AI Excel Spreadsheet Builder

AI Excel Spreadsheet Builder — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

DAVI

The Dutch Automated Vehicle Initiative (DAVI) is a research and demonstration initiative developing automated vehicles for use on public roads. The project is unique in that, besides simply making driverless cars, it also focuses on having automated vehicles share information among each other. The aim is to have the cars help to avoid traffic congestion by reducing the safety distance between the cars (from 2 seconds to 0.5 seconds) and avoiding sudden traffic slow-downs due to maneuvers undertaken by drivers.
Read more →
Dilek Hakkani-Tür

Dilek Z. Hakkani-Tür is a Turkish-American computer scientist focusing on speech processing, speech recognition, and dialogue systems. She is a professor of computer science at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. == Education and career == Hakkani-Tür is a 1994 graduate of Middle East Technical University in Ankara, Turkey. She continued her studies at Bilkent University, also in Ankara, where she earned a master's degree in 1996 and completed her Ph.D. in 2000. She worked as a researcher at AT&T Labs from 2001 to 2005, at the International Computer Science Institute from 2006 to 2010, at Microsoft Research from 2010 to 2016, at Google Research from 2016 to 2018, and at Amazon Alexa from 2018 to 2023. At Microsoft, she was in the team of scientists that built the first prototype of the Cortana virtual assistant. While working for Amazon Alexa, she also taught at the University of California, Santa Cruz as a distinguished visiting instructor. She joined the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign faculty in 2023. She was editor-in-chief of IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech and Language Processing from 2019 to 2021, and is president of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue of the Association for Computational Linguistics for the 2023–2025 term. She has served as co-editor-in-chief of Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics since 2024. == Recognition == In 2014, Hakkani-Tür was elected as an IEEE Fellow "for contributions to spoken language processing", and as a Fellow of the International Speech Communication Association "for contributions to advancing the state-of-the-art in spoken language processing, especially for human/human and human/machine conversational understanding". In 2024, she was elected as a Fellow of the Association for Computational Linguistics for her contributions to spoken dialogue systems.
Read more →
Regular language

In theoretical computer science and formal language theory, a regular language (also called a rational language) is a formal language that can be defined by a regular expression, in the strict sense in theoretical computer science (as opposed to many modern regular expression engines, which are augmented with features that allow the recognition of non-regular languages). Alternatively, a regular language can be defined as a language recognised by a finite automaton. The equivalence of regular expressions and finite automata is known as Kleene's theorem (after American mathematician Stephen Cole Kleene). In the Chomsky hierarchy, regular languages are the languages generated by Type-3 grammars. == Formal definition == The collection of regular languages over an alphabet Σ is defined recursively as follows: The empty language ∅ is a regular language. For each a ∈ Σ (a belongs to Σ), the singleton language {a} is a regular language. If A is a regular language, A (Kleene star) is a regular language. Due to this, the empty string language {ε} is also regular. If A and B are regular languages, then A ∪ B (union) and A • B (concatenation) are regular languages. No other languages over Σ are regular. See Regular expression § Formal language theory for syntax and semantics of regular expressions. == Examples == All finite languages are regular; in particular the empty string language {ε} = ∅ is regular. Other typical examples include the language consisting of all strings over the alphabet {a, b} which contain an even number of as, or the language consisting of all strings of the form: several as followed by several bs. A simple example of a language that is not regular is the set of strings {anbn | n ≥ 0}. Intuitively, it cannot be recognized with a finite automaton, since a finite automaton has finite memory and it cannot remember the exact number of a's. Techniques to prove this fact rigorously are given below. == Equivalent formalisms == A regular language satisfies the following equivalent properties: it is the language of a regular expression (by the above definition) it is the language accepted by a nondeterministic finite automaton (NFA) it is the language accepted by a deterministic finite automaton (DFA) it can be generated by a regular grammar it is the language accepted by an alternating finite automaton it is the language accepted by a two-way finite automaton it can be generated by a prefix grammar it can be accepted by a read-only Turing machine it can be defined in monadic second-order logic (Büchi–Elgot–Trakhtenbrot theorem) it is recognized by some finite syntactic monoid M, meaning it is the preimage {w ∈ Σ | f(w) ∈ S} of a subset S of a finite monoid M under a monoid homomorphism f : Σ → M from the free monoid on its alphabet the number of equivalence classes of its syntactic congruence is finite. (This number equals the number of states of the minimal deterministic finite automaton accepting L.) Properties 10. and 11. are purely algebraic approaches to define regular languages; a similar set of statements can be formulated for a monoid M ⊆ Σ. In this case, equivalence over M leads to the concept of a recognizable language. Some authors use one of the above properties different from "1." as an alternative definition of regular languages. Some of the equivalences above, particularly those among the first four formalisms, are called Kleene's theorem in textbooks. Precisely which one (or which subset) is called such varies between authors. One textbook calls the equivalence of regular expressions and NFAs ("1." and "2." above) "Kleene's theorem". Another textbook calls the equivalence of regular expressions and DFAs ("1." and "3." above) "Kleene's theorem". Two other textbooks first prove the expressive equivalence of NFAs and DFAs ("2." and "3.") and then state "Kleene's theorem" as the equivalence between regular expressions and finite automata (the latter said to describe "recognizable languages"). A linguistically oriented text first equates regular grammars ("4." above) with DFAs and NFAs, calls the languages generated by (any of) these "regular", after which it introduces regular expressions which it terms to describe "rational languages", and finally states "Kleene's theorem" as the coincidence of regular and rational languages. Other authors simply define "rational expression" and "regular expressions" as synonymous and do the same with "rational languages" and "regular languages". Apparently, the term regular originates from a 1951 technical report where Kleene introduced regular events and explicitly welcomed "any suggestions as to a more descriptive term". Noam Chomsky, in his 1959 seminal article, used the term regular in a different meaning at first (referring to what is called Chomsky normal form today), but noticed that his finite state languages were equivalent to Kleene's regular events. == Closure properties == The regular languages are closed under various operations, that is, if the languages K and L are regular, so is the result of the following operations: the set-theoretic Boolean operations: union K ∪ L, intersection K ∩ L, and complement L, hence also relative complement K − L. the regular operations: K ∪ L, concatenation ⁠ K ∘ L {\displaystyle K\circ L} ⁠, and Kleene star L. the trio operations: string homomorphism, inverse string homomorphism, and intersection with regular languages. As a consequence they are closed under arbitrary finite state transductions, like quotient K / L with a regular language. Even more, regular languages are closed under quotients with arbitrary languages: If L is regular then L / K is regular for any K. the reverse (or mirror image) LR. Given a nondeterministic finite automaton to recognize L, an automaton for LR can be obtained by reversing all transitions and interchanging starting and finishing states. This may result in multiple starting states; ε-transitions can be used to join them. == Decidability properties == Given two deterministic finite automata A and B, it is decidable whether they accept the same language. As a consequence, using the above closure properties, the following problems are also decidable for arbitrarily given deterministic finite automata A and B, with accepted languages LA and LB, respectively: Containment: is LA ⊆ LB ? Disjointness: is LA ∩ LB = {} ? Emptiness: is LA = {} ? Universality: is LA = Σ ? Membership: given a ∈ Σ, is a ∈ LB ? For regular expressions, the universality problem is NP-complete already for a singleton alphabet. For larger alphabets, that problem is PSPACE-complete. If regular expressions are extended to allow also a squaring operator, with "A2" denoting the same as "AA", still just regular languages can be described, but the universality problem has an exponential space lower bound, and is in fact complete for exponential space with respect to polynomial-time reduction. For a fixed finite alphabet, the theory of the set of all languages – together with strings, membership of a string in a language, and for each character, a function to append the character to a string (and no other operations) – is decidable, and its minimal elementary substructure consists precisely of regular languages. For a binary alphabet, the theory is called S2S. == Complexity results == In computational complexity theory, the complexity class of all regular languages is sometimes referred to as REGULAR or REG and equals DSPACE(O(1)), the decision problems that can be solved in constant space (the space used is independent of the input size). REGULAR ≠ AC0, since it (trivially) contains the parity problem of determining whether the number of 1 bits in the input is even or odd and this problem is not in AC0. On the other hand, REGULAR does not contain AC0, because the nonregular language of palindromes, or the nonregular language { 0 n 1 n : n ∈ N } {\displaystyle \{0^{n}1^{n}:n\in \mathbb {N} \}} can both be recognized in AC0. If a language is not regular, it requires a machine with at least Ω(log log n) space to recognize (where n is the input size). In other words, DSPACE(o(log log n)) equals the class of regular languages. In practice, most nonregular problems are studied in a setting with at least logarithmic space, as this is the amount of space required to store a pointer into the input tape. == Location in the Chomsky hierarchy == To locate the regular languages in the Chomsky hierarchy, one notices that every regular language is context-free. The converse is not true: for example, the language consisting of all strings having the same number of as as bs is context-free but not regular. To prove that a language is not regular, one often uses the Myhill–Nerode theorem and the pumping lemma. Other approaches include using the closure properties of regular languages or quantifying Kolmogorov complexity. Important subclasses of regular languages include: Finite languages, those containing only a finite number of words. These are regular la
Read more →
Linguistic Systems

