AI Data Bias

AI Data Bias — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

  • Trigram

    Trigram

    Trigrams are a special case of the n-gram, where n is 3. They are often used in natural language processing for performing statistical analysis of texts and in cryptography for control and use of ciphers and codes. See results of analysis of "Letter Frequencies in the English Language". == Frequency == Context is very important, varying analysis rankings and percentages are easily derived by drawing from different sample sizes, different authors; or different document types: poetry, science-fiction, technology documentation; and writing levels: stories for children versus adults, military orders, and recipes. Typical cryptanalytic frequency analysis finds that the 16 most common character-level trigrams in English are: Because encrypted messages sent by telegraph often omit punctuation and spaces, cryptographic frequency analysis of such messages includes trigrams that straddle word boundaries. This causes trigrams such as "edt" to occur frequently, even though it may never occur in any one word of those messages. == Examples == The sentence "the quick red fox jumps over the lazy brown dog" has the following word-level trigrams: the quick red quick red fox red fox jumps fox jumps over jumps over the over the lazy the lazy brown lazy brown dog And the word-level trigram "the quick red" has the following character-level trigrams (where an underscore "_" marks a space): the he_ e_q _qu qui uic ick ck_ k_r _re red

    Read more →
  • Clement Farabet

    Clement Farabet

    Clément Farabet is a computer scientist and AI expert known for his contributions to the field of deep learning. He served as a research scientist at the New York University. He serves as the Vice President of Research at Google DeepMind and previously served as the VP of AI Infrastructure at NVIDIA. His scholarly work received over 11,000 citations with an h-index of 21. == Education == In 2008, Farabet earned a master's degree in electrical engineering with honors from Institut national des sciences appliquées (INSA) de Lyon, France. In 2010, Farabet received his PhD at Université Paris-Est, co-advised by Professors Laurent Najman and Yann LeCun. His thesis focused on real-time image understanding and introduced multi-scale convolutional networks and graph-based techniques for efficient segmentations of class prediction maps. He successfully defended his thesis in 2013. == Career == In 2008, after completing his Master's degree, Farabet joined Professor Yann LeCun's laboratory at the Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences at New York University. His Master's thesis work on reconfigurable hardware for deep neural networks resulted in a patent. He continued his collaboration with Yann LeCun, and in 2009, he began working with Yale University's e-Lab, led by Eugenio Culurciello. This collaboration eventually led to the creation of TeraDeep. He began his career as a researcher, contributing to the development of LuaTorch, one of the first AI frameworks, which later evolved into PyTorch, widely recognized and adopted globally. == Startups == Farabet co-founded MadBits, a startup with a focus on web-scale image understanding. The company was acquired by Twitter in 2014. Following this acquisition, Farabet co-founded Twitter Cortex, a team dedicated to building Twitter's deep learning platform for various applications, including recommendations, search, spam detection, and NSFW content and ads. == Publications == Farabet, Clement; Couprie, Camille; Najman, Laurent; LeCun, Yann (August 2013). "Learning Hierarchical Features for Scene Labeling". IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence. 35 (8): 1915–1929. Bibcode:2013ITPAM..35.1915F. doi:10.1109/TPAMI.2012.231. PMID 23787344. S2CID 206765110. LeCun, Yann; Kavukcuoglu, Koray; Farabet, Clement (2010). "Convolutional networks and applications in vision". Proceedings of 2010 IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems. pp. 253–256. doi:10.1109/ISCAS.2010.5537907. ISBN 978-1-4244-5308-5. S2CID 7625356. Collobert, Ronan; Kavukcuoglu, K.; Farabet, C. (2011). "Torch7: A Matlab-like Environment for Machine Learning". Neural Information Processing Systems. Couprie, Camille; Farabet, Clément; Najman, Laurent; LeCun, Yann (16 January 2013). "Indoor Semantic Segmentation using depth information". arXiv:1301.3572 [cs.CV]. Farabet, Clement (2011). "NeuFlow: A runtime reconfigurable dataflow processor for vision". CVPR 2011 Workshops. pp. 109–116. doi:10.1109/CVPRW.2011.5981829. ISBN 978-1-4577-0529-8. S2CID 851574. Farabet, Clement (2009). "CNP: An FPGA-based processor for Convolutional Networks". 2009 International Conference on Field Programmable Logic and Applications. pp. 32–37. doi:10.1109/FPL.2009.5272559. S2CID 5339694. Farabet, Clement (2010). "Hardware accelerated convolutional neural networks for synthetic vision systems". Proceedings of 2010 IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems. pp. 257–260. doi:10.1109/ISCAS.2010.5537908. ISBN 978-1-4244-5308-5. S2CID 6542026.

    Read more →
  • Barbara Di Eugenio

    Barbara Di Eugenio

    Barbara Di Eugenio is an Italian-American computer scientist, the Collegiate Warren S. McCulloch Professor of Computer Science at the University of Illinois Chicago. Her research focuses on natural language processing and its applications to human–computer interaction, educational technology, and artificial intelligence in healthcare. == Education and career == Di Eugenio is originally from Turin. After an undergraduate education in Italy, she completed her Ph.D. in computer and information science in 1993 at the University of Pennsylvania. Her dissertation, Understanding Natural Language Instructions: A Computational Approach to Purpose Clauses, was supervised by Bonnie Webber. She became a faculty member at the University of Illinois Chicago in 1999, and at that time was the only woman faculty member in the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science. == Recognition == In 2022, Di Eugenio received the Zenith Award of the Association for Women in Science. She was named as a Fellow of the Association for Computational Linguistics in 2023, "for outstanding contributions to natural language generation; intelligent tutoring systems; discourse; intercoder agreement; and applying multimodal interactive systems to health".

