AI App Gemini

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

• 

  Computer security

  Computer security (also cybersecurity, digital security, or information technology (IT) security) is a subdiscipline within the field of information security. It focuses on protecting computer software, systems, and networks from threats that can lead to unauthorized information disclosure, theft, or damage to hardware, software, or data, as well as to the disruption or misdirection of the services they provide. The growing significance of computer security reflects the increasing dependence on computer systems, the Internet, and evolving wireless network standards. This reliance has expanded with the proliferation of smart devices, including smartphones, televisions, and other components of the Internet of things (IoT). As digital infrastructure becomes more embedded in everyday life, cybersecurity has emerged as a critical concern. The complexity of modern information systems—and the societal functions they underpin—has introduced new vulnerabilities. Systems that manage essential services, such as power grids, electoral processes, and finance, are particularly sensitive to security breaches. Although many aspects of computer security involve digital security, such as electronic passwords and encryption, physical security measures, such as metal locks, are still used to prevent unauthorized tampering. IT security is not a perfect subset of information security and therefore does not completely align with the security convergence schema. == Vulnerabilities and attacks == A vulnerability refers to a flaw in the structure, execution, functioning, or internal oversight of a computer or system that compromises its security. Most of the vulnerabilities that have been discovered are documented in the Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) database. An exploitable vulnerability is one for which at least one working exploit exists. Actors maliciously seeking vulnerabilities are known as threats. Vulnerabilities can be researched, reverse-engineered, hunted, or exploited using automated tools or customized scripts. Various people or parties are vulnerable to cyberattacks; however, different groups are likely to experience different types of attacks more than others. In April 2023, the United Kingdom Department for Science, Innovation & Technology released a report on cyberattacks over the previous 12 months. They surveyed 2,263 UK businesses, 1,174 UK registered charities, and 554 education institutions. The research found that "32% of businesses and 24% of charities overall recall any breaches or attacks from the last 12 months." These figures were much higher for "medium businesses (59%), large businesses (69%), and high-income charities with £500,000 or more in annual income (56%)." Yet, although medium or large businesses are more often the victims, since larger companies have generally improved their security over the last decade, small and midsize businesses (SMBs) have also become increasingly vulnerable as they often "do not have advanced tools to defend the business." SMBs are most likely to be affected by malware, ransomware, phishing, man-in-the-middle attacks, and Denial-of Service (DoS) Attacks. Normal internet users are most likely to be affected by untargeted cyberattacks. These are where attackers indiscriminately target as many devices, services, or users as possible. They do this using techniques that take advantage of the openness of the Internet. These strategies mostly include phishing, ransomware, water holing and scanning. To secure a computer system, it is important to understand the attacks that can be made against it, and these threats can typically be classified into one of the following categories: === Backdoor === A backdoor in a computer system, a cryptosystem or an algorithm, is any secret method of bypassing normal authentication or security controls. These weaknesses may exist for many reasons, including original design or poor configuration. Due to the nature of backdoors, they are of greater concern to companies and databases as opposed to individuals. Backdoors may be added by an authorized party to allow some legitimate access or by an attacker for malicious reasons. Criminals often use malware to install backdoors, giving them remote administrative access to a system. Once they have access, cybercriminals can "modify files, steal personal information, install unwanted software, and even take control of the entire computer." Backdoors can be difficult to detect, as they often remain hidden within source code or system firmware and may require intimate knowledge of the operating system to identify. === Denial-of-service attack === Denial-of-service attacks (DoS) are designed to make a machine or network resource unavailable to its intended users. Attackers can deny service to individual victims, such as by deliberately entering an incorrect password enough consecutive times to cause the victim's account to be locked, or they may overload the capabilities of a machine or network and block all users at once. While a network attack from a single IP address can be blocked by adding a new firewall rule, many forms of distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks are possible, where the attack comes from a large number of points. In this case, defending against these attacks is much more difficult. Such attacks can originate from the zombie computers of a botnet or from a range of other possible techniques, including distributed reflective denial-of-service (DRDoS), where innocent systems are fooled into sending traffic to the victim. With such attacks, the amplification factor makes the attack easier for the attacker because they have to use little bandwidth themselves. To understand why attackers may carry out these attacks, see the 'attacker motivation' section. === Physical access attacks === A direct-access attack is when an unauthorized user (an attacker) gains physical access to a computer, typically to copy data from it or steal information. Attackers may also compromise security by making operating system modifications, installing software worms, keyloggers, covert listening devices or using wireless microphones. Even when the system is protected by standard security measures, these may be bypassed by booting another operating system or tool from a CD-ROM or other bootable media. Disk encryption and the Trusted Platform Module standard are designed to prevent these attacks. Direct service attackers are related in concept to direct memory attacks which allow an attacker to gain direct access to a computer's memory. The attacks "take advantage of a feature of modern computers that allows certain devices, such as external hard drives, graphics cards, or network cards, to access the computer's memory directly." === Eavesdropping === Eavesdropping is the act of surreptitiously listening to a private computer conversation (communication), usually between hosts on a network. It typically occurs when a user connects to a network where traffic is not secured or encrypted and sends sensitive business data to a colleague, which, when listened to by an attacker, could be exploited. Data transmitted across an open network can be intercepted by an attacker using various methods. Unlike malware, direct-access attacks, or other forms of cyberattacks, eavesdropping attacks are unlikely to negatively affect the performance of networks or devices, making them difficult to notice. In fact, "the attacker does not need to have any ongoing connection to the software at all. The attacker can insert the software onto a compromised device, perhaps by direct insertion or perhaps by a virus or other malware, and then come back some time later to retrieve any data that is found or trigger the software to send the data at some determined time." Using a virtual private network (VPN), which encrypts data between two points, is one of the most common forms of protection against eavesdropping. Using the best form of encryption possible for wireless networks is best practice, as well as using HTTPS instead of an unencrypted HTTP. Programs such as Carnivore and NarusInSight have been used by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the NSA to eavesdrop on the systems of internet service providers. Even machines that operate as a closed system (i.e., with no contact with the outside world) can be eavesdropped upon by monitoring the faint electromagnetic transmissions generated by the hardware. TEMPEST is a specification by the NSA referring to these attacks. === Malware === Malicious software (malware) is any software code or computer program "intentionally written to harm a computer system or its users." Once present on a computer, it can leak sensitive details such as personal information, business information and passwords, can give control of the system to the attacker, and can corrupt or delete data permanently. ==== Types of malware ==== Viruses are a specific type of malware, and are normally a malicious code that hijac

