AI Generator Sora

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

  • PagedAttention

    PagedAttention

    PagedAttention is an attention algorithm for efficient serving of large language models (LLMs). It was introduced in 2023 by Woosuk Kwon and colleagues in the paper Efficient Memory Management for Large Language Model Serving with PagedAttention, alongside the vLLM serving engine. The method stores the key–value cache used during autoregressive decoding in fixed-size blocks that can be mapped to non-contiguous physical memory, borrowing ideas from virtual memory, paging, and operating system design. == Background == In transformer inference, the key–value cache grows with sequence length and the number of concurrent requests. Kwon et al. argued that earlier serving systems typically reserved contiguous cache regions in advance, which caused reserved space, internal fragmentation, and external fragmentation. In their experiments, the paper reported that the effective memory utilization of previous systems could fall as low as 20.4%. == Description == PagedAttention partitions the cache of each sequence into fixed-size KV blocks. A request's cache is represented as a sequence of logical blocks, while a block table maps those logical blocks to physical GPU-memory blocks. As a result, neighboring logical blocks do not need to be contiguous in physical memory, and new blocks can be allocated on demand as generation proceeds. The design also makes it easier to share cache state across related decoding paths. In vLLM, physical blocks can be reference-counted and shared among requests or branches, with block-granularity copy-on-write used when a shared block must be modified. The original paper applied this design to parallel sampling, beam search, and prompts with shared prefixes. == Mathematical formulation == For a query token i {\displaystyle i} in causal self-attention, the standard attention output can be written as a i j = exp ⁡ ( q i ⊤ k j / d ) ∑ t = 1 i exp ⁡ ( q i ⊤ k t / d ) , o i = ∑ j = 1 i a i j v j {\displaystyle a_{ij}={\frac {\exp(\mathbf {q} _{i}^{\top }\mathbf {k} _{j}/{\sqrt {d}})}{\sum _{t=1}^{i}\exp(\mathbf {q} _{i}^{\top }\mathbf {k} _{t}/{\sqrt {d}})}},\;\mathbf {o} _{i}=\sum _{j=1}^{i}a_{ij}\mathbf {v} _{j}} where q i {\displaystyle \mathbf {q} _{i}} , k j {\displaystyle \mathbf {k} _{j}} , and v j {\displaystyle \mathbf {v} _{j}} are the query, key, and value vectors, and d {\displaystyle d} is the attention dimension. If the cache is partitioned into blocks of size B {\displaystyle B} , the key and value blocks may be written as K j = ( k ( j − 1 ) B + 1 , … , k j B ) , V j = ( v ( j − 1 ) B + 1 , … , v j B ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {K} _{j}=(\mathbf {k} _{(j-1)B+1},\ldots ,\mathbf {k} _{jB}),\;\mathbf {V} _{j}=(\mathbf {v} _{(j-1)B+1},\ldots ,\mathbf {v} _{jB})} PagedAttention then performs the computation blockwise: A i j = exp ⁡ ( q i ⊤ K j / d ) ∑ t = 1 ⌈ i / B ⌉ exp ⁡ ( q i ⊤ K t / d ) , o i = ∑ j = 1 ⌈ i / B ⌉ V j A i j ⊤ {\displaystyle \mathbf {A} _{ij}={\frac {\exp(\mathbf {q} _{i}^{\top }\mathbf {K} _{j}/{\sqrt {d}})}{\sum _{t=1}^{\lceil i/B\rceil }\exp(\mathbf {q} _{i}^{\top }\mathbf {K} _{t}/{\sqrt {d}})}},\;\mathbf {o} _{i}=\sum _{j=1}^{\lceil i/B\rceil }\mathbf {V} _{j}\mathbf {A} _{ij}^{\top }} where A i j {\displaystyle \mathbf {A} _{ij}} is the vector of attention scores for the j {\displaystyle j} -th KV block. In the formulation given by Kwon et al., this preserves the causal attention calculation while allowing the key and value blocks to reside in non-contiguous physical memory. == Performance and use == The vLLM paper reported that, on its evaluated workloads, the use of PagedAttention and the associated memory-management design improved serving throughput by 2–4× over the compared baselines, including FasterTransformer and Orca, while preserving model outputs. In experiments on OPT-13B with the Alpaca trace, the paper also reported memory savings of 6.1–9.8% for parallel sampling and 37.6–55.2% for beam search through KV-block sharing. A 2024 survey of LLM serving systems described PagedAttention as having become an industry norm in LLM serving frameworks, citing support in TGI, vLLM, and TensorRT-LLM. == Limitations and alternatives == Subsequent work has described trade-offs in the approach. The 2025 vAttention paper argued that PagedAttention requires attention kernels to be rewritten to support paging and increases software complexity, portability issues, redundancy, and execution overhead, proposing instead a memory manager that keeps the cache contiguous in virtual memory while relying on demand paging for physical allocation. === vAttention === Unlike PagedAttention, vAttention does not introduce a different attention rule; it retains the standard attention computation Attention ⁡ ( q i , K , V ) = softmax ⁡ ( q i K ⊤ s c a l e ) V . {\displaystyle \operatorname {Attention} (q_{i},K,V)=\operatorname {softmax} \left({\frac {q_{i}K^{\top }}{\mathrm {scale} }}\right)V.} In the notation of Prabhu et al., the key and value tensors for a request seen so far are K , V ∈ R L ′ × ( H × D ) {\displaystyle K,V\in \mathbb {R} ^{L'\times (H\times D)}} , where L ′ {\displaystyle L'} is the context length seen so far, H {\displaystyle H} is the number of KV heads on a worker, and D {\displaystyle D} is the dimension of each KV head. In systems prior to PagedAttention, the K cache (or V cache) at each layer of a worker is typically allocated as a 4D tensor of shape [ B , L , H , D ] , {\displaystyle [B,L,H,D],} where B {\displaystyle B} is batch size and L {\displaystyle L} is the maximum context length supported by the model. vAttention preserves this contiguous virtual-memory view while deferring physical-memory allocation to runtime. A serving framework maintains separate K and V tensors for each layer, so vAttention reserves 2 N {\displaystyle 2N} virtual-memory buffers on a worker, where N {\displaystyle N} is the number of layers managed by that worker. The maximum size of one virtual-memory buffer is B S = B × S , {\displaystyle BS=B\times S,} where S {\displaystyle S} is the maximum size of a single request's per-layer K cache (or V cache) on a worker. The paper defines S = L × H × D × P , {\displaystyle S=L\times H\times D\times P,} where P {\displaystyle P} is the number of bytes needed to store one element. In this formulation, vAttention keeps the KV cache contiguous in virtual memory and relies on demand paging for physical allocation, rather than modifying the attention kernel to operate over non-contiguous KV-cache blocks.

