AI Image Generators

Explore the best AI Image Generators — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step how-to guides, curated by Aizhi.

• 

  Cryptee

  Cryptee is a privacy focused client-side encrypted and cross-platform productivity suite and data storage service. == History == Cryptee was founded in 2017, by John Ozbay, a cybersecurity researcher, commenter, and activist, to exclusively focus on providing a secure document editing service similar to Google Docs and Photos for everyone, with a particular focus on victims and survivors of domestic abuse, journalists and reporters. == Software == Users can write personal documents, notes, journals, store images, videos, and various kinds of other files. The source code of Cryptee is open source and publicly available to allow anyone to audit the service with ease, and help identify errors or potential vulnerabilities in a public and transparent manner. Cryptee has a few key features that differentiate it from other services in the industry, such as its Ghost Folders and Ghost Albums features, built specifically with victims and survivors of domestic abuse, journalists and reporters in mind. Cryptee allows users to hide (ghost) folders for plausible deniability also as known as deniable encryption in the field of cryptography and steganography, and ensure privacy even under coercion. === Features === Cryptee Docs' features include: To-do lists, Markdown support, KaTeX math and file attachments. cross-platform accessible, as it is a progressive web app. Bulk transfer from other note taking apps such as Evernote. Encrypted PDF and print-accurate (A4 and U.S. Letter paper-sized) text editing. Ability to edit docx files Cryptee Photos' features include: Ability to create slideshows. Ability to store original quality of photos. Ability to tag photos for organization. === Commercial strategy === The company's commercial strategy is focused on offering to its users an open source and transparent Photo Storage, Document Editor and Cloud Storage services without trackers or advertisements as it seeks to compete with Google Docs, Google Photos and similar services through its offerings. === Privacy === Cryptee utilizes zero-access storage to safe-keep all users' sensitive digital belongings. == Advocacy == === Lockdown mode === In July 2022, to fortify iPhones against the Pegasus Spyware, Apple announced a new, upcoming Lockdown Mode feature in iOS 16, welcomed by many experts. In the following weeks after Apple's announcement, in August 2022, the Founder and CEO of Cryptee, and privacy activist John Ozbay published their research detailing shortcoming of Apple's Lockdown Mode. They demonstrated that enabling Lockdown Mode makes it possible for all websites and online ads to be able to detect if users have Lockdown Mode enabled or not. This was due to the fact that disabling web fonts (an attack surface) was detectable by websites. === Confrontations against Apple === ==== On PWAs ==== In February 2024, Apple announced plans to kill progressive web apps on iOS devices in the EU, claiming it was to comply with the Digital Markets Act (DMA). The announcement was criticized as anti-competitive by many in the tech industry, including by Tim Sweeney, the CEO of Epic Games. In response, Cryptee started working together with Open Web Advocacy (OWA), an international not-for-profit digital rights group to advocate for the future of the open web, promote web browser choice on mobile operating systems through challenging Apple's anti-competitive third party browser engine ban, and to champion the use and equality of progressive web apps over native apps, by reaching out to the European Union's Digital Markets Act (DMA) team. To better understand the consequences of Apple's decision to kill web apps, the EU announced that they "seek to investigate Apple over cutting off web apps", and that they sent "requests for information to Apple and to app developers, who can provide useful information for our assessment". Apart from sending a response to the EU, Cryptee, along with the OWA, launched an open letter to Tim Cook, which in 48 hours, got thousands of signatories including European Parliament Members Karen Melchior and Patrick Breyer; and thousands of other developers and organizations from over 100 countries. Consequently, 24 hours later, Apple backed off, and reversed course on its plan to cut off progressive web apps in the EU. ==== Ozbay's representations ==== Following the events, eventually on March 18, 2024, Founder and CEO of Cryptee John Ozbay represented the Open Web Advocacy group in European Union's Digital Markets Act (DMA) hearing for Apple. At the hearing, OWA confronted Apple, accused Apple of "maliciously intending to undermine user choice", and stated that there was no defense for Apple's behavior. In response, according to the tech news outlet Ars Technica, Apple's spokesperson "seemed to dodge Ozbay's question". ==== Cooperation with the EU ==== Within a week of the hearing, the European Union announced a DMA non-compliance investigation against Apple and United States' Department of Justice filed an antitrust lawsuit against Apple. A few months later, on June 27, 2024, Cryptee, in cooperation with EDRi — an international advocacy group, along with Article 19 — a British international human rights organization, Privacy International, F-Droid, Free Software Foundation Europe, Guardian Project and others have submitted a comprehensive analysis to the European Commission about how Apple's plans to comply with the Digital Markets Act are insufficient. == Reviews == In a 2018 article, Wall Street Journal's MarketWatch reviewed Cryptee, articulating the fact that Cryptee offers zero-access storage for photos, files, documents and notes, and pointed out that: "Being based in Estonia puts Cryptee outside the “14 eyes jurisdiction,” an international surveillance alliance of European Union and North American countries, making it less likely it will be targeted with demands for data". In addition, the review highlighted Cryptee's Ghost Folders feature which ensures privacy even under coercion. In a 2019 article, Reclaim The Net named Cryptee as one of the "5 great privacy-focused Evernote alternatives to keep your notes safe", underlining that: "When it comes to security, this app is state of the art." and that "When making this app, the developers thought about every aspect of security and have taken every precaution to make it as secure as possible.". The review further underscored Cryptee's open-source nature, its strong encryption, and easy migration features. In a 2021 article, The Verge reviewed Cryptee, pointing out that Cryptee, based out of Europe, is one of the main photo storage service alternatives to Google Photos, and that it's their recommendation for users who are "concerned about privacy and like the idea of encryption" as Cryptee "offers to keep all your photos encrypted using AES-256". In a 2024 article, Beebom, enlisted Cryptee as one of the "7 best iCloud Photos Alternatives for iPhone and iPad", complimenting Cryptee's simplicity, its use of encryption to safeguard users' photos against hacking by not storing any unencrypted data. The article also provided further attention to Cryptee's additional features such as such as Ghost Albums, slideshows, easy-to-use drag and drop uploads, tagging and users' ability to store original-quality photos on Cryptee, concluding that Cryptee is "a safe bet if you are on the lookout for a privacy-centric iCloud Photos alternative".

