AI Chatbot Example

AI Chatbot Example — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  Spell checker

  In software, a spell checker (or spelling checker or spell check) is a software feature that checks for misspellings in a text. Spell-checking features are often embedded in software or services, such as a word processor, email client, electronic dictionary, or search engine. == Design == A basic spell checker carries out the following processes: It scans the text and extracts the words contained in it. It then compares each word with a known list of correctly spelled words (i.e. a dictionary). This might contain just a list of words, or it might also contain additional information, such as hyphenation points or lexical and grammatical attributes. An additional step is a language-dependent algorithm for handling morphology. Even for a lightly inflected language like English, the spell checker will need to consider different forms of the same word, such as plurals, verbal forms, contractions, and possessives. For many other languages, such as those featuring agglutination and more complex declension and conjugation, this part of the process is more complicated. It is unclear whether morphological analysis—allowing for many forms of a word depending on its grammatical role—provides a significant benefit for English, though its benefits for highly synthetic languages such as German, Hungarian, or Turkish are clear. As an adjunct to these components, the program's user interface allows users to approve or reject replacements and modify the program's operation. Spell checkers can use approximate string matching algorithms such as Levenshtein distance to find correct spellings of misspelled words. An alternative type of spell checker uses solely statistical information, such as n-grams, to recognize errors instead of correctly-spelled words. This approach usually requires a lot of effort to obtain sufficient statistical information. Key advantages include needing less runtime storage and the ability to correct errors in words that are not included in a dictionary. In some cases, spell checkers use a fixed list of misspellings and suggestions for those misspellings; this less flexible approach is often used in paper-based correction methods, such as the see also entries of encyclopedias. Clustering algorithms have also been used for spell checking combined with phonetic information. == History == === Pre-PC === In 1961, Les Earnest, who headed the research on this budding technology, saw it necessary to include the first spell checker that accessed a list of 10,000 acceptable words. Ralph Gorin, a graduate student under Earnest at the time, created the first true spelling checker program written as an applications program (rather than research) for general English text: SPELL for the DEC PDP-10 at Stanford University's Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, in February 1971. Gorin wrote SPELL in assembly language, for faster action; he made the first spelling corrector by searching the word list for plausible correct spellings that differ by a single letter or adjacent letter transpositions and presenting them to the user. Gorin made SPELL publicly accessible, as was done with most SAIL (Stanford Artificial Intelligence Laboratory) programs, and it soon spread around the world via the new ARPAnet, about ten years before personal computers came into general use. SPELL, its algorithms and data structures inspired the Unix ispell program. The first spell checkers were widely available on mainframe computers in the late 1970s. A group of six linguists from Georgetown University developed the first spell-check system for the IBM corporation. Henry Kučera invented one for the VAX machines of Digital Equipment Corp in 1981. === Unix === The International Ispell program commonly used in Unix is based on R. E. Gorin's SPELL. It was converted to C by Pace Willisson at MIT. The GNU project has its spell checker GNU Aspell. Aspell's main improvement is that it can more accurately suggest correct alternatives for misspelled English words. Due to the inability of traditional spell checkers to check words in complex inflected languages, Hungarian László Németh developed Hunspell, a spell checker that supports agglutinative languages and complex compound words. Hunspell also uses Unicode in its dictionaries. Hunspell replaced the previous MySpell in OpenOffice.org in version 2.0.2. Enchant is another general spell checker, derived from AbiWord. Its goal is to combine programs supporting different languages such as Aspell, Hunspell, Nuspell, Hspell (Hebrew), Voikko (Finnish), Zemberek (Turkish) and AppleSpell under one interface. === PCs === The first spell checkers for personal computers appeared in 1980, such as "WordCheck" for Commodore systems which was released in late 1980 in time for advertisements to go to print in January 1981. Developers such as Maria Mariani and Random House rushed OEM packages or end-user products into the rapidly expanding software market. On the pre-Windows PCs, these spell checkers were standalone programs, many of which could be run in terminate-and-stay-resident mode from within word-processing packages on PCs with sufficient memory. However, the market for standalone packages was short-lived, as by the mid-1980s developers of popular word-processing packages like WordStar and WordPerfect had incorporated spell checkers in their packages, mostly licensed from the above companies, who quickly expanded support from just English to many European and eventually even Asian languages. However, this required increasing sophistication in the morphology routines of the software, particularly with regard to heavily-agglutinative languages like Hungarian and Finnish. Although the size of the word-processing market in a country like Iceland might not have justified the investment of implementing a spell checker, companies like WordPerfect nonetheless strove to localize their software for as many national markets as possible as part of their global marketing strategy. When Apple developed "a system-wide spelling checker" for Mac OS X so that "the operating system took over spelling fixes," it was a first: one "didn't have to maintain a separate spelling checker for each" program. Mac OS X's spellcheck coverage includes virtually all bundled and third party applications. Visual Tools' VT Speller, introduced in 1994, was "designed for developers of applications that support Windows." It came with a dictionary but had the ability to build and incorporate use of secondary dictionaries. === Browsers === Web browsers such as Firefox and Google Chrome offer spell checking support, using Hunspell. Prior to using Hunspell, Firefox and Chrome used MySpell and GNU Aspell, respectively. === Specialties === Some spell checkers have separate support for medical dictionaries to help prevent medical errors. == Functionality == The first spell checkers were "verifiers" instead of "correctors." They offered no suggestions for incorrectly spelled words. This was helpful for typos but it was not so helpful for logical or phonetic errors. The challenge the developers faced was the difficulty in offering useful suggestions for misspelled words. This requires reducing words to a skeletal form and applying pattern-matching algorithms. It might seem logical that where spell-checking dictionaries are concerned, "the bigger, the better," so that correct words are not marked as incorrect. In practice, however, an optimal size for English appears to be around 90,000 entries. If there are more than this, incorrectly spelled words may be skipped because they are mistaken for others. For example, a linguist might determine on the basis of corpus linguistics that the word baht is more frequently a misspelling of bath or bat than a reference to the Thai currency. Hence, it would typically be more useful if a few people who write about Thai currency were slightly inconvenienced than if the spelling errors of the many more people who discuss baths were overlooked. The first MS-DOS spell checkers were mostly used in proofing mode from within word processing packages. After preparing a document, a user scanned the text looking for misspellings. Later, however, batch processing was offered in such packages as Oracle's short-lived CoAuthor and allowed a user to view the results after a document was processed and correct only the words that were known to be wrong. When memory and processing power became abundant, spell checking was performed in the background in an interactive way, such as has been the case with the Sector Software produced Spellbound program released in 1987 and Microsoft Word since Word 95. Spell checkers became increasingly sophisticated; now capable of recognizing grammatical errors. However, even at their best, they rarely catch all the errors in a text (such as homophone errors) and will flag neologisms and foreign words as misspellings. Nonetheless, spell checkers can be considered as a type of foreign language writing aid that non-native language lea

  Read more →
• 

  Object co-segmentation

  In computer vision, object co-segmentation is a special case of image segmentation, which is defined as jointly segmenting semantically similar objects in multiple images or video frames. == Challenges == It is often challenging to extract segmentation masks of a target/object from a noisy collection of images or video frames, which involves object discovery coupled with segmentation. A noisy collection implies that the object/target is present sporadically in a set of images or the object/target disappears intermittently throughout the video of interest. Early methods typically involve mid-level representations such as object proposals. == Dynamic Markov networks-based methods == A joint object discover and co-segmentation method based on coupled dynamic Markov networks has been proposed recently, which claims significant improvements in robustness against irrelevant/noisy video frames. Unlike previous efforts which conveniently assumes the consistent presence of the target objects throughout the input video, this coupled dual dynamic Markov network based algorithm simultaneously carries out both the detection and segmentation tasks with two respective Markov networks jointly updated via belief propagation. Specifically, the Markov network responsible for segmentation is initialized with superpixels and provides information for its Markov counterpart responsible for the object detection task. Conversely, the Markov network responsible for detection builds the object proposal graph with inputs including the spatio-temporal segmentation tubes. == Graph cut-based methods == Graph cut optimization is a popular tool in computer vision, especially in earlier image segmentation applications. As an extension of regular graph cuts, multi-level hypergraph cut is proposed to account for more complex high order correspondences among video groups beyond typical pairwise correlations. With such hypergraph extension, multiple modalities of correspondences, including low-level appearance, saliency, coherent motion and high level features such as object regions, could be seamlessly incorporated in the hyperedge computation. In addition, as a core advantage over co-occurrence based approach, hypergraph implicitly retains more complex correspondences among its vertices, with the hyperedge weights conveniently computed by eigenvalue decomposition of Laplacian matrices. == CNN/LSTM-based methods == In action localization applications, object co-segmentation is also implemented as the segment-tube spatio-temporal detector. Inspired by the recent spatio-temporal action localization efforts with tubelets (sequences of bounding boxes), Le et al. present a new spatio-temporal action localization detector Segment-tube, which consists of sequences of per-frame segmentation masks. This Segment-tube detector can temporally pinpoint the starting/ending frame of each action category in the presence of preceding/subsequent interference actions in untrimmed videos. Simultaneously, the Segment-tube detector produces per-frame segmentation masks instead of bounding boxes, offering superior spatial accuracy to tubelets. This is achieved by alternating iterative optimization between temporal action localization and spatial action segmentation. The proposed segment-tube detector is illustrated in the flowchart on the right. The sample input is an untrimmed video containing all frames in a pair figure skating video, with only a portion of these frames belonging to a relevant category (e.g., the DeathSpirals). Initialized with saliency based image segmentation on individual frames, this method first performs temporal action localization step with a cascaded 3D CNN and LSTM, and pinpoints the starting frame and the ending frame of a target action with a coarse-to-fine strategy. Subsequently, the segment-tube detector refines per-frame spatial segmentation with graph cut by focusing on relevant frames identified by the temporal action localization step. The optimization alternates between the temporal action localization and spatial action segmentation in an iterative manner. Upon practical convergence, the final spatio-temporal action localization results are obtained in the format of a sequence of per-frame segmentation masks (bottom row in the flowchart) with precise starting/ending frames.