    Read more →
  • Top 10 AI Essay Writers Compared (2026)

    Top 10 AI Essay Writers Compared (2026)

    Curious about the best AI essay writer? An AI essay writer is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it combines speed, accuracy, and an interface that just works. Hands-on testing shows real-world results vary, so a short free trial is the smartest way to decide. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI essay writer slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. This guide breaks down the top picks, their pros and cons, and who each one is best for.

    Read more →
  • Katia Sycara

    Katia Sycara

    Ekaterini Panagiotou Sycara (Greek: Κάτια Συκαρά) is a Greek computer scientist. She is an Edward Fredkin Research Professor of Robotics in the Robotics Institute, School of Computer Science at Carnegie Mellon University internationally known for her research in artificial intelligence, particularly in the fields of negotiation, autonomous agents and multi-agent systems. She directs the Advanced Agent-Robotics Technology Lab at Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon University. She also serves as academic advisor for PhD students at both Robotics Institute and Tepper School of Business. == Education and early life == Born in Greece, she went to the United States to pursue advanced education through various scholarships, including a Fulbright (1965-1969). She received a B.S. in applied mathematics from Brown University, M.S. in electrical engineering from the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee, and PhD in computer science from Georgia Institute of Technology. == Research and career == Sycara is a pioneer in the field of semantic web, case-based reasoning, autonomous agents and multi-agent systems. She has authored or co-authored more than 700 technical papers dealing with multi-agent systems, software agents, web services, semantic web, human–computer interaction, human-robot interaction, negotiation, case-based reasoning and the application of these techniques to crisis action planning, scheduling, manufacturing, healthcare management, financial planning and e-commerce.[1] She has led multimillion-dollar research effort funded by DARPA, NASA, AFOSR, ONR, AFRL, NSF and industry. Through an ONR MURI program and though the COABS DARPA program, Prof. Sycara's group has developed the RETSINA multiagent infrastructure, a toolkit that enables the development of heterogeneous software agents that can dynamically coordinate in open information environments (e.g. the Internet). RETSINA has been used in multiple applications including supporting human joint mission teams for crisis response; creating autonomous agents for situation awareness and information fusion; financial portfolio management, negotiations and coalition formation for e-commerce, and coordinating robots for Urban Search and Rescue. Sycara is one of the contributors to the development of OWL-S, the Darpa-sponsored language for Semantic Web services, as well as matchmaking and brokering software for agent discovery, service integration and semantic interoperation. === Academic service === Sycara is the founding Editor-in-Chief of the journal Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems; Editor-in-Chief, of the Springer Series on Agents; and Area Editor of AI and Management Science, the journal "Group Decision and Negotiation." She is a member of the Editorial Board, the Kluwer book series on "Multiagent Systems, Artificial Societies and Simulated Organizations"; member of the editorial board, the journals "Agent Oriented Software Engineering", "Web Intelligence and Agent Technologies", "Journal of Infonomics", "Fundamenda Informaticae", and "Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications"; and member of the editorial board of the "ETAI journal on the Semantic Web" (1998–2001). She was on the Editorial Board of "IEEE Intelligent Systems and their Applications" (1992–1996), and "AI in Engineering" (1990–1996). She is a member of the Scientific Advisory Board of France Telecom, 2003-2009; member of the Scientific Advisory Board of the Institute of Informatics and Telecommunications of the Greek National Research Center Demokritos, 2004-2012; member of the AAAI Executive Council (1996–99); member of the OASIS Technical committee on the development of UDDI (Universal Description and Discovery for Interoperability) software which is an industry standard; and an invited expert for W3C (the World Wide Web Consortium) Working Group on Web Services Architecture. She was a founding member of the Board of Directors of the International Foundation of Multiagent Systems (IFMAS), and founding member of the Semantic Web Science Association. Sycara served as the program chair of the Second International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC 2003); general chair, of the Second International Conference on Autonomous Agents (Agents 98); chair of the Steering Committee of the Agents Conference (1999–2001); scholarship chair of AAAI (1993–1999); and the US co-chair for the US-Europe Semantic Web Services Initiative. === Awards and honors === Sycara is a Fellow of Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), and a Fellow of American Association for Artificial Intelligence (AAAI). Sycara is the recipient of the 2002 ACM/SIGART Agents Research Award. She is also the recipient of the 2015 Group Decision and Negotiation (GDN) Award of the Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences (INFORMS) GDN Section for her outstanding contributions to the field of group decision and negotiation. According to the citation of the award: Katia Sycara is widely acknowledged as one of the leading researchers in the field of autonomous software agents and in particular on problems related to joint decision making and negotiations of such agents. Her work is characterized by a unique combination of methods from Artificial Intelligence and research on human negotiations, and thus has contributed to significant advances in both fields. Sycara's robot teams have won multiple international awards. In the 2005 Robocup Urban Search and Rescue (US Open) held in Atlanta, her team won the First-in-Class Award for Autonomy, and the First-in-Class Award for Mobility. Two years later, again in Atlanta, she led another team that became a world champions in the 2007 International Robocup Search and Rescue Simulation League Competition. In 2008, her robotic team placed third in the Worldwide Robocup Championship Competition in the Urban Search and Rescue Virtual robots League held in Beijing, China. In 2005, she received the Outstanding Alumnus Award from the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee. She was awarded an Honorary Doctorate from the University of the Aegean in 2004.

