NER is one of several formulas for accessing live subtitles in television broadcasts and events that are produced using speech recognition. The three letters stand for number, edit error and recognition error. It has been promoted as an alternative to Word error rate (Word Error Rate) which is a more objective measure. The overall score is calculated as follows: Firstly, the number of edit and recognition errors is deducted from the total number of words in the live subtitles. This number is then divided by the total number of words in the live subtitles and finally multiplied by one hundred. N E R v a l u e = N − E − R N ∗ 100 {\displaystyle NERvalue={\frac {N-E-R}{N}}100} . The acronyms stand for the following: N (number) = total number of words in the live subtitles E (Edit error) = edit error R (Recognition error) = recognition error This measurement process has been used for public television broadcasts in European countries like Italy and Switzerland. One major drawback with NER is that it requires a human assessor to rate errors as either: 1 Minor edition or recognition errors 2 Normal edition or recognition errors 3 Serious errors which are then weighted in the assessment process. This is both subjective, time consuming and costly. Also, NER fails to account for words left out subtitles which is something that does not take account of the D/deaf audience who want verbatim subtitles. As a result, NER cannot accurately reflect the audience's experience of subtitles. Another problem is the inconsistency of human evaluation of subtitles, particularly with live subtitles, where there are differing opinions of the importance of subtitle errors. By way of contrast, Word error rate is an objective measure of subtitle errors, since it measures the textual discrepancy between the subtitles and the speech.
Supper (Spotify)
Supper is a web-based application on the Spotify digital music streaming platform. The Supper app was born from a group of friends who had backgrounds in the music and gastronomy industries. Digital music solutions company Artisan Council later executed it. The app now sits in the top 40 applications on Spotify. == About == The Supper Spotify application matches recipes for all occasions and skill levels with a playlist for both preparation and presentation, as envisioned by the chefs themselves. Supper is credited with being one of the first apps to pair music with food. Playing on the social nature of music and food culture, users can seamlessly experience both for the first time with real time music streaming. == Supper.mx == In May 2014 Supper was launched outside of the Spotify streaming platform. Though still in partnership with Spotify, supper.mx allows users to view Supper's music + food collaborations on mobile, tablet and desktop, without the need to download Spotify directly. == Curators == All of the recipes and playlists featured on the Supper app come straight from a growing network of tastemakers, including chefs, musicians and institutions around the world. Each month the recipes and playlists are updated in conjunction with current holidays, events and seasons. === Launch === Launching in October 2013 the first edition of Supper featured content from a range of eating institutions and culture makers from the US and Australia. Brooklyn Bowl (Brooklyn) Roberta's Pizza (Brooklyn) Fancy Hanks (Melbourne) The Foresters/Queenies Upstairs (Sydney) Hipstamatic Panama House (Bondi) Sweetwater Inn (Melbourne) Soul Clap (Syd record label) Yellow Birds (Melbourne) === November 2013 === Yardbird (Hong Kong) Sonoma Bakery (Sydney) Do or Dine (Brooklyn) Cameo Gallery (Brooklyn) Hypertrak (Blog) Blue Smoke (NYC) The Crepes of Wrath (Blog) Willin Low // Wild Rocket - Wild Oats - Relish === December 2013 === The Copper Mill (Sydney) Thug Kitchen Mamak (Sydney) Tutu's (Brooklyn) Chin Chin (Melbourne) Flat Iron Steak (London) Greasy Spoon (Copenhagen) === January 2014 === Mexicali Taco & Co. (LA) Church & State (LA) Salts Cure (LA) Nopa (SF) L & E Oyster (LA) 4100 bar (LA) Golden Gopher (LA) The Pie Hole (LA) State Bird Provisions (SF) === Momofuku === In February 2014 Supper teamed up with restaurant heavy weights Momofuku. The recipes featured came from their iconic New York, Toronto and Sydney restaurants. Head office also got involved with an instructional from Brand Director Sue Chan on how to paint Momofuku vibes on to any party. === SXSW === March sees the Supper team migrate to Austin, Texas for SXSW, bringing together the best eateries the city has to offer as well as the music that has influenced them. Restaurants and eateries on board in 2014 included: The Backspace Kelis Swifts Attic Uchi Jackalope Paul Qui/East Side King Thai Kun Wonderland Hole in the Wall Justine's Brasserie The Liberty === Kelis === In April 2014 Kelis presented 5 of her recipes paired with a personal playlist for Supper. Kelis shared her recipes for apple farro, jerk ribs, New York vanilla bean cheesecake and Jerk Ribs. The Kelis/Supper collaboration coincided with the release of Kelis' 2014 album titled 'Food'. === Roberta's Pizza === In May 2014 Bushwick's Roberta's Pizza was guest curator on the Supper app and website. Included in their selections were restaurants and bars from across New York including Bun-ker Vietnamese, Old Stanley's Bar, St. Anselm, Chuko, Frank's Cocktail Lounge, Junior's Cheesecake, Xi'an Famous Foods, Xe Lua, 124 Old Rabbit and Yuji Ramen.
