AI Generator Of Trump

AI Generator Of Trump — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  Text Database and Dictionary of Classic Mayan

  The project Text Database and Dictionary of Classic Mayan (abbr. TWKM) promotes research on the writing and language of pre-Hispanic Maya culture. It is housed in the Faculty of Arts at the University of Bonn and was established with funding from the North Rhine-Westphalian Academy of Sciences, Humanities and the Arts. The project has a projected run-time of fifteen years and is directed by Nikolai Grube from the Department of Anthropology of the Americas at the University of Bonn. The goal of the project is to conduct computer-based studies of all extant Maya hieroglyphic texts from an epigraphic and cultural-historical standpoint, and to produce and publish a database and a comprehensive dictionary of the Classic Mayan language. == Subject of the Project == The text database, as well as the dictionary that will be compiled by the conclusion of the project, will be assembled based on all known texts from the pre-Hispanic Maya culture. These texts were produced and used between approximately the third century B.C. through A.D. 1500, in a region that today includes parts of the countries of Mexico, Guatemala, Belize, and Honduras. The thousands of hieroglyphic inscriptions on monuments, ceramics, or daily objects that have survived into the present offer insight into the language's vocabulary and structure. The project's database and dictionary will digitally represent original spellings using the logo-syllabic Maya hieroglyphs, as well as their transcription and transliteration in the Roman alphabet. The data will be additionally annotated with various epigraphic analyses, translations, and further object-specific information. == Project Partners == TWKM will employ digital technologies in order to compile and make available the data and metadata, as well as to publish the project's research results. The project thereby methodologically positions itself in the field of the digital humanities. The project will be conducted in cooperation with the project partners (below), the research association for the eHumanities TextGrid, as well as the University and Regional Library of Bonn (ULB). The working environment that is currently under construction, in which the data and metadata will be compiled and annotated, will be realized in theTextGrid Laboratory, a software of the virtual research environment. A further component of this software, the TextGrid Repository, will make the data that are authorized for publication freely available online and ensure their long-term storage. The tools for data compilation and annotation attained from the modularly constructed and extended TextGrid lab thereby provide all the necessary materials for facilitating the research team's the typical epigraphic workflow. The workflow usually begins by documenting the texts and the objects on which they are preserved, and by compiling descriptive data. It then continues with the various levels of epigraphic and linguistic analysis, and concludes in the best case scenario with a translation of the analyzed inscription and a corresponding publication. In cooperation with the ULB, selected data will additionally be made available. The project's Virtual Inscription Archive will present online, in the Digital Collections of the ULB, hieroglyphic inscriptions selected from the published data in the repository, including an image of and brief information about the texts and the objects on which they are written, epigraphic analysis, and translation. == Project Goal == One of the project's goals is to produce a dictionary of Classic Mayan, in both digital and print form, towards the end of the project run-time. Additionally, a database with a corpus of inscriptions, including their translations and epigraphic analyses, will be made freely available online. The database furthermore will provide an ontology-like link of the contextual object data with the inscriptions and with each other, thereby allowing a cultural-historical arrangement of all contents within the periods of pre-Hispanic Maya culture. The contents of the database are additionally linked to citations of relevant literature. As a result, the database will also make freely available to both the scientific community and other interested parties a bibliography representing the research history and a base of knowledge concerning ancient Maya culture and script. In addition, the Classic Maya script, in its temporally defined stages of language development, will be gathered into and documented in a comprehensive language corpus with the aid of the information gathered by the project. In collaboration with all project participants, the corpus data can be used, together with the aid of various comparable analyses and also computational linguistic methods, such as inference-based methods, to confirm readings of some hieroglyphs that are currently only partially confirmed, and to eventually completely decipher the Classic Maya script.

  Read more →
• 

  Sentence extraction

  Sentence extraction is a technique used for automatic summarization of a text. In this shallow approach, statistical heuristics are used to identify the most salient sentences of a text. Sentence extraction is a low-cost approach compared to more knowledge-intensive deeper approaches which require additional knowledge bases such as ontologies or linguistic knowledge. In short, sentence extraction works as a filter that allows only meaningful sentences to pass. The major downside of applying sentence-extraction techniques to the task of summarization is the loss of coherence in the resulting summary. Nevertheless, sentence extraction summaries can give valuable clues to the main points of a document and are frequently sufficiently intelligible to human readers. == Procedure == Usually, a combination of heuristics is used to determine the most important sentences within the document. Each heuristic assigns a (positive or negative) score to the sentence. After all heuristics have been applied, the highest-scoring sentences are included in the summary. The individual heuristics are weighted according to their importance. === Early approaches and some sample heuristics === Seminal papers which laid the foundations for many techniques used today have been published by Hans Peter Luhn in 1958 and H. P Edmundson in 1969. Luhn proposed to assign more weight to sentences at the beginning of the document or a paragraph. Edmundson stressed the importance of title-words for summarization and was the first to employ stop-lists in order to filter uninformative words of low semantic content (e.g. most grammatical words such as of, the, a). He also distinguished between bonus words and stigma words, i.e. words that probably occur together with important (e.g. the word form significant) or unimportant information. His idea of using key-words, i.e. words which occur significantly frequently in the document, is still one of the core heuristics of today's summarizers. With large linguistic corpora available today, the tf–idf value which originated in information retrieval, can be successfully applied to identify the key words of a text: If for example the word cat occurs significantly more often in the text to be summarized (TF = "term frequency") than in the corpus (IDF means "inverse document frequency"; here the corpus is meant by document), then cat is likely to be an important word of the text; the text may in fact be a text about cats.

