AI App Gemini

AI App Gemini — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  NIS2 Directive

  The Directive (EU) 2022/2555, commonly known as NIS2 is a directive of the European Union aimed at protecting digital infrastructure, in particular critical infrastructure. It broadened the sectors covered by EU network and information security rules and updated incident reporting and oversight compared to the NIS1. Member States were required to transpose NIS2 by 17 October 2024, and the earlier NIS Directive was repealed on 18 October 2024. Only 23 Member States have fully implemented the measures contained with the NIS Directive. Infringement proceedings against them to enforce the Directive have not taken place, and they are not expected to take place in the near future. This failed implementation has led to the fragmentation of cybersecurity capabilities across the EU, with differing standards, incident reporting requirements and enforcement requirements being implemented in different Member States. From the EFTA countries (to April 2026) only Liechtenstein has fully transposed the NIS2 Directive. While the EFTA commission is conducting preparations to transpose the directive into its legislation. == National implementations == === Czech Republic === It is implemented through the Act No. 264/2025 Coll. also called Zákon o kybernetické bezpečnosti (Cybersecurity law) and through another five implementing regulations. The transposing legislation came into force on November 1st, 2025. === Germany === It is implemented through the Gesetz zur Umsetzung der NIS-2-Richtlinie und zur Regelung wesentlicher Grundzüge des Informationssicherheitsmanagements in der Bundesverwaltung. === Ireland === It is implemented through the National Cyber Security Bill. === The Netherlands === It is implemented through the Cyberbeveiligingswet (Cbw). === Slovakia === It is implemented through via an amendment of the Act No. 69/2018 Coll. also called Zákon o kybernetickej bezpečnosti a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov (Law on Cybersecurity and change and amendment of certain laws). It came into force on November 1st, 2025. === Spain === It is implemented through the Esquema Nacional de Seguridad (ENS).