    Read more →
  • Suffix automaton

    Suffix automaton

    In computer science, a suffix automaton is an efficient data structure for representing the substring index of a given string which allows the storage, processing, and retrieval of compressed information about all its substrings. The suffix automaton of a string S {\displaystyle S} is the smallest directed acyclic graph with a dedicated initial vertex and a set of "final" vertices, such that paths from the initial vertex to final vertices represent the suffixes of the string. In terms of automata theory, a suffix automaton is the minimal partial deterministic finite automaton that recognizes the set of suffixes of a given string S = s 1 s 2 … s n {\displaystyle S=s_{1}s_{2}\dots s_{n}} . The state graph of a suffix automaton is called a directed acyclic word graph (DAWG), a term that is also sometimes used for any deterministic acyclic finite state automaton. Suffix automata were introduced in 1983 by a group of scientists from the University of Denver and the University of Colorado Boulder. They suggested a linear time online algorithm for its construction and showed that the suffix automaton of a string S {\displaystyle S} having length at least two characters has at most 2 | S | − 1 {\textstyle 2|S|-1} states and at most 3 | S | − 4 {\textstyle 3|S|-4} transitions. Further works have shown a close connection between suffix automata and suffix trees, and have outlined several generalizations of suffix automata, such as compacted suffix automaton obtained by compression of nodes with a single outgoing arc. Suffix automata provide efficient solutions to problems such as substring search and computation of the largest common substring of two and more strings. == History == The concept of suffix automaton was introduced in 1983 by a group of scientists from University of Denver and University of Colorado Boulder consisting of Anselm Blumer, Janet Blumer, Andrzej Ehrenfeucht, David Haussler and Ross McConnell, although similar concepts had earlier been studied alongside suffix trees in the works of Peter Weiner, Vaughan Pratt and Anatol Slissenko. In their initial work, Blumer et al. showed a suffix automaton built for the string S {\displaystyle S} of length greater than 1 {\displaystyle 1} has at most 2 | S | − 1 {\displaystyle 2|S|-1} states and at most 3 | S | − 4 {\displaystyle 3|S|-4} transitions, and suggested a linear algorithm for automaton construction. In 1983, Mu-Tian Chen and Joel Seiferas independently showed that Weiner's 1973 suffix-tree construction algorithm while building a suffix tree of the string S {\displaystyle S} constructs a suffix automaton of the reversed string S R {\textstyle S^{R}} as an auxiliary structure. In 1987, Blumer et al. applied the compressing technique used in suffix trees to a suffix automaton and invented the compacted suffix automaton, which is also called the compacted directed acyclic word graph (CDAWG). In 1997, Maxime Crochemore and Renaud Vérin developed a linear algorithm for direct CDAWG construction. In 2001, Shunsuke Inenaga et al. developed an algorithm for construction of CDAWG for a set of words given by a trie. == Definitions == Usually when speaking about suffix automata and related concepts, some notions from formal language theory and automata theory are used, in particular: "Alphabet" is a finite set Σ {\displaystyle \Sigma } that is used to construct words. Its elements are called "characters"; "Word" is a finite sequence of characters ω = ω 1 ω 2 … ω n {\displaystyle \omega =\omega _{1}\omega _{2}\dots \omega _{n}} . "Length" of the word ω {\displaystyle \omega } is denoted as | ω | = n {\displaystyle |\omega |=n} ; "Formal language" is a set of words over given alphabet; "Language of all words" is denoted as Σ ∗ {\displaystyle \Sigma ^{}} (where the "" character stands for Kleene star), "empty word" (the word of zero length) is denoted by the character ε {\displaystyle \varepsilon } ; "Concatenation of words" α = α 1 α 2 … α n {\displaystyle \alpha =\alpha _{1}\alpha _{2}\dots \alpha _{n}} and β = β 1 β 2 … β m {\displaystyle \beta =\beta _{1}\beta _{2}\dots \beta _{m}} is denoted as α ⋅ β {\displaystyle \alpha \cdot \beta } or α β {\displaystyle \alpha \beta } and corresponds to the word obtained by writing β {\displaystyle \beta } to the right of α {\displaystyle \alpha } , that is, α β = α 1 α 2 … α n β 1 β 2 … β m {\displaystyle \alpha \beta =\alpha _{1}\alpha _{2}\dots \alpha _{n}\beta _{1}\beta _{2}\dots \beta _{m}} ; "Concatenation