  Read more →
• 

  Calais (Reuters product)

  Calais is a service created by Thomson Reuters that automatically extracts semantic information from web pages in a format that can be used on the semantic web. Calais was launched in January 2008, and is free to use. The technology is now available via the website of Refinitiv, a provider of financial market data and infrastructure founded in 2018, that is a subsidiary of London Stock Exchange Group. The Calais Web service reads unstructured text and returns Resource Description Framework formatted results identifying entities, facts and events within the text. The service appears to be based on technology acquired when Reuters purchased ClearForest in 2007. The technology has also been used to automatically tag blog articles, and organize museum collections. Calais uses natural language processing technologies delivered via a web service interface.

  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 →
• 

  80 Million Tiny Images

  80 Million Tiny Images is a dataset intended for training machine-learning systems constructed by Antonio Torralba, Rob Fergus, and William T. Freeman in a collaboration between MIT and New York University. It was published in 2008. The dataset has size 760 GB. It contains 79,302,017 32×32-pixel color images, scaled down from images scraped from the World Wide Web over 8 months. The images are classified into 75,062 classes. Each class is a non-abstract noun in WordNet. Images may appear in more than one class. The dataset was motivated by non-parametric models of neural activations in the visual cortex upon seeing images. The CIFAR-10 dataset uses a subset of the images in this dataset, but with independently generated labels, as the original labels were not reliable. The CIFAR-10 set has 6000 examples of each of 10 classes, and the CIFAR-100 set has 600 examples of each of 100 non-overlapping classes. == Construction == It was first reported in a technical report in April 2007, during the middle of the construction process, when there were only 73 million images. The full dataset was published in 2008. They began with all 75,846 non-abstract nouns in WordNet, and then for each of these nouns, they scraped 7 image search engines: Altavista, Ask.com, Flickr, Cydral, Google, Picsearch, and Webshots. After 8 months of scraping, they obtained 97,245,098 images. Since they did not have enough storage, they downsized the images to 32×32 as they were scraped. After gathering, they removed images with zero variance and intra-word duplicate images, resulting in the final dataset. Out of the 75,846 nouns, only 75,062 classes had any results, so the other nouns did not appear in the final dataset. The number of images per noun follows a Zipf-like distribution, with 1056 images per noun on average. To prevent a few nouns taking up too many images, they put an upper bound of at most 3000 images per noun. == Retirement == The 80 Million Tiny Images dataset was retired from use by its creators in 2020, after a paper by researchers Abeba Birhane and Vinay Prabhu found that some of the labeling of several publicly available image datasets, including 80 Million Tiny Images, contained racist and misogynistic slurs which were causing models trained on them to exhibit racial and sexual bias. The dataset also contained offensive images. Following the release of the paper, the dataset's creators removed the dataset from distribution, and requested that other researchers not use it for further research and to delete their copies of the dataset.

