AI Data Center Map

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

• 

  Patent visualisation

  Patent visualisation is an application of information visualisation. The number of patents has been increasing, encouraging companies to consider intellectual property as a part of their strategy. Patent visualisation, like patent mapping, is used to quickly view a patent portfolio. Software dedicated to patent visualisation began to appear in 2000, for example Aureka from Aurigin (now owned by Thomson Reuters). Many patent and portfolio analytics platforms, such as Questel, Patent Forecast, PatSnap, Patentcloud, Relecura, and Patent iNSIGHT Pro, offer options to visualise specific data within patent documents by creating topic maps, priority maps, IP Landscape reports, etc. Software converts patents into infographics or maps, to allow the analyst to "get insight into the data" and draw conclusions. Also called patinformatics, it is the "science of analysing patent information to discover relationships and trends that would be difficult to see when working with patent documents on a one-and-one basis". Patents contain structured data (like publication numbers) and unstructured text (like title, abstract, claims and visual info). Structured data are processed by data-mining and unstructured data are processed with text-mining. == Data mining == The main step in processing structured information is data-mining, which emerged in the late 1980s. Data mining involves statistics, artificial intelligence, and machine learning. Patent data mining extracts information from the structured data of the patent document. These structured data are bibliographic fields such as location, date or status. === Structured fields === === Advantages === Data mining allows study of filing patterns of competitors and locates main patent filers within a specific area of technology. This approach can be helpful to monitor competitors' environments, moves and innovation trends and gives a macro view of a technology status. == Text-mining == === Principle === Text mining is used to search through unstructured text documents. This technique is widely used on the Internet, it has had success in bioinformatics and now in the intellectual property environment. Text mining is based on a statistical analysis of word recurrence in a corpus. An algorithm extracts words and expressions from title, summary and claims and gathers them by declension. "And" and "if" are labeled as non-information bearing words and are stored in the stopword list. Stoplists can be specialised in order to create an accurate analysis. Next, the algorithm ranks the words by weight, according to their frequency in the patent's corpus and the document frequency containing this word. The score for each word is calculated using a formula such as: W e i g h t = T e r m F r e q u e n c y D o c u m e n t F r e q u e n c y = F r e q u e n c y o f t h e w o r d o r e x p r e s s i o n i n t h e T e x t S e a N u m b e r o f d o c u m e n t s c o n t a i n i n g t h e e x p r e s s i o n o r w o r d {\displaystyle Weight={\frac {Term\ Frequency}{Document\ Frequency}}={\frac {Frequency\ of\ the\ word\ or\ expression\ in\ the\ Text\ Sea}{Number\ of\ documents\ containing\ the\ expression\ or\ word}}} A frequently used word in several documents has less weight than a word used frequently in a few patents. Words under a minimum weight are eliminated, leaving a list of pertinent words or descriptors. Each patent is associated to the descriptors found in the selected document. Further, in the process of clusterisation, these descriptors are used as subsets, in which the patent are regrouped or as tags to place the patents in predetermined categories, for example keywords from International Patent Classifications. Four text parts can be processed with text-mining : Title Abstract Claim Patent Full-Text Software offer different combinations but title, abstract and claim are generally the most used, providing a good balance between interferences and relevancy. === Advantages === Text-mining can be used to narrow a search or quickly evaluate a patent corpus. For instance, if a query produces irrelevant documents, a multi-level clustering hierarchy identifies them in order to delete them and refine the search. Text-mining can also be used to create internal taxonomies specific to a corpus for possible mapping. == Visualisations == Allying patent analysis and informatic tools offers an overview of the environment through value-added visualisations. As patents contain structured and unstructured information, visualisations fall in two categories. Structured data can be rendered with data mining in macrothematic maps and statistical analysis. Unstructured information can be shown in like clouds, cluster maps and 2D keyword maps. === Data mining visualisation === === Text mining visualisation === === Visualisation for both data-mining and text-mining === Mapping visualisations can be used for both text-mining and data-mining results. == Uses == What patent visualisation can highlight: Competitors Partners New innovations Technologic environment description Networks Field application: R&D strategy management Competitive intelligence Licensing Strategy

  Read more →
• 

  AI Image Generators: Free vs Paid (2026)

  Looking for the best AI image generator? An AI image generator is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it can save you hours every week by automating repetitive work. Most options offer a generous free tier, with paid plans unlocking higher limits, faster processing, and team features. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI image generator 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 →
• 

  Korpusomat

  Korpusomat - a tool for creating and searching electronic language corpora, created at the Institute of Computer Science of the Polish Academy of Sciences. Korpusomat is a fourth generation corpus tool. It is a web application, which eliminates the need to store data sets on the user's own computer. The corpus is created either by adding text files from the local drive (in any language and format), or by indicating websites from which texts are to be downloaded. Then, the corpus is annotated automatically on several levels: morphosyntantic, named entities recognition (e.g. geographical names or people) and partial syntantic information (which also allows for the visualization of dependency trees). The finished corpus can be edited, shared with other users, and searched. There are also a number of functions offering statistical summaries of the collected texts

  Read more →
• 

  Machine translation in China

  Machine translation in China is the history of machine translation systems developed in China. China became the fourth country that began machine translation (MT) research following USA, UK, and the Soviet Union. In 1957, the Language Institute of Chinese Academy of Sciences took the initiative in Russian-Chinese MT research program and set up an MT research group. From then on the research activities were directed and applied for academic purposes in Universities. The turning point of MT systems launching initiatives in market began from 1990s. MT systems went into blossom into the market. Among these systems, there were commercialized MT systems. To be more specific, Transtar was the first commercialized MT system and has been constantly upgraded. What's more, IMC/EC MT system which was developed by Computer Institute of Chinese Academy of Sciences has further made great advancement. Meanwhile, the practical MT system MT-IT-EC specific to communication domain was also striking to notice, for it has greatly improved the efficiency and productivity in the issue of publications. Government funding is a critical component and support in the development of market-oriented machine translation in China. It is evident to see that since Chinese opened up to the outside world and joined the WTO, the vigorous import and export trade generate opportunities for machine translation to transfer technical terms of products into the readable target information. Facing the increasing demand of sophisticated state-of -the -art translation technology, the academic area including research institute and universities are even launching bachelors’ and master's programs regarding machine translation. Thus, strong evidence illustrates the promising field of machine translation in the future market of China.