of languages" A {\displaystyle A} and B {\displaystyle B} is denoted as A ⋅ B {\displaystyle A\cdot B} or A B {\displaystyle AB} and corresponds to the set of pairwise concatenations A B = { α β : α ∈ A , β ∈ B } {\displaystyle AB=\{\alpha \beta :\alpha \in A,\beta \in B\}} ; If the word ω ∈ Σ ∗ {\displaystyle \omega \in \Sigma ^{}} may be represented as ω = α γ β {\displaystyle \omega =\alpha \gamma \beta } , where α , β , γ ∈ Σ ∗ {\displaystyle \alpha ,\beta ,\gamma \in \Sigma ^{}} , then words α {\displaystyle \alpha } , β {\displaystyle \beta } and γ {\displaystyle \gamma } are called "prefix", "suffix" and "subword" (substring) of the word ω {\displaystyle \omega } correspondingly; If T = T 1 … T n {\displaystyle T=T_{1}\dots T_{n}} and T l T l + 1 … T r = S {\displaystyle T_{l}T_{l+1}\dots T_{r}=S} (with 1 ≤ l ≤ r ≤ n {\displaystyle 1\leq l\leq r\leq n} ) then S {\displaystyle S} is said to "occur" in T {\displaystyle T} as a subword. Here l {\displaystyle l} and r {\displaystyle r} are called left and right positions of occurrence of S {\displaystyle S} in T {\displaystyle T} correspondingly. == Automaton structure == Formally, deterministic finite automaton is determined by 5-tuple A = ( Σ , Q , q 0 , F , δ ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}=(\Sigma ,Q,q_{0},F,\delta )} , where: Σ {\displaystyle \Sigma } is an "alphabet" that is used to construct words, Q {\displaystyle Q} is a set of automaton "states", q 0 ∈ Q {\displaystyle q_{0}\in Q} is an "initial" state of automaton, F ⊂ Q {\displaystyle F\subset Q} is a set of "final" states of automaton, δ : Q × Σ ↦ Q {\displaystyle \delta :Q\times \Sigma \mapsto Q} is a partial "transition" function of automaton, such that δ ( q , σ ) {\displaystyle \delta (q,\sigma )} for q ∈ Q {\displaystyle q\in Q} and σ ∈ Σ {\displaystyle \sigma \in \Sigma } is either undefined or defines a transition from q {\displaystyle q} over character σ {\displaystyle \sigma } . Most commonly, deterministic finite automaton is represented as a directed graph ("diagram") such that: Set of graph vertices corresponds to the state of states Q {\displaystyle Q} , Graph has a specific marked vertex corresponding to initial state q 0 {\displaystyle q_{0}} , Graph has several marked vertices corresponding to the set of final states F {\displaystyle F} , Set of graph arcs corresponds to the set of transitions δ {\displaystyle \delta } , Specifically, every transition δ ( q 1 , σ ) = q 2 {\textstyle \delta (q_{1},\sigma )=q_{2}} is represented by an arc from q 1 {\displaystyle q_{1}} to q 2 {\displaystyle q_{2}} marked with the character σ {\displaystyle \sigma } . This transition also may be denoted as q 1 σ ⟶ q 2 {\textstyle q_{1}{\begin{smallmatrix}{\sigma }\\[-5pt]{\longrightarrow }\end{smallmatrix}}q_{2}} . In terms of its diagram, the automaton recognizes the word ω = ω 1 ω 2 … ω m {\displaystyle \omega =\omega _{1}\omega _{2}\dots \omega _{m}} only if there is a path from the initial vertex q 0 {\displaystyle q_{0}} to some final vertex q ∈ F {\displaystyle q\in F} such that concatenation of characters on this path forms ω {\displaystyle \omega } . The set of words recognized by an automaton forms a language that is set to be recognized by the automaton. In these terms, the language recognized by a suffix automaton of S {\displaystyle S} is the language of its (possibly empty) suffixes. === Automaton states === "Right context" of the word ω {\displaystyle \omega } with respect to language L {\displaystyle L} is a set [ ω ] R = { α : ω α ∈ L } {\displaystyle [\omega ]_{R}=\{\alpha :\omega \alpha \in L\}} that is a set of words α {\displaystyle \alpha } such that their concatenation with ω {\displaystyle \omega } forms a word from L {\displaystyle L} . Right contexts induce a natural equivalence relation [ α ] R = [ β ] R {\displaystyle [\alpha ]_{R}=[\beta ]_{R}} on the set of all words. If language L {\displaystyle L} is recognized by some deterministic finite automaton, there exists unique up to isomorphism automaton that recognizes the same language and has the minimum possible number of states. Such an automaton is called a minimal automaton for the given language L {\displaystyle L} . Myhill–Nerode theorem allows it to define it explicitly in terms of right contexts: In these terms, a "suffix automaton" is the minimal deterministic finite automaton recognizing the language of suffixes of the word S = s 1 s 2 … s n {\displaystyle S=s_{1}s_{2}\dots s_{n}} . The right context of the word ω {\displaystyle \omeg

