This is a list of development tools for 32-bit ARM Cortex-M-based microcontrollers, which consists of Cortex-M0, Cortex-M0+, Cortex-M1, Cortex-M3, Cortex-M4, Cortex-M7, Cortex-M23, Cortex-M33, Cortex-M35P, Cortex-M52, Cortex-M55, and Cortex-M85 cores. == Development toolchains == IDE, compiler, linker, debugger, flashing (in alphabetical order): Ac6 System Workbench for STM32 (based on Eclipse and the GNU GCC toolchain with direct support for all ST-provided evaluation boards, Eval, Discovery and Nucleo, debug with ST-LINK) ARM Development Studio 5 by ARM Ltd. Atmel Studio by Atmel (based on Visual Studio and GNU GCC Toolchain) Code Composer Studio by Texas Instruments CoIDE by CooCox (note - website dead since 2018) Crossware Development Suite for ARM by Crossware CrossWorks for ARM by Rowley Dave by Infineon. For XMC processors only. Includes project wizard, detailed register decoding and a code library still under development. DRT by SOMNIUM Technologies. Based on GCC toolchain and proprietary linker technology. Available as a plugin for Atmel Studio and an Eclipse-based IDE. EmBitz (formerly Em::Blocks) – free, fast (non-eclipse) IDE for ST-LINK (live data updates), OpenOCD, including GNU Tools for ARM and project wizards for ST, Atmel, EnergyMicro etc. Embeetle IDE - free, fast (non-eclipse) IDE. Works both on Linux and Windows. emIDE by emide – free Visual Studio Style IDE including GNU Tools for ARM GNU ARM Eclipse – A family of Eclipse CDT extensions and tools for GNU ARM development GNU Tools (aka GCC) for ARM Embedded Processors by ARM Ltd – free GCC for bare metal IAR Embedded Workbench for ARM by IAR Systems ICC by ImageCraft Keil MDK-ARM by Keil LPCXpresso by NXP (formerly Red Suite by Code Red Technologies) MikroC by mikroe – mikroC MULTI by Green Hills Software, for all Arm 7, 9, Cortex-M, Cortex-R, Cortex-A Ride and RKit for ARM by Raisonance SEGGER Embedded Studio for ARM by Segger. SEGGER Ozone by Segger. STM32CubeIDE by STMicroelectronics - Combines STCubeMX with TrueSTUDIO into a single Eclipse style package Sourcery CodeBench by Mentor Graphics TASKING VX-Toolset by Altium TrueSTUDIO by Atollic Visual Studio by Microsoft as IDE, with GNU Tools as compiler/linker – e.g. supported by VisualGDB VXM Design's Buildroot toolchain for Cortex. It integrates GNU toolchain, Nuttx, filesystem and debugger/flasher in one build. winIDEA/winIDEAOpen by iSYSTEM YAGARTO – free GCC (no longer supported) Code::Blocks (EPS edition) (debug with ST-LINK no GDB and no OpenOCD required) IDE for Arduino ARM boards Arduino – IDE for Atmel SAM3X (Arduino Due) Energia – Arduino IDE for Texas Instruments Tiva and CC3200 Notes: == Debugging tools == JTAG and/or SWD debug interface host adapters (in alphabetical order): Black Magic Probe by 1BitSquared. CMSIS-DAP by Mbed. Crossconnect by Rowley Associates. DSTREAM by ARM Holdings Green Hills Probe and SuperTrace Probe by Green Hills Software. iTAG by iSYSTEM. I-jet by IAR Systems. Jaguar by Crossware. J-Link by Segger Supports JTAG and SWD. Supports ARM7, ARM9, ARM11, Cortex-A, Cortex-M, Cortex-R, Renesas RX, Microchip PIC32. Eclipse plug-in available. Supports GDB, RDI, Ozone debuggers. J-Trace by Segger. Supports JTAG, SWD, and ETM trace on Cortex-M. JTAGjet by Signum. LPC-LINK by Embedded Artists (for NXP) This is only embedded on NXP LPCXpresso development boards. LPC-LINK 2 by NXP. This device can be reconfigured to support 3 different protocols: J-LINK by Segger, CMSIS-DAP by ARM, Redlink by Code Red. Multilink debug probes, Cyclone in-system programming/debugging interfaces, and a GDB Server plug-in for Eclipse-based ARM IDEs by PEmicro. OpenOCD open source GDB server supports a variety of JTAG probes OpenOCD Eclipse plug-in available in GNU ARM Eclipse Plug-ins. AK-OPENJTAG by Artekit (Open JTAG-compatible). AK-LINK by Artekit. PEEDI by RONETIX Debug Probe by Raspberry Pi. RLink by Raisonance. ST-LINK/V2 by STMicroelectronics The ST-LINK/V2 debugger embedded on STM32 Nucleo and Discovery development boards can be converted to SEGGER J-LINK protocol. TRACE32 Debugger and ETM/ITM Trace by Lauterbach. ULINK by Keil. Debugging tools and/or debugging plug-ins (in alphabetical order): Memfault Error Analysis for post mortem debugging Percepio Tracealyzer, RTOS trace visualizer (with Eclipse plugin). Segger SystemView, RTOS trace visualizer. == Real-time operating systems == Commonly referred to as RTOS: == C/C++ software libraries == The following are free C/C++ libraries: ARM Cortex libraries: Cortex Microcontroller Software Interface Standard (CMSIS) libopencm3 (formerly called libopenstm32) libmaple for STM32F1 chips LPCOpen for NXP LPC chips Alternate C standard libraries: Bionic libc, dietlibc, EGLIBC, glibc, klibc, musl, Newlib, uClibc FAT file system libraries: EFSL, FatFs, Petit FatFs Fixed-point math libraries: libfixmath, fixedptc, FPMLib Encryption libraries: Comparison of TLS implementations wolfSSL == Non-C/C++ computer languages and software libraries ==
