AI Assistant Job Description — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.
VideoPoet is a large language model developed by Google Research in 2023 for video making. It can be asked to animate still images. The model accepts text, images, and videos as inputs, with a program to add feature for any input to any format generated content. VideoPoet was publicly announced on December 19, 2023. It uses an autoregressive language model.
Read more →
In computer science, a suffix automaton is an efficient data structure for representing the substring index of a given string which allows the storage, processing, and retrieval of compressed information about all its substrings. The suffix automaton of a string S {\displaystyle S} is the smallest directed acyclic graph with a dedicated initial vertex and a set of "final" vertices, such that paths from the initial vertex to final vertices represent the suffixes of the string. In terms of automata theory, a suffix automaton is the minimal partial deterministic finite automaton that recognizes the set of suffixes of a given string S = s 1 s 2 … s n {\displaystyle S=s_{1}s_{2}\dots s_{n}} . The state graph of a suffix automaton is called a directed acyclic word graph (DAWG), a term that is also sometimes used for any deterministic acyclic finite state automaton. Suffix automata were introduced in 1983 by a group of scientists from the University of Denver and the University of Colorado Boulder. They suggested a linear time online algorithm for its construction and showed that the suffix automaton of a string S {\displaystyle S} having length at least two characters has at most 2 | S | − 1 {\textstyle 2|S|-1} states and at most 3 | S | − 4 {\textstyle 3|S|-4} transitions. Further works have shown a close connection between suffix automata and suffix trees, and have outlined several generalizations of suffix automata, such as compacted suffix automaton obtained by compression of nodes with a single outgoing arc. Suffix automata provide efficient solutions to problems such as substring search and computation of the largest common substring of two and more strings. == History == The concept of suffix automaton was introduced in 1983 by a group of scientists from University of Denver and University of Colorado Boulder consisting of Anselm Blumer, Janet Blumer, Andrzej Ehrenfeucht, David Haussler and Ross McConnell, although similar concepts had earlier been studied alongside suffix trees in the works of Peter Weiner, Vaughan Pratt and Anatol Slissenko. In their initial work, Blumer et al. showed a suffix automaton built for the string S {\displaystyle S} of length greater than 1 {\displaystyle 1} has at most 2 | S | − 1 {\displaystyle 2|S|-1} states and at most 3 | S | − 4 {\displaystyle 3|S|-4} transitions, and suggested a linear algorithm for automaton construction. In 1983, Mu-Tian Chen and Joel Seiferas independently showed that Weiner's 1973 suffix-tree construction algorithm while building a suffix tree of the string S {\displaystyle S} constructs a suffix automaton of the reversed string S R {\textstyle S^{R}} as an auxiliary structure. In 1987, Blumer et al. applied the compressing technique used in suffix trees to a suffix automaton and invented the compacted suffix automaton, which is also called the compacted directed acyclic word graph (CDAWG). In 1997, Maxime Crochemore and Renaud Vérin developed a linear algorithm for direct CDAWG construction. In 2001, Shunsuke Inenaga et al. developed an algorithm for construction of CDAWG for a set of words given by a trie. == Definitions == Usually when speaking about suffix automata and related concepts, some notions from formal language theory and automata theory are used, in particular: "Alphabet" is a finite set Σ {\displaystyle \Sigma } that is used to construct words. Its elements are called "characters"; "Word" is a finite sequence of characters ω = ω 1 ω 2 … ω n {\displaystyle \omega =\omega _{1}\omega _{2}\dots \omega _{n}} . "Length" of the word ω {\displaystyle \omega } is denoted as | ω | = n {\displaystyle |\omega |=n} ; "Formal language" is a set of words over given alphabet; "Language of all words" is denoted as Σ ∗ {\displaystyle \Sigma ^{}} (where the "" character stands for Kleene star), "empty word" (the word of zero length) is denoted by the character ε {\displaystyle \varepsilon } ; "Concatenation of words" α = α 1 α 2 … α n {\displaystyle \alpha =\alpha _{1}\alpha _{2}\dots \alpha _{n}} and β = β 1 β 2 … β m {\displaystyle \beta =\beta _{1}\beta _{2}\dots \beta _{m}} is denoted as α ⋅ β {\displaystyle \alpha \cdot \beta } or α β {\displaystyle \alpha \beta } and corresponds to the word obtained by writing β {\displaystyle \beta } to the right of α {\displaystyle \alpha } , that is, α β = α 1 α 2 … α n β 1 β 2 … β m {\displaystyle \alpha \beta =\alpha _{1}\alpha _{2}\dots \alpha _{n}\beta _{1}\beta _{2}\dots \beta _{m}} ; "Concatenation of languages" A {\displaystyle A} and B {\displaystyle B} is denoted as A ⋅ B {\displaystyle A\cdot B} or A B {\displaystyle AB} and corresponds to the set of pairwise concatenations A B = { α β : α ∈ A , β ∈ B } {\displaystyle AB=\{\alpha \beta :\alpha \in A,\beta \in B\}} ; If the word ω ∈ Σ ∗ {\displaystyle \omega \in \Sigma ^{}} may be represented as ω = α γ β {\displaystyle \omega =\alpha \gamma \beta } , where α , β , γ ∈ Σ ∗ {\displaystyle \alpha ,\beta ,\gamma \in \Sigma ^{}} , then words α {\displaystyle \alpha } , β {\displaystyle \beta } and γ {\displaystyle \gamma } are called "prefix", "suffix" and "subword" (substring) of the word ω {\displaystyle \omega } correspondingly; If T = T 1 … T n {\displaystyle T=T_{1}\dots T_{n}} and T l T l + 1 … T r = S {\displaystyle T_{l}T_{l+1}\dots T_{r}=S} (with 1 ≤ l ≤ r ≤ n {\displaystyle 1\leq l\leq r\leq