AI App Kya Hai In Hindi

AI App Kya Hai In Hindi — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

Turret lathe

A turret lathe is a form of metalworking lathe that is used for repetitive production of duplicate parts, which by the nature of their cutting process are usually interchangeable. It evolved from earlier lathes with the addition of the turret, which is an indexable toolholder that allows multiple cutting operations to be performed, each with a different cutting tool, in easy, rapid succession, with no need for the operator to perform set-up tasks in between (such as installing or uninstalling tools) or to control the toolpath. The latter is due to the toolpath's being controlled by the machine, either in jig-like fashion, via the mechanical limits placed on it by the turret's slide and stops, or via digitally-directed servomechanisms for computer numerical control lathes. The name derives from the way early turrets took the general form of a flattened cylindrical block mounted to the lathe's cross-slide, capable of rotating about the vertical axis and with toolholders projecting out to all sides, and thus vaguely resembled a swiveling gun turret. Capstan lathe is the usual name in the UK and Commonwealth, though the two terms are also used in contrast: see below, Capstan versus turret. == History == Turret lathes became indispensable to the production of interchangeable parts and for mass production. The first turret lathe was built by Stephen Fitch in 1845 to manufacture screws for pistol percussion parts. In the mid-nineteenth century, the need for interchangeable parts for Colt revolvers enhanced the role of turret lathes in achieving this goal as part of the "American system" of manufacturing arms. Clock-making and bicycle manufacturing had similar requirements. Christopher Spencer invented the first fully automated turret lathe in 1873, which led to designs using cam action or hydraulic mechanisms. From the late-19th through mid-20th centuries, turret lathes, both manual and automatic (i.e., screw machines and chuckers), were one of the most important classes of machine tools for mass production. They were used extensively in the mass production for the war effort in World War II. The U.S. company Warner & Swasey was one of the premier brands in heavy turret lathes between the 1910s and 1960s; it became the world's largest manufacturer of such lathes by 1928. During World War II, it employed 7,000 people and produced half of the turret lathes manufactured in the United States. == Types == There are many variants of the turret lathe. They can be most generally classified by size (small, medium, or large); method of control (manual, automated mechanically, or automated via computer (numerical control (NC) or computer numerical control (CNC)); and bed orientation (horizontal or vertical). === Archetypical: horizontal, manual === In the late 1830s a "capstan lathe" with a turret was patented in Britain. The first American turret lathe was invented by Stephen Fitch in 1845. The archetypical turret lathe, and the first in order of historical appearance, is the horizontal-bed, manual turret lathe. The term "turret lathe" without further qualification is still understood to refer to this type. The formative decades for this class of machine were the 1840s through 1860s, when the basic idea of mounting an indexable turret on a bench lathe or engine lathe was born, developed, and disseminated from the originating shops to many other factories. Some important tool-builders in this development were Stephen Fitch; Gay, Silver & Co.; Elisha K. Root of Colt; J.D. Alvord of the Sharps Armory; Frederick W. Howe, Richard S. Lawrence, and Henry D. Stone of Robbins & Lawrence; J.R. Brown of Brown & Sharpe; and Francis A. Pratt of Pratt & Whitney. Various designers at these and other firms later made further refinements. === Semi-automatic === Sometimes machines similar to those above, but with power feeds and automatic turret-indexing at the end of the return stroke, are called "semi-automatic turret lathes". This nomenclature distinction is blurry and not consistently observed. The term "turret lathe" encompasses them all. During the 1860s, when semi-automatic turret lathes were developed, they were sometimes called "automatic". What we today would call "automatics", that is, fully automatic machines, had not been developed yet. During that era both manual and semi-automatic turret lathes were sometimes called "screw machines", although we today reserve that term for fully automatic machines. === Automatic === During the 1870s through 1890s, the mechanically automated "automatic" turret lathe was developed and disseminated. These machines can execute many part-cutting cycles without human intervention. Thus the duties of the operator, which were already greatly reduced by the manual turret lathe, were even further reduced, and productivity increased. These machines use cams to automate the sliding and indexing of the turret and the opening and closing of the chuck. Thus, they execute the part-cutting cycle somewhat analogously to the way in which an elaborate cuckoo clock performs an automated theater show. Small- to medium-sized automatic turret lathes are usually called "screw machines" or "automatic screw machines", while larger ones are usually called "automatic chucking lathes", "automatic chuckers", or "chuckers". Such machine tools of the "automatic" variety, which in the pre-computer era meant mechanically automated, had already reached a highly advanced state by World War I. === Computer numerical control === When World War II ended, the digital computer was poised to develop from a colossal laboratory curiosity into a practical technology that could begin to disseminate into business and industry. The advent of computer-based automation in machine tools via numerical control (NC) and then computer numerical control (CNC) displaced to a large extent, but not at all completely, the previously existing manual and mechanically automated machines. Numerically controlled turrets allow automated selection of tools on a turret. CNC lathes may be horizontal or vertical in orientation and mount six separate tools on one or more turrets. Such machine tools can work in two axes per turret, with up to six axes being feasible for complex work. === Vertical === Vertical turret lathes have the workpiece held vertically, which allows the headstock to sit on the floor and the faceplate to become a horizontal rotating table, analogous to a huge potter's wheel. This is useful for the handling of very large, heavy, short workpieces. Vertical lathes in general are also called "vertical boring mills" or often simply "boring mills"; therefore a vertical turret lathe is a vertical boring mill equipped with a turret. == Other variations == === Capstan versus turret === The term "capstan lathe" overlaps in sense with the term "turret lathe" to a large extent. In many times and places, it has been understood to be synonymous with "turret lathe". In other times and places it has been held in technical contradistinction to "turret lathe", with the difference being in whether the turret's slide is fixed to the bed (ram-type turret) or slides on the bed's ways (saddle-type turret). The difference in terminology is mostly a matter of United Kingdom and Commonwealth usage versus United States usage. === Flat === A subtype of horizontal turret lathe is the flat-turret lathe. Its turret is flat (and analogous to a rotary table), allowing the turret to pass beneath the part. Patented by James Hartness of Jones & Lamson, and first disseminated in the 1890s, it was developed to provide more rigidity via requiring less overhang in the tool setup, especially when the part is relatively long. === Hollow-hexagon === Hollow-hexagon turret lathes competed with flat-turret lathes by taking the conventional hexagon turret and making it hollow, allowing the part to pass into it during the cut, analogously to how the part would pass over the flat turret. In both cases, the main idea is to increase rigidity by allowing a relatively long part to be turned without the tool overhang that would be needed with a conventional turret, which is not flat or hollow. === Monitor lathe === The term "monitor lathe" formerly (1860s–1940s) referred to the class of small- to medium-sized manual turret lathes used on relatively small work. The name was inspired by the monitor-class warships, which the monitor lathe's turret resembled. Today, lathes of such appearance, such as the Hardinge DSM-59 and its many clones, are still common, but the name "monitor lathe" is no longer current in the industry. === Toolpost turrets and tailstock turrets === Turrets can be added to non-turret lathes (bench lathes, engine lathes, toolroom lathes, etc.) by mounting them on the toolpost, tailstock, or both. Often these turrets are not as large as a turret lathe's, and they usually do not offer the sliding and stopping that a turret lathe's turret does; but they do offer the ability to index through successive tool
Read more →
Best AI Voice Assistants in 2026