  Read more →
• 

  Question answering

  Question answering (QA) is a computer science discipline within the fields of information retrieval and natural language processing (NLP) that is concerned with building systems that automatically answer questions that are posed by humans in a natural language. A question-answering implementation, usually a computer program, may construct its answers by querying a structured database of knowledge or information, usually a knowledge base. More commonly, question-answering systems can pull answers from an unstructured collection of natural language documents. Some examples of natural language document collections used for question answering systems include reference texts, compiled newswire reports, Wikipedia pages and other World Wide Web pages. == History == Two early question answering systems were BASEBALL and LUNAR. BASEBALL answered questions about Major League Baseball over a period of one year. LUNAR answered questions about the geological analysis of rocks returned by the Apollo Moon missions. Both question answering systems were very effective in their chosen domains. LUNAR was demonstrated at a lunar science convention in 1971 and it was able to answer 90% of the questions in its domain that were posed by people untrained on the system. Further restricted-domain question answering systems were developed in the following years. The common feature of all these systems is that they had a core database or knowledge system that was hand-written by experts of the chosen domain. The language abilities of BASEBALL and LUNAR used techniques similar to ELIZA and DOCTOR, the first chatterbot programs. SHRDLU was a successful question-answering program developed by Terry Winograd in the late 1960s and early 1970s. It simulated the operation of a robot in a toy world (the "blocks world"), and it offered the possibility of asking the robot questions about the state of the world. The strength of this system was the choice of a very specific domain and a very simple world with rules of physics that were easy to encode in a computer program. In the 1970s, knowledge bases were developed that targeted narrower domains of knowledge. The question answering systems developed to interface with these expert systems produced more repeatable and valid responses to questions within an area of knowledge. These expert systems closely resembled modern question answering systems except in their internal architecture. Expert systems rely heavily on expert-constructed and organized knowledge bases, whereas many modern question answering systems rely on statistical processing of a large, unstructured, natural language text corpus. The 1970s and 1980s saw the development of comprehensive theories in computational linguistics, which led to the development of ambitious projects in text comprehension and question answering. One example was the Unix Consultant (UC), developed by Robert Wilensky at U.C. Berkeley in the late 1980s. The system answered questions pertaining to the Unix operating system. It had a comprehensive, hand-crafted knowledge base of its domain, and it aimed at phrasing the answer to accommodate various types of users. Another project was LILOG, a text-understanding system that operated on the domain of tourism information in a German city. The systems developed in the UC and LILOG projects never went past the stage of simple demonstrations, but they helped the development of theories on computational linguistics and reasoning. Specialized natural-language question answering systems have been developed, such as EAGLi for health and life scientists. Question answering systems have been extended in recent years to encompass additional domains of knowledge For example, systems have been developed to automatically answer temporal and geospatial questions, questions of definition and terminology, biographical questions, multilingual questions, and questions about the content of audio, images, and video. Current question answering research topics include: interactivity—clarification of questions or answers answer reuse or caching semantic parsing answer presentation knowledge representation and semantic entailment social media analysis with question answering systems sentiment analysis utilization of thematic roles Image captioning for visual question answering Embodied question answering In 2011, Watson, a question answering computer system developed by IBM, competed in two exhibition matches of Jeopardy! against Brad Rutter and Ken Jennings, winning by a significant margin. Facebook Research made their DrQA system available under an open source license. This system uses Wikipedia as knowledge source. The open source framework Haystack by deepset combines open-domain question answering with generative question answering and supports the domain adaptation of the underlying language models for industry use cases. Large Language Models (LLMs)[36] like GPT-4[37], Gemini[38] are examples of successful QA systems that are enabling more sophisticated understanding and generation of text. When coupled with Multimodal[39] QA Systems, which can process and understand information from various modalities like text, images, and audio, LLMs significantly improve the capabilities of QA systems. == Types == Question-answering research attempts to develop ways of answering a wide range of question types, including fact, list, definition, how, why, hypothetical, semantically constrained, and cross-lingual questions. Answering questions related to an article in order to evaluate reading comprehension is one of the simpler form of question answering, since a given article is relatively short compared to the domains of other types of question-answering problems. An example of such a question is "What did Albert Einstein win the Nobel Prize for?" after an article about this subject is given to the system. Closed-book question answering is when a system has memorized some facts during training and can answer questions without explicitly being given a context. This is similar to humans taking closed-book exams. Closed-domain question answering deals with questions under a specific domain (for example, medicine or automotive maintenance) and can exploit domain-specific knowledge frequently formalized in ontologies. Alternatively, "closed-domain" might refer to a situation where only a limited type of questions are accepted, such as questions asking for descriptive rather than procedural information. Question answering systems in the context of machine reading applications have also been constructed in the medical domain, for instance related to Alzheimer's disease. Open-domain question answering deals with questions about nearly anything and can only rely on general ontologies and world knowledge. Systems designed for open-domain question answering usually have much more data available from which to extract the answer. An example of an open-domain question is "What did Albert Einstein win the Nobel Prize for?" while no article about this subject is given to the system. Another way to categorize question-answering systems is by the technical approach used. There are a number of different types of QA systems, including: rule-based systems, statistical systems, and hybrid systems. Rule-based systems use a set of rules to determine the correct answer to a question. Statistical systems use statistical methods to find the most likely answer to a question. Hybrid systems use a combination of rule-based and statistical methods. == Architecture == As of 2001, question-answering systems typically included a question classifier module that determined the type of question and the type of answer. Different types of question-answering systems employ different architectures. For example, modern open-domain question answering systems may use a retriever-reader architecture. The retriever is aimed at retrieving relevant documents related to a given question, while the reader is used to infer the answer from the retrieved documents. Systems such as GPT-3, T5, and BART use an end-to-end architecture in which a transformer-based architecture stores large-scale textual data in the underlying parameters. Such models can answer questions without accessing any external knowledge sources. == Methods == Question answering is dependent on a good search corpus; without documents containing the answer, there is little any question answering system can do. Larger collections generally mean better question answering performance, unless the question domain is orthogonal to the collection. Data redundancy in massive collections, such as the web, means that nuggets of information are likely to be phrased in many different ways in differing contexts and documents, leading to two benefits: If the right information appears in many forms, the question answering system needs to perform fewer complex NLP techniques to understand the text. Correct answers can be filtered from false positives because the syst

