AI For Business Isb — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.
Piranesi is an interactive paint system that enables the user to create artistic images from 3D scenes created using conventional modeling applications. == Image format == Piranesi uses the proprietary EPix file format. For every pixel, additional information is stored, such as distance from the viewer and material settings. EPix files can be rendered from 3D scenes using a fixed viewpoint by Piranesi's companion software, Vedute.
Read more →
Just This Once is a 1993 romance novel written in the style of Jacqueline Susann by a Macintosh IIcx computer named "Hal" in collaboration with its programmer, Scott French. French reportedly spent $40,000 and 8 years developing an artificial intelligence program to analyze Susann's works and attempt to create a novel that Susann might have written. A legal dispute between the estate of Jacqueline Susann and the publisher resulted in a settlement to split the profits, and the book was referenced in several legal journal articles about copyright laws. The book had two small print runs totaling 35,000 copies, receiving mixed reviews. == Creation == The novel's creation spanned the fields of artificial intelligence, expert systems, and natural language processing. Scott French first scanned and analyzed portions of two books by Jacqueline Susann, Valley of the Dolls and Once Is Not Enough, to determine constituents of Susann's writing style, which French stated was the most difficult task. This analysis extracted several hundred components including frequency and type of sexual acts and sentence structure. "Once you're there, the writer's style emerges, part of her actual personality comes out, and the computer can be programmed to make a story." French also created several thousand rules to govern tone, plotting, scenes, and characters. The text generated by Hal, the computer, was intended to mimic what Susann might have written, although the output required significant editing. French credits Hal's work with "almost 100% of the plot, 100% of the theme and style." French estimates that he wrote 10% of the prose, the computer Hal wrote about 25% of the prose, and the remaining two-thirds was more of a collaboration between the two. A typical scenario to write a scene would involve Hal asking questions that French would answer (for example, Hal might ask about the "cattiness factor" involved in a meeting between two key female characters, and French would reply with a range of 1 to 10), and the computer would then generate a few sentences to which French would make minor edits. The process would repeat for the next few sentences until the scene was written. == Legal issues == Jacqueline Susann's publisher was skeptical of the legality of Just This Once, although French doubted that an author's thought processes could be copyrighted. Susann's estate reportedly threatened to sue Scott French but the parties settled out of court; the settlement involved splitting profits between the parties but the terms of the settlement were not disclosed. The publication of Just This Once raised questions in the legal profession concerning how copyright law applies to computer-generated works derived from an analysis of other copyrighted works, and whether the generation of such works infringes on copyright. The publications on this topic suggested that the copyright laws of the time were ill-equipped to deal with computer-generated creative works. == Reception == The book's publisher Steven Shragis of Carol Group said of the novel, "I'm not going to say this is a great literary work, but it's every bit as good as anything out in this field, and better than an awful lot." The novel received some positive early reviews. In USA Today, novelist Thomas Gifford compared Just This Once to another novel in the same genre, American Star by Jackie Collins. Gifford concluded: "If you do like this stuff, you'd be much, much better off with the one written by the computer." The Dead Jackie Susann Quarterly declared that Susann "would be proud. Lots of money, sleaze, disease, death, oral sex, tragedy and the good girl gone bad." Other reviews were mixed. Publishers Weekly wrote, "If the books of Jacqueline Susann and Harold Robbins seem formulaic, this debut novel of sin and success in Las Vegas outdoes them all. And that, in a way, is the point.... All novelty rests in the conceit of computer authorship, not in the story itself." Library Journal stated "French invested eight years and $50,000 in a scheme to use artificial intelligence to fulfill his authentic, if dubious, desire to generate a trashy novel a la Jacqueline Susann. Shallow, beautiful-people characters are flatly conceived and randomly accessed in a formulaic plot ... a sexy, boring morality tale. Of possible interest to computer buffs for its use of Expert Systems and the virtual promise of more worthy possibilities; others should read Susann." Kirkus Reviews wrote: "The deal here is that author French is not the author, he's just the midwife, having allegedly programmed his computer to write about our times just the way Susann would... almost perfectly capturing glamorous Jackie's turgid but E-Z reading prose style and ultrareliable mix of sex, glitz, dope 'n' despair.... One wonders, though, if French's tale spinning PC will do as well on the talkshows as Jackie did. The computer weenies have been trying to tell us for years, garbage in-garbage out."
Read more →
The Teknomo–Fernandez algorithm (TF algorithm), is an efficient algorithm for generating the background image of a given video sequence. By assuming that the background image is shown in the majority of the video, the algorithm is able to generate a good background image of a video in O ( R ) {\displaystyle O(R)} -time using only a small number of binary operations and Boolean bit operations, which require a small amount of memory and has built-in operators found in many programming languages such as C, C++, and Java. == History == People tracking from videos usually involves some form of background subtraction to segment foreground from background. Once foreground images are extracted, then desired algorithms (such as those for motion tracking, object tracking, and facial recognition) may be executed using these images. However, background subtraction requires that the background image is already available and unfortunately, this is not always the case. Traditionally, the background image is searched for manually or automatically from the video images when there are no objects. More recently, automatic background generation through object detection, medial filtering, medoid filtering, approximated median filtering, linear predictive filter, non-parametric model, Kalman filter, and adaptive smoothening have been suggested; however, most of these methods have high computational complexity and are resource-intensive. The Teknomo–Fernandez algorithm is also an automatic background generation algorithm. Its advantage, however, is its computational speed of only O ( R ) {\displaystyle O(R)} -time, depending on the resolution R {\displaystyle R} of an image and its accuracy gained within a manageable number of frames. Only at least three frames from a video is needed to produce the background image assuming that for every pixel position, the background occurs in the majority of the videos. Furthermore, it can be performed for both grayscale and colored videos. == Assumptions == The camera is stationary. The light of the environment changes only slowly relative to the motions of the people in the scene. The number of people does not occupy the scene for most of the time at the same place. Generally, however, the algorithm will certainly work whenever the following single important assumption holds: For each pixel position, the majority of the pixel values in the entire video contain the pixel value of the actual background image (at that position).As long as each part of the background is shown in the majority of the video, the entire background image needs not to appear in any of its frames. The algorithm is expected to work accurately. == Background image generation == === Equations === For three frames of image sequence x 1 {\displaystyle x_{1}} , x 2 {\displaystyle x_{2}} , and x 3 {\displaystyle x_{3}} , the background image B {\displaystyle B} is obtained using B = x 3 ( x 1 ⊕ x 2 ) + x 1 x 2 {\displaystyle B=x_{3}(x_{1}\oplus x_{2})+x_{1}x_{2}} where ⊕ {\displaystyle \oplus } denotes the exclusive disjunctive bit operator. The Boolean mode function S {\displaystyle S} of the table occurs when the number of 1 