In search of the best AI headshot generator? An AI headshot generator 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 headshot generator slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. Below we compare features, pricing, and real output so you can choose with confidence.
Audio inpainting
Audio inpainting (also known as audio interpolation) is an audio restoration task which deals with the reconstruction of missing or corrupted portions of a digital audio signal. Inpainting techniques are employed when parts of the audio have been lost due to various factors such as transmission errors, data corruption or errors during recording. The goal of audio inpainting is to fill in the gaps (i.e., the missing portions) in the audio signal seamlessly, making the reconstructed portions indistinguishable from the original content and avoiding the introduction of audible distortions or alterations. Many techniques have been proposed to solve the audio inpainting problem and this is usually achieved by analyzing the temporal and spectral information surrounding each missing portion of the considered audio signal. Classic methods employ statistical models or digital signal processing algorithms to predict and synthesize the missing or damaged sections. Recent solutions, instead, take advantage of deep learning models, thanks to the growing trend of exploiting data-driven methods in the context of audio restoration. Depending on the extent of the lost information, the inpainting task can be divided in three categories. Short inpainting refers to the reconstruction of few milliseconds (approximately less than 10) of missing signal, that occurs in the case of short distortions such as clicks or clipping. In this case, the goal of the reconstruction is to recover the lost information exactly. In long inpainting instead, with gaps in the order of hundreds of milliseconds or even seconds, this goal becomes unrealistic, since restoration techniques cannot rely on local information. Therefore, besides providing a coherent reconstruction, the algorithms need to generate new information that has to be semantically compatible with the surrounding context (i.e., the audio signal surrounding the gaps). The case of medium duration gaps lays between short and long inpainting. It refers to the reconstruction of tens of millisecond of missing data, a scale where the non-stationary characteristic of audio already becomes important. == Definition == Consider a digital audio signal x {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} } . A corrupted version of x {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} } , which is the audio signal presenting missing gaps to be reconstructed, can be defined as x ~ = m ∘ x {\displaystyle \mathbf {\tilde {x}} =\mathbf {m} \circ \mathbf {x} } , where m {\displaystyle \mathbf {m} } is a binary mask encoding the reliable or missing samples of x {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} } , and ∘ {\displaystyle \circ } represents the element-wise product. Audio inpainting aims at finding x ^ {\displaystyle \mathbf {\hat {x}} } (i.e., the reconstruction), which is an estimation of x {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} } . This is an ill-posed inverse problem, which is characterized by a non-unique set of solutions. For this reason, similarly to the formulation used for the inpainting problem in other domains, the reconstructed audio signal can be found through an optimization problem that is formally expressed as x ^ ∗ = argmin X ^ L ( m ∘ x ^ , x ~ ) + R ( x ^ ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {\hat {x}} ^{}={\underset {\hat {\mathbf {X} }}{\text{argmin}}}~L(\mathbf {m} \circ \mathbf {\hat {x}} ,\mathbf {\tilde {x}} )+R(\mathbf {\hat {x}} )} . In particular, x ^ ∗ {\displaystyle \mathbf {\hat {x}} ^{}} is the optimal reconstructed audio signal and L {\displaystyle L} is a distance measure term that computes the reconstruction accuracy between the corrupted audio signal and the estimated one. For example, this term can be expressed with a mean squared error or similar metrics. Since L {\displaystyle L} is computed only on the reliable frames, there are many solutions that can minimize L ( m ∘ x ^ , x ~ ) {\displaystyle L(\mathbf {m} \circ \mathbf {\hat {x}} ,\mathbf {\tilde {x}} )} . It is thus necessary to add a constraint to the minimization, in order to restrict the results only to the valid solutions. This is expressed through the regularization term R {\displaystyle R} that is computed on the reconstructed audio signal x ^ {\displaystyle \mathbf {\hat {x}} } . This term encodes some kind of a-priori information on the audio data. For example, R {\displaystyle R} can express assumptions on the stationarity of the signal, on the sparsity of its representation or can be learned from data. == Techniques == There exist various techniques to perform audio inpainting. These can vary significantly, influenced by factors such as the specific application requirements, the length of the gaps and the available data. In the literature, these techniques are broadly divided in model-based techniques (sometimes also referred as signal processing techniques) and data-driven techniques. === Model-based techniques === Model-based techniques involve the exploitation of mathematical models or assumptions about the underlying structure of the audio signal. These models can be based on prior knowledge of the audio content or statistical properties observed in the data. By leveraging these models, missing or corrupted portions of the audio signal can be inferred or estimated. An example of a model-based techniques are autoregressive models. These methods interpolate or extrapolate the missing samples based on the neighboring values, by using mathematical functions to approximate the