AI Generator Text Free

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

  • Sherwood Applied Business Security Architecture

    Sherwood Applied Business Security Architecture

    SABSA (Sherwood Applied Business Security Architecture) is a model and methodology for developing a risk-driven enterprise information security architecture and service management, to support critical business processes. It was developed independently from the Zachman Framework, but has a similar structure. The primary characteristic of the SABSA model is that everything must be derived from an analysis of the business requirements for security, especially those in which security has an enabling function through which new business opportunities can be developed and exploited. The process analyzes the business requirements at the outset, and creates a chain of traceability through the strategy and concept, design, implementation, and ongoing ‘manage and measure’ phases of the lifecycle to ensure that the business mandate is preserved. Framework tools created from practical experience further support the whole methodology. The model is layered, with the top layer being the business requirements definition stage. At each lower layer a new level of abstraction and detail is developed, going through the definition of the conceptual architecture, logical services architecture, physical infrastructure architecture and finally at the lowest layer, the selection of technologies and products (component architecture). The SABSA model itself is generic and can be the starting point for any organization, but by going through the process of analysis and decision-making implied by its structure, it becomes specific to the enterprise, and is finally highly customized to a unique business model. It becomes in reality the enterprise security architecture, and it is central to the success of a strategic program of information security management within the organization. SABSA is a particular example of a methodology that can be used both for IT (information technology) and OT (operational technology) environments. == SABSA matrix == Note: The above is the original SABSA Matrix, which is still valid today, but it has been expanded by a comprehensive service management matrix and updated in some detail and terminology areas. In the words of David Lynas, SABSA author, "The SABSA Matrix and the SABSA Service Management Matrix have not been updated since the late 90s. We have redesigned them to deliver the improvements your feedback has requested over the years. We have not fundamentally changed the structure or principles of the matrices (very few elements have changed position) but have focused on terminology update and consistency." The new versions can be downloaded (along with the 2009 revision of the SABSA White Paper and other important documents like the SABSA Certification Roadmap) at the SABSA Members' Web Site.

    Read more →
  • AI Paraphrasing Tools: Free vs Paid (2026)

    AI Paraphrasing Tools: Free vs Paid (2026)

    In search of the best AI paraphrasing tool? An AI paraphrasing tool 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 paraphrasing tool 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 →
  • Co-Büchi automaton

    Co-Büchi automaton

    In automata theory, a co-Büchi automaton is a variant of Büchi automaton. The only difference is the accepting condition: a Co-Büchi automaton accepts an infinite word w {\displaystyle w} if there exists a run, such that all the states occurring infinitely often in the run are in the final state set F {\displaystyle F} . In contrast, a Büchi automaton accepts a word w {\displaystyle w} if there exists a run, such that at least one state occurring infinitely often in the final state set F {\displaystyle F} . (Deterministic) Co-Büchi automata are strictly weaker than (nondeterministic) Büchi automata. == Formal definition == Formally, a deterministic co-Büchi automaton is a tuple A = ( Q , Σ , δ , q 0 , F ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}=(Q,\Sigma ,\delta ,q_{0},F)} that consists of the following components: Q {\displaystyle Q} is a finite set. The elements of Q {\displaystyle Q} are called the states of A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} . Σ {\displaystyle \Sigma } is a finite set called the alphabet of A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} . δ : Q × Σ → Q {\displaystyle \delta :Q\times \Sigma \rightarrow Q} is the transition function of A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} . q 0 {\displaystyle q_{0}} is an element of Q {\displaystyle Q} , called the initial state. F ⊆ Q {\displaystyle F\subseteq Q} is the final state set. A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} accepts exactly those words w {\displaystyle w} with the run ρ ( w ) {\displaystyle \rho (w)} , in which all of the infinitely often occurring states in ρ ( w ) {\displaystyle \rho (w)} are in F {\displaystyle F} . In a non-deterministic co-Büchi automaton, the transition function δ {\displaystyle \delta } is replaced with a transition relation Δ {\displaystyle \Delta } . The initial state q 0 {\displaystyle q_{0}} is replaced with an initial state set Q 0 {\displaystyle Q_{0}} . Generally, the term co-Büchi automaton refers to the non-deterministic co-Büchi automaton. For more comprehensive formalism see also ω-automaton. == Acceptance Condition == The acceptance condition of a co-Büchi automaton is formally ∃ i ∀ j : j ≥ i ρ ( w j ) ∈ F . {\displaystyle \exists i\forall j:\;j\geq i\quad \rho (w_{j})\in F.} The Büchi acceptance condition is the complement of the co-Büchi acceptance condition: ∀ i ∃ j : j ≥ i ρ ( w j ) ∈ F . {\displaystyle \forall i\exists j:\;j\geq i\quad \rho (w_{j})\in F.} == Properties == Co-Büchi automata are closed under union, intersection, projection and determinization.

    Read more →
  • The Best Free AI Marketing Tool for Beginners

    The Best Free AI Marketing Tool for Beginners

    Looking for the best AI marketing tool? An AI marketing tool is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it can save you hours every week by automating repetitive work. Most options offer a generous free tier, with paid plans unlocking higher limits, faster processing, and team features. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI marketing tool slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. Read on for hands-on impressions, pricing tiers, and the standout features that matter.

