In cryptography, a cipher (or cypher) is an algorithm for performing encryption or decryption—a series of well-defined steps that can be followed as a procedure. An alternative, less common term is encipherment. To encipher or encode is to convert information into cipher or code. In common parlance, "cipher" is synonymous with "code", as they are both a set of steps that encrypt a message; however, the concepts are distinct in cryptography, especially classical cryptography. Codes generally substitute different length strings of characters in the output, while ciphers generally substitute the same number of characters as are input. A code maps one meaning with another. Words and phrases can be coded as letters or numbers. Codes typically have direct meaning from input to key. Codes primarily function to save time. Ciphers are algorithmic. The given input must follow the cipher's process to be solved. Ciphers are commonly used to encrypt written information. Codes operated by substituting according to a large codebook which linked a random string of characters or numbers to a word or phrase. For example, "UQJHSE" could be the code for "Proceed to the following coordinates.". When using a cipher the original information is known as plaintext, and the encrypted form as ciphertext. The ciphertext message contains all the information of the plaintext message, but is not in a format readable by a human or computer without the proper mechanism to decrypt it. The operation of a cipher usually depends on a piece of auxiliary information, called a key (or, in traditional NSA parlance, a cryptovariable). The encrypting procedure is varied depending on the key, which changes the detailed operation of the algorithm. A key must be selected before using a cipher to encrypt a message, with some exceptions such as ROT13 and Atbash. Most modern ciphers can be categorized in several ways: By whether they work on blocks of symbols usually of a fixed size (block ciphers), or on a continuous stream of symbols (stream ciphers). By whether the same key is used for both encryption and decryption (symmetric key algorithms), or if a different key is used for each (asymmetric key algorithms). If the algorithm is symmetric, the key must be known to the recipient and sender and to no one else. If the algorithm is an asymmetric one, the enciphering key is different from, but closely related to, the deciphering key. If one key cannot be deduced from the other, the asymmetric key algorithm has the public/private key property and one of the keys may be made public without loss of confidentiality. == Etymology == Originating from the Sanskrit word for zero शून्य (śuṇya), via the Arabic word صفر (ṣifr), the word "cipher" spread to Europe as part of the Arabic numeral system during the Middle Ages. The Roman numeral system lacked the concept of zero, and this limited advances in mathematics. In this transition, the word was adopted into Medieval Latin as cifra, and then into Middle French as cifre. This eventually led to the English word cipher (also spelt cypher). One theory for how the term came to refer to encoding is that the concept of zero was confusing to Europeans, and so the term came to refer to a message or communication that was not easily understood. The term cipher was later also used to refer to any Arabic digit, or to calculation using them, so encoding text in the form of Arabic numerals is literally converting the text to "ciphers". == Versus codes == In casual contexts, "code" and "cipher" can typically be used interchangeably; however, the technical usages of the words refer to different concepts. Codes contain meaning; words and phrases are assigned to numbers or symbols, creating a shorter message. An example of this is the commercial telegraph code which was used to shorten long telegraph messages which resulted from entering into commercial contracts using exchanges of telegrams. Another example is given by whole word ciphers, which allow the user to replace an entire word with a symbol or character, much like the way written Japanese utilizes Kanji (meaning Chinese characters in Japanese) characters to supplement the native Japanese characters representing syllables. An example using English language with Kanji could be to replace "The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog" by "The quick brown 狐 jumps 上 the lazy 犬". Stenographers sometimes use specific symbols to abbreviate whole words. Ciphers, on the other hand, work at a lower level: the level of individual letters, small groups of letters, or, in modern schemes, individual bits and blocks of bits. Some systems used both codes and ciphers in one system, using superencipherment to increase the security. In some cases the terms codes and ciphers are used synonymously with substitution and transposition, respectively. Historically, cryptography was split into a dichotomy of codes and ciphers, while coding had its own terminology analogous to that of ciphers: "encoding, codetext, decoding" and so on. However, codes have a variety of drawbacks, including susceptibility to cryptanalysis and the difficulty of managing a cumbersome codebook. Because of this, codes have fallen into disuse in modern cryptography, and ciphers are the dominant technique. == Types == There are a variety of different types of encryption. Algorithms used earlier in the history of cryptography are substantially different from modern methods, and modern ciphers can be classified according to how they operate and whether they use one or two keys. === Historical === The Caesar Cipher is one of the earliest known cryptographic systems. Julius Caesar used a cipher that shifts the letters in the alphabet in place by three and wrapping the remaining