entries is larger than half of the number of images such that S = { 1 , if ∑ i = 1 n x i ≥ ⌈ n 2 + 1 ⌉ , and n ≥ 3 0 , otherwise {\displaystyle S={\begin{cases}1,&{\text{if }}\sum _{i=1}^{n}x_{i}\geq \left\lceil {\frac {n}{2}}+1\right\rceil ,{\text{ and }}n\geq 3\\0,&{\text{otherwise}}\end{cases}}} For three images, the background image B {\displaystyle B} can be taken as the value x ¯ 1 x 2 x 3 + x 1 x ¯ 2 x 3 + x 1 x 2 x ¯ 3 + x 1 x 2 x 3 {\displaystyle {\bar {x}}_{1}x_{2}x_{3}+x_{1}{\bar {x}}_{2}x_{3}+x_{1}x_{2}{\bar {x}}_{3}+x_{1}x_{2}x_{3}} === Background generation algorithm === At the first level, three frames are selected at random from the image sequence to produce a background image by combining them using the first equation. This yields a better background image at the second level. The procedure is repeated until desired level L {\displaystyle L} . == Theoretical accuracy == At level ℓ {\displaystyle \ell } , the probability p ℓ {\displaystyle p_{\ell }} that the modal bit predicted is the actual modal bit is represented by the equation p ℓ = ( p ℓ − 1 ) 3 + 3 ( p ℓ − 1 ) 2 ( 1 − p ℓ − 1 ) {\displaystyle p_{\ell }=(p_{\ell -1})^{3}+3(p_{\ell -1})^{2}(1-p_{\ell -1})} . The table below gives the computed probability values across several levels using some specific initial probabilities. It can be observed that even if the modal bit at the considered position is at a low 60% of the frames, the probability of accurate modal bit determination is already more than 99% at 6 levels. == Space complexity == The space requirement of the Teknomo–Fernandez algorithm is given by the function O ( R F + R 3 L ) {\displaystyle O(RF+R3^{L})} , depending on the resolution R {\displaystyle R} of the image, the number F {\displaystyle F} of frames in the video, and the desired number L {\displaystyle L} of levels. However, the fact that L {\displaystyle L} will probably not exceed 6 reduces the space complexity to O ( R F ) {\displaystyle O(RF)} . == Time complexity == The entire algorithm runs in O ( R ) {\displaystyle O(R)} -time, only depending on the resolution of the image. Computing the modal bit for each bit can be done in O ( 1 ) {\displaystyle O(1)} -time while the computation of the resulting image from the three given images can be done in O ( R ) {\displaystyle O(R)} -time. The number of the images to be processed in L {\displaystyle L} levels is O ( 3 L ) {\displaystyle O(3^{L})} . However, since L ≤ 6 {\displaystyle L\leq 6} , then this is actually O ( 1 ) {\displaystyle O(1)} , thus the algorithm runs in O ( R ) {\displaystyle O(R)} . == Variants == A variant of the Teknomo–Fernandez algorithm that incorporates the Monte-Carlo method named CRF has been developed. Two different configurations of CRF were implemented: CRF9,2 and CRF81,1. Experiments on some colored video sequences showed that the CRF configurations outperform the TF algorithm in terms of accuracy. However, the TF algorithm remains more efficient in terms of processing time. == Applications == Object detection Face detection Face recognition Pedestrian detection Video surveillance Motion capture Human-computer interaction Content-based video coding Traffic monitoring Real-time gesture recognition
Read more →
Adversarial stylometry is the practice of altering writing style to reduce the potential for stylometry to discover the author's identity or their characteristics. This task is also known as authorship obfuscation or authorship anonymisation. Stylometry poses a significant privacy challenge in its ability to unmask anonymous authors or to link pseudonyms to an author's other identities, which, for example, creates difficulties for whistleblowers, activists, and hoaxers and fraudsters. The privacy risk is expected to grow as machine learning techniques and text corpora develop. All adversarial stylometry shares the core idea of faithfully paraphrasing the source text so that the meaning is unchanged but the stylistic signals are obscured. Such a faithful paraphrase is an adversarial example for a stylometric classifier. Several broad approaches to this exist, with some overlap: imitation, substituting the author's own style for another's; translation, applying machine translation with the hope that this eliminates characteristic style in the source text; and obfuscation, deliberately modifying a text's style to make it not resemble the author's own. Manually obscuring style is possible, but laborious; in some circumstances, it is preferable or necessary. Automated tooling, either semi- or fully-automatic, could assist an author. How best to perform the task and the design of such tools is an open research question. While some approaches have been shown to be able to defeat particular stylometric analyses, particularly those that do not account for the potential of adversariality, establishing safety in the face of unknown analyses is an issue. Ensuring the faithfulness of the paraphrase is a critical challenge for automated tools. It is uncertain if the practice of adversarial stylometry is detectable in itself. Some studies have found that particular methods produced signals in the output text, but a stylometrist who is uncertain of what methods may have been used may not be able to reliably detect them. == History == Rao & Rohatgi (2000), an early work in adversarial stylometry, identified machine translation as a possibility, but noted that the quality of translators available at the time presented severe challenges. Kacmarcik & Gamon (2006) is another early work. Brennan, Afroz & Greenstadt (2012) performed the first evaluation of adversarial stylometric methods on actual texts. Brennan & Greenstadt (2009) introduced the first corpus of adversarially authored texts specifically for evaluating stylometric methods; other corpora include the International Imitation Hemingway Competition, the Faux Faulkner contest, and the hoax blog A Gay Girl in Damascus. == Motivations == Rao & Rohatgi (2000) suggest that short, unattributed documents (i.e., anonymous posts) are not at risk of stylometric identification, but pseudonymous authors who have not practiced adversarial stylometry in producing corpuses of thousands of words may be vulnerable. Narayanan et al. (2012) attempted large-scale deanonymisation of 100,000 blog authors with mixed results: the identifications were significantly better than chance, but only accurately matched the blog and author a fifth of the time; identification improved with the number of posts written by the author in the corpus. Even if an author is not identified, some of their characteristics may still be deduced stylometrically, or stylometry may narrow the anonymity set of potential authors sufficiently for other information to complete the identification. Detecting author characteristics (e.g., gender or age) is often simpler than identifying an author from a large, possibly open, set of candidates. Modern machine learning techniques offer powerful tools for identification; further development of corpora and computational stylometric techniques are likely to raise further privacy issues. Gröndahl & Asokan (2020a) say that the general validity of the hypothesis underlying stylometry—that authors have invariant, content-independent 'style fingerprints'—is uncertain, but "the deanonymisation attack is a real privacy concern". Those interested in practicing adversarial stylometry and stylistic deception include whistleblowers avoiding retribution; journalists and activists; perpetrators of frauds and hoaxes; authors of fake reviews; literary forgers; criminals disguising their identity from investigators; and, generally, anyone with a desire for anonymity or pseudonymity. Authors, or agents acting on behalf of authors, may also attempt to remove stylistic clues to author characteristics (e.g., race or gender) so that knowledge of those characteristics cannot be used for discrimination (e.g., through algorithmic bias). Another possible use for adversarial stylometry is in disguising automatically generated text as human-authored. == Methods == With imitation, the author attempts to mislead stylometry by matching their style to another author's. An incomplete imitation, where some of the true author's unique characteristics appear alongside the imitated author's, can be a detectable signal for the use of adversarial stylometry. Imitation can be performed automatically with style transfer systems, though this typically requires a large corpus in the target style for the system to learn from. Another approach is translation, which employs machine translation of a source text to eliminate characteristic style, often through