AI Assistant Intellij

AI Assistant Intellij — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  Telebirr

  Telebirr (Amharic: ቴሌብር) is a mobile payment service developed and was launched by Ethio telecom, the state owned telecommunication and Internet service provider in Ethiopia. It took five months to develop the end-to-end service. It facilitates the delivery of cashless transactions. The platform deployed currently has the capacity of processing up to 100 transactions per second (TPS) and can be scaled up to 1000 TPS. The service is accessible via SMS, USSD, and smartphone applications. Telebirr works in five languages. == Services == Though the service is fully accessible for any customer of Ethio telecom, the users need to register through the mobile application called Telebirr or using an authorized agent or Ethio telecom shop or Unstructured Supplementary Service Data (USSD), 127# nationally. However, Telebirr also provides a “quick registration” by using any information that already exists in Ethio telecom's system.

  Read more →
• 

  Wang-Chiew Tan

  Wang-Chiew Tan is a Singaporean computer scientist specializing in data management and natural language processing. Her work in data management includes data provenance (or data lineage) and data integration. She is currently a Research Scientist at Facebook AI, and was previously the Director of Research at Megagon Labs in Mountain View, California. At Megagon Labs, Tan was the lead researcher on a study with the University of Tokyo that concluded that the company of other people is more effective than pets at making people happy. == Education and career == Tan earned her bachelor's degree in computer science (first-class) at the National University of Singapore, and completed her Ph.D. at the University of Pennsylvania. Her 2002 dissertation, Data Annotations, Provenance, and Archiving, was jointly supervised by Peter Buneman and Sanjeev Khanna. Before working at Megagon, she has been a professor of computer science at the University of California, Santa Cruz beginning in 2002, and, from 2010 to 2012, was on leave from Santa Cruz as a researcher at IBM Research - Almaden. == Recognition == Tan was named a Fellow of the Association for Computing Machinery in 2015 "for contributions to data provenance and to the foundations of information integration".

