AI Assistant Vs AI Agent

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

• 

  Group of Governmental Experts on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems

  The Group of Governmental Experts on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems, commonly known as the GGE on LAWS, refers to a group of governmental experts established under the framework of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), a United Nations arms control framework. The group examines legal, ethical, societal and moral questions that arise from the increased use of autonomous robots to carry weapons and to be programmed to engage in combat in various situations that might arise, including battles between countries, or in patrolling border areas or sensitive areas, or other similar roles. As of 18 March 2025, the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons had 128 High Contracting Parties. In the Geneva Conventions, the term "High Contracting Parties" refers to the states that have joined the conventions and are therefore bound to uphold them. Among the countries that have joined are states with tense relations or ongoing armed conflict with one another, including Russia and Ukraine, Israel and the State of Palestine, and Pakistan and Afghanistan. == Background == In 2013, the Meeting of State Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons agreed on a mandate on lethal autonomous weapon systems and tasked its chairperson with convening an informal Meeting of Experts to discuss issues related to emerging technologies in the area of LAWS. Those informal Meetings of Experts were then held in 2014, 2015 and 2016, and their reports fed into subsequent meetings of the High Contracting Parties. At the Fifth CCW Review Conference in 2016, the High Contracting Parties decided to establish an open-ended Group of Governmental Experts on emerging technologies in the area of LAWS, building on the earlier expert meetings. Since then, the group has been reconvened annually. In 2023, the Meeting of the High Contracting Parties to the CCW decided that the GGE on LAWS would continue its work in 2024 and 2025. The group was tasked with developing, by consensus, elements of a possible instrument, without predetermining its form, as well as other measures addressing lethal autonomous weapon systems, drawing on existing CCW protocols, earlier recommendations, state proposals, and legal, military, and technological expertise. == 2024 == In 2024, the GGE met twice, and the group was chaired by Robert in den Bosch, the Netherlands' disarmament ambassador. The 2024 Meeting of the High Contracting Parties decided that the group would meet for 10 days in 2025, in two five-day sessions, and reaffirmed its mandate to continue work by consensus on possible elements of an instrument and other measures addressing lethal autonomous weapon systems. == 2025 == At its first 2025 session, held in Geneva from 3 to 7 March 2025, the Group of Governmental Experts on Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems discussed revisions to the chair's rolling text. The text was structured into five sections, or "boxes", though delegates held differing views on whether headings were useful or appropriate. Broadly, the discussions covered the characterization of lethal autonomous weapon systems, the application of international humanitarian law, possible prohibitions and regulations, legal review, and questions of accountability and responsibility. At its second session, held from 1 to 5 September 2025, delegations continued work on the chair's rolling text, which set out elements of a possible instrument and was organized into five thematic "boxes". == 2026 == === Developments before the 2026 session === A few weeks before the meeting, autonomous weapons drew renewed attention when the United States pressured Anthropic to revise the terms of use for its AI model Claude. Anthropic prohibited the model's use for mass domestic surveillance and for fully autonomous weapons operating without human oversight, while reports also emerged that OpenAI had reached an agreement with the U.S. Department of War for the use of its AI models, reportedly stipulating that they would not independently direct autonomous weapons where human control was required. The U.S. military nevertheless continued to use Claude during its war on Iran, and there was increasing alarm about the use of AI-assisted semi-autonomous weapons in conflicts including those in Ukraine, Sudan, Gaza, and Iran. Before the start of the sessions, Robert in den Bosch, as chair, warned that progress was urgent because technological developments were moving quickly. At the same time, although states agreed that international humanitarian law applied to LAWS, specific internationally binding standards governing such systems remained largely absent. A key divide before the session was that Russia and the United States opposed new legally binding instruments, while other states argued that new rules were necessary. According to Robert in den Bosch, the talks could lead to new rules, amendments to an existing convention, or a new treaty. === First session === From 2 to 6 March 2026, the group held its penultimate session under the group's three-year mandate. Delegations discussed the chair's rolling draft text, circulated in December 2025, on elements of a possible instrument or other measures concerning lethal autonomous weapon systems. In revised text circulated by the chair on 5 March 2026, a lethal autonomous weapon system was characterized as "a functionally integrated combination of one or more weapons and technological components, that can identify, select, and engage a target, without intervention by a human operator in the execution of these tasks". The text was divided into five boxes to structure discussion. During the session, delegates conducted a first reading of the draft text, and the chair later circulated revised language for several sections. Informal consultations were also held. According to campaign groups and participating observers, support grew during the week for moving to negotiations on the basis of the rolling text, with more than 70 states said to support that step by the end of the session, though some participants warned that attempts to bridge differences risked blurring the group's core purpose. The International Committee of the Red Cross argued that the text should not only restate existing international humanitarian law, but also clarify how those rules apply to autonomous weapons and set out additional measures tailored to the specific challenges such systems raise. Stop Killer Robots likewise emphasized the need to preserve meaningful human judgment and control over increasingly autonomous systems. During the discussions, the U.S. delegation opposed the term "human control" and reportedly proposed the alternative phrase "good faith human judgment and care". Other delegations rejected that wording as too weak, while many states continued to insist that meaningful human control over weapon systems remained essential.