Linguistic Systems, Inc., also known as LSI, provides language translation services (conversion) for all media in over 115 languages. LSI focuses on the translation of legal, medical, business, institutional, academic, government and personal documents. LSI is headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts. == About LSI == Linguistic Systems, Inc. (LSI) was founded in 1967 by Martin Roberts. LSI's translates to/from 115 languages, DTP, audio-visual conversions, software localization, consecutive and simultaneous interpreting services, foreign brand name analysis, and machine translation with post-editing. LSI has provided translation services to over half of the Fortune 500 companies and most of the Fortune 100. Among its clients are AT&T, Boeing, Citigroup, Coca-Cola, DuPont, Exxon-Mobil, General Electric, General Motors, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, Procter & Gamble, Simon & Schuster, Time Warner, Verizon, and Walmart. As of 2013, LSI had a network of more than 7,000 translators who translate into their native languages; These include lawyers, scientists, engineers, and other bilingual professionals.
Read more →
Manifold regularization

In machine learning, manifold regularization is a technique for using the shape of a dataset to constrain the functions that should be learned on that dataset. In many machine learning problems, the data to be learned do not cover the entire input space. For example, a facial recognition system may not need to classify any possible image, but only the subset of images that contain faces. The technique of manifold learning assumes that the relevant subset of data comes from a manifold, a mathematical structure with useful properties. The technique also assumes that the function to be learned is smooth: data with different labels are not likely to be close together, and so the labeling function should not change quickly in areas where there are likely to be many data points. Because of this assumption, a manifold regularization algorithm can use unlabeled data to inform where the learned function is allowed to change quickly and where it is not, using an extension of the technique of Tikhonov regularization. Manifold regularization algorithms can extend supervised learning algorithms in semi-supervised learning and transductive learning settings, where unlabeled data are available. The technique has been used for applications including medical imaging, geographical imaging, and object recognition. == Manifold regularizer == === Motivation === Manifold regularization is a type of regularization, a family of techniques that reduces overfitting and ensures that a problem is well-posed by penalizing complex solutions. In particular, manifold regularization extends the technique of Tikhonov regularization as applied to Reproducing kernel Hilbert spaces (RKHSs). Under standard Tikhonov regularization on RKHSs, a learning algorithm attempts to learn a function f {\displaystyle f} from among a hypothesis space of functions H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} . The hypothesis space is an RKHS, meaning that it is associated with a kernel K {\displaystyle K} , and so every candidate function f {\displaystyle f} has a norm ‖ f ‖ K {\displaystyle \left\|f\right\|_{K}} , which represents the complexity of the candidate function in the hypothesis space. When the algorithm considers a candidate function, it takes its norm into account in order to penalize complex functions. Formally, given a set of labeled training data ( x 1 , y 1 ) , … , ( x ℓ , y ℓ ) {\displaystyle (x_{1},y_{1}),\ldots ,(x_{\ell },y_{\ell })} with x i ∈ X , y i ∈ Y {\displaystyle x_{i}\in X,y_{i}\in Y} and a loss function V {\displaystyle V} , a learning algorithm using Tikhonov regularization will attempt to solve the expression arg min f ∈ H 1 ℓ ∑ i = 1 ℓ V ( f ( x i ) , y i ) + γ ‖ f ‖ K 2 {\displaystyle {\underset {f\in {\mathcal {H}}}{\arg \!\min }}{\frac {1}{\ell }}\sum _{i=1}^{\ell }V(f(x_{i}),y_{i})+\gamma \left\|f\right\|_{K}^{2}} where γ {\displaystyle \gamma } is a hyperparameter that controls how much the algorithm will prefer simpler functions over functions that fit the data better. Manifold regularization adds a second regularization term, the intrinsic regularizer, to the ambient regularizer used in standard Tikhonov regularization. Under the manifold assumption in machine learning, the data in question do not come from the entire input space X {\displaystyle X} , but instead from a nonlinear manifold M ⊂ X {\displaystyle M\subset X} . The geometry of this manifold, the intrinsic space, is used to determine the regularization norm. === Laplacian norm === There are many possible choices for the intrinsic regularizer ‖ f ‖ I {\displaystyle \left\|f\right\|_{I}} . Many natural choices involve the gradient on the manifold ∇ M {\displaystyle \nabla _{M}} , which can provide a measure of how smooth a target function is. A smooth function should change slowly where the input data are dense; that is, the gradient ∇ M f ( x ) {\displaystyle \nabla _{M}f(x)} should be small where the marginal probability density P X ( x ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}_{X}(x)} , the