AI Detector Similar To Turnitin

AI Detector Similar To Turnitin — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  Inauthentic text

  An inauthentic text is a computer-generated expository document meant to appear as genuine, but which is actually meaningless. Frequently they are created in order to be intermixed with genuine documents and thus manipulate the results of search engines, as with Spam blogs. They are also carried along in email in order to fool spam filters by giving the spam the superficial characteristics of legitimate text. Sometimes nonsensical documents are created with computer assistance for humorous effect, as with Dissociated press or Flarf poetry. They have also been used to challenge the veracity of a publication—MIT students submitted papers generated by a computer program called SCIgen to a conference, where they were initially accepted. This led the students to claim that the bar for submissions was too low. With the amount of computer generated text outpacing the ability of people to humans to curate it, there needs some means of distinguishing between the two. Yet automated approaches to determining absolutely whether a text is authentic or not face intrinsic challenges of semantics. Noam Chomsky coined the phrase "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously" giving an example of grammatically correct, but semantically incoherent sentence; some will point out that in certain contexts one could give this sentence (or any phrase) meaning. The first group to use the expression in this regard can be found below from Indiana University. Their work explains in detail an attempt to detect inauthentic texts and identify pernicious problems of inauthentic texts in cyberspace. The site has a means of submitting text that assesses, based on supervised learning, whether a corpus is inauthentic or not. Many users have submitted incorrect types of data and have correspondingly commented on the scores. This application is meant for a specific kind of data; therefore, submitting, say, an email, will not return a meaningful score.

  Read more →
• 

  Meta AI

  Meta AI is a research division of Meta (formerly Facebook) that develops artificial intelligence and augmented reality technologies. == History == Meta AI was founded in 2013 as Facebook Artificial Intelligence Research (FAIR). It has workspaces in Menlo Park, London, New York City, Paris, Seattle, Pittsburgh, Tel Aviv, and Montreal as of 2025. In 2016, FAIR partnered with Google, Amazon, IBM, and Microsoft in creating the Partnership on Artificial Intelligence to Benefit People and Society. Meta AI was directed by Yann LeCun until 2018, when Jérôme Pesenti succeeded the role. Pesenti is formerly the CTO of IBM's big data group. FAIR's research includes self-supervised learning, generative adversarial networks, document classification and translation, and computer vision. FAIR released Torch deep-learning modules as well as PyTorch in 2017, an open-source machine learning framework, which was subsequently used in several deep learning technologies, such as Tesla's autopilot and Uber's Pyro. That same year, a pair of chatbots were falsely rumored to be discontinued for developing a language that was unintelligible to humans. FAIR clarified that the research had been shut down because they had accomplished their initial goal to understand how languages are generated by their models, rather than out of fear. FAIR was renamed Meta AI following the rebranding that changed Facebook, Inc. to Meta Platforms Inc. On October 1, 2025, Facebook announced "We will soon use your interactions with AI at Meta to personalize the content and ads you see". == Virtual assistant == Meta AI is also the name of the virtual assistant developed by the team, now integrated as a chatbot into Meta's social networking products. It is also available as a subscription-based stand-alone app. The virtual assistant was pre-installed on the second generation of Ray-Ban Meta smartglasses, and can incorporate inputs from the glasses' cameras after an update. It is also available on Quest 2 and newer HMDs. Since May 2024, the chatbot has summarized news from various outlets without linking directly to original articles, including in Canada, where news links are banned on its platforms. This use of news content without compensation and attribution has raised ethical and legal concerns, especially as Meta continues to reduce news visibility on its platforms. == Current research == === Natural language processing and chatbot === Natural language processing is the ability for machines to understand and generate natural language. The team is also researching unsupervised machine translation and multilingual chatbots. ==== Galactica ==== Galactica is a large language model (LLM) designed for generating scientific text. It was available for three days from 15 November 2022, before being withdrawn for generating racist and inaccurate content. ==== Llama ==== Llama is an LLM released in February 2023. As of January 2026, the most recent release is the Llama 4. === Hardware === Meta used CPUs and in-house custom chips before 2022; they switched to Nvidia GPUs since then. MTIA v1, one of their early chips, is designed for the company's content recommendation algorithms. It was fabricated on TSMC's 7 nm process technology and consumed 25W, capable of 51.2 TFlops FP16. == Controversy == The French media outlet Mediapart reports that in 2022, Facebook's parent company illegally used works accumulated by the pirate site LibGen to train its artificial intelligence.

  Read more →
• 

  Graph cuts in computer vision and artificial intelligence

  As applied in the field of computer vision, graph cut optimization can be employed to efficiently solve a wide variety of low-level computer vision problems (early vision), such as image smoothing, the stereo correspondence problem, image segmentation, object co-segmentation, numerous military applications (eg Automatic target recognition) and many other problems that can be formulated in terms of energy minimization (eg Climate Science and Environmental modelling). Graph cut techniques are now increasingly being used in combination with more general spatial Artificial intelligence techniques (eg to enforce structure in Large language model output to sharpen tumour boundaries and similarly for various Augmented reality, Self-driving car, Robotics, Google Maps applications etc). Many of these energy minimization problems can be approximated by solving a maximum flow problem in a graph (and thus, by the max-flow min-cut theorem, define a minimal cut of the graph). Under most formulations of such problems in computer vision, the minimum energy solution corresponds to the maximum a posteriori estimate of a solution. Although many computer vision algorithms involve cutting a graph (e.g. normalized cuts), the term "graph cuts" is applied specifically to those models which employ a max-flow/min-cut optimization (other graph cutting algorithms may be considered as graph partitioning algorithms). "Binary" problems (such as denoising a binary image) can be solved exactly using this approach; problems where pixels can be labeled with more than two different labels (such as stereo correspondence, or denoising of a grayscale image) cannot be solved exactly, but solutions produced are usually near the global optimum. == History == The foundational theory of graph cuts in computer vision was first developed by Margaret Greig, Bruce Porteous and Allan Seheult (GPS) of Durham University in a now legendary discussion contribution to Julian Besag's 1986 paper and a more detailed follow on paper in 1989. In the Bayesian statistical context of smoothing noisy images, using a Markov random field as the image prior distribution, they showed with a mathematically beautiful proof how the maximum a posteriori estimate of a binary image can be obtained exactly by maximizing the flow through an associated image network, or graph, involving the introduction of a source and sink and Log-likelihood ratios. The problem was shown to be efficiently solvable exactly, an unexpected result as the problem was believed to be computationally intractable (NP hard). GPS also addressed the computational cost of the max-flow algorithm on large graphs, a significant concern at the time. They proposed a partitioning algorithm (see Section 4 of GPS) involving the recursive amalgamation of non-overlapping blocks, or tiles, which gave a 12X increase in speed. This approach recursively solved and amalgamated independent sub-graphs until the whole graph was solved. While contemporaries like Geman and Geman had advocated Parallel computing in the context of Simulated annealing, the GPS blocking strategy offered a deterministic structure amenable to parallelisation and anticipated modern artificial intelligence design across multiple GPUs. However, until recently, this aspect of the paper was largely ignored and subsequent research focused on Serial computer global search trees, such as the Boykov-Kolmogorov algorithm. Although the general k {\displaystyle k} -colour problem is NP hard for k > 2 , {\displaystyle k>2,} the GPS approach has turned out to have very wide applicability in general computer vision problems. This was first demonstrated by Boykov, Veksler and Zabih who, in a seminal paper published more than 10 years after the original GPS paper, and in other important works, lit the blue touch paper for the general adoption of graph cut techniques in computer vision. They showed that, for general problems, the GPS approach can be applied iteratively to sequences of binary problems, using their now ubiquitous alpha-expansion algorithm, yielding near optimal solutions. Prior to these results, approximate local optimisation techniques such as simulated annealing (as proposed by the Geman brothers) or iterated conditional modes (a type of greedy algorithm suggested by Julian Besag) were used to solve such image smoothing problems. Building on these advancements, GPS graph cut optimization was subsequently adapted for interactive image segmentation, most notably through the "GrabCut" algorithm introduced by Carsten Rother, Vladimir Kolmogorov, and Andrew Blake of Microsoft Research, Cambridge. GrabCut extended earlier interactive graph cut methods by replacing monochrome image histograms with Gaussian mixture models to estimate colour distributions, and by employing an iterative GPS energy minimisation scheme. This approach significantly simplified user interaction, requiring only a rough bounding box around the target object rather than detailed user-drawn strokes, and it quickly became a standard tool in both academic research and commercial image editing software. The GPS paper connected and bridged profound ideas from Mathematical statistics (Bayes' theorem, Markov random field), Physics (Ising model), Optimisation (Energy function) and Computer science (Network flow problem) and led the move away from approximate local and slow optimisation approaches (eg simulated annealing) to more powerful exact, or near exact, faster global optimisation techniques. It is now recognised as seminal as it was well ahead of its time and, in particular, was published years before the computing power revolution of Moore's law and GPUs. Significantly, GPS was published in a mathematical statistics (rather than a computer vision) journal, and this led to it being overlooked by the computer vision community for many years. It is unofficially known as "The Velvet Underground" paper of computer vision (ie although very few computer vision people read the paper [bought the record], those that did, most importantly Boykov, Veksler and Zabih, started new and important research [formed a band]). This is confirmed by GPS' very large amplification ratio (2nd order citations/first order citations), estimated at well in excess of 100. Despite the foundational nature of the GPS work, formal recognition from the computer vision community has predominantly gone to the researchers who followed to extend and popularise the graph cut method. For example, Boykov, Veksler and Zabih deservedly received a Helmholtz Prize from the ICCV in 2011. This prize recognises ICCV papers from 10 or more years earlier that have had a significant impact on computer vision research. In 2011, Couprie et al. proposed a general image segmentation framework, called the "Power Watershed", that minimized a real-valued indicator function from [0,1] over a graph, constrained by user seeds (or unary terms) set to 0 or 1, in which the minimization of the indicator function over the graph is optimized with respect to an exponent p {\displaystyle p} . When p = 1 {\displaystyle p=1} , the Power Watershed is optimized by graph cuts, when p = 0 {\displaystyle p=0} the Power Watershed is optimized by shortest paths, p = 2 {\displaystyle p=2} is optimized by the random walker algorithm and p = ∞ {\displaystyle p=\infty } is optimized by the watershed algorithm. In this way, the Power Watershed may be viewed as a generalization of graph cuts that provides a straightforward connection with other energy optimization segmentation/clustering algorithms. == Binary segmentation of images == === Notation === Image: x ∈ { R , G , B } N {\displaystyle x\in \{R,G,B\}^{N}} Output: Segmentation (also called opacity) S ∈ R N {\displaystyle S\in R^{N}} (soft segmentation). For hard segmentation S ∈ { 0 for background , 1 for foreground/object to be detected } N {\displaystyle S\in \{0{\text{ for background}},1{\text{ for foreground/object to be detected}}\}^{N}} Energy function: E ( x , S , C , λ ) {\displaystyle E(x,S,C,\lambda )} where C is the color parameter and λ is the coherence parameter. E ( x , S , C , λ ) = E c o l o r + E c o h e r e n c e {\displaystyle E(x,S,C,\lambda )=E_{\rm {color}}+E_{\rm {coherence}}} Optimization: The segmentation can be estimated as a global minimum over S: arg ⁡ min S E ( x , S , C , λ ) {\displaystyle {\arg \min }_{S}E(x,S,C,\lambda )} === Existing methods === Standard Graph cuts: optimize energy function over the segmentation (unknown S value). Iterated Graph cuts: First step optimizes over the color parameters using K-means. Second step performs the usual graph cuts algorithm. These 2 steps are repeated recursively until convergence Dynamic graph cuts:Allows to re-run the algorithm much faster after modifying the problem (e.g. after new seeds have been added by a user). === Energy function === Pr ( x ∣ S ) = K − E {\displaystyle \Pr(x\mid S)=K^{-E}} where the energy E {\displaystyle E} is composed of two different mod

