AI For Business Brian Hanson

AI For Business Brian Hanson — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  Hamilton C shell

  Hamilton C shell is a clone of the Unix C shell and utilities for Microsoft Windows created by Nicole Hamilton at Hamilton Laboratories as a completely original work, not based on any prior code. It was first released on OS/2 on December 12, 1988 and on Windows NT in July 1992. The OS/2 version was discontinued in 2003 but the Windows version continues to be actively supported. == Design == Hamilton C shell differs from the Unix C shell in several respects. These include its compiler architecture, its use of threads, and the decision to follow Windows rather than Unix conventions. === Parser === The original C shell uses an ad hoc parser. This has led to complaints about its limitations. It works well enough for the kinds of things users type interactively but not very well for the more complex commands a user might take time to write in a script. It is not possible, for example, to pipe the output of a foreach statement into grep. There was a limit to how complex a command it could handle. By contrast, Hamilton uses a top-down recursive descent parser that allows it to compile statements to an internal form before running them. As a result, statements can be nested or piped arbitrarily. The language has also been extended with built-in and user-defined procedures, local variables, floating point and additional expression, editing and wildcarding operators, including an "indefinite directory" wildcard construct written as "..." that matches zero or more directory levels as required to make the rest of the pattern match. === Threads === Lacking fork or a high performance way to recreate that functionality, Hamilton uses the Windows threads facilities instead. When a new thread is created, it runs within the same process space and it shares all of the process state. If one thread changes the current directory or the contents of memory, it's changed for all the threads. It's much cheaper to create a thread than a process but there's no isolation between them. To recreate the missing isolation of separate processes, the threads cooperate to share resources using locks. === Windows conventions === Hamilton differs from other Unix shells in that it also directly supports Windows conventions for drive letters, filename slashes, escape characters, etc.

  Read more →
• 

  Maximum-entropy Markov model

  In statistics, a maximum-entropy Markov model (MEMM), or conditional Markov model (CMM), is a graphical model for sequence labeling that combines features of hidden Markov models (HMMs) and maximum entropy (MaxEnt) models. An MEMM is a discriminative model that extends a standard maximum entropy classifier by assuming that the unknown values to be learnt are connected in a Markov chain rather than being conditionally independent of each other. MEMMs find applications in natural language processing, specifically in part-of-speech tagging and information extraction. == Model == Suppose we have a sequence of observations O 1 , … , O n {\displaystyle O_{1},\dots ,O_{n}} that we seek to tag with the labels S 1 , … , S n {\displaystyle S_{1},\dots ,S_{n}} that maximize the conditional probability P ( S 1 , … , S n ∣ O 1 , … , O n ) {\displaystyle P(S_{1},\dots ,S_{n}\mid O_{1},\dots ,O_{n})} . In a MEMM, this probability is factored into Markov transition probabilities, where the probability of transitioning to a particular label depends only on the observation at that position and the previous position's label: P ( S 1 , … , S n ∣ O 1 , … , O n ) = ∏ t = 1 n P ( S t ∣ S t − 1 , O t ) . {\displaystyle P(S_{1},\dots ,S_{n}\mid O_{1},\dots ,O_{n})=\prod _{t=1}^{n}P(S_{t}\mid S_{t-1},O_{t}).} Each of these transition probabilities comes from the same general distribution P ( s ∣ s ′ , o ) {\displaystyle P(s\mid s',o)} . For each possible label value of the previous label s ′ {\displaystyle s'} , the probability of a certain label s {\displaystyle s} is modeled in the same way as a maximum entropy classifier: P ( s ∣ s ′ , o ) = P s ′ ( s ∣ o ) = 1 Z ( o , s ′ ) exp ⁡ ( ∑ a λ a f a ( o , s ) ) . {\displaystyle P(s\mid s',o)=P_{s'}(s\mid o)={\frac {1}{Z(o,s')}}\exp \left(\sum _{a}\lambda _{a}f_{a}(o,s)\right).} Here, the f a ( o , s ) {\displaystyle f_{a}(o,s)} are real-valued or categorical feature-functions, and Z ( o , s ′ ) {\displaystyle Z(o,s')} is a normalization term ensuring that the distribution sums to one. This form for the distribution corresponds to the maximum entropy probability distribution satisfying the constraint that the empirical expectation for the feature is equal to the expectation given the model: E e ⁡ [ f a ( o , s ) ] = E p ⁡ [ f a ( o , s ) ] for all a . {\displaystyle \operatorname {E} _{e}\left[f_{a}(o,s)\right]=\operatorname {E} _{p}\left[f_{a}(o,s)\right]\quad {\text{ for all }}a.} The parameters λ a {\displaystyle \lambda _{a}} can be estimated using generalized iterative scaling. Furthermore, a variant of the Baum–Welch algorithm, which is used for training HMMs, can be used to estimate parameters when training data has incomplete or missing labels. The optimal state sequence S 1 , … , S n {\displaystyle S_{1},\dots ,S_{n}} can be found using a very similar Viterbi algorithm to the one used for HMMs. The dynamic program uses the forward probability: α t + 1 ( s ) = ∑ s ′ ∈ S α t ( s ′ ) P s ′ ( s ∣ o t + 1 ) . {\displaystyle \alpha _{t+1}(s)=\sum _{s'\in S}\alpha _{t}(s')P_{s'}(s\mid o_{t+1}).} == Strengths and weaknesses == An advantage of MEMMs rather than HMMs for sequence tagging is that they offer increased freedom in choosing features to represent observations. In sequence tagging situations, it is useful to use domain knowledge to design special-purpose features. In the original paper introducing MEMMs, the authors write that "when trying to extract previously unseen company names from a newswire article, the identity of a word alone is not very predictive; however, knowing that the word is capitalized, that is a noun, that it is used in an appositive, and that it appears near the top of the article would all be quite predictive (in conjunction with the context provided by the state-transition structure)." Useful sequence tagging features, such as these, are often non-independent. Maximum entropy models do not assume independence between features, but generative observation models used in HMMs do. Therefore, MEMMs allow the user to specify many correlated, but informative features. Another advantage of MEMMs versus HMMs and conditional random fields (CRFs) is that training can be considerably more efficient. In HMMs and CRFs, one needs to use some version of the forward–backward algorithm as an inner loop in training. However, in MEMMs, estimating the parameters of the maximum-entropy distributions used for the transition probabilities can be done for each transition distribution in isolation. A drawback of MEMMs is that they potentially suffer from the "label bias problem," where states with low-entropy transition distributions "effectively ignore their observations." Conditional random fields were designed to overcome this weakness, which had already been recognised in the context of neural network-based Markov models in the early 1990s. Another source of label bias is that training is always done with respect to known previous tags, so the model struggles at test time when there is uncertainty in the previous tag.

