AI App Like Chat Gpt Free

AI App Like Chat Gpt Free — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

Zero-shot learning

Zero-shot learning (ZSL) is a problem setup in deep learning where, at test time, a learner observes samples from classes which were not observed during training, and needs to predict the class that they belong to. The name is a play on words based on the earlier concept of one-shot learning, in which classification can be learned from only one, or a few, examples. Zero-shot methods generally work by associating observed and non-observed classes through some form of auxiliary information, which encodes observable distinguishing properties of objects. For example, given a set of images of animals to be classified, along with auxiliary textual descriptions of what animals look like, an artificial intelligence model which has been trained to recognize horses, but has never been given a zebra, can still recognize a zebra when it also knows that zebras look like striped horses. This problem is widely studied in computer vision, natural language processing, and machine perception. == Background and history == The first paper on zero-shot learning in natural language processing appeared in a 2008 paper by Chang, Ratinov, Roth, and Srikumar, at the AAAI'08, but the name given to the learning paradigm there was dataless classification. The first paper on zero-shot learning in computer vision appeared at the same conference, under the name zero-data learning. The term zero-shot learning itself first appeared in the literature in a 2009 paper from Palatucci, Hinton, Pomerleau, and Mitchell at NIPS'09. This terminology was repeated later in another computer vision paper and the term zero-shot learning caught on, as a take-off on one-shot learning that was introduced in computer vision years earlier. In computer vision, zero-shot learning models learned parameters for seen classes along with their class representations and rely on representational similarity among class labels so that, during inference, instances can be classified into new classes. In natural language processing, the key technical direction developed builds on the ability to "understand the labels"—represent the labels in the same semantic space as that of the documents to be classified. This supports the classification of a single example without observing any annotated data, the purest form of zero-shot classification. The original paper made use of the Explicit Semantic Analysis (ESA) representation but later papers made use of other representations, including dense representations. This approach was also extended to multilingual domains, fine entity typing and other problems. Moreover, beyond relying solely on representations, the computational approach has been extended to depend on transfer from other tasks, such as textual entailment and question answering. The original paper also points out that, beyond the ability to classify a single example, when a collection of examples is given, with the assumption that they come from the same distribution, it is possible to bootstrap the performance in a semi-supervised like manner (or transductive learning). Unlike standard generalization in machine learning, where classifiers are expected to correctly classify new samples to classes they have already observed during training, in ZSL, no samples from the classes have been given during training the classifier. It can therefore be viewed as an extreme case of domain adaptation. == Prerequisite information for zero-shot classes == Naturally, some form of auxiliary information has to be given about these zero-shot classes, and this type of information can be of several types. Learning with attributes: classes are accompanied by pre-defined structured description. For example, for bird descriptions, this could include "red head", "long beak". These attributes are often organized in a structured compositional way, and taking that structure into account improves learning. While this approach was used mostly in computer vision, there are some examples for it also in natural language processing. Learning from textual description. As pointed out above, this has been the key direction pursued in natural language processing. Here class labels are taken to have a meaning and are often augmented with definitions or free-text natural-language description. This could include for example a wikipedia description of the class. Class-class similarity. Here, classes are embedded in a continuous space. A zero-shot classifier can predict that a sample corresponds to some position in that space, and the nearest embedded class is used as a predicted class, even if no such samples were observed during training. == Generalized zero-shot learning == The above ZSL setup assumes that at test time, only zero-shot samples are given, namely, samples from new unseen classes. In generalized zero-shot learning, samples from both new and known classes, may appear at test time. This poses new challenges for classifiers at test time, because it is very challenging to estimate if a given sample is new or known. Some approaches to handle this include: a gating module, which is first trained to decide if a given sample comes from a new class or from an old one, and then, at inference time, outputs either a hard decision, or a soft probabilistic decision a generative module, which is trained to generate feature representation of the unseen classes—a standard classifier can then be trained on samples from all classes, seen and unseen. == Domains of application == Zero shot learning has been applied to the following fields: image classification semantic segmentation image generation object detection natural language processing computational biology abstract reasoning
Read more →
Top 10 AI Chatbots Compared (2026)

Shopping for the best AI chatbot? An AI chatbot is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it keeps getting smarter as the underlying models improve. Pricing, accuracy, and the size of the model behind the tool are the three factors that most affect daily usefulness. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI chatbot 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 →
Top 10 AI Chatbots Compared (2026)

Shopping for the best AI chatbot? An AI chatbot is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it keeps getting smarter as the underlying models improve. Pricing, accuracy, and the size of the model behind the tool are the three factors that most affect daily usefulness. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI chatbot 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 →
Is an AI Art Generator Worth It in 2026?

Curious about the best AI art generator? An AI art generator is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it combines speed, accuracy, and an interface that just works. Hands-on testing shows real-world results vary, so a short free trial is the smartest way to decide. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI art generator slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. Read on for hands-on impressions, pricing tiers, and the standout features that matter.
Read more →
XLNet