n} ) then S {\displaystyle S} is said to "occur" in T {\displaystyle T} as a subword. Here l {\displaystyle l} and r {\displaystyle r} are called left and right positions of occurrence of S {\displaystyle S} in T {\displaystyle T} correspondingly. == Automaton structure == Formally, deterministic finite automaton is determined by 5-tuple A = ( Σ , Q , q 0 , F , δ ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}=(\Sigma ,Q,q_{0},F,\delta )} , where: Σ {\displaystyle \Sigma } is an "alphabet" that is used to construct words, Q {\displaystyle Q} is a set of automaton "states", q 0 ∈ Q {\displaystyle q_{0}\in Q} is an "initial" state of automaton, F ⊂ Q {\displaystyle F\subset Q} is a set of "final" states of automaton, δ : Q × Σ ↦ Q {\displaystyle \delta :Q\times \Sigma \mapsto Q} is a partial "transition" function of automaton, such that δ ( q , σ ) {\displaystyle \delta (q,\sigma )} for q ∈ Q {\displaystyle q\in Q} and σ ∈ Σ {\displaystyle \sigma \in \Sigma } is either undefined or defines a transition from q {\displaystyle q} over character σ {\displaystyle \sigma } . Most commonly, deterministic finite automaton is represented as a directed graph ("diagram") such that: Set of graph vertices corresponds to the state of states Q {\displaystyle Q} , Graph has a specific marked vertex corresponding to initial state q 0 {\displaystyle q_{0}} , Graph has several marked vertices corresponding to the set of final states F {\displaystyle F} , Set of graph arcs corresponds to the set of transitions δ {\displaystyle \delta } , Specifically, every transition δ ( q 1 , σ ) = q 2 {\textstyle \delta (q_{1},\sigma )=q_{2}} is represented by an arc from q 1 {\displaystyle q_{1}} to q 2 {\displaystyle q_{2}} marked with the character σ {\displaystyle \sigma } . This transition also may be denoted as q 1 σ ⟶ q 2 {\textstyle q_{1}{\begin{smallmatrix}{\sigma }\\[-5pt]{\longrightarrow }\end{smallmatrix}}q_{2}} . In terms of its diagram, the automaton recognizes the word ω = ω 1 ω 2 … ω m {\displaystyle \omega =\omega _{1}\omega _{2}\dots \omega _{m}} only if there is a path from the initial vertex q 0 {\displaystyle q_{0}} to some final vertex q ∈ F {\displaystyle q\in F} such that concatenation of characters on this path forms ω {\displaystyle \omega } . The set of words recognized by an automaton forms a language that is set to be recognized by the automaton. In these terms, the language recognized by a suffix automaton of S {\displaystyle S} is the language of its (possibly empty) suffixes. === Automaton states === "Right context" of the word ω {\displaystyle \omega } with respect to language L {\displaystyle L} is a set [ ω ] R = { α : ω α ∈ L } {\displaystyle [\omega ]_{R}=\{\alpha :\omega \alpha \in L\}} that is a set of words α {\displaystyle \alpha } such that their concatenation with ω {\displaystyle \omega } forms a word from L {\displaystyle L} . Right contexts induce a natural equivalence relation [ α ] R = [ β ] R {\displaystyle [\alpha ]_{R}=[\beta ]_{R}} on the set of all words. If language L {\displaystyle L} is recognized by some deterministic finite automaton, there exists unique up to isomorphism automaton that recognizes the same language and has the minimum possible number of states. Such an automaton is called a minimal automaton for the given language L {\displaystyle L} . Myhill–Nerode theorem allows it to define it explicitly in terms of right contexts: In these terms, a "suffix automaton" is the minimal deterministic finite automaton recognizing the language of suffixes of the word S = s 1 s 2 … s n {\displaystyle S=s_{1}s_{2}\dots s_{n}} . The right context of the word ω {\displaystyle \omeg
Read more →
Aravind Krishna Joshi (August 5, 1929 – December 31, 2017) was the Henry Salvatori Professor of Computer and Cognitive Science in the computer science department of the University of Pennsylvania. Joshi defined the tree-adjoining grammar formalism which is often used in computational linguistics and natural language processing. Joshi studied at Pune University and the Indian Institute of Science, where he was awarded a BE in electrical engineering and a DIISc in communication engineering respectively. Joshi's graduate work was done in the electrical engineering department at the University of Pennsylvania, and he was awarded his PhD in 1960. He became a professor at Penn and was the co-founder and co-director of the Institute for Research in Cognitive Science. == Awards and recognitions == Guggenheim fellow, 1971–72 Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), 1976 Best Paper Award at the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1987 Founding Fellow of the American Association for Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), 1990 IJCAI Award for Research Excellence, 1997 Fellow of the Association for Computing Machinery, 1998 Elected to the National Academy of Engineering, 1999 First to be awarded the Association for Computational Linguistics Lifetime Achievement Award at the 40th anniversary meeting of the ACL, 2002 Awarded the Rumelhart Prize, 2003 Benjamin Franklin Medal in Computer and Cognitive Science, 2005 Doctor honoris causa of mathematical and physical sciences, Charles University in Prague, October 30, 2013 S.-Y. Kuroda Prize of the SIG Mathematics of Language of the ACL, 2013 === Awarded history === On April 21, 2005, Joshi was awarded the Franklin Institute's Benjamin Franklin Medal in Computer and Cognitive Science. The Franklin Institute citation states that he was awarded the medal "for his fundamental contributions to our understanding of how language is represented in the mind, and for developing techniques that enable computers to process efficiently the wide range of human languages. These advances have led to new methods for computer translation."
