AI Data Water

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

  • Showcase Workshop

    Showcase Workshop

    Showcase Workshop, also referred to as Showcase, is a SaaS company that develops a presentation-building application for business use. Users upload files and images to a web platform which generates presentations viewable on a suite of mobile apps. Showcase was founded in 2011. The company’s headquarters are in Wellington, New Zealand. == History == Showcase Workshop was originally developed in response to dynamically changing content being presented on iPads at the 2012 Olympics. After market-testing a beta version of the core application, Showcase Workshop launched commercially in 2012. In 2014 Showcase partnered with Vodafone Global Enterprise. == Product == Users upload pre-existing PDFs, videos, images and Microsoft Office documents to a secure server, building presentations or ‘showcases’ which can then be downloaded via the mobile apps. The presentations are used for mobile sales enablement, training, or operational/health and safety purposes. == Reception == Reviewers have praised the ease of use of Showcase, calling it a “better alternative to developing a native app” and “intuitive”. Criticisms include the lack of differing templates and a lack of complex customisation controls. Showcase was nominated for a Tabby Award in 2014 and won a Tabby Award in 2015 for its Windows app.

    Read more →
  • Localization Industry Standards Association

    Localization Industry Standards Association

    Localization Industry Standards Association or LISA was a Swiss-based trade body concerning the translation of computer software (and associated materials) into multiple natural languages, which existed from 1990 to February 2011. It counted among its members most of the large information technology companies of the period, including Adobe, Cisco, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, McAfee, Nokia, Novell and Xerox. LISA played a significant role in representing its partners at the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), and the TermBase eXchange (TBX) standard developed by LISA was submitted to ISO in 2007 and became ISO 30042:2008. LISA also had a presence at the W3C. A number of the LISA standards are used by the OASIS Open Architecture for XML Authoring and Localization framework. LISA shut down on 28 February 2011, and its website went offline shortly afterwards. In the wake of the closure of LISA, the European Telecommunications Standards Institute started an Industry Specification Group (ISG) for localization. The ISG has five work items: Term-Base eXchange (TBX) / ISO 30042:2008 Translation Memory eXchange (TMX), with GALA Segmentation Rules eXchange (SRX) / ISO/CD 24621) Global information management Metrics eXchange – Volume (GMX-V); Another organization that was formed in response to the closure of LISA is Terminology for Large Organizations (TerminOrgs), a consortium of terminology professionals who promote terminology management best practices.

    Read more →
  • How to Choose an AI Subtitle Generator

    How to Choose an AI Subtitle Generator

    Shopping for the best AI subtitle generator? An AI subtitle generator is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it keeps getting smarter as the underlying models improve. Pricing, accuracy, and the size of the model behind the tool are the three factors that most affect daily usefulness. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI subtitle generator slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. We tested the leading options and ranked them by quality, value, and ease of use.

    Read more →
  • How to Choose an AI Bug Finder

    How to Choose an AI Bug Finder

    Comparing the best AI bug finder? An AI bug finder 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 bug finder 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 →
  • Admissible heuristic