letters to the front to write to Marcus Tullius Cicero in approximately 50 BC. Historical pen and paper ciphers used in the past are sometimes known as classical ciphers. They include simple substitution ciphers (such as ROT13) and transposition ciphers (such as a Rail Fence Cipher). For example, "GOOD DOG" can be encrypted as "PLLX XLP" where "L" substitutes for "O", "P" for "G", and "X" for "D" in the message. Transposition of the letters "GOOD DOG" can result in "DGOGDOO". These simple ciphers and examples are easy to crack, even without plaintext-ciphertext pairs. In the 1640s, the Parliamentarian commander, Edward Montagu, 2nd Earl of Manchester, developed ciphers to send coded messages to his allies during the English Civil War. The English theologian John Wilkins published a book in 1641 titled "Mercury, or The Secret and Swift Messenger" and described a musical cipher wherein letters of the alphabet were substituted for music notes. This species of melodic cipher was depicted in greater detail by author Abraham Rees in his book Cyclopædia (1778). Simple ciphers were replaced by polyalphabetic substitution ciphers (such as the Vigenère) which changed the substitution alphabet for every letter. For example, "GOOD DOG" can be encrypted as "PLSX TWF" where "L", "S", and "W" substitute for "O". With even a small amount of known or estimated plaintext, simple polyalphabetic substitution ciphers and letter transposition ciphers designed for pen and paper encryption are easy to crack. It is possible to create a secure pen and paper cipher based on a one-time pad, but these have other disadvantages. During the early twentieth century, electro-mechanical machines were invented to do encryption and decryption using transposition, polyalphabetic substitution, and a kind of "additive" substitution. In rotor machines, several rotor disks provided polyalphabetic substitution, while plug boards provided another substitution. Keys were easily changed by changing the rotor disks and the plugboard wires. Although these encryption methods were more complex than previous schemes and required machines to encrypt and decrypt, other machines such as the British Bombe were invented to crack these encryption methods. === Modern === Modern encryption methods can be divided by two criteria: by type of key used, and by type of input data. By type of key used ciphers are divided into: symmetric key algorithms (Private-key cryptography), where one same key is used for encryption and decryption, and asymmetric key algorithms (Public-key cryptography), where two different keys are used for encryption and decryption. In a symmetric key algorithm (e.g., DES and AES), the sender and receiver must have a shared key set up in advance and kept secret from all other parties; the sender uses this key for encryption, and the receiver uses the same key for decryption. The design of AES (Advanced Encryption System) was beneficial because it aimed to overcome the flaws in the design of the DES (Data encryption standard). AES's designer's claim that the common means of modern cipher cryptanalytic attacks are ineffective against AES due to its design structure. Ciphers can be distinguished into two types by the type o
Question answering
Question answering (QA) is a computer science discipline within the fields of information retrieval and natural language processing (NLP) that is concerned with building systems that automatically answer questions that are posed by humans in a natural language. A question-answering implementation, usually a computer program, may construct its answers by querying a structured database of knowledge or information, usually a knowledge base. More commonly, question-answering systems can pull answers from an unstructured collection of natural language documents. Some examples of natural language document collections used for question answering systems include reference texts, compiled newswire reports, Wikipedia pages and other World Wide Web pages. == History == Two early question answering systems were BASEBALL and LUNAR. BASEBALL answered questions about Major League Baseball over a period of one year. LUNAR answered questions about the geological analysis of rocks returned by the Apollo Moon missions. Both question answering systems were very effective in their chosen domains. LUNAR was demonstrated at a lunar science convention in 1971 and it was able to answer 90% of the questions in its domain that were posed by people untrained on the system. Further restricted-domain question answering systems were developed in the following years. The common feature of all these systems is that they had a core database or knowledge system that was hand-written by experts of the chosen domain. The language abilities of BASEBALL and LUNAR used techniques similar to ELIZA and DOCTOR, the first chatterbot programs. SHRDLU was a successful question-answering program developed by Terry Winograd in the late 1960s and early 1970s. It simulated the operation of a robot in a toy world (the "blocks world"), and it offered the possibility of asking the robot questions about the state of the world. The strength of this system was the choice of a very specific domain and a very simple world with rules of physics that were easy to encode in a computer program. In the 1970s, knowledge bases were developed that targeted narrower domains of knowledge. The question answering systems developed to interface with these expert systems produced more repeatable and valid responses to questions within an area of knowledge. These expert systems closely resembled modern question answering systems except in their internal architecture. Expert systems rely heavily on expert-constructed and organized knowledge