  Read more →
• 

  SPL notation

  SPL (Sentence Plan Language) is an abstract notation representing the semantics of a sentence in natural language. In a classical Natural Language Generation (NLG) workflow, an initial text plan (hierarchically or sequentially organized factoids, often modelled in accordance with Rhetorical Structure Theory) is transformed by a sentence planner (generator) component to a sequence of sentence plans modelled in a Sentence Plan Language. A surface generator can be used to transform the SPL notation into natural language sentences. Probably the most widely used SPL language used today (2022) is AMR (Abstract Meaning Representation, see there for further references), but is owes parts of its popularity to its application to NLP problems other than NLG, e.g., machine translation and semantic parsing.

  Read more →
• 

  Adversarial stylometry

  Adversarial stylometry is the practice of altering writing style to reduce the potential for stylometry to discover the author's identity or their characteristics. This task is also known as authorship obfuscation or authorship anonymisation. Stylometry poses a significant privacy challenge in its ability to unmask anonymous authors or to link pseudonyms to an author's other identities, which, for example, creates difficulties for whistleblowers, activists, and hoaxers and fraudsters. The privacy risk is expected to grow as machine learning techniques and text corpora develop. All adversarial stylometry shares the core idea of faithfully paraphrasing the source text so that the meaning is unchanged but the stylistic signals are obscured. Such a faithful paraphrase is an adversarial example for a stylometric classifier. Several broad approaches to this exist, with some overlap: imitation, substituting the author's own style for another's; translation, applying machine translation with the hope that this eliminates characteristic style in the source text; and obfuscation, deliberately modifying a text's style to make it not resemble the author's own. Manually obscuring style is possible, but laborious; in some circumstances, it is preferable or necessary. Automated tooling, either semi- or fully-automatic, could assist an author. How best to perform the task and the design of such tools is an open research question. While some approaches have been shown to be able to defeat particular stylometric analyses, particularly those that do not account for the potential of adversariality, establishing safety in the face of unknown analyses is an issue. Ensuring the faithfulness of the paraphrase is a critical challenge for automated tools. It is uncertain if the practice of adversarial stylometry is detectable in itself. Some studies have found that particular methods produced signals in the output text, but a stylometrist who is uncertain of what methods may have been used may not be able to reliably detect them. == History == Rao & Rohatgi (2000), an early work in adversarial stylometry, identified machine translation as a possibility, but noted that the quality of translators available at the time presented severe challenges. Kacmarcik & Gamon (2006) is another early work. Brennan, Afroz & Greenstadt (2012) performed the first evaluation of adversarial stylometric methods on actual texts. Brennan & Greenstadt (2009) introduced the first corpus of adversarially authored texts specifically for evaluating stylometric methods; other corpora include the International Imitation Hemingway Competition, the Faux Faulkner contest, and the hoax blog A Gay Girl in Damascus. == Motivations == Rao & Rohatgi (2000) suggest that short, unattributed documents (i.e., anonymous posts) are not at risk of stylometric identification, but pseudonymous authors who have not practiced adversarial stylometry in producing corpuses of thousands of words may be vulnerable. Narayanan et al. (2012) attempted large-scale deanonymisation of 100,000 blog authors with mixed results: the identifications were significantly better than chance, but only accurately matched the blog and author a fifth of the time; identification improved with the number of posts written by the author in the corpus. Even if an author is not identified, some of their characteristics may still be deduced stylometrically, or stylometry may narrow the anonymity set of potential authors sufficiently for other information to complete the identification. Detecting author characteristics (e.g., gender or age) is often simpler than identifying an author from a large, possibly open, set of candidates. Modern machine learning techniques offer powerful tools for identification; further development of corpora and computational stylometric techniques are likely to raise further privacy issues. Gröndahl & Asokan (2020a) say that the general validity of the hypothesis underlying stylometry—that authors have invariant, content-independent 'style fingerprints'—is uncertain, but "the deanonymisation attack is a real privacy concern". Those interested in practicing adversarial stylometry and stylistic deception include whistleblowers avoiding retribution; journalists and activists; perpetrators of frauds and hoaxes; authors of fake reviews; literary forgers; criminals disguising their identity from investigators; and, generally, anyone with a desire for anonymity or pseudonymity. Authors, or agents acting on behalf of authors, may also attempt to remove stylistic clues to author characteristics (e.g., race or gender) so that knowledge of those characteristics cannot be used for discrimination (e.g., through algorithmic bias). Another possible use for adversarial stylometry is in disguising automatically generated text as human-authored. == Methods == With imitation, the author attempts to mislead stylometry by matching their style to another author's. An incomplete imitation, where some of the true author's unique characteristics appear alongside the imitated author's, can be a detectable signal for the use of adversarial stylometry. Imitation can be performed automatically with style transfer systems, though this typically requires a large corpus in the target style for the system to learn from. Another approach is translation, which employs machine translation of a source text to eliminate characteristic style, often through multiple translators in sequence to produce a round-trip translation. Such chained translation can lead to texts being significantly altered, even to the point of incomprehensibility; improved translation tools reduce this risk. More simply-structured texts can be easier to machine translate without losing the original meaning. Machine translation blurs into direct stylistic imitation or obfuscation achieved through automated style transfer, which can be viewed as a "translation" with the same language as input and output. With low-quality translation tools, an author can be required to manually correct major translation errors while avoiding the hazard of re-introducing stylistic characteristics. Wang, Juola & Riddell (2022) found that gross errors introduced by Google Translate were rare, but more common with several intermediate translations—however, occasional simple or short sentences and misspellings in the source text appeared verbatim in the output, potentially providing an identifying signal. Chain translation can leave characteristic traces of its application in a document, which may allow reconstruction of the intermediate languages used and the number of translation steps performed. Obfuscation involves deliberately changing the style of a text to reduce its similarity to other texts by some metric; this may be performed at the time of writing by conscious modification, or as part of a revision process with feedback from the metric being targeted as an input to decide when the text has been sufficiently obfuscated. In contrast to translation, complex texts can offer more opportunities for effective obfuscation without altering meaning, and likewise genres with more permissible variation allow more obfuscation. However, longer texts are harder to thoroughly obfuscate. Obfuscation can blend into imitation if the author develops a novel target style, distinct from their original style. With respect to masking author characteristics, obfuscation may aim to achieve a union (adding signals for imitated characteristics) or an intersection (removing signals and normalising) of other authors' styles. Avoiding the author's own idiosyncrasies and producing a "normalised" text is a critical obfuscatory step: an author may have a unique tendency to misspell certain words, use particular variants, or to format a document in a characteristic way. Stylometric signals vary in how simply they can be adversarially masked; an author may easily change their vocabulary by conscious choice, but altering the pattern of grammar or the letter frequency in their text may be harder to achieve, though Juola & Vescovi (2011) report that imitation typically succeeds at masking more characteristics than obfuscation. Automated obfuscation may require large amounts of training data written by the author. Concerning automated implementations of adversarial stylometry, two possible implementations are rule-based systems for paraphrasing; and encoder–decoder architectures, where the text passes through an intermediate format that is (intended to be) style-neutral. Another division in automated methods is whether there is feedback from an identification system or not. With such feedback, finding paraphrases for author masking has been characterised as a heuristic search problem, exploring textual variants until the result is stylistically sufficiently far (in the case of obfuscation) or near (in the case of imitation), which then constitutes an adversarial example for that identification system. == Evaluation == How