multiple translators in sequence to produce a round-trip translation. Such chained translation can lead to texts being significantly altered, even to the point of incomprehensibility; improved translation tools reduce this risk. More simply-structured texts can be easier to machine translate without losing the original meaning. Machine translation blurs into direct stylistic imitation or obfuscation achieved through automated style transfer, which can be viewed as a "translation" with the same language as input and output. With low-quality translation tools, an author can be required to manually correct major translation errors while avoiding the hazard of re-introducing stylistic characteristics. Wang, Juola & Riddell (2022) found that gross errors introduced by Google Translate were rare, but more common with several intermediate translations—however, occasional simple or short sentences and misspellings in the source text appeared verbatim in the output, potentially providing an identifying signal. Chain translation can leave characteristic traces of its application in a document, which may allow reconstruction of the intermediate languages used and the number of translation steps performed. Obfuscation involves deliberately changing the style of a text to reduce its similarity to other texts by some metric; this may be performed at the time of writing by conscious modification, or as part of a revision process with feedback from the metric being targeted as an input to decide when the text has been sufficiently obfuscated. In contrast to translation, complex texts can offer more opportunities for effective obfuscation without altering meaning, and likewise genres with more permissible variation allow more obfuscation. However, longer texts are harder to thoroughly obfuscate. Obfuscation can blend into imitation if the author develops a novel target style, distinct from their original style. With respect to masking author characteristics, obfuscation may aim to achieve a union (adding signals for imitated characteristics) or an intersection (removing signals and normalising) of other authors' styles. Avoiding the author's own idiosyncrasies and producing a "normalised" text is a critical obfuscatory step: an author may have a unique tendency to misspell certain words, use particular variants, or to format a document in a characteristic way. Stylometric signals vary in how simply they can be adversarially masked; an author may easily change their vocabulary by conscious choice, but altering the pattern of grammar or the letter frequency in their text may be harder to achieve, though Juola & Vescovi (2011) report that imitation typically succeeds at masking more characteristics than obfuscation. Automated obfuscation may require large amounts of training data written by the author. Concerning automated implementations of adversarial stylometry, two possible implementations are rule-based systems for paraphrasing; and encoder–decoder architectures, where the text passes through an intermediate format that is (intended to be) style-neutral. Another division in automated methods is whether there is feedback from an identification system or not. With such feedback, finding paraphrases for author masking has been characterised as a heuristic search problem, exploring textual variants until the result is stylistically sufficiently far (in the case of obfuscation) or near (in the case of imitation), which then constitutes an adversarial example for that identification system. == Evaluation == How
Read more →
A language model benchmark is a standardized test designed to evaluate the performance of language models on various natural language processing tasks. These tests are intended for comparing different models' capabilities in areas such as language understanding, generation, and reasoning. Benchmarks generally consist of a dataset and corresponding evaluation metrics. The dataset provides text samples and annotations, while the metrics measure a model's performance on tasks like answering questions, text classification, and machine translation. These benchmarks are developed and maintained by academic institutions, research organizations, and industry players to track progress in the field. In addition to accuracy, the metrics can include throughput, energy efficiency, bias, trust, and sustainability. == Overview == === Types === Benchmarks may be described by the following adjectives, not mutually exclusive: Classical: These tasks are studied in natural language processing, even before the advent of deep learning. Examples include the Penn Treebank for testing syntactic and semantic parsing, as well as bilingual translation benchmarked by BLEU scores. Question answering: These tasks have a text question and a text answer, often multiple-choice. They can be open-book or closed-book. Open-book QA resembles reading comprehension questions, with relevant passages included as annotation in the question, in which the answer appears. Closed-book QA includes no relevant passages. Closed-book QA is also called open-domain question-answering. Before the era of large language models, open-book QA was more common, and understood as testing information retrieval methods. Closed-book QA became common since GPT-2 as a method to measure knowledge stored within model parameters. Omnibus: An omnibus benchmark combines many benchmarks, often previously published. It is intended as an all-in-one benchmarking solution. Reasoning: These tasks are usually in the question-answering format, but are intended to be more difficult than standard question answering. Multimodal: These tasks require processing not only text, but also other modalities, such as images and sound. Examples include OCR and transcription. Agency: These tasks are for a language-model–based software agent that operates a computer for a user, such as editing images, browsing the web, etc. Adversarial: A benchmark is "adversarial" if the items in the benchmark are picked specifically so that certain models do badly on them. Adversarial benchmarks are often constructed after state of the art (SOTA) models have saturated (achieved 100% performance) a benchmark, to renew the benchmark. A benchmark is "adversarial" only at a certain moment in time, since what is adversarial may cease to be adversarial as newer SOTA models appear. Public/Private: A benchmark might be partly or entirely private, meaning that some or all of the questions are not publicly available. The idea is that if a question is publicly available, then it might be used for training, which would be "training on the test set" and invalidate the result of the benchmark. Usually, only the guardians of the benchmark have access to the private subsets, and to score a model on such a benchmark, one must send the model weights, or provide API access, to the guardians. The boundary between a benchmark and a dataset is not sharp. Generally, a dataset contains three "splits": training, test, and validation. Both the test and validation splits are essentially benchmarks. In general, a benchmark is distinguished from a test/validation dataset in that a benchmark is typically intended to be used to measure the performance of many different models that are not trained specifically for doing well on the benchmark, while a test/validation set is intended to be used to measure the performance of models trained specifically on the corresponding training set. In other words, a benchmark may be thought of as a test/validation set without a corresponding training set. Conversely, certain benchmarks may be used as a training set, such as the English Gigaword or the One Billion Word Benchmark, which in modern language is just the negative log-likelihood loss on a pretraining set with 1 billion words. Indeed, the distinction between benchmark and dataset in language models became sharper after the rise of the pretraining paradigm, whereby a model is first trained on massive, unlabeled datasets to learn general language patterns, syntax, and knowledge (pretraining), and the base model is then adapted to specific, downstream tasks using smaller, labeled datasets (fine-tuning). === Lifecycle === Generally, the life cycle of a benchmark consists of the following steps: Inception: A benchmark is published. It can be simply given as a demonstration of the power of a new model (implicitly) that others then picked up as a benchmark, or as a benchmark that others are encouraged to use (explicitly). Growth: More papers and models use the benchmark, and the performance on the benchmark grows. Maturity, degeneration or deprecation: A benchmark