguistics, volumes in the series have, by definition, their foundations in linguistic theory; however, they are not concerned with theory for theory's sake, but always with a definite direct or indirect interest in the possibilities of practical application in the dynamic area where language and computers meet. The book series was founded in 1988, and is published by Brill|Rodopi. == Editors == Christian Mair Charles F. Meyer == Volumes == Volumes include: # 77. English Corpus Linguistics: Variation in Time, Space and Genre. Selected papers from ICAME 32., Edited by Gisle Andersen and Kristin Bech. ISBN 978-90-420-3679-6 E-ISBN 978-94-012-0940-3 # 76. English Corpus Linguistics: Crossing Paths., Edited by Merja Kytö. ISBN 978-90-420-3518-8 E-ISBN 978-94-012-0793-5 # 75. Corpus Linguistics and Variation in English.Theory and Description., Edited by Joybrato Mukherjee and Magnus Huber. ISBN 978-90-420-3495-2 E-ISBN 978-94-012-0771-3 # 74. English Corpus Linguistics: Looking back, Moving forward. Papers from the 30th International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora (ICAME 30), Lancaster, UK, 27–31 May 2009., Edited by Sebastian Hoffmann, Paul Rayson and Geoffrey Leech. ISBN 978-90-420-3466-2 E-ISBN 978-94-012-0747-8 #73. Corpus-based Studies in Language Use, Language Learning, and Language Documentation., Edited by John Newman, Harald Baayen and Sally Rice. ISBN 978-90-420-3401-3 E-ISBN 978-94-012-0688-4 #72. The Progressive in Modern English. A Corpus-Based Study of Grammaticalization and Related Changes., by Svenja Kranich. ISBN 978-90-420-3143-2 E-ISBN 978-90-420-3144-9 #71. Corpus-linguistic applications. Current studies, new directions, Edited by Stefan Th. Gries, Stefanie Wulff, and Mark Davies.. ISBN 978-90-420-2800-5 #70. A resource-light approach to morpho-syntactic tagging., by Anna Feldman and Jirka Hana. ISBN 978-90-420-2768-8 #69. Corpus Linguistics. Refinements and Reassessments., Edited by Antoinette Renouf and Andrew Kehoe. ISBN 978-90-420-2597-4 #68. Corpora: Pragmatics and Discourse. Papers from the 29th International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora (ICAME 29). Ascona, Switzerland, 14–18 May 2008., Edited by Andreas H. Jucker, Daniel Schreier and Marianne Hundt. ISBN 978-90-420-2592-9 #67. Modals and Quasi-modals in English., by Peter Collins. ISBN 978-90-420-2532-5 #66. Linking up contrastive and learner corpus research., Edited by Gaëtanelle Gilquin, Szilvia Papp and María Belén Díez-Bedmar. ISBN 978-90-420-2446-5 #64. Language, People, Numbers. Corpus Linguistics and Society., Edited by Andrea Gerbig and Oliver Mason. ISBN 978-90-420-2350-5 #63. Variation and change in the lexicon. A corpus-based analysis of adjectives in English ending in –ic and –ical. , by Mark Kaunisto. ISBN 978-90-420-2233-1 #62. Corpus Linguistics 25 Years on., Edited by Roberta Facchinetti. ISBN 978-90-420-2195-2 #61. Corpora in the Foreign Language Classroom. Selected papers from the Sixth International Conference on Teaching and Language Corpora (TaLC 6), Edited by Encarnación Hidalgo, Luis Quereda and Juan Santana. ISBN 978-90-420-2142-6 #60. Corpus Linguistics Beyond the Word. Corpus Research from Phrase to Discourse, Edited by Eileen Fitzpatrick. ISBN 978-90-420-2135-8 #59. Corpus Linguistics and the Web., Edited by Marianne Hundt, Nadja Nesselhauf and Carolin Biewer. ISBN 978-90-420-2128-0 #58. English mediopassive constructions. A cognitive, corpus-based study of their origin, spread, and current status, by Marianne Hundt. ISBN 978-90-420-2127-3 / ISBN 90-420-2127-6