Trying to pick the best AI voice assistant? An AI voice assistant is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it scales effortlessly from a single task to thousands. The best picks balance beginner-friendly simplicity with the depth power users need, and they ship updates often. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI voice assistant slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. This guide breaks down the top picks, their pros and cons, and who each one is best for.
Read more →
Interactive machine translation

Interactive machine translation (IMT), is a specific sub-field of computer-aided translation. Under this translation paradigm, the computer software that assists the human translator attempts to predict the text the user is going to input by taking into account all the information it has available. Whenever such prediction is wrong and the user provides feedback to the system, a new prediction is performed considering the new information available. Such process is repeated until the translation provided matches the user's expectations. Interactive machine translation is specially interesting when translating texts in domains where it is not admissible to output a translation containing errors, hence requiring a human user to amend the translations provided by the system. In such cases, interactive machine translation has been proved to provide benefit to potential users. Nevertheless, there are few commercial software that implements interactive machine translation and work done in the field is mostly restrained to academic research. == History == Historically, interactive machine translation is born as an evolution of the computer-aided translation paradigm, where the human translator and the machine translation system were intended to work as a tandem. This first work was extended within the TransType research project, funded by the Canadian government. In this project, the human interaction was aimed towards producing the target text for the first time by embedding data-driven machine translation techniques within the interactive translation environment with the goal of achieving the best of both actors: the efficiency of the automatic system and the reliability of human translators. Later, a larger-scale research project, TransType2, funded by the European Commission extended such work by analyzing the incorporation of a complete machine translation system into the process, with the goal of producing a complete translation hypothesis, which the human user is allowed to amend or accept. If the user decides to amend the hypothesis, the system then attempts to make the best use of such feedback in order to produce a new translation hypothesis that takes into account the modifications introduced by the user. More recently, CASMACAT, also funded by the European Commission, aimed at developing novel types of assistance to human translators and integrated them into a new workbench, consisting of an editor, a server, and analysis and visualisation tools. The workbench was designed in a modular fashion and can be combined with existing computer aided translation tools. Furthermore, the CASMACAT workbench can learn from the interaction with the human translator by updating and adapting its models instantly based on the translation choices of the user. Recent work on involving an extensive evaluation with human users revealed the fact that interactive machine translation may even be used by users that do not speak the source language in order to achieve near professional translation quality. Moreover, it also elucidated the fact that an interactive scenario is more beneficial than a classic post-edition scenario. The previously described approaches rely on a tightly coupled underlying corpus-based machine translation system (usually, a Statistical machine translation system) that is used as a glass box, therefore inheriting the shortcomings of the translation systems and limiting the usage of interactive machine translation for some scenarios. For this reason, an approach that uses any kind of bilingual resource (not limited to machine translation) as a black-box to provide interactive machine translation was developed. This approach is not able to extract as much information from the bilingual resources used, due to the black-box nature of the interaction, but can use any resource available to the user. Forecat is a black-box interactive machine translation implementation that is available both as a web application (that includes a webpage and a web services interface) and as a plugin for OmegaT (Forecat-OmegaT). == Process == The interactive machine translation process starts with the system suggesting a translation hypothesis to the user. Then, the user may accept the complete sentence as correct, or may modify it if he considers there is some error. Typically, when modifying a given word, it is assumed that the prefix until that word is correct, leading to a left-to-right interaction scheme. Once the user has changed the word considered incorrect, the system then proposes a new suffix, i.e. the remainder of the sentence. Such process continues until the translation provided satisfies the user. Although explained at the word level, the previous process may also be implemented at the character level, and hence the system provides a suffix whenever the human translator types in a single character. In addition, there is ongoing effort towards changing the typical left-to-right interaction scheme in order to make human-machine interaction easier. A similar approach is used in the Caitra translation tool. == Evaluation == Evaluation is a difficult issue in interactive machine translation. Ideally, evaluation should take place in experiments involving human users. However, given the high monetary cost this would imply, this is seldom the case. Moreover, even when considering human translators in order to perform a true evaluation of interactive machine translation techniques, it is not clear what should be measured in such experiments, since there are many different variables that should be taken into account and cannot be controlled, as is for instance the time the user takes in order to get used to the process. In the CASMACAT project, some field trials have been carried out to study some of these variables. For quick evaluations in laboratory conditions, interactive machine translation is measured by using the key stroke ratio or the word stroke ratio. Such criteria attempt to measure how many key-strokes or words did the user need to introduce before producing the final translated document. == Differences with classical computer-aided translation == Although interactive machine translation is a sub-field of computer-aided translation, the main attractive of the former with respect to the latter is the interactivity. In classical computer-aided translation, the translation system may suggest one translation hypothesis in the best case, and then the user is required to post-edit such hypothesis. In contrast, in interactive machine translation the system produces a new translation hypothesis each time the user interacts with the system, i.e. after each word (or letter) has been introduced.
Read more →
Selmer Bringsjord

Selmer Bringsjord (born November 24, 1958) is a professor of computer science and cognitive science and a former chair of the Department of Cognitive Science at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. He also holds an appointment in the Lally School of Management & Technology and teaches artificial Intelligence (AI), formal logic, human and machine reasoning, and philosophy of AI. == Biography == Bringsjord's education includes a B.A. in philosophy from the University of Pennsylvania and a Ph.D. in philosophy from Brown University, where he studied under Roderick Chisholm. He conducts research in AI as the director of the Rensselaer AI & Reasoning (RAIR) Laboratory. He specializes in the logico-mathematical and philosophical foundations of AI and cognitive science, and in collaboratively building AI systems on the basis of computational logic. Bringsjord believes that "the human mind will forever be superior to AI", and that "much of what many humans do for a living will be better done by indefatigable machines who require not a cent in pay". Bringsjord has stated that the "ultimate growth industry will be building smarter and smarter such machines on the one hand, and philosophizing about whether they are truly conscious and free on the other". Bringsjord has an argument for P = NP using digital physics. Other research includes developing a new computational-logic framework allowing the formalization of deliberative multi-agent "mindreading" as applied to the realm of nuclear strategy, with the goal of creating a model and simulation to enable reliable prediction. He has published an opinion piece advocating for counter-terrorism security ensured by pervasive, all-seeing sensors; automated reasoners; and autonomous, lethal robots. Bringsjord received a National Science Foundation award to research Social Robotics and the Covey Award for the advancement of philosophy of computing awarded by the International Association for Computing And Philosophy, among several others prizes. == Books authored == with Yang, Y. Mental Metalogic: A New, Unifying Theory of Human and Machine Reasoning (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum).(2007) with Zenzen, M. Superminds: People Harness Hypercomputation, and More (Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer). (2003) ISBN 978-1402010958 with Ferrucci, D. Artificial Intelligence and Literary Creativity: Inside the Mind of Brutus, A Storytelling Machine (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum).(2000) Abortion: A Dialogue (Indianapolis, IN: Hackett).(1997) What Robots Can and Can’t Be (Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer).(1992) Soft Wars (New York, NY: Penguin USA). A novel.(1991)
Read more →
Neural operators