may be saturated, after which researchers move on to other benchmarks. Progress on the benchmark may also be neglected as the field moves to focus on other benchmarks. Renewal: A saturated benchmark can be upgraded to make it no longer saturated, allowing further progress. === Construction === Like datasets, benchmarks are typically constructed by several methods, individually or in combination: Web scraping: Ready-made question-answer pairs may be scraped online, such as from websites that teach mathematics and programming. Conversion: Items may be constructed programmatically from scraped web content, such as by blanking out named entities from sentences, and asking the model to fill in the blank. This was used for making the CNN/Daily Mail Reading Comprehension Task. Crowd sourcing: Items may be constructed by paying people to write them, such as on Amazon Mechanical Turk. This was used for making the MCTest. === Evaluation === Generally, benchmarks are fully automated. This limits the questions that can be asked. For example, with mathematical questions, "proving a claim" would be difficult to automatically check, while "calculate an answer with a unique integer answer" would be automatically checkable. With programming tasks, the answer can generally be checked by running unit tests, with an upper limit on runtime. The benchmark scores are of the following kinds: For multiple choice or cloze questions, common scores are accuracy (frequency of correct answer), precision, recall, F1 score, etc. pass@n: The model is given n {\displaystyle n} attempts to solve each problem. If any attempt is correct, the model earns a point. The pass@n score is the model's average score over all problems. k@n: The model makes n {\displaystyle n} attempts to solve each problem, but only k {\displaystyle k} attempts out of them are selected for submission. If any submission is correct, the model earns a point. The k@n score is the model's average score over all problems. cons@n: The model is given n {\displaystyle n} attempts to solve each problem. If the most common answer is correct, the model earns a point. The cons@n score is the model's average score over all problems. Here "cons" stands for "consensus" or "majority voting". The pass@n score can be estimated more accurately by making N > n {\displaystyle N>n} attempts, and use the unbiased estimator 1 − ( N − c n ) ( N n ) {\displaystyle 1-{\frac {\binom {N-c}{n}}{\binom {N}{n}}}} , where c {\displaystyle c} is the number of correct attempts. For less well-formed tasks, where the output can be any sentence, there are the following commonly used scores including BLEU ROUGE, METEOR, NIST, word error rate, LEPOR, CIDEr, and SPICE. === Issues === error: Some benchmark answers may be wrong. ambiguity: Some benchmark questions may be ambiguously worded. subjective: Some benchmark questions may not have an objective answer at all. This problem generally prevents creative writing benchmarks. Similarly, this prevents benchmarking writing proofs in natural language, though benchmarking proofs in a formal language is possible. open-ended: Some benchmark questions may not have a single answer of a fixed size. This problem generally prevents programming benchmarks from using more natural tasks such as "write a program for X", and instead uses tasks such as "write a function that implements specification X". inter-annotator agreement: Some benchmark questions may be not fully objective, such that even people would not agree with 100% on what the answer should be. This is common in natural language processing tasks, such as syntactic annotation. shortcut: Some benchmark questions may be easily solved by an "unintended" shortcut. For example, in the SNLI benchmark, having a negative word like "not" in the second sentence is a strong signal for the "Contradiction" category, regardless of what the se
Read more →
Uniform convergence in probability is a form of convergence in probability in statistical asymptotic theory and probability theory. It means that, under certain conditions, the empirical frequencies of all events in a certain event-family uniformly converge to their theoretical probabilities. Uniform convergence in probability has applications to statistics as well as machine learning as part of statistical learning theory. Specifically, the Glivenko-Cantelli theorem and the homonymous classes of functions are fundamentally related to uniform convergence. The law of large numbers says that, for each single event A {\displaystyle A} , its empirical frequency in a sequence of independent trials converges (with high probability) to its theoretical probability. In many application however, the need arises to judge simultaneously the probabilities of events of an entire class S {\displaystyle S} from one and the same sample. Moreover, it, is required that the relative frequency of the events converge to the probability uniformly over the entire class of events S {\displaystyle S} . The Uniform Convergence Theorem gives a sufficient condition for this convergence to hold. Roughly, if the event-family is sufficiently simple (its VC dimension is sufficiently small) then uniform convergence holds. == Definitions == For a class of predicates H {\displaystyle H} defined on a set X {\displaystyle X} and a set of samples x = ( x 1 , x 2 , … , x m ) {\displaystyle x=(x_{1},x_{2},\dots ,x_{m})} , where x i ∈ X {\displaystyle x_{i}\in X} , the empirical frequency of h ∈ H {\displaystyle h\in H} on x {\displaystyle x} is Q ^ x ( h ) = 1 m | { i : 1 ≤ i ≤ m , h ( x i ) = 1 } | . {\displaystyle {\widehat {Q}}_{x}(h)={\frac {1}{m}}|\{i:1\leq i\leq m,h(x_{i})=1\}|.} The theoretical probability of h ∈ H {\displaystyle h\in H} is defined as Q P ( h ) = P { y ∈ X : h ( y ) = 1 } . {\displaystyle Q_{P}(h)=P\{y\in X:h(y)=1\}.} The Uniform Convergence Theorem states, roughly, that if H {\displaystyle H} is "simple" and we draw samples independently (with replacement) from X {\displaystyle X} according to any distribution P {\displaystyle P} , then with high probability, the empirical frequency will be close to its expected value, which is the theoretical probability. Here "simple" means that the Vapnik–Chervonenkis dimension of the class H {\displaystyle H} is small relative to the size of the sample. In other words, a sufficiently simple collection of functions behaves roughly the same on a small random sample as it does on the distribution as a whole. The Uniform Convergence Theorem was first proved by Vapnik and Chervonenkis using the concept of growth function. == Uniform Convergence Theorem == The statement of the Uniform Convergence Theorem is as follows: If H {\displaystyle H} is a set of { 0 , 1 } {\displaystyle \{0,1\}} -valued functions defined on a set X {\displaystyle X} and P {\displaystyle P} is a probability distribution on X {\displaystyle X} then for ε > 0 {\displaystyle \varepsilon >0} and m {\displaystyle m} a positive integer, we have: P m { | Q P ( h ) − Q x ^ ( h ) | ≥ ε for some h ∈ H } ≤ 4 Π H ( 2 m ) e − ε 2 m / 8 . {\displaystyle P^{m}\{|Q_{P}(h)-{\widehat {Q_{x}}}(h)|\geq \varepsilon {\text{ for some }}h\in H\}\leq 4\Pi _{H}(2m)e^{-\varepsilon ^{2}m/8}.} In the above, for any x ∈ X m , {\displaystyle x\in X^{m},} Q P ( h ) = P { ( y ∈ X : h ( y ) = 1 } , {\displaystyle Q_{P}(h)=P\{(y\in X:h(y)=1\},} Q ^ x ( h ) = 1 m | { i : 1 ≤ i ≤ m , h ( x i ) = 1 } | {\displaystyle {\widehat {Q}}_{x}(h)={\frac {1}{m}}|\{i:1\leq i\leq m,h(x_{i})=1\}|} and | x | = m . {\displaystyle |x|=m.} P m {\displaystyle P^{m}} indicates that the probability is taken over x {\displaystyle x} consisting of m {\displaystyle m} i.i.d. draws from the distribution P . {\displaystyle P.} Finally, the growth function Π H {\displaystyle \Pi _{H}} is defined in the following way, for any { 0 , 1 } {\displaystyle \{0,1\}} -valued functions H {\displaystyle H} over X {\displaystyle X} and for any natural number m {\displaystyle m} : Π H ( m ) = max | { h ∩ D : D ⊆ X , | D | = m , h ∈ H } | . {\displaystyle \Pi _{H}(m)=\max |\{h\cap D:D\subseteq X,|D|=m,h\in H\}|.