    Read more →
  • Statistical relational learning

    Statistical relational learning

    Statistical relational learning (SRL) is a subdiscipline of artificial intelligence and machine learning that is concerned with domain models that exhibit both uncertainty (which can be dealt with using statistical methods) and complex, relational structure. Typically, the knowledge representation formalisms developed in SRL use (a subset of) first-order logic to describe relational properties of a domain in a general manner (universal quantification) and draw upon probabilistic graphical models (such as Bayesian networks or Markov networks) to model the uncertainty; some also build upon the methods of inductive logic programming. Significant contributions to the field have been made since the late 1990s. As is evident from the characterization above, the field is not strictly limited to learning aspects; it is equally concerned with reasoning (specifically probabilistic inference) and knowledge representation. Therefore, alternative terms that reflect the main foci of the field include statistical relational learning and reasoning (emphasizing the importance of reasoning) and first-order probabilistic languages (emphasizing the key properties of the languages with which models are represented). Another term that is sometimes used in the literature is relational machine learning (RML). == Canonical tasks == A number of canonical tasks are associated with statistical relational learning, the most common ones being. collective classification, i.e. the (simultaneous) prediction of the class of several objects given objects' attributes and their relations link prediction, i.e. predicting whether or not two or more objects are related link-based clustering, i.e. the grouping of similar objects, where similarity is determined according to the links of an object, and the related task of collaborative filtering, i.e. the filtering for information that is relevant to an entity (where a piece of information is considered relevant to an entity if it is known to be relevant to a similar entity) social network modelling object identification/entity resolution/record linkage, i.e. the identification of equivalent entries in two or more separate databases/datasets == Representation formalisms == One of the fundamental design goals of the representation formalisms developed in SRL is to abstract away from concrete entities and to represent instead general principles that are intended to be universally applicable. Since there are countless ways in which such principles can be represented, many representation formalisms have been proposed in recent years. In the following, some of the more common ones are listed in alphabetical order: Bayesian logic program BLOG model Markov logic networks Multi-entity Bayesian network Probabilistic logic programs Probabilistic relational model – a Probabilistic Relational Model (PRM) is the counterpart of a Bayesian network in statistical relational learning. Probabilistic soft logic Recursive random field Relational Bayesian network Relational dependency network Relational Markov network Relational Kalman filtering

