AI App Inventor

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

Algorithmic bias

Algorithmic bias describes systematic and repeatable harmful tendency in a computerized sociotechnical system to create "unfair" outcomes, such as "privileging" one category over another in ways that may or may not be different from the intended function of the algorithm. Bias can emerge from many factors, including intentionally biased design decisions or the unintended or unanticipated use or decisions relating to the way data is coded, collected, selected or used to train the algorithm. For example, algorithmic bias has been observed in search engine results and social media platforms. This bias can have impacts ranging from privacy violations to reinforcing social biases of race, gender, sexuality, and ethnicity. The study of algorithmic bias is most concerned with algorithms that reflect "systematic and unfair" discrimination. This bias has only recently been addressed in legal frameworks, such as the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (enforced in 2018) and the Artificial Intelligence Act (proposed in 2021 and adopted in 2024). As algorithms expand their ability to organize society, politics, institutions, and behavior, sociologists have become concerned with the ways in which unanticipated output and manipulation of data can impact the physical world. Because algorithms are often considered to be neutral and unbiased, they can inaccurately project greater authority than human expertise (in part due to the psychological phenomenon of automation bias), and in some cases, reliance on algorithms can displace human responsibility for their outcomes, without last mile thinking. Bias can enter into algorithmic systems as a result of pre-existing cultural, social, or institutional expectations; by how features and labels are chosen; because of technical limitations of their design; or by being used in unanticipated contexts or by audiences who are not considered in the software's initial design. Algorithmic bias has been cited in cases ranging from election outcomes to the spread of online hate speech. It has also arisen in criminal justice, healthcare, and hiring, compounding existing racial, socioeconomic, and gender biases. The relative inability of facial recognition technology to accurately identify darker-skinned faces has been linked to multiple wrongful arrests of black men, an issue stemming from imbalanced datasets. Problems in understanding, researching, and discovering algorithmic bias persist due to the proprietary nature of algorithms, which are typically treated as trade secrets. Even when full transparency is provided, the complexity of certain algorithms poses a barrier to understanding their functioning. Furthermore, algorithms may change, or respond to input or output in ways that cannot be anticipated or easily reproduced for analysis. In many cases, even within a single website or application, there is no single "algorithm" to examine, but a network of many interrelated programs and data inputs, even between users of the same service. A 2021 survey identified multiple forms of algorithmic bias, including historical, representation, and measurement biases, each of which can contribute to unfair outcomes. == Definitions == Algorithms are difficult to define, but may be generally understood as lists of instructions that determine how programs read, collect, process, and analyze data to generate a usable output. For a rigorous technical introduction, see Algorithms. Advances in computer hardware and software have led to an increased capability to process, store and transmit data. This has in turn made the design and adoption of technologies such as machine learning and artificial intelligence technically and commercially feasible. By analyzing and processing data, algorithms are the backbone of search engines, social media websites, recommendation engines, online retail, online advertising, and more. Contemporary social scientists are concerned with algorithmic processes embedded into hardware and software applications because of their political and social impact, and question the underlying assumptions of an algorithm's neutrality. The term algorithmic bias describes systematic and repeatable errors that create unfair outcomes, such as privileging one arbitrary group of users over others. For example, a credit score algorithm may deny a loan without being unfair, if it is consistently weighing relevant financial criteria. If the algorithm recommends loans to one group of users, but denies loans to another set of nearly identical users based on unrelated criteria, and if this behavior can be repeated across multiple occurrences, an algorithm can be described as biased. This bias may be intentional or unintentional (for example, it can come from biased data obtained from a worker that previously did the job the algorithm is going to do from now on). == Methods == Bias can be introduced to an algorithm in several ways. During the assemblage of a dataset, data may be collected, digitized, adapted, and entered into a database according to human-designed cataloging criteria. Next, programmers assign priorities, or hierarchies, for how a program assesses and sorts that data. This requires human decisions about how data is categorized, and which data is included or discarded. Some algorithms collect their own data based on human-selected criteria, which can also reflect the bias of human designers. Other algorithms may reinforce stereotypes and preferences as they process and display "relevant" data for human users, for example, by selecting information based on previous choices of a similar user or group of users. Beyond assembling and processing data, bias can emerge as a result of design. For example, algorithms that determine the allocation of resources or scrutiny (such as determining school placements) may inadvertently discriminate against a category when determining risk based on similar users (as in credit scores). Meanwhile, recommendation engines that work by associating users with similar users, or that make use of inferred marketing traits, might rely on inaccurate associations that reflect broad ethnic, gender, socio-economic, or racial stereotypes. Another example comes from determining criteria for what is included and excluded from results. These criteria could present unanticipated outcomes for search results, such as with flight-recommendation software that omits flights that do not follow the sponsoring airline's flight paths. Algorithms may also display an uncertainty bias, offering more confident assessments when larger data sets are available. This can skew algorithmic processes toward results that more closely correspond with larger samples, which may disregard data from underrepresented populations. == History == === Early critiques === The earliest computer programs were designed to mimic human reasoning and deductions, and were deemed to be functioning when they successfully and consistently reproduced that human logic. In his 1976 book Computer Power and Human Reason, artificial intelligence pioneer Joseph Weizenbaum suggested that bias could arise both from the data used in a program, but also from the way a program is coded. Weizenbaum wrote that programs are a sequence of rules created by humans for a computer to follow. By following those rules consistently, such programs "embody law", that is, enforce a specific way to solve problems. The rules a computer follows are based on the assumptions of a computer programmer for how these problems might be solved. That means the code could incorporate the programmer's imagination of how the world works, including their biases and expectations. While a computer program can incorporate bias in this way, Weizenbaum also noted that any data fed to a machine additionally reflects "human decision making processes" as data is being selected. Finally, he noted that machines might also transfer good information with unintended consequences if users are unclear about how to interpret the results. Weizenbaum warned against trusting decisions made by computer programs that a user doesn't understand, comparing such faith to a tourist who can find his way to a hotel room exclusively by turning left or right on a coin toss. Crucially, the tourist has no basis of understanding how or why he arrived at his destination, and a successful arrival does not mean the process is accurate or reliable. An early example of algorithmic bias resulted in as many as 60 women and ethnic minorities denied entry to St. George's Hospital Medical School per year from 1982 to 1986, based on implementation of a new computer-guidance assessment system that denied entry to women and men with "foreign-sounding names" based on historical trends in admissions. While many schools at the time employed similar biases in their selection process, St. George was most notable for automating said bias through the use of an algorithm, thus gaining the attention of people on a much
Read more →
GPT-5