  Read more →
• 

  Scale space implementation

  In the areas of computer vision, image analysis and signal processing, the notion of scale-space representation is used for processing measurement data at multiple scales, and specifically enhance or suppress image features over different ranges of scale (see the article on scale space). A special type of scale-space representation is provided by the Gaussian scale space, where the image data in N dimensions is subjected to smoothing by Gaussian convolution. Most of the theory for Gaussian scale space deals with continuous images, whereas one when implementing this theory will have to face the fact that most measurement data are discrete. Hence, the theoretical problem arises concerning how to discretize the continuous theory while either preserving or well approximating the desirable theoretical properties that lead to the choice of the Gaussian kernel (see the article on scale-space axioms). This article describes basic approaches for this that have been developed in the literature, see also for an in-depth treatment regarding the topic of approximating the Gaussian smoothing operation and the Gaussian derivative computations in scale-space theory, and for a complementary treatment regarding hybrid discretization methods. == Statement of the problem == The Gaussian scale-space representation of an N-dimensional continuous signal, f C ( x 1 , ⋯ , x N , t ) , {\displaystyle f_{C}\left(x_{1},\cdots ,x_{N},t\right),} is obtained by convolving fC with an N-dimensional Gaussian kernel: g N ( x 1 , ⋯ , x N , t ) . {\displaystyle g_{N}\left(x_{1},\cdots ,x_{N},t\right).} In other words: L ( x 1 , ⋯ , x N , t ) = ∫ u 1 = − ∞ ∞ ⋯ ∫ u N = − ∞ ∞ f C ( x 1 − u 1 , ⋯ , x N − u N , t ) ⋅ g N ( u 1 , ⋯ , u N , t ) d u 1 ⋯ d u N . {\displaystyle L\left(x_{1},\cdots ,x_{N},t\right)=\int _{u_{1}=-\infty }^{\infty }\cdots \int _{u_{N}=-\infty }^{\infty }f_{C}\left(x_{1}-u_{1},\cdots ,x_{N}-u_{N},t\right)\cdot g_{N}\left(u_{1},\cdots ,u_{N},t\right)\,du_{1}\cdots du_{N}.} However, for implementation, this definition is impractical, since it is continuous. When applying the scale space concept to a discrete signal fD, different approaches can be taken. This article is a brief summary of some of the most frequently used methods. == Separability == Using the separability property of the Gaussian kernel g N ( x 1 , … , x N , t ) = G ( x 1 , t ) ⋯ G ( x N , t ) {\displaystyle g_{N}\left(x_{1},\dots ,x_{N},t\right)=G\left(x_{1},t\right)\cdots G\left(x_{N},t\right)} the N-dimensional convolution operation can be decomposed into a set of separable smoothing steps with a one-dimensional Gaussian kernel G along each dimension L ( x 1 , ⋯ , x N , t ) = ∫ u 1 = − ∞ ∞ ⋯ ∫ u N = − ∞ ∞ f C ( x 1 − u 1 , ⋯ , x N − u N , t ) G ( u 1 , t ) d u 1 ⋯ G ( u N , t ) d u N , {\displaystyle L(x_{1},\cdots ,x_{N},t)=\int _{u_{1}=-\infty }^{\infty }\cdots \int _{u_{N}=-\infty }^{\infty }f_{C}(x_{1}-u_{1},\cdots ,x_{N}-u_{N},t)G(u_{1},t)\,du_{1}\cdots G(u_{N},t)\,du_{N},} where G ( x , t ) = 1 2 π t e − x 2 2 t {\displaystyle G(x,t)={\frac {1}{\sqrt {2\pi t}}}e^{-{\frac {x^{2}}{2t}}}} and the standard deviation of the Gaussian σ is related to the scale parameter t according to t = σ2. Separability will be assumed in all that follows, even when the kernel is not exactly Gaussian, since separation of the dimensions is the most practical way to implement multidimensional smoothing, especially at larger scales. Therefore, the rest of the article focuses on the one-dimensional case. == The sampled Gaussian kernel == When implementing the one-dimensional smoothing step in practice, the presumably simplest approach is to convolve the discrete signal fD with a sampled Gaussian kernel: L ( x , t ) = ∑ n = − ∞ ∞ f ( x − n ) G ( n , t ) {\displaystyle L(x,t)=\sum _{n=-\infty }^{\infty }f(x-n)\,G(n,t)} where G ( n , t ) = 1 2 π t e − n 2 2 t {\displaystyle G(n,t)={\frac {1}{\sqrt {2\pi t}}}e^{-{\frac {n^{2}}{2t}}}} (with t = σ2) which in turn is truncated at the ends to give a filter with finite impulse response L ( x , t ) = ∑ n = − M M f ( x − n ) G ( n , t ) {\displaystyle L(x,t)=\sum _{n=-M}^{M}f(x-n)\,G(n,t)} for M chosen sufficiently large (see error function) such that 2 ∫ M ∞ G ( u , t ) d u = 2 ∫ M t ∞ G ( v , 1 ) d v < ε . {\displaystyle 2\int _{M}^{\infty }G(u,t)\,du=2\int _{\frac {M}{\sqrt {t}}}^{\infty }G(v,1)\,dv<\varepsilon .} A common choice is to set M to a constant C times the standard deviation of the Gaussian kernel M = C σ + 1 = C t + 1 {\displaystyle M=C\sigma +1=C{\sqrt {t}}+1} where C is often chosen somewhere between 3 and 6. Using the sampled Gaussian kernel can, however, lead to implementation problems, in particular when computing higher-order derivatives at finer scales by applying sampled derivatives of Gaussian kernels. When accuracy and robustness are primary design criteria, alternative implementation approaches should therefore be considered. For small values of ε (10−6 to 10−8) the errors introduced by truncating the Gaussian are usually negligible. For larger values of ε, however, there are many better alternatives to a rectangular window function. For example, for a given number of points, a Hamming window, Blackman window, or Kaiser window will do less damage to the spectral and other properties of the Gaussian than a simple truncation will. Notwithstanding this, since the Gaussian kernel decreases rapidly at the tails, the main recommendation is still to use a sufficiently small value of ε such that the truncation effects are no longer important. == The discrete Gaussian kernel == A more refined approach is to convolve the original signal with the discrete Gaussian kernel T(n, t) L ( x , t ) = ∑ n = − ∞ ∞ f ( x − n ) T ( n , t ) {\displaystyle L(x,t)=\sum _{n=-\infty }^{\infty }f(x-n)\,T(n,t)} where T ( n , t ) = e − t I n ( t ) {\displaystyle T(n,t)=e^{-t}I_{n}(t)} and I n ( t ) {\displaystyle I_{n}(t)} denotes the modified Bessel functions of integer order, n. This is the discrete counterpart of the continuous Gaussian in that it is the solution to the discrete diffusion equation (discrete space, continuous time), just as the continuous Gaussian is the solution to the continuous diffusion equation. This filter can be truncated in the spatial domain as for the sampled Gaussian L ( x , t ) = ∑ n = − M M f ( x − n ) T ( n , t ) {\displaystyle L(x,t)=\sum _{n=-M}^{M}f(x-n)\,T(n,t)} or can be implemented in the Fourier domain using a closed-form expression for its discrete-time Fourier transform: T ^ ( θ , t ) = ∑ n = − ∞ ∞ T ( n , t ) e − i θ n = e t ( cos ⁡ θ − 1 ) . {\displaystyle {\widehat {T}}(\theta ,t)=\sum _{n=-\infty }^{\infty }T(n,t)\,e^{-i\theta n}=e^{t(\cos \theta -1)}.} With this frequency-domain approach, the scale-space properties transfer exactly to the discrete domain, or with excellent approximation using periodic extension and a suitably long discrete Fourier transform to approximate the discrete-time Fourier transform of the signal being smoothed. Moreover, higher-order derivative approximations can be computed in a straightforward manner (and preserving scale-space properties) by applying small support central difference operators to the discrete scale space representation. As with the sampled Gaussian, a plain truncation of the infinite impulse response will in most cases be a sufficient approximation for small values of ε, while for larger values of ε it is better to use either a decomposition of the discrete Gaussian into a cascade of generalized binomial filters or alternatively to construct a finite approximate kernel by multiplying by a window function. If ε has been chosen too large such that effects of the truncation error begin to appear (for example as spurious extrema or spurious responses to higher-order derivative operators), then the options are to decrease the value of ε such that a larger finite kernel is used, with cutoff where the support is very small, or to use a tapered window. == Recursive filters == Since computational efficiency is often important, low-order recursive filters are often used for scale-space smoothing. For example, Young and van Vliet use a third-order recursive filter with one real pole and a pair of complex poles, applied forward and backward to make a sixth-order symmetric approximation to the Gaussian with low computational complexity for any smoothing scale. By relaxing a few of the axioms, Lindeberg concluded that good smoothing filters would be "normalized Pólya frequency sequences", a family of discrete kernels that includes all filters with real poles at 0 < Z < 1 and/or Z > 1, as well as with real zeros at Z < 0. For symmetry, which leads to approximate directional homogeneity, these filters must be further restricted to pairs of poles and zeros that lead to zero-phase filters. To match the transfer function curvature at zero frequency of the discrete Gaussian, which ensures an approximate semi-group property of additive t, two poles at Z = 1 + 2 t − ( 1 + 2 t ) 2 − 1 {\displaystyle