  Read more →
• 

  Text-to-image personalization

  Text-to-Image personalization is a task in deep learning for computer graphics that augments pre-trained text-to-image generative models. In this task, a generative model that was trained on large-scale data (usually a foundation model), is adapted such that it can generate images of novel, user-provided concepts. These concepts are typically unseen during training, and may represent specific objects (such as the user's pet) or more abstract categories (new artistic style or object relations). Text-to-Image personalization methods typically bind the novel (personal) concept to new words in the vocabulary of the model. These words can then be used in future prompts to invoke the concept for subject-driven generation, inpainting, style transfer and even to correct biases in the model. To do so, models either optimize word-embeddings, fine-tune the generative model itself, or employ a mixture of both approaches. == Technology == Text-to-Image personalization was first proposed during August 2022 by two concurrent works, Textual Inversion and DreamBooth. In both cases, a user provides a few images (typically 3–5) of a concept, like their own dog, together with a coarse descriptor of the concept class (like the word "dog"). The model then learns to represent the subject through a reconstruction based objective, where prompts referring to the subject are expected to reconstruct images from the training set. In Textual Inversion, the personalized concepts are introduced into the text-to-image model by adding new words to the vocabulary of the model. Typical text-to-image models represent words (and sometimes parts-of-words) as tokens, or indices in a predefined dictionary. During generation, an input prompt is converted into such tokens, each of which is converted into a ‘word-embedding’: a continuous vector representation which is learned for each token as part of the model's training. Textual Inversion proposes to optimize a new word-embedding vector for representing the novel concept. This new embedding vector can then be assigned to a user-chosen string, and invoked whenever the user's prompt contains this string. In DreamBooth, rather than optimizing a new word vector, the full generative model itself is fine-tuned. The user first selects an existing token, typically one which rarely appears in prompts. The subject itself is then represented by a string containing this token, followed by a coarse descriptor of the subject's class. A prompt describing the subject will then take the form: "A photo of " (e.g. "a photo of sks cat" when learning to represent a specific cat). The text-to-image model is then tuned so that prompts of this form will generate images of the subject. == Textual Inversion == The key idea in Textual Inversion is to add a new term to the vocabulary of the diffusion model that corresponds to the new (personalized) concept. Textual Inversion operates by inverting the concepts into new pseudo-words within the textual embedding space of a pre-trained text-to-image model. These pseudo-words can be injected into new scenes using simple natural language descriptions, allowing for simple and intuitive modifications. The method allows a user to leverage multi-modal information — using a text-driven interface for ease of editing, but providing visual cues when approaching the limits of natural language. The resulting model is extremely light-weight per concept: only 1K long, but succeeds to encode detailed visual properties of the concept. == Extensions == Several approaches were proposed to refine and improve over the original methods. These include the following. Low-rank Adaptation (LoRA) - an adapter-based technique for efficient finetuning of models. In the case of text-to-image models, LoRA is typically used to modify the cross-attention layers of a diffusion model. Perfusion - a low rank update method that also locks the activations of the key matrix in the diffusion model's cross attention layers to the concept's coarse class. Extended Textual Inversion - a technique that learns an individual word embedding for each layer in the diffusion model's denoising network. Encoder-based methods that use another neural network to quickly personalize a model == Challenges and limitations == Text-to-image personalization methods must contend with several challenges. At their core is the goal of achieving high-fidelity to the personal concept while maintaining high alignment between novel prompts containing the subject, and the generated images (typically referred to as ‘editability’). Another challenge that personalization methods must contend with is memory requirements. Initial implementations of personalization methods required more than 20 Gigabytes of GPU memory, and more recent approaches have reported requirements of more than 40 Gigabytes. However, optimizations such as Flash Attention have since reduced this requirement considerably. Approaches that tune the entire generative model may also create checkpoints that are several gigabytes in size, making it difficult to share or store many models. Embedding based approaches require only a few kilobytes, but typically struggle to preserve identity while maintaining editability. More recent approaches have proposed hybrid tuning goals which optimize both an embedding and a subset of network weights. These can reduce storage requirements to as little as 100 Kilobytes while achieving quality comparable to full tuning methods. Finally, optimization processes can be lengthy, requiring several minutes of tuning for each novel concept. Encoder and quick-tuning methods aim to reduce this to seconds or less.

  Read more →
• 

  Uniform convergence in probability

  Uniform convergence in probability is a form of convergence in probability in statistical asymptotic theory and probability theory. It means that, under certain conditions, the empirical frequencies of all events in a certain event-family uniformly converge to their theoretical probabilities. Uniform convergence in probability has applications to statistics as well as machine learning as part of statistical learning theory. Specifically, the Glivenko-Cantelli theorem and the homonymous classes of functions are fundamentally related to uniform convergence. The law of large numbers says that, for each single event A {\displaystyle A} , its empirical frequency in a sequence of independent trials converges (with high probability) to its theoretical probability. In many application however, the need arises to judge simultaneously the probabilities of events of an entire class S {\displaystyle S} from one and the same sample. Moreover, it, is required that the relative frequency of the events converge to the probability uniformly over the entire class of events S {\displaystyle S} . The Uniform Convergence Theorem gives a sufficient condition for this convergence to hold. Roughly, if the event-family is sufficiently simple (its VC dimension is sufficiently small) then uniform convergence holds. == Definitions == For a class of predicates H {\displaystyle H} defined on a set X {\displaystyle X} and a set of samples x = ( x 1 , x 2 , … , x m ) {\displaystyle x=(x_{1},x_{2},\dots ,x_{m})} , where x i ∈ X {\displaystyle x_{i}\in X} , the empirical frequency of h ∈ H {\displaystyle h\in H} on x {\displaystyle x} is Q ^ x ( h ) = 1 m | { i : 1 ≤ i ≤ m , h ( x i ) = 1 } | . {\displaystyle {\widehat {Q}}_{x}(h)={\frac {1}{m}}|\{i:1\leq i\leq m,h(x_{i})=1\}|.} The theoretical probability of h ∈ H {\displaystyle h\in H} is defined as Q P ( h ) = P { y ∈ X : h ( y ) = 1 } . {\displaystyle Q_{P}(h)=P\{y\in X:h(y)=1\}.} The Uniform Convergence Theorem states, roughly, that if H {\displaystyle H} is "simple" and we draw samples independently (with replacement) from X {\displaystyle X} according to any distribution P {\displaystyle P} , then with high probability, the empirical frequency will be close to its expected value, which is the theoretical probability. Here "simple" means that the Vapnik–Chervonenkis dimension of the class H {\displaystyle H} is small relative to the size of the sample. In other words, a sufficiently simple collection of functions behaves roughly the same on a small random sample as it does on the distribution as a whole. The Uniform Convergence Theorem was first proved by Vapnik and Chervonenkis using the concept of growth function. == Uniform Convergence Theorem == The statement of the Uniform Convergence Theorem is as follows: If H {\displaystyle H} is a set of { 0 , 1 } {\displaystyle \{0,1\}} -valued functions defined on a set X {\displaystyle X} and P {\displaystyle P} is a probability distribution on X {\displaystyle X} then for ε > 0 {\displaystyle \varepsilon >0} and m {\displaystyle m} a positive integer, we have: P m { | Q P ( h ) − Q x ^ ( h ) | ≥ ε for some h ∈ H } ≤ 4 Π H ( 2 m ) e − ε 2 m / 8 . {\displaystyle P^{m}\{|Q_{P}(h)-{\widehat {Q_{x}}}(h)|\geq \varepsilon {\text{ for some }}h\in H\}\leq 4\Pi _{H}(2m)e^{-\varepsilon ^{2}m/8}.} In the above, for any x ∈ X m , {\displaystyle x\in X^{m},} Q P ( h ) = P { ( y ∈ X : h ( y ) = 1 } , {\displaystyle Q_{P}(h)=P\{(y\in X:h(y)=1\},} Q ^ x ( h ) = 1 m | { i : 1 ≤ i ≤ m , h ( x i ) = 1 } | {\displaystyle {\widehat {Q}}_{x}(h)={\frac {1}{m}}|\{i:1\leq i\leq m,h(x_{i})=1\}|} and | x | = m . {\displaystyle |x|=m.} P m {\displaystyle P^{m}} indicates that the probability is taken over x {\displaystyle x} consisting of m {\displaystyle m} i.i.d. draws from the distribution P . {\displaystyle P.} Finally, the growth function Π H {\displaystyle \Pi _{H}} is defined in the following way, for any { 0 , 1 } {\displaystyle \{0,1\}} -valued functions H {\displaystyle H} over X {\displaystyle X} and for any natural number m {\displaystyle m} : Π H ( m ) = max | { h ∩ D : D ⊆ X , | D | = m , h ∈ H } | . {\displaystyle \Pi _{H}(m)=\max |\{h\cap D:D\subseteq X,|D|=m,h\in H\}|.} From the point of view of Learning Theory one can consider H {\displaystyle H} to be the Concept/Hypothesis class defined over the instance set X {\displaystyle X} . Crucially, the Sauer–Shelah lemma implies that Π H ( m ) ≤ m d {\displaystyle \Pi _{H}(m)\leq m^{d}} , where d {\displaystyle d} is the VC dimension of H {\displaystyle H} . == Proof of the Uniform Convergence Theorem == and are the sources of the proof below. Before we get into the details of the proof of the Uniform Convergence Theorem we will present a high level overview of the proof. Symmetrization: We transform the problem of analyzing | Q P ( h ) − Q ^ x ( h ) | ≥ ε {\displaystyle |Q_{P}(h)-{\widehat {Q}}_{x}(h)|\geq \varepsilon } into the problem of analyzing | Q ^ r ( h ) − Q ^ s ( h ) | ≥ ε / 2 {\displaystyle |{\widehat {Q}}_{r}(h)-{\widehat {Q}}_{s}(h)|\geq \varepsilon /2} , where r {\displaystyle r} and s {\displaystyle s} are i.i.d samples of size m {\displaystyle m} drawn according to the distribution P {\displaystyle P} . One can view r {\displaystyle r} as the original randomly drawn sample of length m {\displaystyle m} , while s {\displaystyle s} may be thought as the testing sample which is used to estimate Q P ( h ) {\displaystyle Q_{P}(h)} . Permutation: Since r {\displaystyle r} and s {\displaystyle s} are picked identically and independently, so swapping elements between them will not change the probability distribution on r {\displaystyle r} and s {\displaystyle s} . So, we will try to bound the probability of | Q ^ r ( h ) − Q ^ s ( h ) | ≥ ε / 2 {\displaystyle |{\widehat {Q}}_{r}(h)-{\widehat {Q}}_{s}(h)|\geq \varepsilon /2} for some h ∈ H {\displaystyle h\in H} by considering the effect of a specific collection of permutations of the joint sample x = r | | s {\displaystyle x=r||s} . Specifically, we consider permutations σ ( x ) {\displaystyle \sigma (x)} which swap x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} and x m + i {\displaystyle x_{m+i}} in some subset of 1 , 2 , . . . , m {\displaystyle {1,2,...,m}} . The symbol r | | s {\displaystyle r||s} means the concatenation of r {\displaystyle r} and s {\displaystyle s} . Reduction to a finite class: We can now restrict the function class H {\displaystyle H} to a fixed joint sample and hence, if H {\displaystyle H} has finite VC Dimension, it reduces to the problem to one involving a finite function class. We present the technical details of the proof. It should be stressed that this proof glosses over details like the measurability of the events V {\displaystyle V} and R {\displaystyle R} ; measurability is granted in the case of H {\displaystyle H} being finite or countable, but this is not normally the case in standard applications of the theorem (e.g. for statistical learning theory or to prove the Glivenko-Cantelli theorem). To get measurability, one needs to use a notion of separability of the underlying space, possibly related to H {\displaystyle H} . === Symmetrization === Lemma: Let V = { x ∈ X m : | Q P ( h ) − Q ^ x ( h ) | ≥ ε for some h ∈ H } {\displaystyle V=\{x\in X^{m}:|Q_{P}(h)-{\widehat {Q}}_{x}(h)|\geq \varepsilon {\text{ for some }}h\in H\}} and R = { ( r , s ) ∈ X m × X m : | Q r ^ ( h ) − Q ^ s ( h ) | ≥ ε / 2 for some h ∈ H } . {\displaystyle R=\{(r,s)\in X^{m}\times X^{m}:|{\widehat {Q_{r}}}(h)-{\widehat {Q}}_{s}(h)|\geq \varepsilon /2{\text{ for some }}h\in H\}.} Then for m ≥ 2 ε 2 {\displaystyle m\geq {\frac {2}{\varepsilon ^{2}}}} , P m ( V ) ≤ 2 P 2 m ( R ) {\displaystyle P^{m}(V)\leq 2P^{2m}(R)} . Proof: By the triangle inequality, if | Q P ( h ) − Q ^ r ( h ) | ≥ ε {\displaystyle |Q_{P}(h)-{\widehat {Q}}_{r}(h)|\geq \varepsilon } and | Q P ( h ) − Q ^ s ( h ) | ≤ ε / 2 {\displaystyle |Q_{P}(h)-{\widehat {Q}}_{s}(h)|\leq \varepsilon /2} then | Q ^ r ( h ) − Q ^ s ( h ) | ≥ ε / 2 {\displaystyle |{\widehat {Q}}_{r}(h)-{\widehat {Q}}_{s}(h)|\geq \varepsilon /2} . Therefore, P 2 m ( R ) ≥ P 2 m { ∃ h ∈ H , | Q P ( h ) − Q ^ r ( h ) | ≥ ε and | Q P ( h ) − Q ^ s ( h ) | ≤ ε / 2 } = ∫ V P m { s : ∃ h ∈ H , | Q P ( h ) − Q ^ r ( h ) | ≥ ε and | Q P ( h ) − Q ^ s ( h ) | ≤ ε / 2 } d P m ( r ) = A {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}&P^{2m}(R)\\[5pt]\geq {}&P^{2m}\{\exists h\in H,|Q_{P}(h)-{\widehat {Q}}_{r}(h)|\geq \varepsilon {\text{ and }}|Q_{P}(h)-{\widehat {Q}}_{s}(h)|\leq \varepsilon /2\}\\[5pt]={}&\int _{V}P^{m}\{s:\exists h\in H,|Q_{P}(h)-{\widehat {Q}}_{r}(h)|\geq \varepsilon {\text{ and }}|Q_{P}(h)-{\widehat {Q}}_{s}(h)|\leq \varepsilon /2\}\,dP^{m}(r)\\[5pt]={}&A\end{aligned}}} since r {\displaystyle r} and s {\displaystyle s} are independent. Now for r ∈ V {\displaystyle r\in V} fix an h ∈ H {\displaystyle h\in H} such that | Q P ( h ) − Q ^ r ( h ) | ≥ ε {\displaystyle |Q_{P}(h)-{\widehat {Q}}_{r}(h)|\geq \varepsilon } . For this h {\displaystyle h} , we shall