missing data. In particular, in autoregressive models the missing samples are completed through linear prediction. The autoregressive coefficients necessary for this prediction are learned from the surrounding audio data, specifically from the data adjacent to each gap. Some more recent techniques approach audio inpainting by representing audio signals as sparse linear combinations of a limited number of basis functions (as for example in the Short Time Fourier Transform). In this context, the aim is to find the sparse representation of the missing section of the signal that most accurately matches the surrounding, unaffected signal. The aforementioned methods exhibit optimal performance when applied to filling in relatively short gaps, lasting only a few tens of milliseconds, and thus they can be included in the context of short inpainting. However, these signal-processing techniques tend to struggle when dealing with longer gaps. The reason behind this limitation lies in the violation of the stationarity condition, as the signal often undergoes significant changes after the gap, making it substantially different from the signal preceding the gap. As a way to overcome these limitations, some approaches add strong assumptions also about the fundamental structure of the gap itself, exploiting sinusoidal modeling or similarity graphs to perform inpainting of longer missing portions of audio signals. === Data-driven techniques === Data-driven techniques rely on the analysis and exploitation of the available audio data. These techniques often employ deep learning algorithms that learn patterns and relationships directly from the provided data. They involve training models on large datasets of audio examples, allowing them to capture the statistical regularities present in the audio signals. Once trained, these models can be used to generate missing portions of the audio signal based on the learned representations, without being restricted by stationarity assumptions. Data-driven techniques also offer the advantage of adaptability and flexibility, as they can learn from diverse audio datasets and potentially handle complex inpainting scenarios. As of today, such techniques constitute the state-of-the-art of audio inpainting, being able to reconstruct gaps of hundreds of milliseconds or even seconds. These performances are made possible by the use of generative models that have the capability to generate novel content to fill in the missing portions. For example, generative adversarial networks, which are the state-of-the-art of generative models in many areas, rely on two competing neural networks trained simultaneously in a two-player minmax game: the generator produces new data from samples of a random variable, the discriminator attempts to distinguish between generated and real data. During the training, the generator's objective is to fool the discriminator, while the discriminator attempts to learn to better classify real and fake data. In GAN-based inpainting methods the generator acts as a context encoder and produces a plausible completion for the gap only given the available information surrounding it. The discriminator is used to train the generator and tests the consistency of the produced inpainted audio. Recently, also diffusion models have established themselves as the state-of-the-art of generative models in many fields, often beating even GAN-based solutions. For this reason they have also been used to solve the audio inpainting problem, obtaining valid results. These models generate new data instances by inverting the
Randomized Hough transform
Hough transforms are techniques for object detection, a critical step in many implementations of computer vision, or data mining from images. Specifically, the Randomized Hough transform is a probabilistic variant to the classical Hough transform, and is commonly used to detect curves (straight line, circle, ellipse, etc.) The basic idea of Hough transform (HT) is to implement a voting procedure for all potential curves in the image, and at the termination of the algorithm, curves that do exist in the image will have relatively high voting scores. Randomized Hough transform (RHT) is different from HT in that it tries to avoid conducting the computationally expensive voting process for every nonzero pixel in the image by taking advantage of the geometric properties of analytical curves, and thus improve the time efficiency and reduce the storage requirement of the original algorithm. == Motivation == Although Hough transform (HT) has been widely used in curve detection, it has two major drawbacks: First, for each nonzero pixel in the image, the parameters for the existing curve and redundant ones are both accumulated during the voting procedure. Second, the accumulator array (or Hough space) is predefined in a heuristic way. The more accuracy needed, the higher parameter resolution should be defined. These two needs usually result in a large storage requirement and low speed for real applications. Therefore, RHT was brought up to tackle this problem. == Implementation == In comparison with HT, RHT takes advantage of the fact that some analytical curves can be fully determined by a certain number of points on the curve. For example, a straight line can be determined by two points, and an ellipse (or a circle) can be determined by three points. The case of ellipse detection can be used to illustrate the basic idea of RHT. The whole process generally consists of three steps: Fit ellipses with randomly selected points. Update the accumulator array and corresponding scores. Output the ellipses with scores higher than some predefined threshold. === Ellipse fitting === One general equation for defining ellipses is: a ( x − p ) 2 + 2 b ( x − p ) ( y − q ) + c ( y − q ) 2 = 1 {\displaystyle