    Read more →
  • Synchronizing word

    Synchronizing word

    In computer science, more precisely, in the theory of deterministic finite automata (DFA), a synchronizing word or reset sequence is a word in the input alphabet of the DFA that sends any state of the DFA to one and the same state. That is, if an ensemble of copies of the DFA are each started in different states, and all of the copies process the synchronizing word, they will all end up in the same state. Not every DFA has a synchronizing word; for instance, a DFA with two states, one for words of even length and one for words of odd length, can never be synchronized. == Existence == Given a DFA, the problem of determining if it has a synchronizing word can be solved in polynomial time using a theorem due to Ján Černý. A simple approach considers the power set of states of the DFA, and builds a directed graph where nodes belong to the power set, and a directed edge describes the action of the transition function. A path from the node of all states to a singleton state shows the existence of a synchronizing word. This algorithm is exponential in the number of states. A polynomial algorithm results however, due to a theorem of Černý that exploits the substructure of the problem, and shows that a synchronizing word exists if and only if every pair of states has a synchronizing word. == Length == The problem of estimating the length of synchronizing words has a long history and was posed independently by several authors, but it is commonly known as the Černý conjecture. In 1969, Ján Černý conjectured that (n − 1)2 is the upper bound for the length of the shortest synchronizing word for any n-state complete DFA (a DFA with complete state transition graph). If this is true, it would be tight: in his 1964 paper, Černý exhibited a class of automata (indexed by the number n of states) for which the shortest reset words have this length. The best upper bound known is 0.1654n3, far from the lower bound. For n-state DFAs over a k-letter input alphabet, an algorithm by David Eppstein finds a synchronizing word of length at most 11n3/48 + O(n2), and runs in time complexity O(n3+kn2). This algorithm does not always find the shortest possible synchronizing word for a given automaton; as Eppstein also shows, the problem of finding the shortest synchronizing word is NP-complete. However, for a special class of automata in which all state transitions preserve the cyclic order of the states, he describes a different algorithm with time O(kn2) that always finds the shortest synchronizing word, proves that these automata always have a synchronizing word of length at most (n − 1)2 (the bound given in Černý's conjecture), and exhibits examples of automata with this special form whose shortest synchronizing word has length exactly (n − 1)2. == Road coloring == The road coloring problem is the problem of labeling the edges of a regular directed graph with the symbols of a k-letter input alphabet (where k is the outdegree of each vertex) in order to form a synchronizable DFA. It was conjectured in 1970 by Benjamin Weiss and Roy Adler that any strongly connected and aperiodic regular digraph can be labeled in this way; their conjecture was proven in 2007 by Avraham Trahtman. == Related: transformation semigroups == A transformation semigroup is synchronizing if it contains an element of rank 1, that is, an element whose image is of cardinality 1. A DFA corresponds to a transformation semigroup with a distinguished generator set.

    Read more →
  • Double descent

    Double descent

    Double descent in statistics and machine learning is the phenomenon where a model's error rate on the test set initially decreases with the number of parameters, then peaks, then decreases again. This phenomenon has been considered surprising, as it contradicts assumptions about overfitting in classical machine learning. The increase usually occurs near the interpolation threshold, where the number of parameters is the same as the number of training data points (the model is just large enough to fit the training data). Or, more precisely, it is the maximum number of samples on which the model/training procedure achieves approximately on average 0 training error. == History == Early observations of what would later be called double descent in specific models date back to 1989. The term "double descent" was coined by Belkin et. al. in 2019, when the phenomenon gained popularity as a broader concept exhibited by many models. The latter development was prompted by a perceived contradiction between the conventional wisdom that too many parameters in the model result in a significant overfitting error (an extrapolation of the bias–variance tradeoff), and the empirical observations in the 2010s that some modern machine learning techniques tend to perform better with larger models. == Theoretical models == Double descent occurs in linear regression with isotropic Gaussian covariates and isotropic Gaussian noise. A model of double descent at the thermodynamic limit has been analyzed using the replica trick, and the result has been confirmed numerically. A number of works have suggested that double descent can be explained using the concept of effective dimension: While a network may have a large number of parameters, in practice only a subset of those parameters are relevant for generalization performance, as measured by the local Hessian curvature. This explanation is formalized through PAC-Bayes compression-based generalization bounds, which show that less complex models are expected to generalize better under a Solomonoff prior.

    Read more →
  • Is an AI Paragraph Rewriter Worth It in 2026?

    Is an AI Paragraph Rewriter Worth It in 2026?

    In search of the best AI paragraph rewriter? An AI paragraph rewriter is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it turns a rough idea into a polished result in seconds. When choosing one, weigh output quality, pricing, export formats, and how well it fits the tools you already use. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI paragraph rewriter slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. Below we compare features, pricing, and real output so you can choose with confidence.