Neural operators are a class of deep learning architectures designed to learn maps between infinite-dimensional function spaces. Neural operators represent an extension of traditional artificial neural networks, marking a departure from the typical focus on learning mappings between finite-dimensional Euclidean spaces or finite sets. Neural operators directly learn operators between function spaces; they can receive input functions, and the output function can be evaluated at any discretization. The primary application of neural operators is in learning surrogate maps for the solution operators of partial differential equations (PDEs), which are critical tools in modeling the natural environment. Standard PDE solvers can be time-consuming and computationally intensive, especially for complex systems. Neural operators have demonstrated improved performance in solving PDEs compared to existing machine learning methodologies while being significantly faster than numerical solvers. Neural operators have also been applied to various scientific and engineering disciplines such as turbulent flow modeling, computational mechanics, graph-structured data, and the geosciences. In particular, they have been applied to learning stress-strain fields in materials, classifying complex data like spatial transcriptomics, predicting multiphase flow in porous media, and carbon dioxide migration simulations. Finally, the operator learning paradigm allows learning maps between function spaces, and is different from parallel ideas of learning maps from finite-dimensional spaces to function spaces, and subsumes these settings as special cases when limited to a fixed input resolution. == Operator learning == Understanding and mapping relationships between function spaces has many applications in engineering and the sciences. In particular, one can cast the problem of solving partial differential equations as identifying a map between function spaces, such as from an initial condition to a time-evolved state. In other PDEs this map takes an input coefficient function and outputs a solution function. Operator learning is a machine learning paradigm to learn solution operators mapping the input function to the output function . Using traditional machine learning methods, addressing this problem would involve discretizing the infinite-dimensional input and output function spaces into finite-dimensional grids and applying standard learning models, such as neural networks. This approach reduces the operator learning to finite-dimensional function learning and has some limitations, such as generalizing to discretizations beyond the grid used in training. The primary properties of neural operators that differentiate them from traditional neural networks is discretization invariance and discretization convergence. Unlike conventional neural networks, which are fixed on the discretization of training data, neural operators can adapt to various discretizations without re-training. This property improves the robustness and applicability of neural operators in different scenarios, providing consistent performance across different resolutions and grids. == Definition and formulation == Architecturally, neural operators are similar to feed-forward neural networks in the sense that they are composed of alternating linear maps and non-linearities. Since neural operators act on and output functions, neural operators have been instead formulated as a sequence of alternating linear integral operators on function spaces and point-wise non-linearities. Using an analogous architecture to finite-dimensional neural networks, similar universal approximation theorems have been proven for neural operators. In particular, it has been shown that neural operators can approximate any continuous operator on a compact set. Neural operators seek to approximate some operator G : A → U {\displaystyle {\mathcal {G}}:{\mathcal {A}}\to {\mathcal {U}}} between function spaces A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} and U {\displaystyle {\mathcal {U}}} by building a parametric map G ϕ : A → U {\displaystyle {\mathcal {G}}_{\phi }:{\mathcal {A}}\to {\mathcal {U}}} . Such parametric maps G ϕ {\displaystyle {\mathcal {G}}_{\phi }} can generally be defined in the form G ϕ := Q ∘ σ ( W T + K T + b T ) ∘ ⋯ ∘ σ ( W 1 + K 1 + b 1 ) ∘ P , {\displaystyle {\mathcal {G}}_{\phi }:={\mathcal {Q}}\circ \sigma (W_{T}+{\mathcal {K}}_{T}+b_{T})\circ \cdots \circ \sigma (W_{1}+{\mathcal {K}}_{1}+b_{1})\circ {\mathcal {P}},} where P , Q {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}},{\mathcal {Q}}} are the lifting (lifting the codomain of the input function to a higher dimensional space) and projection (projecting the codomain of the intermediate function to the output dimension) operators, respectively. These operators act pointwise on functions and are typically parametrized as multilayer perceptrons. σ {\displaystyle \sigma } is a pointwise nonlinearity, such as a rectified linear unit (ReLU), or a Gaussian error linear unit (GeLU). Each layer t = 1 , … , T {\displaystyle t=1,\dots ,T} has a respective local operator W t {\displaystyle W_{t}} (usually parameterized by a pointwise neural network), a kernel integral operator K t {\displaystyle {\mathcal {K}}_{t}} , and a bias function b t {\displaystyle b_{t}} . Given some intermediate functional representation v t {\displaystyle v_{t}} with domain D {\displaystyle D} in the t {\displaystyle t} -th hidden layer, a kernel integral operator K ϕ {\displaystyle {\mathcal {K}}_{\phi }} is defined as ( K ϕ v t ) ( x ) := ∫ D κ ϕ ( x , y , v t ( x ) , v t ( y ) ) v t ( y ) d y , {\displaystyle ({\mathcal {K}}_{\phi }v_{t})(x):=\int _{D}\kappa _{\phi }(x,y,v_{t}(x),v_{t}(y))v_{t}(y)dy,} where the kernel κ ϕ {\displaystyle \kappa _{\phi }} is a learnable implicit neural network, parametrized by ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } . In practice, one is often given the input function to the neural operator at a specific resolution. For instance, consider the setting where one is given the evaluation of v t {\displaystyle v_{t}} at n {\displaystyle n} points { y j } j n {\displaystyle \{y_{j}\}_{j}^{n}} . Borrowing from Nyström integral approximation methods such as Riemann sum integration and Gaussian quadrature, the above integral operation can be computed as follows: ∫ D κ ϕ ( x , y , v t ( x ) , v t ( y ) ) v t ( y ) d y ≈ ∑ j n κ ϕ ( x , y j , v t ( x ) , v t ( y j ) ) v t ( y j ) Δ y j , {\displaystyle \int _{D}\kappa _{\phi }(x,y,v_{t}(x),v_{t}(y))v_{t}(y)dy\approx \sum _{j}^{n}\kappa _{\phi }(x,y_{j},v_{t}(x),v_{t}(y_{j}))v_{t}(y_{j})\Delta _{y_{j}},} where Δ y j {\displaystyle \Delta _{y_{j}}} is the sub-area volume or quadrature weight associated to the point y j {\displaystyle y_{j}} . Thus, a simplified layer can be computed as v t + 1 ( x ) ≈ σ ( ∑ j n κ ϕ ( x , y j , v t ( x ) , v t ( y j ) ) v t ( y j ) Δ y j + W t ( v t ( y j ) ) + b t ( x ) ) . {\displaystyle v_{t+1}(x)\approx \sigma \left(\sum _{j}^{n}\kappa _{\phi }(x,y_{j},v_{t}(x),v_{t}(y_{j}))v_{t}(y_{j})\Delta _{y_{j}}+W_{t}(v_{t}(y_{j}))+b_{t}(x)\right).} The above approximation, along with parametrizing κ ϕ {\displaystyle \kappa _{\phi }} as an implicit neural network, results in the graph neural operator (GNO). There have been various parameterizations of neural operators for different applications. These typically differ in their parameterization of κ {\displaystyle \kappa } . The most popular instantiation is the Fourier neural operator (FNO). FNO takes κ ϕ ( x , y , v t ( x ) , v t ( y ) ) := κ ϕ ( x − y ) {\displaystyle \kappa _{\phi }(x,y,v_{t}(x),v_{t}(y)):=\kappa _{\phi }(x-y)} and by applying the convolution theorem, arrives at the following parameterization of the kernel integral operator: ( K ϕ v t ) ( x ) = F − 1 ( R ϕ ⋅ ( F v t ) ) ( x ) , {\displaystyle ({\mathcal {K}}_{\phi }v_{t})(x)={\mathcal {F}}^{-1}(R_{\phi }\cdot ({\mathcal {F}}v_{t}))(x),} where F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} represents the Fourier transform and R ϕ {\displaystyle R_{\phi }} represents the Fourier transform of some periodic function κ ϕ {\displaystyle \kappa _{\phi }} . That is, FNO parameterizes the kernel integration directly in Fourier space, using a prescribed number of Fourier modes. When the grid at which the input function is presented is uniform, the Fourier transform can be approximated using the discrete Fourier transform (DFT) with frequencies below some specified threshold. The discrete Fourier transform can be computed using a fast Fourier transform (FFT) implementation. == Training == Training neural operators is similar to the training process for a traditional neural network. Neural operators are typically trained in some Lp norm or Sobolev norm. In particular, for a dataset { ( a i , u i ) } i = 1 N {\displaystyle \{(a_{i},u_{i})\}_{i=1}^{N}} of size N {\displaystyle N} , neural operators minimize (a discretization of) L U ( { ( a i , u i ) } i = 1 N ) := ∑ i = 1 N ‖ u i − G θ ( a i ) ‖ U 2 {\displaystyle {\mathcal {L}}_{\mathca
Read more →
Julia Hirschberg