probability density of a randomly drawn data point appearing at x {\displaystyle x} , is large. This gives one appropriate choice for the intrinsic regularizer: ‖ f ‖ I 2 = ∫ x ∈ M ‖ ∇ M f ( x ) ‖ 2 d P X ( x ) {\displaystyle \left\|f\right\|_{I}^{2}=\int _{x\in M}\left\|\nabla _{M}f(x)\right\|^{2}\,d{\mathcal {P}}_{X}(x)} In practice, this norm cannot be computed directly because the marginal distribution P X {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}_{X}} is unknown, but it can be estimated from the provided data. === Graph-based approach of the Laplacian norm === When the distances between input points are interpreted as a graph, then the Laplacian matrix of the graph can help to estimate the marginal distribution. Suppose that the input data include ℓ {\displaystyle \ell } labeled examples (pairs of an input x {\displaystyle x} and a label y {\displaystyle y} ) and u {\displaystyle u} unlabeled examples (inputs without associated labels). Define W {\displaystyle W} to be a matrix of edge weights for a graph, where W i j {\displaystyle W_{ij}} is a similarity built from distance measure between the data points x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} and x j {\displaystyle x_{j}} (so that more close implies higher W i j {\displaystyle W_{ij}} ). Define D {\displaystyle D} to be a diagonal matrix with D i i = ∑ j = 1 ℓ + u W i j {\displaystyle D_{ii}=\sum _{j=1}^{\ell +u}W_{ij}} and L {\displaystyle L} to be the Laplacian matrix D − W {\displaystyle D-W} . Then, as the number of data points ℓ + u {\displaystyle \ell +u} increases, L {\displaystyle L} converges to the Laplace–Beltrami operator Δ M {\displaystyle \Delta _{M}} , which is the divergence of the gradient ∇ M {\displaystyle \nabla _{M}} . Then, if f {\displaystyle \mathbf {f} } is a vector of the values of f {\displaystyle f} at the data, f = [ f ( x 1 ) , … , f ( x l + u ) ] T {\displaystyle \mathbf {f} =[f(x_{1}),\ldots ,f(x_{l+u})]^{\mathrm {T} }} , the intrinsic norm can be estimated: ‖ f ‖ I 2 = 1 ( ℓ + u ) 2 f T L f {\displaystyle \left\|f\right\|_{I}^{2}={\frac {1}{(\ell +u)^{2}}}\mathbf {f} ^{\mathrm {T} }L\mathbf {f} } As the number of data points ℓ + u {\displaystyle \ell +u} increases, this empirical definition of ‖ f ‖ I 2 {\displaystyle \left\|f\right\|_{I}^{2}} converges to the definition when P X {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}_{X}} is known. === Solving the regularization problem with graph-based approach === Using the weights γ A {\displaystyle \gamma _{A}} and γ I {\displaystyle \gamma _{I}} for the ambient and intrinsic regularizers, the final expression to be solved becomes: arg min f ∈ H 1 ℓ ∑ i = 1 ℓ V ( f ( x i ) , y i ) + γ A ‖ f ‖ K 2 + γ I ( ℓ + u ) 2 f T L f {\displaystyle {\underset {f\in {\mathcal {H}}}{\arg \!\min }}{\frac {1}{\ell }}\sum _{i=1}^{\ell }V(f(x_{i}),y_{i})+\gamma _{A}\left\|f\right\|_{K}^{2}+{\frac {\gamma _{I}}{(\ell +u)^{2}}}\mathbf {f} ^{\mathrm {T} }L\mathbf {f} } As with other kernel methods, H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} may be an infinite-dimensional space, so if the regularization expression cannot be solved explicitly, it is impossible to search the entire space for a solution. Instead, a representer theorem shows that under certain conditions on the choice of the norm ‖ f ‖ I {\displaystyle \left\|f\right\|_{I}} , the optimal solution f ∗ {\displaystyle f^{}} must be a linear combination of the kernel centered at each of the input points: for some weights α i {\displaystyle \alpha _{i}} , f ∗ ( x ) = ∑ i = 1 ℓ + u α i K ( x i , x ) {\displaystyle f^{}(x)=\sum _{i=1}^{\ell +u}\alpha _{i}K(x_{i},x)} Using this result, it is possible to search for the optimal solution f ∗ {\displaystyle f^{}} by searching the finite-dimensional space defined by the possible choices of α i {\displaystyle \alpha _{i}} . === Functional approach of the Laplacian norm === The idea beyond the graph-Laplacian is to use neighbors to estimate the Laplacian. This method is akin to local averaging methods, that are known to scale poorly in high-dimensional problems. Indeed, the graph Laplacian is known to suffer from the curse of dimensionality. Luckily, it is possible to leverage expected smoothness of the function to estimate thanks to more advanced functional analysis. This method consists of estimating the Laplacian operator using derivatives of the kernel reading ∂ 1 , j K ( x i , x ) {\displaystyle \partial _{1,j}K(x_{i},x)} where ∂ 1 , j {\displaystyle \partial _{1,j}} denotes the partial derivatives according to the j-th coordinate of the first variable. This second approach to the Laplacian norm is to put in relation with meshfree methods, that contrast with the finite difference method in PDE. == Applications == Manifold regularization can extend a variety of algorithms that can be expressed using Tikhonov regularization, by choosing an appropriate loss function V {\displaystyle V} and hypothesis space H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} . Two commonly used examples are the families of support vector machines and regularized least squares algorithm
Read more →
The Best Free AI Marketing Tool for Beginners