    Read more →
  • Is an AI Code Generator Worth It in 2026?

    Is an AI Code Generator Worth It in 2026?

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

    Read more →
  • Julia Hirschberg

    Julia Hirschberg

    Julia Hirschberg is an American computer scientist noted for her research on computational linguistics and natural language processing. She received her first PhD in history from the University of Michigan and the second from the University of Pennsylvania in computer science doing research in Natural Language Processing. She worked at Bell Labs and AT&T Bell Labs from 1985 to 2002 and from 2002 at Columbia University where she is currently the Percy K. and Vida L. W. Hudson Professor of Computer Science. == Biography == Julia Linn Bell Hirschberg received her first Ph.D. degree in history (16th-century Mexico) from University of Michigan in 1976. She served on the History faculty of Smith College from 1974 to 1982. She subsequently shifted to Computer Science studies, receiving her M.S. in Computer and Information Science from University of Pennsylvania in 1982 and a Ph.D. in Computer and Information Science from University of Pennsylvania in 1985. Upon graduation from University of Pennsylvania in 1985, Hirschberg joined AT&T Bell Labs as a Member of Technical staff in the Linguistics Research Department, where she worked on improving prosody assignment for Text-to-Speech Synthesis (TTS) in the Bell Labs TTS system. She was promoted to Department Head in 1994 when she created a new Human Computer Interface Research Lab. She and her department remained at Bell Labs until 1996 when they moved to AT&T Labs Research as part of a corporate reorganization. In 2002, she joined the Columbia University faculty as a professor in the Department of Computer Science. She served as Chair of the Computer Science Department from 2012 to 2018. She still leads classes at Columbia in speech and natural language research and supervises PhD students and a large number of research project students. == Research == Hirschberg's research has included prosody, discourse structure, conversational implicature, text-to-speech synthesis, speech summarization, spoken dialogue systems, emotional speech, deceptive speech, charismatic speech, entrainment, empathetic speech and code-switching. Hirschberg was among the first to combine Natural Language Processing (NLP) approaches to discourse and dialogue with speech research. She pioneered techniques in text analysis for prosody assignment in Text-to-Speech synthesis at Bell laboratories in the 1980s and 1990s, developing corpus-based statistical models based upon syntactic and discourse information which are in general use today in TTS systems. With Janet Pierrehumbert, she developed a theoretical model of intonational meaning. She was a leader in the development of the ToBI conventions for intonational description, which have been extended to numerous languages and which today are the most widely used standard for intonational annotation. Hirschberg has been a pioneer together with Gregory Ward in much experimental work on intonational sources of language meaning and how these interact with pragmatic phenomena, particularly on the meaning of accent (intonational prominent) items and the meaning of intonational contours. She also has innovated in numerous other areas involving prosody and meaning, including the role of grammatical function and surface position in pitch accent location, the use of prosody in disambiguating cue phrases (discourse markers) with Diane Litman, the role of prosody in disambiguation in English, Italian, and Spanish with Cinzia Avesani and Pilar Prieto, and the automatic identification of speech recognition errors using prosodic information, At AT&T Labs she worked with Fernando Pereira, Steve Whittaker, and others on speech search and developing new interfaces for speech navigation. At Columbia, she and her students have continued and extended research on spoken dialogue systems (automatically detecting speech recognition errors and inappropriate system queries, modeling turn-taking behavior, dialogue entrainment, modeling and generating clarification dialogues); on the automatic classification of trust, charisma, deception and emotion from speech; on speech summarization; prosody translation, hedging behavior in text and speech, text-to-speech synthesis, and speech search in low resource languages. She also holds several patents in TTS and in speech search. Corpora she and collaborators have collected include the Boston Directions Corpus, the Columbia SRI Colorado Deception Corpus, and the Columbia Games Corpus. She has served on numerous technical boards and editorial committees. She has served as a member of the Computing Research Association's (CRA) Board of Directors and as co-chair of CRA-W. She is also noted for her leadership in broadening participation in computing. == Awards == Hirschberg's notable honors and awards include: Elected as a member of the National Academy of Artificial Intelligence Academy of Sciences and recipient of the NAAI Artificial Intelligence Exploration Award, 2025 Elected as a Fellow of Asia-Pacific Artificial Intelligence Association (AAIA), 2024. 2020 ISCA Special Service Medal Honorary Doctorate (eredoctoraat) from Tilburg University, Netherlands, 2018. American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 2018. IEEE Fellow, 2017 National Academy of Engineering, 2017 ACM Fellow in 2015 Elected member, American Philosophical Society, 2014. Honorary member, Association for Laboratory Phonology, 2014. Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL) (Founding) Fellow, 2011. International Speech Communication Association (ISCA) Medal for Scientific Achievement, 2011. IEEE James L. Flanagan Speech and Audio Processing Award, 2011. Honorary Doctorate (Hedersdoktorer), KTH (Royal Institute of Technology) Stockholm, Sweden, 2007. AAAI Fellow, 1994. == Publications == A social history of Puebla de Los Ángeles, 1531-60, 1976 Empirical studies on the disambiguation of cue phrases, 1991 Prosody and conversation, 1998 Most recent publications and other information, https://www.cs.columbia.edu/speech/.