    Admissible heuristic

    In computer science, specifically in algorithms related to pathfinding, a heuristic function is said to be admissible if it never overestimates the cost of reaching the goal, i.e. the cost it estimates to reach the goal is not higher than the lowest possible cost from the current point in the path. In other words, it should act as a lower bound. It is related to the concept of consistent heuristics. While all consistent heuristics are admissible, not all admissible heuristics are consistent. == Search algorithms == An admissible heuristic is used to estimate the cost of reaching the goal state in an informed search algorithm. In order for a heuristic to be admissible to the search problem, the estimated cost must always be lower than or equal to the actual cost of reaching the goal state. The search algorithm uses the admissible heuristic to find an estimated optimal path to the goal state from the current node. For example, in A search the evaluation function (where n {\displaystyle n} is the current node) is: f ( n ) = g ( n ) + h ( n ) {\displaystyle f(n)=g(n)+h(n)} where f ( n ) {\displaystyle f(n)} = the evaluation function. g ( n ) {\displaystyle g(n)} = the cost from the start node to the current node h ( n ) {\displaystyle h(n)} = estimated cost from current node to goal. h ( n ) {\displaystyle h(n)} is calculated using the heuristic function. With a non-admissible heuristic, the A algorithm could overlook the optimal solution to a search problem due to an overestimation in f ( n ) {\displaystyle f(n)} . == Formulation == n {\displaystyle n} is a node h {\displaystyle h} is a heuristic h ( n ) {\displaystyle h(n)} is cost indicated by h {\displaystyle h} to reach a goal from n {\displaystyle n} h ∗ ( n ) {\displaystyle h^{}(n)} is the optimal cost to reach a goal from n {\displaystyle n} h ( n ) {\displaystyle h(n)} is admissible if, ∀ n {\displaystyle \forall n} h ( n ) ≤ h ∗ ( n ) {\displaystyle h(n)\leq h^{}(n)} == Construction == An admissible heuristic can be derived from a relaxed version of the problem, or by information from pattern databases that store exact solutions to subproblems of the problem, or by using inductive learning methods. == Examples == Two different examples of admissible heuristics apply to the fifteen puzzle problem: Hamming distance Manhattan distance The Hamming distance is the total number of misplaced tiles. It is clear that this heuristic is admissible since the total number of moves to order the tiles correctly is at least the number of misplaced tiles (each tile not in place must be moved at least once). The cost (number of moves) to the goal (an ordered puzzle) is at least the Hamming distance of the puzzle. The Manhattan distance of a puzzle is defined as: h ( n ) = ∑ all tiles d i s t a n c e ( tile, correct position ) {\displaystyle h(n)=\sum _{\text{all tiles}}{\mathit {distance}}({\text{tile, correct position}})} Consider the puzzle below in which the player wishes to move each tile such that the numbers are ordered. The Manhattan distance is an admissible heuristic in this case because every tile will have to be moved at least the number of spots in between itself and its correct position. The subscripts show the Manhattan distance for each tile. The total Manhattan distance for the shown puzzle is: h ( n ) = 3 + 1 + 0 + 1 + 2 + 3 + 3 + 4 + 3 + 2 + 4 + 4 + 4 + 1 + 1 = 36 {\displaystyle h(n)=3+1+0+1+2+3+3+4+3+2+4+4+4+1+1=36} == Optimality proof == If an admissible heuristic is used in an algorithm that, per iteration, progresses only the path of lowest evaluation (current cost + heuristic) of several candidate paths, terminates the moment its exploration reaches the goal and, crucially, closes all optimal paths before terminating (something that's possible with A search algorithm if special care isn't taken), then this algorithm can only terminate on an optimal path. To see why, consider the following proof by contradiction: Assume such an algorithm managed to terminate on a path T with a true cost Ttrue greater than the optimal path S with true cost Strue. This means that before terminating, the evaluated cost of T was less than or equal to the evaluated cost of S (or else S would have been picked). Denote these evaluated costs Teval and Seval respectively. The above can be summarized as follows, Strue < Ttrue Teval ≤ Seval If our heuristic is admissible it follows that at this penultimate step Teval = Ttrue because any increase on the true cost by the heuristic on T would be inadmissible and the heuristic cannot be negative. On the other hand, an admissible heuristic would require that Seval ≤ Strue which combined with the above inequalities gives us Teval < Ttrue and more specifically Teval ≠ Ttrue. As Teval and Ttrue cannot be both equal and unequal our assumption must have been false and so it must be impossible to terminate on a more costly than optimal path. As an example, let us say we have costs as follows:(the cost above/below a node is the heuristic, the cost at an edge is the actual cost) 0 10 0 100 0 START ---- O ----- GOAL | | 0| |100 | | O ------- O ------ O 100 1 100 1 100 So clearly we would start off visiting the top middle node, since the expected total cost, i.e. f ( n ) {\displaystyle f(n)} , is 10 + 0 = 10 {\displaystyle 10+0=10} . Then the goal would be a candidate, with f ( n ) {\displaystyle f(n)} equal to 10 + 100 + 0 = 110 {\displaystyle 10+100+0=110} . Then we would clearly pick the bottom nodes one after the other, followed by the updated goal, since they all have f ( n ) {\displaystyle f(n)} lower than the f ( n ) {\displaystyle f(n)} of the current goal, i.e. their f ( n ) {\displaystyle f(n)} is 100 , 101 , 102 , 102 {\displaystyle 100,101,102,102} . So even though the goal was a candidate, we could not pick it because there were still better paths out there. This way, an admissible heuristic can ensure optimality. However, note that although an admissible heuristic can guarantee final optimality, it is not necessarily efficient.

