AI For Business Microsoft

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

• 

  Flat-field correction

  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 →
• 

  Automatic acquisition of lexicon

  Automatic acquisition of lexicon is a computerized process used for the development of a complex morphological lexicon of a language. The lexicon is essential for the NLP (Natural language processing), as well as a prerequisite to any wide-coverage parser. The two main requirements represent raw corpus and the morphological description of the language. The aim is to provide lemmas that will serve to the explanation of all the words that occur within the corpus. For the achievement of a quality lexicon it is necessary to manually validate the generated lemmas and iterate the whole process several times. The process is focused on the open word classes (e.g. nouns, adjectives, verbs). Closed classes (e.g. prepositions, pronouns, numerals) are excluded. This method is applicable to the languages with a rich morphology, such as Slovak, Russian or Croatian. Applied to Slovak, being an inflectional language, the automatic acquisition focuses on the inflectional morphology as well as on the derivational morphology. This fact enables the users to find out the information about derivational relations (e.g. adjectivizations, prefixes) in the lexicon. For example, Slovak word korpusový is an adjectivization of korpus (eng. corpus). == Three-step loop == Conformably to Benoît Sagot, there are three stages involved in the acquisition of lemmas: Generation and inflection Ranking Manual validation The more iteration will be performed, the more accurate lexicon will be obtained. For each iteration are essential the information given by a manual validator. === Generation and inflection === Firstly, all words which represent the closed word classes (pronouns, prepositions, numerals) are manually excluded from the given corpus. Number of their occurrences in the corpus is provided. Then the automatic generation comes, when the hypothetical lemmas according to the morphological description of a language are created. Generated lemmas are consequently being inflected, so that all of their inflected forms are built. Obtained forms are associated with the corresponding lemma and a morphological tag. === Ranking === There was created a probabilistic model, represented by a fix-point algorithm, to rank the hypothetical lemmas generated in the first step. Best ranked lemmas are expected to be ideally all correct, whereas the least ranked tend to be incorrect. === Manual validation === Correctness of the best- ranked lemmas created in the previous step are checked by the manual validator, who should be a native speaker. Lemmas are at this stage divided into three categories: valid lemmas, appended to lexicon erroneous lemmas generated by valid forms (later associated to another lemmas) erroneous lemmas generated by invalid forms (these need to be excluded) == Future development == Automatic acquisition, in comparison to a purely manual development of the lexicons, seems to be promising, considering the future development, because of the short validation time needed and the relatively small amount of human labor involved.