Looking for the best AI marketing tool? An AI marketing tool is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it can save you hours every week by automating repetitive work. Most options offer a generous free tier, with paid plans unlocking higher limits, faster processing, and team features. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI marketing tool slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. Read on for hands-on impressions, pricing tiers, and the standout features that matter.
Read more →
Frank Hutter

Frank Hutter is a German computer scientist recognized for his contributions to machine learning, particularly in the areas of automated machine learning (AutoML), hyperparameter optimization, meta-learning and tabular machine learning. He is currently a Hector-Endowed Fellow and PI at the ELLIS Institute Tübingen and a Full Professor (W3) for Machine Learning at the Department of Computer Science, University of Freiburg. Hutter is known for his role in establishing AutoML as a key area in artificial intelligence research. == Education and academic career == Frank Hutter received his academic training in computer science at Darmstadt University of Technology, where he completed his Vordiplom (comparable to a BSc) and Hauptdiplom (equivalent to MSc) by 2004. He later pursued his PhD at the University of British Columbia, under the supervision of Profs. Holger Hoos, Kevin Leyton-Brown and Kevin Murphy, where his doctoral thesis, titled "Automated Configuration of Algorithms for Solving Hard Computational Problems," was awarded the CAIAC Doctoral Dissertation Award for the best thesis in Artificial Intelligence completed at a Canadian university in 2009. Hutter did his postdoctoral research at the University of British Columbia, where he worked from 2009 to 2013. In 2013, he moved to the University of Freiburg, initially leading an Emmy Noether Research Group, and in 2017, he was appointed as a Full Professor. His contributions to machine learning have been recognized globally, particularly his work in AutoML and hyperparameter optimization. Overall, Hutter has authored over 180 peer-reviewed publications, which have garnered more than 89,000 citations, reflecting the high impact of his work. == Contributions in AutoML == Hutter's early research laid the groundwork for the field of Automated Machine Learning (AutoML). He has been a key figure in establishing AutoML as a distinct research area. Along with various colleagues, he organized the AutoML workshops from 2014 to 2021, wrote the first book on AutoML and taught the first MOOC on AutoML. He also co-founded the AutoML conference in 2022 and served as its general chair the first two years. He also published prominent works in various subfields of AutoML, such as hyperparameter optimization, neural architecture search, meta-Learning and AutoML systems. He is currently the most highly cited researcher in AutoML. == Contributions in machine learning for tabular data == Hutter has also made many contributions to machine learning for tabular data. He led the development of the first widely adopted AutoML system for tabular data, AutoWEKA, which was published at KDD 2013 and received the test of time award at KDD (2023). Subsequently, he led the development of Auto-sklearn, the first highly used AutoML system for tabular data in Python, and with it, won the first international AutoML challenge and the subsequent second international AutoML challenge, both of which only included tabular data. More recently, he focused on tabular foundation models, including TabPFN, which was published in Nature magazine. In 2024, he also co-founded Prior Labs, the first company focusing on tabular foundation models. == Awards and honors == Hutter has received numerous awards throughout his career. In 2023, he won the KDD Test of Time Award for Research together with Chris Thornton, Holger H. Hoos, and Kevin Leyton-Brown. He has received three grants from the ERC, including the ERC Starting Grant (2016) and ERC Consolidator Grant (2022), as well as an ERC Proof of Concept Grant (2020). In 2021, he became an ELLIS Unit Director and was also recognized as a EurAI Fellow, in addition to receiving the AIJ Prominent Paper Award. Earlier, he was a recipient of the Google Faculty Research Award in 2018. His groundbreaking research was acknowledged early in his career with the IJCAI Distinguished Paper Award in 2013 and the IJCAI/JAIR Best Paper Prize in 2010. == Representative publications == Hutter, F. Kotthoff, L. and Vanschoren, J., editors. Automated machine learning: methods, systems, challenges, Springer Nature, 2019. www.automl.org/book. Feurer, M., Klein, A., Eggensperger, K., Springenberg, T., Blum, M., Hutter, F. Efficient and Robust Automated Machine Learning. In NeurIPS 2015. Loshchilov, I., and Hutter, F. Decoupled weight decay regularization. In ICLR 2018. Zela, A., Elsken, T. ,Saikia, T. ,Marrakschi, Y. ,Brox, T. and Hutter. ,F.Understanding and Robustifying Differentiable Architecture Search. In ICLR 2020. Hollmann, N., Müller, S., Eggensperger, K. and Hutter, F. TabPFN: A Transformer That Solves Small Tabular Classification Problems in a Second, In ICLR 2023.
Read more →
DFA minimization