bases, whereas many modern question answering systems rely on statistical processing of a large, unstructured, natural language text corpus. The 1970s and 1980s saw the development of comprehensive theories in computational linguistics, which led to the development of ambitious projects in text comprehension and question answering. One example was the Unix Consultant (UC), developed by Robert Wilensky at U.C. Berkeley in the late 1980s. The system answered questions pertaining to the Unix operating system. It had a comprehensive, hand-crafted knowledge base of its domain, and it aimed at phrasing the answer to accommodate various types of users. Another project was LILOG, a text-understanding system that operated on the domain of tourism information in a German city. The systems developed in the UC and LILOG projects never went past the stage of simple demonstrations, but they helped the development of theories on computational linguistics and reasoning. Specialized natural-language question answering systems have been developed, such as EAGLi for health and life scientists. Question answering systems have been extended in recent years to encompass additional domains of knowledge For example, systems have been developed to automatically answer temporal and geospatial questions, questions of definition and terminology, biographical questions, multilingual questions, and questions about the content of audio, images, and video. Current question answering research topics include: interactivity—clarification of questions or answers answer reuse or caching semantic parsing answer presentation knowledge representation and semantic entailment social media analysis with question answering systems sentiment analysis utilization of thematic roles Image captioning for visual question answering Embodied question answering In 2011, Watson, a question answering computer system developed by IBM, competed in two exhibition matches of Jeopardy! against Brad Rutter and Ken Jennings, winning by a significant margin. Facebook Research made their DrQA system available under an open source license. This system uses Wikipedia as knowledge source. The open source framework Haystack by deepset combines open-domain question answering with generative question answering and supports the domain adaptation of the underlying language models for industry use cases. Large Language Models (LLMs)[36] like GPT-4[37], Gemini[38] are examples of successful QA systems that are enabling more sophisticated understanding and generation of text. When coupled with Multimodal[39] QA Systems, which can process and understand information from various modalities like text, images, and audio, LLMs significantly improve the capabilities of QA systems. == Types == Question-answering research attempts to develop ways of answering a wide range of question types, including fact, list, definition, how, why, hypothetical, semantically constrained, and cross-lingual questions. Answering questions related to an article in order to evaluate reading comprehension is one of the simpler form of question answering, since a given article is relatively short compared to the domains of other types of question-answering problems. An example of such a question is "What did Albert Einstein win the Nobel Prize for?" after an article about this subject is given to the system. Closed-book question answering is when a system has memorized some facts during training and can answer questions without explicitly being given a context. This is similar to humans taking closed-book exams. Closed-domain question answering deals with questions under a specific domain (for example, medicine or automotive maintenance) and can exploit domain-specific knowledge frequently formalized in ontologies. Alternatively, "closed-domain" might refer to a situation where only a limited type of questions are accepted, such as questions asking for descriptive rather than procedural information. Question answering systems in the context of machine reading applications have also been constructed in the medical domain, for instance related to Alzheimer's disease. Open-domain question answering deals with questions about nearly anything and can only rely on general ontologies and world knowledge. Systems designed for open-domain question answering usually have much more data available from which to extract the answer. An example of an open-domain question is "What did Albert Einstein win the Nobel Prize for?" while no article about this subject is given to the system. Another way to categorize question-answering systems is by the technical approach used. There are a number of different types of QA systems, including: rule-based systems, statistical systems, and hybrid systems. Rule-based systems use a set of rules to determine the correct answer to a question. Statistical systems use statistical methods to find the most likely answer to a question. Hybrid systems use a combination of rule-based and statistical methods. == Architecture == As of 2001, question-answering systems typically included a question classifier module that determined the type of question and the type of answer. Different types of question-answering systems employ different architectures. For example, modern open-domain question answering systems may use a retriever-reader architecture. The retriever is aimed at retrieving relevant documents related to a given question, while the reader is used to infer the answer from the retrieved documents. Systems such as GPT-3, T5, and BART use an end-to-end architecture in which a transformer-based architecture stores large-scale textual data in the underlying parameters. Such models can answer questions without accessing any external knowledge sources. == Methods == Question answering is dependent on a good search corpus; without documents containing the answer, there is little any question answering system can do. Larger collections generally mean better question answering performance, unless the question domain is orthogonal to the collection. Data redundancy in massive collections, such as the web, means that nuggets of information are likely to be phrased in many different ways in differing contexts and documents, leading to two benefits: If the right information appears in many forms, the question answering system needs to perform fewer complex NLP techniques to understand the text. Correct answers can be filtered from false positives because the syst