  Read more →
• 

  Content Disarm and Reconstruction

  Content Disarm and Reconstruction (CDR) is a computer security technology for removing potentially malicious code from files. Unlike malware analysis, CDR technology does not determine or detect malware's functionality but removes all file components that are not approved within the system's definitions and policies. It is used to prevent cyber security threats from entering a corporate network perimeter. Channels that CDR can be used to protect include email and website traffic. Advanced solutions can also provide similar protection on computer endpoints, or cloud email and file sharing services. There are three levels of CDR; 1) flattening and converting the original file to a PDF, 2) stripping active content while keeping the original file type, and 3) eliminating all file-borne risk while maintaining file type, integrity and active content. Beyond these three levels, there are also more advanced forms of CDR that is able to perform "soft conversion" and "hard conversion", based on the user's preference in balancing usability and security. == Applications == CDR works by processing all incoming files of an enterprise network, deconstructing them, and removing the elements that do not match the file type's standards or set policies. CDR technology then rebuilds the files into clean versions that can be sent on to end users as intended. Because CDR removes all potentially malicious code, it can be effective against zero-day vulnerabilities that rely on being an unknown threat that other security technologies would need to patch against to maintain protection. CDR can be used to prevent cyber threats from variety of sources: Email Data Diodes Web Browsers Endpoints File Servers FTP Cloud email or webmail programs SMB/CIFS Removable media scanning (CDR Kiosk) CDR can be applied to a variety of file formats including: Images Office documents PDF Audio/video file formats Archives HTML == Open source implementations == DocBleach ExeFilter

