Forrest N. Iandola is an American computer scientist specializing in efficient AI. == Career == Iandola earned a PhD in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science from UC Berkeley in 2016, advised by Kurt Keutzer. As part of his dissertation, he co-authored SqueezeNet, a deep neural network for image classification optimized for smartphones and other mobile devices. Iandola and Keutzer went on to co-found DeepScale. The firm squeezes deep neural networks onto low-cost automotive-grade processors for use in driver assistance systems. Tesla acquired DeepScale in 2019. In 2020, he co-authored SqueezeBERT, an efficient neural network for natural language processing. In 2022, he joined Meta as an AI research scientist. His research at Meta includes developing efficient AI models, such as EfficientSAM and MobileLLM.
Collabora Online
Collabora Online (often abbreviated as COOL) is an open-source online office suite developed by Collabora, based on LibreOffice Online, the web-based edition of the LibreOffice office suite. It enables real-time collaborative editing of documents, spreadsheets, presentations, and vector graphics in a web browser. Optional applications are available for offline use on Android, ChromeOS, iOS, iPadOS, Linux distributions, macOS, and Windows. It supports the OpenDocument format and is compatible with other major formats, including those used by Microsoft Office. The Document Foundation (TDF), the nonprofit organization behind LibreOffice, states that a majority of the LibreOffice software development is done by its partners like Collabora. Collabora Online is an open-source alternative to proprietary cloud office platforms such as Google Workspace and Microsoft 365. Unlike these services, it can be self-hosted or hosted by third-party providers. The platform is marketed particularly toward enterprises and public institutions seeking greater digital sovereignty and independence from U.S.-based "big tech" companies. Collabora also develops Collabora Office, a standalone desktop and mobile app suite based on LibreOffice. Although Collabora Online has increasingly taken on a central role, both products may be used in parallel, similar to Microsoft Office and Microsoft 365. In November 2025, Collabora released Collabora Office Desktop and renamed the previous product Collabora Office Classic. The new product shares code with Collabora Online and brings the same user interface to the desktop on Linux, Windows and MacOS. A separate version, the Collabora Online Development Edition (CODE), is offered free of charge and is recommended for individuals, small teams, and developers. CODE provides early access to new features and serves as a testing and development platform for open-source community contributors. As TDF does not offer a free version of LibreOffice Online, CODE represents the primary freely available option for organizations and individuals interested in deploying LibreOffice in a web-based, collaborative setting. == Applications == Collabora Online includes several applications for document editing, available through the web-based interface and optional desktop and mobile apps: Collabora Writer – A word processor based on LibreOffice Writer, comparable to Microsoft Word and Google Docs. It supports WYSIWYG editing, styles, formatting tools, comment threads, and change tracking. Collabora Calc – A spreadsheet editor based on LibreOffice Calc, similar to Microsoft Excel and Google Sheets. Features include pivot tables, formulas, data validation, conditional formatting, advanced sorting and filtering, charts, and support for up to 16,000 columns. Compatible with some macros written in VBA. Collabora Impress – A presentation program based on LibreOffice Impress, comparable to Microsoft PowerPoint and Google Slides. It supports master slides, transitions, speaker notes, and multimedia elements. Collabora Draw is not a separate application, most of the functionality of the Draw application is now integrated in Writer and Impress – vector graphics editor based on LibreOffice Draw, comparable to Microsoft Visio and Google Drawings. == Features == Collabora Online can be accessed from modern web browsers without the need for plug-ins or add-ons. It supports real-time collaborative editing of word processing documents, spreadsheets, presentations, and vector graphics. Collaboration features include commenting, version tracking with document comparison and restoration, and integration with communication tools such as chat or video calls. These functions are often enabled through integration with enterprise open-source cloud platforms like Nextcloud, ownCloud, Seafile, EGroupware, GroupOffice and others. Collabora Online can also be embedded or integrated into a variety of third-party applications. Although client apps are not required to use the web-based