a(x-p)^{2}+2b(x-p)(y-q)+c(y-q)^{2}=1} with restriction: a c − b 2 > 0 {\displaystyle ac-b^{2}>0} However, an ellipse can be fully determined if one knows three points on it and the tangents in these points. RHT starts by randomly selecting three points on the ellipse. Let them be X 1 {\displaystyle X_{1}} , X 2 {\displaystyle X_{2}} and X 3 {\displaystyle X_{3}} . The first step is to find the tangents of these three points. They can be found by fitting a straight line using least squares technique for a small window of neighboring pixels. The next step is to find the intersection points of the tangent lines. This can be easily done by solving the line equations found in the previous step. Then let the intersection points be T 12 {\displaystyle T_{12}} and T 23 {\displaystyle T_{23}} , the midpoints of line segments X 1 X 2 {\displaystyle X_{1}X_{2}} and X 2 X 3 {\displaystyle X_{2}X_{3}} be M 12 {\displaystyle M_{12}} and M 23 {\displaystyle M_{23}} . Then the center of the ellipse will lie in the intersection of T 12 M 12 {\displaystyle T_{12}M_{12}} and T 23 M 23 {\displaystyle T_{23}M_{23}} . Again, the coordinates of the intersected point can be determined by solving line equations and the detailed process is skipped here for conciseness. Let the coordinates of ellipse center found in previous step be ( x 0 , y 0 ) {\displaystyle (x_{0},y_{0})} . Then the center can be translated to the origin with x ′ = x − x 0 {\displaystyle x'=x-x_{0}} and y ′ = y − y 0 {\displaystyle y'=y-y_{0}} so that the ellipse equation can be simplified to: a x ′ 2 + 2 b x ′ y ′ + c y ′ 2 = 1 {\displaystyle ax'^{2}+2bx'y'+cy'^{2}=1} Now we can solve for the rest of ellipse parameters: a {\displaystyle a} , b {\displaystyle b} and c {\displaystyle c} by substituting the coordinates of X 1 {\displaystyle X_{1}} , X 2 {\displaystyle X_{2}} and X 3 {\displaystyle X_{3}} into the equation above. === Accumulating === With the ellipse parameters determined from previous stage, the accumulator array can be updated correspondingly. Different from classical Hough transform, RHT does not keep "grid of buckets" as the accumulator array. Rather, it first calculates the similarities between the newly detected ellipse and the ones already stored in accumulator array. Different metrics can be used to calculate the similarity. As long as the similarity exceeds some predefined threshold, replace the one in the accumulator with the average of both ellipses and add 1 to its score. Otherwise, initialize this ellipse to an empty position in the accumulator and assign a score of 1. === Termination === Once the score of one candidate ellipse exceeds the threshold, it is determined as existing in the image (in other words, this ellipse is detected), and should be removed from the image and accumulator array so that the algorithm can detect other potential ellipses faster. The algorithm terminates when the number of iterations reaches a maximum limit or all the ellipses have been detected. Pseudo code for RHT: while (we find ellipses AND not reached the maximum epoch) { for (a fixed number of iterations) { Find a potential ellipse. if (the ellipse is similar to an ellipse in the accumulator) then Replace the one in the accumulator with the average of two ellipses and add 1 to the score; else Insert the ellipse into an empty position in the accumulator with a score of 1; } Select the ellipse with the best score and save it in a best ellipse table; Eliminate the pixels of the best ellipse from the image; Empty the accumulator; }
History of machine translation
Machine translation is a sub-field of computational linguistics that investigates the use of software to translate text or speech from one natural language to another. In the 1950s, machine translation became a reality in research, although references to the subject can be found as early as the 17th century. The Georgetown experiment, which involved successful fully automatic translation of more than sixty Russian sentences into English in 1954, was one of the earliest recorded projects. Researchers of the Georgetown experiment asserted their belief that machine translation would be a solved problem within a few years. In the Soviet Union, similar experiments were performed shortly after. Consequently, the success of the experiment ushered in an era of significant funding for machine translation research in the United States. The achieved progress was much slower than expected; in 1966, the ALPAC report found that ten years of research had not fulfilled the expectations of the Georgetown experiment and resulted in dramatically reduced funding. Interest grew in statistical models for machine translation, which became more common and also less expensive in the 1980s as available computational power increased. Although there exists no autonomous system of "fully automatic high quality translation of unrestricted text," there are many programs now available that are capable of providing useful output within strict constraints. Several of these programs are available online, such as Google Translate and the SYSTRAN system that powers AltaVista's BabelFish (which was replaced by Microsoft Bing translator in May 2012). == The beginning == The origins of machine translation can be traced back to the work of Al-Kindi, a 9th-century Arabic cryptographer who developed techniques for systemic language translation, including cryptanalysis, frequency analysis, and probability and statistics, which are used in modern machine translation. The idea of machine translation later appeared in the 17th century. In 1629, René Descartes proposed a universal language, with equivalent ideas in different tongues sharing one symbol. In the mid-1930s the first patents for "translating machines" were applied for by Georges Artsrouni, for an automatic bilingual dictionary