  Read more →
• 

  Common data model

  A common data model (CDM) can refer to any standardised data model which allows for data and information exchange between different applications and data sources. Common data models aim to standardise logical infrastructure so that related applications can "operate on and share the same data", and can be seen as a way to "organize data from many sources that are in different formats into a standard structure". A common data model has been described as one of the components of a "strong information system". A standardised common data model has also been described as a typical component of a well designed agile application besides a common communication protocol. Providing a single common data model within an organisation is one of the typical tasks of a data warehouse. == Examples of common data models == === Border crossings === X-trans.eu was a cross-border pilot project between the Free State of Bavaria (Germany) and Upper Austria with the aim of developing a faster procedure for the application and approval of cross-border large-capacity transports. The portal was based on a common data model that contained all the information required for approval. === Climate data === The Climate Data Store Common Data Model is a common data model set up by the Copernicus Climate Change Service for harmonising essential climate variables from different sources and data providers. === General information technology === Within service-oriented architecture, S-RAMP is a specification released by HP, IBM, Software AG, TIBCO, and Red Hat which defines a common data model for SOA repositories as well as an interaction protocol to facilitate the use of common tooling and sharing of data. Content Management Interoperability Services (CMIS) is an open standard for inter-operation of different content management systems over the internet, and provides a common data model for typed files and folders used with version control. The NetCDF software libraries for array-oriented scientific data implements a common data model called the NetCDF Java common data model, which consists of three layers built on top of each other to add successively richer semantics. === Health === Within genomic and medical data, the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) research program established under the U.S. National Institutes of Health has created a common data model for claims and electronic health records which can accommodate data from different sources around the world. PCORnet, which was developed by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, is another common data model for health data including electronic health records and patient claims. The Sentinel Common Data Model was initially started as Mini-Sentinel in 2008. It is used by the Sentinel Initiative of the USA's Food and Drug Administration. The Generalized Data Model was first published in 2019. It was designed to be a stand-alone data model as well as to allow for further transformation into other data models (e.g., OMOP, PCORNet, Sentinel). It has a hierarchical structure to flexibly capture relationships among data elements. The JANUS clinical trial data repository also provides a common data model which is based on the SDTM standard to represent clinical data submitted to regulatory agencies, such as tabulation datasets, patient profiles, listings, etc. === Logistics === SX000i is a specification developed jointly by the Aerospace and Defence Industries Association of Europe (ASD) and the American Aerospace Industries Association (AIA) to provide information, guidance and instructions to ensure compatibility and the commonality. The associated SX002D specification contains a common data model. === Microsoft Common Data Model === The Microsoft Common Data Model is a collection of many standardised extensible data schemas with entities, attributes, semantic metadata, and relationships, which represent commonly used concepts and activities in various businesses areas. It is maintained by Microsoft and its partners, and is published on GitHub. Microsoft's Common Data Model is used amongst others in Microsoft Dataverse and with various Microsoft Power Platform and Microsoft Dynamics 365 services. === Rail transport === RailTopoModel is a common data model for the railway sector. === Other === There are many more examples of various common data models for different uses published by different sources.

  Read more →
• 

  NetMiner

  NetMiner is an all-in-one software platform for analyzing and visualizing complex network data, based on Social Network Analysis (SNA). Originally released in 2001, it supports research and education in a wide range of domains through interactive and visual data exploration. This tool allows researchers to explore their network data visually and interactively, and helps them to detect underlying patterns and structures of the network. It has also been recognized for its comprehensive features and user-friendly interface in comparative reviews of SNA software packages. == Features == === Integrated Data Environment === NetMiner supports unified management of diverse data types—including network (nodes and links), tabular, and unstructured text data—within a single platform. This enables users to perform the entire analysis workflow seamlessly without switching between tools. NetMiner also supports a wide range of analytical methods, allowing users to derive new insights by combining multiple approaches. Analytical results can be saved and reused across workflows(Add to Dataset) Graph and Network Analysis: Includes Centrality, Community Detection, Blockmodeling, and Similarity Measures. Machine learning: Provides algorithms for regression, classification, clustering, ensemble modeling and XAI(Explainable AI) Graph Neural Networks (GNNs): Supports models such as GraphSAGE, GCN, and GAT to learn from both node attributes and graph structure. Natural language processing (NLP): Uses pretrained deep learning models to analyze unstructured text, including named entity recognition and keyword extraction. Text mining and Text network analysis: Supports construction of word co-occurrence networks and topic modeling using LDA, BERTopic, enabling identification of thematic patterns and semantic structures in text data. Data Visualization: Offers advanced network visualization features, supporting multiple layout algorithms. Analytical outcomes such as centrality or community detection can be directly reflected in the network map via node size, color, and position, enhancing intuitive understanding. === AI Assistant === NetMiner integrates with external large language models such as OpenAI GPT and Google Gemini to interpret complex analysis results in natural language, summarize key findings, and suggest next steps for exploration. === Workflow and Usability === Designed to follow the structure of real-world data analysis workflows, NetMiner adopts a hierarchical data organization (Project → Workspace → Dataset → Data Item). Its web-based user interface improves clarity and reduces complexity. NetMiner 5 supports Windows 10 or higher and macOS 11 or later with M1 chip. Both academic and commercial licenses are available. == Extension == NetMiner Extension is small program to extend the functionality of NetMiner. In other words, it enables you to customize NetMiner according to your needs. By adding ‘NetMiner Extension’, you can expand your research. === Web Data Collection === NetMiner allows users to collect data from services such as YouTube, OpenAlex, Springer, and KCI via Open APIs. Collected data is automatically preprocessed and transformed to fit NetMiner’s internal structure, requiring no additional coding or external tools. SNS Data Collector: It collects social media data from YouTube, which has a large number of social media users worldwide. Biblio Data Collector: It collects the bibliographic data from Springer, OpenAlex, and KCI essential for research trend analysis. == File formats == === NetMiner data file format === .NMF === Importable/exportable formats === Plain text data: .TXT, .CSV Microsoft Excel data: .XLS, .XLSX Unstructured text data: .TXT, .CSV, .XLS(X) ※ NetMiner 4 only NetMiner 2 data: .NTF UCINet data: .DL, .DAT Pajek data: .NET, .VEC, .CLU, .PER StOCNET data file: .DAT Graph Modelling Language data: .GML(importing only) Related software UCINET Pajek Gephi StoCNET == Data structure == === Hierarchy of NetMiner data structure === NetMiner 5 supports not only graph data composed of nodes and links, but also tabular and unstructured data without fixed schema or identifiers. This enables users to easily import a wide variety of raw and unstructured data suitable for machine learning applications. Within a single workspace, users can manage node sets, link sets, and structured/unstructured data simultaneously. Multiple graph layers under a node set can be organized in a tree structure, allowing for intuitive understanding of the data currently being analyzed. == Release history == The first version of NetMiner was released on Dec 21, 2001. There have been five major updates from 2001. === NetMiner 5 === Released on June 9, 2025. NetMiner 5 retains the core features and no-code concept of NetMiner 4, but has evolved by integrating cutting-edge AI technologies. AI Assistant, Personal Analytics Tutor Support for Graph, Structured, and Unstructured Data Graph Analytics / Social Network Analysis Machine Learning(M/L) & XAI Graph Machine Learning(GML): Graph Neural Network Text Mining: Natural Language Processing(NLP), Text Network, Topic Modeling Data Visualization === NetMiner 4 (2011) === Latest version is 4.5.1. Introduced Python scripting, encrypted NMF format, semantic analysis tools (word cloud, topic modeling), and Extension - Data Collector. === NetMiner 3 (2007) === Enhanced scalability, integrated analysis-visualization modules, and DB import from Oracle, MS SQL. === NetMiner 2 (2003) === Improved statistical and network measures, visualization algorithms, and external data import modules.

  Read more →
• 

  Amália (LLM)

  Amália is a Portuguese large language model (LLM) announced in November 2024 by the Portuguese Prime-Minister Luís Montenegro. Its final version is expected to be launched in 2026. It is being developed by Center for Responsible AI (Centro para a AI Responsável) and by the research centers of NOVA School of Science and Technology and Instituto Superior Técnico. == History == In 2024 it was announced that the Portuguese Agency for Administrative Modernization (Agência para a Modernização Administrativa) transpose this LLM to Portuguese Public Administration. According to Paulo Dimas (CEO of the Center for Responsible AI) the three fundamental points of this LLM project are the linguistic variant (European Portuguese), cultural representation and data protection. In April 2025 it was announced that Amália had entered beta phase with an improved version being expected to be launched in September 2025. The beta version released in September is available only to the Public Administration, but the website launched in October reiterates the final version will be an open model.