GPT-5 is a multimodal large language model developed by OpenAI and the fifth in its series of generative pre-trained transformer (GPT) foundation models. Preceded in the series by GPT-4, it was launched on August 7, 2025. It is publicly accessible to users of the chatbot products ChatGPT and Microsoft Copilot as well as to developers through the OpenAI API. == Background == On April 14, 2023, Sam Altman, the chief executive officer of OpenAI, spoke at an event at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and said that the company was not training GPT-5 at that time. He stated that OpenAI was "prioritizing GPT-4 development" and that "we are not and won't for some time" release GPT-5. On July 18, OpenAI filed for a "GPT-5" trademark in the United States. On November 13, Altman confirmed to the Financial Times that the company was working to develop GPT-5. According to The Information, "[f]or much of the second half of 2024, OpenAI was developing a model known internally as Orion and intended to become GPT-5", "[b]ut the Orion effort failed to produce a better model, and the company instead released it as GPT-4.5 in February [2025]." By late July 2025, OpenAI was widely anticipated as planning to release GPT-5 in early August. On July 30, The Verge reported that "Microsoft is getting ready for GPT-5" as "sources familiar with Microsoft's AI plans" told an editor that the company was testing a new mode for its Copilot chatbot that would offer a model that "thinks deeply or quickly based on the task". On August 5, in the leadup to the release of GPT-5, OpenAI released GPT-OSS, a set of two open-weight models that have reasoning capabilities. GPT-5 was then unveiled during a livestream event on August 7. == Capabilities == At the time of its release, GPT-5 had state-of-the-art performance on benchmarks that test mathematics, programming, finance, and multimodal understanding. According to OpenAI, improvements over its predecessor models include faster response times, better coding and writing skills, more accurate answers to health questions, and lower levels of hallucination. Also, compared to previous models, GPT-5 aims to give safe, high-level responses to potentially harmful queries rather than outright declining them, an approach that OpenAI refers to as "safe completions", aiming to result "in GPT-5 being able to refuse more unsafe questions, while offering fewer rejections to users seeking harmless information." In addition, GPT-5 was trained to give more critical, "less effusively agreeable" answers compared to its predecessor models. Days before the launch of GPT-5, two early testers of the model stated that they were "impressed" by its ability to code and to solve mathematical and scientific problems. They suggested that the model shows great improvement from GPT-4, but not as large of a gain as from GPT-3 to GPT-4. A day prior to the release of GPT-5, during a press briefing, Sam Altman, the chief executive officer of OpenAI, called GPT-5 "a significant step along the path to AGI", referring to artificial general intelligence, the hypothetical level of intelligence that OpenAI defines as the ability to perform any economically valuable task that a human can. According to Altman, GPT-5 is "significantly better" than its predecessors, offering "PhD-level" abilities across a wide range of tasks. The exact energy consumption of GPT-5 use has not been disclosed by OpenAI. Researchers at the University of Rhode Island estimated that a medium-length response consumes slightly over 18 watt-hours, equivalent to using an incandescent bulb for 18 minutes. === Architecture === GPT-5 is a system that contains a fast, high-throughput model, a deeper reasoning model, and a real-time router that decides which model to use based on conversation type, complexity, tool needs, and explicit user intent. Altman had previously criticized the manual model picker for being overly complex, suggesting a need for unification. GPT-5 also includes agentic functionality through which it can set up its own desktop and can use its browser to search autonomously for sources that relate to its task. The GPT-5 system card defines two fast, high-throughput models – gpt-5-main and gpt-5-main-mini – and two thinking models – gpt-5-thinking and gpt-5-thinking-mini. In the OpenAI API, developers can access the thinking model, its mini version, and gpt-5-thinking-nano, an even smaller and faster nano version of the thinking model. The version of GPT-5 that is accessible via the API has adjustable reasoning effort (low, medium, high, or minimal) and verbosity (low, medium, or high). Additionally, ChatGPT provides access to gpt-5-thinking with a setting that makes use of parallel test-time compute, referred to as gpt-5-thinking-pro. == Limitations == === Safety === Neuraltrust, a security research company, claimed to have successfully compromised GPT-5 within its first day of testing the model. According to its report, it enabled GPT-5 to generate detailed instructions for manufacturing explosive devices. SPLX, another company, conducted similar tests and came to similar conclusions about GPT-5's security. Their assessments suggest that GPT-5 has significant security gaps, potentially rendering it as being unsafe for use in a corporate environment. == Training == According to AIMultiple, GPT-5 is natively multimodal, meaning that it was trained from scratch on multiple modalities (like text and images) at once without relying on already-trained language or vision models. Its training process involved three stages: unsupervised pretraining, supervised fine-tuning, and reinforcement learning from human feedback. Pretraining used a large-scale multilingual dataset of books, articles, web pages, academic papers, and licensed sources. GPT-5's visual and text capabilities were described as having been developed alongside each other throughout training, unlike with GPT-4. == Use == GPT-5 is used in ChatGPT. Although GPT-5 is free for all ChatGPT users, Plus users get higher use limits while Pro users get unlimited access to GPT-5 as well as limited access to GPT-5 Pro. Standard limits for lower-tier users on responses per hour still apply. Additionally, with the introduction of GPT-5, ChatGPT's "Advanced Voice Mode" was replaced by "ChatGPT Voice", which is supposed to enable more natural-sounding conversations. OpenAI stated that "Standard Voice Mode retires on September 9, 2025, unifying all users on ChatGPT Voice". On November 24, 2025, the feature of shopping research was added to ChatGPT, claimed to be a mini model post-trained on gpt-5-thinking-mini. GPT-5 is also available in Microsoft Copilot, and Microsoft stated that it will incorporate GPT-5 into a wide variety of its products. According to 9to5Mac, Apple Inc. is planning to integrate the model into the Apple Intelligence feature in its iOS 26, iPadOS 26, and macOS Tahoe operating systems. It is also accessible via the OpenAI API. A number of American companies were reported as having received access to GPT-5 ahead of its launch. OpenAI stated that the private health insurance company Oscar Health was checking applications from its policyholders with the model. In addition, Uber was using GPT-5 for its customer support system; GitLab, Windsurf, and Cursor were using the model for software development; and the Spanish bank BBVA was using it for financial analysis. Other companies that OpenAI listed as having used GPT-5 pre-release include Amgen, Lowe's, and Notion. == Reception == === Critical reviews === Grace Huckins in MIT Technology Review found that, "[w]hereas o1 was a major technological advancement, GPT-5 is, above all else, a refined product." In response to claims that Sam Altman, the chief executive officer of OpenAI, had made about the model, she stated that "GPT-5 will furnish a more pleasant and seamless user experience. That's not nothing, but it falls far short of the transformative AI future that Altman has spent much of the past year hyping." In response to Altman's claim that GPT-5 is "a significant step along the path" to artificial general intelligence, she noted: "[M]aybe he's right—but if so, it's a very small step." In The Information, Stephanie Palazzolo praised GPT-5's coding capabilities. According to Matteo Wong in The Atlantic, GPT-5 "is intuitive, fast, and efficient; adapts to human preferences and intentions; and is easy to personalize." He stated: "At this stage of the AI boom, when every major chatbot is legitimately helpful in numerous ways, benchmarks, science, and rigor feel almost insignificant. What matters is how the chatbot feels [...]". John Herrman from the New York magazine wrote: "Casual users who encounter GPT-5 through ChatGPT aren't likely to feel like they're using a completely different product [...] while people who use it for software development or in a corporate context are more likely to notice a major change." Mashable's Christian de Looper found that "GPT-5
Read more →
LIVAC Synchronous Corpus