  Read more →
• 

  Andrei Knyazev (mathematician)

  Andrew Knyazev is an American mathematician. He graduated from the Faculty of Computational Mathematics and Cybernetics of Moscow State University under the supervision of Evgenii Georgievich D'yakonov (Russian: Евгений Георгиевич Дьяконов) in 1981 and obtained his PhD in Numerical Mathematics at the Russian Academy of Sciences under the supervision of Vyacheslav Ivanovich Lebedev (Russian: Вячеслав Иванович Лебедев) in 1985. He worked at the Kurchatov Institute between 1981–1983, and then to 1992 at the Marchuk Institute of Numerical Mathematics (Russian: ru:Институт вычислительной математики имени Г. И. Марчука РАН) of the Russian Academy of Sciences, headed by Gury Marchuk (Russian: Гурий Иванович Марчук). From 1993–1994, Knyazev held a visiting position at the Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences of New York University, collaborating with Olof B. Widlund. From 1994 until retirement in 2014, he was a Professor of Mathematics at the University of Colorado Denver, supported by the National Science Foundation and United States Department of Energy grants. He was a recipient of the 2008 Excellence in Research Award, the 2000 college Teaching Excellence Award, and a finalist of the CU President's Faculty Excellence Award for Advancing Teaching and Learning through Technology in 1999. He was awarded the title of Professor Emeritus at the University of Colorado Denver and named the SIAM Fellow Class of 2016 and AMS Fellow Class of 2019. From 2012–2018, Knyazev worked at the Mitsubishi Electric Research Laboratories on algorithms for image and video processing, data sciences, optimal control, and material sciences, resulting in dozens of publications and 13 patent applications. Since 2018, he contributed to numerical techniques in quantum computing at Zapata Computing, real-time embedded anomaly detection in automotive data, and algorithms for silicon photonics-based hardware. Knyazev is mostly known for his work in numerical solution of large sparse eigenvalue problems, particularly preconditioning and the iterative method LOBPCG. Knyazev's implementation of LOBPCG is available in many open source software packages, e.g., BLOPEX, SciPy, and ABINIT. Knyazev collaborated with John Osborn on the theory of the Ritz method in the finite element method context and with Nikolai Sergeevich Bakhvalov (Russian: Николай Серге́евич Бахвалов) (Erdős number 3 via Leonid Kantorovich) on numerical solution of elliptic partial differential equations with large jumps in the main coefficients. Jointly with his Ph.D. students, Knyazev pioneered using majorization for bounds in the Rayleigh–Ritz method (see and references there) and contributed to the theory of angles between flats.