} From the point of view of Learning Theory one can consider H {\displaystyle H} to be the Concept/Hypothesis class defined over the instance set X {\displaystyle X} . Crucially, the Sauer–Shelah lemma implies that Π H ( m ) ≤ m d {\displaystyle \Pi _{H}(m)\leq m^{d}} , where d {\displaystyle d} is the VC dimension of H {\displaystyle H} . == Proof of the Uniform Convergence Theorem == and are the sources of the proof below. Before we get into the details of the proof of the Uniform Convergence Theorem we will present a high level overview of the proof. Symmetrization: We transform the problem of analyzing | Q P ( h ) − Q ^ x ( h ) | ≥ ε {\displaystyle |Q_{P}(h)-{\widehat {Q}}_{x}(h)|\geq \varepsilon } into the problem of analyzing | Q ^ r ( h ) − Q ^ s ( h ) | ≥ ε / 2 {\displaystyle |{\widehat {Q}}_{r}(h)-{\widehat {Q}}_{s}(h)|\geq \varepsilon /2} , where r {\displaystyle r} and s {\displaystyle s} are i.i.d samples of size m {\displaystyle m} drawn according to the distribution P {\displaystyle P} . One can view r {\displaystyle r} as the original randomly drawn sample of length m {\displaystyle m} , while s {\displaystyle s} may be thought as the testing sample which is used to estimate Q P ( h ) {\displaystyle Q_{P}(h)} . Permutation: Since r {\displaystyle r} and s {\displaystyle s} are picked identically and independently, so swapping elements between them will not change the probability distribution on r {\displaystyle r} and s {\displaystyle s} . So, we will try to bound the probability of | Q ^ r ( h ) − Q ^ s ( h ) | ≥ ε / 2 {\displaystyle |{\widehat {Q}}_{r}(h)-{\widehat {Q}}_{s}(h)|\geq \varepsilon /2} for some h ∈ H {\displaystyle h\in H} by considering the effect of a specific collection of permutations of the joint sample x = r | | s {\displaystyle x=r||s} . Specifically, we consider permutations σ ( x ) {\displaystyle \sigma (x)} which swap x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} and x m + i {\displaystyle x_{m+i}} in some subset of 1 , 2 , . . . , m {\displaystyle {1,2,...,m}} . The symbol r | | s {\displaystyle r||s} means the concatenation of r {\displaystyle r} and s {\displaystyle s} . Reduction to a finite class: We can now restrict the function class H {\displaystyle H} to a fixed joint sample and hence, if H {\displaystyle H} has finite VC Dimension, it reduces to the problem to one involving a finite function class. We present the technical details of the proof. It should be stressed that this proof glosses over details like the measurability of the events V {\displaystyle V} and R {\displaystyle R} ; measurability is granted in the case of H {\displaystyle H} being finite or countable, but this is not normally the case in standard applications of the theorem (e.g. for statistical learning theory or to prove the Glivenko-Cantelli theorem). To get measurability, one needs to use a notion of separability of the underlying space, possibly related to H {\displaystyle H} . === Symmetrization === Lemma: Let V = { x ∈ X m : | Q P ( h ) − Q ^ x ( h ) | ≥ ε for some h ∈ H } {\displaystyle V=\{x\in X^{m}:|Q_{P}(h)-{\widehat {Q}}_{x}(h)|\geq \varepsilon {\text{ for some }}h\in H\}} and R = { ( r , s ) ∈ X m × X m : | Q r ^ ( h ) − Q ^ s ( h ) | ≥ ε / 2 for some h ∈ H } . {\displaystyle R=\{(r,s)\in X^{m}\times X^{m}:|{\widehat {Q_{r}}}(h)-{\widehat {Q}}_{s}(h)|\geq \varepsilon /2{\text{ for some }}h\in H\}.} Then for m ≥ 2 ε 2 {\displaystyle m\geq {\frac {2}{\varepsilon ^{2}}}} , P m ( V ) ≤ 2 P 2 m ( R ) {\displaystyle P^{m}(V)\leq 2P^{2m}(R)} . Proof: By the triangle inequality, if | Q P ( h ) − Q ^ r ( h ) | ≥ ε {\displaystyle |Q_{P}(h)-{\widehat {Q}}_{r}(h)|\geq \varepsilon } and | Q P ( h ) − Q ^ s ( h ) | ≤ ε / 2 {\displaystyle |Q_{P}(h)-{\widehat {Q}}_{s}(h)|\leq \varepsilon /2} then | Q ^ r ( h ) − Q ^ s ( h ) | ≥ ε / 2 {\displaystyle |{\widehat {Q}}_{r}(h)-{\widehat {Q}}_{s}(h)|\geq \varepsilon /2} . Therefore, P 2 m ( R ) ≥ P 2 m { ∃ h ∈ H , | Q P ( h ) − Q ^ r ( h ) | ≥ ε and | Q P ( h ) − Q ^ s ( h ) | ≤ ε / 2 } = ∫ V P m { s : ∃ h ∈ H , | Q P ( h ) − Q ^ r ( h ) | ≥ ε and | Q P ( h ) − Q ^ s ( h ) | ≤ ε / 2 } d P m ( r ) = A {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}&P^{2m}(R)\\[5pt]\geq {}&P^{2m}\{\exists h\in H,|Q_{P}(h)-{\widehat {Q}}_{r}(h)|\geq \varepsilon {\text{ and }}|Q_{P}(h)-{\widehat {Q}}_{s}(h)|\leq \varepsilon /2\}\\[5pt]={}&\int _{V}P^{m}\{s:\exists h\in H,|Q_{P}(h)-{\widehat {Q}}_{r}(h)|\geq \varepsilon {\text{ and }}|Q_{P}(h)-{\widehat {Q}}_{s}(h)|\leq \varepsilon /2\}\,dP^{m}(r)\\[5pt]={}&A\end{aligned}}} since r {\displaystyle r} and s {\displaystyle s} are independent. Now for r ∈ V {\displaystyle r\in V} fix an h ∈ H {\displaystyle h\in H} such that | Q P ( h ) − Q ^ r ( h ) | ≥ ε {\displaystyle |Q_{P}(h)-{\widehat {Q}}_{r}(h)|\geq \varepsilon } . For this h {\displaystyle h} , we shall
Read more →
Virtual Woman is a software program that has elements of a chatbot, virtual reality, artificial intelligence, a video game, and a virtual human. It claims to be the oldest form of virtual life in existence, as it has been distributed since the late 1980s. Recent releases of the program can update their intelligence by connecting online and downloading newer personalities and histories. == Program play == When Virtual Woman starts, the user is presented with a list of options and then may choose their Virtual Woman's ethnic type, personality, location, clothing, etc. or load a pre-built Virtual Woman from a Digital DNA file. Once the options are determined, the user is presented with a 3-D animated Virtual Woman of their selection and then can engage them in conversation, progressing in a manner similar to that of its predecessor, ELIZA and its successors, the chatbots. In most versions of Virtual Woman, this is done through the keyboard, but some versions also support voice input. == In popular culture == Software sales and usage statistics from private companies are difficult to verify. WinSite, an independent Internet shareware distribution site that does publish public download counts, has for some time now listed some version of Virtual Woman in their top three shareware downloads of all time with well over seven hundred thousand downloads. == Compadre == The group of beta testers and advisers for Virtual Woman are referred to as Compadre and have their own beta testing site and forum. == Criticisms == As Virtual Woman has developed the ability to conduct longer and more realistic interactions, particularly in recent beta releases, criticism has arisen that this may lead some users to social isolation, or to use the program as a substitute for real human interaction. However, these are criticisms that have been leveled at all video games and at the use of the Internet itself. == Release history == Versions of Virtual Woman with rough release dates and PC platforms for which they were designed: Virtual Woman (????) (DOS) Virtual Woman for Windows (1991) (Windows 3.0) Virtual Woman 95 (1995) (Windows 3X, Windows 95) Virtual Woman 98 (1998) (Windows 3X, Windows 95) Virtual Woman 2000 (2000) (Windows 95+) Virtual Woman Millennium (Windows 95, XP) Virtual Woman Net ( Windows XP/Vista specific)
Read more →
The CMU Pronouncing Dictionary (also known as CMUdict) is an open-source pronouncing dictionary originally created by the Speech Group at Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) for use in speech recognition research. CMUdict provides a mapping orthographic/phonetic for English words in their North American pronunciations. It is commonly used to generate representations for speech recognition (ASR), e.g. the CMU Sphinx system, and speech synthesis (TTS), e.g. the Festival system. CMUdict can be used as a training corpus for building statistical grapheme-to-phoneme (g2p) models that will generate pronunciations for words not yet included in the dictionary. The most recent release is 0.7b; it contains over 134,000 entries. An interactive lookup version is available. == Database format == The database is distributed as a plain text file with one entry to a line in the format "WORD