LIVAC is an uncommon language corpus dynamically maintained since 1995. Different from other existing corpora, LIVAC has adopted a rigorous and regular "Windows" approach in processing and filtering massive media texts from representative Chinese speech communities such as Beijing, Hong Kong, Macau, Taipei, Singapore, Shanghai, as well as Guangzhou, and Shenzhen. The contents are thus deliberately repetitive in most cases, represented by textual samples drawn from editorials, local and international news, cross-Taiwan Strait news, as well as news on finance, sports and entertainment. By 2023, more than 3 billion characters of news media texts have been filtered, of which 700 million characters have been processed and analyzed and have yielded an expanding Pan-Chinese dictionary of 2.5 million words from the Pan-Chinese printed media. Through rigorous analysis based on computational linguistic methodology, LIVAC has at the same time accumulated a large amount of accurate and meaningful statistical data on the Chinese language and on their diverse speech communities in the Pan-Chinese context, and the results show considerable and important long standing as well as evolving variations. The "Windows" approach is the most innovative feature of LIVAC and has enabled Pan-Chinese media texts to be quantitatively analyzed according to various attributes such as locations, time and subject domains. Thus, various types of comparative studies and applications in information technology as well as development of often related innovative applications have been possible. Moreover, LIVAC has allowed longitudinal developments to be taken into account, facilitating Key Word in Context (KWIC) search and comprehensive study of target words and their underlying concepts as well as linguistic structures over the past 25 years, based on the above mentioned variables of location, time and subject. Results from the extensive and accumulative data analysis contained in LIVAC have enabled the cultivation of textual databases of proper names, place names, organization names, new words, and bi-weekly and annual rosters of media figures. Related applications have included the establishment of verb and adjective databases, the formulation of sentiment indices, and related opinion mining, to measure and compare the popularity of global media figures in the Chinese media (LIVAC Annual Pan-Chinese Celebrity Rosters, later renamed as the Pan-Chinese Newsmaker Rosters). Notable among these are the decades long periodic reviews of the 25 years of annual pan-Chinese rosters since 2000 and compilation of new word databases (LIVAC Annual Pan-Chinese New Word Rosters). On this basis, the analysis of the emergence, diffusion and transformation of new words, and the publication of dictionaries of neologisms have been made possible. A recent focus is on the relative balance between disyllabic words and growing trisyllabic words in the Chinese language, and the comparative study of light verbs in three Chinese speech communities. as well as the link between the language use and use of language as a reflection of epochal change in China. A new LIVAC version 3.1 was launched in February 2024. == Corpus data processing == Accessing media texts, manual input, etc. Text unification including conversion from simplified to traditional Chinese characters, stored as Big5 and Unicode versions Automatic word segmentation Automatic alignment of parallel texts Manual verification, part-of-speech tagging Extraction of words and addition to regional sub-corpora Combination of regional sub-corpora to update the LIVAC corpus, and master lexical database == Labeling for data curation == Categories used include general terms and proper names, such as: general names, surnames, semi titles; geographical, organizations and commercial entities, etc.; time, prepositions, locations, etc.; stack-words; loanwords; case-word; numerals, etc. Construction of databases of proper names, place names, and specific terms, etc. Generate rosters: "new word rosters", "celebrity or media personality rosters", "place name rosters", compound words and matched words Other parts of speech tagging for sub-database, such as common nouns, numerals, numeral classifiers, different types of verbs, and of adjectives, pronouns, adverbs, prepositions, conjunctions, particles marking mood, onomatopoeia, interjection, etc. == Applications == Compilation of Pan-Chinese dictionaries or local dictionaries Information technology research, such as predictive Chinese text input for mobile phones, automatic speech to text conversion, opinion mining Comparative studies on linguistic and cultural developments in the Pan-Chinese regions, especially in a critical period of history in modern China. Language teaching and learning research, and speech-to-text conversion Customized service on linguistic research and lexical search for international corporations and government agencies The above applications are provided by the following functions: Word Segmentation Search Phrase Search Example Sentence Selection Multi-word Comparison Word Cloud
Read more →
Chinchilla (language model)

Chinchilla is a family of large language models (LLMs) developed by the research team at Google DeepMind, presented in March 2022. == Models == It is named "chinchilla" because it is a further development over a previous model family named Gopher. Both model families were trained in order to investigate the scaling laws of large language models. It claimed to outperform GPT-3. It considerably simplifies downstream utilization because it requires much less computer power for inference and fine-tuning. Based on the training of previously employed language models, it has been determined that if one doubles the model size, one must also have twice the number of training tokens. This hypothesis has been used to train Chinchilla by DeepMind. Similar to Gopher in terms of cost, Chinchilla has 70B parameters and four times as much data. Chinchilla has an average accuracy of 67.5% on the Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understanding (MMLU) benchmark, which is 7% higher than Gopher's performance. Chinchilla was still in the testing phase as of January 12, 2023. Chinchilla contributes to developing an effective training paradigm for large autoregressive language models with limited compute resources. The Chinchilla team recommends that the number of training tokens is twice for every model size doubling, meaning that using larger, higher-quality training datasets can lead to better results on downstream tasks. It has been used for the Flamingo vision-language model. == Architecture == Both the Gopher family and Chinchilla family are families of transformer models. In particular, they are essentially the same as GPT-2, with different sizes and minor modifications. Gopher family uses RMSNorm instead of LayerNorm; relative positional encoding rather than absolute positional encoding. The Chinchilla family is the same as the Gopher family, but trained with AdamW instead of Adam optimizer. The Gopher family contains six models of increasing size, from 44 million parameters to 280 billion parameters. They refer to the largest one as "Gopher" by default. Similar naming conventions apply for the Chinchilla family. Table 1 of shows the entire Gopher family: Table 4 of compares the 70-billion-parameter Chinchilla with Gopher 280B.
Read more →
LMArena

Arena (formerly LMArena and Chatbot Arena) is a public, web-based platform that evaluates large language models (LLMs). Users enter prompts for two anonymous models to respond to and vote on the model that gave the better response, after which the models' identities are revealed. Users can also choose models to test themselves via the "Direct" selection. Companies which have supplied the company with their large language models include OpenAI, Google DeepMind, and Anthropic. The website has been used for preview releases of upcoming models. Chinese company DeepSeek tested its prototype models in the Arena months before its R1 model gained attention in Western media. Other notable pre-release models include OpenAI's GPT-5 under the codename "summit" and Google DeepMind's Gemini 2.5 Flash Image (an image-generation and editing model) under the codename "Nano Banana". Research has identified specific limitations in Arena's methodology. == History == Chatbot Arena was released on April 24, 2023. In June 2024, Chatbot Arena added image support. In September 2024, Chatbot Arena moved to its own dedicated domain name, lmarena.ai (or LMArena). In April 2025, Meta released Llama 4. Llama 4 Maverick beat GPT-4o and Gemini 2.0 Flash on LMArena, but the version of Maverick on LMArena unfairly differed from the publicly available version. LMArena updated their policies in response. In April 2025, LMArena incorporated as an independent company. That May, LMArena raised $100 million in a seed funding round, valuing the company at $600 million. Participants in the seed funding round included Andreessen Horowitz, UC Investments, Lightspeed Venture Partners, Felicis Ventures, and Kleiner Perkins. On January 6, 2026, LMArena announced the closing of a $150 million Series A funding round, bringing the company’s post-money valuation to approximately $1.7 billion. The round was led by Felicis and UC Investments (University of California), with participation from Andreessen Horowitz, The House Fund, LDVP, Kleiner Perkins, Lightspeed Venture Partners, and Laude Ventures. In January 2026, LMArena added video support. On January 28, 2026, LMArena rebranded to "Arena".
Read more →
Calais (Reuters product)

Calais is a service created by Thomson Reuters that automatically extracts semantic information from web pages in a format that can be used on the semantic web. Calais was launched in January 2008, and is free to use. The technology is now available via the website of Refinitiv, a provider of financial market data and infrastructure founded in 2018, that is a subsidiary of London Stock Exchange Group. The Calais Web service reads unstructured text and returns Resource Description Framework formatted results identifying entities, facts and events within the text. The service appears to be based on technology acquired when Reuters purchased ClearForest in 2007. The technology has also been used to automatically tag blog articles, and organize museum collections. Calais uses natural language processing technologies delivered via a web service interface.
Read more →
Question answering