    Read more →
  • Models of DNA evolution

    Models of DNA evolution

    A number of different Markov models of DNA sequence evolution have been proposed. These substitution models differ in terms of the parameters used to describe the rates at which one nucleotide replaces another during evolution. These models are frequently used in molecular phylogenetic analyses. In particular, they are used during the calculation of likelihood of a tree (in Bayesian and maximum likelihood approaches to tree estimation) and they are used to estimate the evolutionary distance between sequences from the observed differences between the sequences. == Introduction == These models are phenomenological descriptions of the evolution of DNA as a string of four discrete states. These Markov models do not explicitly depict the mechanism of mutation nor the action of natural selection. Rather they describe the relative rates of different changes. For example, mutational biases and purifying selection favoring conservative changes are probably both responsible for the relatively high rate of transitions compared to transversions in evolving sequences. However, the Kimura (K80) model described below only attempts to capture the effect of both forces in a parameter that reflects the relative rate of transitions to transversions. Evolutionary analyses of sequences are conducted on a wide variety of time scales. Thus, it is convenient to express these models in terms of the instantaneous rates of change between different states (the Q matrices below). If we are given a starting (ancestral) state at one position, the model's Q matrix and a branch length expressing the expected number of changes to have occurred since the ancestor, then we can derive the probability of the descendant sequence having each of the four states. The mathematical details of this transformation from rate-matrix to probability matrix are described in the mathematics of substitution models section of the substitution model page. By expressing models in terms of the instantaneous rates of change we can avoid estimating a large numbers of parameters for each branch on a phylogenetic tree (or each comparison if the analysis involves many pairwise sequence comparisons). The models described on this page describe the evolution of a single site within a set of sequences. They are often used for analyzing the evolution of an entire locus by making the simplifying assumption that different sites evolve independently and are identically distributed. This assumption may be justifiable if the sites can be assumed to be evolving neutrally. If the primary effect of natural selection on the evolution of the sequences is to constrain some sites, then models of among-site rate-heterogeneity can be used. This approach allows one to estimate only one matrix of relative rates of substitution, and another set of parameters describing the variance in the total rate of substitution across sites. == DNA evolution as a continuous-time Markov chain == === Continuous-time Markov chains === Continuous-time Markov chains have the usual transition matrices which are, in addition, parameterized by time, t {\displaystyle t} . Specifically, if E 1 , E 2 , E 3 , E 4 {\displaystyle E_{1},E_{2},E_{3},E_{4}} are the states, then the transition matrix P ( t ) = ( P i j ( t ) ) {\displaystyle P(t)={\big (}P_{ij}(t){\big )}} where each individual entry, P i j ( t ) {\displaystyle P_{ij}(t)} refers to the probability that state E i {\displaystyle E_{i}} will change to state E j {\displaystyle E_{j}} in time t {\displaystyle t} . Example: We would like to model the substitution process in DNA sequences (i.e. Jukes–Cantor, Kimura, etc.) in a continuous-time fashion. The corresponding transition matrices will look like: P ( t ) = ( p A A ( t ) p A G ( t ) p A C ( t ) p A T ( t ) p G A ( t ) p G G ( t ) p G C ( t ) p G T ( t ) p C A ( t ) p C G ( t ) p C C ( t ) p C T ( t ) p T A ( t ) p T G ( t ) p T C ( t ) p T T ( t ) ) {\displaystyle P(t)={\begin{pmatrix}p_{\mathrm {AA} }(t)&p_{\mathrm {AG} }(t)&p_{\mathrm {AC} }(t)&p_{\mathrm {AT} }(t)\\p_{\mathrm {GA} }(t)&p_{\mathrm {GG} }(t)&p_{\mathrm {GC} }(t)&p_{\mathrm {GT} }(t)\\p_{\mathrm {CA} }(t)&p_{\mathrm {CG} }(t)&p_{\mathrm {CC} }(t)&p_{\mathrm {CT} }(t)\\p_{\mathrm {TA} }(t)&p_{\mathrm {TG} }(t)&p_{\mathrm {TC} }(t)&p_{\mathrm {TT} }(t)\end{pmatrix}}} where the top-left and bottom-right 2 × 2 blocks correspond to transition probabilities and the top-right and bottom-left 2 × 2 blocks corresponds to transversion