    Read more →
  • Mark Steedman

    Mark Steedman

    Mark Jerome Steedman (born 18 September 1946) is a British computational linguist and cognitive scientist. == Biography == Steedman graduated from the University of Sussex in 1968, with a B.Sc. in Experimental Psychology, and from the University of Edinburgh in 1973, with a Ph.D. in Artificial Intelligence (Dissertation: The Formal Description of Musical Perception gained in 1972. Advisor: Prof. H.C. Longuet-Higgins FRS). He has held posts as Lecturer in Psychology, University of Warwick (1977–83); Lecturer and Reader in Computational Linguistics, University of Edinburgh (1983–8); Associate and full Professor in Computer and Information Sciences, University of Pennsylvania (1988–98). He has held visiting positions at the University of Texas at Austin, the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Radboud University Nijmegen, and the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Steedman currently holds the Chair of Cognitive Science in the School of Informatics at the University of Edinburgh (1998– ). He works in computational linguistics, artificial intelligence, and cognitive science, on Generation of Meaningful Intonation for Speech by Artificial Agents, Animated Conversation, The Communicative Use of Gesture, Tense and Aspect, and combinatory categorial grammar (CCG). He is also interested in Computational Musical Analysis and combinatory logic. == Distinctions == Member of the Academia Europæa (2006) Fellow of the British Academy (2002). Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh (2002) AAAI Fellow (1993) President elect for 2008 of the Association for Computational Linguistics Fellow of the Association for Computational Linguistics (2012) == Principal publications == Steedman, Mark (1996). Surface structure and interpretation. Linguistic Inquiry Monograph. Vol. 30. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. p. 123. ISBN 978-0-262-19379-5. Steedman, Mark (2000). The Syntactic Process. Language, Speech, and Communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. p. 344. ISBN 978-0-262-69268-7. Steedman, Mark (Fall 2000). "Information Structure and the Syntax-Phonology Interface". Linguistic Inquiry. 31 (4): 649–689. doi:10.1162/002438900554505. ISSN 0024-3892. S2CID 9084597.

    Read more →
  • Top 10 AI Paragraph Rewriters Compared (2026)

    Top 10 AI Paragraph Rewriters Compared (2026)

    Trying to pick the best AI paragraph rewriter? An AI paragraph rewriter is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it scales effortlessly from a single task to thousands. The best picks balance beginner-friendly simplicity with the depth power users need, and they ship updates often. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI paragraph rewriter slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. This guide breaks down the top picks, their pros and cons, and who each one is best for.

    Read more →
  • AI Video Editors Reviews: What Actually Works in 2026

    AI Video Editors Reviews: What Actually Works in 2026

    Curious about the best AI video editor? An AI video editor is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it combines speed, accuracy, and an interface that just works. Hands-on testing shows real-world results vary, so a short free trial is the smartest way to decide. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI video editor slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. Read on for hands-on impressions, pricing tiers, and the standout features that matter.

    Read more →
  • Explanation-based learning

    Explanation-based learning

    Explanation-based learning (EBL) is a form of machine learning that exploits a very strong, or even perfect, domain theory (i.e. a formal theory of an application domain akin to a domain model in ontology engineering, not to be confused with Scott's domain theory) in order to make generalizations or form concepts from training examples. It is also linked with Encoding (memory) to help with Learning. == Details == An example of EBL using a perfect domain theory is a program that learns to play chess through example. A specific chess position that contains an important feature such as "Forced loss of black queen in two moves" includes many irrelevant features, such as the specific scattering of pawns on the board. EBL can take a single training example and determine what are the relevant features in order to form a generalization. A domain theory is perfect or complete if it contains, in principle, all information needed to decide any question about the domain. For example, the domain theory for chess is simply the rules of chess. Knowing the rules, in principle, it is possible to deduce the best move in any situation. However, actually making such a deduction is impossible in practice due to combinatoric explosion. EBL uses training examples to make searching for deductive consequences of a domain theory efficient in practice. In essence, an EBL system works by finding a way to deduce each training example from the system's existing database of domain theory. Having a short proof of the training example extends the domain-theory database, enabling the EBL system to find and classify future examples that are similar to the training example very quickly. The main drawback of the method—the cost of applying the learned proof macros, as these become numerous—was analyzed by Minton. === Basic formulation === EBL software takes four inputs: a hypothesis space (the set of all possible conclusions) a domain theory (axioms about a domain of interest) training examples (specific facts that rule out some possible hypothesis) operationality criteria (criteria for determining which features in the domain are efficiently recognizable, e.g. which features are directly detectable using sensors) == Application == An especially good application domain for an EBL is natural language processing (NLP). Here a rich domain theory, i.e., a natural language grammar—although neither perfect nor complete, is tuned to a particular application or particular language usage, using a treebank (training examples). Rayner pioneered this work. The first successful industrial application was to a commercial NL interface to relational databases. The method has been successfully applied to several large-scale natural language parsing systems, where the utility problem was solved by omitting the original grammar (domain theory) and using specialized LR-parsing techniques, resulting in huge speed-ups, at a cost in coverage, but with a gain in disambiguation. EBL-like techniques have also been applied to surface generation, the converse of parsing. When applying EBL to NLP, the operationality criteria can be hand-crafted, or can be inferred from the treebank using either the entropy of its or-nodes or a target coverage/disambiguation trade-off (= recall/precision trade-off = f-score). EBL can also be used to compile grammar-based language models for speech recognition, from general unification grammars. Note how the utility problem, first exposed by Minton, was solved by discarding the original grammar/domain theory, and that the quoted articles tend to contain the phrase grammar specialization—quite the opposite of the original term explanation-based generalization. Perhaps the best name for this technique would be data-driven search space reduction. Other people who worked on EBL for NLP include Guenther Neumann, Aravind Joshi, Srinivas Bangalore, and Khalil Sima'an.