  Read more →
• 

  Yorick Wilks

  Yorick Alexander Wilks FBCS (27 October 1939 – 14 April 2023) was a British computer scientist. He was an emeritus professor of artificial intelligence at the University of Sheffield, visiting professor of artificial intelligence at Gresham College (a post created especially for him), senior research fellow at the Oxford Internet Institute, senior scientist at the Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition, and a member of the Epiphany Philosophers. In February 2023, Wilks joined WiredVibe as Director of AI and a Board Member, with the goal of commercializing his previous research and ideas. He remained in this role until his death, which occurred shortly before WiredVibe was acquired by AKY X, a company that continues to build on his legacy and contributions. == Biography == Wilks was born in Gerrards Cross, Buckinghamshire in England. He was educated at Torquay Boys' Grammar School, followed by Pembroke College, Cambridge, where he read Philosophy, joined the Epiphany Philosophers and obtained his Doctor of Philosophy degree (1968) under Professor R. B. Braithwaite for the thesis 'Argument and Proof'; he was an early pioneer in meaning-based approaches to the understanding of natural language content by computers. His main early contribution in the 1970s was called "Preference Semantics" (Wilks, 1973; Wilks and Fass, 1992), an algorithmic method for assigning the "most coherent" interpretation to a sentence in terms of having the maximum number of internal preferences of its parts (normally verbs or adjectives) satisfied. That early work was hand-coded with semantic entries (of the order of some hundreds) as was normal at the time, but since then has led to the empirical determinations of preferences (chiefly of English verbs) in the 1980s and 1990s. A key component of the notion of preference in semantics was that the interpretation of an utterance is not a well- or ill-formed notion, as was argued in Chomskyan approaches, such as those of Jerry Fodor and Jerrold Katz. It was rather that a semantic interpretation was the best available, even though some preferences might not be satisfied. So, in "The machine answered the question with a low whine" the agent of "answer" does not satisfy that verb's preference for a human answerer—which would cause it to be deemed ill-formed by Fodor and Katz—but is accepted as sub-optimal or metaphorical, and, now, conventional. The function of the algorithm is not to determine well-formedness at all but to make the optimal selection of word-senses to participate in the overall interpretation. Thus, in "The Pole answered..." the system will always select the human sense of the agent and not the inanimate one if it gives a more coherent interpretation overall. Preference Semantics is thus some of the earliest computational work—with programs run at Systems Development Corporation in Santa Monica in 1967 in LISP on an IBM360—in the now established field of word sense disambiguation. This approach was used in the first operational machine translation system based principally on meaning structures and built by Wilks at Stanford Artificial Intelligence Laboratory in the early 1970s (Wilks, 1973) at the same time and place as Roger Schank was applying his "Conceptual Dependency" approach to machine translation. The LISP code of Wilks' system was in The Computer Museum, Boston. Wilks was elected a fellow of the American and European Associations for Artificial Intelligence, of the British Computer Society, a member of the UK Computing Research Committee, and a permanent member of ICCL, the International Committee on Computational Linguistics. He was professor of artificial intelligence at the University of Sheffield and a senior research fellow at the Oxford Internet Institute. In 1991 he received a Defense Advanced Projects Agency grant on interlingual pragmatics-based machine translation and in 1994 he received a grant by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council to investigate in the field of large-scale information extraction (LaSIE); in the following years he would obtain more grants to carry on exploring the field of information extraction (AVENTINUS, ECRAN, PASTA...). In the 1990s Wilks also became interested in modelling human-computer dialogue and the team led by David Levy and him as chief researcher won the Loebner Prize in 1997. He was the founding director of the EU funded Companions Project on creating long-term computer companions for people. At his Festschrift in 2007 at the British Computer Society in London a volume of his own papers was presented along with a volume of essays in his honour. He was awarded the Antonio Zampolli prize in honour of his lifetime work at the LREC 2008 conference on 28 May 2008, and the Lifetime Achievement Award at the ACL 2008 conference on 18 June 2008. In 2009, he was awarded the British Computer Society's Lovelace Medal, its annual award for research achievement, and was awarded the Fellowship of the Association for Computing Machinery. In 1998, Wilks became head of the Department of Computer Science of the University of Sheffield, where he had started working in the year 1993 as professor of artificial intelligence, a post he still held. In 1993 he became the founding director of the Institute of Language, Speech and Hearing (ILASH). Wilks also set up the Natural Language Processing Group of the University of Sheffield. In 1994 he (along with Rob Gaizauskas and Hamish Cunningham) designed GATE, an advanced NLP architecture that has been widely distributed. National Life Stories conducted an oral history interview (C1672/24) with Yorick Wilks in 2016 for its Science and Religion collection held by the British Library. Wilks died on 14 April 2023, at the age of 83. == Awards == Wilks received many awards: (2009) Elected Fellow of the Association for Computing Machinery (2009) Lovelace Medal by the British Computer Society (2008) Zampolli Prize (ELRA, awarded at LREC in Marrakech, Morocco) (2008) Lifetime Achievement Award (Association for Computational Linguistics, in Columbus) (2006) Visiting Professor, University of Oxford (2004) Elected to UK Computing Research Committee (2004) Elected Fellow, British Computer Society (2003) Visiting Fellow, Oxford Internet Institute (1998) Elected Fellow of European Association for Artificial Intelligence (1997) Elected Fellow, EPSRC College of Computing (1991) Visiting Fellow, Trinity Hall, Cambridge (1991) Elected Fellow of the American Association for Artificial Intelligence (1983) Royal Society Travel Fellowship (1983) Commonwealth of Australia Visiting Professor (1981) Visiting Sloan Fellow, University of California, Berkeley (1980) Invited Participant in the Nobel Symposium on Language, Stockholm (1979) NATO Senior Scientist Fellowship (1979) Visiting Sloan Fellow, Yale University (1975) SRC Senior Visiting Fellowship, University of Edinburgh == Membership == Wilks was an active member of the following associations: Association for Computational Linguistics Society for the Study of AI and Simulation of Behaviour Association for Computing Machinery Cognitive Science Society British Society for the Philosophy of Science American Association for Artificial Intelligence Aristotelian Society == Selected works == === Books === Wilks, Y. (2019) Artificial Intelligence: Modern Magic or Dangerous Future?.Icon Books. New illustrated edition, 2023, MIT Press. Wilks, Y. (2015) Machine Translation: its scope and limits. Springer Wilks, Y (ed.) (2010) Close Engagements with Artificial Companions: Key Social, Psychological and Design issues. John Benjamins; Amsterdam Wilks, Y., Brewster, C. (2009) Natural Language Processing as a Foundation of the Semantic Web. Now Press: London. Wilks, Y. (2007) Words and Intelligence I, Selected papers by Yorick Wilks. In K. Ahmad, C. Brewster & M. Stevenson (eds.), Springer: Dordrecht. Wilks, Y. (ed. and with introduction and commentaries). (2006) Language, cohesion and form: selected papers of Margaret Masterman. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wilks, Y., Nirenburg, S., Somers, H. (eds.) (2003) Readings in Machine Translation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Wilks, Y.(ed.). (1999) Machine Conversations. Kluwer: New York. Wilks, Y., Slator, B., Guthrie, L. (1996) Electric Words: dictionaries, computers and meanings. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Ballim, A., Wilks, Y. (1991) Artificial Believers. Norwood, NJ: Erlbaum. Wilks, Y.(ed.). (1990) Theoretical Issues in Natural Language Processing. Norwood, NJ: Erlbaum. Wilks, Y., Partridge, D. (eds. plus three YW chapters and an introduction). (1990) The Foundations of Artificial Intelligence: a sourcebook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wilks, Y., Sparck-Jones, K.(eds.). (1984) Automatic Natural Language Processing, paperback edition. New York: Wiley. Originally published by Ellis Horwood. Wilks, Y., Charniak, E. (eds and principal authors). (1976) Computational Semantics—an Introduction to Artificial Intelligence and