    Read more →
  • Flektor

    Flektor

    Flektor was a web application that allowed users the ability to create and "mashup" their own content (photos, videos, music, etc.) and share it via email, on social networking websites MySpace, Facebook, Blogger, Digg, eBay or on personal blogs. The company's website (Flektor.com) launched on April 2, 2007, and over 40,000 people began utilizing its features just one month later. Flektor closed down in January 2009. Flektor offered tools and widgets that included audio, video, photos, text, and approximately 100 effects, transitions and filters to be used with media. Users could create personalized slideshows, polls, postcards, and streaming video projects which the website calls "fleks". Flektor also offered Chat (used as a MySpace addon) and Movie Editor, which provided the ability to edit content and assets together. Users of Flektor could import media from websites like Photobucket and Google's YouTube, and then edit their content with the site's editing tools. Flektor's erstwhile competitors include Slide.com (founded by PayPal co-founder Max Levchin), RockYou!, Yahoo's JumpCut and Brightcove. == History == Flektor was created by Jason Rubin, Andy Gavin and former HBO executive Jason R. Kay. Both Rubin and Gavin spent most of their careers in the video game industry developing games for publishers like Electronic Arts, Universal Interactive Studios and Sony Computer Entertainment America. They founded a successful game development studio called Naughty Dog and were responsible for games such as Crash Bandicoot and Jak and Daxter. After selling Naughty Dog to Sony, Rubin focused on a comic book series called Iron and the Maiden before teaming up again with Gavin to venture into the web industry with Flektor. Jason Kay spent four years at Home Box Office, working as a consultant to the EVP of Business Development. They recruited former employee and then Naughty Dog Lead Programmer Scott Shumaker to lead the technology team along with Gavin. Ryan Evans joined shortly thereafter, spearheading product development. Flektor is based in Culver City, California. In May 2007, the company was sold to Fox Interactive Media, which is a division of News Corp., for more than $20 million. The deal coincided with Fox's acquisition of Photobucket, an image-hosting and sharing website. Fox Interactive Media already holds possession of MySpace, IGN Entertainment, FOXSports.com, AmericanIdol.com and Rotten Tomatoes. After the acquisition, Rubin, Gavin and Kay departed, leaving the studio in the hands of Shumaker and Evans. In the fall of 2007, Flektor partnered with its sister company, MySpace, and MTV to provide instant audience feedback via polls for the interactive MySpace/ MTV Presidential Dialogues series with presidential candidates Senator Barack Obama, Senator John McCain and John Edwards. Use of Flektor's polling system, enabled hosts John McLaughlin and Geoffrey Garin to cater their questions towards subjects of voter-interest. In the fall of 2008, Flektor built the official site for the 2008 Presidential debates, hosted at MyDebates. In January 2009, due to a company directive to focus on the core MySpace property, Fox Interactive announced that Flektor would be shut down, with some of its technology being incorporated into MySpace.

    Read more →
  • AI Presentation Makers: Free vs Paid (2026)

    AI Presentation Makers: Free vs Paid (2026)

    Curious about the best AI presentation maker? An AI presentation maker 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 presentation maker 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 →
  • PROMT

    PROMT

    ProMT is a lead Russian developer of language translation software for businesses and private users since 1991. The company provides on-premises software based on neural technologies. == History == On March 6, 1998, ProMT launched a free online translation services, which is now known as PROMT.One. In 1997, ProMT and the French company Softissimo developed a line of products for the European company Reverso. == Technology == Historically, ProMT systems used rule-based machine translation (RBMT) technology. In 2011 a hybrid approach which combined rule-based and statistical MT was implemented. In 2019, ProMT introduced its new neural technology and flagship solution - PROMT Neural Translation Server. Since then all MT systems developed by ProMT are based on neural machine translation. The software can run on Microsoft Windows, Linux, MacOS, iOS and Android and works in offline mode providing secure machine translation. As of 2025, it translates 62 languages from and to English, German, and Russian.

