AI App With Unlimited Photo Uploads

AI App With Unlimited Photo Uploads — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

  • Color image pipeline

    Color image pipeline

    An image pipeline or video pipeline is the set of components commonly used between an image source (such as a camera, a scanner, or the rendering engine in a computer game), and an image renderer (such as a television set, a computer screen, a computer printer or cinema screen), or for performing any intermediate digital image processing consisting of two or more separate processing blocks. An image/video pipeline may be implemented as computer software, in a digital signal processor, on an FPGA, or as fixed-function ASIC. In addition, analog circuits can be used to do many of the same functions. Typical components include image sensor corrections (including debayering or applying a Bayer filter), noise reduction, image scaling, gamma correction, image enhancement, colorspace conversion (between formats such as RGB, YUV or YCbCr), chroma subsampling, framerate conversion, image compression/video compression (such as JPEG), and computer data storage/data transmission. Typical goals of an imaging pipeline may be perceptually pleasing end-results, colorimetric precision, a high degree of flexibility, low cost/low CPU utilization/long battery life, or reduction in bandwidth/file size. Some functions may be algorithmically linear. Mathematically, those elements can be connected in any order without changing the end-result. As digital computers use a finite approximation to numerical computing, this is in practice not true. Other elements may be non-linear or time-variant. For both cases, there is often one or a few sequences of components that makes sense for optimum precision and minimum hardware-cost/CPU-load.

    Read more →
  • AI Avatar Generators: Free vs Paid (2026)

    AI Avatar Generators: Free vs Paid (2026)

    Comparing the best AI avatar generator? An AI avatar generator 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 avatar 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 →
  • AI Clip Makers Reviews: What Actually Works in 2026

    AI Clip Makers Reviews: What Actually Works in 2026

    In search of the best AI clip maker? An AI clip maker 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 clip maker 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 →
  • Krohn–Rhodes theory