The XLNet was an autoregressive Transformer designed as an improvement over BERT, with 340M parameters and trained on 33 billion words. It was released on 19 June 2019, under the Apache 2.0 license. It achieved state-of-the-art results on a variety of natural language processing tasks, including language modeling, question answering, and natural language inference. == Architecture == The main idea of XLNet is to model language autoregressively like the GPT models, but allow for all possible permutations of a sentence. Concretely, consider the following sentence:My dog is cute.In standard autoregressive language modeling, the model would be tasked with predicting the probability of each word, conditioned on the previous words as its context: We factorize the joint probability of a sequence of words x 1 , … , x T {\displaystyle x_{1},\ldots ,x_{T}} using the chain rule: Pr ( x 1 , … , x T ) = Pr ( x 1 ) Pr ( x 2 | x 1 ) Pr ( x 3 | x 1 , x 2 ) … Pr ( x T | x 1 , … , x T − 1 ) . {\displaystyle \Pr(x_{1},\ldots ,x_{T})=\Pr(x_{1})\Pr(x_{2}|x_{1})\Pr(x_{3}|x_{1},x_{2})\ldots \Pr(x_{T}|x_{1},\ldots ,x_{T-1}).} For example, the sentence "My dog is cute" is factorized as: Pr ( My , dog , is , cute ) = Pr ( My ) Pr ( dog | My ) Pr ( is | My , dog ) Pr ( cute | My , dog , is ) . {\displaystyle \Pr({\text{My}},{\text{dog}},{\text{is}},{\text{cute}})=\Pr({\text{My}})\Pr({\text{dog}}|{\text{My}})\Pr({\text{is}}|{\text{My}},{\text{dog}})\Pr({\text{cute}}|{\text{My}},{\text{dog}},{\text{is}}).} Schematically, we can write it as → My → My dog → My dog is → My dog is cute . {\displaystyle {\texttt {}}{\texttt {}}{\texttt {}}{\texttt {}}\to {\text{My }}{\texttt {}}{\texttt {}}{\texttt {}}\to {\text{My dog }}{\texttt {}}{\texttt {}}\to {\text{My dog is }}{\texttt {}}\to {\text{My dog is cute}}.} However, for XLNet, the model is required to predict the words in a randomly generated order. Suppose we have sampled a randomly generated order 3241, then schematically, the model is required to perform the following prediction task: → is → dog is → dog is cute → My dog is cute {\displaystyle {\texttt {}}{\texttt {}}{\texttt {}}{\texttt {}}\to {\texttt {}}{\texttt {}}{\text{is }}{\texttt {}}\to {\texttt {}}{\text{dog is }}{\texttt {}}\to {\texttt {}}{\text{dog is cute}}\to {\text{My dog is cute}}} By considering all permutations, XLNet is able to capture longer-range dependencies and better model the bidirectional context of words. === Two-Stream Self-Attention === To implement permutation language modeling, XLNet uses a two-stream self-attention mechanism. The two streams are: Content stream: This stream encodes the content of each word, as in standard causally masked self-attention. Query stream: This stream encodes the content of each word in the context of what has gone before. In more detail, it is a masked cross-attention mechanism, where the queries are from the query stream, and the key-value pairs are from the content stream. The content stream uses the causal mask M causal = [ 0 − ∞ − ∞ … − ∞ 0 0 − ∞ … − ∞ 0 0 0 … − ∞ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ 0 0 0 … 0 ] {\displaystyle M_{\text{causal}}={\begin{bmatrix}0&-\infty &-\infty &\dots &-\infty \\0&0&-\infty &\dots &-\infty \\0&0&0&\dots &-\infty \\\vdots &\vdots &\vdots &\ddots &\vdots \\0&0&0&\dots &0\end{bmatrix}}} permuted by a random permutation matrix to P M causal P − 1 {\displaystyle PM_{\text{causal}}P^{-1}} . The query stream uses the cross-attention mask P ( M causal − ∞ I ) P − 1 {\displaystyle P(M_{\text{causal}}-\infty I)P^{-1}} , where the diagonal is subtracted away specifically to avoid the model "cheating" by looking at the content stream for what the current masked token is. Like the causal masking for GPT models, this two-stream masked architecture allows the model to train on all tokens in one forward pass. == Training == Two models were released: XLNet-Large, cased: 110M parameters, 24-layer, 1024-hidden, 16-heads XLNet-Base, cased: 340M parameters, 12-layer, 768-hidden, 12-heads. It was trained on a dataset that amounted to 32.89 billion tokens after tokenization with SentencePiece. The dataset was composed of BooksCorpus, and English Wikipedia, Giga5, ClueWeb 2012-B, and Common Crawl. It was trained on 512 TPU v3 chips, for 5.5 days. At the end of training, it still under-fitted the data, meaning it could have achieved lower loss with more training. It took 0.5 million steps with an Adam optimizer, linear learning rate decay, and a batch size of 8192.
Read more →
Translation unit

In the field of translation, a translation unit is a segment of a text which the translator treats as a single cognitive unit for the purposes of establishing an equivalence. It may be a single word, a phrase, one or more sentences, or even a larger unit. When a translator segments a text into translation units, the larger these units are, the better chance there is of obtaining an idiomatic translation. This is true not only of human translation, but also where human translators use computer-assisted translation, such as translation memories, and when translations are performed by machine translation systems. == Perceptions on the concept of unit == Vinay and Darbelnet took to Saussure's original concepts of the linguistic sign when beginning to discuss the idea of a single word as a translation unit. According to Saussure, the sign is naturally arbitrary, so it can only derive meaning from contrast in other signs in that same system. However, Russian scholar Leonid Barkhudarov stated that, limiting it to poetry, for instance, a translation unit can take the form of a complete text. This seems to relate to his conception that a translation unit is the smallest unit in the source language with an equivalent in the target one, and when its parts are taken individually, they become untranslatable; these parts can be as small as phonemes or morphemes, or as large as entire texts. Susan Bassnett widened Barkhudarov's poetry perception to include prose, adding that in this type of translation text is the prime unit, including the idea that sentence-by-sentence translation could cause loss of important structural features. Swiss linguist Werner Koller connected Barkhudarov's idea of unit sizing to the difference between the two languages involved, by stating that the more different or unrelated these languages were, the larger the unit would be. One final perception on the idea of unit came from linguist Eugene Nida. To him, translation units have a tendency to be small groups of language building up into sentences, thus forming what he called meaningful mouthfuls of language. == Points of view towards translation units == === Process-oriented POV === According to this point of view, a translation unit is a stretch of text on which attention is focused to be represented as a whole in the target language. In this point of view we can consider the concept of the think-aloud protocol, supported by German linguist Wolfgang Lörscher: isolating units using self-reports by translating subjects. It also relates to how experienced the translator in question is: language learners take a word as a translation unit, whereas experienced translators isolate and translate units of meaning in the form of phrases, clauses or sentences. Since 1996 and 2005 keylogging and eyetracking technologies were introduced in Translation Process Research. These more advanced and non-invasive research methods made it possible to elaborate a finer-grained assessment of translation units as loops of (source or target text) reading and target text typing. Loops of translation units are thought to be the basic units by which translations are produced. Thus, Malmkjaer, for instance, defines process oriented translation units as a “stretch of the source text that the translator keeps in mind at any one time, in order to produce translation equivalents in the text he or she is creating” (p. 286). Records of keystrokes and eye movements allow to investigate these mental constructs through their physical (observable) behavioral traces in the translation process data. Empirical Translation Process Research has deployed numerous theories to explain and models the behavioral traces of these assumed mental units. === Product-oriented POV === Here, the target-text unit can be mapped into an equivalent source-text unit. A case study on this matter was reported by Gideon Toury, in which 27 English-Hebrew student-produced translations were mapped onto a source text. Those students that were less experienced had larger numbers of small units at word and morpheme level in their translations, while one student with translation experience had approximately half of those units, mostly at phrase or clause level.
Read more →
Generalized filtering