    Read more →
  • Cognitive computer

    Cognitive computer

    A cognitive computer is a computer that hardwires artificial intelligence and machine learning algorithms into an integrated circuit that closely reproduces the behavior of the human brain. It generally adopts a neuromorphic engineering approach. Synonyms include neuromorphic chip and cognitive chip. In 2023, IBM's proof-of-concept NorthPole chip (optimized for 2-, 4- and 8-bit precision) achieved remarkable performance in image recognition. In 2013, IBM developed Watson, a cognitive computer that uses neural networks and deep learning techniques. The following year, it developed the 2014 TrueNorth microchip architecture which is designed to be closer in structure to the human brain than the von Neumann architecture used in conventional computers. In 2017, Intel also announced its version of a cognitive chip in "Loihi, which it intended to be available to university and research labs in 2018. Intel (most notably with its Pohoiki Beach and Springs systems), Qualcomm, and others are improving neuromorphic processors steadily. == IBM TrueNorth chip == TrueNorth was a neuromorphic CMOS integrated circuit produced by IBM in 2014. It is a manycore processor network on a chip design, with 4096 cores, each one having 256 programmable simulated neurons for a total of just over a million neurons. In turn, each neuron has 256 programmable "synapses" that convey the signals between them. Hence, the total number of programmable synapses is just over 268 million (228). Its basic transistor count is 5.4 billion. In 2023 Zhejiang University and Alibaba developed Darwin a neuromorphic chip The darwin3 chip was designed around 2023 so it is fairly modern compared to IBM's TrueNorth or Intel's LoihI. === Details === Memory, computation, and communication are handled in each of the 4096 neurosynaptic cores, TrueNorth circumvents the von Neumann-architecture bottleneck and is very energy-efficient, with IBM claiming a power consumption of 70 milliwatts and a power density that is 1/10,000th of conventional microprocessors. The SyNAPSE chip operates at lower temperatures and power because it only draws power necessary for computation. Skyrmions have been proposed as models of the synapse on a chip. The neurons are emulated using a Linear-Leak Integrate-and-Fire (LLIF) model, a simplification of the leaky integrate-and-fire model. According to IBM, it does not have a clock, operates on unary numbers, and computes by counting to a maximum of 19 bits. The cores are event-driven by using both synchronous and asynchronous logic, and are interconnected through an asynchronous packet-switched mesh network on chip (NOC). IBM developed a new network to program and use TrueNorth. It included a simulator, a new programming language, an integrated programming environment, and libraries. This lack of backward compatibility with any previous technology (e.g., C++ compilers) poses serious vendor lock-in risks and other adverse consequences that may prevent it from commercialization in the future. === Research === In 2018, a cluster of TrueNorth network-linked to a master computer was used in stereo vision research that attempted to extract the depth of rapidly moving objects in a scene. == IBM NorthPole chip == In 2023, IBM released its NorthPole chip, which is a proof-of-concept for dramatically improving performance by intertwining compute with memory on-chip, thus eliminating the Von Neumann bottleneck. It blends approaches from IBM's 2014 TrueNorth system with modern hardware designs to achieve speeds about 4,000 times faster than TrueNorth. It can run ResNet-50 or Yolo-v4 image recognition tasks about 22 times faster, with 25 times less energy and 5 times less space, when compared to GPUs which use the same 12-nm node process that it was fabricated with. It includes 224 MB of RAM and 256 processor cores and can perform 2,048 operations per core per cycle at 8-bit precision, and 8,192 operations at 2-bit precision. It runs at between 25 and 425 MHz. This is an inferencing chip, but it cannot yet handle GPT-4 because of memory and accuracy limitations == Intel Loihi chip == === Pohoiki Springs === Pohoiki Springs is a system that incorporates Intel's self-learning neuromorphic chip, named Loihi, introduced in 2017, perhaps named after the Hawaiian seamount Lōʻihi. Intel claims Loihi is about 1000 times more energy efficient than general-purpose computing systems used to train neural networks. In theory, Loihi supports both machine learning training and inference on the same silicon independently of a cloud connection, and more efficiently than convolutional neural networks or deep learning neural networks. Intel points to a system for monitoring a person's heartbeat, taking readings after events such as exercise or eating, and using the chip to normalize the data and work out the ‘normal’ heartbeat. It can then spot abnormalities and deal with new events or conditions. The first iteration of the chip was made using Intel's 14 nm fabrication process and houses 128 clusters of 1,024 artificial neurons each for a total of 131,072 simulated neurons. This offers around 130 million synapses, far less than the human brain's 800 trillion synapses, and behind IBM's TrueNorth. Loihi is available for research purposes among more than 40 academic research groups as a USB form factor. In October 2019, researchers from Rutgers University published a research paper to demonstrate the energy efficiency of Intel's Loihi in solving simultaneous localization and mapping. In March 2020, Intel and Cornell University published a research paper to demonstrate the ability of Intel's Loihi to recognize different hazardous materials, which could eventually aid to "diagnose diseases, detect weapons and explosives, find narcotics, and spot signs of smoke and carbon monoxide". === Pohoiki Beach === Intel's Loihi 2, named Pohoiki Beach, was released in September 2021 with 64 cores. It boasts faster speeds, higher-bandwidth inter-chip communications for enhanced scalability, increased capacity per chip, a more compact size due to process scaling, and improved programmability. === Hala Point === Hala Point packages 1,152 Loihi 2 processors produced on Intel 3 process node in a six-rack-unit chassis. The system supports up to 1.15 billion neurons and 128 billion synapses distributed over 140,544 neuromorphic processing cores, consuming 2,600 watts of power. It includes over 2,300 embedded x86 processors for ancillary computations. Intel claimed in 2024 that Hala Point was the world’s largest neuromorphic system. It uses Loihi 2 chips. It is claimed to offer 10x more neuron capacity and up to 12x higher performance. The Darwin3 chip exceeds these specs. Hala Point provides up to 20 quadrillion operations per second, (20 petaops), with efficiency exceeding 15 trillion (8-bit) operations s−1 W−1 on conventional deep neural networks. Hala Point integrates processing, memory and communication channels in a massively parallelized fabric, providing 16 PB s−1 of memory bandwidth, 3.5 PB s−1 of inter-core communication bandwidth, and 5 TB s−1 of inter-chip bandwidth. The system can process its 1.15 billion neurons 20 times faster than a human brain. Its neuron capacity is roughly equivalent to that of an owl brain or the cortex of a capuchin monkey. Loihi-based systems can perform inference and optimization using 100 times less energy at speeds as much as 50 times faster than CPU/GPU architectures. Intel claims that Hala Point can create LLMs. Much further research is needed == SpiNNaker == SpiNNaker (Spiking Neural Network Architecture) is a massively parallel, manycore supercomputer architecture designed by the Advanced Processor Technologies Research Group at the Department of Computer Science, University of Manchester. == Criticism == Critics argue that a room-sized computer – as in the case of IBM's Watson – is not a viable alternative to a three-pound human brain. Some also cite the difficulty for a single system to bring so many elements together, such as the disparate sources of information as well as computing resources. In 2021, The New York Times released Steve Lohr's article "What Ever Happened to IBM’s Watson?". He wrote about some costly failures of IBM Watson. One of them, a cancer-related project called the Oncology Expert Advisor, was abandoned in 2016 as a costly failure. During the collaboration, Watson could not use patient data. Watson struggled to decipher doctors’ notes and patient histories. The development of LLMs has placed a new emphasis on cognitive computers, because the Transformer technology that underpins LLMs demands huge energy for GPUs and PCs. Cognitive computers use significantly less energy, but the details of STDPs and neuron models cannot yet match the accuracy of backprop, and so ANN to SNN weight translations such as QAT and PQT or progressive quantization are becoming popular, with their own limitations.