  Read more →
• 

  Timnit Gebru

  Timnit W. Gebru (Amharic and Tigrinya: ትምኒት ገብሩ; 1982/1983) is an Eritrean Ethiopian-born computer scientist who works in the fields of artificial intelligence (AI), algorithmic bias and data mining. She is a co-founder of Black in AI, an advocacy group that has pushed for more Black roles in AI development and research. She is the founder of the Distributed Artificial Intelligence Research Institute (DAIR). In December 2020, public controversy erupted over the circumstances surrounding Gebru's departure from Google, where she was technical co-lead of the Ethical Artificial Intelligence Team. Gebru had coauthored a paper on the risks of large language models (LLMs) acting as stochastic parrots, and submitted it for publication. According to Jeff Dean, head of Google AI, the paper was submitted without waiting for Google's internal review, which then asserted that it ignored too much relevant research. Google management requested that Gebru either withdraw the paper or remove the names of all the authors employed by Google. Gebru requested the identity and feedback of every reviewer, and stated that if Google refused, she would talk to her manager about "a last date". Google terminated her employment immediately, stating that they were accepting her resignation. Gebru maintained that she had not formally offered to resign, and only threatened to. Gebru has been widely recognized for her expertise in the ethics of artificial intelligence. She was named one of the World's 50 Greatest Leaders by Fortune and one of Nature's ten people who shaped science in 2021, and in 2022, one of Time's most influential people. == Early life and education == Gebru was raised in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Her father, an electrical engineer with a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD), died when she was five years old, and she was raised by her mother, an economist. Both her parents are from Eritrea. When Gebru was 15, during the Eritrean–Ethiopian War, she fled Ethiopia after some of her family were deported to Eritrea and compelled to fight in the war. She was initially denied a U.S. visa and briefly lived in Ireland, but she eventually received political asylum in the U.S., an experience she said was "miserable". Gebru settled in Somerville, Massachusetts to attend high school, where she says she immediately started to experience racial discrimination, with some teachers refusing to allow her to take certain Advanced Placement courses, despite being a high-achiever. After she completed high school, an encounter with the police set Gebru on a course toward a focus on ethics in technology. A friend of hers, a Black woman, was assaulted in a bar, and Gebru called the police to report it. She says that instead of filing the assault report, her friend was arrested and remanded to a cell. Gebru called it a pivotal moment and a "blatant example of systemic racism." In 2001, Gebru was accepted at Stanford University. There, she earned her Bachelor of Science and Master of Science degrees in electrical engineering and her PhD in computer vision in 2017. Gebru was advised during her PhD program by Fei-Fei Li. During the 2008 United States presidential election, Gebru canvassed in support of Barack Obama. Gebru presented her doctoral research at the 2017 LDV Capital Vision Summit competition, where computer vision scientists present their work to members of industry and venture capitalists. Gebru won the competition, starting a series of collaborations with other entrepreneurs and investors. Both during her PhD program in 2016 and in 2018, Gebru returned to Ethiopia with Jelani Nelson's programming campaign, AddisCoder. While working on her PhD, Gebru authored a paper that was never published about her concern over the future of AI. She wrote of the dangers of the lack of diversity in the field, centered on her experiences with the police and on a ProPublica investigation into predictive policing, which revealed a projection of human biases in machine learning. In the paper, she scathed the "boy's club culture", reflecting on her experiences at conference gatherings of drunken male attendees sexually harassing her, and criticized the hero worship of the field's celebrities. == Career == === 2004–2013: Software development at Apple === Gebru joined Apple as an intern while at Stanford, working in their hardware division making circuitry for audio components, and was offered a full-time position the following year. Of her work as an audio engineer, her manager told Wired she was "fearless", and well-liked by her colleagues. During her tenure at Apple, Gebru became more interested in building software, namely computer vision that could detect human figures. She went on to develop signal processing algorithms for the first iPad. At the time, she said she did not consider the potential use for surveillance, saying "I just found it technically interesting." Long after leaving the company, during the #AppleToo movement in the summer of 2021, which was led by Apple engineer Cher Scarlett, who consulted with Gebru, Gebru revealed she experienced "so many egregious things" and "always wondered how they manage[d] to get out of the spotlight." She said that accountability at Apple was long overdue, and warned they could not continue to fly under the radar for much longer. Gebru also criticized the way the media covers Apple and other tech giants, saying that the press helps shield such companies from public scrutiny. === 2013–2017: Research at Stanford and Microsoft === In 2013, Gebru joined Fei-Fei Li's lab at Stanford, where she combined deep learning with Google Street View to estimate the demographics of United States neighbourhoods, showing that socioeconomic attributes such as voting patterns, income, race, and education can be inferred from observations of cars. In 2015, Gebru attended the field's top conference, Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS), in Montreal, Canada. Out of 3,700 attendees, she noted she was one of only a few Black researchers. When she attended again the following year, she kept a tally and noted that there were only five Black men and that she was the only Black woman out of 8,500 delegates. Together with her colleague Rediet Abebe, Gebru founded Black in AI, a community of Black researchers working in artificial intelligence that aims to increase the presence, visibility, and well-being of Black professionals and leaders within the field. In the summer of 2017, Gebru joined Microsoft as a postdoctoral researcher in the Fairness, Accountability, Transparency, and Ethics in AI (FATE) lab. In 2017, Gebru spoke at the Fairness and Transparency conference, where MIT Technology Review interviewed her about biases that exist in AI systems and how adding diversity in AI teams can fix that issue. In her interview with Jackie Snow, Snow asked Gebru, "How does the lack of diversity distort artificial intelligence and specifically computer vision?" and Gebru pointed out that there are biases that exist in the software developers. While at Microsoft, Gebru co-authored a research paper called Gender Shades, which became the namesake of a project of a broader Massachusetts Institute of Technology project led by co-author Joy Buolamwini. The pair investigated facial recognition software, finding that in one particular implementation Black women were 35% less likely to be recognized than White men. === 2018–2020: Artificial intelligence ethics at Google === Gebru joined Google in 2018, where she co-led a team on the ethics of artificial intelligence with Margaret Mitchell. She studied the implications of artificial intelligence, looking to improve the ability of technology to do social good. In 2019, Gebru and other artificial intelligence researchers "signed a letter calling on Amazon to stop selling its facial-recognition technology to law enforcement agencies because it is biased against women and people of color", citing a study that was conducted by MIT researchers showing that Amazon's facial recognition system had more trouble identifying darker-skinned females than any other technology company's facial recognition software. In a New York Times interview, Gebru has further expressed that she believes facial recognition is too dangerous to be used for law enforcement and security purposes at present. === Exit from Google === In 2020 Gebru and five co-authors wrote a paper titled "On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big? 🦜". The paper examined risks of very large language models, including their environmental footprint, financial costs, the inscrutability of large models, the potential for LLMs to display prejudice against certain groups, the inability of LLMs to understand the language they process, and the use of LLMs to spread disinformation. In December 2020, her employment with Google ended after Google management asked her to either withdraw the paper before publication, or remove the names of all the Google employees from