suite, optional applications are available for offline use on Android, ChromeOS, iOS, iPadOS, Linux distributions, macOS, and Windows. These apps share the same LibreOffice-based core as the server version, ensuring document compatibility across platforms. Development of the LibreOffice core benefits both the online server and the client applications simultaneously. The mobile apps offer touch-optimized interfaces that adapt to different screen sizes and can be used offline, with optional integration into cloud storage services. Collabora Online supports OpenDocument formats (ODF; .odt, .odp, .ods, .odg) in accordance with ISO/IEC 26300. It is also compatible with Microsoft Office formats, including Office Open XML (.docx, .pptx, .xlsx) and legacy binary formats (.doc, .ppt, .xls). Additional supported formats include PDF, PNG, CSV, TSV, RTF, EPUB, and others. The suite can import a range of formats supported by LibreOffice, including Microsoft Visio and Publisher files, Apple Keynote, Numbers, and Pages files, as well as legacy formats used by Lotus 1-2-3, Microsoft Works, and Quattro Pro. The core of Collabora Online is written in C++ and utilizes LibreOfficeKit, a programming interface that enables reuse of much of LibreOffice's existing code for document saving, loading, and rendering. Collabora Online operates on the principle that documents remain on the server, with users viewing tile-rendered images of the document and sending their edits back to the server. The user interface is implemented in JavaScript. For file access and authentication with file hosting services, Collabora Online uses Microsoft's WOPI protocol, allowing compatibility with any service supporting Microsoft 365 integration. == Server == The server component can be self-hosted or deployed through third-party enterprise open-source cloud platforms, allowing organizations to maintain control over data and infrastructure. It is available for various Linux distributions and as a Docker image. The server enables features such as in-browser document editing, file synchronization, and real-time communication. These third-party cloud platforms typically offer additional functionality comparable to services such as Dropbox, Google Workspace, Microsoft 365, or Zoom, including file sharing, calendars, email, contacts, chat, and video conferencing. Collabora Online can be integrated into these applications, as well as with other services such as learning management systems and enterprise content platforms, through open APIs and an SDK. == Reception == Various online and print publications have discussed Collabora Online. In December 2016 the technology website Softpedia mentioned the availability of collaborative editing in version 2.0 and the integration with ownCloud, Nextcloud, and other file synchronization and sharing solutions. In June 2020, ZDNET reported that Collabora Online would be included as the standard office suite in Nextcloud version 19, noting that direct document editing was added to the native video conferencing software Talk. The technology blog OMG! Ubuntu! covered the release of Collabora's Android and iOS apps, emphasizing their offline functionality. In September 2020, Linux Magazine compared Collabora Online with OnlyOffice, noting the flexibility and platform independence of both tools and highlighting Collabora's extensive feature set derived from LibreOffice. === Digital sovereignty === Collabora Online's open-source design and support for self-hosting have made it notable in discussions about digital sovereignty—the ability of users and organizations to control their own data. This is particularly relevant in Europe, where concerns about dependence on U.S.-based "big tech" companies and data privacy have grown in recent years. On 10th June 2025, Microsoft executives under oath in the French Senate admitted that they cannot guarantee data sovereignty and would be compelled to pass French (and by implication the wider European Union) information to the US administration if requested via a warrant or subpoena. The Cloud Act is a law that gives the US government authority to obtain digital data held by US-based tech corporations, irrespective of whether that data is stored on servers at home or on foreign soil. A 2020 briefing by the European Parliament highlighted risks associated with reliance on major technology companies that collect and exploit user data. Legal decisions such as the Schrems II ruling have further underscored these concerns. Several European government agencies have adopted private cloud solutions using Collabora Online and related platforms to enhance data security and maintain control over sensitive information. == History == The former LibreOffice development team from SUSE joined Collabora in September 2013, forming the subsidiary Collabora Productivity. In 2015 Collabora and IceWarp announced the development of an enterprise-ready version of LibreOffice Online to compete wi