    Read more →
  • Distributed concurrency control

    Distributed concurrency control

    Distributed concurrency control is the concurrency control of a system distributed over a computer network (Bernstein et al. 1987, Weikum and Vossen 2001). In database systems and transaction processing (transaction management) distributed concurrency control refers primarily to the concurrency control of a distributed database. It also refers to the concurrency control in a multidatabase (and other multi-transactional object) environment (e.g., federated database, grid computing, and cloud computing environments. A major goal for distributed concurrency control is distributed serializability (or global serializability for multidatabase systems). Distributed concurrency control poses special challenges beyond centralized one, primarily due to communication and computer latency. It often requires special techniques, like distributed lock manager over fast computer networks with low latency, like switched fabric (e.g., InfiniBand). The most common distributed concurrency control technique is strong strict two-phase locking (SS2PL, also named rigorousness), which is also a common centralized concurrency control technique. SS2PL provides both the serializability and strictness. Strictness, a special case of recoverability, is utilized for effective recovery from failure. For large-scale distribution and complex transactions, distributed locking's typical heavy performance penalty (due to delays, latency) can be saved by using the atomic commitment protocol, which is needed in a distributed database for (distributed) transactions' atomicity.

    Read more →
  • Hidden Markov model

    Hidden Markov model

    A hidden Markov model (HMM) is a Markov model in which the observations are dependent on a latent (or hidden) Markov process (referred to as X {\displaystyle X} ). An HMM requires that there be an observable process Y {\displaystyle Y} whose outcomes depend on the outcomes of X {\displaystyle X} in a known way. Since X {\displaystyle X} cannot be observed directly, the goal is to learn about state of X {\displaystyle X} by observing Y {\displaystyle Y} . By definition of being a Markov model, an HMM has an additional requirement that the outcome of Y {\displaystyle Y} at time t = t 0 {\displaystyle t=t_{0}} must be "influenced" exclusively by the outcome of X {\displaystyle X} at t = t 0 {\displaystyle t=t_{0}} and that the outcomes of X {\displaystyle X} and Y {\displaystyle Y} at t < t 0 {\displaystyle t