  Read more →
• 

  Rule-based machine translation

  Rule-based machine translation (RBMT) is a classical approach of machine translation systems based on linguistic information about source and target languages. Such information is retrieved from (unilingual, bilingual or multilingual) dictionaries and grammars covering the main semantic, morphological, and syntactic regularities of each language. Having input sentences, an RBMT system generates output sentences on the basis of analysis of both the source and the target languages involved. RBMT has been progressively superseded by more efficient methods, particularly neural machine translation. == History == The first RBMT systems were developed in the early 1970s. The most important steps of this evolution were the emergence of the following RBMT systems: Systran Japanese MT systems Today, other common RBMT systems include: Apertium GramTrans == Types of RBMT == There are three different types of rule-based machine translation systems: Direct Systems (Dictionary Based Machine Translation) map input to output with basic rules. Transfer RBMT Systems (Transfer Based Machine Translation) employ morphological and syntactical analysis. Interlingual RBMT Systems (Interlingua) use an abstract meaning. RBMT systems can also be characterized as the systems opposite to Example-based Systems of Machine Translation (Example Based Machine Translation), whereas Hybrid Machine Translations Systems make use of many principles derived from RBMT. == Basic principles == The main approach of RBMT systems is based on linking the structure of the given input sentence with the structure of the demanded output sentence, necessarily preserving their unique meaning. The following example can illustrate the general frame of RBMT: A girl eats an apple. Source Language = English; Demanded Target Language = German Minimally, to get a German translation of this English sentence one needs: A dictionary that will map each English word to an appropriate German word. Rules representing regular English sentence structure. Rules representing regular German sentence structure. And finally, we need rules according to which one can relate these two structures together. Accordingly, we can state the following stages of translation: 1st: getting basic part-of-speech information of each source word: a = indef.article; girl = noun; eats = verb; an = indef.article; apple = noun 2nd: getting syntactic information about the verb "to eat": NP-eat-NP; here: eat – Present Simple, 3rd Person Singular, Active Voice 3rd: parsing the source sentence: (NP an apple) = the object of eat Often only partial parsing is sufficient to get to the syntactic structure of the source sentence and to map it onto the structure of the target sentence. 4th: translate English words into German a (category = indef.article) => ein (category = indef.article) girl (category = noun) => Mädchen (category = noun) eat (category = verb) => essen (category = verb) an (category = indef. article) => ein (category = indef.article) apple (category = noun) => Apfel (category = noun) 5th: Mapping dictionary entries into appropriate inflected forms (final generation): A girl eats an apple. => Ein Mädchen isst einen Apfel. == Ontologies == An ontology is a formal representation of knowledge that includes the concepts (such as objects, processes etc.) in a domain and some relations between them. If the stored information is of linguistic nature, one can speak of a lexicon. In NLP, ontologies can be used as a source of knowledge for machine translation systems. With access to a large knowledge base, rule-based systems can be enabled to resolve many (especially lexical) ambiguities on their own. In the following classic examples, as humans, we are able to interpret the prepositional phrase according to the context because we use our world knowledge, stored in our lexicons:I saw a man/star/molecule with a microscope/telescope/binoculars.Since the syntax does not change, a traditional rule-based machine translation system may not be able to differentiate between the meanings. With a large enough ontology as a source of knowledge however, the possible interpretations of ambiguous words in a specific context can be reduced. === Building ontologies === The ontology generated for the PANGLOSS knowledge-based machine translation system in 1993 may serve as an example of how an ontology for NLP purposes can be compiled: A large-scale ontology is necessary to help parsing in the active modules of the machine translation system. In the PANGLOSS example, about 50,000 nodes were intended to be subsumed under the smaller, manually-built upper (abstract) region of the ontology. Because of its size, it had to be created automatically. The goal was to merge the two resources LDOCE online and WordNet to combine the benefits of both: concise definitions from Longman, and semantic relations allowing for semi-automatic taxonomization to the ontology from WordNet. A definition match algorithm was created to automatically merge the correct meanings of ambiguous words between the two online resources, based on the words that the definitions of those meanings have in common in LDOCE and WordNet. Using a similarity matrix, the algorithm delivered matches between meanings including a confidence factor. This algorithm alone, however, did not match all meanings correctly on its own. A second hierarchy match algorithm was therefore created which uses the taxonomic hierarchies found in WordNet (deep hierarchies) and partially in LDOCE (flat hierarchies). This works by first matching unambiguous meanings, then limiting the search space to only the respective ancestors and descendants of those matched meanings. Thus, the algorithm matched locally unambiguous meanings (for instance, while the word seal as such is ambiguous, there is only one meaning of seal in the animal subhierarchy). Both algorithms complemented each other and helped constructing a large-scale ontology for the machine translation system. The WordNet hierarchies, coupled with the matching definitions of LDOCE, were subordinated to the ontology's upper region. As a result, the PANGLOSS MT system was able to make use of this knowledge base, mainly in its generation element. == Components == The RBMT system contains: a SL morphological analyser - analyses a source language word and provides the morphological information; a SL parser - is a syntax analyser which analyses source language sentences; a translator - used to translate a source language word into the target language; a TL morphological generator - works as a generator of appropriate target language words for the given grammatica information; a TL parser - works as a composer of suitable target language sentences; Several dictionaries - more specifically a minimum of three dictionaries: a SL dictionary - needed by the source language morphological analyser for morphological analysis, a bilingual dictionary - used by the translator to translate source language words into target language words, a TL dictionary - needed by the target language morphological generator to generate target language words. The RBMT system makes use of the following: a Source Grammar for the input language which builds syntactic constructions from input sentences; a Source Lexicon which captures all of the allowable vocabulary in the domain; Source Mapping Rules which indicate how syntactic heads and grammatical functions in the source language are mapped onto domain concepts and semantic roles in the interlingua; a Domain Model/Ontology which defines the classes of domain concepts and restricts the fillers of semantic roles for each class; Target Mapping Rules which indicate how domain concepts and semantic roles in the interlingua are mapped onto syntactic heads and grammatical functions in the target language; a Target Lexicon which contains appropriate target lexemes for each domain concept; a Target Grammar for the target language which realizes target syntactic constructions as linearized output sentences. == Advantages == No bilingual texts are required. This makes it possible to create translation systems for languages that have no texts in common, or even no digitized data whatsoever. Domain independent. Rules are usually written in a domain independent manner, so the vast majority of rules will "just work" in every domain, and only a few specific cases per domain may need rules written for them. No quality ceiling. Every error can be corrected with a targeted rule, even if the trigger case is extremely rare. This is in contrast to statistical systems where infrequent forms will be washed away by default. Total control. Because all rules are hand-written, you can easily debug a rule-based system to see exactly where a given error enters the system, and why. Reusability. Because RBMT systems are generally built from a strong source language analysis that is fed to a transfer step and target language generator, the source language analysis and targe