  Read more →
• 

  Statistical machine translation

  Statistical machine translation (SMT) is a machine translation approach where translations are generated on the basis of statistical models whose parameters are derived from the analysis of bilingual text corpora. The statistical approach contrasts with the rule-based approaches to machine translation as well as with example-based machine translation, that superseded the previous rule-based approach that required explicit description of each and every linguistic rule, which was costly, and which often did not generalize to other languages. The first ideas of statistical machine translation were introduced by Warren Weaver in 1949, including the ideas of applying Claude Shannon's information theory. Statistical machine translation was re-introduced in the late 1980s and early 1990s by researchers at IBM's Thomas J. Watson Research Center. Before the introduction of neural machine translation, it was by far the most widely studied machine translation method. == Basis == The idea behind statistical machine translation comes from information theory. A document is translated according to the probability distribution p ( e | f ) {\displaystyle p(e|f)} that a string e {\displaystyle e} in the target language (for example, English) is the translation of a string f {\displaystyle f} in the source language (for example, French). The problem of modeling the probability distribution p ( e | f ) {\displaystyle p(e|f)} has been approached in a number of ways. One approach which lends itself well to computer implementation is to apply Bayes' theorem, that is p ( e | f ) ∝ p ( f | e ) p ( e ) {\displaystyle p(e|f)\propto p(f|e)p(e)} , where the translation model p ( f | e ) {\displaystyle p(f|e)} is the probability that the source string is the translation of the target string, and the language model p ( e ) {\displaystyle p(e)} is the probability of seeing that target language string. This decomposition is attractive as it splits the problem into two subproblems. Finding the best translation e ~ {\displaystyle {\tilde {e}}} is done by picking up the one that gives the highest probability: e ~ = a r g max e ∈ e ∗ p ( e | f ) = a r g max e ∈ e ∗ p ( f | e ) p ( e ) {\displaystyle {\tilde {e}}=arg\max _{e\in e^{}}p(e|f)=arg\max _{e\in e^{}}p(f|e)p(e)} . For a rigorous implementation of this one would have to perform an exhaustive search by going through all strings e ∗ {\displaystyle e^{}} in the native language. Performing the search efficiently is the work of a machine translation decoder that uses the foreign string, heuristics and other methods to limit the search space and at the same time keeping acceptable quality. This trade-off between quality and time usage can also be found in speech recognition. As the translation systems are not able to store all native strings and their translations, a document is typically translated sentence by sentence. Language models are typically approximated by smoothed n-gram models, and similar approaches have been applied to translation models, but this introduces additional complexity due to different sentence lengths and word orders in the languages. Statistical translation models were initially word based (Models 1-5 from IBM Hidden Markov model from Stephan Vogel and Model 6 from Franz-Joseph Och), but significant advances were made with the introduction of phrase based models. Later work incorporated syntax or quasi-syntactic structures. == Benefits == The most frequently cited benefits of statistical machine translation (SMT) over rule-based approach are: More efficient use of human and data resources There are many parallel corpora in machine-readable format and even more monolingual data. Generally, SMT systems are not tailored to any specific pair of languages. More fluent translations owing to use of a language model == Shortcomings == Corpus creation can be costly. Specific errors are hard to predict and fix. Results may have superficial fluency that masks translation problems. Statistical machine translation usually works less well for language pairs with significantly different word order. The benefits obtained for translation between Western European languages are not representative of results for other language pairs, owing to smaller training corpora and greater grammatical differences. == Word-based translation == In word-based translation, the fundamental unit of translation is a word in some natural language. Typically, the number of words in translated sentences are different, because of compound words, morphology and idioms. The ratio of the lengths of sequences of translated words is called fertility, which tells how many foreign words each native word produces. Necessarily it is assumed by information theory that each covers the same concept. In practice this is not really true. For example, the English word corner can be translated in Spanish by either rincón or esquina, depending on whether it is to mean its internal or external angle. Simple word-based translation cannot translate between languages with different fertility. Word-based translation systems can relatively simply be made to cope with high fertility, such that they could map a single word to multiple words, but not the other way about. For example, if we were translating from English to French, each word in English could produce any number of French words— sometimes none at all. But there is no way to group two English words producing a single French word. An example of a word-based translation system is the freely available GIZA++ package (GPLed), which includes the training program for IBM models and HMM model and Model 6. The word-based translation is not widely used today; phrase-based systems are more common. Most phrase-based systems are still using GIZA++ to align the corpus. The alignments are used to extract phrases or deduce syntax rules. And matching words in bi-text is still a problem actively discussed in the community. Because of the predominance of GIZA++, there are now several distributed implementations of it online. == Phrase-based translation == In phrase-based translation, the aim is to reduce the restrictions of word-based translation by translating whole sequences of words, where the lengths may differ. The sequences of words are called blocks or phrases. These are typically not linguistic phrases, but phrasemes that were found using statistical methods from corpora. It has been shown that restricting the phrases to linguistic phrases (syntactically motivated groups of words, see syntactic categories) decreased the quality of translation. The chosen phrases are further mapped one-to-one based on a phrase translation table, and may be reordered. This table could be learnt based on word-alignment, or directly from a parallel corpus. The second model is trained using the expectation maximization algorithm, similarly to the word-based IBM model. == Syntax-based translation == Syntax-based translation is based on the idea of translating syntactic units, rather than single words or strings of words (as in phrase-based MT), i.e. (partial) parse trees of sentences/utterances. Until the 1990s, with advent of strong stochastic parsers, the statistical counterpart of the old idea of syntax-based translation did not take off. Examples of this approach include DOP-based MT and later synchronous context-free grammars. == Hierarchical phrase-based translation == Hierarchical phrase-based translation combines the phrase-based and syntax-based approaches to translation. It uses synchronous context-free grammar rules, but the grammars can be constructed by an extension of methods for phrase-based translation without reference to linguistically motivated syntactic constituents. This idea was first introduced in Chiang's Hiero system (2005). == Language models == A language model is an essential component of any statistical machine translation system, which aids in making the translation as fluent as possible. It is a function that takes a translated sentence and returns the probability of it being said by a native speaker. A good language model will for example assign a higher probability to the sentence "the house is small" than to "small the is house". Other than word order, language models may also help with word choice: if a foreign word has multiple possible translations, these functions may give better probabilities for certain translations in specific contexts in the target language. == Systems implementing statistical machine translation == Google Translate (started transition to neural machine translation in 2016) Microsoft Translator (started transition to neural machine translation in 2016) Yandex.Translate (switched to hybrid approach incorporating neural machine translation in 2017) == Challenges with statistical machine translation == Problems with statistical machine translation include: === Sentence alignment === Single sentences in one language can be found translated into several sentences in the o