Spotify Live
Spotify Live, formerly Spotify Greenroom, was a social audio app by Spotify, that allowed users to host or participate in live-audio virtual environments called "room" for conversations. Each room had a maximum capacity of 1000 people. The app was available on Android and iOS, competing with Twitter Spaces and Clubhouse in the social media segment. It was shut down on April 30, 2023. == History == In October 2020, Betty Labs released Locker Room exclusively on the iOS App Store. The app featured virtual audio chat rooms for sports enthusiasts. In late March 2021, Spotify acquired Betty Labs for $50 million and announced plans to rebrand the app with a broader focus on sports, music, and pop culture. On June 16, 2021, Spotify launched the app as Spotify Greenroom on Android (early access) and iOS, expanding its scope beyond just sports. At launch, Spotify introduced the Greenroom Creator Fund to support creators and shows, serving as a rival to Clubhouse's Creator First Accelerator Program. The fund aimed to provide a monetization path for podcasters integrating Greenroom into their verified Spotify accounts. By July 2021, the app had accumulated over 140,000 iOS installs and 100,000 Android installs. In August 2021, Spotify collaborated with the WWE to produce professional wrestling-related podcasts, many of which would be recorded by The Ringer, Spotify's in-house podcasting team, using Greenroom. In March 2022, Spotify Greenroom announced its rebranding as Spotify Live and its migration to the main Spotify app. After a year, Spotify announced it would shut down the Spotify Live app at the end of April 2023. == Features == Greenroom allowed users to create or join a room, which, in the context of the application, was a virtual space for real-time voice chats. Users could only create a room within a pre-defined group, representing either a brand or a generic category. If a user chose to create a room, they became the host, with the ability to invite people, control who could talk, and enable features like recording and the Discussions tab during room creation. Enabling recording displayed a disclaimer informing users that the conversation was being recorded, and the audio, recorded in mp4 format, would be sent to the host via email after the room concluded. If the Discussions tab was enabled, users could send text messages in the public chat section. The host also had the authority to ban users if necessary. When joining a room, a user could opt to be a listener or request to become a speaker. Users had the freedom to follow or block others and join groups at their discretion. Notifications about new rooms in joined groups would be sent to users. Additionally, users could discover new individuals and groups using the search tab. == Partnered creators == By October 2021, Spotify had a variety of partnered creators aimed at boosting traffic and validating its vertically integrated podcast model. These creators primarily focused on Generation Z. In-house Spotify talent, such as The Ringer, produced sports-related content. Simultaneously, the company recruited creators from various social channels to grow Greenroom's audience while also promoting its integration with Spotify and Anchor. Each verified Spotify partner had their Greenroom shows featured in both the Greenroom app and their profiles on the Spotify app. This was part of the company's strategy leading into the 2022 ramp-up to compete with Clubhouse. == Platforms == The app was accessible on both Android and iOS platforms, and users could download the app from their respective app stores. Android users needed Android 8 or above to launch the app, while iOS consumers required iOS 13 or later to run it.