  Read more →
• 

  Markov chain Monte Carlo

  In statistics, Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) is a class of algorithms used to draw samples from a probability distribution. Given a probability distribution, one can construct a Markov chain whose elements' distribution approximates it, i.e. the Markov chain's equilibrium distribution matches the target distribution. The more steps that are included, the more closely the distribution of the sample matches the actual desired distribution. Markov chain Monte Carlo methods are used to study probability distributions that are too complex or too high dimensional to study with analytic techniques alone. Various algorithms exist for constructing such Markov chains, including the Metropolis–Hastings algorithm. == General explanation == Markov chain Monte Carlo methods create samples from a continuous random variable, with probability density proportional to a known function. These samples can be used to evaluate an integral over that variable, as its expected value or variance. Practically, an ensemble of chains is generally developed, starting from a set of points arbitrarily chosen and sufficiently distant from each other. These chains are stochastic processes of "walkers" which move around randomly according to an algorithm that looks for places with a reasonably high contribution to the integral to move into next, assigning them higher probabilities. Random walk Monte Carlo methods are a kind of random simulation or Monte Carlo method. However, whereas the random samples of the integrand used in a conventional Monte Carlo integration are statistically independent, those used in MCMC are autocorrelated. Correlations of samples introduces the need to use the Markov chain central limit theorem when estimating the error of mean values. These algorithms create Markov chains such that they have an equilibrium distribution which is proportional to the function given. == History == The development of MCMC methods is deeply rooted in the early exploration of Monte Carlo (MC) techniques in the mid-20th century, particularly in physics. These developments were marked by the Metropolis algorithm proposed by Nicholas Metropolis, Arianna W. Rosenbluth, Marshall Rosenbluth, Augusta H. Teller, and Edward Teller in 1953, which was designed to tackle high-dimensional integration problems using early computers. Then in 1970, W. K. Hastings generalized this algorithm and inadvertently introduced the component-wise updating idea, later known as Gibbs sampling. Simultaneously, the theoretical foundations for Gibbs sampling were being developed, such as the Hammersley–Clifford theorem from Julian Besag's 1974 paper. Although the seeds of MCMC were sown earlier, including the formal naming of Gibbs sampling in image processing by Stuart Geman and Donald Geman (1984) and the data augmentation method by Martin A. Tanner and Wing Hung Wong (1987), its "revolution" in mainstream statistics largely followed demonstrations of the universality and ease of implementation of sampling methods (especially Gibbs sampling) for complex statistical (particularly Bayesian) problems, spurred by increasing computational power and software like BUGS. This transformation was accompanied by significant theoretical advancements, such as Luke Tierney's (1994) rigorous treatment of MCMC convergence, and Jun S. Liu, Wong, and Augustine Kong's (1994, 1995) analysis of Gibbs sampler structure. Subsequent developments further expanded the MCMC toolkit, including particle filters (Sequential Monte Carlo) for sequential problems, Perfect sampling aiming for exact simulation (Jim Propp and David B. Wilson, 1996), RJMCMC (Peter J. Green, 1995) for handling variable-dimension models, and deeper investigations into convergence diagnostics and the central limit theorem. Overall, the evolution of MCMC represents a paradigm shift in statistical computation, enabling the analysis of numerous previously intractable complex models and continually expanding the scope and impact of statistics. == Mathematical setting == Suppose (Xn) is a Markov Chain in the general state space X {\displaystyle {\mathcal {X}}} with specific properties. We are interested in the limiting behavior of the partial sums: S n ( h ) = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n h ( X i ) {\displaystyle S_{n}(h)={\dfrac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}h(X_{i})} as n goes to infinity. Particularly, we hope to establish the Law of Large Numbers and the Central Limit Theorem for MCMC. In the following, we state some definitions and theorems necessary for the important convergence results. In short, we need the existence of invariant measure and Harris recurrent to establish the Law of Large Numbers of MCMC (Ergodic Theorem). And we need aperiodicity, irreducibility and extra conditions such as reversibility to ensure the Central Limit Theorem holds in MCMC. === Irreducibility and aperiodicity === Recall that in the discrete setting, a Markov chain is said to be irreducible if it is possible to reach any state from any other state in a finite number of steps with positive probability. However, in the continuous setting, point-to-point transitions have zero probability. In this case, φ-irreducibility generalizes irreducibility by using a reference measure φ on the measurable space ( X , B ( X ) ) {\displaystyle ({\mathcal {X}},{\mathcal {B}}({\mathcal {X}}))} . Definition (φ-irreducibility) Given a measure φ {\displaystyle \varphi } defined on ( X , B ( X ) ) {\displaystyle ({\mathcal {X}},{\mathcal {B}}({\mathcal {X}}))} , the Markov chain ( X n ) {\displaystyle (X_{n})} with transition kernel K ( x , y ) {\displaystyle K(x,y)} is φ-irreducible if, for every A ∈ B ( X ) {\displaystyle A\in {\mathcal {B}}({\mathcal {X}})} with φ ( A ) > 0 {\displaystyle \varphi (A)>0} , there exists n {\displaystyle n} such that K n ( x , A ) > 0 {\displaystyle K^{n}(x,A)>0} for all x ∈ X {\displaystyle x\in {\mathcal {X}}} (Equivalently, P x ( τ A < ∞ ) > 0 {\displaystyle P_{x}(\tau _{A}<\infty )>0} , here τ A = inf { n ≥ 1 ; X n ∈ A } {\displaystyle \tau _{A}=\inf\{n\geq 1;X_{n}\in A\}} is the first n {\displaystyle n} for which the chain enters the set A {\displaystyle A} ). This is a more general definition for irreducibility of a Markov chain in non-discrete state space. In the discrete case, an irreducible Markov chain is said to be aperiodic if it has period 1. Formally, the period of a state ω ∈ X {\displaystyle \omega \in {\mathcal {X}}} is defined as: d ( ω ) := g c d { m ≥ 1 ; K m ( ω , ω ) > 0 } {\displaystyle d(\omega ):=\mathrm {gcd} \{m\geq 1\,;\,K^{m}(\omega ,\omega )>0\}} For the general (non-discrete) case, we define aperiodicity in terms of small sets: Definition (Cycle length and small sets) A φ-irreducible Markov chain ( X n ) {\displaystyle (X_{n})} has a cycle of length d if there exists a small set C {\displaystyle C} , an associated integer M {\displaystyle M} , and a probability distribution ν M {\displaystyle \nu _{M}} such that d is the greatest common divisor of: { m ≥ 1 ; ∃ δ m > 0 such that C is small for ν m ≥ δ m ν M } . {\displaystyle \{m\geq 1\,;\,\exists \,\delta _{m}>0{\text{ such that }}C{\text{ is small for }}\nu _{m}\geq \delta _{m}\nu _{M}\}.} A set C {\displaystyle C} is called small if there exists m ∈ N ∗ {\displaystyle m\in \mathbb {N} ^{}} and a nonzero measure ν m {\displaystyle \nu _{m}} such that: K m ( x , A ) ≥ ν m ( A ) , ∀ x ∈ C , ∀ A ∈ B ( X ) . {\displaystyle K^{m}(x,A)\geq \nu _{m}(A),\quad \forall x\in C,\,\forall A\in {\mathcal {B}}({\mathcal {X}}).} === Harris recurrent === Definition (Harris recurrence) A set A {\displaystyle A} is Harris recurrent if P x ( η A = ∞ ) = 1 {\displaystyle P_{x}(\eta _{A}=\infty )=1} for all x ∈ A {\displaystyle x\in A} , where η A = ∑ n = 1 ∞ I A ( X n ) {\displaystyle \eta _{A}=\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }\mathbb {I} _{A}(X_{n})} is the number of visits of the chain ( X n ) {\displaystyle (X_{n})} to the set A {\displaystyle A} . The chain ( X n ) {\displaystyle (X_{n})} is said to be Harris recurrent if there exists a measure ψ {\displaystyle \psi } such that the chain is ψ {\displaystyle \psi } -irreducible and every measurable set A {\displaystyle A} with ψ ( A ) > 0 {\displaystyle \psi (A)>0} is Harris recurrent. A useful criterion for verifying Harris recurrence is the following: Proposition If for every A ∈ B ( X ) {\displaystyle A\in {\mathcal {B}}({\mathcal {X}})} , we have P x ( τ A < ∞ ) = 1 {\displaystyle P_{x}(\tau _{A}<\infty )=1} for every x ∈ A {\displaystyle x\in A} , then P x ( η A = ∞ ) = 1 {\displaystyle P_{x}(\eta _{A}=\infty )=1} for all x ∈ X {\displaystyle x\in {\mathcal {X}}} , and the chain ( X n ) {\displaystyle (X_{n})} is Harris recurrent. This definition is only needed when the state space X {\displaystyle {\mathcal {X}}} is uncountable. In the countable case, recurrence corresponds to E x [ η x ] = ∞ {\displaystyle \mathbb {E} _{x}[\eta _{x}]=\infty } , which is equivalent to P x ( τ x < ∞ ) = 1 {\displaystyle P_{x}(\tau _{x}<\infty )=1} for all x ∈ X {\displaystyle x\i

  Read more →
• 

  AI Code Generators Reviews: What Actually Works in 2026

  Trying to pick the best AI code generator? An AI code generator 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 code generator 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 →
• 

