AI Avatar Logo

AI Avatar Logo — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  Reverse correlation technique

  The reverse correlation technique is a data driven study method used primarily in psychological and neurophysiological research. This method earned its name from its origins in neurophysiology, where cross-correlations between white noise stimuli and sparsely occurring neuronal spikes could be computed quicker when only computing it for segments preceding the spikes. The term has since been adopted in psychological experiments that usually do not analyze the temporal dimension, but also present noise to human participants. In contrast to the original meaning, the term is here thought to reflect that the standard psychological practice of presenting stimuli of defined categories to the participants is "reversed": Instead, the participant's mental representations of categories are estimated from interactions of the presented noise and the behavioral responses. It is used to create composite pictures of individual and/or group mental representations of various items (e.g. faces, bodies, and the self) that depict characteristics of said items (e.g. trustworthiness and self-body image). This technique is helpful when evaluating the mental representations of those with and without mental illnesses. == Terms == This technique utilizes spike-triggered average to explain what areas of signal and noise in an image are valuable for the given research question. Signal is information used to produce objects of value that help explain and connect the world around us. Noise is commonly referred to as unwanted signal that obscures the information that the signal is trying to present. Most importantly for reverse correlation studies, noise is randomly varying information. To determine the areas of importance using reverse correlation, noise is applied to a base image and then evaluated by observers. A base image is any image void of noise that relates to the research question. A base image that has noise superimposed on top is the stimuli that is presented to and evaluated by participants. Each time a new set of stimuli is presented to a participant, this is known as a trial. After a participant has responded to hundreds to thousands of trials, a researcher is ready to create a classification image. A classification image (abbreviated as "CI" in some studies) is a single image that represents the average noise patterns in the images selected by participants. A classification image can also be computed for groups by averaging the individuals’ classification images. These classification images are what researchers use to interpret the data and draw conclusions. As a whole, the reverse correlation method is a process that results in a composite image (from an individual or group) that can be used to estimate and interpret mental representations. == Basic study layout == The reverse correlation method is typically executed as an in-lab computer experiment. This method follows four broad steps. Each of the following steps are described in greater detail below. After creating a research question and determining that the reverse correlation method is the most suitable technique to answer the question, a researcher must (1) design randomly varying stimuli. After the stimuli have been prepared, a researcher should (2) collect data from participants who will see and respond to approximately 300 -1,000 trials. Each trial will either consist of one or two images (side by side) derived from the same base image with noise superimposed on top. Participant responses will depend on the chosen study design; if a researcher presents only one image at a time, participants rate the image on a 4pt scale, but when two images are shown, the participant is asked to choose which best aligns with the given category (e.g. choose the image that looks the most aggressive). Once all of the data is collected, the researcher will (3) compute classification images for each participant and using those images compute group classification images. Finally, with the classification images available, the researcher will (4) evaluate the images and draw conclusions about their results. === Step 1: making stimuli === When designing the stimuli for a reverse correlation study, the two primary factors that one should consider are (1) the base image and (2) the noise that will be used. While not all bases are images per se, the majority are and for this reason the base is typically referred to as a base image. The base image should represent whatever the research question is addressing. For example, if you are interested in peoples’ mental representations of Chinese people, it would not make sense to use a base image of a Spanish or Caucasian person. Again, if you are interested in the mental representations of male vocal patterns, it would make the most sense to use a base vocal pattern that has been produced by a male. Having a base is important because it provides a kind of anchor for participants to work from. When there is no base image, the number of trials that are required increases dramatically, thus making it harder to collect data. While there are studies that have excluded a base image, (e.g. the S study), for more elaborate and nuanced research questions, it is important to have a base image that is a fair representation of what participants are being asked to categorize. Photographs of faces are generally the most popular base image. Although the reverse correlation method is capable of investigating a wide variety of research questions, the most common application of the method is for evaluating faces on a single trait. Reverse correlation studies that address evaluations of the face are sometimes referred to as being a face space reverse correlation model (FSRCM). Thankfully, there are existing databases for face images of varying demographics and emotion that work well as base images. The reverse correlation method can also be used to help researchers identify what areas of an image (e.g. the areas on the face) have diagnostic value. In order to identify these areas of value, researchers start by minimizing the space a participant can pull information from. By imposing a “mask” on an image (e.g. blur an image while leaving random areas un-blurred), this reduces the information individuals might see, and forces them to focus on certain areas. Then, if/when participants are able to correctly identify an image with a trait repeatedly, we can draw conclusions about what areas have diagnostic value. While faces and visual stimuli are the most popular, this is not the only stimuli that can be used in a reverse correlation study. This method was originally designed for auditory stimuli which allows researchers to investigate how perceivers interpret auditory information and create trait based attributions to different sound patterns. For example, by segmenting a vocal recording of a single word (total sound time 426 ms) into six segments (71 ms each), and varying each segment's pitch using Gaussian distributions, researchers were able to uncover what vocal patterns people associated with certain traits. Specifically, this study investigated how listeners rated sound clips of the word “really” as sounding more interrogative (i.e. like the more common reverse correlation studies this study had participants listen to two sound clips per trial, choose which fit the category the best, and then created an average of the pitch contours). Beyond face and auditory perception, research utilizing the reverse correlation method has expanded to investigate how individuals see three-dimensional objects in images with noise (but no signal). After selecting your base image, regardless of what the image is, it is helpful to apply a Gaussian blur to smooth noise in the image. While noise will be applied later, it is helpful to reduce existing noise in the photo before applying your chosen noise. There are three primary choices when it comes to noise: white noise, sine-wave noise, and Gabor noise. The latter two of these constrain the configurations that the noise can have, and because of this white noise is usually the most commonly used. Regardless of the type of noise that is chosen, it is crucial that the noise randomly varies. === Step 2: data collection === Once the stimuli for the study has been developed, the researcher must make a few decisions before actually collecting the data. The researcher must come to a conclusion on how many stimuli will be presented at a time and how many trials the participants will see. In terms of stimuli presentation, a researcher can choose from either a 2-Image Forced Choice (2IFC) or a 4-Alternative Forced Choice (4AFC). The 2IFC presents two images at once (side by side) and requires participants to choose between the two on a specified category (e.g. which image looks the most like a male). Typically the noise from the left image is the mathematical inverse of the noise from the right image. This method was developed to better answer questions that could n