  Read more →
• 

  Ugly duckling theorem

  The ugly duckling theorem is an argument showing that classification is not really possible without some sort of bias. More particularly, it assumes finitely many properties combinable by logical connectives, and finitely many objects; it asserts that any two different objects share the same number of (extensional) properties. The theorem is named after Hans Christian Andersen's 1843 story "The Ugly Duckling", because it shows that a duckling is just as similar to a swan as two swans are to each other. It was derived by Satosi Watanabe in 1969. == Mathematical formula == Suppose there are n things in the universe, and one wants to put them into classes or categories. One has no preconceived ideas or biases about what sorts of categories are "natural" or "normal" and what are not. So one has to consider all the possible classes that could be, all the possible ways of making a set out of the n objects. There are 2 n {\displaystyle 2^{n}} such ways, the size of the power set of n objects. One can use that to measure the similarity between two objects, and one would see how many sets they have in common. However, one cannot. Any two objects have exactly the same number of classes in common if we can form any possible class, namely 2 n − 1 {\displaystyle 2^{n-1}} (half the total number of classes there are). To see this is so, one may imagine each class is represented by an n-bit string (or binary encoded integer), with a zero for each element not in the class and a one for each element in the class. As one finds, there are 2 n {\displaystyle 2^{n}} such strings. As all possible choices of zeros and ones are there, any two bit-positions will agree exactly half the time. One may pick two elements and reorder the bits so they are the first two, and imagine the numbers sorted lexicographically. The first 2 n / 2 {\displaystyle 2^{n}/2} numbers will have bit #1 set to zero, and the second 2 n / 2 {\displaystyle 2^{n}/2} will have it set to one. Within each of those blocks, the top 2 n / 4 {\displaystyle 2^{n}/4} will have bit #2 set to zero and the other 2 n / 4 {\displaystyle 2^{n}/4} will have it as one, so they agree on two blocks of 2 n / 4 {\displaystyle 2^{n}/4} or on half of all the cases, no matter which two elements one picks. So if we have no preconceived bias about which categories are better, everything is then equally similar (or equally dissimilar). The number of predicates simultaneously satisfied by two non-identical elements is constant over all such pairs. Thus, some kind of inductive bias is needed to make judgements to prefer certain categories over others. === Boolean functions === Let x 1 , x 2 , … , x n {\displaystyle x_{1},x_{2},\dots ,x_{n}} be a set of vectors of k {\displaystyle k} booleans each. The ugly duckling is the vector which is least like the others. Given the booleans, this can be computed using Hamming distance. However, the choice of boolean features to consider could have been somewhat arbitrary. Perhaps there were features derivable from the original features that were important for identifying the ugly duckling. The set of booleans in the vector can be extended with new features computed as boolean functions of the k {\displaystyle k} original features. The only canonical way to do this is to extend it with all possible Boolean functions. The resulting completed vectors have 2 k {\displaystyle 2^{k}} features. The ugly duckling theorem states that there is no ugly duckling because any two completed vectors will either be equal or differ in exactly half of the features. Proof. Let x and y be two vectors. If they are the same, then their completed vectors must also be the same because any Boolean function of x will agree with the same Boolean function of y. If x and y are different, then there exists a coordinate i {\displaystyle i} where the i {\displaystyle i} -th coordinate of x {\displaystyle x} differs from the i {\displaystyle i} -th coordinate of y {\displaystyle y} . Now the completed features contain every Boolean function on k {\displaystyle k} Boolean variables, with each one exactly once. Viewing these Boolean functions as polynomials in k {\displaystyle k} variables over GF(2), segregate the functions into pairs ( f , g ) {\displaystyle (f,g)} where f {\displaystyle f} contains the i {\displaystyle i} -th coordinate as a linear term and g {\displaystyle g} is f {\displaystyle f} without that linear term. Now, for every such pair ( f , g ) {\displaystyle (f,g)} , x {\displaystyle x} and y {\displaystyle y} will agree on exactly one of the two functions. If they agree on one, they must disagree on the other and vice versa. (This proof is believed to be due to Watanabe.) == Discussion == A possible way around the ugly duckling theorem would be to introduce a constraint on how similarity is measured by limiting the properties involved in classification, for instance, between A and B. However Medin et al. (1993) point out that this does not actually resolve the arbitrariness or bias problem since in what respects A is similar to B: "varies with the stimulus context and task, so that there is no unique answer, to the question of how similar is one object to another". For example, "a barberpole and a zebra would be more similar than a horse and a zebra if the feature striped had sufficient weight. Of course, if these feature weights were fixed, then these similarity relations would be constrained". Yet the property "striped" as a weight 'fix' or constraint is arbitrary itself, meaning: "unless one can specify such criteria, then the claim that categorization is based on attribute matching is almost entirely vacuous". Stamos (2003) remarked that some judgments of overall similarity are non-arbitrary in the sense they are useful: "Presumably, people's perceptual and conceptual processes have evolved that information that matters to human needs and goals can be roughly approximated by a similarity heuristic... If you are in the jungle and you see a tiger but you decide not to stereotype (perhaps because you believe that similarity is a false friend), then you will probably be eaten. In other words, in the biological world stereotyping based on veridical judgments of overall similarity statistically results in greater survival and reproductive success." Unless some properties are considered more salient, or 'weighted' more important than others, everything will appear equally similar, hence Watanabe (1986) wrote: "any objects, in so far as they are distinguishable, are equally similar". In a weaker setting that assumes infinitely many properties, Murphy and Medin (1985) give an example of two putative classified things, plums and lawnmowers: "Suppose that one is to list the attributes that plums and lawnmowers have in common in order to judge their similarity. It is easy to see that the list could be infinite: Both weigh less than 10,000 kg (and less than 10,001 kg), both did not exist 10,000,000 years ago (and 10,000,001 years ago), both cannot hear well, both can be dropped, both take up space, and so on. Likewise, the list of differences could be infinite… any two entities can be arbitrarily similar or dissimilar by changing the criterion of what counts as a relevant attribute." According to Woodward, the ugly duckling theorem is related to Schaffer's Conservation Law for Generalization Performance, which states that all algorithms for learning of boolean functions from input/output examples have the same overall generalization performance as random guessing. The latter result is generalized by Woodward to functions on countably infinite domains.

  Read more →
• 

  Live Transcribe

  Live Transcribe is a mobile app for real-time captioning, developed by Google for the Android operating system. Development on the application began in partnership with Gallaudet University. It was publicly released as a free beta for Android 5.0+ on the Google Play Store on February 4, 2019. As of early 2023 it had been downloaded over 500 million times. == Development == Researchers Dimitri Kanevsky, Sagar Savla and Chet Gnegy at Google developed the app in collaboration with researchers at Gallaudet University, an American university for the education of the deaf and hard of hearing. The app uses machine learning to generate captions, similar to YouTube's auto-generated captions. In August 2019, Google made Live Transcribe an open-source project. == Features == The app uses speech recognition to generate live captions in over 80 languages with varying accuracy. The app, which requires connection to the Internet to function, is available to download on the Google Play Store. A later update to the app displayed information on sounds such as clapping, laughter, music, applause, and whistling. In May 2020, the app started supporting transcription in Albanian, Burmese, Estonian, Macedonian, Mongolian, Punjabi, and Uzbek, supporting 70 languages. In March 2022, the app was updated with support to transcribe offline, without Internet connection, so long as the appropriate language pack has been installed. The offline mode is only available for devices with 6GB of RAM and certain Google Pixel devices.