Julia Hirschberg is an American computer scientist noted for her research on computational linguistics and natural language processing. She received her first PhD in history from the University of Michigan and the second from the University of Pennsylvania in computer science doing research in Natural Language Processing. She worked at Bell Labs and AT&T Bell Labs from 1985 to 2002 and from 2002 at Columbia University where she is currently the Percy K. and Vida L. W. Hudson Professor of Computer Science. == Biography == Julia Linn Bell Hirschberg received her first Ph.D. degree in history (16th-century Mexico) from University of Michigan in 1976. She served on the History faculty of Smith College from 1974 to 1982. She subsequently shifted to Computer Science studies, receiving her M.S. in Computer and Information Science from University of Pennsylvania in 1982 and a Ph.D. in Computer and Information Science from University of Pennsylvania in 1985. Upon graduation from University of Pennsylvania in 1985, Hirschberg joined AT&T Bell Labs as a Member of Technical staff in the Linguistics Research Department, where she worked on improving prosody assignment for Text-to-Speech Synthesis (TTS) in the Bell Labs TTS system. She was promoted to Department Head in 1994 when she created a new Human Computer Interface Research Lab. She and her department remained at Bell Labs until 1996 when they moved to AT&T Labs Research as part of a corporate reorganization. In 2002, she joined the Columbia University faculty as a professor in the Department of Computer Science. She served as Chair of the Computer Science Department from 2012 to 2018. She still leads classes at Columbia in speech and natural language research and supervises PhD students and a large number of research project students. == Research == Hirschberg's research has included prosody, discourse structure, conversational implicature, text-to-speech synthesis, speech summarization, spoken dialogue systems, emotional speech, deceptive speech, charismatic speech, entrainment, empathetic speech and code-switching. Hirschberg was among the first to combine Natural Language Processing (NLP) approaches to discourse and dialogue with speech research. She pioneered techniques in text analysis for prosody assignment in Text-to-Speech synthesis at Bell laboratories in the 1980s and 1990s, developing corpus-based statistical models based upon syntactic and discourse information which are in general use today in TTS systems. With Janet Pierrehumbert, she developed a theoretical model of intonational meaning. She was a leader in the development of the ToBI conventions for intonational description, which have been extended to numerous languages and which today are the most widely used standard for intonational annotation. Hirschberg has been a pioneer together with Gregory Ward in much experimental work on intonational sources of language meaning and how these interact with pragmatic phenomena, particularly on the meaning of accent (intonational prominent) items and the meaning of intonational contours. She also has innovated in numerous other areas involving prosody and meaning, including the role of grammatical function and surface position in pitch accent location, the use of prosody in disambiguating cue phrases (discourse markers) with Diane Litman, the role of prosody in disambiguation in English, Italian, and Spanish with Cinzia Avesani and Pilar Prieto, and the automatic identification of speech recognition errors using prosodic information, At AT&T Labs she worked with Fernando Pereira, Steve Whittaker, and others on speech search and developing new interfaces for speech navigation. At Columbia, she and her students have continued and extended research on spoken dialogue systems (automatically detecting speech recognition errors and inappropriate system queries, modeling turn-taking behavior, dialogue entrainment, modeling and generating clarification dialogues); on the automatic classification of trust, charisma, deception and emotion from speech; on speech summarization; prosody translation, hedging behavior in text and speech, text-to-speech synthesis, and speech search in low resource languages. She also holds several patents in TTS and in speech search. Corpora she and collaborators have collected include the Boston Directions Corpus, the Columbia SRI Colorado Deception Corpus, and the Columbia Games Corpus. She has served on numerous technical boards and editorial committees. She has served as a member of the Computing Research Association's (CRA) Board of Directors and as co-chair of CRA-W. She is also noted for her leadership in broadening participation in computing. == Awards == Hirschberg's notable honors and awards include: Elected as a member of the National Academy of Artificial Intelligence Academy of Sciences and recipient of the NAAI Artificial Intelligence Exploration Award, 2025 Elected as a Fellow of Asia-Pacific Artificial Intelligence Association (AAIA), 2024. 2020 ISCA Special Service Medal Honorary Doctorate (eredoctoraat) from Tilburg University, Netherlands, 2018. American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 2018. IEEE Fellow, 2017 National Academy of Engineering, 2017 ACM Fellow in 2015 Elected member, American Philosophical Society, 2014. Honorary member, Association for Laboratory Phonology, 2014. Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL) (Founding) Fellow, 2011. International Speech Communication Association (ISCA) Medal for Scientific Achievement, 2011. IEEE James L. Flanagan Speech and Audio Processing Award, 2011. Honorary Doctorate (Hedersdoktorer), KTH (Royal Institute of Technology) Stockholm, Sweden, 2007. AAAI Fellow, 1994. == Publications == A social history of Puebla de Los Ángeles, 1531-60, 1976 Empirical studies on the disambiguation of cue phrases, 1991 Prosody and conversation, 1998 Most recent publications and other information, https://www.cs.columbia.edu/speech/.
Read more →
Eurotra