  Read more →
• 

  Normal distributions transform

  The normal distributions transform (NDT) is a point cloud registration algorithm introduced by Peter Biber and Wolfgang Straßer in 2003, while working at University of Tübingen. The algorithm registers two point clouds by first associating a piecewise normal distribution to the first point cloud, that gives the probability of sampling a point belonging to the cloud at a given spatial coordinate, and then finding a transform that maps the second point cloud to the first by maximising the likelihood of the second point cloud on such distribution as a function of the transform parameters. Originally introduced for 2D point cloud map matching in simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM) and relative position tracking, the algorithm was extended to 3D point clouds and has wide applications in computer vision and robotics. NDT is very fast and accurate, making it suitable for application to large scale data, but it is also sensitive to initialisation, requiring a sufficiently accurate initial guess, and for this reason it is typically used in a coarse-to-fine alignment strategy. == Formulation == The NDT function associated to a point cloud is constructed by partitioning the space in regular cells. For each cell, it is possible to define the mean q = 1 n ∑ i x i {\displaystyle \textstyle \mathbf {q} ={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i}\mathbf {x_{i}} } and covariance S = 1 n ∑ i ( x i − q ) ( x i − q ) ⊤ {\displaystyle \textstyle \mathbf {S} ={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i}\left(\mathbf {x} _{i}-\mathbf {q} \right)\left(\mathbf {x} _{i}-\mathbf {q} \right)^{\top }} of the n {\displaystyle n} points of the cloud x 1 , … , x n {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} _{1},\dots ,\mathbf {x} _{n}} that fall within the cell. The probability density of sampling a point at a given spatial location x {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} } within the cell is then given by the normal distribution e − 1 2 ( x − q ) ⊤ S − 1 ( x − q ) {\displaystyle e^{-{\frac {1}{2}}\left(\mathbf {x} -\mathbf {q} \right)^{\top }\mathbf {S} ^{-1}\left(\mathbf {x} -\mathbf {q} \right)}} . Two point clouds can be mapped by a Euclidean transformation f {\displaystyle f} with rotation matrix R {\displaystyle \mathbf {R} } and translation vector t {\displaystyle \mathbf {t} } f R , t ( x ) = R x + t {\displaystyle f_{\mathbf {R} ,\mathbf {t} }(\mathbf {x} )=\mathbf {R} \mathbf {x} +\mathbf {t} } that maps from the second cloud to the first, parametrised by the rotation angles and translation components. The algorithm registers the two point clouds by optimising the parameters of the transformation that maps the second cloud to the first, with respect to a loss function based on the NDT of the first point cloud, solving the following problem arg ⁡ min R , t { − ∑ i NDT ⁡ ( f R , t ( x i ) ) } {\displaystyle \arg \min _{\mathbf {R} ,\mathbf {t} }\left\{-\sum _{i}\operatorname {NDT} \left(f_{\mathbf {R} ,\mathbf {t} }\left(\mathbf {x_{i}} \right)\right)\right\}} where the loss function represents the negated likelihood, obtained by applying the transformation to all points in the second cloud and summing the value of the NDT at each transformed point f R , t ( x ) {\displaystyle f_{\mathbf {R} ,\mathbf {t} }(\mathbf {x} )} . The loss is piecewise continuous and differentiable, and can be optimised with gradient-based methods (in the original formulation, the authors use Newton's method). In order to reduce the effect of cell discretisation, a technique consists of partitioning the space into multiple overlapping grids, shifted by half cell size along the spatial directions, and computing the likelihood at a given location as the sum of the NDTs induced by each grid.

  Read more →
• 

  Visual Turing Test

  The Visual Turing Test is “an operator-assisted device that produces a stochastic sequence of binary questions from a given test image”. The query engine produces a sequence of questions that have unpredictable answers given the history of questions. The test is only about vision and does not require any natural language processing. The job of the human operator is to provide the correct answer to the question or reject it as ambiguous. The query generator produces questions such that they follow a “natural story line”, similar to what humans do when they look at a picture. == History == Research in computer vision dates back to the 1960s when Seymour Papert first attempted to solve the problem. This unsuccessful attempt was referred to as the Summer Vision Project. The reason why it was not successful was because computer vision is more complicated than what people think. The complexity is in alignment with the human visual system. Roughly 50% of the human brain is devoted in processing vision, which indicates that it is a difficult problem. Later there were attempts to solve the problems with models inspired by the human brain. Perceptrons by Frank Rosenblatt, which is a form of the neural networks, was one of the first such approaches. These simple neural networks could not live up to their expectations and had certain limitations due to which they were not considered in future research. Later with the availability of the hardware and some processing power the research shifted to image processing which involves pixel-level operations, like finding edges, de-noising images or applying filters to name a few. There was some great progress in this field but the problem of vision which was to make the machines understand the images was still not being addressed. During this time the neural networks also resurfaced as it was shown that the limitations of the perceptrons can be overcome by Multi-layer perceptrons. Also in the early 1990s convolutional neural networks were born which showed great results on digit recognition but did not scale up well on harder problems. The late 1990s and early 2000s saw the birth of modern computer vision. One of the reasons this happened was due to the availability of key, feature extraction and representation algorithms. Features along with the already present machine learning algorithms were used to detect, localise and segment objects in Images. While all these advancements were being made, the community felt the need to have standardised datasets and evaluation metrics so the performances can be compared. This led to the emergence of challenges like the Pascal VOC challenge and the ImageNet challenge. The availability of standard evaluation metrics and the open challenges gave directions to the research. Better algorithms were introduced for specific tasks like object detection and classification. Visual Turing Test aims to give a new direction to the computer vision research which would lead to the introduction of systems that will be one step closer to understanding images the way humans do. == Current evaluation practices == A large number of datasets have been annotated and generalised to benchmark performances of difference classes of algorithms to assess different vision tasks (e.g., object detection/recognition) on some image domain (e.g., scene images). One of the most famous datasets in computer vision is ImageNet which is used to assess the problem of object level Image classification. ImageNet is one of the largest annotated datasets available and has over one million images. The other important vision task is object detection and localisation which refers to detecting the object instance in the image and providing the bounding box coordinates around the object instance or segmenting the object. The most popular dataset for this task is the Pascal dataset. Similarly there are other datasets for specific tasks like the H3D dataset for human pose detection, Core dataset to evaluate the quality of detected object attributes such as colour, orientation, and activity. Having these standard datasets has helped the vision community to come up with well performing algorithms for all these tasks. The next logical step is to create a larger task encompassing of these smaller subtasks. Having such a task would lead to building systems that would understand images, as understanding images would inherently involve detecting objects, localising them and segmenting them. == Details == The Visual Turing Test (VTT) unlike the Turing test has a query engine system which interrogates a computer vision system in the presence of a human co-ordinator. It is a system that generates a random sequence of binary questions specific to the test image, such that the answer to any question k is unpredictable given the true answers to the previous k − 1 questions (also known as history of questions). The test happens in the presence of a human operator who serves two main purposes: removing the ambiguous questions and providing the correct answers to the unambiguous questions. Given an Image infinite possible binary questions can be asked and a lot of them are bound to be ambiguous. These questions if generated by the query engine are removed by the human moderator and instead the query engine generates another question such that the answer to it is unpredictable given the history of the questions. The aim of the Visual Turing Test is to evaluate the Image understanding of a computer system, and an important part of image understanding is the story line of the image. When humans look at an image, they do not think that there is a car at ‘x’ pixels from the left and ‘y’ pixels from the top, but instead they look at it as a story, for e.g. they might think that there is a car parked on the road, a person is exiting the car and heading towards a building. The most important elements of the story line are the objects and so to extract any story line from an image the first and the most important task is to instantiate the objects in it, and that is what the query engine does. === Query engine === The query engine is the core of the Visual Turing Test and it comprises two main parts : Vocabulary and Questions ==== Vocabulary ==== Vocabulary is a set of words that represent the elements of the images. This vocabulary when used with appropriate grammar leads to a set of questions. The grammar is defined in the next section in a way that it leads to a space of binary questions. The vocabulary V {\displaystyle {\mathcal {V}}} consist of three components: Types of Objects T {\displaystyle {\mathcal {T}}} Type-dependent attributes of objects A ( t ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}(t)} Type-dependent relationships between two objects R ( t , t ′ ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {R}}(t,t')} For Images of urban street scenes the types of objects include people, vehicle and buildings. Attributes refer to the properties of these objects, for e.g. female, child, wearing a hat or carrying something, for people and moving, parked, stopped, one tire visible or two tires visible for vehicles. Relationships between each pair of object classes can be either “ordered” or “unordered”. The unordered relationships may include talking, walking together and the ordered relationships include taller, closer to the camera, occluding, being occluded etc. Additionally all of this vocabulary is used in context of rectangular image regions w \in W which allow for the localisation of objects in the image. An extremely large number of such regions are possible and this complicates the problem, so for this test, regions at specific scales are only used which include 1/16 the size of image, 1/4 the size of image, 1/2 the size of image or larger. ==== Questions ==== The question space is composed of four types of questions: Existence questions: The aim of the existence questions is to find new objects in the image that have not been uniquely identified previously. They are of the form : Qexist = 'Is there an instance of an object of type t with attributes A partially visible in region w that was not previously instantiated?' Uniqueness questions: A uniqueness question tries to uniquely identify an object to instantiate it. Quniq = 'Is there a unique instance of an object of type t with attributes A partially visible in region w that was not previously instantiated?' The uniqueness questions along with the existence questions form the instantiation questions. As mentioned earlier instantiating objects leads to other interesting questions and eventually a story line. Uniqueness questions follow the existence questions and a positive answer to it leads to instantiation of an object. Attribute questions: An attribute question tries to find more about the object once it has been instantiated. Such questions can query about a single attribute, conjunction of two attributes or disjunction of two attributes. Qatt(ot) = {'Does object ot have attribute a?' , 'Does object