  Read more →
• 

  Rhetorical structure theory

  Rhetorical structure theory (RST) is a theory of text organization that describes relations that hold between parts of text. It was originally developed by William Mann, Sandra Thompson, Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen and others at the University of Southern California's Information Sciences Institute (ISI) and defined in a 1988 paper. The theory was developed as part of studies of computer-based text generation. Natural language processing researchers later began using RST in automatic summarization and other applications. It explains coherence by postulating a hierarchical, connected structure of texts, which are labeled using a small, predefined inventory of relation types - for example, one part of a text may provide an elaboration on another part, provide background or specify a cause for another. In the 2000s, following the release of the first large-scale dataset implementing the theory, the RST Discourse Treebank (RST-DT), Daniel Marcu demonstrated the feasibility of practical applications of RST to discourse parsing and summarization at ISI. Originally limited to written text, subsequent work in the 2010s expanded RST to spoken language analysis, and the framework has been applied to a variety of languages including Farsi, German, Mandarin Chinese, Russian and Spanish. Following the introduction of Transformers, LLMs have been applied to automatic RST parsing, with results approaching human performance on parsing text in English. == Rhetorical relations == Rhetorical relations, also called coherence or discourse relations, are paratactic (coordinate) or hypotactic (subordinate) relations that hold across two or more text spans. The logical arrangement of relations in a text contributes to its coherence by connecting different propositions in a relational structure. RST using rhetorical relations provides a systematic way for an analyst to analyze the underlying intention of a text. The analysis is usually built by reading the text and constructing a tree using the relations. The following example is a title and summary, appearing at the top of an article in Scientific American magazine (adapted from Ramachandran and Anstis, 1986). The original text, broken into numbered units, is: [Title:] The Perception of Apparent Motion [Abstract:] When the motion of an intermittently seen object is ambiguous the visual system resolves confusion by applying some tricks that reflect a built-in knowledge of properties of the physical world. In the figure, the numbers 1-5 show the corresponding units from the text above. Unit 5 provides an "elaboration" on unit 4, and therefore constitutes a less prominent satellite of unit 4, which acts as a nucleus for the relation. Units 4-5 form a relation "Means", explaining the means by which the visual system resolves confusion. Unit 3 is the Central Discourse Unit (CDU) of the text, since all units point to it directly or indirectly. Similarly units 1 and 2 form "preparation" and "circumstance" relations relative to their nuclei. Groups of units which serve as a satellite or nucleus together are called complex discourse units, and always span a set of adjacent EDUs. == Nuclearity in discourse == RST establishes two different types of units. Nuclei are considered as the most important parts of text whereas satellites contribute to the nuclei and are secondary. Nucleus contains basic information and satellite contains additional information about nucleus. The satellite is often incomprehensible without nucleus, whereas a text where satellites have been deleted can be understood to a certain extent. == Hierarchy in the analysis == RST relations are applied recursively in a text, until all units in that text are constituents in an RST relation. The result of such analyses is that RST structure are typically represented as trees, with one top level relation that encompasses other relations at lower levels. == Why RST? == From linguistic point of view, RST proposes a different view of text organization than most linguistic theories. RST points to a tight relation between relations and coherence in text From a computational point of view, it provides a characterization of text relations that has been implemented in different systems and for applications as text generation and summarization. == In design rationale == Computer scientists Ana Cristina Bicharra Garcia and Clarisse Sieckenius de Souz have used RST as the basis of a design rationale system called ADD+. In ADD+, RST is used as the basis for the rhetorical organization of a knowledge base, in a way comparable to other knowledge representation systems such as issue-based information system (IBIS). Similarly, RST has been used in representation schemes for argumentation.

  Read more →
• 

  AUTINDEX

  AUTINDEX is a commercial text mining software package based on sophisticated linguistics. AUTINDEX, resulting from research in information extraction, is a product of the Institute of Applied Information Sciences (IAI) which is a non-profit institute that has been researching and developing language technology since its foundation in 1985. IAI is an institute affiliated to Saarland University in Saarbrücken, Germany. AUTINDEX is the result of a number of research projects funded by the EU (Project BINDEX), by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and the German Ministry for Economy. Amongst the latter there are the projects LinSearch, and WISSMER, see also the reference to IAI-Website. The basic functionality of AUTINDEX is the extraction of key words from a document to represent the semantics of the document. Ideally the system is integrated with a thesaurus that defines the standardised terms to be used for key word assignment. AUTINDEX is used in library applications (e.g. integrated in dandelon.com) as well as in high quality (expert) information systems, and in document management and content management environments. Together with AUTINDEX a number of additional software comes along such as an integration with Apache Solr / Lucene to provide a complete information retrieval environment, a classification and categorisation system on the basis of a machine learning software that assigns domains to the document, and a system for searching with semantically similar terms that are collected in so called tag clouds.

  Read more →
• 

  Trigram

  Trigrams are a special case of the n-gram, where n is 3. They are often used in natural language processing for performing statistical analysis of texts and in cryptography for control and use of ciphers and codes. See results of analysis of "Letter Frequencies in the English Language". == Frequency == Context is very important, varying analysis rankings and percentages are easily derived by drawing from different sample sizes, different authors; or different document types: poetry, science-fiction, technology documentation; and writing levels: stories for children versus adults, military orders, and recipes. Typical cryptanalytic frequency analysis finds that the 16 most common character-level trigrams in English are: Because encrypted messages sent by telegraph often omit punctuation and spaces, cryptographic frequency analysis of such messages includes trigrams that straddle word boundaries. This causes trigrams such as "edt" to occur frequently, even though it may never occur in any one word of those messages. == Examples == The sentence "the quick red fox jumps over the lazy brown dog" has the following word-level trigrams: the quick red quick red fox red fox jumps fox jumps over jumps over the over the lazy the lazy brown lazy brown dog And the word-level trigram "the quick red" has the following character-level trigrams (where an underscore "_" marks a space): the he_ e_q _qu qui uic ick ck_ k_r _re red