  Read more →
• 

  Neural operators

  Neural operators are a class of deep learning architectures designed to learn maps between infinite-dimensional function spaces. Neural operators represent an extension of traditional artificial neural networks, marking a departure from the typical focus on learning mappings between finite-dimensional Euclidean spaces or finite sets. Neural operators directly learn operators between function spaces; they can receive input functions, and the output function can be evaluated at any discretization. The primary application of neural operators is in learning surrogate maps for the solution operators of partial differential equations (PDEs), which are critical tools in modeling the natural environment. Standard PDE solvers can be time-consuming and computationally intensive, especially for complex systems. Neural operators have demonstrated improved performance in solving PDEs compared to existing machine learning methodologies while being significantly faster than numerical solvers. Neural operators have also been applied to various scientific and engineering disciplines such as turbulent flow modeling, computational mechanics, graph-structured data, and the geosciences. In particular, they have been applied to learning stress-strain fields in materials, classifying complex data like spatial transcriptomics, predicting multiphase flow in porous media, and carbon dioxide migration simulations. Finally, the operator learning paradigm allows learning maps between function spaces, and is different from parallel ideas of learning maps from finite-dimensional spaces to function spaces, and subsumes these settings as special cases when limited to a fixed input resolution. == Operator learning == Understanding and mapping relationships between function spaces has many applications in engineering and the sciences. In particular, one can cast the problem of solving partial differential equations as identifying a map between function spaces, such as from an initial condition to a time-evolved state. In other PDEs this map takes an input coefficient function and outputs a solution function. Operator learning is a machine learning paradigm to learn solution operators mapping the input function to the output function . Using traditional machine learning methods, addressing this problem would involve discretizing the infinite-dimensional input and output function spaces into finite-dimensional grids and applying standard learning models, such as neural networks. This approach reduces the operator learning to finite-dimensional function learning and has some limitations, such as generalizing to discretizations beyond the grid used in training. The primary properties of neural operators that differentiate them from traditional neural networks is discretization invariance and discretization convergence. Unlike conventional neural networks, which are fixed on the discretization of training data, neural operators can adapt to various discretizations without re-training. This property improves the robustness and applicability of neural operators in different scenarios, providing consistent performance across different resolutions and grids. == Definition and formulation == Architecturally, neural operators are similar to feed-forward neural networks in the sense that they are composed of alternating linear maps and non-linearities. Since neural operators act on and output functions, neural operators have been instead formulated as a sequence of alternating linear integral operators on function spaces and point-wise non-linearities. Using an analogous architecture to finite-dimensional neural networks, similar universal approximation theorems have been proven for neural operators. In particular, it has been shown that neural operators can approximate any continuous operator on a compact set. Neural operators seek to approximate some operator G : A → U {\displaystyle {\mathcal {G}}:{\mathcal {A}}\to {\mathcal {U}}} between function spaces A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} and U {\displaystyle {\mathcal {U}}} by building a parametric map G ϕ : A → U {\displaystyle {\mathcal {G}}_{\phi }:{\mathcal {A}}\to {\mathcal {U}}} . Such parametric maps G ϕ {\displaystyle {\mathcal {G}}_{\phi }} can generally be defined in the form G ϕ := Q ∘ σ ( W T + K T + b T ) ∘ ⋯ ∘ σ ( W 1 + K 1 + b 1 ) ∘ P , {\displaystyle {\mathcal {G}}_{\phi }:={\mathcal {Q}}\circ \sigma (W_{T}+{\mathcal {K}}_{T}+b_{T})\circ \cdots \circ \sigma (W_{1}+{\mathcal {K}}_{1}+b_{1})\circ {\mathcal {P}},} where P , Q {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}},{\mathcal {Q}}} are the lifting (lifting the codomain of the input function to a higher dimensional space) and projection (projecting the codomain of the intermediate function to the output dimension) operators, respectively. These operators act pointwise on functions and are typically parametrized as multilayer perceptrons. σ {\displaystyle \sigma } is a pointwise nonlinearity, such as a rectified linear unit (ReLU), or a Gaussian error linear unit (GeLU). Each layer t = 1 , … , T {\displaystyle t=1,\dots ,T} has a respective local operator W t {\displaystyle W_{t}} (usually parameterized by a pointwise neural network), a kernel integral operator K t {\displaystyle {\mathcal {K}}_{t}} , and a bias function b t {\displaystyle b_{t}} . Given some intermediate functional representation v t {\displaystyle v_{t}} with domain D {\displaystyle D} in the t {\displaystyle t} -th hidden layer, a kernel integral operator K ϕ {\displaystyle {\mathcal {K}}_{\phi }} is defined as ( K ϕ v t ) ( x ) := ∫ D κ ϕ ( x , y , v t ( x ) , v t ( y ) ) v t ( y ) d y , {\displaystyle ({\mathcal {K}}_{\phi }v_{t})(x):=\int _{D}\kappa _{\phi }(x,y,v_{t}(x),v_{t}(y))v_{t}(y)dy,} where the kernel κ ϕ {\displaystyle \kappa _{\phi }} is a learnable implicit neural network, parametrized by ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } . In practice, one is often given the input function to the neural operator at a specific resolution. For instance, consider the setting where one is given the evaluation of v t {\displaystyle v_{t}} at n {\displaystyle n} points { y j } j n {\displaystyle \{y_{j}\}_{j}^{n}} . Borrowing from Nyström integral approximation methods such as Riemann sum integration and Gaussian quadrature, the above integral operation can be computed as follows: ∫ D κ ϕ ( x , y , v t ( x ) , v t ( y ) ) v t ( y ) d y ≈ ∑ j n κ ϕ ( x , y j , v t ( x ) , v t ( y j ) ) v t ( y j ) Δ y j , {\displaystyle \int _{D}\kappa _{\phi }(x,y,v_{t}(x),v_{t}(y))v_{t}(y)dy\approx \sum _{j}^{n}\kappa _{\phi }(x,y_{j},v_{t}(x),v_{t}(y_{j}))v_{t}(y_{j})\Delta _{y_{j}},} where Δ y j {\displaystyle \Delta _{y_{j}}} is the sub-area volume or quadrature weight associated to the point y j {\displaystyle y_{j}} . Thus, a simplified layer can be computed as v t + 1 ( x ) ≈ σ ( ∑ j n κ ϕ ( x , y j , v t ( x ) , v t ( y j ) ) v t ( y j ) Δ y j + W t ( v t ( y j ) ) + b t ( x ) ) . {\displaystyle v_{t+1}(x)\approx \sigma \left(\sum _{j}^{n}\kappa _{\phi }(x,y_{j},v_{t}(x),v_{t}(y_{j}))v_{t}(y_{j})\Delta _{y_{j}}+W_{t}(v_{t}(y_{j}))+b_{t}(x)\right).} The above approximation, along with parametrizing κ ϕ {\displaystyle \kappa _{\phi }} as an implicit neural network, results in the graph neural operator (GNO). There have been various parameterizations of neural operators for different applications. These typically differ in their parameterization of κ {\displaystyle \kappa } . The most popular instantiation is the Fourier neural operator (FNO). FNO takes κ ϕ ( x , y , v t ( x ) , v t ( y ) ) := κ ϕ ( x − y ) {\displaystyle \kappa _{\phi }(x,y,v_{t}(x),v_{t}(y)):=\kappa _{\phi }(x-y)} and by applying the convolution theorem, arrives at the following parameterization of the kernel integral operator: ( K ϕ v t ) ( x ) = F − 1 ( R ϕ ⋅ ( F v t ) ) ( x ) , {\displaystyle ({\mathcal {K}}_{\phi }v_{t})(x)={\mathcal {F}}^{-1}(R_{\phi }\cdot ({\mathcal {F}}v_{t}))(x),} where F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} represents the Fourier transform and R ϕ {\displaystyle R_{\phi }} represents the Fourier transform of some periodic function κ ϕ {\displaystyle \kappa _{\phi }} . That is, FNO parameterizes the kernel integration directly in Fourier space, using a prescribed number of Fourier modes. When the grid at which the input function is presented is uniform, the Fourier transform can be approximated using the discrete Fourier transform (DFT) with frequencies below some specified threshold. The discrete Fourier transform can be computed using a fast Fourier transform (FFT) implementation. == Training == Training neural operators is similar to the training process for a traditional neural network. Neural operators are typically trained in some Lp norm or Sobolev norm. In particular, for a dataset { ( a i , u i ) } i = 1 N {\displaystyle \{(a_{i},u_{i})\}_{i=1}^{N}} of size N {\displaystyle N} , neural operators minimize (a discretization of) L U ( { ( a i , u i ) } i = 1 N ) := ∑ i = 1 N ‖ u i − G θ ( a i ) ‖ U 2 {\displaystyle {\mathcal {L}}_{\mathca

  Read more →
• 

  Chinchilla (language model)

  Chinchilla is a family of large language models (LLMs) developed by the research team at Google DeepMind, presented in March 2022. == Models == It is named "chinchilla" because it is a further development over a previous model family named Gopher. Both model families were trained in order to investigate the scaling laws of large language models. It claimed to outperform GPT-3. It considerably simplifies downstream utilization because it requires much less computer power for inference and fine-tuning. Based on the training of previously employed language models, it has been determined that if one doubles the model size, one must also have twice the number of training tokens. This hypothesis has been used to train Chinchilla by DeepMind. Similar to Gopher in terms of cost, Chinchilla has 70B parameters and four times as much data. Chinchilla has an average accuracy of 67.5% on the Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understanding (MMLU) benchmark, which is 7% higher than Gopher's performance. Chinchilla was still in the testing phase as of January 12, 2023. Chinchilla contributes to developing an effective training paradigm for large autoregressive language models with limited compute resources. The Chinchilla team recommends that the number of training tokens is twice for every model size doubling, meaning that using larger, higher-quality training datasets can lead to better results on downstream tasks. It has been used for the Flamingo vision-language model. == Architecture == Both the Gopher family and Chinchilla family are families of transformer models. In particular, they are essentially the same as GPT-2, with different sizes and minor modifications. Gopher family uses RMSNorm instead of LayerNorm; relative positional encoding rather than absolute positional encoding. The Chinchilla family is the same as the Gopher family, but trained with AdamW instead of Adam optimizer. The Gopher family contains six models of increasing size, from 44 million parameters to 280 billion parameters. They refer to the largest one as "Gopher" by default. Similar naming conventions apply for the Chinchilla family. Table 1 of shows the entire Gopher family: Table 4 of compares the 70-billion-parameter Chinchilla with Gopher 280B.