Question answering (QA) is a computer science discipline within the fields of information retrieval and natural language processing (NLP) that is concerned with building systems that automatically answer questions that are posed by humans in a natural language. A question-answering implementation, usually a computer program, may construct its answers by querying a structured database of knowledge or information, usually a knowledge base. More commonly, question-answering systems can pull answers from an unstructured collection of natural language documents. Some examples of natural language document collections used for question answering systems include reference texts, compiled newswire reports, Wikipedia pages and other World Wide Web pages. == History == Two early question answering systems were BASEBALL and LUNAR. BASEBALL answered questions about Major League Baseball over a period of one year. LUNAR answered questions about the geological analysis of rocks returned by the Apollo Moon missions. Both question answering systems were very effective in their chosen domains. LUNAR was demonstrated at a lunar science convention in 1971 and it was able to answer 90% of the questions in its domain that were posed by people untrained on the system. Further restricted-domain question answering systems were developed in the following years. The common feature of all these systems is that they had a core database or knowledge system that was hand-written by experts of the chosen domain. The language abilities of BASEBALL and LUNAR used techniques similar to ELIZA and DOCTOR, the first chatterbot programs. SHRDLU was a successful question-answering program developed by Terry Winograd in the late 1960s and early 1970s. It simulated the operation of a robot in a toy world (the "blocks world"), and it offered the possibility of asking the robot questions about the state of the world. The strength of this system was the choice of a very specific domain and a very simple world with rules of physics that were easy to encode in a computer program. In the 1970s, knowledge bases were developed that targeted narrower domains of knowledge. The question answering systems developed to interface with these expert systems produced more repeatable and valid responses to questions within an area of knowledge. These expert systems closely resembled modern question answering systems except in their internal architecture. Expert systems rely heavily on expert-constructed and organized knowledge bases, whereas many modern question answering systems rely on statistical processing of a large, unstructured, natural language text corpus. The 1970s and 1980s saw the development of comprehensive theories in computational linguistics, which led to the development of ambitious projects in text comprehension and question answering. One example was the Unix Consultant (UC), developed by Robert Wilensky at U.C. Berkeley in the late 1980s. The system answered questions pertaining to the Unix operating system. It had a comprehensive, hand-crafted knowledge base of its domain, and it aimed at phrasing the answer to accommodate various types of users. Another project was LILOG, a text-understanding system that operated on the domain of tourism information in a German city. The systems developed in the UC and LILOG projects never went past the stage of simple demonstrations, but they helped the development of theories on computational linguistics and reasoning. Specialized natural-language question answering systems have been developed, such as EAGLi for health and life scientists. Question answering systems have been extended in recent years to encompass additional domains of knowledge For example, systems have been developed to automatically answer temporal and geospatial questions, questions of definition and terminology, biographical questions, multilingual questions, and questions about the content of audio, images, and video. Current question answering research topics include: interactivity—clarification of questions or answers answer reuse or caching semantic parsing answer presentation knowledge representation and semantic entailment social media analysis with question answering systems sentiment analysis utilization of thematic roles Image captioning for visual question answering Embodied question answering In 2011, Watson, a question answering computer system developed by IBM, competed in two exhibition matches of Jeopardy! against Brad Rutter and Ken Jennings, winning by a significant margin. Facebook Research made their DrQA system available under an open source license. This system uses Wikipedia as knowledge source. The open source framework Haystack by deepset combines open-domain question answering with generative question answering and supports the domain adaptation of the underlying language models for industry use cases. Large Language Models (LLMs)[36] like GPT-4[37], Gemini[38] are examples of successful QA systems that are enabling more sophisticated understanding and generation of text. When coupled with Multimodal[39] QA Systems, which can process and understand information from various modalities like text, images, and audio, LLMs significantly improve the capabilities of QA systems. == Types == Question-answering research attempts to develop ways of answering a wide range of question types, including fact, list, definition, how, why, hypothetical, semantically constrained, and cross-lingual questions. Answering questions related to an article in order to evaluate reading comprehension is one of the simpler form of question answering, since a given article is relatively short compared to the domains of other types of question-answering problems. An example of such a question is "What did Albert Einstein win the Nobel Prize for?" after an article about this subject is given to the system. Closed-book question answering is when a system has memorized some facts during training and can answer questions without explicitly being given a context. This is similar to humans taking closed-book exams. Closed-domain question answering deals with questions under a specific domain (for example, medicine or automotive maintenance) and can exploit domain-specific knowledge frequently formalized in ontologies. Alternatively, "closed-domain" might refer to a situation where only a limited type of questions are accepted, such as questions asking for descriptive rather than procedural information. Question answering systems in the context of machine reading applications have also been constructed in the medical domain, for instance related to Alzheimer's disease. Open-domain question answering deals with questions about nearly anything and can only rely on general ontologies and world knowledge. Systems designed for open-domain question answering usually have much more data available from which to extract the answer. An example of an open-domain question is "What did Albert Einstein win the Nobel Prize for?" while no article about this subject is given to the system. Another way to categorize question-answering systems is by the technical approach used. There are a number of different types of QA systems, including: rule-based systems, statistical systems, and hybrid systems. Rule-based systems use a set of rules to determine the correct answer to a question. Statistical systems use statistical methods to find the most likely answer to a question. Hybrid systems use a combination of rule-based and statistical methods. == Architecture == As of 2001, question-answering systems typically included a question classifier module that determined the type of question and the type of answer. Different types of question-answering systems employ different architectures. For example, modern open-domain question answering systems may use a retriever-reader architecture. The retriever is aimed at retrieving relevant documents related to a given question, while the reader is used to infer the answer from the retrieved documents. Systems such as GPT-3, T5, and BART use an end-to-end architecture in which a transformer-based architecture stores large-scale textual data in the underlying parameters. Such models can answer questions without accessing any external knowledge sources. == Methods == Question answering is dependent on a good search corpus; without documents containing the answer, there is little any question answering system can do. Larger collections generally mean better question answering performance, unless the question domain is orthogonal to the collection. Data redundancy in massive collections, such as the web, means that nuggets of information are likely to be phrased in many different ways in differing contexts and documents, leading to two benefits: If the right information appears in many forms, the question answering system needs to perform fewer complex NLP techniques to understand the text. Correct answers can be filtered from false positives because the syst
Read more →
ClearForest