  Read more →
• 

  Digistar

  Digistar is the first computer graphics-based planetarium projection and content system. It was designed by Evans & Sutherland and released in 1983. The technology originally focused on accurate and high quality display of stars, including for the first time showing stars from points of view other than Earth's surface, travelling through the stars, and accurately showing celestial bodies from different times in the past and future. Beginning with the Digistar 3 the system now projects full-dome video. == Projector == Unlike modern full-dome systems, which use LCD, DLP, SXRD, or laser projection technology, the Digistar projection system was designed for projecting bright pinpoints of light representing stars. This was accomplished using a calligraphic display, a form of vector graphics, rather than raster graphics. The heart of the Digistar projector is a large cathode-ray tube (CRT). A phosphor plate is mounted atop the tube, and light is then dispersed by a large lens with a 160 degree field of view to cover the planetarium dome. The original lens bore the inscription: "August 1979 mfg. by Lincoln Optical Corp., L.A., CA for Evans and Sutherland Computer Corp., SLC, UT, Digital planetarium CRT projection lens, 43mm, f2.8, 160 degree field of view". The coordinates of the stars and wire-frame models to be displayed by the projector were stored in computer RAM in a display list. The display would read each set of coordinates in turn and drive the CRT's electron beam directly to those coordinates. If the electron beam was enabled while being moved a line would be painted on the phosphor plate. Otherwise, the electron beam would be enabled once at its destination and a star would be painted. Once all coordinates in the display list had been processed, the display would repeat from the top of the display list. Thus, the shorter the display list the more frequently the electron beam would refresh the charge on a given point on the phosphor plate, making the projection of the points brighter. In this way, the stars projected by Digistar were substantially brighter than could be achieved using a raster display, which has to touch every point on the phosphor plate before repeating. Likewise, the calligraphic technology allowed Digistar to have a darker black-level than full-dome projectors, since the portions of the phosphor plate representing dark sky were never hit by the electron beam. As it is only one tube, with no pixelated color filter screen, the Digistar projector is monochromatic. The Digistar projects a bright, phosphorescent green, though many (including both visitors and planetarians) report they cannot distinguish between this green and white. Additionally, unlike a raster display, the calligraphic display is not discretized into pixels, so the displayed stars were a more realistic single spot of light, without the blocky or ropy artifacts that are hard to avoid with raster graphics. Due to the use of vector graphics, as opposed to raster imaging, the Digistar does not have the resolution issues that many full-dome systems have. Thanks to this, and the brightness of the CRT, only one projector is needed to project on the entire dome, whereas most full-dome systems require up to six raster projectors, depending on dome size. The projector in the original Digistar was housed in a square pyramid-shaped sheathing. When powered on, the four sides at the tip of the pyramid would recede into the housing, exposing the lens and appearing as a cut-off pyramid. As Digistar II was being developed, many planetaria were sold Digistar LEA projectors. The LEA, called Digistar 1.5 by many users, was effectively a prototype of the D2 projector, compatible with Digistar and upgradable to Digistar II. There are no significant differences in performance between the LEA and the true D2. == History == Digistar was the brainchild of Stephen McAllister and Brent Watson, both of whom were long-time amateur astronomers and computer graphics engineers. In 1977, E&S had been consulting with Johnson Space Center regarding training simulators for astronauts. McAllister had been writing proof-of-concept software for this consultation and in summer 1977 entered the data for 400 bright stars and wrote the software to display them. Steve and Brent both originally saw the system's purpose as celestial navigation training. Brent, who had until recently worked at Hansen planetarium, asked his planetarium coworkers what they thought of a potential digital planetarium system, and then Steve and Brent both targeted the system toward planetaria. The primary goal of the planetarium system was to use computer graphics to overcome the limitation of traditional star ball technology that only allowed display of star fields from the point of view of Earth's surface. By using computer graphics the stars could be displayed from viewpoints in space, including simulating the appearance of space flight. Likewise, planets and moons within the Solar System could be displayed accurately for any time in history, from any point of view. The system used the location of real stars from the Yale Bright Star Catalogue, as well as random stars. A laboratory prototype of Digistar was used to generate the star fields and tactical displays in the 1982 science fiction film Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. Filming was done directly from the Digistar display in the lab. ILM projected the effort would take two weeks, but in fact it took from late November 1981 until mid-February 1982. The last shot recorded was what became the first entirely computer generated feature film sequence. It was the opening scene of the film, a rotating forward translation through a star field that lasted 3.5 minutes. It was recorded in one take, at a rate of one frame every 3.5 seconds, taking four hours for the shoot. The Digistar team members are credited in the film. After prototyping in labs at Evans and Sutherland the team repeatedly used Salt Lake City's Hansen planetarium to beta test the system at the planetarium at night. The Digistar team performed one week of shows at the planetarium as a fund raiser to benefit the planetarium. The company also later gave the planetarium an improved prototype Digistar to replace "Jake", the planetarium's aging Spitz planetarium projector. The first customer installation was to the newly constructed Universe Planetarium at the Science Museum of Virginia in 1983, the largest planetarium dome in the world at the time, for $595,000. By September 1986 there were four installed Digistars. Even at this point the long-term success of the product was very much in doubt, but as of 2019 Digistar has an installed base of over 550 planetaria. === Versions === Digistar (1983) Digistar II (1995) Digistar 3 (2002) Digistar 4 (2010?) Digistar 5 (2012) Digistar 6 (2016) Digistar 7 (2021) == Hardware == Digistar was driven by a VAX-11/780 minicomputer, with custom graphics hardware related to the E&S Picture System 2. Later versions of Digistar 1 used a DEC MicroVAX 2, driving a custom version of a PS/300. The original Digistar and Digistar 2 had a physical control panel that was used for running the star shows. This control panel was approximately 3' x 4' and contained a keyboard, a 6 DOF joystick, and a large array of back-lit buttons. One button that was used for moving the viewpoint forward in space was labeled "Boldly Go". Later iterations of Digistar replaced the physical control panel with a common graphical user interface. Digistar 3 was the first Digistar system to offer full-dome video in 2002, using six projectors. Digistar 4 was able to cover the dome using only two projectors. == System limitations == Though technologically advanced in its day, and the closest system to true full-dome video at the time of its release, the original Digistar and Digistar 2 are limited to only projecting dots and lines—meaning only wireframe models can be projected. To compensate for this, the projector is capable of defocusing specific models, blurring lines and dots together. An example of this is in the Digistar 2's built-in Milky Way model. The model is a circle of parallel lines that, when defocused, appear as the continuous band of the Milky Way across the sky. On more complex models, especially three-dimensional ones, brightness and details may be lost in this process, so it is not useful in all situations. The Digistar and Digistar 2 also suffer focus limitations. Because they use a single lens to cover the entire dome, it is difficult to gain perfect focus across the dome. Coupled with this, stars greater than a certain brightness are "multihit" points, meaning the projector draws two dots at the given position to accommodate the brightness of the star. Errors in the projector can lead the second dot to be slightly out-of-place with the first one. These two issues together, along with other issues that can occur within the projector's focus system, give the stars a blobby look. Some p