  • Baum–Welch algorithm

    Baum–Welch algorithm

    In electrical engineering, statistical computing and bioinformatics, the Baum–Welch algorithm is a special case of the expectation–maximization algorithm used to find the unknown parameters of a hidden Markov model (HMM). It makes use of the forward-backward algorithm to compute the statistics for the expectation step. The Baum–Welch algorithm, the primary method for inference in hidden Markov models, is numerically unstable due to its recursive calculation of joint probabilities. As the number of variables grows, these joint probabilities become increasingly small, leading to the forward recursions rapidly approaching values below machine precision. == History == The Baum–Welch algorithm was named after its inventors Leonard E. Baum and Lloyd R. Welch. The algorithm and the Hidden Markov models were first described in a series of articles by Baum and his peers at the IDA Center for Communications Research, Princeton in the late 1960s and early 1970s. One of the first major applications of HMMs was to the field of speech processing. In the 1980s, HMMs were emerging as a useful tool in the analysis of biological systems and information, and in particular genetic information. They have since become an important tool in the probabilistic modeling of genomic sequences. == Description == A hidden Markov model describes the joint probability of a collection of "hidden" and observed discrete random variables. It relies on the assumption that the i-th hidden variable given the (i − 1)-th hidden variable is independent of previous hidden variables, and the current observation variables depend only on the current hidden state. The Baum–Welch algorithm uses the well known EM algorithm to find the maximum likelihood estimate of the parameters of a hidden Markov model given a set of observed feature vectors. Let X t {\displaystyle X_{t}} be a discrete hidden random variable with N {\displaystyle N} possible values (i.e. We assume there are N {\displaystyle N} states in total). We assume the P ( X t ∣ X t − 1 ) {\displaystyle P(X_{t}\mid X_{t-1})} is independent of time t {\displaystyle t} , which leads to the definition of the time-independent stochastic transition matrix A = { a i j } = P ( X t = j ∣ X t − 1 = i ) . {\displaystyle A=\{a_{ij}\}=P(X_{t}=j\mid X_{t-1}=i).} The initial state distribution (i.e. when t = 1 {\displaystyle t=1} ) is given by π i = P ( X 1 = i ) . {\displaystyle \pi _{i}=P(X_{1}=i).} The observation variables Y t {\displaystyle Y_{t}} can take one of K {\displaystyle K} possible values. We also assume the observation given the "hidden" state is time independent. The probability of a certain observation y i {\displaystyle y_{i}} at time t {\displaystyle t} for state X t = j {\displaystyle X_{t}=j} is given by b j ( y i ) = P ( Y t = y i ∣ X t = j ) . {\displaystyle b_{j}(y_{i})=P(Y_{t}=y_{i}\mid X_{t}=j).} Taking into account all the possible values of Y t {\displaystyle Y_{t}} and X t {\displaystyle X_{t}} , we obtain the N × K {\displaystyle N\times K} matrix B = { b j ( y i ) } {\displaystyle B=\{b_{j}(y_{i})\}} where b j {\displaystyle b_{j}} belongs to all the possible states and y i {\displaystyle y_{i}} belongs to all the observations. An observation sequence is given by Y = ( Y 1 = y 1 , Y 2 = y 2 , … , Y T = y T ) {\displaystyle Y=(Y_{1}=y_{1},Y_{2}=y_{2},\ldots ,Y_{T}=y_{T})} . Thus we can describe a hidden Markov chain by θ = ( A , B , π ) {\displaystyle \theta =(A,B,\pi )} . The Baum–Welch algorithm finds a local maximum for θ ∗ = a r g m a x θ ⁡ P ( Y ∣ θ ) {\displaystyle \theta ^{}=\operatorname {arg\,max} _{\theta }P(Y\mid \theta )} (i.e. the HMM parameters θ {\displaystyle \theta } that maximize the probability of the observation). === Algorithm === Set θ = ( A , B , π ) {\displaystyle \theta =(A,B,\pi )} with random initial conditions. They can also be set using prior information about the parameters if it is available; this can speed up the algorithm and also steer it toward the desired local maximum. ==== Forward procedure ==== Let α i ( t ) = P ( Y 1 = y 1 , … , Y t = y t , X t = i ∣ θ ) {\displaystyle \alpha _{i}(t)=P(Y_{1}=y_{1},\ldots ,Y_{t}=y_{t},X_{t}=i\mid \theta )} , the probability of seeing the observations y 1 , y 2 , … , y t {\displaystyle y_{1},y_{2},\ldots ,y_{t}} and being in state i {\displaystyle i} at time t {\displaystyle t} . This is found recursively: α i ( 1 ) = π i b i ( y 1 ) , {\displaystyle \alpha _{i}(1)=\pi _{i}b_{i}(y_{1}),} α i ( t + 1 ) = b i ( y t + 1 ) ∑ j = 1 N α j ( t ) a j i . {\displaystyle \alpha _{i}(t+1)=b_{i}(y_{t+1})\sum _{j=1}^{N}\alpha _{j}(t)a_{ji}.