Ishikawa diagrams (also called fishbone diagrams, herringbone diagrams, cause-and-effect diagrams) are causal diagrams created by Kaoru Ishikawa that show the potential causes of a specific event. Common uses of the Ishikawa diagram are product design and quality defect prevention to identify potential factors causing an overall effect. Each cause or reason for imperfection is a source of variation. Causes are usually grouped into major categories to identify and classify these sources of variation. == Overview == The defect, or the problem to be solved, is shown as the fish's head, facing to the right, with the causes extending to the left as fishbones; the ribs branch off the backbone for major causes, with sub-branches for root-causes, to as many levels as required. Ishikawa diagrams were popularized in the 1960s by Kaoru Ishikawa, who pioneered quality management processes in the Kawasaki shipyards, and in the process became one of the founding fathers of modern management. The basic concept was first used in the 1920s, and is considered one of the seven basic tools of quality control. It is known as a fishbone diagram because of its shape, similar to the side view of a fish skeleton. Mazda Motors famously used an Ishikawa diagram in the development of the Miata (MX5) sports car. == Root causes == Root-cause analysis is intended to reveal key relationships among various variables, and the possible causes provide additional insight into process behavior. It shows high-level causes that lead to the problem encountered by providing a snapshot of the current situation. There can be confusion about the relationships between problems, causes, symptoms and effects. Smith highlights this and the common question “Is that a problem or a symptom?” which mistakenly presumes that problems and symptoms are mutually exclusive categories. A problem is a situation that bears improvement; a symptom is the effect of a cause: a situation can be both a problem and a symptom. At a practical level, a cause is whatever is responsible for, or explains, an effect - a factor "whose presence makes a critical difference to the occurrence of an outcome". The causes emerge by analysis, often through brainstorming sessions, and are grouped into categories on the main branches off the fishbone. To help structure the approach, the categories are often selected from one of the common models shown below, but may emerge as something unique to the application in a specific case. Each potential cause is traced back to find the root cause, often using the 5 Whys technique. Typical categories include: === The 5 Ms (used in manufacturing) === Originating with lean manufacturing and the Toyota Production System, the 5 Ms is one of the most common frameworks for root-cause analysis: Manpower / Mindpower (physical or knowledge work, includes: kaizens, suggestions) Machine (equipment, technology) Material (includes raw material, consumables, and information) Method (process) Measurement / medium (inspection, environment) These have been expanded by some to include an additional three, and are referred to as the 8 Ms: Mission / mother nature (purpose, environment) Management / money power (leadership) Maintenance === The 8 Ps (used in product marketing) === This common model for identifying crucial attributes for planning in product marketing is often also used in root-cause analysis as categories for the Ishikawa diagram: Product (or service) Price Place Promotion People (personnel) Process Physical evidence (proof) Performance === The 4 or 5 Ss (used in service industries) === An alternative used for service industries, uses four categories of possible cause: Surroundings: Refers to the environment in which the process occurs. Suppliers: Refers to external parties that provide inputs—raw materials, components, or services. Systems: Refers to the procedures, processes, and technologies used to perform the work. Skill: Refers to the human factor, particularly the knowledge and abilities of employees. Safety: Refers to physical and psychological well-being in the workplace. == Use in specific industries == The Ishikawa diagram has been widely adopted across various industries as an effective tool for root cause analysis in quality, efficiency, and safety-related issues. Its versatility allows it to be applied in both manufacturing and service contexts. In the manufacturing industry, particularly in the automotive and electronics sectors, the diagram is frequently used in continuous improvement initiatives such as Six Sigma and Lean Manufacturing. Quality teams use it to identify causes related to materials, methods, machinery, manpower, environment, and measurement, facilitating informed decision-making to reduce defects and optimize processes. In the food industry, the Ishikawa diagram is applied to analyze issues related to food safety, temperature control, cross-contamination, and regulatory compliance. Its use enables companies to identify improvement opportunities in production, packaging, and distribution stages. In the pharmaceutical sector, it is a key tool in process validation, quality control, and compliance with Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP). It helps visualize factors affecting product quality from formulation to storage. It has also been successfully implemented in sectors such as aerospace, pulp and paper, construction, education, and healthcare, where it supports structured problem-solving and promotes continuous improvement and a culture of quality.