Kurt Keutzer
Kurt Keutzer (born November 9, 1955) is an American computer scientist. == Early life and education == Kurt Keutzer grew up in Indianapolis, Indiana. He earned a bachelor's degree in mathematics from Maharishi University of Management (formerly Mararishi International University) in 1978, and a PhD in computer science from Indiana University Bloomington in 1984. == Career == Keutzer joined Bell Labs in 1984, where he worked on logic synthesis. In 1991, he joined the electronic design automation company Synopsys, where he was promoted to chief technology officer. He subsequently joined the University of California, Berkeley as a professor in 1998. His research at Berkeley has focused on the intersection of high performance computing and machine learning. Working with a number of graduate students at Berkeley, Keutzer developed FireCaffe, which scaled the training of deep neural networks to over 100 GPUs. Later, with LARS and LAMB optimizers, they scaled it to over 1000 servers. Keutzer and his students also developed deep neural networks such as SqueezeNet, SqueezeDet, and SqueezeSeg, which can run efficiently on mobile devices. Keutzer co-founded DeepScale with his PhD student Forrest Iandola in 2015, and Keutzer served as the company's chief strategy officer. The firm was focused on developing deep neural networks for advanced driver assistance systems in passenger cars. On October 1, 2019, electric vehicle manufacturer Tesla, Inc. purchased DeepScale to augment and accelerate its self-driving vehicle work. == Honors and awards == Keutzer was named a Fellow of the IEEE in 1996. Recipient of DAC Most Influential Paper (MIP) award (24th DAC, 1987) for his "Dagon: technology binding and local optimization by DAG matching” publication. == Books by Keutzer == 1988. Dwight Hill, Don Shugard, John Fishburn, and Kurt Keutzer. Algorithms and Techniques for VLSI Layout Synthesis. Springer. 1994. Srinivas Devadas, Abhijit Ghosh, and Kurt Keutzer. Logic Synthesis. McGraw-Hill. 2002. David Chinnery and Kurt Keutzer. Closing the Gap Between ASIC & Custom: Tools and Techniques for High-Performance ASIC Design. Springer. (2nd edition appeared in 2007.) 2004. Pinhong Chen, Desmond A. Kirkpatrick, and Kurt Keutzer. Static Crosstalk-Noise Analysis: For Deep Sub-Micron Digital Designs. Springer. 2005. Matthias Gries and Kurt Keutzer. Building ASIPs: The Mescal Methodology. Springer.