probabilities. Assumption: If at some time t 0 {\displaystyle t_{0}} , the Markov chain is in state E i {\displaystyle E_{i}} , then the probability that at time t 0 + t {\displaystyle t_{0}+t} , it will be in state E j {\displaystyle E_{j}} depends only upon i {\displaystyle i} , j {\displaystyle j} and t {\displaystyle t} . This then allows us to write that probability as p i j ( t ) {\displaystyle p_{ij}(t)} . Theorem: Continuous-time transition matrices satisfy: P ( t + τ ) = P ( t ) P ( τ ) {\displaystyle P(t+\tau )=P(t)P(\tau )} Note: There is here a possible confusion between two meanings of the word transition. (i) In the context of Markov chains, transition is the general term for the change between two states. (ii) In the context of nucleotide changes in DNA sequences, transition is a specific term for the exchange between either the two purines (A ↔ G) or the two pyrimidines (C ↔ T) (for additional details, see the article about transitions in genetics). By contrast, an exchange between one purine and one pyrimidine is called a transversion. === Deriving the dynamics of substitution === Consider a DNA sequence of fixed length m evolving in time by base replacement. Assume that the processes followed by the m sites are Markovian independent, identically distributed and that the process is constant over time. For a particular site, let E = { A , G , C , T } {\displaystyle {\mathcal {E}}=\{A,\,G,\,C,\,T\}} be the set of possible states for the site, and p ( t ) = ( p A ( t ) , p G ( t ) , p C ( t ) , p T ( t ) ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {p} (t)=(p_{A}(t),\,p_{G}(t),\,p_{C}(t),\,p_{T}(t))} their respective probabilities at time t {\displaystyle t} . For two distinct x , y ∈ E {\displaystyle x,y\in {\mathcal {E}}} , let μ x y {\displaystyle \mu _{xy}\ } be the transition rate from state x {\displaystyle x} to state y {\displaystyle y} . Similarly, for any x {\displaystyle x} , let the total rate of change from x {\displaystyle x} be μ x = ∑ y ≠ x μ x y . {\displaystyle \mu _{x}=\sum _{y\neq x}\mu _{xy}\,.} The changes in the probability distribution p A ( t ) {\displaystyle p_{A}(t)} for small increments of time Δ t {\displaystyle \Delta t} are given by p A ( t + Δ t ) = p A ( t ) − p A ( t ) μ A Δ t + ∑ x ≠ A p x ( t ) μ x A Δ t . {\displaystyle p_{A}(t+\Delta t)=p_{A}(t)-p_{A}(t)\mu _{A}\Delta t+\sum _{x\neq A}p_{x}(t)\mu _{xA}\Delta t\,.} In other words, (in frequentist language), the frequency of A {\displaystyle A} 's at time t + Δ t {\displaystyle t+\Delta t} is equal to the frequency at time t {\displaystyle t} minus the frequency of the lost A {\displaystyle A} 's plus the frequency of the newly created A {\displaystyle A} 's. Similarly for the probabilities p G ( t ) {\displaystyle p_{G}(t)} , p C ( t ) {\displaystyle p_{C}(t)} and p T ( t ) {\displaystyle p_{T}(t)} . These equations can be written compactly as p ( t + Δ t ) = p ( t ) + p ( t ) Q Δ t , {\displaystyle \mathbf {p} (t+\Delta t)=\mathbf {p} (t)+\mathbf {p} (t)Q\Delta t\,,} where Q = ( − μ A μ A G μ A C μ A T μ G A − μ G μ G C μ G T μ C A μ C G − μ C μ C T μ T A μ T G μ T C − μ T ) {\displaystyle Q={\begin{pmatrix}-\mu _{A}&\mu _{AG}&\mu _{AC}&\mu _{AT}\\\mu _{GA}&-\mu _{G}&\mu _{GC}&\mu _{GT}\\\mu _{CA}&\mu _{CG}&-\mu _{C}&\mu _{CT}\\\mu _{TA}&\mu _{TG}&\mu _{TC}&-\mu _{T}\end{pmatrix}}} is known as the rate matrix. Note that, by definition, the sum of the entries in each row of Q {\displaystyle Q} is equal to zero. It follows that p ′ ( t ) = p ( t ) Q . {\displaystyle \mathbf {p} '(t)=\mathbf {p} (t)Q\,.} For a stationary process, where Q {\displaystyle Q} does not depend on time t, this differential equation can be solved. First, P ( t ) = exp ⁡ ( t Q ) , {\displaystyle P(t)=\exp(tQ),} where exp ⁡ ( t Q ) {\displaystyle \exp(tQ)} denotes the exponential of the matrix t Q {\displaystyle tQ} . As a result, p ( t ) = p ( 0 ) P ( t ) = p ( 0 ) exp ⁡ ( t Q ) . {\displaystyle \mathbf {p} (t)=\mathbf {p} (0)P(t)=\mathbf {p} (0)\exp(tQ)\,.} === Ergodicity === If the Markov chain is irreducible, i.e. if it is always possible to go from a state x {\displaystyle x} to a state y {\displaystyle y} (possibly in several steps), then it is also ergodic. As a result, it has a unique stationary distribution π = { π x , x ∈ E } {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\pi }}=\{\pi _{x},\,x\in {\mathcal {E}}\}} , where π x {\displaystyle \pi _{x}} corresponds to the proportion of time spent in state x {\displaystyle x} after the Markov chain has run for an infinite amount of time. In DNA evo