    Read more →
  • Anomaly Detection at Multiple Scales

    Anomaly Detection at Multiple Scales

    Anomaly Detection at Multiple Scales, or ADAMS was a $35 million DARPA project designed to identify patterns and anomalies in very large data sets. It is under DARPA's Information Innovation office and began in 2011 and ended in August 2014 The project was intended to detect and prevent insider threats such as "a soldier in good mental health becoming homicidal or suicidal", an "innocent insider becoming malicious", or "a government employee [who] abuses access privileges to share classified information". Specific cases mentioned are Nadal Malik Hasan and WikiLeaks source Chelsea Manning. Commercial applications may include finance. The intended recipients of the system output are operators in the counterintelligence agencies. A final report was published on May 11, 2015, detailing a system known as Anomaly Detection Engine for Networks, or ADEN, developed by the University of Maryland, College Park, whose goal was to "identify malicious users within a network." Using multiple datasets from Wikipedia, Slashdot, and others, researchers were able to identify vandals and malicious users on a website using both conventional algorithms and artificial intelligence. The Proactive Discovery of Insider Threats Using Graph Analysis and Learning was part of the ADAMS project. The Georgia Tech team includes noted high-performance computing researcher David Bader (computer scientist).

    Read more →
  • Laws of Form

    Laws of Form

    Laws of Form (hereinafter LoF) is a book by G. Spencer-Brown, written by August 1967 and published in 1969. The book straddles the boundary between mathematics and philosophy. LoF describes three distinct logical systems: The primary arithmetic (described in Chapter 4 of LoF), whose models include Boolean arithmetic; The primary algebra (Chapter 6 of LoF), whose models include the two-element Boolean algebra (hereinafter abbreviated 2), Boolean logic, and the classical propositional calculus; Equations of the second degree (Chapter 11), whose interpretations include finite automata and Alonzo Church's Restricted Recursive Arithmetic (RRA). "Boundary algebra" is a Meguire (2011) term for the union of the primary algebra and the primary arithmetic. Laws of Form sometimes loosely refers to the "primary algebra" as well as to LoF. == Contents == The preface states that the work was first explored in 1959, and Spencer Brown cites Bertrand Russell as being supportive of his endeavour. He also thanks J. C. P. Miller of University College London for helping with the proofreading and offering other guidance. In 1963 Spencer Brown was invited by Harry Frost, staff lecturer in the physical sciences at the department of Extra-Mural Studies of the University of London, to deliver a course on the mathematics of logic. LoF emerged from work in electronic engineering its author did around 1960. Key ideas of the LOF were first outlined in his 1961 manuscript Design with the Nor, which remained unpublished until 2021, and further refined during subsequent lectures on mathematical logic he gave under the auspices of the University of London's extension program. LoF has appeared in several editions. The second series of editions appeared in 1972 with the "Preface to the First American Edition", which emphasised the use of self-referential paradoxes, and the most recent being a 1997 German translation. LoF has never gone out of print. LoF's mystical and declamatory prose and its love of paradox make it a challenging read for all. Spencer-Brown was influenced by Ludwig Wittgenstein and R. D. Laing. LoF also echoes a number of themes from the writings of Charles Sanders Peirce, Bertrand Russell, and Alfred North Whitehead. The work has had curious effects on some classes of its readership; for example, on obscure grounds, it has been claimed that the entire book is written in an operational way, giving instructions to the reader instead of telling them what "is", and that in accordance with G. Spencer-Brown's interest in paradoxes, the only sentence that makes a statement that something is, is the statement which says no such statements are used in this book. Furthermore, the claim asserts that except for this one sentence the book can be seen as an example of E-Prime. What prompted such a claim, is obscure, either in terms of incentive, logical merit, or as a matter of fact, because the book routinely and naturally uses the verb to be throughout, and in all its grammatical forms, as may be seen both in the original and in quotes shown below. == Reception == Ostensibly a work of formal mathematics and philosophy, LoF became something of a cult classic: it was praised by Heinz von Foerster when he reviewed it for the Whole Earth Catalog. Those who agree point to LoF as embodying an enigmatic "mathematics of consciousness", its algebraic symbolism capturing an (perhaps even "the") implicit root of cognition: the ability to "distinguish". LoF argues that primary algebra reveals striking connections among logic, Boolean algebra, and arithmetic, and the philosophy of language and mind. Stafford Beer wrote in a review for Nature in 1969, "When one thinks of all that Russell went