  Read more →
• 

  Mountain car problem

  Mountain Car, a standard testing domain in Reinforcement learning, is a problem in which an under-powered car must drive up a steep hill. Since gravity is stronger than the car's engine, even at full throttle, the car cannot simply accelerate up the steep slope. The car is situated in a valley and must learn to leverage potential energy by driving up the opposite hill before the car is able to make it to the goal at the top of the rightmost hill. The domain has been used as a test bed in various reinforcement learning papers. == Introduction == The mountain car problem, although fairly simple, is commonly applied because it requires a reinforcement learning agent to learn on two continuous variables: position and velocity. For any given state (position and velocity) of the car, the agent is given the possibility of driving left, driving right, or not using the engine at all. In the standard version of the problem, the agent receives a negative reward at every time step when the goal is not reached; the agent has no information about the goal until an initial success. == History == The mountain car problem appeared first in Andrew Moore's PhD thesis (1990). It was later more strictly defined in Singh and Sutton's reinforcement learning paper with eligibility traces. The problem became more widely studied when Sutton and Barto added it to their book Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction (1998). Throughout the years many versions of the problem have been used, such as those which modify the reward function, termination condition, and the start state. == Techniques used to solve mountain car == Q-learning and similar techniques for mapping discrete states to discrete actions need to be extended to be able to deal with the continuous state space of the problem. Approaches often fall into one of two categories, state space discretization or function approximation. === Discretization === In this approach, two continuous state variables are pushed into discrete states by bucketing each continuous variable into multiple discrete states. This approach works with properly tuned parameters but a disadvantage is information gathered from one state is not used to evaluate another state. Tile coding can be used to improve discretization and involves continuous variables mapping into sets of buckets offset from one another. Each step of training has a wider impact on the value function approximation because when the offset grids are summed, the information is diffused. === Function approximation === Function approximation is another way to solve the mountain car. By choosing a set of basis functions beforehand, or by generating them as the car drives, the agent can approximate the value function at each state. Unlike the step-wise version of the value function created with discretization, function approximation can more cleanly estimate the true smooth function of the mountain car domain. === Eligibility traces === One aspect of the problem involves the delay of actual reward. The agent is not able to learn about the goal until a successful completion. Given a naive approach for each trial the car can only backup the reward of the goal slightly. This is a problem for naive discretization because each discrete state will only be backed up once, taking a larger number of episodes to learn the problem. This problem can be alleviated via the mechanism of eligibility traces, which will automatically backup the reward given to states before, dramatically increasing the speed of learning. Eligibility traces can be viewed as a bridge from temporal difference learning methods to Monte Carlo methods. == Technical details == The mountain car problem has undergone many iterations. This section focuses on the standard well-defined version from Sutton (2008). === State variables === Two-dimensional continuous state space. V e l o c i t y = ( − 0.07 , 0.07 ) {\displaystyle Velocity=(-0.07,0.07)} P o s i t i o n = ( − 1.2 , 0.6 ) {\displaystyle Position=(-1.2,0.6)} === Actions === One-dimensional discrete action space. m o t o r = ( l e f t , n e u t r a l , r i g h t ) {\displaystyle motor=(left,neutral,right)} === Reward === For every time step: r e w a r d = − 1 {\displaystyle reward=-1} === Update function === For every time step: A c t i o n = [ − 1 , 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle Action=[-1,0,1]} V e l o c i t y = V e l o c i t y + ( A c t i o n ) ∗ 0.001 + cos ⁡ ( 3 ∗ P o s i t i o n ) ∗ ( − 0.0025 ) {\displaystyle Velocity=Velocity+(Action)0.001+\cos(3Position)(-0.0025)} P o s i t i o n = P o s i t i o n + V e l o c i t y {\displaystyle Position=Position+Velocity} === Starting condition === Optionally, many implementations include randomness in both parameters to show better generalized learning. P o s i t i o n = − 0.5 {\displaystyle Position=-0.5} V e l o c i t y = 0.0 {\displaystyle Velocity=0.0} === Termination condition === End the simulation when: P o s i t i o n ≥ 0.6 {\displaystyle Position\geq 0.6} == Variations == There are many versions of the mountain car which deviate in different ways from the standard model. Variables that vary include but are not limited to changing the constants (gravity and steepness) of the problem so specific tuning for specific policies become irrelevant and altering the reward function to affect the agent's ability to learn in a different manner. An example is changing the reward to be equal to the distance from the goal, or changing the reward to zero everywhere and one at the goal. Additionally, a 3D mountain car can be used, with a 4D continuous state space.

  Read more →
• 

  Spell checker

  In software, a spell checker (or spelling checker or spell check) is a software feature that checks for misspellings in a text. Spell-checking features are often embedded in software or services, such as a word processor, email client, electronic dictionary, or search engine. == Design == A basic spell checker carries out the following processes: It scans the text and extracts the words contained in it. It then compares each word with a known list of correctly spelled words (i.e. a dictionary). This might contain just a list of words, or it might also contain additional information, such as hyphenation points or lexical and grammatical attributes. An additional step is a language-dependent algorithm for handling morphology. Even for a lightly inflected language like English, the spell checker will need to consider different forms of the same word, such as plurals, verbal forms, contractions, and possessives. For many other languages, such as those featuring agglutination and more complex declension and conjugation, this part of the process is more complicated. It is unclear whether morphological analysis—allowing for many forms of a word depending on its grammatical role—provides a significant benefit for English, though its benefits for highly synthetic languages such as German, Hungarian, or Turkish are clear. As an adjunct to these components, the program's user interface allows users to approve or reject replacements and modify the program's operation. Spell checkers can use approximate string matching algorithms such as Levenshtein distance to find correct spellings of misspelled words. An alternative type of spell checker uses solely statistical information, such as n-grams, to recognize errors instead of correctly-spelled words. This approach usually requires a lot of effort to obtain sufficient statistical information. Key advantages include needing less runtime storage and the ability to correct errors in words that are not included in a dictionary. In some cases, spell checkers use a fixed list of misspellings and suggestions for those misspellings; this less flexible approach is often used in paper-based correction methods, such as the see also entries of encyclopedias. Clustering algorithms have also been used for spell checking combined with phonetic information. == History == === Pre-PC === In 1961, Les Earnest, who headed the research on this budding technology, saw it necessary to include the first spell checker that accessed a list of 10,000 acceptable words. Ralph Gorin, a graduate student under Earnest at the time, created the first true spelling checker program written as an applications program (rather than research) for general English text: SPELL for the DEC PDP-10 at Stanford University's Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, in February 1971. Gorin wrote SPELL in assembly language, for faster action; he made the first spelling corrector by searching the word list for plausible correct spellings that differ by a single letter or adjacent letter transpositions and presenting them to the user. Gorin made SPELL publicly accessible, as was done with most SAIL (Stanford Artificial Intelligence Laboratory) programs, and it soon spread around the world via the new ARPAnet, about ten years before personal computers came into general use. SPELL, its algorithms and data structures inspired the Unix ispell program. The first spell checkers were widely available on mainframe computers in the late 1970s. A group of six linguists from Georgetown University developed the first spell-check system for the IBM corporation. Henry Kučera invented one for the VAX machines of Digital Equipment Corp in 1981. === Unix === The International Ispell program commonly used in Unix is based on R. E. Gorin's SPELL. It was converted to C by Pace Willisson at MIT. The GNU project has its spell checker GNU Aspell. Aspell's main improvement is that it can more accurately suggest correct alternatives for misspelled English words. Due to the inability of traditional spell checkers to check words in complex inflected languages, Hungarian László Németh developed Hunspell, a spell checker that supports agglutinative languages and complex compound words. Hunspell also uses Unicode in its dictionaries. Hunspell replaced the previous MySpell in OpenOffice.org in version 2.0.2. Enchant is another general spell checker, derived from AbiWord. Its goal is to combine programs supporting different languages such as Aspell, Hunspell, Nuspell, Hspell (Hebrew), Voikko (Finnish), Zemberek (Turkish) and AppleSpell under one interface. === PCs === The first spell checkers for personal computers appeared in 1980, such as "WordCheck" for Commodore systems which was released in late 1980 in time for advertisements to go to print in January 1981. Developers such as Maria Mariani and Random House rushed OEM packages or end-user products into the rapidly expanding software market. On the pre-Windows PCs, these spell checkers were standalone programs, many of which could be run in terminate-and-stay-resident mode from within word-processing packages on PCs with sufficient memory. However, the market for standalone packages was short-lived, as by the mid-1980s developers of popular word-processing packages like WordStar and WordPerfect had incorporated spell checkers in their packages, mostly licensed from the above companies, who quickly expanded support from just English to many European and eventually even Asian languages. However, this required increasing sophistication in the morphology routines of the software, particularly with regard to heavily-agglutinative languages like Hungarian and Finnish. Although the size of the word-processing market in a country like Iceland might not have justified the investment of implementing a spell checker, companies like WordPerfect nonetheless strove to localize their software for as many national markets as possible as part of their global marketing strategy. When Apple developed "a system-wide spelling checker" for Mac OS X so that "the operating system took over spelling fixes," it was a first: one "didn't have to maintain a separate spelling checker for each" program. Mac OS X's spellcheck coverage includes virtually all bundled and third party applications. Visual Tools' VT Speller, introduced in 1994, was "designed for developers of applications that support Windows." It came with a dictionary but had the ability to build and incorporate use of secondary dictionaries. === Browsers === Web browsers such as Firefox and Google Chrome offer spell checking support, using Hunspell. Prior to using Hunspell, Firefox and Chrome used MySpell and GNU Aspell, respectively. === Specialties === Some spell checkers have separate support for medical dictionaries to help prevent medical errors. == Functionality == The first spell checkers were "verifiers" instead of "correctors." They offered no suggestions for incorrectly spelled words. This was helpful for typos but it was not so helpful for logical or phonetic errors. The challenge the developers faced was the difficulty in offering useful suggestions for misspelled words. This requires reducing words to a skeletal form and applying pattern-matching algorithms. It might seem logical that where spell-checking dictionaries are concerned, "the bigger, the better," so that correct words are not marked as incorrect. In practice, however, an optimal size for English appears to be around 90,000 entries. If there are more than this, incorrectly spelled words may be skipped because they are mistaken for others. For example, a linguist might determine on the basis of corpus linguistics that the word baht is more frequently a misspelling of bath or bat than a reference to the Thai currency. Hence, it would typically be more useful if a few people who write about Thai currency were slightly inconvenienced than if the spelling errors of the many more people who discuss baths were overlooked. The first MS-DOS spell checkers were mostly used in proofing mode from within word processing packages. After preparing a document, a user scanned the text looking for misspellings. Later, however, batch processing was offered in such packages as Oracle's short-lived CoAuthor and allowed a user to view the results after a document was processed and correct only the words that were known to be wrong. When memory and processing power became abundant, spell checking was performed in the background in an interactive way, such as has been the case with the Sector Software produced Spellbound program released in 1987 and Microsoft Word since Word 95. Spell checkers became increasingly sophisticated; now capable of recognizing grammatical errors. However, even at their best, they rarely catch all the errors in a text (such as homophone errors) and will flag neologisms and foreign words as misspellings. Nonetheless, spell checkers can be considered as a type of foreign language writing aid that non-native language lea