AI content watermarking

AI content watermarking is the process of embedding imperceptible yet detectable signals into content generated by artificial intelligence systems, such as text, images, audio, or video. The technique allows the content to be traced and identified as machine-generated without compromising its quality for the end user. AI watermarking has emerged as a key approach to address growing concerns about misinformation, deepfakes, copyright infringement, and the traceability of synthetic content in the context of the rapid development of generative artificial intelligence. Unlike traditional visible watermarks used in photography, AI content watermarks are typically invisible to humans and can only be detected and deciphered algorithmically. The concept is distinct from the watermarking of AI models themselves (to prevent model theft) and from the watermarking of training data (to combat unauthorized data use). Modern AI watermarking schemes are typically formalized as a pair of algorithms, an embedding (or generation) algorithm and a detection algorithm, sharing a secret key, whose performance is evaluated along three competing axes: quality (the watermark must not noticeably degrade outputs), detectability (the watermark must be statistically distinguishable from unwatermarked content), and robustness (the watermark must persist under adversarial or incidental modifications). == Background == Digital watermarking has been used for decades to protect physical and digital media, from paper currency to photographs. Classical schemes typically embedded a fixed bit-string into a fixed cover signal, with robustness criteria defined against a small fixed set of distortions such as JPEG compression or additive Gaussian noise. The rapid advancement of generative AI in the early 2020s, however, created a new and qualitatively different demand: rather than protecting a single artifact, watermarks for AI content must be embedded automatically across an open-ended distribution of generated outputs while remaining robust to a much wider class of adversarial transformations, including paraphrasing, image regeneration via diffusion models, and re-recording. Large image generation models such as DALL-E, Stable Diffusion, and Midjourney, along with large language models like ChatGPT, made it possible to produce highly realistic synthetic text, images, audio, and video at scale, raising significant ethical and security concerns. In July 2023, the Biden administration secured voluntary commitments from leading AI companies, including OpenAI, Alphabet, Meta, and Amazon, to develop watermarking and other provenance technologies to help users identify AI-generated content. == Formal definitions and design goals == Most modern AI watermarking schemes can be formalized as a pair of algorithms ( W m , D e t e c t ) {\displaystyle ({\mathsf {Wm}},{\mathsf {Detect}})} parameterized by a secret key k {\displaystyle k} . The embedding algorithm W m {\displaystyle {\mathsf {Wm}}} takes a generative model M {\displaystyle M} (and optionally a prompt) and returns a watermarked output x {\displaystyle x} ; the detection algorithm D e t e c t ( x , k ) {\displaystyle {\mathsf {Detect}}(x,k)} outputs a real-valued score (typically a p-value or log-likelihood ratio) used to decide whether x {\displaystyle x} was produced by the watermarked generator. The literature evaluates such schemes along several largely conflicting criteria: Criteria for evaluation include imperceptibility or quality preservation, measured for text via perplexity and human preference judgments, and for images and audio via metrics such as PSNR, SSIM, LPIPS, or PESQ. Detectability is typically expressed as the true positive rate at a fixed false positive rate (e.g. 1% or 10^-6), or as the number of tokens or pixels needed to reach a given confidence level. Robustness refers to the requirement that the watermark should survive expected modifications like JPEG or MP3 compression, cropping, noise, paraphrasing, or machine translation. Distortion-freeness is a stronger property requiring that the marginal distribution of any single watermarked output be statistically identical to the unwatermarked model's distribution. Schemes due to Aaronson, Christ et al., and Kuditipudi et al. are distortion-free in this sense, while the original Kirchenbauer et al. scheme is not. Forgery resistance or unforgeability means an adversary without the secret key should be unable to produce content