through sixty years ago, to write the Principia, and all we his readers underwent in wrestling with those three vast volumes, it is almost sad". Banaschewski (1977) argues that the primary algebra is nothing but new notation for Boolean algebra. Indeed, the two-element Boolean algebra 2 can be seen as the intended interpretation of the primary algebra. Yet the notation of the primary algebra: Fully exploits the duality characterizing not just Boolean algebras but all lattices; Highlights how syntactically distinct statements in logic and 2 can have identical semantics; Dramatically simplifies Boolean algebra calculations, and proofs in sentential and syllogistic logic. Moreover, the syntax of the primary algebra can be extended to formal systems other than 2 and sentential logic, resulting in boundary mathematics. LoF has influenced, among others, Heinz von Foerster, Louis Kauffman, Niklas Luhmann, Humberto Maturana, Francisco Varela and William Bricken. Some of these authors have modified the primary algebra in a variety of interesting ways. LoF claimed that certain well-known mathematical conjectures of very long standing, such as the four color theorem, Fermat's Last Theorem, and the Goldbach conjecture, are provable using extensions of the primary algebra. Spencer-Brown eventually circulated a purported proof of the four color theorem, but it was met with skepticism. == The form (Chapter 1) == The symbol: Also called the "mark" or "cross", is the essential feature of the Laws of Form. In Spencer-Brown's inimitable and enigmatic fashion, the Mark symbolizes the root of cognition, i.e., the dualistic Mark indicates the capability of differentiating a "this" from "everything else but this". In LoF, a Cross denotes the drawing of a "distinction", and can be thought of as signifying the following, all at once: The act of drawing a boundary around something, thus separating it from everything else; That which becomes distinct from everything by drawing the boundary; Crossing from one side of the boundary to the other. All three ways imply an action on the part of the cognitive entity (e.g., person) making the distinction. As LoF puts it: "The first command: Draw a distinction can well be expressed in such ways as: Let there be a distinction, Find a distinction, See a distinction, Describe a distinction, Define a distinction, Or: Let a distinction be drawn". (LoF, Notes to chapter 2) The counterpoint to the Marked state is the Unmarked state, which is simply nothing, the void, or the un-expressable infinite represented by a blank space. It is simply the absence of a Cross. No distinction has been made and nothing has been crossed. The Marked state and the void are the two primitive values of the Laws of Form. The Cross can be seen as denoting the distinction between two states, one "considered as a symbol" and another not so considered. From this fact arises a curious resonance with some theories of consciousness and language. Paradoxically, the Form is at once Observer and Observed, and is also the creative act of making an observation. LoF (excluding back matter) closes with the words: ...the first distinction, the Mark and the observer are not only interchangeable, but, in the form, identical. C. S. Peirce came to a related insight in the 1890s; see § Related work. == The primary arithmetic (Chapter 4) == The syntax of the primary arithmetic goes as follows. There are just two atomic expressions: The empty Cross ; All or part of the blank page (the "void"). There are two inductive rules: A Cross may be written over any expression; Any two expressions may be concatenated. The semantics of the primary arithmetic are perhaps nothing more than the sole explicit definition in LoF: "Distinction is perfect continence". Let the "unmarked state" be a synonym for the void. Let an empty Cross denote the "marked state". To cross is to move from one value, the unmarked or marked state, to the other. We can now state the "arithmetical" axioms A1 and A2, which ground the primary arithmetic (and hence all of the Laws of Form): "A1. The law of Calling". Calling twice from a state is indistinguishable from calling once. To make a distinction twice has the same effect as making it once. For example, saying "Let there be light" and then saying "Let there be light" again, is the same as saying it once. Formally: = {\displaystyle \ =} "A2. The law of Crossing". After crossing from the unmarked to the marked state, crossing again ("recrossing") starting from the marked state returns one to the unmarked state. Hence recrossing annuls crossing. Formally: = {\displaystyle \ =} In both A1 and A2, the expression to the right of '=' has fewer symbols than the expression to the left of '='. This suggests that every primary arithmetic expression can, by repeated application of A1 and A2, be simplified to one of two states: the marked or the unmarked state. This is indeed the case, and the result is the expression's "simplification". The two fundamental metatheorems of the primary arithmetic state that: Every finite expression has a unique simplification. (T3 in LoF); Starting from an initial marked or unmarked state, "complicating" an expression by a finite number of repeated application of A1 and A2 cannot yield