using punched tape. Russian Peter Troyanskii submitted a more detailed proposal that included both the bilingual dictionary and a method for dealing with grammatical roles between languages, based on the grammatical system of Esperanto. This system was separated into three stages: stage one consisted of a native-speaking editor in the source language to organize the words into their logical forms and to exercise the syntactic functions; stage two required the machine to "translate" these forms into the target language; and stage three required a native-speaking editor in the target language to normalize this output. Troyanskii's proposal remained unknown until the late 1950s, by which time computers were well-known and utilized. == The early years == The first set of proposals for computer based machine translation was presented in 1949 by Warren Weaver, a researcher at the Rockefeller Foundation, "Translation memorandum". These proposals were based on information theory, successes in code breaking during the Second World War, and theories about the universal principles underlying natural language. A few years after Weaver submitted his proposals, research began in earnest at many universities in the United States. On 7 January 1954 the Georgetown–IBM experiment was held in New York at the head office of IBM. This was the first public demonstration of a machine translation system. The demonstration was widely reported in the newspapers and garnered public interest. The system itself, however, was no more than a "toy" system. It had only 250 words and translated 49 carefully selected Russian sentences into English – mainly in the field of chemistry. Nevertheless, it encouraged the idea that machine translation was imminent and stimulated the financing of the research, not only in the US but worldwide. Early systems used large bilingual dictionaries and hand-coded rules for fixing the word order in the final output which was eventually considered too restrictive in linguistic developments at the time. For example, generative linguistics and transformational grammar were exploited to improve the quality of translations. During this period operational systems were installed. The United States Air Force used a system produced by IBM and Washington University in St. Louis, while the Atomic Energy Commission and Euratom, in Italy, used a system developed at Georgetown University. While the quality of the output was poor it met many of the customers' needs, particularly in terms of speed. At the end of the 1950s, Yehoshua Bar-Hillel was asked by the US government to look into machine translation, to assess the possibility of fully automatic high-quality translation by machines. Bar-Hillel described the problem of semantic ambiguity or double-meaning, as illustrated in the following sentence: Little John was looking for his toy box. Finally he found it. The box was in the pen. The word pen may have two meanings: the first meaning, something used to write in ink with; the second meaning, a container of some kind. To a human, the meaning is obvious, but Bar-Hillel claimed that without a "universal encyclopedia" a machine would never be able to deal with this problem. At the time, this type of semantic ambiguity could only be solved by writing source texts for machine translation in a controlled language that uses a vocabulary in which each word has exactly one meaning. == The 1960s, the ALPAC report and the seventies == Research in the 1960s in both the Soviet Union and the United States concentrated mainly on the Russian–English language pair. The objects of translation were chiefly scientific and technical documents, such as articles from scientific journals. The rough translations produced were sufficient to get a basic understanding of the articles. If an article discussed a subject deemed to be confidential, it was sent to a human translator for a complete translation; if not, it was discarded. A great blow came to machine-translation research in 1966 with the publication of the ALPAC report. The report was commissioned by the US government and delivered by ALPAC, the Automatic Language Processing Advisory Committee, a group of seven scientists convened by the US government in 1964. The US government was concerned that there was a lack of progress being made despite significant expenditure. The report concluded that machine translation was more expensive, less accurate and slower than human translation, and that despite the expenditures, machine translation was not likely to reach the quality of a human translator in the near future. The report recommended, however, that tools be developed to aid translators – automatic dictionaries, for example – and that some research in computational linguistics should continue to be supported. The publication of the report had a profound impact on research into machine translation in the United States, and to a lesser extent the Soviet Union and United Kingdom. Research, at least in the US, was almost completely abandoned for over a decade. In Canada, France and Germany, however, research continued. In the US the main exceptions were the founders of SYSTRAN (Peter Toma) and Logos (Bernard Scott), who established their companies in 1968 and 1970 respectively and served the US Department of Defense. In 1970, the SYSTRAN system was installed for the United States Air Force, and subsequently by the Commission of the European Communities in 1976. The METEO System, developed at the Université de Montréal, was installed in Canada in 1977 to translate weather forecasts from English to French, and was translating close to 80,000 words per day or 30 million words per year until it was replaced by a competitor's system on 30 September 2001. While research in the 1960s concentrated on limited language pairs and input, demand in the 1970s was for low-cost systems that could translate a range of technical and commercial documents. This demand was spurred by the increase of globalisation and the demand for translation in Canada, Europe, and Japan. == The 1980s and early 1990s == By the 1980s, both the diversity and the number of installed systems for machine translation had increased. A number of systems relying on mainframe technology were in use, such as SYSTRAN, Logos, Ariane-G5, and Metal. As a result of the improved availability of microcomputers, there was a market for lower-end machine translation systems. Many companies took advantage of this in Europe, Japan, and the USA. Systems were also brought onto the market in China, Eastern Europe, Korea, and the Soviet Union. During the 1980s there was a lot of activity in MT in Japan especially. With the fifth-generation co