Best AI Essay Writers in 2026
Comparing the best AI essay writer? An AI essay writer 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 essay writer slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. We tested the leading options and ranked them by quality, value, and ease of use.
The Best Free AI Voice Assistant for Beginners
Looking for the best AI voice assistant? An AI voice assistant 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 voice assistant slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. This guide breaks down the top picks, their pros and cons, and who each one is best for.
Evaluation of machine translation
Various methods for the evaluation for machine translation have been employed. This article focuses on the evaluation of the output of machine translation, rather than on performance or usability evaluation. == Round-trip translation == A typical way for lay people to assess machine translation quality is to translate from a source language to a target language and back to the source language with the same engine. Though intuitively this may seem like a good method of evaluation, it has been shown that round-trip translation is a "poor predictor of quality". The reason why it is such a poor predictor of quality is reasonably intuitive. A round-trip translation is not testing one system, but two systems: the language pair of the engine for translating into the target language, and the language pair translating back from the target language. Consider the following examples of round-trip translation performed from English to Italian and Portuguese from Somers (2005): In the first example, where the text is translated into Italian then back into English—the English text is significantly garbled, but the Italian is a serviceable translation. In the second example, the text translated back into English is perfect, but the Portuguese translation is meaningless; the program thought "tit" was a reference to a tit (bird), which was intended for a "tat", a word it did not understand. While round-trip translation may be useful to generate a "surplus of fun," the methodology is deficient for serious study of machine translation quality. == Human evaluation == This section covers two of the large scale evaluation studies that have had significant impact on the field—the ALPAC 1966 study and the ARPA study. === Automatic Language Processing Advisory Committee (ALPAC) === One of the constituent parts of the ALPAC report was a study comparing different levels of human translation with machine translation output, using human subjects as judges. The human judges were specially trained for the purpose. The evaluation study compared an MT system translating from Russian into English with human translators, on two variables. The variables studied were "intelligibility" and "fidelity". Intelligibility was a measure of how "understandable" the sentence was, and was measured on a scale of 1–9. Fidelity was a measure of how much information the translated sentence retained compared to the original, and was measured on a scale of 0–9. Each point on the scale was associated with a textual description. For example, 3 on the intelligibility scale was described as "Generally unintelligible; it tends to read like nonsense but, with a considerable amount of reflection and study, one can at least hypothesize the idea intended by the sentence". Intelligibility was measured without reference to the original, while fidelity was measured indirectly. The translated sentence was presented, and after reading it and absorbing the content, the original sentence was presented. The judges were asked to rate the original sentence on informativeness. So, the more informative the original sentence, the lower the quality of the translation. The study showed that the variables were highly correlated when the human judgment was averaged per sentence. The variation among raters was small, but the researchers recommended that at the very least, three or four raters should be used. The evaluation methodology managed to separate translations by humans from translations by machines with ease. The study concluded that, "highly reliable assessments can be made of the quality of human and machine translations". === Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) === As part of the Human Language Technologies Program, the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) created a methodology to evaluate machine translation systems, and continues to perform evaluations based on this methodology. The evaluation programme was instigated in 1991, and continues to this day. Details of the programme can be found in White et al. (1994) and