  Read more →
• 

  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 →
• 

  Local Economic Assessment Package

  The Local Economic Assessment Package (also known as “EDR-LEAP” or “LEAP Model”) is a web-based, interactive database and software tool used by local and regional agencies in the US to improve strategies for economic development. It provides local economic performance measures, and benchmarks for comparison of economic development factors against competing regions. It works by incorporating elements of economic base analysis as well as gap analysis and business cluster analysis to identify needs for improvement and paths for economic growth. The LEAP Model was originally developed for the Appalachian Regional Commission. Its theory and applications are discussed in peer-reviewed journal articles.

  Read more →
• 

  The Best Free AI Video Editor for Beginners

  Comparing the best AI video editor? An AI video editor 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 video editor 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 →
• 

  Distributional–relational database

  A distributional–relational database, or word-vector database, is a database management system (DBMS) that uses distributional word-vector representations to enrich the semantics of structured data. As distributional word-vectors can be built automatically from large-scale corpora, this enrichment supports the construction of databases which can embed large-scale commonsense background knowledge into their operations. Distributional-Relational models can be applied to the construction of schema-agnostic databases (databases in which users can query the data without being aware of its schema), semantic search, schema-integration and inductive and abductive reasoning as well as different applications in which a semantically flexible knowledge representation model is needed. The main advantage of distributional–relational models over purely logical or semantic web models is the fact that the core semantic associations can be automatically captured from corpora, in contrast to the definition of manually curated ontologies and rule knowledge bases. == Distributional–relational models == Distributional–relational models were first formalized as a mechanism to cope with the vocabulary/semantic gap between users and the schema behind the data. In this scenario, distributional semantic relatedness measures, combined with semantic pivoting heuristics can support the approximation between user queries (expressed in their own vocabulary), and data (expressed in the vocabulary of the designer). In this model, the database symbols (entities and relations) are embedded into a distributional semantic space and have a geometric interpretation under a latent or explicit semantic space. The geometric aspect supports the semantic approximation between entities from different databases, or between a query term and a database entity. The distributional relational model then becomes a double layered model where the semantics of the structured data provides the fine-grained semantics intended by the database designer, which is extended by the distributional semantic model which contains the semantic associations expressed at a broader use. These models support the generalization from a closed communication scenario (in which database designers and users live in the same context, e.g. the same organization) to an open communication scenario (e.g. different organizations, the Web), creating an abstraction layer between users and the specific representation of the conceptual model.

  Read more →
• 

  AI Headshot Generators Reviews: What Actually Works in 2026

  Looking for the best AI headshot generator? An AI headshot generator is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it can save you hours every week by automating repetitive work. Most options offer a generous free tier, with paid plans unlocking higher limits, faster processing, and team features. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI headshot 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 →
• 