Generalized filtering is a generic Bayesian filtering scheme for nonlinear state-space models. It is based on a variational principle of least action, formulated in generalized coordinates of motion. Note that "generalized coordinates of motion" are related to—but distinct from—generalized coordinates as used in (multibody) dynamical systems analysis. Generalized filtering furnishes posterior densities over hidden states (and parameters) generating observed data using a generalized gradient descent on variational free energy, under the Laplace assumption. Unlike classical (e.g. Kalman-Bucy or particle) filtering, generalized filtering eschews Markovian assumptions about random fluctuations. Furthermore, it operates online, assimilating data to approximate the posterior density over unknown quantities, without the need for a backward pass. Special cases include variational filtering, dynamic expectation maximization and generalized predictive coding. == Definition == Definition: Generalized filtering rests on the tuple ( Ω , U , X , S , p , q ) {\displaystyle (\Omega ,U,X,S,p,q)} : A sample space Ω {\displaystyle \Omega } from which random fluctuations ω ∈ Ω {\displaystyle \omega \in \Omega } are drawn Control states U ∈ R {\displaystyle U\in \mathbb {R} } – that act as external causes, input or forcing terms Hidden states X : X × U × Ω → R {\displaystyle X:X\times U\times \Omega \to \mathbb {R} } – that cause sensory states and depend on control states Sensor states S : X × U × Ω → R {\displaystyle S:X\times U\times \Omega \to \mathbb {R} } – a probabilistic mapping from hidden and control states Generative density p ( s ~ , x ~ , u ~ ∣ m ) {\displaystyle p({\tilde {s}},{\tilde {x}},{\tilde {u}}\mid m)} – over sensory, hidden and control states under a generative model m {\displaystyle m} Variational density q ( x ~ , u ~ ∣ μ ~ ) {\displaystyle q({\tilde {x}},{\tilde {u}}\mid {\tilde {\mu }})} – over hidden and control states with mean μ ~ ∈ R {\displaystyle {\tilde {\mu }}\in \mathbb {R} } Here ~ denotes a variable in generalized coordinates of motion: u ~ = [ u , u ′ , u ″ , … ] T {\displaystyle {\tilde {u}}=[u,u',u'',\ldots ]^{T}} === Generalized filtering === The objective is to approximate the posterior density over hidden and control states, given sensor states and a generative model – and estimate the (path integral of) model evidence p ( s ~ ( t ) | m ) {\displaystyle p({\tilde {s}}(t)\vert m)} to compare different models. This generally involves an intractable marginalization over hidden states, so model evidence (or marginal likelihood) is replaced with a variational free energy bound. Given the following definitions: μ ~ ( t ) = a r g m i n μ ~ { F ( s ~ ( t ) , μ ~ ) } {\displaystyle {\tilde {\mu }}(t)={\underset {\tilde {\mu }}{\operatorname {arg\,min} }}\{F({\tilde {s}}(t),{\tilde {\mu }})\}} G ( s ~ , x ~ , u ~ ) = − ln ⁡ p ( s ~ , x ~ , u ~ | m ) {\displaystyle G({\tilde {s}},{\tilde {x}},{\tilde {u}})=-\ln p({\tilde {s}},{\tilde {x}},{\tilde {u}}\vert m)} Denote the Shannon entropy of the density q {\displaystyle q} by H [ q ] = E q [ − log ⁡ ( q ) ] {\displaystyle H[q]=E_{q}[-\log(q)]} . We can then write the variational free energy in two ways: F ( s ~ , μ ~ ) = E q [ G ( s ~ , x ~ , u ~ ) ] − H [ q ( x ~ , u ~ | μ ~ ) ] = − ln ⁡ p ( s ~ | m ) + D K L [ q ( x ~ , u ~ | μ ~ ) | | p ( x ~ , u ~ | s ~ , m ) ] {\displaystyle F({\tilde {s}},{\tilde {\mu }})=E_{q}[G({\tilde {s}},{\tilde {x}},{\tilde {u}})]-H[q({\tilde {x}},{\tilde {u}}\vert {\tilde {\mu }})]=-\ln p({\tilde {s}}\vert m)+D_{KL}[q({\tilde {x}},{\tilde {u}}\vert {\tilde {\mu }})\vert \vert p({\tilde {x}},{\tilde {u}}\vert {\tilde {s}},m)]} The second equality shows that minimizing variational free energy (i) minimizes the Kullback-Leibler divergence between the variational and true posterior density and (ii) renders the variational free energy (a bound approximation to) the negative log evidence (because the divergence can never be less than zero). Under the Laplace assumption q ( x ~ , u ~ ∣ μ ~ ) = N ( μ ~ , C ) {\displaystyle q({\tilde {x}},{\tilde {u}}\mid {\tilde {\mu }})={\mathcal {N}}({\tilde {\mu }},C)} the variational density is Gaussian and the precision that minimizes free energy is C − 1 = Π = ∂ μ ~ μ ~ G ( μ ~ ) {\displaystyle C^{-1}=\Pi =\partial _{{\tilde {\mu }}{\tilde {\mu }}}G({\tilde {\mu }})} . This means that free-energy can be expressed in terms of the variational mean (omitting constants): F = G ( μ ~ ) + 1 2 ln ⁡ | ∂ μ ~ μ ~ G ( μ ~ ) | {\displaystyle F=G({\tilde {\mu }})+\textstyle {1 \over 2}\ln \vert \partial _{{\tilde {\mu }}{\tilde {\mu }}}G({\tilde {\mu }})\vert } The variational means that minimize the (path integral) of free energy can now be recovered by solving the generalized filter: μ ~ ˙ = D μ ~ − ∂ μ ~ F ( s ~ , μ ~ ) {\displaystyle {\dot {\tilde {\mu }}}=D{\tilde {\mu }}-\partial _{\tilde {\mu }}F({\tilde {s}},{\tilde {\mu }})} where D {\displaystyle D} is a block matrix derivative operator of identify matrices such that D u ~ = [ u ′ , u ″ , … ] T {\displaystyle D{\tilde {u}}=[u',u'',\ldots ]^{T}} === Variational basis === Generalized filtering is based on the following lemma: The self-consistent solution to μ ~ ˙ = D μ ~ − ∂ μ ~ F ( s , μ ~ ) {\displaystyle {\dot {\tilde {\mu }}}=D{\tilde {\mu }}-\partial _{\tilde {\mu }}F(s,{\tilde {\mu }})} satisfies the variational principle of stationary action, where action is the path integral of variational free energy S = ∫ d t F ( s ~ ( t ) , μ ~ ( t ) ) {\displaystyle S=\int dt\,F({\tilde {s}}(t),{\tilde {\mu }}(t))} Proof: self-consistency requires the motion of the mean to be the mean of the motion and (by the fundamental lemma of variational calculus) μ ~ ˙ = D μ ~ ⇔ ∂ μ ~ F ( s ~ , μ ~ ) = 0 ⇔ δ μ ~ S = 0 {\displaystyle {\dot {\tilde {\mu }}}=D{\tilde {\mu }}\Leftrightarrow \partial _{\tilde {\mu }}F({\tilde {s}},{\tilde {\mu }})=0\Leftrightarrow \delta _{\tilde {\mu }}S=0} Put simply, small perturbations to the path of the mean do not change variational free energy and it has the least action of all possible (local) paths. Remarks: Heuristically, generalized filtering performs a gradient descent on variational free energy in a moving frame of reference: μ ~ ˙ − D μ ~ = − ∂ μ ~ F ( s , μ ~ ) {\displaystyle {\dot {\tilde {\mu }}}-D{\tilde {\mu }}=-\partial _{\tilde {\mu }}F(s,{\tilde {\mu }})} , where the frame itself minimizes variational free energy. For a related example in statistical physics, see Kerr and Graham who use ensemble dynamics in generalized coordinates to provide a generalized phase-space version of Langevin and associated Fokker-Planck equations. In practice, generalized filtering uses local linearization over intervals Δ t {\displaystyle \Delta t} to recover discrete updates Δ μ ~ = ( exp ⁡ ( Δ t ⋅ J ) − I ) J − 1 μ ~ ˙ J = ∂ μ ~ μ ~ ˙ = D − ∂ μ ~ μ ~ F ( s ~ , μ ~ ) {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\Delta {\tilde {\mu }}&=(\exp(\Delta t\cdot J)-I)J^{-1}{\dot {\tilde {\mu }}}\\J&=\partial _{\tilde {\mu }}{\dot {\tilde {\mu }}}=D-\partial _{{\tilde {\mu }}{\tilde {\mu }}}F({\tilde {s}},{\tilde {\mu }})\end{aligned}}} This updates the means of hidden variables at each interval (usually the interval between observations). == Generative (state-space) models in generalized coordinates == Usually, the generative density or model is specified in terms of a nonlinear input-state-output model with continuous nonlinear functions: s = g ( x , u ) + ω s x ˙ = f ( x , u ) + ω x {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}s&=g(x,u)+\omega _{s}\\{\dot {x}}&=f(x,u)+\omega _{x}\end{aligned}}} The corresponding generalized model (under local linearity assumptions) obtains the from the chain rule s ~ = g ~ ( x ~ , u ~ ) + ω ~ s s = g ( x , u ) + ω s s ′ = ∂ x g ⋅ x ′ + ∂ u g ⋅ u ′ + ω s ′ s ″ = ∂ x g ⋅ x ″ + ∂ u g ⋅ u ″ + ω s ″ ⋮ x ~ ˙ = f ~ ( x ~ , u ~ ) + ω ~ x x ˙ = f ( x , u ) + ω x x ˙ ′ = ∂ x f ⋅ x ′ + ∂ u f ⋅ u ′ + ω x ′ x ˙ ″ = ∂ x f ⋅ x ″ + ∂ u f ⋅ u ″ + ω x ″ ⋮ {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}{\tilde {s}}&={\tilde {g}}({\tilde {x}},{\tilde {u}})+{\tilde {\omega }}_{s}\\\\s&=g(x,u)+\omega _{s}\\s'&=\partial _{x}g\cdot x'+\partial _{u}g\cdot u'+\omega '_{s}\\s''&=\partial _{x}g\cdot x''+\partial _{u}g\cdot u''+\omega ''_{s}\\&\vdots \\\end{aligned}}\qquad {\begin{aligned}{\dot {\tilde {x}}}&={\tilde {f}}({\tilde {x}},{\tilde {u}})+{\tilde {\omega }}_{x}\\\\{\dot {x}}&=f(x,u)+\omega _{x}\\{\dot {x}}'&=\partial _{x}f\cdot x'+\partial _{u}f\cdot u'+\omega '_{x}\\{\dot {x}}''&=\partial _{x}f\cdot x''+\partial _{u}f\cdot u''+\omega ''_{x}\\&\vdots \end{aligned}}} Gaussian assumptions about the random fluctuations ω {\displaystyle \omega } then prescribe the likelihood and empirical priors on the motion of hidden states p ( s ~ , x ~ , u ~ | m ) = p ( s ~ | x ~ , u ~ , m ) p ( D x ~ | x , u ~ , m ) p ( x | m ) p ( u ~ | m ) p ( s ~ | x ~ , u ~ , m ) = N ( g ~ ( x ~ , u ~ ) , Σ ~ ( x ~ , u ~ ) s ) p ( D x ~ | x , u ~ , m ) = N ( f ~ ( x ~ , u ~ ) , Σ ~ ( x ~ , u ~ ) x ) {\displayst
Read more →
The Best Free AI Copywriting Tool for Beginners