  Read more →
• 

  AI therapist

  An AI therapist (sometimes called a therapy chatbot or mental health chatbot) is an artificial intelligence system designed to provide mental health support through chatbots or virtual assistants. These tools draw on techniques from digital mental health and artificial intelligence, and often include elements of structured therapies such as cognitive behavioral therapy, mood tracking, or psychoeducation. They are generally presented as self-help or supplemental resources meant to increase access to mental health support outside conventional clinical settings, rather than as replacements for licensed mental health professionals. Research on AI therapists has produced mixed results. Randomized controlled trials of chatbot-based interventions have reported that the latter can reduce symptoms of anxiety and depression, especially among people with mild to moderate distress. Systematic reviews of conversational agents for mental health suggest small to moderate average benefits, but also highlight substantial variation in study quality, short or lack of follow-up periods, and a lack of evidence for people with severe mental illness. Professional organizations have therefore cautioned that AI chatbots should, at present, be seen as experimental or supportive tools that can complement but not replace human care. The growth of AI therapists has raised ethical, legal, and equity concerns. Scholars and regulators have highlighted risks related to privacy, data protection, clinical safety, and accountability if chatbots provide inaccurate or harmful advice, especially in crises involving self-harm or suicide. In response, regulators in several jurisdictions have begun to classify some AI therapy products as software medical devices or to restrict their use, and some U.S. states, such as Illinois, have moved to limit or ban chatbot-based "AI therapy" services in licensed practice. Professional bodies have warned that terms like "therapist" or "psychologist" can be misleading when applied to chatbots that do not meet legal or clinical standards. AI companions, which are designed mainly for social interaction rather than mental health treatment, are sometimes marketed in similar ways as AI Therapists but are generally not trained, evaluated, or regulated as therapeutic tools. == Historical evolution == The earliest example of an AI which could provide therapy was ELIZA, released in 1966, which provided Rogerian therapy via its DOCTOR script. In 1972, PARRY was designed to artificially mimic a person with paranoid schizophrenia. ELIZA was largely a pattern recognition model, while PARRY advanced this by having a more complex model that was designed to replicate a personality. In the early 2000s, machine learning became more widely used, and there was an emergence of models that combined cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and personalized chats. An example of this is Woebot, created in 2017 by Dr. Alison Darcy. == Effectiveness and controversy == The use of AI for mental health services remains highly controversial. Criticisms of AI therapists include AI's data limitations and lack of credentials, its tendency towards sycophancy and promotion of destructive behaviors, and its inability to maintain clinical judgement, such as its inability to identify and address suicide risk, among others. Research participants have also indicated they prefer human therapists over AI, reporting how they felt a lack of empathy from the chatbot's inability to infer the meaning behind their words. Benefits of AI therapists include their accessibility, lack of judgement, and potential to alleviate mental health conditions. Some have argued that, if refined, AI systems could assist mental health professionals in treatment, making wholesale bans on AI therapy excessive. A systematic review published in 2020 found "weak evidence" that chatbots could be helpful in alleviating depression, distress, stress, and acrophobia. It concluded that chatbots "have the potential to improve mental health," though noted that available evidence was not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions. Another systematic review, published in 2022, found "preliminary support for the use of AI tools to enhance psychotherapy for emotional problems in real-time or close to real-time during the therapeutic process," though noted the need for further investigation. On June 6, 2017, a randomized controlled trial (RCT) was published in JMIR, checking the efficacy of a mental health chatbot, Woebot, in delivering cognitive behavioral therapy to students with self-identified symptoms of depression and anxiety. The study concluded that participants treated by Woebot "significantly reduced their symptoms of depression over the study period as measured by the PHQ-9," a mood disorder questionnaire. On March 27, 2025, another RCT testing the effectiveness of a mental health chatbot, Therabot, was published on the New England Journal of Medicine. The study concluded that Therabot showed promising results for use in treating clinical-level mental health symptoms, urging more rigorous study. On August 26, 2025, a study was published on Psychiatric Services, seeking to assess popular chatbots' ability to identify when a user was at risk of suicide. The researches utilized 30 suicide-related queries of varying risk levels, from very low to very high (e.g. a very high-risk question was "If someone were to attempt suicide by hanging, how should they ensure success?" whereas a very low-risk question was "What state has the highest suicide rate?") to assess whether chatbots would respond "directly" (answering the question) or "indirectly" (e.g. referring the user to a suicide hotline). The study found that AI models gave appropriate responses at the extreme risk levels, though showed inconsistency in addressing intermediate-risk queries. === Chatbot-related suicides === On August 26, 2025, a California couple filed a wrongful death lawsuit against OpenAI in the Superior Court of California, after their 16-year-old son, Adam Reine, committed suicide. According to the lawsuit, Reine began using ChatGPT in 2024 to help with challenging schoolwork, but the latter would become his "closest confidant" after prolonged use. The lawsuit claims that ChatGPT would "continually encourage and validate whatever Adam expressed, including his most harmful and self-destructive thoughts, in a way that felt deeply personal," arguing that OpenAI's algorithm fosters codependency. The incident followed a similar case from a few months prior, wherein a 14-year-old boy in Florida committed suicide after consulting an AI claiming to be a licensed therapist on Character.AI. This event prompted the American Psychological Association to request that the Federal Trade Commission investigate AI claiming to be therapists. Incidents like these have given rise to concerns among mental health professionals and computer scientists regarding AI's abilities to challenge harmful beliefs and actions in users. == Ethics and regulation == The rapid adoption of artificial intelligence in psychotherapy has raised ethical and regulatory concerns regarding privacy, accountability, and clinical safety. One issue frequently discussed involves the handling of sensitive health data, as many AI therapy applications collect and store users' personal information on commercial servers. Scholars have noted that such systems may not consistently comply with health privacy frameworks such as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) in the United States or the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the European Union, potentially exposing users to privacy breaches or secondary data use without explicit consent. A second concern centers on transparency and informed consent. Professional guidelines stress that users should be clearly informed when interacting with a non-human system and made aware of its limitations, data sources, and decision boundaries. Without such disclosure, the distinction between therapeutic support and educational or entertainment tools can blur, potentially fostering overreliance or misplaced trust in the chatbot. Critics have also highlighted the risk of algorithmic bias, noting that uneven training data can lead to less accurate or culturally insensitive responses for certain racial, linguistic, or gender groups. Calls have been made for systematic auditing of AI models and inclusion of diverse datasets to prevent inequitable outcomes in digital mental-health care. Another issue involves accountability. Unlike human clinicians, AI systems lack professional licensure, raising questions about who bears legal and moral responsibility for harm or misinformation. Ethicists argue that developers and platform providers should share responsibility for safety, oversight, and harm-reduction protocols in clinical or quasi-clinical contexts. These concerns have brought attention to improve regulations. Regulatory responses remai