  Read more →
• 

  Eugene Goostman

  Eugene Goostman is a chatbot that some regard as having passed the Turing test, a test of a computer's ability to communicate indistinguishably from a human. Developed in Saint Petersburg in 2001 by a group of three programmers, the Russian-born Vladimir Veselov, Ukrainian-born Eugene Demchenko, and Russian-born Sergey Ulasen, Goostman is portrayed as a 13-year-old Ukrainian boy—characteristics that are intended to induce forgiveness in those with whom it interacts for its grammatical errors and lack of general knowledge. The Goostman bot has competed in a number of Turing test contests since its creation, and finished second in the 2005 and 2008 Loebner Prize contest. In June 2012, at an event marking what would have been the 100th birthday of the test's author, Alan Turing, Goostman won a competition promoted as the largest-ever Turing test contest, in which it successfully convinced 29% of its judges that it was human. On 7 June 2014, at a contest marking the 60th anniversary of Turing's death, 33% of the event's judges thought that Goostman was human; the event's organiser Kevin Warwick considered it to have passed Turing's test as a result, per Turing's prediction in his 1950 paper "Computing Machinery and Intelligence", that by the year 2000, machines would be capable of fooling 30% of human judges after five minutes of questioning. The validity and relevance of the announcement of Goostman's pass was questioned by critics, who noted the exaggeration of the achievement by Warwick, the bot's use of personality quirks and humour in an attempt to misdirect users from its non-human tendencies and lack of real intelligence, along with "passes" achieved by other chatbots at similar events. == Personality == Eugene Goostman is portrayed as being a 13-year-old boy from Odesa, Ukraine, who has a pet guinea pig and a father who is a gynaecologist. Veselov stated that Goostman was designed to be a "character with a believable personality". The choice of age was intentional, as, in Veselov's opinion, a thirteen-year-old is "not too old to know everything and not too young to know nothing". Goostman's young age also induces people who "converse" with him to forgive minor grammatical errors in his responses. In 2014, work was made on improving the bot's "dialog controller", allowing Goostman to output more human-like dialogue. A conversation between Scott Aaronson and Eugene Goostman ran as follows: == Competitions == Eugene Goostman has competed in a number of Turing test competitions, including the Loebner Prize contest; it finished joint second in the Loebner test in 2001, and came second to Jabberwacky in 2005 and to Elbot in 2008. On 23 June 2012, Goostman won a Turing test competition at Bletchley Park in Milton Keynes, held to mark the centenary of its namesake, Alan Turing. The competition, which featured five bots, twenty-five hidden humans, and thirty judges, was considered to be the largest-ever Turing test contest by its organizers. After a series of five-minute-long text conversations, 29% of the judges were convinced that the bot was an actual human. === 2014 "pass" === On 7 June 2014, in a Turing test competition at the Royal Society, organised by Kevin Warwick of the University of Reading to mark the 60th anniversary of Turing's death, Goostman won after 33% of the judges were convinced that the bot was human. 30 judges took part in the event, which included Lord Sharkey, a sponsor of Turing's posthumous pardon, artificial intelligence Professor Aaron Sloman, Fellow of the Royal Society Mark Pagel and Red Dwarf actor Robert Llewellyn. Each judge partook in a textual conversation with each of the five bots; at the same time, they also conversed with a human. In all, a total of 300 conversations were conducted. In Warwick's view, this made Goostman the first machine to pass a Turing test. In a press release, he added that: Some will claim that the Test has already been passed. The words Turing Test have been applied to similar competitions around the world. However this event involved more simultaneous comparison tests than ever before, was independently verified and, crucially, the conversations were unrestricted. A true Turing Test does not set the questions or topics prior to the conversations. In his 1950 paper "Computing Machinery and Intelligence", Turing predicted that by the year 2000, computer programs would be sufficiently advanced that the average interrogator would, after five minutes of questioning, "not have more than 70 per cent chance" of correctly guessing whether they were speaking to a human or a machine. Although Turing phrased this as a prediction rather than a "threshold for intelligence", commentators believe that Warwick had chosen to interpret it as meaning that if 30% of interrogators were fooled, the software had "passed the Turing test". ==== Reactions ==== Warwick's claim that Eugene Goostman was the first ever chatbot to pass a Turing test was met with scepticism; critics acknowledged similar "passes" made in the past by other chatbots under the 30% criteria, including PC Therapist in 1991 (which tricked 5 of 10 judges, 50%), and at the Techniche festival in 2011, where a modified version of Cleverbot tricked 59.3% of 1334 votes (which included the 30 judges, along with an audience). Cleverbot's developer, Rollo Carpenter, argued that Turing tests can only prove that a machine can "imitate" intelligence rather than show actual intelligence. Gary Marcus was critical of Warwick's claims, arguing that Goostman's "success" was only the result of a "cleverly-coded piece of software", going on to say that "it's easy to see how an untrained judge might mistake wit for reality, but once you have an understanding of how this sort of system works, the constant misdirection and deflection becomes obvious, even irritating. The illusion, in other words, is fleeting." While acknowledging IBM's Deep Blue and Watson projects—single-purpose computer systems meant for playing chess and the quiz show Jeopardy! respectively—as examples of computer systems that show a degree of intelligence in their specialised field, he further argued that they were not an equivalent to a computer system that shows "broad" intelligence, and could—for example, watch a television programme and answer questions on its content. Marcus stated that "no existing combination of hardware and software can learn completely new things at will the way a clever child can." However, he still believed that there were potential uses for technology such as that of Goostman, specifically suggesting the creation of "believable", interactive video game characters. Imperial College London professor Murray Shanahan questioned the validity and scientific basis of the test, stating that it was "completely misplaced, and it devalues real AI research. It makes it seem like science fiction AI is nearly here, when in fact it's not and it's incredibly difficult." Mike Masnick, editor of the blog Techdirt, was also skeptical, questioning publicity blunders such as the five chatbots being referred to in press releases as "supercomputers", and saying that "creating a chatbot that can fool humans is not really the same thing as creating artificial intelligence."

  Read more →
• 

  Cinema 4D

  Cinema 4D is a 3D software suite developed by the German company Maxon. == Overview == As of R21, only a single version of Cinema 4D is available. It replaces all previous variants, including BodyPaint 3D, and includes all features of the past 'Studio' variant. With R21, all binaries were unified. There is no technical difference between commercial, educational, or demo versions. The difference is now only in licensing. 2014 saw the release of Cinema 4D Lite, which came packaged with Adobe After Effects Creative Cloud 2014. "Lite" acts as an introductory version, with many features withheld. This is part of a partnership between the two companies, where a Maxon-produced plug-in, called Cineware, allows any variant to create a seamless workflow with After Effects. The "Lite" variant is dependent on After Effects CC, needing the latter application running to launch, and is only sold as a package component included with After Effects CC through Adobe. Initially, Cinema 4D was developed for Amiga computers in the early 1990s, and the first three versions of the program were available exclusively for that platform. With v4, however, Maxon began to develop the application for Windows and Macintosh computers as well, citing the wish to reach a wider audience and the growing instability of the Amiga market following Commodore's bankruptcy. It was also released for BeOS. On Linux, Cinema 4D is available as a commandline rendering version. == Modules and older variants == From R12 to R20, Cinema 4D was available in four variants. A core Cinema 4D 'Prime' application, a 'Broadcast' version with additional motion-graphics features, 'Visualize,' which adds functions for architectural design and 'Studio,' which includes all modules. From Release 8 until Release 11.5, Cinema 4D had a modular approach to the application, with the ability to expand upon the core application with various modules. This ended with Release 12, though the functionality of these modules remains in the different flavors of Cinema 4D (Prime, Broadcast, Visualize, Studio) The old modules were: Advanced Render (global illumination/HDRI, caustics, ambient occlusion and sky simulation) BodyPaint 3D (direct painting on UVW meshes; now included in the core. In essence Cinema 4D Core/Prime and the BodyPaint 3D products are identical. The only difference between the two is the splash screen that is shown at startup and the default user interface.) Dynamics (for simulating soft body and rigid body dynamics) Hair (simulates hair, fur, grass, etc.) MOCCA (character animation and cloth simulation) MoGraph (Motion Graphics procedural modelling and animation toolset) NET Render (to render animations over a TCP/IP network in render farms) PyroCluster (simulation of smoke and fire effects) Prime (the core application) Broadcast (adds MoGraph2) Visualize (adds Virtual Walkthrough, Advanced Render, Sky, Sketch and Toon, data exchange, camera matching) Studio (the complete package) == Version history == == Use in industry == A number of films and related works have been modeled and rendered in Cinema 4D, including: == Cinebench == Cinebench is a cross-platform test suite which tests a computer's hardware capabilities. It can be used as a test for Cinema 4D's 3D modeling, animation, motion graphic and rendering performance on multiple CPU cores. The program "target[s] a certain niche and [is] better suited for high-end desktop and workstation platforms". Cinebench is commonly used to demonstrate hardware capabilities at tech shows to show a CPU performance, especially by tech YouTubers and review sites.