    Krohn–Rhodes theory

    In mathematics and computer science, the Krohn–Rhodes theory (or algebraic automata theory) is an approach to the study of finite semigroups and automata that seeks to decompose them in terms of elementary components. These components correspond to finite aperiodic semigroups and finite simple groups that are combined in a feedback-free manner (called a "wreath product" or "cascade"). Krohn and Rhodes found a general decomposition for finite automata. The authors discovered and proved an unexpected major result in finite semigroup theory, revealing a deep connection between finite automata and semigroups. Decidability of Krohn-Rhodes complexity long motivated much work in semigroup theory. In June 2024, Stuart Margolis, John Rhodes, and Anne Schilling announced a proof that the complexity is decidable. == Definitions and description of the Krohn–Rhodes theorem == Let T {\displaystyle T} be a semigroup. A semigroup S {\displaystyle S} that is a homomorphic image of a subsemigroup of T {\displaystyle T} is said to be a divisor of T {\displaystyle T} . The Krohn–Rhodes theorem for finite semigroups states that every finite semigroup S {\displaystyle S} is a divisor of a finite alternating wreath product of finite simple groups, each a divisor of S {\displaystyle S} , and finite aperiodic semigroups (which contain no nontrivial subgroups). In the automata formulation, the Krohn–Rhodes theorem for finite automata states that given a finite automaton A {\displaystyle A} with states Q {\displaystyle Q} and input alphabet I {\displaystyle I} , output alphabet U {\displaystyle U} , then one can expand the states to Q ′ {\displaystyle Q'} such that the new automaton A ′ {\displaystyle A'} embeds into a cascade of "simple", irreducible automata: In particular, A {\displaystyle A} is emulated by a feed-forward cascade of (1) automata whose transformation semigroups are finite simple groups and (2) automata that are banks of flip-flops running in parallel. The new automaton A ′ {\displaystyle A'} has the same input and output symbols as A {\displaystyle A} . Here, both the states and inputs of the cascaded automata have a very special hierarchical coordinate form. Moreover, each simple group (prime) or non-group irreducible semigroup (subsemigroup of the flip-flop monoid) that divides the transformation semigroup of A {\displaystyle A} must divide the transformation semigroup of some component of the cascade, and only the primes that must occur as divisors of the components are those that divide A {\displaystyle A} 's transformation semigroup. == Group complexity == The Krohn–Rhodes complexity (also called group complexity or just complexity) of a finite semigroup S is the least number of groups in a wreath product of finite groups and finite aperiodic semigroups of which S is a divisor. All finite aperiodic semigroups have complexity 0, while non-trivial finite groups have complexity 1. In fact, there are semigroups of every non-negative integer complexity. For example, for any n greater than 1, the multiplicative semigroup of all (n+1) × (n+1) upper-triangular matrices over any fixed finite field has complexity n (Kambites, 2007). A major open problem in finite semigroup theory is the decidability of complexity: is there an algorithm that will compute the Krohn–Rhodes complexity of a finite semigroup, given its multiplication table? Upper bounds and ever more precise lower bounds on complexity have been obtained (see, e.g. Rhodes & Steinberg, 2009). Rhodes has conjectured that the problem is decidable. In June 2024, Stuart Margolis, John Rhodes, and Anne Schilling announced a proof in the affirmative of the conjecture, though as of 2025 the result has yet to be confirmed. == History and applications == At a conference in 1962, Kenneth Krohn and John Rhodes announced a method for decomposing a (deterministic) finite automaton into "simple" components that are themselves finite automata. This joint work, which has implications for philosophy, comprised both Krohn's doctoral thesis at Harvard University and Rhodes' doctoral thesis at MIT. Simpler proofs, and generalizations of the theorem to infinite structures, have been published since then (see Chapter 4 of Rhodes and Steinberg's 2009 book The q-Theory of Finite Semigroups for an overview). In the 1965 paper by Krohn and Rhodes, the proof of the theorem on the decomposition of finite automata (or, equivalently sequential machines) made extensive use of the algebraic semigroup structure. Later proofs contained major simplifications using finite wreath products of finite transformation semigroups. The theorem generalizes the Jordan–Hölder decomposition for finite groups (in which the primes are the finite simple groups), to all finite transformation semigroups (for which the primes are again the finite simple groups plus all subsemigroups of the "flip-flop" (see above)). Both the group and more general finite automata decomposition require expanding the state-set of the general, but allow for the same number of input symbols. In the general case, these are embedded in a larger structure with a hierarchical "coordinate system". One must be careful in understanding the notion of "prime" as Krohn and Rhodes explicitly refer to their theorem as a "prime decomposition theorem" for automata. The components in the decomposition, however, are not prime automata (with prime defined in a naïve way); rather, the notion of prime is more sophisticated and algebraic: the semigroups and groups associated to the constituent automata of the decomposition are prime (or irreducible) in a strict and natural algebraic sense with respect to the wreath product (Eilenberg, 1976). Also, unlike earlier decomposition theorems, the Krohn–Rhodes decompositions usually require expansion of the state-set, so that the expanded automaton covers (emulates) the one being decomposed. These facts have made the theorem difficult to understand and challenging to apply in a practical way—until recently, when computational implementations became available (Egri-Nagy & Nehaniv 2005, 2008). H.P. Zeiger (1967) proved an important variant called the holonomy decomposition (Eilenberg 1976). The holonomy method appears to be relatively efficient and has been implemented computationally by A. Egri-Nagy (Egri-Nagy & Nehaniv 2005). Meyer and Thompson (1969) give a version of Krohn–Rhodes decomposition for finite automata that is equivalent to the decomposition previously developed by Hartmanis and Stearns, but for useful decompositions, the notion of expanding the state-set of the original automaton is essential (for the non-permutation automata case). Many proofs and constructions now exist of Krohn–Rhodes decompositions (e.g., [Krohn, Rhodes & Tilson 1968], [Ésik 2000], [Diekert et al. 2012]), with the holonomy method the most popular and efficient in general (although not in all cases). [Zimmermann 2010] gives an elementary proof of the theorem. Owing to the close relation between monoids and categories, a version of the Krohn–Rhodes theorem is applicable to category theory. This observation and a proof of an analogous result were offered by Wells (1980). The Krohn–Rhodes theorem for semigroups/monoids is an analogue of the Jordan–Hölder theorem for finite groups (for semigroups/monoids rather than groups). As such, the theorem is a deep and important result in semigroup/monoid theory. The theorem was also surprising to many mathematicians and computer scientists since it had previously been widely believed that the semigroup/monoid axioms were too weak to admit a structure theorem of any strength, and prior work (Hartmanis & Stearns) was only able to show much more rigid and less general decomposition results for finite automata. Work by Egri-Nagy and Nehaniv (2005, 2008–) continues to further automate the holonomy version of the Krohn–Rhodes decomposition extended with the related decomposition for finite groups (so-called Frobenius–Lagrange coordinates) using the computer algebra system GAP. Applications outside of the semigroup and monoid theories are now computationally feasible. They include computations in biology and biochemical systems (e.g. Egri-Nagy & Nehaniv 2008), artificial intelligence, finite-state physics, psychology, and game theory (see, for example, Rhodes 2009).