Uniform convergence in probability
Uniform convergence in probability is a form of convergence in probability in statistical asymptotic theory and probability theory. It means that, under certain conditions, the empirical frequencies of all events in a certain event-family uniformly converge to their theoretical probabilities. Uniform convergence in probability has applications to statistics as well as machine learning as part of statistical learning theory. Specifically, the Glivenko-Cantelli theorem and the homonymous classes of functions are fundamentally related to uniform convergence. The law of large numbers says that, for each single event A {\displaystyle A} , its empirical frequency in a sequence of independent trials converges (with high probability) to its theoretical probability. In many application however, the need arises to judge simultaneously the probabilities of events of an entire class S {\displaystyle S} from one and the same sample. Moreover, it, is required that the relative frequency of the events converge to the probability uniformly over the entire class of events S {\displaystyle S} . The Uniform Convergence Theorem gives a sufficient condition for this convergence to hold. Roughly, if the event-family is sufficiently simple (its VC dimension is sufficiently small) then uniform convergence holds. == Definitions == For a class of predicates H {\displaystyle H} defined on a set X {\displaystyle X} and a set of samples x = ( x 1 , x 2 , … , x m ) {\displaystyle x=(x_{1},x_{2},\dots ,x_{m})} , where x i ∈ X {\displaystyle x_{i}\in X} , the empirical frequency of h ∈ H {\displaystyle h\in H} on x {\displaystyle x} is Q ^ x ( h ) = 1 m | { i : 1 ≤ i ≤ m , h ( x i ) = 1 } | . {\displaystyle {\widehat {Q}}_{x}(h)={\frac {1}{m}}|\{i:1\leq i\leq m,h(x_{i})=1\}|.} The theoretical probability of h ∈ H {\displaystyle h\in H} is defined as Q P ( h ) = P { y ∈ X : h ( y ) = 1 } . {\displaystyle Q_{P}(h)=P\{y\in X:h(y)=1\}.} The Uniform Convergence Theorem states, roughly, that if H {\displaystyle H} is "simple" and we draw samples independently (with replacement) from X {\displaystyle X} according to any distribution P {\displaystyle P} , then with high probability, the empirical frequency will be close to its expected value, which is the theoretical probability. Here "simple" means that the Vapnik–Chervonenkis dimension of the class H {\displaystyle H} is small relative to the size of the sample. In other words, a sufficiently simple collection of functions behaves roughly the same on a small random sample as it does on the distribution as a whole. The Uniform Convergence Theorem was first proved by Vapnik and Chervonenkis using the concept of growth function. == Uniform Convergence Theorem == The statement of the Uniform Convergence Theorem is as follows: If H {\displaystyle H} is a set of { 0 , 1 } {\displaystyle \{0,1\}} -valued functions defined on a set X {\displaystyle X} and P {\displaystyle P} is a probability distribution on X {\displaystyle X} then for ε > 0 {\displaystyle \varepsilon >0} and m {\displaystyle m} a positive integer, we have: P m { | Q P ( h ) − Q x ^ ( h ) | ≥ ε for some h ∈ H } ≤ 4 Π H ( 2 m ) e − ε 2 m / 8 . {\displaystyle P^{m}\{|Q_{P}(h)-{\widehat {Q_{x}}}(h)|\geq \varepsilon {\text{ for some }}h\in H\}\leq 4\Pi _{H}(2m)e^{-\varepsilon ^{2}m/8}.} In the above, for any x ∈ X m , {\displaystyle x\in X^{m},} Q P ( h ) = P { ( y ∈ X : h ( y ) = 1 } , {\displaystyle Q_{P}(h)=P\{(y\in X:h(y)=1\},} Q ^ x ( h ) = 1 m | { i : 1 ≤ i ≤ m , h ( x i ) = 1 } | {\displaystyle {\widehat {Q}}_{x}(h)={\frac {1}{m}}|\{i:1\leq i\leq m,h(x_{i})=1\}|} and | x | = m . {\displaystyle |x|=m.} P m {\displaystyle P^{m}} indicates that the probability is taken over x {\displaystyle x} consisting of m {\displaystyle m} i.i.d. draws from the distribution P . {\displaystyle P.} Finally, the growth function Π H {\displaystyle \Pi _{H}} is defined in the following way, for any { 0 , 1 } {\displaystyle \{0,1\}} -valued functions H {\displaystyle H} over X {\displaystyle X} and for any natural number m {\displaystyle m} : Π H ( m ) = max | { h ∩ D : D ⊆ X , | D | = m , h ∈ H } | . {\displaystyle \Pi _{H}(m)=\max |\{h\cap D:D\subseteq X,|D|=m,h\in H\}|.