  Read more →
• 

  Lenny (chatbot)

  Lenny is a chatbot designed to scam bait telemarketers, scammers, and other unwanted incoming calls using messages. == Background == Telemarketers may be perceived by some as annoying and wasting people's time, and some deliberately attempt to scam or defraud people. In April 2018, stats published by YouMail estimated the United States received over three billion robocalls that month. Attempts to block the callers have been hindered by Caller ID spoofing. == Features == The bot was written in 2011, and development taken over by an Alberta-based programmer known as "Mango" two years later. It is driven by sixteen pre-recorded audio clips, spoken in a soft and slow Australian accent in the manner of an elderly man. The bot's original creator stated on Reddit that in building the character he asked himself the question "What would be a telemarketer's worst nightmare?" He answered with this being a lonely old man who is up for a chat, proud of his family and can't focus on the telemarketer's goal. There is no speech recognition or artificial intelligence, and the bot's software is simple and straightforward. The first four clips are played sequentially in order to grab the telemarketer's interest and begin their sales pitch to Lenny, then the remaining twelve are played sequentially on loop until the telemarketer hangs up. The program waits for a gap of 1.5 seconds of silence before playing the next audio clip, to simulate natural breaks in the conversation. The messages are purposefully vague and open-ended so they can be applied to as many conversations as possible. They include references to Lenny's children, the state of the economy, and being interrupted by some ducks outside. According to research into the bot, around 75% of callers realise they are talking to a computer program within two minutes; however, some calls have lasted around an hour. == Distribution == Though other chatbots had been developed earlier, Lenny was the first one to be released for free on a public server and could be accessed by anyone. Recordings of conversations with the bot are widely shared online on websites such as Reddit and YouTube. Though "Mango" only intended Lenny to be used against dishonest telemarketers, such as scammers, he does not mind it being used against callers who are merely annoying. The bot has also been used against political campaigners, such as a supporter of Pierre Poilievre in the 2015 Canadian federal election.

  Read more →
• 

  Ugly duckling theorem

  The ugly duckling theorem is an argument showing that classification is not really possible without some sort of bias. More particularly, it assumes finitely many properties combinable by logical connectives, and finitely many objects; it asserts that any two different objects share the same number of (extensional) properties. The theorem is named after Hans Christian Andersen's 1843 story "The Ugly Duckling", because it shows that a duckling is just as similar to a swan as two swans are to each other. It was derived by Satosi Watanabe in 1969. == Mathematical formula == Suppose there are n things in the universe, and one wants to put them into classes or categories. One has no preconceived ideas or biases about what sorts of categories are "natural" or "normal" and what are not. So one has to consider all the possible classes that could be, all the possible ways of making a set out of the n objects. There are 2 n {\displaystyle 2^{n}} such ways, the size of the power set of n objects. One can use that to measure the similarity between two objects, and one would see how many sets they have in common. However, one cannot. Any two objects have exactly the same number of classes in common if we can form any possible class, namely 2 n − 1 {\displaystyle 2^{n-1}} (half the total number of classes there are). To see this is so, one may imagine each class is represented by an n-bit string (or binary encoded integer), with a zero for each element not in the class and a one for each element in the class. As one finds, there are 2 n {\displaystyle 2^{n}} such strings. As all possible choices of zeros and ones are there, any two bit-positions will agree exactly half the time. One may pick two elements and reorder the bits so they are the first two, and imagine the numbers sorted lexicographically. The first 2 n / 2 {\displaystyle 2^{n}/2} numbers will have bit #1 set to zero, and the second 2 n / 2 {\displaystyle 2^{n}/2} will have it set to one. Within each of those blocks, the top 2 n / 4 {\displaystyle 2^{n}/4} will have bit #2 set to zero and the other 2 n / 4 {\displaystyle 2^{n}/4} will have it as one, so they agree on two blocks of 2 n / 4 {\displaystyle 2^{n}/4} or on half of all the cases, no matter which two elements one picks. So if we have no preconceived bias about which categories are better, everything is then equally similar (or equally dissimilar). The number of predicates simultaneously satisfied by two non-identical elements is constant over all such pairs. Thus, some kind of inductive bias is needed to make judgements to prefer certain categories over others. === Boolean functions === Let x 1 , x 2 , … , x n {\displaystyle x_{1},x_{2},\dots ,x_{n}} be a set of vectors of k {\displaystyle k} booleans each. The ugly duckling is the vector which is least like the others. Given the booleans, this can be computed using Hamming distance. However, the choice of boolean features to consider could have been somewhat arbitrary. Perhaps there were features derivable from the original features that were important for identifying the ugly duckling. The set of booleans in the vector can be extended with new features computed as boolean functions of the k {\displaystyle k} original features. The only canonical way to do this is to extend it with all possible Boolean functions. The resulting completed vectors have 2 k {\displaystyle 2^{k}} features. The ugly duckling theorem states that there is no ugly duckling because any two completed vectors will either be equal or differ in exactly half of the features. Proof. Let x and y be two vectors. If they are the same, then their completed vectors must also be the same because any Boolean function of x will agree with the same Boolean function of y. If x and y are different, then there exists a coordinate i {\displaystyle i} where the i {\displaystyle i} -th coordinate of x {\displaystyle x} differs from the i {\displaystyle i} -th coordinate of y {\displaystyle y} . Now the completed features contain every Boolean function on k {\displaystyle k} Boolean variables, with each one exactly once. Viewing these Boolean functions as polynomials in k {\displaystyle k} variables over GF(2), segregate the functions into pairs ( f , g ) {\displaystyle (f,g)} where f {\displaystyle f} contains the i {\displaystyle i} -th coordinate as a linear term and g {\displaystyle g} is f {\displaystyle f} without that linear term. Now, for every such pair ( f , g ) {\displaystyle (f,g)} , x {\displaystyle x} and y {\displaystyle y} will agree on exactly one of the two functions. If they agree on one, they must disagree on the other and vice versa. (This proof is believed to be due to Watanabe.) == Discussion == A possible way around the ugly duckling theorem would be to introduce a constraint on how similarity is measured by limiting the properties involved in classification, for instance, between A and B. However Medin et al. (1993) point out that this does not actually resolve the arbitrariness or bias problem since in what respects A is similar to B: "varies with the stimulus context and task, so that there is no unique answer, to the question of how similar is one object to another". For example, "a barberpole and a zebra would be more similar than a horse and a zebra if the feature striped had sufficient weight. Of course, if these feature weights were fixed, then these similarity relations would be constrained". Yet the property "striped" as a weight 'fix' or constraint is arbitrary itself, meaning: "unless one can specify such criteria, then the claim that categorization is based on attribute matching is almost entirely vacuous". Stamos (2003) remarked that some judgments of overall similarity are non-arbitrary in the sense they are useful: "Presumably, people's perceptual and conceptual processes have evolved that information that matters to human needs and goals can be roughly approximated by a similarity heuristic... If you are in the jungle and you see a tiger but you decide not to stereotype (perhaps because you believe that similarity is a false friend), then you will probably be eaten. In other words, in the biological world stereotyping based on veridical judgments of overall similarity statistically results in greater survival and reproductive success." Unless some properties are considered more salient, or 'weighted' more important than others, everything will appear equally similar, hence Watanabe (1986) wrote: "any objects, in so far as they are distinguishable, are equally similar". In a weaker setting that assumes infinitely many properties, Murphy and Medin (1985) give an example of two putative classified things, plums and lawnmowers: "Suppose that one is to list the attributes that plums and lawnmowers have in common in order to judge their similarity. It is easy to see that the list could be infinite: Both weigh less than 10,000 kg (and less than 10,001 kg), both did not exist 10,000,000 years ago (and 10,000,001 years ago), both cannot hear well, both can be dropped, both take up space, and so on. Likewise, the list of differences could be infinite… any two entities can be arbitrarily similar or dissimilar by changing the criterion of what counts as a relevant attribute." According to Woodward, the ugly duckling theorem is related to Schaffer's Conservation Law for Generalization Performance, which states that all algorithms for learning of boolean functions from input/output examples have the same overall generalization performance as random guessing. The latter result is generalized by Woodward to functions on countably infinite domains.