Curious about the best AI copywriting tool? An AI copywriting tool is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it combines speed, accuracy, and an interface that just works. Hands-on testing shows real-world results vary, so a short free trial is the smartest way to decide. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI copywriting tool 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 →
Structural similarity index measure

The structural similarity index measure (SSIM) is a method for predicting the perceived quality of digital television and cinematic pictures, as well as other kinds of digital images and videos. It is also used for measuring the similarity between two images. The SSIM index is a full reference metric; in other words, the measurement or prediction of image quality is based on an initial uncompressed or distortion-free image as reference. SSIM is a perception-based model that considers image degradation as perceived change in structural information, while also incorporating important perceptual phenomena, including both luminance masking and contrast masking terms. This distinguishes from other techniques such as mean squared error (MSE) or peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR) that instead estimate absolute errors. Structural information is the idea that the pixels have strong inter-dependencies especially when they are spatially close. These dependencies carry important information about the structure of the objects in the visual scene. Luminance masking is a phenomenon whereby image distortions (in this context) tend to be less visible in bright regions, while contrast masking is a phenomenon whereby distortions become less visible where there is significant activity or "texture" in the image. == History == The predecessor of SSIM was called Universal Quality Index (UQI), or Wang–Bovik index, which was developed by Zhou Wang and Alan Bovik in 2001. This evolved, through their collaboration with Hamid Sheikh and Eero Simoncelli, into the current version of SSIM, which was published in April 2004 in the IEEE Transactions on Image Processing. In addition to defining the SSIM quality index, the paper provides a general context for developing and evaluating perceptual quality measures, including connections to human visual neurobiology and perception, and direct validation of the index against human subject ratings. The basic model was developed in the Laboratory for Image and Video Engineering (LIVE) at The University of Texas at Austin and further developed jointly with the Laboratory for Computational Vision (LCV) at New York University. Further variants of the model have been developed in the Image and Visual Computing Laboratory at University of Waterloo and have been commercially marketed. SSIM subsequently found strong adoption in the image processing community and in the television and social media industries. The 2004 SSIM paper has been cited over 50,000 times according to Google Scholar, making it one of the highest cited papers in the image processing and video engineering fields. It was recognized with the IEEE Signal Processing Society Best Paper Award for 2009. It also received the IEEE Signal Processing Society Sustained Impact Award for 2016, indicative of a paper having an unusually high impact for at least 10 years following its publication. Because of its high adoption by the television industry, the authors of the original SSIM paper were each accorded a Primetime Engineering Emmy Award in 2015 by the Television Academy. == Algorithm == The SSIM index is calculated between two windows of pixel values x {\displaystyle x} and y {\displaystyle y} of common size, from corresponding locations in two images to be compared. These SSIM values can be aggregated across the full images by averaging or other variations. === Special-case formula === In one simple special case, further explained in the next section, the SSIM measure between x {\displaystyle x} and y {\displaystyle y} is: SSIM ( x , y ) = ( 2 μ x μ y + c 1 ) ( 2 σ x y + c 2 ) ( μ x 2 + μ y 2 + c 1 ) ( σ x 2 + σ y 2 + c 2 ) {\displaystyle {\hbox{SSIM}}(x,y)={\frac {(2\mu _{x}\mu _{y}+c_{1})(2\sigma _{xy}+c_{2})}{(\mu _{x}^{2}+\mu _{y}^{2}+c_{1})(\sigma _{x}^{2}+\sigma _{y}^{2}+c_{2})}}} with: μ x {\displaystyle \mu _{x}} the pixel sample mean of x {\displaystyle x} ; μ y {\displaystyle \mu _{y}} the pixel sample mean of y {\displaystyle y} ; σ x 2 {\displaystyle \sigma _{x}^{2}} the sample variance of x {\displaystyle x} ; σ y 2 {\displaystyle \sigma _{y}^{2}} the sample variance of y {\displaystyle y} ; σ x y {\displaystyle \sigma _{xy}} the sample covariance of x {\displaystyle x} and y {\displaystyle y} ; c 1 = ( k 1 L ) 2 {\displaystyle c_{1}=(k_{1}L)^{2}} , c 2 = ( k 2 L ) 2 {\displaystyle c_{2}=(k_{2}L)^{2}} two variables to stabilize the division with weak denominator; L {\displaystyle L} the dynamic range of the pixel-values (typically this is 2 # b i t s p e r p i x e l − 1 {\displaystyle 2^{\#bits\ per\ pixel}-1} ); k 1 = 0.01 {\displaystyle k_{1}=0.01} and k 2 = 0.03 {\displaystyle k_{2}=0.03} by default. === General formula and components === The SSIM formula is based on three comparison measurements between the samples of x {\displaystyle x} and y {\displaystyle y} : luminance ( l {\displaystyle l} ), contrast ( c {\displaystyle c} ), and structure ( s {\displaystyle s} ). The individual comparison functions are: l ( x , y ) = 2 μ x μ y + c 1 μ x 2 + μ y 2 + c 1 {\displaystyle l(x,y)={\frac {2\mu _{x}\mu _{y}+c_{1}}{\mu _{x}^{2}+\mu _{y}^{2}+c_{1}}}} c ( x , y ) = 2 σ x σ y + c 2 σ x 2 + σ y 2 + c 2 {\displaystyle c(x,y)={\frac {2\sigma _{x}\sigma _{y}+c_{2}}{\sigma _{x}^{2}+\sigma _{y}^{2}+c_{2}}}} s ( x , y ) = σ x y + c 3 σ x σ y + c 3 {\displaystyle s(x,y)={\frac {\sigma _{xy}+c_{3}}{\sigma _{x}\sigma _{y}+c_{3}}}} The SSIM for each block is then a weighted combination of those comparative measures: SSIM ( x , y ) = l ( x , y ) α ⋅ c ( x , y ) β ⋅ s ( x , y ) γ {\displaystyle {\text{SSIM}}(x,y)=l(x,y)^{\alpha }\cdot c(x,y)^{\beta }\cdot s(x,y)^{\gamma }} Choosing the third denominator stabilizing constant as: c 3 = c 2 / 2 {\displaystyle c_{3}=c_{2}/2} leads to a simplification when combining the c and s components with equal exponents ( β = γ {\displaystyle \beta =\gamma } ), as the numerator of c is then twice the denominator of s, leading to a cancellation leaving just a 2. Setting the weights (exponents) α , β , γ {\displaystyle \alpha ,\beta ,\gamma } to 1, the formula can then be reduced to the special case shown above. === Mathematical properties === SSIM satisfies the identity of indiscernibles, and symmetry properties, but not the triangle inequality or non-negativity, and thus is not a distance function. However, under certain conditions, SSIM may be converted to a normalized root MSE measure, which is a distance function. The square of such a function is not convex, but is locally convex and quasiconvex, making SSIM a feasible target for optimization. === Application of the formula === In order to evaluate the image quality, this formula is usually applied only on luma, although it may also be applied on color (e.g., RGB) values or chromatic (e.g. YCbCr) values. The resultant SSIM index is a decimal value between -1 and 1, where 1 indicates perfect similarity, 0 indicates no similarity, and -1 indicates perfect anti-correlation. For an image, it is typically calculated using a sliding Gaussian window of size 11×11 or a block window of size 8×8. The window can be displaced pixel-by-pixel on the image to create an SSIM quality map of the image. In the case of video quality assessment, the authors propose to use only a subgroup of the possible windows to reduce the complexity of the calculation. === Variants === ==== Multi-scale SSIM ==== A more advanced form of SSIM, called Multiscale SSIM (MS-SSIM) is conducted over multiple scales through a process of multiple stages of sub-sampling, reminiscent of multiscale processing in the early vision system. It has been shown to perform equally well or better than SSIM on different subjective image and video databases. ==== Multi-component SSIM ==== Three-component SSIM (3-SSIM) is a form of SSIM that takes into account the fact that the human eye can see differences more precisely on textured or edge regions than on smooth regions. The resulting metric is calculated as a weighted average of SSIM for three categories of regions: edges, textures, and smooth regions. The proposed weighting is 0.5 for edges, 0.25 for the textured and smooth regions. The authors mention that a 1/0/0 weighting (ignoring anything but edge distortions) leads to results that are closer to subjective ratings. This suggests that edge regions play a dominant role in image quality perception. The authors of 3-SSIM have also extended the model into four-component SSIM (4-SSIM). The edge types are further subdivided into preserved and changed edges by their distortion status. The proposed weighting is 0.25 for all four components. ==== Structural dissimilarity ==== Structural dissimilarity (DSSIM) may be derived from SSIM, though it does not constitute a distance function as the triangle inequality is not necessarily satisfied. DSSIM ( x , y ) = 1 − SSIM ( x , y ) 2 {\displaystyle {\hbox{DSSIM}}(x,y)={\frac {1-{\hbox{SSIM}}(x,y)}{2}}} ==== Video quality metrics and temporal variants ==== It is worth noting that the original vers
Read more →
The Best Free AI Headshot Generator for Beginners

Shopping for the best AI headshot generator? An AI headshot generator is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it keeps getting smarter as the underlying models improve. Pricing, accuracy, and the size of the model behind the tool are the three factors that most affect daily usefulness. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI headshot generator 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 →
Maike Osborne