  Law and Corpus Linguistics

  Law and corpus linguistics (LCL) is an academic sub-discipline that uses large databases of examples of language usage equipped with tools designed by linguists called corpora to better get at the meaning of words and phrases in legal texts (statutes, constitutions, contracts, etc.). Thus, LCL is the application of corpus linguistic tools, theories, and methodologies to issues of legal interpretation in much the same way law and economics is the application of economic tools, theories, and methodologies to various legal issues. == History == A 2005 law review article by Lawrence Solan noted in passing that corpus linguistics had potential for its application to interpreting legal texts. But the first systematic exploration and advocacy of applying the tools and methodologies of corpus linguistics to legal interpretive questions of law and corpus linguistics came in the fall of 2010, when the BYU Law Review published a note by Stephen Mouritsen, entitled The Dictionary is Not a Fortress: Definitional Fallacies and a Corpus-Based Approach to Plain Meaning. The note argued that dictionaries are the primary linguistic tool used by judges to determine the plain or ordinary meaning of words and phrases, and highlighted the deficiencies of such an approach. In its stead, the note proposed using corpus linguistics. And the note would be later cited by Adam Liptak in a New York Times article on statutory construction. Law and corpus linguistics (LCL) gained greater legitimacy in July 2011 with the first judicial opinion in American history utilizing corpus linguistics to determine the meaning of a legal text: In re the Adoption of Baby E.Z. In a concurrence in part and in the judgment, Justice Thomas Lee wrote to put forth an alternative ground for the majority's holding—interpreting the phrase "custody determination" by using corpus linguistics. Justice Lee looked at 500 randomized sample sentences from the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) and found that the most common sense of "custody" was in the context of divorce rather than adoption. Further, he found that "custody" is ten times more likely to co-occur (or collocate) with "divorce" than with "adoption". From that evidence Justice Lee concluded that he "would find that the custody proceedings covered by the Act are limited to proceedings resulting in the modifiable custody orders of a divorce", rather than the broader range of custody proceedings. Other jurisprudence and scholarship would follow. In a 2015 concurrence in State v. Rasabout, Justice Lee used a COCA search to determine that "discharge" when used with a firearm (or one of its synonyms) overwhelmingly referred to a single shot rather than emptying the entire magazine of the weapon. And in 2016, four of the five justices joined a footnote in a majority opinion by Justice Lee commending a party for using corpus linguistics in its briefing even though the Court found it unnecessary to resolve the related question. Finally, in 2016 the Michigan Supreme Court became the first court to use a linguist-designed corpus in a majority opinion (COCA), with both the majority and the dissent turning to COCA to determine the meaning of the word "information". In 2020, courts desiring to bolster the legal theory of original intent have sought the opportunity to undertake analyses of statutes utilizing corpus linguistics. In a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals case, Jones v. Becerra (No. 20-56174), a case involving the Second Amendment and the constitutionality of a California statute which bans the sale of firearms to individuals under the age of 21, a Ninth Circuit panel requested that the parties address three questions: 1) “What is the original public meaning of the Second Amendment phrases: ‘A well regulated Militia’; ‘the right of the people’; and ‘shall not be infringed’? 2) How does the tool of corpus linguistics help inform the determination of the original public meaning of those Second Amendment phrases?” 3) How do the data yielded from corpus linguistics assist in the interpretation of the constitutionality of age-based restrictions under the Second Amendment? As to scholarship, in 2012, Mouritsen followed up his original work with an article in the Columbia Science and Technology Law Review, where he further refined and promoted the use of corpus-based methods for determining questions of legal ambiguity. Additionally, in 2016 two essays and an article on law and corpus linguistics were published. The Yale Law Journal Forum published Corpus Linguistics & Original Public Meaning: A New Tool to Make Originalism More Empirical. Written by Justice Lee and two co-authors, the essay urged originalists to turn to corpus linguistics to improve the rigor and accuracy of originalist scholarship. And in response, the Forum published an essay by Lawrence Solan (a Brooklyn Law professor with a PhD in linguistics), Can Corpus Linguistics Help Make Originalism Scientific? The Boston University Public Interest Law Journal published The Merciful Corpus: The Rule of Lenity, Ambiguity and Corpus Linguistics by Daniel Ortner. In the article Ortner applied corpus linguistics to determining whether sufficient ambiguity exists to trigger the rule of lenity in five Supreme Court cases. Looking forward, in 2017 two more articles are slated for publication. Lee Strang focuses on corpus linguistics and originalism in the U.C. Davis Law Review, and Lawrence Solan and Tammy Gales explore corpus linguistics in the context of finding ordinary meaning in statutory interpretation in the International Journal of Legal Discourse. Lawyers and journalists have also taken notice of corpus linguistics at it relates to the law. In 2010, Neal Goldfarb filed the first known brief in the Supreme Court using corpus linguistics (COCA) to determine whether the ordinary meaning of "personal" referred to corporations in the case FCC v. AT&T. The amicus brief looked at the top collocates (words that co-occur) of "personal" in COHA as well as BYU's Time Magazine Corpus. And writing for The Atlantic, Ben Zimmer took note of this new trend, referring to corpus linguistics in the courts as "Like Lexis on Steroids". On the academic front, in 2013 BYU Law School started the first class on law and corpus linguistics, co-taught by Mouritsen, Lee, and (now Dean) Gordon Smith. The class is currently in its fourth year. And in February 2016, BYU Law School hosted the inaugural conference on LCL, with over two dozen legal and linguistic scholars from around the country discussing and debating the next steps forward for the growing academic movement. The conference has been held regularly in subsequent years. At the 2016 conference BYU Law School announced its plans and progress on the Corpus of Founding Era American English (COFEA), a corpus that covers 1760–1799 and contains more than 120 million words have been collected from founding era letters, diaries, newspapers, non-fiction books, fiction, sermons, speeches, debates, legal cases, and other legal materials.