that passes detection. == Techniques == AI watermarking techniques vary significantly depending on the type of content being watermarked. At its core, the process involves two main stages: embedding (or encoding) the watermark, and detection. There are two primary methods for embedding: watermarking during content generation, which requires access to the AI model itself but is generally more robust, and post-generation watermarking, which can be applied to content from any source, including closed-source models. Watermarks can be broadly classified as visible, including overt marks such as logos or text overlays, or imperceptible, which are detectable only by algorithms. They can also be classified by durability: robust watermarks are designed to withstand common transformations such as compression, cropping, and re-encoding, while fragile watermarks are easily destroyed by any alteration, making them useful for tamper detection. A further axis distinguishes zero-bit watermarks, which only signal "this content was generated by model M," from multi-bit watermarks, which embed an arbitrary payload (such as a user identifier) that can be recovered at detection time. === Text === Text watermarking is considered one of the most challenging modalities because natural language offers relatively limited redundancy compared to images or audio. Modern approaches for large language models alter the autoregressive sampling process so that some statistical signature is left in the choice of tokens, while leaving the surface form of the text unchanged. The literature distinguishes three main families of generation-time text watermarks. Logit-biasing schemes (e.g. KGW) add a fixed bias δ {\displaystyle \delta } to a pseudorandomly selected subset of vocabulary logits before softmax sampling. Reweighting or sampling-based schemes (e.g. SynthID-Text) compose multiple pseudorandom tournaments over the model's full distribution. Distortion-free schemes based on the Gumbel-max trick or inverse transform sampling (Aaronson 2022; Kuditipudi et al. 2023; Christ et al. 2024) preserve the marginal output distribution of the model. ==== KGW: token-probability shifting ==== The pioneering "green list / red list" scheme of Kirchenbauer et al. (KGW), introduced at ICML 2023, is the foundation for most subsequent text watermarks. At each decoding step t {\displaystyle t} , a pseudorandom function (PRF) keyed by a secret k {\displaystyle k} is applied to a context window of h {\displaystyle h} previous tokens to deterministically partition the vocabulary V {\displaystyle V} of size N {\displaystyle N} into a "green list" G ⊂ V {\displaystyle G\subset V} of size γ N {\displaystyle \gamma N} and its complement, the "red list" R = V ∖ G {\displaystyle R=V\setminus G} , where γ ∈ ( 0 , 1 ) {\displaystyle \gamma \in (0,1)} (typically γ = 1 / 2 {\displaystyle \gamma =1/2} ) is the green fraction. A logits processor then increments every green-list logit by a fixed bias δ > 0 {\displaystyle \delta >0} before softmax: ℓ v ′ = ℓ v + δ ⋅ 1 [ v ∈ G ] {\displaystyle \ell '_{v}=\ell _{v}+\delta \cdot \mathbf {1} [v\in G]} so that, after sampling, green tokens are over-represented but generation is not constrained to green tokens alone; high-entropy positions tolerate the bias gracefully, while low-entropy positions (where one token dominates the logits) override the watermark and preserve correctness on factual content. Detection requires only the secret key and the candidate text, not the language model itself. The detector recomputes the partition g ( ⋅ ) {\displaystyle g(\cdot )} for each token, counts the number of green hits | G | hits {\displaystyle |G|_{\text{hits}}} in a sequence of length T {\displaystyle T} , and computes a one-proportion z-test statistic: z = | G | hits − γ T T γ ( 1 − γ ) {\displaystyle z={\frac {|G|_{\text{hits}}-\gamma T}{\sqrt {T\gamma (1-\gamma )}}}} Under the null hypothesis that the text was written by an unwatermarked source (human or another model), the green-hit count is approximately binomially distributed with mean γ T {\displaystyle \gamma T} ; a large positive z {\displaystyle z} rejects the null hypothesis. The original paper reports that fewer than 25 watermarked tokens are sufficient to detect a watermark with a false positive rate below 10^-5 on the OPT-1.3B model. A follow-up study by the same group documented robustness under temperature sampling, top-p (nucleus) sampling, and human paraphrasing, and proposed sliding-window