  Read more →
• 

  Boyfriend Maker

  Boyfriend Maker was a dating sim, romance chatbot smartphone app for iOS (iPhone) and Android devices, developed by Japanese studio 36 You Games (styled as 36You) and distributed under the freemium business model. Boyfriend Maker incorporated advanced artificial intelligence chat technology a decade before products such as ChatGPT. According to the developer's website, Boyfriend Maker is an "app that lets you interact and chat with quirky virtual boyfriends". While each virtual boyfriend has certain unique characteristics, the various instances of the boyfriend are powered by a chat engine, that (at least within a language and market) can utilise vocabulary and knowledge acquired in a chat with one user in subsequent chats with other users. == Gameplay == Users gain experience points and in-game coins. Users can customize their virtual boyfriend's appearance by selecting items such as hair, clothing, face, and a necklace. == Apple delisting and reintroduction == In late November 2012, the original iOS Boyfriend Maker app was delisted from the Apple App Store due to "ribald" chat, according to the New York Times. Boyfriend Maker was removed by Apple due to "reports of references to violent sexual acts and pedophilia". Boyfriend Maker had an age rating of 4+, even though the chat bot "responds with often strange and explicit text unsuitable for young children". User-posted chat excerpts indicate that the virtual boyfriend would sometimes transition abruptly to sexual chat in response to a seemingly innocent question. In one user-posted example, in response to the question, "what kind of wedding cake will we have" the boyfriend responds, "a good sex ima be on top of u u gonna ride oon me bitin the pillow gurrl ima fuck da shit out of u". The developer's use of the SimSimi-created third-party chat engine may be responsible for the sexual text. As the virtual boyfriend converses with human users, the SimSimi chat engine acquires vocabulary from users of the game and applies this "learned" vocabulary in chats with other users. The chat engine might also employ lines harvested from human-human chat logs, song lyrics, movies or TV shows. In April 2013, a detuned and presumably tamer version of the app, titled Boyfriend Plus, was permitted on Apple's App Store.

  Read more →
• 

  Adversarial stylometry

  Adversarial stylometry is the practice of altering writing style to reduce the potential for stylometry to discover the author's identity or their characteristics. This task is also known as authorship obfuscation or authorship anonymisation. Stylometry poses a significant privacy challenge in its ability to unmask anonymous authors or to link pseudonyms to an author's other identities, which, for example, creates difficulties for whistleblowers, activists, and hoaxers and fraudsters. The privacy risk is expected to grow as machine learning techniques and text corpora develop. All adversarial stylometry shares the core idea of faithfully paraphrasing the source text so that the meaning is unchanged but the stylistic signals are obscured. Such a faithful paraphrase is an adversarial example for a stylometric classifier. Several broad approaches to this exist, with some overlap: imitation, substituting the author's own style for another's; translation, applying machine translation with the hope that this eliminates characteristic style in the source text; and obfuscation, deliberately modifying a text's style to make it not resemble the author's own. Manually obscuring style is possible, but laborious; in some circumstances, it is preferable or necessary. Automated tooling, either semi- or fully-automatic, could assist an author. How best to perform the task and the design of such tools is an open research question. While some approaches have been shown to be able to defeat particular stylometric analyses, particularly those that do not account for the potential of adversariality, establishing safety in the face of unknown analyses is an issue. Ensuring the faithfulness of the paraphrase is a critical challenge for automated tools. It is uncertain if the practice of adversarial stylometry is detectable in itself. Some studies have found that particular methods produced signals in the output text, but a stylometrist who is uncertain of what methods may have been used may not be able to reliably detect them. == History == Rao & Rohatgi (2000), an early work in adversarial stylometry, identified machine translation as a possibility, but noted that the quality of translators available at the time presented severe challenges. Kacmarcik & Gamon (2006) is another early work. Brennan, Afroz & Greenstadt (2012) performed the first evaluation of adversarial stylometric methods on actual texts. Brennan & Greenstadt (2009) introduced the first corpus of adversarially authored texts specifically for evaluating stylometric methods; other corpora include the International Imitation Hemingway Competition, the Faux Faulkner contest, and the hoax blog A Gay Girl in Damascus. == Motivations == Rao & Rohatgi (2000) suggest that short, unattributed documents (i.e., anonymous posts) are not at risk of stylometric identification, but pseudonymous authors who have not practiced adversarial stylometry in producing corpuses of thousands of words may be vulnerable. Narayanan et al. (2012) attempted large-scale deanonymisation of 100,000 blog authors with mixed results: the identifications were significantly better than chance, but only accurately matched the blog and author a fifth of the time; identification improved with the number of posts written by the author in the corpus. Even if an author is not identified, some of their characteristics may still be deduced stylometrically, or stylometry may narrow the anonymity set of potential authors sufficiently for other information to complete the identification. Detecting author characteristics (e.g., gender or age) is often simpler than identifying an author from a large, possibly open, set of candidates. Modern machine learning techniques offer powerful tools for identification; further development of corpora and computational stylometric techniques are likely to raise further privacy issues. Gröndahl & Asokan (2020a) say that the general validity of the hypothesis underlying stylometry—that authors have invariant, content-independent 'style fingerprints'—is uncertain, but "the deanonymisation attack is a real privacy concern". Those interested in practicing adversarial stylometry and stylistic deception include whistleblowers avoiding retribution; journalists and activists; perpetrators of frauds and hoaxes; authors of fake reviews; literary forgers; criminals disguising their identity from investigators; and, generally, anyone with a desire for anonymity or pseudonymity. Authors, or agents acting on behalf of authors, may also attempt to remove stylistic clues to author characteristics (e.g., race or gender) so that knowledge of those characteristics cannot be used for discrimination (e.g., through algorithmic bias). Another possible use for adversarial stylometry is in disguising automatically generated text as human-authored. == Methods == With imitation, the author attempts to mislead stylometry by matching their style to another author's. An incomplete imitation, where some of the true author's unique characteristics appear alongside the imitated author's, can be a detectable signal for the use of adversarial stylometry. Imitation can be performed automatically with style transfer systems, though this typically requires a large corpus in the target style for the system to learn from. Another approach is translation, which employs machine translation of a source text to eliminate characteristic style, often through multiple translators in sequence to produce a round-trip translation. Such chained translation can lead to texts being significantly altered, even to the point of incomprehensibility; improved translation tools reduce this risk. More simply-structured texts can be easier to machine translate without losing the original meaning. Machine translation blurs into direct stylistic imitation or obfuscation achieved through automated style transfer, which can be viewed as a "translation" with the same language as input and output. With low-quality translation tools, an author can be required to manually correct major translation errors while avoiding the hazard of re-introducing stylistic characteristics. Wang, Juola & Riddell (2022) found that gross errors introduced by Google Translate were rare, but more common with several intermediate translations—however, occasional simple or short sentences and misspellings in the source text appeared verbatim in the output, potentially providing an identifying signal. Chain translation can leave characteristic traces of its application in a document, which may allow reconstruction of the intermediate languages used and the number of translation steps performed. Obfuscation involves deliberately changing the style of a text to reduce its similarity to other texts by some metric; this may be performed at the time of writing by conscious modification, or as part of a revision process with feedback from the metric being targeted as an input to decide when the text has been sufficiently obfuscated. In contrast to translation, complex texts can offer more opportunities for effective obfuscation without altering meaning, and likewise genres with more permissible variation allow more obfuscation. However, longer texts are harder to thoroughly obfuscate. Obfuscation can blend into imitation if the author develops a novel target style, distinct from their original style. With respect to masking author characteristics, obfuscation may aim to achieve a union (adding signals for imitated characteristics) or an intersection (removing signals and normalising) of other authors' styles. Avoiding the author's own idiosyncrasies and producing a "normalised" text is a critical obfuscatory step: an author may have a unique tendency to misspell certain words, use particular variants, or to format a document in a characteristic way. Stylometric signals vary in how simply they can be adversarially masked; an author may easily change their vocabulary by conscious choice, but altering the pattern of grammar or the letter frequency in their text may be harder to achieve, though Juola & Vescovi (2011) report that imitation typically succeeds at masking more characteristics than obfuscation. Automated obfuscation may require large amounts of training data written by the author. Concerning automated implementations of adversarial stylometry, two possible implementations are rule-based systems for paraphrasing; and encoder–decoder architectures, where the text passes through an intermediate format that is (intended to be) style-neutral. Another division in automated methods is whether there is feedback from an identification system or not. With such feedback, finding paraphrases for author masking has been characterised as a heuristic search problem, exploring textual variants until the result is stylistically sufficiently far (in the case of obfuscation) or near (in the case of imitation), which then constitutes an adversarial example for that identification system. == Evaluation == How