} From the point of view of Learning Theory one can consider H {\displaystyle H} to be the Concept/Hypothesis class defined over the instance set X {\displaystyle X} . Crucially, the Sauer–Shelah lemma implies that Π H ( m ) ≤ m d {\displaystyle \Pi _{H}(m)\leq m^{d}} , where d {\displaystyle d} is the VC dimension of H {\displaystyle H} . == Proof of the Uniform Convergence Theorem == and are the sources of the proof below. Before we get into the details of the proof of the Uniform Convergence Theorem we will present a high level overview of the proof. Symmetrization: We transform the problem of analyzing | Q P ( h ) − Q ^ x ( h ) | ≥ ε {\displaystyle |Q_{P}(h)-{\widehat {Q}}_{x}(h)|\geq \varepsilon } into the problem of analyzing | Q ^ r ( h ) − Q ^ s ( h ) | ≥ ε / 2 {\displaystyle |{\widehat {Q}}_{r}(h)-{\widehat {Q}}_{s}(h)|\geq \varepsilon /2} , where r {\displaystyle r} and s {\displaystyle s} are i.i.d samples of size m {\displaystyle m} drawn according to the distribution P {\displaystyle P} . One can view r {\displaystyle r} as the original randomly drawn sample of length m {\displaystyle m} , while s {\displaystyle s} may be thought as the testing sample which is used to estimate Q P ( h ) {\displaystyle Q_{P}(h)} . Permutation: Since r {\displaystyle r} and s {\displaystyle s} are picked identically and independently, so swapping elements between them will not change the probability distribution on r {\displaystyle r} and s {\displaystyle s} . So, we will try to bound the probability of | Q ^ r ( h ) − Q ^ s ( h ) | ≥ ε / 2 {\displaystyle |{\widehat {Q}}_{r}(h)-{\widehat {Q}}_{s}(h)|\geq \varepsilon /2} for some h ∈ H {\displaystyle h\in H} by considering the effect of a specific collection of permutations of the joint sample x = r | | s {\displaystyle x=r||s} . Specifically, we consider permutations σ ( x ) {\displaystyle \sigma (x)} which swap x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} and x m + i {\displaystyle x_{m+i}} in some subset of 1 , 2 , . . . , m {\displaystyle {1,2,...,m}} . The symbol r | | s {\displaystyle r||s} means the concatenation of r {\displaystyle r} and s {\displaystyle s} . Reduction to a finite class: We can now restrict the function class H {\displaystyle H} to a fixed joint sample and hence, if H {\displaystyle H} has finite VC Dimension, it reduces to the problem to one involving a finite function class. We present the technical details of the proof. It should be stressed that this proof glosses over details like the measurability of the events V {\displaystyle V} and R {\displaystyle R} ; measurability is granted in the case of H {\displaystyle H} being finite or countable, but this is not normally the case in standard applications of the theorem (e.g. for statistical learning theory or to prove the Glivenko-Cantelli theorem). To get measurability, one needs to use a notion of separability of the underlying space, possibly related to H {\displaystyle H} . === Symmetrization === Lemma: Let V = { x ∈ X m : | Q P ( h ) − Q ^ x ( h ) | ≥ ε for some h ∈ H } {\displaystyle V=\{x\in X^{m}:|Q_{P}(h)-{\widehat {Q}}_{x}(h)|\geq \varepsilon {\text{ for some }}h\in H\}} and R = { ( r , s ) ∈ X m × X m : | Q r ^ ( h ) − Q ^ s ( h ) | ≥ ε / 2 for some h ∈ H } . {\displaystyle R=\{(r,s)\in X^{m}\times X^{m}:|{\widehat {Q_{r}}}(h)-{\widehat {Q}}_{s}(h)|\geq \varepsilon /2{\text{ for some }}h\in H\}.} Then for m ≥ 2 ε 2 {\displaystyle m\geq {\frac {2}{\varepsilon ^{2}}}} , P m ( V ) ≤ 2 P 2 m ( R ) {\displaystyle P^{m}(V)\leq 2P^{2m}(R)} . Proof: By the triangle inequality, if | Q P ( h ) − Q ^ r ( h ) | ≥ ε {\displaystyle |Q_{P}(h)-{\widehat {Q}}_{r}(h)|\geq \varepsilon } and | Q P ( h ) − Q ^ s ( h ) | ≤ ε / 2 {\displaystyle |Q_{P}(h)-{\widehat {Q}}_{s}(h)|\leq \varepsilon /2} then | Q ^ r ( h ) − Q ^ s ( h ) | ≥ ε / 2 {\displaystyle |{\widehat {Q}}_{r}(h)-{\widehat {Q}}_{s}(h)|\geq \varepsilon /2} . Therefore, P 2 m ( R ) ≥ P 2 m { ∃ h ∈ H , | Q P ( h ) − Q ^ r ( h ) | ≥ ε and | Q P ( h ) − Q ^ s ( h ) | ≤ ε / 2 } = ∫ V P m { s : ∃ h ∈ H , | Q P ( h ) − Q ^ r ( h ) | ≥ ε and | Q P ( h ) − Q ^ s ( h ) | ≤ ε / 2 } d P m ( r ) = A {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}&P^{2m}(R)\\[5pt]\geq {}&P^{2m}\{\exists h\in H,|Q_{P}(h)-{\widehat {Q}}_{r}(h)|\geq \varepsilon {\text{ and }}|Q_{P}(h)-{\widehat {Q}}_{s}(h)|\leq \varepsilon /2\}\\[5pt]={}&\int _{V}P^{m}\{s:\exists h\in H,|Q_{P}(h)-{\widehat {Q}}_{r}(h)|\geq \varepsilon {\text{ and }}|Q_{P}(h)-{\widehat {Q}}_{s}(h)|\leq \varepsilon /2\}\,dP^{m}(r)\\[5pt]={}&A\end{aligned}}} since r {\displaystyle r} and s {\displaystyle s} are independent. Now for r ∈ V {\displaystyle r\in V} fix an h ∈ H {\displaystyle h\in H} such that | Q P ( h ) − Q ^ r ( h ) | ≥ ε {\displaystyle |Q_{P}(h)-{\widehat {Q}}_{r}(h)|\geq \varepsilon } . For this h {\displaystyle h} , we shall
Language model benchmark