  Read more →
• 

  Zero-shot learning

  Zero-shot learning (ZSL) is a problem setup in deep learning where, at test time, a learner observes samples from classes which were not observed during training, and needs to predict the class that they belong to. The name is a play on words based on the earlier concept of one-shot learning, in which classification can be learned from only one, or a few, examples. Zero-shot methods generally work by associating observed and non-observed classes through some form of auxiliary information, which encodes observable distinguishing properties of objects. For example, given a set of images of animals to be classified, along with auxiliary textual descriptions of what animals look like, an artificial intelligence model which has been trained to recognize horses, but has never been given a zebra, can still recognize a zebra when it also knows that zebras look like striped horses. This problem is widely studied in computer vision, natural language processing, and machine perception. == Background and history == The first paper on zero-shot learning in natural language processing appeared in a 2008 paper by Chang, Ratinov, Roth, and Srikumar, at the AAAI'08, but the name given to the learning paradigm there was dataless classification. The first paper on zero-shot learning in computer vision appeared at the same conference, under the name zero-data learning. The term zero-shot learning itself first appeared in the literature in a 2009 paper from Palatucci, Hinton, Pomerleau, and Mitchell at NIPS'09. This terminology was repeated later in another computer vision paper and the term zero-shot learning caught on, as a take-off on one-shot learning that was introduced in computer vision years earlier. In computer vision, zero-shot learning models learned parameters for seen classes along with their class representations and rely on representational similarity among class labels so that, during inference, instances can be classified into new classes. In natural language processing, the key technical direction developed builds on the ability to "understand the labels"—represent the labels in the same semantic space as that of the documents to be classified. This supports the classification of a single example without observing any annotated data, the purest form of zero-shot classification. The original paper made use of the Explicit Semantic Analysis (ESA) representation but later papers made use of other representations, including dense representations. This approach was also extended to multilingual domains, fine entity typing and other problems. Moreover, beyond relying solely on representations, the computational approach has been extended to depend on transfer from other tasks, such as textual entailment and question answering. The original paper also points out that, beyond the ability to classify a single example, when a collection of examples is given, with the assumption that they come from the same distribution, it is possible to bootstrap the performance in a semi-supervised like manner (or transductive learning). Unlike standard generalization in machine learning, where classifiers are expected to correctly classify new samples to classes they have already observed during training, in ZSL, no samples from the classes have been given during training the classifier. It can therefore be viewed as an extreme case of domain adaptation. == Prerequisite information for zero-shot classes == Naturally, some form of auxiliary information has to be given about these zero-shot classes, and this type of information can be of several types. Learning with attributes: classes are accompanied by pre-defined structured description. For example, for bird descriptions, this could include "red head", "long beak". These attributes are often organized in a structured compositional way, and taking that structure into account improves learning. While this approach was used mostly in computer vision, there are some examples for it also in natural language processing. Learning from textual description. As pointed out above, this has been the key direction pursued in natural language processing. Here class labels are taken to have a meaning and are often augmented with definitions or free-text natural-language description. This could include for example a wikipedia description of the class. Class-class similarity. Here, classes are embedded in a continuous space. A zero-shot classifier can predict that a sample corresponds to some position in that space, and the nearest embedded class is used as a predicted class, even if no such samples were observed during training. == Generalized zero-shot learning == The above ZSL setup assumes that at test time, only zero-shot samples are given, namely, samples from new unseen classes. In generalized zero-shot learning, samples from both new and known classes, may appear at test time. This poses new challenges for classifiers at test time, because it is very challenging to estimate if a given sample is new or known. Some approaches to handle this include: a gating module, which is first trained to decide if a given sample comes from a new class or from an old one, and then, at inference time, outputs either a hard decision, or a soft probabilistic decision a generative module, which is trained to generate feature representation of the unseen classes—a standard classifier can then be trained on samples from all classes, seen and unseen. == Domains of application == Zero shot learning has been applied to the following fields: image classification semantic segmentation image generation object detection natural language processing computational biology abstract reasoning