    Read more →
  • Bernard Vauquois

    Bernard Vauquois

    Bernard Vauquois ((1929-06-14)June 14, 1929 — (1985-09-30)September 30, 1985) was a French mathematician and computer scientist. He was a pioneer of computer science and machine translation (MT) in France. An astronomer-turned-computer scientist, he is known for his work on the programming language ALGOL 60, and later for extensive work on the theoretical and practical problems of MT, of which the eponymous Vauquois triangle is one of the most widely-known contributions. He was a professor at what would become the Grenoble Alpes University. == Biography == Bernard Vauquois was initially a researcher at French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) from 1952 to 1958 at the Astrophysics Institute of the Meudon Observatory, after completing studies in mathematics, physics, and astronomy. Since 1957, his research program has also focused on methods applied to physics from the perspective of electronic computers, and he has taught programming to physicists. This double interest in astrophysics and electronic computers is reflected in the subject of his thesis and that of the complementary thesis in physical sciences that he defended in 1958. In 1960, at 31 years old, he was appointed professor of computer science at Grenoble University, where, alongside professors Jean Kuntzmann and Noël Gastinel, he began work in the field. At that time, he was also contributing to the definition of the language ALGOL 60. Also in 1960, he founded the Centre d'Étude pour la Traduction Automatique (CETA), later renamed as Groupe d'Étude pour la Traduction Automatique (GETA) and currently known as GETALP, a team at the Laboratoire d'informatique de Grenoble, and soon showed his gift for rapid understanding, synthesis, and innovation, and his taste for personal communication across linguistic borders and barriers. After visiting a number of centers, mainly in the United States, where machine translation research was conducted, he analyzed the shortcomings of the "first-generation" approach and evaluated the potential of a new generation based on grammar and formal language theory, and proposed a new approach based on a representational "pivot" and the use of (declarative) rule systems that transform a sequential sentence from one level of representation to another. He led the GETA in constructing the first large second-generation system, applied to Russian–French, from 1962 to 1971. At the end of this period, the accumulated experience led him to correct some defects of the "pure" declarative and interlingual approach, and to use heuristic programming methods, implemented with procedural grammars written in LSPLs ("specialized languages for linguistic programming", langages spécialisés pour la programmation linguistique) that were developed under his direction, and integrated into the ARIANE-78 machine translation system. In 1974, when he cofounded the Leibniz laboratory, he proposed "multilevel structure descriptors" (descripteurs de structures multiniveaux) for units larger than sentence translation. This idea, premonitory of later theoretical work (Ray Jackendoff, Gerald Gazdar) is still the cornerstone of all machine translation software built by GETA and the French national TA project. Bernard Vauquois' last contribution was "static grammar" (grammaire statique) in 1982–83, during the ESOPE project, the preparatory phase of the French national MT project. He was a key figure in the field of computational linguistics in France. At CNRS, he was a member of section 22 of the National Committee in 1963: "General Linguistics, Modern Languages and Comparative Literature", and then, in 1969, of section 28: "General Linguistics, Foreign Languages and Literature". Since 1965, he has been vice-president of the Association for Natural Language Processing (ATALA). He was its president from 1966 to 1971. He was also one of the founders, in 1965, of the ICCL (International Committee on Computational Linguistics), which organizes COLING conferences. He was its president from 1969 to 1984. From France, he often collaborated with other countries (notably Canada, the United States, the USSR, Czechoslovakia, Japan, China, Brazil, Malaysia, and Thailand), working on the specification and implementation of grammars and dictionaries. He began cooperating with Malaysia, for example, in 1979, which led to the creation of the Automatic Terjemaan Project, with a first prototype of an English-Malay MT system demonstrated in 1980. == Vauquois triangle == The Vauquois triangle is a conceptual model and diagram illustrating possible approaches to the design of machine translation systems, first proposed in 1968. == Legacy == Bernard Vauquois is regarded as a pioneer of machine translation in France. He played a key role in developing the first large-scale second-generation machine translation system, and his work influenced the field of machine translation for many years. He supervised some twenty doctoral theses, most of them concerning formal aspects of natural and artificial languages, with an emphasis on machine translation. The Center for Studies on Automatic Translation, which Vauquois founded in 1960, later became the Group for the Study of Machine Translation and Automated Processing of Languages and Speech (GETALP). It is still a research institution in natural language processing. Vauquois was a prolific writer and speaker, disseminating knowledge about machine translation and related topics. His papers and presentations were instrumental in establishing the field of machine translation in France and beyond. == Publications == Vauquois, Bernard (1973). Traduction automatique (in French). Paris: Gauthier-Villars. Vauquois, Bernard (1967). Introduction à la traduction automatique (in French). Paris: Gauthier-Villars.

    Read more →
  • AI Resume Builders: Free vs Paid (2026)

    AI Resume Builders: Free vs Paid (2026)

    Comparing the best AI resume builder? An AI resume builder is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it lowers the barrier so anyone can produce professional output. Privacy matters too: check whether your data trains the model and whether a no-log or enterprise tier is available. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI resume builder slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. Below we compare features, pricing, and real output so you can choose with confidence.

    Read more →
  • Dan Roth

    Dan Roth

    Dan Roth (Hebrew: דן רוט) is the Eduardo D. Glandt Distinguished Professor of Computer and Information Science at the University of Pennsylvania and the Chief AI Scientist at Oracle. Until June 2024 Roth was a VP and distinguished scientist at AWS AI. In his role at AWS, Roth led over the last three years the scientific effort behind the first-generation Generative AI products from AWS, including Titan Models, Amazon Q efforts, and Bedrock, from inception until they became generally available. Roth got his B.A. summa cum laude in mathematics from the Technion, Israel, and his Ph.D. in computer science from Harvard University in 1995. He taught at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign from 1998 to 2017 before moving to the University of Pennsylvania. == Professional career == Roth is a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), and the Association of Computational Linguistics (ACL). Roth’s research focuses on the computational foundations of intelligent behavior. He develops theories and systems pertaining to intelligent behavior using a unified methodology, at the heart of which is the idea that learning has a central role in intelligence. His work centers around the study of machine learning and inference methods to facilitate natural language understanding. In doing that he has pursued several interrelated lines of work that span multiple aspects of this problem - from fundamental questions in learning and inference and how they interact, to the study of a range of natural language processing (NLP) problems and developing advanced machine learning based tools for natural language applications. Roth has made seminal contribution to the fusion of Learning and Reasoning, Machine Learning with weak, incidental supervision, and to machine learning and inference approaches to natural language understanding. He has written the first paper on zero-shot learning in natural language processing, a 2008 paper by Chang, Ratinov, Roth, and Srikumar that was published at AAAI’08, but the name given to the learning paradigm there was dataless classification. Roth has worked on probabilistic reasoning (including its complexity and probabilistic lifted inference ), Constrained Conditional Models (ILP formulations of NLP problems) and constraints-driven learning, part-based (constellation) methods in object recognition, response based Learning, He has developed NLP and Information extraction tools that are being used broadly by researchers and commercially, including NER, coreference resolution, wikification, SRL, and ESL text correction. Roth is a co-founder of NexLP, Inc., a startup that applies natural language processing and machine learning in the legal and compliance domains. In 2020, NexLP was acquired by Reveal, Inc., an e-discovery software company. He is currently on the scientific advisory board of the Allen Institute for AI.