  Read more →
• 

  Intel Threat Detection Technology

  Intel Threat Detection Technology (TDT) is a CPU-level technology created by Intel in 2018 to enable host endpoint protections to use a CPU's low-level access to detect threats to a system. TDT consists of multiple components including Accelerated Memory Scanning, which uses the CPU's integrated GPU to scan memory, and Advanced Platform Telemetry, which uses processor-level activity monitoring to detect unusual activity. It is supported on sixth-generation or newer Intel Core CPUs and additional capabilities were added to the 11th generation Core processors. Intel TDT is integrated into several third-party anti-malware solutions including Microsoft Defender, Check Point Harmony Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, and others. == Accelerated Memory Scanning == Accelerated Memory Scanning (also referred to as "Advanced Memory Scanning") uses the CPU's integrated GPU to scan memory for malicious code, instead of using the CPU directly. This improves system responsiveness during anti-malware scanning. and lowers power consumption. Features include pattern matching, using random forest decision trees, string extraction, entropy calculation, and Euclidean clustering. == Advanced Platform Telemetry == Advanced Platform Telemetry collects CPU-level telemetry to detect uncommon activity patterns which might be indicative of malware. The telemetry data is collected from the CPU performance monitoring unit (PMU) and doesn't require a large signature database to detect malware. Instead, it uses machine-learning based correlations to identify indicators of attack For example, Microsoft Defender is able to use TDT's Advanced Platform Telemetry features to detect processor usage patterns indicative of ransomware and cryptojacking with TDT so it can detect them.

  Read more →
• 

  Ed (chatbot)

  Ed was a chatbot co-developed by the Los Angeles Unified School District and AllHere Education. Described as a learning acceleration platform, it was the first personal assistant for students in the United States. Part of the district's Individual Acceleration Plan, it was able to interact with students both verbally and visually, offering support in 100 languages. The chatbot was launched on March 20, 2024, as part of the district's plan for academic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic and to improve overall academic performance. Utilizing artificial intelligence, Ed organizes data and reports on grades, test scores, and attendance, creating individualized plans for each student. After the company behind it, AllHere, collapsed, the district shuttered operations of the chatbot on June 14, 2024. The firm is under investigation by the US Federal Bureau of Investigation. == History == On February 14, 2022, Alberto M. Carvalho became the Superintendent of the Los Angeles Unified School District, pledging to give the district a full academic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. In December 2022, he announced the Individual Acceleration Plan for the district, which aimed to provide each student with a unique progress report and help them determine if they were on track to graduate. The district faced criticism from disability advocates for its management of Individualized Education Programs, and in April 2022, the United States Department of Education announced that the district had failed to provide appropriate educational services to students with disabilities during the pandemic. The district had been grappling with significant absenteeism issues since the pandemic, which led to declining academic performance and disengagement among students. On February 17, 2023, the district issued a request for proposals to develop a fully integrated portal system. Later that year, they signed a $6 million, five-year contract with AllHere Education, a Boston-based company founded in 2016. The introduction of Ed follows the public launch of ChatGPT, which has been utilized by both teachers and students in educational settings. On August 4, 2023, during an annual address at the Walt Disney Concert Hall, Carvalho and the Los Angeles Unified School District announced the launch of Ed. The district invested $4 million into the chatbot, with Carvalho noting that this cost would be halved thanks to donor and grant funding. The chatbot was launched on March 20, 2024. Following its launch, a press conference was held to address security and technology concerns. Carvalho stated that the district had collaborated with security companies and incorporated filters to screen for threatening language. Months after its launch, AllHere Education furloughed most of its staff on June 14, citing their “current financial position” on its website as the reason. After learning about the furlough, the district terminated its dealings with AllHere Education. However, it stated its intention to bring the chatbot back in the future once officials determine the best course of action. Carvalho announced that he would appoint an independent task force to review what went wrong with AllHere Education and the chatbot. On February 25, 2026, the FBI served a search warrant on Carvalho’s home and office in connection with AllHere. The FBI also raided the LAUSD's headquarters. == Service == The chatbot was described as a personal assistant and a "one-stop shop for parents and students" who want to see information about a student's attendance and grades, as well as other resources from the district. Additionally, the application can function as an alarm clock, provide daily lunch menus from the school cafeteria, and offer updates on the location of school buses. The chatbot also helps students and parents who do not speak English as their first language by translating displayed information into approximately 100 different languages. The application can also help with submitting applications and give updates on progress and upcoming assignments. The district stated that the primary goal of Ed was to actively motivate students to complete homework and other tasks. == Reception == The chatbot received a mostly positive reception among parents and observers upon its launch. Some parents and teachers expressed caution about the technology, voicing concerns that the district's push for its implementation lacked public accountability. Rob Nelson from the University of Pennsylvania described the district's strategy as risky, saying that the release felt "like the beginning of a Clippy-level disaster". After the chatbot's shutdown, The 74 criticized it for misusing student data. Chris Whiteley, a former software engineer at AllHere Education, alleged that the data collected by the chatbot likely violated the district's data privacy rules.