  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 →
• 

  Meesho

  Meesho Limited (short for Meri shop, transl. My shop) is an Indian e-commerce company, headquartered in Bengaluru. Founded by Vidit Aatrey and Sanjeev Barnwal in December 2015, Meesho is an online marketplace in categories such as fashion, home and kitchen, beauty and personal care, electronics accessories, and daily use products. == History == Meesho Private Limited, formerly Fashnear Technologies Private Limited, was established by IIT Delhi graduates Vidit Aatrey and Sanjeev Barnwal in December, 2015 In 2016, the founders came up with the idea of re-establishing the platform as Meesho, one that would enable country-wide shipping for resellers with the use of social media sites as tools for marketing. In February 2019, the platform reported having around 209,000 users and about 1.2 million monthly orders, and in March 2020, it reported approximately 563,000 users and 3.1 million monthly orders. In 2021, the Meesho mobile application was ranked among the most downloaded shopping apps globally. In 2022, Meesho had about 120 million monthly users and about 910 million orders were made through the platform, with a gross merchandise value (GMV) of about $5 billion. According to report as of August 2023 Meesho delisted 42 lakh counterfeit listings and 10 lakh restricted products under its initiative Project Suraksha. During the same period, the platform blocked access for over 12,000 user accounts flagged for policy violations. The Court granted injunctive relief by directing domain registrars to suspend the infringing websites. Additionally, the Court ordered law enforcement authorities to initiate criminal investigations, freeze associated financial accounts against the identified offenders. In 2023, Meesho became the fastest shopping app to cross over 500 million downloads. In 2024, Meesho introduced Valmo, a logistics marketplace, to provide shipment services to sellers by aggregating multiple logistics providers. Meesho employs over 3,000 small businesses and 10-12 large firms for warehousing and sorting operations within its logistics framework. According to media reports, Valmo operating in approximately 15,000 pincodes in India with around 6,000 partners. It is reported to handle over 50% of Meesho's daily orders. In November 2024, Meesho introduced a generative AI-powered voice bot for customer support, managing approximately 60,000 calls daily in English and Hindi. According to media reports, the system resolves the majority of queries without human assistance, with only a small fraction of calls requiring manual intervention. According to media reports, in 2024, Meesho prevented over 22 million suspicious or potentially fraudulent transactions on its platform. The company initiated legal proceedings, resulting in the filing of twelve cases, including nine specifically targeting over forty individuals in the cities of Kolkata and Ranchi. The company filed a suit in the Delhi High Court for a permanent injunction against parties operating deceptive websites misappropriating its brand identity. Meesha went public through an initial public offering in December 2025, raising $603 million. It is listed on both the BSE and NSE. == Recognition == In 2023, Meesho was named one of the most influential companies of the year by Time (magazine).