    Read more →
  • Heikki Mannila

    Heikki Mannila

    Heikki Olavi Mannila (born 4 January 1960 in Espoo) is a Finnish computer scientist, the president of the Academy of Finland. Mannila earned his Ph.D. in 1985 from the University of Helsinki under the supervision of Esko Ukkonen and for many years he was a professor at the University of Helsinki himself. From 2004 to 2008 he was Academy Professor at the Academy of Finland. He became Vice President for Academic Affairs at Aalto University in 2009, and was appointed by the Finnish government as president of the Academy of Finland for a term lasting from 2012 to 2017. The appointment was renewed for the period 2017–2022. Mannila is known for his research in data mining, and has published highly cited papers on association rule learning and sequence mining. With David Hand and Padhraic Smyth, he is the co-author of the book Principles of Data Mining (MIT Press, 2001). Heikki Mannila is son to the professor Elina Haavio-Mannila.

    Read more →
  • Human-readable medium and data

    Human-readable medium and data

    In computing, a human-readable medium or human-readable format is any encoding of data or information that can be naturally read by humans, resulting in human-readable data. It is often encoded as ASCII or Unicode text, rather than as binary data. In most contexts, the alternative to a human-readable representation is a machine-readable format or medium of data primarily designed for reading by electronic, mechanical or optical devices, or computers. For example, Universal Product Code (UPC) barcodes are very difficult to read for humans, but very effective and reliable with the proper equipment, whereas the strings of numerals that commonly accompany the label are the human-readable form of the barcode information. Since any type of data encoding can be parsed by a suitably programmed computer, the decision to use binary encoding rather than text encoding is usually made to conserve storage space. Encoding data in a binary format typically requires fewer bytes of storage and increases efficiency of access (input and output) by eliminating format parsing or conversion. With the advent of standardized, highly structured markup languages, such as Extensible Markup Language (XML), the decreasing costs of data storage, and faster and cheaper data communication networks, compromises between human-readability and machine-readability are now more common-place than they were in the past. This has led to humane markup languages and modern configuration file formats that are far easier for humans to read. In addition, these structured representations can be compressed very effectively for transmission or storage. Human-readable protocols greatly reduce the cost of debugging. Various organizations have standardized the definition of human-readable and machine-readable data and how they are applied in their respective fields of application, e.g., the Universal Postal Union. Often the term human-readable is also used to describe shorter names or strings, that are easier to comprehend or to remember than long, complex syntax notations, such as some Uniform Resource Locator strings. Occasionally "human-readable" is used to describe ways of encoding an arbitrary integer into a long series of English words. Compared to decimal or other compact binary-to-text encoding systems, English words are easier for humans to read, remember, and type in.

    Read more →
  • Randonautica

    Randonautica

    Randonautica (a portmanteau of "random" + "nautica") is an app launched on February 22, 2020 founded by Auburn Salcedo and Joshua Lengfelder. It randomly generates coordinates that encourages the user to explore their local area and report what is found. According to its creators, the app is "an attractor of strange things," letting one choose specific coordinates based on a specific theme. It gained controversy after a report of two teenagers coincidentally finding a corpse while using the application. == Overview == The app, which creators claim to be inspired by chaos theory and Guy Debord's Theory of the Dérive, offers its users three types of coordinates to choose from: an attractor, a void, or an anomaly. The app has a cult following on YouTube and TikTok and there is a subreddit made by the creators for users of the app. == History == 29-year-old circus performer Joshua Lengfelder discovered a bot called Fatum Project in a fringe science chat group on Telegram in January 2019. According to The New York Times, "He absorbed the project’s theories about how random exploration could break people out of their predetermined realities, and how people could influence random outcomes with their minds." Lengfelder then created a Telegram bot using Fatum Project's code, generating coordinates. He then created the subreddit r/randonauts in March. In October, developer Simon Nishi McCorkindale made the bot's webpage. With the help of Auburn Salcedo, chief executive of a TV agency, both created Randonauts LLC. Salcedo became the chief operating officer while Lengfelder was the CEO. The app, called Randonautica, was launched on February 22, 2020. Later the same year the app and back-end got completely overhauled by a new team of developers and got a more visual and friendlier design and logo. In April 2022 Lengfelder exited Randonauts LLC and Auburn Salcedo became CEO. == Reception == The app has as many as 10.8 million users as of July 2020, gaining popularity amid the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States as restrictions have been lightened. Emma Chamberlain made a YouTube video about the app that helped increase its following. i-D reported that the hashtag #randonautica has gained 176.5 million views on TikTok, although it has not marketed itself yet. === Controversy === With the app's popularity, users started reporting coincidences which many find unsettling. The majority of reports were from TikTok and Reddit, as well as Telegram. The most notable controversy involved a group of people heading to a beach in Duwamish Head, Puget Sound, West Seattle per the app, where they found a bag with two dead bodies, a 27-year-old male and a 36-year-old female, as reported by the Seattle Police homicide detectives. In August 2020, police arrested and charged their landlord, Michael Lee Dudley, in connection with the murders. In March 2021, Dudley was denied bail while other people were under suspicion of aiding Dudley in the dismemberment and disposal of the bodies, but no one else had been charged. This has caused speculation that the app has an intended, puzzle-like theme. However, Lengfelder stated that it is "a shocking coincidence." Salcedo called the videos fake, and that "It’s so hard to manage, because people are really taking creative liberties after seeing how much traction the app is getting in that fear factor." In 2022, Michael Dudley was convicted of second degree murder for killing both victims, who were identified as Jessica Lewis and Austin Wenner. He was sentenced to 46 years in prison the following year. In their questions page, Randonautica's creators have said that if the app generates coordinates inside a private property, it is a violation of their terms and conditions to trespass. In addition, Randonautica has also received allegations that the app is used for human trafficking, which its creators have denied, saying that data collected by the app are anonymous. It also ensured that the app is not designed to violate religious customs, saying that "the app is simply a tool. Just as a knife can be used either to prepare dinner or to cut somebody."