In automata theory (a branch of theoretical computer science), DFA minimization is the task of transforming a given deterministic finite automaton (DFA) into an equivalent DFA that has a minimum number of states. Here, two DFAs are called equivalent if they recognize the same regular language. Several different algorithms accomplishing this task are known and described in standard textbooks on automata theory. == Minimal DFA == For each regular language, there also exists a minimal automaton that accepts it, that is, a DFA with a minimum number of states and this DFA is unique (except that states can be given different names). The minimal DFA ensures minimal computational cost for tasks such as pattern matching. There are three classes of states that can be removed or merged from the original DFA without affecting the language it accepts. Unreachable states are the states that are not reachable from the initial state of the DFA, for any input string. These states can be removed. Dead states are the states from which no final state is reachable. These states can be removed unless the automaton is required to be complete. Nondistinguishable states are those that cannot be distinguished from one another for any input string. These states can be merged. DFA minimization is usually done in three steps: remove dead and unreachable states (this will accelerate the following step), merge nondistinguishable states, optionally, re-create a single dead state ("sink" state) if the resulting DFA is required to be complete. == Unreachable states == The state p {\displaystyle p} of a deterministic finite automaton M = ( Q , Σ , δ , q 0 , F ) {\displaystyle M=(Q,\Sigma ,\delta ,q_{0},F)} is unreachable if no string w {\displaystyle w} in Σ ∗ {\displaystyle \Sigma ^{}} exists for which p = δ ∗ ( q 0 , w ) {\displaystyle p=\delta ^{}(q_{0},w)} . In this definition, Q {\displaystyle Q} is the set of states, Σ {\displaystyle \Sigma } is the set of input symbols, δ {\displaystyle \delta } is the transition function (mapping a state and an input symbol to a set of states), δ ∗ {\displaystyle \delta ^{}} is its extension to strings (also known as extended transition function), q 0 {\displaystyle q_{0}} is the initial state, and F {\displaystyle F} is the set of accepting (also known as final) states. Reachable states can be obtained with the following algorithm: Assuming an efficient implementation of the state sets (e.g. new_states) and operations on them (such as adding a state or checking whether it is present), this algorithm can be implemented with time complexity O ( n + m ) {\displaystyle O(n+m)} , where n {\displaystyle n} is the number of states and m {\displaystyle m} is the number of transitions of the input automaton. Unreachable states can be removed from the DFA without affecting the language that it accepts. == Nondistinguishable states == The following algorithms present various approaches to merging nondistinguishable states. === Hopcroft's algorithm === One algorithm for merging the nondistinguishable states of a DFA, due to Hopcroft (1971), is based on partition refinement, partitioning the DFA states into groups by their behavior. These groups represent equivalence classes of the Nerode congruence, whereby every two states are equivalent if they have the same behavior for every input sequence. That is, for every two states p1 and p2 that belong to the same block of the partition P, and every input word w, the transitions determined by w should always take states p1 and p2 to either states that both accept or states that both reject. It should not be possible for w to take p1 to an accepting state and p2 to a rejecting state or vice versa. The following pseudocode describes the form of the algorithm as given by Xu. Alternative forms have also been presented. The algorithm starts with a partition that is too coarse: every pair of states that are equivalent according to the Nerode congruence belong to the same set in the partition, but pairs that are inequivalent might also belong to the same set. It gradually refines the partition into a larger number of smaller sets, at each step splitting sets of states into pairs of subsets that are necessarily inequivalent. The initial partition is a separation of the states into two subsets of states that clearly do not have the same behavior as each other: the accepting states and the rejecting states. The algorithm then repeatedly chooses a set A from the current partition and an input symbol c, and splits each of the sets of the partition into two (possibly empty) subsets: the subset of states that lead to A on input symbol c, and the subset of states that do not lead to A. Since A is already known to have different behavior than the other sets of the partition, the subsets that lead to A also have different behavior than the subsets that do not lead to A. When no more splits of this type can be found, the algorithm terminates. Lemma. Given a fixed character c and an equivalence class Y that splits into equivalence classes B and C, only one of B or C is necessary to refine the whole partition. Example: Suppose we have an equivalence class Y that splits into equivalence classes B and C. Suppose we also have classes D, E, and F; D and E have states with transitions into B on character c, while F has transitions into C on character c. By the Lemma, we can choose either B or C as the distinguisher, let's say B. Then the states of D and E are split by their transitions into B. But F, which doesn't point into B, simply doesn't split during the current iteration of the algorithm; it will be refined by other distinguisher(s). Observation. All of B or C is necessary to split referring classes like D, E, and F correctly—subsets won't do. The purpose of the outermost if statement (if Y is in W) is to patch up W, the set of distinguishers. We see in the previous statement in the algorithm that Y has just been split. If Y is in W, it has just become obsolete as a means to split classes in future iterations. So Y must be replaced by both splits because of the Observation above. If Y is not in W, however, only one of the two splits, not both, needs to be added to W because of the Lemma above. Choosing the smaller of the two splits guarantees that the new addition to W is no more than half the size of Y; this is the core of the Hopcroft algorithm: how it gets its speed, as explained in the next paragraph. The worst case running time of this algorithm is O(ns log n), where n is the number of states and s is the size of the alphabet. This bound follows from the fact that, for each of the ns transitions of the automaton, the sets drawn from Q that contain the target state of the transition have sizes that decrease relative to each other by a factor of two or more, so each transition participates in O(log n) of the splitting steps in the algorithm. The partition refinement data structure allows each splitting step to be performed in time proportional to the number of transitions that participate in it. This remains the most efficient algorithm known for solving the problem, and for certain distributions of inputs its average-case complexity is even better, O(n log log n). Once Hopcroft's algorithm has been used to group the states of the input DFA into equivalence classes, the minimum DFA can be constructed by forming one state for each equivalence class. If S is a set of states in P, s is a state in S, and c is an input character, then the transition in the minimum DFA from the state for S, on input c, goes to the set containing the state that the input automaton would go to from state s on input c. The initial state of the minimum DFA is the one containing the initial state of the input DFA, and the accepting states of the minimum DFA are the ones whose members are accepting states of the input DFA. === Moore's algorithm === Moore's algorithm for DFA minimization is due to Edward F. Moore (1956). Like Hopcroft's algorithm, it maintains a partition that starts off separating the accepting from the rejecting states, and repeatedly refines the partition until no more refinements can be made. At each step, it replaces the current partition with the coarsest common refinement of s + 1 partitions, one of which is the current one and the rest of which are the preimages of the current partition under the transition functions for each of the input symbols. The algorithm terminates when this replacement does not change the current partition. Its worst-case time complexity is O(n2s): each step of the algorithm may be performed in time O(ns) using a variant of radix sort to reorder the states so that states in the same set of the new partition are consecutive in the ordering, and there are at most n steps since each one but the last increases the number of sets in the partition. The instances of the DFA minimization problem that cause the worst-case behavior are the same as for Hopcroft's algorithm. The number of steps th
Read more →
Domain adaptation