  Read more →
• 

  Nathalie Japkowicz

  Nathalie Japkowicz is a Canadian computer scientist specializing in machine learning. She is a professor and department chair of computer science at the American University College of Arts and Sciences. == Life == Nathalie Japkowicz completed a B.Sc. at McGill University in 1988. She earned an M.Sc. from the University of Toronto in 1990. She completed a Ph.D. at Rutgers University in 1999. Her dissertation was titled Concept-learning in the absence of counter-examples: an autoassociation-based approach to classification. Stephen José Hanson and Casimir Alexander Kulikowski were her doctoral advisors. Japkowicz worked at the University of Ottawa in the school of electrical engineering and computer science. She was the lead of its laboratory for research on machine learning for defense security. From 2003 to 2005, Japkowicz was the secretary of the Canadian Artificial Intelligence Association (CAIAC). She was CAIAC vice president from 2009 to 2014 and president from 2013 to 2015, and part-president from 2015 to 2017. Japkowicz is a professor and department chair of computer science at the American University College of Arts and Sciences. She researches artificial intelligence, machine learning, data mining, and big data analysis. == Selected works == Gao, Yong; Japkowicz, Nathalie, eds. (2009). Advances in Artificial Intelligence: 22nd Canadian Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Canadian AI 2009 Kelowna, Canada, May 25–27, 2009 Proceedings. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Vol. 5549. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-01818-3. ISBN 978-3-642-01817-6. S2CID 27083226. Japkowicz, Nathalie; Shah, Mohak (2011). Evaluating Learning Algorithms: A Classification Perspective (1 ed.). Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511921803. ISBN 978-0-511-92180-3. Japkowicz, Nathalie; Matwin, Stan, eds. (2015). Discovery Science: 18th International Conference, DS 2015, Banff, AB, Canada, October 4–6, 2015. Proceedings. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Vol. 9356. Cham: Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-24282-8. ISBN 978-3-319-24281-1. S2CID 1302223. Japkowicz, Nathalie; Stefanowski, Jerzy, eds. (2016). Big Data Analysis: New Algorithms for a New Society. Studies in Big Data. Vol. 16. Cham: Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-26989-4. ISBN 978-3-319-26987-0. Ceci, Michelangelo; Japkowicz, Nathalie; Liu, Jiming; Papadopoulos, George A.; Raś, Zbigniew W., eds. (2018). Foundations of Intelligent Systems: 24th International Symposium, ISMIS 2018, Limassol, Cyprus, October 29–31, 2018, Proceedings. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Vol. 11177. Cham: Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-01851-1. ISBN 978-3-030-01850-4. S2CID 53038780.