  Read more →
• 

  Mix automation

  In music recording, mix automation allows the mixing console to remember the mixing engineer's dynamic adjustment of faders during a musical piece in the post-production editing process. A timecode is necessary for the synchronization of automation. Modern mixing consoles and digital audio workstations use comprehensive mix automation. The need for automated mixing originated from the late 1970s transition form 8-track to 16-track and then 24-track multitrack recording, as mixing could be laborious and require multiple people and hands, and the results could be almost impossible to reproduce. With 48-track recording - synchronized twin 24-track recorders (for a net 46 audio tracks, with one on each machine for SMPTE timecode) - came larger recording and mixing consoles with even more channel faders to manage during mixdown. Manufacturers, such as Neve Electronics (now AMS Neve) and Solid State Logic (SSL), both English companies, developed systems that enabled one engineer to oversee every detail of a complex mix, although the computers required to power these desks remained a rarity into the late 1970s. According to record producer Roy Thomas Baker, Queen's 1975 single "Bohemian Rhapsody" was one of the first mixes to be done with automation. == Types == Voltage Controlled Automation fader levels are regulated by voltage-controlled amplifiers (VCA). VCAs control the audio level and not the actual fader. Moving Fader Automation a motor is attached to the fader, which then can be controlled by the console, digital audio workstation (DAW), or user. Software Controlled Automation the software can be internal to the console, or external as part of a DAW. The virtual fader can be adjusted in the software by the user. MIDI Automation the communications protocol MIDI can be used to send messages to the console to control automation. == Modes == Auto Write used the first time automation is created or when writing over existing automation Auto Touch writes automation data only while a fader is touched/faders return to any previously automated position after release Auto Latch starts writing automation data when a fader is touched/stays in position after release Auto Read digital Audio Workstation performs the written automation Auto Off automation is temporarily disabled All of these include the mute button. If mute is pressed during writing of automation, the audio track will be muted during playback of that automation. Depending on software, other parameters such as panning, sends, and plug-in controls can be automated as well. In some cases, automation can be written using a digital potentiometer instead of a fader.