  Read more →
• 

  Open information extraction

  In natural language processing, open information extraction (OIE) is the task of generating a structured, machine-readable representation of the information in text, usually in the form of triples or n-ary propositions. == Overview == A proposition can be understood as truth-bearer, a textual expression of a potential fact (e.g., "Dante wrote the Divine Comedy"), represented in an amenable structure for computers [e.g., ("Dante", "wrote", "Divine Comedy")]. An OIE extraction normally consists of a relation and a set of arguments. For instance, ("Dante", "passed away in" "Ravenna") is a proposition formed by the relation "passed away in" and the arguments "Dante" and "Ravenna". The first argument is usually referred as the subject while the second is considered to be the object. The extraction is said to be a textual representation of a potential fact because its elements are not linked to a knowledge base. Furthermore, the factual nature of the proposition has not yet been established. In the above example, transforming the extraction into a full fledged fact would first require linking, if possible, the relation and the arguments to a knowledge base. Second, the truth of the extraction would need to be determined. In computer science transforming OIE extractions into ontological facts is known as relation extraction. In fact, OIE can be seen as the first step to a wide range of deeper text understanding tasks such as relation extraction, knowledge-base construction, question answering, semantic role labeling. The extracted propositions can also be directly used for end-user applications such as structured search (e.g., retrieve all propositions with "Dante" as subject). OIE was first introduced by TextRunner developed at the University of Washington Turing Center headed by Oren Etzioni. Other methods introduced later such as Reverb, OLLIE, ClausIE or CSD helped to shape the OIE task by characterizing some of its aspects. At a high level, all of these approaches make use of a set of patterns to generate the extractions. Depending on the particular approach, these patterns are either hand-crafted or learned. == OIE systems and contributions == Reverb suggested the necessity to produce meaningful relations to more accurately capture the information in the input text. For instance, given the sentence "Faust made a pact with the devil", it would be erroneous to just produce the extraction ("Faust", "made", "a pact") since it would not be adequately informative. A more precise extraction would be ("Faust", "made a pact with", "the devil"). Reverb also argued against the generation of overspecific relations. OLLIE stressed two important aspects for OIE. First, it pointed to the lack of factuality of the propositions. For instance, in a sentence like "If John studies hard, he will pass the exam", it would be inaccurate to consider ("John", "will pass", "the exam") as a fact. Additionally, the authors indicated that an OIE system should be able to extract non-verb mediated relations, which account for significant portion of the information expressed in natural language text. For instance, in the sentence "Obama, the former US president, was born in Hawaii", an OIE system should be able to recognize a proposition ("Obama", "is", "former US president"). ClausIE introduced the connection between grammatical clauses, propositions, and OIE extractions. The authors stated that as each grammatical clause expresses a proposition, each verb mediated proposition can be identified by solely recognizing the set of clauses expressed in each sentence. This implies that to correctly recognize the set of propositions in an input sentence, it is necessary to understand its grammatical structure. The authors studied the case in the English language that only admits seven clause types, meaning that the identification of each proposition only requires defining seven grammatical patterns. The finding also established a separation between the recognition of the propositions and its materialization. In a first step, the proposition can be identified without any consideration of its final form, in a domain-independent and unsupervised way, mostly based on linguistic principles. In a second step, the information can be represented according to the requirements of the underlying application, without conditioning the identification phase. Consider the sentence "Albert Einstein was born in Ulm and died in Princeton". The first step will recognize the two propositions ("Albert Einstein", "was born", "in Ulm") and ("Albert Einstein", "died", "in Princeton"). Once the information has been correctly identified, the propositions can take the particular form required by the underlying application [e.g., ("Albert Einstein", "was born in", "Ulm") and ("Albert Einstein", "died in", "Princeton")]. CSD introduced the idea of minimality in OIE. It considers that computers can make better use of the extractions if they are expressed in a compact way. This is especially important in sentences with subordinate clauses. In these cases, CSD suggests the generation of nested extractions. For example, consider the sentence "The Embassy said that 6,700 Americans were in Pakistan". CSD generates two extractions [i] ("6,700 Americans", "were", "in Pakistan") and [ii] ("The Embassy", "said", "that [i]"). This is usually known as reification.