  Read more →
• 

  Stochastic parrot

  In machine learning, the term stochastic parrot is a metaphor that frames large language models as systems that statistically mimic text without real understanding. The word "stochastic" – from the ancient Greek "στοχαστικός" (stokhastikos, 'based on guesswork') – is a term from probability theory meaning "randomly determined". The word "parrot" refers to parrots' ability to mimic human speech. The term was introduced in a 2021 paper on AI ethics titled "On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big? 🦜" and authored by Timnit Gebru, Emily M. Bender, Angelina McMillan-Major, and Margaret Mitchell. The paper outlined possible risks associated with large language models (LLMs). In December 2020, it was the subject of a workplace dispute between Gebru (then co-leader of Google's Ethical Artificial Intelligence Team) and Google, which had requested the retraction of the paper. The incident culminated in Gebru's controversial departure from the company. The paper was later presented at the 2021 ACM Conference, and the term "stochastic parrot" has seen widespread use in academic research concerning generative AI and LLMs. The term has been interpreted negatively as an insult towards AI. == Background == Timnit Gebru is an AI ethics researcher, Emily M. Bender is a linguist specializing in computational linguistics, and Margaret Mitchell is a computer scientist specializing in algorithmic bias. Gebru had joined Google in 2018, where she co-led a team on the ethics of artificial intelligence with Mitchell. In late 2020, the paper "On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big? 🦜" was co-written by Gebru and five other researchers, four of whom were Google employees. The paper argues that large language models (LLMs) present significant risks such as environmental and financial costs, inscrutability leading to unknown dangerous biases, and potential for deception as LLMs do not understand the concepts underlying what they learn. The paper states that LLMs are "stitching together sequences of linguistic forms ... observed in its vast training data, according to probabilistic information about how they combine, but without any reference to meaning." Therefore, they are labeled "stochastic parrots". === Dismissal of Gebru by Google === After the paper was submitted for consideration to the 2021 ACM Conference, Google requested that Gebru either retract the paper from the conference or remove the names of Google employees from it. Gebru refused to do so without further discussion, and emailed Google Research vice president Megan Kacholia that if the company could not explain the request for retraction and address other concerns regarding similar projects, she would plan to resign after a transition period, stating that they could "work on a last date". The following day, on December 2, 2020, Gebru received an email saying that Google was "accepting her resignation". Her abrupt firing sparked protests by Google employees and negative publicity for the company. == Usage == The phrase has been used by AI skeptics to signify that LLMs lack understanding of the meaning of their outputs. Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, used the term shortly after the release of ChatGPT in December 2022, tweeting "i am a stochastic parrot, and so r u". The term was nominated as the 2023 AI-related Word of the Year by the American Dialect Society. == Debate == Some LLMs, such as ChatGPT, have become capable of interacting with users in convincingly human-like conversations. The development of these new systems has deepened the discussion of the extent to which LLMs understand or are simply "parroting". According to machine learning researchers Lindholm, Wahlström, Lindsten, and Schön, the term "stochastic parrot" highlights two vital limitations of LLMs: LLMs are limited by the data they are trained on and are simply stochastically repeating contents of datasets. Because they are just making up outputs based on training data, LLMs do not understand if they are saying something incorrect or inappropriate. Lindholm et al. noted that, with poor quality datasets and other limitations, a learning machine might produce results that are "dangerously wrong". === Subjective experience === In the mind of a human being, words and language correspond to things one has experienced. For LLMs, according to proponents of the theory, words correspond only to other words and patterns of usage fed into their training data. Proponents of the idea of stochastic parrots thus conclude that statements about LLMs are due to "the human tendency to attribute meaning to text", and claim this occurs despite the LLMs not actually understanding language. === Fine-tuning === Kelsey Piper argued that the claim that LLMs are stochastic parrots or mere "next-token predictors" focuses on pre-training, ignoring that modern LLMs are also fine-tuned to follow instructions and to prefer accurate answers. === Hallucinations and mistakes === The tendency of LLMs to pass off false information as fact is held as support. Called hallucinations or confabulations, LLMs will occasionally synthesize information that matches some pattern. LLMs may fail to distinguish fact and fiction, which leads to the claim that they can't connect words to a comprehension of the world, as humans do. Furthermore, LLMs may fail to decipher complex or ambiguous grammar cases that rely on understanding the meaning of language. For example: The wet newspaper that fell down off the table is my favorite newspaper. But now that my favorite newspaper fired the editor I might not like reading it anymore. Can I replace 'my favorite newspaper' by 'the wet newspaper that fell down off the table' in the second sentence? GPT-4, an LLM released in March 2023, responded yes, not understanding that the meaning of "newspaper" is different in these two contexts; it is first an object and second an institution. === Benchmarks and experiments === One argument against the hypothesis that LLMs are stochastic parrot is their results on benchmarks for reasoning, common sense and language understanding. In 2023, some LLMs have shown good results on many language understanding tests, such as the Super General Language Understanding Evaluation (SuperGLUE). GPT-4 scored in the >90th-percentile on the Uniform Bar Examination and achieved 93% accuracy on the MATH benchmark of high-school Olympiad problems, results that exceed rote pattern-matching expectations. Such tests, and the smoothness of many LLM responses, help as many as 51% of AI professionals believe they can truly understand language with enough data, according to a 2022 survey. === Expert rebuttals === Some AI researchers dispute the notion that LLMs merely "parrot" their training data. Geoffrey Hinton, a pioneering figure in neural networks, counters that the metaphor misunderstands the prerequisite for accurate language prediction. He argues that "to predict the next word accurately, you have to understand the sentence", a view he presented on 60 Minutes in 2023. From this perspective, understanding is not an alternative to statistical prediction, but rather an emergent property required to perform it effectively at scale. Hinton also uses logical puzzles to demonstrate that LLMs actually understand language. A 2024 Scientific American investigation described a closed Berkeley workshop where state-of-the-art models solved novel tier-4 mathematics problems and produced coherent proofs, indicating reasoning abilities beyond memorization. The GPT-4 Technical Report showed human-level results on professional and academic exams (e.g., the Uniform Bar Exam and USMLE), challenging the "parrot" characterization. Anthropic conducted mechanistic interpretability research on Claude, using attribution graphs to identify circuits. The research showed how the LLM processes information via chains of fuzzy logical inference, and indicated an ability to plan ahead. They found that Claude 3.5 Haiku "employs remarkably general abstractions", forms "internally generated plans for its future outputs" and "works backwards from its longer-term goals". They noted that "The mechanisms of the model can apparently only be faithfully described using an overwhelmingly large causal graph." They also found that the model includes "mechanisms that could underlie a simple form of metacognition", in that it "thinks about" the level of its own knowledge before reaching its answer. === Interpretability === Another line of evidence against the 'stochastic parrot' claim comes from mechanistic interpretability, a research field dedicated to reverse-engineering LLMs to understand their internal workings. Rather than only observing the model's input-output behavior, these techniques probe the model's internal activations, which can be used to determine if they contain structured representations of the world. The goal is to investigate whether LLMs are merely manipulating surface statistics or if t