White (1995). The evaluation programme involved testing several systems based on different theoretical approaches; statistical, rule-based and human-assisted. A number of methods for the evaluation of the output from these systems were tested in 1992 and the most recent suitable methods were selected for inclusion in the programmes for subsequent years. The methods were; comprehension evaluation, quality panel evaluation, and evaluation based on adequacy and fluency. Comprehension evaluation aimed to directly compare systems based on the results from multiple choice comprehension tests, as in Church et al. (1993). The texts chosen were a set of articles in English on the subject of financial news. These articles were translated by professional translators into a series of language pairs, and then translated back into English using the machine translation systems. It was decided that this was not adequate for a standalone method of comparing systems and as such abandoned due to issues with the modification of meaning in the process of translating from English. The idea of quality panel evaluation was to submit translations to a panel of expert native English speakers who were professional translators and get them to evaluate them. The evaluations were done on the basis of a metric, modelled on a standard US government metric used to rate human translations. This was good from the point of view that the metric was "externally motivated", since it was not specifically developed for machine translation. However, the quality panel evaluation was very difficult to set up logistically, as it necessitated having a number of experts together in one place for a week or more, and furthermore for them to reach consensus. This method was also abandoned. Along with a modified form of the comprehension evaluation (re-styled as informativeness evaluation), the most popular method was to obtain ratings from monolingual judges for segments of a document. The judges were presented with a segment, and asked to rate it for two variables, adequacy and fluency. Adequacy is a rating of how much information is transferred between the original and the translation, and fluency is a rating of how good the English is. This technique was found to cover the relevant parts of the quality panel evaluation, while at the same time being easier to deploy, as it didn't require expert judgment. Measuring systems based on adequacy and fluency, along with informativeness is now the standard methodology for the ARPA evaluation program. == Automatic evaluation == In the context of this article, a metric is a measurement. A metric that evaluates machine translation output represents the quality of the output. The quality of a translation is inherently subjective, there is no objective or quantifiable "good." Therefore, any metric must assign quality scores so they correlate with the human judgment of quality. That is, a metric should score highly translations that humans score highly, and give low scores to those humans give low scores. Human judgment is the benchmark for assessing automatic metrics, as humans are the end-users of any translation output. The measure of evaluation for metrics is correlation with human judgment. This is generally done at two levels, at the sentence level, where scores are calculated by the metric for a set of translated sentences, and then correlated against human judgment for the same sentences. And at the corpus level, where scores over the sentences are aggregated for both human judgments and metric judgments, and these aggregate scores are then correlated. Figures for correlation at the sentence level are rarely reported, although Banerjee et al. (2005) do give correlation figures that show that, at least for their metric, sentence-level correlation is substantially worse than corpus level correlation. While not widely reported, it has been noted that the genre, or domain, of a text has an effect on the correlation obtained when using metrics. Coughlin (2003) reports that comparing the candidate text against a single reference translation does not adversely affect the correlation of metrics when working in a restricted domain text. Even if a metric correlates well with human judgment in one study on one corpus, this successful correlation may not carry over to another corpus. Good metric performance, across text types or domains, is important for the reusability of the metric. A metric that only works for text in a specific domain is useful, but less useful than one that works across many domains—because creating a new metric for every new evaluation or domain is undesirable. Another important factor in the usefulness of an evaluation metric is to have a good correlation, even when working with small amounts of data, that is candidate sentences and reference translations. Turian et al. (2003) point out that, "Any MT evaluation measure is less reliable on shorter translations", and