  Read more →
• 

  Mona Diab

  Mona Talat Diab (Arabic: منى طلعت دياب) is a computer science professor and director of Carnegie Mellon University's Language Technologies Institute. Previously, she was a professor at George Washington University and a research scientist with Facebook AI. Her research focuses on natural language processing, computational linguistics, cross lingual/multilingual processing, computational socio-pragmatics, Arabic language processing, and applied machine learning. == Education == Diab completed her M.Sc. in computer science with a major in machine learning and artificial intelligence at The George Washington University (1997) and her Ph.D. in computational linguistics at the University of Maryland, Linguistics Department and University of Maryland Institute for Advanced Computer Studies (UMIACS) in 2003, under the supervision of Philip Resnik. She was also a postdoctoral research scientist at Stanford University (2003–2005) under the mentorship of Dan Jurafsky, where she was a part of the Stanford NLP Group. == Career == After her postdoc at Stanford, Diab took a position as research scientist (principal investigator) at the Center for Computational Learning Systems (CCLS) in Columbia University, where she was also adjunct professor in the computer science department. In 2013 she joined the George Washington University as an associate professor, where she was promoted to full professor in 2017. Diab is the founder and director of the GW NLP lab CARE4Lang. Diab served as an elected faculty senator at Columbia University for 6 years (2007–2012) and an elected faculty senator at GW (2013–2014). She served the computational linguistics community as elected member, secretary and president of ACL SIGLEX (2005–2016) and elected president of ACL SIGSemitic. She currently serves as the elected VP-elect for ACL SIGDAT. In 2017 Diab joined Amazon AWS AI Deep Learning Group for Human Language Technologies, where she led the AWS Lex project for task oriented dialogue systems for enterprises. A couple of years later, she moved to Facebook AI as a research scientist. In the fall of 2023, she became the director of CMU's Language Technologies Institute -- the first full time director since the passing of its founder Jaime Carbonell. == Research == Diab's research interests include several areas in computational linguistics/natural language processing, like conversational AI, computational lexical semantics, multilingual and cross lingual processing, social media processing with an emphasis on computational socio- pragmatics, information extraction & text analytics, machine translation. Besides this, she also has special interests in Arabic NLP and low resource scenarios. Diab co-established two research trends in the computational linguistics field, computational approaches to linguistic code switching in 2007 and semantic textual similarity in 2010. Diab together with Nizar Habash and Owen Rambow, co-founded CADIM in 2005, a global reference point in Arabic dialect processing. In 2012, Diab together with Eneko Agirre and Johan Bos, brought together two ACL communities SIGLEX and SIGSEM and established the 1st tier conference SEM. == Awards and recognition == Selected as one of top 150 leaders and visionaries in AI nationwide to participate in White House AI Summit in Government, Washington, D.C., US, September 2019 March 2017: 3 Muslim Women in STEM You Should Know About, Teen Vogue, March 2017 May 2017: Behind Every Strong Woman Is...Another Strong Woman: Ten women give thanks to the women who supported them on the way up. Elle, May 2017. Google Faculty Research Award – Tharwa++: Building a multidialectal Arabic Lexical Repository, (PI), 09.2015 –12.2016. Google Faculty Research Award – Nuanced Sentiment and Perspective Analysis for Arabic Social Media Text, (PI), 12.2014 –12.2015 QNRF Best Poster Award – Ossama Obeid, Houda Bouamor, Wajdi Zaghouani, Mahmoud Ghoneim, Abdelati Hawwari, Mona Diab, Kemal Oflazer. (2016) MANDIAC: A Web-based Annotation System For Manual Arabic Diacritization. Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Arabic Corpora and Processing Tools, LREC 2016. Best Paper Award – Aminian, Maryam, Mahmoud Ghoneim, Mona Diab. (2015) Unsupervised False Friend Disambiguation Using Contextual Word Clusters and Parallel Word Alignments. In Proceedings of Workshop 9th Semantics Syntax Statistical Translation, NAACL 2015, Denver CO, US. == Publications == Diab has over 250 publications, and she is an acting editor for several scientific journals. === Selected publications === Semeval-2012 task 6: A pilot on semantic textual similarity. E. Agirre, D. Cer, M. Diab, A. Gonzalez-Agirre. SEM 2012: The First Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics–Volume 1: Proceedings of the main conference and the shared task, and Volume 2: Proceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval 2012) Predictive linguistic features of schizophrenia. ES Kayi, M Diab, L Pauselli, M Compton, G Coppersmith. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.09377 Ideological perspective detection using semantic features. H Elfardy, M Diab, C Callison-Burch – Proceedings of SEM 2015 DeSePtion: Dual sequence prediction and adversarial examples for improved fact-checking. Christopher Hidey, Tuhin Chakrabarty, Tariq Alhindi, Siddharth Varia, Kriste Krstovski, Mona Diab, Smaranda Muresan, 2020 Does Causal Coherence Predict Online Spread of Social Media? Pedram Hosseini, Mona Diab, David A Broniatowski. Proceedings of International Conference on Social Computing, Behavioral-Cultural Modeling and Prediction and Behavior Representation in Modeling and Simulation, 2019. Diversity, Density, and Homogeneity: Quantitative Characteristic Metrics for Text Collections. YA Lai, X Zhu, Y Zhang, M Diab, arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.08529, 2020 Readability of written medicine information materials in Arabic language: expert and consumer evaluation. S Al Aqeel, N Abanmy, A Aldayel, H Al-Khalifa, M Al-Yahya, M Diab. BMC health services research 18 (1), 1–7, 2019 Unsupervised word mapping using structural similarities in monolingual embeddings. H Aldarmaki, M Mohan, M Diab – Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2018 An unsupervised method for word sense tagging using parallel corpora M Diab, P Resnik. Proceedings of ACL 2002 Overview for the first shared task on language identification in code-switched data. Thamar Solorio, Elizabeth Blair, Suraj Maharjan, Steven Bethard, Mona Diab, Mahmoud Ghoneim, Abdelati Hawwari, Fahad AlGhamdi, Julia Hirschberg, Alison Chang, Pascale Fung. Proceedings of the First Workshop on Computational Approaches to Code Switching, 2014 Modeling sentences in the latent space. W Guo, M Diab – ACL 20 12 Task-based evaluation of multiword expressions: a pilot study in statistical machine translation. M Carpuat, M Diab – NAACL-HLT 2010 Rumor detection and classification for twitter data. S Hamidian, MT Diab – arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.08926, 2019 Subgroup detection in ideological discussions. A Abu-Jbara, P Dasigi, M Diab, D Radev – ACL 2012 Madamira: A fast, comprehensive tool for morphological analysis and disambiguation of arabic. A. Pasha, M. Al-Badrashiny, M. Diab, A. El Kholy, R. Eskander, N. Habash, M. Pooleery, O. Rambow, R. Roth. LREC 14, 1094–1101. 2014 Context-Aware Self-Attentive Natural Language Understanding for Task-Oriented Chatbots. A. Gupta, P. Zhang, G. Lalwani, M. Diab. EMNLP 2019 A multitask learning approach for diacritic restoration. S. Alqahtani, A. Mishra, M. Diab. ACL 2020

  Read more →
• 

  Deterministic acyclic finite state automaton

  In computer science, a deterministic acyclic finite state automaton (DAFSA), is a data structure that represents a set of strings, and allows for a query operation that tests whether a given string belongs to the set in time proportional to its length. Algorithms exist to construct and maintain such automata, while keeping them minimal. DAFSA is the rediscovery of a data structure called Directed Acyclic Word Graph (DAWG), although the same name had already been given to a different data structure which is related to suffix automaton. A DAFSA is a special case of a finite state recognizer that takes the form of a directed acyclic graph with a single source vertex (a vertex with no incoming edges), in which each edge of the graph is labeled by a letter or symbol, and in which each vertex has at most one outgoing edge for each possible letter or symbol. The strings represented by the DAFSA are formed by the symbols on paths in the graph from the source vertex to any sink vertex (a vertex with no outgoing edges). In fact, a deterministic finite state automaton is acyclic if and only if it recognizes a finite set of strings. == History == Blumer et al first defined terminology Directed Acyclic Word Graph (DAWG) in 1983. Appel and Jacobsen used the same naming for a different data structure in 1988. Independent of earlier work, Daciuk et al rediscovered the latter data structure in 2000 but called it DAFSA. == Comparison to tries == By allowing the same vertices to be reached by multiple paths, a DAFSA may use significantly fewer vertices than the strongly related trie data structure. Consider, for example, the four English words "tap", "taps", "top", and "tops". A trie for those four words would have 12 vertices, one for each of the strings formed as a prefix of one of these words, or for one of the words followed by the end-of-string marker. However, a DAFSA can represent these same four words using only six vertices vi for 0 ≤ i ≤ 5, and the following edges: an edge from v0 to v1 labeled "t", two edges from v1 to v2 labeled "a" and "o", an edge from v2 to v3 labeled "p", an edge v3 to v4 labeled "s", and edges from v3 and v4 to v5 labeled with the end-of-string marker. There is a tradeoff between memory and functionality, because a standard DAFSA can tell you if a word exists within it, but it cannot point you to auxiliary information about that word, whereas a trie can. The primary difference between DAFSA and trie is the elimination of suffix and infix redundancy in storing strings. The trie eliminates prefix redundancy since all common prefixes are shared between strings, such as between doctors and doctorate the doctor prefix is shared. In a DAFSA common suffixes are also shared, for words that have the same set of possible suffixes as each other. For dictionary sets of common English words, this translates into major memory usage reduction. Because the terminal nodes of a DAFSA can be reached by multiple paths, a DAFSA cannot directly store auxiliary information relating to each path, e.g. a word's frequency in the English language. However, if for each node we store the number of unique paths through that point in the structure, we can use it to retrieve the index of a word, or a word given its index. The auxiliary information can then be stored in an array.