  Read more →
• 

  Landmark point

  In morphometrics, landmark point or shortly landmark is a point in a shape object in which correspondences between and within the populations of the object are preserved. In other disciplines, landmarks may be known as vertices, anchor points, control points, sites, profile points, 'sampling' points, nodes, markers, fiducial markers, etc. Landmarks can be defined either manually by experts or automatically by a computer program. There are three basic types of landmarks: anatomical landmarks, mathematical landmarks or pseudo-landmarks. An anatomical landmark is a biologically-meaningful point in an organism. Usually experts define anatomical points to ensure their correspondences within the same species. Examples of anatomical landmark in shape of a skull are the eye corner, tip of the nose, jaw, etc. Anatomical landmarks determine homologous parts of an organism, which share a common ancestry. Mathematical landmarks are points in a shape that are located according to some mathematical or geometrical property, for instance, a high curvature point or an extreme point. A computer program usually determines mathematical landmarks used for an automatic pattern recognition. Pseudo-landmarks are constructed points located between anatomical or mathematical landmarks. A typical example is an equally spaced set of points between two anatomical landmarks to get more sample points from a shape. Pseudo-landmarks are useful during shape matching, when the matching process requires a large number of points.

  Read more →
• 

  Condensation algorithm

  The condensation algorithm (Conditional Density Propagation) is a computer vision algorithm. The principal application is to detect and track the contour of objects moving in a cluttered environment. Object tracking is one of the more basic and difficult aspects of computer vision and is generally a prerequisite to object recognition. Being able to identify which pixels in an image make up the contour of an object is a non-trivial problem. Condensation is a probabilistic algorithm that attempts to solve this problem. The algorithm itself is described in detail by Isard and Blake in a publication in the International Journal of Computer Vision in 1998. One of the most interesting facets of the algorithm is that it does not compute on every pixel of the image. Rather, pixels to process are chosen at random, and only a subset of the pixels end up being processed. Multiple hypotheses about what is moving are supported naturally by the probabilistic nature of the approach. The evaluation functions come largely from previous work in the area and include many standard statistical approaches. The original part of this work is the application of particle filter estimation techniques. The algorithm's creation was inspired by the inability of Kalman filtering to perform object tracking well in the presence of significant background clutter. The presence of clutter tends to produce probability distributions for the object state which are multi-modal and therefore poorly modeled by the Kalman filter. The condensation algorithm in its most general form requires no assumptions about the probability distributions of the object or measurements. == Algorithm overview == The condensation algorithm seeks to solve the problem of estimating the conformation of an object described by a vector x t {\displaystyle \mathbf {x_{t}} } at time t {\displaystyle t} , given observations z 1 , . . . , z t {\displaystyle \mathbf {z_{1},...,z_{t}} } of the detected features in the images up to and including the current time. The algorithm outputs an estimate to the state conditional probability density p ( x t | z 1 , . . . , z t ) {\displaystyle p(\mathbf {x_{t}} |\mathbf {z_{1},...,z_{t}} )} by applying a nonlinear filter based on factored sampling and can be thought of as a development of a Monte-Carlo method. p ( x t | z 1 , . . . , z t ) {\displaystyle p(\mathbf {x_{t}} |\mathbf {z_{1},...,z_{t}} )} is a representation of the probability of possible conformations for the objects based on previous conformations and measurements. The condensation algorithm is a generative model since it models the joint distribution of the object and the observer. The conditional density of the object at the current time p ( x t | z 1 , . . . , z t ) {\displaystyle p(\mathbf {x_{t}} |\mathbf {z_{1},...,z_{t}} )} is estimated as a weighted, time-indexed sample set { s t ( n ) , n = 1 , . . . , N } {\displaystyle \{s_{t}^{(n)},n=1,...,N\}} with weights π t ( n ) {\displaystyle \pi _{t}^{(n)}} . N is a parameter determining the number of sample sets chosen. A realization of p ( x t | z 1 , . . . , z t ) {\displaystyle p(\mathbf {x_{t}} |\mathbf {z_{1},...,z_{t}} )} is obtained by sampling with replacement from the set s t {\displaystyle s_{t}} with probability equal to the corresponding element of π t {\displaystyle \pi _{t}} . The assumptions that object dynamics form a temporal Markov chain and that observations are independent of each other and the dynamics facilitate the implementation of the condensation algorithm. The first assumption allows the dynamics of the object to be entirely determined by the conditional density p ( x t | x t − 1 ) {\displaystyle p(\mathbf {x_{t}} |\mathbf {x_{t-1}} )} . The model of the system dynamics determined by p ( x t | x t − 1 ) {\displaystyle p(\mathbf {x_{t}} |\mathbf {x_{t-1}} )} must also be selected for the algorithm, and generally includes both deterministic and stochastic dynamics. The algorithm can be summarized by initialization at time t = 0 {\displaystyle t=0} and three steps at each time t: === Initialization === Form the initial sample set and weights by sampling according to the prior distribution. For example, specify as Gaussian and set the weights equal to each other. === Iterative procedure === Sample with replacement N {\displaystyle N} times from the set { s 0 ( n ) , n = 1 , . . . , N } {\displaystyle \{s_{0}^{(n)},n=1,...,N\}} with probability { π 0 ( n ) , n = 1 , . . . , N } {\displaystyle \{\pi _{0}^{(n)},n=1,...,N\}} to generate a realization of p ( x t | z 1 , . . . , z t ) {\displaystyle p(\mathbf {x_{t}} |\mathbf {z_{1},...,z_{t}} )} . Apply the learned dynamics p ( x t | x t − 1 ) {\displaystyle p(\mathbf {x_{t}} |\mathbf {x_{t-1}} )} to each element of this new set, to generate a new set { s t ( n ) } {\displaystyle \{s_{t}^{(n)}\}} . To take into account the current observation z t {\displaystyle \mathbf {z_{t}} } , set π t ( n ) = p ( z t | s ( n ) ) ∑ j = 1 N p ( z t | s ( j ) ) {\displaystyle \pi _{t}^{(n)}={\frac {p(\mathbf {z_{t}} |s^{(n)})}{\sum _{j=1}^{N}p(\mathbf {z_{t}} |s^{(j)})}}} for each element { s t ( n ) } {\displaystyle \{s_{t}^{(n)}\}} . This algorithm outputs the probability distribution p ( x t | z 1 , . . . , z t ) {\displaystyle p(\mathbf {x_{t}} |\mathbf {z_{1},...,z_{t}} )} which can be directly used to calculate the mean position of the tracked object, as well as the other moments of the tracked object. Cumulative weights can instead be used to achieve a more efficient sampling. == Implementation considerations == Since object-tracking can be a real-time objective, consideration of algorithm efficiency becomes important. The condensation algorithm is relatively simple when compared to the computational intensity of the Ricatti equation required for Kalman filtering. The parameter N {\displaystyle N} , which determines the number of samples in the sample set, will clearly hold a trade-off in efficiency versus performance. One way to increase efficiency of the algorithm is by selecting a low degree of freedom model for representing the shape of the object. The model used by Isard 1998 is a linear parameterization of B-splines in which the splines are limited to certain configurations. Suitable configurations were found by analytically determining combinations of contours from multiple views, of the object in different poses, and through principal component analysis (PCA) on the deforming object. Isard and Blake model the object dynamics p ( x t | x t − 1 ) {\displaystyle p(\mathbf {x_{t}} |\mathbf {x_{t-1}} )} as a second order difference equation with deterministic and stochastic components: p ( x t | x t − 1 ) ∝ e − 1 2 | | B − 1 ( ( x t − x ¯ ) − A ( x t − 1 − x ¯ ) ) | | 2 ) {\displaystyle p(\mathbf {x_{t}} |\mathbf {x_{t-1}} )\propto e^{-{\frac {1}{2}}||B^{-1}((\mathbf {x_{t}} -\mathbf {\bar {x}} )-A(\mathbf {x_{t-1}} -\mathbf {\bar {x}} ))||^{2})}} where x ¯ {\displaystyle \mathbf {\bar {x}} } is the mean value of the state, and A {\displaystyle A} , B {\displaystyle B} are matrices representing the deterministic and stochastic components of the dynamical model respectively. A {\displaystyle A} , B {\displaystyle B} , and x ¯ {\displaystyle \mathbf {\bar {x}} } are estimated via Maximum Likelihood Estimation while the object performs typical movements. The observation model p ( z | x ) {\displaystyle p(\mathbf {z} |\mathbf {x} )} cannot be directly estimated from the data, requiring assumptions to be made in order to estimate it. Isard 1998 assumes that the clutter which may make the object not visible is a Poisson random process with spatial density λ {\displaystyle \lambda } and that any true target measurement is unbiased and normally distributed with standard deviation σ {\displaystyle \sigma } . The basic condensation algorithm is used to track a single object in time. It is possible to extend the condensation algorithm using a single probability distribution to describe the likely states of multiple objects to track multiple objects in a scene at the same time. Since clutter can cause the object probability distribution to split into multiple peaks, each peak represents a hypothesis about the object configuration. Smoothing is a statistical technique of conditioning the distribution based on both past and future measurements once the tracking is complete in order to reduce the effects of multiple peaks. Smoothing cannot be directly done in real-time since it requires information of future measurements. == Applications == The algorithm can be used for vision-based robot localization of mobile robots. Instead of tracking the position of an object in the scene, however, the position of the camera platform is tracked. This allows the camera platform to be globally localized given a visual map of the environment. Extensions of the condensation algorithm have also been used to recognize human gestures in image sequences. This application of the condensation algorithm impacts the ran