    Read more →
  • Belief–desire–intention model

    Belief–desire–intention model

    For popular psychology, the belief–desire–intention (BDI) model of human practical reasoning was developed by Michael Bratman as a way of explaining future-directed intention. BDI is fundamentally reliant on folk psychology (the 'theory theory'), which is the notion that our mental models of the world are theories. It was used as a basis for developing the belief–desire–intention software model. == Applications == BDI was part of the inspiration behind the BDI software architecture, which Bratman was also involved in developing. Here, the notion of intention was seen as a way of limiting time spent on deliberating about what to do, by eliminating choices inconsistent with current intentions. BDI has also aroused some interest in psychology. BDI formed the basis for a computational model of childlike reasoning CRIBB.

    Read more →
  • How to Choose an AI Voice Assistant

    How to Choose an AI Voice Assistant

    Curious about the best AI voice assistant? An AI voice assistant 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 voice assistant 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 →
  • Robert Wilensky

    Robert Wilensky

    Robert Wilensky (26 March 1951 – 15 March 2013) was an American computer scientist and professor at the UC Berkeley School of Information, with his main focus of research in artificial intelligence. == Academic career == In 1971, Wilensky received his bachelor's degree in mathematics from Yale University, and in 1978, a Ph.D. in computer science from the same institution. After finishing his thesis, "Understanding Goal-Based Stories", Wilensky joined the faculty from the EECS Department of UC Berkeley. In 1986, he worked as the doctoral advisor of Peter Norvig, who then later published the standard textbook of the field: Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. From 1993 to 1997, Wilensky was the Berkeley Computer Science Division Chair. During this time, he also served as director of the Berkeley Cognitive Science Program, director of the Berkeley Artificial Intelligence Research Project, and board member of the International Computer Science Institute. In 1997, he became a fellow of the Association for Computing Machinery "for research contributions to the areas of natural language processing and digital libraries as well as outstanding leadership in Computer Science." Furthermore, he also was a Fellow of the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence. He retired from faculty in 2007 and died on Friday, March 15, 2013, of a bacterial infection at the Alta Bates Summit Medical Center. Wilensky was married to Ann Danforth and he is survived by her and their two children, Avi and Eli Wilensky == Research == Throughout his career, Wilensky authored and co-authored over 60 scholarly articles and technical reports on AI, natural language processing, and information dissemination. In addition to his numerous technical publications, Wilensky also published two books on the programming language LISP, LISPcraft and Common LISPcraft, and had almost completed another book manuscript when he suffered a cardiac arrest and stopped writing. Among his publications are: R. Wilensky, (1986-09-17). Common LISPcraft. W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 9780393955446. T. A. Phelps and R. Wilensky, "Toward active, extensible, networked documents: Multivalent architecture and applications," in Proc. 1st ACM Intl. Conf. on Digital Libraries, E. A. Fox and G. Marchionini, Eds., New York, NY: ACM Press, 1996, pp. 100–108. J. Traupman and R. Wilensky, "Experiments in Improving Unsupervised Word Sense Disambiguation," University of California, Berkeley, Department of EECS, Computer Science Division, Tech. Rep. 03–1227, Feb. 2003. R. Wilensky, Planning and Understanding: A Computational Approach to Human Reasoning, Advanced Book Program, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1983. R. Wilensky, "Understanding Goal-Based Stories," Yale University, Sep. 1978. B. Kahn and R. Wilensky, "A Framework for Distributed Digital Object Services", May 1995.