Read more →
In computer science, extended affix grammars (EAGs) are a formal grammar formalism for describing the context free and context sensitive syntax of language, both natural language and programming languages. EAGs are a member of the family of two-level grammars; more specifically, a restriction of Van Wijngaarden grammars with the specific purpose of making parsing feasible. Like Van Wijngaarden grammars, EAGs have hyperrules that form a context-free grammar except in that their nonterminals may have arguments, known as affixes, the possible values of which are supplied by another context-free grammar, the metarules. EAGs were introduced and studied by D.A. Watt in 1974; recognizers were developed at the University of Nijmegen between 1985 and 1995. The EAG compiler developed there will generate either a recogniser, a transducer, a translator, or a syntax directed editor for a language described in the EAG formalism. The formalism is quite similar to Prolog, to the extent that it borrowed its cut operator. EAGs have been used to write grammars of natural languages such as English, Spanish, and Hungarian. The aim was to verify the grammars by making them parse corpora of text (corpus linguistics); hence, parsing had to be sufficiently practical. However, the parse tree explosion problem that ambiguities in natural language tend to produce in this type of approach is worsened for EAGs because each choice of affix value may produce a separate parse, even when several different values are equivalent. The remedy proposed was to switch to the much simpler Affix Grammar over a Finite Lattice (AGFL) instead, in which metagrammars can only produce simple finite languages.
Read more →
Bayesian programming is a formalism and a methodology for having a technique to specify probabilistic models and solve problems when less than the necessary information is available. Edwin T. Jaynes proposed that probability could be considered as an alternative and an extension of logic for rational reasoning with incomplete and uncertain information. In his founding book Probability Theory: The Logic of Science he developed this theory and proposed what he called "the robot," which was not a physical device, but an inference engine to automate probabilistic reasoning—a kind of Prolog for probability instead of logic. Bayesian programming is a formal and concrete implementation of this "robot". Bayesian programming may also be seen as an algebraic formalism to specify graphical models such as, for instance, Bayesian networks, dynamic Bayesian networks, Kalman filters or hidden Markov models. Indeed, Bayesian programming is more general than Bayesian networks and has a power of expression equivalent to probabilistic factor graphs. == Formalism == A Bayesian program is a means of specifying a family of probability distributions. The constituent elements of a Bayesian program are presented below: Program { Description { Specification ( π ) { Variables Decomposition Forms Identification (based on δ ) Question {\displaystyle {\text{Program}}{\begin{cases}{\text{Description}}{\begin{cases}{\text{Specification}}(\pi ){\begin{cases}{\text{Variables}}\\{\text{Decomposition}}\\{\text{Forms}}\\\end{cases}}\\{\text{Identification (based on }}\delta )\end{cases}}\\{\text{Question}}\end{cases}}} A program is constructed from a description and a question. A description is constructed using some specification ( π {\displaystyle \pi } ) as given by the programmer and an identification or learning process for the parameters not completely specified by the specification, using a data set ( δ {\displaystyle \delta } ). A specification is constructed from a set of pertinent variables, a decomposition and a set of forms. Forms are either parametric forms or questions to other Bayesian programs. A question specifies which probability distribution has to be computed. === Description === The purpose of a description is to specify an effective method of computing a joint probability distribution on a set of variables { X 1 , X 2 , ⋯ , X N } {\displaystyle \left\{X_{1},X_{2},\cdots ,X_{N}\right\}} given a set of experimental data δ {\displaystyle \delta } and some specification π {\displaystyle \pi } . This joint distribution is denoted as: P ( X 1 ∧ X 2 ∧ ⋯ ∧ X N ∣ δ ∧ π ) {\displaystyle P\left(X_{1}\wedge X_{2}\wedge \cdots \wedge X_{N}\mid \delta \wedge \pi \right)} . To specify preliminary knowledge π {\displaystyle \pi } , the programmer must undertake the following: Define the set of relevant variables { X 1 , X 2 , ⋯ , X N } {\displaystyle \left\{X_{1},X_{2},\cdots ,X_{N}\right\}} on which the joint distribution is defined. Decompose the joint distribution (break it into relevant independent or conditional probabilities). Define the forms of each of the distributions (e.g., for each