Flat-field correction (FFC) is a digital imaging technique to mitigate pixel-to-pixel differences in the photodetector sensitivity and distortions in the optical path. It is a standard calibration procedure in everything from personal digital cameras to large telescopes. == Overview == Flat fielding refers to the process of compensating for different gains and dark currents in a detector. Once a detector has been appropriately flat-fielded, a uniform signal will create a uniform output (hence flat-field). This then means any further signal is due to the phenomenon being detected and not a systematic error. A flat-field image is acquired by imaging a uniformly-illuminated screen, thus producing an image of uniform color and brightness across the frame. For handheld cameras, the screen could be a piece of paper at arm's length, but a telescope will frequently image a clear patch of sky at twilight, when the illumination is uniform and there are few, if any, stars visible. Once the images are acquired, processing can begin. A flat-field consists of two numbers for each pixel, the pixel's gain and its dark current (or dark frame). The pixel's gain is how the amount of signal given by the detector varies as a function of the amount of light (or equivalent). The gain is almost always a linear variable, as such the gain is given simply as the ratio of the input and output signals. The dark-current is the amount of signal given out by the detector when there is no incident light (hence dark frame). In many detectors this can also be a function of time, for example in astronomical telescopes it is common to take a dark-frame of the same time as the planned light exposure. The gain and dark-frame for optical systems can also be established by using a series of neutral density filters to give input/output signal information and applying a least squares fit to obtain the values for the dark current and gain. C = ( R − D ) × m ( F − D ) = ( R − D ) × G {\displaystyle C={\frac {(R-D)\times m}{(F-D)}}=(R-D)\times G} where: C = corrected image R = raw image F = flat field image D = dark frame image m = image-averaged value of (F−D) G = Gain = m ( F − D ) {\displaystyle m \over (F-D)} In this equation, capital letters are 2D matrices, and lowercase letters are scalars. All matrix operations are performed element-by-element. In order for an astrophotographer to capture a light frame, they must place a light source over the imaging instrument's objective lens such that the light source emanates evenly through the users optics. The photographer must then adjust the exposure of their imaging device (charge-coupled device (CCD) or digital single-lens reflex camera (DSLR) ) so that when the histogram of the image is viewed, a peak reaching about 40–70% of the dynamic range (maximum range of pixel values) of the imaging device is seen. The photographer typically takes 15–20 light frames and performs median stacking. Once the desired light frames are acquired, the objective lens is covered so that no light is allowed in, then 15–20 dark frames are taken, each of equal exposure time as a light frame. These are called Dark-Flat frames. == In X-ray imaging == In X-ray imaging, the acquired projection images generally suffer from fixed-pattern noise, which is one of the limiting factors of image quality. It may stem from beam inhomogeneity, gain variations of the detector response due to inhomogeneities in the photon conversion yield, losses in charge transport, charge trapping, or variations in the performance of the readout. Also, the scintillator screen may accumulate dust and/or scratches on its surface, resulting in systematic patterns in every acquired X-ray projection image. In X-ray computed tomography (CT), fixed-pattern noise is known to significantly degrade the achievable spatial resolution and generally leads to ring or band artifacts in the reconstructed images. Fixed pattern noise can be easily removed using flat field correction. In conventional flat field correction, projection images without sample are acquired with and without the X-ray beam turned on, which are referred to as flat fields (F) and dark fields (D). Based on the acquired flat and dark fields, the measured projection images (P) with sample are then normalized to new images (N) according to: N = ( P − D ) ( F − D ) {\displaystyle N={\frac {(P-D)}{(F-D)}}} == Dynamic flat field correction == While conventional flat field correction is an elegant and easy procedure that largely reduces fixed-pattern noise, it heavily relies on the stationarity of the X-ray beam, scintillator response and CCD sensitivity. In practice, however, this assumption is only approximately met. Indeed, detector elements are characterized by intensity dependent, nonlinear response functions and the incident beam often shows time dependent non-uniformities, which render conventional FFC inadequate. In synchrotron X-ray tomography, many factors may cause flat field variations: instability of the bending magnets of the synchrotron, temperature variations due to the water cooling in mirrors and the monochromator, or vibrations of the scintillator and other beamline components. The latter is responsible for the biggest variations in the flat fields. To deal with such variations, a dynamic flat field correction procedure can be employed that estimates a flat field for each individual projection. Through principal component analysis of a set of flat fields, which are acquired prior and/or posterior to the actual scan, eigen flat fields can be computed. A linear combination of the most important eigen flat fields can then be used to individually normalize each X-ray projection: N j = P j − D ¯ F ¯ + ∑ k w j k u k − D ¯ {\displaystyle N_{j}={\frac {P_{j}-{\bar {D}}}{{\bar {F}}+\sum _{k}w_{jk}u_{k}-{\bar {D}}}}} where N j {\displaystyle N_{j}} = intensity normalized X-ray projection P j {\displaystyle P_{j}} = raw X-ray projection F ¯ {\displaystyle {\bar {F}}} = mean flat field image (average of flat fields) u k {\displaystyle u_{k}} = k-th eigen flat field w j k {\displaystyle w_{jk}} = weight of the eigen flat field u k {\displaystyle u_{k}} D ¯ {\displaystyle {\bar {D}}} = mean dark field (average of dark fields)
Read more →
A large language model (LLM) is a type of machine learning model designed for natural language processing tasks such as language generation. LLMs are language models with many parameters, and are trained with self-supervised learning on a vast amount of text. == List == For the training cost column, 1 petaFLOP-day equals 1 petaFLOP/sec × 1 day, or 8.64×1019 FLOP (floating point operations). Only the cost of the largest model is shown. The number of parameters is measured in billions, and the training cost is measured in petaFLOP-days. === 2018 === === 2019 === === 2020 === === 2021 === === 2022 === === 2023 === === 2024 === === 2025 === === 2026 ===
Read more →
Law practice management software is software designed to manage the business operations of a law firm. This can include software that manages cases, client intake, court communications, electronic discovery, time tracking, trust accounting, and billing. == Features of law practice management software == Common features of practice management software include: Case management Time tracking Document assembly Contact management Calendaring Docket management Client portal Contract Management Court Case Status Tracker Trust accounting == Examples of law practice management software == Smokeball LEAP Legal Software PracticeEvolve Dye & Durham
Read more →
In software, a spell checker (or spelling checker or spell check) is a software feature that checks for misspellings in a text. Spell-checking features are often embedded in software or services, such as a word processor, email client, electronic dictionary, or search engine. == Design == A basic spell checker carries out the following processes: It scans the text and extracts the words contained in it. It then compares each word with a known list of correctly spelled words (i.e. a dictionary). This might contain just a list of words, or it might also contain additional information, such as hyphenation points or lexical and grammatical attributes. An additional step is a language-dependent algorithm for handling morphology. Even for a lightly inflected language like English, the spell checker will need to consider different forms of the same word, such as plurals, verbal forms, contractions, and possessives. For many other languages, such as those featuring agglutination and more complex declension and conjugation, this part of the process is more complicated. It is unclear whether morphological analysis—allowing for many forms of a word depending on its grammatical role—provides a significant benefit for English, though its benefits for highly synthetic languages such as German, Hungarian, or Turkish are clear. As an adjunct to these components, the program's user interface allows users to approve or reject replacements and modify the program's operation. Spell checkers can use approximate string matching algorithms such as Levenshtein distance to find correct spellings of misspelled words. An alternative type of spell checker uses solely statistical information, such as n-grams, to recognize errors instead of correctly-spelled words. This approach usually requires a lot of effort to obtain sufficient statistical information. Key advantages include needing less runtime storage and the ability to correct errors in words that are not included in a dictionary. In some cases, spell checkers use a fixed list of misspellings and suggestions for those misspellings; this less flexible approach is often used in paper-based correction methods, such as the see also entries of encyclopedias. Clustering