    Read more →
  • Lise Getoor

    Lise Getoor

    Lise Getoor is an American computer scientist who is a distinguished professor and Baskin Endowed chair in the Computer Science and Engineering department, at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and an adjunct professor in the Computer Science Department at the University of Maryland, College Park. Her primary research interests are in machine learning and reasoning with uncertainty, applied to graphs and structured data. She also works in data integration, social network analysis and visual analytics. She has edited a book on Statistical relational learning that is a main reference in this domain. She has published many highly cited papers in academic journals and conference proceedings. She has also served as action editor for the Machine Learning Journal, JAIR associate editor, and TKDD associate editor. She received her Ph.D. from Stanford University, her M.S. from UC Berkeley, and her B.S. from UC Santa Barbara. Prior to joining University of California, Santa Cruz, she was a professor at the University of Maryland, College Park until November 2013. == Recognition == Getoor has multiple best paper awards, an NSF Career Award, and is an Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) Fellow. In 2019, she was elected as an ACM Fellow "for contributions to machine learning, reasoning under uncertainty, and responsible data science", was selected as a Distinguished Alumna of the UC Santa Barbara Computer Science Department, was awarded the UCSC WiSE Chancellor's Achievement Award for Diversity, and was selected to give the UC Santa Cruz Faculty Research Lecture 2018-19, one of the highest recognitions given to UC faculty. She was named an IEEE Fellow in 2021, "for contributions to machine learning and reasoning under uncertainty". In October 2022, Getoor was elected a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). In 2024, she was named a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (AAA&S). Also in 2024, she received the ACM SIGKDD Innovation Award recognizing individuals with outstanding technical innovations in the field of Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining that have had a lasting impact in advancing the theory and practice of the field. == Personal life == Getoor's father was mathematician Ronald Getoor (1929–2017).

    Read more →
  • SurveyLab

    SurveyLab

    SurveyLab is an online system designed for creating and deploying surveys, questionnaires, web forms, tests, and quizzes. The platform functions as a web application, without the need for additional software installation. Founded in 2006, by the Polish company 7 Points, SurveyLab is used by businesses and professional users for market research, human resources assessments, customer feedback, and academic research. == History == SurveyLab was launched in 2006 under the name MySurveyLab, developed by the Warsaw-based company 7 Points. Early media coverage described the system as supporting online survey creation, real-time reporting, group collaboration and question logic, and noted that the platform was opened to custom feature development. MySurveyLab featured multi-user accounts, SSL-secured surveys, and support for right-to-left languages. Further 2010s updates improved reporting capabilities, expanded question types, and integration options. In 2020, the platform was rebranded to SurveyLab. By the early 2020s, the software supported integrations with external tools including Zapier, and offered additional analytics features. In 2025, 7 Points reported that SurveyLab had over 85,000 registered users and had processed over 7 million surveys. == Functionalities == SurveyLab is a web-based platform used for creating online surveys, questionnaires, and forms. Independent reviewers and software directories describe it as a tool used for market research, customer feedback management, and human resources-related assessments, including employee feedback surveys. According to the creators at 7 Points, SurveyLab supports customer satisfaction measurement, survey analysis, and 360-degree feedback evaluations. The platform allows users to create surveys with no limits on the number of questions or responses. Independent reviews describe SurveyLab as offering multiple-choice, matrix, rating-scale, and open-ended questions. According to 7 Points, the platform manages market-research workflows, including Net Promoter Score, Customer Satisfaction, and Customer Effort Score questions. The tool can also re-use previous answers in later questions, and create A/B survey variants. SurveyLab can integrate with external services and applications through APIs and third-party connectors. According to its developers, the platform can connect with customer service tools, as well as CRM, marketing automation, e-commerce, and data-storage tools An industry review cited workflow integrations with CINT, Slack, Salesforce, and Zendesk Other integrations included Aquera (SSO), Sona Systems (internet research), and Synerise (customer data management). == Data collection and aggregation == Independent descriptions note that SurveyLab can combine results from emails, SMS, website widgets and pop-ups, QR codes, and social media. Its surveys are also accessible through mobile apps on iOS and Android, used for online and offline data collection in the field. Developers state that the tool supports exporting data as CSV, Excel, and SPSS, with independent reviews also mentioning PDF and PowerPoint. SurveyLab can automate response collection through a multi-channel survey distribution and reporting. It includes data trends, offline responses, and reminders to non-respondents. According to its documentation, newer versions include AI-based tools that detect and analyze sentiment, and a survey builder generating questionnaires based on user prompts. === Data security and compliance === According to 7 Points, SurveyLab provides password-protected surveys, token-based access, IP-address filtering, and two-factor authentication for user accounts, and it complies with the General Data Protection Regulation. == Awards and accolades == In 2017, SurveyLab was listed in Capterra’s Top 20 Survey Software ranking, among 20 highest-scoring survey tools based on market presence and user base. In 2018, a software review platform FinancesOnline awarded SurveyLab the Rising Star Award and the Great User Experience Award, distinctions given to products that demonstrate positive user satisfaction and strong usability characteristics.