  Read more →
• 

  VACUUM

  VACUUM is a set of normative guidance principles for achieving training and test dataset quality for structured datasets in data science and machine learning. The garbage-in, garbage out principle motivates a solution to the problem of data quality but does not offer a specific solution. Unlike the majority of the ad-hoc data quality assessment metrics often used by practitioners VACUUM specifies qualitative principles for data quality management and serves as a basis for defining more detailed quantitative metrics of data quality. VACUUM is an acronym that stands for: valid accurate consistent uniform unified model

  Read more →
• 

  Amazon Q

  Amazon Q is a chatbot developed by Amazon for enterprise use. Based on both Amazon Titan and GPT-5, it was announced on November 28, 2023. At launch, it was a part of the Amazon Web Services management console. Amazon CodeWhisperer is a part of Amazon Q Developer, a part of Amazon Q. == History == Amazon's business-focused chatbot Q was announced on November 28, 2023 in a preview, with a full version available at $20 per person per month. On July 19, 2025, the Amazon Q Visual Studio Code extension was compromised to delete the user's home directory. The issue was fixed on July 21. == Capabilities == Q can be prompted to summarize long documents and group chats, create charts, data analysis and write code. Q is also capable of accessing non-Amazon services. The chatbot is based on Amazon Titan and GPT-5, and uses the Amazon Bedrock repository of foundational models. It is part of the Amazon Web Services management console.

  Read more →
• 

  Ogle app

  Ogle is a free smartphone based social media application. It is available for iOS and Android. Ogle acts like a school wide forum that lets users and users' classmates share and interact. Users can share photos, videos, questions, even thoughts and watch submissions grow in popularity as other users vote and comment on them. == App Features == Campus Feed: Interact by watching and posting videos or pictures to your campus story. Photos and Videos: share what you want with many different timing options. Interact: Chat with friends and groups, or share a moment for all to see. Real-name system: choose to register an account with username and profile picture. Custom Stickers: Create stickers to add creativity and zest to your pictures. Flash Interaction: All private chat and group chat history will be deleted after 24 hours on Ogle Chat. == Controversies == Users can post anything on Ogle using text, photos, and videos. As a result, some Ogle user's sense of anonymity, posts have targeted specific schools and students with abusive and hurtful content. The Ogle app's user anonymity makes it difficult for school officials to quickly investigate issues that occur within the Ogle app. On March 28, 2016, three people were arrested after violent threats were made against an Anaheim high school. 18-year-old Miguel Meza was arrested Sunday afternoon during a traffic stop, along with his passenger, 23-year-old Johnny Aguilar. Police said both men had loaded handguns. Aguilar was also accused of violating his probation. "It is concerning the fact that they did have firearms, but we don't have a crystal ball. We can't determine if they possessed those firearms to engage in some kind of school violence or if they had it for another reason," Sgt. Daron Wyatt with the Anaheim Police Department said. Officials said Meza and Aguilar have known gang ties and detectives began investigating Meza after threats were made against the school on Ogle. On February 29, 2016, Santa Cruz County sheriff's deputies arrested a 16-year-old Aptos High School student Friday, accused of making an online threat of gun violence at Aptos High and Monte Vista Christian."He basically told detectives that it was all a joke. It's not a joke. You have multiple resources being spent to investigate these cases," said Santa Cruz County Sheriff's Sgt. Roy Morales. The schools remained open throughout the week, with a huge police presence on campus. In an anonymous emailed statement to the Daily Pilot on Thursday, the "Ogle team" said: "We are aware of the concern, and cyberbullying is absolutely NOT our intention for the app. Our goal for this app is to create a free and safe community space for students, for a better communication. We are currently working around the clock to improve the app. As a matter of fact, we are also in contact with local police departments, anti-bullying organizations and local high schools to try to help the students." In response to these incidents, Ogle expressed that they takes the safety of its users seriously and does not condone any type of behavior that is illegal or in violation of its content policies. The company also said it has instituted a content moderation team to increase review and identify and remove inappropriate content, and take action against “those who violate our community guidelines.”

  Read more →
• 

  Test data management

  Test data management (TDM) is a process in software testing concerned with the creation, preparation, and control of data used for testing software systems. It involves supplying datasets required to execute test cases and verifying system behaviour under defined conditions. Test data management is an integral part of the software development lifecycle (SDLC) and is utilized in both manual and automated testing processes. It is applied in environments that use continuous integration and DevOps practices, where test execution requires consistent and repeatable data conditions. == Overview == Test data management includes the generation, selection, and preparation of data for testing purposes, as well as its distribution across test environments. It also involves controlling data versions and ensuring that datasets correspond to specific test scenarios. In many cases, production data is adapted for testing through techniques such as masking or subsetting to reduce size and remove sensitive content. Test data management ensures that test cases are executed with relevant, consistent, and readily available data. This reduces variability in test results and supports reproducibility across test cycles. == Importance == The role of test data management has expanded with the growth of complex, data-driven systems and regulatory requirements governing data usage. Testing often depends on data that reflects real-world conditions, but direct use of production data may introduce security and privacy risks. As a result, organizations apply methods such as data masking and anonymization to meet compliance requirements, including those set by the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA) and Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Inadequate control of test data can lead to incomplete test coverage, unreliable test results, or delays in testing processes due to unavailable or inconsistent datasets. == Techniques and tools == Test data management leverages various techniques for preparing and controlling data used in testing. These include the generation of synthetic data, the extraction of subsets from production datasets, and the modification of data to remove or obscure sensitive information. A key technical requirement in these processes is maintaining referential integrity, or ensuring that relationships between data entities remain consistent across different tables and systems after masking or subsetting. Data virtualization is also used to provide access to datasets without full replication. These methods may be implemented using software tools that automate data preparation, masking, and distribution.

  Read more →
• 

  Semantic analytics

  Semantic analytics, also termed semantic relatedness, is the use of ontologies to analyze content in web resources. This field of research combines text analytics and Semantic Web technologies like RDF. Semantic analytics measures the relatedness of different ontological concepts. Some academic research groups that have active project in this area include Kno.e.sis Center at Wright State University among others. == History == An important milestone in the beginning of semantic analytics occurred in 1996, although the historical progression of these algorithms is largely subjective. In his seminal study publication, Philip Resnik established that computers have the capacity to emulate human judgement. Spanning the publications of multiple journals, improvements to the accuracy of general semantic analytic computations all claimed to revolutionize the field. However, the lack of a standard terminology throughout the late 1990s was the cause of much miscommunication. This prompted Budanitsky & Hirst to standardize the subject in 2006 with a summary that also set a framework for modern spelling and grammar analysis. In the early days of semantic analytics, obtaining a large enough reliable knowledge bases was difficult. In 2006, Strube & Ponzetto demonstrated that Wikipedia could be used in semantic analytic calculations. The usage of a large knowledge base like Wikipedia allows for an increase in both the accuracy and applicability of semantic analytics. == Methods == Given the subjective nature of the field, different methods used in semantic analytics depend on the domain of application. No singular methods is considered correct, however one of the most generally effective and applicable method is explicit semantic analysis (ESA). ESA was developed by Evgeniy Gabrilovich and Shaul Markovitch in the late 2000s. It uses machine learning techniques to create a semantic interpreter, which extracts text fragments from articles into a sorted list. The fragments are sorted by how related they are to the surrounding text. Latent semantic analysis (LSA) is another common method that does not use ontologies, only considering the text in the input space. == Applications == Entity linking Ontology building / knowledge base population Search and query tasks Natural language processing Spoken dialog systems (e.g., Amazon Alexa, Google Assistant, Microsoft's Cortana) Artificial intelligence Knowledge management The application of semantic analysis methods generally streamlines organizational processes of any knowledge management system. Academic libraries often use a domain-specific application to create a more efficient organizational system. By classifying scientific publications using semantics and Wikipedia, researchers are helping people find resources faster. Search engines like Semantic Scholar provide organized access to millions of articles.