  Read more →
• 

  Transduction (machine learning)

  In logic, statistical inference, and supervised learning, transduction or transductive inference is reasoning from observed, specific (training) cases to specific (test) cases. In contrast, induction is reasoning from observed training cases to general rules, which are then applied to the test cases. The distinction is most interesting in cases where the predictions of the transductive model are not achievable by any inductive model. Note that this is caused by transductive inference on different test sets producing mutually inconsistent predictions. Transduction was introduced in a computer science context by Vladimir Vapnik in the 1990s, motivated by his view that transduction is preferable to induction since, according to him, induction requires solving a more general problem (inferring a function) before solving a more specific problem (computing outputs for new cases): "When solving a problem of interest, do not solve a more general problem as an intermediate step. Try to get the answer that you really need but not a more general one.". An example of learning which is not inductive would be in the case of binary classification, where the inputs tend to cluster in two groups. A large set of test inputs may help in finding the clusters, thus providing useful information about the classification labels. The same predictions would not be obtainable from a model which induces a function based only on the training cases. Some people may call this an example of the closely related semi-supervised learning, since Vapnik's motivation is quite different. The most well-known example of a case-bases learning algorithm is the k-nearest neighbor algorithm, which is related to transductive learning algorithms. Another example of an algorithm in this category is the Transductive Support Vector Machine (TSVM). A third possible motivation of transduction arises through the need to approximate. If exact inference is computationally prohibitive, one may at least try to make sure that the approximations are good at the test inputs. In this case, the test inputs could come from an arbitrary distribution (not necessarily related to the distribution of the training inputs), which wouldn't be allowed in semi-supervised learning. An example of an algorithm falling in this category is the Bayesian Committee Machine (BCM). == Historical context == The mode of inference from particulars to particulars, which Vapnik came to call transduction, was already distinguished from the mode of inference from particulars to generalizations in part III of the Cambridge philosopher and logician W.E. Johnson's 1924 textbook, Logic. In Johnson's work, the former mode was called 'eduction' and the latter was called 'induction'. Bruno de Finetti developed a purely subjective form of Bayesianism in which claims about objective chances could be translated into empirically respectable claims about subjective credences with respect to observables through exchangeability properties. An early statement of this view can be found in his 1937 La Prévision: ses Lois Logiques, ses Sources Subjectives and a mature statement in his 1970 Theory of Probability. Within de Finetti's subjective Bayesian framework, all inductive inference is ultimately inference from particulars to particulars. == Example problem == The following example problem contrasts some of the unique properties of transduction against induction. A collection of points is given, such that some of the points are labeled (A, B, or C), but most of the points are unlabeled (?). The goal is to predict appropriate labels for all of the unlabeled points. The inductive approach to solving this problem is to use the labeled points to train a supervised learning algorithm, and then have it predict labels for all of the unlabeled points. With this problem, however, the supervised learning algorithm will only have five labeled points to use as a basis for building a predictive model. It will certainly struggle to build a model that captures the structure of this data. For example, if a nearest-neighbor algorithm is used, then the points near the middle will be labeled "A" or "C", even though it is apparent that they belong to the same cluster as the point labeled "B", compared to semi-supervised learning. Transduction has the advantage of being able to consider all of the points, not just the labeled points, while performing the labeling task. In this case, transductive algorithms would label the unlabeled points according to the clusters to which they naturally belong. The points in the middle, therefore, would most likely be labeled "B", because they are packed very close to that cluster. An advantage of transduction is that it may be able to make better predictions with fewer labeled points, because it uses the natural breaks found in the unlabeled points. One disadvantage of transduction is that it builds no predictive model. If a previously unknown point is added to the set, the entire transductive algorithm would need to be repeated with all of the points in order to predict a label. This can be computationally expensive if the data is made available incrementally in a stream. Further, this might cause the predictions of some of the old points to change (which may be good or bad, depending on the application). A supervised learning algorithm, on the other hand, can label new points instantly, with very little computational cost. == Transduction algorithms == Transduction algorithms can be broadly divided into two categories: those that seek to assign discrete labels to unlabeled points, and those that seek to regress continuous labels for unlabeled points. Algorithms that seek to predict discrete labels tend to be derived by adding partial supervision to a clustering algorithm. Two classes of algorithms can be used: flat clustering and hierarchical clustering. The latter can be further subdivided into two categories: those that cluster by partitioning, and those that cluster by agglomerating. Algorithms that seek to predict continuous labels tend to be derived by adding partial supervision to a manifold learning algorithm. === Partitioning transduction === Partitioning transduction can be thought of as top-down transduction. It is a semi-supervised extension of partition-based clustering. It is typically performed as follows: Consider the set of all points to be one large partition. While any partition P contains two points with conflicting labels: Partition P into smaller partitions. For each partition P: Assign the same label to all of the points in P. Of course, any reasonable partitioning technique could be used with this algorithm. Max flow min cut partitioning schemes are very popular for this purpose. === Agglomerative transduction === Agglomerative transduction can be thought of as bottom-up transduction. It is a semi-supervised extension of agglomerative clustering. It is typically performed as follows: Compute the pair-wise distances, D, between all the points. Sort D in ascending order. Consider each point to be a cluster of size 1. For each pair of points {a,b} in D: If (a is unlabeled) or (b is unlabeled) or (a and b have the same label) Merge the two clusters that contain a and b. Label all points in the merged cluster with the same label. === Continuous Label Transduction === These methods seek to regress continuous labels, often via manifold learning techniques. The idea is to learn a low-dimensional representation of the data and infer values smoothly across the manifold. == Applications and related concepts == Transduction is closely related to: Semi-supervised learning – uses both labeled and unlabeled data but typically induces a model. Case-based reasoning – such as the k-nearest neighbor (k-NN) algorithm, often considered a transductive method. Transductive Support Vector Machines (TSVM) – extend standard SVMs to incorporate unlabeled test data during training. Bayesian Committee Machine (BCM) – an approximation method that makes transductive predictions when exact inference is too costly.

  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 →
• 

  Huroof

  Huroof (Arabic: حروف, lit. 'letters') is an Android kids application produced by the Islamic State, specifically the Islamic States' Al-Himmah Library, which is targeted towards kids in order to teach kids the Arabic alphabet, and to also get kids to support the Islamic State and its practices. == Application == Huroof uses child-like appearances on the main menu, and throughout multiple of Huroof's in-game games for learning the alphabet, a lot of the games reference jihadist concepts, including imagery of weapons (such as missile, tank, cannon, sword,...), 'violent' images, as well as Islamic State imagery, including the flag of the Islamic State, Huroof uses nasheeds from Ajnad Media Foundation for audio production in the app. Reportedly, Huroof was released via Telegram channels of the Islamic State, as well as other file sharing websites. It is not the first moblie app released by Islamic State, but it is the first time they released a moblie application targeting children. === Nasheed game === In the Huroof app, there's a game where you listen to a radio, with the Al-Bayan logo on it, and learn the Arabic alphabet while the nasheed plays. === Writing game === In Huroof, there's a game where you can write out letters of the Arabic alphabet, as well as numbers while a small child tells you what they are. === Letter choosing game === In the app, there's a game they shows you images, and you choose which letter that image/item starts with.