ClearForest was an Israeli software company that developed and marketed text analytics and text mining solutions. == History == Founded in 1998, ClearForest had its headquarters just outside Boston and a development center in Or Yehuda. The company was acquired by Reuters in April, 2007. It now markets its services under the names Calais, OpenCalais, and OneCalais. ClearForest was previously venture-backed; its last funding round was led by Greylock Ventures and closed in 2005. Other investors included DB Capital Partners, Pitango, Walden Israel, Booz Allen, JP Morgan Partners and HarbourVest Partners. On February 7, 2008 Reuters announced the launch of Open Calais, a named-entity recognition and semantic analysis service that uses ClearForest technology. On April 30, 2007, Reuters announced that it would acquire ClearForest. Sources estimate the acquisition to be for $25 Million. == Solutions and products == ClearForest offers several hosted solutions, including: OpenCalais, a free web service and open API (for commercial and non-commercial use) that performs named-entity recognition and enables automatic metadata generation using the ClearForest financial module. Semantic Web Services (SWS), an on-demand service that makes ClearForest's natural language processing tools available as a standard web service. A subset of ClearForest's capabilities is available via SWS at no cost. Gnosis, a free Firefox extension that uses SWS to analyze the content of a web page. Gnosis identifies named entities such as people, companies, organizations, geographies and products on the page being viewed. Gnosis also automatically processes pages from Wikipedia, providing additional links for people, geographies and other entities which were not explicitly linked within the subject article. Harvest, a real-time machine-readable news service that uses SWS to process a company's news and document feeds and return machine-readable information about people, companies, locations and over 200 other entities facts and events. ClearForest also offers Text Analytics solutions targeted at specific business problems, including: Equity valuation for hedge funds and alternative investments firms Metadata & database creation for publishers and information providers/services Tapping "voice of customer" for market and survey research firms Quality Early Warning for vehicle, capital equipment & durable goods manufacturers
Read more →
List of online database creator apps

This list of online database creator apps lists notable web apps where end users with minimal database administration expertise can create online databases to share with team members. Users need not have the coding skills to manage the solution stack themselves, because the web app already provides this predefined functionality. Such online database creator apps serve the gap between IT professionals (who can manage such a stack themselves) and people who would not create databases at all anyway. In other words, they provide a low-code way of doing database administration. As the concept of low-code development in general continues to evolve, some of the brands that began as online database creator apps are evolving into low-code development platforms for both the databases and the custom apps that use them. Airtable Bubble Caspio Coda.io Microsoft Access web apps plus SharePoint Oracle Application Express aka APEX Quickbase WaveMaker Rapid ZohoCreator
Read more →
Powerset (company)

Powerset was an American company based in San Francisco, California, that, in 2006, was developing a natural language search engine for the Internet. On July 1, 2008, Powerset was acquired by Microsoft for an estimated $100 million (~$143 million in 2024). Powerset was working on building a natural language search engine that could find targeted answers to user questions (as opposed to keyword based search). For example, when confronted with a question like "Which U.S. state has the highest income tax?", conventional search engines ignore the question phrasing and instead do a search on the keywords "state", "highest", "income", and "tax". Powerset on the other hand, attempts to use natural language processing to understand the nature of the question and return pages containing the answer. The company was in the process of "building a natural language search engine that reads and understands every sentence on the Web". The company has licensed natural language technology from PARC, the former Xerox Palo Alto Research Center. On May 11, 2008, the company unveiled a tool for searching a fixed subset of English Wikipedia using conversational phrases rather than keywords. Acquisition by Microsoft: One significant milestone in Powerset's history was its acquisition by Microsoft on July 1, 2008, for an estimated $100 million. This acquisition was part of Microsoft's broader strategy to enhance its search capabilities and compete more effectively with other search engine providers, particularly Google. Natural Language Search Engine: Powerset's primary focus was on developing a natural language search engine capable of understanding and interpreting user queries in a more human-like manner. Instead of simply matching keywords, Powerset aimed to comprehend the meaning behind the words, allowing for more accurate and contextually relevant search results. Technology and Partnerships: Powerset had licensed natural language technology from PARC, the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center. This technology likely played a crucial role in the development of Powerset's NLP capabilities. Wikipedia Search Tool: In May 2008, Powerset unveiled a search tool that allowed users to search a fixed subset of English Wikipedia using conversational phrases rather than traditional keywords. This demonstrated the potential of Powerset's NLP technology in providing more precise and relevant search results. == Powerlabs == In a form of beta testing, Powerset opened an online community called Powerlabs on September 17, 2007. Business Week said: "The company hopes the site will marshal thousands of people to help build and improve its search engine before it goes public next year." Said The New York Times: "[Powerset Labs] goes far beyond the 'alpha' or 'beta' testing involved in most software projects, when users put a new product through rigorous testing to find its flaws. Powerset doesn’t have a product yet, but rather a collection of promising natural language technologies, which are the fruit of years of research at Xerox PARC." Powerlabs' initial search results are taken from Wikipedia. == Notable people == Barney Pell (born March 18, 1968, in Hollywood, California) was co-founder and CEO of Powerset. Pell received his Bachelor of Science degree in symbolic systems from Stanford University in 1989, where he graduated Phi Beta Kappa and was a National Merit Scholar. Pell received a PhD in computer science from Cambridge University in 1993, where he was a Marshall Scholar. He has worked at NASA, as chief strategist and vice president of business development at StockMaster.com (acquired by Red Herring in March, 2000) and at Whizbang! Labs. Prior to joining Powerset, Pell was an Entrepreneur-in-Residence at Mayfield Fund, a venture capital firm in Silicon Valley. Pell is also a founder of Moon Express, Inc., a U.S. company awarded a $10M commercial lunar contract by NASA and a competitor in the Google Lunar X PRIZE. Steve Newcomb was the COO and co-founder of Powerset. Prior to joining Powerset, he was a co-founder of Loudfire, General Manager at Promptu, and was on the board of directors at Jaxtr. He left Powerset in October 2007 to form Virgance, a social startup incubator. Lorenzo Thione (born in Como, Italy) was the product architect and co-founder of Powerset. Prior to joining Powerset, he worked at FXPAL in natural language processing and related research fields. Thione earned his master's degree in software engineering from the University of Texas at Austin. Ronald Kaplan, former manager of research in Natural Language Theory and Technology at PARC, served as the company's CTO and CSO. Ryan Ferrier is a member of the founding team of Powerset. He managed personnel and internal operations. After 2008 he went on to co-found Serious Business, which made Facebook applications and was later bought by Zynga. Another Powerset alumnus, Alex Le, became CTO of Serious Business and went on to become an executive producer at Zynga when it bought the company. Siqi Chen founded a stealth startup in mobile computing after leaving Powerset. Tom Preston-Werner worked at Powerset and left after the acquisition to found GitHub. == Investors == Powerset attracted a wide range of investors, many of whom had considerable experience in the venture capital field. The company received $12.5 million (~$18.2 million in 2024) in Series A funding during November 2007, co-led by the venture capital firms Foundation Capital and The Founders Fund. Among the better-known investors: Esther Dyson, founding chairman of ICANN, founder of the newsletter Release 1.0 and editor at Cnet Peter Thiel, founder and former CEO of PayPal Luke Nosek, founder of PayPal Todd Parker. Managing Partner, Hidden River Ventures Reid Hoffman, executive vice president of PayPal and founder of LinkedIn First Round Capital, seed-stage venture firm
Read more →
Statistical shape analysis