Deterministic finite automaton
In the theory of computation, a branch of theoretical computer science, a deterministic finite automaton (DFA)—also known as deterministic finite acceptor (DFA), deterministic finite-state machine (DFSM), or deterministic finite-state automaton (DFSA)—is a finite-state machine that accepts or rejects a given string of symbols, by running through a state sequence uniquely determined by the string. Deterministic refers to the uniqueness of the computation run. In search of the simplest models to capture finite-state machines, Warren McCulloch and Walter Pitts were among the first researchers to introduce a concept similar to finite automata in 1943. The figure illustrates a deterministic finite automaton using a state diagram. In this example automaton, there are three states: S0, S1, and S2 (denoted graphically by circles). The automaton takes a finite sequence of 0s and 1s as input. For each state, there is a transition arrow leading out to a next state for both 0 and 1. Upon reading a symbol, a DFA jumps deterministically from one state to another by following the transition arrow. For example, if the automaton is currently in state S0 and the current input symbol is 1, then it deterministically jumps to state S1. A DFA has a start state (denoted graphically by an arrow coming in from nowhere) where computations begin, and a set of accept states (denoted graphically by a double circle) which help define when a computation is successful. A DFA is defined as an abstract mathematical concept, but is often implemented in hardware and software for solving various specific problems such as lexical analysis and pattern matching. For example, a DFA can model software that decides whether or not online user input such as email addresses are syntactically valid. DFAs have been generalized to nondeterministic finite automata (NFA) which may have several arrows of the same label starting from a state. Using the powerset construction method, every NFA can be translated to a DFA that recognizes the same language. DFAs, and NFAs as well, recognize exactly the set of regular languages. == Formal definition == A deterministic finite automaton M is a 5-tuple, (Q, Σ, δ, q0, F), consisting of a finite set of states Q a finite set of input symbols called the alphabet Σ a transition function δ : Q × Σ → Q an initial (or start) state q 0 ∈ Q {\displaystyle q_{0}\in Q} a set of accepting (or final) states F ⊆ Q {\displaystyle F\subseteq Q} Let w = a1a2...an be a string over the alphabet Σ. The automaton M accepts the string w if a sequence of states, r0, r1, ..., rn, exists in Q with the following conditions: r0 = q0 ri+1 = δ(ri, ai+1), for i = 0, ..., n − 1 r n ∈ F {\displaystyle r_{n}\in F} . In words, the first condition says that the machine starts in the start state q0. The second condition says that given each character of string w, the machine will transition from state to state according to the transition function δ. The last condition says that the machine accepts w if the last input of w causes the machine to halt in one of the accepting states. Otherwise, it is said that the automaton rejects the string. The set of strings that M accepts is the language recognized by M and this language is denoted by L(M). A deterministic finite automaton without accept states and without a starting state is known as a transition system or semiautomaton. For more comprehensive introduction of the formal definition see automata theory. == Example == The following example is of a DFA M, with a binary alphabet, which requires that the input contains an even number of 0s. M = (Q, Σ, δ, q0, F) where Q = {S1, S2} Σ = {0, 1} q0 = S1 F = {S1} and δ is defined by the following state transition table: The state S1 represents that there has been an even number of 0s in the input so far, while S2 signifies an odd number. A 1 in the input does not change the state of the automaton. When the input ends, the state will show whether the input contained an even number of 0s or not. If the input did contain an even number of 0s, M will finish in state S1, an accepting state, so the input string will be accepted. The language recognized by M is the regular language given by the regular expression (1) (0 (1) 0 (1)), where is the Kleene star, e.g., 1 denotes any number (possibly zero) of consecutive ones. == Variations == === Complete and incomplete === According to the above definition, deterministic finite automata are always complete: they define from each state a transition for each input symbol. While this is the most common definition, some authors use the term deterministic finite automaton for a slightly different notion: an automaton that defines at most one transition