Eurotra was a machine translation project established and funded by the European Commission from 1978 until 1992. == History == In 1976, the European Commission started using the commercially developed machine translation system SYSTRAN with a plan to make it work for further languages than originally developed for (Russian-English and English-French), which however turned out to be difficult. This and the potential in existing systems within European research center, led to the decision in 1978 to start the project Eurotra, first through a preparatory Eurotra Coordination Group. Four years later, the European Commission and coordination group gained the approval of the European Parliament. The goal of the project as to create machine translation system for the official languages of the European Community, which at the time were Danish, Dutch, German, English, French, Italian, later including Greek, Spanish and Portuguese. However, as time passed, expectations became tempered; "Fully Automatic High Quality Translation" was not a reasonably attainable goal. The true character of Eurotra was eventually acknowledged to be in fact pre-competitive research rather than prototype development. The project was motivated by one of the founding principles of the EU: that all citizens had the right to read any and all proceedings of the Commission in their own language. As more countries joined, this produced a combinatorial explosion in the number of language pairs involved, and the need to translate every paper, speech and even set of meeting minutes produced by the EU into the other eight languages meant that translation rapidly became the overwhelming component in the administrative budget. To solve this problem Eurotra was devised. The project was unusual in that rather than consisting of a single research team, it had member groups distributed around the member countries, organised along language rather than national lines (for example, groups in Leuven and Utrecht worked closely together), and the secretariat was based at the European Commission in Luxembourg. The actual design of the project was unusual as MT projects go. Older systems, such as SYSTRAN, were heavily dictionary-based, with minor support for rearranging word order. More recent systems have often worked on a probabilistic approach, based on parallel corpora. Eurotra addressed the constituent structure of the text to be translated, going through first a syntactic parse followed by a second parse to produce a dependency structure followed by a final parse with a third grammar to produce what was referred to internally as Intermediate Representation (IR). Since all three modules were implemented as Prolog programs, it would then in principle be possible to put this structure backwards through the corresponding modules for another language to produce a translated text in any of the other languages. However, in practice this was not in fact how language pairs were implemented. The first "live" translation occupied a 4Mb Microvax running Ultrix and C-Prolog for a complete weekend some time in early 1987. The sentence, translated from English into Danish, was "Japan makes computers". The main problem faced by the system was the generation of so-called "Parse Forests" - often a large number of different grammar rules could be applied to any particular phrase, producing hundreds, even thousands of (often identical) parse trees. This used up huge quantities of computer store, slowing the whole process down unnecessarily. While Eurotra never delivered a "working" MT system, the project made a far-reaching long-term impact on the nascent language industries in European member states, in particular among the southern countries of Greece, Italy, Spain, and Portugal. There is at least one commercial MT system (developed by an academic/commercial consortium in Denmark) derived from Eurotra technology.
Read more →
AI Analytics Tools Reviews: What Actually Works in 2026

Comparing the best AI analytics tool? An AI analytics tool is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it lowers the barrier so anyone can produce professional output. Privacy matters too: check whether your data trains the model and whether a no-log or enterprise tier is available. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI analytics tool slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. Below we compare features, pricing, and real output so you can choose with confidence.
Read more →
GCube system

gCube is an open source software system specifically designed and developed to enact the building and operation of a Data Infrastructure providing their users with a rich array of services suitable for supporting the co-creation of Virtual Research Environments and promoting the implementation of open science workflows and practices. It is at the heart of the D4Science Data Infrastructure. == Overview == It is primarily organised in a number of web service called to offer functionality supporting the phases of knowledge production and sharing. In addition, it consists of a set of software libraries supporting service development, service-to-service integration, and service capabilities extension, and a set of portlets dedicated to realise user interface constituents facilitating the exploitation of one or more services. It is designed and conceived to enact system of systems. In fact, its gCube services rely on standards and mediators to interact with other services as well as are made available by standard and APIs to make it possible for clients to use them. For instance, the DataMiner service implements the Web Processing Service protocol to facilitate clients to execute processes. The set of components dealing with Identity and Access Management rely on Keycloak and federates other IDMs thus making the overall Authentication and the Authorization management compliant with open standards such as OAuth2, User-Managed Access (UMA), and OpenID Connect (OIDC)protocols. The Catalogue relies on DCAT, OAI-PMH, and Catalogue Service for the Web to collect contents from other catalogues and data sources and offers its content by DCAT, OAI-PMH, and a proprietary REST API (gCat REST API). Its Continuous Integration/Continuous Delivery pipeline implemented by Jenkins represents an innovative approach to software delivering conceived to be scalable and easy to maintain and upgrade at a minimal cost. == History == gCube has been developed in the context of the D4Science initiative with the support of several EU projects.
Read more →
Noisy channel model

The noisy channel model is a framework used in spell checkers, question answering, speech recognition, and machine translation. In this model, the goal is to find the intended word given a word where the letters have been scrambled in some manner. == In spell-checking == See Chapter B of. Given an alphabet Σ {\displaystyle \Sigma } , let Σ ∗ {\displaystyle \Sigma ^{}} be the set of all finite strings over Σ {\displaystyle \Sigma } . Let the dictionary D {\displaystyle D} of valid words be some subset of Σ ∗ {\displaystyle \Sigma ^{}} , i.e., D ⊆ Σ ∗ {\displaystyle D\subseteq \Sigma ^{}} . The noisy channel is the matrix Γ w s = Pr ( s | w ) {\displaystyle \Gamma _{ws}=\Pr(s|w)} , where w ∈ D {\displaystyle w\in D} is the intended word and s ∈ Σ ∗ {\displaystyle s\in \Sigma ^{}} is the scrambled word that was actually received. The goal of the noisy channel model is to find the intended word given the scrambled word that was received. The decision function σ : Σ ∗ → D {\displaystyle \sigma :\Sigma ^{}\to D} is a function that, given a scrambled word, returns the intended word. Methods of constructing a decision function include the maximum likelihood rule, the maximum a posteriori rule, and the minimum distance rule. In some cases, it may be better to accept the scrambled word as the intended word rather than attempt to find an intended word in the dictionary. For example, the word schönfinkeling may not be in the dictionary, but might in fact be the intended word. === Example === Consider the English alphabet Σ = { a , b , c , . . . , y , z , A , B , . . . , Z , . . . } {\displaystyle \Sigma =\{a,b,c,...,y,z,A,B,...,Z,...\}} . Some subset D ⊆ Σ ∗ {\displaystyle D\subseteq \Sigma ^{}} makes up the dictionary of valid English words. There are several mistakes that may occur while typing, including: Missing letters, e.g., leter instead of letter Accidental letter additions, e.g., misstake instead of mistake Swapping letters, e.g., recieved instead of received Replacing letters, e.g., fimite instead of finite To construct the noisy channel matrix Γ {\displaystyle \Gamma } , we must consider the probability of each mistake, given the intended word ( Pr ( s | w ) {\displaystyle \Pr(s|w)} for all w ∈ D {\displaystyle w\in D} and s ∈ Σ ∗ {\displaystyle s\in \Sigma ^{}} ). These probabilities may be gathered, for example, by considering the Damerau–Levenshtein distance between s {\displaystyle s} and w {\displaystyle w} or by comparing the draft of an essay with one that has been manually edited for spelling. == In machine translation == One naturally wonders if the problem of translation could conceivably be treated as a problem in cryptography. When I look at an article in Russian, I say: 'This is really written in English, but it has been coded in some strange symbols. I will now proceed to decode. See chapter 1, and chapter 25 of. Suppose we want to translate a foreign language to English, we could model P ( E | F ) {\displaystyle P(E|F)} directly: the probability that we have English sentence E given foreign sentence F, then we pick the most likely one E ^ = arg ⁡ max E P ( E | F ) {\displaystyle {\hat {E}}=\arg \max _{E}P(E|F)} . However, by Bayes law, we have the equivalent equation: E ^ = argmax E ∈ English P ( F ∣ E ) ⏞ translation model P ( E ) ⏞ language model {\displaystyle {\hat {E}}={\underset {E\in {\text{ English }}}{\operatorname {argmax} }}\overbrace {P(F\mid E)} ^{\text{translation model }}\overbrace {P(E)} ^{\text{language model}}} The benefit of the noisy-channel model is in terms of data: If collecting a parallel corpus is costly, then we would have only a small parallel corpus, so we can only train a moderately good English-to-foreign translation model, and a moderately good foreign-to-English translation model. However, we can collect a large corpus in the foreign language only, and a large corpus in the English language only, to train two good language models. Combining these four models, we immediately get a good English-to-foreign translator and a good foreign-to-English translator. The cost of noisy-channel model is that using Bayesian inference is more costly than using a translation model directly. Instead of reading out the most likely translation by arg ⁡ max E P ( E | F ) {\displaystyle \arg \max _{E}P(E|F)} , it would have to read out predictions by both the translation model and the language model, multiply them, and search for the highest number. == In speech recognition == Speech recognition can be thought of as translating from a sound-language to a text-language. Consequently, we have T ^ = argmax T ∈ Text P ( S ∣ T ) ⏞ speech model P ( T ) ⏞ language model {\displaystyle {\hat {T}}={\underset {T\in {\text{ Text }}}{\operatorname {argmax} }}\overbrace {P(S\mid T)} ^{\text{speech model }}\overbrace {P(T)} ^{\text{language model}}} where P ( S | T ) {\displaystyle P(S|T)} is the probability that a speech sound S is produced if the speaker is intending to say text T. Intuitively, this equation states that the most likely text is a text that's both a likely text in the language, and produces the speech sound with high probability. The utility of the noisy-channel model is not in capacity. Theoretically, any noisy-channel model can be replicated by a direct P ( T | S ) {\displaystyle P(T|S)} model. However, the noisy-channel model factors the model into two parts which are appropriate for the situation, and consequently it is generally more well-behaved. When a human speaks, it does not produce the sound directly, but first produces the text it wants to speak in the language centers of the brain, then the text is translated into sound by the motor cortex, vocal cords, and other parts of the body. The noisy-channel model matches this model of the human, and so it is appropriate. This is justified in the practical success of noisy-channel model in speech recognition. === Example === Consider the sound-language sentence (written in IPA for English) S = aɪ wʊd laɪk wʌn tuː. There are three possible texts T 1 , T 2 , T 3 {\displaystyle T_{1},T_{2},T_{3}} : T 1 = {\displaystyle T_{1}=} I would like one to. T 2 = {\displaystyle T_{2}=} I would like one too. T 3 = {\displaystyle T_{3}=} I would like one two. that are equally likely, in the sense that P ( S | T 1 ) = P ( S | T 2 ) = P ( S | T 3 ) {\displaystyle P(S|T_{1})=P(S|T_{2})=P(S|T_{3})} . With a good English language model, we would have P ( T 2 ) > P ( T 1 ) > P ( T 3 ) {\displaystyle P(T_{2})>P(T_{1})>P(T_{3})} , since the second sentence is grammatical, the first is not quite, but close to a grammatical one (such as "I would like one to [go]."), while the third one is far from grammatical. Consequently, the noisy-channel model would output T 2 {\displaystyle T_{2}} as the best transcription.
Read more →
Struc2vec