  Read more →
• 

  Eugene Charniak

  Eugene Charniak (June 2, 1946 – June 13, 2023) was a professor of computer Science and cognitive Science at Brown University. He held an A.B. in Physics from the University of Chicago and a Ph.D. from M.I.T. in Computer Science. His research was in the area of language understanding or technologies which relate to it, such as knowledge representation, reasoning under uncertainty, and learning. Since the early 1990s he was interested in statistical techniques for language understanding. His research in this area included work in the subareas of part-of-speech tagging, probabilistic context-free grammar induction, and, more recently, syntactic disambiguation through word statistics, efficient syntactic parsing, and lexical resource acquisition through statistical means. He was a Fellow of the American Association of Artificial Intelligence and was previously a Councilor of the organization. He was also honored with the 2011 Association for Computational Linguistics Lifetime Achievement Award and awarded the 2011 Calvin & Rose G Hoffman Prize. In 2011, he was named a fellow of the Association for Computational Linguistics. In 2015, he won the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) Classic Paper Award for a paper (“Statistical Parsing with a Context-Free Grammar and Word Statistics”) that he presented at the Fourteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence in 1997. == Books == He published six books: Computational Semantics, (with Yorick Wilks), Amsterdam: North-Holland (1976) Artificial Intelligence Programming (now in a second edition) (with Chris Riesbeck, Drew McDermott, and James Meehan), Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates (1980, 1987) Introduction to Artificial Intelligence (with Drew McDermott), Reading MA: Addison-Wesley (1985) Statistical Language Learning, Cambridge: MIT Press (1993) Introduction to Deep Learning, Cambridge: MIT Press (2019) AI & I: An Intellectual History of Artificial Intelligence, Cambridge: MIT Press (2024)

  Read more →
• 

  Personality computing

  Personality computing is a research field related to artificial intelligence and personality psychology that studies personality by means of computational techniques from different sources, including text, multimedia, and social networks. == Overview == Personality computing addresses three main problems involving personality: automatic personality recognition, perception, and synthesis. Automatic personality recognition is the inference of the personality type of target individuals from their digital footprint. Automatic personality perception is the inference of the personality attributed by an observer to a target individual based on some observable behavior. Automatic personality synthesis is the generation of the style or behaviour of artificial personalities in Avatars and virtual agents. Self-assessed personality tests or observer ratings are always exploited as the ground truth for testing and validating the performance of artificial intelligence algorithms for the automatic prediction of personality types. There is a wide variety of personality tests, such as the Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) or the MMPI, but the most used are tests based on the Five Factor Model such as the Revised NEO Personality Inventory. Personality computing can be considered as an extension or complement of Affective computing, where the former focuses on personality traits and the latter on affective states. A further extension of the two fields is Character Computing which combines various character states and traits including but not limited to personality and affect. == History == Personality computing began around 2005 with the pioneering research in personality recognition by Shlomo Argamon and later by François Mairesse. These works showed that personality traits could be inferred with reasonable accuracy from text, such as blogs, self-presentations, and email addresses. In 2008, the concept of "portable personality" for the distributed management of personality profiles has been developed. A few years later, research began in personality recognition and perception from multimodal and social signals, such as recorded meetings and voice calls. In the 2010s, the research focused mainly on personality recognition and perception from social media, helped by the first workshops organized by Fabio Celli. In particular personality was extracted from Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. In the same years, automatic personality synthesis helped improve the coherence of simulated behavior in virtual agents. Scientific works by Michal Kosinski demonstrated the validity of Personality Computing from different digital footprints, in particular from user preferences such as Facebook page likes, showed that machines can recognize personality better than humans and raised a warning against Cambridge Analytica and misuse of this kind of technology. == Applications == Personality computing techniques, in particular personality recognition and perception, have applications in Social media marketing, where they can help reducing the cost of advertising campaigns through psychological targeting.

  Read more →
• 

  AI Pair Programmers: Free vs Paid (2026)

  Trying to pick the best AI pair programmer? An AI pair programmer 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 pair programmer 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 →
• 