variable, one of the list of probability distributions). ==== Decomposition ==== Given a partition of { X 1 , X 2 , … , X N } {\displaystyle \left\{X_{1},X_{2},\ldots ,X_{N}\right\}} containing K {\displaystyle K} subsets, K {\displaystyle K} variables are defined L 1 , ⋯ , L K {\displaystyle L_{1},\cdots ,L_{K}} , each corresponding to one of these subsets. Each variable L k {\displaystyle L_{k}} is obtained as the conjunction of the variables { X k 1 , X k 2 , ⋯ } {\displaystyle \left\{X_{k_{1}},X_{k_{2}},\cdots \right\}} belonging to the k t h {\displaystyle k^{th}} subset. Recursive application of Bayes' theorem leads to: P ( X 1 ∧ X 2 ∧ ⋯ ∧ X N ∣ δ ∧ π ) = P ( L 1 ∧ ⋯ ∧ L K ∣ δ ∧ π ) = P ( L 1 ∣ δ ∧ π ) × P ( L 2 ∣ L 1 ∧ δ ∧ π ) × ⋯ × P ( L K ∣ L K − 1 ∧ ⋯ ∧ L 1 ∧ δ ∧ π ) {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}&P\left(X_{1}\wedge X_{2}\wedge \cdots \wedge X_{N}\mid \delta \wedge \pi \right)\\={}&P\left(L_{1}\wedge \cdots \wedge L_{K}\mid \delta \wedge \pi \right)\\={}&P\left(L_{1}\mid \delta \wedge \pi \right)\times P\left(L_{2}\mid L_{1}\wedge \delta \wedge \pi \right)\times \cdots \times P\left(L_{K}\mid L_{K-1}\wedge \cdots \wedge L_{1}\wedge \delta \wedge \pi \right)\end{aligned}}} Conditional independence hypotheses then allow further simplifications. A conditional independence hypothesis for variable L k {\displaystyle L_{k}} is defined by choosing some variable X n {\displaystyle X_{n}} among the variables appearing in the conjunction L k − 1 ∧ ⋯ ∧ L 2 ∧ L 1 {\displaystyle L_{k-1}\wedge \cdots \wedge L_{2}\wedge L_{1}} , labelling R k {\displaystyle R_{k}} as the conjunction of these chosen variables and setting: P ( L k ∣ L k − 1 ∧ ⋯ ∧ L 1 ∧ δ ∧ π ) = P ( L k ∣ R k ∧ δ ∧ π ) {\displaystyle P\left(L_{k}\mid L_{k-1}\wedge \cdots \wedge L_{1}\wedge \delta \wedge \pi \right)=P\left(L_{k}\mid R_{k}\wedge \delta \wedge \pi \right)} We then obtain: P ( X 1 ∧ X 2 ∧ ⋯ ∧ X N ∣ δ ∧ π ) = P ( L 1 ∣ δ ∧ π ) × P ( L 2 ∣ R 2 ∧ δ ∧ π ) × ⋯ × P ( L K ∣ R K ∧ δ ∧ π ) {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}&P\left(X_{1}\wedge X_{2}\wedge \cdots \wedge X_{N}\mid \delta \wedge \pi \right)\\={}&P\left(L_{1}\mid \delta \wedge \pi \right)\times P\left(L_{2}\mid R_{2}\wedge \delta \wedge \pi \right)\times \cdots \times P\left(L_{K}\mid R_{K}\wedge \delta \wedge \pi \right)\end{aligned}}} Such a simplification of the joint distribution as a product of simpler distributions is called a decomposition, derived using the chain rule. This ensures that each variable appears at the most once on the left of a conditioning bar, which is the necessary and sufficient condition to write mathematically valid decompositions. ==== Forms ==== Each distribution P ( L k ∣ R k ∧ δ ∧ π ) {\displaystyle P\left(L_{k}\mid R_{k}\wedge \delta \wedge \pi \right)} appearing in the product is then associated with either a parametric form (i.e., a function f μ ( L k ) {\displaystyle f_{\mu }\left(L_{k}\right)} ) or a question to another Bayesian program P ( L k ∣ R k ∧ δ ∧ π ) = P ( L ∣ R ∧ δ ^ ∧ π ^ ) {\displaystyle P\left(L_{k}\mid R_{k}\wedge \delta \wedge \pi \right)=P\left(L\mid R\wedge {\widehat {\delta }}\wedge {\widehat {\pi }}\right)} . When it is a form f μ ( L k ) {\displaystyle f_{\mu }\left(L_{k}\right)} , in general, μ {\displaystyle \mu } is a vector of parameters that may depend on R k {\displaystyle R_{k}} or δ {\displaystyle \delta } or both. Learning takes place when some of these parameters are computed using the data set δ {\displaystyle \delta } . An important feature of Bayesian programming is this capacity to use questions to other Bayesian programs as components of the definition of a new Bayesian program. P ( L k ∣ R k ∧ δ ∧ π ) {\displaystyle P\left(L_{k}\mid R_{k}\wedge \delta \wedge \pi \right)} is obtained by some inferences done by another Bayesian program defined by the specifications π ^ {\displaystyle {\widehat {\pi }}} and the data δ ^ {\displaystyle {\widehat {\delta }}} . This is similar to calling a subroutine in classical programming and provides an easy way to build hierarchical models. === Question === Given a description (i.e., P ( X 1 ∧ X 2 ∧ ⋯ ∧ X N ∣ δ ∧ π ) {\displaystyle P\left(X_{1}\wedge X_{2}\wedge \cdots \wedge X_{N}\mid \delta \wedge \pi \right)} ), a question is obtained by partitioning { X 1 , X 2 , ⋯ , X N } {\displaystyle \left\{X_{1},X_{2},\cdots ,X_{N}\right\}} into three sets: the searched variables, the known variables and the free variables. The 3 variables S e a r c h e d {\displaystyle Searched} , K n o w n {\displaystyle Known} and F r e e {\displaystyle Free} are defined as the conjunction of the variables belonging to these sets. A question is defined as the set of distributions: P ( S e a r c h e d ∣ Known ∧ δ ∧ π ) {\displaystyle P\left(Searched\mid {\text{Known}}\wedge \delta \wedge \pi \right)} made