Deep Learning Indaba
The Deep Learning Indaba is an annual conference and educational event that aims to strengthen machine learning and artificial intelligence (AI) capacity across Africa. Launched in 2017, it brings together students, researchers, industry practitioners, and policymakers from across the African continent. == History == The Deep Learning Indaba began in 2017 at the University of the Witwatersrand with over 300 participants from 23 African countries, offering tutorials in advanced AI topics and featuring notable speakers like Nando de Freitas. In 2018, it expanded to 650 delegates at Stellenbosch University, introducing parallel sessions to encourage collaboration. The 2019 edition in Nairobi, Kenya, reflected further growth, with increasing sponsorship and support from major tech companies like Google and Microsoft. === Deep Learning IndabaX ===
Tree transducer
In theoretical computer science and formal language theory, a tree transducer (TT) is an abstract machine taking as input a tree, and generating output – generally other trees, but models producing words or other structures exist. Roughly speaking, tree transducers extend tree automata in the same way that word transducers extend word automata. Manipulating tree structures instead of words enable TT to model syntax-directed transformations of formal or natural languages. However, TT are not as well-behaved as their word counterparts in terms of algorithmic complexity, closure properties, etcetera. In particular, most of the main classes are not closed under composition. The main classes of tree transducers are: == Top-Down Tree Transducers (TOP) == A TOP T is a tuple (Q, Σ, Γ, I, δ) such that: Q is a finite set, the set of states; Σ is a finite ranked alphabet, called the input alphabet; Γ is a finite ranked alphabet, called the output alphabet; I is a subset of Q, the set of initial states; and δ is a set of rules of the form q ( f ( x 1 , … , x n ) ) → u {\displaystyle q(f(x_{1},\dots ,x_{n}))\to u} , where f is a symbol of Σ, n is the arity of f, q is a state, and u is a tree on Γ and Q × 1.. n {\displaystyle Q\times 1..n} , such pairs being nullary. === Examples of rules and intuitions on semantics === For instance, q ( f ( x 1 , … , x 3 ) ) → g ( a , q ′ ( x 1 ) , h ( q ″ ( x 3 ) ) ) {\displaystyle q(f(x_{1},\dots ,x_{3}))\to g(a,q'(x_{1}),h(q''(x_{3})))} is a rule – one customarily writes q ( x i ) {\displaystyle q(x_{i})} instead of the pair ( q , x i ) {\displaystyle (q,x_{i})} – and its intuitive semantics is that, under the action of q, a tree with f at the root and three children is transformed into g ( a , q ′ ( x 1 ) , h ( q ″ ( x 3 ) ) ) {\displaystyle g(a,q'(x_{1}),h(q''(x_{3})))} where, recursively, q ′ ( x 1 ) {\displaystyle q'(x_{1})} and q ″ ( x 3 ) {\displaystyle q''(x_{3})} are replaced, respectively, with the application of q ′ {\displaystyle q'} on the first child and with the application of q ″ {\displaystyle q''} on the third. === Semantics as term rewriting === The semantics of each state of the transducer T, and of T itself, is a binary relation between input trees (on Σ) and output trees (on Γ). A way of defining the semantics formally is to see δ {\displaystyle \delta } as a term rewriting system, provided that in the right-hand sides the calls are written in the form q ( x i ) {\displaystyle q(x_{i})} , where states q are unary symbols. Then the semantics [ [ q ] ] {\displaystyle [\![q]\!]} of a state q is given by [ [ q ] ] = { u ↦ v ∣ u is a tree on Σ , v is a tree on Γ , and q ( u ) → δ ∗ v } . {\displaystyle [\![q]\!]=\{u\mapsto v\mid u{\text{ is a tree on }}\Sigma ,\ v{\text{ is a tree on }}\Gamma {\text{, and }}q(u)\to _{\delta }^{}v\}.} The semantics of T is then defined as the union of the semantics of its initial states: [ [ T ] ] = ⋃ q ∈ I [ [ q ] ] . {\displaystyle [\![T]\!]=\bigcup _{q\in I}[\![q]\!].