Language resource
In linguistics and language technology, a language resource is a "[composition] of linguistic material used in the construction, improvement and/or evaluation of language processing applications, (...) in language and language-mediated research studies and applications." According to Bird & Simons (2003), this includes data, i.e. "any information that documents or describes a language, such as a published monograph, a computer data file, or even a shoebox full of handwritten index cards. The information could range in content from unanalyzed sound recordings to fully transcribed and annotated texts to a complete descriptive grammar", tools, i.e., "computational resources that facilitate creating, viewing, querying, or otherwise using language data", and advice, i.e., "any information about what data sources are reliable, what tools are appropriate in a given situation, what practices to follow when creating new data". The latter aspect is usually referred to as "best practices" or "(community) standards". In a narrower sense, language resource is specifically applied to resources that are available in digital form, and then, "encompassing (a) data sets (textual, multimodal/multimedia and lexical data, grammars, language models, etc.) in machine readable form, and (b) tools/technologies/services used for their processing and management". == Typology == As of May 2020, no widely used standard typology of language resources has been established (current proposals include the LREMap, METASHARE, and, for data, the LLOD classification). Important classes of language resources include data lexical resources, e.g., machine-readable dictionaries, linguistic corpora, i.e., digital collections of natural language data, linguistic data bases such as the Cross-Linguistic Linked Data collection, tools linguistic annotations and tools for creating such annotations in a manual or semiautomated fashion (e.g., tools for annotating interlinear glossed text such as Toolbox and FLEx, or other language documentation tools), applications for search and retrieval over such data (corpus management systems), for automated annotation (part-of-speech tagging, syntactic parsing, semantic parsing, etc.), metadata and vocabularies vocabularies, repositories of linguistic terminology and language metadata, e.g., MetaShare (for language resource metadata), the ISO 12620 data category registry (for linguistic features, data structures and annotations within a language resource), or the Glottolog database (identifiers for language varieties and bibliographical database). == Language resource publication, dissemination and creation == A major concern of the language resource community has been to develop infrastructures and platforms to present, discuss and disseminate language resources. Selected contributions in this regard include: a series of International Conferences on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC), the European Language Resources Association (ELRA, EU-based), and the Linguistic Data Consortium (LDC, US-based), which represent commercial hosting and dissemination platforms for language resources, the Open Languages Archives Community (OLAC), which provides and aggregates language resource metadata, the Language Resources and Evaluation Journal (LREJ), the European Language Grid is a European platform for language technologies (eg services), data and resources. As for the development of standards and best practices for language resources, these are subject of several community groups and standardization efforts, including ISO Technical Committee 37: Terminology and other language and content resources (ISO/TC 37), developing standards for all aspects of language resources, W3C Community Group Best Practices for Multilingual Linked Open Data (BPMLOD), working on best practice recommendations for publishing language resources as Linked Data or in RDF, W3C Community Group Linked Data for Language Technology (LD4LT), working on linguistic annotations on the web and language resource metadata, W3C Community Group Ontology-Lexica (OntoLex), working on lexical resources, the Open Linguistics working group of the Open Knowledge Foundation, working on conventions for publishing and linking open language resources, developing the Linguistic Linked Open Data cloud, the Text Encoding Initiative (TEI), working on XML-based specifications for language resources and digitally edited text.
AsoSoft text corpus
The AsoSoft text corpus is the first large-scale Kurdish text corpus, collected and processed by the AsoSoft research and development group. It contains 458,000 documents (188 million tokens) that are collected from sources such as websites, news agencies, books, and magazines. The corpus is partially tagged by topic, so it can be used for topic identification tasks. Also, it is applicable for extracting language model and computational lexicon information. Part of the corpus (75 million tokens) is available online for non-commercial use. The corpus uses the TEI format.