} Since this series converges exponentially to zero, the algorithm will numerically underflow for longer sequences. However, this can be avoided in a slightly modified algorithm by scaling α {\displaystyle \alpha } in the forward and β {\displaystyle \beta } in the backward procedure below. ==== Backward procedure ==== Let β i ( t ) = P ( Y t + 1 = y t + 1 , … , Y T = y T ∣ X t = i , θ ) {\displaystyle \beta _{i}(t)=P(Y_{t+1}=y_{t+1},\ldots ,Y_{T}=y_{T}\mid X_{t}=i,\theta )} that is the probability of the ending partial sequence y t + 1 , … , y T {\displaystyle y_{t+1},\ldots ,y_{T}} given starting state i {\displaystyle i} at time t {\displaystyle t} . We calculate β i ( t ) {\displaystyle \beta _{i}(t)} as, β i ( T ) = 1 , {\displaystyle \beta _{i}(T)=1,} β i ( t ) = ∑ j = 1 N β j ( t + 1 ) a i j b j ( y t + 1 ) . {\displaystyle \beta _{i}(t)=\sum _{j=1}^{N}\beta _{j}(t+1)a_{ij}b_{j}(y_{t+1}).} ==== Update ==== We can now calculate the temporary variables, according to Bayes' theorem: γ i ( t ) = P ( X t = i ∣ Y , θ ) = P ( X t = i , Y ∣ θ ) P ( Y ∣ θ ) = α i ( t ) β i ( t ) ∑ j = 1 N α j ( t ) β j ( t ) , {\displaystyle \gamma _{i}(t)=P(X_{t}=i\mid Y,\theta )={\frac {P(X_{t}=i,Y\mid \theta )}{P(Y\mid \theta )}}={\frac {\alpha _{i}(t)\beta _{i}(t)}{\sum _{j=1}^{N}\alpha _{j}(t)\beta _{j}(t)}},} which is the probability of being in state i {\displaystyle i} at time t {\displaystyle t} given the observed sequence Y {\displaystyle Y} and the parameters θ {\displaystyle \theta } ξ i j ( t ) = P ( X t = i , X t + 1 = j ∣ Y , θ ) = P ( X t = i , X t + 1 = j , Y ∣ θ ) P ( Y ∣ θ ) = α i ( t ) a i j β j ( t + 1 ) b j ( y t + 1 ) ∑ k = 1 N ∑ w = 1 N α k ( t ) a k w β w ( t + 1 ) b w ( y t + 1 ) , {\displaystyle \xi _{ij}(t)=P(X_{t}=i,X_{t+1}=j\mid Y,\theta )={\frac {P(X_{t}=i,X_{t+1}=j,Y\mid \theta )}{P(Y\mid \theta )}}={\frac {\alpha _{i}(t)a_{ij}\beta _{j}(t+1)b_{j}(y_{t+1})}{\sum _{k=1}^{N}\sum _{w=1}^{N}\alpha _{k}(t)a_{kw}\beta _{w}(t+1)b_{w}(y_{t+1})}},} which is the probability of being in state i {\displaystyle i} and j {\displaystyle j} at times t {\displaystyle t} and t + 1 {\displaystyle t+1} respectively given the observed sequence Y {\displaystyle Y} and parameters θ {\displaystyle \theta } . The denominators of γ i ( t ) {\displaystyle \gamma _{i}(t)} and ξ i j ( t ) {\displaystyle \xi _{ij}(t)} are the same ; they represent the probability of making the observation Y {\displaystyle Y} given the parameters θ {\displaystyle \theta } . The parameters of the hidden Markov model θ {\displaystyle \theta } can now be updated: π i ∗ = γ i ( 1 ) , {\displaystyle \pi _{i}^{}=\gamma _{i}(1),} which is the expected frequency spent in state i {\displaystyle i} at time 1 {\displaystyle 1} . a i j ∗ = ∑ t = 1 T − 1 ξ i j ( t ) ∑ t = 1 T − 1 γ i ( t ) , {\displaystyle a_{ij}^{}={\frac {\sum _{t=1}^{T-1}\xi _{ij}(t)}{\sum _{t=1}^{T-1}\gamma _{i}(t)}},} which is the expected number of transitions from state i to state j compared to the expected total number of transitions starting in state i, including from state i to itself. The number of transitions starting in state i is equivalent to the number of times state i is observed in the sequence from t = 1 to t = T − 1. b i ∗ ( v k ) = ∑ t = 1 T 1 y t = v k γ i ( t ) ∑ t = 1 T γ i ( t ) , {\displaystyle b_{i}^{}(v_{k})={\frac {\sum _{t=1}^{T}1_{y_{t}=v_{k}}\gamma _{i}(t)}{\sum _{t=1}^{T}\gamma _{i}(t)}},} where 1 y t = v k = { 1 if y t = v k , 0 otherwise {\displaystyle 1_{y_{t}=v_{k}}={\begin{cases}1&{\text{if }}y_{t}=v_{k},\\0&{\text{otherwise}}\end{cases}}} is an indicator function, and b i ∗ ( v k ) {\displaystyle b_{i}^{}(v_{k})} is the expected number of times the output observations have been equal to v k {\displaystyle v_{k}} while in state i {\displaystyle i} over the expected total number of times in state i {\displaystyle i} . These steps are now repeated iteratively until a desired level of convergence. Note: It is possible to over-fit a particular data set. That is, P ( Y ∣ θ final ) > P ( Y ∣ θ true ) {\displaystyle P(Y\mid \theta _{\text{final}})>P(Y\mid \theta _{\text{true}})} . The algorithm also does not guarantee a global maximum. ==== Multiple sequences ==== The algorithm described thus far assumes a single observed sequence Y = y 1 , … , y T {\displaystyle Y=y_{1},\ldots ,y_{T}} . However, in many situations, there are several sequences observed: Y 1 ,