  Read more →
• 

  Vinted

  Vinted Group UAB is a Lithuanian technology company best known for its online marketplace Vinted. Vinted is the leading second-hand fashion marketplace in Europe and a go-to destination for all kinds of second-hand items. According to the company, its mission is to make second-hand the first choice worldwide. The company operates as an ecosystem of businesses, including the Vinted Marketplace (its peer-to-peer resale platform), Vinted Go (logistics and shipping services), Vinted Pay (in-app payment solutions), and Vinted Ventures (an investment arm supporting the circular economy). Headquartered in Vilnius, Lithuania, it also has offices in Germany and the Netherlands and employs more than 2,200 people. == History == Vinted was co-founded in 2008 by Milda Mitkute and Justas Janauskas in Vilnius, Lithuania. The idea originated when Mitkute was moving house and wanted a way to sell clothes she no longer needed. Janauskas helped her create a website where users could trade clothing items. In 2016, Dutch entrepreneur Thomas Plantenga joined Vinted as a strategy consultant and later became Chief Executive Officer, leading the company through a period of international growth. In 2019, Vinted became Lithuania’s first technology unicorn after raising €128 million at a €1 billion valuation in a funding round led by Lightspeed Venture Partners. In October 2020, it acquired United Wardrobe, a Dutch competitor, and in November 2020 German Kleiderkreisel and Mamikreisel were officially merged into the Vinted platform. In 2024 it acquired Trendsales, a Danish resale platform. According to Vogue Business, Vinted’s revenue grew 61% between 2022 and 2023 and the company posted a net profit of €17.8 million in 2023. Usage of Vinted in the UK has grown from 1.2 million users in 2021, to 8 million in 2023. In 2024, the group reported consolidated revenue of €813.4 million (up 36% from 2023) and a net profit of €76.7 million, up 330% from 2023. As of 2024, Vinted was valued at approximately €5 billion, operating in more than 26 markets worldwide and announcing plans to launch in Ireland, Greece, Latvia, Slovenia, and Estonia in 2025. As of 2025 the company employed more than 2,200 people. In April 2026, Vinted completed a secondary share transaction of €880m, valuing the company at €8bn. == Products and operations == Vinted primarily resells clothing but now supports multiple categories including homeware, kidswear, electronics, books, collectibles, and high-value fashion. Vinted has worked with public figures such as Paul Mescal and Alexa Chung on exclusive wardrobe sales and has also partnered directly with charities including Oxfam on initiatives which promote the social and environmental value of second-hand fashion, such as the Style for Change fashion show at London Fashion Week. In 2025, Vinted produced its first television format, the second-hand fashion competition series RE/Style, hosted by Emma Willis. The show features emerging fashion designers from across Europe creating runway-ready looks from second-hand garments and aired on Prime Video UK. In 2025, Vinted was reported as France’s top clothing retailer by sales volume. == Criticism == Vinted has faced scrutiny from European data protection authorities in France, Lithuania, and Poland following complaints regarding GDPR compliance and account blocking practices. In July 2024, the Lithuanian authority fined the company €2,375,276. The case was coordinated by a dedicated Vinted Working Group under the European Data Protection Board. In early 2024, Swedish police reported around 300 fraud cases linked to the platform, in which users’ bank accounts were targeted by scammers. In October 2024, Channel 4 in the United Kingdom aired a documentary examining safety and privacy concerns related to the platform, including the sexualisation of underage users’ images and risks associated with second-hand baby products lacking safety certification. In November 2025, BBC News reported that Vinted’s update to its sizing system in the United Kingdom led to widespread user criticism. Vinted said the update was intended to standardise sizing across international brands.