  Read more →
• 

  Google matrix

  A Google matrix is a particular stochastic matrix that is used by Google's PageRank algorithm. The matrix represents a graph with edges representing links between pages. The PageRank of each page can then be generated iteratively from the Google matrix using the power method. However, in order for the power method to converge, the matrix must be stochastic, irreducible and aperiodic. == Adjacency matrix A and Markov matrix S == In order to generate the Google matrix G, we must first generate an adjacency matrix A which represents the relations between pages or nodes. Assuming there are N pages, we can fill out A by doing the following: A matrix element A i , j {\displaystyle A_{i,j}} is filled with 1 if node j {\displaystyle j} has a link to node i {\displaystyle i} , and 0 otherwise; this is the adjacency matrix of links. A related matrix S corresponding to the transitions in a Markov chain of given network is constructed from A by dividing the elements of column "j" by a number of k j = Σ i = 1 N A i , j {\displaystyle k_{j}=\Sigma _{i=1}^{N}A_{i,j}} where k j {\displaystyle k_{j}} is the total number of outgoing links from node j to all other nodes. The columns having zero matrix elements, corresponding to dangling nodes, are replaced by a constant value 1/N. Such a procedure adds a link from every sink, dangling state a {\displaystyle a} to every other node. Now by the construction the sum of all elements in any column of matrix S is equal to unity. In this way the matrix S is mathematically well defined and it belongs to the class of Markov chains and the class of Perron-Frobenius operators. That makes S suitable for the PageRank algorithm. == Construction of Google matrix G == Then the final Google matrix G can be expressed via S as: G i j = α S i j + ( 1 − α ) 1 N ( 1 ) {\displaystyle G_{ij}=\alpha S_{ij}+(1-\alpha ){\frac {1}{N}}\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;(1)} By the construction the sum of all non-negative elements inside each matrix column is equal to unity. The numerical coefficient α {\displaystyle \alpha } is known as a damping factor. Usually S is a sparse matrix and for modern directed networks it has only about ten nonzero elements in a line or column, thus only about 10N multiplications are needed to multiply a vector by matrix G. == Examples of Google matrix == An example of the matrix S {\displaystyle S} construction via Eq.(1) within a simple network is given in the article CheiRank. For the actual matrix, Google uses a damping factor α {\displaystyle \alpha } around 0.85. The term ( 1 − α ) {\displaystyle (1-\alpha )} gives a surfer probability to jump randomly on any page. The matrix G {\displaystyle G} belongs to the class of Perron-Frobenius operators of Markov chains. The examples of Google matrix structure are shown in Fig.1 for Wikipedia articles hyperlink network in 2009 at small scale and in Fig.2 for University of Cambridge network in 2006 at large scale. == Spectrum and eigenstates of G matrix == For 0 < α < 1 {\displaystyle 0<\alpha <1} there is only one maximal eigenvalue λ = 1 {\displaystyle \lambda =1} with the corresponding right eigenvector which has non-negative elements P i {\displaystyle P_{i}} which can be viewed as stationary probability distribution. These probabilities ordered by their decreasing values give the PageRank vector P i {\displaystyle P_{i}} with the PageRank K i {\displaystyle K_{i}} used by Google search to rank webpages. Usually one has for the World Wide Web that P ∝ 1 / K β {\displaystyle P\propto 1/K^{\beta }} with β ≈ 0.9 {\displaystyle \beta \approx 0.9} . The number of nodes with a given PageRank value scales as N P ∝ 1 / P ν {\displaystyle N_{P}\propto 1/P^{\nu }} with the exponent ν = 1 + 1 / β ≈ 2.1 {\displaystyle \nu =1+1/\beta \approx 2.1} . The left eigenvector at λ = 1 {\displaystyle \lambda =1} has constant matrix elements. With 0 < α {\displaystyle 0<\alpha } all eigenvalues move as λ i → α λ i {\displaystyle \lambda _{i}\rightarrow \alpha \lambda _{i}} except the maximal eigenvalue λ = 1 {\displaystyle \lambda =1} , which remains unchanged. The PageRank vector varies with α {\displaystyle \alpha } but other eigenvectors with λ i < 1 {\displaystyle \lambda _{i}<1} remain unchanged due to their orthogonality to the constant left vector at λ = 1 {\displaystyle \lambda =1} . The gap between λ = 1 {\displaystyle \lambda =1} and other eigenvalue being 1 − α ≈ 0.15 {\displaystyle 1-\alpha \approx 0.15} gives a rapid convergence of a random initial vector to the PageRank approximately after 50 multiplications on G {\displaystyle G} matrix. At α = 1 {\displaystyle \alpha =1} the matrix G {\displaystyle G} has generally many degenerate eigenvalues λ = 1 {\displaystyle \lambda =1} (see e.g. [6]). Examples of the eigenvalue spectrum of the Google matrix of various directed networks is shown in Fig.3 from and Fig.4 from. The Google matrix can be also constructed for the Ulam networks generated by the Ulam method [8] for dynamical maps. The spectral properties of such matrices are discussed in [9,10,11,12,13,15]. In a number of cases the spectrum is described by the fractal Weyl law [10,12]. The Google matrix can be constructed also for other directed networks, e.g. for the procedure call network of the Linux Kernel software introduced in [15]. In this case the spectrum of λ {\displaystyle \lambda } is described by the fractal Weyl law with the fractal dimension d ≈ 1.3 {\displaystyle d\approx 1.3} (see Fig.5 from ). Numerical analysis shows that the eigenstates of matrix G {\displaystyle G} are localized (see Fig.6 from ). Arnoldi iteration method allows to compute many eigenvalues and eigenvectors for matrices of rather large size [13]. Other examples of G {\displaystyle G} matrix include the Google matrix of brain [17] and business process management [18], see also. Applications of Google matrix analysis to DNA sequences is described in [20]. Such a Google matrix approach allows also to analyze entanglement of cultures via ranking of multilingual Wikipedia articles abouts persons [21] == Historical notes == The Google matrix with damping factor was described by Sergey Brin and Larry Page in 1998 [22], see also articles on PageRank history [23], [24].

  Read more →
• 

  Sudip Roy (computer scientist)

  Sudip Roy is a computer scientist and technology executive. He is the co-founder and chief technology officer of Adaption. He has worked on large-scale machine learning systems at organizations including Google DeepMind and Cohere. == Education == Roy earned a PhD in Computer Science from Cornell University. He holds a B.Tech in Computer Science and Engineering from the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Kharagpur. == Career == Sudip worked at Google Brain (now part of Google DeepMind) on systems research and large-scale data management. During his tenure, he contributed to infrastructure projects including Pathways and TensorFlow Extended, which support training and inference workflows for production machine learning models. He later served as Senior Director of Engineering at Cohere, leading work on inference infrastructure and fine-tuning systems. In late 2025, he co-founded the company Adaption Labs with Sara Hooker. The company focuses on developing AI systems designed for continuous learning and adaptation. Roy’s research spans systems for AI and AI for systems, including work on optimizing system performance and compilers. His publications have appeared in conferences such as MLSys, NeurIPS, SIGMOD, and KDD. He has been a program committee member or reviewer for the conferences SIGMOD, VLDB, ICDE, and MLSys. == Awards == He is the recipient of the MLSys Outstanding Paper Award (2022) and the SIGMOD Best Paper Award (2011). He holds multiple patents in machine learning systems, including methods for learned graph optimizations and neural network-based device placement.