LTX (text-to-video model)
LTX is a family of open source artificial intelligence video foundation models developed by Lightricks, and first released in November 2024. The latest models, LTX-2, create videos based on user prompts. They were preceded by LTX Video, which was released in 2024 as the company's first text-to-video model. LTX-2 is part of the LTX family of video generation models, which form the core technology, alongside LTX Studio, of the LTX ecosystem. == History == === Origins: LTX Video (2024–2025) === In November 2024 Lightricks publicly released its first text-to-video model, LTX Video. It was a 2-billion parameter model, available as open source. In May 2025 Lightricks launched LTXV-13b, a version with 13-billion parameters. Two months later, the model broke the 60 second barrier for generated video. === Release of LTX-2 (2025) === In October 2025 Lightricks announced its latest model, and renamed it LTX-2. The model was described as capable of generating synchronized audio and video at native 4K resolution and up to 50 frames per second (fps), using a variety of conditions and prompts, including text-to-video and image-to-video. Google highlighted the fact that LTX-2 was trained on its infrastructure, and saying it was "The first open source AI video generation model, powered by Google Cloud". Upon its release it was ranked in the top-3 models for image-to-video creation by Artificial Analysis, behind Kling 3.5 by Kling AI and Veo 3.1 by Google. Its text-to-image option was ranked 7th. In addition to its open-source release, Lightricks offers API access to LTX-2, allowing developers to generate videos from text and image prompts through a hosted service without running the model locally. === Open Source Release (2026) === In January 2026, Lightricks officially released the full open-source version of LTX-2, making the model’s complete codebase, weights, and associated tooling publicly available. In March 2026 the company released LTX-2.3, which was accompanied by a desktop video editor enabling the entire model to run locally on consumer hardware. == Technical features == === Advancements over LTX Video === LTX-2 builds upon the LTX Video architecture with several major improvements: Unified audio-video generation producing synchronized dialogue, ambience, and motion Native 4K rendering 50-fps output for cinematic motion Three operational modes (Fast, Pro, Ultra) More efficient diffusion pipelines enabling high fidelity on consumer GPUs === Core capabilities === Text-to-video generation Image-to-video generation Multimodal audiovisual synthesis High-resolution spatial and temporal coherence Configurable quality/performance settings Open-source distribution of weights and datasets == Reception == Initial reception to LTX-2 was broadly positive, with several technology and media outlets highlighting its open-source approach and multimodal capabilities. Open Source For You described LTX-2 as “one of the first AI video systems to combine 4K output, synchronized audio, and an open model release,” noting that it positioned Lightricks as a significant competitor to proprietary systems such as OpenAI's Sora and Google's Veo. IEA Green said that the model “could rewrite the AI filmmaking game,” emphasizing that its 50-fps rendering and unified audio-video generation made it suitable for professional studios and independent creators alike. AI News characterized LTX-2 as a “major step forward in the democratization of cinematic-quality video generation,” praising its consumer-grade hardware efficiency and multi-tier generation modes, while also noting ongoing challenges in long-form temporal stability. FinancialContent reported strong interest among creative agencies, attributing the attention to Lightricks’ decision to release model weights and datasets, which reviewers said enabled “a level of transparency not typically seen in commercial AI video models.” === Benchmarks and rankings === Upon release, LTX-2 ranked third for image-to-video creation in the Artificial Analysis benchmark, behind Kling 3.5 and Veo 3.1, while its text-to-video option ranked seventh. As of early 2026, it was the highest-ranked open-source model in the benchmark. === Limitations === Some early reviewers also pointed out quality limitations. The Ray3 technical review noted occasional inconsistencies in lip-sync and motion tracking during long scenes, though it stated these were “in line with the challenges faced by all current AI video diffusion models” and expected to improve with continued iteration. Like other diffusion-based video generators, LTX-2 can produce artifacts in complex multi-person scenes and may struggle with precise text rendering within generated video.