struc2vec is a framework to generate node vector representations on a graph that preserve the structural identity. In contrast to node2vec, that optimizes node embeddings so that nearby nodes in the graph have similar embedding, struc2vec captures the roles of nodes in a graph, even if structurally similar nodes are far apart in the graph. It learns low-dimensional representations for nodes in a graph, generating random walks through a constructed multi-layer graph starting at each graph node. It is useful for machine learning applications where the downstream application is more related with the structural equivalence of the nodes (e.g., it can be used to detect nodes in networks with similar functions, such as interns in the social network of a corporation). struc2vec identifies nodes that play a similar role based solely on the structure of the graph, for example computing the structural identity of individuals in social networks. In particular, struc2vec employs a degree-based method to measure the pairwise structural role similarity, which is then adopted to build the multi-layer graph. Moreover, the distance between the latent representation of nodes is strongly correlated to their structural similarity. The framework contains three optimizations: reducing the length of degree sequences considered, reducing the number of pairwise similarity calculations, and reducing the number of layers in the generated graph. struc2vec follows the intuition that random walks through a graph can be treated as sentences in a corpus. Each node in a graph is treated as an individual word, and short random walk is treated as a sentence. In its final phase, the algorithm employs Gensim's word2vec algorithm to learn embeddings based on biased random walks. Sequences of nodes are fed into a skip-gram or continuous bag of words model and traditional machine-learning techniques for classification can be used. It is considered a useful framework to learn node embeddings based on structural equivalence.
Read more →
Quantum finite automaton