  Read more →
• 

  Corpus-assisted discourse studies

  Corpus-assisted discourse studies (abbr.: CADS) is related historically and methodologically to the discipline of corpus linguistics. The principal endeavor of corpus-assisted discourse studies is the investigation, and comparison of features of particular discourse types, integrating into the analysis the techniques and tools developed within corpus linguistics. These include the compilation of specialised corpora and analyses of word and word-cluster frequency lists, comparative keyword lists and, above all, concordances. A broader conceptualisation of corpus-assisted discourse studies would include any study that aims to bring together corpus linguistics and discourse analysis. Such research is often labelled as corpus-based or corpus-assisted discourse analysis, with the term CADS coined by a research group in Italy (Partington 2004) for a specific type of corpus-assisted discourse analysis (see the section 'in different countries' below). == Aims == Corpus-assisted discourse studies aim to uncover non-obvious meaning, that is, meaning which might not be readily available to naked-eye perusal. Much of what carries meaning in texts is not open to direct observation: “you cannot understand the world just by looking at it” (Stubbs [after Gellner 1959] 1996: 92). We use language “semi-automatically”, in the sense that speakers and writers make semi-conscious choices within the various complex overlapping systems of which language is composed, including those of transitivity, modality (Michael Halliday 1994), lexical sets (e.g. freedom, liberty, deliverance), modification, and so on. Authors themselves are, famously, generally unaware of all the meanings their texts convey. By combining the quantitative research approach, that is, statistical analysis of large amounts of the discourse in question - more precisely, large numbers of tokens of the discourse type under study contained in a corpus - with the more qualitative research approach typical of discourse analysis, that is, the close, detailed examination of particular stretches of discourse it may be possible to better understand the processes at play in the discourse type and to gain access to non-obvious meanings. Aims can differ in other types of corpus-based or corpus-assisted discourse analysis; but in general such studies combine quantitative and qualitative research and aim to shed light on discourses, registers, discourse patterns, etc., with the help of a corpus linguistic approach. Specific aims and techniques depend on the relevant project. == In different countries == In German-speaking countries: Pioneering work in corpus-based discourse analysis was conducted in Europe, in particular by Hardt-Mautner/Mautner (1995, 2000) and Stubbs (1996, 2001). CADS and other types of corpus-based discourse analysis are inspired by this important early work. In Italy: A considerable body of research has been conducted in Italy either by individual researchers or under the aegis of combined inter-university projects such as Newspool (Partington et al. 2004) and CorDis (Morley and Bayley eds, 2009). It has concentrated on political and media language, mainly because a nucleus of linguists in Italian universities work in Political Science faculties and are increasingly interested in the use of corpus techniques to conduct a particular type of sociopolitical discourse analysis, including the unearthing of noteworthy ideological metaphors and motifs in the language of political figures and institutions. Italian researchers also developed Modern diachronic corpus-assisted discourse studies (MD-CADS). This approach contrasts the language contained in comparable corpora from different but recent points in time in order to track changes in modern language usage but also social, cultural and political changes over modern times, as reflected - and shared among people - in language. It is this Italian body of research that makes most use of the label CADS. In the UK: Linguists in the UK tend to undertake corpus-based critical discourse analysis (CDA). CDA generally adopts a leftist political stance, focusing on the ways that social and political domination is reproduced by text and talk. This type of corpus-based research was originally associated with Lancaster University (Baker et al. 2008), but has spread more widely since. Such work typically studies the discourses around particular groups of people (e.g. Muslims, people with disabilities) or concepts/events (e.g. feminism, same-sex marriage). In Australia: Corpus-based discourse analysis is undertaken by a growing number of Australian researchers, most often on media texts. Some of this work aims to elucidate specific features of discourse types (news, social media, television series, etc.), while other work is rooted in the tradition of corpus-based critical discourse analysis. == Comparison with traditional corpus linguistics == Traditional corpus linguistics has, quite naturally, tended to privilege the quantitative approach. In the drive to produce more authentic dictionaries and grammars of a language, it has been characterised by the compilation of some very large corpora of heterogeneric discourse types in the desire to obtain an overview of the greatest quantity and variety of discourse types possible, in other words, of the chimerical but useful fiction called the “general language” (“general English”, “general Italian”, and so on). This has led to the construction of immensely valuable research tools such as the Bank of English and the British National Corpus. Some branches of corpus linguistics have also promoted an approach that is "corpus-driven", in which we need, grammatically speaking, a mental tabula rasa to free ourselves of the baleful prejudice exerted by traditional models and allow the data to speak entirely for itself. The aim of corpus-assisted discourse studies and related approaches is radically different. Here the aim of the exercise is to acquaint oneself as much as possible with the discourse type(s) in hand. Researchers typically engage with their corpus in a variety of ways. As well as via wordlists and concordancing, intuitions for further research can also arise from reading or watching or listening to parts of the data-set, a process which can help provide a feel for how things are done linguistically in the discourse-type being studied. Corpus-assisted discourse analysis is also typically characterised by the compilation of ad hoc specialised corpora, since very frequently there exists no previously available collection of the discourse type in question. Often, other corpora are utilized in the course of a study for purposes of comparison. These may include pre-existing corpora or may themselves need to be compiled by the researcher. In some sense, all work with corpora – just as all work with discourse - is properly comparative. Even when a single corpus is employed, it is used to test the data it contains against another body of data. This may consist of the researcher's intuitions, or the data found in reference works such as dictionaries and grammars, or it may be statements made by previous authors in the field. == CADS as a specific type of corpus-based discourse analysis == Researchers in Italy have developed CADS as a specific type of corpus-based discourse analysis, creating a standard set of methods: 'A basic, standard methodology in CADS may resemble the following:' Step 1: Decide upon the research question; Step 2: Choose, compile or edit an appropriate corpus; Step 3: Choose, compile or edit an appropriate reference corpus / corpora; Step 4: Make frequency lists and run a keywords comparison of the corpora; Step 5: Determine the existence of sets of key items; Step 6: Concordance interesting key items (with differing quantities of co-text); Step 7: (Possibly) refine the research question and return to Step 2. This basic procedure can of course vary according to individual research circumstances and requirements. A particular way of conceptualising research questions has also been proposed in such CADS projects: Given that P is a discourse participant (or possibly an institution) and G is a goal, often a political goal: How does P achieve G with language? What does this tell us about P? Comparative studies: how do P1 and P2 differ in their use of language? Does this tell us anything about their different principles and objectives? A second general type of CADS research question, which might be asked of interactive discourse data, has been conceptualised as follows: Given that P(x) is a particular participant or set of participants, DT is the discourse type, and R is an observed relationship between or among participants: How do {P(a), P(b)...P(n)} achieve / maintain R in DT [using language]? Another common type of research question has been conceptualised thus: Given that A is an author, Ph(x) is a phenomenon or practice or behaviour, and DT(x) is a particular discourse type. A has said P

  Read more →
• 

  Trazzler

  Trazzler is a travel destination app that specializes in unique and local destinations. The initial concept was developed by Adam Rugel and Biz Stone in 2006 at Twitter's original offices under the name "71 miles". More than 10,000 writers and photographers have contributed and more than $350,000 in freelance contracts have been issued as a result of Trazzeler's weekly writing and photography contests. Investors in the company include SV Angel, AOL Founder Steve Case, and the Twitter founders, Evan Williams, Jack Dorsey, and Biz Stone. The company's partners are the City of Chicago, Hawaii Tourism Authority, Fairmont Hotels & Resorts, Salon.com, and Air New Zealand. Trazzler is designed for use on the iOS, Android, and Facebook.