    Read more →
  • Viola–Jones object detection framework

    Viola–Jones object detection framework

    The Viola–Jones object detection framework is a machine learning object detection framework proposed in 2001 by Paul Viola and Michael Jones. It was motivated primarily by the problem of face detection, although it can be adapted to the detection of other object classes. In short, it consists of a sequence of classifiers. Each classifier is a single perceptron with several binary masks (Haar features). To detect faces in an image, a sliding window is computed over the image. For each image, the classifiers are applied. If at any point, a classifier outputs "no face detected", then the window is considered to contain no face. Otherwise, if all classifiers output "face detected", then the window is considered to contain a face. The algorithm is efficient for its time, able to detect faces in 384 by 288 pixel images at 15 frames per second on a conventional 700 MHz Intel Pentium III. It is also robust, achieving high precision and recall. While it has lower accuracy than more modern methods such as convolutional neural network, its efficiency and compact size (only around 50k parameters, compared to millions of parameters for typical CNN like DeepFace) means it is still used in cases with limited computational power. For example, in the original paper, they reported that this face detector could run on the Compaq iPAQ at 2 fps (this device has a low power StrongARM without floating point hardware). == Problem description == Face detection is a binary classification problem combined with a localization problem: given a picture, decide whether it contains faces, and construct bounding boxes for the faces. To make the task more manageable, the Viola–Jones algorithm only detects full view (no occlusion), frontal (no head-turning), upright (no rotation), well-lit, full-sized (occupying most of the frame) faces in fixed-resolution images. The restrictions are not as severe as they appear, as one can normalize the picture to bring it closer to the requirements for Viola-Jones. any image can be scaled to a fixed resolution for a general picture with a face of unknown size and orientation, one can perform blob detection to discover potential faces, then scale and rotate them into the upright, full-sized position. the brightness of the image can be corrected by white balancing. the bounding boxes can be found by sliding a window across the entire picture, and marking down every window that contains a face. This would generally detect the same face multiple times, for which duplication removal methods, such as non-maximal suppression, can be used. The "frontal" requirement is non-negotiable, as there is no simple transformation on the image that can turn a face from a side view to a frontal view. However, one can train multiple Viola-Jones classifiers, one for each angle: one for frontal view, one for 3/4 view, one for profile view, a few more for the angles in-between them. Then one can at run time execute all these classifiers in parallel to detect faces at different view angles. The "full-view" requirement is also non-negotiable, and cannot be simply dealt with by training more Viola-Jones classifiers, since there are too many possible ways to occlude a face. == Components of the framework == A full presentation of the algorithm is in. Consider an image I ( x , y ) {\displaystyle I(x,y)} of fixed resolution ( M , N ) {\displaystyle (M,N)} . Our task is to make a binary decision: whether it is a photo of a standardized face (frontal, well-lit, etc) or not. Viola–Jones is essentially a boosted feature learning algorithm, trained by running a modified AdaBoost algorithm on Haar feature classifiers to find a sequence of classifiers f 1 , f 2 , . . . , f k {\displaystyle f_{1},f_{2},...,f_{k}} . Haar feature classifiers are crude, but allows very fast computation, and the modified AdaBoost constructs a strong classifier out of many weak ones. At run time, a given image I {\displaystyle I} is tested on f 1 ( I ) , f 2 ( I ) , . . . f k ( I ) {\displaystyle f_{1}(I),f_{2}(I),...f_{k}(I)} sequentially. If at any point, f i ( I ) = 0 {\displaystyle f_{i}(I)=0} , the algorithm immediately returns "no face detected". If all classifiers return 1, then the algorithm returns "face detected". For this reason, the Viola-Jones classifier is also called "Haar cascade classifier". === Haar feature classifiers === Consider a perceptron f w , b {\displaystyle f_{w,b}} defined by two variables w ( x , y ) , b {\displaystyle w(x,y),b} . It takes in an image I ( x , y ) {\displaystyle I(x,y)} of fixed resolution, and returns f w , b ( I ) = { 1 , if ∑ x , y w ( x , y ) I ( x , y ) + b > 0 0 , else {\displaystyle f_{w,b}(I)={\begin{cases}1,\quad {\text{if }}\sum _{x,y}w(x,y)I(x,y)+b>0\\0,\quad {\text{else}}\end{cases}}} A Haar feature classifier is a perceptron f w , b {\displaystyle f_{w,b}} with a very special kind of w {\displaystyle w} that makes it extremely cheap to calculate. Namely, if we write out the matrix w ( x , y ) {\displaystyle w(x,y)} , we find that it takes only three possible values { + 1 , − 1 , 0 } {\displaystyle \{+1,-1,0\}} , and if we color the matrix with white on + 1 {\displaystyle +1} , black on − 1 {\displaystyle -1} , and transparent on 0 {\displaystyle 0} , the matrix is in one of the 5 possible patterns shown on the right. Each pattern must also be symmetric to x-reflection and y-reflection (ignoring the color change), so for example, for the horizontal white-black feature, the two rectangles must be of the same width. For the vertical white-black-white feature, the white rectangles must be of the same height, but there is no restriction on the black rectangle's height. ==== Rationale for Haar features ==== The Haar features used in the Viola-Jones algorithm are a subset of the more general Haar basis functions, which have been used previously in the realm of image-based object detection. While crude compared to alternatives such as steerable filters, Haar features are sufficiently complex to match features of typical human faces. For example: The eye region is darker than the upper-cheeks. The nose bridge region is brighter than the eyes. Composition of properties forming matchable facial features: Location and size: eyes, mouth, bridge of nose Value: oriented gradients of pixel intensities Further, the design of Haar features allows for efficient computation of f w , b ( I ) {\displaystyle f_{w,b}(I)} using only constant number of additions and subtractions, regardless of the size of the rectangular features, using the summed-area table. === Learning and using a Viola–Jones classifier === Choose a resolution ( M , N ) {\displaystyle (M,N)} for the images to be classified. In the original paper, they recommended ( M , N ) = ( 24 , 24 ) {\displaystyle (M,N)=(24,24)} . ==== Learning ==== Collect a training set, with some containing faces, and others not containing faces. Perform a certain modified AdaBoost training on the set of all Haar feature classifiers of dimension ( M , N ) {\displaystyle (M,N)} , until a desired level of precision and recall is reached. The modified AdaBoost algorithm would output a sequence of Haar feature classifiers f 1 , f 2 , . . . , f k {\displaystyle f_{1},f_{2},...,f_{k}} . The details of the modified AdaBoost algorithm is detailed below. ==== Using ==== To use a Viola-Jones classifier with f 1 , f 2 , . . . , f k {\displaystyle f_{1},f_{2},...,f_{k}} on an image I {\displaystyle I} , compute f 1 ( I ) , f 2 ( I ) , . . . f k ( I ) {\displaystyle f_{1}(I),f_{2}(I),...f_{k}(I)} sequentially. If at any point, f i ( I ) = 0 {\displaystyle f_{i}(I)=0} , the algorithm immediately returns "no face detected". If all classifiers return 1, then the algorithm returns "face detected". === Learning algorithm === The speed with which features may be evaluated does not adequately compensate for their number, however. For example, in a standard 24x24 pixel sub-window, there are a total of M = 162336 possible features, and it would be prohibitively expensive to evaluate them all when testing an image. Thus, the object detection framework employs a variant of the learning algorithm AdaBoost to both select the best features and to train classifiers that use them. This algorithm constructs a "strong" classifier as a linear combination of weighted simple “weak” classifiers. h ( x ) = sgn ⁡ ( ∑ j = 1 M α j h j ( x ) ) {\displaystyle h(\mathbf {x} )=\operatorname {sgn} \left(\sum _{j=1}^{M}\alpha _{j}h_{j}(\mathbf {x} )\right)} Each weak classifier is a threshold function based on the feature f j {\displaystyle f_{j}} . h j ( x ) = { − s j if f j < θ j s j otherwise {\displaystyle h_{j}(\mathbf {x} )={\begin{cases}-s_{j}&{\text{if }}f_{j}<\theta _{j}\\s_{j}&{\text{otherwise}}\end{cases}}} The threshold value θ j {\displaystyle \theta _{j}} and the polarity s j ∈ ± 1 {\displaystyle s_{j}\in \pm 1} are determined in the training, as well as the coefficients α j {\displaystyle \alpha _{j}} . Here a simplified version of the lea