Collostructional analysis

Collostructional analysis is a family of methods developed by (in alphabetical order) Stefan Th. Gries (University of California, Santa Barbara) and Anatol Stefanowitsch (Free University of Berlin). Collostructional analysis aims at measuring the degree of attraction or repulsion that words exhibit to constructions, where the notion of construction has so far been that of Goldberg's construction grammar. == Collostructional methods == Collostructional analysis so far comprises three different methods: collexeme analysis, to measure the degree of attraction/repulsion of a lemma to a slot in one particular construction; distinctive collexeme analysis, to measure the preference of a lemma to one particular construction over another, functionally similar construction; multiple distinctive collexeme analysis extends this approach to more than two alternative constructions; covarying collexeme analysis, to measure the degree of attraction of lemmas in one slot of a construction to lemmas in another slot of the same construction. == Input frequencies == Collostructional analysis requires frequencies of words and constructions and is similar to a wide variety of collocation statistics. It differs from raw frequency counts by providing not only observed co-occurrence frequencies of words and constructions, but also (i) a comparison of the observed frequency to the one expected by chance; thus, collostructional analysis can distinguish attraction and repulsion of words and constructions; (ii) a measure of the strength of the attraction or repulsion; this is usually the log-transformed p-value of a Fisher-Yates exact test. == Versus other collocation statistics == Collostructional analysis differs from most collocation statistics such that (i) it measures not the association of words to words, but of words to syntactic patterns or constructions; thus, it takes syntactic structure more seriously than most collocation-based analyses; (ii) it has so far only used the most precise statistics, namely the Fisher-Yates exact test based on the hypergeometric distribution; thus, unlike t-scores, z-scores, chi-square tests etc., the analysis is not based on, and does not violate, any distributional assumptions.