Statistical shape analysis is an analysis of the geometrical properties of some given set of shapes by statistical methods. For instance, it could be used to quantify differences between male and female gorilla skull shapes, normal and pathological bone shapes, leaf outlines with and without herbivory by insects, etc. Important aspects of shape analysis are to obtain a measure of distance between shapes, to estimate mean shapes from (possibly random) samples, to estimate shape variability within samples, to perform clustering and to test for differences between shapes. One of the main methods used is principal component analysis (PCA). Statistical shape analysis has applications in various fields, including medical imaging, computer vision, computational anatomy, sensor measurement, and geographical profiling. == Landmark-based techniques == In the point distribution model, a shape is determined by a finite set of coordinate points, known as landmark points. These landmark points often correspond to important identifiable features such as the corners of the eyes. Once the points are collected some form of registration is undertaken. This can be a baseline methods used by Fred Bookstein for geometric morphometrics in anthropology. Or an approach like Procrustes analysis which finds an average shape. David George Kendall investigated the statistical distribution of the shape of triangles, and represented each triangle by a point on a sphere. He used this distribution on the sphere to investigate ley lines and whether three stones were more likely to be co-linear than might be expected. Statistical distribution like the Kent distribution can be used to analyse the distribution of such spaces. Alternatively, shapes can be represented by curves or surfaces representing their contours, by the spatial region they occupy. == Shape deformations == Differences between shapes can be quantified by investigating deformations transforming one shape into another. In particular a diffeomorphism preserves smoothness in the deformation. This was pioneered in D'Arcy Thompson's On Growth and Form before the advent of computers. Deformations can be interpreted as resulting from a force applied to the shape. Mathematically, a deformation is defined as a mapping from a shape x to a shape y by a transformation function Φ {\displaystyle \Phi } , i.e., y = Φ ( x ) {\displaystyle y=\Phi (x)} . Given a notion of size of deformations, the distance between two shapes can be defined as the size of the smallest deformation between these shapes. Diffeomorphometry is the focus on comparison of shapes and forms with a metric structure based on diffeomorphisms, and is central to the field of Computational anatomy. Diffeomorphic registration, introduced in the 90's, is now an important player with existing codes bases organized around ANTS, DARTEL, DEMONS, LDDMM, StationaryLDDMM, and FastLDDMM are examples of actively used computational codes for constructing correspondences between coordinate systems based on sparse features and dense images. Voxel-based morphometry (VBM) is an important technology built on many of these principles. Methods based on diffeomorphic flows are also used. For example, deformations could be diffeomorphisms of the ambient space, resulting in the LDDMM (Large Deformation Diffeomorphic Metric Mapping) framework for shape comparison.
Read more →
ByLock

ByLock was a smartphone application that allowed users to communicate via a private, encrypted connection. It was launched in March 2014 on Google Play, Apple App Store The app was downloaded over 600,000 times from its launch in April 2014 until March 2016, when it was permanently shut down. The Turkish National Intelligence Organization (Turkish: Millî İstihbarat Teşkilatı, MİT) stated that the app was downloaded mainly in Turkey and the users were “Fetullahist Terror Organisation (FETÖ) which was formerly known as “Gülen movement” members. == Gülen Movement controversy == In Turkey, possession of the app is deemed evidence of membership in the Gülen Movement, which was allegedly connected to the failed Turkish coup d'état attempt in July 2016. Users of ByLock were deemed terrorists in Turkish courts. According to Deutsche Welle, of the 215,000 former ByLock users, an estimated 23,000 have been detained by Turkish authorities. Some believe that the MİT and other Turkish authorities manipulated the ByLock database in order to arrest suspected members of the Gülen Movement. Tuncay Beşikçi, a computer forensic expert in Turkey, emphasized that "the demands to investigate and analyze ByLock data from independent institutions are refused by the Turkish courts. But it is not normal". Tuncay Beşikçi believes that this application is precisely one of the channels for Gülen molecules to communicate and can also monitor the activities of other members of the organization. He also stated that the developers behind the Mor Beyin app, deliberately set a plan in motion that would put thousands of innocent people in prison as a cover for the Gülen movement. In December 2017, Turkish authorities revealed that almost half the people who had been prosecuted for having ByLock on their smartphones would have their legal cases reviewed, as they could have been redirected to the app without their knowledge. Following the failed coup attempt on 15 July 2016, the use of the ByLock messaging application by members of the Gülen Movement was the sole evidence in investigations and prosecutions to justify arrests and convictions for "membership in an armed terrorist organization." However, these decisions have been considered human rights violations by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), the United Nations Human Rights Committee, and the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. Some of the relevant decisions include the following: === Decisions of the European Court of Human Rights === On 20 July 2021, in the case of Tekin Akgün v. Turkey, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled that the use of the ByLock messaging application, unless supported by other evidence, does not create a reasonable suspicion of a crime. Based on this reasoning, the court found that the detention order violated Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects the right to liberty and security. In the Yüksel Yalçınkaya v. Turkey decision on 26 September 2023, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) examined an appeal against a conviction based on the use of ByLock. The Court ruled that the failure to provide an opportunity to challenge the authenticity of the ByLock data violated the right to a fair trial (Article 6 of the ECHR). The Court also stated that the mere use of ByLock could not be considered sufficient evidence for membership in an armed terrorist organization. It further noted that local courts had established an automatic presumption of guilt based solely on ByLock use, creating a broad and unpredictable interpretation of the law, making it nearly impossible for the accused to exonerate themselves. Therefore, the Court concluded that the conviction based on the use of ByLock violated the principle of no punishment without law (Article 7 of the ECHR). On 22 July 2025, in the Demirhan and 238 Others case, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) consolidated the applications of 239 individuals who had been convicted of "membership in an armed terrorist organization" based on their use of ByLock, as determined by 239 separate courts in Turkey. The Court ruled that the convictions violated the right to a fair trial under Article 6 and the principle of no punishment without law under Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The ruling stated that the Turkish courts' "categorical approach" to the use of ByLock lacked legal foundation. In this context, it was emphasized that anyone who had used ByLock could not be convicted of membership in an armed terrorist organization based solely on this reasoning. The ruling also stated that, due to the large number of similar applications, the issue was "systemic in nature" and it called for a national solution to be developed by Turkey. While the Court did not order compensation for the 239 applicants, it emphasized that reopening the trial to ensure the enforcement of the violation ruling was the most appropriate remedy. This ruling, which confirms the violation finding in the Yüksel Yalçınkaya case of 26 September 2023, is considered a continuation of the ECHR's case law concerning trials based on ByLock evidence. === Decisions of the United Nations Human Rights Committee and Working Group === In the İsmet Özçelik and Turgay Karaman v. Turkey decision, dated 28 May 2019 (Application No. 2980/2017), the UN Human Rights Committee ruled that the use of ByLock and allegations of depositing money into Bank Asya could not justify the applicants' arrests. In the Mestan Yayman v. Turkey decision (Opinion No. 42/2018 – 21 August 2018) by the UN Human Rights Council Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, it was stated that using a public messaging application like ByLock cannot be considered criminal evidence, and that the use of such an application falls under the scope of freedom of thought and expression. The dozens of decisions later issued by the UN Human Rights Council Working Group are of the same nature.
Read more →
Variable data publishing