    Read more →
  • Glottochronology

    Glottochronology

    Glottochronology (from Attic Greek γλῶττα 'tongue, language' and χρόνος 'time') is the part of lexicostatistics which involves comparative linguistics and deals with the chronological relationship between languages. The idea was developed by Morris Swadesh in the 1950s in his article on Salish internal relationships. He developed the idea under two assumptions: there indeed exists a relatively stable basic vocabulary (referred to as Swadesh lists) in all languages of the world; and, any replacements happen in a way analogous to radioactive decay in a constant percentage per time elapsed. Using mathematics and statistics, Swadesh developed an equation to determine when languages separated and give an approximate time of when the separation occurred. His methods aimed to aid linguistic anthropologists by giving them a definitive way to determine a separation date between two languages. The formula provides an approximate number of centuries since two languages were supposed to have separated from a singular common ancestor. His methods also purported to provide information on when ancient languages may have existed. Despite multiple studies and literature containing the information of glottochronology, it is not widely used today and is surrounded with controversy. Glottochronology tracks language separation from thousands of years ago but many linguists are skeptical of the concept because it is more of a 'probability' rather than a 'certainty.' On the other hand, some linguists may say that glottochronology is gaining traction because of its relatedness to archaeological dates. Glottochronology is not as accurate as archaeological data, but some linguists still believe that it can provide a solid estimate. Over time many different extensions of the Swadesh method evolved; however, Swadesh's original method is so well known that 'glottochronology' is usually associated with him. == Methodology == The original method of glottochronology presumed that the core vocabulary of a language is replaced at a constant (or constant average) rate across all languages and cultures and so can be used to measure the passage of time. The process makes use of a list of lexical terms and morphemes which are similar to multiple languages. Lists were compiled by Morris Swadesh and assumed to be resistant against borrowing (originally designed in 1952 as a list of 200 items, but the refined 100-word list in Swadesh (1955) is much more common among modern day linguists). The core vocabulary was designed to encompass concepts common to every human language such as personal pronouns, body parts, heavenly bodies and living beings, verbs of basic actions, numerals, basic adjectives, kin terms, and natural occurrences and events. Through a basic word list, one eliminates concepts that are specific to a particular culture or time period. It has been found through differentiating word lists that the ideal is really impossible and that the meaning set may need to be tailored to the languages being compared. Word lists are not homogenous throughout studies and they are often changed and designed to suit both languages being studied. Linguists find that it is difficult to find a word list where all words used are culturally unbiased. Many alternative word lists have been compiled by other linguists and often use fewer meaning slots. The percentage of cognates (words with a common origin) in the word lists is then measured. The larger the percentage of cognates, the more recently the two languages being compared are presumed to have separated. === Glottochronologic constant === Determining word lists rely on morpheme decay or change in vocabulary. Morpheme decay must stay at a constant rate for glottochronology to be applied to a language. This leads to a critique of the glottochronologic formula because some linguists argue that the morpheme decay rate is not guaranteed to stay the same throughout history. American Linguist Robert Lees obtained a value for the "glottochronological constant" (r) of words by considering the known changes in 13 pairs of languages using the 200 word list. He obtained a value of 0.8048 ± 0.0176 with 90% confidence. For his 100-word list Swadesh obtained a value of 0.86, the higher value reflecting the elimination of semantically unstable words. === Divergence time === The basic formula of glottochronology proposed by Morris Swadesh is: t = − ln ⁡ ( c ) 2 ln ⁡ ( r ) {\displaystyle t=-{\frac {\ln(c)}{2\ln(r)}}} t = a given period of time from one stage of the language to another (measured in millennia), c = proportion of wordlist items retained at the end of that period and r = rate of replacement for that word list. By testing historically verifiable cases in which t is known by nonlinguistic data (such as the approximate distance from Classical Latin to modern Romance languages), Swadesh arrived at the empirical value of approximately 0.14 for L, (c?) which means that the rate of replacement constitutes around 14 words from the 100-wordlist per millennium. This is represented in the table below. === Results === Glottochronology was applied to a range of language families, including Salishan, Indo-European, Japonic, Afro-Asiatic, Chinese and Mayan and other American languages. For Amerind, correlations have been obtained with radiocarbon dating and blood groups as well as archaeology. === Example Wordlist === Below is an example of a basic word list composed of basic Turkish words and their English translations. == Discussion == The concept of language change is old, and its history is reviewed in Hymes (1973) and Wells (1973). In some sense, glottochronology is a reconstruction of history and can often be closely related to archaeology. Many linguistic studies find the success of glottochronology to be found alongside archaeological data. Glottochronology itself dates back to the mid-20th century. An introduction to the subject is given in Embleton (1986) and in McMahon and McMahon (2005). Glottochronology has been controversial ever since, partly because of issues of accuracy but also because of the question of whether its basis is sound (for example, Bergsland 1958; Bergsland and Vogt 1962; Fodor 1961; Chrétien 1962; Guy 1980). The concerns have been addressed by Dobson et al. (1972), Dyen (1973) and Kruskal, Dyen and Black (1973). The assumption of a single-word replacement rate can distort the divergence-time estimate when borrowed words are included (Thomason and Kaufman 1988). The presentations vary from "Why linguists don't do dates" to the one by Starostin discussed below. Since its original inception, glottochronology has been rejected by many linguists, mostly Indo-Europeanists of the school of the traditional comparative method. Criticisms have been answered in particular around three points of discussion: Criticism levelled against the higher stability of lexemes in Swadesh lists alone (Haarmann 1990) misses the point because a certain amount of losses only enables the computations (Sankoff 1970). The non-homogeneity of word lists often leads to lack of understanding between linguists. Linguists also have difficulties finding a completely unbiased list of basic cultural words. it can take a long time for linguists to find a viable word list which can take several test lists to find a usable list. Traditional glottochronology presumes that language changes at a stable rate. Thus, in Bergsland & Vogt (1962), the authors make an impressive demonstration, on the basis of actual language data verifiable by extralinguistic sources, that the "rate of change" for Icelandic constituted around 4% per millennium, but for closely connected Riksmal (Literary Norwegian), it would amount to as much as 20% (Swadesh's proposed "constant rate" was supposed to be around 14% per millennium). That and several other similar examples effectively proved that Swadesh's formula would not work on all available material, which is a serious accusation since evidence that can be used to "calibrate" the meaning of L (language history recorded during prolonged periods of time) is not overwhelmingly large in the first place. It is highly likely that the chance of replacement is different for every word or feature ("each word has its own history", among hundreds of other sources:). That global assumption has been modified and downgraded to single words, even in single languages, in many newer attempts (see below). There is a lack of understanding of Swadesh's mathematical/statistical methods. Some linguists reject the methods in full because the statistics lead to 'probabilities' when linguists trust 'certainties' more. A serious argument is that language change arises from socio-historical events that are, of course, unforeseeable and, therefore, uncomputable. == Modifications == Somewhere in between the original concept of Swadesh and the rejection of glottochronology in its entirety lies the idea that glottochronology as a formal method of linguistic

    Read more →
  • Svetlana Lazebnik

    Svetlana Lazebnik

    Svetlana Lazebnik (born 1979) is a Ukrainian-American researcher in computer vision who works as a professor of computer science and Willett Faculty Scholar at the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign. Her research involves interactions between image understanding and natural language processing, including the automated captioning of images, and the development of a benchmark database of textually grounded images. == Education and career == Lazebnik was born in Kyiv in 1979 to a family of Ukrainian Jews, and emigrated with her family to the US as a teenager. She majored in computer science at DePaul University, minoring in mathematics and graduating with the highest honors in 2000. She completed her Ph.D. in 2006 at the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, with the dissertation Local, Semi-Local and Global Models for Texture, Object and Scene Recognition supervised by Jean Ponce. After postdoctoral research at the University of Illinois, she became an assistant professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 2007. She returned to the University of Illinois as a faculty member in 2012. She is a co-editor-in-chief of the International Journal of Computer Vision. == Recognition == Lazebnik was named an IEEE Fellow in 2021, "for contributions to computer vision". With Cordelia Schmid and Jean Ponce, she won the Longuet-Higgins Prize in 2016 for the best work in computer vision from ten years earlier, for their work on spatial pyramid matching.

    Read more →