    Read more →
  • Probabilistic automaton

    Probabilistic automaton

    In mathematics and computer science, the probabilistic automaton (PA) is a generalization of the nondeterministic finite automaton; it includes the probability of a given transition into the transition function, turning it into a transition matrix. Thus, the probabilistic automaton also generalizes the concepts of a Markov chain and of a subshift of finite type. The languages recognized by probabilistic automata are called stochastic languages; these include the regular languages as a subset. The number of stochastic languages is uncountable. The concept was introduced by Michael O. Rabin in 1963; a certain special case is sometimes known as the Rabin automaton (not to be confused with the subclass of ω-automata also referred to as Rabin automata). In recent years, a variant has been formulated in terms of quantum probabilities, the quantum finite automaton. == Informal Description == For a given initial state and input character, a deterministic finite automaton (DFA) has exactly one next state, and a nondeterministic finite automaton (NFA) has a set of next states. A probabilistic automaton (PA) instead has a weighted set (or vector) of next states, where the weights must sum to 1 and therefore can be interpreted as probabilities (making it a stochastic vector). The notions states and acceptance must also be modified to reflect the introduction of these weights. The state of the machine as a given step must now also be represented by a stochastic vector of states, and a state accepted if its total probability of being in an acceptance state exceeds some cut-off. A PA is in some sense a half-way step from deterministic to non-deterministic, as it allows a set of next states but with restrictions on their weights. However, this is somewhat misleading, as the PA utilizes the notion of the real numbers to define the weights, which is absent in the definition of both DFAs and NFAs. This additional freedom enables them to decide languages that are not regular, such as the p-adic languages with irrational parameters. As such, PAs are more powerful than both DFAs and NFAs (which are famously equally powerful). == Formal Definition == The probabilistic automaton may be defined as an extension of a nondeterministic finite automaton ( Q , Σ , δ , q 0 , F ) {\displaystyle (Q,\Sigma ,\delta ,q_{0},F)} , together with two probabilities: the probability P {\displaystyle P} of a particular state transition taking place, and with the initial state q 0 {\displaystyle q_{0}} replaced by a stochastic vector giving the probability of the automaton being in a given initial state. For the ordinary non-deterministic finite automaton, one has a finite set of states Q {\displaystyle Q} a finite set of input symbols Σ {\displaystyle \Sigma } a transition function δ : Q × Σ → ℘ ( Q ) {\displaystyle \delta :Q\times \Sigma \to \wp (Q)} a set of states F {\displaystyle F} distinguished as accepting (or final) states F ⊆ Q {\displaystyle F\subseteq Q} . Here, ℘ ( Q ) {\displaystyle \wp (Q)} denotes the power set of Q {\displaystyle Q} . By use of currying, the transition function δ : Q × Σ → ℘ ( Q ) {\displaystyle \delta :Q\times \Sigma \to \wp (Q)} of a non-deterministic finite automaton can be written as a membership function δ : Q × Σ × Q → { 0 , 1 } {\displaystyle \delta :Q\times \Sigma \times Q\to \{0,1\}} so that δ ( q , a , q ′ ) = 1 {\displaystyle \delta (q,a,q^{\prime })=1} if q ′ ∈ δ ( q , a ) {\displaystyle q^{\prime }\in \delta (q,a)} and 0 {\displaystyle 0} otherwise. The curried transition function can be understood to be a matrix with matrix entries [ θ a ] q q ′ = δ ( q , a , q ′ ) {\displaystyle \left[\theta _{a}\right]_{qq^{\prime }}=\delta (q,a,q^{\prime })} The matrix θ a {\displaystyle \theta _{a}} is then a square matrix, whose entries are zero or one, indicating whether a transition q → a q ′ {\displaystyle q{\stackrel {a}{\rightarrow }}q^{\prime }} is allowed by the NFA. Such a transition matrix is always defined for a non-deterministic finite automaton. The probabilistic automaton replaces these matrices by a family of right stochastic matrices P a {\displaystyle P_{a}} , for each symbol a in the alphabet Σ {\displaystyle \Sigma } so that the probability of a transition is given by [ P a ] q q ′ {\displaystyle \left[P_{a}\right]_{qq^{\prime }}} A state change from some state to any state must occur with probability one, of course, and so one must have ∑ q ′ [ P a ] q q ′ = 1 {\displaystyle \sum _{q^{\prime }}\left[P_{a}\right]_{qq^{\prime }}=1} for all input letters a {\displaystyle a} and internal states q {\displaystyle q} . The initial state of a probabilistic automaton is given by a row vector v {\displaystyle v} , whose components are the probabilities of the individual initial states q {\displaystyle q} , that add to 1: ∑ q [ v ] q = 1 {\displaystyle \sum _{q}\left[v\right]_{q}=1} The transition matrix acts on the right, so that the state of the probabilistic automaton, after consuming the input string a b c {\displaystyle abc} , would be v P a P b P c {\displaystyle vP_{a}P_{b}P_{c}} In particular, the state of a probabilistic automaton is always a stochastic vector, since the product of any two stochastic matrices is a stochastic matrix, and the product of a stochastic vector and a stochastic matrix is again a stochastic vector. This vector is sometimes called the distribution of states, emphasizing that it is a discrete probability distribution. Formally, the definition of a probabilistic automaton does not require the mechanics of the non-deterministic automaton, which may be dispensed with. Formally, a probabilistic automaton PA is defined as the tuple ( Q , Σ , P , v , F ) {\displaystyle (Q,\Sigma ,P,v,F)} . A Rabin automaton is one for which the initial distribution v {\displaystyle v} is a coordinate vector; that is, has zero for all but one entries, and the remaining entry being one. == Stochastic languages == The set of languages recognized by probabilistic automata are called stochastic languages. They include the regular languages as a subset. Let F = Q accept ⊆ Q {\displaystyle F=Q_{\text{accept}}\subseteq Q} be the set of "accepting" or "final" states of the automaton. By abuse of notation, Q accept {\displaystyle Q_{\text{accept}}} can also be understood to be the column vector that is the membership function for Q accept {\displaystyle Q_{\text{accept}}} ; that is, it has a 1 at the places corresponding to elements in Q accept {\displaystyle Q_{\text{accept}}} , and a zero otherwise. This vector may be contracted with the internal state probability, to form a scalar. The language recognized by a specific automaton is then defined as L η = { s ∈ Σ ∗ | v P s Q accept > η } {\displaystyle L_{\eta }=\{s\in \Sigma ^{}\vert vP_{s}Q_{\text{accept}}>\eta \}} where Σ ∗ {\displaystyle \Sigma ^{}} is the set of all strings in the alphabet Σ {\displaystyle \Sigma } (so that is the Kleene star). The language depends on the value of the cut-point η {\displaystyle \eta } , normally taken to be in the range 0 ≤ η < 1 {\displaystyle 0\leq \eta <1} . A language is called η-stochastic if and only if there exists some PA that recognizes the language, for fixed η {\displaystyle \eta } . A language is called stochastic if and only if there is some 0 ≤ η < 1 {\displaystyle 0\leq \eta <1} for which L η {\displaystyle L_{\eta }} is η-stochastic. A cut-point is said to be an isolated cut-point if and only if there exists a δ > 0 {\displaystyle \delta >0} such that | v P ( s ) Q accept − η | ≥ δ {\displaystyle \vert vP(s)Q_{\text{accept}}-\eta \vert \geq \delta } for all s ∈ Σ ∗ {\displaystyle s\in \Sigma ^{}} == Properties == Every regular language is stochastic, and more strongly, every regular language is η-stochastic. A weak converse is that every 0-stochastic language is regular; however, the general converse does not hold: there are stochastic languages that are not regular. Every η-stochastic language is stochastic, for some 0 < η < 1 {\displaystyle 0<\eta <1} . Every stochastic language is representable by a Rabin automaton. If η {\displaystyle \eta } is an isolated cut-point, then L η {\displaystyle L_{\eta }} is a regular language. == p-adic languages == The p-adic languages provide an example of a stochastic language that is not regular, and also show that the number of stochastic languages is uncountable. A p-adic language is defined as the set of strings L η ( p ) = { n 1 n 2 n 3 … | 0 ≤ n k < p and 0. n 1 n 2 n 3 … > η } {\displaystyle L_{\eta }(p)=\{n_{1}n_{2}n_{3}\ldots \vert 0\leq n_{k}\eta \}} in the letters 0 , 1 , 2 , … , ( p − 1 ) {\displaystyle 0,1,2,\ldots ,(p-1)} . That is, a p-adic language is merely the set of real numbers in [0, 1], written in base-p, such that they are greater than η {\displaystyle \eta } . It is straightforward to show that all p-adic languages are stochastic. In particular, this implies that the number of stochastic languages is uncountable. A p-adic