  Read more →
• 

  Point-set registration

  In computer vision, pattern recognition, and robotics, point-set registration, also known as point-cloud registration or scan matching, is the process of finding a spatial transformation (e.g., scaling, rotation and translation) that aligns two point clouds. The purpose of finding such a transformation includes merging multiple data sets into a globally consistent model (or coordinate frame), and mapping a new measurement to a known data set to identify features or to estimate its pose. Raw 3D point cloud data are typically obtained from Lidars and RGB-D cameras. 3D point clouds can also be generated from computer vision algorithms such as triangulation, bundle adjustment, and more recently, monocular image depth estimation using deep learning. For 2D point set registration used in image processing and feature-based image registration, a point set may be 2D pixel coordinates obtained by feature extraction from an image, for example corner detection. Point cloud registration has extensive applications in autonomous driving, motion estimation and 3D reconstruction, object detection and pose estimation, robotic manipulation, simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM), panorama stitching, virtual and augmented reality, and medical imaging. As a special case, registration of two point sets that only differ by a 3D rotation (i.e., there is no scaling and translation), is called the Wahba Problem and also related to the orthogonal procrustes problem. == Formulation == The problem may be summarized as follows: Let { M , S } {\displaystyle \lbrace {\mathcal {M}},{\mathcal {S}}\rbrace } be two finite size point sets in a finite-dimensional real vector space R d {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{d}} , which contain M {\displaystyle M} and N {\displaystyle N} points respectively (e.g., d = 3 {\displaystyle d=3} recovers the typical case of when M {\displaystyle {\mathcal {M}}} and S {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}} are 3D point sets). The problem is to find a transformation to be applied to the moving "model" point set M {\displaystyle {\mathcal {M}}} such that the difference (typically defined in the sense of point-wise Euclidean distance) between M {\displaystyle {\mathcal {M}}} and the static "scene" set S {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}} is minimized. In other words, a mapping from R d {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{d}} to R d {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{d}} is desired which yields the best alignment between the transformed "model" set and the "scene" set. The mapping may consist of a rigid or non-rigid transformation. The transformation model may be written as T {\displaystyle T} , using which the transformed, registered model point set is: The output of a point set registration algorithm is therefore the optimal transformation T ⋆ {\displaystyle T^{\star }} such that M {\displaystyle {\mathcal {M}}} is best aligned to S {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}} , according to some defined notion of distance function dist ⁡ ( ⋅ , ⋅ ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {dist} (\cdot ,\cdot )} : where T {\displaystyle {\mathcal {T}}} is used to denote the set of all possible transformations that the optimization tries to search for. The most popular choice of the distance function is to take the square of the Euclidean distance for every pair of points: where ‖ ⋅ ‖ 2 {\displaystyle \|\cdot \|_{2}} denotes the vector 2-norm, s m {\displaystyle s_{m}} is the corresponding point in set S {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}} that attains the shortest distance to a given point m {\displaystyle m} in set M {\displaystyle {\mathcal {M}}} after transformation. Minimizing such a function in rigid registration is equivalent to solving a least squares problem. == Types of algorithms == When the correspondences (i.e., s m ↔ m {\displaystyle s_{m}\leftrightarrow m} ) are given before the optimization, for example, using feature matching techniques, then the optimization only needs to estimate the transformation. This type of registration is called correspondence-based registration. On the other hand, if the correspondences are unknown, then the optimization is required to jointly find out the correspondences and transformation together. This type of registration is called simultaneous pose and correspondence registration. === Rigid registration === Given two point sets, rigid registration yields a rigid transformation which maps one point set to the other. A rigid transformation is defined as a transformation that does not change the distance between any two points. Typically such a transformation consists of translation and rotation. In rare cases, the point set may also be mirrored. In robotics and computer vision, rigid registration has the most applications. === Non-rigid registration === Given two point sets, non-rigid registration yields a non-rigid transformation which maps one point set to the other. Non-rigid transformations include affine transformations such as scaling and shear mapping. However, in the context of point set registration, non-rigid registration typically involves nonlinear transformation. If the eigenmodes of variation of the point set are known, the nonlinear transformation may be parametrized by the eigenvalues. A nonlinear transformation may also be parametrized as a thin plate spline. === Other types === Some approaches to point set registration use algorithms that solve the more general graph matching problem. However, the computational complexity of such methods tend to be high and they are limited to rigid registrations. In this article, we will only consider algorithms for rigid registration, where the transformation is assumed to contain 3D rotations and translations (possibly also including a uniform scaling). The PCL (Point Cloud Library) is an open-source framework for n-dimensional point cloud and 3D geometry processing. It includes several point registration algorithms. == Correspondence-based registration == Correspondence-based methods assume the putative correspondences m ↔ s m {\displaystyle m\leftrightarrow s_{m}} are given for every point m ∈ M {\displaystyle m\in {\mathcal {M}}} . Therefore, we arrive at a setting where both point sets M {\displaystyle {\mathcal {M}}} and S {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}} have N {\displaystyle N} points and the correspondences m i ↔ s i , i = 1 , … , N {\displaystyle m_{i}\leftrightarrow s_{i},i=1,\dots ,N} are given. === Outlier-free registration === In the simplest case, one can assume that all the correspondences are correct, meaning that the points m i , s i ∈ R 3 {\displaystyle m_{i},s_{i}\in \mathbb {R} ^{3}} are generated as follows:where l > 0 {\displaystyle l>0} is a uniform scaling factor (in many cases l = 1 {\displaystyle l=1} is assumed), R ∈ SO ( 3 ) {\displaystyle R\in {\text{SO}}(3)} is a proper 3D rotation matrix ( SO ( d ) {\displaystyle {\text{SO}}(d)} is the special orthogonal group of degree d {\displaystyle d} ), t ∈ R 3 {\displaystyle t\in \mathbb {R} ^{3}} is a 3D translation vector and ϵ i ∈ R 3 {\displaystyle \epsilon _{i}\in \mathbb {R} ^{3}} models the unknown additive noise (e.g., Gaussian noise). Specifically, if the noise ϵ i {\displaystyle \epsilon _{i}} is assumed to follow a zero-mean isotropic Gaussian distribution with standard deviation σ i {\displaystyle \sigma _{i}} , i.e., ϵ i ∼ N ( 0 , σ i 2 I 3 ) {\displaystyle \epsilon _{i}\sim {\mathcal {N}}(0,\sigma _{i}^{2}I_{3})} , then the following optimization can be shown to yield the maximum likelihood estimate for the unknown scale, rotation and translation:Note that when the scaling factor is 1 and the translation vector is zero, then the optimization recovers the formulation of the Wahba problem. Despite the non-convexity of the optimization (cb.2) due to non-convexity of the set SO ( 3 ) {\displaystyle {\text{SO}}(3)} , seminal work by Berthold K.P. Horn showed that (cb.2) actually admits a closed-form solution, by decoupling the estimation of scale, rotation and translation. Similar results were discovered by Arun et al. In addition, in order to find a unique transformation ( l , R , t ) {\displaystyle (l,R,t)} , at least N = 3 {\displaystyle N=3} non-collinear points in each point set are required. More recently, Briales and Gonzalez-Jimenez have developed a semidefinite relaxation using Lagrangian duality, for the case where the model set M {\displaystyle {\mathcal {M}}} contains different 3D primitives such as points, lines and planes (which is the case when the model M {\displaystyle {\mathcal {M}}} is a 3D mesh). Interestingly, the semidefinite relaxation is empirically tight, i.e., a certifiably globally optimal solution can be extracted from the solution of the semidefinite relaxation. === Robust registration === The least squares formulation (cb.2) is known to perform arbitrarily badly in the presence of outliers. An outlier correspondence is a pair of measurements s i ↔ m i {\displaystyle s_{i}\leftrightarrow m_{i}} that departs from the generative model (cb.1). In this case, one can consider a differen