} === Determinism and domain === As with tree automata, a TOP is said to be deterministic (abbreviated DTOP) if no two rules of δ share the same left-hand side, and there is at most one initial state. In that case, the semantics of the DTOP is a partial function from input trees (on Σ) to output trees (on Γ), as are the semantics of each of the DTOP's states. The domain of a transducer is the domain of its semantics. Likewise, the image of a transducer is the image of its semantics. === Properties of DTOP === DTOP are not closed under union: this is already the case for deterministic word transducers. The domain of a DTOP is a regular tree language. Furthermore, the domain is recognisable by a deterministic top-down tree automaton (DTTA) of size at most exponential in that of the initial DTOP. That the domain is DTTA-recognizable is not surprising, considering that the left-hand sides of DTOP rules are the same as for DTTA. As for the reason for the exponential explosion in the worst case (that does not exist in the word case), consider the rule q ( f ( x 1 , x 2 ) ) → g ( p 1 ( x 1 ) , p 2 ( x 1 ) , p 3 ( x 2 ) ) {\displaystyle q(f(x_{1},x_{2}))\to g(p_{1}(x_{1}),p_{2}(x_{1}),p_{3}(x_{2}))} . In order for the computation to succeed, it must succeed for both children. That means that the right child must be in the domain of p 3 {\displaystyle p_{3}} . As for the left child, it must be in the domain of both p 1 {\displaystyle p_{1}} and p 2 {\displaystyle p_{2}} . Generally, since subtrees can be copied, a single subtree can be evaluated by multiple states during a run, despite the determinism, and unlike DTTA. Thus the construction of the DTTA recognising the domain of a DTOP must account for sets of states and compute the intersections of their domains, hence the exponential. In the special case of linear DTOP, that is to say DTOP where each x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} appears at most once in the right-hand side of each rule, the construction is linear in time and space. The image of a DTOP is not a regular tree language. Consider the transducer coding the transformation f ( x ) → g ( x , x ) {\displaystyle f(x)\to g(x,x)} ; that is, duplicate the child of the input. This is easily done by a rule q ( f ( x 1 ) ) → g ( p ( x 1 ) , p ( x 1 ) ) {\displaystyle q(f(x_{1}))\to g(p(x_{1}),p(x_{1}))} , where p encodes the identity. Then, absent any restrictions on the first child of the input, the image is a classical non-regular tree language. However, the domain of a DTOP cannot be restricted to a regular tree language. That is to say, given a DTOP T and a language L, one cannot in general build a DTOP T ′ {\displaystyle T'} such that the semantics of T ′ {\displaystyle T'} is that of T, restricted to L. This property is linked to the reason deterministic top-down tree automata are less expressive than bottom-up automata: once you go down a given path, information from other paths is inaccessible. Consider the transducer coding the transformation f ( x , y ) → y {\displaystyle f(x,y)\to y} ; that is, output the right child of the input. This is easily done by a rule q ( f ( x 1 , x 2 ) ) → p ( x 2 ) {\displaystyle q(f(x_{1},x_{2}))\to p(x_{2})} , where p encodes the identity. Now let's say we want to restrict this transducer to the finite (and thus, in particular, regular) domain { f ( c , a ) , f ( c , b ) } {\displaystyle \{f(c,a),\ f(c,b)\}} . We must use the rules q ( f ( x 1 , x 2 ) ) → p ( x 2 ) , p ( a ) → a , p ( b ) → b {\displaystyle q(f(x_{1},x_{2}))\to p(x_{2}),\ p(a)\to a,\ p(b)\to b} . But in the first rule, x 1 {\displaystyle x_{1}} does not appear at all, since nothing is produced from the left child. Thus, it is not possible to test that the left child is c. In contrast, since we produce from the right child, we can test that it is a or b. In general, the criterion is that DTOP cannot test properties of subtrees from which they do not produce output. DTOP are not closed under composition. However this problem can be solved by the addition of a lookahead: a tree automaton, coupled to the transducer, that can perform tests on the domain which the transducer is incapable of. This follows from the point about domain restriction: composing the DTOP encoding identity on { f ( c , a ) , f ( c , b ) } {\displaystyle \{f(c,a),\ f(c,b)\}} with the one encoding f ( x , y ) → y {\displaystyle f(x,y)\to y} must yield a transducer with the semantics { f ( c , a ) ↦ a , f ( c , b ) ↦ b } {\displaystyle \{f(c,a)\mapsto a,\ f(c,b)\mapsto b\}} , which we know is not expressible by a DTOP. The typechecking problem—testing whether the image of a regular tree language is included in another regular tree language—is decidable. The equivalence problem—testing whether two DTOP define the same functions—is decidable. == Bottom-Up Tree Transducers (BOT) == As in the simpler case of tree automata, bottom-up tree transducers are defined similarly to their top-down counterparts, but proceed from the leaves of the tree to the root, instead of from the root to the leaves. Thus the main difference is in the form of the rules, which are of the form f ( q 1 ( x 1 ) , … , q n ( x n ) ) → q ( u ) {\displaystyle f(q_{1}(x_{1}),\dots ,q_{n}(x_{n}))\to q(u)} .