    Read more →
  • Is an AI Bug Finder Worth It in 2026?

    Is an AI Bug Finder Worth It in 2026?

    In search of the best AI bug finder? An AI bug finder is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it turns a rough idea into a polished result in seconds. When choosing one, weigh output quality, pricing, export formats, and how well it fits the tools you already use. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI bug finder 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 →
  • Michael L. Littman

    Michael L. Littman

    Michael Lederman Littman (born August 30, 1966) is a computer scientist, researcher, educator, and author. His research interests focus on reinforcement learning. He is currently a University Professor of Computer Science at Brown University, where he has taught since 2012. As of July 2025, he is also the university’s inaugural Associate Provost for Artificial Intelligence. == Career == Before graduate school, Littman worked with Thomas Landauer at Bellcore and was granted a patent for one of the earliest systems for cross-language information retrieval. Littman received his Ph.D. in computer science from Brown University in 1996. From 1996 to 1999, he was a professor at Duke University. During his time at Duke, he worked on an automated crossword solver PROVERB, which won an Outstanding Paper Award in 1999 from AAAI and competed in the American Crossword Puzzle Tournament. From 2000 to 2002, he worked at AT&T. From 2002 to 2012, he was a professor at Rutgers University; he chaired the department from 2009-12. In Summer 2012 he returned to Brown University as a full professor. He has also taught at Georgia Institute of Technology, where he was listed as an adjunct professor. Littman served as the Division Director for Information and Intelligent Systems (the AI division) at the National Science Foundation from 2022-2025. After serving a term, he returned to Brown University as their first Associate Provost for Artificial Intelligence where he coordinates the intersection of AI with research, teaching, operations, policy, and communication at the university level. == Research == Littman's research interests are varied but have focused mostly on reinforcement learning and related fields, particularly, in machine learning more generally, game theory, computer networking, partially observable Markov decision process solving, computer solving of analogy problems and other areas. He is also interested in computing education more broadly and has authored a book on programming for everyone. == Leadership and Service == Littman has chaired the panel for The One Hundred‑Year Study on Artificial Intelligence (AI100) 2021 Report and will chair the standing committee for the 2026 report. During his time at the National Science Foundation, he co-led the development of the 2023 National Strategic Artificial Intelligence Research and Development Strategic Plan. == Personal Notes == Littman is also known for his playful approach to communication. He has produced multiple education and parody videos (for example a machine-learning version of Michael Jackson’s Thriller with his oft-collaborator Charles Lee Isbell, Jr.) as part of his teaching outreach. Among his hobbies, he has been noted riding an electric unicycle to his office at the NSF. == Awards == Elected as an ACM Fellow in 2018 for "contributions to the design and analysis of sequential decision-making algorithms in artificial intelligence". Winner of the IFAAMAS Influential Paper Award (2014) Winner of the AAAI “Shakey” Award for Overfitting: Machine Learning Music Video (2014) Elected as a AAAI Fellow in 2010 for "significant contributions to the fields of reinforcement learning, decision making under uncertainty, and statistical language applications". Winner of the AAAI “Shakey” Award for Short Video for Aibo Ingenuity (2007) Winner of the Warren I. Susman Award for Excellence in Teaching at Rutgers (2011) Winner of the Robert B. Cox Award at Duke (1999) Winner of the AAAI Outstanding Paper Award (1999)

    Read more →
  • Vlado Keselj

    Vlado Keselj

    Vlado Keselj (Vlado Kešelj) is a Serbian-Canadian computer scientist known for his research in natural language processing and authorship attribution. He is a professor at Dalhousie University. == Education == As a high school student in Yugoslavia, Keselj competed in the 1987 International Mathematical Olympiad, earning a bronze medal. He earned his Ph.D. in 2002 at the University of Waterloo, with the dissertation Modular Stochastic HPSGs for Question Answering supervised by Nick Cercone. == Awards == Vlado Keselj is a recipient of the 2019 CAIAC Distinguished Service Award, awarded by the Canadian Artificial Intelligence Association (CAIAC). == Selected publications == Kešelj, V., Peng, F., Cercone, N., & Thomas, C. (2003, August). N-gram-based author profiles for authorship attribution. In Proceedings of the Conference of the Pacific Association for Computational Linguistics, PACLING 2003 (Vol. 3, pp. 255–264).