  Read more →
• 

  Lexical Markup Framework

  Language resource management – Lexical markup framework (LMF; ISO 24613), produced by ISO/TC 37, is the ISO standard for natural language processing (NLP) and machine-readable dictionary (MRD) lexicons. The scope is standardization of principles and methods relating to language resources in the contexts of multilingual communication. == Objectives == The goals of LMF are to provide a common model for the creation and use of lexical resources, to manage the exchange of data between and among these resources, and to enable the merging of large number of individual electronic resources to form extensive global electronic resources. Types of individual instantiations of LMF can include monolingual, bilingual or multilingual lexical resources. The same specifications are to be used for both small and large lexicons, for both simple and complex lexicons, for both written and spoken lexical representations. The descriptions range from morphology, syntax, computational semantics to computer-assisted translation. The covered languages are not restricted to European languages but cover all natural languages. The range of targeted NLP applications is not restricted. LMF is able to represent most lexicons, including WordNet, EDR and PAROLE lexicons. == History == In the past, lexicon standardization has been studied and developed by a series of projects like GENELEX, EDR, EAGLES, MULTEXT, PAROLE, SIMPLE and ISLE. Then, the ISO/TC 37 National delegations decided to address standards dedicated to NLP and lexicon representation. The work on LMF started in Summer 2003 by a new work item proposal issued by the US delegation. In Fall 2003, the French delegation issued a technical proposition for a data model dedicated to NLP lexicons. In early 2004, the ISO/TC 37 committee decided to form a common ISO project with Nicoletta Calzolari (CNR-ILC Italy) as convenor and Gil Francopoulo (Tagmatica France) and Monte George (ANSI, United States) as editors. The first step in developing LMF was to design an overall framework based on the general features of existing lexicons and to develop a consistent terminology to describe the components of those lexicons. The next step was the actual design of a comprehensive model that best represented all of the lexicons in detail. A large panel of 60 experts contributed a wide range of requirements for LMF that covered many types of NLP lexicons. The editors of LMF worked closely with the panel of experts to identify the best solutions and reach a consensus on the design of LMF. Special attention was paid to the morphology in order to provide powerful mechanisms for handling problems in several languages that were known as difficult to handle. 13 versions have been written, dispatched (to the National nominated experts), commented and discussed during various ISO technical meetings. After five years of work, including numerous face-to-face meetings and e-mail exchanges, the editors arrived at a coherent UML model. In conclusion, LMF should be considered a synthesis of the state of the art in NLP lexicon field. == Current stage == The ISO number is 24613. The LMF specification has been published officially as an International Standard on 17 November 2008. == As one of the members of the ISO/TC 37 family of standards == The ISO/TC 37 standards are currently elaborated as high level specifications and deal with word segmentation (ISO 24614), annotations (ISO 24611 a.k.a. MAF, ISO 24612 a.k.a. LAF, ISO 24615 a.k.a. SynAF, and ISO 24617-1 a.k.a. SemAF/Time), feature structures (ISO 24610), multimedia containers (ISO 24616 a.k.a. MLIF), and lexicons (ISO 24613). These standards are based on low level specifications dedicated to constants, namely data categories (revision of ISO 12620), language codes (ISO 639), scripts codes (ISO 15924), country codes (ISO 3166) and Unicode (ISO 10646). The two level organization forms a coherent family of standards with the following common and simple rules: the high level specification provides structural elements that are adorned by the standardized constants; the low level specifications provide standardized constants as metadata. == Key standards == The linguistics constants like /feminine/ or /transitive/ are not defined within LMF but are recorded in the Data Category Registry (DCR) that is maintained as a global resource by ISO/TC 37 in compliance with ISO/IEC 11179-3:2003. And these constants are used to adorn the high level structural elements. The LMF specification complies with the modeling principles of Unified Modeling Language (UML) as defined by Object Management Group (OMG). The structure is specified by means of UML class diagrams. The examples are presented by means of UML instance (or object) diagrams. An XML DTD is given in an annex of the LMF document. == Model structure == LMF is composed of the following components: The core package that is the structural skeleton which describes the basic hierarchy of information in a lexical entry. Extensions of the core package which are expressed in a framework that describes the reuse of the core components in conjunction with the additional components required for a specific lexical resource. The extensions are specifically dedicated to morphology, MRD, NLP syntax, NLP semantics, NLP multilingual notations, NLP morphological patterns, multiword expression patterns, and constraint expression patterns. == Example == In the following example, the lexical entry is associated with a lemma clergyman and two inflected forms clergyman and clergymen. The language coding is set for the whole lexical resource. The language value is set for the whole lexicon as shown in the following UML instance diagram. The elements Lexical Resource, Global Information, Lexicon, Lexical Entry, Lemma, and Word Form define the structure of the lexicon. They are specified within the LMF document. On the contrary, languageCoding, language, partOfSpeech, commonNoun, writtenForm, grammaticalNumber, singular, plural are data categories that are taken from the Data Category Registry. These marks adorn the structure. The values ISO 639-3, clergyman, clergymen are plain character strings. The value eng is taken from the list of languages as defined by ISO 639-3. With some additional information like dtdVersion and feat, the same data can be expressed by the following XML fragment: This example is rather simple, while LMF can represent much more complex linguistic descriptions the XML tagging is correspondingly complex. == Selected publications about LMF == The first publication about the LMF specification as it has been ratified by ISO (this paper became (in 2015) the 9th most cited paper within the Language Resources and Evaluation conferences from LREC papers): Language Resources and Evaluation LREC-2006/Genoa: Gil Francopoulo, Monte George, Nicoletta Calzolari, Monica Monachini, Nuria Bel, Mandy Pet, Claudia Soria: Lexical Markup Framework (LMF) About semantic representation: Gesellschaft für linguistische Datenverarbeitung GLDV-2007/Tübingen: Gil Francopoulo, Nuria Bel, Monte George Nicoletta Calzolari, Monica Monachini, Mandy Pet, Claudia Soria: Lexical Markup Framework ISO standard for semantic information in NLP lexicons About African languages: Traitement Automatique des langues naturelles, Marseille, 2014: Mouhamadou Khoule, Mouhamad Ndiankho Thiam, El Hadj Mamadou Nguer: Toward the establishment of a LMF-based Wolof language lexicon (Vers la mise en place d'un lexique basé sur LMF pour la langue wolof) [in French] About Asian languages: Lexicography, Journal of ASIALEX, Springer 2014: Lexical Markup Framework: Gil Francopoulo, Chu-Ren Huang: An ISO Standard for Electronic Lexicons and its Implications for Asian Languages DOI 10.1007/s40607-014-0006-z About European languages: COLING 2010: Verena Henrich, Erhard Hinrichs: Standardizing Wordnets in the ISO Standard LMF: Wordnet-LMF for GermaNet EACL 2012: Judith Eckle-Kohler, Iryna Gurevych: Subcat-LMF: Fleshing out a standardized format for subcategorization frame interoperability EACL 2012: Iryna Gurevych, Judith Eckle-Kohler, Silvana Hartmann, Michael Matuschek, Christian M Meyer, Christian Wirth: UBY - A Large-Scale Unified Lexical-Semantic Resource Based on LMF. About Semitic languages: Journal of Natural Language Engineering, Cambridge University Press (to appear in Spring 2015): Aida Khemakhem, Bilel Gargouri, Abdelmajid Ben Hamadou, Gil Francopoulo: ISO Standard Modeling of a large Arabic Dictionary. Proceedings of the seventh Global Wordnet Conference 2014: Nadia B M Karmani, Hsan Soussou, Adel M Alimi: Building a standardized Wordnet in the ISO LMF for aeb language. Proceedings of the workshop: HLT & NLP within Arabic world, LREC 2008: Noureddine Loukil, Kais Haddar, Abdelmajid Ben Hamadou: Towards a syntactic lexicon of Arabic Verbs. Traitement Automatique des Langues Naturelles, Toulouse (in French) 2007: Khemakhem A, Gargouri B, Abdelwahed A, Francopoulo G: Modélisation des paradigmes de fl

  Read more →
• 

  Natural language understanding

  Natural language understanding (NLU) or natural language interpretation (NLI) is a subset of natural language processing in artificial intelligence that deals with machine reading comprehension. NLU has been considered an AI-hard problem. There is considerable commercial interest in the field because of its application to automated reasoning, machine translation, question answering, news-gathering, text categorization, voice-activation, archiving, and large-scale content analysis. == History == The program STUDENT, written in 1964 by Daniel Bobrow for his PhD dissertation at MIT, is one of the earliest known attempts at NLU by a computer. Eight years after John McCarthy coined the term artificial intelligence, Bobrow's dissertation (titled Natural Language Input for a Computer Problem Solving System) showed how a computer could understand simple natural language input to solve algebra word problems. A year later, in 1965, Joseph Weizenbaum at MIT wrote ELIZA, an interactive program that carried on a dialogue in English on any topic, the most popular being psychotherapy. ELIZA worked by simple parsing and substitution of key words into canned phrases and Weizenbaum sidestepped the problem of giving the program a database of real-world knowledge or a rich lexicon. Yet ELIZA gained surprising popularity as a toy project and can be seen as a very early precursor to current commercial systems such as those used by Ask.com. In 1969, Roger Schank at Stanford University introduced the conceptual dependency theory for NLU. This model, partially influenced by the work of Sydney Lamb, was extensively used by Schank's students at Yale University, such as Robert Wilensky, Wendy Lehnert, and Janet Kolodner. In 1970, William A. Woods introduced the augmented transition network (ATN) to represent natural language input. Instead of phrase structure rules ATNs used an equivalent set of finite-state automata that were called recursively. ATNs and their more general format called "generalized ATNs" continued to be used for a number of years. In 1971, Terry Winograd finished writing SHRDLU for his PhD thesis at MIT. SHRDLU could understand simple English sentences in a restricted world of children's blocks to direct a robotic arm to move items. The successful demonstration of SHRDLU provided significant momentum for continued research in the field. Winograd continued to be a major influence in the field with the publication of his book Language as a Cognitive Process. At Stanford, Winograd would later advise Larry Page, who co-founded Google. In the 1970s and 1980s, the natural language processing group at SRI International continued research and development in the field. A number of commercial efforts based on the research were undertaken, e.g., in 1982 Gary Hendrix formed Symantec Corporation originally as a company for developing a natural language interface for database queries on personal computers. However, with the advent of mouse-driven graphical user interfaces, Symantec changed direction. A number of other commercial efforts were started around the same time, e.g., Larry R. Harris at the Artificial Intelligence Corporation and Roger Schank and his students at Cognitive Systems Corp. In 1983, Michael Dyer developed the BORIS system at Yale which bore similarities to the work of Roger Schank and W. G. Lehnert. The third millennium saw the introduction of systems using machine learning for text classification, such as the IBM Watson. However, experts debate how much "understanding" such systems demonstrate: e.g., according to John Searle, Watson did not even understand the questions. John Ball, cognitive scientist and inventor of the Patom Theory, supports this assessment. Natural language processing has made inroads for applications to support human productivity in service and e-commerce, but this has largely been made possible by narrowing the scope of the application. There are thousands of ways to request something in a human language that still defies conventional natural language processing. According to Wibe Wagemans, "To have a meaningful conversation with machines is only possible when we match every word to the correct meaning based on the meanings of the other words in the sentence – just like a 3-year-old does without guesswork." == Scope and context == The umbrella term "natural language understanding" can be applied to a diverse set of computer applications, ranging from small, relatively simple tasks such as short commands issued to robots, to highly complex endeavors such as the full comprehension of newspaper articles or poetry passages. Many real-world applications fall between the two extremes, for instance text classification for the automatic analysis of emails and their routing to a suitable department in a corporation does not require an in-depth understanding of the text, but needs to deal with a much larger vocabulary and more diverse syntax than the management of simple queries to database tables with fixed schemata. Throughout the years various attempts at processing natural language or English-like sentences presented to computers have taken place at varying degrees of complexity. Some attempts have not resulted in systems with deep understanding, but have helped overall system usability. For example, Wayne Ratliff originally developed the Vulcan program with an English-like syntax to mimic the English speaking computer in Star Trek. Vulcan later became the dBase system whose easy-to-use syntax effectively launched the personal computer database industry. Systems with an easy-to-use or English-like syntax are, however, quite distinct from systems that use a rich lexicon and include an internal representation (often as first order logic) of the semantics of natural language sentences. Hence the breadth and depth of "understanding" aimed at by a system determine both the complexity of the system (and the implied challenges) and the types of applications it can deal with. The "breadth" of a system is measured by the sizes of its vocabulary and grammar. The "depth" is measured by the degree to which its understanding approximates that of a fluent native speaker. At the narrowest and shallowest, English-like command interpreters require minimal complexity, but have a small range of applications. Narrow but deep systems explore and model mechanisms of understanding, but they still have limited application. Systems that attempt to understand the contents of a document such as a news release beyond simple keyword matching and to judge its suitability for a user are broader and require significant complexity, but they are still somewhat shallow. Systems that are both very broad and very deep are beyond the current state of the art. == Components and architecture == Regardless of the approach used, most NLU systems share some common components. The system needs a lexicon of the language and a parser and grammar rules to break sentences into an internal representation. The construction of a rich lexicon with a suitable ontology requires significant effort, e.g., the Wordnet lexicon required many person-years of effort. The system also needs theory from semantics to guide the comprehension. The interpretation capabilities of a language-understanding system depend on the semantic theory it uses. Competing semantic theories of language have specific trade-offs in their suitability as the basis of computer-automated semantic interpretation. These range from naive semantics or stochastic semantic analysis to the use of pragmatics to derive meaning from context. Semantic parsers convert natural-language texts into formal meaning representations. Advanced applications of NLU also attempt to incorporate logical inference within their framework. This is generally achieved by mapping the derived meaning into a set of assertions in predicate logic, then using logical deduction to arrive at conclusions. Therefore, systems based on functional languages such as Lisp need to include a subsystem to represent logical assertions, while logic-oriented systems such as those using the language Prolog generally rely on an extension of the built-in logical representation framework. The management of context in NLU can present special challenges. A large variety of examples and counter examples have resulted in multiple approaches to the formal modeling of context, each with specific strengths and weaknesses.

