The Photonically Optimized Embedded Microprocessors (POEM) is DARPA program. It should demonstrate photonic technologies that can be integrated within embedded microprocessors and enable energy-efficient high-capacity communications between the microprocessor and DRAM. For realizing POEM technology CMOS and DRAM-compatible photonic links should operate at high bit-rates with very low power dissipation. == Current research == Currently research in this field is at University of Colorado, Berkley University, and Nanophotonic Systems Laboratory ( Ultra-Efficient CMOS-Compatible Grating Coupler Design).
SPL notation
SPL (Sentence Plan Language) is an abstract notation representing the semantics of a sentence in natural language. In a classical Natural Language Generation (NLG) workflow, an initial text plan (hierarchically or sequentially organized factoids, often modelled in accordance with Rhetorical Structure Theory) is transformed by a sentence planner (generator) component to a sequence of sentence plans modelled in a Sentence Plan Language. A surface generator can be used to transform the SPL notation into natural language sentences. Probably the most widely used SPL language used today (2022) is AMR (Abstract Meaning Representation, see there for further references), but is owes parts of its popularity to its application to NLP problems other than NLG, e.g., machine translation and semantic parsing.
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)} .
The Best Free AI Marketing Tool for Beginners
Looking for the best AI marketing tool? An AI marketing tool 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 marketing tool slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. Read on for hands-on impressions, pricing tiers, and the standout features that matter.
Georgetown–IBM experiment
The Georgetown–IBM experiment was an influential demonstration of machine translation, which was performed on January 7, 1954. Developed jointly by Georgetown University and IBM, the experiment involved completely automatic translation of more than sixty Russian sentences into English. == Background == Conceived and performed primarily in order to attract governmental and public interest and funding by showing the possibilities of machine translation, it was by no means a fully featured system: It had only six grammar rules and 250 lexical items in its vocabulary (of stems and endings). Words in the vocabulary were in the fields of politics, law, mathematics, chemistry, metallurgy, communications and military affairs. Vocabulary was punched onto punch cards. This complete dictionary was never fully shown (only the extended one from Garvin's article). Apart from general topics, the system was specialized in the domain of organic chemistry. The translation was carried out using an IBM 701 mainframe computer (launched in April 1953). The Georgetown-IBM experiment is the best-known result of the MIT conference in June 1952 to which all active researchers in the machine translation field were invited. At the conference, Duncan Harkin from US Department of Defense suggested that his department would finance a new machine translation project. Jerome Weisner supported the idea and offered finance from the Research Laboratory of Electronics at MIT. Leon Dostert had been invited to the project for his previous experience with the automatic correction of translations (back then 'mechanical translation'); his interpretation system had a strong impact on the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal. The linguistics part of the demonstration was carried out for the most part by linguist Paul Garvin who had also good knowledge of Russian. Over 60 Romanized Russian statements from a wide range of political, legal, mathematical, and scientific topics were entered into the machine by a computer operator who knew no Russian, and the resulting English translations appeared on a printer. The sentences to be translated were carefully selected. Many operations for the demonstration were fitted to specific words and sentences. In addition, there was no relational or sentence analysis which could recognize the sentence structure. The approach was mostly 'lexicographical' based on a dictionary where a specific word had a connection with specific rules and steps. == Algorithm == The algorithm first translates Russian words into numerical codes, then performs the following case-analysis on each numerical code to choose between possible English word translations, reorder the English words, or omit some English words. The flowchart of the algorithm is reproduced in (see Table 1 for the 6 rules). == Translation examples == How it analyzes Vyelyichyina ugla opryedyelyayetsya otnoshyenyiyem dlyini dugi k radyiusu (figure 2 of ). == Reception == Well publicized by journalists and perceived as a success, the experiment did encourage governments to invest in computational linguistics. The authors claimed that within three or five years, machine translation could well be a solved problem. However, the real progress was much slower, and after the ALPAC report in 1966, which found that the ten years of long research had failed to fulfill the expectations, funding was reduced dramatically. The demonstration was given widespread coverage in the foreign press, but only a small fraction of journalists drew attention to previous machine translation attempts.