GeneTalk
GeneTalk is a web-based platform, tool, and database for filtering, reduction and prioritization of human sequence variants from next-generation sequencing (NGS) data. GeneTalk allows editing annotation about sequence variants and build up a crowd sourced database with clinically relevant information for diagnostics of genetic disorders. GeneTalk allows searching for information about specific sequence variants and connects to experts on variants that are potentially disease-relevant. == Application to diagnostics == Users can upload NGS data in Variant Call Format (VCF) onto the GeneTalk server into their accounts. All entries of the file are preprocessed and shown in the integrated VCF viewer. Filtering tools are set by the user to reduce the number of clinically non-relevant variants. After filtering and prioritization users can interpret relevant variants by retrieving information (annotations) about variants from the GeneTalk database. The communication platform allow users to contact experts about specific variants, genes, or genetic disorders, to exchange knowledge and expertise. === Analysis procedure === Steps required to analyze VCF files Upload VCF file Edit pedigree and phenotype information for segregation filtering Filter VCF file by editing the filtering options View results and annotations Add annotations === Filtering tools === The following filtering options may be used to reduce the non-relevant sequence variants in VCF files. Functional – filter out variants that have effects on protein level Linkage – filter out variants that are on specified chromosomes Gene panel – filter variants by genes or gene panels, subscribe to publicly available gene panels or create own ones Frequency – show only variants with a genotype frequency lower than specified Inheritance – filter out variants by presumed mode of inheritance Annotation – show only variants with a score for medical relevance and scientific evidence == Communication platform and expert network == Users can share VCF files with colleagues and coworkers. The integrated mailing systems allows users to contact experts easily. Users can create annotations and comments and rate annotations regarding medical relevance and scientific evidence, that is helpful for the community of users for diagnosis of genetic disorders. Registered users provide information about their field of knowledge in their profile and can be contacted by other users. == Potential applications == Developing diagnostics Genetic analysis Capturing data generated by community Communication and exchange of knowledge and expertise
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.
History of natural language processing
The history of natural language processing describes the advances of natural language processing. There is some overlap with the history of machine translation, the history of speech recognition, and the history of artificial intelligence. == Early history == The history of machine translation dates back to the seventeenth century, when philosophers such as Leibniz and Descartes put forward proposals for codes which would relate words between languages. All of these proposals remained theoretical, and none resulted in the development of an actual machine. The first patents for "translating machines" were applied for in the mid-1930s. One proposal, by Georges Artsrouni, was simply an automatic bilingual dictionary using paper tape. The other proposal, by Peter Troyanskii, a Russian, was more detailed. Troyanskii’s proposal included both the bilingual dictionary and a method for dealing with grammatical roles between languages, based on Esperanto. == Logical period == In 1950, Alan Turing published his famous article "Computing Machinery and Intelligence" which proposed what is now called the Turing test as a criterion of intelligence. This criterion depends on the ability of a computer program to impersonate a human in a real-time written conversation with a human judge, sufficiently well that the judge is unable to distinguish reliably — on the basis of the conversational content alone — between the program and a real human. In 1957, Noam Chomsky’s Syntactic Structures revolutionized Linguistics with 'universal grammar', a rule-based system of syntactic structures. The Georgetown experiment in 1954 involved fully automatic translation of more than sixty Russian sentences into English. The authors claimed that within three or five years, machine translation would be a solved problem. However, real progress was much slower, and after the ALPAC report in 1966, which found that ten years long research had failed to fulfill the expectations, funding for machine translation was dramatically reduced. Little further research in machine translation was conducted until the late 1980s, when the first statistical machine translation systems were developed. Some notably successful NLP systems developed in the 1960s were SHRDLU, a natural language system working in restricted "blocks worlds" with restricted vocabularies. In 1969 Roger Schank introduced the conceptual dependency theory for natural language understanding. This model, partially influenced by the work of Sydney Lamb, was extensively used by Schank's students at Yale University, such as Robert Wilensky, Wendy Lehnert, and Janet Kolodner. In 1970, William A. Woods introduced the augmented transition network (ATN) to represent natural language input. Instead of phrase structure rules ATNs used an equivalent set of finite-state automata that were called recursively. ATNs and their more general format called "generalized ATNs" continued to be used for a number of years. During the 1970s many programmers began to write 'conceptual ontologies', which structured real-world information into computer-understandable data. Examples are MARGIE (Schank, 1975), SAM (Cullingford, 1978), PAM (Wilensky, 1978), TaleSpin (Meehan, 1976), QUALM (Lehnert, 1977), Politics (Carbonell, 1979), and Plot Units (Lehnert 1981). During this time, many chatterbots were written including PARRY, Racter, and Jabberwacky. == Statistical period == Up to the 1980s, most NLP systems were based on complex sets of hand-written rules. Starting in the late 1980s, however, there was a revolution in NLP with the introduction of machine learning algorithms for language processing. This was due both to the steady increase in computational power resulting from Moore's law and the gradual lessening of the dominance of Chomskyan theories of linguistics (e.g. transformational grammar), whose theoretical underpinnings discouraged the sort of corpus linguistics that underlies the machine-learning approach to language processing. Some of the earliest-used machine learning algorithms, such as decision trees, produced systems of hard if-then rules similar to existing hand-written rules. Increasingly, however, research has focused on statistical models, which make soft, probabilistic decisions based on attaching real-valued weights to the features making up the input data. The cache language models upon which many speech recognition systems now rely are examples of such statistical models. Such models are generally more robust when given unfamiliar input, especially input that contains errors (as is very common for real-world data), and produce more reliable results when integrated into a larger system comprising multiple subtasks. === Datasets === The emergence of statistical approaches was aided by both increase in computing power and the availability of large datasets. At that time, large multilingual corpora were starting to emerge. Notably, some were produced by the Parliament of Canada and the European Union as a result of laws calling for the translation of all governmental proceedings into all official languages of the corresponding systems of government. Many of the notable early successes occurred in the field of machine translation. In 1993, the IBM alignment models were used for statistical machine translation. Compared to previous machine translation systems, which were symbolic systems manually coded by computational linguists, these systems were statistical, which allowed them to automatically learn from large textual corpora. Though these systems do not work well in situations where only small corpora is available, so data-efficient methods continue to be an area of research and development. In 2001, a one-billion-word large text corpus, scraped from the Internet, referred to as "very very large" at the time, was used for word disambiguation. To take advantage of large, unlabelled datasets, algorithms were developed for unsupervised and self-supervised learning. Generally, this task is much more difficult than supervised learning, and typically produces less accurate results for a given amount of input data. However, there is an enormous amount of non-annotated data available (including, among other things, the entire content of the World Wide Web), which can often make up for the inferior results. == Neural period == Neural language models were developed in 1990s. In 1990, the Elman network, using a recurrent neural network, encoded each word in a training set as a vector, called a word embedding, and the whole vocabulary as a vector database, allowing it to perform such tasks as sequence-predictions that are beyond the power of a simple multilayer perceptron. A shortcoming of the static embeddings was that they didn't differentiate between multiple meanings of homonyms. Yoshua Bengio developed the first neural probabilistic language model in 2000. Novel algorithms, availability of larger datasets and higher processing power made possible training of larger and larger language models. Attention mechanism was introduced by Bahdanau et al. in 2014. This work laid the foundations for the famous "Attention Is All You Need" paper that introduced the Transformer architecture in 2017. The concept of large language model (LLM) emerged in late 2010s. LLM is a language model trained with self-supervised learning on vast amount of text. Earliest public LLMs had hundreds of millions of parameters, but this number quickly rose to billion and even trillions. In recent years, advancements in deep learning and large language models have significantly enhanced the capabilities of natural language processing, leading to widespread applications in areas such as healthcare, customer service, and content generation. == Software ==
Landmark point
In morphometrics, landmark point or shortly landmark is a point in a shape object in which correspondences between and within the populations of the object are preserved. In other disciplines, landmarks may be known as vertices, anchor points, control points, sites, profile points, 'sampling' points, nodes, markers, fiducial markers, etc. Landmarks can be defined either manually by experts or automatically by a computer program. There are three basic types of landmarks: anatomical landmarks, mathematical landmarks or pseudo-landmarks. An anatomical landmark is a biologically-meaningful point in an organism. Usually experts define anatomical points to ensure their correspondences within the same species. Examples of anatomical landmark in shape of a skull are the eye corner, tip of the nose, jaw, etc. Anatomical landmarks determine homologous parts of an organism, which share a common ancestry. Mathematical landmarks are points in a shape that are located according to some mathematical or geometrical property, for instance, a high curvature point or an extreme point. A computer program usually determines mathematical landmarks used for an automatic pattern recognition. Pseudo-landmarks are constructed points located between anatomical or mathematical landmarks. A typical example is an equally spaced set of points between two anatomical landmarks to get more sample points from a shape. Pseudo-landmarks are useful during shape matching, when the matching process requires a large number of points.