for each state and each input symbol; the transition function is allowed to be partial. When no transition is defined, such an automaton halts. === Local automata === A local automaton is a DFA, not necessarily complete, for which all edges with the same label lead to a single vertex. Local automata accept the class of local languages, those for which membership of a word in the language is determined by a "sliding window" of length two on the word. A Myhill graph over an alphabet A is a directed graph with vertex set A and subsets of vertices labelled "start" and "finish". The language accepted by a Myhill graph is the set of directed paths from a start vertex to a finish vertex: the graph thus acts as an automaton. The class of languages accepted by Myhill graphs is the class of local languages. === Randomness === When the start state and accept states are ignored, a DFA of n states and an alphabet of size k can be seen as a digraph of n vertices in which all vertices have k out-arcs labeled 1, ..., k (a k-out digraph). It is known that when k ≥ 2 is a fixed integer, with high probability, the largest strongly connected component (SCC) in such a k-out digraph chosen uniformly at random is of linear size and it can be reached by all vertices. It has also been proven that if k is allowed to increase as n increases, then the whole digraph has a phase transition for strong connectivity similar to Erdős–Rényi model for connectivity. In a random DFA, the maximum number of vertices reachable from one vertex is very close to the number of vertices in the largest SCC with high probability. This is also true for the largest induced sub-digraph of minimum in-degree one, which can be seen as a directed version of 1-core. == Closure properties == If DFAs recognize the languages that are obtained by applying an operation on the DFA recognizable languages then DFAs are said to be closed under the operation. The DFAs are closed under the following operations. For each operation, an optimal construction with respect to the number of states has been determined in state complexity research. Since DFAs are equivalent to nondeterministic finite automata (NFA), these closures may also be proved using closure properties of NFA. == As a transition monoid == A run of a given DFA can be seen as a sequence of compositions of a very general formulation of the transition function with itself. Here we construct that function. For a given input symbol a ∈ Σ {\displaystyle a\in \Sigma } , one may construct a transition function δ a : Q → Q {\displaystyle \delta _{a}:Q\rightarrow Q} by defining δ a ( q ) = δ ( q , a ) {\displaystyle \delta _{a}(q)=\delta (q,a)} for all q ∈ Q {\displaystyle q\in Q} . (This trick is called currying.) From this perspective, δ a {\displaystyle \delta _{a}} "acts" on a state in Q to yield another state. One may then consider the result of function composition repeatedly applied to the various functions δ a {\displaystyle \delta _{a}} , δ b {\displaystyle \delta _{b}} , and so on. Given a pair of letters a , b ∈ Σ {\displaystyle a,b\in \Sigma } , one may define a new function δ ^ a b = δ a ∘ δ b {\displaystyle {\widehat {\delta }}_{ab}=\delta _{a}\circ \delta _{b}} , where ∘ {\displaystyle \circ } denotes function composition. Clearly, this process may be recursively continued, giving the following recursive definition of δ ^ : Q × Σ ⋆ → Q {\displaystyle {\widehat {\delta }}:Q\times \Sigma ^{\star }\rightarrow Q} : δ ^ ( q , ϵ ) = q {\displaystyle {\widehat {\delta }}(q,\epsilon )=q} , where ϵ {\displaystyle \epsilon } is the empty string and δ ^ ( q , w a ) = δ a ( δ ^ ( q , w ) ) {\displaystyle {\widehat {\delta }}(q,wa)=\delta _{a}({\widehat {\delta }}(q,w))} , where w ∈ Σ ∗ , a ∈ Σ {\displaystyle w\in \Sigma ^{},a\in \Sigma } and q ∈ Q {\displaystyle q\in Q} . δ ^ {\displaystyle {\widehat {\delta }}} is defined for all words w ∈ Σ ∗ {\displaystyle w\in \Sigma ^{}} . A run of the DFA is a sequence of compositions of δ ^ {\displaystyle {\widehat {\delta }}} with itself. Repeated function composition forms a monoid. For the transition functions, this monoid is known as the transition monoid, or sometimes the transformation semigroup. The construction can also be reversed: given a δ ^ {\displaystyle {\wide
Is an AI Paraphrasing Tool Worth It in 2026?
Curious about the best AI paraphrasing tool? An AI paraphrasing tool is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it combines speed, accuracy, and an interface that just works. Hands-on testing shows real-world results vary, so a short free trial is the smartest way to decide. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI paraphrasing tool 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.