    Read more →
  • Artificial Inventor Project

    Artificial Inventor Project

    The Artificial Inventor Project (AIP) is a global legal initiative headed by Professor Ryan Abbott dedicated to pursuing intellectual property (IP) rights for inventions and creative works generated autonomously by artificial intelligence (AI) systems without traditional human inventorship or authorship. The project coordinates a series of pro bono test cases worldwide, aiming to prompt law reform and public debate on how IP law should accommodate non-human creators. == History == In 2019, AIP filed patent applications in multiple jurisdictions, including the United States, United Kingdom, European Patent Office, Australia, Switzerland, and South Africa, naming the AI system DABUS (Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience), created by Stephen Thaler, as the inventor. The aim was to challenge legal norms that require inventors to be natural persons and highlight pressing policy questions about AI-generated innovation and IP regimes. == Legal proceedings by jurisdiction == === Australia === In July 2021, a Federal Court of Australia judge (Beach J) ruled that AI can be considered an inventor under the Patents Act 1990, ordering IP Australia to reinstate the relevant patent. However, the full court then overturned this ruling on appeal and denied further review. === European Patent Office === The EPO Board of Appeal determined in 2022 that only a human inventor may be named, rendering DABUS‑based applications unacceptable. === South Africa === In 2021, a patent was granted listing DABUS as the inventor. As South Africa’s procedural system does not involve substantive inventorship review, the grant proceeded on formal grounds alone. === Switzerland === On 26 June 2025, the Swiss Federal Administrative Court ruled that artificial intelligence systems such as DABUS cannot be listed as inventors on patent applications. The court upheld the existing practice of the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property (IPI), affirming that only natural persons may be recognized as inventors under Swiss patent law. === United Kingdom === In December 2023, the UK Supreme Court unanimously held that AI systems cannot be legally recognized as inventors, affirming that "an inventor must be a person" under current British law. === United States === In Thaler v. Hirshfeld (2021), a U.S. federal court agreed with the USPTO that inventors must be natural persons, rejecting the DABUS application and setting a precedent consistent with existing statute and administrative policy. == Criticism and impact == The project has fueled substantial discourse. Critics caution that allowing AI inventorship may complicate notions of accountability and ownership. Proponents argue that legal recognition must evolve to avoid disincentivizing innovation produced by AI and to maintain honesty about the true source of invention.