    Read more →
  • David Blei

    David Blei

    David Meir Blei is a professor in the Statistics and Computer Science departments at Columbia University. Prior to fall 2014 he was an associate professor in the Department of Computer Science at Princeton University. His work is primarily in machine learning. == Research == His research interests include topic models and he was one of the original developers of latent Dirichlet allocation, along with Andrew Ng and Michael I. Jordan. As of June 18, 2020, his publications have been cited 109,821 times, giving him an h-index of 116. == Honors and awards == Blei received the ACM Infosys Foundation Award in 2013. (This award is given to a computer scientist under the age of 45. It has since been renamed the ACM Prize in Computing.) He was named Fellow of ACM "For contributions to the theory and practice of probabilistic topic modeling and Bayesian machine learning" in 2015.

    Read more →
  • Right to explanation

    Right to explanation

    In the regulation of algorithms, particularly artificial intelligence and its subfield of machine learning, a right to [an] explanation is a right to be given an explanation for an output of the algorithm. Such rights primarily refer to individual rights to be given an explanation for decisions that significantly affect an individual, particularly legally or financially. For example, a person who applies for a loan and is denied may ask for an explanation, which could be "Credit bureau X reports that you declared bankruptcy last year; this is the main factor in considering you too likely to default, and thus we will not give you the loan you applied for." Some such legal rights already exist, while the scope of a general "right to explanation" is a matter of ongoing debate. There have been arguments made that a "social right to explanation" is a crucial foundation for an information society, particularly as the institutions of that society will need to use digital technologies, artificial intelligence, machine learning. In other words, that the related automated decision making systems that use explainability would be more trustworthy and transparent. Without this right, which could be constituted both legally and through professional standards, the public will be left without much recourse to challenge the decisions of automated systems. == Examples == === Credit scoring in the United States === Under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (Regulation B of the Code of Federal Regulations), Title 12, Chapter X, Part 1002, §1002.9, creditors are required to notify applicants who are denied credit with specific reasons for the detail. As detailed in §1002.9(b)(2): (2) Statement of specific reasons. The statement of reasons for adverse action required by paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section must be specific and indicate the principal reason(s) for the adverse action. Statements that the adverse action was based on the creditor's internal standards or policies or that the applicant, joint applicant, or similar party failed to achieve a qualifying score on the creditor's credit scoring system are insufficient. The official interpretation of this section details what types of statements are acceptable. Creditors comply with this regulation by providing a list of reasons (generally at most 4, per interpretation of regulations), consisting of a numeric reason code (as identifier) and an associated explanation, identifying the main factors affecting a credit score. An example might be: 32: Balances on bankcard or revolving accounts too high compared to credit limits === European Union === The European Union General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR, enacted 2016, taking effect 2018) extends the automated decision-making rights in the 1995 Data Protection Directive to provide a legally disputed form of a right to an explanation, stated as such in Recital 71: "[the data subject should have] the right ... to obtain an explanation of the decision reached". In full: The data subject should have the right not to be subject to a decision, which may include a measure, evaluating personal aspects relating to him or her which is based solely on automated processing and which produces legal effects concerning him or her or similarly significantly affects him or her, such as automatic refusal of an online credit application or e-recruiting practices without any human intervention. ... In any case, such processing should be subject to suitable safeguards, which should include specific information to the data subject and the right to obtain human intervention, to express his or her point of view, to obtain an explanation of the decision reached after such assessment and to challenge the decision. However, the extent to which the regulations themselves provide a "right to explanation" is heavily debated. There are two main strands of criticism. There are significant legal issues with the right as found in Article 22 — as recitals are not binding, and the right to an explanation is not mentioned in the binding articles of the text, having been removed during the legislative process. In addition, there are significant restrictions on the types of automated decisions that are covered — which must be both "solely" based on automated processing, and have legal or similarly significant effects — which significantly limits the range of automated systems and decisions to which the right would apply. In particular, the right is unlikely to apply in many of the cases of algorithmic controversy that have been picked up in the media. The UK has also recently amended its implementation of Article 22. A second potential source of such a right has been pointed to in Article 15, the "right of access by the data subject". This restates a similar provision from the 1995 Data Protection Directive, allowing the data subject access to "meaningful information about the logic involved" in the same significant, solely automated decision-making, found in Article 22. Yet this too suffers from alleged challenges that relate to the timing of when this right can be drawn upon, as well as practical challenges that mean it may not be binding in many cases of public concern. Other EU legislative instruments contain explanation rights. The European Union's Artificial Intelligence Act provides in Article 86 a "[r]ight to explanation of individual decision-making" of certain high risk systems which produce significant, adverse effects to an individual's health, safety or fundamental rights. The right provides for "clear and meaningful explanations of the role of the AI system in the decision-making procedure and the main elements of the decision taken", although only applies to the extent other law does not provide such a right. The Digital Services Act in Article 27, and the Platform to Business Regulation in Article 5, both contain rights to have the main parameters of certain recommender systems to be made clear, although these provisions have been criticised as not matching the way that such systems work. The Platform Work Directive, which provides for regulation of automation in gig economy work as an extension of data protection law, further contains explanation provisions in Article 11, using the specific language of "explanation" in a binding article rather than a recital as is the case in the GDPR. Scholars note that remains uncertainty as to whether these provisions imply sufficiently tailored explanation in practice which will need to be resolved by courts. === France === In France the 2016 Loi pour une République numérique (Digital Republic Act or loi numérique) amends the country's administrative code to introduce a new provision for the explanation of decisions made by public sector bodies about individuals. It notes that where there is "a decision taken on the basis of an algorithmic treatment", the rules that define that treatment and its "principal characteristics" must be communicated to the citizen upon request, where there is not an exclusion (e.g. for national security or defence). These should include the following: the degree and the mode of contribution of the algorithmic processing to the decision- making; the data processed and its source; the treatment parameters, and where appropriate, their weighting, applied to the situation of the person concerned; the operations carried out by the treatment. Scholars have noted that this right, while limited to administrative decisions, goes beyond the GDPR right to explicitly apply to decision support rather than decisions "solely" based on automated processing, as well as provides a framework for explaining specific decisions. Indeed, the GDPR automated decision-making rights in the European Union, one of the places a "right to an explanation" has been sought within, find their origins in French law in the late 1970s. == Criticism == Some argue that a "right to explanation" is at best unnecessary, at worst harmful, and threatens to stifle innovation. Specific criticisms include: favoring human decisions over machine decisions, being redundant with existing laws, and focusing on process over outcome. Authors of study "Slave to the Algorithm? Why a 'Right to an Explanation' Is Probably Not the Remedy You Are Looking For" Lilian Edwards and Michael Veale argue that a right to explanation is not the solution to harms caused to stakeholders by algorithmic decisions. They also state that the right of explanation in the GDPR is narrowly defined, and is not compatible with how modern machine learning technologies are being developed. With these limitations, defining transparency within the context of algorithmic accountability remains a problem. For example, providing the source code of algorithms may not be sufficient and may create other problems in terms of privacy disclosures and the gaming of technical systems. To mitigate this issue, Edwards and Veale argue that an auditing system could be more effective, to allow auditors to loo