  Read more →
• 

  Attensity

  Attensity was an American company that provided social analytics and engagement applications for social customer relationship management (social CRM). Attensity's text analytics software applications extracted facts, relationships and sentiment from unstructured data. == History == Attensity was founded in 2000. An early investor in Attensity was In-Q-Tel, which funds technology to support the missions of the US Government and the broader DOD. InTTENSITY, an independent company that has combined Inxight with Attensity Software (the only joint development project that combines two InQTel funded software packages), was the exclusive distributor and outlet for Attensity in the Federal Market. In 2009, Attensity Corp., then based in Palo Alto, merged with Germany's Empolis and Living-e AG to form Attensity Group. In 2010, Attensity Group acquired Biz360, a provider of social media monitoring and market intelligence solutions. In early 2012, Attensity Group divested itself of the Empolis business unit via a management buyout; that unit currently conducts business under its pre-merger name. Attensity Group was a closely held private company. Its majority shareholder was Aeris Capital, a private Swiss investment office advising a high-net-worth individual and his charitable foundation. Foundation Capital, Granite Ventures, and Scale Venture Partners were among Biz360's investors and thus became shareholders in Attensity Group. In February 2016, Attensity's IP assets were acquired by InContact, and Attensity closed.

  Read more →
• 

  1.58-bit large language model

  A 1.58-bit large language model (also known as a ternary LLM) is a type of large language model (LLM) designed to be computationally efficient. It achieves this by using weights that are restricted to only three values: -1, 0, and +1. This restriction significantly reduces the model's memory footprint and allows for faster processing, as computationally expensive multiplication operations can be replaced with lower-cost additions. This contrasts with traditional models that use 16-bit floating-point numbers (FP16 or BF16) for their weights. Studies have shown that for models up to several billion parameters, the performance of 1.58-bit LLMs on various tasks is comparable to their full-precision counterparts. This approach could enable powerful AI to run on less specialized and lower-power hardware. The name "1.58-bit" comes from the fact that a system with three states contains log 2 ⁡ 3 ≈ 1.58 {\displaystyle \log _{2}3\approx 1.58} bits of information. These models are sometimes also referred to as 1-bit LLMs in research papers, although this term can also refer to true binary models (with weights of -1 and +1). == BitNet == In 2024, Ma et al., researchers at Microsoft, declared that their 1.58-bit model, BitNet b1.58 is comparable in performance to the 16-bit Llama 2 and opens the era of 1-bit LLM. BitNet creators did not use the post-training quantization of weights but instead relied on the new BitLinear transform that replaced the nn.Linear layer of the traditional transformer design. In 2025, Microsoft researchers had released an open-weights and open inference code model BitNet b1.58 2B4T demonstrating performance competitive with the full precision models at 2B parameters and 4T training tokens. == Post-training quantization == BitNet derives its performance from being trained natively in 1.58 bit instead of being quantized from a full-precision model after training. Still, training is an expensive process and it would be desirable to be able to somehow convert an existing model to 1.58 bits. In 2024, HuggingFace reported a way to gradually ramp up the 1.58-bit quantization in fine-tuning an existing model down to 1.58 bits. == Critique == Some researchers point out that the scaling laws of large language models favor the low-bit weights only in case of undertrained models. As the number of training tokens increases, the deficiencies of low-bit quantization surface.

  Read more →
• 

  Keith Youngin George II

  Keith "Youngin" George II is a former mixtape DJ, music executive, manager, producer, and technology app director. He has collaborated with Maino, T-Pain, Nas and Soulja Boy, among others. He was instrumental in the launch of social media app and website, Kandiid in 2021 and served as Fliiks App Director of Regional Development. == Career == Keith Anthony George II was born in Upper Heyford, Oxfordshire, England. His father was in the Air Force which exposed him to different cultures and music. He graduated from Allen High School and attended San Antonio College. George's music career began in 2006 as a mixtape DJ working as DJ Youngin Beatz. He performed at various shows and worked with a variety of artists, managers, and music executives. In 2007, George released the mixtape, Untapped market Vol. 1 (Da Underdogz), which featured tracks from artists including Kanye West, Lil Wayne, 50 Cent, Yung Berg, and Nelly. In 2008, he began working with Def Jam executive Sarah Alminawi who was managing Maino at the time. George played a key role in the marketing and promotional success of Maino's single, Hi Hater, which peaked at #8 on Billboard's US Bubbling Under Hot 100 chart. In 2021, George was an advisor and infrastructure head at Kandiid, a social media app which won a W3 Award in 2022. In 2023, he became involved with Fliiks App as Director of Regional Development which earned a Telly Award, two Muse Awards, and a W3 Award in 2025. In 2025, George was a composer and producer on two singles on Sekou Andrews's album, Koumami; The Chosen One: ACT 1 (featuring Lion Babe) and Love Don't Care (featuring Jordin Sparks and Omari Hardwick). In 2025, he was awarded an Atlanta City Proclamation for Philanthropy and Community Leadership for his partnership with Women's International Grail, a nonprofit organization that assists women, single mothers, and low-income families. He also collaborates with local youth programs, creative networks, and minority-owned startups, providing access to mentorship and industry knowledge. == Awards ==