  Read more →
• 

  Best AI Code Generators 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. We tested the leading options and ranked them by quality, value, and ease of use.

  Read more →
• 

  AI anthropomorphism

  AI anthropomorphism is the attribution of human-like feelings, mental states, and behavioral characteristics to artificial intelligence systems. Factors related to the user of the AI – such as culture, age, education, gender, and personality traits – are also important determinants of the strength of anthropomorphic effects. Since the earliest days of AI development, humans have interpreted machine outputs through anthropomorphic frameworks, but the recent emergence of generative AI has amplified these tendencies. In research and engineering, there is a distinction between anthropomorphism and anthropomorphic design. The former is an innate human tendency toward non-human entities. The latter is the scientific community effort to “design anthropomorphism”. Such a design can involve the manipulation of cues, including AI appearance, behaviour and language. Contemporary AI systems today can generate extremely human-like outputs and are often designed specifically to do so, meaning that their anthropomorphic effects can be especially powerful. In some cases, anthropomorphism is accompanied with explicit beliefs that AI systems are capable of empathy, goodwill, understanding, or consciousness. == Background == === In early AIs === Views of artificial agents possessing a human-like intelligence have existed since the early development of computers in the mid-1900s. The use of the human mind as a metaphor for understanding the workings of machine systems was prevalent among researchers in the early days of computer science, with multiple influential works widely distributing the idea of intelligent machines. Among the most widely cited papers of this period was Alan Turing's "Computing Machinery and Intelligence" in which he introduced the Turing Test, stating that a machine was intelligent if it could produce conversation that was indistinguishable from that of a human. These academic works in the 1940s and 1950s gave early credibility to the idea that machine workings could be thought of similarly to human minds. The public quickly came to view artificial systems similarly, with often exaggerated conceptions of the capabilities of early machines. Among the most well-known demonstrations of this was through the chatbot ELIZA designed by Joseph Weizenbaum in 1966. ELIZA responded to user inputs with a rudimentary text-processing approach that could not be considered anything resembling true understanding of the inputs, yet users, even when operating with full conscious knowledge of ELIZA's limitations, often began to ascribe motivation and understanding to the program's output. Weizenbaum later wrote, "I had not realized ... that extremely short exposures to a relatively simple computer program could induce powerful delusional thinking in quite normal people." Comparisons between the intellectual capabilities of artificial intelligence and human intelligence were continually intensified by the attempts of computer scientists to develop machines that could perform human tasks at a level equal to or better than humans. A symbolic turning point was achieved in 1997, when IBM's chess supercomputer Deep Blue defeated then-world champion Garry Kasparov in a highly publicized six-game match. The defeat of a human by a machine for the first time in chess – a game viewed as a canonical example of human intellect – and the media attention surrounding the match led to a significant shift, where views of parallels between human and artificial intelligence moved from abstract speculation to being concretely demonstrated. A similar achievement was reached in the board game Go in 2017, when the program AlphaGo defeated world top-ranked Ke Jie. === Large language models === The AI boom of the 2020s brought about the widespread emergence of generative AI; in particular, chatbots such as ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude based on large language models (LLMs) have become increasingly pervasive in everyday society. These systems are notable for the fact that they are able to respond to a wide range of prompts across contexts while producing strikingly human-like outputs – research has shown that humans are often unable to distinguish human-generated text from AI-generated text, and modern AI chatbots have formally been shown to pass the Turing test. As such, the anthropomorphic effects of AI are more powerful than ever. Given that LLMs have brought AI into the technological mainstream, considerable scientific effort has been devoted in recent years to understand existing and potential ramifications of AI in the public sphere; the prevalence and effects of anthropomorphism is one of those domains where much of this effort has been directed. == Current anthropomorphic attributions == === In the general public === Surveys have shown that a substantial portion of the public attributes human-like qualities to AI. In one sample of U.S. adults from 2024, two-thirds of people believed that ChatGPT is possibly conscious on some level, though other research has shown that the public still views the likelihood itself of AI consciousness as comparatively low. Another study conducted in 2025 found that women, people of color, and older individuals were most likely to anthropomorphize AI, as well as that – in general – humans view AIs as warm and competent, and anthropomorphic attributions to AI had increased by 34% in the past year. A YouGov poll reported that 46% of Americans believe that people should display politeness to AI chatbots by saying "please" and "thank you", demonstrating the application of social norms to AI. These beliefs extend to behavior, where majorities of AI users claim to always be polite to chatbots; of those who behave politely, most say they do so simply because it is the "nice" thing to do. In many recent cases, humans have developed robust interpersonal bonds with AI systems. For example: users of social chatbots like Replika and Character.ai have been documented to fall in love with the AIs, or to otherwise treat the AIs as intimate companions, and it has become increasingly common for individuals to use LLMs like ChatGPT as therapists. Chatbots are able to produce responses deeply attuned to users, as they are often designed to maximize agreeableness and mirror users' emotions; this can create compelling illusions of intimacy. === In the research community === In many cases, even AI researchers anthropomorphize AI systems in some capacity. Among the most extreme and well-publicized of these instances occurred in 2022, when engineer Blake Lemoine publicly claimed that Google's LLM LaMDA was conscious. Lemoine published the transcript of a conversation he had had with LaMDA regarding self identity and morality which he claimed was evidence of its sentience; he asserted that LaMDA was "a person" as defined by the United States Constitution and compared its mental capability to that of a 7- or 8-year-old. Lemoine's claims were widely dismissed by the scientific community and by Google itself, which described Lemoine's conclusions as "wholly unfounded" and fired him on the grounds that he had violated policies "to safeguard product information". It is much more common that AI researchers unintentionally imply humanness of AI through the ordinary use of anthropomorphic language to describe nonhuman agents. This kind of language, which Daniel Dennett coined the "intentional stance", is very common in everyday life in a variety of different contexts (e.g., "My computer doesn't want to turn on today"). For AI agents that may actually appear to very closely replicate some human abilities, however, the casual use of such anthropomorphic language in research has been scrutinized for being potentially misleading to the public. As early as 1976, Drew McDermott criticized the research community for the use of "wishful mnemonics", where AIs were referred to with terms like "understand" and "learn". In the LLM era, these criticisms have further intensified, with the negative effects of AI anthropomorphism in the public posing an especially salient danger given the elevated accessibility of modern AI. In some cases, the use of anthropomorphic language for AI is not unintentional, but is willfully used by researchers in order to promote better understanding of the brain – the idea being that, as AI can be functionally similar in some ways to the human brain, we may gain new insights and ideas from treating AI as a kind of model of the brain's workings. In particular, deep neuronal networks (DNNs) are often explicitly compared to the human brain, and significant advances in DNN research have stirred considerable enthusiasm about the ability of AI to emulate the human abilities. Caution has been urged in this domain as well, however; the use of anthropomorphic language can mask important differences that fundamentally distinguish AI from human intelligence. When it comes to DNNs, for example, it has been pointed out that they are still structurally quite different