  Read more →
• 

  Automated parking system

  An automated (car) parking system (APS) is a mechanical system designed to minimize the area and/or volume required for parking cars. Like a multi-story parking garage, an APS provides parking for cars on multiple levels stacked vertically to maximize the number of parking spaces while minimizing land usage. The APS, however, utilizes a mechanical system to transport cars to and from parking spaces (rather than the driver) in order to eliminate much of the space wasted in a multi-story parking garage. While a multi-story parking garage is similar to multiple parking lots stacked vertically, an APS is more similar to an automated storage and retrieval system for cars. Parking systems are generally powered by electric motors or hydraulic pumps that move vehicles into a storage position.The paternoster (shown animated at the right) is an example of one of the earliest and most common types of APS. APS are also generically known by a variety of other names, including:automated parking facility (APF), automated vehicle storage and retrieval system (AVSRS), car parking system, mechanical parking, and robotic parking garage. == History == The concept for the automated parking system was and is driven by two factors: a need for parking spaces and a scarcity of available land. The earliest use of an APS was in Paris, France in 1905 at the Garage Rue de Ponthieu. The APS consisted of a groundbreaking multi-story concrete structure with an internal car elevator to transport cars to upper levels where attendants parked the cars. In the 1920s, a Ferris wheel-like APS (for cars rather than people) called a paternoster system became popular as it could park eight cars in the ground space normally used for parking two cars. Mechanically simple with a small footprint, the paternoster was easy to use in many places, including inside buildings. At the same time, Kent Automatic Garages was installing APS with capacities exceeding 1,000 cars. The “ferris-wheel,” or paternoster system — was created by the Westinghouse Corporation in 1923 and subsequently built in 1932 on Chicago's Monroe Street. The Nash Motor Company created the first glass-enclosed version of this system for the Chicago Century of Progress Exhibition in 1933 The first driverless parking garage opened in 1951 in Washington, D.C., but was replaced with office space due to increasing land values. APS saw a spurt of interest in the U.S. in the late 1940s and 1950s with the Bowser, Pigeon Hole and Roto Park systems. In 1957, 74 Bowser, Pigeon Hole systems were installed, and some of these systems remain in operation. However, interest in APS in the U.S. waned due to frequent mechanical problems and long waiting times for patrons to retrieve their cars. In the United Kingdom, the Auto Stacker opened in 1961 in Woolwich, south east London, but proved equally difficult to operate. Interest in APS in the U.S. was renewed in the 1990s, and there were 25 major current and planned APS projects (representing nearly 6,000 parking spaces) in 2012. The first American robotic parking garage opened in 2002 in Hoboken, New Jersey. While interest in the APS in the U.S. languished until the 1990s, Europe, Asia and Central America had been installing more technically advanced APS since the 1970s. In the early 1990s, nearly 40,000 parking spaces were being built annually using the paternoster APS in Japan. In 2012, there are an estimated 1.6 million APS parking spaces in Japan. The ever-increasing scarcity of available urban land (urbanization) and increase of the number of cars in use (motorization) have combined with sustainability and other quality-of-life issues to renew interest in APS as alternatives to multi-storey car parks, on-street parking, and parking lots. == Largest systems == The largest Automated Parking Facility in the world is in Al Jahra, Kuwait, and provides 2,314 parking spaces. The world's fastest Automated Parking System is in Wolfsburg, Germany, with a retrieval time of 1 minute and 44 seconds. The largest APS in Europe is at Dokk1 in Aarhus, Denmark, and provides 1,000 parking spaces via 20 car lifts. == Space saving == All APS take advantage of a common concept to decrease the area of parking spaces - removing the driver and passengers from the car before it is parked. With either fully automated or semi-automated APS, the car is driven up to an entry point to the APS and the driver and passengers exit the car. The car is then moved automatically or semi-automatically (with some attendant action required) to its parking space. The space-saving provided by the APS, compared to the multi-story parking garage, is derived primarily from a significant reduction in space not directly related to the parking of the car: Parking space width and depth (and distances between parking spaces) are dramatically reduced since no allowance need be made for driving the car into the parking space or for the opening of car doors (for drivers and passengers) No driving lanes or ramps are needed to drive the car to/from the entrance/exit to a parking space Ceiling height is minimized since there is no pedestrian traffic (drivers and passengers) in the parking area, and No walkways, stairways or elevators are needed to accommodate pedestrians in the parking area. With the elimination of ramps, driving lanes, pedestrians and the reduction in ceiling heights, the APS requires substantially less structural material than the multi-story parking garage. Many APS utilize a steel framework (some use thin concrete slabs) rather than the monolithic concrete design of the multi-story parking garage. These factors contribute to an overall volume reduction and further space savings for the APS. == Other considerations == In addition to the space saving, many APS designs provide a number of secondary benefits: The parked cars and their contents are more secure since there is no public access to parked cars Minor parking lot damage such as scrapes and dents are eliminated Drivers and passengers are safer not having to walk through parking lots or garages Driving around in search of a parking space is eliminated, thereby reducing engine emissions and wasted time Only minimal ventilation and lighting systems are needed Handicap access is improved The volume and visual impact of the parking structure is minimized Shorter construction time === Problems === There have been a number of problems with robotic parking systems, particularly in the United States. The systems work well in balanced throughput situations like shopping malls and train stations, but they are unsuited to high peak volume applications like rush hour usage or stadiums and they suffer from technical problems. Further, parkers not familiar with the system may cause problems, for example by failing to push the button to alert a fully automated system to the presence of a car to be parked. In London around 40 vehicles were trapped for two years in CBRE's system. == Fully automated vs semi-automated == Fully automated parking systems operate much like robotic valet parking. The driver drives the car into an APS entry (transfer) area. The driver and all passengers exit the car. The driver uses an automated terminal nearby for payment and receipt of a ticket. When driver and passengers have left the entry area, the mechanical system lifts the car and transports it to a pre-determined parking space in the system. More sophisticated fully automated APS will obtain the dimensions of cars on entry in order to place them in the smallest available parking space. The driver retrieves a car by inserting a ticket or code into an automated terminal. The APS lifts the car from its parking space and delivers it to an exit area. Most often, the retrieved car has been oriented to eliminate the need for the driver to back out. Fully automated APS theoretically eliminate the need for parking attendants. Semi-automated APS also use a mechanical system of some type to move a car to its parking space, however putting the car into and/or the operation of the system requires some action by an attendant or the driver. The choice between fully and semi-automated APS is often a matter of space and cost, however large capacity (> 100 cars) tend to be fully automated. == Applications == By virtue of their relatively smaller volume and mechanized parking systems, APS are often used in locations where a multi-story parking garage would be too large, too costly or impractical. Examples of such applications include, under or inside existing or new structures, between existing structures and in irregularly shaped areas. APS can also be applied in situations similar to multi-storey parking garages such as freestanding above ground, under buildings above grade and under buildings below grade. == Costs == The direct comparison of costs between an APS and a multi-story parking garage can be complicated by many variables such as capacity, land costs, area shape, number and location of entranc