Variable-data publishing (VDP) (also known as database publishing) is a term referring to the output of a variable composition system. While these systems can produce both electronically viewable and hard-copy (print) output, the "variable-data publishing" term today often distinguishes output destined for electronic viewing, rather than that which is destined for hard-copy print (e.g. variable data printing). Essentially the same techniques are employed to perform variable-data publishing, as those utilized with variable data printing. The difference is in the interpretation for output. While variable-data printing may be interpreted to produce various print streams or page-description files (e.g. AFP/IPDS, PostScript, PCL), variable-data publishing produces electronically viewable files, most commonly seen in the forms of PDF, HTML, or XML. Variable-data composition involves the use of data to conditionally: exhibit text (static blocks and/or variable content) exhibit images select fonts select colors format page layouts & flows Variable-data may be as simple as an address block or salutation. However, it can be any or all of the document's textual content—including words, sentences, paragraphs, pages, or the entire document. In other words, it can make up as little or as much of the document as the composer desires. Variable data may also be used to exhibit various images, such as logos, products, or membership photos. Further, variable-data can be used to build rule-based design schemes, including fonts, colors, and page formats. The possibilities are vast. The variable-data tools available today, make it possible to perform variable-data composition at nearly every stage of document production. However, the level of control that can be achieved varies, based upon how far into the document production process a variable-data tool is deployed. For example, if variable-data insertion occurs just prior to output...it's not likely that the text flow or layout can be altered with nearly as much control as would be available at the time of initial document composition. Many organizations will produce multiple forms of output (aka: multi-channel output), for the same document. This ensures that the published content is available to recipients via any form of access method they might require. When multi-channel output is utilized, integrity between those output channels often becomes important. Variable-data publishing may be performed on everything from a personal computer to a mainframe system. However, the speed and practical output volumes which can be achieved are directly affected by the computer power utilized. == Origin of the concept == The term variable-data publishing was likely an offshoot of the term "variable-data printing", first introduced to the printing industry by Frank Romano, Professor Emeritus, School of Print Media, at the College of Imaging Arts and Sciences at Rochester Institute of Technology. However, the concept of merging static document elements and variable document elements predates the term and has seen various implementations ranging from simple desktop 'mail merge', to complex mainframe applications in the financial and banking industry. In the past, the term VDP has been most closely associated with digital printing machines. However, in the past 3 years the application of this technology has spread to web pages, emails, and mobile messaging.
Read more →
Concordancer

A concordancer is a computer program that automatically constructs a concordance—an alphabetised index of every occurrence of a word or phrase in a body of text, each entry displayed with its surrounding context. Concordancers are primary tools in corpus linguistics, lexicography, computer-assisted translation, and language teaching. The most common display format is the key word in context (KWIC) layout, in which each hit appears centred on a line with a fixed span of words to its left and right, enabling rapid scanning of usage patterns across many occurrences. == History == === Pre-computational concordances === The compilation of concordances predates computers by many centuries. Around 1230, the French Dominican cardinal Hugh of Saint-Cher directed a team of friars in assembling a concordance of the Latin Vulgate Bible, generally regarded as the first systematic concordance of any text. To help readers locate passages, Hugh divided each biblical chapter into lettered sections. Later milestones include a Hebrew Old Testament concordance compiled by Rabbi Mordecai Nathan (1448), Alexander Cruden's Complete Concordance to the Holy Scriptures (1737), and the manuscript Asaf ha-Mazkir, an unfinished concordance to the Babylonian Talmud compiled by Moses Rigotz around the turn of the 19th century. === First computer concordance === The first concordance produced with computing assistance was the Index Thomisticus, a comprehensive lexical index of the writings of and around Thomas Aquinas, totalling approximately 10.6 million Latin words. The Italian Jesuit priest Roberto Busa conceived the project in 1946 and secured the sponsorship of IBM in 1949 after a meeting with chairman Thomas J. Watson. Keypunch operators in Gallarate, Italy, encoded the texts onto punched cards from around 1950. IBM executive Paul Tasman developed the processing methods. The full 56-volume printed edition was completed around 1980, followed by a CD-ROM edition in 1989 and a web-accessible version in 2005. === The KWIC format === The key word in context (KWIC) display was formalised as a computational technique by Hans Peter Luhn, a researcher at IBM, in a 1960 paper in American Documentation. In KWIC output, each instance of the search term (the node word) is centred on a line with a fixed window of words to each side; sorting the resulting lines alphabetically by the immediately adjacent word reveals collocational and phraseological patterns at a glance. === COCOA === One of the first dedicated concordancing programs was COCOA (COunt and COncordance Generation on Atlas), created in 1965 by D. B. Russell at University College London and the Atlas Computer Laboratory in Harwell, Oxfordshire. Written in approximately 4,000 cards of FORTRAN, it processed text annotated with flat, non-hierarchical markup tags and could produce word counts and concordances in multiple languages. Within its first six months COCOA had been applied to texts in at least six languages. A second version designed for multiple mainframe platforms was distributed to British computing centres in the mid-1970s. Growing dissatisfaction with its interface and the eventual withdrawal of Atlas Laboratory support prompted British funding bodies to commission a successor program. === Oxford Concordance Program === The Oxford Concordance Program (OCP) was designed and written in FORTRAN by Susan Hockey and Ian Marriott at Oxford University Computing Services (OUCS) between 1979 and 1980 and first released in 1981. Hockey and Marriott acknowledged that OCP owed much to COCOA and the CLOC system at the University of Birmingham. OCP accepted COCOA-format markup to encode metadata such as author, act, scene, and line number, and was described by its authors as "a machine-independent text analysis program for producing word lists, indices and concordances in a variety of languages and alphabets." By the mid-1980s it had been licensed to approximately 240 institutions in 23 countries. A personal computer version, Micro-OCP, was developed for the IBM PC and sold by Oxford University Press from the late 1980s. Version 2 was rewritten in 1985–86 and documented in the same 1987 article by Hockey and co-author John Martin. === Personal computer era === The availability of affordable personal computers in the 1980s and 1990s enabled standalone concordancing applications that analysts could run locally without specialist computing facilities. MicroConcord, developed by Mike Scott and Tim Johns and published by Oxford University Press in 1993 for MS-DOS, was among the first concordancers designed specifically for classroom language teaching. WordSmith Tools, also developed by Mike Scott, was first released in 1996 and became one of the most widely used corpus analysis suites in academic linguistics research. Other tools from this era include TACT (University of Toronto, 1989), a suite of MS-DOS freeware programs for literary text analysis, and MonoConc, a Windows concordancer created by Michael Barlow. === Web-based concordancers === From the late 1990s onwards, web-based concordancers hosted on remote servers gave researchers browser access to large preloaded corpora without requiring local storage or processing. The Sketch Engine, developed by Adam Kilgarriff and Pavel Rychlý (Masaryk University), was launched commercially in July 2003 by Lexical Computing Limited and introduced word sketches—automatically generated one-page profiles of a word's typical grammatical relations and collocations. AntConc, created by Laurence Anthony at Waseda University, Tokyo, was first released in 2002 as freeware for Windows, macOS, and Linux. == Features == Modern concordancers typically offer a range of analytical functions beyond basic KWIC display. These commonly include: KWIC display with the node word centred and context words in aligned columns, sortable by the word one, two, or three positions to the left or right of the node (L1–L3 and R1–R3) Concordance plots, visualising the distribution of hits as marks along a scaled bar representing each text in the corpus Frequency and word lists, both alphabetical and ranked by frequency Collocation statistics, identifying words that co-occur with the search term more often than chance, quantified by measures such as mutual information, the t-score, or log-likelihood Keyword analysis, comparing word frequencies between a study corpus and a reference corpus to identify statistically distinctive items N-gram analysis, finding frequently recurring word sequences of a specified length Part-of-speech tagging integration, allowing searches filtered to particular grammatical categories Unicode support for multilingual text Bilingual and parallel concordancers additionally display aligned text in two or more languages side by side, enabling comparison of translation equivalents across language pairs. == Notable concordancers == === WordSmith Tools === Created by Mike Scott and first released in 1996, WordSmith Tools is a Windows corpus analysis suite that evolved from MicroConcord. Its three core modules are Concord (KWIC concordances), WordList (frequency and alphabetical word lists), and Keywords (statistical keyword identification relative to a reference corpus). Oxford University Press used WordSmith Tools for dictionary preparation work. Version 4.0 is freely available; later versions are sold by Lexical Analysis Software Limited. === AntConc === AntConc is a freeware, multiplatform concordancing toolkit created by Laurence Anthony, Professor of Applied Linguistics at Waseda University, Tokyo. First released in 2002 and formally described in a 2005 academic paper, it runs on Windows, macOS, and Linux. Its tools include a KWIC concordancer, a concordance plot for visualising distribution across texts, a collocates tool, a keyword list, and an n-gram analysis module. Because it is free and requires only plain text files, AntConc is widely used in linguistics courses and independent research worldwide. === Sketch Engine === The Sketch Engine is a corpus management and query system co-created by Adam Kilgarriff and Pavel Rychlý and launched in 2003 by Lexical Computing Limited. It provides browser-based access to over 800 corpora in more than 100 languages. Beyond concordance searching, it offers word sketches, collocation analysis, distributional thesaurus construction, keyword and terminology extraction, and diachronic analysis. It is used by major publishers including Macmillan and Oxford University Press for lexicographic research. A subset tool, SKELL (Sketch Engine for Language Learning), is freely accessible to individual learners. === Wmatrix === Wmatrix is a web-based corpus processing environment developed by Paul Rayson at the University Centre for Computer Corpus Research on Language (UCREL), Lancaster University. Alongside concordances and frequency lists, Wmatrix integrates CLAWS part-of-speech tagging and the USAS semantic tagger, enabling keyword analysis simultane
Read more →
Mark V. Shaney