  Foveated rendering

  Foveated rendering is a rendering technique which uses an eye tracker integrated with a virtual reality headset to reduce the rendering workload by greatly reducing the image quality in the peripheral vision (outside of the zone gazed by the fovea). A less sophisticated variant called fixed foveated rendering doesn't utilise eye tracking and instead assumes a fixed focal point. == History == Research into foveated rendering dates back at least to 1991. At Tech Crunch Disrupt SF 2014, Fove unveiled a headset featuring foveated rendering. This was followed by a successful kickstarter in May 2015. At CES 2016, SensoMotoric Instruments (SMI) demoed a new 250 Hz eye tracking system and a working foveated rendering solution. It resulted from a partnership with camera sensor manufacturer Omnivision who provided the camera hardware for the new system. In July 2016, Nvidia demonstrated during SIGGRAPH a new method of foveated rendering claimed to be invisible to users. In February 2017, Qualcomm announced their Snapdragon 835 Virtual Reality Development Kit (VRDK) which includes foveated rendering support called Adreno Foveation. == Use == According to chief scientist Michael Abrash at Oculus, utilising foveated rendering in conjunction with sparse rendering and deep learning image reconstruction has the potential to require an order of magnitude fewer pixels to be rendered in comparison to a full image. Later, these results have been demonstrated and published. In December 2019, fixed foveated rendering support was added to the Oculus Quest SDK. A number of VR headsets have included on-board eye tracking to provide support for foveated rendering, including HTC's Vive Pro Eye (2019), Meta Quest Pro (2022), PlayStation VR2 (2023), and Apple Vision Pro (2024). In 2025, Valve announced the upcoming Steam Frame headset, which applies a variation of the technique known as "foveated streaming" for wireless streaming from a PC to the headset; the method similarly uses variance in bit rate, and is performed at the encoder level rather than the software level.

  Read more →
• 

  Maximum-entropy Markov model

  In statistics, a maximum-entropy Markov model (MEMM), or conditional Markov model (CMM), is a graphical model for sequence labeling that combines features of hidden Markov models (HMMs) and maximum entropy (MaxEnt) models. An MEMM is a discriminative model that extends a standard maximum entropy classifier by assuming that the unknown values to be learnt are connected in a Markov chain rather than being conditionally independent of each other. MEMMs find applications in natural language processing, specifically in part-of-speech tagging and information extraction. == Model == Suppose we have a sequence of observations O 1 , … , O n {\displaystyle O_{1},\dots ,O_{n}} that we seek to tag with the labels S 1 , … , S n {\displaystyle S_{1},\dots ,S_{n}} that maximize the conditional probability P ( S 1 , … , S n ∣ O 1 , … , O n ) {\displaystyle P(S_{1},\dots ,S_{n}\mid O_{1},\dots ,O_{n})} . In a MEMM, this probability is factored into Markov transition probabilities, where the probability of transitioning to a particular label depends only on the observation at that position and the previous position's label: P ( S 1 , … , S n ∣ O 1 , … , O n ) = ∏ t = 1 n P ( S t ∣ S t − 1 , O t ) . {\displaystyle P(S_{1},\dots ,S_{n}\mid O_{1},\dots ,O_{n})=\prod _{t=1}^{n}P(S_{t}\mid S_{t-1},O_{t}).} Each of these transition probabilities comes from the same general distribution P ( s ∣ s ′ , o ) {\displaystyle P(s\mid s',o)} . For each possible label value of the previous label s ′ {\displaystyle s'} , the probability of a certain label s {\displaystyle s} is modeled in the same way as a maximum entropy classifier: P ( s ∣ s ′ , o ) = P s ′ ( s ∣ o ) = 1 Z ( o , s ′ ) exp ⁡ ( ∑ a λ a f a ( o , s ) ) . {\displaystyle P(s\mid s',o)=P_{s'}(s\mid o)={\frac {1}{Z(o,s')}}\exp \left(\sum _{a}\lambda _{a}f_{a}(o,s)\right).} Here, the f a ( o , s ) {\displaystyle f_{a}(o,s)} are real-valued or categorical feature-functions, and Z ( o , s ′ ) {\displaystyle Z(o,s')} is a normalization term ensuring that the distribution sums to one. This form for the distribution corresponds to the maximum entropy probability distribution satisfying the constraint that the empirical expectation for the feature is equal to the expectation given the model: E e ⁡ [ f a ( o , s ) ] = E p ⁡ [ f a ( o , s ) ] for all a . {\displaystyle \operatorname {E} _{e}\left[f_{a}(o,s)\right]=\operatorname {E} _{p}\left[f_{a}(o,s)\right]\quad {\text{ for all }}a.} The parameters λ a {\displaystyle \lambda _{a}} can be estimated using generalized iterative scaling. Furthermore, a variant of the Baum–Welch algorithm, which is used for training HMMs, can be used to estimate parameters when training data has incomplete or missing labels. The optimal state sequence S 1 , … , S n {\displaystyle S_{1},\dots ,S_{n}} can be found using a very similar Viterbi algorithm to the one used for HMMs. The dynamic program uses the forward probability: α t + 1 ( s ) = ∑ s ′ ∈ S α t ( s ′ ) P s ′ ( s ∣ o t + 1 ) . {\displaystyle \alpha _{t+1}(s)=\sum _{s'\in S}\alpha _{t}(s')P_{s'}(s\mid o_{t+1}).} == Strengths and weaknesses == An advantage of MEMMs rather than HMMs for sequence tagging is that they offer increased freedom in choosing features to represent observations. In sequence tagging situations, it is useful to use domain knowledge to design special-purpose features. In the original paper introducing MEMMs, the authors write that "when trying to extract previously unseen company names from a newswire article, the identity of a word alone is not very predictive; however, knowing that the word is capitalized, that is a noun, that it is used in an appositive, and that it appears near the top of the article would all be quite predictive (in conjunction with the context provided by the state-transition structure)." Useful sequence tagging features, such as these, are often non-independent. Maximum entropy models do not assume independence between features, but generative observation models used in HMMs do. Therefore, MEMMs allow the user to specify many correlated, but informative features. Another advantage of MEMMs versus HMMs and conditional random fields (CRFs) is that training can be considerably more efficient. In HMMs and CRFs, one needs to use some version of the forward–backward algorithm as an inner loop in training. However, in MEMMs, estimating the parameters of the maximum-entropy distributions used for the transition probabilities can be done for each transition distribution in isolation. A drawback of MEMMs is that they potentially suffer from the "label bias problem," where states with low-entropy transition distributions "effectively ignore their observations." Conditional random fields were designed to overcome this weakness, which had already been recognised in the context of neural network-based Markov models in the early 1990s. Another source of label bias is that training is always done with respect to known previous tags, so the model struggles at test time when there is uncertainty in the previous tag.