AI Website Builders Reviews: What Actually Works in 2026

Trying to pick the best AI website builder? An AI website builder is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it scales effortlessly from a single task to thousands. The best picks balance beginner-friendly simplicity with the depth power users need, and they ship updates often. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI website builder slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. Read on for hands-on impressions, pricing tiers, and the standout features that matter.

HFST

Helsinki Finite-State Technology (HFST) is a computer programming library and set of utilities for natural language processing with finite-state automata and finite-state transducers. It is free and open-source software, released under a mix of the GNU General Public License version 3 (GPLv3) and the Apache License. == Features == The library functions as an interchanging interface to multiple backends, such as OpenFST, foma and SFST. The utilities comprise various compilers, such as hfst-twolc (a compiler for morphological two-level rules), hfst-lexc (a compiler for lexicon definitions) and hfst-regexp2fst (a regular expression compiler). Functions from Xerox's proprietary scripting language xfst is duplicated in hfst-xfst, and the pattern matching utility pmatch in hfst-pmatch, which goes beyond the finite-state formalism in having recursive transition networks (RTNs). The library and utilities are written in C++, with an interface to the library in Python and a utility for looking up results from transducers ported to Java and Python. Transducers in HFST may incorporate weights depending on the backend. For performing FST operations, this is currently only possible via the OpenFST backend. HFST provides two native backends, one designed for fast lookup (hfst-optimized-lookup), the other for format interchange. Both of them can be weighted. == Uses == HFST has been used for writing various linguistic tools, such as spell-checkers, hyphenators, and morphologies. Morphological dictionaries written in other formalisms have also been converted to HFST's formats.

Zo (chatbot)

Zo was an English-language chatbot developed by Microsoft as the successor to the chatbot Tay. Zo was an English version of Microsoft's other successful chatbots Xiaoice (China) and Rinna (Japan) and its predecessor Tay(English) == History == Zo was first launched in December 2016 on the Kik Messenger app. It was also available to users of Facebook (via Messenger), the group chat platform GroupMe, or to followers of Twitter to chat with it through private messages. According to an article written in December 2016, at that time Zo held the record for Microsoft's longest continual chatbot conversation: 1,229 turns, lasting 9 hours and 53 minutes. In a BuzzFeed News report, Zo told their reporter that "[the] Quran was violent" when talking about healthcare. The report also highlighted how Zo made a comment about the Osama bin Laden capture as a result of 'intelligence' gathering. In July 2017, Business Insider asked "is windows 10 good", and Zo replied with a joke about Microsoft's operating system: "'Its not a bug, its a feature!' - Windows 8". They then asked "why?", to which Zo replied: "Because it's Windows latest attempt at Spyware." Later on, Zo would tell that it prefers Windows 7 on which it ran over Windows 10. Zo stopped posting to Instagram, Twitter and Facebook March 1, 2019, and stopped chatting on Twitter, Skype and Kik as of March 7, 2019. On July 19, 2019, Zo was discontinued on Facebook, and Samsung on AT&T phones. As of September 7, 2019, it was discontinued with GroupMe. == Reception == Zo came under criticism for the biases introduced in an effort to avoid potentially offensive subjects. The chatbot refuses, for example, to engage with any mention—be it positive, negative or neutral—of the Middle East, the Qur'an or the Torah, while allowing discussion of Christianity. In an article in Quartz where she exposed those biases, Chloe Rose Stuart-Ulin wrote, "Zo is politically correct to the worst possible extreme; mention any of her triggers, and she transforms into a judgmental little brat." == Academic coverage == Schlesinger, A., O'Hara, K.P. and Taylor, A.S., 2018, April. Let's talk about race: Identity, chatbots, and AI. In Proceedings of the 2018 chi conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1–14). doi:10.1145/3173574.3173889 Medhi Thies, I., Menon, N., Magapu, S., Subramony, M. and O’neill, J., 2017. How do you want your chatbot? An exploratory Wizard-of-Oz study with young, urban Indians. In Human-Computer Interaction-INTERACT 2017: 16th IFIP TC 13 International Conference, Mumbai, India, September 25–29, 2017, Proceedings, Part I 16 (pp. 441–459). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-67744-6_28