  Read more →
• 

  Katz's back-off model

  Katz back-off is a generative n-gram language model that estimates the conditional probability of a word given its history in the n-gram. It accomplishes this estimation by backing off through progressively shorter history models under certain conditions. By doing so, the model with the most reliable information about a given history is used to provide the better results. The model was introduced in 1987 by Slava M. Katz. Prior to that, n-gram language models were constructed by training individual models for different n-gram orders using maximum likelihood estimation and then interpolating them together. == Method == The equation for Katz's back-off model is: P b o ( w i ∣ w i − n + 1 ⋯ w i − 1 ) = { d w i − n + 1 ⋯ w i C ( w i − n + 1 ⋯ w i − 1 w i ) C ( w i − n + 1 ⋯ w i − 1 ) if C ( w i − n + 1 ⋯ w i ) > k α w i − n + 1 ⋯ w i − 1 P b o ( w i ∣ w i − n + 2 ⋯ w i − 1 ) otherwise {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}&P_{bo}(w_{i}\mid w_{i-n+1}\cdots w_{i-1})\\[4pt]={}&{\begin{cases}d_{w_{i-n+1}\cdots w_{i}}{\dfrac {C(w_{i-n+1}\cdots w_{i-1}w_{i})}{C(w_{i-n+1}\cdots w_{i-1})}}&{\text{if }}C(w_{i-n+1}\cdots w_{i})>k\\[10pt]\alpha _{w_{i-n+1}\cdots w_{i-1}}P_{bo}(w_{i}\mid w_{i-n+2}\cdots w_{i-1})&{\text{otherwise}}\end{cases}}\end{aligned}}} where C(x) = number of times x appears in training wi = ith word in the given context Essentially, this means that if the n-gram has been seen more than k times in training, the conditional probability of a word given its history is proportional to the maximum likelihood estimate of that n-gram. Otherwise, the conditional probability is equal to the back-off conditional probability of the (n − 1)-gram. The more difficult part is determining the values for k, d and α. k {\displaystyle k} is the least important of the parameters. It is usually chosen to be 0. However, empirical testing may find better values for k. d {\displaystyle d} is typically the amount of discounting found by Good–Turing estimation. In other words, if Good–Turing estimates C {\displaystyle C} as C ∗ {\displaystyle C^{}} , then d = C ∗ C {\displaystyle d={\frac {C^{}}{C}}} To compute α {\displaystyle \alpha } , it is useful to first define a quantity β, which is the left-over probability mass for the (n − 1)-gram: β w i − n + 1 ⋯ w i − 1 = 1 − ∑ { w i : C ( w i − n + 1 ⋯ w i ) > k } d w i − n + 1 ⋯ w i C ( w i − n + 1 ⋯ w i − 1 w i ) C ( w i − n + 1 ⋯ w i − 1 ) {\displaystyle \beta _{w_{i-n+1}\cdots w_{i-1}}=1-\sum _{\{w_{i}:C(w_{i-n+1}\cdots w_{i})>k\}}d_{w_{i-n+1}\cdots w_{i}}{\frac {C(w_{i-n+1}\cdots w_{i-1}w_{i})}{C(w_{i-n+1}\cdots w_{i-1})}}} Then the back-off weight, α, is computed as follows: α w i − n + 1 ⋯ w i − 1 = β w i − n + 1 ⋯ w i − 1 ∑ { w i : C ( w i − n + 1 ⋯ w i ) ≤ k } P b o ( w i ∣ w i − n + 2 ⋯ w i − 1 ) {\displaystyle \alpha _{w_{i-n+1}\cdots w_{i-1}}={\frac {\beta _{w_{i-n+1}\cdots w_{i-1}}}{\sum _{\{w_{i}:C(w_{i-n+1}\cdots w_{i})\leq k\}}P_{bo}(w_{i}\mid w_{i-n+2}\cdots w_{i-1})}}} The above formula only applies if there is data for the "(n − 1)-gram". If not, the algorithm skips n-1 entirely and uses the Katz estimate for n-2. (and so on until an n-gram with data is found) == Discussion == This model generally works well in practice, but fails in some circumstances. For example, suppose that the bigram "a b" and the unigram "c" are very common, but the trigram "a b c" is never seen. Since "a b" and "c" are very common, it may be significant (that is, not due to chance) that "a b c" is never seen. Perhaps it's not allowed by the rules of the grammar. Instead of assigning a more appropriate value of 0, the method will back off to the bigram and estimate P(c | b), which may be too high.