Cloud manufacturing
Cloud manufacturing (CMfg) is a new manufacturing paradigm developed from existing advanced manufacturing models (e.g., ASP, AM, NM, MGrid) and enterprise information technologies under the support of cloud computing, Internet of Things (IoT), virtualization and service-oriented technologies, and advanced computing technologies. It transforms manufacturing resources and manufacturing capabilities into manufacturing services, which can be managed and operated in an intelligent and unified way to enable the full sharing and circulating of manufacturing resources and manufacturing capabilities. CMfg can provide safe and reliable, high quality, cheap and on-demand manufacturing services for the whole lifecycle of manufacturing. The concept of manufacturing here refers to big manufacturing that includes the whole lifecycle of a product (e.g. design, simulation, production, test, maintenance). The concept of Cloud manufacturing was initially proposed by the research group led by Prof. Bo Hu Li and Prof. Lin Zhang in China in 2010. Related discussions and research were conducted hereafter, and some similar definitions (e.g. Cloud-Based Design and Manufacturing (CBDM). ) to cloud manufacturing were introduced. Cloud manufacturing is a type of parallel, networked, and distributed system consisting of an integrated and inter-connected virtualized service pool (manufacturing cloud) of manufacturing resources and capabilities as well as capabilities of intelligent management and on-demand use of services to provide solutions for all kinds of users involved in the whole lifecycle of manufacturing. == Types == Cloud Manufacturing can be divided into two categories. The first category concerns deploying manufacturing software on the Cloud, i.e. a “manufacturing version” of Computing. CAx software can be supplied as a service on the Manufacturing Cloud (MCloud). The second category has a broader scope, cutting across production, management, design and engineering abilities in a manufacturing business. Unlike with computing and data storage, manufacturing involves physical equipment, monitors, materials and so on. In this kind of Cloud Manufacturing system, both material and non-material facilities are implemented on the Manufacturing Cloud to support the whole supply chain. Costly resources are shared on the network. This means that the utilisation rate of rarely used equipment rises and the cost of expensive equipment is reduced. According to the concept of Cloud technology, there will not be direct interaction between Cloud Users and Service Providers. The Cloud User should neither manage nor control the infrastructure and manufacturing applications. As a matter of fact, the former can be considered part of the latter. In CMfg system, various manufacturing resources and abilities can be intelligently sensed and connected into wider Internet, and automatically managed and controlled using IoT technologies (e.g., RFID, wired and wireless sensor network, embedded system). Then the manufacturing resources and abilities are virtualized and encapsulated into different manufacturing cloud services (MCSs), that can be accessed, invoked, and deployed based on knowledge by using virtualization technologies, service-oriented technologies, and cloud computing technologies. The MCSs are classified and aggregated according to specific rules and algorithms, and different kinds of manufacturing clouds are constructed. Different users can search and invoke the qualified MCSs from related manufacturing cloud according to their needs, and assemble them to be a virtual manufacturing environment or solution to complete their manufacturing task involved in the whole life cycle of manufacturing processes under the support of cloud computing, service-oriented technologies, and advanced computing technologies. Four types of cloud deployment modes (public, private, community and hybrid clouds) are ubiquitous as a single point of access. Private cloud refers to a centralized management effort in which manufacturing services are shared within one company or its subsidiaries. Enterprises' mission-critical and core-business applications are often kept in a private cloud. Community cloud is a collaborative effort in which manufacturing services are shared between several organizations from a specific community with common concerns. Public cloud realizes the key concept of sharing services with the general public in a multi-tenant environment. Hybrid cloud is a composition of two or more clouds (private, community or public) that remain distinct entities but are also bound together, offering the benefits of multiple deployment modes. == Resources == From the resource’s perspective, each kind of manufacturing capability requires support from the related manufacturing resource. For each type of manufacturing capability, its related manufacturing resource comes in two forms, soft resources and hard resources. === Soft resources === Software: software applications throughout the product lifecycle including design, analysis, simulation, process planning, and are only beginning to be embraced by the electronics manufacturing industry. Knowledge: experience and know-how needed to complete a production task, i.e. engineering knowledge, product models, standards, evaluation procedures and results, customer feedback, and manufacturing in the cloud provides just as many solutions as the number of questions it also raises for manufacturing executives wanting to make the best possible decision. Skill: expertise in performing a specific manufacturing task. Personnel: human resource engaged in the manufacturing process, i.e. designers, operators, managers, technicians, project teams, customer service, etc. Experience: performance, quality, client evaluation, etc. Business Network: business relationships and business opportunity networks that exist in an enterprise. === Hard resources === Manufacturing Equipment: facilities needed for completing a manufacturing task, e.g. machine tools, cutters, test and monitoring equipment and other fabrication tools. Monitoring/Control Resource: devices used to identify and control other manufacturing resource, for instance, RFID (Radio-Frequency IDentification), WSN (Wireless Sensor Network), virtual managers and remote controllers. Computational Resource: computing devices to support production process, e.g. servers, computers, storage media, control devices, etc. Materials: inputs and outputs in a production system, e.g. raw material, product-in-progress, finished product, power, water, lubricants, etc. Storage: automated storage and retrieval systems, logic controllers, location of warehouses, volume capacity and schedule/optimization methods. Transportation: movement of manufacturing inputs/outputs from one location to another. It includes the modes of transport, e.g. air, rail, road, water, cable, pipeline and space, and the related price, and time taken.
Is an AI Copywriting Tool Worth It in 2026?
Looking for the best AI copywriting tool? An AI copywriting tool 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 copywriting tool slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. Read on for hands-on impressions, pricing tiers, and the standout features that matter.