  Read more →
• 

  CloudSim

  CloudSim is a framework for modeling and simulation of cloud computing infrastructures and services. Originally built primarily at the Cloud Computing and Distributed Systems (CLOUDS) Laboratory, the University of Melbourne, Australia, CloudSim has become one of the most popular open source cloud simulators in the research and academia. CloudSim is completely written in Java. The latest version of CloudSim is CloudSim v6.0.0-beta on GitHub. Cloudsim is suitable for implementing simulations scenarios based on Infrastructure as a service as well as with latest version Platform as a service, so get started here == CloudSim extensions == Initially developed as a stand-alone cloud simulator, CloudSim has further been extended by independent researchers. GPUCloudSim is an enhanced CloudSim tool for modeling GPU-based cloud infrastructures and data centers. It offers simulations for multi-GPU setups, customizable GPU policies, GPU remoting, etc. It also examines performance impacts and interactions within virtualized GPU environments. CloudSim Plus is a totally re-engineered CloudSim fork providing general-purpose cloud computing simulation and exclusive features such as: multi-cloud simulations, vertical and horizontal VM scaling, host fault injection and recovery, joint power- and network-aware simulations and more. Though CloudSim itself does not have a graphical user interface, extensions such as CloudReports offer a GUI for CloudSim simulations. CloudSimEx extends CloudSim by adding MapReduce simulation capabilities and parallel simulations. Cloud2Sim extends CloudSim to execute on multiple distributed servers, by leveraging Hazelcast distributed execution framework. RECAP DES extends the CloudSim Plus framework to model synchronous hierarchical architectures (such as ElasticSearch). ThermoSim extends CloudSim toolkit by incorporating thermal characteristics, and uses Deep learning-based temperature predictor for cloud nodes.