algorithms have also been used for spell checking combined with phonetic information. == History == === Pre-PC === In 1961, Les Earnest, who headed the research on this budding technology, saw it necessary to include the first spell checker that accessed a list of 10,000 acceptable words. Ralph Gorin, a graduate student under Earnest at the time, created the first true spelling checker program written as an applications program (rather than research) for general English text: SPELL for the DEC PDP-10 at Stanford University's Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, in February 1971. Gorin wrote SPELL in assembly language, for faster action; he made the first spelling corrector by searching the word list for plausible correct spellings that differ by a single letter or adjacent letter transpositions and presenting them to the user. Gorin made SPELL publicly accessible, as was done with most SAIL (Stanford Artificial Intelligence Laboratory) programs, and it soon spread around the world via the new ARPAnet, about ten years before personal computers came into general use. SPELL, its algorithms and data structures inspired the Unix ispell program. The first spell checkers were widely available on mainframe computers in the late 1970s. A group of six linguists from Georgetown University developed the first spell-check system for the IBM corporation. Henry Kučera invented one for the VAX machines of Digital Equipment Corp in 1981. === Unix === The International Ispell program commonly used in Unix is based on R. E. Gorin's SPELL. It was converted to C by Pace Willisson at MIT. The GNU project has its spell checker GNU Aspell. Aspell's main improvement is that it can more accurately suggest correct alternatives for misspelled English words. Due to the inability of traditional spell checkers to check words in complex inflected languages, Hungarian László Németh developed Hunspell, a spell checker that supports agglutinative languages and complex compound words. Hunspell also uses Unicode in its dictionaries. Hunspell replaced the previous MySpell in OpenOffice.org in version 2.0.2. Enchant is another general spell checker, derived from AbiWord. Its goal is to combine programs supporting different languages such as Aspell, Hunspell, Nuspell, Hspell (Hebrew), Voikko (Finnish), Zemberek (Turkish) and AppleSpell under one interface. === PCs === The first spell checkers for personal computers appeared in 1980, such as "WordCheck" for Commodore systems which was released in late 1980 in time for advertisements to go to print in January 1981. Developers such as Maria Mariani and Random House rushed OEM packages or end-user products into the rapidly expanding software market. On the pre-Windows PCs, these spell checkers were standalone programs, many of which could be run in terminate-and-stay-resident mode from within word-processing packages on PCs with sufficient memory. However, the market for standalone packages was short-lived, as by the mid-1980s developers of popular word-processing packages like WordStar and WordPerfect had incorporated spell checkers in their packages, mostly licensed from the above companies, who quickly expanded support from just English to many European and eventually even Asian languages. However, this required increasing sophistication in the morphology routines of the software, particularly with regard to heavily-agglutinative languages like Hungarian and Finnish. Although the size of the word-processing market in a country like Iceland might not have justified the investment of implementing a spell checker, companies like WordPerfect nonetheless strove to localize their software for as many national markets as possible as part of their global marketing strategy. When Apple developed "a system-wide spelling checker" for Mac OS X so that "the operating system took over spelling fixes," it was a first: one "didn't have to maintain a separate spelling checker for each" program. Mac OS X's spellcheck coverage includes virtually all bundled and third party applications. Visual Tools' VT Speller, introduced in 1994, was "designed for developers of applications that support Windows." It came with a dictionary but had the ability to build and incorporate use of secondary dictionaries. === Browsers === Web browsers such as Firefox and Google Chrome offer spell checking support, using Hunspell. Prior to using Hunspell, Firefox and Chrome used MySpell and GNU Aspell, respectively. === Specialties === Some spell checkers have separate support for medical dictionaries to help prevent medical errors. == Functionality == The first spell checkers were "verifiers" instead of "correctors." They offered no suggestions for incorrectly spelled words. This was helpful for typos but it was not so helpful for logical or phonetic errors. The challenge the developers faced was the difficulty in offering useful suggestions for misspelled words. This requires reducing words to a skeletal form and applying pattern-matching algorithms. It might seem logical that where spell-checking dictionaries are concerned, "the bigger, the better," so that correct words are not marked as incorrect. In practice, however, an optimal size for English appears to be around 90,000 entries. If there are more than this, incorrectly spelled words may be skipped because they are mistaken for others. For example, a linguist might determine on the basis of corpus linguistics that the word baht is more frequently a misspelling of bath or bat than a reference to the Thai currency. Hence, it would typically be more useful if a few people who write about Thai currency were slightly inconvenienced than if the spelling errors of the many more people who discuss baths were overlooked. The first MS-DOS spell checkers were mostly used in proofing mode from within word processing packages. After preparing a document, a user scanned the text looking for misspellings. Later, however, batch processing was offered in such packages as Oracle's short-lived CoAuthor and allowed a user to view the results after a document was processed and correct only the words that were known to be wrong. When memory and processing power became abundant, spell checking was performed in the background in an interactive way, such as has been the case with the Sector Software produced Spellbound program released in 1987 and Microsoft Word since Word 95. Spell checkers became increasingly sophisticated; now capable of recognizing grammatical errors. However, even at their best, they rarely catch all the errors in a text (such as homophone errors) and will flag neologisms and foreign words as misspellings. Nonetheless, spell checkers can be considered as a type of foreign language writing aid that non-native language lea
Read more →
A deadbot, deathbot, or griefbot is a digital avatar, created with artificial intelligence, which resembles a person who is dead. Griefbots employ natural language processing and machine-learning techniques to approximate the style and personality of a deceased person. They may appear as chatbots, voice assistants, or animated avatars, and are often trained on an individual's digital remains. == History == Among the earliest researchers, Muhammad Aurangzeb Ahmad of the University of Washington, developed the Grandpa Bot project, a conversational simulation of his late father designed for his children to interact with. Other efforts include journalist James Vlahos's Dadbot, which evolved into the commercial platform HereAfter AI. Hossein Rahnama's Augmented Eternity research at MIT Media Lab and Toronto Metropolitan University, and game designer Jason Rohrer's "Project December", have enabled users to converse with language-model representations of loved ones. Early commercial projects such as Eternime, founded by Marius Ursache, also popularized the notion of interactive digital immortality. == Cultural and societal impact == Scholars have proposed frameworks and critiques addressing the ethics of these technologies. Tomasz Hollanek and Katarzyna Nowaczyk-Basińska developed a design-ethics taxonomy distinguishing the data donor, data recipient, and interactant. Edina Harbinja and Lilian Edwards formalized the concept of post-mortem privacy, and Carl J. Öhman at the Oxford Internet Institute studied the management of large-scale digital remains. Cultural acceptance varies: while some view them as expressions of remembrance, others regard them as unsettling or ethically problematic. Concerns have been raised about deadbots' potential for creating psychological harm. Griefbots are considered part of the phenomenon of artificial intimacy.