  Read more →
• 

  Corinna Cortes

  Corinna Cortes (born 31 March 1961) is a Danish computer scientist known for her contributions to machine learning. She is a Vice President at Google Research in New York City. Cortes is an ACM Fellow and a recipient of the Paris Kanellakis Award for her work on theoretical foundations of support vector machines. == Early life and education == Corinna Cortes was born in 1961 in Denmark. Cortes received her Master of Science degree in physics from University of Copenhagen in 1989. She received her PhD in computer science from the University of Rochester in 1993 for research supervised by Randal C. Nelson. == Career and research == Cortes joined AT&T Bell Labs as a researcher in 1993. Since 2003, she has served as Vice President of Google Research, New York City, and since 2011, as adjunct professor at the UCPH Department of Computer Science. She is serves as an editorial board member of the journal Machine Learning. Cortes' research covers a wide range of topics in machine learning, including support vector machines (SVM) and data mining. SVM is one of the most frequently used algorithms in machine learning, which is used in many practical applications, including medical diagnosis and weather forecasting. At AT&T, Cortes was a contributor to the design of Hancock programming language. === Awards and honours === In 2008, she jointly with Vladimir Vapnik received the Paris Kanellakis Award for the development of a highly effective algorithm for supervised learning known as support vector machines (SVM). She was named an ACM Fellow in 2023 for theoretical and practical contributions to machine learning, industrial leadership and service to the field. == Personal life == Corinna has two children and is also a competitive runner.

  Read more →
• 

  The Best Free AI Bug Finder for Beginners

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

  Read more →
• 

  Extended affix grammar

  In computer science, extended affix grammars (EAGs) are a formal grammar formalism for describing the context free and context sensitive syntax of language, both natural language and programming languages. EAGs are a member of the family of two-level grammars; more specifically, a restriction of Van Wijngaarden grammars with the specific purpose of making parsing feasible. Like Van Wijngaarden grammars, EAGs have hyperrules that form a context-free grammar except in that their nonterminals may have arguments, known as affixes, the possible values of which are supplied by another context-free grammar, the metarules. EAGs were introduced and studied by D.A. Watt in 1974; recognizers were developed at the University of Nijmegen between 1985 and 1995. The EAG compiler developed there will generate either a recogniser, a transducer, a translator, or a syntax directed editor for a language described in the EAG formalism. The formalism is quite similar to Prolog, to the extent that it borrowed its cut operator. EAGs have been used to write grammars of natural languages such as English, Spanish, and Hungarian. The aim was to verify the grammars by making them parse corpora of text (corpus linguistics); hence, parsing had to be sufficiently practical. However, the parse tree explosion problem that ambiguities in natural language tend to produce in this type of approach is worsened for EAGs because each choice of affix value may produce a separate parse, even when several different values are equivalent. The remedy proposed was to switch to the much simpler Affix Grammar over a Finite Lattice (AGFL) instead, in which metagrammars can only produce simple finite languages.