    Read more →
  • METEO System

    METEO System

    The METEO System is a machine translation system specifically designed for the translation of the weather forecasts issued daily by Environment Canada. The system was used from 1981 to 30 September 2001 by Environment Canada to translate forecasts issued in French in the province of Quebec into English and those issued in English in other Canadian provinces into French. Since then, a competitor program has replaced METEO System after an open governmental bid. The system was developed by John Chandioux and was often mentioned as one of the few success stories in the field of machine translation. == History == The METEO System was in operational use at Environment Canada from 1982 to 2001. It stems from a prototype developed in 1975–76 by the TAUM Group, known as TAUM-METEO. The initial motivation to develop that prototype was that a junior translator came to TAUM to ask for help in translating weather bulletins at Environment Canada. Since all official communications emanating from the Canadian government must be available in French and English, because of the Official Languages Act of 1969, and weather bulletins represent a large amount of translation in real time, junior translators had to spend several months producing first draft translations, which were then revised by seniors. That was a difficult and tedious job, because of the specificities of the English and French sublanguages used, and not very rewarding, as the lifetime of a bulletin is only 4 hours. TAUM proposed to build a prototype MT system, and Environment Canada agreed to fund the project. A prototype was ready after a few months, with basic integration in the workflow of translation (source and target bulletins travelled over telex lines at the time and MT happened on a mainframe computer). The first version of the system (METEO 1) went into operation on a Control Data CDC 7600 supercomputer in March 1977. Chandioux then left the TAUM group to manage its operation and improve it, while the TAUM group embarked on a different project (TAUM-aviation, 1977–81). Benoit Thouin made improvements to the initial prototype over the subsequent year, and turned it into an operational system. After three years, METEO 1 had demonstrated the feasibility of microcomputer-based machine translation to the satisfaction of the Canadian government's Translation Bureau of Public Works and Government Services Canada. METEO 1 was formally adopted in 1981, replacing the junior translators in the workflow. Because of the need for high-quality translation, the revision step, done by senior translators, was maintained. The quality, measured as the percentage of edit operations (inserting or deleting a word counts as 1, replacing as 2) on the MT results, reached 85% in 1985. Until that time, the MT part was still implemented as a sequence of Q-systems. The Q-systems formalism is a rule-based SLLP (Specialized Language for Linguistic Programming) invented by Alain Colmerauer in 1967 as he was a postdoc coopérant at the TAUM group. He later invented the Prolog language in 1972 after returning to France and becoming a university professor in Marseille-Luminy. As the engine of the Q-systems is highly non-deterministic, and the manipulated data structures are in some ways too simple, without any types such as string or number, Chandioux encountered limitations in his efforts to raise translation quality and lower computation time to the point he could run it on microcomputers. In 1981, Chandioux created a new SLLP, or metalanguage for linguistic applications, based on the same basic algorithmic ideas as the Q-systems, but more deterministic, and offering typed labels on tree nodes. Following the advice of Bernard Vauquois and Colmerauer, he created GramR, and developed it for microcomputers. In 1982, he could start developing in GramR a new system for translating the weather bulletins on a high-end Cromemco microcomputer. METEO 2 went into operation in 1983. The software then ran in 48Kb of central memory with a 5Mb hard disk for paging. METEO 2 was the first MT application to run on a microcomputer. In 1985, the system had nothing left of the initial prototype, and was officially renamed METEO. It translated about 20 million words per year from English into French, and 10 million words from French into English, with a quality of 97%. Typically, it took 4 minutes for a bulletin in English to be sent from Winnipeg and come back in French after MT and human revision. In 1996, Chandioux developed a special version of his system (METEO 96) which was used to translate the weather forecasts (different kinds of bulletins) issued by the US National Weather Service during the 1996 Summer Olympics in Atlanta. The last known version of the system, METEO 5, dates from 1997 and ran on an IBM PC network under Windows NT. It translated 10 pages per second, but was able to fit into a 1.44Mb floppy disk.

    Read more →
  • Robert Wilensky

    Robert Wilensky

    Robert Wilensky (26 March 1951 – 15 March 2013) was an American computer scientist and professor at the UC Berkeley School of Information, with his main focus of research in artificial intelligence. == Academic career == In 1971, Wilensky received his bachelor's degree in mathematics from Yale University, and in 1978, a Ph.D. in computer science from the same institution. After finishing his thesis, "Understanding Goal-Based Stories", Wilensky joined the faculty from the EECS Department of UC Berkeley. In 1986, he worked as the doctoral advisor of Peter Norvig, who then later published the standard textbook of the field: Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. From 1993 to 1997, Wilensky was the Berkeley Computer Science Division Chair. During this time, he also served as director of the Berkeley Cognitive Science Program, director of the Berkeley Artificial Intelligence Research Project, and board member of the International Computer Science Institute. In 1997, he became a fellow of the Association for Computing Machinery "for research contributions to the areas of natural language processing and digital libraries as well as outstanding leadership in Computer Science." Furthermore, he also was a Fellow of the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence. He retired from faculty in 2007 and died on Friday, March 15, 2013, of a bacterial infection at the Alta Bates Summit Medical Center. Wilensky was married to Ann Danforth and he is survived by her and their two children, Avi and Eli Wilensky == Research == Throughout his career, Wilensky authored and co-authored over 60 scholarly articles and technical reports on AI, natural language processing, and information dissemination. In addition to his numerous technical publications, Wilensky also published two books on the programming language LISP, LISPcraft and Common LISPcraft, and had almost completed another book manuscript when he suffered a cardiac arrest and stopped writing. Among his publications are: R. Wilensky, (1986-09-17). Common LISPcraft. W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 9780393955446. T. A. Phelps and R. Wilensky, "Toward active, extensible, networked documents: Multivalent architecture and applications," in Proc. 1st ACM Intl. Conf. on Digital Libraries, E. A. Fox and G. Marchionini, Eds., New York, NY: ACM Press, 1996, pp. 100–108. J. Traupman and R. Wilensky, "Experiments in Improving Unsupervised Word Sense Disambiguation," University of California, Berkeley, Department of EECS, Computer Science Division, Tech. Rep. 03–1227, Feb. 2003. R. Wilensky, Planning and Understanding: A Computational Approach to Human Reasoning, Advanced Book Program, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1983. R. Wilensky, "Understanding Goal-Based Stories," Yale University, Sep. 1978. B. Kahn and R. Wilensky, "A Framework for Distributed Digital Object Services", May 1995.

    Read more →