  Read more →
• 

  Loebner Prize

  The Loebner Prize was an annual competition in artificial intelligence that awarded prizes to the computer programs considered by the judges to be the most human-like. The format of the competition was that of a standard Turing test. In each round, a human judge simultaneously held textual conversations with a computer program and a human being via computer. Based upon the responses, the judge would attempt to determine which was which. The contest was launched in 1990 by Hugh Loebner in conjunction with the Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies, Massachusetts, United States. In 2004 and 2005, it was held in Loebner's apartment in New York City. Within the field of artificial intelligence, the Loebner Prize is somewhat controversial; the most prominent critic, Marvin Minsky, called it a publicity stunt that does not help the field along. Beginning in 2014, it was organised by the AISB at Bletchley Park. It has also been associated with Flinders University, Dartmouth College, the Science Museum in London, University of Reading and Ulster University, Magee Campus, Derry, UK City of Culture. For the final 2019 competition, the format changed. There was no panel of judges. Instead, the chatbots were judged by the public and there were to be no human competitors. The prize has been reported as defunct as of 2020. == Prizes == Originally, $2,000 was awarded for the most human-seeming program in the competition. The prize was $3,000 in 2005 and $2,250 in 2006. In 2008, $3,000 was awarded. In addition, there were two one-time-only prizes that have never been awarded. $25,000 is offered for the first program that judges cannot distinguish from a real human and which can convince judges that the human is the computer program. $100,000 is the reward for the first program that judges cannot distinguish from a real human in a Turing test that includes deciphering and understanding text, visual, and auditory input. The competition was planned to end after the achievement of this prize. == Competition rules and restrictions == The rules varied over the years and early competitions featured restricted conversation Turing tests but since 1995 the discussion has been unrestricted. For the three entries in 2007, Robert Medeksza, Noah Duncan and Rollo Carpenter, some basic "screening questions" were used by the sponsor to evaluate the state of the technology. These included simple questions about the time, what round of the contest it is, etc.; general knowledge ("What is a hammer for?"); comparisons ("Which is faster, a train or a plane?"); and questions demonstrating memory for preceding parts of the same conversation. "All nouns, adjectives and verbs will come from a dictionary suitable for children or adolescents under the age of 12." Entries did not need to respond "intelligently" to the questions to be accepted. For the first time in 2008 the sponsor allowed introduction of a preliminary phase to the contest opening up the competition to previously disallowed web-based entries judged by a variety of invited interrogators. The available rules do not state how interrogators are selected or instructed. Interrogators (who judge the systems) have limited time: 5 minutes per entity in the 2003 competition, 20+ per pair in 2004–2007 competitions, 5 minutes to conduct simultaneous conversations with a human and the program in 2008–2009, increased to 25 minutes of simultaneous conversation since 2010. == Criticisms == The prize has long been scorned by experts in the field, for a variety of reasons. It is regarded by many as a publicity stunt. Marvin Minsky scathingly offered a "prize" to anyone who could stop the competition. Loebner responded by jokingly observing that Minsky's offering a prize to stop the competition effectively made him a co-sponsor. The rules of the competition have encouraged poorly qualified judges to make rapid judgements. Interactions between judges and competitors was originally very brief, for example effectively 2.5 mins of questioning, which permitted only a few questions. Questioning was initially restricted to a single topic of the contestant's choice, such as "whimsical conversation", a domain suiting standard chatbot tricks. Competition entrants do not aim at understanding or intelligence but resort to basic ELIZA style tricks, and successful entrants find deception and pretense is rewarded. == Contests == See article history for more details of some earlier contests. A very incomplete listing of a few of the contests: === 2003 === In 2003, the contest was organised by Professor Richard H. R. Harper and Dr. Lynne Hamill from the Digital World Research Centre at the University of Surrey. Although no bot passed the Turing test, the winner was Jabberwock, created by Juergen Pirner. Second was Elbot (Fred Roberts, Artificial Solutions). Third was Jabberwacky, (Rollo Carpenter). === 2006 === In 2006, the contest was organised by Tim Child (CEO of Televirtual) and Huma Shah. On August 30, the four finalists were announced: Rollo Carpenter Richard Churchill and Marie-Claire Jenkins Noah Duncan Robert Medeksza The contest was held on 17 September in the VR theatre, Torrington Place campus of University College London. The judges included the University of Reading's cybernetics professor, Kevin Warwick, a professor of artificial intelligence, John Barnden (specialist in metaphor research at the University of Birmingham), a barrister, Victoria Butler-Cole and a journalist, Graham Duncan-Rowe. The latter's experience of the event can be found in an article in Technology Review. The winner was 'Joan', based on Jabberwacky, both created by Rollo Carpenter. === 2007 === The 2007 competition was held on October 21 in New York City. The judges were: computer science professor Russ Abbott, philosophy professor Hartry Field, psychology assistant professor Clayton Curtis and English lecturer Scott Hutchins. No bot passed the Turing test, but the judges ranked the three contestants as follows: 1st: Robert Medeksza, creator of Ultra Hal 2nd: Noah Duncan, a private entry, creator of Cletus 3rd: Rollo Carpenter from Icogno, creator of Jabberwacky The winner received $2,250 and the annual medal. The runners-up received $250 each. === 2008 === The 2008 competition was organised by professor Kevin Warwick, coordinated by Huma Shah and held on October 12 at the University of Reading, UK. After testing by over one hundred judges during the preliminary phase, in June and July 2008, six finalists were selected from thirteen original entrant artificial conversational entities (ACEs). Five of those invited competed in the finals: Brother Jerome, Peter Cole and Benji Adams Elbot, Fred Roberts / Artificial Solutions Eugene Goostman, Vladimir Veselov, Eugene Demchenko and Sergey Ulasen Jabberwacky, Rollo Carpenter Ultra Hal, Robert Medeksza In the finals, each of the judges was given five minutes to conduct simultaneous, split-screen conversations with two hidden entities. Elbot of Artificial Solutions won the 2008 Loebner Prize bronze award, for most human-like artificial conversational entity, through fooling three of the twelve judges who interrogated it (in the human-parallel comparisons) into believing it was human. This is coming very close to the 30% traditionally required to consider that a program has actually passed the Turing test. Eugene Goostman and Ultra Hal both deceived one judge each that it was the human. Will Pavia, a journalist for The Times, has written about his experience; a Loebner finals' judge, he was deceived by Elbot and Eugene. Kevin Warwick and Huma Shah have reported on the parallel-paired Turing tests. === 2009 === The 2009 Loebner Prize Competition was held September 6, 2009, at the Brighton Centre, Brighton UK in conjunction with the Interspeech 2009 conference. The prize amount for 2009 was $3,000. Entrants were David Levy, Rollo Carpenter, and Mohan Embar, who finished in that order. The writer Brian Christian participated in the 2009 Loebner Prize Competition as a human confederate, and described his experiences at the competition in his book The Most Human Human. === 2010 === The 2010 Loebner Prize Competition was held on October 23 at California State University, Los Angeles. The 2010 competition was the 20th running of the contest. The winner was Bruce Wilcox with Suzette. === 2011 === The 2011 Loebner Prize Competition was held on October 19 at the University of Exeter, Devon, United Kingdom. The prize amount for 2011 was $4,000. The four finalists and their chatterbots were Bruce Wilcox (Rosette), Adeena Mignogna (Zoe), Mohan Embar (Chip Vivant) and Ron Lee (Tutor), who finished in that order. That year there was an addition of a panel of junior judges, namely Georgia-Mae Lindfield, William Dunne, Sam Keat and Kirill Jerdev. The results of the junior contest were markedly different from the main contest, with chatterbots Tutor and Zoe tying for first place and Chip Vivant and Rosette coming in third and fourt