of many "instantiated questions" as the cardinal of K n o w n {\displaystyle Known} , each instantiated question being the distribution: P ( Searched ∣ Known ∧ δ ∧ π ) {\displaystyle P\left({\text{Searched}}\mid {\text{Known}}\wedge \delta \wedge \pi \right)} === Inference === Given the joint distribution P ( X 1 ∧ X 2 ∧ ⋯ ∧ X N ∣ δ ∧ π ) {\displaystyle P\left(X_{1}\wedge X_{2}\wedge \cdots \wedge X_{N}\mid \delta \wedge \pi \right)} , it is always possible to compute any possible question using the following general inference: P ( Searched ∣ Known ∧ δ ∧ π ) = ∑ Free [ P ( Searched ∧ Free ∣ Known ∧ δ ∧ π ) ] = ∑ Free [ P ( Searched ∧ Free ∧ Known ∣ δ ∧ π ) ] P ( Known ∣ δ ∧ π ) = ∑ Free [ P ( Searched ∧ Free ∧ Known ∣ δ ∧ π ) ] ∑ Free ∧ Searched [ P ( Searched ∧ Free ∧ Known ∣ δ ∧ π ) ] = 1 Z × ∑ Free [ P ( Searched ∧ Free ∧ Known ∣ δ ∧ π ) ] {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}&P\left({\text{Searched}}\mid {\text{Known}}\wedge \delta \wedge \pi \right)\\={}&\sum _{\text{Free}}\left[P\left({\text{Searched}}\wedge {\text{Free}}\mid {\text{Known}}\wedge \delta \wedge \
Read more →
James R. Curran is an Australian computational linguist. He is the former CEO of Grok Academy and previously a senior lecturer at the University of Sydney. He holds a PhD in Informatics from the University of Edinburgh. == Research == Curran's research focuses on natural language processing (NLP), more specifically combinatory categorial grammar and question answering systems. In addition to his contributions to NLP, Curran has produced a paper on the development of search engines to assist in driving problem based learning. == Works == Curran has co-authored software packages such as C&C tools, a CCG parser (with Stephen Clark). == Educational work == In addition to his work as a University of Sydney lecturer, Curran directed the National Computer Science School, an annual summer school for technologically talented high school students. In 2013, based on their work with NCSS, he, Tara Murphy, Nicky Ringland and Tim Dawborn founded Grok Learning. In 2013 he was one of the authors of the Digital Technologies section of the Australian Curriculum - its first appearance in the national curriculum. Additionally, he acted as an advocate for digital literacy among Australian students. He was the academic director of the Australian Computing Academy, a not-for-profit within the University of Sydney until its merger with Grok Learning in 2021 to form Grok Academy. In 2022, Grok Academy under Curran secured a significant amount of funding from Richard White, founder of WiseTech, with the aim of developing new courses and encouraging other large technology companies to donate likewise. In 2024 Curran cohosted an unreleased children's reality TV show called Future Fixers, which Grok was co-producing. The show was abandoned after other producers learned of pre-existing harassment claims against him. == Sexual harassment allegations == In October 2024, he resigned from his position as CEO and board member of Grok Academy after multiple allegations of harassment were substantiated by an independent investigator. It was reported that over a 10-year span there were nine women, including six who were in high school at the time, that allege Curran sent them inappropriate messages. Additionally, it was revealed that a 2019 University of Sydney investigation found 35 cases of harassment, after which he received a warning and a 2024 University of New South Wales investigation was referred to the NSW police, who took no action as they found no criminal wrongdoing by Curran, in part because the students were over 16 at the time of the alleged harassment. In December 2024, Curran said he was “deeply sorry” for his actions.
Read more →
Ocrad is an optical character recognition program and part of the GNU Project. It is free software licensed under the GNU GPL. Based on a feature extraction method, it reads images in portable pixmap formats known as Portable anymap and produces text in byte (8-bit) or UTF-8 formats. Also included is a layout analyser, able to separate the columns or blocks of text normally found on printed pages. == User interface == Ocrad can be used as a stand-alone command-line application or as a back-end to other programs. Kooka, which was the KDE environment's default scanning application until KDE 4, can use Ocrad as its OCR engine. Since conversion to newer Qt versions, current versions of KDE no longer contain Kooka; development continues in the KDE git repository. Ocrad can be also used as an OCR engine in OCRFeeder. == History == Ocrad has been developed by Antonio Diaz Diaz since 2003. Version 0.7 was released in February 2004, 0.14 in February 2006 and 0.18 in May 2009. It is written in C++. Archives of the bug-ocrad mailing list go back to October 2003.