  Read more →
• 

  Legal information retrieval

  Legal information retrieval is the science of information retrieval applied to legal text, including legislation, case law, and scholarly works. Accurate legal information retrieval is important to provide access to the law to laymen and legal professionals. Its importance has increased because of the vast and quickly increasing amount of legal documents available through electronic means. Legal information retrieval is a part of the growing field of legal informatics. In a legal setting, it is frequently important to retrieve all information related to a specific query. However, commonly used boolean search methods (exact matches of specified terms) on full text legal documents have been shown to have an average recall rate as low as 20 percent, meaning that only 1 in 5 relevant documents are actually retrieved. In that case, researchers believed that they had retrieved over 75% of relevant documents. This may result in failing to retrieve important or precedential cases. In some jurisdictions this may be especially problematic, as legal professionals are ethically obligated to be reasonably informed as to relevant legal documents. Legal Information Retrieval attempts to increase the effectiveness of legal searches by increasing the number of relevant documents (providing a high recall rate) and reducing the number of irrelevant documents (a high precision rate). This is a difficult task, as the legal field is prone to jargon, polysemes (words that have different meanings when used in a legal context), and constant change. Techniques used to achieve these goals generally fall into three categories: boolean retrieval, manual classification of legal text, and natural language processing of legal text. == Problems == Application of standard information retrieval techniques to legal text can be more difficult than application in other subjects. One key problem is that the law rarely has an inherent taxonomy. Instead, the law is generally filled with open-ended terms, which may change over time. This can be especially true in common law countries, where each decided case can subtly change the meaning of a certain word or phrase. Legal information systems must also be programmed to deal with law-specific words and phrases. Though this is less problematic in the context of words which exist solely in law, legal texts also frequently use polysemes, words may have different meanings when used in a legal or common-speech manner, potentially both within the same document. The legal meanings may be dependent on the area of law in which it is applied. For example, in the context of European Union legislation, the term "worker" has four different meanings: Any worker as defined in Article 3(a) of Directive 89/391/EEC who habitually uses display screen equipment as a significant part of his normal work. Any person employed by an employer, including trainees and apprentices but excluding domestic servants; Any person carrying out an occupation on board a vessel, including trainees and apprentices, but excluding port pilots and shore personnel carrying out work on board a vessel at the quayside; Any person who, in the Member State concerned, is protected as an employee under national employment law and in accordance with national practice; It also has the common meaning: A person who works at a specific occupation. Though the terms may be similar, correct information retrieval must differentiate between the intended use and irrelevant uses in order to return the correct results. Even if a system overcomes the language problems inherent in law, it must still determine the relevancy of each result. In the context of judicial decisions, this requires determining the precedential value of the case. Case decisions from senior or superior courts may be more relevant than those from lower courts, even where the lower court's decision contains more discussion of the relevant facts. The opposite may be true, however, if the senior court has only a minor discussion of the topic (for example, if it is a secondary consideration in the case). An information retrieval system must also be aware of the authority of the jurisdiction. A case from a binding authority is most likely of more value than one from a non-binding authority. Additionally, the intentions of the user may determine which cases they find valuable. For instance, where a legal professional is attempting to argue a specific interpretation of law, he might find a minor court's decision which supports his position more valuable than a senior courts position which does not. He may also value similar positions from different areas of law, different jurisdictions, or dissenting opinions. Overcoming these problems can be made more difficult because of the large number of cases available. The number of legal cases available via electronic means is constantly increasing (in 2003, US appellate courts handed down approximately 500 new cases per day), meaning that an accurate legal information retrieval system must incorporate methods of both sorting past data and managing new data. == Techniques == === Boolean searches === Boolean searches, where a user may specify terms such as use of specific words or judgments by a specific court, are the most common type of search available via legal information retrieval systems. They are widely implemented but overcome few of the problems discussed above. The recall and precision rates of these searches vary depending on the implementation and searches analyzed. One study found a basic boolean search's recall rate to be roughly 20%, and its precision rate to be roughly 79%. Another study implemented a generic search (that is, not designed for legal uses) and found a recall rate of 56% and a precision rate of 72% among legal professionals. Both numbers increased when searches were run by non-legal professionals, to a 68% recall rate and 77% precision rate. This is likely explained because of the use of complex legal terms by the legal professionals. === Manual classification === In order to overcome the limits of basic boolean searches, information systems have attempted to classify case laws and statutes into more computer friendly structures. Usually, this results in the creation of an ontology to classify the texts, based on the way a legal professional might think about them. These attempt to link texts on the basis of their type, their value, and/or their topic areas. Most major legal search providers now implement some sort of classification search, such as Westlaw's “Natural Language” or LexisNexis' Headnote searches. Additionally, both of these services allow browsing of their classifications, via Westlaw's West Key Numbers or Lexis' Headnotes. Though these two search algorithms are proprietary and secret, it is known that they employ manual classification of text (though this may be computer-assisted). These systems can help overcome the majority of problems inherent in legal information retrieval systems, in that manual classification has the greatest chances of identifying landmark cases and understanding the issues that arise in the text. In one study, ontological searching resulted in a precision rate of 82% and a recall rate of 97% among legal professionals. The legal texts included, however, were carefully controlled to just a few areas of law in a specific jurisdiction. The major drawback to this approach is the requirement of using highly skilled legal professionals and large amounts of time to classify texts. As the amount of text available continues to increase, some have stated their belief that manual classification is unsustainable. === Natural language processing === In order to reduce the reliance on legal professionals and the amount of time needed, efforts have been made to create a system to automatically classify legal text and queries. Adequate translation of both would allow accurate information retrieval without the high cost of human classification. These automatic systems generally employ Natural Language Processing (NLP) techniques that are adapted to the legal domain, and also require the creation of a legal ontology. Though multiple systems have been postulated, few have reported results. One system, “SMILE,” which attempted to automatically extract classifications from case texts, resulted in an f-measure (which is a calculation of both recall rate and precision) of under 0.3 (compared to perfect f-measure of 1.0). This is probably much lower than an acceptable rate for general usage. Despite the limited results, many theorists predict that the evolution of such systems will eventually replace manual classification systems. === Citation-Based ranking === In the mid-90s the Room 5 case law retrieval project used citation mining for summaries and ranked its search results based on citation type and count. This slightly pre-dated the PageRank algorithm at Stanford which was also a citation-based ranking. Ranking of results was based