    Read more →
  • AI Content Generators: Free vs Paid (2026)

    AI Content Generators: Free vs Paid (2026)

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

    Read more →
  • Two-way finite automaton

    Two-way finite automaton

    In computer science, in particular in automata theory, a two-way finite automaton is a finite automaton that is allowed to re-read its input. == Two-way deterministic finite automaton == A two-way deterministic finite automaton (2DFA) is an abstract machine, a generalized version of the deterministic finite automaton (DFA) which can revisit characters already processed. As in a DFA, there are a finite number of states with transitions between them based on the current character, but each transition is also labelled with a value indicating whether the machine will move its position in the input to the left, right, or stay at the same position. Equivalently, 2DFAs can be seen as read-only Turing machines with no work tape, only a read-only input tape. 2DFAs were introduced in a seminal 1959 paper by Rabin and Scott, who proved them to have equivalent power to one-way DFAs. That is, any formal language which can be recognized by a 2DFA can be recognized by a DFA which only examines and consumes each character in order. Since DFAs are obviously a special case of 2DFAs, this implies that both kinds of machines recognize precisely the class of regular languages. However, the equivalent DFA for a 2DFA may require exponentially many states, making 2DFAs a much more practical representation for algorithms for some common problems. 2DFAs are also equivalent to read-only Turing machines that use only a constant amount of space on their work tape, since any constant amount of information can be incorporated into the finite control state via a product construction (a state for each combination of work tape state and control state). == Formal description == Formally, a two-way deterministic finite automaton can be described by the following 8-tuple: M = ( Q , Σ , L , R , δ , s , t , r ) {\displaystyle M=(Q,\Sigma ,L,R,\delta ,s,t,r)} where Q {\displaystyle Q} is the finite, non-empty set of states Σ {\displaystyle \Sigma } is the finite, non-empty set of input symbols L {\displaystyle L} is the left endmarker R {\displaystyle R} is the right endmarker δ : Q × ( Σ ∪ { L , R } ) → Q × { l e f t , r i g h t } {\displaystyle \delta :Q\times (\Sigma \cup \{L,R\})\rightarrow Q\times \{\mathrm {left,right} \}} s {\displaystyle s} is the start state t {\displaystyle t} is the end state r {\displaystyle r} is the reject state In addition, the following two conditions must also be satisfied: For all q ∈ Q {\displaystyle q\in Q} δ ( q , L ) = ( q ′ , r i g h t ) {\displaystyle \delta (q,L)=(q^{\prime },\mathrm {right} )} for some q ′ ∈ Q {\displaystyle q^{\prime }\in Q} δ ( q , R ) = ( q ′ , l e f t ) {\displaystyle \delta (q,R)=(q^{\prime },\mathrm {left} )} for some q ′ ∈ Q {\displaystyle q^{\prime }\in Q} It says that there must be some transition possible when the pointer reaches either end of the input word. For all symbols σ ∈ Σ ∪ { L } {\displaystyle \sigma \in \Sigma \cup \{L\}} δ ( t , σ ) = ( t , R ) {\displaystyle \delta (t,\sigma )=(t,R)} δ ( r , σ ) = ( r , R ) {\displaystyle \delta (r,\sigma )=(r,R)} δ ( t , R ) = ( t , L ) {\displaystyle \delta (t,R)=(t,L)} δ ( r , R ) = ( r , L ) {\displaystyle \delta (r,R)=(r,L)} It says that once the automaton reaches the accept or reject state, it stays in there forever and the pointer goes to the right most symbol and cycles there infinitely. == Two-way nondeterministic finite automaton == A two-way nondeterministic finite automaton (2NFA) may have multiple transitions defined in the same configuration. Its transition function is δ : Q × ( Σ ∪ { L , R } ) → 2 Q × { l e f t , r i g h t } {\displaystyle \delta :Q\times (\Sigma \cup \{L,R\})\rightarrow 2^{Q\times \{\mathrm {left,right} \}}} . Like a standard one-way NFA, a 2NFA accepts a string if at least one of the possible computations is accepting. Like the 2DFAs, the 2NFAs also accept only regular languages. == Two-way alternating finite automaton == A two-way alternating finite automaton (2AFA) is a two-way extension of an alternating finite automaton (AFA). Its state set is Q = Q ∃ ∪ Q ∀ {\displaystyle Q=Q_{\exists }\cup Q_{\forall }} where Q ∃ ∩ Q ∀ = ∅ {\displaystyle Q_{\exists }\cap Q_{\forall }=\emptyset } . States in Q ∃ {\displaystyle Q_{\exists }} and Q ∀ {\displaystyle Q_{\forall }} are called existential resp. universal. In an existential state a 2AFA nondeterministically chooses the next state like an NFA, and accepts if at least one of the resulting computations accepts. In a universal state 2AFA moves to all next states, and accepts if all the resulting computations accept. == State complexity tradeoffs == Two-way and one-way finite automata, deterministic and nondeterministic and alternating, accept the same class of regular languages. However, transforming an automaton of one type to an equivalent automaton of another type incurs a blow-up in the number of states. Christos Kapoutsis determined that transforming an n {\displaystyle n} -state 2DFA to an equivalent DFA requires n ( n n − ( n − 1 ) n ) {\displaystyle n(n^{n}-(n-1)^{n})} states in the worst case. If an n {\displaystyle n} -state 2DFA or a 2NFA is transformed to an NFA, the worst-case number of states required is ( 2 n n + 1 ) = O ( 4 n n ) {\displaystyle {\binom {2n}{n+1}}=O\left({\frac {4^{n}}{\sqrt {n}}}\right)} . Ladner, Lipton and Stockmeyer. proved that an n {\displaystyle n} -state 2AFA can be converted to a DFA with 2 n 2 n {\displaystyle 2^{n2^{n}}} states. The 2AFA to NFA conversion requires 2 Θ ( n log ⁡ n ) {\displaystyle 2^{\Theta (n\log n)}} states in the worst case, see Geffert and Okhotin. It is an open problem whether every 2NFA can be converted to a 2DFA with only a polynomial increase in the number of states. The problem was raised by Sakoda and Sipser, who compared it to the P vs. NP problem in the computational complexity theory. Berman and Lingas discovered a formal relation between this problem and the L vs. NL open problem, see Kapoutsis for a precise relation. == Sweeping automata == Sweeping automata are 2DFAs of a special kind that process the input string by making alternating left-to-right and right-to-left sweeps, turning only at the endmarkers. Sipser constructed a sequence of languages, each accepted by an n-state NFA, yet which is not accepted by any sweeping automata with fewer than 2 n {\displaystyle 2^{n}} states. == Two-way quantum finite automaton == The concept of 2DFAs was in 1997 generalized to quantum computing by John Watrous's "On the Power of 2-Way Quantum Finite State Automata", in which he demonstrates that these machines can recognize nonregular languages and so are more powerful than DFAs. == Two-way pushdown automaton == A pushdown automaton that is allowed to move either way on its input tape is called two-way pushdown automaton (2PDA); it has been studied by Hartmanis, Lewis, and Stearns (1965). Aho, Hopcroft, Ullman (1968) and Cook (1971) characterized the class of languages recognizable by deterministic (2DPDA) and non-deterministic (2NPDA) two-way pushdown automata; Gray, Harrison, and Ibarra (1967) investigated the closure properties of these languages.