    Read more →
  • Pachinko allocation

    Pachinko allocation

    In machine learning and natural language processing, the pachinko allocation model (PAM) is a topic model. Topic models are a suite of algorithms to uncover the hidden thematic structure of a collection of documents. The algorithm improves upon earlier topic models such as latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA) by modeling correlations between topics in addition to the word correlations which constitute topics. PAM provides more flexibility and greater expressive power than latent Dirichlet allocation. While first described and implemented in the context of natural language processing, the algorithm may have applications in other fields such as bioinformatics. The model is named for pachinko machines—a game popular in Japan, in which metal balls bounce down around a complex collection of pins until they land in various bins at the bottom. == History == Pachinko allocation was first described by Wei Li and Andrew McCallum in 2006. The idea was extended with hierarchical Pachinko allocation by Li, McCallum, and David Mimno in 2007. In 2007, McCallum and his colleagues proposed a nonparametric Bayesian prior for PAM based on a variant of the hierarchical Dirichlet process (HDP). The algorithm has been implemented in the MALLET software package published by McCallum's group at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. == Model == PAM connects words in V and topics in T with an arbitrary directed acyclic graph (DAG), where topic nodes occupy the interior levels and the leaves are words. The probability of generating a whole corpus is the product of the probabilities for every document: P ( D | α ) = ∏ d P ( d | α ) {\displaystyle P(\mathbf {D} |\alpha )=\prod _{d}P(d|\alpha )}

    Read more →
  • Jollo

    Jollo

    Jollo was an online machine translation service where users could instantly translate texts into 23 languages, request human translations from a community of volunteers around the world, and compare the correctness of several leading machine translation websites. It was discontinued in 2012. == System == Jollo was a free Web 2.0 website that attempted to improve the way in which people translate online through the use of existing machine translation websites and a community of volunteers who correct and rate translations. The system relied on a similar methodology as computer-assisted translation to ensure translation quality, and featured a public translation memory that records past translations. Jollo received some notable media attention, including in The Daily Telegraph. According to the blog KillerStartups, Jollo combined the benefits of the speed of machine translations and human reviews to ensure translation quality. According to Jeffrey Hill from The English Blog, the community features made Jollo an interesting alternative to other online translation services. == Development == The Jollo website was classified as beta. It was developed using LAMP and was praised for its colorful graphics and simple user interface. Jollo offered a simple web-based API that could be used for translations. For example, the URL: http://www.jollo.com/translate.php?st=I%20love%20you&sl=en&tl=zh was used to translate the sentence "I love you" from English into Chinese.