Mark V. Shaney is a synthetic Usenet user whose postings in the net.singles newsgroups were generated by Markov chain techniques, based on text from other postings. The username is a play on the words "Markov chain". Many readers were fooled into thinking that the quirky, sometimes uncannily topical posts were written by a real person. The system was designed by Rob Pike with coding by Bruce Ellis. Don P. Mitchell wrote the Markov chain code, initially demonstrating it to Pike and Ellis using the Tao Te Ching as a basis. They chose to apply it to the net.singles netnews group. The program is fairly simple. It ingests the sample text (the Tao Te Ching, or the posts of a Usenet group) and creates a massive list of every sequence of three successive words (triplet) which occurs in the text. It then chooses two words at random, and looks for a word which follows those two in one of the triplets in its massive list. If there is more than one, it picks at random (identical triplets count separately, so a sequence which occurs twice is twice as likely to be picked as one which only occurs once). It then adds that word to the generated text. Then, in the same way, it picks a triplet that starts with the second and third words in the generated text, and that gives a fourth word. It adds the fourth word, then repeats with the third and fourth words, and so on. This algorithm is called a third-order Markov chain (because it uses sequences of three words). == Examples == A classic example, from 1984, originally sent as a mail message, later posted to net.singles is reproduced here: >From mvs Fri Nov 16 17:11 EST 1984 remote from alice It looks like Reagan is going to say? Ummm... Oh yes, I was looking for. I'm so glad I remembered it. Yeah, what I have wondered if I had committed a crime. Don't eat with your assessment of Reagon and Mondale. Up your nose with a guy from a firm that specifically researches the teen-age market. As a friend of mine would say, "It really doesn't matter"... It looks like Reagan is holding back the arms of the American eating public have changed dramatically, and it got pretty boring after about 300 games. People, having a much larger number of varieties, and are very different from what one can find in Chinatowns across the country (things like pork buns, steamed dumplings, etc.) They can be cheap, being sold for around 30 to 75 cents apiece (depending on size), are generally not greasy, can be adequately explained by stupidity. Singles have felt insecure since we came down from the Conservative world at large. But Chuqui is the way it happened and the prices are VERY reasonable. Can anyone think of myself as a third sex. Yes, I am expected to have. People often get used to me knowing these things and then a cover is placed over all of them. Along the side of the $$ are spent by (or at least for ) the girls. You can't settle the issue. It seems I've forgotten what it is, but I don't. I know about violence against women, and I really doubt they will ever join together into a large number of jokes. It showed Adam, just after being created. He has a modem and an autodial routine. He calls my number 1440 times a day. So I will conclude by saying that I can well understand that she might soon have the time, it makes sense, again, to get the gist of my argument, I was in that (though it's a Republican administration). _-_-_-_-Mark Other quotations from Mark's Usenet posts are: "I spent an interesting evening recently with a grain of salt." (Alternatively reported as "While at a conference a few weeks back, I spent an interesting evening with a grain of salt.") "I hope that there are sour apples in every bushel." (see also sour grapes) == History == In The Usenet Handbook Mark Harrison writes that after September 1981, students joined Usenet en masse, "creating the USENET we know today: endless dumb questions, endless idiots posing as savants, and (of course) endless victims for practical jokes." In December, Rob Pike created the netnews group net.suicide as prank, "a forum for bad jokes". Some users thought it was a legitimate forum, some discussed "riding motorcycles without helmets". At first, most posters were "real people", but soon "characters" began posting. Pike created a "vicious" character named Bimmler. At its peak, net.suicide had ten frequent posters; nine were "known to be characters." But ultimately, Pike deleted the newsgroup because it was too much work to maintain; Bimmler messages were created "by hand". The "obvious alternative" was software, running on a Bell Labs computer created by Bruce Ellis, based on the Markov code by Don Mitchell, which became the online character Mark V. Shaney. Kernighan and Pike listed Mark V. Shaney in the acknowledgements in The Practice of Programming, noting its roots in Mitchell's markov, which, adapted as shaney, was used for "humorous deconstructionist activities" in the 1980s. Dewdney pointed out "perhaps Mark V. Shaney's magnum opus: a 20-page commentary on the deconstructionist philosophy of Jean Baudrillard" directed by Pike, with assistance from Henry S. Baird and Catherine Richards, to be distributed by email. The piece was based on Jean Baudrillard's "The Precession of Simulacra", published in Simulacra and Simulation (1981). == Reception == The program was discussed by A. K. Dewdney in the Scientific American "Computer Recreations" column in 1989, by Penn Jillette in his PC Computing column in 1991, and in several books, including the Usenet Handbook, Bots: the Origin of New Species, Hippo Eats Dwarf: A Field Guide to Hoaxes and Other B.S., and non-computer-related journals such as Texas Studies in Literature and Language. Dewdney wrote about the program's output, "The overall impression is not unlike what remains in the brain of an inattentive student after a late-night study session. Indeed, after reading the output of Mark V. Shaney, I find ordinary writing almost equally strange and incomprehensible!" He noted the reactions of newsgroup users, who have "shuddered at Mark V. Shaney's reflections, some with rage and others with laughter:" The opinions of the new net.singles correspondent drew mixed reviews. Serious users of the bulletin board's services sensed satire. Outraged, they urged that someone "pull the plug" on Mark V. Shaney's monstrous rantings. Others inquired almost admiringly whether the program was a secret artificial intelligence project that was being tested in a human conversational environment. A few may even have thought that Mark V. Shaney was a real person, a tortured schizophrenic desperately seeking a like-minded companion. Concluding, Dewdney wrote, "If the purpose of computer prose is to fool people into thinking that it was written by a sane person, Mark V. Shaney probably falls short." A 2012 article in Observer compared Mark V. Shaney's "strangely beautiful" postings to the Horse_ebooks account on Twitter and music reviews at Pitchfork, saying that "this mash-up of gibberish and human sentiment" is what "made Mark V. Shaney so endlessly fascinating".
Read more →