  Read more →
• 

  Bigram

  A bigram or digram is a sequence of two adjacent elements from a string of tokens, which are typically letters, syllables, or words. A bigram is an n-gram for n=2. The frequency distribution of every bigram in a string is commonly used for simple statistical analysis of text in many applications, including in computational linguistics, cryptography, and speech recognition. Gappy bigrams or skipping bigrams are word pairs which allow gaps (perhaps avoiding connecting words, or allowing some simulation of dependencies, as in a dependency grammar). == Applications == Bigrams, along with other n-grams, are used in most successful language models for speech recognition. Bigram frequency attacks can be used in cryptography to solve cryptograms. See frequency analysis. Bigram frequency is one approach to statistical language identification. Some activities in logology or recreational linguistics involve bigrams. These include attempts to find English words beginning with every possible bigram, or words containing a string of repeated bigrams, such as logogogue. == Bigram frequency in the English language == The frequency of the most common letter bigrams in a large English corpus is: th 3.56% of 1.17% io 0.83% he 3.07% ed 1.17% le 0.83% in 2.43% is 1.13% ve 0.83% er 2.05% it 1.12% co 0.79% an 1.99% al 1.09% me 0.79% re 1.85% ar 1.07% de 0.76% on 1.76% st 1.05% hi 0.76% at 1.49% to 1.05% ri 0.73% en 1.45% nt 1.04% ro 0.73% nd 1.35% ng 0.95% ic 0.70% ti 1.34% se 0.93% ne 0.69% es 1.34% ha 0.93% ea 0.69% or 1.28% as 0.87% ra 0.69% te 1.20% ou 0.87% ce 0.65%

  Read more →
• 

  Grammatik

  Grammatik was the first grammar-checking program for home computers. Aspen Software of Albuquerque, NM, released the earliest version of this diction and style checker for personal computers. It was first released no later than 1981, and was inspired by the Writer's Workbench. Grammatik was first available for the TRS-80, and soon had versions for CP/M and the IBM PC. Reference Software International of San Francisco, California, acquired Grammatik in 1985. Development of Grammatik continued, and it became an actual grammar checker that could detect writing errors beyond simple style checking. Subsequent versions were released for MS-DOS, Windows, Macintosh, and Unix. Grammatik was ultimately acquired by WordPerfect Corporation and is integrated into the WordPerfect word processor.

  Read more →
• 

  Pyramid (image processing)

  Pyramid, or pyramid representation, is a type of multi-scale signal representation developed by the computer vision, image processing and signal processing communities, in which a signal or an image is subject to repeated smoothing and subsampling. Pyramid representation is a predecessor to scale-space representation and multiresolution analysis. == Pyramid generation == There are two main types of pyramids: lowpass and bandpass. A lowpass pyramid is made by smoothing the image with an appropriate smoothing filter and then subsampling the smoothed image, usually by a factor of 2 along each coordinate direction. The resulting image is then subjected to the same procedure, and the cycle is repeated multiple times. Each cycle of this process results in a smaller image with increased smoothing, but with decreased spatial sampling density (that is, decreased image resolution). If illustrated graphically, the entire multi-scale representation will look like a pyramid, with the original image on the bottom and each cycle's resulting smaller image stacked one atop the other. A bandpass pyramid is made by forming the difference between images at adjacent levels in the pyramid and performing image interpolation between adjacent levels of resolution, to enable computation of pixelwise differences. == Pyramid generation kernels == A variety of different smoothing kernels have been proposed for generating pyramids. Among the suggestions that have been given, the binomial kernels arising from the binomial coefficients stand out as a particularly useful and theoretically well-founded class. Thus, given a two-dimensional image, we may apply the (normalized) binomial filter (1/4, 1/2, 1/4) typically twice or more along each spatial dimension and then subsample the image by a factor of two. This operation may then proceed as many times as desired, leading to a compact and efficient multi-scale representation. If motivated by specific requirements, intermediate scale levels may also be generated where the subsampling stage is sometimes left out, leading to an oversampled or hybrid pyramid. With the increasing computational efficiency of CPUs available today, it is in some situations also feasible to use wider supported Gaussian filters as smoothing kernels in the pyramid generation steps. === Gaussian pyramid === In a Gaussian pyramid, subsequent images are weighted down using a Gaussian average (Gaussian blur) and scaled down. Each pixel containing a local average corresponds to a neighborhood pixel on a lower level of the pyramid. This technique is used especially in texture synthesis. === Laplacian pyramid === A Laplacian pyramid is very similar to a Gaussian pyramid but saves the difference image of the blurred versions between each levels. Only the smallest level is not a difference image to enable reconstruction of the high resolution image using the difference images on higher levels. This technique can be used in image compression. === Steerable pyramid === A steerable pyramid, developed by Simoncelli and others, is an implementation of a multi-scale, multi-orientation band-pass filter bank used for applications including image compression, texture synthesis, and object recognition. It can be thought of as an orientation selective version of a Laplacian pyramid, in which a bank of steerable filters are used at each level of the pyramid instead of a single Laplacian or Gaussian filter. == Applications of pyramids == === Alternative representation === In the early days of computer vision, pyramids were used as the main type of multi-scale representation for computing multi-scale image features from real-world image data. More recent techniques include scale-space representation, which has been popular among some researchers due to its theoretical foundation, the ability to decouple the subsampling stage from the multi-scale representation, the more powerful tools for theoretical analysis as well as the ability to compute a representation at any desired scale, thus avoiding the algorithmic problems of relating image representations at different resolution. Nevertheless, pyramids are still frequently used for expressing computationally efficient approximations to scale-space representation. === Detail manipulation === Levels of a Laplacian pyramid can be added to or removed from the original image to amplify or reduce detail at different scales. However, detail manipulation of this form is known to produce halo artifacts in many cases, leading to the development of alternatives such as the bilateral filter. Some image compression file formats use the Adam7 algorithm or some other interlacing technique. These can be seen as a kind of image pyramid. Because those file format store the "large-scale" features first, and fine-grain details later in the file, a particular viewer displaying a small "thumbnail" or on a small screen can quickly download just enough of the image to display it in the available pixels—so one file can support many viewer resolutions, rather than having to store or generate a different file for each resolution.