  Read more →
• 

  Zero-shot learning

  Zero-shot learning (ZSL) is a problem setup in deep learning where, at test time, a learner observes samples from classes which were not observed during training, and needs to predict the class that they belong to. The name is a play on words based on the earlier concept of one-shot learning, in which classification can be learned from only one, or a few, examples. Zero-shot methods generally work by associating observed and non-observed classes through some form of auxiliary information, which encodes observable distinguishing properties of objects. For example, given a set of images of animals to be classified, along with auxiliary textual descriptions of what animals look like, an artificial intelligence model which has been trained to recognize horses, but has never been given a zebra, can still recognize a zebra when it also knows that zebras look like striped horses. This problem is widely studied in computer vision, natural language processing, and machine perception. == Background and history == The first paper on zero-shot learning in natural language processing appeared in a 2008 paper by Chang, Ratinov, Roth, and Srikumar, at the AAAI'08, but the name given to the learning paradigm there was dataless classification. The first paper on zero-shot learning in computer vision appeared at the same conference, under the name zero-data learning. The term zero-shot learning itself first appeared in the literature in a 2009 paper from Palatucci, Hinton, Pomerleau, and Mitchell at NIPS'09. This terminology was repeated later in another computer vision paper and the term zero-shot learning caught on, as a take-off on one-shot learning that was introduced in computer vision years earlier. In computer vision, zero-shot learning models learned parameters for seen classes along with their class representations and rely on representational similarity among class labels so that, during inference, instances can be classified into new classes. In natural language processing, the key technical direction developed builds on the ability to "understand the labels"—represent the labels in the same semantic space as that of the documents to be classified. This supports the classification of a single example without observing any annotated data, the purest form of zero-shot classification. The original paper made use of the Explicit Semantic Analysis (ESA) representation but later papers made use of other representations, including dense representations. This approach was also extended to multilingual domains, fine entity typing and other problems. Moreover, beyond relying solely on representations, the computational approach has been extended to depend on transfer from other tasks, such as textual entailment and question answering. The original paper also points out that, beyond the ability to classify a single example, when a collection of examples is given, with the assumption that they come from the same distribution, it is possible to bootstrap the performance in a semi-supervised like manner (or transductive learning). Unlike standard generalization in machine learning, where classifiers are expected to correctly classify new samples to classes they have already observed during training, in ZSL, no samples from the classes have been given during training the classifier. It can therefore be viewed as an extreme case of domain adaptation. == Prerequisite information for zero-shot classes == Naturally, some form of auxiliary information has to be given about these zero-shot classes, and this type of information can be of several types. Learning with attributes: classes are accompanied by pre-defined structured description. For example, for bird descriptions, this could include "red head", "long beak". These attributes are often organized in a structured compositional way, and taking that structure into account improves learning. While this approach was used mostly in computer vision, there are some examples for it also in natural language processing. Learning from textual description. As pointed out above, this has been the key direction pursued in natural language processing. Here class labels are taken to have a meaning and are often augmented with definitions or free-text natural-language description. This could include for example a wikipedia description of the class. Class-class similarity. Here, classes are embedded in a continuous space. A zero-shot classifier can predict that a sample corresponds to some position in that space, and the nearest embedded class is used as a predicted class, even if no such samples were observed during training. == Generalized zero-shot learning == The above ZSL setup assumes that at test time, only zero-shot samples are given, namely, samples from new unseen classes. In generalized zero-shot learning, samples from both new and known classes, may appear at test time. This poses new challenges for classifiers at test time, because it is very challenging to estimate if a given sample is new or known. Some approaches to handle this include: a gating module, which is first trained to decide if a given sample comes from a new class or from an old one, and then, at inference time, outputs either a hard decision, or a soft probabilistic decision a generative module, which is trained to generate feature representation of the unseen classes—a standard classifier can then be trained on samples from all classes, seen and unseen. == Domains of application == Zero shot learning has been applied to the following fields: image classification semantic segmentation image generation object detection natural language processing computational biology abstract reasoning

  Read more →
• 

  AlternativeTo

  AlternativeTo is a website which lists alternatives to web-based software, desktop computer software, and mobile apps, and sorts the alternatives by various criteria, including the number of registered users who have "Liked" each of them on AlternativeTo. Users can search the site to find better alternatives to an application they are using or previously have used, including free alternatives such as free web applications (cloud computing) which don't require any installation and can be accessed from any browser. == Differences == Unlike a number of other software directory websites, the software is not arranged into categories, but each individual piece of software has its own list of alternatives. However, users can also search by tag to find software, which offers an alternative way of finding related software. Users can also narrow their search by focusing on particular platforms and license types (such as "free for non-commercial use"). AlternativeTo lists basic information such as platform and license type at the top of each entry, but does not have comparison tables listing software features side by side. AlternativeTo does not host software for download but it provides links to official websites to where you can download or buy them. AlternativeTo allows anyone to register and suggest new alternatives, or to update the information held about existing entries. Suggestions and alterations are reviewed before being made publicly visible. Users can register using either email and password or OpenID. Login with Facebook has been discontinued. As AlternativeTo is itself a web application, it even has a page for alternatives to itself. == Features == Tweets from anyone mentioning particular pieces of software are also pulled in dynamically from Twitter. Each application has an RSS feed for notifying users of newly listed alternatives to that application. After a user has clicked the Like button next to an application, they are offered the opportunity to tell their friends on Facebook or their followers on Twitter that they liked it. The site also has a forum. For software developers, a JSON API used to be available, but has been taken down indefinitely.