  Read more →
• 

  Integreat

  Integreat (former project name: Refguide+) is an open source mobile app that provides local information and services tailored to refugees and migrants coming to Germany. The content is maintained by local organizations, such as local governments or integration officers, and made available in locally relevant languages. It was developed by Tür an Tür - Digitalfabrik gGmbH (formerly Tür an Tür - Digital Factory gGmbH) in Augsburg together with a team of researchers and students from the Technical University of Munich. == History == In 1997, the Augsburg association "Tür an Tür", which has been working for refugees since 1992, published the brochure "First Steps", which answers local everyday questions. Since addresses and contact persons change quickly, some information is already outdated after a few weeks. Students of business informatics at the Technical University of Munich therefore developed the app Integreat within eight months together with the association and the social department of the city of Augsburg. The app was then also used by other cities and districts within months. As of February 3, 2022, information is available at 72 locations, including Munich, Dortmund, Nuremberg and Augsburg. == Mode of action == Refugees need information on areas such as registration, contact persons, health care, education, family, work and everyday life. Integreat seeks to provide refugees with this information by allowing them to select their geographic location and receive locally relevant information. This information is available offline once the app is opened so it can be used without an internet connection. In addition, the content is translated into the native languages of refugees and migrants to facilitate access. The content is licensed with a CC BY 4.0 license to facilitate collaboration and translation between content creators and dissemination of the content. Integreat is now being used for a broader migrant audience and says it can also support professionals, volunteers, and counseling centers. == Comparable mobile apps == Other mobile apps that are likewise intended to provide initial orientation for refugees include the app Ankommen, a joint project of the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees, the Goethe-Institut, the Federal Employment Agency and the Bavarian Broadcasting Corporation, which is intended as a companion for the first few weeks in Germany, and the Welcome App, a company-sponsored non-profit initiative for information about Germany and asylum procedures with a regional focus, and a book by the Konrad Adenauer Foundation (KAS) and Verlag Herder with a corresponding app Deutschland - Erste Informationen für Flüchtlinge (Germany - First Information for Refugees) as a companion for Arabic-speaking refugees in Germany.