  Read more →
• 

  Concordancer

  A concordancer is a computer program that automatically constructs a concordance—an alphabetised index of every occurrence of a word or phrase in a body of text, each entry displayed with its surrounding context. Concordancers are primary tools in corpus linguistics, lexicography, computer-assisted translation, and language teaching. The most common display format is the key word in context (KWIC) layout, in which each hit appears centred on a line with a fixed span of words to its left and right, enabling rapid scanning of usage patterns across many occurrences. == History == === Pre-computational concordances === The compilation of concordances predates computers by many centuries. Around 1230, the French Dominican cardinal Hugh of Saint-Cher directed a team of friars in assembling a concordance of the Latin Vulgate Bible, generally regarded as the first systematic concordance of any text. To help readers locate passages, Hugh divided each biblical chapter into lettered sections. Later milestones include a Hebrew Old Testament concordance compiled by Rabbi Mordecai Nathan (1448), Alexander Cruden's Complete Concordance to the Holy Scriptures (1737), and the manuscript Asaf ha-Mazkir, an unfinished concordance to the Babylonian Talmud compiled by Moses Rigotz around the turn of the 19th century. === First computer concordance === The first concordance produced with computing assistance was the Index Thomisticus, a comprehensive lexical index of the writings of and around Thomas Aquinas, totalling approximately 10.6 million Latin words. The Italian Jesuit priest Roberto Busa conceived the project in 1946 and secured the sponsorship of IBM in 1949 after a meeting with chairman Thomas J. Watson. Keypunch operators in Gallarate, Italy, encoded the texts onto punched cards from around 1950. IBM executive Paul Tasman developed the processing methods. The full 56-volume printed edition was completed around 1980, followed by a CD-ROM edition in 1989 and a web-accessible version in 2005. === The KWIC format === The key word in context (KWIC) display was formalised as a computational technique by Hans Peter Luhn, a researcher at IBM, in a 1960 paper in American Documentation. In KWIC output, each instance of the search term (the node word) is centred on a line with a fixed window of words to each side; sorting the resulting lines alphabetically by the immediately adjacent word reveals collocational and phraseological patterns at a glance. === COCOA === One of the first dedicated concordancing programs was COCOA (COunt and COncordance Generation on Atlas), created in 1965 by D. B. Russell at University College London and the Atlas Computer Laboratory in Harwell, Oxfordshire. Written in approximately 4,000 cards of FORTRAN, it processed text annotated with flat, non-hierarchical markup tags and could produce word counts and concordances in multiple languages. Within its first six months COCOA had been applied to texts in at least six languages. A second version designed for multiple mainframe platforms was distributed to British computing centres in the mid-1970s. Growing dissatisfaction with its interface and the eventual withdrawal of Atlas Laboratory support prompted British funding bodies to commission a successor program. === Oxford Concordance Program === The Oxford Concordance Program (OCP) was designed and written in FORTRAN by Susan Hockey and Ian Marriott at Oxford University Computing Services (OUCS) between 1979 and 1980 and first released in 1981. Hockey and Marriott acknowledged that OCP owed much to COCOA and the CLOC system at the University of Birmingham. OCP accepted COCOA-format markup to encode metadata such as author, act, scene, and line number, and was described by its authors as "a machine-independent text analysis program for producing word lists, indices and concordances in a variety of languages and alphabets." By the mid-1980s it had been licensed to approximately 240 institutions in 23 countries. A personal computer version, Micro-OCP, was developed for the IBM PC and sold by Oxford University Press from the late 1980s. Version 2 was rewritten in 1985–86 and documented in the same 1987 article by Hockey and co-author John Martin. === Personal computer era === The availability of affordable personal computers in the 1980s and 1990s enabled standalone concordancing applications that analysts could run locally without specialist computing facilities. MicroConcord, developed by Mike Scott and Tim Johns and published by Oxford University Press in 1993 for MS-DOS, was among the first concordancers designed specifically for classroom language teaching. WordSmith Tools, also developed by Mike Scott, was first released in 1996 and became one of the most widely used corpus analysis suites in academic linguistics research. Other tools from this era include TACT (University of Toronto, 1989), a suite of MS-DOS freeware programs for literary text analysis, and MonoConc, a Windows concordancer created by Michael Barlow. === Web-based concordancers === From the late 1990s onwards, web-based concordancers hosted on remote servers gave researchers browser access to large preloaded corpora without requiring local storage or processing. The Sketch Engine, developed by Adam Kilgarriff and Pavel Rychlý (Masaryk University), was launched commercially in July 2003 by Lexical Computing Limited and introduced word sketches—automatically generated one-page profiles of a word's typical grammatical relations and collocations. AntConc, created by Laurence Anthony at Waseda University, Tokyo, was first released in 2002 as freeware for Windows, macOS, and Linux. == Features == Modern concordancers typically offer a range of analytical functions beyond basic KWIC display. These commonly include: KWIC display with the node word centred and context words in aligned columns, sortable by the word one, two, or three positions to the left or right of the node (L1–L3 and R1–R3) Concordance plots, visualising the distribution of hits as marks along a scaled bar representing each text in the corpus Frequency and word lists, both alphabetical and ranked by frequency Collocation statistics, identifying words that co-occur with the search term more often than chance, quantified by measures such as mutual information, the t-score, or log-likelihood Keyword analysis, comparing word frequencies between a study corpus and a reference corpus to identify statistically distinctive items N-gram analysis, finding frequently recurring word sequences of a specified length Part-of-speech tagging integration, allowing searches filtered to particular grammatical categories Unicode support for multilingual text Bilingual and parallel concordancers additionally display aligned text in two or more languages side by side, enabling comparison of translation equivalents across language pairs. == Notable concordancers == === WordSmith Tools === Created by Mike Scott and first released in 1996, WordSmith Tools is a Windows corpus analysis suite that evolved from MicroConcord. Its three core modules are Concord (KWIC concordances), WordList (frequency and alphabetical word lists), and Keywords (statistical keyword identification relative to a reference corpus). Oxford University Press used WordSmith Tools for dictionary preparation work. Version 4.0 is freely available; later versions are sold by Lexical Analysis Software Limited. === AntConc === AntConc is a freeware, multiplatform concordancing toolkit created by Laurence Anthony, Professor of Applied Linguistics at Waseda University, Tokyo. First released in 2002 and formally described in a 2005 academic paper, it runs on Windows, macOS, and Linux. Its tools include a KWIC concordancer, a concordance plot for visualising distribution across texts, a collocates tool, a keyword list, and an n-gram analysis module. Because it is free and requires only plain text files, AntConc is widely used in linguistics courses and independent research worldwide. === Sketch Engine === The Sketch Engine is a corpus management and query system co-created by Adam Kilgarriff and Pavel Rychlý and launched in 2003 by Lexical Computing Limited. It provides browser-based access to over 800 corpora in more than 100 languages. Beyond concordance searching, it offers word sketches, collocation analysis, distributional thesaurus construction, keyword and terminology extraction, and diachronic analysis. It is used by major publishers including Macmillan and Oxford University Press for lexicographic research. A subset tool, SKELL (Sketch Engine for Language Learning), is freely accessible to individual learners. === Wmatrix === Wmatrix is a web-based corpus processing environment developed by Paul Rayson at the University Centre for Computer Corpus Research on Language (UCREL), Lancaster University. Alongside concordances and frequency lists, Wmatrix integrates CLAWS part-of-speech tagging and the USAS semantic tagger, enabling keyword analysis simultane