Domain adaptation is a field associated with machine learning and transfer learning. It addresses the challenge of training a model on one data distribution (the source domain) and applying it to a related but different data distribution (the target domain). A common example is spam filtering, where a model trained on emails from one user (source domain) is adapted to handle emails for another user with significantly different patterns (target domain). Domain adaptation techniques can also leverage unrelated data sources to improve learning. When multiple source distributions are involved, the problem extends to multi-source domain adaptation. Domain adaptation is a specific type of transfer learning. According to the taxonomy laid out by Pan and Yang (2010), it falls into the category of transductive transfer learning. In this setting, the source and target tasks are the same (e.g., both are object recognition), but the domains differ (different marginal distributions). This distinguishes it from inductive transfer learning (where labeled data is available for the target task) and unsupervised transfer learning (where labels are unavailable in both domains). == Classification of domain adaptation problems == Domain adaptation setups are classified in two different ways: according to the distribution shift between the domains, and according to the available data from the target domain. === Distribution shifts === Common distribution shifts are classified as follows: Covariate Shift occurs when the input distributions of the source and destination change, but the relationship between inputs and labels remains unchanged. The above-mentioned spam filtering example typically falls in this category. Namely, the distributions (patterns) of emails may differ between the domains, but emails labeled as spam in the one domain should similarly be labeled in another. Prior Shift (Label Shift) occurs when the label distribution differs between the source and target datasets, while the conditional distribution of features given labels remains the same. An example is a classifier of hair color in images from Italy (source domain) and Norway (target domain). The proportions of hair colors (labels) differ, but images within classes like blond and black-haired populations remain consistent across domains. A classifier for the Norway population can exploit this prior knowledge of class proportions to improve its estimates. Concept Shift (Conditional Shift) refers to changes in the relationship between features and labels, even if the input distribution remains the same. For instance, in medical diagnosis, the same symptoms (inputs) may indicate entirely different diseases (labels) in different populations (domains). === Data available during training === Domain adaptation problems typically assume that some data from the target domain is available during training. Problems can be classified according to the type of this available data: Unsupervised: Unlabeled data from the target domain is available, but no labeled data. In the above-mentioned example of spam filtering, this corresponds to the case where emails from the target domain (user) are available, but they are not labeled as spam. Domain adaptation methods can benefit from such unlabeled data, by comparing its distribution (patterns) with the labeled source domain data. Semi-supervised: Most data that is available from the target domain is unlabelled, but some labeled data is also available. In the above-mentioned case of spam filter design, this corresponds to the case that the target user has labeled some emails as being spam or not. Supervised: All data that is available from the target domain is labeled. In this case, domain adaptation reduces to refinement of the source domain predictor. In the above-mentioned example classification of hair-color from images, this could correspond to the refinement of a network already trained on a large dataset of labeled images from Italy, using newly available labeled images from Norway. == Formalization == Let X {\displaystyle X} be the input space (or description space) and let Y {\displaystyle Y} be the output space (or label space). The objective of a machine learning algorithm is to learn a mathematical model (a hypothesis) h : X → Y {\displaystyle h:X\to Y} able to attach a label from Y {\displaystyle Y} to an example from X {\displaystyle X} . This model is learned from a learning sample S = { ( x i , y i ) ∈ ( X × Y ) } i = 1 m {\displaystyle S=\{(x_{i},y_{i})\in (X\times Y)\}_{i=1}^{m}} . Usually in supervised learning (without domain adaptation), we suppose that the examples ( x i , y i ) ∈ S {\displaystyle (x_{i},y_{i})\in S} are drawn i.i.d. from a distribution D S {\displaystyle D_{S}} of support X × Y {\displaystyle X\times Y} (unknown and fixed). The objective is then to learn h {\displaystyle h} (from S {\displaystyle S} ) such that it commits the least error possible for labelling new examples coming from the distribution D S {\displaystyle D_{S}} . The main difference between supervised learning and domain adaptation is that in the latter situation we study two different (but related) distributions D S {\displaystyle D_{S}} and D T {\displaystyle D_{T}} on X × Y {\displaystyle X\times Y} . The domain adaptation task then consists of the transfer of knowledge from the source domain D S {\displaystyle D_{S}} to the target one D T {\displaystyle D_{T}} . The goal is then to learn h {\displaystyle h} (from labeled or unlabelled samples coming from the two domains) such that it commits as little error as possible on the target domain D T {\displaystyle D_{T}} . The major issue is the following: if a model is learned from a source domain, what is its capacity to correctly label data coming from the target domain? == Four algorithmic principles == === Reweighting algorithms === The objective is to reweight the source labeled sample such that it "looks like" the target sample (in terms of the error measure considered). === Iterative algorithms === A method for adapting consists in iteratively "auto-labeling" the target examples. The principle is simple: a model h {\displaystyle h} is learned from the labeled examples; h {\displaystyle h} automatically labels some target examples; a new model is learned from the new labeled examples. Note that there exist other iterative approaches, but they usually need target labeled examples. === Search of a common representation space === The goal is to find or construct a common representation space for the two domains. The objective is to obtain a space in which the domains are close to each other while keeping good performances on the source labeling task. This can be achieved through the use of Adversarial machine learning techniques where feature representations from samples in different domains are encouraged to be indistinguishable. === Hierarchical Bayesian Model === The goal is to construct a Bayesian hierarchical model p ( n ) {\displaystyle p(n)} , which is essentially a factorization model for counts n {\displaystyle n} , to derive domain-dependent latent representations allowing both domain-specific and globally shared latent factors. == Software packages == Several compilations of domain adaptation and transfer learning algorithms have been implemented over the past decades: SKADA (Python) ADAPT (Python) TLlib (Python) Domain-Adaptation-Toolbox (MATLAB)
Read more →
AI Background Removers: Free vs Paid (2026)