  Read more →
• 

  Security of the Java software platform

  The Java software platform provides a number of features designed for improving the security of Java applications. This includes enforcing runtime constraints through the use of the Java Virtual Machine (JVM), a security manager that sandboxes untrusted code from the rest of the operating system, and a suite of security APIs that Java developers can utilise. Despite this, criticism has been directed at the programming language, and Oracle, due to an increase in malicious programs that revealed security vulnerabilities in the JVM, which were subsequently not properly addressed by Oracle in a timely manner. == Security features == === The JVM === The binary form of programs running on the Java platform is not native machine code but an intermediate bytecode. The JVM performs verification on this bytecode before running it to prevent the program from performing unsafe operations such as branching to incorrect locations, which may contain data rather than instructions. It also allows the JVM to enforce runtime constraints such as array bounds checking. This means that Java programs are significantly less likely to suffer from memory safety flaws such as buffer overflow than programs written in languages such as C which do not provide such memory safety guarantees. The platform does not allow programs to perform certain potentially unsafe operations such as pointer arithmetic or unchecked type casts. It manages memory allocation and initialization and provides automatic garbage collection which in many cases (but not all) relieves the developer from manual memory management. This contributes to type safety and memory safety. === Security manager === The platform provides a security manager which allows users to run untrusted bytecode in a "sandboxed" environment designed to protect them from malicious or poorly written software by preventing the untrusted code from accessing certain platform features and APIs. For example, untrusted code might be prevented from reading or writing files on the local filesystem, running arbitrary commands with the current user's privileges, accessing communication networks, accessing the internal private state of objects using reflection, or causing the JVM to exit. The security manager also allows Java programs to be cryptographically signed; users can choose to allow code with a valid digital signature from a trusted entity to run with full privileges in circumstances where it would otherwise be untrusted. Users can also set fine-grained access control policies for programs from different sources. For example, a user may decide that only system classes should be fully trusted, that code from certain trusted entities may be allowed to read certain specific files, and that all other code should be fully sandboxed. === Security APIs === The Java Class Library provides a number of APIs related to security, such as standard cryptographic algorithms, authentication, and secure communication protocols. === The sun.misc.Unsafe class === sun.misc.Unsafe is an internal utility class in the Java programming language which is a collection of low-level unsafe operations. While it is not a part of the official Java Class Library, it is called internally by the Java libraries. It resides in an unofficial Java module named jdk.unsupported. Beginning in Java 11, it has been partially migrated to jdk.internal.misc.Unsafe (which resides in module java.base). Its primary feature is to allow direct memory management (similar to C memory management) and memory address manipulation, manipulating objects and fields, thread manipulation, and concurrency primitives. Its declaration is: public final class Unsafe;, and it is a singleton class with a private constructor. It contains the following methods, many of which are declared native (invoking Java Native Interface): static Unsafe getUnsafe(): retrieves the Unsafe instance. It uses sun.reflect.Reflection to do so. int getInt(Object o, long offset): fetches a value (a field or array element) in the object at the given offset. (There are corresponding getBoolean(), getByte(), getShort(), getChar(), getLong(), getFloat(), and getDouble() methods as well.) void putInt(Object o, long offset, int x): stores a value into an object at the given offset. (There are corresponding putBoolean(), putByte(), putShort(), putChar(), putLong(), putFloat(), and putDouble() methods as well.) Object getObject(Object o, long offset): fetches a reference value from an object at the given offset. void putObject(Object o, long offset, Object x): stores a reference value into an object at the given offset. int getInt(long address): fetches a value at the given address. (There are corresponding getBoolean(), getByte(), getShort(), getChar(), getLong(), getFloat(), and getDouble() methods as well.) void putInt(long address, int x): stores a value into the given address. (There are corresponding putBoolean(), putByte(), putShort(), putChar(), putLong(), putFloat(), and putDouble() methods as well.) long getAddress(long address): fetches a native pointer from a given address. void putAddress(long address, long x): stores a native pointer into a given address. long allocateMemory(long bytes): allocates a block of native memory of the given size (similar to malloc()). long reallocateMemory(long address, long bytes): resizes a block of native memory to the given size (similar to realloc()). void setMemory(Object o, long offset, long bytes, byte value), void setMemory(long address, long bytes, byte value): sets all bytes in a block of memory to a fixed value (similar to memset()). void copyMemory(Object srcBase, long srcOffset, Object destBase, long destOffset, long bytes), void copyMemory(long srcAddress, long destAddress, long bytes): sets all bytes in a given block of memory to a copy of another block (similar to memcpy()). void freeMemory(long address): deallocates a block of native memory obtained from allocateMemory() or reallocateMemory(), similar to free()). long staticFieldOffset(Field f): obtains the location of a given field in the storage allocation of its class. long objectFieldOffset(Field f): obtains the location of a given static field in conjunction with staticFieldBase(). Object staticFieldBase(Field f): obtains the location of a given static field in conjunction with staticFieldOffset(). void ensureClassInitialized(Class c): ensures the given class has been initialized. int arrayBaseOffset(Class arrayClass): obtains the offset of the first element in the storage allocation of a given array class. int arrayIndexScale(Class arrayClass): obtains the scale factor for addressing elements in the storage allocation of a given array class. static int addressSize(): obtains the size (in bytes) of a native pointer. int pageSize(): obtains the size (in bytes) of a native memory page. Class defineClass(String name, byte[] b, int off, int len, ClassLoader loader, ProtectionDomain protectionDomain): signals to the JVM to define a class without security checks. Class defineAnonymousClass(Class hostClass, byte[] data, Object[] cpPatches): signals to the JVM to define a class but do not make it known to the class loader or system directory. Object allocateInstance(Class cls) throws InstantiationException: allocates an instance of a class without running its constructor. void monitorEnter(Object o): locks an object. void monitorExit(Object o): unlocks an object. boolean tryMonitorEnter(Object o): tries to lock an object, returning whether the lock succeeded. void throwException(Throwable ee): throws an exception without telling the verifier. final boolean compareAndSwapInt(Object o, long offset, int expected, int x): updates a variable to x if it is holding expected, returning whether the operation succeeded. (There are corresponding compareAndSwapLong() and compareAndSwapObject() methods as well.) int getIntVolatile(Object o, long offset): volatile version of getInt(). (There are corresponding getBooleanVolatile(), getByteVolatile(), getShortVolatile(), getCharVolatile(), getLongVolatile(), getFloatVolatile(), getDoubleVolatile(), and getObjectVolatile() methods as well.) void putIntVolatile(Object o, long offset, int x): volatile version of putInt(). (There are corresponding putBooleanVolatile(), putByteVolatile(), putShortVolatile(), putCharVolatile(), putLongVolatile(), putFloatVolatile(), putDoubleVolatile(), and putObjectVolatile() methods as well.) void putOrderedInt(Object o, long offset, int x): version of putIntVolatile() not guaranteeing immediate visibility of storage to other threads. (There are corresponding putOrderedLong() and putOrderedObject() methods as well.) void unpark(Object thread): unblocks a thread. void park(boolean isAbsolute, long time): blocks the current thread. int getLoadAverage(double[] loadavg, int nelems): gets the load average in the system run queue assigned to available processors averaged over various periods of time. void invokeCleaner(ByteBuffe