  Read more →
• 

  VLLM

  vLLM is an open-source software framework for inference and serving of large language models and related multimodal models. Originally developed at the University of California, Berkeley's Sky Computing Lab, the project is centered on PagedAttention, a memory-management method for transformer key–value caches, and supports features such as continuous batching, distributed inference, quantization, and OpenAI-compatible APIs. According to a project maintainer, the "v" in vLLM originally referred to "virtual", inspired by virtual memory. == History == vLLM was introduced in 2023 by researchers affiliated with the Sky Computing Lab at UC Berkeley. Its core ideas were described in the 2023 paper Efficient Memory Management for Large Language Model Serving with PagedAttention, which presented the system as a high-throughput and memory-efficient serving engine for large language models. In 2025, the PyTorch Foundation announced that vLLM had become a Foundation-hosted project. PyTorch's project page states that the University of California, Berkeley contributed vLLM to the Linux Foundation in July 2024. In January 2026, TechCrunch reported that the creators of vLLM had launched the startup Inferact to commercialize the project, raising $150 million in seed funding. == Architecture == According to its 2023 paper, vLLM was designed to improve the efficiency of large language model serving by reducing memory waste in the key–value cache used during transformer inference. The paper introduced PagedAttention, an algorithm inspired by virtual memory and paging techniques in operating systems, and described vLLM as using block-level memory management and request scheduling to increase throughput while maintaining similar latency. The project documentation and repository describe support for continuous batching, chunked prefill, speculative decoding, prefix caching, quantization, and multiple forms of distributed inference and serving. PyTorch has described vLLM as a high-throughput, memory-efficient inference and serving engine that supports a range of hardware back ends, including NVIDIA and AMD GPUs, Google TPUs, AWS Trainium, and Intel processors.

  Read more →
• 

  Brill tagger

  The Brill tagger is an inductive method for part-of-speech tagging. It was described and invented by Eric Brill in his 1993 PhD thesis. It can be summarized as an "error-driven transformation-based tagger". It is: a form of supervised learning, which aims to minimize error; and, a transformation-based process, in the sense that a tag is assigned to each word and changed using a set of predefined rules. In the transformation process, if the word is known, it first assigns the most frequent tag, or if the word is unknown, it naively assigns the tag "noun" to it. High accuracy is eventually achieved by applying these rules iteratively and changing the incorrect tags. This approach ensures that valuable information such as the morphosyntactic construction of words is employed in an automatic tagging process. == Algorithm == The algorithm starts with initialization, which is the assignment of tags based on their probability for each word (for example, "dog" is more often a noun than a verb). Then "patches" are determined via rules that correct (probable) tagging errors made in the initialization phase: Initialization: Known words (in vocabulary): assigning the most frequent tag associated to a form of the word Unknown word == Rules and processing == The input text is first tokenized, or broken into words. Typically in natural language processing, contractions such as "'s", "n't", and the like are considered separate word tokens, as are punctuation marks. A dictionary and some morphological rules then provide an initial tag for each word token. For example, a simple lookup would reveal that "dog" may be a noun or a verb (the most frequent tag is simply chosen), while an unknown word will be assigned some tag(s) based on capitalization, various prefix or suffix strings, etc. (such morphological analyses, which Brill calls Lexical Rules, may vary between implementations). After all word tokens have (provisional) tags, contextual rules apply iteratively, to correct the tags by examining small amounts of context. This is where the Brill method differs from other part of speech tagging methods such as those using Hidden Markov Models. Rules are reapplied repeatedly, until a threshold is reached, or no more rules can apply. Brill rules are of the general form: tag1 → tag2 IF Condition where the Condition tests the preceding and/or following word tokens, or their tags (the notation for such rules differs between implementations). For example, in Brill's notation: IN NN WDPREVTAG DT while would change the tag of a word from IN (preposition) to NN (common noun), if the preceding word's tag is DT (determiner) and the word itself is "while". This covers cases like "all the while" or "in a while", where "while" should be tagged as a noun rather than its more common use as a conjunction (many rules are more general). Rules should only operate if the tag being changed is also known to be permissible, for the word in question or in principle (for example, most adjectives in English can also be used as nouns). Rules of this kind can be implemented by simple Finite-state machines. See Part of speech tagging for more general information including descriptions of the Penn Treebank and other sets of tags. Typical Brill taggers use a few hundred rules, which may be developed by linguistic intuition or by machine learning on a pre-tagged corpus. == Code == Brill's code pages at Johns Hopkins University are no longer on the web. An archived version of a mirror of the Brill tagger at its latest version as it was available at Plymouth Tech can be found on Archive.org. The software uses the MIT License.

  Read more →
• 

  Stereo cameras

  The stereo cameras approach is a method of distilling a noisy video signal into a coherent data set that a computer can begin to process into actionable symbolic objects, or abstractions. Stereo cameras is one of many approaches used in the broader fields of computer vision and machine vision. == Calculation == In this approach, two cameras with a known physical relationship (i.e. a common field of view the cameras can see, and how far apart their focal points sit in physical space) are correlated via software. By finding mappings of common pixel values, and calculating how far apart these common areas reside in pixel space, a rough depth map can be created. This is very similar to how the human brain uses stereoscopic information from the eyes to gain depth cue information, i.e. how far apart any given object in the scene is from the viewer. The camera attributes must be known, focal length and distance apart etc., and a calibration done. Once this is completed, the systems can be used to sense the distances of objects by triangulation. Finding the same singular physical point in the two left and right images is known as the correspondence problem. Correctly locating the point gives the computer the capability to calculate the distance that the robot or camera is from the object. On the BH2 Lunar Rover the cameras use five steps: a bayer array filter, photometric consistency dense matching algorithm, a Laplace of Gaussian (LoG) edge detection algorithm, a stereo matching algorithm and finally uniqueness constraint. == Uses == This type of stereoscopic image processing technique is used in applications such as 3D reconstruction, robotic control and sensing, crowd dynamics monitoring and off-planet terrestrial rovers; for example, in mobile robot navigation, tracking, gesture recognition, targeting, 3D surface visualization, immersive and interactive gaming. Although the Xbox Kinect sensor is also able to create a depth map of an image, it uses an infrared camera for this purpose, and does not use the dual-camera technique. Other approaches to stereoscopic sensing include time of flight sensors and ultrasound.