  Read more →
• 

  NFA minimization

  In automata theory (a branch of theoretical computer science), NFA minimization is the task of transforming a given nondeterministic finite automaton (NFA) into an equivalent NFA that has a minimum number of states, transitions, or both. While efficient algorithms exist for DFA minimization, NFA minimization is PSPACE-complete. No efficient (polynomial time) algorithms are known, and under the standard assumption that P ≠ PSPACE, none exist. The most efficient known algorithm is the Kameda–Weiner algorithm. == Non-uniqueness of minimal NFA == Unlike deterministic finite automata, minimal NFAs may not be unique. There may be multiple NFAs with the same number of states that accept the same regular language, but for which there is no equivalent NFA or DFA with fewer states.

  Read more →
• 

  Monica S. Lam

  Monica Sin-Ling Lam is an American computer scientist. She is a professor in the Computer Science Department at Stanford University. == Education == Monica Lam received a B.Sc. from University of British Columbia in 1980 and a Ph.D. in computer science from Carnegie Mellon University in 1987. == Career == Lam joined the faculty of Computer Science at Stanford University in 1988. She has contributed to the research of a wide range of computer systems topics including compilers, program analysis, operating systems, security, computer architecture, and high-performance computing. More recently, she is working in natural language processing, and virtual assistants with an emphasis on privacy protection. She is the faculty director of the Open Virtual Assistant Lab, which organized the first workshop for the World Wide Voice Web. The lab developed the open-source Almond voice assistant, which is sponsored by the National Science Foundation. Almond received Popular Science's Best of What's New award in 2019. Previously, Lam led the SUIF (Stanford University Intermediate Format) Compiler project, which produced a widely used compiler infrastructure known for its locality optimizations and interprocedural parallelization. Many of the compiler techniques she developed have been adopted by industry. Her other research projects included the architecture and compiler for the CMU Warp machine, a systolic array of VLIW processors, and the Stanford DASH distributed shared memory machine. In 1998, she took a sabbatical leave from Stanford to help start Tensilica Inc., a company that specializes in configurable processor cores. In another research project, her program analysis group developed a collection of tools for improving software security and reliability. They developed the first scalable context-sensitive inclusion-based pointer analysis and a freely available tool called BDDBDDB, that allows programmers to express context-sensitive analyses simply by writing Datalog queries. Other tools developed include Griffin, static and dynamic analysis for finding security vulnerabilities in Web applications such as SQL injection, a static and dynamic program query language called QL, a static memory leak detector called Clouseau, a dynamic buffer overrun detector called CRED, and a dynamic error diagnosis tool called DIDUCE. In the Collective project, her research group and she developed the concept of a livePC: subscribers of the livePC will automatically run the latest of the published PC virtual images with each reboot. This approach allows computers to be managed scalably and securely. In 2005, the group started a company called MokaFive to transfer the technology to industry. She also directed the MobiSocial laboratory at Stanford, as part of the Programmable Open Mobile Internet 2020 initiative. Lam is also the cofounder of Omlet, which launched in 2014. Omlet is the first product from MobiSocial. Omlet is an open, decentralized social networking tool, based on an extensible chat platform. Lam chaired the ACM SIGPLAN Programming Languages Design and Implementation Conference in 2000, served on the Editorial Board of ACM Transactions on Computer Systems and numerous program committees for conferences on languages and compilers (PLDI, POPL), operating systems (SOSP), and computer architecture (ASPLOS, ISCA). == Awards and honors == National Academy of Engineering member, 2019 University of British Columbia Computer Science 50th Anniversary Research Award, 2018 Fellow of the ACM, 2007 ACM Programming Language Design and Implementation Best Paper Award in 2004 ACM SIGSOFT Distinguished Paper Award in 2002 ACM Most Influential Programming Language Design and Implementation Paper Award in 2001 NSF Young Investigator award in 1992 Two of her papers were recognized in "20 Years of PLDI--a Selection (1979-1999)" One of her papers was recognized in the "25 Years of the International Symposia on Computer Architecture", 1988. == Selected works == Compilers: Principles, Techniques and Tools (2d Ed) (2006) (the "Dragon Book") by Alfred V. Aho, Monica S. Lam, Ravi Sethi, and Jeffrey D. Ullman (ISBN 0-321-48681-1) A Systolic Array Optimizing Compiler (1989) (ISBN 0-89838-300-5) Monica Lam, Dissertation

  Read more →
• 

  Anthrobotics

  Anthrobotics is the science of developing and studying robots that are either entirely or in some way human-like. The term anthrobotics was originally coined by Mark Rosheim in a paper entitled "Design of An Omnidirectional Arm" presented at the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, May 13–18, 1990, pp. 2162–2167. Rosheim says he derived the term from "...Anthropomorphic and Robotics to distinguish the new generation of dexterous robots from its simple industrial robot forebears." The word gained wider recognition as a result of its use in the title of Rosheim's subsequent book Robot Evolution: The Development of Anthrobotics, which focussed on facsimiles of human physical and psychological skills and attributes. However, a wider definition of the term anthrobotics has been proposed, in which the meaning is derived from anthropology rather than anthropomorphic. This usage includes robots that respond to input in a human-like fashion, rather than simply mimicking human actions, thus theoretically being able to respond more flexibly or to adapt to unforeseen circumstances. This expanded definition also encompasses robots that are situated in social environments with the ability to respond to those environments appropriately, such as insect robots, robotic pets, and the like. Anthrobotics is now taught at some universities, encouraging students not only to design and build robots for environments beyond current industrial applications, but also to speculate on the future of robotics that are embedded in the world at large, as mobile phones and computers are today. In 2016 philosopher Luis de Miranda created the Anthrobotics Cluster at the University of Edinburgh "a platform of cross-disciplinary research that seeks to investigate some of the biggest questions that will need to be answered" on the relationship between humans, robots and intelligent systems and "a think tank on the social spread of robotics, and also how automation is part of the definition of what humans have always been". to explore the symbiotic relationship between humans and automated protocols.