Looking for the best AI background remover? An AI background remover is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it can save you hours every week by automating repetitive work. Most options offer a generous free tier, with paid plans unlocking higher limits, faster processing, and team features. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI background remover slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. Read on for hands-on impressions, pricing tiers, and the standout features that matter.
Read more →
AI Website Builders Reviews: What Actually Works in 2026

Trying to pick the best AI website builder? An AI website builder is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it scales effortlessly from a single task to thousands. The best picks balance beginner-friendly simplicity with the depth power users need, and they ship updates often. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI website builder slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. Read on for hands-on impressions, pricing tiers, and the standout features that matter.
Read more →
Jollo

Jollo was an online machine translation service where users could instantly translate texts into 23 languages, request human translations from a community of volunteers around the world, and compare the correctness of several leading machine translation websites. It was discontinued in 2012. == System == Jollo was a free Web 2.0 website that attempted to improve the way in which people translate online through the use of existing machine translation websites and a community of volunteers who correct and rate translations. The system relied on a similar methodology as computer-assisted translation to ensure translation quality, and featured a public translation memory that records past translations. Jollo received some notable media attention, including in The Daily Telegraph. According to the blog KillerStartups, Jollo combined the benefits of the speed of machine translations and human reviews to ensure translation quality. According to Jeffrey Hill from The English Blog, the community features made Jollo an interesting alternative to other online translation services. == Development == The Jollo website was classified as beta. It was developed using LAMP and was praised for its colorful graphics and simple user interface. Jollo offered a simple web-based API that could be used for translations. For example, the URL: http://www.jollo.com/translate.php?st=I%20love%20you&sl=en&tl=zh was used to translate the sentence "I love you" from English into Chinese.
Read more →
C-RAN