  Read more →
• 

  Best AI Subtitle Generators in 2026

  Comparing the best AI subtitle generator? An AI subtitle 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 subtitle 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 →
• 

  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 →
• 

  Aggregation (linguistics)

  In linguistics, aggregation is a subtask of natural language generation, which involves merging syntactic constituents (such as sentences and phrases) together. Sometimes aggregation can be done at a conceptual level. == Examples == A simple example of syntactic aggregation is merging the two sentences John went to the shop and John bought an apple into the single sentence John went to the shop and bought an apple. Syntactic aggregation can be much more complex than this. For example, aggregation can embed one of the constituents in the other; e.g., we can aggregate John went to the shop and The shop was closed into the sentence John went to the shop, which was closed. From a pragmatic perspective, aggregating sentences together often suggests to the reader that these sentences are related to each other. If this is not the case, the reader may be confused. For example, someone who reads John went to the shop and bought an apple may infer that the apple was bought in the shop; if this is not the case, then these sentences should not be aggregated. == Algorithms and issues == Aggregation algorithms must do two things: Decide when two constituents should be aggregated Decide how two constituents should be aggregated, and create the aggregated structure The first issue, deciding when to aggregate, is poorly understood. Aggegration decisions certainly depend on the semantic relations between the constituents, as mentioned above; they also depend on the genre (e.g., bureaucratic texts tend to be more aggregated than instruction manuals). They probably should depend on rhetorical and discourse structure. The literacy level of the reader is also probably important (poor readers need shorter sentences). But we have no integrated model which brings all these factors together into a single algorithm. With regard to the second issue, there have been some studies of different types of aggregation, and how they should be carried out. Harbusch and Kempen describe several syntactic aggregation strategies. In their terminology, John went to the shop and bought an apple is an example of forward conjunction Reduction Much less is known about conceptual aggregation. Di Eugenio et al. show how conceptual aggregation can be done in an intelligent tutoring system, and demonstrate that performing such aggregation makes the system more effective (and that conceptual aggregation make a bigger impact than syntactic aggregation). == Software == Unfortunately there is not much software available for performing aggregation. However the SimpleNLG system does include limited support for basic aggregation. For example, the following code causes SimpleNLG to print out The man is hungry and buys an apple.