Saliency map
In computer vision, a saliency map is an image that highlights either the region on which people's eyes focus first or the most relevant regions for machine learning models. The goal of a saliency map is to reflect the degree of importance of a pixel to the human visual system or an otherwise opaque ML model. For example, in this image, a person first looks at the fort and light clouds, so they should be highlighted on the saliency map. == Application == === Overview === Saliency maps have applications in a variety of different problems. Some general applications: ==== Human eye ==== Image and video compression: The human eye focuses only on a small region of interest in the frame. Therefore, it is not necessary to compress the entire frame with uniform quality. According to the authors, using a salience map reduces the final size of the video with the same visual perception. Image and video quality assessment: The main task for an image or video quality metric is a high correlation with user opinions. Differences in salient regions are given more importance and thus contribute more to the quality score. Image retargeting: It aims at resizing an image by expanding or shrinking the noninformative regions. Therefore, retargeting algorithms rely on the availability of saliency maps that accurately estimate all the salient image details. Object detection and recognition: Instead of applying a computationally complex algorithm to the whole image, we can use it to the most salient regions of an image most likely to contain an object. the primary visual cortex (V1) appears to be responsible for the saliency map, according to the V1 Saliency Hypothesis. ==== Explainable artificial intelligence ==== Saliency maps are a prominent tool in explainable artificial intelligence, providing visual explanations of the decision-making process of machine learning models, particularly deep neural networks. These maps highlight the regions in input data that are most influential on the model's output, effectively indicating where the model is "looking" when making a prediction. In image classification tasks, for example, saliency maps can identify pixels or regions that contribute most to a specific class decision. Developed for convolutional neural networks, saliency mapping techniques range from simply taking the gradient of the class score with respect to the input data to more complex algorithms, such as integrated gradients and class activation mapping. In transformer architecture, attention mechanisms led to analogous saliency maps, such as attention maps, attention rollouts, and class-discriminative attention maps. === Saliency as a segmentation problem === Saliency estimation may be viewed as an instance of image segmentation. In computer vision, image segmentation is the process of partitioning a digital image into multiple segments (sets of pixels, also known as superpixels). The goal of segmentation is to simplify and/or change the representation of an image into something that is more meaningful and easier to analyze. Image segmentation is typically used to locate objects and boundaries (lines, curves, etc.) in images. More precisely, image segmentation is the process of assigning a label to every pixel in an image such that pixels with the same label share certain characteristics. == Algorithms == === Overview === There are three forms of classic saliency estimation algorithms implemented in OpenCV: Static saliency: Relies on image features and statistics to localize the regions of interest of an image. Motion saliency: Relies on motion in a video, detected by optical flow. Objects that move are considered salient. Objectness: Objectness reflects how likely an image window covers an object. These algorithms generate a set of bounding boxes of where an object may lie in an image. In addition to classic approaches, neural-network-based are also popular. There are examples of neural networks for motion saliency estimation: TASED-Net: It consists of two building blocks. First, the encoder network extracts low-resolution spatiotemporal features, and then the following prediction network decodes the spatially encoded features while aggregating all the temporal information. STRA-Net: It emphasizes two essential issues. First, spatiotemporal features integrated via appearance and optical flow coupling, and then multi-scale saliency learned via attention mechanism. STAViS: It combines spatiotemporal visual and auditory information. This approach employs a single network that learns to localize sound sources and to fuse the two saliencies to obtain a final saliency map. There's a new static saliency in the literature with name visual distortion sensitivity. It is based on the idea that the true edges, i.e. object contours, are more salient than the other complex textured regions. It detects edges in a different way from the classic edge detection algorithms. It uses a fairly small threshold for the gradient magnitudes to consider the mere presence of the gradients. So, it obtains 4 binary maps for vertical, horizontal and two diagonal directions. The morphological closing and opening are applied to the binary images to close the small gaps. To clear the blob-like shapes, it utilizes the distance transform. After all, the connected pixel groups are individual edges (or contours). A threshold of size of connected pixel set is used to determine whether an image block contains a perceivable edge (salient region) or not. === Example implementation === First, we should calculate the distance of each pixel to the rest of pixels in the same frame: S A L S ( I k ) = ∑ i = 1 N | I k − I i | {\displaystyle \mathrm {SALS} (I_{k})=\sum _{i=1}^{N}|I_{k}-I_{i}|} I i {\displaystyle I_{i}} is the value of pixel i {\displaystyle i} , in the range of [0,255]. The following equation is the expanded form of this equation. SALS(Ik) = |Ik - I1| + |Ik - I2| + ... + |Ik - IN| Where N is the total number