  Read more →
• 

  Application enablement

  Application enablement is an approach which brings telecommunications network providers and developers together to combine their network and web abilities in creating and delivering high demand advanced services and new intelligent applications. Network providers, in addition to bandwidth, provide abilities such as billing, location, presence, and security, which have allowed them to establish long-term relationships with end-users. By offering these select abilities as application programming interfaces (APIs), providers give developers access to a set of tools to create (mashup) new applications and services to run on provider networks. Unifying the strengths of providers and developers facilitates the creation of mash-up applications, and in turn, a better end user quality of experience (QoE) for improved profit margins. Apple's iOS with App Store, and Google's Android with Android Market exemplify this approach. Both have introduced mobile platforms that are supported by a comprehensive ecosystem in order to perpetuate innovation in product design, content and service offerings, and overall consumer behavior. By the end of April 2010, downloadable applications numbered over 200,000 for iPhone and over 50,000 for Android. == Background == Historically, telecommunication providers primarily based their business models on network performance, emphasizing connectivity, availability, and quality of service (QoS) as key sources of revenue and customer value. With the increasing demand for bandwidth-intensive data and video applications, maintaining service continuity has required substantial infrastructure investments. To address rising operational costs and declining average revenue per user (ARPU), providers have increasingly adopted customer-oriented strategies and diversified business models to expand their roles within the telecommunications value chain. Application enablement supports providers in making this transition by providing an environment, or ecosystem, where providers and developers can collaborate to build, test, manage, and distribute applications across networks including television, broadband, Internet, and mobile. This cooperative effort produces mutually beneficial results for all parties, opening up new revenue streams while enhancing value and rate of return (ROI). The following are some examples of key network abilities which function as application enablers in the telecommunications market: Billing systems Security for private transactions Network-based storage of digital content End-to-end bandwidth for high-quality transmissions Scoring abilities to identify end-user preferences and behaviors Subscriber data to customize the end-user experience Context information, such as location and presence, to localize services. == New business models == As network providers work toward effective collaboration with application and content developers, several new business models are emerging to help facilitate the business relationships: === Vendor-led === A type of business model driven by telecommunications vendors, who assist network providers in building relationships with application and content developers to lower the cost and complexity of managing third parties. Examples of this model include: Forum Nokia IBM Technology Partner Ecosystem Ng Connect Huawei Intouch program === Operator-led === Characterized by network providers who want to maintain a high degree of flexibility and control over applications created for their end-consumers, this model lets them create and manage their own developer program, development platform, and application store. Under this arrangement, independent developers provide their own branding, marketing communications, pricing and customer care. Network providers pursuing this model will often seek to partner with a large number of third parties using standardized on-boarding processes. Examples of this model include: o2 Litmus Orange Partner Joint Innovation Lab === Aggregator === Network providers who choose not to create/manage their own developer relationships will partner with one or multiple aggregators, to administer a portion of or their entire application strategy. Examples of this model include: Ovi Operator Partnership Blackberry Operator Partnership Cellmania Buongiorno === Mass wholesale === Select network providers also participate in wholesale models that exist primarily for applications (BT's Ribbit- an Internet Protocol (IP) based calling and messaging platform) and devices (Verizon's Open Device initiative). This business-to-business approach reduces a large portion of the potential costs of third party application enablement (marketing, acquisition and support). Examples of this model include: BT's Ribbit Verizon Wireless ODI AT&T Synaptic Hosting === The enterprise customer === Some network providers are focusing on enabling applications in the enterprise space. In this model, the network provider establishes a platform for their large enterprise customers who want to blend custom software with enhanced abilities, and will provide standardized processes around mobilizing enterprise applications, and exposing core back-office abilities to allow for dynamic customer interaction. Examples of this model include: Vodafone Applications Service Verizon Private Network Sprint Solution Launchpad === Trusted partner === In this model, the network provider builds one-on-one relationships with trusted third-party developers by exposing customized network abilities, bringing a greater variety of brands to the network provider's portfolio. Network providers using this model tend to only have a few partners (in contrast to the operator led model). Under this scenario, network providers benefit from a pre-established customer base and the developer's marketing resources. Examples of this model include: 3/Skype Partnership (UK) Virgin Media and BBC iPlayer == Network operator developer resources == Operator led model o2 Litmus Orange Partner Joint Innovations Lab Aggregator model Ovi Operator Partnership Cellmania Buongiorno Mass wholesale model BT Ribbit Verizon Wireless ODI AT&T Synaptic Hosting Enterprise customer model Vodafone Applications Service Verizon Private Network Sprint Solution Launchpad == Rerencesfe ==

  Read more →
• 

  Albert One

  Albert One is an artificial intelligence chatbot created by Robby Garner and designed to mimic the way humans make conversations using a multi-faceted approach in natural language programming. == History == In both 1998 and 1999, Albert One won the Loebner Prize Contest, a competition between chatterbots. Some parts of Albert were deployed on the internet beginning in 1995, to gather information about what kinds of things people would say to a chatterbot. Another element of Albert One involved the building of a large database of human statements, and associated replies. This portion of the project was tested at the 1994-1997 Loebner Prize contests. Albert was the first of Robby Garner's multifaceted bots. The Albert One system was composed of several subsystems. Among those were a version of Eliza, the therapist, Elivs, another Eliza-like bot, and several other helper applications working together in a hierarchical arrangement. As a continuation of the stimulus-response library, various other database queries and assertions were tested to arrive at each of Albert's responses. Robby went on to develop networked examples of this kind of hierarchical "glue" at The Turing Hub.

  Read more →