Colloquis
Colloquis, previously known as ActiveBuddy and Conversagent, was a company that created conversation-based interactive agents originally distributed via instant messaging platforms. The company had offices in New York, New York, and Sunnyvale, California. == History == Founded in 2000, the company was the brainchild of Robert Hoffer, Timothy Kay, and Peter Levitan. The idea for interactive agents (also known as Internet bots) came from the team's vision to add functionality to increasingly popular instant messaging services. The original implementation took shape as a word-based adventure game but quickly grew to include a wide range of database applications, including access to news, weather, stock information, movie times, Yellow Pages listings, and detailed sports data, as well as a variety of tools (calculators, translator, etc.). These various applications were bundled into one entity and launched as SmarterChild in 2001. SmarterChild acted as a showcase for the quick data access and possibilities for fun conversation that the company planned to turn into customized, niche-specific products. The rapid success of SmarterChild led to targeted promotional products for Radiohead, Austin Powers, The Sporting News, and others. ActiveBuddy sought to strengthen its hold on the interactive agent market for the future by filing for, and receiving, a controversial patent on their creation in 2002. The company also released the BuddyScript SDK, a free developer kit that allow programmers to design and launch their own interactive agents using ActiveBuddy's proprietary scripting language, in 2002. Ultimately, however, the decline in ad spending in 2001 and 2002 led to a shift in corporate strategy towards business focused Automated Service Agents, building products for clients including Cingular, Comcast and Cox Communications. The company subsequently changed its name from ActiveBuddy to Conversagent in 2003, and then again to Colloquis in 2006. Colloquis was purchased by Microsoft in October 2006.
SGT STAR
SGT STAR, also known as Sgt. Star or Sergeant Star, was a chatbot operated by the United States Army to answer questions about recruitment. == Background == After the September 11 attacks, traffic increased significantly to chatrooms on the U.S. Army's website, goarmy.com, increasing costs of staffing the live chatrooms. As a cost-cutting measure, the SGT STAR project was initiated as a partnership between the United States Army Accessions Command and Spectre AI, a wholly owned subsidiary of Next IT. Next IT, a Spokane, Washington-based company deploys "intelligent virtual assistants," using its software dubbed "ActiveAgent" which is a framework for functional presence engines. Testing began in 2003, and SGT STAR launched to the public in 2006. "STAR" is an acronym for "strong, trained and ready." SGT STAR was launched as a chat interface on goarmy.com, but has since been developed as a mobile application, as well as a life-size animated projection that has appeared live at public events. SGT STAR can also interact with users on Facebook. == FOIA request == In 2013, the Electronic Frontier Foundation filed a Freedom of Information Act request to learn more about SGT STAR, including input and output patterns (questions and answers), usage statistics, contracts, and privacy policies. They received these records in April 2014, after coverage from various media outlets and a tongue-in-cheek campaign to "Free Sgt. Star."