    Read more →
  • Sequence labeling

    Sequence labeling

    In machine learning, sequence labeling is a type of pattern recognition task that involves the algorithmic assignment of a categorical label to each member of a sequence of observed values. A common example of a sequence labeling task is part of speech tagging, which seeks to assign a part of speech to each word in an input sentence or document. Sequence labeling can be treated as a set of independent classification tasks, one per member of the sequence. However, accuracy is generally improved by making the optimal label for a given element dependent on the choices of nearby elements, using special algorithms to choose the globally best set of labels for the entire sequence at once. As an example of why finding the globally best label sequence might produce better results than labeling one item at a time, consider the part-of-speech tagging task just described. Frequently, many words are members of multiple parts of speech, and the correct label of such a word can often be deduced from the correct label of the word to the immediate left or right. For example, the word "sets" can be either a noun or verb. In a phrase like "he sets the books down", the word "he" is unambiguously a pronoun, and "the" unambiguously a determiner, and using either of these labels, "sets" can be deduced to be a verb, since nouns very rarely follow pronouns and are less likely to precede determiners than verbs are. But in other cases, only one of the adjacent words is similarly helpful. In "he sets and then knocks over the table", only the word "he" to the left is helpful (cf. "...picks up the sets and then knocks over..."). Conversely, in "... and also sets the table" only the word "the" to the right is helpful (cf. "... and also sets of books were ..."). An algorithm that proceeds from left to right, labeling one word at a time, can only use the tags of left-adjacent words and might fail in the second example above; vice versa for an algorithm that proceeds from right to left. Most sequence labeling algorithms are probabilistic in nature, relying on statistical inference to find the best sequence. The most common statistical models in use for sequence labeling make a Markov assumption, i.e. that the choice of label for a particular word is directly dependent only on the immediately adjacent labels; hence the set of labels forms a Markov chain. This leads naturally to the hidden Markov model (HMM), one of the most common statistical models used for sequence labeling. Other common models in use are the maximum entropy Markov model and conditional random field.

    Read more →
  • Alexander Gammerman

    Alexander Gammerman

    Alexander Gammerman (born 2 November 1944) is a British computer scientist, and professor at Royal Holloway University of London. He is the co-inventor of conformal prediction. He is the founding director of the Centre for Machine Learning at Royal Holloway, University of London, and a Fellow of the Royal Statistical Society. == Career == Gammerman's academic career has been pursued in the Soviet Union and the United Kingdom. He started working as a Research Fellow in the Agrophysical Research Institute, St. Petersburg. In 1983, he emigrated to the United Kingdom and was appointed as a lecturer in the Computer Science Department at Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh. Together with Roger Thatcher, Gammerman published several articles on Bayesian inference. In 1993, he was appointed to the established chair in Computer Science at University of London tenable at Royal Holloway and Bedford New College, where he served as the Head of Computer Science department from 1995 to 2005. In 1998, the Centre for Reliable Machine Learning was established, and Gammerman became the first director of the centre. Gammerman has written 7 books. == Honours and awards == In 1996, Gammerman received the P.W. Allen Award from the Forensic Science Society. In 2006, he became an Honorary Professor, at University College London. In 2009, he became a Distinguished Professor at Complutense University of Madrid, Spain. In 2019, he received a research grant funded by the energy company Centrica about predicting the time to the next failure of equipment. In 2020, he received the Amazon Research Award for the project titled Conformal Martingales for Change-Point Detection == Selected books == Measures of Complexity (2016), Springer, ISBN 3319357786. Algorithmic Learning in a Random World (2005), Springer, ISBN 0387001522. Causal Models and Intelligent Data Management (1999), Springer, ISBN 978-3-642-58648-4. Probabilistic Reasoning and Bayesian Belief Networks (1998), Nelson Thornes Ltd, ISBN 1872474268. Computational Learning and Probabilistic Reasoning (1996), Wiley, ISBN 0471962791.

    Read more →
  • Top 10 AI Copywriting Tools Compared (2026)

    Top 10 AI Copywriting Tools Compared (2026)

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