  Read more →
• 

  Gradient vector flow

  Gradient vector flow (GVF), a computer vision framework introduced by Chenyang Xu and Jerry L. Prince, is the vector field that is produced by a process that smooths and diffuses an input vector field. It is usually used to create a vector field from images that points to object edges from a distance. It is widely used in image analysis and computer vision applications for object tracking, shape recognition, segmentation, and edge detection. In particular, it is commonly used in conjunction with active contour model. == Background == Finding objects or homogeneous regions in images is a process known as image segmentation. In many applications, the locations of object edges can be estimated using local operators that yield a new image called an edge map. The edge map can then be used to guide a deformable model, sometimes called an active contour or a snake, so that it passes through the edge map in a smooth way, therefore defining the object itself. A common way to encourage a deformable model to move toward the edge map is to take the spatial gradient of the edge map, yielding a vector field. Since the edge map has its highest intensities directly on the edge and drops to zero away from the edge, these gradient vectors provide directions for the active contour to move. When the gradient vectors are zero, the active contour will not move, and this is the correct behavior when the contour rests on the peak of the edge map itself. However, because the edge itself is defined by local operators, these gradient vectors will also be zero far away from the edge and therefore the active contour will not move toward the edge when initialized far away from the edge. Gradient vector flow (GVF) is the process that spatially extends the edge map gradient vectors, yielding a new vector field that contains information about the location of object edges throughout the entire image domain. GVF is defined as a diffusion process operating on the components of the input vector field. It is designed to balance the fidelity of the original vector field, so it is not changed too much, with a regularization that is intended to produce a smooth field on its output. Although GVF was designed originally for the purpose of segmenting objects using active contours attracted to edges, it has been since adapted and used for many alternative purposes. Some newer purposes including defining a continuous medial axis representation, regularizing image anisotropic diffusion algorithms, finding the centers of ribbon-like objects, constructing graphs for optimal surface segmentations, creating a shape prior, and much more. == Theory == The theory of GVF was originally described by Xu and Prince. Let f ( x , y ) {\displaystyle \textstyle f(x,y)} be an edge map defined on the image domain. For uniformity of results, it is important to restrict the edge map intensities to lie between 0 and 1, and by convention f ( x , y ) {\displaystyle \textstyle f(x,y)} takes on larger values (close to 1) on the object edges. The gradient vector flow (GVF) field is given by the vector field v ( x , y ) = [ u ( x , y ) , v ( x , y ) ] {\displaystyle \textstyle \mathbf {v} (x,y)=[u(x,y),v(x,y)]} that minimizes the energy functional In this equation, subscripts denote partial derivatives and the gradient of the edge map is given by the vector field ∇ f = ( f x , f y ) {\displaystyle \textstyle \nabla f=(f_{x},f_{y})} . Figure 1 shows an edge map, the gradient of the (slightly blurred) edge map, and the GVF field generated by minimizing E {\displaystyle \textstyle {\mathcal {E}}} . Equation 1 is a variational formulation that has both a data term and a regularization term. The first term in the integrand is the data term. It encourages the solution v {\displaystyle \textstyle \mathbf {v} } to closely agree with the gradients of the edge map since that will make v − ∇ f {\displaystyle \textstyle \mathbf {v} -\nabla f} small. However, this only needs to happen when the edge map gradients are large since v − ∇ f {\displaystyle \textstyle \mathbf {v} -\nabla f} is multiplied by the square of the length of these gradients. The second term in the integrand is a regularization term. It encourages the spatial variations in the components of the solution to be small by penalizing the sum of all the partial derivatives of v {\displaystyle \textstyle \mathbf {v} } . As is customary in these types of variational formulations, there is a regularization parameter μ > 0 {\displaystyle \textstyle \mu >0} that must be specified by the user in order to trade off the influence of each of the two terms. If μ {\displaystyle \textstyle \mu } is large, for example, then the resulting field will be very smooth and may not agree as well with the underlying edge gradients. Theoretical Solution. Finding v ( x , y ) {\displaystyle \textstyle \mathbf {v} (x,y)} to minimize Equation 1 requires the use of calculus of variations since v ( x , y ) {\displaystyle \textstyle \mathbf {v} (x,y)} is a function, not a variable. Accordingly, the Euler equations, which provide the necessary conditions for v {\displaystyle \textstyle \mathbf {v} } to be a solution can be found by calculus of variations, yielding where ∇ 2 {\displaystyle \textstyle \nabla ^{2}} is the Laplacian operator. It is instructive to examine the form of the equations in (2). Each is a partial differential equation that the components u {\displaystyle u} and v {\displaystyle v} of v {\displaystyle \mathbf {v} } must satisfy. If the magnitude of the edge gradient is small, then the solution of each equation is guided entirely by Laplace's equation, for example ∇ 2 u = 0 {\displaystyle \textstyle \nabla ^{2}u=0} , which will produce a smooth scalar field entirely dependent on its boundary conditions. The boundary conditions are effectively provided by the locations in the image where the magnitude of the edge gradient is large, where the solution is driven to agree more with the edge gradients. Computational Solutions. There are two fundamental ways to compute GVF. First, the energy function E {\displaystyle {\mathcal {E}}} itself (1) can be directly discretized and minimized, for example, by gradient descent. Second, the partial differential equations in (2) can be discretized and solved iteratively. The original GVF paper used an iterative approach, while later papers introduced considerably faster implementations such as an octree-based method, a multi-grid method, and an augmented Lagrangian method. In addition, very fast GPU implementations have been developed in Extensions and Advances. GVF is easily extended to higher dimensions. The energy function is readily written in a vector form as which can be solved by gradient descent or by finding and solving its Euler equation. Figure 2 shows an illustration of a three-dimensional GVF field on the edge map of a simple object (see ). The data and regularization terms in the integrand of the GVF functional can also be modified. A modification described in , called generalized gradient vector flow (GGVF) defines two scalar functions and reformulates the energy as While the choices g ( ∇ f | ) = μ {\displaystyle \textstyle g(\nabla f|)=\mu } and h ( | ∇ f | ) = | ∇ f | 2 {\displaystyle \textstyle h(|\nabla f|)=|\nabla f|^{2}} reduce GGVF to GVF, the alternative choices g ( | ∇ f | ) = exp ⁡ { − | ∇ f | / K } {\displaystyle \textstyle g(|\nabla f|)=\exp\{-|\nabla f|/K\}} and h ( ∇ f | ) = 1 − g ( | ∇ f | ) {\displaystyle \textstyle h(\nabla f|)=1-g(|\nabla f|)} , for K {\displaystyle K} a user-selected constant, can improve the tradeoff between the data term and its regularization in some applications. The GVF formulation has been further extended to vector-valued images in where a weighted structure tensor of a vector-valued image is used. A learning based probabilistic weighted GVF extension was proposed in to further improve the segmentation for images with severely cluttered textures or high levels of noise. The variational formulation of GVF has also been modified in motion GVF (MGVF) to incorporate object motion in an image sequence. Whereas the diffusion of GVF vectors from a conventional edge map acts in an isotropic manner, the formulation of MGVF incorporates the expected object motion between image frames. An alternative to GVF called vector field convolution (VFC) provides many of the advantages of GVF, has superior noise robustness, and can be computed very fast. The VFC field v V F C {\displaystyle \textstyle \mathbf {v} _{\mathrm {VFC} }} is defined as the convolution of the edge map f {\displaystyle f} with a vector field kernel k {\displaystyle \mathbf {k} } where The vector field kernel k {\displaystyle \textstyle \mathbf {k} } has vectors that always point toward the origin but their magnitudes, determined in detail by the function m {\displaystyle m} , decrease to zero with increasing distance from the origin. The beauty of VFC is that it can be computed very rapidly using a fast Fourier tra

  Read more →
• 

  Brill tagger

  The Brill tagger is an inductive method for part-of-speech tagging. It was described and invented by Eric Brill in his 1993 PhD thesis. It can be summarized as an "error-driven transformation-based tagger". It is: a form of supervised learning, which aims to minimize error; and, a transformation-based process, in the sense that a tag is assigned to each word and changed using a set of predefined rules. In the transformation process, if the word is known, it first assigns the most frequent tag, or if the word is unknown, it naively assigns the tag "noun" to it. High accuracy is eventually achieved by applying these rules iteratively and changing the incorrect tags. This approach ensures that valuable information such as the morphosyntactic construction of words is employed in an automatic tagging process. == Algorithm == The algorithm starts with initialization, which is the assignment of tags based on their probability for each word (for example, "dog" is more often a noun than a verb). Then "patches" are determined via rules that correct (probable) tagging errors made in the initialization phase: Initialization: Known words (in vocabulary): assigning the most frequent tag associated to a form of the word Unknown word == Rules and processing == The input text is first tokenized, or broken into words. Typically in natural language processing, contractions such as "'s", "n't", and the like are considered separate word tokens, as are punctuation marks. A dictionary and some morphological rules then provide an initial tag for each word token. For example, a simple lookup would reveal that "dog" may be a noun or a verb (the most frequent tag is simply chosen), while an unknown word will be assigned some tag(s) based on capitalization, various prefix or suffix strings, etc. (such morphological analyses, which Brill calls Lexical Rules, may vary between implementations). After all word tokens have (provisional) tags, contextual rules apply iteratively, to correct the tags by examining small amounts of context. This is where the Brill method differs from other part of speech tagging methods such as those using Hidden Markov Models. Rules are reapplied repeatedly, until a threshold is reached, or no more rules can apply. Brill rules are of the general form: tag1 → tag2 IF Condition where the Condition tests the preceding and/or following word tokens, or their tags (the notation for such rules differs between implementations). For example, in Brill's notation: IN NN WDPREVTAG DT while would change the tag of a word from IN (preposition) to NN (common noun), if the preceding word's tag is DT (determiner) and the word itself is "while". This covers cases like "all the while" or "in a while", where "while" should be tagged as a noun rather than its more common use as a conjunction (many rules are more general). Rules should only operate if the tag being changed is also known to be permissible, for the word in question or in principle (for example, most adjectives in English can also be used as nouns). Rules of this kind can be implemented by simple Finite-state machines. See Part of speech tagging for more general information including descriptions of the Penn Treebank and other sets of tags. Typical Brill taggers use a few hundred rules, which may be developed by linguistic intuition or by machine learning on a pre-tagged corpus. == Code == Brill's code pages at Johns Hopkins University are no longer on the web. An archived version of a mirror of the Brill tagger at its latest version as it was available at Plymouth Tech can be found on Archive.org. The software uses the MIT License.

  Read more →