  Corpus linguistics

  Corpus linguistics is an empirical method for the study of language by text corpus (plural corpora). Corpora are balanced, often stratified collections of authentic, "real world", text of speech or writing that aim to represent a given linguistic variety. Today, corpora are generally machine-readable data collections. Corpus linguistics proposes that a reliable analysis of a language is more feasible with corpora collected in the field—the natural context ("realia") of that language—with minimal experimental interference. Large collections of text, though corpora may also be small in terms of running words, allow linguists to run quantitative analyses on linguistic concepts that may be difficult to test in a qualitative manner. The text-corpus method uses the body of texts in any natural language to derive the set of abstract rules which govern that language. Those results can be used to explore the relationships between that subject language and other languages which have undergone a similar analysis. The first such corpora were manually derived from source texts, but now that work is automated. Corpora have not only been used for linguistics research, they have been increasingly used to compile dictionaries (starting with The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language in 1969) and reference grammars, with A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, published in 1985, as a first. Experts in the field have differing views about the annotation of a corpus. These views range from John McHardy Sinclair, who advocates minimal annotation so texts speak for themselves, to the Survey of English Usage team (University College, London), who advocate annotation as allowing greater linguistic understanding through rigorous recording. == History == Some of the earliest efforts at grammatical description were based at least in part on corpora of particular religious or cultural significance. For example, Prātiśākhya literature described the sound patterns of Sanskrit as found in the Vedas, and Pāṇini's grammar of classical Sanskrit was based at least in part on analysis of that same corpus. Similarly, the early Arabic grammarians paid particular attention to the language of the Quran. In the Western European tradition, scholars prepared concordances to allow detailed study of the language of the Bible and other canonical texts. === English corpora === A landmark in modern corpus linguistics was the publication of Computational Analysis of Present-Day American English in 1967. Written by Henry Kučera and W. Nelson Francis, the work was based on an analysis of the Brown Corpus, which is a structured and balanced corpus of one million words of American English from the year 1961. The corpus comprises 2000 text samples, from a variety of genres. The Brown Corpus was the first computerized corpus designed for linguistic research. Kučera and Francis subjected the Brown Corpus to a variety of computational analyses and then combined elements of linguistics, language teaching, psychology, statistics, and sociology to create a rich and variegated opus. A further key publication was Randolph Quirk's "Towards a description of English Usage" in 1960 in which he introduced the Survey of English Usage. Quirk's corpus was the first modern corpus to be built with the purpose of representing the whole language. Shortly thereafter, Boston publisher Houghton-Mifflin approached Kučera to supply a million-word, three-line citation base for its new American Heritage Dictionary, the first dictionary compiled using corpus linguistics. The AHD took the innovative step of combining prescriptive elements (how language should be used) with descriptive information (how it actually is used). Other publishers followed suit. The British publisher Collins' COBUILD monolingual learner's dictionary, designed for users learning English as a foreign language, was compiled using the Bank of English. The Survey of English Usage Corpus was used in the development of one of the most important Corpus-based Grammars, which was written by Quirk et al. and published in 1985 as A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. The Brown Corpus has also spawned a number of similarly structured corpora: the LOB Corpus (1960s British English), Kolhapur (Indian English), Wellington (New Zealand English), Australian Corpus of English (Australian English), the Frown Corpus (early 1990s American English), and the FLOB Corpus (1990s British English). Other corpora represent many languages, varieties and modes, and include the International Corpus of English, and the British National Corpus, a 100 million word collection of a range of spoken and written texts, created in the 1990s by a consortium of publishers, universities (Oxford and Lancaster) and the British Library. For contemporary American English, work has stalled on the American National Corpus, but the 400+ million word Corpus of Contemporary American English (1990–present) is now available through a web interface. The first computerized corpus of transcribed spoken language was constructed in 1971 by the Montreal French Project, containing one million words, which inspired Shana Poplack's much larger corpus of spoken French in the Ottawa-Hull area. === Multilingual corpora === In the 1990s, many of the notable early successes on statistical methods in natural-language programming (NLP) occurred in the field of machine translation, due especially to work at IBM Research. These systems were able to take advantage of existing multilingual textual corpora that had been produced by the Parliament of Canada and the European Union as a result of laws calling for the translation of all governmental proceedings into all official languages of the corresponding systems of government. There are corpora in non-European languages as well. For example, the National Institute for Japanese Language and Linguistics in Japan has built a number of corpora of spoken and written Japanese. Sign language corpora have also been created using video data. === Ancient languages corpora === Besides these corpora of living languages, computerized corpora have also been made of collections of texts in ancient languages. An example is the Andersen-Forbes database of the Hebrew Bible, developed since the 1970s, in which every clause is parsed using graphs representing up to seven levels of syntax, and every segment tagged with seven fields of information. The Quranic Arabic Corpus is an annotated corpus for the Classical Arabic language of the Quran. This is a recent project with multiple layers of annotation including morphological segmentation, part-of-speech tagging, and syntactic analysis using dependency grammar. The Digital Corpus of Sanskrit (DCS) is a "Sandhi-split corpus of Sanskrit texts with full morphological and lexical analysis... designed for text-historical research in Sanskrit linguistics and philology." === Corpora from specific fields === Besides pure linguistic inquiry, researchers had begun to apply corpus linguistics to other academic and professional fields, such as the emerging sub-discipline of Law and Corpus Linguistics, which seeks to understand legal texts using corpus data and tools. The DBLP Discovery Dataset concentrates on computer science, containing relevant computer science publications with sentient metadata such as author affiliations, citations, or study fields. A more focused dataset was introduced by NLP Scholar, a combination of papers of the ACL Anthology and Google Scholar metadata. Corpora can also aid in translation efforts or in teaching foreign languages. == Methods == Corpus linguistics has generated a number of research methods, which attempt to trace a path from data to theory. Wallis and Nelson (2001) first introduced what they called the 3A perspective: Annotation, Abstraction and Analysis. Annotation consists of the application of a scheme to texts. Annotations may include structural markup, part-of-speech tagging, parsing, and numerous other representations. Abstraction consists of the translation (mapping) of terms in the scheme to terms in a theoretically motivated model or dataset. Abstraction typically includes linguist-directed search but may include e.g., rule-learning for parsers. Analysis consists of statistically probing, manipulating and generalising from the dataset. Analysis might include statistical evaluations, optimisation of rule-bases or knowledge discovery methods. Most lexical corpora today are part-of-speech-tagged (POS-tagged). However even corpus linguists who work with 'unannotated plain text' inevitably apply some method to isolate salient terms. In such situations annotation and abstraction are combined in a lexical search. The advantage of publishing an annotated corpus is that other users can then perform experiments on the corpus (through corpus managers). Linguists with other interests and differing perspectives than the originators' can exploit this work. By sharing data

  Read more →