Google Clips
Google Clips is a discontinued miniature clip-on camera device developed by Google. == History == It was announced on October 4, 2017 and went on sale on January 27, 2018. Google Clips automatically captured video clips (without audio) at moments its machine learning algorithms determined to be interesting or relevant. An indicator flashed when the camera was looking for scenes to capture. Google Clips' artificial intelligence (AI) could learn the faces of people to take photographs with certain people, and could automatically set lighting and framing. It had 16 GB of storage built-in storage and could record clips for up to 3 hours. This camera was originally priced at US$249 in the United States. It was withdrawn from sale on October 15, 2019, but supported until the end of December 2021. == Reception == The Independent wrote that Google Clips is "an impressive little device, but one that also has the potential to feel very creepy." According to The Verge's generally negative review, "it didn't capture anything special" over two weeks of testing.
Two-way finite automaton
In computer science, in particular in automata theory, a two-way finite automaton is a finite automaton that is allowed to re-read its input. == Two-way deterministic finite automaton == A two-way deterministic finite automaton (2DFA) is an abstract machine, a generalized version of the deterministic finite automaton (DFA) which can revisit characters already processed. As in a DFA, there are a finite number of states with transitions between them based on the current character, but each transition is also labelled with a value indicating whether the machine will move its position in the input to the left, right, or stay at the same position. Equivalently, 2DFAs can be seen as read-only Turing machines with no work tape, only a read-only input tape. 2DFAs were introduced in a seminal 1959 paper by Rabin and Scott, who proved them to have equivalent power to one-way DFAs. That is, any formal language which can be recognized by a 2DFA can be recognized by a DFA which only examines and consumes each character in order. Since DFAs are obviously a special case of 2DFAs, this implies that both kinds of machines recognize precisely the class of regular languages. However, the equivalent DFA for a 2DFA may require exponentially many states, making 2DFAs a much more practical representation for algorithms for some common problems. 2DFAs are also equivalent to read-only Turing machines that use only a constant amount of space on their work tape, since any constant amount of information can be incorporated into the finite control state via a product construction (a state for each combination of work tape state and control state). == Formal description == Formally, a two-way deterministic finite automaton can be described by the following 8-tuple: M = ( Q , Σ , L , R , δ , s , t , r ) {\displaystyle M=(Q,\Sigma ,L,R,\delta ,s,t,r)} where Q {\displaystyle Q} is the finite, non-empty set of states Σ {\displaystyle \Sigma } is the finite, non-empty set of input symbols L {\displaystyle L} is the left endmarker R {\displaystyle R} is the right endmarker δ : Q × ( Σ ∪ { L , R } ) → Q × { l e f t , r i g h t } {\displaystyle \delta :Q\times (\Sigma \cup \{L,R\})\rightarrow Q\times \{\mathrm {left,right} \}} s {\displaystyle s} is the start state t {\displaystyle t} is the end state r {\displaystyle r} is the reject state In addition, the following two conditions must also be satisfied: For all q ∈ Q {\displaystyle q\in Q} δ ( q , L ) = ( q ′ , r i g h t ) {\displaystyle \delta (q,L)=(q^{\prime },\mathrm {right} )} for some q ′ ∈ Q {\displaystyle q^{\prime }\in Q} δ ( q , R ) = ( q ′ , l e f t ) {\displaystyle \delta (q,R)=(q^{\prime },\mathrm {left} )} for some q ′ ∈ Q {\displaystyle q^{\prime }\in Q} It says that there must be some transition possible when the pointer reaches either end of the input word. For all symbols σ ∈ Σ ∪ { L } {\displaystyle \sigma \in \Sigma \cup \{L\}} δ ( t , σ ) = ( t , R ) {\displaystyle \delta (t,\sigma )=(t,R)} δ ( r , σ ) = ( r , R ) {\displaystyle \delta (r,\sigma )=(r,R)} δ ( t , R ) = ( t , L ) {\displaystyle \delta (t,R)=(t,L)} δ ( r , R ) = ( r , L ) {\displaystyle \delta (r,R)=(r,L)} It says that once the automaton reaches the accept or reject state, it stays in there forever and the pointer goes to the right most symbol and cycles there infinitely. == Two-way nondeterministic finite automaton == A two-way nondeterministic finite automaton (2NFA) may have multiple transitions defined in the same configuration. Its transition function is δ : Q × ( Σ ∪ { L , R } ) → 2 Q × { l e f t , r i g h t } {\displaystyle \delta :Q\times (\Sigma \cup \{L,R\})\rightarrow 2^{Q\times \{\mathrm {left,right} \}}} . Like a standard one-way NFA, a 2NFA accepts a string if at least one of the possible computations is accepting. Like the 2DFAs, the 2NFAs also accept only regular languages. == Two-way alternating finite automaton == A two-way alternating finite automaton (2AFA) is a two-way extension of an alternating finite automaton (AFA). Its state set is Q = Q ∃ ∪ Q ∀ {\displaystyle Q=Q_{\exists }\cup Q_{\forall }} where Q ∃ ∩ Q ∀ = ∅ {\displaystyle Q_{\exists }\cap Q_{\forall }=\emptyset } . States in Q ∃ {\displaystyle Q_{\exists }} and Q ∀ {\displaystyle Q_{\forall }} are called existential resp. universal. In an existential state a 2AFA nondeterministically chooses the next state like an NFA, and accepts if at least one of the resulting computations accepts. In a universal state 2AFA moves to all next states, and accepts if all the resulting computations accept. == State complexity tradeoffs == Two-way and one-way finite automata, deterministic and nondeterministic and alternating, accept the same class of regular languages. However, transforming an automaton of one type to an equivalent automaton of another type incurs a blow-up in the number of states. Christos Kapoutsis determined that transforming an n {\displaystyle n} -state 2DFA to an equivalent DFA requires n ( n n − ( n − 1 ) n ) {\displaystyle n(n^{n}-(n-1)^{n})} states in the worst case. If an n {\displaystyle n} -state 2DFA or a 2NFA is transformed to an NFA, the worst-case number of states required is ( 2 n n + 1 ) = O ( 4 n n ) {\displaystyle {\binom {2n}{n+1}}=O\left({\frac {4^{n}}{\sqrt {n}}}\right)} . Ladner, Lipton and Stockmeyer. proved that an n {\displaystyle n} -state 2AFA can be converted to a DFA with 2 n 2 n {\displaystyle 2^{n2^{n}}} states. The 2AFA to NFA conversion requires 2 Θ ( n log n ) {\displaystyle 2^{\Theta (n\log n)}} states in the worst case, see Geffert and Okhotin. It is an open problem whether every 2NFA can be converted to a 2DFA with only a polynomial increase in the number of states. The problem was raised by Sakoda and Sipser, who compared it to the P vs. NP problem in the computational complexity theory. Berman and Lingas discovered a formal relation between this problem and the L vs. NL open problem, see Kapoutsis for a precise relation. == Sweeping automata == Sweeping automata are 2DFAs of a special kind that process the input string by making alternating left-to-right and right-to-left sweeps, turning only at the endmarkers. Sipser constructed a sequence of languages, each accepted by an n-state NFA, yet which is not accepted by any sweeping automata with fewer than 2 n {\displaystyle 2^{n}} states. == Two-way quantum finite automaton == The concept of 2DFAs was in 1997 generalized to quantum computing by John Watrous's "On the Power of 2-Way Quantum Finite State Automata", in which he demonstrates that these machines can recognize nonregular languages and so are more powerful than DFAs. == Two-way pushdown automaton == A pushdown automaton that is allowed to move either way on its input tape is called two-way pushdown automaton (2PDA); it has been studied by Hartmanis, Lewis, and Stearns (1965). Aho, Hopcroft, Ullman (1968) and Cook (1971) characterized the class of languages recognizable by deterministic (2DPDA) and non-deterministic (2NPDA) two-way pushdown automata; Gray, Harrison, and Ibarra (1967) investigated the closure properties of these languages.