of pixels in the current frame. Then we can further restructure our formula. We put the value that has same I together. SALS(Ik) = Σ Fn × |Ik - In| Where Fn is the frequency of In. And the value of n belongs to [0,255]. The frequencies is expressed in the form of histogram, and the computational time of histogram is O ( N ) {\displaystyle O(N)} time complexity. ==== Time complexity ==== This saliency map algorithm has O ( N ) {\displaystyle O(N)} time complexity. Since the computational time of histogram is O ( N ) {\displaystyle O(N)} time complexity which N is the number of pixel's number of a frame. Besides, the minus part and multiply part of this equation need 256 times operation. Consequently, the time complexity of this algorithm is O ( N + 256 ) {\displaystyle O(N+256)} which equals to O ( N ) {\displaystyle O(N)} . ==== Pseudocode ==== All of the following code is pseudo MATLAB code. First, read data from video sequences. After we read data, we do superpixel process to each frame. Spnum1 and Spnum2 represent the pixel number of current frame and previous pixel. Then we calculate the color distance of each pixel, this process we call it contract function. After this two process, we will get a saliency map, and then store all of these maps into a new FileFolder. ==== Difference in algorithms ==== The major difference between function one and two is the difference of contract function. If spnum1 and spnum2 both represent the current frame's pixel number, then this contract function is for the first saliency function. If spnum1 is the current frame's pixel number and spnum2 represent the previous frame's pixel number, then this contract function is for second saliency function. If we use the second contract function which using the pixel of the same frame to get center distance to get a saliency map, then we apply this saliency function to each frame and use current frame's saliency map minus previous frame's saliency map to get a new image which is the new saliency result of the third saliency function. == Datasets == The saliency dataset usually contains human eye movements on some image sequences. It is valuable for new saliency algorithm creation or benchmarking the existing one. The most valuable dataset parameters are spatial resolution, size, and eye-tracking equipment. Here is part of the large datasets table from MIT/Tübingen Saliency Benchmark datasets, for example. To collect a saliency dataset, image or video sequences and eye-tracking equipment must be prepared, and observers must be invited. Observers must have normal or corrected to normal vision and must be at the same distance from the screen. At the beginning of each recording session, the eye-tracker recalibrates. To do this, the observer fixates their gaze on the screen center. The session is then started, and saliency data are collected by showing sequences and recording eye gazes. The eye-tracking device is a high-speed camera, capable of recording eye movements at least 250 fr
ACL Data Collection Initiative
The ACL Data Collection Initiative (ACL/DCI) was a project established in 1989 by the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL) to create and distribute large text and speech corpora for computational linguistics research. The initiative aimed to address the growing need for substantial text databases that could support research in areas such as natural language processing, speech recognition, and computational linguistics. By 1993, the initiative’s activities had effectively ceased, with its functions and datasets absorbed by the Linguistic Data Consortium (LDC), which was founded in 1992. == Objectives == The ACL/DCI had several key objectives: To acquire a large and diverse text corpus from various sources To transform the collected texts into a common format based on the Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML) To make the corpus available for scientific research at low cost with minimal restrictions To provide a common database that would allow researchers to replicate or extend published results To reduce duplication of effort among researchers in obtaining and preparing text data These objectives were designed to address the growing demand for very large amounts of text arising from applications in recognition and analysis of text and speech. Its core objective was to "oversee the acquisition and preparation of a large text corpus to be made available for scientific research at cost and without royalties". == History == By the late 1980s, researchers in computational linguistics and speech recognition faced a significant problem: the lack of large-scale, accessible text corpora for developing statistical models and testing algorithms. Existing generally available text databases were too small to meet the needs of developing applications in text and speech recognition. The initiative was formed to meet this need by collecting, standardizing, and distributing large quantities of text data with minimal restrictions for scientific research. As stated by Liberman (1990), "research workers have been severely hampered by the lack of appropriate materials, and specially by the lack of a large enough body of text on which published results can be replicated or extended by others." The ACL/DCI committee was established in February 1989. The committee included members from academic and industrial research laboratories in the United States and Europe. The initiative was chaired by Mark Liberman from the University of Pennsylvania (formerly of AT&T Bell Laboratories). Other committee members included representatives from organizations such as Bellcore, IBM T.J. Watson Research Center, Cambridge University, Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, Northeastern University, University of Pennsylvania, SRI International, MCC, Xerox PARC, ISSCO, and University of Pisa. The project operated initially without dedicated funding, relying on volunteer efforts