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

David Horn (Hebrew: דוד הורן; born 10 September 1937) is a Professor (Emeritus) of Physics in the School of Physics and Astronomy at Tel Aviv University (TAU), Israel. He has served as Vice-Rector of TAU, Chairman of the School of Physics and Astronomy and as Dean of the Faculty of Exact Sciences in TAU. He is a fellow of the American Physical Society, nominated for "contributions to theoretical particle physics, including the seminal work on finite energy sum rules, research of the phenomenology of hadronic processes, and investigation of Hamiltonian lattice theories". == Early life and education == David Horn was born and educated in Haifa. He graduated from the Reali School in 1955. He began his academic studies in Physics at the Technion in Haifa in 1957, and received his B.Sc. (Summa Cum Laude) in 1961, and M.Sc. in 1962. He continued his Ph.D. studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem until 1965. His thesis on "Some Aspects of the Structure of Weak Interactions" was supervised by Prof. Yuval Ne'eman. == Career == Horn joined the newly founded Tel Aviv University as an assistant in 1962. He became a lecturer in 1965, a senior lecturer in 1967 and an associate professor in 1968. He was promoted to full professor of Physics in 1972. In 1974 he became the incumbent of the Edouard and Francoise Jaupart Chair of Theoretical Physics of Particles and Fields, a position he held until 2007. Horn has supervised 43 graduate students at TAU and authored over 240 scientific publications. He retired as a professor emeritus in 2005, and continues to be an active researcher. Horn spent a significant part of his career holding visiting academic positions at other universities and research institutes, including: Postdoctoral Fellow at Argonne National Lab, ILL, Research Fellow and three times Visiting Associate at California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, Visitor at CERN in Geneva, Visiting Professor at Cornell University, NY, Member of the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, NJ, Visiting Professor at SLAC in Stanford University, CA, and Visiting Professor at Kyoto University, Japan. Beginning from 1980, Horn held official positions at Tel Aviv University, starting with tenure as Vice-Rector (1980-1983), a position he left for research at SLAC. After returning he was nominated Chairman of the Department of High Energy Physics (1984-1986), followed by tenures as Chairman of the School of Physics and Astronomy (1986-9), Dean of the Raymond and Beverly Sackler Faculty of Exact Sciences (1990-1995), and first Director of the Adams Super Center for Brain Studies (1993-2000). Horn has also held national and international professional positions. He was Chairman of the Israel Commission for High Energy Physics (1983-2003), and, in this capacity, served as an Israeli observer of the council of CERN (1991-2003). He served as member of the Israel Council for Higher Education (1987-1991), member of the Executive Committee of the European Physical Society (1989-1992) and member of the European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures (2005-2017). He chaired the Israeli Committee of Research Infrastructures (2012-2016), issuing roadmaps for scientific RI in 2013 and 2016. == Research == Horn's research work focused on theory and phenomenology of High Energy Physics until 1990. He then shifted his interests to Neural Computation and Machine Learning and, since 2005, he has also published in Bioinformatics. Together with Richard Dolen and Christoph Schmid he discovered the Finite Energy Sum Rules in 1967. It was a realization of the bootstrap approach to hadronic structure, and became known as the Dolen-Horn-Schmid Duality. Together with Richard Silver he investigated a model of coherent production of pions at high energy hadron collisions in 1971, and together with Jeffrey Mandula he undertook the investigation of mesons with constituent gluons in 1978. Moving to lattice gauge theories in 1979, he discovered, together with Shimon Yankielowic and Marvin Weinstein, a non-confining phase in Z(N) theories for large N. In 1981 he demonstrated the existence of finite matrix models with link gauge fields, nowadays known as quantum link models. In 1984 Horn and Weinstein developed the t-expansion methodology. Horn's contributions to neural modeling include a novel mechanism for memory maintenance via neuronal regulation in 1998, developed with Nir Levy and Eytan Ruppin and unsupervised learning of natural languages in 2005, a joint work with Zach Solan, Eytan Ruppin and Shimon Edelman, introducing novel algorithms for motif and grammar extraction from text. Horn has contributed to algorithms of clustering, an important topic in Machine Learning, by developing Support Vector Clustering (SVC) in 2001, together with Asa Ben Hur, Hava Siegelmann and Vladimir Vapnik. This was followed shortly thereafter by a joint work with Assaf Gottlieb on Quantum Clustering (QC). His contributions to Bioinformatics include motif descriptions of function and structure of proteins, as well as motif studies of genomic structures. Together with Erez Persi he studied compositional order of proteomes, and repeat instability of genomes, as evolution markers of organisms and of cancer (a joint work with Persi and others). == Honors == Horn is a Fellow of the American Physical Society (1985) and a Fellow of the Israel Physical Society (2018). == Publications == === Selected articles === R. Dolen, D. Horn and C. Schmid; Prediction of Regge-parameters of rho poles from low-energy pi-N scattering data Phys. Rev. Lett. 19 (1967) 402–407. Finite-Energy Sum Rules and Their Application to pi-N Charge Exchange Phys. Rev. 166 (1968) 1768–1781. D. Horn and R. Silver: Coherent production of pions, Annals Phys. 66 (1971) 509-541 T. Banks, D. Horn and H. Neuberger: Bosonization of the SU(N) Thirring Models, Nucl. Phys. B108, 119 (1976). D. Horn and J. Mandula: Model of Mesons with Constituent Gluons, Phys. Rev. D17, 898 (1978). D. Horn, M. Weinstein and S. Yankielowicz: Hamiltonian Approach to Z(N) Lattice Gauge Theories, Phys. Rev. D19, 3715 (1979). D. Horn: Finite Matrix Models with Continuous Local Gauge Invariance, Phys. Lett. 100B, 149-151 (1981). T. Banks, Y. Dothan and D. Horn: Geometric Fermions, Phys. Lett. 117B, 413 (1982). D. Horn and M. Weinstein: The t expansion: A nonperturbative analytic tool for Hamiltonian systems. Phys. Rev. D 30, 1256-1270 (1984). Ury Naftaly, Nathan Intrator and David Horn: Optimal Ensemble Averaging of Neural Networks. Network, Computation in Neural Systems, 8, 283-296 (1997). David Horn, Nir Levy, Eytan Ruppin: Memory Maintenance via Neuronal Regulation, Neural Computation, 10, 1-18 (1998). Asa Ben-Hur, David Horn, Hava Siegelmann and Vladimir Vapnik: Support Vector Clustering. Journal of Machine Learning Research 2, 125-137 (2001). David Horn and Assaf Gottlieb: Algorithm for data clustering in pattern recognition problems based on quantum mechanics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88 (2002) 18702 Zach Solan, David Horn, Eytan Ruppin and Shimon Edelman: Unsupervised learning of natural languages, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sc. 102 (2005) 11629–11634. Vered Kunik, Yasmine Meroz, Zach Solan, Ben Sandbank, Uri Weingart, Eytan Ruppin and David Horn: Functional representation of enzymes by specific peptides. PLOS Computational Biology 2007, 3(8):e167. Benny Chor, David Horn, Yaron Levy, Nick Goldman and Tim Massingham: Genomic DNA k-mer spectra: models and modalities. Genome Biology 2009, 10(10):R108 Erez Persi and David Horn. Systematic Analysis of Compositional Order of Proteins Reveals New Characteristics of Biological Functions and a Universal Correlate of Macroevolution. PLoS Comput Biol 9 (2013): e1003346. David Horn. Taxa counting using Specific Peptides of Aminoacyl tRNA Synthetases Encyclopedia of Metagenomics, Springer, 2013. Sagi Shporer, Benny Chor, Saharon Rosset, David Horn. Inversion symmetry of DNA k-mer counts: validity and deviations. BMC Genomics 2016, 17:696 Erez Persi, Davide Prandi, Yuri I. Wolf, Yair Pozniak, Christopher Barbieri, Paola Gasperini, Himisha Beltran, Bishoy M. Faltas, Mark A. Rubin, Tamar Geiger, Eugene V. Koonin, Francesca Demichelis, David Horn. Proteomic and Genomic Signatures of Repeat Instability in Cancer and Adjacent Normal Tissues. PNAS 116, 34, 2019 - 08790 === Book === David Horn and Fredrick Zachariasen: Hadron Physics at Very High Energies. Benjamin 1973. === Patents === Method and Apparatus for Quantum Clustering. USA Patent No. 7,653,646 B2. Method for discovering relationships in data by dynamic quantum clustering USA Patent No 8874412 and USA Patent No. 9,646,074. == Personal life == Horn was married to Nira Fuss since 1963 until her death in 2019. He is a father of three, Yuval, Tamar, and Oded, and grandfather of nine. He lives in Tel Aviv, Israel.
Read more →
Kernel density estimation