A language model benchmark is a standardized test designed to evaluate the performance of language models on various natural language processing tasks. These tests are intended for comparing different models' capabilities in areas such as language understanding, generation, and reasoning. Benchmarks generally consist of a dataset and corresponding evaluation metrics. The dataset provides text samples and annotations, while the metrics measure a model's performance on tasks like answering questions, text classification, and machine translation. These benchmarks are developed and maintained by academic institutions, research organizations, and industry players to track progress in the field. In addition to accuracy, the metrics can include throughput, energy efficiency, bias, trust, and sustainability. == Overview == === Types === Benchmarks may be described by the following adjectives, not mutually exclusive: Classical: These tasks are studied in natural language processing, even before the advent of deep learning. Examples include the Penn Treebank for testing syntactic and semantic parsing, as well as bilingual translation benchmarked by BLEU scores. Question answering: These tasks have a text question and a text answer, often multiple-choice. They can be open-book or closed-book. Open-book QA resembles reading comprehension questions, with relevant passages included as annotation in the question, in which the answer appears. Closed-book QA includes no relevant passages. Closed-book QA is also called open-domain question-answering. Before the era of large language models, open-book QA was more common, and understood as testing information retrieval methods. Closed-book QA became common since GPT-2 as a method to measure knowledge stored within model parameters. Omnibus: An omnibus benchmark combines many benchmarks, often previously published. It is intended as an all-in-one benchmarking solution. Reasoning: These tasks are usually in the question-answering format, but are intended to be more difficult than standard question answering. Multimodal: These tasks require processing not only text, but also other modalities, such as images and sound. Examples include OCR and transcription. Agency: These tasks are for a language-model–based software agent that operates a computer for a user, such as editing images, browsing the web, etc. Adversarial: A benchmark is "adversarial" if the items in the benchmark are picked specifically so that certain models do badly on them. Adversarial benchmarks are often constructed after state of the art (SOTA) models have saturated (achieved 100% performance) a benchmark, to renew the benchmark. A benchmark is "adversarial" only at a certain moment in time, since what is adversarial may cease to be adversarial as newer SOTA models appear. Public/Private: A benchmark might be partly or entirely private, meaning that some or all of the questions are not publicly available. The idea is that if a question is publicly available, then it might be used for training, which would be "training on the test set" and invalidate the result of the benchmark. Usually, only the guardians of the benchmark have access to the private subsets, and to score a model on such a benchmark, one must send the model weights, or provide API access, to the guardians. The boundary between a benchmark and a dataset is not sharp. Generally, a dataset contains three "splits": training, test, and validation. Both the test and validation splits are essentially benchmarks. In general, a benchmark is distinguished from a test/validation dataset in that a benchmark is typically intended to be used to measure the performance of many different models that are not trained specifically for doing well on the benchmark, while a test/validation set is intended to be used to measure the performance of models trained specifically on the corresponding training set. In other words, a benchmark may be thought of as a test/validation set without a corresponding training set. Conversely, certain benchmarks may be used as a training set, such as the English Gigaword or the One Billion Word Benchmark, which in modern language is just the negative log-likelihood loss on a pretraining set with 1 billion words. Indeed, the distinction between benchmark and dataset in language models became sharper after the rise of the pretraining paradigm, whereby a model is first trained on massive, unlabeled datasets to learn general language patterns, syntax, and knowledge (pretraining), and the base model is then adapted to specific, downstream tasks using smaller, labeled datasets (fine-tuning). === Lifecycle === Generally, the life cycle of a benchmark consists of the following steps: Inception: A benchmark is published. It can be simply given as a demonstration of the power of a new model (implicitly) that others then picked up as a benchmark, or as a benchmark that others are encouraged to use (explicitly). Growth: More papers and models use the benchmark, and the performance on the benchmark grows. Maturity, degeneration or deprecation: A benchmark may be saturated, after which researchers move on to other benchmarks. Progress on the benchmark may also be neglected as the field moves to focus on other benchmarks. Renewal: A saturated benchmark can be upgraded to make it no longer saturated, allowing further progress. === Construction === Like