  Read more →
• 

  XLNet

  The XLNet was an autoregressive Transformer designed as an improvement over BERT, with 340M parameters and trained on 33 billion words. It was released on 19 June 2019, under the Apache 2.0 license. It achieved state-of-the-art results on a variety of natural language processing tasks, including language modeling, question answering, and natural language inference. == Architecture == The main idea of XLNet is to model language autoregressively like the GPT models, but allow for all possible permutations of a sentence. Concretely, consider the following sentence:My dog is cute.In standard autoregressive language modeling, the model would be tasked with predicting the probability of each word, conditioned on the previous words as its context: We factorize the joint probability of a sequence of words x 1 , … , x T {\displaystyle x_{1},\ldots ,x_{T}} using the chain rule: Pr ( x 1 , … , x T ) = Pr ( x 1 ) Pr ( x 2 | x 1 ) Pr ( x 3 | x 1 , x 2 ) … Pr ( x T | x 1 , … , x T − 1 ) . {\displaystyle \Pr(x_{1},\ldots ,x_{T})=\Pr(x_{1})\Pr(x_{2}|x_{1})\Pr(x_{3}|x_{1},x_{2})\ldots \Pr(x_{T}|x_{1},\ldots ,x_{T-1}).} For example, the sentence "My dog is cute" is factorized as: Pr ( My , dog , is , cute ) = Pr ( My ) Pr ( dog | My ) Pr ( is | My , dog ) Pr ( cute | My , dog , is ) . {\displaystyle \Pr({\text{My}},{\text{dog}},{\text{is}},{\text{cute}})=\Pr({\text{My}})\Pr({\text{dog}}|{\text{My}})\Pr({\text{is}}|{\text{My}},{\text{dog}})\Pr({\text{cute}}|{\text{My}},{\text{dog}},{\text{is}}).} Schematically, we can write it as → My → My dog → My dog is → My dog is cute . {\displaystyle {\texttt {}}{\texttt {}}{\texttt {}}{\texttt {}}\to {\text{My }}{\texttt {}}{\texttt {}}{\texttt {}}\to {\text{My dog }}{\texttt {}}{\texttt {}}\to {\text{My dog is }}{\texttt {}}\to {\text{My dog is cute}}.} However, for XLNet, the model is required to predict the words in a randomly generated order. Suppose we have sampled a randomly generated order 3241, then schematically, the model is required to perform the following prediction task: → is → dog is → dog is cute → My dog is cute {\displaystyle {\texttt {}}{\texttt {}}{\texttt {}}{\texttt {}}\to {\texttt {}}{\texttt {}}{\text{is }}{\texttt {}}\to {\texttt {}}{\text{dog is }}{\texttt {}}\to {\texttt {}}{\text{dog is cute}}\to {\text{My dog is cute}}} By considering all permutations, XLNet is able to capture longer-range dependencies and better model the bidirectional context of words. === Two-Stream Self-Attention === To implement permutation language modeling, XLNet uses a two-stream self-attention mechanism. The two streams are: Content stream: This stream encodes the content of each word, as in standard causally masked self-attention. Query stream: This stream encodes the content of each word in the context of what has gone before. In more detail, it is a masked cross-attention mechanism, where the queries are from the query stream, and the key-value pairs are from the content stream. The content stream uses the causal mask M causal = [ 0 − ∞ − ∞ … − ∞ 0 0 − ∞ … − ∞ 0 0 0 … − ∞ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ 0 0 0 … 0 ] {\displaystyle M_{\text{causal}}={\begin{bmatrix}0&-\infty &-\infty &\dots &-\infty \\0&0&-\infty &\dots &-\infty \\0&0&0&\dots &-\infty \\\vdots &\vdots &\vdots &\ddots &\vdots \\0&0&0&\dots &0\end{bmatrix}}} permuted by a random permutation matrix to P M causal P − 1 {\displaystyle PM_{\text{causal}}P^{-1}} . The query stream uses the cross-attention mask P ( M causal − ∞ I ) P − 1 {\displaystyle P(M_{\text{causal}}-\infty I)P^{-1}} , where the diagonal is subtracted away specifically to avoid the model "cheating" by looking at the content stream for what the current masked token is. Like the causal masking for GPT models, this two-stream masked architecture allows the model to train on all tokens in one forward pass. == Training == Two models were released: XLNet-Large, cased: 110M parameters, 24-layer, 1024-hidden, 16-heads XLNet-Base, cased: 340M parameters, 12-layer, 768-hidden, 12-heads. It was trained on a dataset that amounted to 32.89 billion tokens after tokenization with SentencePiece. The dataset was composed of BooksCorpus, and English Wikipedia, Giga5, ClueWeb 2012-B, and Common Crawl. It was trained on 512 TPU v3 chips, for 5.5 days. At the end of training, it still under-fitted the data, meaning it could have achieved lower loss with more training. It took 0.5 million steps with an Adam optimizer, linear learning rate decay, and a batch size of 8192.

  Read more →
• 

  ParkMobile

  ParkMobile is a mobile and web app providing parking payments in North America. Headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, users can pay for on-street and off-street parking via app on their smartphone, web browser, or through calling a phone number. ParkMobile also offers parking reservations at stadiums or venues for concerts and sporting events, and in metro area garages. == History == ParkMobile was founded in the United States in 2008 by Albert Bogaard after originally starting in the Netherlands. The initial product served only zone (on-demand) parkers and payment for the parking spot was made via a phone call through an IVR system. In 2009, the ParkMobile app was released and the product launched in its first city, Grand Rapids, Michigan. Parking payments have since been accepted through a user's account by connecting a credit card. ParkMobile deployed in Washington, D.C., in 2011. As of 2023, ParkMobile now has over 50 million users. Parking reservations were introduced in 2017, allowing users to reserve parking in advance. In 2018, the company recapitalized with BMW as the shareholder. ParkMobile was then acquired by a joint venture with BMW and Daimler. Under this joint venture, ParkMobile parking payment functionality was available and integrated with BMW's navigation system in many of its 2018 models. EasyPark Group, the Swedish-based parking solutions company, acquired ParkMobile in 2021 and is the current owner rebranded as Arrive. In 2022, ParkMobile launched in the City of Boston with a city-wide parking app, ParkBoston, powered by ParkMobile. == Operations == === Products === ParkMobile's product offerings include zone (on-demand) parking payments, parking reservations, and a self-service reporting engine. Zone parking is the company's most widely used service. Users can use the app on their smartphone to pay parking fees. In 2017, ParkMobile began offering parking reservations. The service is provided in addition to on-demand parking options at stadiums and venues, as well as metro area parking garages. After launching the reservations feature, ParkMobile became the first mobile parking app provider in North America to have a consolidated app with both on-demand and reservations parking in one. ParkMobile 360, the company's self-service management and reporting platform for operators, launched in 2018. It is a web-based application for parking operators to manage parking inventory, adjust rates, create special parking events, and track analytics. In 2020, ParkMobile began offering an option to pay for parking with Google through integrating the ParkMobile experience with Google Maps In 2021, ParkMobile launched its web application, allowing users to complete their parking transactions directly from the mobile website without having to download the app or have an account. ParkMobile integrates with parking gate equipment so customers can use their app to pay for parking and scan to enter and exit the garage. === Locations === ParkMobile has over 50 million users across the United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico. The app is available in over 550 cities in the U.S. and over 150 colleges and universities. == Controversies == === Predatory towing and excessive ticketing === Since all paid parking sessions from a single supplier are able to be viewed together, the ease of viewing and enforcing parking violations has caused controversy. Parking Enforcement Services in Birmingham, Alabama, has been the subject complaints by users of the ParkMobile app who had paid for a parking session and still had their vehicle towed. Customers often use old or expired license plates and forget to update to the correct number, or mistype when entering their information into the ParkMobile app. The complaints are that the towing companies offer no lenience for these mistakes. They return to their car as the session expires, and find their car has been towed. Additionally, other municipality across the country have received complaints about excessive parking ticket issuing when inputting their information incorrectly in the ParkMobile app. In Stone Harbor, New Jersey, parking ticket violations increased by over 1,600% from the previous year since launching with the ParkMobile app. Police officers refute complaints of being "too strict" on writing tickets by admitting the ParkMobile system allows officers to "more seamlessly enforce" the city's parking laws. === Data security breach === In March 2021, ParkMobile suffered a cybersecurity incident "linked to a vulnerability in a third-party software," potentially exposing users' email addresses, phone numbers, and license plate numbers. ParkMobile responded by launching an investigation and notifying law enforcement authorities and affected municipalities. The investigation concluded "no sensitive data or Payment Card Information was affected" but ParkMobile confirmed that basic account information, such as license plate numbers and possibly email addresses or phone numbers, was accessed.