In statistics, kernel density estimation (KDE) is the application of kernel smoothing for probability density estimation, i.e., a non-parametric method to estimate the probability density function of a random variable based on kernels as weights. KDE answers a fundamental data smoothing problem where inferences about the population are made based on a finite data sample. In some fields such as signal processing and econometrics it is also termed the Parzen–Rosenblatt window method, after Emanuel Parzen and Murray Rosenblatt, who are usually credited with independently creating it in its current form. One of the famous applications of kernel density estimation is in estimating the class-conditional marginal densities of data when using a naive Bayes classifier, which can improve its prediction accuracy. == Definition == Let x = ( x 1 , x 2 , x 3 , . . . ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} =\left(x_{1},x_{2},x_{3},...\right)} be independent and identically distributed samples drawn from some univariate distribution with an unknown density f at any given point x. We are interested in estimating the shape of this function f. Its kernel density estimator is f ^ h ( x ) = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n K h ( x − x i ) = 1 n h ∑ i = 1 n K ( x − x i h ) , {\displaystyle {\hat {f}}_{h}(x)={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}K_{h}(x-x_{i})={\frac {1}{nh}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}K{\left({\frac {x-x_{i}}{h}}\right)},} where K is the kernel — a non-negative function — and h > 0 is a smoothing parameter called the bandwidth or simply width. A kernel with subscript h is called the scaled kernel and defined as Kh(x) = ⁠1/h⁠ K(⁠x/h⁠). Intuitively one wants to choose h as small as the data will allow; however, there is always a trade-off between the bias of the estimator and its variance. The choice of bandwidth is discussed in more detail below. A range of kernel functions are commonly used: uniform, triangular, biweight, triweight, Epanechnikov (parabolic), normal, and others. The Epanechnikov kernel is optimal in a mean square error sense, though the loss of efficiency is small for the kernels listed previously. Due to its convenient mathematical properties, the normal kernel is often used, which means K(x) = ϕ(x), where ϕ is the standard normal density function. The kernel density estimator then becomes f ^ h ( x ) = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n 1 h 2 π exp ⁡ ( − ( x − x i ) 2 2 h 2 ) , {\displaystyle {\hat {f}}_{h}(x)={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}{\frac {1}{h{\sqrt {2\pi }}}}\exp \left({\frac {-(x-x_{i})^{2}}{2h^{2}}}\right),} where h {\displaystyle h} is the standard deviation of the sample x {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} } . The construction of a kernel density estimate finds interpretations in fields outside of density estimation. For example, in thermodynamics, this is equivalent to the amount of heat generated when heat kernels (the fundamental solution to the heat equation) are placed at each data point locations xi. Similar methods are used to construct discrete Laplace operators on point clouds for manifold learning (e.g. diffusion map). == Example == Kernel density estimates are closely related to histograms, but can be endowed with properties such as smoothness or continuity by using a suitable kernel. The diagram below based on these 6 data points illustrates this relationship: For the histogram, first, the horizontal axis is divided into sub-intervals or bins which cover the range of the data: In this case, six bins each of width 2. Whenever a data point falls inside this interval, a box of height 1/12 is placed there. If more than one data point falls inside the same bin, the boxes are stacked on top of each other. For the kernel density estimate, normal kernels with a standard deviation of 1.5 (indicated by the red dashed lines) are placed on each of the data points xi. The kernels are summed to make the kernel density estimate (solid blue curve). The smoothness of the kernel density estimate (compared to the discreteness of the histogram) illustrates how kernel density estimates converge faster to the true underlying density for continuous random variables. == Bandwidth selection == The bandwidth of the kernel is a free parameter which exhibits a strong influence on the resulting estimate. To illustrate its effect, we take a simulated random sample from the standard normal distribution (plotted at the blue spikes in the rug plot on the horizontal axis). The grey curve is the true density (a normal density with mean 0 and variance 1). In comparison, the red curve is undersmoothed since it contains too many spurious data artifacts arising from using a bandwidth h = 0.05, which is too small. The green curve is oversmoothed since using the bandwidth h = 2 obscures much of the underlying structure. The black curve with a bandwidth of h = 0.337 is considered to be optimally smoothed since its density estimate is close to the true density. An extreme situation is encountered in the limit h → 0 {\displaystyle h\to 0} (no smoothing), where the estimate is a sum of n delta functions centered at the coordinates of analyzed samples. In the other extreme limit h → ∞ {\displaystyle h\to \infty } the estimate retains the shape of the used kernel, centered on the mean of the samples (completely smooth). The most common optimality criterion used to select this parameter is the expected L2 risk function, also termed the mean integrated squared error: MISE ⁡ ( h ) = E [ ∫ ( f ^ h ( x ) − f ( x ) ) 2 d x ] {\displaystyle \operatorname {MISE} (h)=\operatorname {E} \!\left[\int \!{\left({\hat {f}}\!_{h}(x)-f(x)\right)}^{2}dx\right]} Under weak assumptions on f and K, (f is the, generally unknown, real density function), MISE ⁡ ( h ) = AMISE ⁡ ( h ) + o ( ( n h ) − 1 + h 4 ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {MISE} (h)=\operatorname {AMISE} (h)+{\mathcal {o}}{\left((nh)^{-1}+h^{4}\right)}} where o is the little o notation, and n the sample size (as above). The AMISE is the asymptotic MISE, i. e. the two leading terms, AMISE ⁡ ( h ) = R ( K ) n h + 1 4 m 2 ( K ) 2 h 4 R ( f ″ ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {AMISE} (h)={\frac {R(K)}{nh}}+{\frac {1}{4}}m_{2}(K)^{2}h^{4}R(f'')} where R ( g ) = ∫ g ( x ) 2 d x {\textstyle R(g)=\int g(x)^{2}\,dx} for a function g, m 2 ( K ) = ∫ x 2 K ( x ) d x {\textstyle m_{2}(K)=\int x^{2}K(x)\,dx} and f ″ {\displaystyle f''} is the second derivative of f {\displaystyle f} and K {\displaystyle K} is the kernel. The minimum of this AMISE is the solution to this differential equation ∂ ∂ h AMISE ⁡ ( h ) = − R ( K ) n h 2 + m 2 ( K ) 2 h 3 R ( f ″ ) = 0 {\displaystyle {\frac {\partial }{\partial h}}\operatorname {AMISE} (h)=-{\frac {R(K)}{nh^{2}}}+m_{2}(K)^{2}h^{3}R(f'')=0} or h AMISE = R ( K ) 1 / 5 m 2 ( K ) 2 / 5 R ( f ″ ) 1 / 5 n − 1 / 5 = C n − 1 / 5 {\displaystyle h_{\operatorname {AMISE} }={\frac {R(K)^{1/5}}{m_{2}(K)^{2/5}R(f'')^{1/5}}}n^{-1/5}=Cn^{-1/5}} Neither the AMISE nor the hAMISE formulas can be used directly since they involve the unknown density function f {\displaystyle f} or its second derivative f ″ {\displaystyle f''} . To overcome that difficulty, a variety of automatic, data-based methods have been developed to select the bandwidth. Several review studies have been undertaken to compare their efficacies, with the general consensus that the plug-in selectors and cross validation selectors are the most useful over a wide range of data sets. Substituting any bandwidth h which has the same asymptotic order n−1/5 as hAMISE into the AMISE gives that AMISE(h) = O(n−4/5), where O is the big O notation. It can be shown that, under weak assumptions, there cannot exist a non-parametric estimator that converges at a faster rate than the kernel estimator. Note that the n−4/5 rate is slower than the typical n−1 convergence rate of parametric methods. If the bandwidth is not held fixed, but is varied depending upon the location of either the estimate (balloon estimator) or the samples (pointwise estimator), this produces a particularly powerful method termed adaptive or variable bandwidth kernel density estimation. Bandwidth selection for kernel density estimation of heavy-tailed distributions is relatively difficult. === A rule-of-thumb bandwidth estimator === If Gaussian basis functions are used to approximate univariate data, and the underlying density being estimated is Gaussian, the optimal choice for h (that is, the bandwidth that minimises the mean integrated squared error) is: h = ( 4 σ ^ 5 3 n ) 1 / 5 ≈ 1.06 σ ^ n − 1 / 5 , {\displaystyle h={\left({\frac {4{\hat {\sigma }}^{5}}{3n}}\right)}^{1/5}\approx 1.06\,{\hat {\sigma }}\,n^{-1/5},} An h {\displaystyle h} value is considered more robust when it improves the fit for long-tailed and skewed distributions or for bimodal mixture distributions. This is often done empirically by replacing the standard deviation σ ^ {\displaystyle {\hat {\sigma }}} by the parameter A {\displaystyle A} below: A = min ( σ ^ , I Q R 1.34 ) {\displaystyle A=\min \left({\hat {\sigma }},{\frac {\mathrm {IQR} }{1.34}}\right)} where IQR is the
Read more →
Hans Uszkoreit