Example-based machine translation
Example-based machine translation (EBMT) is a method of machine translation often characterized by its use of a bilingual corpus with parallel texts as its main knowledge base at run-time. It is essentially a translation by analogy and can be viewed as an implementation of a case-based reasoning approach to machine learning. == Translation by analogy == At the foundation of example-based machine translation is the idea of translation by analogy. When applied to the process of human translation, the idea that translation takes place by analogy is a rejection of the idea that people translate sentences by doing deep linguistic analysis. Instead, it is founded on the belief that people translate by first decomposing a sentence into certain phrases, then by translating these phrases, and finally by properly composing these fragments into one long sentence. Phrasal translations are translated by analogy to previous translations. The principle of translation by analogy is encoded to example-based machine translation through the example translations that are used to train such a system. Other approaches to machine translation, including statistical machine translation, also use bilingual corpora to learn the process of translation. == History == Example-based machine translation was first suggested by Makoto Nagao in 1984. He pointed out that it is especially adapted to translation between two totally different languages, such as English and Japanese. In this case, one sentence can be translated into several well-structured sentences in another language, therefore, it is no use to do the deep linguistic analysis characteristic of rule-based machine translation. == Example == Example-based machine translation systems are trained from bilingual parallel corpora containing sentence pairs like the example shown in the table above. Sentence pairs contain sentences in one language with their translations into another. The particular example shows an example of a minimal pair, meaning that the sentences vary by just one element. These sentences make it simple to learn translations of portions of a sentence. For example, an example-based machine translation system would learn three units of translation from the above example: How much is that X ? corresponds to Ano X wa ikura desu ka. red umbrella corresponds to akai kasa small camera corresponds to chiisai kamera Composing these units can be used to produce novel translations in the future. For example, if we have been trained using some text containing the sentences: President Kennedy was shot dead during the parade. and The convict escaped on July 15th., then we could translate the sentence The convict was shot dead during the parade. by substituting the appropriate parts of the sentences. == Phrasal verbs == Example-based machine translation is best suited for sub-language phenomena like phrasal verbs. Phrasal verbs have highly context-dependent meanings. They are common in English, where they comprise a verb followed by an adverb and/or a preposition, which are called the particle to the verb. Phrasal verbs produce specialized context-specific meanings that may not be derived from the meaning of the constituents. There is almost always an ambiguity during word-to-word translation from source to the target language. As an example, consider the phrasal verb "put on" and its Hindustani translation. It may be used in any of the following ways: Ram put on the lights. (Switched on) (Hindustani translation: Jalana) Ram put on a cap. (Wear) (Hindustani translation: Pahenna)
Tandem (app)
Tandem is a mobile language exchange and language learning app. == History == Tandem was founded in Hannover, Germany in 2014 by Arnd Aschentrup, Tobias Dickmeis, and Matthias Kleimann. Prior to founding Tandem, the trio had launched Vive, a members-only mobile video chat platform. Tandem has been criticised for not accepting members into the community immediately, as opposed to competitors including HelloTalk, Speaky or Cafehub. In some countries, there is a waiting list and applicants can wait up to seven days for their application to be processed by human moderators. In 2015, Tandem completed its first funding round (seed funding) of €600,000. Participating investors included business angels such as Atlantic Labs (Christophe Maire), Hannover Beteiligungsfonds, Marcus Englert (Chairman of the Supervisory Board of Rocket Internet SE ), Catagonia, Ludwig zu Salm, Florian Langenscheidt, Heiko Hubertz, Martin Sinner, and Zehden Enterprises. In 2016, the company received a further €2 million from new investors Rubylight and Faber Ventures, as well as from existing investors Hannover Beteiligungsfonds, Atlantic Labs, and Zehden Enterprises. Since 2018, the premium membership Tandem Pro has been available, which offers members unlimited access to all language learning features of the app as well as the removal of advertising for a monthly fee.