datasets, benchmarks are typically constructed by several methods, individually or in combination: Web scraping: Ready-made question-answer pairs may be scraped online, such as from websites that teach mathematics and programming. Conversion: Items may be constructed programmatically from scraped web content, such as by blanking out named entities from sentences, and asking the model to fill in the blank. This was used for making the CNN/Daily Mail Reading Comprehension Task. Crowd sourcing: Items may be constructed by paying people to write them, such as on Amazon Mechanical Turk. This was used for making the MCTest. === Evaluation === Generally, benchmarks are fully automated. This limits the questions that can be asked. For example, with mathematical questions, "proving a claim" would be difficult to automatically check, while "calculate an answer with a unique integer answer" would be automatically checkable. With programming tasks, the answer can generally be checked by running unit tests, with an upper limit on runtime. The benchmark scores are of the following kinds: For multiple choice or cloze questions, common scores are accuracy (frequency of correct answer), precision, recall, F1 score, etc. pass@n: The model is given n {\displaystyle n} attempts to solve each problem. If any attempt is correct, the model earns a point. The pass@n score is the model's average score over all problems. k@n: The model makes n {\displaystyle n} attempts to solve each problem, but only k {\displaystyle k} attempts out of them are selected for submission. If any submission is correct, the model earns a point. The k@n score is the model's average score over all problems. cons@n: The model is given n {\displaystyle n} attempts to solve each problem. If the most common answer is correct, the model earns a point. The cons@n score is the model's average score over all problems. Here "cons" stands for "consensus" or "majority voting". The pass@n score can be estimated more accurately by making N > n {\displaystyle N>n} attempts, and use the unbiased estimator 1 − ( N − c n ) ( N n ) {\displaystyle 1-{\frac {\binom {N-c}{n}}{\binom {N}{n}}}} , where c {\displaystyle c} is the number of correct attempts. For less well-formed tasks, where the output can be any sentence, there are the following commonly used scores including BLEU ROUGE, METEOR, NIST, word error rate, LEPOR, CIDEr, and SPICE. === Issues === error: Some benchmark answers may be wrong. ambiguity: Some benchmark questions may be ambiguously worded. subjective: Some benchmark questions may not have an objective answer at all. This problem generally prevents creative writing benchmarks. Similarly, this prevents benchmarking writing proofs in natural language, though benchmarking proofs in a formal language is possible. open-ended: Some benchmark questions may not have a single answer of a fixed size. This problem generally prevents programming benchmarks from using more natural tasks such as "write a program for X", and instead uses tasks such as "write a function that implements specification X". inter-annotator agreement: Some benchmark questions may be not fully objective, such that even people would not agree with 100% on what the answer should be. This is common in natural language processing tasks, such as syntactic annotation. shortcut: Some benchmark questions may be easily solved by an "unintended" shortcut. For example, in the SNLI benchmark, having a negative word like "not" in the second sentence is a strong signal for the "Contradiction" category, regardless of what the se
Scene text
Scene text is text that appears in an image captured by a camera in an outdoor environment. The detection and recognition of scene text from camera captured images are computer vision tasks which became important after smart phones with good cameras became ubiquitous. The text in scene images varies in shape, font, colour and position. The recognition of scene text is further complicated sometimes by non-uniform illumination and focus. To improve scene text recognition, the International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition (ICDAR) conducts a robust reading competition once in two years. The competition was held in 2003, 2005 and during every ICDAR conference. International association for pattern recognition (IAPR) has created a list of datasets as Reading systems. == Text detection == Text detection is the process of detecting the text present in the image, followed by surrounding it with a rectangular bounding box. Text detection can be carried out using image based techniques or frequency based techniques. In image based techniques, an image is segmented into multiple segments. Each segment is a connected component of pixels with similar characteristics. The statistical features of connected components are utilised to group them and form