Hans Uszkoreit is a German computational linguist. Hans Uszkoreit studied Linguistics and Computer Science at Technische Universität Berlin and the University of Texas at Austin. While he was studying in Austin, he also worked as a research associate in a large machine translation project at the Linguistics Research Center. After he received his Ph.D. in linguistics from the University of Texas, he worked as a computer scientist at the Artificial Intelligence Center and was affiliated with the Center for the Study of Language and Information at Stanford University. Nowadays, he is teaching as a professor of Computational Linguistics at Saarland University. Moreover, he serves as a Scientific Director at the German Research Center for Artificial Intelligence (DFKI) where he heads the DFKI Language Technology Lab. == Life and career == Hans Uszkoreit, a native of East Berlin, was actively involved in a group of young individuals who opposed the East Germany regime. His protesting against the 1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia led to his expulsion from high school and subsequent imprisonment for a period of fifteen months on charges of subversive agitation. Realizing that continuing his education in East Germany was not feasible, Uszkoreit made the decision to escape to West Berlin. There, he completed his high school education and pursued a degree in Linguistics and Computer Science at Technische Universität Berlin. During his time as a student, he worked part-time as an editor and writer for Zitty, a city magazine, which he co-founded. In 1977, Uszkoreit was granted a Fulbright Grant to further his studies at the University of Texas at Austin. During his time in Austin, he concurrently served as a research associate in a significant machine translation project. Subsequently, he received a second Fulbright grant, which enabled him to pursue a Ph.D. program in linguistics. In 1984, he successfully completed his doctoral studies, earning a Ph.D. in linguistics. Between 1982 and 1986, Uszkoreit held the position of a computer scientist at the Artificial Intelligence Center of SRI International in Menlo Park, California. In 1988, he created the Department of Computational Linguistics and Phonetics at Saarland University. In 1989 he was elected head of the Language Technology Lab at DFKI. In 2012, Uszkoreit's achievements in the domain of relation extraction led to his receipt of a Google Faculty Research Award, acknowledging the substantial progress made by Uszkoreit and his team in advancing the field. In 2013, Uszkoreit, in collaboration with Feiyu Xu and Roberto Navigli, was granted an additional Google Research Award, which provided support for a targeted project within Google's Language Understanding Program, focusing on the augmentation of language comprehension and analysis. == Personal life == He is father of a son Jakob Uszkoreit, machine learning researcher scientist, an author of the landmark paper "Attention Is All You Need", and daughter Lena Uszkoreit. == Awards == 2002 Elected Member of the European Academy of Sciences 2012 Google Faculty Research Award 2013 Google Focused Research Award
Read more →
Is an AI Headshot Generator Worth It in 2026?

In search of the best AI headshot generator? An AI headshot generator is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it turns a rough idea into a polished result in seconds. When choosing one, weigh output quality, pricing, export formats, and how well it fits the tools you already use. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI headshot generator 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 →