  Read more →
• 

  Textual case-based reasoning

  Textual case-based reasoning (TCBR) is a subtopic of case-based reasoning, in short CBR, a popular area in artificial intelligence. CBR suggests the ways to use past experiences to solve future similar problems, requiring that past experiences be structured in a form similar to attribute-value pairs. This leads to the investigation of textual descriptions for knowledge exploration whose output will be, in turn, used to solve similar problems. == Subareas == Textual case-base reasoning research has focused on: measuring similarity between textual cases mapping texts into structured case representations adapting textual cases for reuse automatically generating representations.

  Read more →
• 

  Cognition Network Technology

  Cognition Network Technology (CNT), also known as Definiens Cognition Network Technology, is an object-based image analysis method developed by Nobel laureate Gerd Binnig together with a team of researchers at Definiens AG in Munich, Germany. It serves for extracting information from images using a hierarchy of image objects (groups of pixels), as opposed to traditional pixel processing methods. To emulate the human mind's cognitive powers, Definiens used patented image segmentation and classification processes, and developed a method to render knowledge in a semantic network. CNT examines pixels not in isolation, but in context. It builds up a picture iteratively, recognizing groups of pixels as objects. It uses the color, shape, texture and size of objects as well as their context and relationships to draw conclusions and inferences, similar to human analysis. == History == In 1994 Professor Gerd Binnig founded Definiens. CNT was first available with the launch of the eCognition software in May 2000. In June 2010, Trimble Navigation Ltd (NASDAQ: TRMB) acquired Definiens business asset in earth sciences markets, including eCognition software, and also licensed Definiens' patented CNT. In 2014, Definiens was acquired by MedImmune, the global biologics research and development arm of AstraZeneca, for an initial consideration of $150 million. == Software == Definiens Tissue Studio Definiens Tissue Studio is a digital pathology image analysis software application based on CNT. The intended use of Definiens Tissue Studio is for biomarker translational research in formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue samples which have been treated with immunohistochemical staining assays, or hematoxylin and eosin (H&E). The central concept behind Definiens Tissue Studio is a user interface that facilitates machine learning from example digital histopathology images to derive an image analysis solution suitable for the measurement of biomarkers and/or histological features within pre-defined regions of interest on a cell-by-cell basis, and within sub-cellular compartments. The derived image analysis solution is then automatically applied to subsequent digital images to objectively measure defined sets of multiparametric image features. These data sets are used for further understanding the underlying biological processes that drive cancer and other diseases. Image processing and data analysis are performed either on a local desktop computer workstation, or on a server grid. eCognition The eCognition suite offers three components that can be used stand-alone or in combination to solve image analysis tasks. eCognition Developer is a development environment for object-based image analysis. It is used in earth sciences to develop rule sets (or applications) for the analysis of remote sensing data. eCognition Architect enables non-technical users to configure, calibrate and execute image analysis workflows created in eCognition Developer. eCognition Server software provides a processing environment for batch execution of image analysis jobs. eCognition software is utilized in numerous remote sensing and geospatial application scenarios and environments, using a variety of data types: Generic: Rapid Mapping, Change Detection, Object Recognition By environment: Diverse Landcover Mapping, Urban Analysis (i.e. impervious surface area analysis for taxation, property assessment for insurance, inventory of green infrastructure), Forestry (i.e. biomass measurement, species identification, firescar measurement), Agriculture (i.e. regional planning, precision farming, crisis response), Marine and Riparian (i.e. ecosystem evaluation, disaster management, harbor monitoring). Other: Defense, security, atmosphere and climate The online eCognition community was launched in July 2009 and had 2813 members as of July 9, 2010. Membership is distributed globally and user conferences are held regularly, the last having taken place in November 2009 in Munich, Germany. The bi-annual GEOBIA (Geographic Object-Based Image Analysis) conference is heavily attended by eCognition users, with the majority of presentations based on eCognition software.

  Read more →
• 

  ShareMethods

  ShareMethods is a Web 2.0 document management and collaboration service with a focus on sales, marketing, and the extended selling network. It offers a software as a service (SaaS) subscription to companies and is available as a stand-alone application or as an integrated program with CRM tools such as Oracle CRM On Demand or salesforce.com. == History == ShareMethods was launched in 2004 to provide collaboration and communication services for sales and marketing teams, business partners, and customers. The founders have a background of building software-as-a-service applications and creating digital media applications. In September 2005, ShareMethods launched "ShareNow" as one of the first applications on the salesforce.com AppExchange. In September 2006, ShareMethods moved its operations into a SAS 70 Type II data center owned by SunGard. In March 2009, ShareMethods launched "ShareSpaces" to provide on-demand portals or workspaces. In 2013, ShareMethods announced that its platform is available in a private cloud (on-premises) version. == Products == ShareMethods: Combines document management, collaboration, analytics, and CRM integration into a single solution. Key content can be centrally managed and delivered to sales channels, while providing feedback to marketing. ShareMethods is often used as a sales portal for internal sales and a partner portal for external partners. ShareNow: Integrates ShareMethods with salesforce.com providing Single Sign On for salesforce.com users and access to files related to accounts opportunities, etc. including custom objects. Also facilitates collaboration between salesforce.com users and non-users. ShareMethods for Oracle CRM On Demand: Integrates ShareMethods with Oracle CRM On Demand providing Single Sign On for Oracle users and easy access to files related to accounts opportunities, etc. ShareOffice: An on-demand intranet/extranet solution. Features include full-text search, version history, server sync-up, email updates, audit trail/analytics, check-in/check-out, multilingual user interface. ShareSpaces: Independent workspaces or portals where users can collaborate with business partners, teammates, or individuals to work together on content and documents. == Integration and interoperability == ShareMethods is available on Salesforce.com's AppExchange platform. ShareMethods also integrates with Oracle CRM On Demand to provide document management within the CRM application. Customers also can integrate proprietary systems via single-sign-on and self-registration. In addition, developers can make use of the ShareMethods API based on WebDAV to integrate document management functionality.