    Read more →
  • Dan Roth

    Dan Roth

    Dan Roth (Hebrew: דן רוט) is the Eduardo D. Glandt Distinguished Professor of Computer and Information Science at the University of Pennsylvania and the Chief AI Scientist at Oracle. Until June 2024 Roth was a VP and distinguished scientist at AWS AI. In his role at AWS, Roth led over the last three years the scientific effort behind the first-generation Generative AI products from AWS, including Titan Models, Amazon Q efforts, and Bedrock, from inception until they became generally available. Roth got his B.A. summa cum laude in mathematics from the Technion, Israel, and his Ph.D. in computer science from Harvard University in 1995. He taught at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign from 1998 to 2017 before moving to the University of Pennsylvania. == Professional career == Roth is a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), and the Association of Computational Linguistics (ACL). Roth’s research focuses on the computational foundations of intelligent behavior. He develops theories and systems pertaining to intelligent behavior using a unified methodology, at the heart of which is the idea that learning has a central role in intelligence. His work centers around the study of machine learning and inference methods to facilitate natural language understanding. In doing that he has pursued several interrelated lines of work that span multiple aspects of this problem - from fundamental questions in learning and inference and how they interact, to the study of a range of natural language processing (NLP) problems and developing advanced machine learning based tools for natural language applications. Roth has made seminal contribution to the fusion of Learning and Reasoning, Machine Learning with weak, incidental supervision, and to machine learning and inference approaches to natural language understanding. He has written the first paper on zero-shot learning in natural language processing, a 2008 paper by Chang, Ratinov, Roth, and Srikumar that was published at AAAI’08, but the name given to the learning paradigm there was dataless classification. Roth has worked on probabilistic reasoning (including its complexity and probabilistic lifted inference ), Constrained Conditional Models (ILP formulations of NLP problems) and constraints-driven learning, part-based (constellation) methods in object recognition, response based Learning, He has developed NLP and Information extraction tools that are being used broadly by researchers and commercially, including NER, coreference resolution, wikification, SRL, and ESL text correction. Roth is a co-founder of NexLP, Inc., a startup that applies natural language processing and machine learning in the legal and compliance domains. In 2020, NexLP was acquired by Reveal, Inc., an e-discovery software company. He is currently on the scientific advisory board of the Allen Institute for AI.

    Read more →
  • Co-occurrence

    Co-occurrence

    In linguistics, co-occurrence or cooccurrence (in older texts often shown with diacritic as coöccurrence) is an above-chance frequency of ordered occurrence of two adjacent terms in a text corpus. Co-occurrence in this linguistic sense can be interpreted as an indicator of semantic proximity or an idiomatic expression. Corpus linguistics and its statistical analyses can reveal (regularity of) patterns of co-occurrences within a language and enable the working out of typical collocations for its lexical items. A co-occurrence restriction is identified when linguistic elements never occur together. Analysis of these restrictions can lead to discoveries about the structure and development of a language. Co-occurrence can be seen an extension of word counting in higher dimensions. Co-occurrence can be quantitatively described using measures like a massive correlation or mutual information. Co-occurrence information and knowledge of co-occurring words may be relevant in analysis of language for the purposes of large language models, part of the emerging field of artificial intelligence, and helpful in word games such as scrabble.

    Read more →