  Read more →
• 

  Query understanding

  Query understanding is the process of inferring the intent of a search engine user by extracting semantic meaning from the searcher’s keywords. Query understanding methods generally take place before the search engine retrieves and ranks results. It is related to natural language processing but specifically focused on the understanding of search queries. == Methods == === Stemming and lemmatization === Many languages inflect words to reflect their role in the utterance they appear in. The variation between various forms of a word is likely to be of little importance for the relatively coarse-grained model of meaning involved in a retrieval system, and for this reason the task of conflating the various forms of a word is a potentially useful technique to increase recall of a retrieval system. Stemming algorithms, also known as stemmers, typically use a collection of simple rules to remove suffixes intended to model the language’s inflection rules. For some languages, there are simple lemmatisation methods to reduce a word in query to its lemma or root form or its stem; for others, this operation involves non-trivial string processing and may require recognizing the word's part of speech or referencing a lexical database. The effectiveness of stemming and lemmatization varies across languages. === Query Segmentation === Query segmentation is a key component of query understanding, aiming to divide a query into meaningful segments. Traditional approaches, such as the bag-of-words model, treat individual words as independent units, which can limit interpretative accuracy. For languages like Chinese, where words are not separated by spaces, segmentation is essential, as individual characters often lack standalone meaning. Even in English, the BOW model may not capture the full meaning, as certain phrases—such as "New York"—carry significance as a whole rather than as isolated terms. By identifying phrases or entities within queries, query segmentation enhances interpretation, enabling search engines to apply proximity and ordering constraints, ultimately improving search accuracy and user satisfaction. === Entity recognition === Entity recognition is the process of locating and classifying entities within a text string. Named-entity recognition specifically focuses on named entities, such as names of people, places, and organizations. In addition, entity recognition includes identifying concepts in queries that may be represented by multi-word phrases. Entity recognition systems typically use grammar-based linguistic techniques or statistical machine learning models. === Query rewriting === Query rewriting is the process of automatically reformulating a search query to more accurately capture its intent. Query expansion adds additional query terms, such as synonyms, in order to retrieve more documents and thereby increase recall. Query relaxation removes query terms to reduce the requirements for a document to match the query, thereby also increasing recall. Other forms of query rewriting, such as automatically converting consecutive query terms into phrases and restricting query terms to specific fields, aim to increase precision. === Spelling Correction === Automatic spelling correction is a critical feature of modern search engines, designed to address common spelling errors in user queries. Such errors are especially frequent as users often search for unfamiliar topics. By correcting misspelled queries, search engines enhance their understanding of user intent, thereby improving the relevance and quality of search results and overall user experience.

  Read more →
• 

  Eugene Goostman

  Eugene Goostman is a chatbot that some regard as having passed the Turing test, a test of a computer's ability to communicate indistinguishably from a human. Developed in Saint Petersburg in 2001 by a group of three programmers, the Russian-born Vladimir Veselov, Ukrainian-born Eugene Demchenko, and Russian-born Sergey Ulasen, Goostman is portrayed as a 13-year-old Ukrainian boy—characteristics that are intended to induce forgiveness in those with whom it interacts for its grammatical errors and lack of general knowledge. The Goostman bot has competed in a number of Turing test contests since its creation, and finished second in the 2005 and 2008 Loebner Prize contest. In June 2012, at an event marking what would have been the 100th birthday of the test's author, Alan Turing, Goostman won a competition promoted as the largest-ever Turing test contest, in which it successfully convinced 29% of its judges that it was human. On 7 June 2014, at a contest marking the 60th anniversary of Turing's death, 33% of the event's judges thought that Goostman was human; the event's organiser Kevin Warwick considered it to have passed Turing's test as a result, per Turing's prediction in his 1950 paper "Computing Machinery and Intelligence", that by the year 2000, machines would be capable of fooling 30% of human judges after five minutes of questioning. The validity and relevance of the announcement of Goostman's pass was questioned by critics, who noted the exaggeration of the achievement by Warwick, the bot's use of personality quirks and humour in an attempt to misdirect users from its non-human tendencies and lack of real intelligence, along with "passes" achieved by other chatbots at similar events. == Personality == Eugene Goostman is portrayed as being a 13-year-old boy from Odesa, Ukraine, who has a pet guinea pig and a father who is a gynaecologist. Veselov stated that Goostman was designed to be a "character with a believable personality". The choice of age was intentional, as, in Veselov's opinion, a thirteen-year-old is "not too old to know everything and not too young to know nothing". Goostman's young age also induces people who "converse" with him to forgive minor grammatical errors in his responses. In 2014, work was made on improving the bot's "dialog controller", allowing Goostman to output more human-like dialogue. A conversation between Scott Aaronson and Eugene Goostman ran as follows: == Competitions == Eugene Goostman has competed in a number of Turing test competitions, including the Loebner Prize contest; it finished joint second in the Loebner test in 2001, and came second to Jabberwacky in 2005 and to Elbot in 2008. On 23 June 2012, Goostman won a Turing test competition at Bletchley Park in Milton Keynes, held to mark the centenary of its namesake, Alan Turing. The competition, which featured five bots, twenty-five hidden humans, and thirty judges, was considered to be the largest-ever Turing test contest by its organizers. After a series of five-minute-long text conversations, 29% of the judges were convinced that the bot was an actual human. === 2014 "pass" === On 7 June 2014, in a Turing test competition at the Royal Society, organised by Kevin Warwick of the University of Reading to mark the 60th anniversary of Turing's death, Goostman won after 33% of the judges were convinced that the bot was human. 30 judges took part in the event, which included Lord Sharkey, a sponsor of Turing's posthumous pardon, artificial intelligence Professor Aaron Sloman, Fellow of the Royal Society Mark Pagel and Red Dwarf actor Robert Llewellyn. Each judge partook in a textual conversation with each of the five bots; at the same time, they also conversed with a human. In all, a total of 300 conversations were conducted. In Warwick's view, this made Goostman the first machine to pass a Turing test. In a press release, he added that: Some will claim that the Test has already been passed. The words Turing Test have been applied to similar competitions around the world. However this event involved more simultaneous comparison tests than ever before, was independently verified and, crucially, the conversations were unrestricted. A true Turing Test does not set the questions or topics prior to the conversations. In his 1950 paper "Computing Machinery and Intelligence", Turing predicted that by the year 2000, computer programs would be sufficiently advanced that the average interrogator would, after five minutes of questioning, "not have more than 70 per cent chance" of correctly guessing whether they were speaking to a human or a machine. Although Turing phrased this as a prediction rather than a "threshold for intelligence", commentators believe that Warwick had chosen to interpret it as meaning that if 30% of interrogators were fooled, the software had "passed the Turing test". ==== Reactions ==== Warwick's claim that Eugene Goostman was the first ever chatbot to pass a Turing test was met with scepticism; critics acknowledged similar "passes" made in the past by other chatbots under the 30% criteria, including PC Therapist in 1991 (which tricked 5 of 10 judges, 50%), and at the Techniche festival in 2011, where a modified version of Cleverbot tricked 59.3% of 1334 votes (which included the 30 judges, along with an audience). Cleverbot's developer, Rollo Carpenter, argued that Turing tests can only prove that a machine can "imitate" intelligence rather than show actual intelligence. Gary Marcus was critical of Warwick's claims, arguing that Goostman's "success" was only the result of a "cleverly-coded piece of software", going on to say that "it's easy to see how an untrained judge might mistake wit for reality, but once you have an understanding of how this sort of system works, the constant misdirection and deflection becomes obvious, even irritating. The illusion, in other words, is fleeting." While acknowledging IBM's Deep Blue and Watson projects—single-purpose computer systems meant for playing chess and the quiz show Jeopardy! respectively—as examples of computer systems that show a degree of intelligence in their specialised field, he further argued that they were not an equivalent to a computer system that shows "broad" intelligence, and could—for example, watch a television programme and answer questions on its content. Marcus stated that "no existing combination of hardware and software can learn completely new things at will the way a clever child can." However, he still believed that there were potential uses for technology such as that of Goostman, specifically suggesting the creation of "believable", interactive video game characters. Imperial College London professor Murray Shanahan questioned the validity and scientific basis of the test, stating that it was "completely misplaced, and it devalues real AI research. It makes it seem like science fiction AI is nearly here, when in fact it's not and it's incredibly difficult." Mike Masnick, editor of the blog Techdirt, was also skeptical, questioning publicity blunders such as the five chatbots being referred to in press releases as "supercomputers", and saying that "creating a chatbot that can fool humans is not really the same thing as creating artificial intelligence."