  Read more →
• 

  Sayre's paradox

  Sayre's paradox is a dilemma encountered in the design of automated handwriting recognition systems. A standard statement of the paradox is that a cursively written word cannot be recognized without being segmented and cannot be segmented without being recognized. The paradox was first articulated in a 1973 publication by Kenneth M. Sayre, after whom it was named. == Nature of the problem == It is relatively easy to design automated systems capable of recognizing words inscribed in a printed format. Such words are segmented into letters by the very act of writing them on the page. Given templates matching typical letter shapes in a given language, individual letters can be identified with a high degree of probability. In cases of ambiguity, probable letter sequences can be compared with a selection of properly spelled words in that language (called a lexicon). If necessary, syntactic features of the language can be applied to render a generally accurate identification of the words in question. Printed-character recognition systems of this sort are commonly used in processing standardized government forms, in sorting mail by zip code, and so forth. In cursive writing, however, letters comprising a given word typically flow sequentially without gaps between them. Unlike a sequence of printed letters, cursively connected letters are not segmented in advance. Here is where Sayre's Paradox comes into play. Unless the word is already segmented into letters, template-matching techniques like those described above cannot be applied. That is, segmentation is a prerequisite for word recognition. But there are no reliable techniques for segmenting a word into letters unless the word itself has been identified. Word recognition requires letter segmentation, and letter segmentation requires word recognition. There is no way a cursive writing recognition system employing standard template-matching techniques can do both simultaneously. Advantages to be gained by use of automated cursive writing recognition systems include routing mail with handwritten addresses, reading handwritten bank checks, and automated digitalization of hand-written documents. These are practical incentives for finding ways of circumventing Sayre's Paradox. == Avoiding the paradox == One way of ameliorating the adverse effects of the paradox is to normalize the word inscriptions to be recognized. Normalization amounts to eliminating idiosyncrasies in the penmanship of the writer, such as unusual slope of the letters and unusual slant of the cursive line. This procedure can increase the probability of a correct match with a letter template, resulting in an incremental improvement in the success rate of the system. Since improvement of this sort still depends on accurate segmentation, however, it remains subject to the limitations of Sayre's Paradox. Researchers have come to realize that the only way to circumvent the paradox is by use of procedures that do not rely on accurate segmentation. == Directions of current research == Segmentation is accurate to the extent that it matches distinctions among letters in the actual inscriptions presented to the system for recognition (the input data). This is sometimes referred to as “explicit segmentation”. “Implicit segmentation,” by contrast, is division of the cursive line into more parts than the number of actual letters in the cursive line itself. Processing these “implicit parts” to achieve eventual word identification requires specific statistical procedures involving hidden Markov models (HMM). A Markov model is a statistical representation of a random process, which is to say a process in which future states are independent of states occurring before the present. In such a process, a given state is dependent only on the conditional probability of its following the state immediately before it. An example is a series of outcomes from successive casts of a die. An HMM is a Markov model, individual states of which are not fully known. Conditional probabilities between states are still determinate, but the identities of individual states are not fully disclosed. Recognition proceeds by matching HMMs of words to be recognized with previously prepared HMMs of words in the lexicon. The best match in a given case is taken to indicate the identity of the handwritten word in question. As with systems based on explicit segmentation, automated recognition systems based on implicit segmentation are judged more or less successful according to the percentage of correct identifications they accomplish. Instead of explicit segmentation techniques, most automated handwriting recognition systems today employ implicit segmentation in conjunction with HMM-based matching procedures. The constraints epitomized by Sayre's Paradox are largely responsible for this shift in approach.