Read more →
Curious about the best AI chatbot? An AI chatbot 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 chatbot 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 →
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 →
TAUM (Traduction Automatique à l'Université de Montréal) is the name of a research group which was set up at the Université de Montréal in 1965. Most of its research was done between 1968 and 1980. It gave birth to the TAUM-73 and TAUM-METEO machine translation prototypes, using the Q-Systems programming language created by Alain Colmerauer, which were among the first attempts to perform automatic translation through linguistic analysis. The prototypes were never used in actual production. The TAUM-METEO name has been erroneously used for many years to designate the METEO System subsequently developed by John Chandioux.
Read more →
Hebbian theory is a neuropsychological theory claiming that an increase in synaptic efficacy arises from a presynaptic cell's repeated and persistent stimulation of a postsynaptic cell. It is an attempt to explain synaptic plasticity, the adaptation of neurons during the learning process. Hebbian theory was introduced by Donald Hebb in his 1949 book The Organization of Behavior. The theory is also called Hebb's rule, Hebb's law, Hebb's postulate, and cell assembly theory. Hebb states it as follows: Let us assume that the persistence or repetition of a reverberatory activity (or "trace") tends to induce lasting cellular changes that add to its stability. ... When an axon of cell A is near enough to excite a cell B and repeatedly or persistently takes part in firing it, some growth process or metabolic change takes place in one or both cells such that A's efficiency, as one of the cells firing B, is increased. The theory is often summarized as "Neurons that fire together, wire together." However, Hebb emphasized that cell A needs to "take part in firing" cell B, and such causality can occur only if cell A fires just before, not at the same time as, cell B. This aspect of causation in Hebb's work foreshadowed what is now known about spike-timing-dependent plasticity, which requires temporal precedence. Hebbian theory attempts to explain associative or Hebbian learning, in which simultaneous activation of cells leads to pronounced increases in synaptic strength between those cells. It also provides a biological basis for errorless learning methods for education and memory rehabilitation. In the study of neural networks in cognitive function, it is often regarded as the neuronal basis of unsupervised learning. == Engrams, cell assembly theory, and learning == Hebbian theory provides an explanation for how neurons might connect to become engrams, which may be stored in overlapping cell assemblies, or groups of neurons that encode specific information. Initially created as a way to explain recurrent activity in specific groups of cortical neurons, Hebb's theories on the form and function of cell assemblies can be understood from the following: The general idea is an old one, that any two cells or systems of cells that are repeatedly active at the same time will tend to become 'associated' so that activity in one facilitates activity in the other. Hebb also wrote: When one cell repeatedly assists in firing another, the axon of the first cell develops synaptic knobs (or enlarges them if they already exist) in contact with the soma of the second cell. D. Alan Allport posits additional ideas regarding cell assembly theory and its role in forming engrams using the concept of auto-association, or the brain's ability to retrieve information based on a partial cue, described as follows: If the inputs to a system cause the same pattern of activity to occur repeatedly, the set of active elements constituting that pattern will become increasingly strongly inter-associated. That is, each element will tend to turn on every other element and (with negative weights) to turn off the elements that do not form part of the pattern. To put it another way, the pattern as a whole will become 'auto-associated'. We may call a learned (auto-associated) pattern an engram. Research conducted in the laboratory of Nobel laureate Eric Kandel has provided evidence supporting the role of Hebbian learning mechanisms at synapses in the marine gastropod Aplysia californica. Because synapses in the peripheral nervous system of marine invertebrates are much easier to control in experiments, Kandel's research found that Hebbian long-term potentiation along with activity-dependent presynaptic facilitation are both necessary for synaptic plasticity and classical conditioning in Aplysia californica. While research on invertebrates has established fundamental mechanisms of learning and memory, much of the work on long-lasting synaptic changes between vertebrate neurons involves the use of non-physiological experimental stimulation of brain cells. However, some of the physiologically relevant synapse modification mechanisms that have been studied in vertebrate brains do seem to be examples of Hebbian processes. One such review indicates that long-lasting changes in synaptic strengths can be induced by physiologically relevant synaptic activity using both Hebbian and non-Hebbian mechanisms. == Principles == In artificial neurons and artificial neural networks, Hebb's principle can be described as a method of determining how to alter the weights between model neurons. The weight between two neurons increases if the two neurons activate simultaneously, and reduces if they activate separately. Nodes that tend to be either both positive or both negative at the same time have strong positive weights, while those that tend to be opposite have strong negative weights. The following is a formulaic description of Hebbian learning (many other descriptions are possible): w i j = x i x j , {\displaystyle \,w_{ij}=x_{i}x_{j},} where w i j {\displaystyle w_{ij}} is the weight of the connection from neuron j {\displaystyle j} to neuron i {\displaystyle i} , and x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} is the input for neuron i {\displaystyle i} . This is an example of pattern learning, where weights are updated after every training example. In a Hopfield network, connections w i j {\displaystyle w_{ij}} are set to zero if i = j {\displaystyle i=j} (no reflexive connections allowed). With binary neurons (activations either 0 or 1), connections would be set to 1 if the connected neurons have the same activation for a pattern. When several training patterns are used, the expression becomes an average of the individuals: w i j = 1 p ∑ k = 1 p x i k x j k , {\displaystyle