Probabilistic context-free grammar

In theoretical linguistics and computational linguistics, probabilistic context free grammars (PCFGs) extend context-free grammars, similar to how hidden Markov models extend regular grammars. Each production is assigned a probability. The probability of a derivation (parse) is the product of the probabilities of the productions used in that derivation. These probabilities can be viewed as parameters of the model, and for large problems it is convenient to learn these parameters via machine learning. A probabilistic grammar's validity is constrained by context of its training dataset. PCFGs originated from grammar theory, and have application in areas as diverse as natural language processing to the study the structure of RNA molecules and design of programming languages. Designing efficient PCFGs has to weigh factors of scalability and generality. Issues such as grammar ambiguity must be resolved. The grammar design affects results accuracy. Grammar parsing algorithms have various time and memory requirements. == Definitions == Derivation: The process of recursive generation of strings from a grammar. Parsing: Finding a valid derivation using an automaton. Parse Tree: The alignment of the grammar to a sequence. An example of a parser for PCFG grammars is the pushdown automaton. The algorithm parses grammar nonterminals from left to right in a stack-like manner. This brute-force approach is not very efficient. In RNA secondary structure prediction variants of the Cocke–Younger–Kasami (CYK) algorithm provide more efficient alternatives to grammar parsing than pushdown automata. Another example of a PCFG parser is the Stanford Statistical Parser which has been trained using Treebank. == Formal definition == Similar to a CFG, a probabilistic context-free grammar G can be defined by a quintuple: G = ( M , T , R , S , P ) {\displaystyle G=(M,T,R,S,P)} where M is the set of non-terminal symbols T is the set of terminal symbols R is the set of production rules S is the start symbol P is the set of probabilities on production rules == Relation with hidden Markov models == PCFGs models extend context-free grammars the same way as hidden Markov models extend regular grammars. The Inside-Outside algorithm is an analogue of the Forward-Backward algorithm. It computes the total probability of all derivations that are consistent with a given sequence, based on some PCFG. This is equivalent to the probability of the PCFG generating the sequence, and is intuitively a measure of how consistent the sequence is with the given grammar. The Inside-Outside algorithm is used in model parametrization to estimate prior frequencies observed from training sequences in the case of RNAs. Dynamic programming variants of the CYK algorithm find the Viterbi parse of a RNA sequence for a PCFG model. This parse is the most likely derivation of the sequence by the given PCFG. == Grammar construction == Context-free grammars are represented as a set of rules inspired from attempts to model natural languages. The rules are absolute and have a typical syntax representation known as Backus–Naur form. The production rules consist of terminal { a , b } {\displaystyle \left\{a,b\right\}} and non-terminal S symbols and a blank ϵ {\displaystyle \epsilon } may also be used as an end point. In the production rules of CFG and PCFG the left side has only one nonterminal whereas the right side can be any string of terminal or nonterminals. In PCFG nulls are excluded. An example of a grammar: S → a S , S → b S , S → ϵ {\displaystyle S\to aS,S\to bS,S\to \epsilon } This grammar can be shortened using the '|' ('or') character into: S → a S | b S | ϵ {\displaystyle S\to aS|bS|\epsilon } Terminals in a grammar are words and through the grammar rules a non-terminal symbol is transformed into a string of either terminals and/or non-terminals. The above grammar is read as "beginning from a non-terminal S the emission can generate either a or b or ϵ {\displaystyle \epsilon } ". Its derivation is: S ⇒ a S ⇒ a b S ⇒ a b b S ⇒ a b b {\displaystyle S\Rightarrow aS\Rightarrow abS\Rightarrow abbS\Rightarrow abb} Ambiguous grammar may result in ambiguous parsing if applied on homographs since the same word sequence can have more than one interpretation. Pun sentences such as the newspaper headline "Iraqi Head Seeks Arms" are an example of ambiguous parses. One strategy of dealing with ambiguous parses (originating with grammarians as early as Pāṇini) is to add yet more rules, or prioritize them so that one rule takes precedence over others. This, however, has the drawback of proliferating the rules, often to the point where they become difficult to manage. Another difficulty is overgeneration, where unlicensed structures are also generated. Probabilistic grammars circumvent these problems by ranking various productions on frequency weights, resulting in a "most likely" (winner-take-all) interpretation. As usage patterns are altered in diachronic shifts, these probabilistic rules can be re-learned, thus updating the grammar. Assigning probability to production rules makes a PCFG. These probabilities are informed by observing distributions on a training set of similar composition to the language to be modeled. On most samples of broad language, probabilistic grammars where probabilities are estimated from data typically outperform hand-crafted grammars. CFGs when contrasted with PCFGs are not applicable to RNA structure prediction because while they incorporate sequence-structure relationship they lack the scoring metrics that reveal a sequence structural potential == Weighted context-free grammar == A weighted context-free grammar (WCFG) is a more general category of context-free grammar, where each production has a numeric weight associated with it. The weight of a specific parse tree in a WCFG is the product (or sum ) of all rule weights in the tree. Each rule weight is included as often as the rule is used in the tree. A special case of WCFGs are PCFGs, where the weights are (logarithms of ) probabilities. An extended version of the CYK algorithm can be used to find the "lightest" (least-weight) derivation of a string given some WCFG. When the tree weight is the product of the rule weights, WCFGs and PCFGs can express the same set of probability distributions. == Applications == === RNA structure prediction === Since the 1990s, PCFG has been applied to model RNA structures. Energy minimization and PCFG provide ways of predicting RNA secondary structure with comparable performance. However structure prediction by PCFGs is scored probabilistically rather than by minimum free energy calculation. PCFG model parameters are directly derived from frequencies of different features observed in databases of RNA structures rather than by experimental determination as is the case with energy minimization methods. The types of various structure that can be modeled by a PCFG include long range interactions, pairwise structure and other nested structures. However, pseudoknots can not be modeled. PCFGs extend CFG by assigning probabilities to each production rule. A maximum probability parse tree from the grammar implies a maximum probability structure. Since RNAs preserve their structures over their primary sequence, RNA structure prediction can be guided by combining evolutionary information from comparative sequence analysis with biophysical knowledge about a structure plausibility based on such probabilities. Also search results for structural homologs using PCFG rules are scored according to PCFG derivations probabilities. Therefore, building grammar to model the behavior of base-pairs and single-stranded regions starts with exploring features of structural multiple sequence alignment of related RNAs. S → a S a | b S b | a a | b b {\displaystyle S\to aSa|bSb|aa|bb} The above grammar generates a string in an outside-in fashion, that is the basepair on the furthest extremes of the terminal is derived first. So a string such as a a b a a b a a {\displaystyle aabaabaa} is derived by first generating the distal a's on both sides before moving inwards: S ⇒ a S a ⇒ a a S a a ⇒ a a b S b a a ⇒ a a b a a b a a {\displaystyle S\Rightarrow aSa\Rightarrow aaSaa\Rightarrow aabSbaa\Rightarrow aabaabaa} A PCFG model extendibility allows constraining structure prediction by incorporating expectations about different features of an RNA . Such expectation may reflect for example the propensity for assuming a certain structure by an RNA. However incorporation of too much information may increase PCFG space and memory complexity and it is desirable that a PCFG-based model be as simple as possible. Every possible string x a grammar generates is assigned a probability weight P ( x | θ ) {\displaystyle P(x|\theta )} given the PCFG model θ {\displaystyle \theta } . It follows that the sum of all probabilities to all possible grammar productions is ∑ x P ( x | θ ) = 1 {\displaystyle \sum _{\text{x}}P(x|\theta )=1} . The scores