  Read more →
• 

  Chatbot

  A chatbot (originally chatterbot) is a software application or web interface designed to converse through text or speech. Modern chatbots are typically online and use generative artificial intelligence systems that are capable of maintaining a conversation with a user in natural language and simulating the way a human would behave as a conversational partner. Such chatbots often use deep learning and natural language processing. Simpler chatbots have existed for decades. Chatbots have gained popularity during the AI boom of the 2020s, with the releases of generative AI chatbots such as ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, and Grok. These chatbots typically use fine-tuned large language models to generate text. A major area where chatbots have long been used is customer service and support, with various sorts of virtual assistants. == History == === Turing test === In 1950, Alan Turing published an article entitled "Computing Machinery and Intelligence" in which he proposed what is now called the Turing test as a criterion of intelligence. This criterion depends on the ability of a computer program to impersonate a human in a real-time written conversation with a human judge, to the extent that the judge is incapable of reliably distinguishing, on the basis of the conversational content alone, between the program and a real human. === Early chatbots === Joseph Weizenbaum's program ELIZA was first published in 1966. Weizenbaum did not claim that ELIZA was genuinely intelligent, and the introduction to his paper presented it more as a debunking exercise:In artificial intelligence, machines are made to behave in wondrous ways, often sufficient to dazzle even the most experienced observer. But once a particular program is unmasked, once its inner workings are explained, its magic crumbles away; it stands revealed as a mere collection of procedures. The observer says to himself "I could have written that". With that thought, he moves the program in question from the shelf marked "intelligent", to that reserved for curios. The object of this paper is to cause just such a re-evaluation of the program about to be "explained". Few programs ever needed it more. ELIZA's key method of operation involves the recognition of clue words or phrases in the input, and the output of the corresponding pre-prepared or pre-programmed responses that can move the conversation forward in an apparently meaningful way (e.g. by responding to any input that contains the word 'MOTHER' with 'TELL ME MORE ABOUT YOUR FAMILY'). Thus an illusion of understanding is generated, even though the processing involved has been merely superficial. ELIZA showed that such an illusion is surprisingly easy to generate because human judges are ready to give the benefit of the doubt when conversational responses are capable of being interpreted as "intelligent". Following ELIZA, psychiatrist Kenneth Colby developed PARRY in 1972. From 1978 to some time after 1983, the CYRUS project led by Janet Kolodner constructed a chatbot simulating Cyrus Vance (57th United States Secretary of State). It used case-based reasoning, and updated its database daily by parsing wire news from United Press International. The program was unable to process the news items subsequent to the surprise resignation of Cyrus Vance in April 1980, and the team constructed another chatbot simulating his successor, Edmund Muskie. In 1984, an interactive version of the program Racter was released which acted as a chatbot. A.L.I.C.E. was released in 1995. This uses a markup language called AIML, which is specific to its function as a conversational agent, and has since been adopted by various other developers of, so-called, Alicebots. A.L.I.C.E. is a weak AI without any reasoning capabilities. It is based on a similar pattern matching technique as ELIZA in 1966. This is not strong AI, which would require sapience and logical reasoning abilities. Jabberwacky, released in 1997, learns new responses and context based on real-time user interactions, rather than being driven from a static database. Chatbot competitions focus on the Turing test or more specific goals. Two such annual contests are the Loebner Prize and The Chatterbox Challenge (the latter has been offline since 2015, however, materials can still be found from web archives). Pre-dating the current generation of large language models, Gavagai, a Swedish language technology startup, created a Twitter-based bot in 2015 and DBpedia created a chatbot during the 2017 Google Summer of Code that communicated through Facebook Messenger. === Modern chatbots based on large language models === Modern chatbots like ChatGPT are often based on foundational large language models called generative pre-trained transformers (GPT). They are based on a deep learning architecture called the transformer, which contains artificial neural networks. They generate text after being trained on a large text corpus, and have emergent abilities that they are not specifically trained for. Chatbots integrated into apps and websites can call image-generation models or search the web. Some platforms also enable users to interact with conversational interfaces directly through web-based chat environments, allowing real-time assistance, content generation, and task automation without requiring software installation. == Application == === Messaging apps === Many companies' chatbots run on messaging apps or simply via SMS. They are used for B2C customer service, sales and marketing. In 2016, Facebook Messenger allowed developers to place chatbots on their platform. There were 30,000 bots created for Messenger in the first six months, rising to 100,000 by September 2017. Since September 2017, this has also been as part of a pilot program on WhatsApp. Airlines KLM and Aeroméxico both announced their participation in the testing; both airlines had previously launched customer services on the Facebook Messenger platform. The bots usually appear as one of the user's contacts, but can sometimes act as participants in a group chat. Many banks, insurers, media companies, e-commerce companies, airlines, hotel chains, retailers, health care providers, government entities, and restaurant chains have used chatbots to answer simple questions, increase customer engagement, for promotion, and to offer additional ways to order from them. Chatbots are also used in market research to collect short survey responses. A 2017 study showed 4% of companies used chatbots. In a 2016 study, 80% of businesses said they intended to have one by 2020. ==== As part of company apps and websites ==== Previous generations of chatbots were present on company websites, e.g. Ask Jenn from Alaska Airlines which debuted in 2008 or Expedia's virtual customer service agent which launched in 2011. The newer generation of chatbots includes IBM Watson-powered "Rocky", introduced in February 2017 by the New York City-based e-commerce company Rare Carat to provide information to prospective diamond buyers. ==== Chatbot sequences ==== Used by marketers to script sequences of messages, very similar to an autoresponder sequence. Such sequences can be triggered by user opt-in or the use of keywords within user interactions. After a trigger occurs a sequence of messages is delivered until the next anticipated user response. Each user response is used in the decision tree to help the chatbot navigate the response sequences to deliver the correct response message. === Company internal platforms === Companies have used chatbots for customer support, human resources, or in Internet-of-Things (IoT) projects. Overstock.com, for one, has reportedly launched a chatbot named Mila to attempt to automate certain processes when customer service employees request sick leave. Other large companies such as Lloyds Banking Group, Royal Bank of Scotland, Renault and Citroën are now using chatbots instead of call centres with humans to provide a first point of contact. In large companies, like in hospitals and aviation organizations, chatbots are also used to share information within organizations, and to assist and replace service desks. === Customer service === Chatbots have been proposed as a replacement for customer service departments. In 2026, The Financial Times reported on agentic chatbots that could do shopping for customers once given instructions. In 2016, Russia-based Tochka Bank launched a chatbot on Facebook for a range of financial services, including a possibility of making payments. In July 2016, Barclays Africa also launched a Facebook chatbot. === Healthcare === Chatbots are also appearing in the healthcare industry. A study suggested that physicians in the United States believed that chatbots would be most beneficial for scheduling doctor appointments, locating health clinics, or providing medication information. A 2025 review found that participants often rated chatbot responses as more empathic than those from clinicians. In 2020, WhatsApp worked with th

  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 →
• 

  PCVC Speech Dataset

  The PCVC (Persian Consonant Vowel Combination) Speech Dataset is a Modern Persian speech corpus for speech recognition and also speaker recognition. The dataset contains sound samples of Modern Persian combination of vowel and consonant phonemes from different speakers. Every sound sample contains just one consonant and one vowel So it is somehow labeled in phoneme level. This dataset consists of 23 Persian consonants and 6 vowels. The sound samples are all possible combinations of vowels and consonants (138 samples for each speaker). The sample rate of all speech samples is 48000 which means there are 48000 sound samples in every 1 second. Every sound sample starts with consonant then continues with vowel. In each sample, in average, 0.5 second of each sample is speech and the rest is silence. Each sound sample ends with silence. All of sound samples are denoised with "Adaptive noise reduction" algorithm. Compared to Farsdat speech dataset and Persian speech corpus it is more easy to use because it is prepared in .mat data files. Also it is more based on phoneme based separation and all samples are denoised. == Contents == The corpus is downloadable from its Kaggle web page, and contains the following: .mat data files of sound samples in a 23630000 matrix, in which 23 is number of consonants, 6 is the number of vowels and 30000 is the length of sound sample.