the text. Machine learning approaches such as support vector machine and convolutional neural networks are used to classify the components into text and non-text. In frequency based techniques, discrete Fourier transform (DFT) or discrete wavelet transform (DWT) are used to extract the high frequency coefficients. It is assumed that the text present in an image has high frequency components and selecting only the high frequency coefficients filters the text from the non-text regions in an image. == Word recognition == In word recognition, the text is assumed to be already detected and located and the rectangular bounding box containing the text is available. The word present in the bounding box needs to be recognized. The methods available to perform word recognition can be broadly classified into top-down and bottom-up approaches. In the top-down approaches, a set of words from a dictionary is used to identify which word suits the given image. Images are not segmented in most of these methods. Hence, the top-down approach is sometimes referred as segmentation free recognition. In the bottom-up approaches, the image is segmented into multiple components and the segmented image is passed through a recognition engine. Either an off the shelf Optical character recognition (OCR) engine or a custom-trained one is used to recognise the text.
Universal portfolio algorithm
The universal portfolio algorithm is a portfolio selection algorithm from the field of machine learning and information theory. The algorithm learns adaptively from historical data and maximizes log-optimal growth rate in the long run, per the Kelly criterion. It was introduced by the late Stanford University information theorist Thomas M. Cover. The algorithm rebalances the portfolio at the beginning of each trading period. At the beginning of the first trading period it starts with a naive diversification. In the following trading periods the portfolio composition depends on the historical total return of all possible constant-rebalanced portfolios. The universal portfolio algorithm is the predecessor of the various online portfolio selection methodologies.
TipTop Technologies
TipTop Technologies is a real-time web and social search engine with a platform for semantic analysis of natural language. Tip-Top Search provides results capturing individual and group sentiment, opinions, and experiences there from the content of various sorts such as real-time messages from Twitter or consumer product reviews on Amazon.com. TipTop Technologies and ITC Infotech collaborated to create a search interface suitable for both enterprise and consumer applications. Tip-Top's products are part of the "emerging Web 3.0 applications which use semantic technologies to augment the underlying Web system's functionalities." Their main product is 360, an AI tool that incorporates multiple AI applications under one wing. Jonathan AlBright professor at Elon University, found videos generated by TipTop Technologies software on YouTube in his research into artificial intelligence, described it as AI-generated "fake news". Through semantic analysis of large data sets, TipTop gleaned behavioral insights from Tweets around events like Halloween, Thanksgiving, Holiday Gifting, the Super Bowl, and the Oscar Nominees for the Academy Awards coverage. Sentiment analysis, concept trend tracking, and real-time market research are other applications included in the TipTop Search product. TipTop's insight engine solves the problem of real-time data noise, and its ability to "sort the 'good tweets' from the 'bad tweets' when it comes to a product, service, or a region..." In addition, products like TipTop Shopping with customizable search widgets bring together consumer reviews, social search, and sentiment analysis enabling product comparisons across attributes like the overall value and aiding purchasing decisions through user-driven product tips and pits. TipTop Finance adds another complexity to real-time search results by incorporating corporate sentiment, company stock tickers, and social media into TipTop's existing social search platform. Additional success applying semantic technologies has been with polling, "if you compare these Gallup results with TipTop, a sentiment engine based on Twitter, the results are not way off. It does surprise you but it tells me that sentiment analysis in case of public opinion about a burning social issue or a famous personality is relatively easier." With the increasing amount of unstructured, opinion-oriented, and user-generated content available on the Web, TipTop's technology aims to make sense of all this data, and deliver it in a useful way for consumer and enterprise users alike. TipTop Technologies is a privately held company with its headquarters in the San Francisco Bay Area, and team members are located globally.