Sayre's paradox
Sayre's paradox is a dilemma encountered in the design of automated handwriting recognition systems. A standard statement of the paradox is that a cursively written word cannot be recognized without being segmented and cannot be segmented without being recognized. The paradox was first articulated in a 1973 publication by Kenneth M. Sayre, after whom it was named. == Nature of the problem == It is relatively easy to design automated systems capable of recognizing words inscribed in a printed format. Such words are segmented into letters by the very act of writing them on the page. Given templates matching typical letter shapes in a given language, individual letters can be identified with a high degree of probability. In cases of ambiguity, probable letter sequences can be compared with a selection of properly spelled words in that language (called a lexicon). If necessary, syntactic features of the language can be applied to render a generally accurate identification of the words in question. Printed-character recognition systems of this sort are commonly used in processing standardized government forms, in sorting mail by zip code, and so forth. In cursive writing, however, letters comprising a given word typically flow sequentially without gaps between them. Unlike a sequence of printed letters, cursively connected letters are not segmented in advance. Here is where Sayre's Paradox comes into play. Unless the word is already segmented into letters, template-matching techniques like those described above cannot be applied. That is, segmentation is a prerequisite for word recognition. But there are no reliable techniques for segmenting a word into letters unless the word itself has been identified. Word recognition requires letter segmentation, and letter segmentation requires word recognition. There is no way a cursive writing recognition system employing standard template-matching techniques can do both simultaneously. Advantages to be gained by use of automated cursive writing recognition systems include routing mail with handwritten addresses, reading handwritten bank checks, and automated digitalization of hand-written documents. These are practical incentives for finding ways of circumventing Sayre's Paradox. == Avoiding the paradox == One way of ameliorating the adverse effects of the paradox is to normalize the word inscriptions to be recognized. Normalization amounts to eliminating idiosyncrasies in the penmanship of the writer, such as unusual slope of the letters and unusual slant of the cursive line. This procedure can increase the probability of a correct match with a letter template, resulting in an incremental improvement in the success rate of the system. Since improvement of this sort still depends on accurate segmentation, however, it remains subject to the limitations of Sayre's Paradox. Researchers have come to realize that the only way to circumvent the paradox is by use of procedures that do not rely on accurate segmentation. == Directions of current research == Segmentation is accurate to the extent that it matches distinctions among letters in the actual inscriptions presented to the system for recognition (the input data). This is sometimes referred to as “explicit segmentation”. “Implicit segmentation,” by contrast, is division of the cursive line into more parts than the number of actual letters in the cursive line itself. Processing these “implicit parts” to achieve eventual word identification requires specific statistical procedures involving hidden Markov models (HMM). A Markov model is a statistical representation of a random process, which is to say a process in which future states are independent of states occurring before the present. In such a process, a given state is dependent only on the conditional probability of its following the state immediately before it. An example is a series of outcomes from successive casts of a die. An HMM is a Markov model, individual states of which are not fully known. Conditional probabilities between states are still determinate, but the identities of individual states are not fully disclosed. Recognition proceeds by matching HMMs of words to be recognized with previously prepared HMMs of words in the lexicon. The best match in a given case is taken to indicate the identity of the handwritten word in question. As with systems based on explicit segmentation, automated recognition systems based on implicit segmentation are judged more or less successful according to the percentage of correct identifications they accomplish. Instead of explicit segmentation techniques, most automated handwriting recognition systems today employ implicit segmentation in conjunction with HMM-based matching procedures. The constraints epitomized by Sayre's Paradox are largely responsible for this shift in approach.