  Read more →
• 

  E-gree (app)

  E-gree is a legal app that became well known in 2020. It was the first app of its kind to protect users against a number of dating-related issues, including revenge porn. == Background == The app was co-founded by Araz Mamet, Keith Fraser and Ilya Flaks. The app focuses on privacy, with users being able to set up various contracts to protect themselves following a breakup, or while dating. This notably included signing an NDA when sexting. The app received investment from a number of notable people and companies, including Natalia Vodianova.

  Read more →
• 

  LRE Map

  The LRE Map (Language Resources and Evaluation) is a freely accessible large database on resources dedicated to Natural language processing. The original feature of LRE Map is that the records are collected during the submission of different major Natural language processing conferences. The records are then cleaned and gathered into a global database called "LRE Map". The LRE Map is intended to be an instrument for collecting information about language resources and to become, at the same time, a community for users, a place to share and discover resources, discuss opinions, provide feedback, discover new trends, etc. It is an instrument for discovering, searching and documenting language resources, here intended in a broad sense, as both data and tools. The large amount of information contained in the Map can be analyzed in many different ways. For instance, the LRE Map can provide information about the most frequent type of resource, the most represented language, the applications for which resources are used or are being developed, the proportion of new resources vs. already existing ones, or the way in which resources are distributed to the community. == Context == Several institutions worldwide maintain catalogues of language resources (ELRA, LDC, NICT Universal Catalogue, ACL Data and Code Repository, OLAC, LT World, etc.) However, it has been estimated that only 10% of existing resources are known, either through distribution catalogues or via direct publicity by providers (web sites and the like). The rest remains hidden, the only occasions where it briefly emerges being when a resource is presented in the context of a research paper or report at some conference. Even in this case, nevertheless, it might be that a resource remains in the background simply because the focus of the research is not on the resource per se. == History == The LRE Map originated under the name "LREC Map" during the preparation of LREC 2010 conference. More specifically, the idea was discussed within the FlaReNet project, and in collaboration with ELRA and the Institute of Computational Linguistics of CNR in Pisa, the Map was put in place at LREC 2010. The LREC organizers asked the authors to provide some basic information about all the resources (in a broad sense, i.e. including tools, standards and evaluation packages), either used or created, described in their papers. All these descriptors were then gathered in a global matrix called the LREC Map. The same methodology and requirements from the authors has been then applied and extended to other conferences, namely COLING-2010, EMNLP-2010, RANLP-2011, LREC 2012, LREC 2014 and LREC 2016. After this generalization to other conferences, the LREC Map has been renamed as the LRE Map. == Size and content == The size of the database increases over time. The data collected amount to 4776 entries. Each resource is described according to the following attributes: Resource type, e.g. lexicon, annotation tool, tagger/parser. Resource production status, e.g. newly created finished, existing-updated. Resource availability, e.g. freely available, from data center. Resource modality, e.g. speech, written, sign language. Resource use, e.g. named entity recognition, language identification, machine translation. Resource language, e.g. English, 23 European Union languages, official languages of India. == Uses == The LRE map is a very important tool to chart the NLP field. Compared to other studied based on subjective scorings, the LRE map is made of real facts. The map has a great potential for many uses, in addition to being an information gathering tool: It is a great instrument for monitoring the evolution of the field (useful for funders), if applied in different contexts and times. It can be seen as a huge joint effort, the beginning of an even larger cooperative action not just among few leaders but among all the researchers. It is also an "educational" means towards the broad acknowledgment of the need of meta-research activities with the active involvement of many. It is also instrumental in introducing the new notion of "citation of resources" that could provide an award and a means of scholarly recognition for researchers engaged in resource creation. It is used to help the organization of the conferences of the field like LREC. == Derived matrices == The data were then cleaned and sorted by Joseph Mariani (CNRS-LIMSI IMMI) and Gil Francopoulo (CNRS-LIMSI IMMI + Tagmatica) in order to compute the various matrices of the final FLaReNet reports. One of them, the matrix for written data at LREC 2010 is as follows: English is the most studied language. Secondly, come French and German languages and then Italian and Spanish. == Future == The LRE Map has been extended to Language Resources and Evaluation Journal and other conferences.