  Read more →
• 

  Abeba Birhane

  Abeba Birhane is an Ethiopian-born cognitive scientist who works at the intersection of complex adaptive systems, machine learning, algorithmic bias, and critical race studies. Birhane's work with Vinay Prabhu uncovered that large-scale image datasets commonly used to develop AI systems, including ImageNet and 80 Million Tiny Images, carried racist and misogynistic labels and offensive images. She has been recognized by VentureBeat as a top innovator in computer vision and named as one of the 100 most influential persons in AI 2023 by TIME magazine. == Early life and education == Birhane was born in Ethiopia. She received her Bachelors of Science in Psychology and a Bachelors of Arts in Philosophy from The Open University. In 2015, she completed her Master of Science in Cognitive Science and, in 2021, her Ph.D. at the Complex Software Lab in the School of Computer Science at University College Dublin. == Career and research == Birhane studied the impacts of emerging AI technologies and how they shape individuals and local communities. She found that AI algorithms tend to disproportionately impact vulnerable groups such as older workers, trans people, immigrants, and children. Her research on relational ethics won the best paper award at NeurIPS’s Black in AI workshop in 2019. She has also studied and written about algorithmic colonization driven by corporate agendas. Her work in decolonizing computational sciences addressed the inherited oppressions in current systems especially towards women of color. In 2020, Birhane and Vinay Prabhu, principal machine learning scientist at UnifyID, published a paper examining the problematic data collection, labelling, classification, and consequences of large image datasets. These datasets, including ImageNet and MIT's 80 Million Tiny Images, have been used to develop thousands of AI algorithms and systems. Birhane and Prabhu found that they contained many racist and misogynistic labels and slurs as well as offensive images. This resulted in MIT voluntarily and formally taking down the 80 Million Tiny Images dataset. More recently, Birhane has worked with Rediet Abebe, George Obaido, and Sekou Remy on researching the barriers to data sharing in Africa. They found that power imbalances are significant in the data sharing process, even when the data comes from Africa. Their research was published at the ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. In 2024, Birhane established the AI Accountability Lab research group at Trinity College Dublin. == Selected awards == 2019 NeurIPS Black in AI Workshop Best Paper Award 2020 Venture Beat AI Innovations Award in the category Computer Vision Innovation (received with Vinay Prabhu) 2021 100 Brilliant Women in AI Ethics Hall of Fame Honoree 2022 Lero Director’s Prize for PhD/PostDoctoral Contribution. 2023 100 Most Influential People in AI by TIME magazine