  Read more →
• 

  Lessac Technologies

  Lessac Technologies, Inc. (LTI) is an American firm which develops voice synthesis software, licenses technology and sells synthesized novels as MP3 files. The firm currently has seven patents granted and three more pending for its automated methods of converting digital text into human-sounding speech, more accurately recognizing human speech and outputting the text representing the words and phrases of said speech, along with recognizing the speaker's emotional state. The LTI technology is partly based on the work of the late Arthur Lessac, a Professor of Theater at the State University of New York and the creator of Lessac Kinesensic Training, and LTI has licensed exclusive rights to exploit Arthur Lessac's copyrighted works in the fields of speech synthesis and speech recognition. Based on the view that music is speech and speech is music, Lessac's work and books focused on body and speech energies and how they go together. Arthur Lessac's textual annotation system, which was originally developed to assist actors, singers, and orators in marking up scripts to prepare for performance, is adapted in LTI's speech synthesis system as the basic representation of the speech to be synthesized (Lessemes), in contrast to many other systems which use a phonetic representation. LTI's software has two major components: (1) a linguistic front-end that converts plain text to a sequence of prosodic and phonosensory graphic symbols (Lessemes) based on Arthur Lessac's annotation system, which specify the speech units to be synthesized; (2) a signal-processing back-end that takes the Lessemes as acoustic data and produces human-sounding synthesized speech as output, using unit selection and concatenation. LTI's text-to-speech system came in second in the world-wide Blizzard Challenge 2011 and 2012. The first-place team in 2011 also employed LTI's "front-end" technology, but with its own back-end. The Blizzard Challenge, conducted by the Language Technologies Institute of Carnegie Mellon University, was devised as a way to evaluate speech synthesis techniques by having different research groups build voices from the same voice-actor recordings, and comparing the results through listening tests. LTI was founded in 2000 by H. Donald Wilson (chairman), a lawyer, LexisNexis entrepreneur and business associate of Arthur Lessac; and Gary A. Marple (chief inventor), after Marple suggested that Arthur Lessac's kinesensic voice training might be applicable to computational linguistics. After Wilson's death in 2006, his nephew John Reichenbach became the firm's CEO.