Read more →
In image registration, inverse consistency measures the consistency of mappings between images produced by a registration algorithm. The inverse consistency error, introduced by Christiansen and Johnson in 2001, quantifies the distance between the composition of the mappings from each image to the other, produced by the registration procedure, and the identity function, and is used as a regularisation constraint in the loss function of many registration algorithms to enforce consistent mappings. Inverse consistency is necessary for good image registration but it is not sufficient, since a mapping can be perfectly consistent but not register the images at all. == Definition == Image registration is the process of establishing a common coordinate system between two images, and given two images I 1 : Ω 1 → R I 2 : Ω 2 → R {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}I_{1}:\Omega _{1}\to \mathbb {R} \\I_{2}:\Omega _{2}\to \mathbb {R} \end{aligned}}} registering a source image I 1 {\displaystyle I_{1}} to a target image I 2 {\displaystyle I_{2}} consists of determining a transformation f 1 : Ω 2 → Ω 1 {\displaystyle f_{1}:\Omega _{2}\to \Omega _{1}} that maps points from the target space to the source space. An ideal registration algorithm should not be sensitive to which image in the pair is used as source or target, and the registration operator should be antisymmetric such that the mappings f 1 : Ω 2 → Ω 1 f 2 : Ω 1 → Ω 2 {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}f_{1}:\Omega _{2}\to \Omega _{1}\\f_{2}:\Omega _{1}\to \Omega _{2}\end{aligned}}} produced when registering I 1 {\displaystyle I_{1}} to I 2 {\displaystyle I_{2}} and I 2 {\displaystyle I_{2}} to I 1 {\displaystyle I_{1}} respectively should be the inverse of each other, i.e. f 2 = f 1 − 1 {\displaystyle f_{2}=f_{1}^{-1}} and f 1 = f 2 − 1 {\displaystyle f_{1}=f_{2}^{-1}} or, equivalently, f 2 ∘ f 1 = id Ω 2 {\displaystyle f_{2}\circ f_{1}=\operatorname {id} _{\Omega _{2}}} and f 1 ∘ f 2 = id Ω 1 {\displaystyle f_{1}\circ f_{2}=\operatorname {id} _{\Omega _{1}}} , where ∘ {\displaystyle \circ } denotes the function composition operator. Real algorithms are not perfect, and when swapping the role of source and target image in a registration problem the so obtained transformations are not the inverse of each other. Inverse consistency can be enforced by adding to the loss function of the registration a symmetric regularisation term that penalises inconsistent transformations ∫ Ω 2 ‖ f 2 ( f 1 ( x ) ) − x ‖ 2 d x + ∫ Ω 1 ‖ f 1 ( f 2 ( x ) ) − x ‖ 2 d x . {\displaystyle \int _{\Omega _{2}}\left\Vert f_{2}(f_{1}(x))-x\right\Vert ^{2}\mathrm {d} x+\int _{\Omega _{1}}\left\Vert f_{1}(f_{2}(x))-x\right\Vert ^{2}\mathrm {d} x.} Inverse consistency can be used as a quality metric to evaluate image registration results. The inverse consistency error ( I C E {\displaystyle ICE} ) measures the distance between the composition of the two transforms and the identity function, and it can be formulated in terms of both average ( I C E a {\displaystyle ICE_{a}} ) or maximum ( I C E m {\displaystyle ICE_{m}} ) over a region of interest Ω {\displaystyle \Omega } of the image: I C E a = 1 ∫ Ω d x ∫ Ω ‖ f 2 ( f 1 ( x ) ) − x ‖ d x I C E m = max x ∈ Ω ‖ f 2 ( f 1 ( x ) ) − x ‖ . {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}ICE_{a}&={\frac {1}{\int _{\Omega }\mathrm {d} x}}\int _{\Omega }\left\Vert f_{2}(f_{1}(x))-x\right\Vert \mathrm {d} x\\ICE_{m}&=\max _{x\in \Omega }\left\Vert f_{2}(f_{1}(x))-x\right\Vert .\end{aligned}}} While inverse consistency is a necessary property of good registration algorithms, inverse consistency error alone is not a sufficient metric to evaluate the quality of image registration results, since a perfectly consistent mapping, with no other constraint, may be not even close to correctly register a pair of images.
Read more →
LIVAC is an uncommon language corpus dynamically maintained since 1995. Different from other existing corpora, LIVAC has adopted a rigorous and regular "Windows" approach in processing and filtering massive media texts from representative Chinese speech communities such as Beijing, Hong Kong, Macau, Taipei, Singapore, Shanghai, as well as Guangzhou, and Shenzhen. The contents are thus deliberately repetitive in most cases, represented by textual samples drawn from editorials, local and international news, cross-Taiwan Strait news, as well as news on finance, sports and entertainment. By 2023, more than 3 billion characters of news media texts have been filtered, of which 700 million characters have been processed and analyzed and have yielded an expanding Pan-Chinese dictionary of 2.5 million words from the Pan-Chinese printed media. Through rigorous analysis based on computational linguistic methodology, LIVAC has at the same time accumulated a large amount of accurate and meaningful statistical data on the Chinese language and on their diverse speech communities in the Pan-Chinese context, and the results show considerable and important long standing as well as evolving variations. The "Windows" approach is the most innovative feature of LIVAC and has enabled Pan-Chinese media texts to be quantitatively analyzed according to various attributes such as locations, time and subject domains. Thus, various types of comparative studies and applications in information technology as well as development of often related innovative applications have been possible. Moreover, LIVAC has allowed longitudinal developments to be taken into account, facilitating Key Word in Context (KWIC) search and comprehensive study of target words and their underlying concepts as well as linguistic structures over the past 25 years, based on the above mentioned variables of location, time and subject. Results from the extensive and accumulative data analysis contained in LIVAC have enabled the cultivation of textual databases of proper names, place names, organization names, new words, and bi-weekly and annual rosters of media figures. Related applications have included the establishment of verb and adjective databases, the formulation of sentiment indices, and related opinion mining, to measure and compare the popularity of global media figures in the Chinese media (LIVAC Annual Pan-Chinese Celebrity Rosters, later renamed as the Pan-Chinese Newsmaker Rosters). Notable among these are the decades long periodic reviews of the 25 years of annual pan-Chinese rosters since 2000 and compilation of new word databases (LIVAC Annual Pan-Chinese New Word Rosters). On this basis, the analysis of the emergence, diffusion and transformation of new words, and the publication of dictionaries of neologisms have been made possible. A recent focus is on the relative balance between disyllabic words and growing trisyllabic words in the Chinese language, and the comparative study of light verbs in three Chinese speech communities. as well as the link between the language use and use of language as a reflection of epochal change in China. A new LIVAC version 3.1 was launched in February 2024. == Corpus data processing == Accessing media texts, manual input, etc. Text unification including conversion from simplified to traditional Chinese characters, stored as Big5 and Unicode versions Automatic word segmentation Automatic alignment of parallel texts Manual verification, part-of-speech tagging Extraction of words and addition to regional sub-corpora Combination of regional sub-corpora to update the LIVAC corpus, and master lexical database == Labeling for data curation == Categories used include general terms and proper names, such as: general names, surnames, semi titles; geographical, organizations and commercial entities, etc.; time, prepositions, locations, etc.; stack-words; loanwords; case-word; numerals, etc. Construction of databases of proper names, place names, and specific terms, etc. Generate rosters: "new word rosters", "celebrity or media personality rosters", "place name rosters", compound words and matched words Other parts of speech tagging for sub-database, such as common nouns, numerals, numeral classifiers, different types of verbs, and of adjectives, pronouns, adverbs, prepositions, conjunctions, particles marking mood, onomatopoeia, interjection, etc. == Applications == Compilation of Pan-Chinese dictionaries or local dictionaries Information technology research, such as predictive Chinese text input for mobile phones, automatic speech to text conversion, opinion mining Comparative studies on linguistic and cultural developments in the Pan-Chinese regions, especially in a critical period of history in modern China. Language teaching and learning research, and speech-to-text conversion Customized service on linguistic research and lexical search for international corporations and government agencies The above applications are provided by the following functions: Word Segmentation Search Phrase Search Example Sentence Selection Multi-word Comparison Word Cloud
Read more →