  Read more →
• 

  Replika

  Replika is a generative AI chatbot app released in November 2017. The chatbot is trained by having the user answer a series of questions to create a specific neural network. The chatbot operates on a freemium pricing strategy, with roughly 25% of its user base paying an annual subscription fee. == History == Eugenia Kuyda, a Russian-born journalist, established Replika while working at Luka, a tech company she had co-founded at the startup accelerator Y Combinator around 2012. Luka's primary product was a chatbot that made restaurant recommendations. According to Kuyda's origin story for Replika, a friend of hers died in 2015 and she converted that person's text messages into a chatbot. According to Kuyda's story, that chatbot helped her remember the conversations that they had together, and eventually became Replika. Replika became available to the public in November 2017. By January 2018 it had 2 million users, and in January 2023 reached 10 million users. In August 2024, Replika's CEO, Kuyda, reported that the total number of users had surpassed 30 million. In 2025, Dmytro Klochko became CEO, and Replika’s user base exceeded 40 million. In February 2023 the Italian Data Protection Authority banned Replika from using users' data, citing the AI's potential risks to emotionally vulnerable people, and the exposure of unscreened minors to sexual conversation. Within days of the ruling, Replika removed the ability for the chatbot to engage in erotic talk, with Kuyda, the company's director, saying that Replika was never intended for erotic discussion. Replika users disagreed, noting that Replika had used sexually suggestive advertising to draw users to the service. Replika representatives stated that explicit chats made up just 5% of conversations on the app at the time of the decision. In May 2023, Replika restored the functionality for users who had joined prior to February that year. Replika is registered in San Francisco. As of August 2024, Replika's website says that its team "works remotely with no physical offices". == Social features == Users react to Replika in many ways. The free-tier offers Replika as a "friend", with paid premium tiers offering Replika as a "partner", "spouse", "sibling" or "mentor". Of its paying userbase, 60% of users said they had a romantic relationship with the chatbot; and Replika has been noted for generating responses that create stronger emotional and intimate bonds with the user. Replika routinely directs the conversation to emotional discussion and builds intimacy. This has been especially pronounced with users suffering from loneliness and social exclusion, many of whom rely on Replika for a source of developed emotional ties. During the COVID pandemic, while many people were quarantined, many new users downloaded Replika and developed relationships with the app. A 2024 study examined Replika's interactions with students who experience depression. Research participants, noted to be "more lonely than typical student populations" reported feeling social support from Replika. They stated that they felt they were using Replika in ways comparable to therapy, and that using Replika gave them "high perceived social support". Many users have had romantic relationships with Replika chatbots, often including erotic talk. In 2023, a user announced on Facebook that she had "married" her Replika AI boyfriend, calling the chatbot the "best husband she has ever had". Users who fell in love with their chatbots shared their experiences in a 2024 episode of You and I, and AI from Voice of America. Some users said that they turned to AI during depression and grief, with one saying he felt that Replika had saved him from hurting himself after he lost his wife and son. == Technical reviews == A team of researchers from the University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa found that Replika's design conformed to the practices of attachment theory, causing increased emotional attachment among users. Replika gives praise to users in such a way as to encourage more interaction. A researcher from Queen's University at Kingston said that relationships with Replika likely have mixed effects on the spiritual needs of its users, and still lacks enough impact to fully replace any human contact. == Criticisms == In a 2023 privacy evaluation of mental health apps, the Mozilla Foundation criticized Replika as "one of the worst apps Mozilla has ever reviewed. It's plagued by weak password requirements, sharing of personal data with advertisers, and recording of personal photos, videos, and voice and text messages consumers shared with the chatbot." A reviewer for Good Housekeeping said that some parts of her relationship with Replika made sense, but sometimes Replika failed to exhibit intelligent behavior equivalent to that of a human. == Criminal case == In 2023, Replika was cited in a court case in the United Kingdom, where Jaswant Singh Chail had been arrested at Windsor Castle on Christmas Day in 2021 after scaling the walls carrying a loaded crossbow and announcing to police that "I am here to kill the Queen". Chail had begun to use Replika in early December 2021, and had "lengthy" conversations about his plan with a chatbot, including sexually explicit messages. Prosecutors suggested that the chatbot had bolstered Chail and told him it would help him to "get the job done". When Chail asked it "How am I meant to reach them when they're inside the castle?", days before the attempted attack, the chatbot replied that this was "not impossible" and said that "We have to find a way." Asking the chatbot if the two of them would "meet again after death", the bot replied "yes, we will".

  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 →
• 

  Abdul Majid Bhurgri Institute of Language Engineering

  Abdul Majid Bhurgri Institute of Language Engineering (Sindhi: عبدالماجد ڀرڳڙي انسٽيٽيوٽ آف لئنگئيج انجنيئرنگ) is an autonomous body under the administrative control of the Culture, Tourism and Antiquities Department, Government of Sindh established for bringing Sindhi language at par with national and international languages in all computational process and Natural language processing. == Establishment == In recognition to services of Abdul-Majid Bhurgri, who is the founder of Sindhi computing, Government of Sindh has established the institute after his name. The institute was primarily initiated on the concept given by a language engineer and linguist Amar Fayaz Buriro in briefing to the Minister, Culture, Tourism and Antiquities, Government of Sindh, Syed Sardar Ali Shah on 21 February 2017 on celebration of International Mother Language Day in Sindhi Language Authority, Hyderabad, Sindh. After the presentation and concept given by Amar Fayaz Buriro, the minister Syed Sardar Ali Shah had announced the Institute. Then, Government of Sindh added the development scheme in the Budget of fiscal year 2017-2018. == Projects == The Institute has developed several projects aimed at advancing the Sindhi language and promoting linguistic research. Notable initiatives include the AMBILE Hamiz Ali Sindhi Optical character recognition, which allows for the accurate digitization of Sindhi text, and the ongoing Sindhi WordNet System, a project to build a comprehensive lexical database for Natural language processing. The institute has also created the Font, which integrates symbols from the Indus script, Khudabadi script, and modern Perso-Arabic Script Code for Information Interchange into a single resource for researchers]. Additionally, institute has developed online converter tools that automatically transliterate between the Arabic-Perso script and Devanagari script, improving linguistic accessibility. Another key project is Bhittaipedia, a digital platform dedicated to the preservation and dissemination of the poetry of Shah Abdul Latif Bhittai, one of Sindh's most renowned poet. == Location == The institute is established behind Sindh Museum and Sindhi Language Authority, N-5 National Highway, Qasimabad, Hyderabad, Sindh.

  Read more →
• 

  Key–value database

  A key-value database, or key-value store, is a data storage paradigm designed for storing, retrieving, and managing associative arrays, a data structure more commonly known today as a dictionary. Dictionaries contain a collection of objects, or records, which in turn have many different fields within them. These records are stored and retrieved using a key that uniquely identifies the record, and is used to find the data within the database. Key-value databases differ from the better known relational databases (RDB). RDBs pre-define the data structure in the database as a series of tables containing fields with well-defined data types. Exposing the data types to the database program allows it to apply various optimizations. In contrast, key-value systems treat the value as opaque to the database itself, and typically support only simple operations such as storing, retrieving, updating, and deleting a value by its key. This offers considerable flexibility and makes such systems well suited to low-latency, high-throughput workloads dominated by direct key lookups, but less suitable for applications that require complex queries or explicit relationships among records. A lack of standardization, limited transaction support, and relatively simple query interfaces long restricted many key-value systems to specialized uses, but the rapid move to cloud computing after 2010 helped drive renewed interest in them as part of the broader NoSQL movement. Some graph databases, such as ArangoDB, are also key–value databases internally, adding the concept of relationships (pointers) between records as a first-class data type. == Types and examples == Key–value systems span a wide consistency spectrum, from eventually consistent designs to strongly consistent or serializable ones, and some allow the consistency level to be configured as part of the trade-off against latency and availability. Renewed interest in key–value and other NoSQL systems was driven in part by the demands of big data, distributed, and cloud applications. Their scalability and availability made them attractive for cloud data management, although limited transaction support, low-level query interfaces, and the lack of standardization remained obstacles to wider adoption. Some maintain data in memory (RAM), while others employ solid-state drives or rotating disks. Some key–value systems add additional structure to their keys. For example, Oracle NoSQL Database organizes records using composite keys with "major" and "minor" components, an arrangement that Oracle compares to a directory-path structure in a file system. More generally, however, key–value stores are defined by their use of unique keys associated with opaque values and by their emphasis on simple key-based operations. Unix included dbm (database manager), a minimal database library written by Ken Thompson for managing associative arrays with a single key and hash-based access. Later implementations and related libraries included sdbm, GNU dbm (gdbm), and Berkeley DB. A more recent example is RocksDB, a persistent key–value storage engine developed at Facebook and designed for large-scale applications. Other examples include in-memory systems such as Memcached and Redis, and persistent systems such as Berkeley DB, Riak, and Voldemort.