w_{ij}={\frac {1}{p}}\sum _{k=1}^{p}x_{i}^{k}x_{j}^{k},} where w i j {\displaystyle w_{ij}} is the weight of the connection from neuron j {\displaystyle j} to neuron i {\displaystyle i} , p {\displaystyle p} is the number of training patterns and x i k {\displaystyle x_{i}^{k}} the k {\displaystyle k} -th input for neuron i {\displaystyle i} . This is learning by epoch, with weights updated after all the training examples are presented and is last term applicable to both discrete and continuous training sets. Again, in a Hopfield network, connections w i j {\displaystyle w_{ij}} are set to zero if i = j {\displaystyle i=j} (no reflexive connections). A variation of Hebbian learning that takes into account phenomena such as blocking and other neural learning phenomena is the mathematical model of Harry Klopf. Klopf's model assumes that parts of a system with simple adaptive mechanisms can underlie more complex systems with more advanced adaptive behavior, such as neural networks. == Relationship to unsupervised learning, stability, and generalization == Because of the simple nature of Hebbian learning, based only on the coincidence of pre- and post-synaptic activity, it may not be intuitively clear why this form of plasticity leads to meaningful learning. However, it can be shown that Hebbian plasticity does pick up the statistical properties of the input in a way that can be categorized as unsupervised learning. This can be mathematically shown in a simplified example. Let us work under the simplifying assumption of a single rate-based neuron of rate y ( t ) {\displaystyle y(t)} , whose inputs have rates x 1 ( t ) . . . x N ( t ) {\displaystyle x_{1}(t)...x_{N}(t)} . The response of the neuron y ( t ) {\displaystyle y(t)} is usually described as a linear combination of its input, ∑ i w i x i {\displaystyle \sum _{i}w_{i}x_{i}} , followed by a response function f {\displaystyle f} : y = f ( ∑ i = 1 N w i x i ) . {\displaystyle y=f\left(\sum _{i=1}^{N}w_{i}x_{i}\right).} As defined in the previous sections, Hebbian plasticity describes the evolution in time of the synaptic weight w {\displaystyle w} : d w i d t = η x i y . {\displaystyle {\frac {dw_{i}}{dt}}=\eta x_{i}y.} Assuming, for simplicity, an identity response function f ( a ) = a {\displaystyle f(a)=a} , we can write d w i d t = η x i ∑ j = 1 N w j x j {\displaystyle {\frac {dw_{i}}{dt}}=\eta x_{i}\sum _{j=1}^{N}w_{j}x_{j}} or in matrix form: d w d t = η x x T w . {\displaystyle {\frac {d\mathbf {w} }{dt}}=\eta \mathbf {x} \mathbf {x} ^{T}\mathbf {w} .} As in the previous chapter, if training by epoch is done an average ⟨ … ⟩ {\displaystyle \langle \dots \rangle } over discrete or continuous (time) training set of x {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} } can be done: d w d t = ⟨ η x x T w ⟩ = η ⟨ x x T ⟩ w = η C w . {\displaystyle {\frac {d\mathbf {w} }{dt}}=\langle \eta \mathbf {x} \mathbf {x} ^{T}\mathbf {w} \rangle =\eta \langle \mathbf {x} \mathbf {x} ^{T}\rangle \mathbf {w} =\eta C\mathbf {w} .} where C = ⟨ x x T ⟩ {\displaystyle C=\langle \,\mathbf {x} \mathbf {x} ^{T}\rangle } is the correlation matrix of the input under the additional assumption that ⟨ x ⟩ = 0 {\displaystyle \langle \mathbf
Read more →
Dissociated press is a parody generator (a computer program that generates nonsensical text). The generated text is based on another text using the Markov chain technique. The name is a play on "Associated Press" and the psychological term dissociation (although word salad is more typical of conditions like aphasia and schizophrenia – which is, however, frequently confused with dissociative identity disorder by laypeople). An implementation of the algorithm is available in Emacs. Another implementation is available as a Perl module in CPAN, Games::Dissociate. == The algorithm == The algorithm starts by printing a number of consecutive words (or letters) from the source text. Then it searches the source text for an occurrence of the few last words or letters printed out so far. If multiple occurrences are found, it picks a random one, and proceeds with printing the text following the chosen occurrence. After a predetermined length of text is printed out, the search procedure is repeated for the newly printed ending. Considering that words and phrases tend to appear in specific grammatical contexts, the resulting text usually seems correct grammatically, and if the source text is uniform in style, the result appears to be of similar style and subject, and takes some effort on the reader's side to recognize as not genuine. Still, the randomness of the assembly process deprives it of any logical flow - the loosely related parts are connected in a nonsensical way, creating a humorously abstract, random result. == Examples == Here is a short example of word-based Dissociated Press applied to the Jargon File: wart: n. A small, crocky feature that sticks out of an array (C has no checks for this). This is relatively benign and easy to spot if the phrase is bent so as to be not worth paying attention to the medium in question. Here is a short example of letter-based Dissociated Press applied to the same source: window sysIWYG: n. A bit was named aften /bee´t@/ prefer to use the other guy's re, especially in every cast a chuckle on neithout getting into useful informash speech makes removing a featuring a move or usage actual abstractionsidered interj. Indeed spectace logic or problem! == History == The dissociated press algorithm is described in HAKMEM (1972) Item #176. The name "dissociated press" is first known to have been associated with the Emacs implementation. Brian Hayes discussed a Travesty algorithm in Scientific American in November 1983. The article provided a garbled William Faulkner passage: When he got on the table, he come in. He never come out of my own pocket as a measure of protecting the company against riot and bloodshed. And when he said. "You tell me a bus ticket, let alone write out no case histories. Then the law come back with a knife!" Hugh Kenner and Joseph O'Rourke of Johns Hopkins University discussed their frequency table-based Travesty generator for microcomputers in BYTE in November 1984. The article included the Turbo Pascal source for two versions of the generator, one using Hayes' algorithm and another using Claude Shannon's Hellbat algorithm. Murray Lesser offered a compiled BASIC version in the magazine in July 1985, in September 1985 Peter Wayner offered a version that used tree data structures instead of frequency tables, and in December 1985 Neil J. Rubenking offered a version written in Turbo Pascal that stored frequency information in a B-tree.