from committee members and their affiliated institutions. Key supporters included AT&T Bell Labs, Bellcore, IBM, Xerox, and the University of Pennsylvania, which allowed the use of their computing facilities for ACL/DCI-related work. Previously running on volunteer effort pro bono, in 1991, it obtained funding from General Electric and the National Science Foundation (IRI-9113530). == Data == As of 1990, the ACL/DCI had collected hundreds of millions of words of diverse text. The collection included: Wall Street Journal articles (25 to 50 million words); Canadian Hansard (parliamentary records) in parallel English and French versions: cleaned-up English Hansard donated by the IBM alignment models group (100 million words), and original Bilingual Hansard (from a different time period) obtained directly (200 million words). Collins English Dictionary (1979 edition), both as fulltext (3 million words) and as various "database" versions, constructed using "typographers' tape" donated by Collins, which were computer tapes containing the structured digital data used to typeset and print the 1979 edition of the dictionary; Emails from ARPANET newsletters for the ACM Special Interest Group on Information Retrieval Forum (IRLIST) and AIList Digest issues distributed over the ARPANET (AILIST) (5 million words), both collected by Edward A. Fox at VIPSU; Articles on networking (2 million words); U.S. Department of Agriculture Extension Service Fact Sheets (>1 million words); 200,000 scientific abstracts of about 1,500 words each from the Department of Energy (25 million words); Archives of the Challenger Investigation Commission, including transcripts of depositions and hearings (2.5 million words); Books from the Library of America, including works by Mark Twain, Eugene O'Neill, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Herman Melville, W.E.B. DuBois, Willa Cather, and Benjamin Franklin (130 books, 20 million words); Public domain books like the King James Bible, Tristram Shandy, The Federalist Papers; Several million words of transcribed radiologists' reports, donated by Francis Ganong at Kurzweil Applied Intelligence Inc (about 5 million words); The Child Language Data Exchange corpus of child language acquisition transcripts; U.S. Department of Justice Justice Retrieval and Inquiry System (JURIS) materials; The Swiss Civil Code in parallel German, French and Italian; Economic reports from the Union Bank of Switzerland, in parallel English, German, French and Italian; About 12K words of administrative policy manuals and 14K words of administrative memos, contributed by Geoff Pullum of U.C.S.C.; Material from various ACM journals and the ACL journal Computational Linguistics; The CSLI publications series: 50-100 reports (8K words each) and 5-10 books (80K words each). The initiative started with North American English text but expanded to include Canadian French and planned to include Japanese, Chinese, and other Asian languages. At least 5 million words from the collection were tagged under the Penn Treebank project, and those tags were distributed by DCI as well. After DCI was absorbed by the LDC, the datasets were curated under LDC. == Format == The ACL/DCI corpus was coded in a standard form based on SGML (Standard Generalized Markup Language, ISO 8879), consistent with the recommendations of the Text Encoding Initiative (TEI), of which the DCI was an affiliated project. The TEI was a joint project of the ACL, the Association for Computers and the Humanities, and the Association for Literary and Linguistic Computing, aiming to provide a common interchange format for literary and linguistic data. The initiative planned to add annotations reflecting consensually approved linguistic features like part of speech and various aspects of syntactic and semantic structure over time. == Examples == As an example of the use of ACL/DCI, consider the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) corpus for speech recognition research. The WSJ corpus was used as the basis for the DARPA Spoken Language System (SLS) community's Continuous Speech Recognition (CSR) Corpus. The WSJ corpus became a standard benchmark for evaluating speech recognition systems and has been used in numerous research papers. The WSJ CSR Corpus provided DARPA with its first general-purpose English, large vocabulary, natural language, high perplexity corpus containing speech (400 hours) and text (47 million words) during 1987–89. The text corpus was 313 MB in size. The text was preprocessed to remove ambiguity in the word sequence that a reader might choose, ensuring that the unread text used to train language models was representative of the spoken test material. The preprocessing included converting numbers into orthographics, expanding abbreviations, resolving apostrophes and quotation marks, and marking punctuation. As another example, the Yarowsky algorithm used bitext data from DCI to train a simple word-sense disambiguation model that was competitive with advanced models trained on smaller datasets. == Distribution == Materials from the ACL/DCI collection were distributed to research groups on a non-commercial basis. By 1990, about 25 research groups and individual researchers had received tapes containing various portions of the collected material. To obtain the data, researchers had to sign an agreement not to redistribute the data or make direct commercial use of it. However, commercial application of "analytical materials" derived from the text, such as statistical tables or grammar rules, was explicitly permitted. The initiative first distributed data via 12-inch reels of 9-track tape, then via CD-ROMs. Each such tape could contain 30 million words compressed via the Lempel-Ziv algorithms. The first CD-ROM distribution was in 1991, funded by Dragon Systems Inc. It contained Collins English Dictionary, WSJ, scientific abstracts provided by the U.S. Department of Energy, and the Penn Treebank.