  Read more →
• 

  Point-set registration

  In computer vision, pattern recognition, and robotics, point-set registration, also known as point-cloud registration or scan matching, is the process of finding a spatial transformation (e.g., scaling, rotation and translation) that aligns two point clouds. The purpose of finding such a transformation includes merging multiple data sets into a globally consistent model (or coordinate frame), and mapping a new measurement to a known data set to identify features or to estimate its pose. Raw 3D point cloud data are typically obtained from Lidars and RGB-D cameras. 3D point clouds can also be generated from computer vision algorithms such as triangulation, bundle adjustment, and more recently, monocular image depth estimation using deep learning. For 2D point set registration used in image processing and feature-based image registration, a point set may be 2D pixel coordinates obtained by feature extraction from an image, for example corner detection. Point cloud registration has extensive applications in autonomous driving, motion estimation and 3D reconstruction, object detection and pose estimation, robotic manipulation, simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM), panorama stitching, virtual and augmented reality, and medical imaging. As a special case, registration of two point sets that only differ by a 3D rotation (i.e., there is no scaling and translation), is called the Wahba Problem and also related to the orthogonal procrustes problem. == Formulation == The problem may be summarized as follows: Let { M , S } {\displaystyle \lbrace {\mathcal {M}},{\mathcal {S}}\rbrace } be two finite size point sets in a finite-dimensional real vector space R d {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{d}} , which contain M {\displaystyle M} and N {\displaystyle N} points respectively (e.g., d = 3 {\displaystyle d=3} recovers the typical case of when M {\displaystyle {\mathcal {M}}} and S {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}} are 3D point sets). The problem is to find a transformation to be applied to the moving "model" point set M {\displaystyle {\mathcal {M}}} such that the difference (typically defined in the sense of point-wise Euclidean distance) between M {\displaystyle {\mathcal {M}}} and the static "scene" set S {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}} is minimized. In other words, a mapping from R d {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{d}} to R d {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{d}} is desired which yields the best alignment between the transformed "model" set and the "scene" set. The mapping may consist of a rigid or non-rigid transformation. The transformation model may be written as T {\displaystyle T} , using which the transformed, registered model point set is: The output of a point set registration algorithm is therefore the optimal transformation T ⋆ {\displaystyle T^{\star }} such that M {\displaystyle {\mathcal {M}}} is best aligned to S {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}} , according to some defined notion of distance function dist ⁡ ( ⋅ , ⋅ ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {dist} (\cdot ,\cdot )} : where T {\displaystyle {\mathcal {T}}} is used to denote the set of all possible transformations that the optimization tries to search for. The most popular choice of the distance function is to take the square of the Euclidean distance for every pair of points: where ‖ ⋅ ‖ 2 {\displaystyle \|\cdot \|_{2}} denotes the vector 2-norm, s m {\displaystyle s_{m}} is the corresponding point in set S {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}} that attains the shortest distance to a given point m {\displaystyle m} in set M {\displaystyle {\mathcal {M}}} after transformation. Minimizing such a function in rigid registration is equivalent to solving a least squares problem. == Types of algorithms == When the correspondences (i.e., s m ↔ m {\displaystyle s_{m}\leftrightarrow m} ) are given before the optimization, for example, using feature matching techniques, then the optimization only needs to estimate the transformation. This type of registration is called correspondence-based registration. On the other hand, if the correspondences are unknown, then the optimization is required to jointly find out the correspondences and transformation together. This type of registration is called simultaneous pose and correspondence registration. === Rigid registration === Given two point sets, rigid registration yields a rigid transformation which maps one point set to the other. A rigid transformation is defined as a transformation that does not change the distance between any two points. Typically such a transformation consists of translation and rotation. In rare cases, the point set may also be mirrored. In robotics and computer vision, rigid registration has the most applications. === Non-rigid registration === Given two point sets, non-rigid registration yields a non-rigid transformation which maps one point set to the other. Non-rigid transformations include affine transformations such as scaling and shear mapping. However, in the context of point set registration, non-rigid registration typically involves nonlinear transformation. If the eigenmodes of variation of the point set are known, the nonlinear transformation may be parametrized by the eigenvalues. A nonlinear transformation may also be parametrized as a thin plate spline. === Other types === Some approaches to point set registration use algorithms that solve the more general graph matching problem. However, the computational complexity of such methods tend to be high and they are limited to rigid registrations. In this article, we will only consider algorithms for rigid registration, where the transformation is assumed to contain 3D rotations and translations (possibly also including a uniform scaling). The PCL (Point Cloud Library) is an open-source framework for n-dimensional point cloud and 3D geometry processing. It includes several point registration algorithms. == Correspondence-based registration == Correspondence-based methods assume the putative correspondences m ↔ s m {\displaystyle m\leftrightarrow s_{m}} are given for every point m ∈ M {\displaystyle m\in {\mathcal {M}}} . Therefore, we arrive at a setting where both point sets M {\displaystyle {\mathcal {M}}} and S {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}} have N {\displaystyle N} points and the correspondences m i ↔ s i , i = 1 , … , N {\displaystyle m_{i}\leftrightarrow s_{i},i=1,\dots ,N} are given. === Outlier-free registration === In the simplest case, one can assume that all the correspondences are correct, meaning that the points m i , s i ∈ R 3 {\displaystyle m_{i},s_{i}\in \mathbb {R} ^{3}} are generated as follows:where l > 0 {\displaystyle l>0} is a uniform scaling factor (in many cases l = 1 {\displaystyle l=1} is assumed), R ∈ SO ( 3 ) {\displaystyle R\in {\text{SO}}(3)} is a proper 3D rotation matrix ( SO ( d ) {\displaystyle {\text{SO}}(d)} is the special orthogonal group of degree d {\displaystyle d} ), t ∈ R 3 {\displaystyle t\in \mathbb {R} ^{3}} is a 3D translation vector and ϵ i ∈ R 3 {\displaystyle \epsilon _{i}\in \mathbb {R} ^{3}} models the unknown additive noise (e.g., Gaussian noise). Specifically, if the noise ϵ i {\displaystyle \epsilon _{i}} is assumed to follow a zero-mean isotropic Gaussian distribution with standard deviation σ i {\displaystyle \sigma _{i}} , i.e., ϵ i ∼ N ( 0 , σ i 2 I 3 ) {\displaystyle \epsilon _{i}\sim {\mathcal {N}}(0,\sigma _{i}^{2}I_{3})} , then the following optimization can be shown to yield the maximum likelihood estimate for the unknown scale, rotation and translation:Note that when the scaling factor is 1 and the translation vector is zero, then the optimization recovers the formulation of the Wahba problem. Despite the non-convexity of the optimization (cb.2) due to non-convexity of the set SO ( 3 ) {\displaystyle {\text{SO}}(3)} , seminal work by Berthold K.P. Horn showed that (cb.2) actually admits a closed-form solution, by decoupling the estimation of scale, rotation and translation. Similar results were discovered by Arun et al. In addition, in order to find a unique transformation ( l , R , t ) {\displaystyle (l,R,t)} , at least N = 3 {\displaystyle N=3} non-collinear points in each point set are required. More recently, Briales and Gonzalez-Jimenez have developed a semidefinite relaxation using Lagrangian duality, for the case where the model set M {\displaystyle {\mathcal {M}}} contains different 3D primitives such as points, lines and planes (which is the case when the model M {\displaystyle {\mathcal {M}}} is a 3D mesh). Interestingly, the semidefinite relaxation is empirically tight, i.e., a certifiably globally optimal solution can be extracted from the solution of the semidefinite relaxation. === Robust registration === The least squares formulation (cb.2) is known to perform arbitrarily badly in the presence of outliers. An outlier correspondence is a pair of measurements s i ↔ m i {\displaystyle s_{i}\leftrightarrow m_{i}} that departs from the generative model (cb.1). In this case, one can consider a differen