  Read more →
• 

  Maike Osborne

  Maike Osborne (born Michael Osborne, 1982) is an Australian academic and scientist who serves as a professor of machine learning at University of Oxford in the Machine Learning Research Group in the Department of Engineering Science. In 2016 she co-founded Mind Foundry, an artificial intelligence company, along with fellow professor Stephen Roberts. == Education == She has a BEng in Mechanical Engineering and a BSc in both Pure Mathematics and Physics from the University of Western Australia. She has a PhD in Machine Learning from the University of Oxford. == Career == Osborne has contributed to over 100 publications, and her work has received over 24,000 citations with an h-index of 46 according to Google Scholar. and has acted as principal or co-investigator for £10.6M of research funding. Her career has focused in particular on Bayesian approaches to AI and machine learning, named after the famous British statistician Thomas Bayes. Osborne's work has contributed to Probabilistic numerics, with Osborne co-authoring the first textbook on the subject. In 2013, Osborne co-authored a paper alongside Swedish-German economist Carl Benedikt Frey called "The Future of Employment: How Susceptible are Jobs to Computerisation?". The paper has received over 13,000 citations and extensive media coverage. In 2023 Osborne gave oral evidence to the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee on the subject of the "Governance of Artificial Intelligence". Her testimony received significant coverage around her warnings of the threat of "rogue AI". == Honors == She is also an Official Fellow of Exeter College, and St Peter's College, Oxford, a Fellow of the ELLIS society, and a Faculty Member of the Oxford-Man Institute of Quantitative Finance. She joined the Oxford Martin School as Lead Researcher on the Oxford Martin Programme on Technology and Employment in 2015. She is a Director of the EPSRC Centre for Doctoral Training in Autonomous Intelligent Machines and Systems.

  Read more →
• 

  AI Marketing Tools Reviews: What Actually Works in 2026

  In search of the best AI marketing tool? An AI marketing tool is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it turns a rough idea into a polished result in seconds. When choosing one, weigh output quality, pricing, export formats, and how well it fits the tools you already use. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI marketing tool slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. We tested the leading options and ranked them by quality, value, and ease of use.

  Read more →
• 

  Is an AI Analytics Tool Worth It in 2026?

  Curious about the best AI analytics tool? An AI analytics 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 analytics tool slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. Read on for hands-on impressions, pricing tiers, and the standout features that matter.

  Read more →
• 

  KeyBase

  KeyBase is a database and web application for managing and deploying interactive taxonomic keys for plants and animals developed by the Royal Botanic Gardens Victoria. KeyBase provides a medium where pathway keys which were traditionally developed for print and other classical types of media, can be used more effectively in the internet environment. The platform uses a concept called "keys" which can be easily linked together, joined with other keys, or merged into larger other seamless keys groups, with each still available to be browsed independently. Keys in the KeyBase database can be filtered and displayed in a variety of ways, filters, and formats.