  Read more →
• 

  Latent semantic analysis

  Latent semantic analysis (LSA) is a technique in natural language processing, in particular distributional semantics, of analyzing relationships between a set of documents and the terms they contain by producing a set of concepts related to the documents and terms. LSA assumes that words that are close in meaning will occur in similar pieces of text (the distributional hypothesis). A matrix containing word counts per document (rows represent unique words and columns represent each document) is constructed from a large piece of text and a mathematical technique called singular value decomposition (SVD) is used to reduce the number of rows while preserving the similarity structure among columns. Documents are then compared by cosine similarity between any two columns. Values close to 1 represent very similar documents while values close to 0 represent very dissimilar documents. An information retrieval technique using latent semantic structure was patented in 1988 by Scott Deerwester, Susan Dumais, George Furnas, Richard Harshman, Thomas Landauer, Karen Lochbaum and Lynn Streeter. In the context of its application to information retrieval, it is sometimes called latent semantic indexing (LSI). == Overview == === Occurrence matrix === LSA can use a document-term matrix which describes the occurrences of terms in documents; it is a sparse matrix whose rows correspond to terms and whose columns correspond to documents. A typical example of the weighting of the elements of the matrix is tf-idf (term frequency–inverse document frequency): the weight of an element of the matrix is proportional to the number of times the terms appear in each document, where rare terms are upweighted to reflect their relative importance. This matrix is also common to standard semantic models, though it is not necessarily explicitly expressed as a matrix, since the mathematical properties of matrices are not always used. === Rank lowering === After the construction of the occurrence matrix, LSA finds a low-rank approximation to the term-document matrix. There could be various reasons for these approximations: The original term-document matrix is presumed too large for the computing resources; in this case, the approximated low rank matrix is interpreted as an approximation (a "least and necessary evil"). The original term-document matrix is presumed noisy: for example, anecdotal instances of terms are to be eliminated. From this point of view, the approximated matrix is interpreted as a de-noisified matrix (a better matrix than the original). The original term-document matrix is presumed overly sparse relative to the "true" term-document matrix. That is, the original matrix lists only the words actually in each document, whereas we might be interested in all words related to each document—generally a much larger set due to synonymy. The consequence of the rank lowering is that some dimensions are combined and depend on more than one term: {(car), (truck), (flower)} → {(1.3452 car + 0.2828 truck), (flower)} This mitigates the problem of identifying synonymy, as the rank lowering is expected to merge the dimensions associated with terms that have similar meanings. It also partially mitigates the problem with polysemy, since components of polysemous words that point in the "right" direction are added to the components of words that share a similar meaning. Conversely, components that point in other directions tend to either simply cancel out, or, at worst, to be smaller than components in the directions corresponding to the intended sense. === Derivation === Let X {\displaystyle X} be a matrix where element ( i , j ) {\displaystyle (i,j)} describes the occurrence of term i {\displaystyle i} in document j {\displaystyle j} (this can be, for example, the frequency). X {\displaystyle X} will look like this: d j ↓ t i T → [ x 1 , 1 … x 1 , j … x 1 , n ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ x i , 1 … x i , j … x i , n ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ x m , 1 … x m , j … x m , n ] {\displaystyle {\begin{matrix}&{\textbf {d}}_{j}\\&\downarrow \\{\textbf {t}}_{i}^{T}\rightarrow &{\begin{bmatrix}x_{1,1}&\dots &x_{1,j}&\dots &x_{1,n}\\\vdots &\ddots &\vdots &\ddots &\vdots \\x_{i,1}&\dots &x_{i,j}&\dots &x_{i,n}\\\vdots &\ddots &\vdots &\ddots &\vdots \\x_{m,1}&\dots &x_{m,j}&\dots &x_{m,n}\\\end{bmatrix}}\end{matrix}}} Now a row in this matrix will be a vector corresponding to a term, giving its relation to each document: t i T = [ x i , 1 … x i , j … x i , n ] {\displaystyle {\textbf {t}}_{i}^{T}={\begin{bmatrix}x_{i,1}&\dots &x_{i,j}&\dots &x_{i,n}\end{bmatrix}}} Likewise, a column in this matrix will be a vector corresponding to a document, giving its relation to each term: d j = [ x 1 , j ⋮ x i , j ⋮ x m , j ] {\displaystyle {\textbf {d}}_{j}={\begin{bmatrix}x_{1,j}\\\vdots \\x_{i,j}\\\vdots \\x_{m,j}\\\end{bmatrix}}} Now the dot product t i T t p {\displaystyle {\textbf {t}}_{i}^{T}{\textbf {t}}_{p}} between two term vectors gives the correlation between the terms over the set of documents. The matrix product X X T {\displaystyle XX^{T}} contains all these dot products. Element ( i , p ) {\displaystyle (i,p)} (which is equal to element ( p , i ) {\displaystyle (p,i)} ) contains the dot product t i T t p {\displaystyle {\textbf {t}}_{i}^{T}{\textbf {t}}_{p}} ( = t p T t i {\displaystyle ={\textbf {t}}_{p}^{T}{\textbf {t}}_{i}} ). Likewise, the matrix X T X {\displaystyle X^{T}X} contains the dot products between all the document vectors, giving their correlation over the terms: d j T d q = d q T d j {\displaystyle {\textbf {d}}_{j}^{T}{\textbf {d}}_{q}={\textbf {d}}_{q}^{T}{\textbf {d}}_{j}} . Now, from the theory of linear algebra, there exists a decomposition of X {\displaystyle X} such that U {\displaystyle U} and V {\displaystyle V} are orthogonal matrices and Σ {\displaystyle \Sigma } is a diagonal matrix. This is called a singular value decomposition (SVD): X = U Σ V T {\displaystyle {\begin{matrix}X=U\Sigma V^{T}\end{matrix}}} The matrix products giving us the term and document correlations then become X X T = ( U Σ V T ) ( U Σ V T ) T = ( U Σ V T ) ( V T T Σ T U T ) = U Σ V T V Σ T U T = U Σ Σ T U T X T X = ( U Σ V T ) T ( U Σ V T ) = ( V T T Σ T U T ) ( U Σ V T ) = V Σ T U T U Σ V T = V Σ T Σ V T {\displaystyle {\begin{matrix}XX^{T}&=&(U\Sigma V^{T})(U\Sigma V^{T})^{T}=(U\Sigma V^{T})(V^{T^{T}}\Sigma ^{T}U^{T})=U\Sigma V^{T}V\Sigma ^{T}U^{T}=U\Sigma \Sigma ^{T}U^{T}\\X^{T}X&=&(U\Sigma V^{T})^{T}(U\Sigma V^{T})=(V^{T^{T}}\Sigma ^{T}U^{T})(U\Sigma V^{T})=V\Sigma ^{T}U^{T}U\Sigma V^{T}=V\Sigma ^{T}\Sigma V^{T}\end{matrix}}} Since Σ Σ T {\displaystyle \Sigma \Sigma ^{T}} and Σ T Σ {\displaystyle \Sigma ^{T}\Sigma } are diagonal we see that U {\displaystyle U} must contain the eigenvectors of X X T {\displaystyle XX^{T}} , while V {\displaystyle V} must be the eigenvectors of X T X {\displaystyle X^{T}X} . Both products have the same non-zero eigenvalues, given by the non-zero entries of Σ Σ T {\displaystyle \Sigma \Sigma ^{T}} , or equally, by the non-zero entries of Σ T Σ {\displaystyle \Sigma ^{T}\Sigma } . Now the decomposition looks like this: X U Σ V T ( d j ) ( d ^ j ) ↓ ↓ ( t i T ) → [ x 1 , 1 … x 1 , j … x 1 , n ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ x i , 1 … x i , j … x i , n ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ x m , 1 … x m , j … x m , n ] = ( t ^ i T ) → [ [ u 1 ] … [ u l ] ] ⋅ [ σ 1 … 0 ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ 0 … σ l ] ⋅ [ [ v 1 ] ⋮ [ v l ] ] {\displaystyle {\begin{matrix}&X&&&U&&\Sigma &&V^{T}\\&({\textbf {d}}_{j})&&&&&&&({\hat {\textbf {d}}}_{j})\\&\downarrow &&&&&&&\downarrow \\({\textbf {t}}_{i}^{T})\rightarrow &{\begin{bmatrix}x_{1,1}&\dots &x_{1,j}&\dots &x_{1,n}\\\vdots &\ddots &\vdots &\ddots &\vdots \\x_{i,1}&\dots &x_{i,j}&\dots &x_{i,n}\\\vdots &\ddots &\vdots &\ddots &\vdots \\x_{m,1}&\dots &x_{m,j}&\dots &x_{m,n}\\\end{bmatrix}}&=&({\hat {\textbf {t}}}_{i}^{T})\rightarrow &{\begin{bmatrix}{\begin{bmatrix}\,\\\,\\{\textbf {u}}_{1}\\\,\\\,\end{bmatrix}}\dots {\begin{bmatrix}\,\\\,\\{\textbf {u}}_{l}\\\,\\\,\end{bmatrix}}\end{bmatrix}}&\cdot &{\begin{bmatrix}\sigma _{1}&\dots &0\\\vdots &\ddots &\vdots \\0&\dots &\sigma _{l}\\\end{bmatrix}}&\cdot &{\begin{bmatrix}{\begin{bmatrix}&&{\textbf {v}}_{1}&&\end{bmatrix}}\\\vdots \\{\begin{bmatrix}&&{\textbf {v}}_{l}&&\end{bmatrix}}\end{bmatrix}}\end{matrix}}} The values σ 1 , … , σ l {\displaystyle \sigma _{1},\dots ,\sigma _{l}} are called the singular values, and u 1 , … , u l {\displaystyle u_{1},\dots ,u_{l}} and v 1 , … , v l {\displaystyle v_{1},\dots ,v_{l}} the left and right singular vectors. Notice the only part of U {\displaystyle U} that contributes to t i {\displaystyle {\textbf {t}}_{i}} is the i 'th {\displaystyle i{\textrm {'th}}} row. Let this row vector be called t ^ i T {\displaystyle {\hat {\textrm {t}}}_{i}^{T}} . Likewise, the only part of V T {\displaystyle V^{T}} that contributes to d j {\displaystyle {\textbf {d}}_{j}} is the j 'th {\displaystyle j{\textrm {'th}}} column, d ^ j {\displaystyle {\hat {\textrm {d}}}_{j}} . These are not the eigenvectors, but depend on all the eigenvectors. I

  Read more →