  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 →
• 

  Real-Time UML

  Real-Time UML (RTUML) refers to the application of the Unified Modelling Language (UML) for the analysis, design, and implementation of real-time and embedded systems, where timing constraints, concurrency, and resource management are critical. It extends standard UML with profiles, notations, and semantics to handle hard and soft real-time requirements, such as modelling predictable response times and fault tolerance. RTUML is not a separate language but a methodology leveraging UML diagrams (e.g., statecharts, sequence diagrams) for time-sensitive applications like automotive controls, avionics, and medical devices. The term is closely associated with Bruce Powel Douglass, who popularised it through his books and the Harmony process for embedded software development. As of 2025, RTUML remains relevant in industries requiring certified systems, though its adoption varies with agile methodologies and model-driven engineering tools. == Background == Real-Time UML emerged in the late 1990s as UML was standardized by the Object Management Group (OMG) in 1997, addressing the need for object-oriented modeling in real-time systems previously dominated by procedural languages like C. Traditional real-time development relied on "bare metal" programming or theoretical models, but RTUML introduced visual notations for object structure, behaviour, and timing. Bruce Powel Douglass’s 1999 book, Real-Time UML: Developing Efficient Objects for Embedded Systems, formalised the approach, emphasising statecharts for concurrency and timing constraints. Later editions (2004, 2006) incorporated UML 2.0 features like activity and timing diagrams, aligning with OMG’s Real-Time Profile (now part of MARTE—Modelling and Analysis of Real-Time and Embedded Systems). The Harmony process integrates RTUML with executable models for simulation and code generation. RTUML addresses hard real-time systems (e.g., strict deadlines in avionics) versus soft real-time (e.g., media streaming), using UML extensions for schedulability analysis. == Key concepts == RTUML adapts UML diagrams and techniques for real-time needs: Statecharts and Behaviour Modelling: Extended state machines model reactive behaviour, using and-states for concurrency, pseudostates for transitions, and timing constraints (e.g., {duration < 10ms}). Examples include cardiac pacemaker models. Sequence and Interaction Diagrams: Capture message timing, priorities, and resource allocation in multi-threaded systems. Architectural Patterns: Define logical and physical architectures with active objects for concurrency and patterns like observer or publisher-subscriber. Timing and Constraints: Use Object Constraint Language (OCL) for specifying deadlines and priorities. Profiles and Extensions: OMG’s UML Profile for Schedulability, Performance, and Time (SPT) and MARTE add stereotypes like RT::ActiveObject. These support iterative development, from requirements to deployment, often with tools like IBM Rhapsody or Enterprise Architect. == Applications == RTUML is used in: Embedded Systems: Modelling automotive ECUs or UAV controls. Avionics and Defence: DO-178C-compliant designs for fault tolerance. Medical Devices: Pacemakers or ventilators with precise timing. Industrial Automation: RTOS task visualisation via sequence diagrams. Tools like IBM Rhapsody support RTUML for model-based development and code generation in C/C++. == Criticism and adoption == RTUML’s complexity can overwhelm simple systems, and its use in agile environments is limited, where lightweight diagrams are preferred. Surveys indicate UML (including RTUML) is used in 30–50% of embedded projects, often for documentation rather than full model-driven engineering. It remains standard in academia and certified industries like aerospace.

  Read more →
• 

  Automatic acquisition of sense-tagged corpora

  The knowledge acquisition bottleneck is perhaps the major impediment to solving the word-sense disambiguation (WSD) problem. Unsupervised learning methods rely on knowledge about word senses, which is barely formulated in dictionaries and lexical databases. Supervised learning methods depend heavily on the existence of manually annotated examples for every word sense, a requisite that can so far be met only for a handful of words for testing purposes, as it is done in the Senseval exercises. == Existing methods == Therefore, one of the most promising trends in WSD research is using the largest corpus ever accessible, the World Wide Web, to acquire lexical information automatically. WSD has been traditionally understood as an intermediate language engineering technology which could improve applications such as information retrieval (IR). In this case, however, the reverse is also true: Web search engines implement simple and robust IR techniques that can be successfully used when mining the Web for information to be employed in WSD. The most direct way of using the Web (and other corpora) to enhance WSD performance is the automatic acquisition of sense-tagged corpora, the fundamental resource to feed supervised WSD algorithms. Although this is far from being commonplace in the WSD literature, a number of different and effective strategies to achieve this goal have already been proposed. Some of these strategies are: acquisition by direct Web searching (searches for monosemous synonyms, hypernyms, hyponyms, parsed gloss' words, etc.), Yarowsky algorithm (bootstrapping), acquisition via Web directories, and acquisition via cross-language meaning evidences. == Summary == === Optimistic results === The automatic extraction of examples to train supervised learning algorithms reviewed has been, by far, the best explored approach to mine the web for word-sense disambiguation. Some results are certainly encouraging: In some experiments, the quality of the Web data for WSD equals that of human-tagged examples. This is the case of the monosemous relatives plus bootstrapping with Semcor seeds technique and the examples taken from the ODP Web directories. In the first case, however, Semcor-size example seeds are necessary (and only available for English), and it has only been tested with a very limited set of nouns; in the second case, the coverage is quite limited, and it is not yet clear whether it can be grown without compromising the quality of the examples retrieved. It has been shown that a mainstream supervised learning technique trained exclusively with web data can obtain better results than all unsupervised WSD systems which participated at Senseval-2. Web examples made a significant contribution to the best Senseval-2 English all-words system. === Difficulties === There are, however, several open research issues related to the use of Web examples in WSD: High precision in the retrieved examples (i.e., correct sense assignments for the examples) does not necessarily lead to good supervised WSD results (i.e., the examples are possibly not useful for training). The most complete evaluation of Web examples for supervised WSD indicates that learning with Web data improves over unsupervised techniques, but the results are nevertheless far from those obtained with hand-tagged data, and do not even beat the most-frequent-sense baseline. Results are not always reproducible; the same or similar techniques may lead to different results in different experiments. Compare, for instance, Mihalcea (2002) with Agirre and Martínez (2004), or Agirre and Martínez (2000) with Mihalcea and Moldovan (1999). Results with Web data seem to be very sensitive to small differences in the learning algorithm, to when the corpus was extracted (search engines change continuously), and on small heuristic issues (e.g., differences in filters to discard part of the retrieved examples). Results are strongly dependent on bias (i.e., on the relative frequencies of examples per word sense). It is unclear whether this is simply a problem of Web data, or an intrinsic problem of supervised learning techniques, or just a problem of how WSD systems are evaluated (indeed, testing with rather small Senseval data may overemphasize sense distributions compared to sense distributions obtained from the full Web as corpus). In any case, Web data has an intrinsic bias, because queries to search engines directly constrain the context of the examples retrieved. There are approaches that alleviate this problem, such as using several different seeds/queries per sense or assigning senses to Web directories and then scanning directories for examples; but this problem is nevertheless far from being solved. Once a Web corpus of examples is built, it is not entirely clear whether its distribution is safe from a legal perspective. === Future === Besides automatic acquisition of examples from the Web, there are some other WSD experiments that have profited from the Web: The Web as a social network has been successfully used for cooperative annotation of a corpus (OMWE, Open Mind Word Expert project), which has already been used in three Senseval-3 tasks (English, Romanian and Multilingual). The Web has been used to enrich WordNet senses with domain information: topic signatures and Web directories, which have in turn been successfully used for WSD. Also, some research benefited from the semantic information that the Wikipedia maintains on its disambiguation pages. It is clear, however, that most research opportunities remain largely unexplored. For instance, little is known about how to use lexical information extracted from the Web in knowledge-based WSD systems; and it is also hard to find systems that use Web-mined parallel corpora for WSD, even though there are already efficient algorithms that use parallel corpora in WSD.