Read more →
An inauthentic text is a computer-generated expository document meant to appear as genuine, but which is actually meaningless. Frequently they are created in order to be intermixed with genuine documents and thus manipulate the results of search engines, as with Spam blogs. They are also carried along in email in order to fool spam filters by giving the spam the superficial characteristics of legitimate text. Sometimes nonsensical documents are created with computer assistance for humorous effect, as with Dissociated press or Flarf poetry. They have also been used to challenge the veracity of a publication—MIT students submitted papers generated by a computer program called SCIgen to a conference, where they were initially accepted. This led the students to claim that the bar for submissions was too low. With the amount of computer generated text outpacing the ability of people to humans to curate it, there needs some means of distinguishing between the two. Yet automated approaches to determining absolutely whether a text is authentic or not face intrinsic challenges of semantics. Noam Chomsky coined the phrase "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously" giving an example of grammatically correct, but semantically incoherent sentence; some will point out that in certain contexts one could give this sentence (or any phrase) meaning. The first group to use the expression in this regard can be found below from Indiana University. Their work explains in detail an attempt to detect inauthentic texts and identify pernicious problems of inauthentic texts in cyberspace. The site has a means of submitting text that assesses, based on supervised learning, whether a corpus is inauthentic or not. Many users have submitted incorrect types of data and have correspondingly commented on the scores. This application is meant for a specific kind of data; therefore, submitting, say, an email, will not return a meaningful score.
Read more →
In corpus linguistics a key word is a word which occurs in a text more often than we would expect to occur by chance alone. Key words are calculated by carrying out a statistical test (e.g., loglinear or chi-squared) which compares the word frequencies in a text against their expected frequencies derived in a much larger corpus, which acts as a reference for general language use. Keyness is then the quality a word or phrase has of being "key" in its context. Combinations of nouns with parts of speech that human readers would not likely notice, such as prepositions, time adverbs, and pronouns can be a relevant part of keyness. Even separate pronouns can constitute keywords. Compare this with collocation, the quality linking two words or phrases usually assumed to be within a given span of each other. Keyness is a textual feature, not a language feature (so a word has keyness in a certain textual context but may well not have keyness in other contexts, whereas a node and collocate are often found together in texts of the same genre so collocation is to a considerable extent a language phenomenon). The set of keywords found in a given text share keyness, they are co-key. Words typically found in the same texts as a key word are called associates. == Sociological aspects == In politics, sociology and critical discourse analysis, the key reference for keywords was Raymond Williams (1976), but Williams was resolutely Marxist, and Critical Discourse Analysis has tended to perpetuate this political meaning of the term: keywords are part of ideologies and studying them is part of social criticism. Cultural studies has tended to develop along similar lines. This stands in stark contrast to present day linguistics which is wary of political analysis, and has tended to aspire to non-political objectivity. The development of technology, new techniques and methodology relating to massive corpora have all consolidated this trend. === Translatability === There are, however, numerous political dimensions that come into play when keywords are studied in relation to cultures, societies and their histories. The Lublin Ethnolinguistics School studies Polish and European keywords in this fashion. Anna Wierzbicka (1997), probably the best known cultural linguist writing in English today, studies languages as parts of cultures evolving in society and history. And it becomes impossible to ignore politics when keywords migrate from one culture to another. Underhill and Gianninoto demonstrate the way political terms like, "citizen" and "individual" are integrated into the Chinese worldview over the course of the 19th and 20th century. They argue that this is part of a complex readjustment of conceptual clusters related to "the people". Keywords like "citizen" generate various translations in Chinese, and are part of an ongoing adaptation to global concepts of individual rights and responsibilities. Understanding keywords in this light becomes crucial for understanding how the politics of China evolves as Communism emerges and as the free market and citizens' rights develop. Underhill and Gianninoto argue that this is part of the complex ways ideological worldviews interact with the language as an ongoing means of perceiving and understanding the world. Barbara Cassin studies keywords in a more traditional manner, striving to define the words specific to individual cultures, in order to demonstrate that many of our keywords are partially "untranslatable" into their "equivalents. The Greeks may need four words to cover all the meanings English-speakers have in mind when speaking of "love". Similarly, the French find that "liberté" suffices, while English-speakers attribute different associations to "liberty" and "freedom": "freedom of speech" or "freedom of movement", but "the Statue of Liberty". == Software-assisted identification == Keywords are identified by software that compares a word-list of the text with a word-list based on a larger reference corpus. Software such as e.g. WordSmith, lists keywords and phrases and allows plotting their occurrence as they appear in texts.
Read more →
Trying to pick the best AI text-to-image tool? An AI text-to-image tool is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it scales effortlessly from a single task to thousands. The best picks balance beginner-friendly simplicity with the depth power users need, and they ship updates often. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI text-to-image 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 →