C-RAN (Cloud-RAN), also referred to as Centralized-RAN, is an architecture for cellular networks. C-RAN is a centralized, cloud computing-based architecture for radio access networks that supports 2G, 3G, 4G, 5G and future wireless communication standards. Its name comes from the four 'C's in the main characteristics of C-RAN system, "Clean, Centralized processing, Collaborative radio, and a real-time Cloud Radio Access Network". == Background == Traditional cellular, or Radio Access Networks (RAN), consist of many stand-alone base stations (BTS). Each BTS covers a small area, whereas a group BTS provides coverage over a continuous area. Each BTS processes and transmits its own signal to and from the mobile terminal, and forwards the data payload to and from the mobile terminal and out to the core network via the backhaul. Each BTS has its own cooling, back haul transportation, backup battery, monitoring system, and so on. Because of limited spectral resources, network operators 'reuse' the frequency among different base stations, which can cause interference between neighboring cells. There are several limitations in the traditional cellular architecture. First, each BTS is costly to build and operate. Moore's law helps reduce the size and power of an electrical system, but the supporting facilities of the BTS are not improved quite as well. Second, when more BTS are added to a system to improve its capacity, interference among BTS is more severe as BTS are closer to each other and more of them are using the same frequency. Third, because users are mobile, the traffic of each BTS fluctuates (called 'tide effect'), and as a result, the average utilization rate of individual BTS is pretty low. However, these processing resources cannot be shared with other BTS. Therefore, all BTS are designed to handle the maximum traffic, not average traffic, resulting in a waste of processing resources and power at idle times. == Evolution of base station architecture == === All-in-one macro base station === In the 1G and 2G cellular networks, base stations had an all-in-one architecture. Analog, digital, and power functions were housed in a single cabinet as large as a refrigerator. Usually the base station cabinet was placed in a dedicated room along with all necessary supporting facilitates such as power, backup battery, air conditioning, environment surveillance, and backhaul transmission equipment. The RF signal is generated by the base station RF unit and propagates through pairs of RF cables up to the antennas on the top of a base station tower or other mounting points. This all-in-one architecture was mostly found in macro cell deployments. === Distributed base station === For 3G, a distributed base station architecture was introduced by Ericsson, Nokia, Huawei, and other leading telecom equipment vendors. In this architecture the radio function unit, also known as the remote radio head (RRH), is separated from the digital function unit, or baseband unit (BBU) by fiber. Digital baseband signals are carried over fiber, using the Open Base Station Architecture Initiative (OBSAI) or Common Public Radio Interface (CPRI) standard. The RRH can be installed on the top of tower close to the antenna, reducing the loss compared to the traditional base station where the RF signal has to travel through a long cable from the base station cabinet to the antenna at the top of the tower. The fiber link between RRH and BBU also allows more flexibility in network planning and deployment as they can be placed a few hundred meters or a few kilometers away. Most modern base stations now use this decoupled architecture. === C-RAN/Cloud-RAN === C-RAN may be viewed as an architectural evolution of the above distributed base station system. It takes advantage of many technological advances in wireless, optical and IT communications systems. For example, it uses the latest CPRI standard, low cost Coarse or Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing (CWDM/ DWDM) technology, and mmWave to allow transmission of baseband signal over long distance thus achieving large scale centralised base station deployment. It applies recent Data Centre Network technology to allow a low cost, high reliability, low latency and high bandwidth interconnect network in the BBU pool. It utilizes open platforms and real-time virtualization technology rooted in cloud computing to achieve dynamic shared resource allocation and support multi-vendor, multi-technology environments. == Architecture overview == C-RAN architecture has the following characteristics that are distinct from other cellular architectures: Large scale centralized deployment: Allows many RRHs to connect to a centralized BBU pool. The maximum distance can be 20km in fiber link for 4G (LTE/LTE-A) systems, and even longer distances (40~80km) for 3G (WCDMA/TD-SCDMA) and 2G (GSM/CDMA) systems. Native support to Collaborative Radio technologies: Any BBU can talk with any other BBU within the BBU pool with very high bandwidth (10 Gbit/s and above) and low latency (10 μs level). This is enabled by the interconnection of BBUs in the pool. This is one major difference from BBU Hotelling, or base station Hotelling; in the latter case, the BBUs of different base stations are simply stacked together and have no direct link between them to allow physical layer co-ordination. Real-time virtualization capability based on open platform: This is different from traditional base stations built on proprietary hardware, where the software and hardware are close-sourced and provided by single vendors. In contrast, a C-RAN BBU pool is built on open hardware, like x86/ARM CPU based servers, and interface cards that handle fiber links to RRHs and inter-connections in the pool. Real-time virtualization ensures that resources in the pool can be allocated dynamically to base station software stacks, say 4G/3G/2G function modules from different vendors, according to network load. However, to satisfy the strict timing requirements of wireless communication systems, the real-time performance for C-RAN is at the level of tens of microseconds, which is two orders of magnitude better than the millisecond level 'real-time' performance usually seen in Cloud Computing environments. == Similar architecture and systems == KT, a telecom operator in the Republic of Korea, introduced a Cloud Computing Center (CCC) system in their 3G (WCDMA/HSPA) and 4G (LTE/LTE-A) network in 2011 and 2012. The concept of CCC is basically the same as C-RAN. SK Telecom has also deployed Smart Cloud Access Network (SCAN) and Advanced-SCAN in their 4G (LTE/LTE-A) network in Korea no later than 2012. In 2014, Airvana (now CommScope) introduced OneCell, a C-RAN-based small cell system designed for enterprises and public spaces. == Competing architectures in cellular network evolution == === All-in-one BTS === One major alternative solution that is addressing similar challenges of RAN, is the small size, all-in-one outdoor BTS. Thanks to the achievements in the semiconductor industry, all the functionality of a BTS, including RF, baseband processing, MAC processing and package level processing, can now be implemented in a volume of <50 liters. This makes the system small and weatherproof, reduces the difficulty of BTS site choice and construction, eliminates the air conditioning requirement, and thus reduces operational costs. However, because each BTS is still working on its own, it cannot readily make use of the collaboration algorithms to reduce the interference between neighboring BTSs. It is also relatively hard to upgrade or repair because the all-in-one BTS units are usually mounted near the antenna. More processing units in less-protected environments also implies a higher failure rate compared to C-RAN, which only has the RRU deployed outdoors. The advantage of Cloud RAN lies in its ability to implement LTE-Advanced features such as Coordinated MultiPoint (CoMP) with very low latency between multiple radio heads. However, the economic benefit of improvements such as CoMP can be negated by the higher backhaul costs for some operators. === Small cell === The main competition between small cell and C-RAN occurs in two deployment scenarios: outdoor hotspot coverage and indoor coverage. == Academic research and publications == As one of the promising evolution paths for future cellular network architecture, C-RAN has attracted high academic research interest. Meanwhile, because the native support of cooperative radio capability built into the C-RAN architecture, it also enables many advanced algorithms that were hard to implement in cellular networks, including Cooperative Multi-Point Transmission/Receiving, Network Coding, etc. In October 2011, Wireless World Research Forum 27 was hosted in Germany, when China Mobile was invited to give a C-RAN presentation. In August 2012, IEEE C-RAN 2012 workshop was hosted in Kunming, China. CRC Press published a book, "Green Communications: Theore
Read more →
Is an AI Logo Maker Worth It in 2026?

Looking for the best AI logo maker? An AI logo maker is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it can save you hours every week by automating repetitive work. Most options offer a generous free tier, with paid plans unlocking higher limits, faster processing, and team features. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI logo maker slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. This guide breaks down the top picks, their pros and cons, and who each one is best for.
Read more →
Is an AI Code Generator Worth It in 2026?

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