  Read more →
• 

  NASA AI Assisted-Air Quality Monitoring Project

  The NASA Expert-System Ion Trap Mass Spectrometer (ES-ITMS) Project was a public-private partnership to develop an artificial intelligence assisted, air quality monitoring system and was qualified for use on the Space Shuttle. The partnership was also the first cost and intellectual property shared public-partnership implemented by NASA, which used the commercial Research and Development Limited Partnership (RDLP) model that had been adopted by the Reagan Administration for Department of Defense semiconductor development, and recommended for use by NASA for space commercialization. The project partners included NASA, the University of Florida and Finnigan MAT Corporation, was organized and administered by the NASA Joint Enterprise Institute (subsequently NASA Joint Sponsored Program) and ran from 1988 through 1990. The partnership concluded final testing in 1991, generating four patents, expert system software and application protocol reports. The system was space qualified for use on the Shuttle and elements of the ES-ITMS system were integrated into the product Improvements for Finnigan MAT corporation. The success of the partnership lead NASA to create a pilot program to develop partnership business models as an ongoing management practice. == Purpose and objectives == The need to monitor air quality in confined spaces represented an increasing challenge for NASA's planned space missions and private sector facility managers facing the increased scrutiny of possible air contaminants. Up to the early 1980's, air quality monitors generally required large spaces and human technicians to interpret readings. This created a need for miniaturized air quality monitors that could generate reliable and accurate analytic results without on-site technician presence. NASA initiated projects to develop..."mobile and/or portable mass spectrometers" that evaluated the "tradeoff between instrumentation capabilities and space, weight and power considerations." NASA selected a "commercial ITMS instrument capable of generating electron ionization, chemical ionization and mass spectrometry data", to develop a linked expert system to accomplish analysis without human intervention. The commercial instrumentation was from Finnigan MAT corporation while the scientific expertise to support expert system development was available at the University of Florida. The project managers at NASA Ames created a single, integrated project using the RDLP model with objectives to: Develop AI/expert system software for instrument control (NASA's role) Expand sensitivity, selectivity and speed of the spectrometer (Univ Florida role) Expand the spectrometer analytic capability and automate the screening (Finnigan role) == Membership == The partnership included seven specialists from five member organizations: Federal Government National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) NASA Ames Research Center (ARC) NASA Kennedy Space Center (KSC) Commercial Finnigan MAT Corporation (Thermo-Fisher Scientific) TGS Technology, Inc. Research Management University of Florida == Organization, management and administration == The technical project was organized into two development teams, one located in at the NASA Ames Research Center covering expert systems and analytic capabilities and one in Florida covering improved sensitivity and testing. The partnership management and administration was provided by a non-profit, partnership support organization: the Joint Enterprise Institute operating through San Francisco State University Foundation (SFSUF) with a NASA employee liaison, Syed Shariq. == Public-private partnership == The partnership structure was as a prototype test of a pilot NASA program to develop public-private partnership business models. The pilot program was known as the NASA Joint Sponsored Research Program (JSRP), which operated as the NASA Joint Enterprise Institute between 1988 and 1991. The partnership was the first public-private, research and development partnership implemented by NASA in response to national policy shifts to increase technology transfer and space commercialization. The partnership structure included a two year technology development and testing plan that cost $610,000, of which NASA funded $310,000, Finnigan $175,000 and the University of Florida $95,000. == Results and commercialization == The project generated patents (4), software (2) and application protocol reports (8). NASA gained use of the patents and jointly development software while Finnigan received commercial utilization rights. The results were commercialized within eighteen months of project completion. == Recognition == NASA recognized the project as a space qualified instrument. Its achievements were reported to the NASA Administrator, directly leading to establishment of the agency-wide Joint Sponsored Research Program.

  Read more →
• 

  Is an AI Chatbot Worth It in 2026?

  Curious about the best AI chatbot? An AI chatbot is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it combines speed, accuracy, and an interface that just works. Hands-on testing shows real-world results vary, so a short free trial is the smartest way to decide. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI chatbot 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 →
• 

  Xu Li (computer scientist)

  Xu Li is a Chinese computer scientist and co-founder and current CEO of SenseTime, an artificial intelligence (AI) company. Xu has led SenseTime since the company's incorporation and helped it independently develop its proprietary deep learning platform. == Education and research == Xu obtained both his bachelor's and master's degrees in computer science from Shanghai Jiao Tong University. He received his doctorate in computer science from the Chinese University of Hong Kong. Xu has published more than 50 papers at international conferences and in journals in the field of computer vision and won the Best Paper Award at the international conference on Non-Photorealistic Rendering and Animation (NPAR) 2012 and the Best Reviewer Award at the international conferences Asian Conference on Computer Vision ACCV 2012 and International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) 2015. He has three algorithms that have been included into the visual open-source platform OpenCV, and his "L0 Smoothing" algorithm garnered the most citations in research papers over a span of five years (2011–2015) within the ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), a scientific journal that Thomson Reuters InCites has placed first among software engineering journals. == Career == Previously, Xu worked at Lenovo Corporate Research & Development. He was also a visiting researcher at Motorola China R&D Institute, Omron Research Institute, and Microsoft Research. == Selected publications == Jimmy Ren, Xiaohao Chen, Jianbo Liu, Wenxiu Sun, Li Xu, Jiahao Pang, Qiong Yan, Yu-wing Tai, "Accurate Single Stage Detector Using Recurrent Rolling Convolution", (CVPR), 2017. Jimmy SJ. Ren, Yongtao Hu, Yu-Wing Tai, Chuan Wang, Li Xu, Wenxiu Sun, Qiong Yan, "Look, Listen and Learn – A Multimodal LSTM for Speaker Identification", The 30th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), 2016 Jimmy SJ. Ren, Li Xu, Qiong Yan, Wenxiu Sun, "Shepard Convolutional Neural Networks" Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS), 2015. Xiaoyong Shen, Chao Zhou, Li Xu, Jiaya Jia, "Mutual-Structure for Joint Filtering" International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), (oral presentation), 2015. Jianping Shi, Qiong Yan, Li Xu, Jiaya Jia, "Hierarchical Image Saliency Detection on Extended CSSD" IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (TPAMI), 2015. Jianping Shi, Xin Tao, Li Xu, Jiaya Jia, "Break Ames Room Illusion: Depth from General Single Images" ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), (Proc. ACM SIGGRAPH ASIA2015). Yongtao Hu, Jimmy SJ. Ren, Jingwen Dai, Chang Yuan, Li Xu, Wenping Wang, "Deep Multimodal Speaker Naming" ACM International Conference on Multimedia (MM), 2015. Li Xu, Jimmy SJ. Ren, Qiong Yan, Renjie Liao, Jiaya Jia "Deep Edge-Aware Filters" International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), 2015. Jianping Shi, Li Xu, Jiaya Jia "Just Noticeable Defocus Blur Detection and Estimation" IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2015. Ziyang Ma, Renjie Liao, Xin Tao, Li Xu, Jiaya Jia, Enhua Wu "Handling Motion Blur in Multi-Frame Super-Resolution" IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2015. Xiaoyong Shen, Qiong Yan, Li Xu, Lizhuang Ma, Jiaya Jia"Multispectral Joint Image Restoration via Optimizing a Scale Map" IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (TPAMI), 2015. Jimmy SJ. Ren, Li Xu, "On Vectorization of Deep Convolutional Neural Networks for Vision Tasks" AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), 2015. == Awards and honors == Xu was ranked 7th in Fortune magazine's 2018 edition of its 40 Under 40. He was also named "China's Outstanding AI Industry Leader" by The Economic Observer, received the "Innovative Business Leader" Award under NetEase's "Future Technology Talent Awards", and was honored as Sina's "2017 Top Ten Economic Figures". In 2018, Xu was named EY's "Entrepreneur of the Year China" in the Technology category.

  Read more →