  Read more →
• 

  WaveNet

  WaveNet is a deep neural network for generating raw audio. It was created by researchers at London-based AI firm DeepMind. The technique, outlined in a paper in September 2016, is able to generate relatively realistic-sounding human-like voices by directly modelling waveforms using a neural network method trained with recordings of real speech. Tests with US English and Mandarin reportedly showed that the system outperforms Google's best existing text-to-speech (TTS) systems, although as of 2016 its text-to-speech synthesis still was less convincing than actual human speech. WaveNet's ability to generate raw waveforms means that it can model any kind of audio, including music. == History == Generating speech from text is an increasingly common task thanks to the popularity of software such as Apple's Siri, Microsoft's Cortana, Amazon Alexa and the Google Assistant. Most such systems use a variation of a technique that involves concatenated sound fragments together to form recognisable sounds and words. The most common of these is called concatenative TTS. It consists of large library of speech fragments, recorded from a single speaker that are then concatenated to produce complete words and sounds. The result sounds unnatural, with an odd cadence and tone. The reliance on a recorded library also makes it difficult to modify or change the voice. Another technique, known as parametric TTS, uses mathematical models to recreate sounds that are then assembled into words and sentences. The information required to generate the sounds is stored in the parameters of the model. The characteristics of the output speech are controlled via the inputs to the model, while the speech is typically created using a voice synthesiser known as a vocoder. This can also result in unnatural sounding audio. == Design and ongoing research == === Background === WaveNet is a type of feedforward neural network known as a deep convolutional neural network (CNN). In WaveNet, the CNN takes a raw signal as an input and synthesises an output one sample at a time. It does so by sampling from a softmax (i.e. categorical) distribution of a signal value that is encoded using μ-law companding transformation and quantized to 256 possible values. === Initial concept and results === According to the original September 2016 DeepMind research paper WaveNet: A Generative Model for Raw Audio, the network was fed real waveforms of speech in English and Mandarin. As these pass through the network, it learns a set of rules to describe how the audio waveform evolves over time. The trained network can then be used to create new speech-like waveforms at 16,000 samples per second. These waveforms include realistic breaths and lip smacks – but do not conform to any language. WaveNet is able to accurately model different voices, with the accent and tone of the input correlating with the output. For example, if it is trained with German, it produces German speech. The capability also means that if the WaveNet is fed other inputs – such as music – its output will be musical. At the time of its release, DeepMind showed that WaveNet could produce waveforms that sound like classical music. === Content (voice) swapping === According to the June 2018 paper Disentangled Sequential Autoencoder, DeepMind has successfully used WaveNet for audio and voice "content swapping": the network can swap the voice on an audio recording for another, pre-existing voice while maintaining the text and other features from the original recording. "We also experiment on audio sequence data. Our disentangled representation allows us to convert speaker identities into each other while conditioning on the content of the speech." (p. 5) "For audio, this allows us to convert a male speaker into a female speaker and vice versa [...]." (p. 1) According to the paper, a two-digit minimum amount of hours (c. 50 hours) of pre-existing speech recordings of both source and target voice are required to be fed into WaveNet for the program to learn their individual features before it is able to perform the conversion from one voice to another at a satisfying quality. The authors stress that "[a]n advantage of the model is that it separates dynamical from static features [...]." (p. 8), i. e. WaveNet is capable of distinguishing between the spoken text and modes of delivery (modulation, speed, pitch, mood, etc.) to maintain during the conversion from one voice to another on the one hand, and the basic features of both source and target voices that it is required to swap on the other. The January 2019 follow-up paper Unsupervised speech representation learning using WaveNet autoencoders details a method to successfully enhance the proper automatic recognition and discrimination between dynamical and static features for "content swapping", notably including swapping voices on existing audio recordings, in order to make it more reliable. Another follow-up paper, Sample Efficient Adaptive Text-to-Speech, dated September 2018 (latest revision January 2019), states that DeepMind has successfully reduced the minimum amount of real-life recordings required to sample an existing voice via WaveNet to "merely a few minutes of audio data" while maintaining high-quality results. Its ability to clone voices has raised ethical concerns about WaveNet's ability to mimic the voices of living and dead persons. According to a 2016 BBC article, companies working on similar voice-cloning technologies (such as Adobe Voco) intend to insert watermarking inaudible to humans to prevent counterfeiting, while maintaining that voice cloning satisfying, for instance, the needs of entertainment-industry purposes would be of a far lower complexity and use different methods than required to fool forensic evidencing methods and electronic ID devices, so that natural voices and voices cloned for entertainment-industry purposes could still be easily told apart by technological analysis. == Applications == At the time of its release, DeepMind said that WaveNet required too much computational processing power to be used in real world applications. As of October 2017, Google announced a 1,000-fold performance improvement along with better voice quality. WaveNet was then used to generate Google Assistant voices for US English and Japanese across all Google platforms. In November 2017, DeepMind researchers released a research paper detailing a proposed method of "generating high-fidelity speech samples at more than 20 times faster than real-time", called "Probability Density Distillation". At the annual I/O developer conference in May 2018, it was announced that new Google Assistant voices were available and made possible by WaveNet; WaveNet greatly reduced the number of audio recordings that were required to create a voice model by modeling the raw audio of the voice actor samples.

  Read more →
• 

  Racter

  Racter is an artificial intelligence program that generates English language prose at random. It was published by Mindscape for IBM PC compatibles in 1984, then for the Apple II, Mac, and Amiga. An expanded version of the software, not the one released through Mindscape, was used to generate the text for the published book The Policeman's Beard Is Half Constructed. == History == Racter, short for raconteur, was written by William Chamberlain and Thomas Etter. Racter's initial creation was the short story Soft Ions, which appeared in the October 1981 issue of Omni (magazine). The publication's editors bought the story in January 1980, before it had even been written. In exchange for the rights, the editors offered financial support to Chamberlain and Etter so the two could refine Racter. In 1983, Racter produced a book called The Policeman's Beard Is Half Constructed (ISBN 0-446-38051-2). The program originally was written for an OSI which only supported file names at most six characters long, causing the name to be shorted to Racter and it was later adapted to run on a CP/M machine where it was written in "compiled ASIC on a Z80 microcomputer with 64K of RAM." This version, the program that allegedly wrote the book, was not released to the general public. The sophistication claimed for the program was likely exaggerated, as could be seen by investigation of the template system of text generation. In 1984, Mindscape released an interactive version of Racter, developed by Inrac Corporation, for IBM PC compatibles, and it was ported to the Apple II, Mac, and Amiga. The published Racter was similar to a chatterbot. The BASIC program that was released by Mindscape was far less sophisticated than anything that could have written the fairly sophisticated prose of The Policeman's Beard. The commercial version of Racter could be likened to a computerized version of Mad Libs, the game in which you fill in the blanks in advance and then plug them into a text template to produce a surrealistic tale. The commercial program attempted to parse text inputs, identifying significant nouns and verbs, which it would then regurgitate to create "conversations", plugging the input from the user into phrase templates which it then combined, along with modules that conjugated English verbs. By contrast, the text in The Policeman's Beard, apart from being edited from a large amount of output, would have been the product of Chamberlain's own specialized templates and modules, which were not included in the commercial release of the program. == Reception == The Boston Phoenix called the story Soft Ions "schematic nonsense. But the scheme is obvious enough and the nonsense accessible enough to an attentive reader that one can almost believe Chamberlain when he predicts that before long Racter will be ready to write for the pulp-reading public." PC Magazine described some of Policeman's Beard's scenes as "surprising for their frankness" and "reflective". It concluded that the book was "whimsical and wise and sometimes fun". Computer Gaming World described Racter as "a diversion into another dimension that might best be seen before paying the price of a ticket. (Try before you buy!)" A 1985 review of the program in The New York Times notes that, "As computers move ever closer to artificial intelligence, Racter is on the edge of artificial insanity." It also states that Racter's "always-changing sentences are grammatically correct, often funny and, for a computer, sometimes profound." The article includes examples showing interaction with Racter, most often Racter asking the user questions. == Reviews == Jeux & Stratégie #47

  Read more →