  Read more →
• 

  Hardware for artificial intelligence

  Specialized computer hardware is often used to execute artificial intelligence (AI) programs faster, and with less energy, such as Lisp machines, neuromorphic engineering, event cameras, and physical neural networks. Since 2017, several consumer grade CPUs and SoCs have on-die NPUs. As of 2023, the market for AI hardware is dominated by GPUs. As of the 2020s, AI computation is dominated by graphics processing units (GPUs) and newer domain-specific accelerators such as Google's Tensor Processing Units (TPUs), AMD's Instinct MI300 series, and various on-device neural-processing units (NPUs) found in consumer hardware. == Scope == For the purposes of this article, AI hardware refers to computing components and systems specifically designed or optimized to accelerate artificial-intelligence workloads such as machine-learning training or inference. This includes general-purpose accelerators used for AI (for example, GPUs) and domain-specific accelerators (for example, TPUs, NPUs, and other AI ASICs). Event-based cameras are sometimes discussed in the context of neuromorphic computing, but they are input sensors rather than AI compute devices. Conversely, components such as memristors are basic circuit elements rather than specialized AI hardware when considered alone. == Lisp machines == Lisp machines were developed in the late 1970s and early 1980s to make artificial intelligence programs written in the programming language Lisp run faster. == Dataflow architecture == Dataflow architecture processors used for AI serve various purposes with varied implementations like the polymorphic dataflow Convolution Engine by Kinara (formerly Deep Vision), structure-driven dataflow by Hailo, and dataflow scheduling by Cerebras. == Component hardware == === AI accelerators === Since the 2010s, advances in computer hardware have led to more efficient methods for training deep neural networks that contain many layers of non-linear hidden units and a very large output layer. By 2019, graphics processing units (GPUs), often with AI-specific enhancements, had displaced central processing units (CPUs) as the dominant means to train large-scale commercial cloud AI. OpenAI estimated the hardware compute used in the largest deep learning projects from Alex Net (2012) to Alpha Zero (2017), and found a 300,000-fold increase in the amount of compute needed, with a doubling-time trend of 3.4 months. === General-purpose GPUs for AI === Since the 2010s, graphics processing units (GPUs) have been widely used to train and deploy deep learning models because of their highly parallel architecture and high memory bandwidth. Modern data-center GPUs include dedicated tensor or matrix-math units that accelerate neural-network operations. In 2022, NVIDIA introduced the Hopper-generation H100 GPU, adding FP8 precision support and faster interconnects for large-scale model training. AMD and other vendors have also developed GPUs and accelerators aimed at AI and high-performance computing workloads. === Domain-specific accelerators (ASICs / NPUs) === Beyond general-purpose GPUs, several companies have developed application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs) and neural processing units (NPUs) tailored for AI workloads. Google introduced the Tensor Processing Unit (TPU) in 2016 for deep-learning inference, with later generations supporting large-scale training through dense systolic-array designs and optical interconnects. Other vendors have released similar devices—such as Apple's Neural Engine and various on-device NPUs—that emphasize energy-efficient inference in mobile or edge computing environments. === Memory and interconnects === AI accelerators rely on fast memory and inter-chip links to manage the large data volumes of training and inference. High-bandwidth memory (HBM) stacks, standardized as HBM3 in 2022, provide terabytes-per-second throughput on modern GPUs and ASICs. These accelerators are often connected through dedicated fabrics such as NVIDIA's NVLink and NVSwitch or optical interconnects used in TPU systems to scale performance across thousands of chips.

  Read more →
• 

  Luminoso

  Luminoso is a Cambridge, MA-based text analytics and artificial intelligence company. It spun out of the MIT Media Lab and its crowd-sourced Open Mind Common Sense (OMCS) project. The company has raised $20.6 million in financing, and its clients include Sony, Autodesk, Scotts Miracle-Gro, and GlaxoSmithKline. == History == Luminoso was co-founded in 2010 by Dennis Clark, Jason Alonso, Robyn Speer, and Catherine Havasi, a research scientist at MIT in artificial intelligence and computational linguistics. The company builds on the knowledge base of MIT’s Open Mind Common Sense (OMCS) project, co-founded in 1999 by Havasi, who continues to serve as its director. The OCMS knowledge base has since been combined with knowledge from other crowdsourced resources to become ConceptNet. ConceptNet consists of approximately 28 million statements in 304 languages, with full support for 10 languages and moderate support for 77 languages. ConceptNet is a resource for making an AI that understands the meanings of the words people use. During the World Cup in June 2014, the company provided a widely reported real-time sentiment analysis of the U.S. vs. Germany match, analyzing 900,000 posts on Twitter, Facebook and Google+. == Applications == The company uses artificial intelligence, natural language processing, and machine learning to derive insights from unstructured data such as contact center interactions, chatbot and live chat transcripts, product reviews, open-ended survey responses, and email. Luminoso's software identifies and quantifies patterns and relationships in text-based data, including domain-specific or creative language. Rather than human-powered keyword searches of data, the software automates taxonomy creation around concepts, allowing related words and phrases to be dynamically generated and tracked. Commercial applications include analyzing, prioritizing, and routing contact center interactions; identifying consumer complaints before they begin to trend; and tracking sentiment during product launches. The software natively analyzes text in fourteen languages, as well as emoji. == Products == Luminoso's technology can be accessed via two products: Luminoso Daylight and Luminoso Compass. Luminoso Daylight enables a deep-dive analysis into batch or real-time data, whereas Luminoso Compass automates the categorization of real-time data. Both products offer a user interface as well as an API. Luminoso's products can be implemented through either a cloud-based or an on-premise solution. == Research == Luminoso continues to actively conduct research in natural language processing and word embeddings and regularly participates in evaluations such as SemEval. At SemEval 2017, Luminoso participated in Task 2, measuring the semantic similarity of word pairs within and across five languages. Its solution outperformed all competing systems in every language pair tested, with the exception of Persian. == Recognition == Luminoso has been listed as a "Cool Vendor in AI for Marketing" by Gartner, and has also been named a "Boston Artificial Intelligence Startup to Watch" by BostInno. In May 2017, Luminoso was recognized as having the Best Application for AI in the Enterprise by AI Business, and was also shortlisted as the Best AI Breakthrough and Best Innovation in NLP. == Competitors == Major competitors include Clarabridge and Lexalytics. == Investors == The company raised $1.5 million from angel investors led by Basis Technology in 2012. Its first institutional funding round of $6.5 was completed in July 2014, led by Acadia Woods with participation from Japan’s Digital Garage. The company followed that with a $10M series B funding round in December 2018, led by DVI Equity Partners, with participation from Liberty Global Ventures, DF Enterprises, Raptor Holdco, Acadia Woods Partners, and Accord Ventures, among others.

  Read more →
• 

  Integreat

  Integreat (former project name: Refguide+) is an open source mobile app that provides local information and services tailored to refugees and migrants coming to Germany. The content is maintained by local organizations, such as local governments or integration officers, and made available in locally relevant languages. It was developed by Tür an Tür - Digitalfabrik gGmbH (formerly Tür an Tür - Digital Factory gGmbH) in Augsburg together with a team of researchers and students from the Technical University of Munich. == History == In 1997, the Augsburg association "Tür an Tür", which has been working for refugees since 1992, published the brochure "First Steps", which answers local everyday questions. Since addresses and contact persons change quickly, some information is already outdated after a few weeks. Students of business informatics at the Technical University of Munich therefore developed the app Integreat within eight months together with the association and the social department of the city of Augsburg. The app was then also used by other cities and districts within months. As of February 3, 2022, information is available at 72 locations, including Munich, Dortmund, Nuremberg and Augsburg. == Mode of action == Refugees need information on areas such as registration, contact persons, health care, education, family, work and everyday life. Integreat seeks to provide refugees with this information by allowing them to select their geographic location and receive locally relevant information. This information is available offline once the app is opened so it can be used without an internet connection. In addition, the content is translated into the native languages of refugees and migrants to facilitate access. The content is licensed with a CC BY 4.0 license to facilitate collaboration and translation between content creators and dissemination of the content. Integreat is now being used for a broader migrant audience and says it can also support professionals, volunteers, and counseling centers. == Comparable mobile apps == Other mobile apps that are likewise intended to provide initial orientation for refugees include the app Ankommen, a joint project of the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees, the Goethe-Institut, the Federal Employment Agency and the Bavarian Broadcasting Corporation, which is intended as a companion for the first few weeks in Germany, and the Welcome App, a company-sponsored non-profit initiative for information about Germany and asylum procedures with a regional focus, and a book by the Konrad Adenauer Foundation (KAS) and Verlag Herder with a corresponding app Deutschland - Erste Informationen für Flüchtlinge (Germany - First Information for Refugees) as a companion for Arabic-speaking refugees in Germany.

  Read more →