  Read more →
• 

  Evaluation of machine translation

  Various methods for the evaluation for machine translation have been employed. This article focuses on the evaluation of the output of machine translation, rather than on performance or usability evaluation. == Round-trip translation == A typical way for lay people to assess machine translation quality is to translate from a source language to a target language and back to the source language with the same engine. Though intuitively this may seem like a good method of evaluation, it has been shown that round-trip translation is a "poor predictor of quality". The reason why it is such a poor predictor of quality is reasonably intuitive. A round-trip translation is not testing one system, but two systems: the language pair of the engine for translating into the target language, and the language pair translating back from the target language. Consider the following examples of round-trip translation performed from English to Italian and Portuguese from Somers (2005): In the first example, where the text is translated into Italian then back into English—the English text is significantly garbled, but the Italian is a serviceable translation. In the second example, the text translated back into English is perfect, but the Portuguese translation is meaningless; the program thought "tit" was a reference to a tit (bird), which was intended for a "tat", a word it did not understand. While round-trip translation may be useful to generate a "surplus of fun," the methodology is deficient for serious study of machine translation quality. == Human evaluation == This section covers two of the large scale evaluation studies that have had significant impact on the field—the ALPAC 1966 study and the ARPA study. === Automatic Language Processing Advisory Committee (ALPAC) === One of the constituent parts of the ALPAC report was a study comparing different levels of human translation with machine translation output, using human subjects as judges. The human judges were specially trained for the purpose. The evaluation study compared an MT system translating from Russian into English with human translators, on two variables. The variables studied were "intelligibility" and "fidelity". Intelligibility was a measure of how "understandable" the sentence was, and was measured on a scale of 1–9. Fidelity was a measure of how much information the translated sentence retained compared to the original, and was measured on a scale of 0–9. Each point on the scale was associated with a textual description. For example, 3 on the intelligibility scale was described as "Generally unintelligible; it tends to read like nonsense but, with a considerable amount of reflection and study, one can at least hypothesize the idea intended by the sentence". Intelligibility was measured without reference to the original, while fidelity was measured indirectly. The translated sentence was presented, and after reading it and absorbing the content, the original sentence was presented. The judges were asked to rate the original sentence on informativeness. So, the more informative the original sentence, the lower the quality of the translation. The study showed that the variables were highly correlated when the human judgment was averaged per sentence. The variation among raters was small, but the researchers recommended that at the very least, three or four raters should be used. The evaluation methodology managed to separate translations by humans from translations by machines with ease. The study concluded that, "highly reliable assessments can be made of the quality of human and machine translations". === Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) === As part of the Human Language Technologies Program, the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) created a methodology to evaluate machine translation systems, and continues to perform evaluations based on this methodology. The evaluation programme was instigated in 1991, and continues to this day. Details of the programme can be found in White et al. (1994) and White (1995). The evaluation programme involved testing several systems based on different theoretical approaches; statistical, rule-based and human-assisted. A number of methods for the evaluation of the output from these systems were tested in 1992 and the most recent suitable methods were selected for inclusion in the programmes for subsequent years. The methods were; comprehension evaluation, quality panel evaluation, and evaluation based on adequacy and fluency. Comprehension evaluation aimed to directly compare systems based on the results from multiple choice comprehension tests, as in Church et al. (1993). The texts chosen were a set of articles in English on the subject of financial news. These articles were translated by professional translators into a series of language pairs, and then translated back into English using the machine translation systems. It was decided that this was not adequate for a standalone method of comparing systems and as such abandoned due to issues with the modification of meaning in the process of translating from English. The idea of quality panel evaluation was to submit translations to a panel of expert native English speakers who were professional translators and get them to evaluate them. The evaluations were done on the basis of a metric, modelled on a standard US government metric used to rate human translations. This was good from the point of view that the metric was "externally motivated", since it was not specifically developed for machine translation. However, the quality panel evaluation was very difficult to set up logistically, as it necessitated having a number of experts together in one place for a week or more, and furthermore for them to reach consensus. This method was also abandoned. Along with a modified form of the comprehension evaluation (re-styled as informativeness evaluation), the most popular method was to obtain ratings from monolingual judges for segments of a document. The judges were presented with a segment, and asked to rate it for two variables, adequacy and fluency. Adequacy is a rating of how much information is transferred between the original and the translation, and fluency is a rating of how good the English is. This technique was found to cover the relevant parts of the quality panel evaluation, while at the same time being easier to deploy, as it didn't require expert judgment. Measuring systems based on adequacy and fluency, along with informativeness is now the standard methodology for the ARPA evaluation program. == Automatic evaluation == In the context of this article, a metric is a measurement. A metric that evaluates machine translation output represents the quality of the output. The quality of a translation is inherently subjective, there is no objective or quantifiable "good." Therefore, any metric must assign quality scores so they correlate with the human judgment of quality. That is, a metric should score highly translations that humans score highly, and give low scores to those humans give low scores. Human judgment is the benchmark for assessing automatic metrics, as humans are the end-users of any translation output. The measure of evaluation for metrics is correlation with human judgment. This is generally done at two levels, at the sentence level, where scores are calculated by the metric for a set of translated sentences, and then correlated against human judgment for the same sentences. And at the corpus level, where scores over the sentences are aggregated for both human judgments and metric judgments, and these aggregate scores are then correlated. Figures for correlation at the sentence level are rarely reported, although Banerjee et al. (2005) do give correlation figures that show that, at least for their metric, sentence-level correlation is substantially worse than corpus level correlation. While not widely reported, it has been noted that the genre, or domain, of a text has an effect on the correlation obtained when using metrics. Coughlin (2003) reports that comparing the candidate text against a single reference translation does not adversely affect the correlation of metrics when working in a restricted domain text. Even if a metric correlates well with human judgment in one study on one corpus, this successful correlation may not carry over to another corpus. Good metric performance, across text types or domains, is important for the reusability of the metric. A metric that only works for text in a specific domain is useful, but less useful than one that works across many domains—because creating a new metric for every new evaluation or domain is undesirable. Another important factor in the usefulness of an evaluation metric is to have a good correlation, even when working with small amounts of data, that is candidate sentences and reference translations. Turian et al. (2003) point out that, "Any MT evaluation measure is less reliable on shorter translations", and

  Read more →