    Read more →
  • Artificial brain

    Artificial brain

    An artificial brain (or artificial mind) is software and hardware with cognitive abilities similar to those of the animal or human brain. Research investigating "artificial brains" and brain emulation plays three important roles in science: An ongoing attempt by neuroscientists to understand how the human brain works, known as cognitive neuroscience. A thought experiment in the philosophy of artificial intelligence, demonstrating that it is possible, at least in theory, to create a machine that has all the capabilities of a human being. A long-term project to create machines exhibiting behavior comparable to those of animals with complex central nervous system such as mammals and most particularly humans. The ultimate goal of creating a machine exhibiting human-like behavior or intelligence is sometimes called strong AI. An example of the first objective is the project reported by Aston University in Birmingham, England where researchers are using biological cells to create "neurospheres" (small clusters of neurons) in order to develop new treatments for diseases including Alzheimer's, motor neurone and Parkinson's disease. The second objective is a reply to arguments such as John Searle's Chinese room argument, Hubert Dreyfus's critique of AI or Roger Penrose's argument in The Emperor's New Mind. These critics argued that there are aspects of human consciousness or expertise that can not be simulated by machines. One reply to their arguments is that the biological processes inside the brain can be simulated to any degree of accuracy. This reply was made as early as 1950, by Alan Turing in his classic paper "Computing Machinery and Intelligence". The third objective is generally called artificial general intelligence by researchers. However, Ray Kurzweil prefers the term "strong AI". In his book The Singularity is Near, he focuses on whole brain emulation using conventional computing machines as an approach to implementing artificial brains, and claims (on grounds of computer power continuing an exponential growth trend) that this could be done by 2025. Henry Markram, director of the Blue Brain project (which is attempting brain emulation), made a similar claim (2020) at the Oxford TED conference in 2009. == Approaches to brain simulation == W. Ross Ashby's pioneering work in cybernetics provided an early mathematical framework for understanding adaptive brain-like systems. In his 1952 book Design for a Brain, Ashby proposed that the brain could be modeled as an ultrastable system that maintains equilibrium through continuous adaptation to environmental perturbations. His approach used differential equations and state-space models to describe how neural systems could exhibit purposeful behavior through feedback mechanisms. Ashby's homeostat, a physical machine built in 1948, demonstrated these principles through an electromechanical device with four interconnected units that automatically adjusted their parameters to maintain stability when disturbed. The homeostat represented one of the first attempts to build an artificial system exhibiting brain-like adaptive behavior, influencing subsequent work in adaptive systems, neural networks, and artificial intelligence. Although direct human brain emulation using artificial neural networks on a high-performance computing engine is a commonly discussed approach, there are other approaches. An alternative artificial brain implementation could be based on Holographic Neural Technology (HNeT) non linear phase coherence/decoherence principles. The analogy has been made to quantum processes through the core synaptic algorithm which has strong similarities to the quantum mechanical wave equation. EvBrain is a form of evolutionary software that can evolve "brainlike" neural networks, such as the network immediately behind the retina. In November 2008, IBM received a US$4.9 million grant from the Pentagon for research into creating intelligent computers. The Blue Brain project is being conducted with the assistance of IBM in Lausanne. The project is based on the premise that it is possible to artificially link the neurons "in the computer" by placing thirty million synapses in their proper three-dimensional position. Some proponents of strong AI speculated in 2009 that computers in connection with Blue Brain and Soul Catcher may exceed human intellectual capacity by around 2015, and that it is likely that we will be able to download the human brain at some time around 2050. While Blue Brain is able to represent complex neural connections on the large scale, the project does not achieve the link between brain activity and behaviors executed by the brain. In 2012, project Spaun (Semantic Pointer Architecture Unified Network) attempted to model multiple parts of the human brain through large-scale representations of neural connections that generate complex behaviors in addition to mapping. Spaun's design recreates elements of human brain anatomy. The model, consisting of approximately 2.5 million neurons, includes features of the visual and motor cortices, GABAergic and dopaminergic connections, the ventral tegmental area (VTA), substantia nigra, and others. The design allows for several functions in response to eight tasks, using visual inputs of typed or handwritten characters and outputs carried out by a mechanical arm. Spaun's functions include copying a drawing, recognizing images, and counting. There are good reasons to believe that, regardless of implementation strategy, the predictions of realising artificial brains in the near future are optimistic. In particular brains (including the human brain) and cognition are not currently well understood, and the scale of computation required is unknown. Another near term limitation is that all current approaches for brain simulation require orders of magnitude larger power consumption compared with a human brain. The human brain consumes about 20 W of power, whereas current supercomputers may use as much as 1 MW—i.e., an order of 100,000 more. == Artificial brain thought experiment == Some critics of brain simulation believe that it is simpler to create general intelligent action directly without imitating nature. Some commentators have used the analogy that early attempts to construct flying machines modeled them after birds, but that modern aircraft do not look like birds.

    Read more →
  • Regular language

    Regular language

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

    Read more →
  • Iterative Viterbi decoding

    Iterative Viterbi decoding

    Iterative Viterbi decoding is an algorithm that spots the subsequence S of an observation O = {o1, ..., on} having the highest average probability (i.e., probability scaled by the length of S) of being generated by a given hidden Markov model M with m states. The algorithm uses a modified Viterbi algorithm as an internal step. The scaled probability measure was first proposed by John S. Bridle. An early algorithm to solve this problem, sliding window, was proposed by Jay G. Wilpon et al., 1989, with constant cost T = mn2/2. A faster algorithm consists of an iteration of calls to the Viterbi algorithm, reestimating a filler score until convergence. == The algorithm == A basic (non-optimized) version, finding the sequence s with the smallest normalized distance from some subsequence of t is: // input is placed in observation s[1..n], template t[1..m], // and [[distance matrix]] d[1..n,1..m] // remaining elements in matrices are solely for internal computations (int, int, int) AverageSubmatchDistance(char s[0..(n+1)], char t[0..(m+1)], int d[1..n,0..(m+1)]) { // score, subsequence start, subsequence end declare int e, B, E t'[0] := t'[m+1] := s'[0] := s'[n+1] := 'e' e := random() do e' := e for i := 1 to n do d'[i,0] := d'[i,m+1] := e (e, B, E) := ViterbiDistance(s', t', d') e := e/(E-B+1) until (e == e') return (e, B, E) } The ViterbiDistance() procedure returns the tuple (e, B, E), i.e., the Viterbi score "e" for the match of t and the selected entry (B) and exit (E) points from it. "B" and "E" have to be recorded using a simple modification to Viterbi. A modification that can be applied to CYK tables, proposed by Antoine Rozenknop, consists in subtracting e from all elements of the initial matrix d.

    Read more →