  Read more →
• 

  Huawei Mobile Services

  Huawei Mobile Services (HMS) is a collection of proprietary services and high level application programming interfaces (APIs) developed by Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. Its hub known as HMS Core serves as a toolkit for app development on Huawei devices. HMS is typically installed on Huawei devices on top of running HarmonyOS 4.x and earlier operating system on its earlier devices running the Android operating system with EMUI including devices already distributed with Google Mobile Services. Alongside, HMS Core Wear Engine for Android phones with lightweight based LiteOS wearable middleware app framework integration connectivity like notifications, status etc. HMS consists of seven key services and the HMS Core. The key services are Huawei ID, Huawei Cloud, AppGallery, Themes, Huawei Video, Browser, and Assistant. The web browser is based on Chromium. Huawei Quick Apps is the alternative to Google Instant Apps. By January 2020, over 50,000 apps had been integrated with HMS Core. Its rival, Google Mobile Services has 3 million apps on Google's Play Store. The AppGallery claimed 180 billion downloads in 2019. In March 2020, HMS was used by 650 million monthly active users across 170 countries. A Chinese phone manufacturer, LeTV, hosted a smartphone business communication meeting in Beijing on September 27, 2021, to demonstrate its phone, the LeTV S1. This was the first smartphone from a third-party manufacturer to include Huawei Mobile Services (HMS). == HMS on Android and HarmonyOS == Huawei Mobile Services on Android goes all the way back to August 2016 as Huawei ID services for phones, basic functionalities for Huawei P9 series. However, in May 2019 proved to be a significant change to HMS when Google was prohibited from working with Huawei on any new devices extending ecosystem for AppGallery store front launched in April 2018, year prior. This also included bundling Google's Apps, including Gmail, Maps and YouTube. Any new Huawei devices launched after 16 May 2019 were unable to receive updates from Google services and would be considered 'uncertified' meaning Huawei's only solution at the time was to turn HMS into a genuine competitor to Google and incentivize app developers to utilize the platform. Huawei officially launched Huawei Mobile Services in China on December 24, 2019, as a beta. Huawei expanded Huawei Mobile Services in Europe in February 2020 and other markets in Asia, Latin America, Middle East & Africa, Canada, Mexico followed outside banned US market. HMS is available on the Honor 9X Pro, View 30 Pro, Huawei Mate XS. HMS is also available, alongside GMS, on many other Huawei models launched before the ban. Huawei promised developers it would take, “less than 10 minutes", to port their app over to HMS - to illustrate the ease of portability between Google's Play Store and the HMS AppGallery. On January 15, 2020, HMS Core 4.0 (Huawei Mobile Services Core 4.0) was officially launched. Huawei announced that at this time, there were already 1.3 million developers and 55,000 applications on board. The next day, Huawei held a developer day event in London and invested £20 million to encourage developers in the United Kingdom and Ireland to use HMS. On July 15, 2021, Huawei expanded HMS with classic HarmonyOS dual-framework that provided Java support and eventually with JavaScript and ArkTS (eTS) language support with HMS Core 6.0 for app development with primarily Android apps, alongside limited HAP imperative developed based apps that shares AOSP file system libraries in all types of devices from smartphones, tablets, smart screens, smartwatches, and car machines. Including various third-party development frameworks, such as React Native, Cordova, etc. At HDC 2023, Huawei unveiled HarmonyOS 5, marking a total break from the hybrid Android derived platform. This shift replaced the legacy Android and classic HarmonyOS-based HMS SDK with a full native API developer kit SDK built solely on OpenHarmony. The architecture moved from middleware services to vertical integration path. In this new model, HMS Core libraries are no longer external add-ons but are bundled directly into the system and DevEco Studio as native HarmonyOS Kits. == HMS Core == HMS Core is a hub for Huawei Mobile Services and serves as a toolkit for app development on Huawei devices. The core comprises Development, Growth and Monetizing and was created as a replacement for Google Mobile Services (GMS) Core. HMS core services were available in more than 55,000 apps in June 2020; HMS Core 5.0 debuted in September 2020. HMS Core 6.0 was launched in June 2021 with extended support for Huawei Cloud services. In June 2021, the number of registered developers within the HMS ecosystem was 4 million, and the number of apps integrated with the HMS Core had reached 134,000. As of July 2022, registered developers within HMS ecosystem had grown to 5 million, and the number of apps integrated with the HMS Core reached 203,000. The number of apps had grown to 220,000 by 30 September 2022. == AppGallery == The AppGallery has a key rival, Google's Play Store on Android. The AppGallery is available in 170 countries, across 78 languages. == Reception == The reception of HMS is mixed, with the majority of discussion based around the key Google/Android apps which are not yet present on the AppGallery and whether or not this presents a significant problem to users. The open development of HMS Core has been regarded by some as benefiting the Android project as a whole, "If Huawei continues to invest in a holistically open approach ... the result could be that we could all end up a bit less beholden to Google".

  Read more →