  Read more →
• 

  P4-metric

  The P4 metric (also known as FS or Symmetric F ) enables performance evaluation of a binary classifier. The P4 metric is calculated from precision, recall, specificity, and NPV (negative predictive value). The definition of the P4 metric is similar to that of the F1 metric, however the P4 metric definition addresses criticisms leveled against the definition of the F1 metric. The definition of the P4 metric may, therefore, be understood as an extension of the F1 metric. Like the other known metrics, the P4 metric is a function of: TP (true positives), TN (true negatives), FP (false positives), FN (false negatives). == Justification == The key concept of the P4 metric is to leverage the four key conditional probabilities: P ( + ∣ C + ) {\displaystyle P(+\mid C{+})} — the probability that the sample is positive, provided the classifier result was positive. P ( C + ∣ + ) {\displaystyle P(C{+}\mid +)} — the probability that the classifier result will be positive, provided the sample is positive. P ( C − ∣ − ) {\displaystyle P(C{-}\mid -)} — the probability that the classifier result will be negative, provided the sample is negative. P ( − ∣ C − ) {\displaystyle P(-\mid C{-})} — the probability the sample is negative, provided the classifier result was negative. The main assumption behind this metric is that all the probabilities mentioned above are close to 1 for a properly designed binary classifier. Indeed, P 4 = 1 {\displaystyle \mathrm {P} _{4}=1} if, and only if, all of the probabilities above are equal to 1. Another important feature is that P 4 {\displaystyle \mathrm {P} _{4}} tends to zero any of the above probabilities tend to zero. == Definition == P4 is defined as a harmonic mean of four key conditional probabilities: P 4 = 4 1 P ( + ∣ C + ) + 1 P ( C + ∣ + ) + 1 P ( C − ∣ − ) + 1 P ( − ∣ C − ) = 4 1 p r e c i s i o n + 1 r e c a l l + 1 s p e c i f i c i t y + 1 N P V . {\displaystyle \mathrm {P} _{4}={\frac {4}{{\frac {1}{P(+\mid C{+})}}+{\frac {1}{P(C{+}\mid +)}}+{\frac {1}{P(C{-}\mid -)}}+{\frac {1}{P(-\mid C{-})}}}}={\frac {4}{{\frac {1}{\mathit {precision}}}+{\frac {1}{\mathit {recall}}}+{\frac {1}{\mathit {specificity}}}+{\frac {1}{\mathit {NPV}}}}}.} In terms of TP,TN,FP,FN it can be calculated as follows: P 4 = 4 ⋅ T P ⋅ T N 4 ⋅ T P ⋅ T N + ( T P + T N ) ⋅ ( F P + F N ) . {\displaystyle \mathrm {P} _{4}={\frac {4\cdot \mathrm {TP} \cdot \mathrm {TN} }{4\cdot \mathrm {TP} \cdot \mathrm {TN} +(\mathrm {TP} +\mathrm {TN} )\cdot (\mathrm {FP} +\mathrm {FN} )}}.} == Evaluation of the binary classifier performance == Evaluating the performance of binary classifiers is a multidisciplinary concept. It spans from the evaluation of medical tests, psychiatric tests to machine learning classifiers from a variety of fields. Thus, many of the metrics in use exist under several names, some defined independently. == Properties of P4 metric == Symmetry — contrasting to the F1 metric, P4 is symmetrical. It means - it does not change its value when dataset labeling is changed - positives named negatives and negatives named positives. Range: P 4 ∈ [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle \mathrm {P} _{4}\in [0,1]} . Achieving P 4 ≈ 1 {\displaystyle \mathrm {P} _{4}\approx 1} requires all the key four conditional probabilities being close to 1. For P 4 ≈ 0 {\displaystyle \mathrm {P} _{4}\approx 0} it is sufficient that one of the key four conditional probabilities is close to 0. == Examples, comparing with the other metrics == Dependency table for selected metrics ("true" means depends, "false" - does not depend): Metrics that do not depend on a given probability are prone to misrepresentation when the probability approaches 0. === Example 1: Rare disease detection test === Let us consider a medical test used to detect a rare disease. Suppose a population size of 100000 and 0.05% of the population is infected. Further suppose the following test performance: 95% of all positive individuals are classified correctly (TPR=0.95) and 95% of all negative individuals are classified correctly (TNR=0.95). In such a case, due to high population imbalance and in spite of having high test accuracy (0.95), the probability that an individual who has been classified as positive is in fact positive is very low: P ( + ∣ C + ) = 0.0095. {\displaystyle P(+\mid C{+})=0.0095.} We can observe how this low probability is reflected in some of the metrics: P 4 = 0.0370 {\displaystyle \mathrm {P} _{4}=0.0370} , F 1 = 0.0188 {\displaystyle \mathrm {F} _{1}=0.0188} , J = 0.9100 {\displaystyle \mathrm {J} =\mathbf {0.9100} } (Informedness / Youden index), M K = 0.0095 {\displaystyle \mathrm {MK} =0.0095} (Markedness). === Example 2: Image recognition — cats vs dogs === Consider the problem of training a neural network based image classifier with only two types of images: those containing dogs (labeled as 0) and those containing cats (labeled as 1). Thus, the goal is to distinguish between the cats and dogs. Suppose that the classifier overpredicts in favour of cats ("positive" samples): 99.99% of cats are classified correctly and only 1% of dogs are classified correctly. Further, suppose that the image dataset consists of 100000 images, 90% of which are pictures of cats and 10% are pictures of dogs. In this situation, the probability that the picture containing dog will be classified correctly is pretty low: P ( C − | − ) = 0.01. {\displaystyle P(C-|-)=0.01.} Not all metrics are notice this low probability: P 4 = 0.0388 {\displaystyle \mathrm {P} _{4}=0.0388} , F 1 = 0.9478 {\displaystyle \mathrm {F} _{1}=\mathbf {0.9478} } , J = 0.0099 {\displaystyle \mathrm {J} =0.0099} (Informedness / Youden index), M K = 0.8183 {\displaystyle \mathrm {MK} =\mathbf {0.8183} } (Markedness).

  Read more →
• 

  Best AI Video Generators in 2026

  Curious about the best AI video generator? An AI video generator 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 video generator slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. Read on for hands-on impressions, pricing tiers, and the standout features that matter.

  Read more →