  Read more →
• 

  ClearForest

  ClearForest was an Israeli software company that developed and marketed text analytics and text mining solutions. == History == Founded in 1998, ClearForest had its headquarters just outside Boston and a development center in Or Yehuda. The company was acquired by Reuters in April, 2007. It now markets its services under the names Calais, OpenCalais, and OneCalais. ClearForest was previously venture-backed; its last funding round was led by Greylock Ventures and closed in 2005. Other investors included DB Capital Partners, Pitango, Walden Israel, Booz Allen, JP Morgan Partners and HarbourVest Partners. On February 7, 2008 Reuters announced the launch of Open Calais, a named-entity recognition and semantic analysis service that uses ClearForest technology. On April 30, 2007, Reuters announced that it would acquire ClearForest. Sources estimate the acquisition to be for $25 Million. == Solutions and products == ClearForest offers several hosted solutions, including: OpenCalais, a free web service and open API (for commercial and non-commercial use) that performs named-entity recognition and enables automatic metadata generation using the ClearForest financial module. Semantic Web Services (SWS), an on-demand service that makes ClearForest's natural language processing tools available as a standard web service. A subset of ClearForest's capabilities is available via SWS at no cost. Gnosis, a free Firefox extension that uses SWS to analyze the content of a web page. Gnosis identifies named entities such as people, companies, organizations, geographies and products on the page being viewed. Gnosis also automatically processes pages from Wikipedia, providing additional links for people, geographies and other entities which were not explicitly linked within the subject article. Harvest, a real-time machine-readable news service that uses SWS to process a company's news and document feeds and return machine-readable information about people, companies, locations and over 200 other entities facts and events. ClearForest also offers Text Analytics solutions targeted at specific business problems, including: Equity valuation for hedge funds and alternative investments firms Metadata & database creation for publishers and information providers/services Tapping "voice of customer" for market and survey research firms Quality Early Warning for vehicle, capital equipment & durable goods manufacturers

  Read more →
• 

  Text-to-image personalization

  Text-to-Image personalization is a task in deep learning for computer graphics that augments pre-trained text-to-image generative models. In this task, a generative model that was trained on large-scale data (usually a foundation model), is adapted such that it can generate images of novel, user-provided concepts. These concepts are typically unseen during training, and may represent specific objects (such as the user's pet) or more abstract categories (new artistic style or object relations). Text-to-Image personalization methods typically bind the novel (personal) concept to new words in the vocabulary of the model. These words can then be used in future prompts to invoke the concept for subject-driven generation, inpainting, style transfer and even to correct biases in the model. To do so, models either optimize word-embeddings, fine-tune the generative model itself, or employ a mixture of both approaches. == Technology == Text-to-Image personalization was first proposed during August 2022 by two concurrent works, Textual Inversion and DreamBooth. In both cases, a user provides a few images (typically 3–5) of a concept, like their own dog, together with a coarse descriptor of the concept class (like the word "dog"). The model then learns to represent the subject through a reconstruction based objective, where prompts referring to the subject are expected to reconstruct images from the training set. In Textual Inversion, the personalized concepts are introduced into the text-to-image model by adding new words to the vocabulary of the model. Typical text-to-image models represent words (and sometimes parts-of-words) as tokens, or indices in a predefined dictionary. During generation, an input prompt is converted into such tokens, each of which is converted into a ‘word-embedding’: a continuous vector representation which is learned for each token as part of the model's training. Textual Inversion proposes to optimize a new word-embedding vector for representing the novel concept. This new embedding vector can then be assigned to a user-chosen string, and invoked whenever the user's prompt contains this string. In DreamBooth, rather than optimizing a new word vector, the full generative model itself is fine-tuned. The user first selects an existing token, typically one which rarely appears in prompts. The subject itself is then represented by a string containing this token, followed by a coarse descriptor of the subject's class. A prompt describing the subject will then take the form: "A photo of " (e.g. "a photo of sks cat" when learning to represent a specific cat). The text-to-image model is then tuned so that prompts of this form will generate images of the subject. == Textual Inversion == The key idea in Textual Inversion is to add a new term to the vocabulary of the diffusion model that corresponds to the new (personalized) concept. Textual Inversion operates by inverting the concepts into new pseudo-words within the textual embedding space of a pre-trained text-to-image model. These pseudo-words can be injected into new scenes using simple natural language descriptions, allowing for simple and intuitive modifications. The method allows a user to leverage multi-modal information — using a text-driven interface for ease of editing, but providing visual cues when approaching the limits of natural language. The resulting model is extremely light-weight per concept: only 1K long, but succeeds to encode detailed visual properties of the concept. == Extensions == Several approaches were proposed to refine and improve over the original methods. These include the following. Low-rank Adaptation (LoRA) - an adapter-based technique for efficient finetuning of models. In the case of text-to-image models, LoRA is typically used to modify the cross-attention layers of a diffusion model. Perfusion - a low rank update method that also locks the activations of the key matrix in the diffusion model's cross attention layers to the concept's coarse class. Extended Textual Inversion - a technique that learns an individual word embedding for each layer in the diffusion model's denoising network. Encoder-based methods that use another neural network to quickly personalize a model == Challenges and limitations == Text-to-image personalization methods must contend with several challenges. At their core is the goal of achieving high-fidelity to the personal concept while maintaining high alignment between novel prompts containing the subject, and the generated images (typically referred to as ‘editability’). Another challenge that personalization methods must contend with is memory requirements. Initial implementations of personalization methods required more than 20 Gigabytes of GPU memory, and more recent approaches have reported requirements of more than 40 Gigabytes. However, optimizations such as Flash Attention have since reduced this requirement considerably. Approaches that tune the entire generative model may also create checkpoints that are several gigabytes in size, making it difficult to share or store many models. Embedding based approaches require only a few kilobytes, but typically struggle to preserve identity while maintaining editability. More recent approaches have proposed hybrid tuning goals which optimize both an embedding and a subset of network weights. These can reduce storage requirements to as little as 100 Kilobytes while achieving quality comparable to full tuning methods. Finally, optimization processes can be lengthy, requiring several minutes of tuning for each novel concept. Encoder and quick-tuning methods aim to reduce this to seconds or less.

  Read more →