  Read more →
• 

  Loebner Prize

  The Loebner Prize was an annual competition in artificial intelligence that awarded prizes to the computer programs considered by the judges to be the most human-like. The format of the competition was that of a standard Turing test. In each round, a human judge simultaneously held textual conversations with a computer program and a human being via computer. Based upon the responses, the judge would attempt to determine which was which. The contest was launched in 1990 by Hugh Loebner in conjunction with the Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies, Massachusetts, United States. In 2004 and 2005, it was held in Loebner's apartment in New York City. Within the field of artificial intelligence, the Loebner Prize is somewhat controversial; the most prominent critic, Marvin Minsky, called it a publicity stunt that does not help the field along. Beginning in 2014, it was organised by the AISB at Bletchley Park. It has also been associated with Flinders University, Dartmouth College, the Science Museum in London, University of Reading and Ulster University, Magee Campus, Derry, UK City of Culture. For the final 2019 competition, the format changed. There was no panel of judges. Instead, the chatbots were judged by the public and there were to be no human competitors. The prize has been reported as defunct as of 2020. == Prizes == Originally, $2,000 was awarded for the most human-seeming program in the competition. The prize was $3,000 in 2005 and $2,250 in 2006. In 2008, $3,000 was awarded. In addition, there were two one-time-only prizes that have never been awarded. $25,000 is offered for the first program that judges cannot distinguish from a real human and which can convince judges that the human is the computer program. $100,000 is the reward for the first program that judges cannot distinguish from a real human in a Turing test that includes deciphering and understanding text, visual, and auditory input. The competition was planned to end after the achievement of this prize. == Competition rules and restrictions == The rules varied over the years and early competitions featured restricted conversation Turing tests but since 1995 the discussion has been unrestricted. For the three entries in 2007, Robert Medeksza, Noah Duncan and Rollo Carpenter, some basic "screening questions" were used by the sponsor to evaluate the state of the technology. These included simple questions about the time, what round of the contest it is, etc.; general knowledge ("What is a hammer for?"); comparisons ("Which is faster, a train or a plane?"); and questions demonstrating memory for preceding parts of the same conversation. "All nouns, adjectives and verbs will come from a dictionary suitable for children or adolescents under the age of 12." Entries did not need to respond "intelligently" to the questions to be accepted. For the first time in 2008 the sponsor allowed introduction of a preliminary phase to the contest opening up the competition to previously disallowed web-based entries judged by a variety of invited interrogators. The available rules do not state how interrogators are selected or instructed. Interrogators (who judge the systems) have limited time: 5 minutes per entity in the 2003 competition, 20+ per pair in 2004–2007 competitions, 5 minutes to conduct simultaneous conversations with a human and the program in 2008–2009, increased to 25 minutes of simultaneous conversation since 2010. == Criticisms == The prize has long been scorned by experts in the field, for a variety of reasons. It is regarded by many as a publicity stunt. Marvin Minsky scathingly offered a "prize" to anyone who could stop the competition. Loebner responded by jokingly observing that Minsky's offering a prize to stop the competition effectively made him a co-sponsor. The rules of the competition have encouraged poorly qualified judges to make rapid judgements. Interactions between judges and competitors was originally very brief, for example effectively 2.5 mins of questioning, which permitted only a few questions. Questioning was initially restricted to a single topic of the contestant's choice, such as "whimsical conversation", a domain suiting standard chatbot tricks. Competition entrants do not aim at understanding or intelligence but resort to basic ELIZA style tricks, and successful entrants find deception and pretense is rewarded. == Contests == See article history for more details of some earlier contests. A very incomplete listing of a few of the contests: === 2003 === In 2003, the contest was organised by Professor Richard H. R. Harper and Dr. Lynne Hamill from the Digital World Research Centre at the University of Surrey. Although no bot passed the Turing test, the winner was Jabberwock, created by Juergen Pirner. Second was Elbot (Fred Roberts, Artificial Solutions). Third was Jabberwacky, (Rollo Carpenter). === 2006 === In 2006, the contest was organised by Tim Child (CEO of Televirtual) and Huma Shah. On August 30, the four finalists were announced: Rollo Carpenter Richard Churchill and Marie-Claire Jenkins Noah Duncan Robert Medeksza The contest was held on 17 September in the VR theatre, Torrington Place campus of University College London. The judges included the University of Reading's cybernetics professor, Kevin Warwick, a professor of artificial intelligence, John Barnden (specialist in metaphor research at the University of Birmingham), a barrister, Victoria Butler-Cole and a journalist, Graham Duncan-Rowe. The latter's experience of the event can be found in an article in Technology Review. The winner was 'Joan', based on Jabberwacky, both created by Rollo Carpenter. === 2007 === The 2007 competition was held on October 21 in New York City. The judges were: computer science professor Russ Abbott, philosophy professor Hartry Field, psychology assistant professor Clayton Curtis and English lecturer Scott Hutchins. No bot passed the Turing test, but the judges ranked the three contestants as follows: 1st: Robert Medeksza, creator of Ultra Hal 2nd: Noah Duncan, a private entry, creator of Cletus 3rd: Rollo Carpenter from Icogno, creator of Jabberwacky The winner received $2,250 and the annual medal. The runners-up received $250 each. === 2008 === The 2008 competition was organised by professor Kevin Warwick, coordinated by Huma Shah and held on October 12 at the University of Reading, UK. After testing by over one hundred judges during the preliminary phase, in June and July 2008, six finalists were selected from thirteen original entrant artificial conversational entities (ACEs). Five of those invited competed in the finals: Brother Jerome, Peter Cole and Benji Adams Elbot, Fred Roberts / Artificial Solutions Eugene Goostman, Vladimir Veselov, Eugene Demchenko and Sergey Ulasen Jabberwacky, Rollo Carpenter Ultra Hal, Robert Medeksza In the finals, each of the judges was given five minutes to conduct simultaneous, split-screen conversations with two hidden entities. Elbot of Artificial Solutions won the 2008 Loebner Prize bronze award, for most human-like artificial conversational entity, through fooling three of the twelve judges who interrogated it (in the human-parallel comparisons) into believing it was human. This is coming very close to the 30% traditionally required to consider that a program has actually passed the Turing test. Eugene Goostman and Ultra Hal both deceived one judge each that it was the human. Will Pavia, a journalist for The Times, has written about his experience; a Loebner finals' judge, he was deceived by Elbot and Eugene. Kevin Warwick and Huma Shah have reported on the parallel-paired Turing tests. === 2009 === The 2009 Loebner Prize Competition was held September 6, 2009, at the Brighton Centre, Brighton UK in conjunction with the Interspeech 2009 conference. The prize amount for 2009 was $3,000. Entrants were David Levy, Rollo Carpenter, and Mohan Embar, who finished in that order. The writer Brian Christian participated in the 2009 Loebner Prize Competition as a human confederate, and described his experiences at the competition in his book The Most Human Human. === 2010 === The 2010 Loebner Prize Competition was held on October 23 at California State University, Los Angeles. The 2010 competition was the 20th running of the contest. The winner was Bruce Wilcox with Suzette. === 2011 === The 2011 Loebner Prize Competition was held on October 19 at the University of Exeter, Devon, United Kingdom. The prize amount for 2011 was $4,000. The four finalists and their chatterbots were Bruce Wilcox (Rosette), Adeena Mignogna (Zoe), Mohan Embar (Chip Vivant) and Ron Lee (Tutor), who finished in that order. That year there was an addition of a panel of junior judges, namely Georgia-Mae Lindfield, William Dunne, Sam Keat and Kirill Jerdev. The results of the junior contest were markedly different from the main contest, with chatterbots Tutor and Zoe tying for first place and Chip Vivant and Rosette coming in third and fourt

  Read more →
• 

  Lexical choice

  Lexical choice is the subtask of Natural language generation that involves choosing the content words (nouns, non-auxiliary verbs, adjectives, and adverbs) in a generated text. Function words (determiners, for example) are usually chosen during realisation. == Examples == The simplest type of lexical choice involves mapping a domain concept (perhaps represented in an ontology) to a word. For example, the concept Finger might be mapped to the word finger. A more complex situation is when a domain concept is expressed using different words in different situations. For example, the domain concept Value-Change can be expressed in many ways: The temperature rose: the verb rose is used for a Value-Change in temperature which increases the value. The temperature fell: the verb fell is used for a Value-Change in temperature which decreases the value. The rain got heavier: the phrase got heavier is used for a Value-Change in precipitation amount when the precipitation is rain. Sometimes words can communicate additional contextual information, for example: The temperature plummeted: the verb plummeted is used for a Value-Change in temperature which decreases the value, when the change is rapid and large. Contextual information is especially significant for vague terms such as tall. For example, a 2m tall man is tall, but a 2m tall horse is small. == Linguistic perspective == Lexical choice modules must be informed by linguistic knowledge of how the system's input data maps onto words. This is a question of semantics, but it is also influenced by syntactic factors (such as collocation effects) and pragmatic factors (such as context). Hence NLG systems need linguistic models of how meaning is mapped to words in the target domain (genre) of the NLG system. Genre tends to be very important; for example the verb veer has a very specific meaning in weather forecasts (wind direction is changing in a clockwise direction) which it does not have in general English, and a weather-forecast generator must be aware of this genre-specific meaning. In some cases there are major differences in how different people use the same word; for example, some people use by evening to mean 6PM and others use it to mean midnight. Psycholinguists have shown that when people speak to each other, they agree on a common interpretation via lexical alignment; this is not something which NLG systems can yet do. Ultimately, lexical choice must deal with the fundamental issue of how language relates to the non-linguistic world. For example, a system which chose colour terms such as red to describe objects in a digital image would need to know which RGB pixel values could generally be described as red; how this was influenced by visual (lighting, other objects in the scene) and linguistic (other objects being discussed) context; what pragmatic connotations were associated with red (for example, when an apple is called red, it is assumed to be ripe as well as have the colour red); and so forth. == Algorithms and models == A number of algorithms and models have been developed for lexical choice in the research community, for example Edmonds developed a model for choosing between near-synonyms (words with similar core meanings but different connotations). However such algorithms and models have not been widely used in applied NLG systems; such systems have instead often used quite simple computational models, and invested development effort in linguistic analysis instead of algorithm development.

  Read more →