In quantum computing, quantum finite automata (QFA) or quantum state machines are a quantum analog of probabilistic automata or a Markov decision process. They provide a mathematical abstraction of real-world quantum computers. Several types of automata may be defined, including measure-once and measure-many automata. Quantum finite automata can also be understood as the quantization of subshifts of finite type, or as a quantization of Markov chains. QFAs are, in turn, special cases of geometric finite automata or topological finite automata. The automata work by receiving a finite-length string σ = ( σ 0 , σ 1 , … , σ k ) {\displaystyle \sigma =(\sigma _{0},\sigma _{1},\dots ,\sigma _{k})} of letters σ i {\displaystyle \sigma _{i}} from a finite alphabet Σ {\displaystyle \Sigma } , and assigning to each such string a probability Pr ⁡ ( σ ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {Pr} (\sigma )} indicating the probability of the automaton being in an accept state; that is, indicating whether the automaton accepted or rejected the string. The languages accepted by QFAs are not the regular languages of deterministic finite automata, nor are they the stochastic languages of probabilistic finite automata. Study of these quantum languages remains an active area of research. == Informal description == There is a simple, intuitive way of understanding quantum finite automata. One begins with a graph-theoretic interpretation of deterministic finite automata (DFA). A DFA can be represented as a labelled directed graph, with states as nodes in the graph, and arrows representing state transitions. Each arrow is labelled with a possible input symbol, so that, given a specific state and an input symbol, the arrow points at the next state. One way of representing such a graph is by means of a set of adjacency matrices, with one matrix for each input symbol. In this case, a list of possible DFA states is written as a column vector. For a given input symbol, the adjacency matrix indicates how any given state (row in the state vector) will transition to the next state; a state transition is given by matrix multiplication. One needs a distinct adjacency matrix for each possible input symbol, since each input symbol can result in a different transition. The entries in the adjacency matrix must be zero's and one's. For any given column in the matrix, only one entry can be non-zero: this is the entry that indicates the next (unique) state transition. Similarly, the state of the system is a column vector, in which only one entry is non-zero: this entry corresponds to the current state of the system. Let Σ {\displaystyle \Sigma } denote the set of input symbols. For a given input symbol α ∈ Σ {\displaystyle \alpha \in \Sigma } , write U α {\displaystyle U_{\alpha }} as the adjacency matrix that describes the evolution of the DFA to its next state. The set { U α | α ∈ Σ } {\displaystyle \{U_{\alpha }|\alpha \in \Sigma \}} then completely describes the state transition function of the DFA. Let Q represent the set of possible states of the DFA. If there are N states in Q, then each matrix U α {\displaystyle U_{\alpha }} is N by N-dimensional. The initial state q 0 ∈ Q {\displaystyle q_{0}\in Q} corresponds to a column vector with a one in the q0'th row. A general state q is then a column vector with a one in the q'th row. By abuse of notation, let q0 and q also denote these two vectors. Then, after reading input symbols α β γ ⋯ {\displaystyle \alpha \beta \gamma \cdots } from the input tape, the state of the DFA will be given by q = ⋯ U γ U β U α q 0 . {\displaystyle q=\cdots U_{\gamma }U_{\beta }U_{\alpha }q_{0}.} The state transitions are given by ordinary matrix multiplication (that is, multiply q0 by U α {\displaystyle U_{\alpha }} , etc.); the order of application is 'reversed' only because we follow the standard notation of linear algebra. The above description of a DFA, in terms of linear operators and vectors, almost begs for generalization, by replacing the state-vector q by some general vector, and the matrices { U α } {\displaystyle \{U_{\alpha }\}} by some general operators. This is essentially what a QFA does: it replaces q by a unit vector, and the { U α } {\displaystyle \{U_{\alpha }\}} by unitary matrices. Other, similar generalizations also become obvious: the vector q can be some distribution on a manifold; the set of transition matrices become automorphisms of the manifold; this defines a topological finite automaton. Similarly, the matrices could be taken as automorphisms of a homogeneous space; this defines a geometric finite automaton. Before moving on to the formal description of a QFA, there are two noteworthy generalizations that should be mentioned and understood. The first is the non-deterministic finite automaton (NFA). In this case, the vector q is replaced by a vector that can have more than one entry that is non-zero. Such a vector then represents an element of the power set of Q; it’s just an indicator function on Q. Likewise, the state transition matrices { U α } {\displaystyle \{U_{\alpha }\}} are defined in such a way that a given column can have several non-zero entries in it. Equivalently, the multiply-add operations performed during component-wise matrix multiplication should be replaced by Boolean and-or operations so that the semantics are kept intact. A well-known theorem states that, for each DFA, there is an equivalent NFA, and vice versa. This implies that the set of languages that can be recognized by DFA's and NFA's are the same; these are the regular languages. In the generalization to QFAs, the set of recognized languages will be different to the regular languages. Describing that set is one of the outstanding research problems in QFA theory. Another generalization that should be immediately apparent is to use a stochastic matrix for the transition matrices, and a probability vector for the state; this gives a probabilistic finite automaton. The entries in the state vector must be real numbers, positive, and sum to one, in order for the state vector to be interpreted as a probability. The transition matrices must preserve this property: this is why they must be stochastic. Each state vector should be imagined as specifying a point in a simplex; thus, this is a topological automaton, with the simplex being the manifold, and the stochastic matrices being linear automorphisms of the simplex onto itself. Since each transition is (essentially) independent of the previous (if we disregard the distinction between accepted and rejected languages), the PFA essentially becomes a kind of Markov chain. By contrast, in a QFA, the manifold is complex projective space C P N {\displaystyle \mathbb {C} P^{N}} , and the transition matrices are unitary matrices. Each point in C P N {\displaystyle \mathbb {C} P^{N}} corresponds to a (pure) quantum-mechanical state; the unitary matrices can be thought of as governing the time evolution of the system (viz in the Schrödinger picture). The generalization from pure states to mixed states should be straightforward: A mixed state is simply a measure-theoretic probability distribution on C P N {\displaystyle \mathbb {C} P^{N}} . A worthy point to contemplate is the distributions that result on the manifold during the input of a language. In order for an automaton to be 'efficient' in recognizing a language, that distribution should be 'as uniform as possible'. This need for uniformity is the underlying principle behind maximum entropy methods: these simply guarantee crisp, compact operation of the automaton. Put in other words, the machine learning methods used to train hidden Markov models generalize to QFAs as well: the Viterbi algorithm and the forward–backward algorithm generalize readily to the QFA. Although the study of QFA was popularized in the work of Kondacs and Watrous in 1997 and later by Moore and Crutchfeld, they were described as early as 1971, by Ion Baianu. == Measure-once automata == Measure-once automata were introduced by Cris Moore and James P. Crutchfield. They may be defined formally as follows. As with an ordinary finite automaton, the quantum automaton is considered to have N {\displaystyle N} possible internal states, represented in this case by an N {\displaystyle N} -level qudit | ψ ⟩ {\displaystyle |\psi \rangle } . More precisely, the N {\displaystyle N} -level qudit | ψ ⟩ ∈ P ( C N ) {\displaystyle |\psi \rangle \in P(\mathbb {C} ^{N})} is an element of ( N − 1 ) {\displaystyle (N-1)} -dimensional complex projective space, carrying an inner product ‖ ⋅ ‖ {\displaystyle \Vert \cdot \Vert } that is the Fubini–Study metric. The state transitions, transition matrices or de Bruijn graphs are represented by a collection of N × N {\displaystyle N\times N} unitary matrices U α {\displaystyle U_{\alpha }} , with one unitary matrix for each letter α ∈ Σ {\displaystyle \alpha \in \Sigma } . That is, given an input letter α {\displaystyle \alpha } , the unitary matrix describe
Read more →
Exposure Notification

The (Google/Apple) Exposure Notification System (GAEN) is a framework and protocol specification developed by Apple Inc. and Google to facilitate digital contact tracing during the COVID-19 pandemic. When used by health authorities, it augments more traditional contact tracing techniques by automatically logging close approaches among notification system users using Android or iOS smartphones. Exposure Notification is a decentralized reporting protocol built on a combination of Bluetooth Low Energy technology and privacy-preserving cryptography. It is an opt-in feature within COVID-19 apps developed and published by authorized health authorities. Unveiled on April 10, 2020, it was made available on iOS on May 20, 2020, as part of the iOS 13.5 update and on December 14, 2020, as part of the iOS 12.5 update for older iPhones. On Android, it was added to devices via a Google Play Services update, supporting all versions since Android Marshmallow. The Apple/Google protocol is similar to the Decentralized Privacy-Preserving Proximity Tracing (DP-3T) protocol created by the European DP-3T consortium and the Temporary Contact Number (TCN) protocol by Covid Watch, but is implemented at the operating system level, which allows for more efficient operation as a background process. Since May 2020, a variant of the DP-3T protocol is supported by the Exposure Notification Interface. Other protocols are constrained in operation because they are not privileged over normal apps. This leads to issues, particularly on iOS devices where digital contact tracing apps running in the background experience significantly degraded performance. The joint approach is also designed to maintain interoperability between Android and iOS devices, which constitute nearly all of the market. The ACLU stated the approach "appears to mitigate the worst privacy and centralization risks, but there is still room for improvement". In late April, Google and Apple shifted the emphasis of the naming of the system, describing it as an "exposure notification service", rather than "contact tracing" system. == Technical specification == Digital contact tracing protocols typically have two major responsibilities: encounter logging and infection reporting. Exposure Notification only involves encounter logging which is a decentralized architecture. The majority of infection reporting is centralized in individual app implementations. To handle encounter logging, the system uses Bluetooth Low Energy to send tracking messages to nearby devices running the protocol to discover encounters with other people. The tracking messages contain unique identifiers that are encrypted with a secret daily key held by the sending device. These identifiers change every 15–20 minutes as well as Bluetooth MAC address in order to prevent tracking of clients by malicious third parties through observing static identifiers over time. The sender's daily encryption keys are generated using a random number generator. Devices record received messages, retaining them locally for 14 days. If a user tests positive for infection, the last 14 days of their daily encryption keys can be uploaded to a central server, where it is then broadcast to all devices on the network. The method through which daily encryption keys are transmitted to the central server and broadcast is defined by individual app developers. The Google-developed reference implementation calls for a health official to request a one-time verification code (VC) from a verification server, which the user enters into the encounter logging app. This causes the app to obtain a cryptographically signed certificate, which is used to authorize the submission of keys to the central reporting server. The received keys are then provided to the protocol, where each client individually searches for matches in their local encounter history. If a match meeting certain risk parameters is found, the app notifies the user of potential exposure to the infection. Google and Apple intend to use the received signal strength (RSSI) of the beacon messages as a source to infer proximity. RSSI and other signal metadata will also be encrypted to resist deanonymization attacks. === Version 1.0 === To generate encounter identifiers, first a persistent 32-byte private Tracing Key ( t k {\displaystyle tk} ) is generated by a client. From this a 16 byte Daily Tracing Key is derived using the algorithm d t k i = H K D F ( t k , N U L L , 'CT-DTK' | | D i , 16 ) {\displaystyle dtk_{i}=HKDF(tk,NULL,{\text{'CT-DTK'}}||D_{i},16)} , where H K D F ( Key, Salt, Data, OutputLength ) {\displaystyle HKDF({\text{Key, Salt, Data, OutputLength}})} is a HKDF function using SHA-256, and D i {\displaystyle D_{i}} is the day number for the 24-hour window the broadcast is in starting from Unix Epoch Time. These generated keys are later sent to the central reporting server should a user become infected. From the daily tracing key a 16-byte temporary Rolling Proximity Identifier is generated every 10 minutes with the algorithm R P I i , j = Truncate ( H M A C ( d t k i , 'CT-RPI' | | T I N j ) , 16 ) {\displaystyle RPI_{i,j}={\text{Truncate}}(HMAC(dtk_{i},{\text{'CT-RPI'}}||TIN_{j}),16)} , where H M A C ( Key, Data ) {\displaystyle HMAC({\text{Key, Data}})} is a HMAC function using SHA-256, and T I N j {\displaystyle TIN_{j}} is the time interval number, representing a unique index for every 10 minute period in a 24-hour day. The Truncate function returns the first 16 bytes of the HMAC value. When two clients come within proximity of each other they exchange and locally store the current R P I i , j {\displaystyle RPI_{i,j}} as the encounter identifier. Once a registered health authority has confirmed the infection of a user, the user's Daily Tracing Key for the past 14 days is uploaded to the central reporting server. Clients then download this report and individually recalculate every Rolling Proximity Identifier used in the report period, matching it against the user's local encounter log. If a matching entry is found, then contact has been established and the app presents a notification to the user warning them of potential infection. === Version 1.1 === Unlike version 1.0 of the protocol, version 1.1 does not use a persistent tracing key, rather every day a new random 16-byte Temporary Exposure Key ( t e k i {\displaystyle tek_{i}} ) is generated. This is analogous to the daily tracing key from version 1.0. Here i {\displaystyle i} denotes the time is discretized in 10 minute intervals starting from Unix Epoch Time. From this two 128-bit keys are calculated, the Rolling Proximity Identifier Key ( R P I K i {\displaystyle RPIK_{i}} ) and the Associated Encrypted Metadata Key ( A E M K i {\displaystyle AEMK_{i}} ). R P I K i {\displaystyle RPIK_{i}} is calculated with the algorithm R P I K i = H K D F ( t e k i , N U L L , 'EN-RPIK' , 16 ) {\displaystyle RPIK_{i}=HKDF(tek_{i},NULL,{\text{'EN-RPIK'}},16)} , and A E M K i {\displaystyle AEMK_{i}} using the algorithm A E M K i = H K D F ( t e k i , N U L L , 'EN-AEMK' , 16 ) {\displaystyle AEMK_{i}=HKDF(tek_{i},NULL,{\text{'EN-AEMK'}},16)} . From these values a temporary Rolling Proximity Identifier ( R P I i , j {\displaystyle RPI_{i,j}} ) is generated every time the BLE MAC address changes, roughly every 15–20 minutes. The following algorithm is used: R P I i , j = A E S 128 ( R P I K i , 'EN-RPI' | | 0 x 000000000000 | | E N I N j ) {\displaystyle RPI_{i,j}=AES128(RPIK_{i},{\text{'EN-RPI'}}||{\mathtt {0x000000000000}}||ENIN_{j})} , where A E S 128 ( Key, Data ) {\displaystyle AES128({\text{Key, Data}})} is an AES cryptography function with a 128-bit key, the data is one 16-byte block, j {\displaystyle j} denotes the Unix Epoch Time at the moment the roll occurs, and E N I N j {\displaystyle ENIN_{j}} is the corresponding 10-minute interval number. Next, additional Associated Encrypted Metadata is encrypted. What the metadata represents is not specified, likely to allow the later expansion of the protocol. The following algorithm is used: Associated Encrypted Metadata i , j = A E S 128 _ C T R ( A E M K i , R P I i , j , Metadata ) {\displaystyle {\text{Associated Encrypted Metadata}}_{i,j}=AES128\_CTR(AEMK_{i},RPI_{i,j},{\text{Metadata}})} , where A E S 128 _ C T R ( Key, IV, Data ) {\displaystyle AES128\_CTR({\text{Key, IV, Data}})} denotes AES encryption with a 128-bit key in CTR mode. The Rolling Proximity Identifier and the Associated Encrypted Metadata are then combined and broadcast using BLE. Clients exchange and log these payloads. Once a registered health authority has confirmed the infection of a user, the user's Temporary Exposure Keys t e k i {\displaystyle tek_{i}} and their respective interval numbers i {\displaystyle i} for the past 14 days are uploaded to the central reporting server. Clients then download this report and individually recalculate every Rolling Proximity Identifier starting from interval number i {\displaystyle i} ,
Read more →
Nick Frosst

Nicholas M. W. Frosst is a Canadian computer scientist and musician. He co-founded Cohere, a Toronto-based artificial intelligence company. He is also the lead singer in the indie rock band Good Kid. == Early life and education == Frosst was born on January 5, 1993. Frosst earned a Bachelor of Science degree in computer science and cognitive science from the University of Toronto in 2015. He was a student of Geoffrey Hinton, who also hired Frosst at Google Brain. == Career == Frosst was among Geoffrey Hinton's earliest hires at Google Brain in Toronto, working as a machine learning researcher on deep learning and neural network architectures. He worked there from 2016 to 2020. Frosst co-founded Cohere with Aidan Gomez and Ivan Zhang in 2019. The company builds large language models and enterprise AI tools. Frosst has publicly explained Cohere's focus on industries like finance and health, where there are privacy and other regulatory considerations. Frosst has also spoken openly about his belief that artificial intelligence will not replace humans, but rather streamline and automate mundane tasks, and his belief that AGI is less "imminent" than many in the field claim. Frosst and the other Cohere co-founders were listed first on Maclean's AI Trailblazers Power List and The Logic's Innovation Leaders. == Music == After spending time in a prior band which played "weird" music featuring a glockenspiel, Frosst and fellow computer science students at the University of Toronto formed the indie rock band Good Kid in 2015. Frosst is the lead vocalist for the band. While on tour with the band, Frosst continues his work in the tech industry remotely. Frosst has described the band as way for him to relax and not constantly think about tech. His vocals have been compared to that of Kele Okereke. As of 2026, the band, which has performed at Lollapalooza, has 3.1 million monthly Spotify listeners. In 2024, the band was nominated for the Juno Awards Breakthrough Group of the Year. == Discography == === Good Kid === Can We Hang Out Sometime? (2026)
Read more →
The Best Free AI Virtual Assistant for Beginners

Comparing the best AI virtual assistant? An AI virtual assistant is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it lowers the barrier so anyone can produce professional output. Privacy matters too: check whether your data trains the model and whether a no-log or enterprise tier is available. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI virtual assistant slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. We tested the leading options and ranked them by quality, value, and ease of use.
Read more →